Who are you voting for to be Mayor? I'm voting for Sandy Jenkins

[Eagle Eye]

building more roads is a vicous cycle. You add more roads to help with traffic but then traffic increases until you are in the same boat you were in before, then you need to build more again

If you added more transit, others who didn't have the opportunity to take it before will no longer need to drive, therefore traffic for people who need/want to drive will be less

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Says a guy living in NYC and hasn't experienced the current realities of Calgary....

Haha, NYC is 10 times worse than Calgary any day. Don't give me that bull. Besides, I grew up in Calgary and go back all the time, that arguement doesn't wash.

The problem with Calgary is that it doesnt do things right the first time. They need to spend the money up front and build roads/transportation networks properly...not in such a cheap and sprawled out manner. IE. we build a low-quality intersection because we are cheap, and then 5 years later have to spend 2x the money to upgrade...where we could have done it right the first time and used the bonus money for public transit.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Eagle Eye

building more roads is a vicous cycle. You add more roads to help with traffic but then traffic increases until you are in the same boat you were in before, then you need to build more again

If you added more transit, others who didn't have the opportunity to take it before will no longer need to drive, therefore traffic for people who still/want to drive will be less

Exactly. Unfortunately it takes vision beyond the immediate for people to get that. I don't think most of Calgary has come to this realization yet...although I think many of the comments in this thread are encouraging.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The problem with Calgary is that it doesnt do things right the first time. They need to spend the money up front and build roads/transportation networks properly...not in such a cheap and sprawled out manner. IE. we build a low-quality intersection because we are cheap, and then 5 years later have to spend 2x the money to upgrade...where we could have done it right the first time and used the bonus money for public transit.

I'm just not sure what the solution is though. Not sure if you've ventured south on MacLeod lately, but there's now a set of lights at ~192 ave. I made a comment to my buddy I was driving home, and he told me the reason for the "low quality intersection" is that it currently serves 1 community; but eventually will serve 4; and the plan is to get the developers to fork over some bucks to build the interchange.

I'm not sure how the land negotiations go between the city and the developers; and maybe that's part of the problem.

[Ford Prefect]

Wow ... a self-admitted briber and accused multi-million dollar international embezzler can still garner 15% of the popular vote. Oh right, he's a politician. Those are just prerequisite skills.
/sarcasm

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

2) I don't think they can put it underground downtown - without costing billions. My understanding is that the reason they didn't put it underground in the 80's was because Calgary's water table downtown is too high. Edmonton's downtown is a few hundred feet above the river, whereas Calgary is right at river level. That was the reason it was scrapped - not because of being concerned about Edmonton's problems.

That is bunk since we have tons of skyscrapers with multiple levels of underground parking that goes well lower than what the LRT would go.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I'm just not sure what the solution is though. Not sure if you've ventured south on MacLeod lately, but there's now a set of lights at ~192 ave. I made a comment to my buddy I was driving home, and he told me the reason for the "low quality intersection" is that it currently serves 1 community; but eventually will serve 4; and the plan is to get the developers to fork over some bucks to build the interchange.

The solution is not to keep expanding the city, but instead strengthen the one that's within the boundaries. The more you expand out, the less money you have for roads/intersections, and therefore you have to built them like crap (which in the future comes back to bite you in the ass anyway).

Time to in-fill and built up. The current way is simply not sustainable.

[pepper24]

I want a candidate that is going to encourage urban development especially in the downtown core and move away from the urban sprawl that is currently happening.

[Thunderball]

I somewhat agree with Table 5... sprawling communities along arterial roads is not an answer on its own. However, shoehorning people in and ceasing outward growth isn't either.

The solution is somewhere in between.

First and foremost is to come to grips to the fact that the LRT will not solve anything on its own unless literally tens of billions of dollars are poured into it. Even then there's no guarantees. So, you work to its strengths. What are two things the LRT can do better than driving? Access to downtown and dispersing large groups (ie: Sporting events). I'd argue right now they can't even do that right. The focus should be on perfecting those two uses for LRT... then try to tackle intracity ridership, which frankly, private vehicles do much better. Therefore, one needs good arterial roads and actual freeways in between quadrants of the city. Deerfoot is a poor freeway (Glenmore squeeze, anyone?). However, it'll do that job if its not the only one. There is no East-West Freeway and that is a collosal failure for city planners. Ideally, there would be two. One connecting NW and NE and one connecting SW and SE, intersecting at Deerfoot and the Ring Road. Once you have that, the intracity driving issue is greaty diminished. Problem is, one would essentially have to build interchanges and expand most of Glenmore and John Laurie/McKnight to do it.

As for housing, this city should be building up. It should also be building out (at a much lower rate mind you). Lets face it. People like single detached houses with garages and yards. There's no reason why they can't have that. They just can't be huge lots and neighborhoods designed to take up a ton of room. Lots of people also like condo living. Not just downtown, but anywhere in the city. Why can't there be a low-rise, middle to upper class condominium tower in Woodbine for instance? Build suburbs like small towns, with walkable plazas, single-family and multi-family dwellings. Just make sure there's enough garages, lane and alley parking. Think a combination of Canmore, Marda Loop, Mackenzie Towne and Garrison Woods.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Haha, NYC is 10 times worse than Calgary any day. Don't give me that bull. Besides, I grew up in Calgary and go back all the time, that arguement doesn't wash.

Yeah, because we had the amount of growth in the past and a quick visit is the same as living in the city and dealing with the frustration on a day-to-day basis...

I had a day-trip to Manhattan. Does that make me qualified to talk about their transportation system? Not a chance.

Originally Posted by Table 5

The problem with Calgary is that it doesnt do things right the first time. They need to spend the money up front and build roads/transportation networks properly...not in such a cheap and sprawled out manner. IE. we build a low-quality intersection because we are cheap, and then 5 years later have to spend 2x the money to upgrade...where we could have done it right the first time and used the bonus money for public transit.

I agree 100%... but it's a little too late for that in the majority of cases.

We still need to fix the problems caused by the old decisions, and make "new road" decisions in an intelligent manner.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

The solution is somewhere in between.

I agree 100%

Originally Posted by Thunderball

There is no East-West Freeway and that is a collosal failure for city planners. Ideally, there would be two. One connecting NW and NE and one connecting SW and SE, intersecting at Deerfoot and the Ring Road. Once you have that, the intracity driving issue is greaty diminished. Problem is, one would essentially have to build interchanges and expand most of Glenmore and John Laurie/McKnight to do it.

I think their plan is for 16th in the North and Glenmore in the "south". Glenmore from Crowchild through Deerfoot and beyond is already pretty much a freeway, or at least will be once the paving is done. They still need to do more with Glenmore west of Crowchild, but progress is happening.

16th is slowly getting better with all of the construction, transforming it into a 6-lane road. I just hope that some of the lights that were there in the past, and currently blocked off for construction, will disappear entirely. It's not a freeway, but certainly better than it has been in the past.

John Laurie / McKnight Blvd isn't much of an option IMO. Too hard to get to it, too windy, too many lights, etc. The surrounding connectors aren't good enough.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I think their plan is for 16th in the North and Glenmore in the "south". Glenmore from Crowchild through Deerfoot and beyond is already pretty much a freeway, or at least will be once the paving is done. They still need to do more with Glenmore west of Crowchild, but progress is happening.

16th is slowly getting better with all of the construction, transforming it into a 6-lane road. I just hope that some of the lights that were there in the past, and currently blocked off for construction, will disappear entirely. It's not a freeway, but certainly better than it has been in the past.

John Laurie / McKnight Blvd isn't much of an option IMO. Too hard to get to it, too windy, too many lights, etc. The surrounding connectors aren't good enough.

Yeah, Glenmore would need to be a freeway from the Ring Road to past Deerfoot by necessity. 14th and Crowchild require too much work to be good connector roads. Crowchild south of Bow Trail and North of the U of C is great... its that part in between that is just repulsive. Someone must have been smoking crack when they designed that bridge/interchange over the Bow.

As for John Laurie/McKnight, that was just a guess based on the amount of room there for lane expansion and interchanges. The fact that its windy would mean it couldn't be a 100km/h road. But there's no reason it could be a free-flow at existing speed limits (70-80ish). That knot of a road that combines the two would be the biggest issue.

16th will likely be screwed up and in typical standard around these parts, be merely mediocre.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Yeah, because we had the amount of growth in the past and a quick visit is the same as living in the city and dealing with the frustration on a day-to-day basis...I had a day-trip to Manhattan. Does that make me qualified to talk about their transportation system? Not a chance.

I grew up in Calgary, and spend weeks at a time there every few months...not really sure how that doesnt qualify me as knowing what I'm talking about. Don't believe the hype, the changes over the last year aren't THAT drastic....it's still Calgary, not Dubai.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Yeah, Glenmore would need to be a freeway from the Ring Road to past Deerfoot by necessity. 14th and Crowchild require too much work to be good connector roads. Crowchild south of Bow Trail and North of the U of C is great... its that part in between that is just repulsive. Someone must have been smoking crack when they designed that bridge/interchange over the Bow.

As horrible as the Bow/Crow/12th/Memorial interchange is, the bigger problem there is the lights. If they could find a way to eliminate those two lights at Kensington and 5th Ave, it would make a world of difference.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

As horrible as the Bow/Crow/12th/Memorial interchange is, the bigger problem there is the lights. If they could find a way to eliminate those two lights at Kensington and 5th Ave, it would make a world of difference.

I'm not sure that would help all that much- at least southbound. The lights help to meter the traffic a bit.

To me the big thing there is that northbound you only have 1 lane that goes through- and it has merging traffic onto it from two directions; from the left you have the 6th ave folks trying to get onto memorial, and from the right you have Memorial drivers trying to get into the left lane to turn onto Kensington.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

As horrible as the Bow/Crow/12th/Memorial interchange is, the bigger problem there is the lights. If they could find a way to eliminate those two lights at Kensington and 5th Ave, it would make a world of difference.

I'm pretty sure the city owns a swath of land on the west side of crowchild, behind the sound barrier that is intended for eventual redevelopment into interchanges at both intersections. Don't expect to see it until nearly 2020.

[Cube Inmate]

I might just vote for Mr. Zhao because he's clearly the smartest candidate. I know that I was much, much smarter than everyone else in the world when I was 19, so he probably is too. I've killed many brain cells since then, though, so I no longer have the intelligence to evaluate candidates.

But seriously... which candidate has the following planks in his/her platform:
-Build a wall around Calgary to stop immigration?
-Replace all traffic lights with overpasses?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The solution is not to keep expanding the city, but instead strengthen the one that's within the boundaries. The more you expand out, the less money you have for roads/intersections, and therefore you have to built them like crap (which in the future comes back to bite you in the ass anyway).

Time to in-fill and built up. The current way is simply not sustainable.

There is a balance between a hippie idealist and a hummer driving, acreage living waste monger. You've really done your best to come off as the former here, suggesting we can all hold hands with strangers and walk everywhere, or take public transit when absolutely necessary.

The person you are attacking clarified and even mentioned the transition from Crowchild North to Crowchild South. A freaking mess. From the stadium to Bow Trail it's still completely stuck in the 70's and perfectly awesome for a city of 400k people. Fixing this up is not going to be a mass contributor to sprawl, as this is as inner city as you get (thankfully we were smart enough to keep freeways out of our downtown). I think this is a valid point no matter how much you love public transit. You could take a lot of cars off the road, and this stretch would still be a mess.

I also believe things like ring roads aren't big sprawl contributors. I'm sure a certain percentage of the population will find them useful for getting to work, but largely you still have people moving towards the centre. A ring road takes traffic off of arteries running through the centre of your city so your intercity traffic doesn't have to share with your intracity traffic. This means less pollution in your city, better fuel economy for intercity traffic, really we can all hold hands in support of that.

I'm a huge transit supporter. Even if you are the Hummer driving acreage dweller you should be. If you get enough people on transit, Crowchild at 3 lanes could be a viable piece of infrastructure for a very long time. It's neglegent to suggest that we should stop improving road infrastructure as well. Maybe pumping a super highway out to Cochranne is a bad idea, but as you said, working within our city limits is still something necessary.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I'm just not sure what the solution is though. Not sure if you've ventured south on MacLeod lately, but there's now a set of lights at ~192 ave. I made a comment to my buddy I was driving home, and he told me the reason for the "low quality intersection" is that it currently serves 1 community; but eventually will serve 4; and the plan is to get the developers to fork over some bucks to build the interchange.

I'm not sure how the land negotiations go between the city and the developers; and maybe that's part of the problem.

I think some of you are underestimating the cost of roadway maintenance. Building an interchange in a location that would probably need it, but not for another 10 years seems like it would be a good plan, but the cost of ramp and bridge maintenance over 10 years could easily surpass the cost of staging it as various intersections. Same with adding extra lanes when they're not needed. Beddington Trail is a prime example of this. People wonder why they're expanding to three lanes now rather than doing it at the start. 10-15 years of maintaining a third lane immediately upon construction would have matched or exceeded the cost of doing it now. It's probably a bit closer to par, since the boom was definitely not expected and probably reduced the lifespan of the road by a few years.

I do agree about city planners though. They bow down to developers and activitst groups way too often. That's why plans from the 70s for an East-West freeway were scrapped and why we're no longer allowed to build bridges over the bow. Lame-o!

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

Beddington Trail is a prime example of this. People wonder why they're expanding to three lanes now rather than doing it at the start.

What about when it went from single lane to 2 lanes and they had to do all that work to widen the Centre Street overpass? Those seemed really close together and very short sighted from what I recall.