Ring Road To Nowhere

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Roger

That's all I was asking. If there were future plans. Didn't mean to offend anyone or make it sound like it's a huge problem today.

No offense taken or anything, I was just clarifying that if it does need a fix, the interchange is not designed in a way for that fix to be easy.

Plans are roughly done for a WB-SB flyover at at Airport Trail and Deerfoot, and they're going to cram a half interchange with southbound access at 128 Ave, i.e. between CHB and Stoney. Both projects will go once required and money is found, taking a bit of weight off that weave.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by timun

Thanks for clarifying, seems dumb on AT's part to make this somewhat arbitrary distinction. Going westbound past 37th Street Glenmore feels awfully slow at 80 km/h, and eastbound feels not much less ludicrous.

Do most drivers even only go 80 around there? It definitely is not a design speed of 80, and feels like a 100/110 road.

Still crossing fingers that they bring back the concrete barriers between Sarcee and 37th for EB traffic so the speed limit can be back to what it should be. Hell, if they do that, should bump it up to 100 actually.

If they don't bring back those barriers, we should find where they're locked up, and put them back ourselves.

[Roger]

Originally Posted by Acey

No offense taken or anything, I was just clarifying that if it does need a fix, the interchange is not designed in a way for that fix to be easy.

Plans are roughly done for a WB-SB flyover at at Airport Trail and Deerfoot, and they're going to cram a half interchange with southbound access at 128 Ave, i.e. between CHB and Stoney. Both projects will go once required and money is found, taking a bit of weight off that weave.

Agreed. And looking at how they went to great lengths in the SE by not giving Cranston and McKenzie direct access, it confuses me as to why they'd put such a short weave on the north side at potentially the busiest intersection in the city, and maybe the province. I'm guessing oversight, as there's no way they couldn't have projected that the rest of NNE/NNW wouldn't fill out in 10-20 years. It is essentially a cloverleaf flaw, only (barely) mitigated by it being on a separated lane/road.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Do most drivers even only go 80 around there? It definitely is not a design speed of 80, and feels like a 100/110 road.

Still crossing fingers that they bring back the concrete barriers between Sarcee and 37th for EB traffic so the speed limit can be back to what it should be. Hell, if they do that, should bump it up to 100 actually.

I'm routinely going 80-100 KM/H in that zone and I don't find I'm passing very many people.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Roger

I'm guessing oversight, as there's no way they couldn't have projected that the rest of NNE/NNW wouldn't fill out in 10-20 years. It is essentially a cloverleaf flaw, only (barely) mitigated by it being on a separated lane/road.

Not oversight, it's cost-benefit. You call it barely mitigation, any modern highway design guide calls it 100% mitigation given that the weave is off the mainline. We are not Texas and have decided that, given their cost and other factors Texas does not face, we are not building four-level stacks. If the flyover is not needed for 20 years, you have to factor in 20 years of additional maintenance costs when deciding if you build it or not... you don't just build $100 million interchanges and hope for the best.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Joborule

It definitely is not a design speed of 80

It's technically a design speed of 90 as limits are posted 10 below the design, i.e. mainline ring road is 110 posted at 100. So let's look at what we've got here. The radius of the curve at my blue arrow:

Spoiler!

is roughly ~350 meters, which based on the chart on page 45 restricts it to a design speed of 90. The ramps from WB Glenmore to WB Stoney and from EB Stoney to EB Glenmore would generally have a design speed of 80, but an exception was made for those to be bumped up to to 90 to allow Glenmore to just be posted at 80 the whole way through. So if the ramps at the west end have to be 80 and you have to be 80 to go around the curve at 37 St, there's obviously no point having 1,100 meters of 100 or 110 kph pavement.

There are other things, like the noise mitigation measures that are based on modelling at a certain speed. If you make Glenmore 110 through there just because it looks like an interstate, it now fails noise and you need bigger walls and higher berms adding to the cost of the project. It's the same reason (among many) that you can't just erase the speed limit on Stoney NW. Everyone up there signed up to live next to Stoney Trail, not the autobahn.

[Roger]

Originally Posted by Acey

Not oversight, it's cost-benefit. You call it barely mitigation, any modern highway design guide calls it 100% mitigation given that the weave is off the mainline. We are not Texas and have decided that, given their cost and other factors Texas does not face, we are not building four-level stacks. If the flyover is not needed for 20 years, you have to factor in 20 years of additional maintenance costs when deciding if you build it or not... you don't just build $100 million interchanges and hope for the best.

Around here we do. Not sure if you've ever driven that back road called Deerfoot, but not one of the interchanges are the same or predictable.

I'm really not trying to insult anyone, and I don't know why this seems to be a question that pisses you off. It's clear and obvious that they have taken the next 25 years into consideration with much of the RR, but at this one intersection, they've repeated the exact same mistake they did on Deerfoot.

Yes, they can fix it in 20 years, and yes, they will need to. And also, yes, it will be a royal PITA when they do. I'm just asking IF there is a plan (and by extension, what that plan looks like). I am sorry for ruffling feathers.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Roger

I don't know why this seems to be a question that pisses you off.

I'm not at all pissed off, I just fundamentally disagree that it's the exact same mistake. It's a multi-lane collector/distributor, a configuration that does not exist anywhere else on Deerfoot. What I think you're comparing it to is the weaves on SB Deerfoot at McKnight or Glenmore, but those are single lane configurations and far more prone to failure.

Originally Posted by Roger

Around here we do. Not sure if you've ever driven that back road called Deerfoot, but not one of the interchanges are the same or predictable.

6 interchanges on Deerfoot are identical. They are parclo A4; couple others are slight variations of it. This is Alberta's interchange of choice in the urban environment as they represent a good balance between safety, cost and capacity and all behave in a similar fashion. Nearly every service interchange on Stoney and Henday are parclo A4 unless there's some specific reason it wouldn't work there. It's like copy/paste.

Originally Posted by Roger

I'm just asking IF there is a plan (and by extension, what that plan looks like). I am sorry for ruffling feathers.

No feathers ruffled; to my knowledge there is no immediate plan, but I simply believe this to be a result of the existing configuration being higher capacity than you're giving it credit for, as opposed to oversight.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Roger

....

...but at this one intersection, they've repeated the exact same mistake they did on Deerfoot.

Yes, they can fix it in 20 years, and yes, they will need to. And also, yes, it will be a royal PITA when they do. I'm just asking IF there is a plan (and by extension, what that plan looks like). I am sorry for ruffling feathers.

I've gone by that intersection a fair amount, and I don't share your same anticipation that it will need to be modified from how it is right now. The concern of North Central densification causing that movement to cause conflict with WB -> SB traffic I highly doubt will ever get to weaving/congestion problems. Along with a new partial interchange being built at 128 Ave NE, the two interchanges north of Stoney Trail also have plans for upgrades according to Alberta Transportation website. Although I figure most traffic will probably use Stoney, NC Calgary will have interchanges further north to support the development that happens that far up as.

Perhaps HWY 566 will be developed as some sort of high level arterial/expressway to push traffic over to there to get to Deerfoot; rather than heading south to Stoney.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I think the biggest issue here is the access at 69th Street/Stoney is still horrific.

This is just going to compound issues; seems insanely short sighted that no alternate access has been contemplated. Luckily everyone in Springbank and Discovery are livid about it already, so hopefully something happens.

I don't drive it often, and rarely at rush hour, but it's not nearly as annoying as I thought it might be...at least exiting onto 69 st. The slowdown for the loop before the left turn light is almost a nice psychological transition from the freeway to the many lights of 69 st. In other words, I think I might find the lights more aggravating if thrust into them from a lovely fast free-flow off-ramp and smacking immediately into lights.

[Acey]

Went through there again today. I just don't see how it's horrific but maybe I'm missing something. I guess things are relative... like if that is horrible then there is simply no adjective to describe Bow/Sarcee.

Got some insight from somebody who worked on the SW regarding the Glenmore weave and the speed limit. He didn't say much, but I can say three things:

- there has been a lot of yelling on conference calls over the last year
- they tried to stop the barrier from getting poured but someone figured if that they just went ahead and poured it they couldn't possibly make them nuke it
- the saga is not over and they are seeking multiple independent audits/reviews

So for those hoping the merge lane is eliminated and the speed limit increased back to 80, there is still hope.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I think you mean southbound Sarcee. And no, it's a single lane change. You take the flyover in the right hand lane, and you get your own lane. You change one lane over and you are in an exit lane to 37th St.

It's by our house, I drive it constantly.

I drove it again today.

So I think you are taking it from southbound Sarcee onto east bound glenmore where you have to make one lane change to get into the optional exit at 37th.

I’m going from the south, Northbound on Stoney going eastbound on glenmore and you have to merge out of the must exit lane for 37th into the same common optional exit lane. So in the same short stretch you have cars merging from the left and right into the same lane.

Not quite a classic weave but still ugly and still have 2 sets of cars crossing each others path.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by GGG

I drove it again today.

So I think you are taking it from southbound Sarcee onto east bound glenmore where you have to make one lane change to get into the optional exit at 37th.

I’m going from the south, Northbound on Stoney going eastbound on glenmore and you have to merge out of the must exit lane for 37th into the same common optional exit lane. So in the same short stretch you have cars merging from the left and right into the same lane.

Not quite a classic weave but still ugly and still have 2 sets of cars crossing each others path.

And as more cars from the south use it to go to Crowchild, it might become a problem; which is why there was that barrier in the first place aside from the short distance at 80 km/h speeds.

Sounding like a broken record obviously, but there's multiple alternative options to get to the Casino from Sarcee. Just put the barriers back up and have it as it was intended to be.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by GGG

So in the same short stretch you have cars merging from the left and right into the same lane.

True, but it's a weird config. Traffic from the south (NB-EB) has 330 meters to merge left, then make a single lane change, before SB-EB traffic off the flyover even joins them. From this point NB-EB traffic then has about 350 meters before they have to have made their single lane change to the right, else they're committed to 37 St. It's just frustrating that people suck so bad at driving for this to even be a discussion we're having.

NSFW!

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Joborule

And as more cars from the south use it to go to Crowchild, it might become a problem; which is why there was that barrier in the first place aside from the short distance at 80 km/h speeds.

Sounding like a broken record obviously, but there's multiple alternative options to get to the Casino from Sarcee. Just put the barriers back up and have it as it was intended to be.

Any mention of Crowchild triggers me. Seriously, when the hell are they going to put the damn signage up so we can get rid of that stupid 60 / 70 zone on Crowchild and put it back to 80 like it was supposed to be in the first place?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Acey

True, but it's a weird config. Traffic from the south (NB-EB) has 330 meters to merge left, then make a single lane change, before SB-EB traffic off the flyover even joins them. From this point NB-EB traffic then has about 350 meters before they have to have made their single lane change to the right, else they're committed to 37 St. It's just frustrating that people suck so bad at driving for this to even be a discussion we're having.

NSFW!

The must exit sign for the right lane on 37th isn’t until after the 330m to merge left indicated in your first picture. So if you want people to act earlier there should be a sign telling them.

[bob-loblaw]

I'd like to know how they determine how much time it takes to complete certain components of their work.
Spruce Meadows closure was initially June 15-Aug 15 on the sign board. A month in it was changed to Sep 15. I swear NB to EB Stoney closure was until August 31st, and now it's September 15th. They closed Sheriff King to James McKevitt from Aug 21-Aug 30, then changed to Sep 6th.
Are they that bad estimating time or just messing with us so we don't complain about the length of the closures? It reminds of the Rick Mercer skit about Environment Canada's weather forecasts.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by bob-loblaw

I'd like to know how they determine how much time it takes to complete certain components of their work.
Spruce Meadows closure was initially June 15-Aug 15 on the sign board. A month in it was changed to Sep 15. I swear NB to EB Stoney closure was until August 31st, and now it's September 15th. They closed Sheriff King to James McKevitt from Aug 21-Aug 30, then changed to Sep 6th.
Are they that bad estimating time or just messing with us so we don't complain about the length of the closures? It reminds of the Rick Mercer skit about Environment Canada's weather forecasts.

Years ago when they were building the Stoney/Crowchild interchange the public updates they periodically provided subtly changed wording from 'progressing on time' to 'progressing on schedule' part way through the project. The project had fallen behind the original timeline significantly so they kept updating the schedule to reflect these delays and therefore could continually claim the project was on schedule.

[The Fisher Account]

What happened to the offramp at Macleod NB turning off to Stoney EB? When does that re-open?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Years ago when they were building the Stoney/Crowchild interchange the public updates they periodically provided subtly changed wording from 'progressing on time' to 'progressing on schedule' part way through the project. The project had fallen behind the original timeline significantly so they kept updating the schedule to reflect these delays and therefore cold continually claim the project was on schedule.

I seem to recall an interchange upgrade near my house that said "April to Aug 2018" or something. It didn't even start until Sept and didn't finish until the following summer.

What is even the point of these dates if they mean nothing?