Ring Road To Nowhere

[TorqueDog]

Here's the part of Woodbine where the picture is from. You'll need to look at the picture above to get an idea of how close the current SWRR alignment is to that pathway in the top-down view.

I have to ask, aren't they going to have to put a noise barrier up anyway?

Here's the front view of the homes on the southern-most part of Couture Crescent SW in my neighbourhood. Now, that barrier has been there since Glenmore was aligned strictly along the southern part of that transportation corridor. It was not moved due to or in anticipation of the construction of the new lanes, and if you look at the top-down view of the current alignment in satellite view, you'll see how the lanes have shifted closer. It would appear to me that these houses in Woodbine are still getting about the same buffer as the houses along the northern side of Glenmore Trail, if not more.

[Acey]

tl;dr: if it's too loud there, they're contractually obligated to deal with it... but it won't be.

From a noise perspective this is similar to 2013 when the braided ramp on northbound Deerfoot was built pretty much in the bedroom window of some houses in Auburn Bay. Different obviously in the sense that those people were already backing onto Deerfoot and not an endless greenspace, but similar in terms of the attenuation required. Deerfoot Trail through there carries more than twice the volume that I expect Stoney SW to carry on opening day.

The northbound Stoney mainline is gonna be far enough away that it won't be an issue, and then the median is literal football fields wide which attenuates southbound.

Noise won't end up being an issue here, just the eyesore of the MSE wall for which she has no recourse. My civil tech buddy from school worked somewhere on this project and I texted him to see if he knows anything but the way these megaprojects are setup it's probably 5 people I'll have to go through to hear anything useful.

Relevant text

The Contractor shall ensure that the maximum noise level of 65 dBA Leq24 (A-weighted 24 hour equivalent sound level) measured 2 metres inside the affected residential property line is adhered to. If the threshold is exceeded, the Contractor shall implement noise mitigation measures. Monitoring and measurement to determine where and when noise mitigation measures are required shall be generally completed in accordance with Section 400.4.9 (Road Traffic Noise Mitigation (New Infrastructure Only)). The mitigation of noise issues could include constructing noise walls or berms. The mitigation must be broadly supported by the affected residents. If noise mitigation is required the minimum height implemented shall be 1.8 m.

[Source sec 200.2.14, pdf page 162]

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Old Yeller

From this article:



Yeah I'm the same, normally I wouldn't feel bad but these two really got the shaft... would they have any sort of legal recourse?

That's a pedestrian bridge, so it won't be noisy at least?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

That's a pedestrian bridge, so it won't be noisy at least?

What? Look at how wide that ramp is, are we importing pedestrians we found at a West Virginia state fair?

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

What? Look at how wide that ramp is, are we importing pedestrians we found at a West Virginia state fair?

When it's done it'll make more sense, but the pathway will higher than those walls. There will be some soil graded down from the pathway to where those walls are. That makes the walls shorter which saves them money.

The best way to illustrate that is to see the height difference between the pedestrian bridge where that white equipment is sitting in the photo, and the wall below it.

[TorqueDog]

Okay, so now I'm confused. Are these people up in arms over a pedestrian bridge and everyone missed it until now?

[Acey]

Pedestrian bridge.



http://www.swcrrproject.com/wp-conte...-2019_D2-3.pdf

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Okay, so now I'm confused. Are these people up in arms over a pedestrian bridge and everyone missed it until now?

I assumed they knew that's what it was. The northbound exit ramp is still fairly close to them though, but nothing like Auburn Bay.

[The Yen Man]

Yah, if that's a pedestrian bridge, then I'm confused to the complaints too. I thought that was actually one of the ramps for the overpass.

I guess looking at that picture, it does make more sense that it's a pedestrian bridge (even though it's so wide). I don't think a highway ramp with cars going 100km per hour can be built that close to a house (or to a pathway right below it).

[Acey]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I don't think a highway ramp with cars going 100km per hour can be built that close to a house (or to a pathway right below it).

They can, and are, see Auburn Bay. The limit is 70 kph. No ring road ramp has a limit of 100 kph.

Google Earth - Deerfoot Tr between 22X and Cranston Ave




The ramp is 9 meters from the closest house. Very low traffic most times of day, I'd be surprised if the peak am hour is more than 50-100 vehicles per hour. 2-lane ramp next to it is ~2,000 vehicles per hour in the morning peak and probably a decent source of noise.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Okay, so now I'm confused. Are these people up in arms over a pedestrian bridge and everyone missed it until now?

The issue for those homeowners, I believe, is the lack of privacy they will now have with pedestrians literally looking down upon their back yards from just a few feet away. It's one thing to have your view taken away but then have people peering down on your property like that would be quite disconcerting. As an aside, the first house you see in that picture was purchased by a former colleague of mine back around 2015 so I'm sure they were aware of the possibility of the ring road at the time of their purchase.

Up until a few years ago, I lived in the Woodbrook Mews 200 Circle. At that time, there were no designs shared with the public that indicated a pedestrian ramp in that location nor one that would have such an impact on any of the houses in that area.

BTW, the homeowners that are interviewed in the video segment are not the owners of these houses shown in the picture of the ramp, those owners are situated 100 metres or so to the North of the pictured ramp.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Up until a few years ago, I lived in the Woodbrook Mews 200 Circle. At that time, there were no designs shared with the public that indicated a pedestrian ramp in that location nor one that would have such an impact on any of the houses in that area.

Why would they share designs showing an "exact" location with the public until they knew for sure? They're not under any obligation to set a legal precedent for these homeowners. The whole corridor can be used - so unless they said to these homeowners when they bought their properties that there would be no road infrastructure within a certain distance of their house, I'm not sure how they can act like they have control over what gets put next to their house.

When they sell their house in outrage, I'm sure the first thing they'll say in the listing will be how the ring road is a selling feature - great access to everything!

[Acey]

I'm not sure I'd call it "literally looking down upon their back yards." It's not ideal but not horrendous.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by D as in David

BTW, the homeowners that are interviewed in the video segment are not the owners of these houses shown in the picture of the ramp, those owners are situated 100 metres or so to the North of the pictured ramp.

Then they definitely have a lot less to complain about, because they don't even have the privacy issue that you mentioned if they're 100 metres north of where that ramp is. 100 metres puts them at or past the turn off to Woodbrook Mews SW.

[Acey]

Interesting that instead of something like this, they went with something that blocks the sun with walls and tons of earth fill.

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by Acey

Interesting that instead of something like this, they went with something that blocks the sun with walls and tons of earth fill.

Many of those ped bridges with the big loops don't meet current code because the slope is too steep - you can keep them if you have them already (like some of Calgary's LRT Stations, mainly NE), but you'd never be able to build one like that now.

Not saying you need to build a huge one like they did, which many mistook for an actual on-ramp, but ped bridges now need to have larger footprints by design just to meet the grade/access requirements

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

Many of those ped bridges with the big loops don't meet current code because the slope is too steep.

Not only that, but the looping design makes it hard to see who is coming, can be a clearance issues for cyclists and is in general a CPTED failure.

[Acey]

Yeah I just picked one off Google, didn't mean that structure. But when you watch the video, it looks like a road overpass. The new one over Stoney and 14 St are better examples.

[TorqueDog]

Are the pedestrian bridges over Stoney Trail in the north that wide? That ramp looks like you could fit two lanes of traffic and still have space for a shoulder.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Are the pedestrian bridges over Stoney Trail in the north that wide? That ramp looks like you could fit two lanes of traffic and still have space for a shoulder.

It won't be that wide. Once it's at the proper height it will be as wide as the paved path beside the walls.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Are the pedestrian bridges over Stoney Trail in the north that wide?

Stoney at Scenic Acres i.e. normal.



The problem with this one by Anderson is presumably that it has to span a much longer distance so it was cheaper to build it like a conventional road bridge with concrete spans, I just don't understand the approaches. Thought it would be more like the new 14 St one by the BRT which I know meets code because I worked on it.