It's ~Oct 2024 to be fair, so they have 2 summers to work with.
I wonder if they'll get an RFP out soon for the section from OBCR exit to Callaway Park since Bingham Crossing seems to be picking up steam?
That would fall outside the scope of Stoney Trail so would be a completely separate project. But yeah, I'd like to see #1 three laned all the way to Hwy 22.
That would fall outside the scope of Stoney Trail so would be a completely separate project. But yeah, I'd like to see #1 three laned all the way to Hwy 22.
TC1 upgrades, including some pretty significant grade smoothing and expanding to 8 lanes for the ~5km or so west of Stoney, seems to fall under the current project purview:
That would fall outside the scope of Stoney Trail so would be a completely separate project. But yeah, I'd like to see #1 three laned all the way to Hwy 22.
The one part that disappoints me about the new TCH/Stoney interchange is that westbound TCH just before Valley Ridge bottlenecks down to two lanes from three. I'm not really sure why they designed it that way but it seems really stupid.
Last edited by calgarygeologist; 03-20-2023 at 04:06 PM.
I have to go from the deep SE to the end of Lower Springbank Road 4-5 times per week and I cant wait until this is done. Having to go 69th and then through Springbank Hill to 85th and up to 17th ave is driving me nuts.
I get 101st needed to be closed but I cant imagine the residents are all too happy with everyone shortcutting through their neighbourhood. It seems a temp intersection for a moved 101st for the couple of years it's gonna take would have been worth it.
Since when? The plan was three lanes, four lanes b/w Valley Ridge and OBCR, and the existing two lanes past OBCR.
Check out the video of the plan at around 0:35. It shows the right lane of westbound TCH ending and it being only two lanes right before, east of, Valley Ridge. I've driven down that section many times and it seems like a stupid design and what is even worse is that there doesn't appear to be enough room to expand in the future if they actually wanted/needed three lanes through that one section.
Last edited by calgarygeologist; 03-20-2023 at 05:36 PM.
Ah, I see what you're saying. Weird. If you look at the overall plan (https://westringroad.ca/wp-content/u...22_lanects.pdf) it shows three lanes WB east of the Valley Ridge Blvd bridge, and four lanes WB after the end of the onramp from Valley Ridge Blvd, but nothing in between. According to the rendering in the video, the three lanes from Stoney and three lanes from WB 16th Ave are each reduced by one lane right before they merge.
I guess in reality you can think of it as the right-hand WB lane is for traffic getting off at Valley Ridge, and the lane simply continues a few hundred metres to give the traffic that didn't want to get off at Valley Ridge a chance to merge into traffic continuing WB...?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the EB TC1 to SB Stoney ramp only having one lane going up that hill is going to be a problem when transport trucks can't maintain a decent speed up it. There will be a lot of impatient drivers behind them making potentially dangerous lane changes to get past the trucks.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the EB TC1 to SB Stoney ramp only having one lane going up that hill is going to be a problem when transport trucks can't maintain a decent speed up it. There will be a lot of impatient drivers behind them making potentially dangerous lane changes to get past the trucks.
Yeah, one lane there is pretty bad. Transport trucks and campers in the summer will make that section really slow. The trucks can barely make it up the Stoney hill from Beddington to Sarcee and I think that the hill south of TCH is steeper.
This could go in the WRGMG thread, but they've made the change to the WB 16th exit on to NB stoney and it sucks to say the least. What used to be a really well flowing exit is not anymore, as it goes from 2 lanes down to 1 far earlier. Feels like they could have designed this much better, to allow the volume of traffic to flow through on to NB stoney, without forcing everyone down to one lane so early.
How many goddam years does it take to make a simple goddam bridge over the goddam Bow River on the south portion of Stoney goddam Trail.
Its all part of the plan to annoy cyclists ... when they tore down the eastbound bridge (I think that's the one they removed) they also ripped out the only active transportation option to cross the river in that area. When they're all done, they're going to build a dedicated bridge a bit further south.
So if they speed up they'll make cyclists happier faster, and I'm pretty sure most people here don't want that.
This could go in the WRGMG thread, but they've made the change to the WB 16th exit on to NB stoney and it sucks to say the least. What used to be a really well flowing exit is not anymore, as it goes from 2 lanes down to 1 far earlier. Feels like they could have designed this much better, to allow the volume of traffic to flow through on to NB stoney, without forcing everyone down to one lane so early.
It's annoying, hopefully people adapt to the changes. The way the lines are painted make me think it may not be permanent, however you can also see that the inner exit lane is designed mainly for the WB>SB exit with a split off the the NB lanes. Also keep in mind (according to the drawing on their website) that the two WB>NB and the two EB>NB lanes need to reduce to two NB lanes (total) as they come together. The plan shows 3 NB lanes coming down the hill and 5 lanes after everything merges so they have to lose two lanes somewhere. I wonder what the traffic models were like for WB>NB were, it sure seems like there is more traffic (at rush hour) than perhaps anticipated.
It's annoying, hopefully people adapt to the changes. The way the lines are painted make me think it may not be permanent, however you can also see that the inner exit lane is designed mainly for the WB>SB exit with a split off the the NB lanes. Also keep in mind (according to the drawing on their website) that the two WB>NB and the two EB>NB lanes need to reduce to two NB lanes (total) as they come together. The plan shows 3 NB lanes coming down the hill and 5 lanes after everything merges so they have to lose two lanes somewhere. I wonder what the traffic models were like for WB>NB were, it sure seems like there is more traffic (at rush hour) than perhaps anticipated.
Is there a lot of NB traffic from Sarcee that ends up WB 16th > NB Stoney? Perhaps there's modelling showing that traffic will get onto Stoney NB further south once the west RR is complete, so the anticipated volumes for WB>NB will drop once everything's completed and tied in
As many as the contractor can fleece bill the province for?
Pretty much every one of these contracts is a lump-sum, so there's absolutely no incentive for the contractor not to get it done as quickly as humanly possible.
Pretty much every one of these contracts is a lump-sum, so there's absolutely no incentive for the contractor not to get it done as quickly as humanly possible.
But that’s also a positive from a cost point of few as it drives down price at time of bid by allowing bidders the proper amount of time to not burn it on OT.
It's annoying, hopefully people adapt to the changes. The way the lines are painted make me think it may not be permanent, however you can also see that the inner exit lane is designed mainly for the WB>SB exit with a split off the the NB lanes. Also keep in mind (according to the drawing on their website) that the two WB>NB and the two EB>NB lanes need to reduce to two NB lanes (total) as they come together. The plan shows 3 NB lanes coming down the hill and 5 lanes after everything merges so they have to lose two lanes somewhere. I wonder what the traffic models were like for WB>NB were, it sure seems like there is more traffic (at rush hour) than perhaps anticipated.
WB>NB may drop sometime after the south leg opens, as right now, the bypass is to the North. But with the south open, a lot of traffic going further east on the TCH will head south instead of North if they ever do the 22x>Gleichen bypass. Was that ever approved, or still just an idea? Seems an easy win.
