Calgary Roads

[speedog]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

It'd be great to see the City setting aside an alignment for BRT or LRT along 16 Ave through this section. Save the city money by planning ahead.

Would it make more sense to elminate 19 St NE access from 16 Ave with just an underpass and just force all traffic to use Barlow coupled with connecting Maunsell Rd to the existing 7 Ave NE intersection. It's not much additional distance and would greatly simplify the interchange designs versus maintaining each and every access point to the detriment of the many. 19 St NE is just too close to the other major arterials and looks like a collector.

Well closing down 19th Street would certainly benefit the firehall just to the north of that intersection.

[milomilo]

Not a provincial road so can't blame AB trans, but a while back someone asked why the new Glenmore interchanges yet again have non continuous lanes. This was rebuked as being neccesary due to the distance between on and offramps, however this is at least partially incorrect. Having taken a closer look at it recently, the road is designed such that travelling westbound, a lane opens up on the left, then further down the lane on the right is taken away. Why? They would have been better off not adding and dropping that lane, it achieves nothing other than discontinuity and means there is only one through lane.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...vised-plan.pdf

This diagram from the city actually contradicts this, showing that the lane on the left is the one that is eliminated. Maybe the contractor marking the lanes screwed up. Regardless, we now have the situation that a driver travelling west on Glenmore in the right lane is forced to make an unnecessary lane change, and this gives further evidence to me that road designers here do not care one bit about lane discipline.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by milomilo

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...vised-plan.pdf

This diagram from the city actually contradicts this, showing that the lane on the left is the one that is eliminated. Maybe the contractor marking the lanes screwed up. Regardless, we now have the situation that a driver travelling west on Glenmore in the right lane is forced to make an unnecessary lane change, and this gives further evidence to me that road designers here do not care one bit about lane discipline.

The city does line painting completely on its own now, by the way. Theoretically there are efficiencies and consistency to be found in this method but the jury is still out on that. Just something to keep in mind when you're wondering about who decided on something.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

The city does line painting completely on its own now, by the way. Theoretically there are efficiencies and consistency to be found in this method but the jury is still out on that. Just something to keep in mind when you're wondering about who decided on something.

Any idea why the lanes in real life don't match the diagram? Could it just be a mistake?

[DoubleK]

For Acey and anyone else who cares to comment...

One of the major bottlenecks during evening rush on Deerfoot is the Southland/Anderson/Ivor Strong Complex.

Would this be a candidate for a lane reversal using one of these machines? The goal would be to have three southbound lanes across the bridge. I'd expect they'd have to add a SB lane on the extreme west side of Deerfoot between Southland and Anderson exit to make this work.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Any idea why the lanes in real life don't match the diagram? Could it just be a mistake?

There could be a few reasons, all which I've seen before:
- The design changed after they made that diagram you're looking at.
- The City decided they didn't like the proposed design and changed it on their own before painting.
- Whoever painted the lines did something wrong.

The last one is definitely the least likely, since these days paint lines are usually surveyed.

[msmariner]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Not a provincial road so can't blame AB trans, but a while back someone asked why the new Glenmore interchanges yet again have non continuous lanes. This was rebuked as being neccesary due to the distance between on and offramps, however this is at least partially incorrect. Having taken a closer look at it recently, the road is designed such that travelling westbound, a lane opens up on the left, then further down the lane on the right is taken away. Why? They would have been better off not adding and dropping that lane, it achieves nothing other than discontinuity and means there is only one through lane.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...vised-plan.pdf



This diagram from the city actually contradicts this, showing that the lane on the left is the one that is eliminated. Maybe the contractor marking the lanes screwed up. Regardless, we now have the situation that a driver travelling west on Glenmore in the right lane is forced to make an unnecessary lane change, and this gives further evidence to me that road designers here do not care one bit about lane discipline.

Very curious where you’ve see lane drops on the left on Glenmore between 24th and Barlow? I don’t see any examples on the road or the Cities plan you’ve linked above?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by msmariner

Very curious where you’ve see lane drops on the left on Glenmore between 24th and Barlow? I don’t see any examples on the road or the Cities plan you’ve linked above?

No, a lane is added on the left then taken away on the right a km or so later. Unfortunately street view and maps aren't updated yet.

[msmariner]

Originally Posted by milomilo

No, a lane is added on the left then taken away on the right a km or so later. Unfortunately street view and maps aren't updated yet.

As a policy the City doesn’t drop lanes on the left side of the road. The added lane WB on Glenmore will make more sense if they ever construct the Glenmore/Barlow interchange. There will be 3 lanes approaching the canal bridge and will tie into the 3 existing lanes. The right lane drop up at 24st is to facilitate the added lane for traffic coming off of NB 24 to WB Glenmore. Seems odd now but will make sense when/if Glenmore gets fully built out

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by Acey

That does absolutely nothing for you, given that the problem is the weave with Southland. You could build a 5 level stack at Bow Bottom but nothing changes until you either close Southland or build the basketweave recommended by the study.

Of course, you do eventually need to entirely reconstruct that complex including, ideally, 4 lanes southbound. Golden Gate and Arizona can keep their little bullshit zipper thing that undoubtedly would fall apart once a snowflake fell.

Would the entire complex need to be reconstructed, or just twinning the Deefoot bridges across Anderson/Bow Bottom and the Bow River (Ivor Strong)? Maybe another basketweave for northbound traffic to connect to Southland?

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by dmuzika

Would the entire complex need to be reconstructed, or just twinning the Deefoot bridges across Anderson/Bow Bottom and the Bow River (Ivor Strong)? Maybe another basketweave for northbound traffic to connect to Southland?

Twinning the bridges would trigger reconstruction of many of the ramps in the interchange. It's not as simple as just adding more lanes, unfortunately.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by msmariner

As a policy the City doesn’t drop lanes on the left side of the road. The added lane WB on Glenmore will make more sense if they ever construct the Glenmore/Barlow interchange. There will be 3 lanes approaching the canal bridge and will tie into the 3 existing lanes. The right lane drop up at 24st is to facilitate the added lane for traffic coming off of NB 24 to WB Glenmore. Seems odd now but will make sense when/if Glenmore gets fully built out

Since the eastern section of Glenmore hasn't been upgraded and won't be for many years, and the lanes will be repainted many times between now and then, why don't we just make the lanes make sense now? Currently travelling from east to west on Glenmore there is one continuous lane on what should be a three lane road. No one seems to care. All these arguments that make sense to road engineers on a diagram don't actually work as well when you put drivers on a road.

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by Acey

Was talking Deerfoot stuff with a civil tech today and he pitched this to me: entirely closing access to NB Deerfoot from 64 Ave, after building the NB ramp recommended by the study here:



The object of course is to fix the nasty weave on NB Deerfoot of traffic entering from 64 Ave and exiting to Beddington, without having to build a basketweave. This only works if the new ramp also connects to the nearby off-ramp to Beddington, which could be done at negligible additional expense. Biggest problem I immediately see with this is the heavy strain placed on the 64 Ave/9 St and 64 Ave/11 St intersections, possibly to the point of failure. A hybrid solution would be to allow traffic to enter NB Deerfoot from 64 Ave, but allow them only to exit to Beddington, somewhat relieving the EB-NB left turn movement at 64 Ave/11 St but still fixing the weave.

Interesting idea. No doubt very annoying to a number of people, but certainly helps the greater good and these are the kind of solutions the study will be exploring so we don't have to spend a billion dollars. The southbound weave at this location, for example, is so bad that I see no conceivable fix aside from a basketweave.

For southbound traffic, I recall this being posted on the Alberta Transportation website before they did the Beddington / Deerfoot improvements in 2010. Basically the SB exit to 64 Ave was north of Beddington Trail, went under Beddington along Nose Creek using the existing structures as the basketweave, before continuing to 64th. Maybe the concept could still be implemented?

[craner]

I like the idea of using existing structures & fallow land to improve things that would otherwise be too expensive to do.

[Mazrim]

I was pleasantly surprised to see that they have updated the overhead sign for Deerfoot northbound approaching the first Glenmore exit. It now specifically says Glenmore Trail West and added Heritage Drive, which maybe....maybe some people will notice while driving. As long as I see people still use the first exit to go East though, then it's still going to be a struggle. Perhaps if they mention the East exit is another 1-2 km away somewhere before the first exit, then even less people will be inclined to use the first exit.

[milomilo]

This is both road and LRT:

Calgary proposes 2 solutions for the city's 'worst intersection'

That being Macleod/25 Avenue S.E.

The elevated LRT option to me looks much cleaner rather than the weird elevated roadway option. I think someone in the Calgary roads department just loves to design stupid roads.

[DoubleK]

Wasn't there some talk of plans to "punch" 17th Ave through to the Stampede grounds?

I can't imagine you'd contemplate moving two stations that are so close together in isolation of each other.

I'm with Milo on this. The elevated LRT is a better option.

[milomilo]

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...ct=/25avestudy

There's all the information on this page including a full report with costs. It does reference the 17th Ave extension you mention - it appears the siding that would be cut off by extending 17th would need to be replaced. In the elevated option, this is incorporated in the station, and in the at grade option, the siding is moved.

While the elevated road option is nasty, it is considerably cheaper.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

This is both road and LRT:

Calgary proposes 2 solutions for the city's 'worst intersection'

That being Macleod/25 Avenue S.E.

The elevated LRT option to me looks much cleaner rather than the weird elevated roadway option. I think someone in the Calgary roads department just loves to design stupid roads.

20 years to implement and in the meantime one of the things they're going to do is lower the speed limit. I don't care what the theory says but that is a stupid idea. Theory in reality seldom pans out.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

20 years to implement and in the meantime one of the things they're going to do is lower the speed limit. I don't care what the theory says but that is a stupid idea. Theory in reality seldom pans out.

Well, at least with the speed limit thing they could lower it for a week see if it works.