HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7261  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2017, 4:03 PM
MalcolmTucker's Avatar
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,840
I imagine the city has no business making representations about the province's project?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7262  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2017, 5:33 PM
5seconds's Avatar
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,473
Possibly. I think what happened is that a few years ago the City did their own study of the impacts of the ring road crossing, which concluded with a number of concerns. That report is being used by the group fighting the berm design as evidence of the unsuitability of the Province's plan, so it appeared that the City wanted to essentially create an 'update', showing that the revised plans are now meeting the City's expectations. I would be interested to hear if the FAQ was not appreciated by the Province, or if there was another reason to take it off their site.

It will be interesting to see how any further opposition plays out, though I believe that Alberta Environment and Parks has dismissed the submissions made by those opposed to the berm, as complainants were not 'directly impacted' by the works.
__________________
My Southwest Calgary Ring Road Blog: calgaryringroad.wordpress.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7263  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2017, 8:12 PM
5seconds's Avatar
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,473
Something's going on with the environmental approvals on the elbow river crossing and the filling in of wetlands along that part of the ring road route. A temporary stay of the previous approval may have been issued by the Environmental Appeals Board.

"...in part, the issuance of the stay is based on the Board’s view that the filling in of the wetlands as authorized under the approval will be irreparable for all practical purposes."
__________________
My Southwest Calgary Ring Road Blog: calgaryringroad.wordpress.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7264  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2017, 2:59 AM
sammyd sammyd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 33
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7265  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2017, 4:11 PM
5seconds's Avatar
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,473
YYC Cares issued a statement here, and there was a very interesting assertion in it regarding the future of outer ring roads around Calgary:

Quote:
...The Minister of Transportation & Infrastructure, Brian Mason, issued on June 14, 2017 an internal memorandum to Deputy Minister, Barry Day regarding Edmonton and Calgary "outer ring roads". In this memorandum the Minister states:

"Over the next 10 years, we are going to see more changes in the way people use our transportation systems than we have in the last 50 years. Given the rapid changes we expect to see, it is important that we rethink how we plan our network. As demographics and technology change and evolve, we need to ensure we are not planning to encourage urban sprawl. Outer ring roads do not align with that vision and I would like to confirm future network planning will not include outer ring roads."
(emphasis added)

The group is saying that if the Elbow river crossing is never going to have 16 lanes, then they could put the money that would have gone into a 16 lane berm/bridge into an 8 lane open bridge.
__________________
My Southwest Calgary Ring Road Blog: calgaryringroad.wordpress.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7266  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2017, 8:38 PM
Acey Acey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern Hills
Posts: 2,390
All one has to do is loosen the definition of what they deem to be a ring road.

It doesn't have to be a greenfield project on a new alignment. If you consider that planning studies for future twinning of 22, 567, and 9 have been completed. Do all that and boom... you've got more than half of an outer ring road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7267  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2017, 10:36 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,593
So that confirms what I said and thought all along. Building a ROW for 16 lanes was a massive waste of land and money, and now leaves us with an eyesore of a road that is much wider than it needs to be. Even if we somehow stumble into a future where we absolutely have to have a full outer ring road, there is no reason why it couldn't run through a regular 6,8 or 10 lane divided freeway concurrently with the inner ring road in that section.

Anyone have any creative ideas to use a 200m wide strip of useless highway median now?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7268  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2017, 3:02 AM
Doug Doug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
So that confirms what I said and thought all along. Building a ROW for 16 lanes was a massive waste of land and money, and now leaves us with an eyesore of a road that is much wider than it needs to be. Even if we somehow stumble into a future where we absolutely have to have a full outer ring road, there is no reason why it couldn't run through a regular 6,8 or 10 lane divided freeway concurrently with the inner ring road in that section.

Anyone have any creative ideas to use a 200m wide strip of useless highway median now?
Radial light rail line from Seton to Westhills to Foothills.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7269  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2017, 3:02 AM
Acey Acey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern Hills
Posts: 2,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
there is no reason why it couldn't run through a regular 6,8 or 10 lane divided freeway concurrently with the inner ring road in that section.
The reason, obviously, is that AB Trans had previously run analysis that showed a regular divided freeway would have been unable to properly perform that duty.

It confirms what you thought all along because AB Trans has now changed their position such that they deem an upgraded Highway 22 to be a sufficient component of an upgraded outer road network. Given the aforementioned plans for twinning of outer highways, and Highways 60/21/19 around YEG where significant twinning is already done and continues in the case of Highway 19, it's clear that AB Trans is not moving away from the automobile by any stretch of the imagination. It seems unlikely that they will tomorrow release a presser saying they are abandoning the vision for a ultimately divided highway between Saskatoon and Calgary, or that they are no longer are interested in Highway 22... unlikely given that they're upgrading it as we speak. By upgrading these facilities to controlled-access divided highways, you begin to form what is objectively an outer ring roadbut is not classed as such.

Prior to this, there was clearly a long-term vision for high capacity greenfield outer ring roads, so wisely it was decided to construct SWRR with contingency such that incorporating such a vision into the existing road would not be prohibitively expensive. The ministry has now decided that the possibility is zero, so they are considering removing the contingency. All I ever argued was that if they considered the possibility to be something greater than zero, then the contingency should be included. From my perspective, Mason has made a distinction here to state that plans for the grander concept of a high capacity outer ring are those that have been determined to be overkill, which in turn allows SWRR's contingency to be scaled back. The implication is that they still believe the collector-distributor system would have had valid function in a high capacity outer system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7270  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2017, 11:20 PM
sammyd sammyd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 33
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...xpected-friday

$100 000 per day delayed. Awesome system we have.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7271  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2017, 11:56 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
Radial light rail line from Seton to Westhills to Foothills.
Apologies, I exagerated a little bit. If the ROW is anything like the similar section of Highway 2 leading into Edmonton, then the wasted median is about 100m:



Still, you use 10m of that on a railway or something, hard to think of much use for the other 90m of wasted land we have for effective perpetuity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acey View Post
The reason, obviously, is that AB Trans had previously run analysis that showed a regular divided freeway would have been unable to properly perform that duty.

It confirms what you thought all along because AB Trans has now changed their position such that they deem an upgraded Highway 22 to be a sufficient component of an upgraded outer road network. Given the aforementioned plans for twinning of outer highways, and Highways 60/21/19 around YEG where significant twinning is already done and continues in the case of Highway 19, it's clear that AB Trans is not moving away from the automobile by any stretch of the imagination. It seems unlikely that they will tomorrow release a presser saying they are abandoning the vision for a ultimately divided highway between Saskatoon and Calgary, or that they are no longer are interested in Highway 22... unlikely given that they're upgrading it as we speak. By upgrading these facilities to controlled-access divided highways, you begin to form what is objectively an outer ring roadbut is not classed as such.

Prior to this, there was clearly a long-term vision for high capacity greenfield outer ring roads, so wisely it was decided to construct SWRR with contingency such that incorporating such a vision into the existing road would not be prohibitively expensive. The ministry has now decided that the possibility is zero, so they are considering removing the contingency. All I ever argued was that if they considered the possibility to be something greater than zero, then the contingency should be included. From my perspective, Mason has made a distinction here to state that plans for the grander concept of a high capacity outer ring are those that have been determined to be overkill, which in turn allows SWRR's contingency to be scaled back. The implication is that they still believe the collector-distributor system would have had valid function in a high capacity outer system.
AB Trans don't have a universe simulator, there is no way they could build an accurate model/simulation to justify the collector/distributor road they had 'planned'. There simply isn't the data, considering there is no road there now and the Province and City are the ones deciding where future growth goes. Also, a non zero chance of something happening is a terrible business case for spending tens or hundreds of millions to future proof for a plan that we have no proof ever existed, especially when the negative effects of not future proofing are completely benign.

-----------

But anyway, we are where we are now (due to decades of incompetence and bad decisions). I imagine it's too late now to build a normal freeway without oversized useless overpasses and unnecessarily gigantic, so are we forever lumbered with all that wasted land?

How could they not have come to realise that "future network planning will not include outer ring roads" a couple of years ago, when they were designing this road? Perhaps we would be closer to building the whole thing, with a proper bridge over the Elbow if they had?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7272  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2017, 2:28 AM
MalcolmTucker's Avatar
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,840
Key word is we, as in the province. All that land is reserved for who knows what - pipelines, roads, rail, power lines, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7273  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2017, 5:17 AM
technomad's Avatar
technomad technomad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Everywhere/Nowhere
Posts: 368
Agree that a greenfield outer ring road probably isn't needed, but SW Stoney may still end up being the hwy1 route someday, so no issues with having expansion space, even if it does seem excessive now

WRT to the Elbow crossing, could the 1% public art component for the project go towards a better looking, less intrusive bridge?
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure" - Aldous Huxley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7274  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2017, 8:34 AM
Acey Acey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern Hills
Posts: 2,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Also, a non zero chance of something happening is a terrible business case for spending tens or hundreds of millions to future proof for a plan that we have no proof ever existed, especially when the negative effects of not future proofing are completely benign.
AB Trans has been conservative in their estimates on the ring roads thus far. They underestimated volume on SW Henday by about half. NW Stoney estimates were off, resulting in the widening to the current six lanes a few years sooner than they anticipated. NE Stoney estimates were off, and will need widening sooner than they had hoped. The eastbound to northbound movement at Glenmore Trail was significantly underestimated. The Campbell Road situation on Henday. The Crowchild situation in the NW. There's so many tangible instances of them using conservative estimates on the ring roads... it is laughable to even consider the possibility that a plan might not have existed and they intended to throw away those hundreds of millions for literally no reason.

This is the Calgary thread so I don't expect you to know the intricacies of what has gone on with Henday since 2000, but it's clearly had a big impact on what has gone on here. To develop this system on what I erroneously called a "non-zero chance" would be such an outlier based on the decisions made thus far... I honestly don't understand how you could even take that position even knowing nothing about Henday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Apologies, I exagerated a little bit. If the ROW is anything like the similar section of Highway 2 leading into Edmonton
For what it's worth, the plans for that ROW that you unsurprisingly call a waste are neatly detailed on the AB Trans website, as is pretty much everything else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7275  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2017, 9:02 AM
Acey Acey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern Hills
Posts: 2,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Perhaps we would be closer to building the whole thing, with a proper bridge over the Elbow if they had?
I don't see how a realization at any point that a "future network planning will not include outer ring roads" would change anything, given that the hold up in SWRR up to 2013 was the acquisition of land from TTN. You may also recall that the specific amount of ROW the province was attempting to acquire is not what made the 2009 deal fail. Discussion about how SWRR could have been expedited then shifts to the merits of bulldozing homes in Lakeview et al.; I don't see how that discussion would be affected by concurrent long-term plans for an outer ring.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7276  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2017, 11:46 AM
Fuzz's Avatar
Fuzz Fuzz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by technomad View Post
Agree that a greenfield outer ring road probably isn't needed, but SW Stoney may still end up being the hwy1 route someday, so no issues with having expansion space, even if it does seem excessive now

WRT to the Elbow crossing, could the 1% public art component for the project go towards a better looking, less intrusive bridge?
The public art 1% is a city rule, not provincial.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7277  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2017, 7:56 PM
Acey Acey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern Hills
Posts: 2,390
Quote:
The Contractor shall develop and incorporate in its design an aesthetic theme throughout the New Infrastructure that complements the surrounding environment. As much as is practical, architectural treatments shall be similar to the northeast and southeast legs of the Calgary Ring Road.
The extent of which is the mountain rendering on MSE walls, wild rose emblems on wing walls, and cream/rose coloured sealers on concrete bridges.

No blue rings or random girders supporting a piece of rock.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7278  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2017, 10:13 PM
Rollerstud98 Rollerstud98 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acey View Post
The extent of which is the mountain rendering on MSE walls, wild rose emblems on wing walls, and cream/rose coloured sealers on concrete bridges.

No blue rings or random girders supporting a piece of rock.
So much better, even the fish on glenmore kick the shit out of the blue ring and the bowfort towers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7279  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2017, 10:15 PM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 8,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acey View Post
The extent of which is the mountain rendering on MSE walls, wild rose emblems on wing walls, and cream/rose coloured sealers on concrete bridges.

No blue rings or random girders supporting a piece of rock.
I like that kind of thing, as simple as it might be.

For me personally when it comes to highway infrastructure, I'd prefer a bit of extra spend on the aesthetics such as that, rather than art 'pieces'.
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Development Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7280  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2017, 1:15 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acey View Post
AB Trans has been conservative in their estimates on the ring roads thus far. They underestimated volume on SW Henday by about half. NW Stoney estimates were off, resulting in the widening to the current six lanes a few years sooner than they anticipated. NE Stoney estimates were off, and will need widening sooner than they had hoped. The eastbound to northbound movement at Glenmore Trail was significantly underestimated. The Campbell Road situation on Henday. The Crowchild situation in the NW. There's so many tangible instances of them using conservative estimates on the ring roads... it is laughable to even consider the possibility that a plan might not have existed and they intended to throw away those hundreds of millions for literally no reason.

This is the Calgary thread so I don't expect you to know the intricacies of what has gone on with Henday since 2000, but it's clearly had a big impact on what has gone on here. To develop this system on what I erroneously called a "non-zero chance" would be such an outlier based on the decisions made thus far... I honestly don't understand how you could even take that position even knowing nothing about Henday.



For what it's worth, the plans for that ROW that you unsurprisingly call a waste are neatly detailed on the AB Trans website, as is pretty much everything else.
I travel the SW Henday regularly, I agree it is underbuilt and needs another lane. But that is a completely different scale - there is a big difference between a 4 lane freeway needing a few more lanes, and planning for a 4x4 collector/distributor for what will likely be the least traveled section of ring road. How much traffic does Deerfoot handle with 6 lanes? Close to 200,000 vehicles a day? It cannot possibly be reasonable to plan for a future where the only solution is a road with more than twice that capacity, when we can decide where future growth goes.

I am also aware that Highway 2 into Edmonton was built with a future C/D system planned (that's why I used it as an example...) - I have much less of a problem with this because the Province actually has plans, unlike this nebulous concept of outer ring roads which appears to have never had much thought put into it. The Province has released all the plans for countless other road projects they have, even ones they don't plan on building for decades. Why is there next to no mention of an ORR in any of these? You're right, it is laughable that the province has wasted money on future proofing for a plan that never appears to have existed.

Anyway, there's not much point labouring this, we both know each others positions. My question is do we think the express lanes will ever be used? Since they will be graded and the overpasses mostly built, the marginal cost of adding them later won't be huge, but I can't see how their use would ever be justified unless we put another Calgary sized city at either end.
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 4:56 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.