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

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Addick

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.

False Dichotomy. The simple truth is, you can't fit over 1 million people in the "inner city", so capable commuter routes are necessary. And hell, we're not just talking about taking people to the far flung suburbs either. There are some very old neighbourhoods right around this section of Crowchild that will benefit greatly. Demolishing a few houses is a necessary sacrifice in this case.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

False Dichotomy. The simple truth is, you can't fit over 1 million people in the "inner city", so capable commuter routes are necessary. And hell, we're not just talking about taking people to the far flung suburbs either. There are some very old neighbourhoods right around this section of Crowchild that will benefit greatly. Demolishing a few houses is a necessary sacrifice in this case.

The congestion around that area can't be that great for that area either. I would have to imagine that by eliminating the presence of the corridor being a parking lot at certain points of the day would help improve urban development in the area in the long term. That's a region in the city that could have a lot of potential

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

False Dichotomy. The simple truth is, you can't fit over 1 million people in the "inner city", so capable commuter routes are necessary. And hell, we're not just talking about taking people to the far flung suburbs either. There are some very old neighbourhoods right around this section of Crowchild that will benefit greatly. Demolishing a few houses is a necessary sacrifice in this case.

The City could not practically fit that amount in the inner-city but that doesn't mean that they should distribute the rest in poor fashion and then reward those who decide to live there. Congestion can actually be a good thing as it can encourage road users to explore alternative methods rather than starting the vicious circle of road expansion. Personally, I'd like to see what alternatives a large chunk of this project's $1B price tag could provide. I wouldn't have a problem spending the rest of money improving the flow and form of the current disaster of a setup.

[Canehdianman]

Yay!!!

Let's destroy all of the roads and build more houses. Then we won't have to worry about long commute times at all.

[ken0042]

Canehdianman- you are missing the point. There has to be some middle ground.

While I don't nessesarily agree with Addick's position; I can respect that it was well thought out and does offer an interesting perspective.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Canehdianman- you are missing the point. There has to be some middle ground.

While I don't nessesarily agree with Addick's position; I can respect that it was well thought out and does offer an interesting perspective.

I hate the lack of a middle ground arguement when it comes to roads. It seems to me that any roadway improvement gets lambasted by the 'smart growth' crowd. I'm all for densification, improved transit, and bicycle infrastructure. All that I ask is that in all the madness we don't start ripping out roads for bike lanes and simply dismiss road improvements as unecessary for the 'post-car utopia' world we're building. That's not 'balanced', that's specifically pitting transportation alternatives against each other in a city that's growing and needs more capacity of every mode of transportation (and yes even for cars!).

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I hate the lack of a middle ground arguement when it comes to roads. It seems to me that any roadway improvement gets lambasted by the 'smart growth' crowd. I'm all for densification, improved transit, and bicycle infrastructure. All that I ask is that in all the madness we don't start ripping out roads for bike lanes and simply dismiss road improvements as unecessary for the 'post-car utopia' world we're building. That's not 'balanced', that's specifically pitting transportation alternatives against each other in a city that's growing and needs more capacity of every mode of transportation (and yes even for cars!).

Exactly. I'm in favour of inner-city densification, and livable walkable cities. But to argue that we should only have 1 through land going northbound on Crowchild over the river is ridiculous. It's not like Banff Trail and Charleswood are far suburbs that are completely unsustainable.

Sidebar: The community associations of those inner city neighbourhoods could do a lot more to promote (or at least quit obstructing) sensible densification near existing transit infrastructure. There's no way the land directly east of Banff Trail station (Capitol Hill Cres) should be RC-1. Similarly, the land just south of Lions Park station (13th Ave) shouldn't be RC-1 either. Sensible densification requires a transition from single families homes to at least attached housing. Personally, I think everything within 4-600m of an existing train station should get at least M-CG zoning. (Slightly higher density, but not taller, grade oriented)

We can't have "sustainable inner city living instead of suburbs" and "preserve the single family character of existing neighbourhoods". Those goals are in opposition to each other. We can't do both.

[Jimmy Stang]

You could put forth an argument that a lot of these changes could have benefits for both commuters and the neighbouring communities. Access could be improved (gridlock on Crowchild makes the communities pretty inaccessible currently) and pollution could be reduced (idling in traffic and repeated starting and stopping isn't exactly ideal). Access between the East and West sides of Crowchild would also be more efficient.

The fact is, the road already cuts through the communities and that isn't going to change. A few over/underpasses might even be more inviting to pedestrians and cyclists than standing on the corner of Crowchild and 5th waiting to cross a slushy thoroughfare. While I hope that the property acquisitions are kept to a minimum, there is a balance to be found somewhere between latte sipping inner city yuppies and parasitic suburbanites in oversized vehicles.

[Bill Bumface]

I think it's important to keep traffic flowing well in non-peak times for economic reasons. Calgary and area has landed some pretty massive logistics/distribution centres, and in order to attract that kind of business, you need to have a city where business and industrial traffic isn't at a stand still in the middle of the day. Keeping things moving during business hours makes Calgary a more attractive place to do business. Building roads for peak demand however is chasing your tail.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I hate the lack of a middle ground arguement when it comes to roads. It seems to me that any roadway improvement gets lambasted by the 'smart growth' crowd. I'm all for densification, improved transit, and bicycle infrastructure. All that I ask is that in all the madness we don't start ripping out roads for bike lanes and simply dismiss road improvements as unecessary for the 'post-car utopia' world we're building. That's not 'balanced', that's specifically pitting transportation alternatives against each other in a city that's growing and needs more capacity of every mode of transportation (and yes even for cars!).

It's funny how you are probably skeptical of planners because of things they have done in the past and, as a planner, I'm often weary of traffic engineers and planners. I get a bit nervous when traffic engineers start busting out their drawing kits on projects like this one. As I too would like to see a balanced approach you mentioned, I think we need to proceed with the utmost caution in order to not repeat past mistakes (e.g. The 70's or The Road Expansion Cycle).

However, I do have to point out that the transportation modal split balance has been heavily skewed over the bast 50 years and the pendulum will have to shift to the other side for a while in order to get rid of the backlog. With that being said, we'll have to be careful to not neglect essential road works in the name of fair compensation.

In regards to ripping out road space for cycle lanes, I'd love to see bus only lanes as part of the upgrades but I'm afraid that would necessitate three through-lanes in each direction. Unfortunately that would run counter to a minimal impact approach but, like you said, a balance will have to be pursued.

[Joborule]

Proposed plan is dead.

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/477...hild-corridor/

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Proposed plan is dead.

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/477...hild-corridor/

Plan needs a rethink, with different parameters around it. That's what Council is looking for. No question that improvements in some form or another are needed to relieve bottleneck.

[stampsx2]

Nm

[TurnedTheCorner]

Hmm, tearing down a few homes is apparently the same as destroying a community. I guess this means all of T'suu T'ina can be paved to make way for the ring road. I'm sure a home or two has been torn down there over the years.

If a homeowner or developer independently tears down a home in one of these communities to build a new infill (lol), does that pave the way for the Crowchild Trail plan since the community has already been destroyed?

Basically EAD Farrell and Pincott.