Calgary Roads

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by freeweed

AADT assumes that traffic is average, throughout an annual period. On Hwy 17 (and Hwy 1 in MB before it's twinned), it most certainly is not. I've seen caravans several km long in the summer (one time I counted almost 20 minutes of continuous traffic going at around the limit of 90 km/h - do the math). And you can drive 50km between passing lanes, even with all the new ones they've put in recently. It can be and is busy at times every year, and has few passing lanes considering the congestion in certain spots.

That being said, it's a remarkable low-accident highway.

I don't like AADT so much, but it's the industry standard (and what the Ontario website reported). Nobody, not even Alberta Transportation, can afford to build transportation infrastructure to the level that it will never be busy ever. (Although they are sure trying with the ring road.) On summer weekends, intercity highways get busy, just like there is traffic on Bow Trail at 5 PM. I'm not sure that 300+ km of highway needs to be twinned because it can be busy for "almost 20 minutes"; it would probably be cheaper to hire private jets to ferry people. If there are 50 km sections without anywhere to pass, they probably should put some passing lanes in. The handful of places I checked at random all had passing lanes, so maybe I was just lucky.

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Nobody, not even Alberta Transportation, can afford to build transportation infrastructure to the level that it will never be busy ever. (Although they are sure trying with the ring road.).

I love this.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I'm not sure that 300+ km of highway needs to be twinned because it can be busy for "almost 20 minutes";

Perhaps you're misunderstanding what he meant by "20 minutes of continuous traffic". Any highways that have long lines of cars like that travelling below the posted speed should be considered for twinning, period. The Trans Canada through the Rockies has this exact same problem for at least 6 months of the year, and that's why twinning studies have been around since the 90s.

[libtard]

Now this is how you build a highway. The more I look at crowchild trail on google maps the more I'm impressed. From an aesthetics stand point, it looks great.

It's fairly functional too. The same guy that designed the basketweaves on Crow needs to be the guy that draws up the plans for Deerfoot 50 years from now when they decide to fix it.

Widening of 36 St NE from 2 lanes to 4 between 80 Ave and CHB begins today.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Acey

Widening of 36 St NE from 2 lanes to 4 between 80 Ave and CHB begins today.

And the connection to Airport Trail tunnel. 36th Street will be closed from today until sometime in August to let this work be done.

Also, I believe that 36th Street is only being widened between Airport Trail and CHB. Between 80th Ave and Airport Trail, it will remain 2 lanes.

Also, here's the April update for the tunnel:

April 2013 Airport Trail Tunnel update.

[You Need A Thneed]

36th Steet Closure webpage.

Map & Detour

Also underway in the NE is McKnight bridge rehab over Deerfoot. My condolences to residents of the NE.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Acey

Also underway in the NE is McKnight bridge rehab over Deerfoot. My condolences to residents of the NE.

Not the Bridge over Deerfoot, but rather, the bridge over Nose Creek:

Link.

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Not the Bridge over Deerfoot, but rather, the bridge over Nose Creek:

Link.

Ahh, that explains why the digital signs were both down at the end. Well that hurts slightly less than if it were the Deerfoot bridge. Still going to be quite unpleasant if WB is down to one lane at any point, since it already backs up from Centre to 12 St. Fail.

[Cruzer]

Originally Posted by Acey

Ahh, that explains why the digital signs were both down at the end. Well that hurts slightly less than if it were the Deerfoot bridge. Still going to be quite unpleasant if WB is down to one lane at any point, since it already backs up from Centre to 12 St. Fail.

And usually to 19 St/McCall Way... I frequent the road almost every single day for work, possibly one of the worst stretches of road in the North IMO.

Originally Posted by Cruzer

And usually to 19 St/McCall Way... I frequent the road almost every single day for work, possibly one of the worst stretches of road in the North IMO.

What's disappointing is the fact that it's so far over capacity, that Airport Trail could open tomorrow as a 6 lane freeway from Deerfoot to Stoney, and would it even make a difference? And the fact that Airport Tr is quite a bit out of the way. It's the only relief in sight but I dunno how much help it'll actually be.

[Cruzer]

Originally Posted by Acey

What's disappointing is the fact that it's so far over capacity, that Airport Trail could open tomorrow as a 6 lane freeway from Deerfoot to Stoney, and would it even make a difference? And the fact that Airport Tr is quite a bit out of the way. It's the only relief in sight but I dunno how much help it'll actually be.

Yep! Hard to say what you could do with that road to improve it without investing upwards of $1.5B? Having it go 6 THRU lanes from Edmonton Trail to McCall Way would really only add to the problem unless the interchanges at 12 St NE and McCall Way NE (if there is one planned for that intersection?) undergo immediately... and omg, PLEASE take out that STUPID left turn on EB McKnight to NB Deerfoot, either extend that left turn lane 250+ metres or take it out entirely. Not only does it backup left lane traffic nearly to Edmonton Trail but it is a MAJOR danger for people looking to cut into right lane traffic already going 70-80km/h when it is backed up. Airport Trail will only slightly improve congestion but lets face it, McKnight has to be one of the most driven roads (with the WORST congestion) in the North asides from 16th and Stoney... Not much can be done with 32nd Ave unless its risen and just has service roads go to all the amenities, I don't imagine that would sit well with planners. Something has to be done with McKnight soon otherwise we can safely retain the title for Worst NA City for Traffic. It's not rocket science, I'm sure Ric McIvor knows what we're talking about.

Originally Posted by Cruzer

we can safely retain the title for Worst NA City for Traffic.

Well I don't know if we ever had that, but our roads were certainly planned and built with the utmost of incompetence and I don't care how smart these traffic engineers are, but some of the things they do are downright moronic and dangerous, like the turn you mention. How is something as horrendous and pathetic as McKnight allowed to happen?

I complained about McKnight earlier in this thread, and the sentiment around here seems to be, "if anything, our roads are overbuilt. Take the train". The city seems to agree... so what can ya do.

[Cruzer]

Originally Posted by Acey

Well I don't know if we ever had that, but our roads were certainly planned and built with the utmost of incompetence and I don't care how smart these traffic engineers are, but some of the things they do are downright moronic and dangerous, like the turn you mention. How is something as horrendous and pathetic as McKnight allowed to happen?

I complained about McKnight earlier in this thread, and the sentiment around here seems to be, "if anything, our roads are overbuilt. Take the train". The city seems to agree... so what can ya do.

I might have exaggerated a bit but I'm sure we landed somewhere near the top 5~ for North America.... Pretty outrageous for a city for our size/population. I'll give the engineers a bit of slack and say that maybe they didn't account for such a population boom that we experienced in recent decades but come on now, these are not 'unfixable' things... We already have a well established LRT infrastructure that is almost near capacity but yet, so are our roads... So I don't see what difference it would make? Divide it half/half, you're not going to boot 500,000 drivers off the road and cram them into an already overloaded LRT, you're not going to do it to 250,000 or even 100,000. Drivers will always be there because it is CONVENIENT to drive (and many other reasons), whereas LRT/Bus will always be limited, time-constraint and again, overcrowded. Of course those who need to take LRT/Bus will, and I'm not saying that I don't.... I merely only use it when it is convenient, although don't get me wrong, I do support LRT 100% and am thankful it is here and built to the extent that it is. But we need to stop ignoring our roads. A great LRT system does make a city great, but so do our roads, they go hand-in-hand and so far our roads really aren't living up to expectation. Throw a 401 style freeway with feeder roads in place of Deerfoot and you may be able to change my mind, but for a metro of almost 1.3m, we're seriously lacking.

[Yahoo]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

This is the most ridiculous thing you've written here, seriously. I'm not even sure where to begin with what you've said, other than to note that I'm looking at a bunch of pages right now about road design tables and clear zone distances and they ALL have large factors of safety built into them. What recent project can you name that sacrifices safety to the point where you are concerned for your well being?

The common thing people note about projects like Stoney and Anthony Henday is how "easy" it is to speed. It's largely barrier free, has wide shoulders, lots of green space, and long curves. Compare some of the old interchanges on Highway 2 to the new ones built in places like Highway 1 at Langdon. We've come a long way in road design, but you're insisting that we're sacrificing safety to satisfy a politicians' grand designs?

A politician will probably get the project the headway it needs to get started. Once the design starts, they have no say whatsoever on it. They agreed to the project being done, now it's in the hands of the engineers to design and build it. The only time where design exceptions will happen are in retrofit situations, since it can be very difficult to shoehorn newer design standards into a 50 year old interchange.

There will always be a cost/benefit look into everything from collisions/fatalities. We can't put bubble wrap on everything, unfortunately. Design standards have accounted for that cost/benefit model (which I believe you can view yourself if you wish on Alberta Transportation's website) and ensure a high level of safety without being exceedingly expensive, and even then, those standards are minimums, and are regularly exceeded for driver comfort.

In the end, road designs are governed by safety first, not second or third. I don't put a substandard curve in a road to save money, because it wouldn't be approved.

You obviously work in the industry and unfortunately you remind me of the auto industry of old - believing they knew best and they were doing the right thing. Reluctant to add safety belts. Reluctant to add air-bags or other safety features, reluctant to recall vehicles with serious safety issues - believing your industry was safe - just to save costs. It took quite a while for that industry to realize that rather than be scared by safety features the public as happy to pay for them and happy to buy safer vehicles. Obviously you need to quit just looking at tables and rules and add common sense into it too. Stand back when you're done your design and take 10 seconds to imagine what could go wrong. Imagine how a distracted driver or bad weather could make what appears to be a safe road much more dangerous than it needs to be since your design only met the minimum safety standard.

I realize that we have safety standards and rules and they're definitely better than they used to be. What you don't get is that the standards and rules have a minimum and when money is involved the minimum is often what is used (blame politicians and/or designers when those decisions are made). And all too often the minimum isn't good enough to prevent predictable accidents.

Do you seriously think every roadway is built to maximum modern safety standards? Let me guess - you also believe cars, trucks, and buses can safely "share" a lane of traffic with a bike?

Do you seriously think that deaths and accidents can't easily be predicted by even members of the public when an unsafe but legal design is accepted?

In the real world a lot of compromises are built in. And in road construction it's a simple FACT that safety is NOT the priority. Sure, politicians and industry workers will dispute that, but that doesn't make it a fact. The death and injury tolls prove it. Accidents are too often just attributed to human error, ignoring that road design is often a major factor in fatalities.

A little common sense and you can make a massive improvement in transportation. For example the citizens and businesses were frustrated by the awful conditions on our roads sometimes days or even weeks after a snow storm. The fix was easy and obvious - to everyone except for the experts responsible. "Experts" that couldn't understand the economic and life quality impact of icy roads - let alone the safety disaster that was being ignored.

Here are a few simple examples of safety being far from priority 1:

- Look at the highway upgrades in BC. Check out the comments section in those forums and the links to the designs. You'll see all kinds of newly divided 100 kph sections of highway planned to be built without safety barriers or medians separating oncoming traffic. Room is left to add them later - likely when the death and accident count makes it politically worth while. Someone will lose a family member or be crippled simply because safety was NOT the priority.

- Deerfoot Trail north. When Deerfoot trail was built barriers were left out of the design for the north section. Nobody with common sense knew why. After the body count continued to rise the province finally decided to act. Unfortunately more deaths occurred as delays in construction were added. Preventing oncoming traffic from running into each other is safety 101. Yet how many very busy roads are built without barriers?

- Stoney Trail NW. There are at least 2 areas on high speed curves where traffic is expected to merge left while curving right. Completely unsafe for people unfamiliar with the road - and easily fixable. Try entering the Stoney Bow River bridge heading north from 16th westbound during rush hour and you'll see one such "compromise" on safety. Not a day goes by were an accident is narrowly avoided. I'm sure it meets the minimum standard and conforms to all the safety rules - but all you have to do is stand there and watch traffic for 30 minutes and you'll see a huge safety flaw in the design.

- Even simple things like repainting lines when needed, or repainting them properly could prevent accidents. I've seen roads where the line painting on merges seems up to the painter. Areas that were solid are painted dashed at the discretion of the crew and danger to the public.

- Stoney Trail NW. Overpasses and interchanges were announced at every intersection - all except on one. That was Nose Hill drive - where a death occurred almost immediately when the road was opened. You have a high speed interchange with traffic lights at the base of a steep hill! There is also a curve at the interchange which made for an almost blind left hand turn (depending on visibility and traffic). It cost at least 1 more person her life. If safety was a priority the most dangerous intersection would have been the first to receive an interchange. Instead it was the last interchange to be built on Stoney.

- Sarcee Trail N by Bow. Concrete barriers were added only after not just 1, but 2 completely predictable head on accidents resulting in deaths. A child could tell that barriers were needed. Yet even after the first death they weren't added. And after the second death they were added, but only on a short section. I guess they'll add more only after some more people pay with their lives. Strange - the road designer didn't see a problem even when checking all his tables and rule books.

- Someone criticizing one of my comments suggested that at-grade pedestrian crossings on main roads are safe - and are in fact easier and safer for people in wheelchairs to use. Unfortunately the guy probably works in the industry and truly believes that vehicles and people sharing a road are safe. He probably also believes that trains intersecting traffic are safe too. I understand why it's sometimes done - but to suggest it's done for safety reasons shows that some in the industry are out of touch with reality. When trains, bikes, people, and motorized vehicles mix it's easy for anyone with common sense to predict accidents and fatalities. Yet why for example do some 8 lane main roads in Calgary still have at-grade crosswalks? (I guess because it's safe according to the design guidelines)

The fact is that there are lists of the most dangerous intersections and roads - and quite often they are ignored for decades even if something as simple as a concrete barrier could resolve the death count. (and does anyone ask why the barrier wasn't there to begin with?)

When there is a death on a construction site it's a big deal. When there is an aircraft crash it's a big deal. When there is a car accident it's simply "call an ambulance or hearse, call insurance and remove the wreckage". There is no inquest or anything more than fleeting action taken to prevent the identical accident now is there? Yet far more people die on roads then on construction sites or airplane crashes. We (the road design industry) just think they're acceptable.

I understand money is often the deciding factor. We can't bubble wrap the world - but I stand by what I've said. Often times safety budgets are behind art, landscaping, and material choice - simply because the designer would sooner build a copper roof on an LRT station then spend that money on another pedestrian overpass. I'm not suggesting that we should abandon art and landscaping or making things look nice. But don't claim that safety is priority one when it isn't. Minimum safety is priority one and that's all. Read the forum and you'll see people complaining about safety issues all the time. These aren't oversites - these are conscious decisions to compromise on safety. Minimum safety standards are just that.

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by Cruzer

Yep! Hard to say what you could do with that road to improve it without investing upwards of $1.5B? Having it go 6 THRU lanes from Edmonton Trail to McCall Way would really only add to the problem unless the interchanges at 12 St NE and McCall Way NE (if there is one planned for that intersection?) undergo immediately...

I agree, McKnight could stand some major improvements and it seems to be the most ignored major route. Although a freeway would be ideal, there isn’t the money or the political will. At the very least, McKnight needs to be widened to 6 lanes from 4 St NW to McCall Way.

Interchanges are ultimately needed, but what if the city did other improvements to delay need to construct interchange in favor of other more pressing locations in the city? Take 12 St NE, for eastbound traffic, there’s only two through lanes plus the merge lane from NB Deerfoot --> EB McKnight serves as a turn lane to SB 12 St so there’s a huge amount of weaving when the light isn’t red. Furthermore, any traffic originating from Deerfoot Trail and needs to make a left turn onto 12 St NE has to cross all of McKnight is a short time period. I’m thinking a short-term solution would be to ban left turns at 12 St NE for eastbound McKnight, have 3 through lanes, and then utilize a jughandle via 14 St NE and 45 Ave NE (a westbound jughandle could also be constructed). Later one when the 12 St NE interchange is constructed, the jughandles become the offramps for McKnight.

As for McCall Way, I suspect the backups are because it’s 6 lanes east of McCall approaching Barlow Trail, so westbound through traffic is forced to merge while eastbound traffic is still squeezed in two lanes. If the intersection had 6 through lanes, I suspect the backups wouldn’t be as bad.

Originally Posted by Cruzer

and omg, PLEASE take out that STUPID left turn on EB McKnight to NB Deerfoot, either extend that left turn lane 250+ metres or take it out entirely. Not only does it backup left lane traffic nearly to Edmonton Trail but it is a MAJOR danger for people looking to cut into right lane traffic already going 70-80km/h when it is backed up.

I agree. The left turn lanes needs to be extended, same with the left turn lane to go from westbound McKnight to southbound Edmonton. If/when they construct a 12 St NE interchange, they should improve the Deerfoot interchange to total free flow as well – maybe a flyover for the interchange to mirror the McKnight/Metis Trail interchange.

Originally Posted by Cruzer

Airport Trail will only slightly improve congestion but lets face it, McKnight has to be one of the most driven roads (with the WORST congestion) in the North asides from 16th and Stoney... Not much can be done with 32nd Ave unless its risen and just has service roads go to all the amenities, I don't imagine that would sit well with planners. Something has to be done with McKnight soon otherwise we can safely retain the title for Worst NA City for Traffic. It's not rocket science, I'm sure Ric McIvor knows what we're talking about.

As someone who uses the McKnight/Deerfoot interchange on a daily basis, I noticed a significant increase in congestion when Barlow Trail was closed; now all the traffic that used Country Hills Blvd & Barlow Trail is forced to use Deerfoot and McKnight. Airport Trail & Metis Trail will likely alleviate some of the pressure, but it still.

I don't even like the idea of trying to fix McKnight. It's f!cked up so far beyond anything that can be repaired unless you've got $1B and the will to bulldoze a bunch of stuff, we're just going to have to deal with it. I'd rather see the $1B spent fixing Crowchild which is arguably an even bigger joke.

Just make Airport Trail a FREEWAY from Deerfoot to Stoney, not these "expressway" things they like to build which really just means "parking lot during any daylight hour". The concept of a proper freeway is so damn foreign to Alberta that even that won't get done, but it's the only place to start, IMO.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Yahoo

Obviously you need to quit just looking at tables and rules and add common sense into it too. Stand back when you're done your design and take 10 seconds to imagine what could go wrong.

Considering the people designing these roads probably drive more than anyone on this forum? Yeah, I think they look outside the tables a bit. The amount of reviews a project goes through is sometimes ridiculous, as well. Wonder where all your tax dollars to employ these people go? So they can harass designers to make sure everything is right. They can pick out some pretty minute details, let me tell you.

Originally Posted by Yahoo

A little common sense and you can make a massive improvement in transportation. For example the citizens and businesses were frustrated by the awful conditions on our roads sometimes days or even weeks after a snow storm. The fix was easy and obvious - to everyone except for the experts responsible. "Experts" that couldn't understand the economic and life quality impact of icy roads - let alone the safety disaster that was being ignored.

A little common sense also says that people need to drive to the conditions more often. This sadly doesn't happen nearly enough. There is no snow clearing budget in the world that can do what you're suggesting. Speaking of common sense, some of the people who review our stuff don't have design experience, only real life experience. Their suggestions are just as valuable as an engineer's or safety auditor's suggestions.

Originally Posted by Yahoo

Stoney Trail NW. Overpasses and interchanges were announced at every intersection - all except on one. That was Nose Hill drive - where a death occurred almost immediately when the road was opened. You have a high speed interchange with traffic lights at the base of a steep hill! There is also a curve at the interchange which made for an almost blind left hand turn (depending on visibility and traffic). It cost at least 1 more person her life. If safety was a priority the most dangerous intersection would have been the first to receive an interchange. Instead it was the last interchange to be built on Stoney.

I would suggest Nose Hill was a special case, but I doubt you'd care. To me, it appears that they were looking at doing Nose Hill when they twinned the Bow River bridge. To do it first would mean some other desperately needed interchanges on Stoney would have been left. I'm sure if they did Nose Hill, the City and the residents of the NW would be bitterly complaining about accidents at Crowchild Trail. It's nice that they went ahead with Nose Hill anyway, but it's not a great situation for Stoney until they twin the Bow River bridge.

Originally Posted by Yahoo

The fact is that there are lists of the most dangerous intersections and roads - and quite often they are ignored for decades even if something as simple as a concrete barrier could resolve the death count. (and does anyone ask why the barrier wasn't there to begin with?)

If a concrete barrier was the simple answer, then why is it not done immediately? Sometimes, even those magic barriers of yours can be the cause injuries, deaths, and more issues for the road. It's not that simple, sadly. It could be something like there is already a plan to improve the intersection, but it doesn't have funding. It could be a land owner fighting the City and preventing the project from happening. It could be that the intersection improvement is tied to a much larger project that needs to happen at the same time. Sometimes we get lucky and the City pushes through a big project even when it's not immediately necessary (Airport Tunnel), and many times we don't.

Originally Posted by Yahoo

When there is a death on a construction site it's a big deal. When there is an aircraft crash it's a big deal. When there is a car accident it's simply "call an ambulance or hearse, call insurance and remove the wreckage". There is no inquest or anything more than fleeting action taken to prevent the identical accident now is there?

Have you been involved in a serious accident or traffic fatality before? I don't know if you're aware of the sometimes multi-year legal battles that are waged over car accidents you've never heard about. These aren't "sexy" enough to get coverage in the news (which is where you're getting the "big deal" stories from), but many times the government is called upon to prove their design wasn't the reason for the death, and the engineer of record has to testify against Insurance Company lawyers. Happens much more often than you think.

Originally Posted by Yahoo

I understand money is often the deciding factor. We can't bubble wrap the world - but I stand by what I've said. Often times safety budgets are behind art, landscaping, and material choice - simply because the designer would sooner build a copper roof on an LRT station then spend that money on another pedestrian overpass.

Safety budgets are incorporated into the roads. I suppose if you look at the tender package of a road project and price out just the safety features, you can put a price on it, and I can guarantee you it will beat out Art, Landscaping or any other aesthetic feature in cost. I suppose if you removed every copper roof on WLRT, you MIGHT be able to afford a really cheap pedestrian bridge. Maybe.

Anyway, if you go to Alberta Transportation's site and look at their Highway Design Guide, you can see a clear Cost/Risk analysis tool at work, and yes...they put a price on your car, and your body. Chapter G, Appendix A and B have examples. How much does it cost the government every time a car crashes? When someone dies? How much will cost to install a median barrier based on the probability of a fatality occuring in this stretch of road? A road user's life is reduced to numbers.

It may not sound friendly or nice, but it's the reason North America in general enjoys some of the best roads. We have these analysis tools, and then are told to exceed them whenever possible (which happens regularly in the flat prairies). You'll be hard pressed to find a project built in the last decade or so that uses minimum standards for something.

During the design of Stoney Trail, I can recall a few things being added to design standards for additional safety: Taller concrete barriers on bridges to prevent overturning trucks from leaving the road, additional wrong way signs on ramps and the mainline at each interchange, wider shoulders on ramps, the highest test level barriers had to be used in all cases along the roadway, the minimum retro-reflectivity of all signs was increased to the newest standard (diamond grade), and the clear zone was increased. All these changes added millions of dollars to the cost of Stoney, and most were added because someone asked "what if this happens?" (Correct me if I missed anything, Jimmy Z. )

What I'm trying to get at is your view that these tables and standards are flawed or unsafe is incorrect. If the warrant says there should be a barrier immediately, they would put a barrier immediately. Some very far edge cases are considered in design frequently, and those cases are the designers thinking about real world examples, not just the numbers.

If it's something that is "plainly obvious", there's a good chance it's already been documented and they probably have a plan to fix or remedy the problem spot. They do bow to public pressure often though, I can agree on that. Highway 63 really got moving this year, didn't it?