Calgary Roads

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Once again planner bashing. Im sure they would know a great deal more than the average commuter.

I think you need to stop looking at the world in such black and white forms. "Not worshipping" != "bashing".

I'm sure that on average a city planner knows plenty more than the average commuter. But I'm also sure that no planner knows all parts of the city with perfect clairvoyance.

[fusili]

Just to clear things up. Transportation projects, such as roads, are planned and designed by transportation engineers, not urban planners. While their titles may be "transportation planner" the vast bulk of the departments are made up of civil engineers, while planners have degrees in urban planning. Let's not confuse the two.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Actually, with the number of absolutes stated in a forum such as this, disproof by counter-example is more than sufficient in most cases. But I'm not so much trying to "disprove" anything here, rather make people actually think about what they're saying. Jumping to the conclusion of "induced demand!" every time road usage goes up is silly. It's on par with "it's colder today, therefore global warming is fake!".

Maybe 13,000 cars are induced. Maybe 3,000. Maybe zero. We can't come to a reasonable conclusion based on one data point, however we can show that not every single one of them is induced.



Absolutely. Witness the stupidity of the Scenic Acres access to the Crowfoot LRT station. To put it bluntly, the (vocal part of the) public was WRONG.

However, planners aren't gods. They're human and subject to the same biases and foils as the rest of us. In many cases in the past, I've seen planning done in ways that make me wonder if people are taking some powerful drugs. Or less facetiously, if realities are being overridden by ideology or political motivations. It's like in the business world when a random MBA is tasked to manage something - a company, a department, a team, whatever. Sometimes it works. And often it bombs miserably, because said MBA has pretty much zero clue about the people and processes s/he's managing. I'm not talking about social engineering or some other buzzword - I just think that a lot of the time, an incomplete understanding and/or improper motivations are to blame.

Remember, "planners" (as a profession/group) are the ones who got us into this mess with our roads in the first place. I highly doubt that every single one of them in the past was wrong about everything, and every single one of them today is right. Planners were the ones who wanted to blast a massive freeway right through the core of Calgary not 50 years ago.

I think you need to attend a few meetings. This is not true and definately NOT black and white. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I think you need to stop looking at the world in such black and white forms. "Not worshipping" != "bashing".

I'm sure that on average a city planner knows plenty more than the average commuter. But I'm also sure that no planner knows all parts of the city with perfect clairvoyance.

Agreed. Ill work on it.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by freeweed

And this is one of those instances when the public needs to be ignored. Because those complaints stemmed entirely from NIMBY concerns and not legitimate reasons.

Incidentally, I'm watching a NIMBY battle potentially shaping up in Royal Oak right now. Some company wants to put an oil/gas well behind the Wal-Mart. Many of my friends and co-workers are absolutely convinced that my hypocrisy will finally show itself, as I get all NIMBY'd up. My response: oil and gas are what gives me a great salary, low taxes, and phenomenal infrastructure. Build more, please. Put one literally in my backyard if it helps my province's prosperity.

Gross.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by mersar

Pretty much. The city institutes the resident parking zones near the LRT stations by default because every community in the past has complained and asked for it when they didn't.

And in the case of Scenic Acres, the reason the bus gate is there is because the residents complained about the original plan which didn't have it there as they didn't want increased traffic in their neighborhood, so the city responded by walling off the park and ride. And then the residents complained again about the lack of pedestrian access through the fences that were built, and the fences were modified to have additional gates and cross walks.

True, I was involved in the Crowfoot Park and Ride. We argued to have more pedestrian access, but the roads department overruled (as they always do) and created the fencing mess. They said that "there could only be one entrance into the park and ride through the fence for pedestrian safety concerns" It was silly. It ended up costing the city quite a bit of money because the fence was replaced with allan block. Previously the fence was made of vinyl and people were finding their own way through by kicking panels out of the fence.

[freeweed]

I always wondered why they completely re-did those fences not a year after it was built. Great planning from the looks of it.

On the semantic definition of who can rightly be called a "planner" - I think some of you may want to step back and realize that the average citizen/civilian isn't privy to, nor really cares about the bureaucracy involved at City Hall. Whoever is making these decisions (walling off a park and ride, adding HOV lanes to lighted intersections, adding pedestrian bridges, designing excellent freeways, whatever) is going to be lumped into a generic "planner" pool by the lay public. They don't particularly care what the official departmental title is.

And I'm not sure that they need to for most instances. Passing the buck by industry-specifc labels and departmental finger pointing is quite possibly why some people have such a poor view of civic planning in general.

Or perhaps we need a more generic term so as not to offend someone's degree. It's one of the reasons I use the word "planner" in quotes from time to time. ie: someone who plans how things are designed and constructed in our city. Not an official legally-described term.

I work in IT. This is a field that can't even decide amongst itself what to call us (I guarantee you there are folks on this very forum who would be offended by my use of the term "IT" to describe what I do). Trust me, the general public (and specifically my customers/clients) don't give a rat's ass how we're organized internally, nor whether my being called an "engineer" passes legal muster according to Canadian legal definitions. They just want things to work as requested, and in my opinion making that happen is much more important than getting offended because a lay person doesn't understand my precise job duties nor which degree I happen to have. I'm perfectly willing to accept "it's IT's fault" - because at the end of the day, when the larger "we" screws up, it is.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by kw5150

I think you need to attend a few meetings. This is not true and definately NOT black and white. Where do you come up with this stuff?

I think you need to read up on your history (sadly, we cannot attend meetings from 50 years ago due to lack of functioning time machine). Joe Bob From Down The Street was not the guy who stood up at a Council meeting one day and said "hyuk, let's put a freeway into downtown" and the Aldermen all nodded in agreement.

Whatever the official job title at the time (and this has changed a fair bit since the 1950s), a group of "planners" in some capacity were responsible for the road system we have today - including some of the ugly options we didn't go with.

[kw5150]

Seriously, go attend some large scale project meetings to see how things really work. We all appreciate your feedback, but some things you are just plain wrong about.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Seriously, go attend some large scale project meetings to see how things really work. We all appreciate your feedback, but some things you are just plain wrong about.

Of course, that's why I chat on places like this.

I'm not being snide, either. I'm very serious.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by kw5150

from:




http://images.toocharger.com/img/gra...sees.72743.jpg


Would it be possible for Calgary to re-examine its downtown area roadways and come up with a concept like this for a couple major roadways in the inner city? This would be a much more grand entrance into our city! We have already (in a way) done this to 16th ave NW and memorial Drive.

9th ave SW should be a 2 way all the way from inglewood to Bow trail and they should think of a more aesthetically pleasing and functional plan to move people west out of the
downtown. It really seems like there is a really simple way to utilize the massive interchange but still find a new
way to connect everything. Crowchild trail should have a massive lane reversal (like 97th ave in Edmonton) and the intechanges need
to stop making people criss cross all over the place. That would buy us quite a bit more time. We have already updated many of these
bridges, no point in tearing them down just yet.

Ok, back to my dream of Bow trail and 9th ave sw looking like this. Hopefully
the city has plans to line both sides of this road with nice big trees

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

We also don't need to design our city to make it easy for the French army to march in and put down revolutionaries. The Champs Elysees is neat and all but it really is a scar across Paris.

I feel the same way about Crowchild / Bow / Memorial. Its a giant scar as well with massive fragments of land left floating with little purpose.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by kw5150

I feel the same way about Crowchild / Bow / Memorial. Its a giant scar as well with massive fragments of land left floating with little purpose.

One of the arguments for not developing 14th street SW (From the bow to the reservoir) into a freeway in 1970 was the isolation of parts of the city. Since Crowchild was already being developed as a freeway, there was worry that having 2 freeways in 10 blocks was going to isolate and impact the strip of communities in-between, like Marda Loop/Altador, South Calgary etc.

[Yahoo]

Regarding the Crowfoot LRT station:

I don't recall any huge NIMBY issues there. Everyone knew that LRT was coming someday. When I moved to Scenic Acres there was a wooden "future home of LRT parking" sign that eventually rotted away and fell over because it took so long to build it

I know the Crowchild Trail expansion that went along with it (Nose Hill drive overpass etc) was completely redesigned from what the planners recommended. The planners wanted to raise the roadway and eventually agreed to a massive change and lowered it. That was a success considering the people who understood the area made a recommendation and the city planners - or whoever it is that approves this stuff - agreed.

What I always thought was a planning mistake long ago is that much of Crowchild north had a large amount of land set aside for the tracks running between the roadway. That was a great idea, yet when they expanded Crowchild years later as it approached Nose Hill drive they narrowed the gap - pretty much guaranteeing they'd have to tear everything up when the LRT was added. I have a real issue when planners do things like this. (like putting houses right along some sections of Country Hills Blvd ruining a new transportation corridor for future generations). It's like when they put up light poles right along the edge of the original Stoney Trail configuration, only to dig them up a couple years later and move them over when they added another lane. Why not try to put them in the final home and potentially you can avoid moving them as the road expands? (or put them in the center).

I don't recall getting surveyed about the fencing or blocking access to the LRT parking from within Scenic Acres, but I did read about a lot of discussions. Unfortunately things like released inmates potentially being dropped off at the Crowfoot LRT station and all the talk of poor security at LRT parking lots likely scared a lot of people into wanting Scenic Acres walled off. I guess it's right to think about these things, since it's steps away from an elementary school. But it was an overreaction and prevented people living steps away from the station from accessing it without walking far around (or punching a hole in the fence).

One of the big issues with the original fencing is it was designed to block the view of the cars. That in itself presents a security issue since car prowlers were hidden from road traffic. The slope on the one section and the lure of the parking lot also made the fenced area great for skateboarders, which often seemed to like kicking out the fence panels for fun.

The new fence is much nicer (thin black rails)- so you can see through it and it's harder to vandalize. Even though you can see the parking lot from within Scenic Acres it actually lots nicer because you can also see the landscaping and trees.

I just wish drivers could access the parking lot and overpass from within Scenic Acres (some people do lol, by slipstreaming a bus as it crosses). I know there would be an influx of apparently "evil" Tuscany short-cutters, but the province or planners messed up the alignment of roads for Scenic Acres & Tuscany long ago so that's the price we now pay for poor planning. (don't get me started on the Stoney/Scenic Acres interchange mess - I'll save that rant for another day

One other little note about Scenic Acres roads - it took years for the city (or whoever) to paint lines on the road which would eventually run by the LRT parking lot. Not 2 weeks later the road was completely repaved with the top coat of pavement. Almost funny if it wasn't such a huge waste of time and money, but a prime example of poor planning.

[Yahoo]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Ok, back to my dream of Bow trail and 9th ave sw looking like this. Hopefully
the city has plans to line both sides of this road with nice big trees

I'm not sure where a cool looking roadway with nice wide sidewalks and lots of trees would fit. There are some trees along Bow and 9th, but I haven't heard any plans to try to improve on it. And man, the sidewalks downtown are downright embarrassing - with all the heaving and blobbed asphalt patches. That's a real building code issue. Perhaps something nice would work at city entrances, especially on 16th, but I don't think the foot traffic would ever be there. (maybe by the ski jumps it would)

I wish the city would get over it's sudden hatred of the one tree that does well here - the Poplar. I know there are issues with roots, but man it's a shame if we don't allow the one large fast growing tree to be used anymore. The favored Green Ashes are great trees in certain applications but they die rather easily, they're the last trees to get leaves in the spring and the first to lose them in the fall. In Scenic Acres I've watched them year after year replace dead green ashes in a futile attempt to landscape the roadway. Even the few ones that have survived and are 20 years old would best be described as scraggly. On one hill they died every year and I guess the contractor had to keep replacing them in a warranty agreement.

I also wish we'd get over the policy of no evergreens lining roads. Yes, there can be issues with blocking views and what have you, but there can still be more clumps of them planted in areas that make sense (you see a lot more in Edmonton - I know they have more naturally, but it doesn't mean we can't plant them). It would be sweet if there was a push to line Stoney with poplars, spruce, elm etc, at least on the slopes that are somewhat shaded - where they won't have a tendency to get baked in the sun and die off. I know the province doesn't landscape highways, but it would be nice if the city started - even if it was just right along the fencing. Some views of the city are quite ugly - you see nothing but siding and shingles and not a single tree. The roadway itself is the nicest view - which would please many of us who think about such things, but many people don't think of pavement and concrete as beautiful. Bad for tourism and doesn't make the city look very appealing to its residents. (I wonder why the province attempted making the Stoney-Deerfoot overpasses a bit artistic with fake mountains, yet they didn't bother anywhere else). I agree with the city using a percentage of construction project money on art. How cool was the zoo overpass when it came out! It still is cool.

[sim]

Originally Posted by fusili

Just to clear things up. Transportation projects, such as roads, are planned and designed by transportation engineers, not urban planners. While their titles may be "transportation planner" the vast bulk of the departments are made up of civil engineers, while planners have degrees in urban planning. Let's not confuse the two.

Yup, and therefore there exists a sort of need of an intermediate or cross-discipline that balances the two. I'm sorry engineers of this forum and in general, but a civil engineering degree, even with a transportation focus doesn't entirely give the knowledge or tools to deal with transportation planning, and dare I say, especially one from Canada or at least the U of C. Anyway...

Originally Posted by freeweed

I think you need to read up on your history (sadly, we cannot attend meetings from 50 years ago due to lack of functioning time machine). Joe Bob From Down The Street was not the guy who stood up at a Council meeting one day and said "hyuk, let's put a freeway into downtown" and the Aldermen all nodded in agreement.

Whatever the official job title at the time (and this has changed a fair bit since the 1950s), a group of "planners" in some capacity were responsible for the road system we have today - including some of the ugly options we didn't go with.

Yes, sadly, basically entirely true despite what KW may contend, and poor planning it was in retrospect. It has now created a very path dependent sort of mentality and subsequent lifestyle that few are willing to give up despite the fact that it comes at the cost of society as a whole.

[freeweed]

The Tuscany LRT station is going to get a roundabout on the north side entrance - I'm very pleased to see the city embrace more of these, when appropriate. I personally think damn near every 4-way and low-traffic stoplight should be replaced with them.

Is there any chance we could see some of our diamond-type interchanges get reconstructed to eliminate some of the more needless lights in the city? I'm not sure although I assume a roundabout requires more surface area - traffic engineers, any ideas?

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Yahoo

I'm not sure where a cool looking roadway with nice wide sidewalks and lots of trees would fit. There are some trees along Bow and 9th, but I haven't heard any plans to try to improve on it. And man, the sidewalks downtown are downright embarrassing - with all the heaving and blobbed asphalt patches. That's a real building code issue. Perhaps something nice would work at city entrances, especially on 16th, but I don't think the foot traffic would ever be there. (maybe by the ski jumps it would)

I wish the city would get over it's sudden hatred of the one tree that does well here - the Poplar. I know there are issues with roots, but man it's a shame if we don't allow the one large fast growing tree to be used anymore. The favored Green Ashes are great trees in certain applications but they die rather easily, they're the last trees to get leaves in the spring and the first to lose them in the fall. In Scenic Acres I've watched them year after year replace dead green ashes in a futile attempt to landscape the roadway. Even the few ones that have survived and are 20 years old would best be described as scraggly. On one hill they died every year and I guess the contractor had to keep replacing them in a warranty agreement.

I also wish we'd get over the policy of no evergreens lining roads. Yes, there can be issues with blocking views and what have you, but there can still be more clumps of them planted in areas that make sense (you see a lot more in Edmonton - I know they have more naturally, but it doesn't mean we can't plant them). It would be sweet if there was a push to line Stoney with poplars, spruce, elm etc, at least on the slopes that are somewhat shaded - where they won't have a tendency to get baked in the sun and die off. I know the province doesn't landscape highways, but it would be nice if the city started - even if it was just right along the fencing. Some views of the city are quite ugly - you see nothing but siding and shingles and not a single tree. The roadway itself is the nicest view - which would please many of us who think about such things, but many people don't think of pavement and concrete as beautiful. Bad for tourism and doesn't make the city look very appealing to its residents. (I wonder why the province attempted making the Stoney-Deerfoot overpasses a bit artistic with fake mountains, yet they didn't bother anywhere else). I agree with the city using a percentage of construction project money on art. How cool was the zoo overpass when it came out! It still is cool.

Ya, I walk that street (9th ave ) sw for a block or so and then get the hell off!! It feels like a car is going to jump the curb and hit you. I think the sidewalk is only 1.5m wide which is horrendous considering how many people take that route to get from the train to the beltline.

I am saying that they should just widen the sidewalks and put some trees in on both isdes to match what they are doing closer to the palliser hotel area.

All in good time I suppose?

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by sim

Yup, and therefore there exists a sort of need of an intermediate or cross-discipline that balances the two. I'm sorry engineers of this forum and in general, but a civil engineering degree, even with a transportation focus doesn't entirely give the knowledge or tools to deal with transportation planning, and dare I say, especially one from Canada or at least the U of C. Anyway...



Yes, sadly, basically entirely true despite what KW may contend, and poor planning it was in retrospect. It has now created a very path dependent sort of mentality and subsequent lifestyle that few are willing to give up despite the fact that it comes at the cost of society as a whole.

Well if these were planners, they were the heavy handed ones at the meeting. This is why future planners took their own route and learned from the mistakes of the past.

I personally love planning and if I was not doing what I do today, I would be in the planning area instead....or at least urban design.

6 years old and up i would literally study maps of north america and the world. I was fascinated how a place could start out as a little speck and grow into a functioning city. I used to draw city plans and road networks on big sheets of paper for hours....even days......lol. Once I went through my parents 200 national geographic mags and took out all of the maps and stashed them away. The pile was huge and my dad was pissed off because he liked everything to be in it's place.....haha.

[kw5150]

When my dad passed away, we were going through everything and he saved some my city plans.....lol. I should scan one of them.