Royal Oak / Rocky Ridge Thread

BP_Brandon · #1 Posted: **May 14, 2010, 1:00 AM**

Since a few of us on this board (Cheers by the way!

) hail from this neck of the suburbian woods I thought it's own thread was in order.

Any rate, the question I have for anybody that may know is I noticed coming home this evening 2 large coils of fiber optics cable placed on the sidewalk (Royal Oak Drive) near my home. Does anybody know which utility (Telus / Shaw) is installing the fibre, and will they be bringing it into each home?

Fibre right into your home would be sweet, very serious jump in bandwidth potential if true.

freeweed · #2 Posted: **May 14, 2010, 4:18 AM**

I haven't heard of any Fiber-to-the-home in Calgary, but I'm too lazy to keep tabs on that sort of thing, so until the major announcement, I wouldn't hear about it. Plus, Shaw's speed for me is loads faster than any source(s) I find these days, unless I deliberately try to max it out.

Sounds like just some more trunk work, but who knows. There's been quite a bit of piecemeal utilities work happening this spring, maybe that's what it is.

SmokWawelski · #3 Posted: **May 14, 2010, 4:24 AM**

I was out running this evening and to me, it looked like stuff that fell of the truck. They're just laying there on the corner of the street, nowhere close to anything.....go figure.

Although have you noticed that at the four way stop on Royal Oak Drive, they have a lot of markings on the asphalt??? Wonder what that's for....

Nudrock · #4 Posted: **May 14, 2010, 4:36 AM**

I just moved into Quarry Park and there is Telus fiber along with the usual twisted telephone pairs going into each home. Shaw just provided their regular coaxial cable into the house.

It didn't appear that any special services using the fiber were available. But maybe all I need to do is talk to the right person.

BP_Brandon · #5 Posted: **May 14, 2010, 2:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokWawelski

I was out running this evening and to me, it looked like stuff that fell of the truck. They're just laying there on the corner of the street, nowhere close to anything.....go figure.

Although have you noticed that at the four way stop on Royal Oak Drive, they have a lot of markings on the asphalt??? Wonder what that's for....

Yes I noticed the work at this intersection as well, prior to the digging that went on the markings on the street were labelled FOTS which usually means Fibre Optics.

I also have Shaw internet (Extreme I Think) and I find it fine even with my house full of Bandwidth Hogs...... I just think with a fibre drop into your home the technology potential is endless.

mersar · #6 Posted: **May 14, 2010, 2:26 PM**

I know that Telus has been spending huge amounts to upgrade a lot of line to fibre, last fall they started replacing huge runs throughout Cochrane with fibre. Nothing beyond what could be called a FTTN or FTTC setup, but maybe some day.

BP_Brandon · #7 Posted: **May 17, 2010, 5:00 PM**

The last couple of weekends I have really noticed how incredibly busy Royal Oak Drive has become. It is quite astonishing really, I wonder what the vehicle count is as at times it is really difficult to safely get onto the drive from the side streets. I live in the upper portion of ROD and because it has a curve to it, the site lines are such that if anyone is driving faster then 50 km, it gets a little dicey in pulling out in between the moving parade of cars.

I wonder what it would take to get a Bus trap put in on ROD between Royal Crest Way and Royal Crest Terrace. That at least would limit the amount of traffic, and push the South half of ROD onto the 4 lane RRR. Just thinking……..

BP_Brandon · #8 Posted: **Aug 2, 2010, 7:10 PM**

Ok... interesting study on what to do with the intersection @ CHB and Royal Birch Blvd with the development of the new business park.

I have also noticed that these pdf's were removed from the rrroc website since last week. If they dissappear from these links, I have saved them on my desktop.

Just curious, would a traffic circle actually help?

This should be interesting:

http://www.rrroca.org/images/stories...lbirchblvd.pdf

http://www.rrroca.org/images/stories...lbirchblvd.pdf

http://www.rrroca.org/images/stories...lbirchblvd.pdf

freeweed · #9 Posted: **Aug 5, 2010, 3:51 PM**

Something definitely needs to be done. Ever since RR Blvd closed, the intersection is operating at peak capacity half the time. I'm a big fan of roundabouts, buuuuuut...

That option 2a is absolutely, unspeakably retarded. Clearly drafted by someone who's never been through the area. The biggest backlog in traffic has always been and continues to be the WB CHB turning left into Royal Oak. To divert that traffic to a roundabout, and then make it all wait at a light again - I can't comprehend the sheer stupidity of that idea. The 2 left turn lanes are generally backed up 10-12 cars during a slow period, and during rush hour are often backed up to before the on-ramp from SB Stoney. You couldn't possibly fit those cars after the roundabout.

Option 3 looks cool and I'd be all for it, but I question the ability of Calgarians to handle a multi-lane roundabout.

Good find btw, thanks for sharing!

mersar · #10 Posted: **Aug 5, 2010, 8:09 PM**

Well we have one multi-lane roundabout (in Mckenzie Towne) and from the few times I've gone through it, no one understands it at all.

freeweed · #11 Posted: **Aug 5, 2010, 8:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mersar

Well we have one multi-lane roundabout (in Mckenzie Towne) and from the few times I've gone through it, no one understands it at all.

Smaller volume / single lane roundabouts work well (the one in Crowfoot is awesome and perfect for the location), but yeah - I've been through that one and it's a nightmare.

SubwayRev · #12 Posted: **Aug 6, 2010, 12:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mersar

Well we have one multi-lane roundabout (in Mckenzie Towne) and from the few times I've gone through it, no one understands it at all.

There's a two lane roundabout in Discovery Ridge, and I've never found it to be a problem.

YYCguys · #13 Posted: **Aug 6, 2010, 1:56 AM**

I guess if I lived or worked in an area that had a roundabout, I would be quite used to it. I've rarely used one.

But something must be done in Royal Oak! That intersection is quite frustrating! The roundabout option for the actual intersection itself is the best option, IMHO.

BP_Brandon · #14 Posted: **Aug 6, 2010, 2:48 AM**

I think the city planners have really stepped in it now. I agree with Freeweed, this intersection is maxed out pretty much all the time now. Weekends used to be pretty quiet, now the traffic flow is incredible. I'm not sure how this design of the full traffic circle will help in this case with the amount of volume, especially during the evening rush. With so many vehicles taking the route to RB Blvd from CHB, I can see the rest of the traffic trying to enter from other directions being totally choked out.

Oh, I must not forget about what to do with the pedestrians. I have been amazed on how crazy some people have been coming from the mall area (Sobey's) by running across the intersection against the lights to catch the bus sitting at or approaching the bus stop located EB on CHB just east of the intersection. In fact, I still do not know how this older man made it without being hit, but I watched him cross through the intersection diagonaly with the left turn flashing green. I could hardly watch expecting to see a bad accident. Fortunately for him the several drivers making the left were actually paying attention and swerved around this guy.

mersar · #15 Posted: **Aug 6, 2010, 3:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SubwayRev

There's a two lane roundabout in Discovery Ridge, and I've never found it to be a problem.

Difference is traffic volumes. The Mckenzie Towne one is around 26,000 vehicles a day, whereas Discovery Ridge is under then 8,000 (numbers from 2008) judging by the city's traffic volume map

freeweed · #16 Posted: **Aug 6, 2010, 1:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BP_Brandon

I think the city planners have really stepped in it now.

Speaking of planning, didn't we just sit through 2 freaking YEARS of construction on this intersection? What the hell were they thinking? The new commercial/industrial district was long known at that point, and was actually being built throughout.

What genius thought it would be a good idea to build an intersection that completely ignores the near-term future? Hell, the only reason "Royal Vista" isn't built out yet is the recession. If things hadn't slowed down considerably in this city, we'd be sitting here with the current setup, and far too much traffic already.

My thinking was definitely the 2 lane roundabout, but I forgot about pedestrians. That intersection is heavily used by foot traffic (for the 'burbs, anyway), unlike the one in McKenzie Town.

Maybe we can just build a dozen more traffic signals and extra-long bypass roads and feel just like Tuscany!

Stang · #17 Posted: **Aug 6, 2010, 2:34 PM**

The "approach leg roundabout" is kind of like what they have done at Glenmore and 37th Street SW. In this case, however, I don't think that it will work very well.

The one at Glenmore/37th diverts EB Glenmore to NB 37th traffic to a roundabout instead of allowing them to turn left. This eliminates the need for a dedicated turn signal, thus improving the flow of the WB through traffic on Glenmore

In short, the benefit lies with the WB traffic by preventing the EB traffic from holding them up by turning. This is the opposite of what the Royal Oak one proposes. The Royal Oak example is trying to improve the flow of the turning traffic by diverting it around a roundabout, without enough space between the roundabout and the lights to hold the cars that are going to use it.

I wish that I could explain myself more clearly. Of the proposals, I think that the double-lane roundabout is best option. But I am a roundabout fan with experience abroad, so my view is a bit idealistic because I know how they CAN and SHOULD work.

freeweed · #18 Posted: **Aug 6, 2010, 3:59 PM**

No, you've explained it clearly enough (to me at least). This is exactly why it's the wrong solution - 37th works because you're diverting the lower volume traffic to allow the higher volume to proceed. The proposal for Royal Oak is to divert the higher volume traffic to allow the lower volume traffic to proceed. Sheer stupidity.

SmokWawelski · #19 Posted: **Aug 26, 2010, 4:37 AM**

Hey, I have a better idea. Why don't they just close off the intersection to the traffic coming from the commercial strip on to Country Hills Blvd and send it back to Sarcee. From there they can get on to Stoney and then on to Country Hills Blvd if they wish......If you think this is a stupid idea, then ask yourself if closing Rocky Ridge Road was not. After all they closed off a road and diverted the traffic either to 12 Mile or up to Country Hills Blvd and overloaded the access points to get into the neighbourhoods....and don't say they are not overloaded. If that was the case then the roundabout would not be needed. Right??????

freeweed · #20 Posted: **Aug 26, 2010, 3:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokWawelski

Hey, I have a better idea. Why don't they just close off the intersection to the traffic coming from the commercial strip on to Country Hills Blvd and send it back to Sarcee. From there they can get on to Stoney and then on to Country Hills Blvd if they wish......If you think this is a stupid idea, then ask yourself if closing Rocky Ridge Road was not. After all they closed off a road and diverted the traffic either to 12 Mile or up to Country Hills Blvd and overloaded the access points to get into the neighbourhoods....and don't say they are not overloaded. If that was the case then the roundabout would not be needed. Right??????

That's actually an interesting idea although it presents its own challenges. Blocking a large commercial area off from the nearest residential area would really be difficult.

The bigger problem here is that clearly no one was doing any long term planning - of the RR/RO neighbourhood, of this commercial site, and definitely not the combination of the 2. I'm not sure there's going to be an easy answer, but I AM sure it's going to be a serious pain in the ass for years to come.

This is really no different than the insane detour Tuscany residents have to endure in order to get in and out of their neighbourhood on the east side. This should never have been designed this way and it's obvious the city planners were just patching up a flawed design.