HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2007, 11:47 PM
dmuzika dmuzika is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 423
Reroute the Highway 1 off of 16 Avenue

I think that if you want 16 Ave N to be a pedestrian-friendly, transit orientated corridor, the Trans Canada Highway needs to be rerouted.

The ring road will alleviate some of the TCH traffic, but taking Stoney Trail/East Freeway will significantly lengthen the trip through Calgary. Between the 16 Ave/Ring Road junctions, it’s approx 41 km via the ring road (when complete) as opposed to 23 km via 16 Ave.

The Trans Canada Highway should still go through Calgary, as opposed to around Calgary, so reroute Hwy 1 through Calgary via Sarcee & Glenmore Trails. Extend the Glenmore Trail freeway east of Calgary and construct a NE/SW connector to reconnect with the current TCH near Langdon, similar to what happened Yellowhead Trail west of Edmonton.

If a Glenmore extension was constructed, approx distances between Stoney Trail & Hwy 9 would be:

- 42 km via 16 Avenue N
- 49 km via Glenmore Trail/Sarcee Trail (approx, depending on alignment)
- 60 km via Stoney Trail/East Freeway

Any thoughts?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2007, 4:11 AM
The Geographer The Geographer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 310
You know, I was thinking the same thing when looking at a map. Would a trucker actually go all the way around if they thought they might get an average of 35-40 km/h in an off-peak period on 16th?

Anyway, I kind of like your Glenmore idea, but I don't know how it would work in the SW. Perhaps just use the new SW ring road as the connector?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 4:27 AM
dmuzika dmuzika is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Geographer View Post
You know, I was thinking the same thing when looking at a map. Would a trucker actually go all the way around if they thought they might get an average of 35-40 km/h in an off-peak period on 16th?

Anyway, I kind of like your Glenmore idea, but I don't know how it would work in the SW. Perhaps just use the new SW ring road as the connector?
That would work. Another option is using the already existing Sarcee Trail, which forms the origional SW Bypass. Converting it to a freeway might be tricky with the high tension power lines, but it would use already existing city infastructure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 6:44 PM
YYCguys YYCguys is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,520
If the Tsuu Tina are able to permanently stall negotions for the Ring Road through their land (which it seems to have done, since I've not heard a thing about it for ages!), what are the options that the City/Province have come up with in getting a ring road into the SW?

Why doesn't the Province do a land swap with the Nation, giving us the ample land we need for the road and giving them undisturbed land out west of Bragg Creek?

Sorry, I realized that I had posted this in the wrong thread. I will copy it into the proper one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 6:45 PM
The Geographer The Geographer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 310
But they want in on the benefits of the ring road, not just to have the land reimbursed elsewhere... which is quite understandable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2007, 4:35 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmuzika View Post
I think that if you want 16 Ave N to be a pedestrian-friendly, transit orientated corridor, the Trans Canada Highway needs to be rerouted.

The ring road will alleviate some of the TCH traffic, but taking Stoney Trail/East Freeway will significantly lengthen the trip through Calgary. Between the 16 Ave/Ring Road junctions, it’s approx 41 km via the ring road (when complete) as opposed to 23 km via 16 Ave.

The Trans Canada Highway should still go through Calgary, as opposed to around Calgary, so reroute Hwy 1 through Calgary via Sarcee & Glenmore Trails. Extend the Glenmore Trail freeway east of Calgary and construct a NE/SW connector to reconnect with the current TCH near Langdon, similar to what happened Yellowhead Trail west of Edmonton.

If a Glenmore extension was constructed, approx distances between Stoney Trail & Hwy 9 would be:

- 42 km via 16 Avenue N
- 49 km via Glenmore Trail/Sarcee Trail (approx, depending on alignment)
- 60 km via Stoney Trail/East Freeway

Any thoughts?
I meant to resond to this post awhile ago and then forgot:
I agree the TCH should go through the city as freeway in addition to the ring road. I have also thought of the Sarcee-Glenmore alignment you mention and I think it would be the easiest.
Ideally though I think there should be an east-west freeway on the north side of the city. Coming from the west I was thinking of an upgraded 16th Ave. in it's current alignment to Shagannappi Tr., head north to John Laurie (lots of room to widen this puppy), and then linking up with McKnight Blv. (which the city is planning to upgrade) and then east out of the city and link up with the existing TCH. May have to switch the TCH and Bowness road alignments near the river.
Another option would be to bring the TCH in from the west along Crowchild Tr. and link up with Shag-JLB_McKnight from there. One thing I like about the Mcknight alignment is that it would service the airport as well.
Anyway, just me sharing some of my daydreams.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 1:55 AM
Stephen Ave's Avatar
Stephen Ave Stephen Ave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,758
I have no problems with the TCH still going through Calgary, as long as the trucks are gone. 16th ave is going to have a much bigger profile in our city once all of the construction is finished and the trucks are banished to the ring road. It's going to blossom into a nice artery.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 3:24 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Ave View Post
I have no problems with the TCH still going through Calgary, as long as the trucks are gone. 16th ave is going to have a much bigger profile in our city once all of the construction is finished and the trucks are banished to the ring road. It's going to blossom into a nice artery.
What makes you think trucks are going to be banished from 16th avenue? They're not going to be and unless the province wakes up and takes out the lights on the NW part of Stoney Trail I bet a lot of truckers will not use it. Who in their right mind is going to go that far out of their way so they can suffer through stop and go traffic when they could do the same thing for a much shorter distance? Also, building Stoney Trail as only a four lane road to start off with is another huge mistake. With tens of thousands of people expected to move into new developments north of Stoney Trail, the road will be clogged in no time. This is just another example of bad planning and inflated construction costs down the road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 4:04 AM
Deepstar's Avatar
Deepstar Deepstar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
What makes you think trucks are going to be banished from 16th avenue? They're not going to be and unless the province wakes up and takes out the lights on the NW part of Stoney Trail I bet a lot of truckers will not use it. Who in their right mind is going to go that far out of their way so they can suffer through stop and go traffic when they could do the same thing for a much shorter distance? Also, building Stoney Trail as only a four lane road to start off with is another huge mistake. With tens of thousands of people expected to move into new developments north of Stoney Trail, the road will be clogged in no time. This is just another example of bad planning and inflated construction costs down the road.
Truckers probably won't have a choice. If the ring road becomes the designated truck route, then that's the route they'll have to take. 16th will be a hell of alot better once the trucks are off of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 6:52 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepstar View Post
Truckers probably won't have a choice. If the ring road becomes the designated truck route, then that's the route they'll have to take. 16th will be a hell of alot better once the trucks are off of it.
I don't think the City can force trucks to use a certain route unless they are carrying dangerous goods. Truckers will use the route that is most economical for them and that probably won't be Stoney Trail if the NW portion has lights on it. Given the rate they're going on it they could easily start building the missing interchanges now and still have them done at the same time as the rest of the project. Anyone who says going P3 is a mistake on roads hasn't been paying attention to the huge difference in progress on the government built vs. P3 built sections of 201 in Calgary and 216 in Edmonton.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 5:00 PM
Bad Grizzly's Avatar
Bad Grizzly Bad Grizzly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
I don't think the City can force trucks to use a certain route unless they are carrying dangerous goods. Truckers will use the route that is most economical for them and that probably won't be Stoney Trail if the NW portion has lights on it. Given the rate they're going on it they could easily start building the missing interchanges now and still have them done at the same time as the rest of the project. Anyone who says going P3 is a mistake on roads hasn't been paying attention to the huge difference in progress on the government built vs. P3 built sections of 201 in Calgary and 216 in Edmonton.
I thought the city could designate truck routes. Not just dangerous goods, but what roads trucks could use, with the exception of making deliveries.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 5:28 PM
MonctonGoldenFlames's Avatar
MonctonGoldenFlames MonctonGoldenFlames is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
I don't think the City can force trucks to use a certain route unless they are carrying dangerous goods. Truckers will use the route that is most economical for them and that probably won't be Stoney Trail if the NW portion has lights on it. Given the rate they're going on it they could easily start building the missing interchanges now and still have them done at the same time as the rest of the project. Anyone who says going P3 is a mistake on roads hasn't been paying attention to the huge difference in progress on the government built vs. P3 built sections of 201 in Calgary and 216 in Edmonton.

I know in my neighborhood (Mayland Heights) trucks are prohibited on 19 St except for local delivery. I'm sure it can be done elsewhere, especially where there is a new 4 lane highway to accept re-routed traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 5:45 PM
Riise's Avatar
Riise Riise is offline
City Maker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary | London
Posts: 3,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
I don't think the City can force trucks to use a certain route unless they are carrying dangerous goods.
As long as they have these they can...

__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 6:37 PM
Greco Roman Greco Roman is offline
Movin' on up
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,449
So when is construction set to be complete for this whole project?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 7:12 PM
mersar's Avatar
mersar mersar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 10,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greco Roman View Post
So when is construction set to be complete for this whole project?
Summer 2009 according to the city. Road work will be done next summer, but there are some landscaping things and sidewalks on the schedule for spring of 2009.
__________________

Live or work in the Beltline? Check out the Official Beltline web site here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 7:14 PM
You Need A Thneed's Avatar
You Need A Thneed You Need A Thneed is offline
Construction Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Castleridge, NE Calgary
Posts: 5,892
Yeah, the city sure can dictate where trucks will drive. I'm not sure if 16th Ave will remain a truck route, it still might. But Truck traffic will use the ring road anyway, because even though it will be a longer distance, the number of lights will be only 3 or 4 to start instead of 20 or so, and that's not to mention the 100 or 110 speed limit as opposed to the 60km/h that will be the posted speed through the centre of town when all the construction is done.

Truck drivers much prefer less lights, its much easier to drive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 7:20 PM
mersar's Avatar
mersar mersar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 10,083
I wouldn't be surprised if they did similar to John Laurie where trucks are prohibited only certain times (for J.L. its during the day Mon-Sat and Sunday all day from what I recall), so potentially allow trucks at night but restrict them during the day from using 16th.
__________________

Live or work in the Beltline? Check out the Official Beltline web site here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 7:27 PM
korzym's Avatar
korzym korzym is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 703
Trucks should have more restrictions, they should be required to take stoney when it's complete instead of 16th, and on top of that it should be law that they must stay in the right lane...that applies for deerfoot as well.
Benefits to 16th traffic wise are obvious, it will also help preserve the life of the pavement on 16th, if you've ever noticed that massive waves in the pavement...look no further than tractor trailers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 7:46 PM
You Need A Thneed's Avatar
You Need A Thneed You Need A Thneed is offline
Construction Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Castleridge, NE Calgary
Posts: 5,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by korzym View Post
it will also help preserve the life of the pavement on 16th, if you've ever noticed that massive waves in the pavement...look no further than tractor trailers
Caused directly by the heavy weight of the trailers, yes, but ultimately caused by improper design and construction of the road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 8:07 PM
Surrealplaces's Avatar
Surrealplaces Surrealplaces is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cowtropolis
Posts: 19,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by korzym View Post
Trucks should have more restrictions, they should be required to take stoney when it's complete instead of 16th, and on top of that it should be law that they must stay in the right lane...that applies for deerfoot as well.
Benefits to 16th traffic wise are obvious, it will also help preserve the life of the pavement on 16th, if you've ever noticed that massive waves in the pavement...look no further than tractor trailers
I agree. I'd like to see trucks off of 16th ave. The reason the pavement gets all screwed up from trucks is the sudden stop action. If they weren't stopping alot, the road probably would be fine, but that won't be the case with 16th ave of course.

Without trucks on 16th, it has the potential to become a nice urban artery.
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 > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:07 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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