So is the SW leg of the ring road going to be a straight shot south from where the exising ring road meets the trans Canada, all the way down to 22X?
If not, it should be.
I heard a rumor that Sarcee is going to be part of the leg?
The section from the TCH to Highway 8 isn't funded yet, so Sarcee will be the route for the time being. The final plan is to have it go south from the TCH at Stoney, then have a couple interchanges where it jogs east, then south.
Where are some of you getting that there's more lights for left turns at the McLeod/162nd interchange? Right turns require 0 lights, left turns require 1 light, straight through on 162nd has 2 lights.
Furthermore, both traffic lights on the bridge have only 2 phases, which is better than the 3-4 phases at most other interchanges.
Where are some of you getting that there's more lights for left turns at the McLeod/162nd interchange? Right turns require 0 lights, left turns require 1 light, straight through on 162nd has 2 lights.
Furthermore, both traffic lights on the bridge have only 2 phases, which is better than the 3-4 phases at most other interchanges.
I think the left turn requires two lights, one at each point on the diamond? Like I say, it might streamline once its a little better understood, but at this point its two lights instead of one. And yeah, that one had an extra phase, so maybe it evens out in terms of time or maybe the lights are well synchronized so its better. Hard to say for sure partway through day one.
I drove the interchange on 162nd yesterday. It was late at night so no one was around, so I didn't really have an issue with delays. But it will probably take some time to get used to, especially if you are new to the city. Also pretty sad was that the police announced on the news this morning basically begging people not to be texting or distracted when driving this new interchange. Pretty sad that this even has to be mentioned...
I'm also a bit surprised that some posters here are shocked that the free flowing traffic is only for N/S Mcleod. Pretty much every major interchange in Calgary is like that now. The main artery is free flowing and the lesser ones ALWAYS have lights. I don't like it either, but it should come as absolutely no surprise it was done this way. The days of big huge cloverleafs with no lights are long past when it comes to these new construction projects.
I think the left turn requires two lights, one at each point on the diamond? Like I say, it might streamline once its a little better understood, but at this point its two lights instead of one. And yeah, that one had an extra phase, so maybe it evens out in terms of time or maybe the lights are well synchronized so its better. Hard to say for sure partway through day one.
Looking at the project plans on the cities website, it shows only 1 light for the left turns, but in operation, if will either be 2 lights, or effectively two lights, as you would have to wait for the light to turn red nearby in order to get in either way. That is for left turns coming off of McLeod. Left turns off of 162nd are definitely only one light.
I think the left turn requires two lights, one at each point on the diamond? Like I say, it might streamline once its a little better understood, but at this point its two lights instead of one. And yeah, that one had an extra phase, so maybe it evens out in terms of time or maybe the lights are well synchronized so its better. Hard to say for sure partway through day one.
Based on the video and the diagram image above, you should only have to go through one light to make a left turn. That's the whole point of having traffic on the other side of the road.
16th Ave and 14th St NW interchange should upgrade to this type of interchange. The westbound left lane gets backed up all the way to SAIT during the AM peak because of the short lane space for left turning traffic on the bridge.
The Following User Says Thank You to Joborule For This Useful Post:
I drove through it this morning, and lanes were closed, and it wasn't busy at all, plus it looked like not all markings/signage was in place? I drove straight across, westbound.
It didn't seem all that complicated to navigate.
The light at Sunpark Gate needed some serious timing revision, however.
I think the left turn requires two lights, one at each point on the diamond? Like I say, it might streamline once its a little better understood, but at this point its two lights instead of one. And yeah, that one had an extra phase, so maybe it evens out in terms of time or maybe the lights are well synchronized so its better. Hard to say for sure partway through day one.
Based on the map at the above link, it would appear that the final design should only require 2 lights for those driving straight through (Eastbound or westbound). Most other travellers will face 1 light (those ending up 90° Left of their original travel) while those ending up 90° right of their original travel will face no lights.
__________________
"Teach a man to reason, and he'll think for a lifetime"
Based on the map at the above link, it would appear that the final design should only require 2 lights for those driving straight through (Eastbound or westbound). Most other travellers will face 1 light (those ending up 90° Left of their original travel) while those ending up 90° right of their original travel will face no lights.
I'm correcting myself, and you can see it in the video above - left turns off of McLeod have 2 lights. Left turns off of 162nd have 1 light.
I don't know exactly how the light timing will be coordinated, but with only two lights, and two phases on each, i think it should be easy to coordinate the lights so that it's rare to actually have to stop at both lights.
Admittedly, the deep South is a place that I rarely venture to, but I like the look of this. It addresses the congestion caused by left turns (both for the turners and those that have to wait for them), Macleod obviously gets to flow freely.
As Thneed points out, getting Macleod out of the traffic light cycle is the main thing. The lights up top have way fewer cars to deal with, so I don't imagine that it is going to be very cumbersome for those not on Macleod either. I think this will prove to be a good design here.
Next up - Macleod south of 22x, around 4 relatively new sets of lights and a confusing speed pattern. Right now I think it goes from 70, to 80, then 110, then 80, then back to 110
I'm correcting myself, and you can see it in the video above - left turns off of McLeod have 2 lights. Left turns off of 162nd have 1 light.
Interesting...based on the diagram i thought it was going to be a yield. I wonder if they will still allow LH turns on red as it is one-way to one-way.
__________________
"Teach a man to reason, and he'll think for a lifetime"
