Why in the name of all that is good are traffic lights used on overpasses? - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Juventus3 · 07-07-2007, 07:08 PM

It makes absolutely no sense. Every other city in this world except Calgary is able to build an interchange with sufficient on and off ramps. Is the point of an overpass not to rid the need of lights?

I recently did some looking around to see just when the Stoney Trial - Crowchild Trial Interchange would be complete. In doing so I also noticed that dispite a double overpass design, (PDF:http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/INFT.../stcrow-m2.pdf )
it seems city planners have decided a viable solution to move traffic faster down crowchild trial would be to trade in one set of lights for 2!

Now I know that the time a car will wait at each light is not as long as it would be without an overpass, and I also know that in the long term they plan to build the interchange in full with the proper on and off ramps. But come on, why built a road then change it in five to ten years?

That isn't the only example I could have used...as every other interchange being built over crowchild also has traffic lights...as do lots of others in the city, some of which are acceptable.

City planners in this city truly amaze me, so I suppose I thank them for that.

SteveToms · 07-07-2007, 07:09 PM

Its because they are dumb

MelBridgeman · 07-07-2007, 07:17 PM

you could live in vancouver where there are no freeways and a set of lights on just about every single block..
________
Toyota Rz Engine Specifications

Jayems · 07-07-2007, 07:23 PM

It looks like each set of lights also has an orange alternate route that would not have lights next to it. Maybe this is a temporary thing until the orange lines are built. But I know nothing of this, all I know is that someone back when they could have planned for a much better road system should have been fired.

300spartans · 07-07-2007, 08:11 PM

As a grad student in urban planning I take offense, this is clearly the work of transportation engineers. And no, they're not the same thing.

Juventus3 · 07-07-2007, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300spartans

As a grad student in urban planning I take offense, this is clearly the work of transportation engineers. And no, they're not the same thing.

No offense was meant. But honestly...If city planners don't design these types of things...what do they do?

Kerplunk · 07-07-2007, 08:39 PM

Have you seen the proposed design for the overpass at 16th Ave and 68 St NE? It's a mess. Not only does it appear to have traffic lights (2 of em, I think), it also makes it so people going N/S on 68th cannot turn East onto 16th, and people going West on 16th cannot get onto 68th. BRILLIANT!!!

http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/...house_june.pdf

Hemi-Cuda · 07-07-2007, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

Have you seen the proposed design for the overpass at 16th Ave and 68 St NE? It's a mess. Not only does it appear to have traffic lights (2 of em, I think), it also makes it so people going N/S on 68th cannot turn East onto 16th, and people going West on 16th cannot get onto 68th. BRILLIANT!!!

http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/...house_june.pdf

i don't understand that map at all. stoney trail is in the NW, but that map says NE. am i missing something?

SteveToms · 07-07-2007, 09:25 PM

What the hell is that, why why why would you make it that way

Joborule · 07-07-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

Have you seen the proposed design for the overpass at 16th Ave and 68 St NE? It's a mess. Not only does it appear to have traffic lights (2 of em, I think), it also makes it so people going N/S on 68th cannot turn East onto 16th, and people going West on 16th cannot get onto 68th. BRILLIANT!!!

http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/...house_june.pdf

Ohhh god.....can someone explain to me how Concept A and B make any sense? So we're gonna allow you to go west to 16th on 68th, but if you want to head to city limits were not gonna let you? Or you can get on 16th ave, but if you want to get to Stoney trail we're not gonna let you (a lot better then A at least which is approved)!? Concept C is the only one that makes sense but is way to complex and probably could be simpler.

Go back to the drawing board PLEASE! I don't want to deal with that daily!

Bobblehead · 07-07-2007, 09:46 PM

Stoney Trail is the name of the ring road. They are hard at work on the NE portion right now.

Juventus3 · 07-07-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

i don't understand that map at all. stoney trail is in the NW, but that map says NE. am i missing something?

haha, my post is bitching about stoney -crowchild, the poster you're talking about is talkign about 68th and 16th. lots of dumb ideas to complain about here...

Jayems · 07-07-2007, 10:31 PM

I don't get it, how the hell are you supposed to get onto 16th westbound from that Stoney trail past 68th street?

Joborule · 07-07-2007, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayems

I don't get it, how the hell are you supposed to get onto 16th westbound from that Stoney trail past 68th street?

It states your not suppose to, which boggles my mind...

Bobblehead · 07-07-2007, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayems

I don't get it, how the hell are you supposed to get onto 16th westbound from that Stoney trail past 68th street?

It looks like Stoney/16th will let you go anywhere. 68th/16th is a dogs breakfast.

If you are on 68th you cannot go Eastbound on 16th. If you are on 16th Westbound you cannot get onto 68th.

For people coming into town from the east, if they live in Abbeydale they'll either need to go to 52nd and come back (maybe hop down to 17th then come back up).

Just ugly.

Ironhorse · 07-07-2007, 11:30 PM

The reason that they use lights on the top of those overpasses is because the traffic lights, overall, are more efficient at handling the expected volumes of traffic than a traditional cloverleaf.

Most of these intersections will see lopsided rushhour traffic; one way for morning, the opposite way for evening. They can manipulate the turning lane lights depending on traffic patterns, keeping the majority of the cars moving. The alternative is a cloverleaf whose onramp is backed up for 2 kms during rush hour... On top of that, cloverleafs occupy a lot of real estate.

Resolute 14 · 07-07-2007, 11:40 PM

It's also safer. I won't even go near Barlow/16th during a rush hour, as you are taking your life into your hands when you try to merge into that mess.

It is not the goal of every interchange to make both roads free flowing. As in the case of Glenmore and Elbow, the goal was to make Glenmore free flowing, not Elbow. That said, despite the fact that there are now four lights in about 500m on Elbow, the road now flows much, much better than it did before the interchange was complete. This is specifically for the reason Ironhorse said. The lights are now tuned to the benifit of drivers on Elbow, not drivers on Glenmore.

Teh_Bandwagoner · 07-08-2007, 12:28 AM

In the case of the Crowchild and Stoney Trail plans, I would say lights on Crowchild are in fact safer than loops. Often loops are not an option due to a lack of space either due to topography or development. In this case I would say it was a matter of safety and cost. Loops are pricier, and having loops coming off of Stoney onto Crowchild (aka. the Parclo B loop) would be unsafe because having a high-speed traffic slow down to come onto a loop can cause roll-overs.

Actually what they have shown for the ultimate design is interesting in the fact that they do have loops to eventually accommodate free-flow left-turns in the future as shown by those orange loops. And they've managed to get rid of the Parclo B loops by looping them off the ramps instead, which seems like not a bad idea.

And yah like Snakeeye says, not every road intersecting on an interchange has to be free-flow. In this case only Stoney is designated as such in the first stage.

I do agree though that there are some pretty bad designs for Stoney out there that are floating around!

Vulcan · 07-08-2007, 01:35 AM

I think the only reason for these idiotic designs is to idiot proof our roads. Not enough people know how to merge, which is a skill all drivers need in a cloverleaf. What is even worse, drivers won't even allow others to merge, so yeah, it gets scary when the lead car has to slam on the brakes, while the following drivers are doing a shoulder check while accelerating.

BlackArcher101 · 07-08-2007, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juventus3

But come on, why built a road then change it in five to ten years?

As you can see, this is the initial stage of the interchange. The "Ultimate" road location is to have free flowing off and on ramps to both roads. However, the reason for the lights is cost. Plain and simple. The money isn't there to do the ramps at this time, and with the amount of traffic flow. They can get away with the lights for now, and while they are working, go ahead and finish the ramps at a later date.