Ring Road To Nowhere

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Jayems

When I was 18, my first apartment was within stumbling distance to the Bowho. There were some good times had there. Good times. Sad to see it go. Although, not the place you really want to take your lady friend. Or eat there. Or even order a pint of draught due to sticky glasses. The pool tables were slanted, the waitresses haggard... but who the hell cared. Memories.

Yeah, there is yet another terrible bar in the main floor of the Bo Ho. If there are any prospective pub owners out there in CP land, Bowness is a prime underserved spot. The neighbourhood is getting younger quickly because of all the entry level houses so you are getting pretty prime pub-goers (20-30 something professionals and tradespeople) with nowhere to go but some seedy hole where you have to pay by the beer.

I'm pretty sure that a nice-enough-to-bring-the-girlfriend canadian or irish style pub with good food and the hockey game on good monitors would be packed. The river-side part of Bowness is crammed with scores of really affluent families who have to drive up to Westhills or towards downtown to get a decent pint. It's silly.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

yeah, extra structures required.

Recent example of modern, free flow in both ways interchanges:

Metis/36th street/McKnight

Stoney/Deerfoot

Stoney/16th Ave (east) - Stoney/Glenmore (east) will be very similar.

Deerfoot/22x - will be done as part of the SE ring road

I noticed the 1st and 2nd ones still have an on-ramp and off-ramp in quick succession, although not quite a weave zone because it's a single lane segregated from the traffic going straight. Is that why they're considered "modern" designs? Couldn't you do the same thing with a full cloverleaf, no extra structures required? Would it then also be considered "modern"?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by SebC

I noticed the 1st and 2nd ones still have an on-ramp and off-ramp in quick succession, although not quite a weave zone because it's a single lane segregated from the traffic going straight. Is that why they're considered "modern" designs? Couldn't you do the same thing with a full cloverleaf, no extra structures required? Would it then also be considered "modern"?

You still can do successive cloverleaf ramps, provided that the traffic using them is quite low. In the McKnight/36th case, the amount of traffic turning from SB to EB is very low, and the traffic turning from WB to SB isn't very high either. NB to WB is a bit more, but still not too much. The EB to NB ramp has tons of traffic, that's why it got the flyover.

It the case of Deerfoot/Stoney, the two cloverleaf ramps will easily be the two least used left turn ramps, they are completely separated from the main traffic, and the hugeness of the interchange allows the weave zone to still be quite long. Shouldn't be a problem I don't think.

Also, most rights of way don't have the required amount of land to build a full cloverleaf that could actually work. Where there is enough room, the room is likely left because the designers wanted to build high speed ramps at that interchange - something cloverleaf ramps cannot be.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by SebC

I noticed the 1st and 2nd ones still have an on-ramp and off-ramp in quick succession, although not quite a weave zone because it's a single lane segregated from the traffic going straight. Is that why they're considered "modern" designs? Couldn't you do the same thing with a full cloverleaf, no extra structures required? Would it then also be considered "modern"?

Crowchild/Stoney is an example of a way to make a full clover leaf work. It requires two extra structures though to stretch out the weave:

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca.../stcrow-m2.pdf

[SebC]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

snip

I get why they're designed they way they are... what I haven't got from your latest post is what qualifies an interchange design as "modern", or why you can't make a full cloverleaf work (modern?) without extra structures simply by segregating the on-ramp off-ramp lanes like on Deerfoot southbound at Glenmore and Glenmore eastbound at Deerfoot, but for all four directions. Is it that the merge lanes (although not weave zones) are too small?

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Crowchild/Stoney is an example of a way to make a full clover leaf work. It requires two extra structures though to stretch out the weave:

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca.../stcrow-m2.pdf

I really don't understand why they can't have the traditional clover working there...just stretch out the on and off ramps and it'd work fine I'd think.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by STeeLy

I really don't understand why they can't have the traditional clover working there...just stretch out the on and off ramps and it'd work fine I'd think.

Way too much traffic.

I was in the middle of typing up a response, but the window got closed over supper, so I'll just paste some links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverleaf_interchange
more technical article

[SebC]

Obviously not good for every situation, but with the collector/distributor roads isn't the cloverleaf a pretty good design?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nterchange.svg

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by STeeLy

I really don't understand why they can't have the traditional clover working there...just stretch out the on and off ramps and it'd work fine I'd think.

There is no room to stretch it N/S. This way you have no weave at all happening on Stoney, with a traditional cloverleaf it would be pretty bad, especially with the hill for traffic coming on Northbound Stoney.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by SebC

Obviously not good for every situation, but with the collector/distributor roads isn't the cloverleaf a pretty good design?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nterchange.svg

Traffic comes into the collector road before any can exit it, so in any sort of traffic it will not allow any incoming traffic to merge on, or will just jam right up.

[ken0042]

^^ Agreed. Think of EB Glenmore onto NB Deerfoot. That's one leaf of a cloverleaf, with one party actually having a full yield, and it still ties up traffic.

[Dan02]

Can someone explain to me why they built a bridge for Shag over Stoney but decided that they shouldn't bother building on/off ramps yet even though the grading has been done?

[ken0042]

An article in the Herald today- nothing much new; just outlines the city and province's position on going forward with "Plan B."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/re...461/story.html

[Eagle Eye]

I was reading some of the comments on the herald acticle, and some were from people who are on the reserve (or atleast have connections). They said that the land swap was not guaranteed, I wonder if that is true? Maybe some of the reason why they turned it down?

[jammies]

It doesn't make any difference why the deal was turned down. The matter came to a vote, it was rejected - accept this and move on. I don't agree with the City acting like a jilted schoolgirl and deliberately limiting access to the Grey Eagle in response, but I also don't think they should pay any attention at all to the band if there is an attempt to re-open negotiations.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Eagle Eye

I was reading some of the comments on the herald acticle, and some were from people who are on the reserve (or atleast have connections). They said that the land swap was not guaranteed, I wonder if that is true? Maybe some of the reason why they turned it down?

The news reports even the day after were saying that that was the big issue.

The problem is that there is no way to "guarantee" it. It sounded to me like it wouldn't really be a problem, it's just that it would take time to complete the whole process, and it a process of transferring the land that they weren't going to start until the deal was official.

That's the way I read the situation, anyway.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by jammies

It doesn't make any difference why the deal was turned down. The matter came to a vote, it was rejected - accept this and move on. I don't agree with the City acting like a jilted schoolgirl and deliberately limiting access to the Grey Eagle in response, but I also don't think they should pay any attention at all to the band if there is an attempt to re-open negotiations.

But do you think that the City should spend millions to connect what will be a complicated interchange to the casino? That's the issue for me - the road will be elevated and 4-lane divided right at the casino entrance and I don't think it's our obligation to be generous to a neighbour who so recently played hardball with us.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

But do you think that the City should spend millions to connect what will be a complicated interchange to the casino? That's the issue for me - the road will be elevated and 4-lane divided right at the casino entrance and I don't think it's our obligation to be generous to a neighbour who so recently played hardball with us.

There won't be any access to the casino there unless the reserve pays for the required ramps. They will be expensive ramps.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by jammies

It doesn't make any difference why the deal was turned down. The matter came to a vote, it was rejected - accept this and move on. I don't agree with the City acting like a jilted schoolgirl and deliberately limiting access to the Grey Eagle in response

And that's just it- it isn't about "why" it was rejected, but how it was rejected. The band and the city worked out a deal, and then it was put to a vote among band members.

If they wanted to allow all members to vote, that should have been done long ago. It's like me working out a deal to sell my house without consulting my fiancee first. Or my son working out a deal to sell our house without consulting either of us. At the very least, the band's elders should have been encouraging people to vote in favour of the deal.

The city spent 4 years- years that could have been spent building the road down 37th street; negotiating with people who in the end said "OK- well we really don't have a say in this; so we will let you know."

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

But do you think that the City should spend millions to connect what will be a complicated interchange to the casino? That's the issue for me - the road will be elevated and 4-lane divided right at the casino entrance and I don't think it's our obligation to be generous to a neighbour who so recently played hardball with us.

I think the band should pay a portion of the interchange cost for that reason, but if they don't wish to, then an alternate access to the casino from the north or south should be linked up at as cheap a cost as possible, and the west side of the interchange simply disappears and it becomes a three way structure.

I do think the city is somewhat obligated to provide some kind of access - the casino is used by Calgarians, after all. Roads that leave the city are all over the place, and none of the other municipal neighbours are paying for them, nor are we paying for their roads that feed into our city - trying to play "who gets the benefit and lets split the costs accordingly" is a negative sum game in the end.