Calgary Roads

[Cage]

Check out this winner of a plan for the folks of rocky ridge and royal oak.

Plan is to create a right in from Crowchild trail onto Eamon Road. Check out the details.

http://www.calgary.ca/councillors/wa...ild-Trail.aspx

[lineman]

Please note that this proposal is just that – a suggestion put forward to residents for consideration. The City is seeking feedback from Ward 1 and Ward 2 residents as to whether or not the community wants a new access from Crowchild Trail.

At the end of the day, I really shouldn't care, as this will not affect me at all.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by Cage

Check out this winner of a plan for the folks of rocky ridge and royal oak.

Plan is to create a right in from Crowchild trail onto Eamon Road. Check out the details.

http://www.calgary.ca/councillors/wa...ild-Trail.aspx

This is actually a pretty good plan for those residents living at the south end or RRRO.

[J-D]

Originally Posted by lubicon

This is actually a pretty good plan for those residents living at the south end or RRRO.

Would royally suck for a few of those houses right by the proposed exit though. Front yard a busy entrance into the community and backyard on Crowchild.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by J-D

Would royally suck for a few of those houses right by the proposed exit though. Front yard a busy entrance into the community and backyard on Crowchild.

Also true.

[AgentGibb]

I could be wrong, but I thought one of the design considerations for the Tuscany station P&R was that there was no direct access from Crowchild and so the parking lot could be relatively small.

This would seem to change that situation somewhat, no?

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by AgentGibb

I could be wrong, but I thought one of the design considerations for the Tuscany station P&R was that there was no direct access from Crowchild and so the parking lot could be relatively small.

This would seem to change that situation somewhat, no?

That's true, it would ... IIRC they still want to use Crowfoot as the commuter station and have Tuscany as more of a neighbourhood specific one ... They'd have to enforce parking restrictions in Rocky Ridge/Royal Oak if they want to add direct access from Crowchild

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by AgentGibb

I could be wrong, but I thought one of the design considerations for the Tuscany station P&R was that there was no direct access from Crowchild and so the parking lot could be relatively small.

This would seem to change that situation somewhat, no?

Somewhat - I think the idea to limit access from Crowchild would be to limit the 'out of towners' from Cochrane from parking there. I don't think adding this westbound exit would be quite as bad as adding a quick access into Tuscany.

[YYCguys]

Those folks with their big, albeit mostly run down, properties along Eamon Road won't be happy if this goes through. Maybe that will be the impetus for them to sell up and free up the land to be redeveloped!

[lubicon]

The Tuscany side of the station has no direct access off Crowchild. The RRRO side of the station will only have an exit off WB Crowchild and no way to get onto Crowchild if I am reading this right. The intent is to keep people from coming from outside the communities of Tuscany and RRRO to use the parking lots and they way it is set up now that should not be an issue.

[DoubleK]

Open Houses for McLeod Trail/162nd Ave Interchange are tonight and Saturday.

[Doug]

Given that suburban expansion past Tuscany and Rocky Ridge is constrained by existing acreage development, will there ever be demand to extend the NW line? I could maybe envision a station at 12 Mile Coulee that could service out of town commuters and future development up by Spy Hill.

[PPAR]

I think the transit next stage in that direction will be a regional rail service from Cochrane along the existing CP right of way.

[Bri-Guy]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Open Houses for McLeod Trail/162nd Ave Interchange are tonight and Saturday.

I thought the proposed Diverging Diamond interchange design was novel. Would also serve peds and cyclists well - better than any design with loops involved. Would have to be signed well to control traffic properly as it is such a foreign design to avoid collisions as it could be a bit unnerving driving on the "wrong" side of the bridge if you weren't expecting it as you approach from E/W (thinking night or stormy conditions...)

I hadn't seen this design before and it appears that it could handle traffic fairly well in all directions - though I can't see any time where the flow won't be primarily to/from the north.

It would be really neat to see the city use this design here.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Bri-Guy

I thought the proposed Diverging Diamond interchange design was novel. Would also serve peds and cyclists well - better than any design with loops involved. Would have to be signed well to control traffic properly as it is such a foreign design to avoid collisions as it could be a bit unnerving driving on the "wrong" side of the bridge if you weren't expecting it as you approach from E/W (thinking night or stormy conditions...)

I hadn't seen this design before and it appears that it could handle traffic fairly well in all directions - though I can't see any time where the flow won't be primarily to/from the north.

It would be really neat to see the city use this design here.

Can you expand on this? From what I can tell I'm not sure this would be any better for peds & cyclists than your typical interchange.

[Doug]

I've seen several diverging diamond interchanges in Utah. They improve traffic flow and traffic safety. The impact to pedestrian is neutral.

[You Need A Thneed]

Speaking of "different" intersection designs, the city has drawn up a Continuous Flow intersection proposal for the Barlow/McKnight intersection.

You can see the plans on the city's website (McKnight Open House Boards)

[mersar]

I believe there was another open house this week for the Flanders Avenue/Crowchild redesign. Anyone go to it?

[Bri-Guy]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Can you expand on this? From what I can tell I'm not sure this would be any better for peds & cyclists than your typical interchange.

The diamond would allow peds to cross roadways at grade - any interchanges with loops coming up from/going down to MacLeod I would assume that pedestrians would be restricted from that side of the road entirely. I am not aware of an area where they would be alowed to cross a section of road such as this, which would be dangerous as traffic would be somewhat high speed - and probably not expecting these to be crossing (esp as they are exiting MacLeod coming from a higher speed). I am making the assumption that rather than build some additional elevated pedway above this traffic, the peds/cyclists would be restricted on this side, and directed across to the other side (north) of the bridge (without the any loops).
Less direct travel, and more more hassles for these type of travellers.

Those are my thoughts.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Bri-Guy

The diamond would allow peds to cross roadways at grade - any interchanges with loops coming up from/going down to MacLeod I would assume that pedestrians would be restricted from that side of the road entirely. I am not aware of an area where they would be alowed to cross a section of road such as this, which would be dangerous as traffic would be somewhat high speed - and probably not expecting these to be crossing (esp as they are exiting MacLeod coming from a higher speed). I am making the assumption that rather than build some additional elevated pedway above this traffic, the peds/cyclists would be restricted on this side, and directed across to the other side (north) of the bridge (without the any loops).
Less direct travel, and more more hassles for these type of travellers.

Those are my thoughts.

I see, that makes sense. Be interesting what they put in.