Ring Road To Nowhere

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by GGG

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

1. As though changing speed limits stop the aforementioned asshats from driving as such.
2. Residential speed limits have nothing to do with what we're talking about. Engine speed does not equate to speed of travel, what do you think a transmission does? Given the right vehicle in first gear, anyone can be an absolutely obnoxious arsehole driving by at 30 KM/H.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

As though speed limits stop the aforementioned asshats from driving as such.

Your comment was Helen Love Joys complaining about people driving 50 not asshats driving 80.

You brought up Helen love joy and residential speed limits not me.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by GGG

Your comment was Helen Love Joys complaining about people driving 50 not asshats driving 80.

You brought up Helen love joy and residential speed limits not me.

I brought up people being poor judges of noise and speed as examples of how a whole lot of people are going to be disappointed that a flawed enforcement system doesn't ensnare who they think it should.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I brought up people being poor judges of noise and speed as examples of how a whole lot of people are going to be disappointed that a flawed enforcement system doesn't ensnare who they think it should.

To which my response was perhaps these limits are too high because they are interpreting with the public space.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

1. As though changing speed limits stop the aforementioned asshats from driving as such.
2. Residential speed limits have nothing to do with what we're talking about. Engine speed does not equate to speed of travel, what do you think a transmission does? Given the right vehicle in first gear, anyone can be an absolutely obnoxious arsehole driving by at 30 KM/H.

1. You don't think speed limits and the threat of enforcement influence driver behaviours? Would the rate of asshattery change if we scrapped the whole system?

2. So we can agree that 'speeding' alone is an ineffective way of addressing loud jerks?

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I brought up people being poor judges of noise and speed as examples of how a whole lot of people are going to be disappointed that a flawed enforcement system doesn't ensnare who they think it should.

So perfect = enemy of good?

Are you saying it won't capture enough jerks? Or that it will capture too many mildly-obnoxious people?

[Acey]

You've all answered each other's questions, I have nothing really to add.

Originally Posted by Zarley

Anyone know what's up with the 60 speed limit on EB Glenmore just after the ring road?

Still in negotiation.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Once the ring road opens, perhaps traffic drops and it won't be an issue?

From an objective standpoint without getting too technical, the intersection is in a state of failure ("level of service" grade F, i.e. the worst) and the city fully expects that to still be the case upon opening of the west leg.

For an intersection in such horrible condition, you have to find ways to cheap and quick ways to chip away at the delay... hence this project.

Originally Posted by Nancy

I do find the Province to be pretty cheap in terms of what they provide in terms of noise attenuation and landscaping, considering how over-engineered other aspects of the roadway are.

For what it's worth, noise is one of the main reason the speed limit is at 100 kph, despite the road being built to a higher standard than unrestricted stretches of German autobahn. The noise increase with speed is not linear, and in a P3 project the contractor does the absolute bear bones to meet noise spec to keep costs down and their bid low. So to clarify, it's the province with noise specs that are too high which then allows minimal mitigation.

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Is there any intention of building noise barriers?

My understanding is that existing noise mitigation was built to spec, but due to higher than anticipated noise levels the province is exploring the possibility of further mitigation.

I wouldn't get my hopes up, but this is distinctly different than the SE leg for example, where complaints in 2014 after opening were pretty much dismissed.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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

Prioritized because a) LRT corridor which the city loves, b) a much lower cost than Sarcee/Bow, and c) much sooner forecasted west leg completion date at that time, and therefore relief for Sarcee/Bow.

Originally Posted by btimbit

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 $

Yep. Richmond proximity to Stoney is why the city is scared of catastrophic failure, even though with its third lane now it's not particularly at risk of such failure.

[para transit fellow]

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.

this reminds me of a question I have.

Has anyone else noticed tat we have two separate, non connecting sections of 14 Street in the South, and two separate sections of 14 street in the north?

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

this reminds me of a question I have.

Has anyone else noticed tat we have two separate, non connecting sections of 14 Street in the South, and two separate sections of 14 street in the north?

Noticeable but more reasonable when you are using a numbering system within a grid pattern.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

this reminds me of a question I have.

Has anyone else noticed tat we have two separate, non connecting sections of 14 Street in the South, and two separate sections of 14 street in the north?

Perhaps the most frustrating thing is that 14th St didn’t continue again south of Fish Creek Park.

I know what you really are Evergreen St!

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

So perfect = enemy of good?

Again, to suggest this is perfect being the enemy of good is to suggest that this solution is actually fit for purpose at all, which it isn't.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Again, to suggest this is perfect being the enemy of good is to suggest that this solution is actually fit for purpose at all, which it isn't.

Can you be more specific?

I haven't even spoken about a particular 'solution'...

I recall various concerns about 'sound snares' from the past...while I'm not sure sound measuring/recording tech has necessarily improved a ton, I suspect other tech has evolved enough to close those gaps (I'm specifically thinking multiple video recordings - specifically the ability to more easily manage them digitally - to support the audio case).

[timun]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

this reminds me of a question I have.

Has anyone else noticed tat we have two separate, non connecting sections of 14 Street in the South, and two separate sections of 14 street in the north?

Technically there are three non-connecting segments of 14th Street SW: Canyon Meadows Drive to Glenmore, 38th Ave to the Bow River, and an itty bitty little stretch of road at the south end of River Park, south of 50th Avenue:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.00826...4!8i8192?hl=en

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by timun

Technically there are three non-connecting segments of 14th Street SW: Canyon Meadows Drive to Glenmore, 38th Ave to the Bow River, and an itty bitty little stretch of road at the south end of River Park, south of 50th Avenue:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.00826...4!8i8192?hl=en

As i understand it, 14 Street SW once used the Glenmore Dam to cross the Elbow river.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

As i understand it, 14 Street SW once used the Glenmore Dam to cross the Elbow river.

Yes. Driving over the dam was a shortcut to downtown from the SW. Closed sometime around 81 or 82.

[timun]

Yes, the dam was once open for vehicular traffic, but it didn't connect to 14th Street at the north end. From the south, once across the dam you veered west along 58th Avenue in front of the water treatment plant, and to get back to 14th St the quickest route was to go around Glenmore Athletic Park taking 58th Ave to 19th Street, 19th Street north to 50th Ave, 50th Ave east to 16th St, then 16th St north to 38th Ave, and 38th Ave east a couple blocks to 14th St.

14th Street never connected directly through River Park; the lands for River Park were donated to the City on the condition it never, ever be developed into anything other than a park.

[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.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

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.

My concern is that even a few months after WRR has opened and traffic has stabilized, Sarcee/Bow will still be in a horrendous state of failure. The city also believes that this will be the case.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Acey

My concern is that even a few months after WRR has opened and traffic has stabilized, Sarcee/Bow will still be in a horrendous state of failure. The city also believes that this will be the case.

I agree, which is why I suggest to intentionally neutering the road that will have high capacity alternatives. I find it hard to imagine an effective interchange design there that won't be insanely expensive, ugly, and time-consuming to build [given the topography and constraints south of Bow Tr).


Once WRR is complete, going from Sarcee/Glenmore to Sarcee/16th Ave N should be close to a toss-up [on Stoney+16th vs. Sarcee]. Sarcee would be ~90 seconds faster if you hit both green lights without slowing down at all.

Going from Sarcee/Glenmore to any of U of C/Foothills/Children's/Market Mall is already a toss up between taking Sarcee+16th or Glenmore+Crowchild (Crowchild route generally a bit faster).

Obviously the calculus for partial-use of Sarcee will vary for each adjacent community, but there will be a ton of cases where Stoney or Crowchild makes more sense.

[Weitz]

Except your plan absolutely hurts everyone who lives around there.

How does coach hill get to signal hill? Go to 17th? All the way to the ring road?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Except your plan absolutely hurts everyone who lives around there.

How does coach hill get to signal hill? Go to 17th? All the way to the ring road?

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