Ring Road To Nowhere

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Sarcee Trail. Just a little slower with one extra light.

You said remove all turns at bow/Sarcee…

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Weitz

You said remove all turns at bow/Sarcee…

I guess I should have specified left turns (ie. turns that need lights). The idea is to disperse those left turn movements onto Sarcee, so the main intersection can be closer to 50/50 time for straight through (with increased capacity).

I'm just not sure a typical interchange will be much better - certainly not enough to justify the expense and time involved. And the net result could be to push the congestion to the next intersections:
- WB Bow backing up down the hill?
- EB Bow clogging at 45 St (where it's only 2 through lanes...so we end up chasing our tail to fix that next)
- Sarcee wouldn't be too bad, but it could definitely put more stress on SB Richmond

Which road should would you give the free-flow priority if it were a more typical interchange? Or would you go for free flow spaghetti?

[lazypucker]

One solution would be to eliminate all left turns on the Bow/Sarcee intersection, you can only turn right or go straight in all directions after WRR is complete. Drivers will learn to use other roadways to get to where they need to go.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...le-to-hospital

No idea about the nature of this crash, but it brings back the future Sarcee/Bow/Richmond dilemma.

Once the WRR is complete, I think the best idea is actually just to neuter Sarcee, since it will become redundant and unnecessary as a N-S 'through' road. It's also the cheapest/quickest solution with a bunch of community connectivity benefits:

1. Reduce Sarcee speed limit to 60kph (there are a couple long stretches that could be 70 kph)

2. Remove all turning movements at Bow/Sarcee...

3. ...and build dual U-turn lights approx 500m north and south of Bow Tr:
- essentially the same idea as the planned U-turn on Bow, and you can also incorporate pedestrian crossing lights
- near Village Gardens SW' (Broadcast Hill Community Centre) - linking Coach Hill and Edworthy dog-run
- near 7 Ave SW - linking Strathcona and the Greenway MUP with Westgate

4. You could repurpose the Bow Tr turning lanes into AM/PM reversible through lanes.
- Sarcee turn lanes would also become an extra through lane for each
- Bow onto Sarcee exits would probably need to become 2 lanes - right exit lane for through traffic, left exit lane for weaving to the U-turn lanes (yield or merge). This weave zone would be the main messy thing, but I don't think there would be sufficient distance and it wouldn't be too bad at 60 kph [with reduced overall traffic on Sarcee].


Then you don’t even really need to touch Richmond Rd.

Sorry, but that is the stupidest idea possible. You don't reduce congestion by choking off things off further. People don't use Sarcee because they want to, they use it because they need to.

[Enoch Root]

When I lived in Winnipeg, I lived in a community (Southdale) that sat between two major east-west corridors. The community was supposed to have multiple accesses to those corridors, but the city decided , nope, we'll leave it with one at each end, north and south. As a result, the traffic on the main street, which had 3 schools on it, was way too heavy for what it should have been.

The community (or the city, not sure), decided that the best solution would be to add 3 more stop signs (there were already 3), so that people would 'go around' Southdale, instead of through it.

I tried to explain that people didn't drive through the community because they wanted to, they needed to. And that adding 3 more stop signs would mean that traffic would need to be cut in half, just to break even.

Well, they put the stop signs up, and - shockingly - people didn't stop driving on the road. Traffic became so congested that you actually couldn't start from one stop sign, because the lineup to the next stop sign came all the way back to the first one.

The stop signs were gone in 3 weeks.

Because the traffic can't just go somewhere else.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

When I lived in Winnipeg, I lived in a community (Southdale) that sat between two major east-west corridors. The community was supposed to have multiple accesses to those corridors, but the city decided , nope, we'll leave it with one at each end, north and south. As a result, the traffic on the main street, which had 3 schools on it, was way too heavy for what it should have been.

The community (or the city, not sure), decided that the best solution would be to add 3 more stop signs (there were already 3), so that people would 'go around' Southdale, instead of through it.

I tried to explain that people didn't drive through the community because they wanted to, they needed to. And that adding 3 more stop signs would mean that traffic would need to be cut in half, just to break even.

Well, they put the stop signs up, and - shockingly - people didn't stop driving on the road. Traffic became so congested that you actually couldn't start from one stop sign, because the lineup to the next stop sign came all the way back to the first one.

The stop signs were gone in 3 weeks.

Because the traffic can't just go somewhere else.

That’s the opposite of what was being proposed.

By eliminating left turns and adding reversible lanes you are increasing through put at the expense of access. That trade off can result in better traffic flow if the eliminated routes alternatives to create more congestion than the reduction in turning movements removed.

[bob-loblaw]

Is the WRR going to be partially opened as segments are done? I know its not completely opening until fall 2024 because of some Enmax issues but I hope that unaffected sections will be opened. Basically, anything north of 17 Ave SW should be opening sooner than later.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by bob-loblaw

Is the WRR going to be partially opened as segments are done? I know its not completely opening until fall 2024 because of some Enmax issues but I hope that unaffected sections will be opened. Basically, anything north of 17 Ave SW should be opening sooner than later.

It would be nice if they could at least open the upgrades to the TCH early.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Sorry, but that is the stupidest idea possible. You don't reduce congestion by choking off things off further. People don't use Sarcee because they want to, they use it because they need to.

Right now, yes. In 2 years? What is the point of the WRR?

Please tell us what you would do. Or anyone else who can't fathom a counter-intuitive idea, for that matter. Who's getting the lights if you build an interchange?

Fewer cars reduces congestion.

Slower speeds reduce congestion.

https://www.smartertransport.uk/how-...ce-congestion/


The other 3 points in this article aren't terribly relevant to Sarcee, but interesting nonetheless
https://www.wri.org/insights/need-sa...-better-cities

Lower speed limits may even reduce congestion in some cases, as they reduce the likelihood of bottlenecks. This has been observed in Sao Paulo, where lowering the speed limit on major arterials reduced congestion by 10 percent during the first month of implementation, while fatalities also dropped significantly.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'm just not sure a typical interchange will be much better - certainly not enough to justify the expense and time involved.

Whether or not the expense is justified is one thing, but whether or not an interchange of any variety improves the situation is a resounding yes. 100% green time for through traffic on Sarcee more or less fixes the intersection.

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Which road should would you give the free-flow priority if it were a more typical interchange? Or would you go for free flow spaghetti?

This is an easier question to answer than you are making it seem. We do not build free-flowing interchanges anymore except for on freeways because they are catastrophically expensive and take up a ton of space, it'd therefore be a 6-ramp partial cloverleaf, the same as the ones we have been building everywhere else in Alberta for the last 20 years. A lesser cost option is a 5-ramp variant of that with the WB-SB loop ramp removed, like what we just built at 212 Ave SE and Deerfoot. Sarcee/Bow is not really a place you attempt to reinvent the wheel.

Sarcee is the free-flow and Bow goes over or under.

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

What is the point of the WRR?

The point of the WRR is to connect Highway 1 to Highway 2, which is the point of every quadrant of Stoney Trail hence the disregard for local connectivity you see in the vicinity of Cranston, Somerset, and Silverado.

Calgary and Edmonton rely on their ring roads for intracity relief more than they should, because proper intracity freeways were not built to begin with.

That said, the completion of Stoney Trail does not bail out Sarcee Trail which I expect to remain in an objective level of failure due to induced demand and other factors.

[lazypucker]

Acey, any updates on the opening dates for some of the sections of WRR? Or will the whole thing open at the same time in 2024?

[Ducay]

I thought the Transcanada interchange to OBCR was this fall? Never heard otherwise. It was everything South of OBCR that was 2024

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Acey

Whether or not the expense is justified is one thing, but whether or not an interchange of any variety improves the situation is a resounding yes. 100% green time for through traffic on Sarcee more or less fixes the intersection.

Of course an interchange would fix that intersection in particular, but I'm not sure it's a significant improvement in the bigger picture when you factor in the expense/disruption (exacerbated by topography and space constraints).

This is an easier question to answer than you are making it seem. We do not build free-flowing interchanges anymore except for on freeways because they are catastrophically expensive and take up a ton of space, it'd therefore be a 6-ramp partial cloverleaf, the same as the ones we have been building everywhere else in Alberta for the last 20 years. A lesser cost option is a 5-ramp variant of that with the WB-SB loop ramp removed, like what we just built at 212 Ave SE and Deerfoot. Sarcee/Bow is not really a place you attempt to reinvent the wheel.

Sarcee is the free-flow and Bow goes over or under.

The free-flow choice doesn't really matter that much, but I don't think it's actually that clear-cut of a choice. Topography and space constraints likely inform the choice more than the actual traffic numbers...

I managed to find the two most recent counts for this intersection:

Spoiler!

A bunch of caveats here - these are single day 6 hr counts (7-9am, 11am-1pm, 4-6pm), so the PM rush hours aren't as well represented since it tends to have a wider time frame [hence the Bow E-W totals discrepancy].





2021 AM/PM peak hour:

2018:

There's a whole lot to unpack there, but I think a notable takeaway is that the west approach (ie. Bow EB coming down the hill) generates more traffic at all hours than Sarcee.

The south approach actually generates the least traffic (at least on this particular day); yet it seems to suffer the worst backups.

The point of the WRR is to connect Highway 1 to Highway 2, which is the point of every quadrant of Stoney Trail hence the disregard for local connectivity you see in the vicinity of Cranston, Somerset, and Silverado.

Calgary and Edmonton rely on their ring roads for intracity relief more than they should, because proper intracity freeways were not built to begin with.

That said, the completion of Stoney Trail does not bail out Sarcee Trail which I expect to remain in an objective level of failure due to induced demand and other factors.

I think the bolded is definitely true for the east legs, but I don't agree it's such a simple case in the west, where geography (both physical and political) have prompted significant gaps [that are only plausibly solved by Stoney].

I'm obviously not going to have much winning friends or influencing people in a thread about a freeway, but I see this as a perfect opportunity to resist the perpetual trap of induced demand.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

Acey, any updates on the opening dates for some of the sections of WRR? Or will the whole thing open at the same time in 2024?

I honestly don't know. The rate at which work was maintained throughout this winter suggests to me that at least something will open this year or next year and not 2024... be that WRR from Highway 1 to Bow Trail, the new Bow River bridge, some portion of the 16 Ave/Stoney interchange, or the upgraded Highway 1 out to OBCR.

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Topography and space constraints likely inform the choice more than the actual traffic numbers...

I should have clarified. What mostly informs the choice is the fact that the City of Calgary has classified Bow Trail as a street and Sarcee Trail is a skeletal road, i.e. the highest classification in the city like Deerfoot or Stoney. Therefore Bow Trail is the minor road and Stoney Trail is the major road regardless of volume. Which is to say, rendering mainline Sarcee as free-flowing would be the priority over any Bow Trail movement. Note also that through traffic on Sarcee has a lower LOS (level service) and generates more delay minutes for drivers by virtue of having 50% less through capacity - 2 through lanes vs 3 on mainline Bow. So in traffic this is as important a metric as the absolute volume.

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think the bolded is definitely true for the east legs, but I don't agree it's such a simple case in the west, where geography (both physical and political) have prompted significant gaps [that are only plausibly solved by Stoney].

WRR and SWRR are effectively one piece of infrastructure. You have to think about what WRR accomplishes in tandem with SWRR, which is connecting Highway 2 to Highway 1 (hence Highway 201) and providing local connectivity by way of service interchanges when possible. Between Stoney and Henday, all 8 ring road legs managed to not deviate from their original purpose.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Acey

I should have clarified. What mostly informs the choice is the fact that the City of Calgary has classified Bow Trail as a street and Sarcee Trail is a skeletal road, i.e. the highest classification in the city like Deerfoot or Stoney. Therefore Bow Trail is the minor road and Stoney Trail is the major road regardless of volume. Which is to say, rendering mainline Sarcee as free-flowing would be the priority over any Bow Trail movement. Note also that through traffic on Sarcee has a lower LOS (level service) and generates more delay minutes for drivers by virtue of having 50% less through capacity - 2 through lanes vs 3 on mainline Bow. So in traffic this is as important a metric as the absolute volume.

That all makes sense - I should clarify that the exact design of the interchange wouldn't really matter (obviously any interchange provides a direct/local improvement). Honestly I was just getting annoyed at people who can't fathom a counter-intuitive idea without offering actual critical thinking. I think it's fair to say that the likely design wouldn't be how you'd draw it up if you had the choice. In terms of signalled movements (straight & left turn):

21% Bow Straight
21%
16% Sarcee Straight
16%
11% (EB->NB)
5% SB->EB
5% NB->WB
4% WB->SB

In a narrow focus you're making a major (free-flow) improvement for ~41% of the traffic, while the other ~59% only gets a moderate improvement (still hitting lights, but a shorter wait). The two busier left turn movements get lights; the other two get loops.

Instead of spending $100M+ on an imperfect solution, why not spend $10M+ on a different imperfect solution that addresses the LOS on Sarcee. Like what they did at Sarcee/Richmond...https://www.jeffdavisonyyc.com/road-...nd-road-191031

I find it interesting that there was more focus on Sarcee Trail / Richmond Road S.W. in anticipation of the SWRR opening (when WRR wasn't yet funded/approved). It's odd that the three 'benefits' they were evaluating were Richmond Rd, Sarcee Tr, and Crowchild Tr.

From the Nov. 2015 "WEST AND SOUTH WEST RING ROAD DOWNSTREAM TRAFFIC IMPACTS" report:

Generally, traffic is anticipated to decrease on network roads such as 14 Street SW, Elbow
Drive SW, Macleod Trail S, and Glenmore Trail between Crowchild Trail and Elbow Drive.
Traffic is anticipated to increase on network roads such as Anderson Road, Glenmore Trail
between Sarcee Trail and Crowchild Trail, Richmond Road, and Highway 8. Traffic volumes are
anticipated to change on other network roads, however this includes either increases or
decreases depending on the time of day and direction of travel.
...
A number of these improvements, most notably the Bow Trail interchange, would not be
required for some time when the WRR is in place.

Past analysis have been made with a lot of uncertainty (WRR) and before some major changes actually came to fruition (SWRR, Crowchild bridge upgrades, even 14 St BRT, 37 St Main Street, build out of West District, etc.). I just think it's time for a fresh analysis, with more of a focus on Bow Tr (from West Village realignment to WRR integration). Maybe the outcome would be an interchange, but I think it's a bit of chicken/egg thing relative to the entire corridor...

WRR and SWRR are effectively one piece of infrastructure. You have to think about what WRR accomplishes in tandem with SWRR, which is connecting Highway 2 to Highway 1 (hence Highway 201) and providing local connectivity by way of service interchanges when possible. Between Stoney and Henday, all 8 ring road legs managed to not deviate from their original purpose.

By 'west legs' I meant SWRR, WRR, and NWRR - especially from Anderson to Crowchild. Reserve, reservoir, and Bow River Valley (with a capital V considering the size of the hills on each side) essentially prevented adding much significant intracity capacity. IMO it's hard to argue that this isn't a case of 2 birds 1 Stoney (...I'll see myself out).

[Acey]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Instead of spending $100M+ on an imperfect solution, why not spend $10M+ on a different imperfect solution that addresses the LOS on Sarcee.

Mostly because $10 million fixes are bandaids and fail in 5 years, at which point the interchange you could have built for $120M is now $190M.

To kinda wrap this up, there is no reason to believe the city is not exploring every possible option for fixes to Sarcee/Bow. The fact that they built Canada's first diverging diamond at Macleod/162 is evidence that they are fairly forward in their thinking and willing to try new things.

There's only so much you can simulate in terms of the traffic flows after the ring is fully open, so now it's just a waiting game and then they'll re-group and figure out if they can find money to fix anything.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Acey

Mostly because $10 million fixes are bandaids and fail in 5 years, at which point the interchange you could have built for $120M is now $190M.

We just need to kick the can down the road for another decade or two until these guys solve all of our problems:

[btimbit]

This is what was studied and recommended (Not funded or planned, thanks covid) for Richmond Rd & Sarcee. Sorry for the low quality image

Spoiler!

I would imagine that after this is almost complete we'll see something similar at Bow Trail

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by btimbit

This is what was studied and recommended (Not funded or planned, thanks covid) for Richmond Rd & Sarcee. Sorry for the low quality image

Spoiler!

I would imagine that after this is almost complete we'll see something similar at Bow Trail

Here's a higher resolution PDF along with the other considered approaches.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Here's a higher resolution PDF along with the other considered approaches.

Nothing more aggravating than a few 8.5x11 pages thrown in the middle of a document with 36x48 pages.