HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2641  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 12:30 AM
kw5150's Avatar
kw5150 kw5150 is offline
Here and There
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,807
Also, dead end streets all over the place (where freeways run through) create urban blight in many circumstances.
__________________
Renfrew, Calgary, Alberta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2642  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 2:05 AM
sim sim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahoo View Post
Longtime listener - first time poster here.

I feel that we spend so much time in Calgary worrying about what other cities do and it leads us to think that they're all doing it better. They aren't. Calgary has evolved naturally and like every city needs to keep changing. But the call for greater density or messing with our roadways smacks of our planners treating the city like it's an experiment, and they want to change things for their own personal agenda.

Take Crowchild Trail for example. There is a debate about the need to upgrade it and if we should. To me that's just silly. The last time it was upgraded in the bad part I was shocked. I was just a kid and couldn't believe that they went through all the effort just to put in 2 narrow lanes with no shoulders on Crowchild in one of the busiest areas.

It needs to be upgraded to at least 3 lanes of free flowing traffic and we can forget all the debate about "traffic acting like a fluid and filling up anything we build right away" or HOV lanes. Losing houses along the main roads is unfortunate but necessary for the greater good - and is nothing like the situation in Detroit. Those topics are interesting to discuss, but are just distractions and designed to delay action on a badly needed project.

Sure, in some studies some roads do fill up and become congested as lanes are added. But that's only in specific circumstances. It's not like every road upgrade causes congestion. Crowchild is too narrow, has too many lights, not enough lanes, choke points, awful merge and exit lanes with other main roads, and only 1 lane that doesn't require traffic to change lanes to proceed down the road. But it's a great road, for a city of 250,000.

HOV is laughable at this point in time for Calgary. We need to think about it once our multi-lane freeways start becoming overcrowded. That's 100-200 years from now.

I remember driving in the San Francisco area and I couldn't figure out why traffic was flowing so smoothly during rush hour. Yes, they have their bad areas but overall it was a dream. Then I realized every road was at least 3 lanes - even the side streets. It's like the planners of old knew that 2 lane main roads - and even side roads - just lead to congestion, pollution, and a real drop in productivity (not to mention quality of life).

I just wish city council would stick to the plan and focus on making a free flowing skeletal road network. We dropped the ball on 16th - because of a restaurant, I hope we don't make the same mistake on Crowchild etc.

Sorry for the long post but there is one other topic that annoys me with roads. The tendency to build things incorrectly to "prevent" future generations from changing things. I mean will the city ever learn that putting houses right up against Country Hills Blvd for example is just wrong? That's a relatively new road yet there are no standards. Some areas leave lots of room, and then other sections have man made choke points - and you just know that someday the city will be looking at buying up the houses along the edge to add another lane (for traffic, HOV, bike lanes, bus lanes, hover cars, trains, or what have you). Calgary is lucky in that we have very few geographical barriers to doing things correctly. We have room. The situation in SW Stoney is purely man made in that past city councils never imagined the city would grow. They need to leave room beside new transportation corridors.

I'm going to be more blunt than some previous responses.

This post is precisely what necessitates planners. Transportation systems and mobility are an interesting topic in that everyone makes use of them and everyone requires it. Thus, a lot of people then become self-appointed "experts" on it. This seems to be the case here. I may be singling you out, because I know exactly where what you quoted is coming from.., but just because you don't understand the concept(s) doesn't make it (them) any less true.

The reason the city is also always compared with other cities is again precisely because you don't treat a city like an experiment. Building a transportation system, indeed a city, isn't like developing a new consumer product. You don't have a second chance with infrastructure - or one that is affordable anyway. That is why other cities are (and should) be looked at as empirical and tangible substantiation to any major concept and infrastructure development. In certain cases, it is indeed the planners job to take a bold new but calculated step.

If you want to take out the reflexivity of planning, as you seem to be suggesting, you can then also say goodbye to your city being competitive and attractive, economically, not to mention socially and environmentally. We also live in a democratic and discursive society where simply throwing a freeway up "to benefit the greater good" is first of all no longer accepted and secondly a narrow definition of what the greater good is. This may well work in developing countries and it may well even be needed there. Or perhaps you are volunteering your place of residence as the first to see a Cat D8?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2643  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 5:19 PM
Yahoo Yahoo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 198
Re: Crowchild Trail

Perhaps I'm coming off as a know it all (lol - I admit that's one of my flaws. I'm not a traffic or civil engineer, just a commuter. But perhaps the user has more insight as to what works than the designer)

My point isn't that we shouldn't plan - I wish there was more planning, but with less emphasis on radical new ideas - under the assumption that everything we've done is wrong. Radical ideas are needed when there are huge problems to overcome, not when this issue was just a simple lack of keeping up with projects.

Look at the Crowchild - Sarcee interchange. That was a massive planning blunder. The city expanded Crowchild to 3-4 lanes past 24th heading north. They eliminated several lights. Once the new roadway just before Sarcee was opened there was chaos every day. The city failed to notice that Sarcee was still a lighted intersection. Not only that, it was at the base of a hill. And Crowchild suddenly narrowed to 2 lanes from 3&4. All the work on the interchanges leading up to Sarcee were pointless and actually made things much worse during rush hour. This wasn't an issue about HOV or needing some new concept, it was just a failure to plan ahead and see how one upgrade couldn't possibly succeed if you forgot about the rest of the roadway. The city scrambled to add another lane by repainting the shoulder, and pushed through one of the quickest overpass builds in city history (Sarcee & Crowchild). And now traffic flows smoothly. (maybe a little too smoothly - with some going 100+ on that section - but that's another issue)

And I agree that we should always think about what other cities are doing - but that doesn't mean that their failures and successes will apply to us, because every city has differing issues.

We aren't trying to solve some impossible or unusual problem here, and Calgary hasn't reached the point where there is massive gridlock. The problems on many of Calgary's main roads are quite simple. They haven't been built to proper minimum specs. At least not for a city of 1 million people. City council was planning on a free flowing skeletal main road network but they've lost focus on that.

When Crowchild narrows from 5 to 4 to 3 to 2 lanes and then there are traffic lights I don't think you should conclude that what we need is an HOV lane.

The conclusion on this road is simple and doesn't require a bunch of planning studies or new ideas. Just build it to the same specs as the rest of the road like was planned in the 1970's.

Issues with HOV on Crowchild can wait a generation since putting HOV on it now would just be an experiment and I'd rather not sit in traffic just so some planner can present a study or put something interesting on his resume. Hey, I often drive with another person so I could even use the HOV lane.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2644  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 5:49 PM
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 935
I'm not against some obvious road upgrades, and making the most of the opportunities that are out there (Like simplifying the lanes on the Crowchild bridge, making 14th st. SW more efficient etc) but that cannot be the end-all and be-all of transportation planning. Unless we are committed to more sustainable transportation methods and ideas, we will forever be playing catch-up: More roads, more land, more money. That, I believe, will be to the detriment of the city as a whole.

Traffic planners are thinking of new ways to move more people with the budget and the land available. It has been said that the LRT moves the equivalent of 19 more lanes of roadways of commuters into the downtown core. In the 1960s/1970s the LRT could be considered an 'experiment', one that took money away from road-building, but ultimately it actually saves us money, makes better use of the infrastructure we do have and allows for a more diverse transportation network (not everyone is the same, and neither is their travel).

I'm not sure what HOV etc. will do to that area (it might not be the right time or place, or it might be), but if there is an option that can move more people on the infrastructure we already have, wouldn't that be a good thing to explore?

You also said this:
Quote:
The situation in SW Stoney is purely man made in that past city councils never imagined the city would grow. They need to leave room beside new transportation corridors.
I agree that the situation was man-made, but the city knew full well that the city would grow. They were the ones who expropriated the land and approved the development of those very same subdivisions. The problem wasn't simply a lack of transportation planning, but a lack of overall planning. If they planned on growing, then transportation needs should have been planned as well, and if the existing roads and transportation could not support the population, then the growth should have been curtailed until it could be developed sustainably. They didn't do that, and the mess we now have was created.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2645  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 6:44 PM
Yahoo Yahoo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
Just as a counter point. You talk about San Francisco's roads and how well they function. During the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake several major freeways in San Francisco were badly damaged, especially the Embarcadero Freeway and large parts of the Central Freeway, both multi-lane free flow freeways with off-ramps. The damage was so extensive that both were pretty much demolished outright and converted into at-grade boulevards with multiple signalized intersections.

And guess what? Traffic imrpoved. Not only that, there was considerable redevelopment where the Embarcadero used to be, around what is now Pier 39, which, as a tourist, I am sure you visited.

Just a counter point to saying that San Francisco's success is based on large roads with free flow traffic. Removing a major freeway improved traffic in the long run.

Check out a UofT study on this called "The fundamental law of road congestion". This isn't a select few cases, it is a well studied relationship.

http://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu..._seminar3b.pdf

I remember reading about how eliminating a collapsed freeway in San Fran actually improved traffic flow. It's definitely interesting how and why that happened.

Was the BART transit system in place when they originally built that raised freeway? Perhaps people took advantage of transit at some point in time as it became more convenient and that negated the need for that raised freeway altogether? (meaning they should have built the BART instead of a raised freeway in the first place - but again they had massive crowding issues that we don't have in Calgary - our issues are with under-built main roads)

Also, were the access and off ramps onto that second freeway built in such a way that they actually caused traffic backups? Slapping up a freeway but ignoring the intersecting roads could have easily meant that this freeway actually caused issues rather than solved them. A poor design doesn't always mean the execution couldn't have worked if it was simply designed better.

All it takes is one poor choice to ruin a roadway. I know in Calgary you'll often see roads work better while they're under construction - simply because they for example eliminated one of the exit turns. Meaning that sometimes 1 exit is enough to cause problems on the road, and if it was gone that road may very well have worked okay for years without an upgrade.

It's like some of the off/on ramps on Memorial. You might wonder why they aren't used more during rush hours, but it's simply because they're dangerous. They have blind spots and can be too short so commuters just avoid them - causing more traffic issues on other roads. Adding to the length of a merge lane for example can often "fix" a road, but sadly that kind of minor upgrade is rarely done where there is room to do so. Look at the turn to Crowchild south on Shagannapi. It should be a dual off ramp but they painted it as a single. There is often a tie-up there because of this. And when it snows and the lines aren't visible people treat it like the dual off ramp it should have been. (just as people often added another lane to Crowchild during snow storms before the overpasses were built). The road needed another lane, but the city didn't bother. Perhaps the overpasses could have been delayed by years if they added a few feet of pavement to make another lane - there was lots of room. Crowchild North back then was full of single turn lanes that should have been dual. Simple line painting could have fixed issues on Crowchild in the past.

One thing I noticed driving on the freeways around San Francisco and area was some dangerous off and on ramps. I didn't drive everywhere and was only there for a week for work so I can't comment on the overall system, but man, some off ramps were crazy. You leave the freeway then have to slam on your brakes and make a 90 degree turn. And many of the off ramps have those water/sand barrels on them because the road was poorly designed.

I took one HOV lane in a construction zone in SF and it was a big mistake. The "merge" lane was literally 1 car length long. The local I was driving with told me to just wait for a big truck to pass and then floor it since they usually don't have people on their bumper. Scary stuff!

The local I drove with did mention that they were building another bridge across the bay. It's not like San Francisco doesn't have congestion, and in some cases the only choice is to build your way out of it. The economies of the world just can't ignore gridlock, and no matter how well transit systems are built there is still a need for the odd new road. Calgary can't continue to grow without expanded roads. The Inca's and Roman's knew that - and that's why they thrived during their heydays. But I certainly wouldn't suggest that transit and other forms of transportation should be ignored. The key to a great system is to try to make all forms of transportation usable. If you try to take a sudden change from the most popular form (roads) you're just asking for trouble.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2646  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 7:02 PM
Radley77's Avatar
Radley77 Radley77 is offline
The City That Moves
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bridgeland, Calgary
Posts: 1,450
I'd be curious what traffic patterns would be like with the Shaganappi to Sarcee Tr SW bridge over the Bow.

There is still a need so that welders, interior designers, Coke delivery truck and such to get across the city and to it's destination. This is a bit different problem than everyday commuters who are technologists, accountants, lawyers, students who work\study near a business\academic node and commute via light rail.

Calgary needs to fund roads adequately and make sure the dollars are being spent on compelling opportunities that improve mobility.

One can spend a shitload of money without a large improvement when there are some sort of geographic, development, or environmental constraints.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2647  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 7:02 PM
kw5150's Avatar
kw5150 kw5150 is offline
Here and There
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahoo View Post
Re: Crowchild Trail


My point isn't that we shouldn't plan - I wish there was more planning, but with less emphasis on radical new ideas - under the assumption that everything we've done is wrong. Radical ideas are needed when there are huge problems to overcome, not when this issue was just a simple lack of keeping up with projects.
What new radical ideas?? Many of the ideas that planners are talking about have restored many areas in Canadian and American cities. New ideas are what we need. There are reasons why we have very successful areas in our city now as opposed to how they were before. Calgary's Road system is actually really good for a city of a million. I dont understand where people are getting this "the roads aren't designed for a city of a million people" bullsh%$. We are better off that many other Canadian cities.

What we really need is new attitudes and new ways of getting to work and back. 1 person in every car simply does not work.
__________________
Renfrew, Calgary, Alberta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2648  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 9:01 PM
Yahoo Yahoo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by kw5150 View Post
What new radical ideas?? Many of the ideas that planners are talking about have restored many areas in Canadian and American cities. New ideas are what we need. There are reasons why we have very successful areas in our city now as opposed to how they were before. Calgary's Road system is actually really good for a city of a million. I dont understand where people are getting this "the roads aren't designed for a city of a million people" bullsh%$. We are better off that many other Canadian cities.

What we really need is new attitudes and new ways of getting to work and back. 1 person in every car simply does not work.
By radical new ideas I'm referring to confusing the situation on Crowchild by discussing HOV. That's radical for Calgary on a road that has very obvious problems and solutions. (2 lane choke points & traffic lights are the obvious issue on the road, not lack of HOV)

I welcome radical ideas when they help. For example I suggested once making a dedicated bike road downtown and have bikers simply walk the final block or 2 to their destination. Personally when I was a heavy bike rider in my youth I wouldn't even consider driving on a main road. A dedicated road and walking the last leg of the journey is something I'd have done.
(I was almost tarred and feathered for that radical idea though).

I've thought about expanding +15 downtown and narrowing sidewalks where possible. Narrowing them to allow room for a bike lane. And allowing people to walk with their bikes in the +15 system. (Hey, what about a +15 system or lane for bikes indoors? Just brainstorming here)

Another radical idea I've had is change the trains to 2 car instead of 4 right now, but run them twice as often? My biggest issue with transit is the wait - so if you speed up service then more people are likely to want to take it.

Another radical idea I've read in the USA is to try to eliminate as many stop signs as possible. Turn them into yields when it's safe. It saves fuel and time when things aren't busy.

At one time I thought turning circles were just confusing and dangerous on roads. And then I used one. The single lane ones are actually great and could eliminate lights on many of the Stoney Trail overpasses (in Scenic Acres for example). The lights there aren't timed and are a silly bottleneck. But we should resist the urgent to build big dual or triple lane roundabouts since I think they are too confusing to many people.


Another radical idea is to build more bus turn outs on main roads so when they stop to pick up passengers on main routes they don't block traffic. That did wonders on 2 lane Bow Trail, and actually helped speed up bus traffic because they were also trapped by buses stopping when the lights turned green.

Another idea is to always build 2 lane off ramps (or just paint singles as duals) and to examine every merge lane in the city to see if they can be easily lengthened.

Another suggestion is to always build new LRT lines so they don't cross paths with traffic, people, or bikes. (it's silly but the new line on Bow still has a pedestrian crosswalk that will stop traffic and trains). Yes, cost is an issue, but I'd sooner build LRT correctly even if the length comes up short. It's a lot cheaper to do it right and lengthen it later than to try to fix a problem after the fact.

It's like with Glenmore when the city asked if they should spend the extra money to do it right. Or when they asked people if they should spend a bit more money when building the NW LRT line so they could avoid crossing Memorial drive at grade. (Imagine adding another stop light for the LRT and road on Memorial just to save $100k).

My radical idea is to have a policy to try to do it right the first time. I live near Nose Hill drive. I've watched that road change 20x in 20 years. Lanes moved and added, turn lanes moved, turn lanes added or lengthened, the entire road rerouted. A simple plan to build it thinking 20 years into the future would have saved money and time in the long run. Even the province finally came on board with this type of thinking when they decided to make Stoney free flowing (that wasn't always the plan).

Another idea that would attract people to LRT (and I've ridden LRT since the day it opened on the original line) is to design the stations for our weather. As a kid going to high school it always baffled me that there was a relatively huge heated area in most of the first stations in Calgary. But you couldn't stand or see the trains from this area. You had to stand out in -30 rather than in the heated interior.

Ideas are a good thing. And quite often the cheap ones can buy you time while you save up to do the right thing. There is no need to suddenly decide that cars are bad and we should artificially force people to use a transportation system that doesn't work for them. We aren't at that stage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2649  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 9:05 PM
UofC.engineer's Avatar
UofC.engineer UofC.engineer is offline
Laura Palmer
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Twin Peaks, Calgary, AB
Posts: 1,033
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2650  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 9:28 PM
kw5150's Avatar
kw5150 kw5150 is offline
Here and There
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by UofC.engineer View Post
Nice vid. Well composed and truthful. Lets restore the downtown West End and figure out something new to do with the Crowchild / Bow / Memorial overpasses. With crowchild, there is a wrench thrown in with the large difference in grade, but surely there can be a great alternative to a mass freeway system.
__________________
Renfrew, Calgary, Alberta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2651  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 9:31 PM
kw5150's Avatar
kw5150 kw5150 is offline
Here and There
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahoo View Post
Re: Crowchild Trail

Perhaps I'm coming off as a know it all (lol - I admit that's one of my flaws. I'm not a traffic or civil engineer, just a commuter. But perhaps the user has more insight as to what works than the designer)
Believe me, the planner do their research with the average user. You sound like you should take a planning degree since you have so much interest in it.
__________________
Renfrew, Calgary, Alberta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2652  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 9:37 PM
Yahoo Yahoo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by UofC.engineer View Post
Interesting video and in certain specific cases it does show a flaw with the way many US cities designed their huge freeway projects in the past.

Implying that Vancouver traffic is some sort of utopia for commuters is something I'm sure many people in Vancouver would disagree with though. I remember reading one article about how great it was for people to live downtown and walk to work. But they forgot to mention that only near millionaires in Vancouver could afford to do that - and it would be even more expensive if they tried to do it on the scale of a whole city.

I'm not sure how much the video applies to Calgary anyway since I don't think there are any proposals to build grade separated freeways - or any new freeways in Calgary. I guess it serves as a suggestion for the future. The fact that we need to eliminate lights and bump some of our main roads up to 3 lanes or add the odd bridge isn't anywhere on the scale of the USA style freeway system. We simply need to fix our main roads & expand LRT as we grow. Let's not get radical and look at 1 road that collapsed in SF or NYC and use that as an excuse to ignore needed upgrades. (look at one alderman messing with the +15 system, suggesting it should be removed because it hurts street vitality - simply ignoring the fact that this isn't Vegas, it's Calgary)

We need to remember that huge cites were crowded messes long before the automobile, so it's not like cars have created a problem or are the enemy. Lots of people mean lots of congestion. 3rd world countries with relatively few cars have the same transportation problems (or worse) as cities with large car populations. We had the same issues with people, horses, buggies, and chariots at one time! Cars are not the enemy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2653  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 10:05 PM
kw5150's Avatar
kw5150 kw5150 is offline
Here and There
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,807
another gooder

http://vimeo.com/19836629
__________________
Renfrew, Calgary, Alberta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2654  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 10:10 PM
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahoo View Post
I'm not sure how much the video applies to Calgary anyway since I don't think there are any proposals to build grade separated freeways - or any new freeways in Calgary.
Stoney Trail SE, SW, and W are freeways. Plus there are some instances of recent and upcoming upgrading of major roads to freeway standards. There is billions being spent on freeway roads and freeway-standard upgrades in Calgary.

Quote:
Let's not get radical and look at 1 road that collapsed in SF or NYC and use that as an excuse to ignore needed upgrades.
It's not one road or one city. It's part of a well understood phenomena. Look up Braess's Paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess's_paradox ) and Induced Demand ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand )

More on San Francisco
http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/...barcadero.html

Seoul Korea
http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/...Cheonggye.html

General examples all over the world
http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion.shtml

More
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/05/...ic-congestion/

More
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transp...-wrecking-ball
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2655  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 10:41 PM
sim sim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahoo View Post
By radical new ideas I'm referring to confusing the situation on Crowchild by discussing HOV. That's radical for Calgary on a road that has very obvious problems and solutions. (2 lane choke points & traffic lights are the obvious issue on the road, not lack of HOV)

I welcome radical ideas when they help. For example I suggested once making a dedicated bike road downtown and have bikers simply walk the final block or 2 to their destination. Personally when I was a heavy bike rider in my youth I wouldn't even consider driving on a main road. A dedicated road and walking the last leg of the journey is something I'd have done.
(I was almost tarred and feathered for that radical idea though).

I've thought about expanding +15 downtown and narrowing sidewalks where possible. Narrowing them to allow room for a bike lane. And allowing people to walk with their bikes in the +15 system. (Hey, what about a +15 system or lane for bikes indoors? Just brainstorming here)

Another radical idea I've had is change the trains to 2 car instead of 4 right now, but run them twice as often? My biggest issue with transit is the wait - so if you speed up service then more people are likely to want to take it.

Another radical idea I've read in the USA is to try to eliminate as many stop signs as possible. Turn them into yields when it's safe. It saves fuel and time when things aren't busy.

At one time I thought turning circles were just confusing and dangerous on roads. And then I used one. The single lane ones are actually great and could eliminate lights on many of the Stoney Trail overpasses (in Scenic Acres for example). The lights there aren't timed and are a silly bottleneck. But we should resist the urgent to build big dual or triple lane roundabouts since I think they are too confusing to many people.


Another radical idea is to build more bus turn outs on main roads so when they stop to pick up passengers on main routes they don't block traffic. That did wonders on 2 lane Bow Trail, and actually helped speed up bus traffic because they were also trapped by buses stopping when the lights turned green.

Another idea is to always build 2 lane off ramps (or just paint singles as duals) and to examine every merge lane in the city to see if they can be easily lengthened.

Another suggestion is to always build new LRT lines so they don't cross paths with traffic, people, or bikes. (it's silly but the new line on Bow still has a pedestrian crosswalk that will stop traffic and trains). Yes, cost is an issue, but I'd sooner build LRT correctly even if the length comes up short. It's a lot cheaper to do it right and lengthen it later than to try to fix a problem after the fact.

It's like with Glenmore when the city asked if they should spend the extra money to do it right. Or when they asked people if they should spend a bit more money when building the NW LRT line so they could avoid crossing Memorial drive at grade. (Imagine adding another stop light for the LRT and road on Memorial just to save $100k).

My radical idea is to have a policy to try to do it right the first time. I live near Nose Hill drive. I've watched that road change 20x in 20 years. Lanes moved and added, turn lanes moved, turn lanes added or lengthened, the entire road rerouted. A simple plan to build it thinking 20 years into the future would have saved money and time in the long run. Even the province finally came on board with this type of thinking when they decided to make Stoney free flowing (that wasn't always the plan).

Another idea that would attract people to LRT (and I've ridden LRT since the day it opened on the original line) is to design the stations for our weather. As a kid going to high school it always baffled me that there was a relatively huge heated area in most of the first stations in Calgary. But you couldn't stand or see the trains from this area. You had to stand out in -30 rather than in the heated interior.

Ideas are a good thing. And quite often the cheap ones can buy you time while you save up to do the right thing. There is no need to suddenly decide that cars are bad and we should artificially force people to use a transportation system that doesn't work for them. We aren't at that stage.

Sorry, while your enthusiasm is nice, you're spending a lot of time only cementing via these "ideas" that there is a reason and a necessity for a planner and that the individual user of the transportation system does not necessarily constitute as one, even if they feel so.

Perhaps not my place to say... but, yeah...

At least to the bolded part since it is such a "good" idea: Perhaps we should apply this to every single parking spot as well. Even the one in front of your house...?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2656  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 10:42 PM
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 935
So a few years ago, the road that runs through North Glenmore Park (the park, not the neighbourhood) was changed from a two-way road to a one-way road (to curb the gay cruising/sex in the park)

When the storm-sewer pond construction in the park was going on (18 months ago?), they had to close some access, and that meant putting the road back to a two-way road. Now that the construction is long over, they never put it back to a two-way road.

Does anyone know if this kind of thing would normally be decided by the council (as a bylaw or whatever) or would the roads/parks department make that kind of decision?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2657  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 11:33 PM
Yahoo Yahoo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5seconds View Post
Stoney Trail SE, SW, and W are freeways. Plus there are some instances of recent and upcoming upgrading of major roads to freeway standards. There is billions being spent on freeway roads and freeway-standard upgrades in Calgary.



It's not one road or one city. It's part of a well understood phenomena. Look up Braess's Paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess's_paradox ) and Induced Demand ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand )

More on San Francisco
http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/...barcadero.html

Seoul Korea
http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/...Cheonggye.html

General examples all over the world
http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion.shtml

More
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/05/...ic-congestion/

More
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transp...-wrecking-ball

Stoney isn't a proposed freeway. It's already a given. And it's not going to plow through any neighborhoods on the last corner if the "best route" ultimately gets approved. (fingers crossed that the deal with the Indian band goes through since I think it's the best deal for everyone).

What are your thoughts on Stoney? Do you really think it'll be bad for the city when it's finished?

In any case, Stoney Trail is technically a bypass of the city. I'd call it a highway, more than a city freeway. But it will soon become a city freeway no doubt. But man, that's not always a bad thing. We need to be able to transport goods. Roads aren't evil, they're just transportation corridors.

Upgrading small sections of our main roadways to freeway standards is not the same thing as proposing a new freeway through the middle of the city. And anyway, I don't know of 1 road in Calgary slated to become a freeway except Stoney. Do you? Heck, I don't even know of any city roads being upgraded at all except related to LRT or Stoney construction (and that silly expensive hole at the airport). Do you?

It may be a "well understood phenomena" that on some roads the demand increases as new capacity is added. But you can't broadly paint an entire city and every single road with that brush. If you did then eliminating all main roads would fix road congestion. Surely you wouldn't agree with that?

Perhaps cite an example of that phenomena in Alberta? I suspect you can't because our population hasn't reached the level where this occurs.

(Hey, maybe I'm wrong and removing main roadways would work. But let's experiment with Edmonton doing that first and see how it works for them lol)

I've driven on many main roads in Calgary that are exceptions to this congestion rule. The old Sarcee Trail up the hill from 16th to Bow has been double divided for 50 years and it hasn't needed one upgrade or sucked cars into a congested mess. It was built properly a long time ago and has served the city well.

Anyway, new hospitals also fill up when they're built. And when cities grow their schools fill up too. That's expected. And that's why man has been expanding roadways since the first paths were built.

Perhaps, as I noted earlier in areas around San Francisco is that we should be looking at more multi-lane roads everywhere, not just on main roads. That way traffic isn't drawn to one main road. I don't know if that's the answer though since that would mean a lot more houses wiped out and more new roads. As I see it the only choices are big main roads (spokes & a wheel ideally), or lots of little roads where you can effectively move around the city. Both come with costs. I guess we could also quit building roads altogether, but I don't think that will help.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2658  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 11:53 PM
Full Mountain's Avatar
Full Mountain Full Mountain is offline
YIMBY
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahoo View Post
By radical new ideas I'm referring to confusing the situation on Crowchild by discussing HOV. That's radical for Calgary on a road that has very obvious problems and solutions. (2 lane choke points & traffic lights are the obvious issue on the road, not lack of HOV)

I welcome radical ideas when they help. For example I suggested once making a dedicated bike road downtown and have bikers simply walk the final block or 2 to their destination. Personally when I was a heavy bike rider in my youth I wouldn't even consider driving on a main road. A dedicated road and walking the last leg of the journey is something I'd have done.
(I was almost tarred and feathered for that radical idea though).

I've thought about expanding +15 downtown and narrowing sidewalks where possible. Narrowing them to allow room for a bike lane. And allowing people to walk with their bikes in the +15 system. (Hey, what about a +15 system or lane for bikes indoors? Just brainstorming here)

Another radical idea I've had is change the trains to 2 car instead of 4 right now, but run them twice as often? My biggest issue with transit is the wait - so if you speed up service then more people are likely to want to take it.

Another radical idea I've read in the USA is to try to eliminate as many stop signs as possible. Turn them into yields when it's safe. It saves fuel and time when things aren't busy.

At one time I thought turning circles were just confusing and dangerous on roads. And then I used one. The single lane ones are actually great and could eliminate lights on many of the Stoney Trail overpasses (in Scenic Acres for example). The lights there aren't timed and are a silly bottleneck. But we should resist the urgent to build big dual or triple lane roundabouts since I think they are too confusing to many people.

Another radical idea is to build more bus turn outs on main roads so when they stop to pick up passengers on main routes they don't block traffic. That did wonders on 2 lane Bow Trail, and actually helped speed up bus traffic because they were also trapped by buses stopping when the lights turned green.

Another idea is to always build 2 lane off ramps (or just paint singles as duals) and to examine every merge lane in the city to see if they can be easily lengthened. Cuz people can't stay in their own lane on a straight road how do you expect them to do this on a on/off ramp?

Another suggestion is to always build new LRT lines so they don't cross paths with traffic, people, or bikes. (it's silly but the new line on Bow still has a pedestrian crosswalk that will stop traffic and trains). Yes, cost is an issue, but I'd sooner build LRT correctly even if the length comes up short. It's a lot cheaper to do it right and lengthen it later than to try to fix a problem after the fact.

It's like with Glenmore when the city asked if they should spend the extra money to do it right. Or when they asked people if they should spend a bit more money when building the NW LRT line so they could avoid crossing Memorial drive at grade. (Imagine adding another stop light for the LRT and road on Memorial just to save $100k).

My radical idea is to have a policy to try to do it right the first time. I live near Nose Hill drive. I've watched that road change 20x in 20 years. Lanes moved and added, turn lanes moved, turn lanes added or lengthened, the entire road rerouted. A simple plan to build it thinking 20 years into the future would have saved money and time in the long run. Even the province finally came on board with this type of thinking when they decided to make Stoney free flowing (that wasn't always the plan).

Another idea that would attract people to LRT (and I've ridden LRT since the day it opened on the original line) is to design the stations for our weather. As a kid going to high school it always baffled me that there was a relatively huge heated area in most of the first stations in Calgary. But you couldn't stand or see the trains from this area. You had to stand out in -30 rather than in the heated interior.

Ideas are a good thing. And quite often the cheap ones can buy you time while you save up to do the right thing. There is no need to suddenly decide that cars are bad and we should artificially force people to use a transportation system that doesn't work for them. We aren't at that stage.
Dealing with the 2 car consists on trains vs 3 (not 4 yet) currently, the issue right now is that with the current setup the system is at max frequency at peak due to the interlining downtown, build out the 7th and 8th street tunnels and we are good to go!

Point 2 - Are you willing to face a huge yearly increase in your property taxes to pay for your wonderful ideas? (I think most are good)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2659  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 11:56 PM
Full Mountain's Avatar
Full Mountain Full Mountain is offline
YIMBY
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,938
I have an idea rather than building more roads, how about we train better drivers? I would bet you would see a huge difference in traffic related delays and accidents if everyone used a decent following distance and it was enforced
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2660  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2012, 12:00 AM
Yahoo Yahoo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by sim View Post
Sorry, while your enthusiasm is nice, you're spending a lot of time only cementing via these "ideas" that there is a reason and a necessity for a planner and that the individual user of the transportation system does not necessarily constitute as one, even if they feel so.

Perhaps not my place to say... but, yeah...

At least to the bolded part since it is such a "good" idea: Perhaps we should apply this to every single parking spot as well. Even the one in front of your house...?
Yes, it's your place to say! This is a discussion forum so even if you completely disagree with me I welcome your thoughts. There is a good chance nobody will listen to any of us anyway.

Oh, I don't know. I think the end user has often got more valuable info than a planner. Particularly a planner unfamiliar with the local needs and feelings. It would be silly for me to design a road or make suggestions for a city I'm not familiar with since they all have unique weather and geography issues. Perhaps that's why the city is asking about HOV on Crowchild. Perhaps the people looking at the designs have never even driven the road on a regular basis. Or some of the people commenting on this forum aren't regular users either and don't see that the issue in Crowchild isn't a broad planning problem.

Outsiders can offer fresh perspectives and ideas. But they will also tend to draw from their personal experiences which can sometimes lead to poor designs and planning.

Look at the new Children's hospital. My brother brought his daughter to emergency there and told me that to get to emergency you have to go through a bunch of lights and speed bumps right at the hospital grounds. Ambulances do too. But I'm sure it looked good on paper.

I'm not sure what you mean about parking? It would be great if people would walk or ride bikes (on safe out of the way bike paths). It annoys me that people drive to the store on the corner. You may be surprised to learn I've taken transit for years. When I do park it's on the edge of downtown and I walk at least 2 km through downtown. Many people parking downtown do walk quite far to their jobs. Most aren't given the sweet expensive spots in the buildings where they work. Those are saved for the elite and wealthy.

I think the biggest issue with city council is they are sheltered. Many of them park in their private reserved heated parking spots and don't even see the issues people face.

Don't get me started on what's wrong with transit or pedestrian corridors in this city.

I think I'm commenting too much lately, so I'll try to go back to a listener instead of yammering on so much. Hopefully my ideas aren't too crazy. If nothing else I try to get people to think twice about everything they read because I believe for every story or rule you'll see a lot of exceptions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:28 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.