Ring Road To Nowhere

[Acey]

Originally Posted by rohara66

How is the access into Shawnessy shopping are (home depot) going to work with the new interchange? Looks like no in/out access behind Home Depot and no access to the road west of the LRT track off of 22x west.

In access will remain, out will not. It's just not rendered in the video.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Acey

A stack is the theoretically perfect interchange.

Anthony Henday Drive/Yellowhead Trail in Edmonton is the only interchange in Alberta where two ramps are truly 3rd level, and it's only because there's train tracks and refineries in the way preventing AB Trans' usual style. It's just really expensive.


You can really see how much of a dump Edmonton is from the top level. It's about 20 meters up.

easy now Acey, it's not that bad.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Wouldn't it be the province that can't close the loop? 201 is a Provincial highway, after all.

Though really, all three levels of government need to get on that so they can re-align the TCH along Highway 901 and south Stoney/Tsuut'ina Trail.

Incidentally, is there any reason why it is "Tsuut'ina Trail" instead of "Tsuu T'ina Trail"?

Yeah it'll be around $1B for that last leg and you also need to twin that lengthy bridge over the river north of COP. Sarcee will function as the west leg until probably 2025 or so when the province get around to it. They're just deferring the cost given the economy and what not, and it's probably the right decision... doesn't make it suck any less for those that would benefit the most from it.

As of now, highway 201 could potentially have 3 names. Glenmore will be a part of it, Stoney obviously, and then the part from 130 Ave SW up to Glenmore will be Tsuut'ina Trail. It's kind of a clusterfata for signage, but I have a feeling the province might be working on a way to simplify it before signs get ordered. It's also highly possible that they don't care.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Acey

Yeah it'll be around $1B for that last leg and you also need to twin that lengthy bridge over the river north of COP. Sarcee will function as the west leg until probably 2025 or so when the province get around to it. They're just deferring the cost given the economy and what not, and it's probably the right decision... doesn't make it suck any less for those that would benefit the most from it.

As of now, highway 201 could potentially have 3 names. Glenmore will be a part of it, Stoney obviously, and then the part from 130 Ave SW up to Glenmore will be Tsuut'ina Trail. It's kind of a clusterfata for signage, but I have a feeling the province might be working on a way to simplify it before signs get ordered. It's also highly possible that they don't care.

I thought the Schedule 18 signage details indicated that Glenmore will be renamed Stoney west of the Sarcee Trail interchange? It's as such below.

Spoiler!

[Resolute 14]

Oh god. That is just stupid. Leave Glenmore's naming alone and just have the Stoney name terminate at Tsuut'ina Tr's borders.

[Acey]

I emailed AB Trans. Apparently a final decision has not been made on the naming because of the postponing of the west leg. Right now it's likely Glenmore gets renamed, but it hasn't been finalized. As of now, the plan is for one interchange to have four different named roads going into it. Don't ever change, Alberta.

[MacDaddy77]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

easy now Acey, it's not that bad.

Fine fine,

You can really see how much of a landfill Edmonton is. Is that better

[Fuzz]

To move this discussion to the proper thread...
What is with the Westbound Glenmore design? Why does the exit for SB Stoney exit left, then go under a bridge under Glenmore? Why not just have it exit right and Glenmore stay left? It seems needlessly complex.

[GGG]

It's probably the primary movement in terms of modelled traffic.

It's pretty close to westbound Stoney onto Deerfoot.

It also requires an extra/ longer bridge over west bound glenmore

[Slava]

I wasn't sure which thread to put this in, and I know that somewhere in this thread we spoke about the 162/Macleod overpass. It opened this morning, and I'm not too sure about it. Obviously I've only driven it once here, so it could be changing some more, but I was a little underwhelmed.

I came from the west onto Macleod Trail and it seems like there are more lights to make that happen now? Like I say, I could be wrong, and it could work out awesome, but at this point it didn't seem that good to me. Thoughts?

[Ironhorse]

I think the idea is to allow for the most traffic volume during rush hour, which is usually heavily slanted towards one direction of flow.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Slava

I wasn't sure which thread to put this in, and I know that somewhere in this thread we spoke about the 162/Macleod overpass. It opened this morning, and I'm not too sure about it. Obviously I've only driven it once here, so it could be changing some more, but I was a little underwhelmed.

I came from the west onto Macleod Trail and it seems like there are more lights to make that happen now? Like I say, I could be wrong, and it could work out awesome, but at this point it didn't seem that good to me. Thoughts?

I haven't driven it, but reviewed a few of the videos explaining it and yes, I think anything involving 162 will mean more lights for you. Southbound/Northbound Macleod is free flowing, though. Hopefully the left turns where you don't have oncoming traffic make sense with the signs and painted arrows and such.

[Slava]

I guess I will just avoid it, as always. I had higher hopes and thought it was going to make things quite a bit better. I thought the design was going to make it more free-flowing and involve less stopping, but I guess I misinterpreted.

[Fuzz]

I've yet to see an intersection change where they reduce the number of lights on it. Cloverleafs may be less safe, but damn if they aren't efficient. Going from no lights to 3 to make a left turn is really annoying.

[transplant99]

I drove it yesterday and it will take some time to get used to. It just feels wrong to go to the left set of lanes in any scenario, but especially on a bridge.

That being said the explanation given by engineers makes a lot of sense and i suspect in a couple weeks when most who use it regularly have figured it out, we will see a serious upgrade to traffic flow from the last few years of complete cluster####ness that intersection has been.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Slava

I guess I will just avoid it, as always. I had higher hopes and thought it was going to make things quite a bit better. I thought the design was going to make it more free-flowing and involve less stopping, but I guess I misinterpreted.

It comes down to two things, money and space. Instead of a ~$70M project it could have been all free flowing. But that would have cost ~$200M and would have needed to take out two shopping malls.

At the end of the day the wait on 162nd will be much shorter, and people on MacLeod will have no wait.

[Calgary14]

I was under the impression the diamond interchange was meant to make traffic more flee flowing. The design is 'award winning' and is supposed to make things easier for commuters merging onto Macleod. But it sounds like the only thing free-flowing is north-south Macleod. I read earlier the interchange is open now but won't be 100% functional until October as I think there are some speed restrictions in place until people get used to it

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Cloverleafs may be less safe, but damn if they aren't efficient.

You are unintentionally correct, they aren't efficient at higher traffic volumes.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by ken0042

It comes down to two things, money and space. Instead of a ~$70M project it could have been all free flowing. But that would have cost ~$200M and would have needed to take out two shopping malls.

At the end of the day the wait on 162nd will be much shorter, and people on MacLeod will have no wait.

I think that this cost over $200m though? They went with this design and it was super fancy and award winning and the first of its kind in Canada and all that. Like I say, I've just used it once so I might change my tune if I try it a few more times, but the first run through wasn't super impressive.

I should say that the construction process and planning from that aspect was excellent. They did an amazing job with the lack of disruption down there in general considering the size and scope of the project.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ken0042

You are unintentionally correct, they aren't efficient at higher traffic volumes.

I meant efficient for me to get through when I typically drive when there are few cars on the road! I'm not a rush hour driver, so sitting at 3 red lights with very little traffic around is a gear grinder...But I know, not all infrastructure is made form my personal exclusive use, as I am not Elon Musk.