Ring Road To Nowhere

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Not the newest leg, but there was some recent discussion in this thread about backups for WB Glenmore to SB Stoney..

Yeah that's a fair comment, it does seem a little tight for the intended flow.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Yeah that's a fair comment, it does seem a little tight for the intended flow.

It is a bit surprising that they'd only provide a single lane ramp to southbound, yet west Stoney direction is the full three lanes.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

yet west Stoney direction is the full three lanes.

It does reduce to 2 just before joining mainline, to be fair. AT doesn't like 3+3 merges. There are mega long-term plans to twin 8 all the way out to 22, and for 22 to be a freeway - which would make that westbound through movement more important.

Originally Posted by ken0042

I think they under estimated the traffic flow.

Not the answer anyone wants to hear, but a decision was made to simply not make any fundamental changes from the design drafted many many years ago for the SW leg, which saved a ton of time and expedited the project. New modeling for the traffic flow would have been done for other things like noise, and those models very well could be spot on.

I'm not saying this is "acceptable", but rather that there's not a bunch of engineers shocked and in awe losing sleep over the shocking revelation that WB Glenmore to SB Stoney isn't flowing great.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Acey

It does reduce to 2 just before joining mainline, to be fair. AT doesn't like 3+3 merges. There are mega long-term plans to twin 8 all the way out to 22, and for 22 to be a freeway - which would make that westbound through movement more important.


Not the answer anyone wants to hear, but a decision was made to simply not make any fundamental changes from the design drafted many many years ago for the SW leg, which saved a ton of time and expedited the project. New modeling for the traffic flow would have been done for other things like noise, and those models very well could be spot on.

I'm not saying this is "acceptable", but rather that there's not a bunch of engineers shocked and in awe losing sleep over the shocking revelation that WB Glenmore to SB Stoney isn't flowing great.

Do you know the reason why that particular interchange got baked in? IIRC, the interchange at Anderson was changed from what was originally presented at the information sessions. I recollected that the intersection had the N-S movement flowing beneath a WB Anderson to SB ring road flyover. However, after what I assume was value engineering, the final design reversed that. I believe my memory of the original design is correct as I used to live in that corner of Woodbine so I was kind of interested in how that area was going to be impacted.

If my memory is correct, what about the Glenmore, Sarcee, and RR interchange that made it difficult or undesirable to re-design? You've alluded to costs but were there other factors?

[you&me]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Do you know the reason why that particular interchange got baked in? IIRC, the interchange at Anderson was changed from what was originally presented at the information sessions. I recollected that the intersection had the N-S movement flowing beneath a WB Anderson to SB ring road flyover. However, after what I assume was value engineering, the final design reversed that. I believe my memory of the original design is correct as I used to live in that corner of Woodbine so I was kind of interested in how that area was going to be impacted.

If my memory is correct, what about the Glenmore, Sarcee, and RR interchange that made it difficult or undesirable to re-design? You've alluded to costs but were there other factors?

From the last couple of pages -

Originally Posted by Acey

Because of the nearby power station, the loop ramp from wesbound Glenmore to southbound Stoney has a very tight turning radius and traffic moves slowly to the degree that it's backing up onto westbound Glenmore allegedly all the way to 37 St, compounded by a confusing lane configuration approaching the entire interchange.

Originally Posted by Acey

Yeah I explained that confusingly. What I meant is that it wasn't an oversight, but rather like I said the only way for a directional ramp on the WB-SB movement would be the insurmountable movement of the substation, or a big flyover all the way over top the entire complex which would have been a big challenge given the proximity of 37 St as the approach would have to start really far back, so that leaves only a tunnel.

So finding some way to skew the interchange to give them just enough room to build a 2 lane loop ramp might have been the least of all evils.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by you&me

From the last couple of pages -

Thanks, I had read those posts previously. I guess I could have been more specific, in particular, about the two loops. Why is the EB-NB loop bigger and WB - SB smaller? I'm assuming that peak loads on the WB - SB movement would be greater than the other movement; at present and in the future so it would be more accommodating to have the sizes reversed. It would probably mean that EB and WB traffic lanes would have to jog to the South a little.

ETA: I'm not forgetting about the (theoretical) future outer ring road, either. Does leaving room for those additional through lanes make my amateur engineer suggestion impossible?

[Jimmy Stang]

Are there any plans to connect Grey Eagle Drive and Westhills Way? Google Maps has a little section called Tsuut’ina Parkway on each the Westhills Way side, and also the Grey Eagle Drive side, which suggests that they might connect.

If that’s the case, the more savvy drivers could exit WB Glenmore later via Westhills Way, use those little roundabouts, and join SB Stoney a bit farther south.

And who “owns” the land where that missing link would be? Was that part of the province’s acquisition, or does that part belong to Tsuut’ina?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Acey

It does reduce to 2 just before joining mainline, to be fair. AT doesn't like 3+3 merges. There are mega long-term plans to twin 8 all the way out to 22, and for 22 to be a freeway - which would make that westbound through movement more important.


Not the answer anyone wants to hear, but a decision was made to simply not make any fundamental changes from the design drafted many many years ago for the SW leg, which saved a ton of time and expedited the project. New modeling for the traffic flow would have been done for other things like noise, and those models very well could be spot on.

I'm not saying this is "acceptable", but rather that there's not a bunch of engineers shocked and in awe losing sleep over the shocking revelation that WB Glenmore to SB Stoney isn't flowing great.

This makes sense considering the entirety of the interchange is on Tsuut'ina land (though really most of the SWRR is until Fish Creek Blvd). The nation rightly used time constraints as a negotiation chip, so we literally would have had to 'buy' more time to make any changes (in addition to the cost of the changes themselves).


I'd argue that is in fact completely acceptable (though not ideal) to have moderate backups at peak hour, even on a brand new project. 11/12 movements being excellent is good enough in my book. Of course the big issue here is backups happening down the middle lane which is obviously no buono. Even if they didn't anticipate this much volume for whatever reason in the original design it sucks that they failed to weigh the impact this kind of failure could have

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

This makes sense considering the entirety of the interchange is on Tsuut'ina land (though really most of the SWRR is until Fish Creek Blvd). The nation rightly used time constraints as a negotiation chip, so we literally would have had to 'buy' more time to make any changes (in addition to the cost of the changes themselves).


I'd argue that is in fact completely acceptable (though not ideal) to have moderate backups at peak hour, even on a brand new project. 11/12 movements being excellent is good enough in my book. Of course the big issue here is backups happening down the middle lane which is obviously no buono. Even if they didn't anticipate this much volume for whatever reason in the original design it sucks that they failed to weigh the impact this kind of failure could have

My argument to this is that this project is strangely overbuilt in some key sections such as the size of the land it occupies. It lacks considerable safety features, signage and more and it appears to have dropped the ball in very key, high growth areas.

This is all happening in one of the richest provinces in the country, it's largest city, one of Canada's fastest growing cities and more.

We also pay an incredible amount of taxes to all levels of government for what is very marginal infrastructure. This was not the complex project that a lot of people want this to be. There are some engineering aspects for sure but let's be honest, it's mostly flat, a lot of the land was set aside years ago and the basic design has not changed very much in 40+ years. In essence some dirt was moved, a base was formed, some bridges and overpasses built

The construction team worked hard but the truth is they didn't tunnel under a bustling city, or cut through a difficult mountain pass or need to deal with an ocean, significant archaeological concerns and more.

We sometimes forget just how easy certain transportation projects can be here but we make them difficult. You have cities and countries all over the world that wouldn't allow a road/rail like this to be built in this fashion full knowing the concerns with specific aspects of vital sections.

Sorry about the rant, you are not to blame or anything. I am always perplexed with how we allow this mediocrity to occur here. It's become second nature.

We have huge swaths of the Trans Canada Highway in BC being in essence's a country, rural road from the 50's in a poor country when in reality, this road should be been twinned decades ago.

[Acey]

Except the land wasn't set aside and had to be acquired from TTN for $260M in a landmark deal that resulted in significant penalty to the province if the time constraints were not met, that's why we're having this discussion in the first place. I'm also curious as to where the road is unsafe?

I have no dog in this fight, I really don't care. Just trying to get on the same page.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by Acey

Except the land wasn't set aside and had to be acquired from TTN for $260M in a landmark deal that resulted in significant penalty to the province if the time constraints were not met, that's why we're having this discussion in the first place. I'm also curious as to where the road is unsafe?

I have no dog in this fight, I really don't care. Just trying to get on the same page.

A lot of land for the ring road as a whole was set aside, the portion that was purchased and transferred from TTN was at least part of the overall plan, or the preferred route.

Having grown up in the SW where Southland, Anderson, 90th Avenue extensions are now, it was always interesting to me how much land wasn't developed into housing then. Now that everything has been finished, you can see how much of this design was part of the plan to cross the river and connect with 22X etc.

As for the safety, I do think signage could be drastically improved. For a new, modern, busy and expensive built road, it would not be out of the question to have location markers all along the road for emergencies and breakdowns. Having markings every 100 or 200 meters indicating where someone is in the event of a breakdown/emergency. A 1, A 2, A 3 etc.

The road 100% could benefit from the safety wiring that is common on Highway 2 and on Deerfoot.

If you drive the road and look at the ditch and some of the catch basins and more, you can see how single car accidents result in death and significant injuries. It's Calgary, so we have to deal with terrible winter weather, people sliding into the ditch, live animals, medical events and more.

Whenever a serious crash or a death occurs on this road or others, I always wonder if we had designed it with safety top of mind, would this death or injury occur? Things do happen but does a lack of safety features play a role? It's one thing for older infrastructure to lack safety features but it's another thing for brand new, expensive road to do the same.

The part through the TTN is very dangerous due to icing on the bridge and all the wildlife that comes up from Fish Creek Park. Is it any wonder why accidents happen all the time or near misses and people ending up in the ditch either injured, killed or with significant damage to their car?

[Acey]

Originally Posted by curves2000

As for the safety, I do think signage could be drastically improved. For a new, modern, busy and expensive built road, it would not be out of the question to have location markers all along the road for emergencies and breakdowns. Having markings every 100 or 200 meters indicating where someone is in the event of a breakdown/emergency. A 1, A 2, A 3 etc.

To me and to most people, including the people who build roads, what makes a road safe is things like sightlines, gradients, loop radii, surface, proximity of obstructions if a vehicle were to leave the roadway, etc. Everyone is welcome to write their own definition, but I'd fundamentally disagree with the statement that Stoney Trail is "not safe" because it lacks little parking lot signs every few hundred meters that are not codified in our Highway Geometric Guide. "I'm northbound a couple hundred meters past Costco" should be enough for my tow truck driver to track me down.

Originally Posted by curves2000

The road 100% could benefit from the safety wiring that is common on Highway 2 and on Deerfoot.

It's called HTCB, high-tension cable barrier. Stoney has a TON of this... like the entire freeway where it's required. I'm guessing you only drive a small portion of Stoney SW/TTN Trail, i.e. a portion where it's not required because the median is 3 miles wide.

The purpose of HTCB on QEII is to minimize head-on collisions where there are narrower grass medians.

Originally Posted by curves2000

Is it any wonder why accidents happen all the time or near misses and people ending up in the ditch either injured, killed or with significant damage to their car?

On SW Stoney, how much higher is the rate of serious accidents than that which was expected?

Originally Posted by curves2000

My argument to this is that this project is strangely overbuilt in some key sections such as the size of the land it occupies. It lacks considerable safety features, signage and more and it appears to have dropped the ball in very key, high growth areas.

Signage sucks, yes. I fundamentally disagree with every other part of this statement. The "overbuilt" i.e. wide median of the SW was from the original design that left room for an outer ring road that has since been scrubbed, we've talked about that already... they claim to have felt time constrained because of the TTN deal if they had tried to do a new design for the whole leg.

Aside from that, what else specifically is overbuilt? What safety features are lacking besides the parking lot markers not required by any road code? Where else was the ball dropped?

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by Acey

To me and to most people, including the people who build roads, what makes a road safe is things like sightlines, gradients, loop radii, surface, proximity of obstructions if a vehicle were to leave the roadway, etc. Everyone is welcome to write their own definition, but I'd fundamentally disagree with the statement that Stoney Trail is "not safe" because it lacks little parking lot signs every few hundred meters that are not codified in our Highway Geometric Guide. "I'm northbound a couple hundred meters past Costco" should be enough for my tow truck driver to track me down.

Dont emergency services know your exact location as soon as you, or someone else calls with a cell phone? If it’s just a call to AMA, etc, then “3 mins past the 164th overpass” should also do the trick, unless there are some many cars pulled over they can’t tell which is yours. Agree that this seems to be an odd complaint.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Are there any plans to connect Grey Eagle Drive and Westhills Way? Google Maps has a little section called Tsuut’ina Parkway on each the Westhills Way side, and also the Grey Eagle Drive side, which suggests that they might connect.

If that’s the case, the more savvy drivers could exit WB Glenmore later via Westhills Way, use those little roundabouts, and join SB Stoney a bit farther south.

And who “owns” the land where that missing link would be? Was that part of the province’s acquisition, or does that part belong to Tsuut’ina?

Yes there are plans to join Grey Eagle Drive and Westhills Way, and that's what precisely Tsuut'ina Parkway is for.

The Tsuut'ina retained ownership of the land there, which is why it wasn't finished in the first place. The construction team stopped building at the edge of the project boundary. It's up to the Tsuut'ina to finish it.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Acey

Except the land wasn't set aside and had to be acquired from TTN for $260M in a landmark deal that resulted in significant penalty to the province if the time constraints were not met, that's why we're having this discussion in the first place. I'm also curious as to where the road is unsafe?

I have no dog in this fight, I really don't care. Just trying to get on the same page.

Just a hypothesis but having the middle of five lanes of traffic crawling along where the four outer lanes have a speed limit of 80 km/h while many in those outer lanes are trying to merge into the slower, inner lane because that or the other outer lanes is their ultimate lane of choice seems potentially unsafe.

Maybe not as unsafe as that run-on sentence of mine, though.

[D as in David]

The NB - WB dual lane loop from 52nd St SE onto the ring road measures roughly the same diameter as the WB - SB loop under discussion here so it's not like this solution hasn't been used elsewhere on the RR.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by Acey

To me and to most people, including the people who build roads, what makes a road safe is things like sightlines, gradients, loop radii, surface, proximity of obstructions if a vehicle were to leave the roadway, etc. Everyone is welcome to write their own definition, but I'd fundamentally disagree with the statement that Stoney Trail is "not safe" because it lacks little parking lot signs every few hundred meters that are not codified in our Highway Geometric Guide. "I'm northbound a couple hundred meters past Costco" should be enough for my tow truck driver to track me down.



It's called HTCB, high-tension cable barrier. Stoney has a TON of this... like the entire freeway where it's required. I'm guessing you only drive a small portion of Stoney SW/TTN Trail, i.e. a portion where it's not required because the median is 3 miles wide.

The purpose of HTCB on QEII is to minimize head-on collisions where there are narrower grass medians.


On SW Stoney, how much higher is the rate of serious accidents than that which was expected?



Signage sucks, yes. I fundamentally disagree with every other part of this statement. The "overbuilt" i.e. wide median of the SW was from the original design that left room for an outer ring road that has since been scrubbed, we've talked about that already... they claim to have felt time constrained because of the TTN deal if they had tried to do a new design for the whole leg.

Aside from that, what else specifically is overbuilt? What safety features are lacking besides the parking lot markers not required by any road code? Where else was the ball dropped?

I am full agreement with you on something like "Northbound, just passed the Costco" Except the problem with that is that you have no idea how many people don't have any directional awareness about anything. Probably why people use GPS to get around their city where they grew up in.

With markings there is zero guess work for anybody, not just locals. It's a requirement for safety in some of the busiest and safest roads in Europe. Germans and Swiss aren't guessing it's 400 meters from the Costco if it's actually 180. This isn't some expensive luxury item. What happens for people who are not familiar where they are, just passing through in the middle of the night?

As for the median and the cable, if you envision what happens if you go into the ditch at those speeds, what will happen? Sure the width will prevent a crash from oncoming traffic, but what happens to you or me? You have power and signage poles everywhere just off the road. That is unsafe considering the wildlife, the road conditions in the winter, medical events, drunk and distracted driving and more.

The road was built in modern times and at considerable expense. We should be going for the highest level of safety systems to prevent collisions.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by curves2000

As for the median and the cable, if you envision what happens if you go into the ditch at those speeds, what will happen? Sure the width will prevent a crash from oncoming traffic, but what happens to you or me?

Everybody dies, I guess? It sounds like you want HTCB on both sides of every singe kilometer of road that exists in this province, which I suppose is a reasonable argument... my only point was that this alleged lack of safety is therefore not unique to Stoney Trail.

I wasn't quite prepared for a perfectly straight 8 lane freeway in the middle of nowhere to be called unsafe, I suppose.

Originally Posted by D as in David

The NB - WB dual lane loop from 52nd St SE onto the ring road measures roughly the same diameter as the WB - SB loop under discussion here so it's not like this solution hasn't been used elsewhere on the RR.

Different radius requirement for a different classification of on-ramp from a side street.

[GGG]

I would suspect that high tension cable barriers have worse outcomes for the people that hit them then cruising to a stop in a snowy or grassy ditch.

Signs are made to fail on impact.

Anytime you take something going fast and slow it down rapidly you increase risk of injury.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Brendone

Dont emergency services know your exact location as soon as you, or someone else calls with a cell phone? If it’s just a call to AMA, etc, then “3 mins past the 164th overpass” should also do the trick, unless there are some many cars pulled over they can’t tell which is yours. Agree that this seems to be an odd complaint.

No they don’t. Only in movies