Ring Road To Nowhere

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Of all the easy political wins, I don't understand how cities haven't found a way to address this. It would have like 95% approval. Are the accuracy issues really more significant than other traffic enforcement things? Even if 50% of the tickets get thrown out, make the jerks go through that hassle.

We literally just had the province try and subvert due process in the justice system to reduce the load on the courts, and you want to do this?

No thanks. Never mind that most people don't realize a good deal of vehicles in approved, factory configurations would offend their ears and not be ensnared by this.

Originally Posted by Zarley

Anyone know what's up with the 60 speed limit on EB Glenmore just after the ring road? That has to be temporary, right?

It should be gone by now, it's so ridiculous. Everyone is going 80+ through there these days anyway, I just stick with the flow of traffic and run JBV1, Highway Radar, or Waze.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Cedarbrae. And sorry, by elevated I mean the road is at a higher level than the nearby homes, with nothing to block the noise. If you take Anderson eastbound onto the northbound ring road and beyond you’ll see the roofs and yards of a strip of Cedarbrae. That’s where the traffic noise blasts unimpeded.

Fair point, I see what you mean. Is there any intention of building noise barriers?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@50.95459...7i16384!8i8192

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Fair point, I see what you mean. Is there any intention of building noise barriers?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@50.95459...7i16384!8i8192

I'm not sure what the plans are for that stretch but last year they completed a wall further South along that bike path (mid-way through the vehicle ramp onto the ring road) that goes all the way back to the pedestrian bridge that crosses Anderson. That wall was put in next to the bike path and if they were to continue that wall alongside the bike path, the wall would be too low to have any noticeable impact on the surrounding neighbourhood.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

We literally just had the province try and subvert due process in the justice system to reduce the load on the courts, and you want to do this?

No thanks. Never mind that most people don't realize a good deal of vehicles in approved, factory configurations would offend their ears and not be ensnared by this.

Huh? My understanding is that it's hard to prove direct causation of sound violations in environments with a lot going on...how is trying to enforce a regulation for the benefit of society subverting due process? Most infractions are difficult to prove with absolute certainty...


98% of the time people spend speeding goes unpunished...of course the threat of a ticket keeps most of us in reasonable proximity to the speed limits. And when we do get dinged for being 12kph over it sucks, especially the next time Maverick decides to give you a fly-by and you know he's probably not getting a ticket.

I don't see how this would be dissimilar to speeding - if you happen to drive a loud vehicle, but aren't being purposefully obnoxious you'll probably be fine [most of the time]. But it would be great if there was a better mechanism to snare the worst offenders.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

After this little u-turn, what are the bigger plans for Sarcee and Bow? An interchange someday, obviously, but are there any actual plans?

They're not going to start anything significant until the west leg of the ring road is done (for good reason - it would be a disaster), but I would hope that they'd tackle that ASAP afterwards.

I think the plan is to look at that harder once Sarcee and Richmond is complete, but even that looks to have hit delays. Was supposed to start last year I think but they've still only done the temporary changes. No idea what the current status is there, maybe it starts this year

[Nancy]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I think the plan is to look at that harder once Sarcee and Richmond is complete, but even that looks to have hit delays. Was supposed to start last year I think but they've still only done the temporary changes. No idea what the current status is there, maybe it starts this year

Weird that they would consider Richmond a higher priority, as I rarely get caught for more than a one light wait there, but the lineup for the Bow light often stretches all the way back to 17th Ave now. Also, Bow is a major commuting route; those grandmas toddling up Richmond Road to go shopping at Winners have all the time in the world.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Nancy

Weird that they would consider Richmond a higher priority, as I rarely get caught for more than a one light wait there, but the lineup for the Bow light often stretches all the way back to 17th Ave now. Also, Bow is a major commuting route; those grandmas toddling up Richmond Road to go shopping at Winners have all the time in the world.

Yup, Bow should be a much higher priority. One of the worst/busiest intersections in the city, and should have been clover-leafed 15 years ago

And the fact that 17 got done before Bow is also insane (though great for me personally)

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Nancy

Weird that they would consider Richmond a higher priority, as I rarely get caught for more than a one light wait there, but the lineup for the Bow light often stretches all the way back to 17th Ave now. Also, Bow is a major commuting route; those grandmas toddling up Richmond Road to go shopping at Winners have all the time in the world.

My understanding is because of the proximity to Stoney, Richmond is expected to get even busier and is already at capacity.

No matter which way you slice it, both need to be done, and both have been studied. Just need the $

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Huh? My understanding is that it's hard to prove direct causation of sound violations in environments with a lot going on...how is trying to enforce a regulation for the benefit of society subverting due process? Most infractions are difficult to prove with absolute certainty...

It isn't, because that clearly wasn't the point I was making and you focused on the wrong part of the sentence.

If the court system is overburdened (which was the justification for the disastrous 'administrative penalty traffic court' nonsense -- not a comparison), the last thing we need is to start issuing tickets that are difficult for the Crown to prove and result in a lot of people challenging them. If you're issuing a citation, you should have a solid foundation for doing so. Otherwise you are just throwing #### at the wall and seeing what sticks, and that's not how the justice system is supposed to work either. You said "Even if 50% of the tickets get thrown out, make the jerks go through that hassle", how the hell is that an acceptable use of our court system? If they get thrown out, how are they the jerks? I mean, it kinda makes you the jerk for making them have to take time off work to go fight a charge that hadn't a snowball's chance in hell in the first place. It is wasting the court's time too.

Edit: Just in case, I hope this didn't come off too dickish or "Listen here, idiot" because I didn't mean it that way. My concerns, in no particular order, are ensuring the court system has the capacity to deal with the cases before it, ensuring that citizens have confidence in the police and related orgs and that they aren't just there to extract as much money out of / exact as much misery upon them as is legislatively permissible, and that resources are put toward solutions that are genuinely capable of addressing real problems. A program like ticketing for noise where there's barely any confidence that the charge will even stick runs afoul of all three, and as I said, people would be surprised to learn what they hear that is actually a perfectly legal exhaust note -- spend any time around domestic sports cars and exotics, and you'll notice the factory spec ones are still pretty in-your-face, but legal. The above is much the same reason I get incensed over preposterously low speed limits in areas (like Glenmore EB at Stoney / Sarcee); they purport to be about 'safety' but they create a larger speed differential amongst drivers than just having a consistent 80 KM/H speed limit throughout the entire stretch.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yup, Bow should be a much higher priority. One of the worst/busiest intersections in the city, and should have been clover-leafed 15 years ago

And the fact that 17 got done before Bow is also insane (though great for me personally)

17th was done as part of the WLRT project

[you&me]

I always wondered if there was ever a plan for Sarcee to serve as a section of WRR?

It would (does) connect directly to the SWRR, is a broad corridor that could easily fit more lanes, already had the interchange at 17th completed and already had plans in place for something at 16th / Sarcee... I suppose the two lanes each way up the hill from 16th was the pinch point and I don't know if there's a viable solution there... But if there was, it sure seems like it would have been far quicker, cheaper and easier than the current route for the WRR. Just wondering if it was ever considered?

[timun]

Sarcee was part of the plans for a ring road going back to the '50s: https://calgaryringroad.com/2012/05/...rtation-plans/

By the '70s the alignment on the east and south sides—between 68th and 84th St East, and along 22X—was already settled. Starting from the intersection of 22X and 37th St SW the west side was planned to go north along the 37th St right of way, blow through the Weaselhead and connect to Sarcee Trail, follow Sarcee Trail's current alignment up to 16th Ave NW, blow through Bowness and Silver Springs to link up with Sarcee Trail NW, and follow the current Sarcee Trail NW alignment just past John Laurie, whereupon it would have continued northeast through was is now Edgemont, The Hamptons and Hidden Valley and link up with the current Stoney Trail NW at Beddington Trail.

[Jimmy Stang]

^ Which is how we got two separate, non-connecting Sarcee Trails in Calgary. They should've changed the name of the NW one when it was clear that they would never connect, back when it would've just been a few road signs.

Of course, in the era of GPS, I'm not sure that it really matters anymore anyway. Nobody, even visitors, is going south from Beacon Hill to Westhills and scratching their heads at Bowmont Park when they run out of road.

[timun]

And, amusingly, an even older plan for a ring road had Sarcee Trail cross the river through Edworthy Park and link with Shaganappi Trail. That was still tentatively on the books until the 1970s. The plan changed as the city grew further out, just as the Sarcee Trail NW plan was abandoned for the current alignment.

[Ahuch]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

^ Which is how we got two separate, non-connecting Sarcee Trails in Calgary. They should've changed the name of the NW one when it was clear that they would never connect, back when it would've just been a few road signs.

Of course, in the era of GPS, I'm not sure that it really matters anymore anyway. Nobody, even visitors, is going south from Beacon Hill to Westhills and scratching their heads at Bowmont Park when they run out of road.

There's two barlows also.

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by Ahuch

There's two barlows also.

Three actually, since the new airport runway closed a section.

[powderjunkie]

Whether the WRR used Sarcee or the current alignment, it was always going to involve a few kms of E-W to link the Bow and Elbow crossings.

Sarcee was certainly a plausible route, but it would have needed to be more firmly designated well before everything to the west built up so much (with generally affluent folks at that). For most of Stoney Tr communities are much further set back (Woodbine/Cedarbrae being a notable exception, but at least that's only on one side of the RR). The road would fit, but not with 60m+ (often 150m+) buffers on each side like the rest of Stoney.

Originally Posted by timun

And, amusingly, an even older plan for a ring road had Sarcee Trail cross the river through Edworthy Park and link with Shaganappi Trail. That was still tentatively on the books until the 1970s. The plan changed as the city grew further out, just as the Sarcee Trail NW plan was abandoned for the current alignment.

I recall hearing about the Sarcee-Shaganappi connection again in the 90s...presumably not a part of the ring road at that point, but thankfully it didn't go anywhere.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

It isn't, because that clearly wasn't the point I was making and you focused on the wrong part of the sentence.

If the court system is overburdened (which was the justification for the disastrous 'administrative penalty traffic court' nonsense -- not a comparison), the last thing we need is to start issuing tickets that are difficult for the Crown to prove and result in a lot of people challenging them. If you're issuing a citation, you should have a solid foundation for doing so. Otherwise you are just throwing #### at the wall and seeing what sticks, and that's not how the justice system is supposed to work either. You said "Even if 50% of the tickets get thrown out, make the jerks go through that hassle", how the hell is that an acceptable use of our court system? If they get thrown out, how are they the jerks? I mean, it kinda makes you the jerk for making them have to take time off work to go fight a charge that hadn't a snowball's chance in hell in the first place. It is wasting the court's time too.

Edit: Just in case, I hope this didn't come off too dickish or "Listen here, idiot" because I didn't mean it that way. My concerns, in no particular order, are ensuring the court system has the capacity to deal with the cases before it, ensuring that citizens have confidence in the police and related orgs and that they aren't just there to extract as much money out of / exact as much misery upon them as is legislatively permissible, and that resources are put toward solutions that are genuinely capable of addressing real problems. A program like ticketing for noise where there's barely any confidence that the charge will even stick runs afoul of all three, and as I said, people would be surprised to learn what they hear that is actually a perfectly legal exhaust note -- spend any time around domestic sports cars and exotics, and you'll notice the factory spec ones are still pretty in-your-face, but legal. The above is much the same reason I get incensed over preposterously low speed limits in areas (like Glenmore EB at Stoney / Sarcee); they purport to be about 'safety' but they create a larger speed differential amongst drivers than just having a consistent 80 KM/H speed limit throughout the entire stretch.

I think we both misinterpreted throwaway lines that didn't articulate exactly what we meant (I just wasn't super clear on your objection). I like fast loud cars, too - in the right places (and when driven considerately elsewhere).

My concern is simply disincentivizing jerks from ruining everyone's nice time by hammering their throttles unnecessarily. It seems like we're letting perfect be the enemy of good in terms of this kind of enforcement - I don't think it would actually clog up the courts or that existing failures of the traffic system are a valid reason to avoid making our city more enjoyable for the 99% of people who aren't jerks.

I would hope that our tech is reaching a point where we can have multi-directional video/audio recordings that could demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt who was the 'perpetrator'. Every regulation runs the risk of punishing innocent (or mostly innocent) folks - you can technically get a ticket anytime you go 1kph too fast (especially in one of the silly locations you mention) or your parking meter expires by 2 minutes.

Most of us will face a handful of these inconvenient 'injustices' in our lifetimes...I won't lose any sleep over the small proportion of 'unjust' tickets that might come from this (my 50% remark being hyperbole).

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

My concern is simply disincentivizing jerks from ruining everyone's nice time by hammering their throttles unnecessarily. It seems like we're letting perfect be the enemy of good in terms of this kind of enforcement - I don't think it would actually clog up the courts or that existing failures of the traffic system are a valid reason to avoid making our city more enjoyable for the 99% of people who aren't jerks.

"Perfect being the enemy of good" is giving too much credit to photo enforcement of sound-related offenses in practice. There are laws on the books already to deal with people who drive like asshats and put sh-tty aftermarket mufflers on their cars. The CPS Traffic Division exists for a reason, they can deal with it.

As I said, most people who want such solutions don't actually realize how loud things are relative to the law in Calgary (bylaw allows up to 96dB), in the same way the Helen Lovejoys of the neighbourhood aren't reliable speed measuring devices from their front windows or sidewalks.

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I would hope that our tech is reaching a point where we can have multi-directional video/audio recordings that could demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt who was the 'perpetrator'. Every regulation runs the risk of punishing innocent (or mostly innocent) folks - you can technically get a ticket anytime you go 1kph too fast (especially in one of the silly locations you mention) or your parking meter expires by 2 minutes.

Most of us will face a handful of these inconvenient 'injustices' in our lifetimes...I won't lose any sleep over the small proportion of 'unjust' tickets that might come from this (my 50% remark being hyperbole).

The systems in use today are the 'throw sh-t at the wall' solution in conjunction with a 'guilty until proven innocent' approach. This is a (flawed) solution in search of a problem.

[GGG]

Perhaps then residential speed limits were too high and 96dB is too loud if they are interfering with the public space.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

That is going to suck for WB traffic to have yet another light. However, I suppose if they had more room to work with they'd just do a protected U-turn lane that wouldn't require a signal.

Glad I don't live / have to drive there much.

Looking at the diagram on the City project website it looks like the U turn is just west of the crosswalk so they could use the same light for both. It doesn't look like another set of lights needs to be added.