HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2008, 5:44 PM
shreddog shreddog is offline
Beer me Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NW Laurasia
Posts: 2,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge View Post
Re: 24th ave, wasn't the original plan only utilizing 24th ave *west* of crowchild? vs 24th ave through the north hill communities? Or did I misinterpret mersar's post? That said I don't quite understand where the TCH would route between Shaganappi and 'hooked back into 16th just west of 53rd street'.
The plan indicates that it would have followed the routing of 24th Ave all the way to 52rd St NE. See this map http://albertaroads.homestead.com/Ca...70planTCH4.jpg
__________________
Calgary: We do more DP's per capita than anyone else!!

Do something about your future.

Last edited by shreddog; Mar 17, 2008 at 5:52 PM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2008, 5:47 PM
mersar's Avatar
mersar mersar is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 9,699
Yep, starting from roughly 53rd Street NW to 52nd Street NE it was to follow roughly where 24th is. On the west side it would have diverged to follow 24th immediately after it crossed the Bow (at the same location as it does currently), then crossed Shaganappi, and followed 24th pretty much due east with one dip south to bypass Queens Park.
__________________

Live or work in the Beltline? Check out the Official Beltline web site here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2008, 5:56 PM
shreddog shreddog is offline
Beer me Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NW Laurasia
Posts: 2,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by mersar View Post
... and followed 24th pretty much due east with one dip south to bypass Queens Park.
Actually, the dip is to accomodate Confederation Park. Queen's Park the cemetary is north of 32nd Ave on 4th St so no dip needed, whereas Queen's Park the school would have been replaced by 3 lanes of west bound traffic!

As would have my house!
__________________
Calgary: We do more DP's per capita than anyone else!!

Do something about your future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2008, 6:09 PM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddog View Post
The plan indicates that it would have followed the routing of 24th Ave all the way to 52rd St NE. See this map http://albertaroads.homestead.com/Ca...70planTCH4.jpg
And to think that I missed out on living 2 blocks away from all that.. ugh.
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Development Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2008, 6:14 PM
mersar's Avatar
mersar mersar is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 9,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddog View Post
Actually, the dip is to accomodate Confederation Park. Queen's Park the cemetary is north of 32nd Ave on 4th St so no dip needed, whereas Queen's Park the school would have been replaced by 3 lanes of west bound traffic!

As would have my house!
Woops, yep you are right. Serves me for posting while on the phone at work.
__________________

Live or work in the Beltline? Check out the Official Beltline web site here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2008, 6:24 PM
lubicon's Avatar
lubicon lubicon is offline
Suburban dweller
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Calgary - our road planners are as bad as yours Edmonton
Posts: 3,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by defaultuser View Post
Is it really so bad that people traveling through our fair city are burdened by a few traffic lights and a slower speed limit? I mean, this place is in the middle of nowhere in the grand scheme of things, so why not slow down and take in the awesomeness that is Calgary. What else is there?

Any upgrades should be done with the interests of the people using the infrastructure daily, first and foremost.
Maybe not for cars but it sure is for truck traffic. Time is money (and pollution from idling engines while we are at it). Every extra minute a truck spends sitting on 16th as it passes through Calgary is costing someone some $$ (probably you & I at the end of the day). Hope the ring road helps because this city sucks for inter city trucking when they are travelling E/W.
__________________
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.

Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2008, 6:42 PM
jeffwhit's Avatar
jeffwhit jeffwhit is offline
effete latte-lifter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Aalborg, DK
Posts: 3,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge View Post
Re: 24th ave, wasn't the original plan only utilizing 24th ave *west* of crowchild? vs 24th ave through the north hill communities? Or did I misinterpret mersar's post? That said I don't quite understand where the TCH would route between Shaganappi and 'hooked back into 16th just west of 53rd street'.
Nope, all the way to Deerfoot, (well "Blackfoot" back then)

Looksee:



and this section answers your other question
__________________
Arts!: Click to listen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2008, 6:48 AM
dmuzika dmuzika is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by lubicon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by defaultuser View Post
Is it really so bad that people traveling through our fair city are burdened by a few traffic lights and a slower speed limit? I mean, this place is in the middle of nowhere in the grand scheme of things, so why not slow down and take in the awesomeness that is Calgary. What else is there?

Any upgrades should be done with the interests of the people using the infrastructure daily, first and foremost.
Maybe not for cars but it sure is for truck traffic. Time is money (and pollution from idling engines while we are at it). Every extra minute a truck spends sitting on 16th as it passes through Calgary is costing someone some $$ (probably you & I at the end of the day). Hope the ring road helps because this city sucks for inter city trucking when they are travelling E/W.
Agreed. One thing to keep in mind is this discussion isn't about a few traffic lights, we're talking about a lot of traffic lights. There are 25 traffic signals on 16 Ave N - 19 are located between Crowchild Trail and Deerfoot Trail, the most of any city on the Trans Canada Highway (I'll exclude Winnipeg because the Perimeter Highway serves as a viable bypass for the city, and the southern portion is marked TCH 100).

On the contrary, there are no traffic signals on Glenmore Trail between Deerfoot & Crowchild, and if the Trans Canada were to follow Glenmore and Sarcee Trails, there would a total of 11 traffic signals without any new interchanges being constructed – with the potential to eliminate every traffic signal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2008, 8:15 AM
korzym's Avatar
korzym korzym is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 701
^^lubicon and dimuzika
you guys have come closest to what I was hoping would finally get mentioned...we're on the 3rd page here and it still hasn't been mentioned explicitly...the E-W problem is known but to put it in perspective
Going N-S if your on the east side of the city, you can take Deerfoot
Going N-S if your on the west side of the city, you can take crowchild

Going E-W if your on the south side of the city, you can take Glenmore
Going E-W if your on the north side of the city........your out of luck IMO.

The E-W problem for the north should get looked into, I hope for a scenario where 16th is completed and then declared insufficient to meet user demands or some excuse that would obviously justify them looking into building a better/another road and ultimately guys....having the TCH run through the city is relevant here so we can secure federal tax money to pay for it [which is really just us recouping some of the billions of dollars forced from us by the rest of Canada]

I love those plans you put up jeffwhit, transit and urban planning enthusiasts may not, there are practical transportation needs and those plans seem like they could do good for a lot of people and businesses

Last edited by korzym; Mar 18, 2008 at 8:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2008, 8:31 AM
Boris2k7's Avatar
Boris2k7 Boris2k7 is offline
Majestic
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by korzym View Post
I love those plans you put up jeffwhit, transit and urban planning enthusiasts may not, there are practical transportation needs and those plans seem like they could do good for a lot of people and businesses
Uhhh, yeah, for pretty good reasons too. The fact that building those roads would have totally devastated those communities pretty more than offsets any possible gains. It would have been a total disaster.

I'm pretty sure that Inglewood, for example, is more than happy to have sacrificed easier commuting into the core and trucking through the city in order to have saved their community from having a freeway plowed up their collective arse.

Such schemes as the ones above do well enough for suburban commuters and corporations with high volumes of trucking, but it totally fucks over local businesses and people and does irrevocable damage to the urban fabric.

Now, if you could find a route through the north that could be upgraded without causing much harm, and isn't totally redundant, given the presence of the ring road (which pretty much kills anything north of Nose Hill), then I wouldn't have many concerns.


But that's besides another point. If we are going to use one of these routes as an E-W highway, for the Transcanada, and the concern is moving people and goods through Calgary, to continue along the TCH on the other end, then there is absolutely no need for more than a single detour.
__________________
"The only thing that gets me through our winters is the knowledge that they're the only thing keeping us free of giant ass spiders." -MonkeyRonin

Flickr

Last edited by Boris2k7; Mar 18, 2008 at 8:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2008, 11:06 AM
korzym's Avatar
korzym korzym is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris2k7 View Post
Uhhh, yeah, for pretty good reasons too. The fact that building those roads would have totally devastated those communities pretty more than offsets any possible gains. It would have been a total disaster.
right....................................
Would help if you described what exactly would be lost. Obviously tearing down a row of houses brings changes, there are ways they could deal with it; plus it would make 20th ave more quiet and improve things for the folks that live along that road. That road is way too far above capacity and is evidence there isn't an adequate route for E-W drivers, and you can't tell me 20th ave even passes the litmus test of an urban planner. Just put in a highway along 24th, concentrate the traffic volume to a specific area and that will ease 20th ave and surrounding areas
The ability to quickly move people and goods through the middle of the city FAR outweighs having residential houses in its place, their taking up valuable land. Economic stimulation would be quite beneficial to the city. The present set up is highly inefficient IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris2k7 View Post
I'm pretty sure that Inglewood, for example, is more than happy to have sacrificed easier commuting into the core and trucking through the city in order to have saved their community from having a freeway plowed up their collective arse.
Completely irrelevant. I've heard from the horse's mouth [city transit planner] the city is not going to do anything to improve vehicle access to downtown to encourage transit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris2k7 View Post
Such schemes as the ones above do well enough for suburban commuters and corporations with high volumes of trucking, but it totally fucks over local businesses and people and does irrevocable damage to the urban fabric.
There we go...so your against this because you believe it encourages the expansion of suburbs? Well what is the sense of packing more people closer to the inner city if you can't get around properly?
The government should do whatever is in it's power to help businesses, those 'nasty corporations' are ultimately good for Canadians. Those small businesses that profit from TCH traffic are just profiting from other peoples' misfortunes and are hindering greater economic expansion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris2k7 View Post
Now, if you could find a route through the north that could be upgraded without causing much harm, and isn't totally redundant, given the presence of the ring road (which pretty much kills anything north of Nose Hill), then I wouldn't have many concerns.


But that's besides another point. If we are going to use one of these routes as an E-W highway, for the Transcanada, and the concern is moving people and goods through Calgary, to continue along the TCH on the other end, then there is absolutely no need for more than a single detour.
Required: better E-W route in north
Options:somewhere between Mcknight and 16th ave. [ie: 24th ave 70s plan]
Obstacles: houses along south side of 24th ave, finding a way to by pass confederation park [very beloved no doubt]
In the end you dont give up any schools or parks, just a row of houses. South of 24th you'd end up with 7 blocks between 16th, thats probably the area to be effected the most, but they have a new 16th ave. There are more narrow communities in Calgary yet their still surviving
TCH relevance: I don't care about non-Calgarians here coming through the city, they could use stoney trail. It completely sucks for Calgarians to put up with slow commuting in that area, you have to understand it makes sense to use the TCH purely as an excuse to get funding to solve this problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2008, 4:21 PM
Boris2k7's Avatar
Boris2k7 Boris2k7 is offline
Majestic
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by korzym View Post
right....................................
Would help if you described what exactly would be lost. Obviously tearing down a row of houses brings changes, there are ways they could deal with it; plus it would make 20th ave more quiet and improve things for the folks that live along that road. That road is way too far above capacity and is evidence there isn't an adequate route for E-W drivers, and you can't tell me 20th ave even passes the litmus test of an urban planner. Just put in a highway along 24th, concentrate the traffic volume to a specific area and that will ease 20th ave and surrounding areas
The ability to quickly move people and goods through the middle of the city FAR outweighs having residential houses in its place, their taking up valuable land. Economic stimulation would be quite beneficial to the city. The present set up is highly inefficient IMO.
Isolating communities between highways and cutting off people in different areas is obvious damage. If you cannot see that I believe you should go to a city such as Detroit which employed such practices in the past, though their use of elevated freeways exacerbated the problem. Those much-coveted "economic outcomes" that you speak of cannot easily be quantified nor justified given the damage it would cause by paving over several blocks of housing and tearing communities asunder. Sometimes the cure is worse than the cause. This is one of those cases.

Quote:
Completely irrelevant. I've heard from the horse's mouth [city transit planner] the city is not going to do anything to improve vehicle access to downtown to encourage transit.
Completely relevant, and you are being a fool not to see it. Since you don't, how about we propose ramming a freeway right through the centre of your community, and construct massive cloverleaf interchanges right about where you live.

Quote:
There we go...so your against this because you believe it encourages the expansion of suburbs? Well what is the sense of packing more people closer to the inner city if you can't get around properly?
The government should do whatever is in it's power to help businesses, those 'nasty corporations' are ultimately good for Canadians. Those small businesses that profit from TCH traffic are just profiting from other peoples' misfortunes and are hindering greater economic expansion.
You are way, way off in your analysis. The only way to build a denser, more vibrant city is through mass transit. By trying to build denser but by still encouraging car use, you will only end up with unending congestion, decreasing air quality, and road expansion until everything is paved over. And it is amusing that you think government should help big business by putting massive amount of taxpayer dollars in what amount to the largest corporate subsidy in history. Expansion of the economy at the detriment to the local area is the greatest folly of the last few centuries.

Quote:
Required: better E-W route in north
Options:somewhere between Mcknight and 16th ave. [ie: 24th ave 70s plan]
Obstacles: houses along south side of 24th ave, finding a way to by pass confederation park [very beloved no doubt]
In the end you dont give up any schools or parks, just a row of houses. South of 24th you'd end up with 7 blocks between 16th, thats probably the area to be effected the most, but they have a new 16th ave. There are more narrow communities in Calgary yet their still surviving
TCH relevance: I don't care about non-Calgarians here coming through the city, they could use stoney trail. It completely sucks for Calgarians to put up with slow commuting in that area, you have to understand it makes sense to use the TCH purely as an excuse to get funding to solve this problem.
But you do not have a solid case for why it is required in the first place. People can sit in traffic, as can trucks and whatnot. Congestion is just a typical outcome of autocentrism, and cannot be avoided while ill-advised schemes to widen roads, and corporate profits with them, issue forth. Let them sit in traffic. There is no way to help people who would support the very means that lead to their supposed "suffering." The economy is only one of many concerns in planning, it has an important role but it should by no means be overemphasized.

If we are to have a real Transcanada route, let it only be for the Transcanada and skip the bullshit clamouring for federal tax handouts to support unsustainable practices.
__________________
"The only thing that gets me through our winters is the knowledge that they're the only thing keeping us free of giant ass spiders." -MonkeyRonin

Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2008, 2:06 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by korzym View Post
...the E-W problem is known but to put it in perspective:

Going N-S if your on the east side of the city, you can take Deerfoot
Going N-S if your on the west side of the city, you can take crowchild
Going E-W if your on the south side of the city, you can take Glenmore
Going E-W if your on the north side of the city........your out of luck IMO.

The E-W problem for the north should get looked into ...
This is really at the core of why I started this thread.

Quote:
Now, if you could find a route through the north that could be upgraded without causing much harm, and isn't totally redundant, given the presence of the ring road (which pretty much kills anything north of Nose Hill), then I wouldn't have many concerns.
and this is the Billion $ question - which brings me back to my opening post of this thread (i.e. the McKnight - JLB option)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2008, 2:09 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,744
Thanks for posting those old plans from '69 & '70 guys. I'm sure thankful the city didn't proceed with a freeway through downtown next to the river.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2008, 2:27 AM
korzym's Avatar
korzym korzym is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris2k7 View Post
Completely relevant, and you are being a fool not to see it. Since you don't, how about we propose ramming a freeway right through the centre of your community, and construct massive cloverleaf interchanges right about where you live.
I'm a fool hey? Maybe you should easy off donald trump and the apprentice there. It is irrelevant, your talking about something the city is completely against and has no chance of happening.
Your views are purely left wing, heck you've even publicly discussed voting for radical parties such as the green party on here. Boris you flip-flop, cower away by avoiding the issues at hand by changing topic [just read your responses], thankfully your in a province that drowns out lefties such as yourself. People aren't interested in going 100% transit, it will never happen, ask al-noor if he's recovered from that ass-kicking in the municipal elections, probably not. You want to force people to be behind transit and it will never happen. Your proposal to send traffic of the TCH to glenmore is all part of transit's do nothing approach, and hell it benefits you since you live in the south so why not right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by craner View Post
This is really at the core of why I started this thread.
You could have been more clear son
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2008, 2:40 AM
Boris2k7's Avatar
Boris2k7 Boris2k7 is offline
Majestic
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,549
If you think of the greens as a radical party then there is no helping you, since you obviously represent a branch of extremist, rightwing, neocon thinking. Let's fling some insults back here. I detest the fact that you are so incredibly self-centered that you can't see, nor really care about how your line of thinking would actually affect other people. Your line of status-quo, bottom line thinking is representative of our fucked-up, selfish society that can't seem to get a grip and deal with the issues because every last person wants the whole damn pie, and are totally inept when it comes to solving social or environmental problems. But hey, it's all good if I can get from home to work in 20 minutes right?

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: This is what is called an ad hominem attack kids. Learn it, love it.

Now, if you are done with your irresponsible dumbassery, which includes your lame attempt to put words in my mouth by saying I want people 100% on transit, or that I am a crazy commie, maybe you will stop cowering away from my question and actually answer why we need an E-W expressway in the north in the first place, and why this would be a good thing necessarily. You're not going to get away with the flimsy, "well, it'll be good for the economy" argument.
__________________
"The only thing that gets me through our winters is the knowledge that they're the only thing keeping us free of giant ass spiders." -MonkeyRonin

Flickr

Last edited by Boris2k7; Mar 19, 2008 at 3:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2008, 3:18 AM
freeweed's Avatar
freeweed freeweed is offline
Home of Hyperchange
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dynamic City, Alberta
Posts: 16,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris2k7 View Post
why we need an E-W expressway in the north in the first place
Duh, because it helps me flee from the crime in the NE all that much faster.

Yes, this thread has sunk that low that my comment actually fits in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2008, 5:22 AM
dmuzika dmuzika is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris2k7 View Post
...why we need an E-W expressway in the north in the first place, and why this would be a good thing necessarily. You're not going to get away with the flimsy, "well, it'll be good for the economy" argument.
(Risking trying to raise the civility of the thread...)

Here's my kick at the can.

When you look at north Calgary outside the inner city, the majority a major employment centres are located in the NE (especially between 36 St NE and Deerfoot Trail) while the NW is mostly residential. Consequently, there is a lot of west to east traffic movement in the AM while a lot of east to west traffic movement in the PM on a very limitited number of roads. Most of these employment centres are light industrial and commercial, and are not as transit friendly as the downtown core (especially the light industrial). While there is transit service, the existing set up cannot warrent an E-W LRT line.

While you can argue that the city should have made some of these developments more transit friendly, a number of the industrial-based employment centres like manufactoring and shipping require exstensive space and are not suited for high density development.

While it may not be officially recognized as such, the north Calgary E-W expressway is McKnight Blvd and John Laurie Blvd, and the city is looking to make improvements to McKnight between JLB and 19 St NE. The problem is that this corridor, especially in the NW, goes through residential communities and does not connect with Stoney Trail or with good connections to TCH 1, meaning it would not make an ideal route for the Trans Canada Highway.

In an ideal world (i.e. what should have happened 25+ years ago), (1) there should have been more commerical development in the suberban NW, (2) John Laurie Blvd should have connected directly with Crowchild Trail and TCH 1 west, making TCH 1 follow JLB and McKnight before communties like Brentwood or Dalhousie were constructed, and (3) there should be more E-W connectors in Calgary, like 32 Ave N going all the way to Crowchild, especially after it was determined that the 24th St/TCH Freeway was dead. But none of this did happen or will happen (with the possible exception of #1) so there needs to be a willingness to accomidate this movement.

So to summerize, improve McKnight & John Laurie for Calgary based E-W movement and reroute the TCH to Glenmore Trail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2008, 6:41 AM
Boris2k7's Avatar
Boris2k7 Boris2k7 is offline
Majestic
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,549
See, now that was a more reasonable rebuttal.

Now I question you, just for the sake of argumentation what standards you would bring those roads up to. McKnightmare doesn't sound like it would be too much of a problem, but what about John Laurie? And would this route be suitable for a BRT or HOV, if it was expanded (or even if it wasn't?). I ask this because I feel that road expansions are the absolute last resort, unless there is a situation involving a bottleneck due to previous expansions. I would go so far as to ask what could be done with this "corridor" and if it has the potential for densification if a higher-speed route was constructed.

I think that on the TCH at least, the point of this thread, you and I are seeing eye to eye, which I of course find quite aggreable.
__________________
"The only thing that gets me through our winters is the knowledge that they're the only thing keeping us free of giant ass spiders." -MonkeyRonin

Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2008, 7:38 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmuzika View Post

So to summerize, improve McKnight & John Laurie for Calgary based E-W movement and reroute the TCH to Glenmore Trail.
This sounds like a reasonable option - just have to deal with the "Hazardous Goods" issue accross the reservoir.
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 > SSP: Local Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:31 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.