Crowchild Trail Improvement Discussion [Split from 130th ave thread]

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Airport tunnel. Looks like it's more like $300 million... Thought I heard more somewhere. Still a valid example of poorly allocating transportation money.

I disagree that was a poor allocation. Doing it now will be much cheaper than doing it later. That way, our infrastructure doesn't get woefully inadequate and then cost huge amounts to fix later.

Like, as one example, the Crowchild/Bow Trail/Memorial/Kensington cluster-fata, which could have been done much cheaper if it was done right the first time.

[MrMastodonFarm]

The Airport tunnel is a perfect example of doing it properly before it becomes a problem and not spending more money later.

Anyways, there is a huge thread on that already, no need to bog this thread down.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Airport tunnel. Looks like it's more like $300 million... Thought I heard more somewhere. Still a valid example of poorly allocating transportation money.

You say that now.

Thanking that it was built later.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by fotze

For it to be economic at the time they probably would have had to assume a growth rate that would have been outlandish at the time.

Someone could probably do the math on what the 1970's spend would need to be for 1 B now.

The current expensive plan is only needed because of how poorly thought out that whole clusterfata was to begin with. You would never ever see something like crowchild 17thSW to 24NW and all the various terrible connectors and access ramps that were shoehorned in if it was laid out properly to begin with and if you didn't have to deal with stupid short sighted aldermen worried about NIMBY crap. This thing should never have been allowed to balloon into the terrifying monster it is now. I'm suprised that their projected cost to fix is actually this low.

That whole mess underneath the overpasses you need to drive through and use the uturn route to connect from bow trail EB to crowchild NB is embarassing.

I'm not sure I can think of an interchange in Calgary that is more absurd than the crowchild/bow. Blow it all up and start over.

[FLAMESRULE]

We went to the open house at McMahon tonight. Have to say it was quite well done, informative, and detailed. The city has done their homework on this and is providing quite a few different options for each of the bottlenecks along Crow. There's 2-3 for 24th /23rd / 5th / Kensington / 17th Ave + Bow Bridge.

As expected there were about a dozen people there who were loudly complaining about how this is a total shock to them and their property value. Complaining how the city never mentioned this before and has completely ruined them financially ...I have no idea how this "snuck" up on anyone when its easily the worst bridge and likely worst stretch of road in the city.

Anything is an improvement over the clusterfrack there and I can easily see it topping out around $1BB. This is a MASSIVE project. Just hope there is the $$ available and the actual will to get this done.

[Joborule]

Whatever happens, don't let the NIMBYs win. Calgary screwed up with this area; now it's time to fix it.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by fotze

You should have reminded those people there proportionally higher tax burdens will actually be paying for the destruction of their own houses. Ha, sucks to be them.

Haha, we actually heard someone moaning to Druh Farrell about how they pay higher civic taxes so "this kind of thing wouldn't happen to us"...I damn near fell over after hearing that. I live in West Hillhurst and can't wait for this project to get rolling...its a trainwreck.

[Acey]

Oh Druh Farrell is laughable... on Global she basically just said, "we've identified Crowchild Trail as an area that needs some assistance, but we're not sure the plan has merit." This, as Global is showing shots from their chopper of a ruthlessly backlogged NB Crow from Memorial back to 17 Ave.

Regarding the cost, I'm assuming it's a long shot, but is there some way the province could take over Crowchild with the hopes of some federal dollars coming to the project. I'll make the phone call.

- Seriously, Ottawa... we do not have a decent road leading out of our downtown.
- Don't you guys have a million people out there, and still growing like mad?
- Yeah.
- Why the fata are your roads so bad?
- Rich folks who wouldn't let us build another bridge or two over our river and horrible, horrible planning. Can you help us out?
- No.

[Mazrim]

Yeah, the design is actually fairly straight forward. Everyone knows what needs to be done. The hard part will be getting past the minefield of "public consultation", much like the West LRT had to deal with.

I use quotes, because some people will basically treat it like "public demands".

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Acey

Regarding the cost, I'm assuming it's a long shot, but is there some way the province could take over Crowchild with the hopes of some federal dollars coming to the project. I'll make the phone call.

I wouldn't hold your breath. The Province is actively trying to give the City back Deerfoot. They don't much like the $35 million annual maintenance bill and hundreds of millions of upgrades on the horizon. They would never take on Crowchild.

That said, what we should really asking the Province and Federal Governments for are permanent infrastructure funding programs.

[Acey]

Can we pay for it though, Mazrim? How much would a new bridge over the river, assorted ramps, and a realigned Memorial cost as a stage 1? $200M to $300M?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Acey

Can we pay for it though, Mazrim? How much would a new bridge over the river, assorted ramps, and a realigned Memorial cost as a stage 1? $200M to $300M?

As I understand the first bridge over the river, which would likely consitute phase 1 would be about $150m.

[Table 5]

I like the comically vague image that the Herald put up to portray this proposal.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

Haha, we actually heard someone moaning to Druh Farrell about how they pay higher civic taxes so "this kind of thing wouldn't happen to us"...I damn near fell over after hearing that. I live in West Hillhurst and can't wait for this project to get rolling...its a trainwreck.

The bolded part is why I could never be in politics. My initial answer to that statement is to tell the person how stupid they must be if that is how their thought process works.

Love them or hate them, but it really takes a special type of person to hear this kind of stuff day in and day out and still like doing the job (and not lose all faith in humanity).

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by fotze

For it to be economic at the time they probably would have had to assume a growth rate that would have been outlandish at the time.

Someone could probably do the math on what the 1970's spend would need to be for 1 B now.

Calgary has generally had outlandish growth rates for most of a century now. Can't imagine that was so surprising. Regardless, one is left wondering how nobody in the 1970s was smart enough to say "hey guys, uhh, this plan has only one thru lane northbound. Is that wise?"

And according to the Bank of Canada's infation calculator, $1 billion today would translate to about $180 million in 1972 dollars.

[Jimmy Stang]

So how about this for a band-aid solution for the NB bridge over the river (easily the worst bottleneck):

Instead of giving to traffic entering from Bow and 10th and the traffic exiting to Memorial a full lane each (leaving only the middle lane being the only true through lane), why not angle the lanes a bit and create two through lanes a bit and give a merge to Bow/10th traffic, and a shortened exit lane for Memorial? And then physically restrict movements so that traffic can't cut across all the way across to exit on Memorial. This would reduce a fair amount of weaving. Sorry if I haven't explained that clearly. But think of the 3 NB lanes on the bridge currently being 1 through, 1 entry, and one exit lane. Change that to 2 through, 1/2 entry and 1/2 exit. This could probably be achieved by painting new lines at a slight angle across the bridge.

If you want to get onto Memorial, go 14th, 10th, Centre, etc. and don't even bother with Crowchild.

This would instantly get two through lanes over the bridge, eliminate lane changes for those wishing to stay on Crowchild AND those cutting across to go from Bow to Memorial. The obvious downside is that other routes would see an increase of traffic, but perhaps the benefit of having two through lanes on Crowchild instead of one would offset the negatives. Thoughts? Clearly a band-aid solution, but let's face it, it is going to be years before anything else will be completed so why not try alternatives in the mean time.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Whatever happens, don't let the NIMBYs win. Calgary screwed up with this area; now it's time to fix it.

To be fair, they are more Not In My House, Front and Backyards than straight NIMBYs. With a full buildout, numerous homes are going to face the wrecking ball and although the City did screw up, is it really fair?

These people made a responsible choice to live in an area of the City that is less costly to service and maintain and they would have their homes demolish to accommodate people that made a conscious decision to live in an area that did not have the costly and necessary infrastructure. While I do recognize the need to make Crowchild Trail functional during rush hour in this area, the City shouldn't be supporting unsustainable development patterns. Expanding Crowchild and increasing its capacity is the model of unsustainable development as expressway development never resolves congestion but rather just induces more while providing temporary relief.

Like I said earlier, the flow does need to be improved on Crowchild but the complexity of the job will have to be balanced against the direction we have chosen to move in our Municipal Development Plan. However, I think the biggest hurdle will be the project cost and that might end up narrowing the scope of this project to a socially acceptable size.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Addick

To be fair, they are more Not In My House, Front and Backyards than straight NIMBYs. With a full buildout, numerous homes are going to face the wrecking ball and although the City did screw up, is it really fair?

These people made a responsible choice to live in an area of the City that is less costly to service and maintain and they would have their homes demolish to accommodate people that made a conscious decision to live in an area that did not have the costly and necessary infrastructure. While I do recognize the need to make Crowchild Trail functional during rush hour in this area, the City shouldn't be supporting unsustainable development patterns. Expanding Crowchild and increasing its capacity is the model of unsustainable development as expressway development never resolves congestion but rather just induces more while providing temporary relief.

Like I said earlier, the flow does need to be improved on Crowchild but the complexity of the job will have to be balanced against the direction we have chosen to move in our Municipal Development Plan. However, I think the biggest hurdle will be the project cost and that might end up narrowing the scope of this project to a socially acceptable size.

You do know that the City BUYS the houses from people, right?

I think the best way to handle it would be to be contact the current owners of the houses, and offer them $10k right now to let the city register a right of first refusal on title. Then when they want to sell, the City get dibs.

Given the timeline for the entire project, most people will have sold their houses by then. Seems fairly painless to me.

I'm sure there will be some people who get expropriated, but at that point they can hardly say they didn't see it coming.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

You do know that the City BUYS the houses from people, right?

It doesn't matter, money does not always reimburse people for things that cannot be bought.

Also, we promote inner-city living and then propose to demolish inner-city houses and reduce the amount of centrally located land available for productive development.

[malcolmk14]

I would love to play around on the city's traffic simulation software!