Calgary Roads

[Innersoul1]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Some food for thought: Adding one core lane in each direction on Crowchild between 17th Avenue S and 24th Avenue N will do more than just a typical widening because of lane balance. All the lane changing is more of an issue here than in a typical area that requires widening. (ie. Bow Trail Westbound to Crowchild Northbound to Memorial Westbound)

Obviously it's not a simple solution because of the existing interchange designs, but adding one core lane is all this area needs to have significant improvements.

Crowchild Northbound functions at sub-optimal level of service outside normal peak hours quite often. I've been through on a Sunday evening and had to slow down due to volume. It's not just a morning/afternoon rush thing.

I think the biggest thing is that we need a change in terms of mentality with the planning of this area. The solutions is going to have more in common with a LA interstate fly-over than anything we have ever seen in this city (think 16th Ave and Stoney Trail or QE2 and Stoney.

Bow Trail to Memorial is going to need a dedicated fly-over for example. Given the space constraints up seems like the only way to go.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

I think the biggest thing is that we need a change in terms of mentality with the planning of this area. The solutions is going to have more in common with a LA interstate fly-over than anything we have ever seen in this city (think 16th Ave and Stoney Trail or QE2 and Stoney.

Bow Trail to Memorial is going to need a dedicated fly-over for example. Given the space constraints up seems like the only way to go.

The Deerfoot-Stoney interchange also takes up a solid quarter section of land. There is no room for anything close to that at Crowchild-Bow, unless we want to bulldoze most of Scarboro.

[MalcolmTucker]

Lots of room in the air over the river. Not that I think that is a good idea.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by fusili

My point is- why are we trying to upgrade Crowchild? We have already planned for four car extensions on the NW line. That will provide additional transportation capacity to the area. As well, the SE LRT will help with commuters going to Foothills Industrial. There is little growth going to occur in the future in the NW, both in terms of residential or employment. So why spend $500 million dollars on improving a stretch of road that won't necessarily see a corresponding increase in usage?

To alleviate the existing congestion, and in a perfect scenario too - with no forecasted induced demand, for a change we might actually see a road built out accordingly based on actual use (instead of perpetually playing capacity catch-up).

Now, whether or not that's worth $500+ million is a different debate.

[sim]

Originally Posted by freeweed

To alleviate the existing congestion, and in a perfect scenario too - with no forecasted induced demand, for a change we might actually see a road built out accordingly based on actual use (instead of perpetually playing capacity catch-up).

Now, whether or not that's worth $500+ million is a different debate.

This would be as much a cause of it as it is a solution in this case.

[Doug]

The old section of Crowchild between 17th SW and 24th NW basically compromises the investments that City has already made in improving other sections of Crowchild. The same can be said about the Crowchild to Glenmore ramp. Traffic backs up so much because of the 3 lane to 2 lane reduction and reduced speed limit due to the curve that all of the interchanges built to the north of it don't really do much.

I agree that the old section of Crowchild, built almost 50 years ago, is likely close to end of life. How much has the City spent rehabing all of the bridges and ramps along there the past few years? It seems like it is permanently under construction. Besides adding capacity and improving safety, a rebuild could also be an opportunity to improve livability:
-move some roadways further from the river and replace with park (ex. Memorial connector to Crowchild, Bow approach to Crowchild from downtown)
-reclaim wasted islands between roadways (ex. Memorial as it approaches Crowchild from East)
-reclaim land wasted by University Drive and its large footprint intersection with Crowchild, maybe do the same at 14th St and Memorial interchange. University Ave serves no purpose other than to provide access between 16th and Crowchild.
-realign Bow trail connectors closer to railway tracks to free up land for redevelopment and green space while consolidating the pedestrian barrier along the tracks
-replace 5th Ave intersection with a no exits flyover

[Innersoul1]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

The Deerfoot-Stoney interchange also takes up a solid quarter section of land. There is no room for anything close to that at Crowchild-Bow, unless we want to bulldoze most of Scarboro.

I wasn't comparing those interchanges in terms of the amount of space that they take, but really they are some of the most complex interchanges that we have in the city. I reckon that we are going to have to see lanes piggy backed on top of each other. I am not talking Orange Crush interchange but definitely something complex.

[DizzyEdge]

I don't think there would be a huge amount of blowback to stop turns to and from Crowchild -5th ave, either due to cul-de-sac'ing 5th ave or sinking crowchild so both are free-flow with no turns. Crowchild and Kensington though is a different story. That said, there is some empty land at all 4 corners except the NE corner. Maybe a diamond intersection with Crowchild free-flowing and Kensington Rd not? The ramps could be substantially shorter than the diamonds on deerfoot due to the much slower speeds on Crowchild.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I don't think there would be a huge amount of blowback to stop turns to and from Crowchild -5th ave, either due to cul-de-sac'ing 5th ave or sinking crowchild so both are free-flow with no turns. Crowchild and Kensington though is a different story. That said, there is some empty land at all 4 corners except the NE corner. Maybe a diamond intersection with Crowchild free-flowing and Kensington Rd not? The ramps could be substantially shorter than the diamonds on deerfoot due to the much slower speeds on Crowchild.

I think you're right about 5th street. If you look at Crowchild and 26th avenue/Richmond Road in the SW, they just ran 26th over the top of Crowchild, no interchange. If you want to access that area, you have to exit on 33rd or 17th. Same could apply to 5th.

As for the Kensington interchange, can something be done slightly to the west, where Kensington meets up with Memorial/Parkdale? For instance, if you are going NB on crowchild, and want to go to Kensington EB, you first have to exit to Memorial WB, and then connect to Kensington that way? Or dedicated lanes that swing along Memorial?

I know there would have to be some serious re-working of the lanes there, but there is maybe a little more room, and it would allow both the free-flowing of Crowchild and maintain the connection to Kensington. I wonder if that would work?

[Cage]

IF you guys want complex and interesting set of interchanges, lets hire a bunch of Quebec Transport engineers who have working knowledge of Autoroute 20 between Decaire and St Anne de Bellevue.

We could flip the Crowchild lanes at University and then replicate the Decaire interchange for Bow-Crow. Call in the Yeehaw malfunction junction interchange.

[5seconds]

I was wondering if someone could help me out with something. I was wondering what the minimum curve radius for a road might be with a couple of variables. Based on the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) - Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads 1999.

I wanted to know the minimum radius for:

1) A 90km/h design speed road with 8% max (6% desired) superelevation. (90 degree turn)

2) A 110km/h design speed road with 8% max (6% desired) superelevation. (90 degree turn)

I tried looking this up but I don't really know enough about thins kind of thing to know what to look for.

In the document I am reading (design specs for a road) it stated this:
"Directional Ramps: Des. R 440 (100km/h); Min. R 130 (60 km/h)"

Does this mean that a 100km/h road curve (for a directional ramp) is limited to no smaller than a 440 metre radius?

Thanks for any help you can give me! Apologies if I am asking the wrong thing!

[fusili]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

I was wondering if someone could help me out with something. I was wondering what the minimum curve radius for a road might be with a couple of variables. Based on the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) - Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads 1999.

I wanted to know the minimum radius for:

1) A 90km/h design speed road with 8% max (6% desired) superelevation. (90 degree turn)

2) A 110km/h design speed road with 8% max (6% desired) superelevation. (90 degree turn)

I tried looking this up but I don't really know enough about thins kind of thing to know what to look for.

In the document I am reading (design specs for a road) it stated this:
"Directional Ramps: Des. R 440 (100km/h); Min. R 130 (60 km/h)"

Does this mean that a 100km/h road curve (for a directional ramp) is limited to no smaller than a 440 metre radius?

Thanks for any help you can give me! Apologies if I am asking the wrong thing!

That sounds about right. I know that for a 50km residential road, the minimum turning radius is 80m. The radius is measured from centreline in that case, so I imagine in the case of a 100km road, it would be measured from the centreline of the innermost lane on the curve.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by fusili

That sounds about right. I know that for a 50km residential road, the minimum turning radius is 80m. The radius is measured from centreline in that case, so I imagine in the case of a 100km road, it would be measured from the centreline of the innermost lane on the curve.

That's good to know. Thanks for the reply!

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

I was wondering if someone could help me out with something. I was wondering what the minimum curve radius for a road might be with a couple of variables. Based on the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) - Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads 1999.

I wanted to know the minimum radius for:

1) A 90km/h design speed road with 8% max (6% desired) superelevation. (90 degree turn)

2) A 110km/h design speed road with 8% max (6% desired) superelevation. (90 degree turn)

I tried looking this up but I don't really know enough about thins kind of thing to know what to look for.

In the document I am reading (design specs for a road) it stated this:
"Directional Ramps: Des. R 440 (100km/h); Min. R 130 (60 km/h)"

Does this mean that a 100km/h road curve (for a directional ramp) is limited to no smaller than a 440 metre radius?

Thanks for any help you can give me! Apologies if I am asking the wrong thing!

This isn't TAC but it's pretty close: 6% is the maximum super used in most Alberta highway design (at least on the projects I've worked on). At 90 km/h, the min R is 340 m and at 110 km/h the min R is 600 m. The reference table you're looking for from the Alberta Transportation Highway Geometric Design Guide is Table B.3.6a.

EDIT: Page 29 in the following link.
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...ion/chap-b.pdf

[5seconds]

Thanks for that link Mazrim. I was looking for something like that but couldn't find it.

I recently received the full Alberta Transportation Functional Planning Study for the South West Calgary Ring Road (2006/2009) (without the appendices, but I'm waiting on those) and I wanted to make a little more sense out of some of the things I was reading.

It's actually a fascinating document with the entire route designed in detail, including all of the bridge and interchange designs.

If anyone wants to see it, it's 100mb+ but I think i can send it somehow. I would be happy to send it over.

I had no idea that this stretch of the road has no less than 50 bridges (7 are river crossings) and 4 tunnels!

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

I had no idea that this stretch of the road has no less than 50 bridges (7 are river crossings) and 4 tunnels!

One thing about Calgary roads - we do love our bridges. Rail, water, and road, we have them freaking everywhere. Surprised about so many tunnels though. Do we even have any real road tunnels in this city (yet)?

[DoubleK]

How much of an underpass do you need for it to be a tunnel?

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

How much of an underpass do you need for it to be a tunnel?

My completely grabbed-out-of-thin-air definition would be that I would call an underpass a tunnel if there is as much non-road area above as there is road.

So if you're going under a 4 lane overpass, but there at least as much or more grass/dirt/parkinglot/etc on either side of it that you're also going under, I would call that a tunnel.

[Mazrim]

Aside from LRT tunnels, the only true road tunnel in Calgary that I can think of would be Memorial Drive WB under Centre Street. A tunnel is essentially defined by it's construction (typically cut and cover or boring), rather than a bridge over something.

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Thanks for that link Mazrim. I was looking for something like that but couldn't find it.

I recently received the full Alberta Transportation Functional Planning Study for the South West Calgary Ring Road (2006/2009) (without the appendices, but I'm waiting on those) and I wanted to make a little more sense out of some of the things I was reading.

It's actually a fascinating document with the entire route designed in detail, including all of the bridge and interchange designs.

If anyone wants to see it, it's 100mb+ but I think i can send it somehow. I would be happy to send it over.

I had no idea that this stretch of the road has no less than 50 bridges (7 are river crossings) and 4 tunnels!

I know that a couple of the people who worked on that study read these forums, but I don't think they post. Maybe if you ask nice enough, they might answer some questions!

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Aside from LRT tunnels, the only true road tunnel in Calgary that I can think of would be Memorial Drive WB under Centre Street. A tunnel is essentially defined by it's construction (typically cut and cover or boring), rather than a bridge over something.


I know that a couple of the people who worked on that study read these forums, but I don't think they post. Maybe if you ask nice enough, they might answer some questions!

Soon to be joined by the Airport Tunnel!