Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[Seadood]

Originally Posted by Oliver Klozov

That's because that part of Deerfoot was not Hwy 2. Hwy 2 back then was Deerfoot to Anderson to MacLeod. It wasn't until much later when the upgrades to Deerfoot were being done that they switched it over.

Yes I remember now.
Thanks for the memory jog.
Anderson was a smooth faster route than trundling down Blackfoot/Southland.
Hard to believe that was ever a provincial highway designation.

Here's another routing problem: 1A west into Calgary from Chestermere.
No signage to indicate what happens to 1A. Does it "end" or duplex north on #2 back to #1?
Aren't "A" highways to always return to their "parent", sorry I can't think of a better term.
I believe that 1A used to originally go thru DT on 6th and turn onto 14th St to terminate at North Hill. Some of the old signage still exists, thinking of 14th ave direction boards showing 14st as 1A.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

It really isn't like Anthony Henday. The Edmonton Ring Road is a single road that gently curves as it passes around the city. The portion of the Calgary Ring Road that was always listed as Stoney Trail does something similar between between Glenmore and what used to be listed as "Future East Freeway" but the other portions are all straight roads that are quite distinct. 22X definitely isn't the only part of the Ring Road that is an expansion of an existing road; the portion between Glenmore and 22X is an extension of Sarcee and used to be listed as such; the Glenmore portion obviously is an expanded existing road.

I'll be completely honest with you: I have no idea what you're talking about. Right now there is no ring road connecting to Glenmore. If you're talking about ancient plans for the ring road planning, then maybe they took the liberty of listing it as Sarcee, but when they started doing the actual design and construction of the road, it's treated exactly like Anthony Henday.

If you mean the shape of the road differs...well, blame geography, not the planners for the "gentle curving" nature of Anthony Henday (which honestly has very long straight stretches too). The West side of Calgary obviously has some actual terrain to deal with, hence the NW and SW portions curving lots, while the NE and SE are flat bald-ass prairie, so it's really simple to draw a straight line and go with it. Development of the two cities follows the same idea.

Originally Posted by Seadood

Did you purposely go out to the Okotoks interchange to check this out? Seems like a long way to go to review.

RE: Okotoks exit:
Yes, referring to northbound PRIOR to interchange.
Look at the actual exit sign, it says 2 south- Okotoks and Dewinton.
Also, isn't Dewinton on a secondary highway? Wouldn't acknowledging that highway be in order?

I'm using Google Street View take get the pictures of these signs.

Like you said, it doesn't look like Dewinton has a highway number attached to the road going through it. Here's how the NB signs look anyway. It says 2A South, not 2 South.

Originally Posted by Seadood

The signage on the ring road is superlative IMHO. And it appears that there is a standarization of fonts on Alberta highway signs. Is this an application of North American standards?

Alberta always has it's own little brand of standards that differs from the rest, but they're following the lead of pretty much everyone else by moving to the Clearview font (I think back in 2006?). The ring roads were the first major projects to use them, and basically all signs being replaced now use Clearview. Unfortunately it ends up being quite messy on retrofits where they try to jam what is a larger font into a small sign. (see pretty much all the Deerfoot retrofit signage they've done in the last year. Terrible.)

[Cage]

Originally Posted by tmjr

Driving through the Stoney - Crowchild interchange, everything SEEMS to be done. However, the speed limit is left at 60 kph through the area.

Do they leave the speed limit low for a period after finishing an interchange just to let people get used to the new traffic flow patterns? Or is there more to be done at Crow/Stoney that requires the low speed limit?

Originally Posted by mersar

Still doing some cleanup work. I did notice they've got the guides in place for pouring most of the barriers east of the Stoney bridge now, so on Crowchild there is definately still some work going on.

Originally Posted by tmjr

Didn't notice those until today; they were pouring/forming the barriers on the EB Crow side when I drove by.

I guess I was more thinking about Stoney trail itself - its still 60 kph under the bridge...

Speed limit on Stoney is now 100km/h under Crowchild. That said a lot of people were still doing 80 on the drive home lastnight, but a few enterprising individuals were doing 100 in the left lane.

100kph does make the merge from WB Crow and the CHB turnoff a little interesting. Will be more interesting today when the off ramp gets iced up. The issue is a lot of RR/RO residents don't want to speed up to 100kph for the 30 seconds they are on Stoney. However the traffic comming from under the bridge is at 95-110kph and overtaking ver quickly resulting in high speed weaving issues.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Cage

The issue is a lot of RR/RO residents don't want to speed up to 100kph for the 30 seconds they are on Stoney. However the traffic comming from under the bridge is at 95-110kph and overtaking ver quickly resulting in high speed weaving issues.

This is standard operating procedure on all major routes in the City, unfortunately. Deerfoot of course is the worst offender for this. How many times have you been going off 16th Avenue onto NB Deerfoot only for one jackass to go 60-70 all the way down the insanely long ramp only to finally start accelerating once he's actually on Deerfoot? Drives me insane.

[YYCguys]

Once you have passed through the last set of lights and are on the long ramp is there a speed limit sign before you get to Deerfoot itself? I've never paid attention! On most ramps there is a speed limit sign of some ridiculously low amount like 50 or 60! 😜

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Cage

100kph does make the merge from WB Crow and the CHB turnoff a little interesting. Will be more interesting today when the off ramp gets iced up. The issue is a lot of RR/RO residents don't want to speed up to 100kph for the 30 seconds they are on Stoney. However the traffic comming from under the bridge is at 95-110kph and overtaking ver quickly resulting in high speed weaving issues.

This is caused directly by one thing - those fucking "60 km/h" signs on the ramping at the intersection. Legally the speed limit is down to 60 until you've basically merged. Not a recommended speed, but a white signed 60. It's absolutely ridiculous. Those of us that actually know how to merge onto freeways are getting frustrated and will likely end up getting tickets as a result (I'm sure speed traps will be set up here the first chance they get once the roads are bare).

Slow the speed down for the curve, sure. But after that it's 100% completely straight towards the merge. SIGN IT AT 100 THERE.

Now that being said, this isn't a standard "merge". Technically the traffic coming off WB Crowchild has its own lane onto CHB, and NB Stoney traffic also has a separate lane they can turn with. So I can see the argument that it's not really a weave zone. Except of course in reality it is, as people know which lane they want to be in and weave accordingly. The only thing saving it right now is the winter conditions, and the fact that most Calgarians seem incapable of ever maintaining speed going uphill, so you don't often see 100km/h traffic on NB Stoney in that location.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

Once you have passed through the last set of lights and are on the long ramp is there a speed limit sign before you get to Deerfoot itself? I've never paid attention! On most ramps there is a speed limit sign of some ridiculously low amount like 50 or 60! ��

A sign that basically says "hey shithead, speed up cuz it's 100 pretty soon"? I have never, ever seen this in Canada. So anyone who either:

a) doesn't know the speed they're about to merge into

b) doesn't understand the concept of speeding up to meet merging traffic

c) is paranoid about getting a ticket because the last speed sign they saw was 60 or 7 or 80

just trundles along.

[Seadood]

Mazrim:






Source: Seadood (photographer); uploaded to imageshack.us

[You Need A Thneed]

As of Thursday, 17th ave SE is on its detour alignment.

[5seconds]

Edited: Nevermind

[craner]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Talks only started in 1984.

I had to laugh when I read this . . . sorry 5secs.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by craner

I had to laugh when I read this . . . sorry 5secs.

It's true.

The first ever plan that had the SW Connector running through Tsuu T'ina land was from a 1977 study, and as soon as that study came out, the Chief at the time stated that there was no way the City was going to build a road through the reserve, at all. (The first time a SW connector was proposed in 1959, and the 2 subsequent revisions in 1963 and 1968, the road was planned as running ONLY through City of Calgary land, from Sarcee Trail north of the reservoir to a 37th street alignment south of the reservoir)

It wasn't until a 1984 study was concluded (A study inititated and co-funded by the Province, the City and the Nation in 1982) that the Nation agreed in principle to the idea of a road through Nation land. That was the first time negotiations were held in earnest.

EDIT: unless you know otherwise. I'm trying to be as accurate as possible in my research, and while I have references to all of the points I made, if you can point me in the direction of other info, I would love to see it.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I'll be completely honest with you: I have no idea what you're talking about. Right now there is no ring road connecting to Glenmore. If you're talking about ancient plans for the ring road planning, then maybe they took the liberty of listing it as Sarcee, but when they started doing the actual design and construction of the road, it's treated exactly like Anthony Henday.

If you mean the shape of the road differs...well, blame geography, not the planners for the "gentle curving" nature of Anthony Henday (which honestly has very long straight stretches too). The West side of Calgary obviously has some actual terrain to deal with, hence the NW and SW portions curving lots, while the NE and SE are flat bald-ass prairie, so it's really simple to draw a straight line and go with it. Development of the two cities follows the same idea.

I'm not really talking about a geographic issue. My point is that, upon completion, Edmonton's Ring Road will be one road that forms a ring; Calgary's will be portions of, what amounts to, five different roads. If I recall correctly, prior to the province taking the project over, all five of those segments were planned by the city and each had a separate name. The province, upon completing each segment, has simply called it Stoney Trail. I preferred the city's naming method; it seemed to match reality better.

[craner]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

It's true.

The first ever plan that had the SW Connector running through Tsuu T'ina land was from a 1977 study, and as soon as that study came out, the Chief at the time stated that there was no way the City was going to build a road through the reserve, at all. (The first time a SW connector was proposed in 1959, and the 2 subsequent revisions in 1963 and 1968, the road was planned as running ONLY through City of Calgary land, from Sarcee Trail north of the reservoir to a 37th street alignment south of the reservoir)

It wasn't until a 1984 study was concluded (A study inititated and co-funded by the Province, the City and the Nation in 1982) that the Nation agreed in principle to the idea of a road through Nation land. That was the first time negotiations were held in earnest.

EDIT: unless you know otherwise. I'm trying to be as accurate as possible in my research, and while I have references to all of the points I made, if you can point me in the direction of other info, I would love to see it.

I'm not questioning your research - I just found it funny to read: "talks only started in 1982", as if we shouldnt expect any progress after just 30 years.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by craner

I'm not questioning your research - I just found it funny to read: "talks only started in 1982", as if we shouldnt expect any progress after just 30 years.

I got you. I think that the 'only' came in reaction to all of the claims that there have been negotiations for either '40 years' or since 1947.

Still, without the powers of expropriation, how long would the WestLRT (for instance) have taken to get done?

[Seadood]

OK:
Lets try this again:

Source: Seadood (11/19/2011) uploaded to imageshack.us

[Seadood]

Source: Seadood, uploaded to http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/210/exitz.png/

[bookermorgan]

Saw that sign this weekend....

I was all "WTF" but then I was like, "it's 3am, maybe I'm seeing things"

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Seadood

Source: Seadood, uploaded to http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/210/exitz.png/

fixed.



.......

[Seadood]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

fixed.



.......

Not sure I want to know how you fixed it
Thank you.