Where? 22x between Deerfoot and 52nd? Those polls have always crossed ponds.
My best is he's talking about the east side of Stoney NE in the vicinity of Country Hills Blvd NE. Looks like a lake is up there and the poles aren't doing so well as a result.
Ask the people in Prestwick and McKenzie think of their roundabout. I lived down there for 4 years, and in that time NO ONE figured the damn thing out.
It didn't help when they repainted the thing to allow McKenzie Towne Blvd traffic to use both lanes all the way through. The problem is not the circle, but the lack of giant, neon, flashing "IF YOU ARE IN THE RIGHT LANE, YIELD YOU WORTHLESS SACK OF CRAP" signs.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
If this is all controlled by lights, I don't see how it'll be much of an issue. Seems pretty cool and free flowing.
On a related note: glad to see the city has scrapped plans "for now" for the roundabout on 68th street, in front of the Monterey Square. What a cluster-#### that would have been.
The whole point is to have free flow traffic turning Left so there won't be lights to really help people get adjusted to the main traffic flow (left onto NB Macleod).
It'll be interesting for sure. Glad I'll be living elsewhere by the time this starts.
You want to put a roundabout in, because the province screwed up the access to southbound 68th from westbound 16th? HA! The only reason the roundabout idea was being thrown around is because the province screwed up the interchange, and didn't allow the access. And in 10 to 13 years, they'll be putting in an overpass...just like what's at 52nd and 16th. It's a waste of money. They expect people to know to use the roundabout to go back south. So...turn right...so you can turn around and go south. It's so laughable.
You're really making roundabouts out to be a lot harder than they are, which admittedly, probably reflects why a lot of people don't like them. In a lot of cases, they are more efficient and safer than a signalled intersection.
If somebody can't figure out that a giant, continuous circle will get them to their exit, then they really shouldn't be driving. If it takes someone more than one trip through there to figure out how to go south, then they are a struggler, plain and simple. Blowing a yield on a roundabout is no different than blowing a yield anywhere else - you'll hit someone and it will be your fault.
I'll admit that double-lane roundabouts are a bit more complicated, but they're still not that tricky. I have actually found that Calgarians are getting better with roundabouts as more are appearing around town. While I'm not familiar with that area in particular, it seems like eliminating that light would improve the flow for everyone.
Obviously, I'm a proponent of roundabouts and would like to see more of them where they are deemed suitable. They're just better at moving cars. Drivers are learning them and will continue to get better.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jimmy Stang For This Useful Post:
My only fear with the diverging diamond is not its ability to move traffic effectively, but rather the difficulty drivers and pedestrians will have adjusting to it... after that I too am sure it will be fine. Additionally, six months of the year is winter in Calgary and the lane markings on the pavement are a big part of making this easier to navigate. It's no worse than a SPUI (Macleod/Glenmore) but people are used to that already.
You're really making roundabouts out to be a lot harder than they are, which admittedly, probably reflects why a lot of people don't like them. In a lot of cases, they are more efficient and safer than a signalled intersection.
If somebody can't figure out that a giant, continuous circle will get them to their exit, then they really shouldn't be driving. If it takes someone more than one trip through there to figure out how to go south, then they are a struggler, plain and simple. Blowing a yield on a roundabout is no different than blowing a yield anywhere else - you'll hit someone and it will be your fault.
I'll admit that double-lane roundabouts are a bit more complicated, but they're still not that tricky. I have actually found that Calgarians are getting better with roundabouts as more are appearing around town. While I'm not familiar with that area in particular, it seems like eliminating that light would improve the flow for everyone.
Obviously, I'm a proponent of roundabouts and would like to see more of them where they are deemed suitable. They're just better at moving cars. Drivers are learning them and will continue to get better.
I don't see how a single lane roundabout could be a problem for anyone. Even if you completely disregard the rules... Just don't go when there's a car coming? I don't see the difficulty.
The Following User Says Thank You to polak For This Useful Post:
I would go out of my way while driving for a chance to take out strugglers.
My wife dislikes how I perk up and get my horn fingers ready when approaching a roundabout. I see it as my duty to "inform" my fellow drivers they they just blew through a yield, and that their behaviour needs correcting.
Don't get me wrong, I drive through it cautiously and properly - I'm just ready for when someone inevitably fails to yield going in. I do maintain, however, that people are slowly getting better at them.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jimmy Stang For This Useful Post:
It was going to suck regardlesss of the design they chose for the next roughly 24 months. I think that design looks awesome though and should be a great fit for the flow of traffic. Now if they could implement something with the Shawville intersection and do something about the level crossing of the LRT/CP Rail I think I would be happy with 162 Ave.
The thing that pisses me off so much about the Shawville Blvd intersection is how many people come off SB MacLeod, block the free flow and try to get into the turning lanes for the southern half of the mall, when they could just go through 162nd, exit right and come up behind Home Depot with no additional waiting. That's a bad intersection though, and I can't see how it gets better.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
You want to put a roundabout in, because the province screwed up the access to southbound 68th from westbound 16th? HA! The only reason the roundabout idea was being thrown around is because the province screwed up the interchange, and didn't allow the access.
So you'd rather the province put in a substandard entrance from a 100 km/h road to a 90km/h road so you can cross all the lanes of through traffic in a mad dash to hit the left turn lanes? Guess which would be the cause of more accidents than you're currently getting? Guess who would actually be liable for that design error? They did it right.
The City was originally planning to build an interchange at 68th Street in conjunction with the construction of the interchange at Stoney Trail, but it never got going, so now you're stuck with the solution you see now.
So somewhat unrelated, but this has bugged me for quite a while. Does anyone know why these strange little side roads exist on Southbound Deerfoot near MacKenzie?
So somewhat unrelated, but this has bugged me for quite a while. Does anyone know why these strange little side roads exist on Southbound Deerfoot near MacKenzie?
There are a few of them, of different lengths. There seems to be no logical reason for them. Are they Police sidings?
Not sure about that one specifically but some are for access to utilities. There is one along Mahogany and 22x that is specifically to access an underground PRV chamber for yearly testing. Others are probably for maintenance vehicles in general as well.
__________________ Go Flames Go!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Rhettzky For This Useful Post:
I never suggested this. Although you wouldn't believe how many people were saying "take down the barrier so cars can get over to the left turning lane." <SMH> There isn't enough time and distance to do that safely, as you indicated.
It's too bad they couldn't have done a second ramp to take cars to that left turning lane. I'm not an engineer, but I imagine it had to do with the land / space available.
You kept saying the province screwed up the interchange, so uh...yeah, you were suggesting they did it wrong?
A "second ramp" just for that left turn lane would be very expensive to do it properly (ie. yet another bridge) and wouldn't make sense with the interchange the city will eventually install, so it would be a big waste of money.
