I meant to post in here months ago about that off ramp and completely forgot. Yah, it’s a bit of a disaster. My wife drives it somewhat regularly and has had a few times she can’t get in the proper lane with how bad it is backed up. The other day I drove it in rush hour and it was the same problem; if you don’t know the exact lane you need to be in you are hooped if it’s backed up. The signage certainly doesn’t help, but having that middle lane as the exit is quite the decision given how busy that exit likely will be.
There was a ton of concern from some engineers working on the project about the whole Glenmore/Stoney complex as it was going up. Concern about the merge zone with 37th which we've talked about, concern about signage, and concern about the radius of this WB-SB loop. It's a tough one because now that's it up I see no real easy way to fix it, not that my observation is some grand indication that there is no easy way to fix it. Forget "easy", I don't see any way to fix it all unless you start knocking bridges down, or try some sorcery with the Westhills Way bridge.
A full WB-SB flyover would have required a redesign of pretty much the entire interchange and a incredible increase in cost but we're going to pay for it now and forever.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
It seems to be par for the course with Glenmore. From Stoney and what seems like a bad interchange (though I haven’t driven that in rush hour), to Crowchild and then Deerfoot it’s hard to think of a good interchange along Glenmore.
There was a ton of concern from some engineers working on the project about the whole Glenmore/Stoney complex as it was going up. Concern about the merge zone with 37th which we've talked about, concern about signage, and concern about the radius of this WB-SB loop. It's a tough one because now that's it up I see no real easy way to fix it, not that my observation is some grand indication that there is no easy way to fix it. Forget "easy", I don't see any way to fix it all unless you start knocking bridges down, or try some sorcery with the Westhills Way bridge.
A full WB-SB flyover would have required a redesign of pretty much the entire interchange and a incredible increase in cost but we're going to pay for it now and forever.
Yea I posted about the signage right after it opened… its equally atrocious. I missed the WB-SB turn off twice in a row ok back to back days!!! Lol. The signage is really bad.
And you’re right. There isn’t really any fix at all.
Edit: is there space for WB-SB to be widened to a 2 lane ramp?
The Following User Says Thank You to rohara66 For This Useful Post:
There was a ton of concern from some engineers working on the project about the whole Glenmore/Stoney complex as it was going up. Concern about the merge zone with 37th which we've talked about, concern about signage, and concern about the radius of this WB-SB loop. It's a tough one because now that's it up I see no real easy way to fix it, not that my observation is some grand indication that there is no easy way to fix it. Forget "easy", I don't see any way to fix it all unless you start knocking bridges down, or try some sorcery with the Westhills Way bridge.
A full WB-SB flyover would have required a redesign of pretty much the entire interchange and a incredible increase in cost but we're going to pay for it now and forever.
And this is the best it will ever be. When volumes increase, how far back does the lineup go? A real shame that so little foresight was put into this design.
The Following User Says Thank You to D as in David For This Useful Post:
Would it have made sense for the EB-NB loop to be the smaller loop so they could increase the size of the WB-SB one? You'd think that would be better at handling peak volumes.
And this is the best it will ever be. When volumes increase, how far back does the lineup go? A real shame that so little foresight was put into this design.
I’ve been parked back past 37th street around 5pm.
On the northbound section between Bow and 16th, I kind of feel like there isn't enough notice given about how the road splits off to 16th Ave. There should be a sign on the Old Banff bridge telling you what's up ahead and which lanes go where.
There was a ton of concern from some engineers working on the project about the whole Glenmore/Stoney complex as it was going up. Concern about the merge zone with 37th which we've talked about, concern about signage, and concern about the radius of this WB-SB loop. It's a tough one because now that's it up I see no real easy way to fix it, not that my observation is some grand indication that there is no easy way to fix it. Forget "easy", I don't see any way to fix it all unless you start knocking bridges down, or try some sorcery with the Westhills Way bridge.
A full WB-SB flyover would have required a redesign of pretty much the entire interchange and a incredible increase in cost but we're going to pay for it now and forever.
Can you just add a lane to the West/south movement? The loop is well over the minimum single lane width and has some shoulders. Then you turn one of the WB/NB lanes into an either or lane?
Even before this finally opened there are weird lane endings going WB on Stoney. Before hitting 69 St the inside lane ends. Past 69 St, the right lane ends. Then shortly after that, another inside lane starts. Like, wut?
Yikes. I was wondering about a volume increase in the future but to hear that it is already that bad today...yeesh.
Is the loop too tight to add an additional lane to it? Even if it slows the traffic within the loop, the overall throughput could be higher?
I'm guessing there's going to be a lot of people cutting through Grey Eagle to access the ring road. And a lot of people going west to 69 St to turn around and access the RR from the other side.
Can you just add a lane to the West/south movement? The loop is well over the minimum single lane width and has some shoulders. Then you turn one of the WB/NB lanes into an either or lane?
I thought about this. You could maybe squeeze a second lane to the inside of the loop but the bridge approaching the loop is only a single lane and the way the approach passes under the SB-EB looks like it might not have room for an additional lane underneath.
I thought about this. You could maybe squeeze a second lane to the inside of the loop but the bridge approaching the loop is only a single lane and the way the approach passes under the SB-EB looks like it might not have room for an additional lane underneath.
They screwed this one.
They could make it a dual-lane exit onto the RR by forcing all SB traffic from Sarcee into the left lane for just that little bit of road where the Glenmore traffic joins the highway. But then you still have the problem of the bridge being single lane. It's a bottleneck no matter what.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
I don't care how confusing and nonsensical the exits and numbers of lanes in certain areas are, I'm just glad that there is road connecting Glenmore to hwy 1 finaly that isn't through the city or minor roads.
That being said, they're trolling drivers with that 17th Ave exit. Its immediately behind a bridge with little warning and no room for error to catch it. If there's a single car between you and the ramp, you are missing it.
