Calgary Roads

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Colossal maybe but if we want to sort it out properly then that is what it's going to take.

Yes, lets wipe out a significant portion of a community, a park and create a colossal monstrosity over the river.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Yes, lets wipe out a significant portion of a community, a park and create a colossal monstrosity over the river.

Ok. Where do I sign up?

[J-D]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Yes, lets wipe out a significant portion of a community, a park and create a colossal monstrosity over the river.

Deal.

[93JC]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Colossal maybe but if we want to sort it out properly then that is what it's going to take.

Depends on what you mean by "properly" or rather what your goal is. If your priority is to accommodate as much automobile traffic as possible then I suppose the original plan would seem appealing to you despite the preposterous billion dollar cost.

I drive across the Bow River on Crowchild at least twice a day to get to work and home again and I don't have much of a problem with the way it is now. Most of the traffic seems to be going to and coming from Bow Trail, whereas there seems to be comparatively little traffic crossing the bridge (particularly northbound in the morning). What screws things up the most is the people from westbound 10th Ave and Bow Trail cutting across two lanes of traffic on Crowchild, right on the (sometimes icy) bridge, to get to Memorial Drive.

So I for one liked the idea of creating a new bridge that would separate traffic from westbound Bow Trail wanting to get on to Memorial Drive from the traffic that is going north on Crowchild. But it's only palatable if the cost is within reason and the plan doesn't entail destroying large portions of established neighbourhoods to do it. There is a narrowing back down to two lanes between University Drive and 16th Ave and that also slows things down but I think there are more reasonable solutions to broadening this part of Crowchild than gobbling up over 1 km worth of homes in Briar Hill to do it.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by 93JC

Depends on what you mean by "properly" or rather what your goal is. If your priority is to accommodate as much automobile traffic as possible then I suppose the original plan would seem appealing to you despite the preposterous billion dollar cost.

I drive across the Bow River on Crowchild at least twice a day to get to work and home again and I don't have much of a problem with the way it is now. Most of the traffic seems to be going to and coming from Bow Trail, whereas there seems to be comparatively little traffic crossing the bridge (particularly northbound in the morning). What screws things up the most is the people from westbound 10th Ave and Bow Trail cutting across two lanes of traffic on Crowchild, right on the (sometimes icy) bridge, to get to Memorial Drive.

So I for one liked the idea of creating a new bridge that would separate traffic from westbound Bow Trail wanting to get on to Memorial Drive from the traffic that is going north on Crowchild. But it's only palatable if the cost is within reason and the plan doesn't entail destroying large portions of established neighbourhoods to do it. There is a narrowing back down to two lanes between University Drive and 16th Ave and that also slows things down but I think there are more reasonable solutions to broadening this part of Crowchild than gobbling up over 1 km worth of homes in Briar Hill to do it.

That is definitely one of the main issues. But what screws things up the most is the fact that Crowchild effectively goes from 3 lanes of traffic south of the river down to a single through lane across the river and up to McMahon Stadium before it goes back to 3 lanes again. Travelling south to north there is only a single lane of traffic that runs all the way through. The other lanes all either stop or start somewhere in between which really bogs things down.

Southbound is marginally better as it only narrow from three lanes to two.

[MalcolmTucker]

Any changes that get rid of the west bound 10 ave entrance being on the left of crowchild won't get my support. Right now my commute to work involves no merges at all (from 10th Ave to the University) and I would prefer my commute staying this lazy.

[Fuzz]

What about a cheap(ish) fix like this:

Keep the existing ramps for Crowchild access, and add an extra lane that merges(red and orange) this is signed only as Memorial access, east and west. Crowchild can merge into this lane to access Memorial as well. Re-rout eastbound 10th(maybe westbound as well?) on the green line.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What about a cheap(ish) fix like this:

Keep the existing ramps for Crowchild access, and add an extra lane that merges(red and orange) this is signed only as Memorial access, east and west. Crowchild can merge into this lane to access Memorial as well. Re-rout eastbound 10th(maybe westbound as well?) on the green line.

IMO, that will only perpetuate the problem that exists. NB Crowchild to EB Memorial movement needs to be eliminated.

That is a no cost/low cost solution that needs to be tried first before spending a significant amount that will come from elsewhere in the budget.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

IMO, that will only perpetuate the problem that exists. NB Crowchild to EB Memorial movement needs to be eliminated.

Eliminating an important flow is not the solution. That's like stopping a flood by trying to simply block a major part of a river's flow.

[lineman]

Especially since the nearest northbound to eastbound memorial access is at 10 St NW.

[UofC.engineer]

Before anything is done to this road the city should conduct a study to see where most of the cars originate and are destined for.

I would guess: NW neighborhoods->Foothills industrial park.(Visa versa in the afternoon)


It might be cheaper to just extend the 306 BRT from Westbrook->New bridge over river to 29th street->foothills->UofC->Brentwood station

But it would require building a new bridge anyways so maybe not.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by 93JC

Depends on what you mean by "properly" or rather what your goal is. If your priority is to accommodate as much automobile traffic as possible then I suppose the original plan would seem appealing to you despite the preposterous billion dollar cost.

I drive across the Bow River on Crowchild at least twice a day to get to work and home again and I don't have much of a problem with the way it is now. Most of the traffic seems to be going to and coming from Bow Trail, whereas there seems to be comparatively little traffic crossing the bridge (particularly northbound in the morning). What screws things up the most is the people from westbound 10th Ave and Bow Trail cutting across two lanes of traffic on Crowchild, right on the (sometimes icy) bridge, to get to Memorial Drive.

So I for one liked the idea of creating a new bridge that would separate traffic from westbound Bow Trail wanting to get on to Memorial Drive from the traffic that is going north on Crowchild. But it's only palatable if the cost is within reason and the plan doesn't entail destroying large portions of established neighbourhoods to do it. There is a narrowing back down to two lanes between University Drive and 16th Ave and that also slows things down but I think there are more reasonable solutions to broadening this part of Crowchild than gobbling up over 1 km worth of homes in Briar Hill to do it.

That section of Crowchild is one of only a few sections of major roads in Calgary that still needs (and is still possible) to be fixed. It's only going to get worse from now so we might as well plan for it. Once that and a few other sections (like Glenmore) are fixed we shouldn't need to worry too much about road improvements in the inner city.

I'd say fixing it properly would be defined as fixing all movements so they all are as they should be (exit and merge from the right), eliminating the flat intersections and making it continuous 3 lanes in both directions. There is no simple or cheap way of doing that.

Why are we so sentimental about replacing some houses there with a vital piece of infrastructure? It's only crappy 60s SFHs there anyway, which are being rapidly torn down anyway to make way for infill. The area will become more walkable and access better if it didn't have two enormous four way intersections cut through it, with very pedestrian unfriendly timings.

[craner]

^ I have to totally agree with milomilo here.

[sim]

Originally Posted by milomilo

That section of Crowchild is one of only a few sections of major roads in Calgary that still needs (and is still possible) to be fixed. It's only going to get worse from now so we might as well plan for it. Once that and a few other sections (like Glenmore) are fixed we shouldn't need to worry too much about road improvements in the inner city.

I'd say fixing it properly would be defined as fixing all movements so they all are as they should be (exit and merge from the right), eliminating the flat intersections and making it continuous 3 lanes in both directions. There is no simple or cheap way of doing that.

Why are we so sentimental about replacing some houses there with a vital piece of infrastructure? It's only crappy 60s SFHs there anyway, which are being rapidly torn down anyway to make way for infill. The area will become more walkable and access better if it didn't have two enormous four way intersections cut through it, with very pedestrian unfriendly timings.

Yeah, nothing says walkable like a trenched freeway. If history has taught us anything, it's that once you "fix" a "congestion problem", there are absolutely no adverse effects anywhere further down the network and at no time ever is there a call to then "fix" another proximate intersection via grade separation. In addition, the benefit of the "fix" is never ever diminished after several years and the new capacity due to flow improvements experiences an absolutely static demand.

Now without being too facetious, did it actually ever occur to, well anyone here advocating for it, that constantly improving flow, adding capacity, etc. is actually not a solution at all? I mean, empirical evidence, theory and behavioural economics aside, is that not within the realm of possibility?

[craner]

[lineman]

How is a trenched freeway any less walkable than what currently exists now? Could it be possible that with a trench, west hillhurst and parkdale could be better connected with at-grade ped overpasses?

And who in their right mind would walk down a freeway anyway?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

IMO, that will only perpetuate the problem that exists. NB Crowchild to EB Memorial movement needs to be eliminated.

That is a no cost/low cost solution that needs to be tried first before spending a significant amount that will come from elsewhere in the budget.

I'm not sure how that would make anything worse. It maintains Crowchild access on the left for people continuing on Crowchild. It also directs any Memorial traffic onto the right side, so they never need to cross a lane, and ads a lane. The only lane change necessary is northbound Crowchild into the Memorial exit lane.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by sim

Yeah, nothing says walkable like a trenched freeway. If history has taught us anything, it's that once you "fix" a "congestion problem", there are absolutely no adverse effects anywhere further down the network and at no time ever is there a call to then "fix" another proximate intersection via grade separation. In addition, the benefit of the "fix" is never ever diminished after several years and the new capacity due to flow improvements experiences an absolutely static demand.

Now without being too facetious, did it actually ever occur to, well anyone here advocating for it, that constantly improving flow, adding capacity, etc. is actually not a solution at all? I mean, empirical evidence, theory and behavioural economics aside, is that not within the realm of possibility?

Yes, yes we all on here know that added road capacity always ends up being used up - but so does the same thing happen with LRT lines, and that's not a reason not to build things. We still end up with the benefit of added capacity and improved access, and probably safety too.

What's being suggested here isn't an outrageous increase in capacity, it's removing a massive bottleneck so that capacity is similar from Stoney down to Glenmore, and reconfiguring what is probably the worst interchange I've ever seen anywhere.

Originally Posted by lineman

How is a trenched freeway any less walkable than what currently exists now? Could it be possible that with a trench, west hillhurst and parkdale could be better connected with at-grade ped overpasses?

And who in their right mind would walk down a freeway anyway?

Yes, exactly. Have people seen what exists around Kensington/Crowchild currently? There is no way you can dress up two gigantic four way signalised intersections to make it a pleasant place to be. A trench would indeed be improvement to the area - light sequences on Kensington would be more favourable to pedestrians and there could be multiple pedestrian footbridges level with the existing road network.

[Joborule]

We talked about walkability, but how the heck can Crowchild be considered a walkable corridor? It was a road designed and functioned for automobiles, and it's only realistic option is to continue to be catered for that. Trying to make it something it can't be is only going to make it un-ideal for all parties involved.

We don't mind that it's up to appropriate freeway standards north of 24th avenue NW, and south of 17th avenue SW; so why is that such a taboo idea in the middle? Just because it's right by downtown doesn't mean it's function has to be different, because it can't be, nor should it.

In the end, the study should result in similar results to the previous one. Maybe more imbrace of HOVs, but sacrificing the lanes ROW for bike lanes and/or pathways would be stupid. Road lanes are going to be needed, houses are going to need to be torn down. The road should have 3 lanes of through traffic between 24 ave N and 17 ave S if they want to do this right, and not have it be a major problem that has to be addressed with again in the future.

Crowchild cuts off communities on either side of it now, and quite frankly it's going to stay that way because no one wants to cross high speed, heavy traffic flow intersections. It's a bridge we crossed long time ago when Crowchild was originally constructed. Building pedestrian bridges could actually increase cross community traffic since they won't be intimidated by the intersection crossings. Also, by cutting off the community from the unattractive aesthetics of the freeway, it could have a positive effect with the removal of idle traffic pollution, noise, and cutting traffic. Perhaps property value could go up?

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yes, yes we all on here know that added road capacity always ends up being used up - but so does the same thing happen with LRT lines, and that's not a reason not to build things. We still end up with the benefit of added capacity and improved access, and probably safety too.

What's being suggested here isn't an outrageous increase in capacity, it's removing a massive bottleneck so that capacity is similar from Stoney down to Glenmore, and reconfiguring what is probably the worst interchange I've ever seen anywhere.

We have to change the discussion, since induced demand does affect all modes of transportation we need to talk about spending our money in the most efficient manner, given the general lack of funding (regardless of the price of hydrocarbons). For a high use corridor we need to consider how we move people & goods in the most cost efficient manner, this may be transit or HOV, but ultimately we need to look at other solutions rather than another lane of SOV's going in the same direction.

Don't get me wrong I realize that transit doesn't fit all trips but if it doesn't exist it doesn't fit any trips and if it has the same priority as the rest of the traffic it is a much less desirable mode of transportation.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yes, exactly. Have people seen what exists around Kensington/Crowchild currently? There is no way you can dress up two gigantic four way signalised intersections to make it a pleasant place to be. A trench would indeed be improvement to the area - light sequences on Kensington would be more favourable to pedestrians and there could be multiple pedestrian footbridges level with the existing road network.

Originally Posted by 5seconds

If I remember correctly, the plan was not a trenched portion of Crowchild near Hillhurst, but rather somewhat raised.

I know that some of the options at least by 5th ave had Crowchild raised and making something of a wall between communities. I can't remember what the pedestrian options were apart from sidewalks along 5th under Crowchild, but there might have been other alternatives I don't remember.

Originally Posted by Joborule

We talked about walkability, but how the heck can Crowchild be considered a walkable corridor? It was a road designed and functioned for automobiles, and it's only realistic option is to continue to be catered for that. Trying to make it something it can't be is only going to make it un-ideal for all parties involved.

We don't mind that it's up to appropriate freeway standards north of 24th avenue NW, and south of 17th avenue SW; so why is that such a taboo idea in the middle? Just because it's right by downtown doesn't mean it's function has to be different, because it can't be, nor should it.

In the end, the study should result in similar results to the previous one. Maybe more imbrace of HOVs, but sacrificing the lanes ROW for bike lanes and/or pathways would be stupid. Road lanes are going to be needed, houses are going to need to be torn down. The road should have 3 lanes of through traffic between 24 ave N and 17 ave S if they want to do this right, and not have it be a major problem that has to be addressed with again in the future.

Crowchild cuts off communities on either side of it now, and quite frankly it's going to stay that way because no one wants to cross high speed, heavy traffic flow intersections. It's a bridge we crossed long time ago when Crowchild was originally constructed. Building pedestrian bridges could actually increase cross community traffic since they won't be intimidated by the intersection crossings. Also, by cutting off the community from the unattractive aesthetics of the freeway, it could have a positive effect with the removal of idle traffic pollution, noise, and cutting traffic. Perhaps property value could go up?

The fight here isn't about Crowchild being walkable (though maybe one day it will be come a linear park), its about cutting cross traffic and how a freeway would impact cross traffic (all modes). While crossing Crowchild now isn't great it is far better than having to climb up and over it in some sort of overpass scenario. Further the impact of an overpass (5th or Kensington Rd) wouldn't be limited to the corridor it would impact a couple blocks either side of Crowchild as the overpass returns to grade.

If it was trenched and covered, the impact could be mitigated, but I doubt there is the political will or money for a Glenmore dig/Boston Big Dig style project. Any raised or surface free flow option should be minimized to ensure that connectivity across the corridor is maintained and/or enhanced.

IMO it would be very short sighted decision to create a scar like this between two communities in the midst of revitalization. I find that 16th with lights provides a significant barrier between communities currently and a free flow situation on this section of Crowchild would be exponentially worse for division between the communities.