Calgary Roads

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by mersar

And yet they shouldn't since the entire downtown core is 50km/h or lower to my knowledge.

60 I can see being done on that stretch as it looks like most of the work on Glenmore is just utilizing the existing roadway, meaning that after the additional lanes are added there will be less shoulder. Currently during rush hour you don't even get near that from when I've gone through there, and its currently signed at 80.

Yeah the one ways downtown people clip along pretty fast. I always go slow because of the cool scenery! Are they ever going to lower the speed to 40 in the dense urban areas?

[Bigtime]

Usually 50km/h is the best speed to ride the wave of green lights.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by kw5150

60 km an hour "FOR SAFETY? Seems kind of slow. People go faster than that downtown!

Originally Posted by mersar

And yet they shouldn't since the entire downtown core is 50km/h or lower to my knowledge.

60 I can see being done on that stretch as it looks like most of the work on Glenmore is just utilizing the existing roadway, meaning that after the additional lanes are added there will be less shoulder. Currently during rush hour you don't even get near that from when I've gone through there, and its currently signed at 80.

People will just ignore the 60 speed limit anyway so it's just another 'feel good' measure. Plus, when it's off peak, 60 is way to slow for this stretch. The City needs to realize that the solution to everything isn't simply lowering the speed limit. Also, this does little to solve another of the major problems with this area which is the lights at Sarcee/Glenmore/Hwy 8 which really bogs everything down. Although I realize that the City probably can't do much about this one until Stoney Trail is figured out.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by AB Born

Does anyone know when 52 St SE will continue south of 22X to Seton Blvd?

As far as I know they have to continue it to Seton Blvd for the hospital. They've just spent the better part of the last year moving a mountain of dirt out of the way right where it's supposed to be built.

[5seconds]

Since it's only an additional 1.3km to what they have planned, I would have though that the City would have just added a second west-bound lane all the way from Sarcee to 69th.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Since it's only an additional 1.3km to what they have planned, I would have though that the City would have just added a second west-bound lane all the way from Sarcee to 69th.

I forget whether it was 1 km of 1 lane built up from nothing was north of $7 million, or whether it was 1 km of two lane. Either way, not a small amount.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I forget whether it was 1 km of 1 lane built up from nothing was north of $7 million, or whether it was 1 km of two lane. Either way, not a small amount.

Interesting. Still, if it's used for 5-8 years, not a terrible investment if helps the area out. (Though, if it an extra lane wouldn't make a difference so long as the traffic lights are there, then it's not worth it.)

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

So in every other city I've been in where pedestrian walk buttons have lights as part of the button, once you press it the light stays on so you know if it's been pushed already. In Calgary it just flashes for a fraction of a second, so the fact it's been pushed is just a secret between you and it. Anyone know why they're configured that way?

Interesting observation.

I have a beef with some of the pedestrian timing on a number of streets that IMO should be default walk signals when "no flow conditions" occur on one way streets. Usually happens, I arrive five seconds late, then end up taking the next available green which means that I instead walk through the crosswalk where cars could be turning and instead they have to wait for me to cross the street. This issue causes congestion for both pedestrians and cars.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by kw5150

I always go slow because of the cool scenery! Are they ever going to lower the speed to 40 in the dense urban areas?

I think the overall downtown area cannot be clumped in together. The parts that have more of the 'cool scenery' are not residence dense at all. They are buildings that people work in. If you want to enjoy the scenery there, walk - unless you have a good argument against walking.

On the other hand, some areas within the Beltline, which is residence dense, could perhaps be fine with a slightly slower speed limit, but it certainly would not be because of cool scenery.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I think the overall downtown area cannot be clumped in together. The parts that have more of the 'cool scenery' are not residence dense at all. They are buildings that people work in. If you want to enjoy the scenery there, walk - unless you have a good argument against walking.

On the other hand, some areas within the Beltline, which is residence dense, could perhaps be fine with a slightly slower speed limit, but it certainly would not be because of cool scenery.

To clarify: Im fine with the one-ways being 50. Its the really dense areas of the beltline, kensington, inglewood, 17th, etc, etc....that I was referring to. Those areas should be slower. I dont think people even go over 40 anyway even at night. There are simply too many cars and people popping out all the time.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Interesting. Still, if it's used for 5-8 years, not a terrible investment if helps the area out. (Though, if it an extra lane wouldn't make a difference so long as the traffic lights are there, then it's not worth it.)

I agree 100%.

A question for the transportation engineers in the room.

I recall seeing some flow through lanes near Orlando in Florida on a signalized highway. Typically these were at T-style intersection where the lane that did not have traffic crossing it had lanes that were separated by a median and went straight through the intersection. (similar to McLeod Trail and Lake Fraser Gate). To use the McLeod example, is there any reason that this couldn't be accomplished for the southbound lanes? That would create a free flow lane from Anderson to 162nd Ave.

Is there a reason that strategy couldn't be employed at Sarcee/Glenmore for the WB/NB side of Sarcee? I fully understand that it pushes the problem north to Richmond, but it would take some pressure off of the Sarcee/Glenmore light.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I agree 100%.

A question for the transportation engineers in the room.

I recall seeing some flow through lanes near Orlando in Florida on a signalized highway. Typically these were at T-style intersection where the lane that did not have traffic crossing it had lanes that were separated by a median and went straight through the intersection. (similar to McLeod Trail and Lake Fraser Gate). To use the McLeod example, is there any reason that this couldn't be accomplished for the southbound lanes? That would create a free flow lane from Anderson to 162nd Ave.

Is there a reason that strategy couldn't be employed at Sarcee/Glenmore for the WB/NB side of Sarcee? I fully understand that it pushes the problem north to Richmond, but it would take some pressure off of the Sarcee/Glenmore light.

That's a great idea.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by lubicon

That's a great idea.

It is a great idea.

I was also wondering if, rather than adding a lane to Glenmore west of Sarcee, they could just lane-reverse the 3 lanes they have now. If the infrastructure (poles, lights etc) could be reused later, having a lane reversal from Sarcee to 69th could do a similar job to adding more pavement but without so much of the cost?

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I agree 100%.

A question for the transportation engineers in the room.

I recall seeing some flow through lanes near Orlando in Florida on a signalized highway. Typically these were at T-style intersection where the lane that did not have traffic crossing it had lanes that were separated by a median and went straight through the intersection. (similar to McLeod Trail and Lake Fraser Gate). To use the McLeod example, is there any reason that this couldn't be accomplished for the southbound lanes? That would create a free flow lane from Anderson to 162nd Ave.

Is there a reason that strategy couldn't be employed at Sarcee/Glenmore for the WB/NB side of Sarcee? I fully understand that it pushes the problem north to Richmond, but it would take some pressure off of the Sarcee/Glenmore light.

That's not a bad idea; I would think that adding additional lanes, merges and barriers would present a bit of a safety constraint/operations challenge, and a lane would need to be added in that area on Sarcee/Glenmore so as to keep 2 lanes on the free flow side of the median. The main problem is that 120m or so downstream (i.e. north) from there, there's a power transmission tower in the median of Sarcee, so you can't add a lane in the median, but the right hand side of the road has a steep embankment already, so adding a lane would mean significant earthwork and the construction of a retaining wall. But it could be a potential improvement; I wonder if anybody from Transportation Optimization is reading this board?

[Cruzer]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I agree 100%.

A question for the transportation engineers in the room.

I recall seeing some flow through lanes near Orlando in Florida on a signalized highway. Typically these were at T-style intersection where the lane that did not have traffic crossing it had lanes that were separated by a median and went straight through the intersection. (similar to McLeod Trail and Lake Fraser Gate). To use the McLeod example, is there any reason that this couldn't be accomplished for the southbound lanes? That would create a free flow lane from Anderson to 162nd Ave.

Is there a reason that strategy couldn't be employed at Sarcee/Glenmore for the WB/NB side of Sarcee? I fully understand that it pushes the problem north to Richmond, but it would take some pressure off of the Sarcee/Glenmore light.

THIS. Please and thanks.

Brilliant idea, though the intersection at Richmond seems wide enough to accommodate the congestion it may receive, with the 17th Ave overpass nearly complete, this seems like the most viable and LOGICAL option. At least until Stoney Trail is figured out and possibly even passed it's completion? I do hope someone from the board is skimming over this, thinking deeply, and thoroughly...

[Wentworth]

Originally Posted by mersar

And yet they shouldn't since the entire downtown core is 50km/h or lower to my knowledge.

60 I can see being done on that stretch as it looks like most of the work on Glenmore is just utilizing the existing roadway, meaning that after the additional lanes are added there will be less shoulder. Currently during rush hour you don't even get near that from when I've gone through there, and its currently signed at 80.

I think the 60 limit is more or less just acknowledging reality. Even at 6:00AM I frequently get stuck behind drivers going 60-70 down this stretch, anyway. I don't think these drivers even look at the road signs, they just see it is a single lane and automatically go 60. Once they get to Glenmore Trail proper, these drivers speed up to 90, because it's now two lanes.

As much as I hate to say it, Westbound Glenmore from 37th to Sarcee also needs to be dropped to 70 or lower. There are frequent collisions there due to traffic suddenly halting from the Sarcee intersection backup and/or people making last minute lane cut-ins, and/or people following too closely because they don't want people making last-minute lane cut-ins.

I'm glad to see the lane changes, this is pretty much exactly what I was hoping they would do.

[eggbert]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I agree 100%.

A question for the transportation engineers in the room.

I recall seeing some flow through lanes near Orlando in Florida on a signalized highway. Typically these were at T-style intersection where the lane that did not have traffic crossing it had lanes that were separated by a median and went straight through the intersection. (similar to McLeod Trail and Lake Fraser Gate). To use the McLeod example, is there any reason that this couldn't be accomplished for the southbound lanes? That would create a free flow lane from Anderson to 162nd Ave.

Is there a reason that strategy couldn't be employed at Sarcee/Glenmore for the WB/NB side of Sarcee? I fully understand that it pushes the problem north to Richmond, but it would take some pressure off of the Sarcee/Glenmore light.

Sorry guys, maybe I'm missing something but I'm not sure what this actually solves? I assume you're talking about the far right lane(s) that head North on Sarcee from Glenmore Westbound?

I take that stretch quite often and once I get passed the left turn to Highway 8 from Glenmore West then there really isn't any issue. I think at most I've been 10 cars back from the light. The issue is the left turn onto Highway 8 from Glenmore West and I don't see how your solution addresses that at all?

I like the city plan to make two lanes East on Highway 8 but they really need to make the West lanes on Highway 8 two lanes until Lower Springbank Road. If people have to merge anyways into a single lane it's going to cause traffic issues since people merge at all different times and speeds. I'd like to see the right lane blocked from merging over left until much further down the road so cars have time to increase speed and distances between each other.

The lane reversal thing seems like an interesting idea to me though.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by eggbert

Sorry guys, maybe I'm missing something but I'm not sure what this actually solves? I assume you're talking about the far right lane(s) that head North on Sarcee from Glenmore Westbound?

I take that stretch quite often and once I get passed the left turn to Highway 8 from Glenmore West then there really isn't any issue. I think at most I've been 10 cars back from the light. The issue is the left turn onto Highway 8 from Glenmore West and I don't see how your solution addresses that at all?

I like the city plan to make two lanes East on Highway 8 but they really need to make the West lanes on Highway 8 two lanes until Lower Springbank Road. If people have to merge anyways into a single lane it's going to cause traffic issues since people merge at all different times and speeds. I'd like to see the right lane blocked from merging over left until much further down the road so cars have time to increase speed and distances between each other.

The lane reversal thing seems like an interesting idea to me though.

You are correct. The left turning traffic to Highway 8 will still cause major congestion on WB Glenmore even with a slip lane. We just have to face facts, and that's the reality that the area will be bad for a few more years. Until Alberta Transportation moves ahead with twinning Highway 8 and finalizes the SW Ring Road, the City is unlikely to spend any more money in the area. The current right-of-way of Glenmore between Highway 8 and 37th Street offers very little room for upgrading the road to help with the left turning traffic.

[Wentworth]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

You are correct. The left turning traffic to Highway 8 will still cause major congestion on WB Glenmore even with a slip lane. We just have to face facts, and that's the reality that the area will be bad for a few more years. Until Alberta Transportation moves ahead with twinning Highway 8 and finalizes the SW Ring Road, the City is unlikely to spend any more money in the area. The current right-of-way of Glenmore between Highway 8 and 37th Street offers very little room for upgrading the road to help with the left turning traffic.

Purely as a hypothetical and for fun:

- Close off 45th St. access, repurpose and extend its entrance/exit lanes to provide a new traffic lane. (IMO, the current 45th street exit is problematic anyway.)
- Repurpose some of the median to extend the left turn bay. (It's clearly not long enough currently.)

Crude MS-Paint mock-up:

[eggbert]

I totally agree about closing off the access to 45th Street. I'm usually in that right lane trying to avoid the slow left lane as people prepare for turning left onto Highway 8. Cars turning right onto 45th Street start slowing down well before the turn causing every car behind them to have to hit the brakes.