Still a lot less traffic on Deerfoot than before. I used to take the back roads a lot of days and now only when there are wrecks or stalls. Most days I can get home in 15 minutes or less than prior to Stoney. I still think a lot of people on the east side haven't figured Stoney out yet. Lots of people I drive beside from the N.E. to the south keep going over towards Douglasdale/Mckenzie and further areas. I have taken Stoney a few times and it is wide open and looks like most are not aware of it. For me being closer to Macleod it is not quite as handy but way less traffic.
I would be interested in seeing the stats, as I don't believe Deerfoot is any better now. I agree that there are less trucks, but they have been replaced with more cars. I can't see Deerfoot improving at all until a few of the major issues are addressed (Southland, Glenmore, Memorial, etc.)
Still a lot less traffic on Deerfoot than before. I used to take the back roads a lot of days and now only when there are wrecks or stalls. Most days I can get home in 15 minutes or less than prior to Stoney. I still think a lot of people on the east side haven't figured Stoney out yet. Lots of people I drive beside from the N.E. to the south keep going over towards Douglasdale/Mckenzie and further areas. I have taken Stoney a few times and it is wide open and looks like most are not aware of it. For me being closer to Macleod it is not quite as handy but way less traffic.
You pretty much have to live near one of the access points to Stoney and work close to Stoney, otherwise the extra distance exceeds the amount of time you crawl in traffic on Deerfoot. I worked in Foothills Industial and live near the 52st access to Stoney. There was zero time savings by taking Stoney and it just added more km to my car.
I really thought that once the SE leg of the ring road was opened that traffic on deerfoot would improve during rush hour and later, but it really hasnt.
From what I understand, AB Trans didn't really expect it to happen. The primary purpose of Stoney isn't actually for inner city commuters, else they'd have put more money into making the 22X/Deerfoot complex more friendly for Cranston/Auburn Bay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psicodude
I would be interested in seeing the stats, as I don't believe Deerfoot is any better now. I agree that there are less trucks, but they have been replaced with more cars. I can't see Deerfoot improving at all until a few of the major issues are addressed (Southland, Glenmore, Memorial, etc.)
Correct. Deerfoot volumes initially decreased, then rose back up to the 160k vehicles per day range around Peigan, but Stoney is about 40k per day... so reality is somewhere in the middle of the all the opinions, as always.
Wow, can someone explain the reasoning behind the Glenmore eastbound to Stoney north setup? I don't usually take that during busy times but today at not even 4:30 I couldn't believe the line of cars at the light... backed up well off the overpass even! I was going straight through thankfully.
Brutal, completely useless.
I mean 17th Ave SE, a far less important road, gets a ramp to get from 17th Ave SE eastbound to Stoney northbound, how much more should Glenmore get it?? Sure looks like there's enough space.
Crazy.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Wow, can someone explain the reasoning behind the Glenmore eastbound to Stoney north setup?
We talked about it in this thread. Basically the ultimate plan calls for big flyovers for the east-north and west-south movements. So ultimately, it will be a very high capacity movement, much better than a loop ramp, but in the interim... it sucks.
That said, the only reason I think it's not a dual turn lane is because of the high number of trucks using the movement.
The Following User Says Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
Wow, can someone explain the reasoning behind the Glenmore eastbound to Stoney north setup? I don't usually take that during busy times but today at not even 4:30 I couldn't believe the line of cars at the light... backed up well off the overpass even! I was going straight through thankfully.
Brutal, completely useless.
I mean 17th Ave SE, a far less important road, gets a ramp to get from 17th Ave SE eastbound to Stoney northbound, how much more should Glenmore get it?? Sure looks like there's enough space.
Crazy.
I mentioned to Bunk that the City should lobby for them to change it to two left turn lanes and 1 straight throw lane. basically those big trucks are taking up an entire light when they turn left.
the way they have it set up people are going to start over shooting and pulling U turns. That will become a problem too soon.
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
Thanks for the info, I guess I should have figured it was already in the thread but it's a lot of thread
Good to know that eventually it'll get updated.
What do you mean Acey, wouldn't making it a dual turn be a good thing given the large # of trucks using it? Way back when it was just Glenmore and 84, the left turn was dual turn and the trucks (mostly) stayed to the outside lane to let the faster smaller cars on the inside lane before the trucks merged in, seemed to work pretty well.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I don't pretend to be an engineer, but was following the project closely. As far as I'm concerned, they screwed up. It'd need to be a really wide dual turn for cars to be able to get in on the inside lane but they could have made it work if it was planned from the outset. A dual turn configuration was "considered but rejected from a cost-benefit perspective" is what I was told when I asked in an email. Interchange will ultimately be this:
If ever. I'm disappointed they didn't have the money to do it, but they have money to do a similar flyover for west-north Sherwood Park Freeway to Henday.
I head out towards Strathmore twice a week on that road. It has gotten to the point that I just turn at the Chestemrere high school road, or at Langdon, instead of waiting
I can understand not wanting to build the complete interchange right away if it is not necessary yet, but going with left hand turns on the intermediate design demonstrated a level of short-sighted stupidity not seen since the Bow-Crow-12th-Memorial interchange was built.
I don't pretend to be an engineer, but was following the project closely. As far as I'm concerned, they screwed up. It'd need to be a really wide dual turn for cars to be able to get in on the inside lane but they could have made it work if it was planned from the outset. A dual turn configuration was "considered but rejected from a cost-benefit perspective" is what I was told when I asked in an email. Interchange will ultimately be this:
Perhaps this is one of the pitfalls of the P3 approach to highway construction?
Thanks for the info, I guess I should have figured it was already in the thread but it's a lot of thread
Good to know that eventually it'll get updated.
What do you mean Acey, wouldn't making it a dual turn be a good thing given the large # of trucks using it? Way back when it was just Glenmore and 84, the left turn was dual turn and the trucks (mostly) stayed to the outside lane to let the faster smaller cars on the inside lane before the trucks merged in, seemed to work pretty well.
It was in the, "I work for the Mayor" thread so you wouldn't have found it.
I tried asking Bunk if the City could push the issue, because I know the provinces transportation department could care less about peoples complaints.
It's like when people wrote about the speed limit on 16th east of town, its 20-30 KPH too slow by current standards, and most of the speed limits in the province are more reflective of what safe speed minimums should be on the roads.
They just said, "Thank you for complaining, and we will continue ticketing you for doing nothing wrong,"
The one day I tried driving through there to get home from work, the left turn lane was backed all the way up to 52nd Street. Just horrible, I waited far too long before I pulled out of the line and turned north on 100th Street instead.
Dual lane turn, with a much higher percentage of the total time dedicated to the left turn movement would do wonders in the interim. This should be a less than a $100,000 fix.
It should get the full third level ramp sooner rather than later.
Perhaps this is one of the pitfalls of the P3 approach to highway construction?
How so? The government decided to make that movement a single left turn, not the contractor that built it. If they suggested it during the bid, then someone in the government level approved the change.
The downside to P3 construction is usually more related to making changes after the fact, as the contract becomes fairly inflexible. If they missed something writing it out, then they're likely stuck with it.
It was in the, "I work for the Mayor" thread so you wouldn't have found it.
Nah, on opening day I bitched about it in this thread and we talked a bit about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acey
I don't want to be over dramatic cause it's just a road, but I can't call this Glenmore movement anything other than a catastrophic failure. I'm going through it WB to see if, hopefully, the light is horribly mistimed. It has to be. WB Glenmore over Stoney shouldn't have hardly any volume in the afternoon rush.
Less on Deerfoot
