Ring Road To Nowhere

[powderjunkie]

I think it's the permanent solution. There's probably a good reason, but that sucks...especially since access to 85 St will be gone, too?

[Acey]

It is permanent, and it's unfortunate but there's just no room... the final configuration is for the same reason as the 130 Ave half-interchange we just talked about. It's too close to the Westhills Way interchange, and it would have been extremely tight to fit a braided ramp in there - directly in the backyards of people on Sierra Madre Crescent and Sierra Nevada Way and be really terrible for them if they had somehow made it work. Looking at the map, I don't see any way they could have made it work at reasonable cost. One option I maybe see would remove access to Discovery Ridge/69 Street for traffic coming north on Stoney from Tsuu'tina altogether, while adding cost... so that's a lose-lose.

The heavy left turning traffic will be in the afternoon, when through traffic will be less. As long as it's timed correctly it should be fine - but if Stoney SE/Glenmore is any indication it will be timed horribly on opening day.

Overall, I feel the area still wins as Westhills Way can take a much needed load off the Richmond Road/Sarcee intersection. I'm interested to see how long it takes for people to picks up on the fact that it's a very useful backdoor to and from Glenmore, and in fact a requirement if you want to get to 37 St as we talked about earlier.

[Nancy]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think it's the permanent solution. There's probably a good reason, but that sucks...especially since access to 85 St will be gone, too?

Access to 85th has been gone for a long time. IMO, they should build/restore a temporary access there until the West ring road is complete. If Sarcee becomes backlogged, people are going to start using 69th to try to get around traffic, and it will make it extremely difficult to get in or out of the far west end of the City.

[powderjunkie]

The only other idea I see would be to make the WB Westhills Way exit lane go all the way to go to 69 St interchange...WB HWY8 can exit into that lane, but SB Westhills Way heading to WB HWY8 has to yield/merge into that lane, and then go straight through at a revised intersection at 69St in order to access WB HWY8.
(I know HWY8 is going to name change to Stoney, but it still seems more clear to say HWY8 for now!)


Doesn't really solve the Sierra Madre backyard problem, though it seems to me that with a good sound wall, you are often better off being 20m from the road instead of 200 (though of course in this case they would be both).

I would venture that 69st might have the highest traffic on/off the SWRR other than Sarcee/Glenmore and Anderson Road?

Light timing will be critical as Acey says. 69 StNB will go to three+ lanes almost immediately to the north of those lights (at least briefly)...I almost wonder if they should go with a triple left turn there. I'll be pretty annoyed if it ever takes 2 light cycles to get through.

[timun]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I would venture that 69st might have the highest traffic on/off the SWRR other than Sarcee/Glenmore and Anderson Road?

Funny, I would have wagered the opposite, that it would be among the quietest.

That said, my mind's still pretty sure 1995 was only about 10 years ago, and there's nothing out there but a few acreages anyway.

[Mr.Coffee]

All I want is some mercy and for the city to wrap up a couple construction projects. Would also be nice once in awhile to drive by these super long sites nonsensically reducing speed limits by having a million pylons off to the side of the road, not diverting traffic any which direction or making any kind of traffic impact other than to seemingly just be annoying, and just one of these times, see the workers present.......working..... not standing around in groups of 6 chuckling and having a grand old time.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The only other idea I see would be to make the WB Westhills Way exit lane go all the way to go to 69 St interchange...WB HWY8 can exit into that lane, but SB Westhills Way heading to WB HWY8 has to yield/merge into that lane, and then go straight through at a revised intersection at 69St in order to access WB HWY8.
(I know HWY8 is going to name change to Stoney, but it still seems more clear to say HWY8 for now!)

The problem is the SB-WB ramp from Sarcee to Glenmore, that's the one that you have to figure out a way to move. Your idea would work but still be too tight a merge on mainline that's not up to spec.

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I would venture that 69st might have the highest traffic on/off the SWRR other than Sarcee/Glenmore and Anderson Road?

For now, yes. Mckevitt down at the south end will have a lot too when it's done, because of the restricted access at 6 St. Maybe pretty close to 69 St's volume.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Acey

The problem is the SB-WB ramp from Sarcee to Glenmore, that's the one that you have to figure out a way to move. Your idea would work but still be too tight a merge on mainline that's not up to spec.



For now, yes. Mckevitt down at the south end will have a lot too when it's done, because of the restricted access at 6 St. Maybe pretty close to 69 St's volume.

Right you are. I never bothered untangling the crazy web of Sarcee/Glenmore/Stoney/Tsuu Tina since I know it all just somehow works!

Oh well, 69 st kinda sucks now anyways with so many lights


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Acey

It is permanent, and it's unfortunate but there's just no room... the final configuration is for the same reason as the 130 Ave half-interchange we just talked about. It's too close to the Westhills Way interchange, and it would have been extremely tight to fit a braided ramp in there - directly in the backyards of people on Sierra Madre Crescent and Sierra Nevada Way and be really terrible for them if they had somehow made it work. Looking at the map, I don't see any way they could have made it work at reasonable cost. One option I maybe see would remove access to Discovery Ridge/69 Street for traffic coming north on Stoney from Tsuu'tina altogether, while adding cost... so that's a lose-lose.

The heavy left turning traffic will be in the afternoon, when through traffic will be less. As long as it's timed correctly it should be fine - but if Stoney SE/Glenmore is any indication it will be timed horribly on opening day.

Overall, I feel the area still wins as Westhills Way can take a much needed load off the Richmond Road/Sarcee intersection. I'm interested to see how long it takes for people to picks up on the fact that it's a very useful backdoor to and from Glenmore, and in fact a requirement if you want to get to 37 St as we talked about earlier.

Speaking of light timing, who is responsible for timing on the lights that control access to Stoney? The City or the Province? The Tuscany / Scenic Acres lights could use some adjustments but I don't know if 311 is who I would contact.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Speaking of light timing, who is responsible for timing on the lights that control access to Stoney? The City or the Province? The Tuscany / Scenic Acres lights could use some adjustments but I don't know if 311 is who I would contact.

When I had an issue with signal light timing on Southland at Deerfoot (which fell under provincial maintenance), I found this map which had a contact number for the Calgary area: https://www.alberta.ca/assets/docume...es-contact.pdf

They fixed it within a week so that was nice. I figure the Tuscany interchange is also provincial.

[btimbit]

Just keep in mind that this year, any light with a crosswalk is going to have really, really dumb timing because crossing buttons are disabled for Covid

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

All I want is some mercy and for the city to wrap up a couple construction projects. Would also be nice once in awhile to drive by these super long sites nonsensically reducing speed limits by having a million pylons off to the side of the road, not diverting traffic any which direction or making any kind of traffic impact other than to seemingly just be annoying, and just one of these times, see the workers present.......working..... not standing around in groups of 6 chuckling and having a grand old time.

Or any road for that matter. Why do i have to go 70km/h for 3km on Stoney because they are cutting grass way out in the ditch.

You should need a permit for slowing the flow of traffic on major roads and a fine for setting it up incorrectly and another fine for not taking it down when you’re finished your work.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Or any road for that matter. Why do i have to go 70km/h for 3km on Stoney because they are cutting grass way out in the ditch.

You should need a permit for slowing the flow of traffic on major roads and a fine for setting it up incorrectly and another fine for not taking it down when you’re finished your work.

Problem is the people that close the road aren't the people working on the road. There's a lot of different moving parts

[Lil Pedro]

Not SW Ring Road related, but are they ever going to extend 130th SE east out to SE Stoney Trail? I thought it might coincide with them widening 130th to 2 lanes. If not, I wonder if they would build an on-ramp from southbound Stoney onto 130th when the extension is complete?

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Lil Pedro

Not SW Ring Road related, but are they ever going to extend 130th SE east out to SE Stoney Trail? I thought it might coincide with them widening 130th to 2 lanes. If not, I wonder if they would build an on-ramp from southbound Stoney onto 130th when the extension is complete?

Yes. Last plan I saw from the SE documents was a half-diamond for access to/from the north. There's no timeline for this yet that I can see, but to their credit the city has been pretty good since 2009 about extending roads out to Stoney as required and getting interchanges done. Stage 1 could possibly just be a SB-WB ramp and then a bridge over Stoney could come later.

Spoiler!

Image from page 374 of a massive 80 megabyte 522 page pdf, don't open unless you want to: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...Schedule18.PDF

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Just keep in mind that this year, any light with a crosswalk is going to have really, really dumb timing because crossing buttons are disabled for Covid

That lasted about 3 days in my city before the mayor was overwhelmed with complaints of prolonged waits at lights that are rarely red.

I rarely used my the inside of my hand to touch them any other time, why do they need to be sanitary now?

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Problem is the people that close the road aren't the people working on the road. There's a lot of different moving parts

Sometimes but not always. The worst offenders are the ones who close the road themselves.

Anyway, whoever puts up the speed reduction sign should be accountable for it’s use. Seems like a simple concept.

[CaptainYooh]

Is there an official "promised" date for the entire Ring Road completion/opening to the public?

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Anyway, whoever puts up the speed reduction sign should be accountable for it’s use. Seems like a simple concept.

They are. In this case seems like we are talking stoney trai? A few complaints to Alberta Transportation will typically have one of their area managers/supervisors whatever they are called now come out and review. They'll look at the proper usage of signs vs the requirements. And they are pretty strict about it. However, they don't review every work zone, especially temporary ones, mainly do spot checks for the various contractors doing work. So complaints are needed.

Don't know why they would restrict speeds for mowing though. It's not a practice done on other highways.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Is there an official "promised" date for the entire Ring Road completion/opening to the public?

2024 for whole thing
Oct 2021 for SW to Glenmore
Oct 2020 Anderson to Glenmore