Ring Road To Nowhere

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Nancy

It is fine the vast majority of the time, it's just that when the backup happens, it builds quickly. In all honesty, it is not that bad compared to other locations (e.g. Eastbound Glenmore @ Deerfoot) but what also makes it bad is that the line-up is in the center lane, so it also creates issues with traffic trying to get off to Sarcee or on from 37th etc..

Probably heartbreaking for those deep SW commuters who thought they'd had that "life changing" improvement to their commute to downtown, only to see it gradually evaporate.

"Heartbreaking"

So dramatic.. U-turn at 69th, or go through Grey Eagle to TT parkway.

5 minute detour isn't nearly as bad as being ring road-less.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

Typical Calgary/Alberta infrastrucutre building strategy - they have years/decades to plan and design, and at the end building a less than adequate product to save a few bucks. I would think if it was a dual-lane loop at the get go it would cost maybe an extra $3 mil, now if they want to twin the loop, it probably will cost $30+ mil

That is, unless I'm right in my assumption that they deem a dual-lane loop of that radius to be unacceptable from a safety perspective, in which case the alternative would be far more than $3M to move the substation, or $50-100M for the interchange to be a 4 level monster of which there is only one in the entire county.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

"Heartbreaking"

So dramatic.. U-turn at 69th, or go through Grey Eagle to TT parkway.

5 minute detour isn't nearly as bad as being ring road-less.

How much volume can those detours handle before they start to fail?

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by D as in David

How much volume can those detours handle before they start to fail?

I'm sure the transportation engineers would love access to your crystal ball and seemingly unlimited resources.

This whining is very reminiscent of the whining from Cranston when the SE leg opened.

[Acey]

I think it's a reasonable question to ask. When the shortcuts get overloaded, they will implement some kind of measures to disincentivize it. This is distinctly different than the Cranston situation, where the plan from day 0 in the 1950s was for access to adjacent neighbourhoods to be secondary to overall efficiency of the road. WB Glenmore to SB Stoney is a critical movement between two of the busiest roads in the country frankly, and it is served by an undersized loop.

In other news, I'm hearing a couple Cadillac Blackwings set a sub-40 minute laptime last night... that requires an average speed of 155 kph.

[DoubleK]

I can't explain why there isn't a directional ramp like EB 22x to NB Deerfoot, but all this talk about moving the substation like it is some trivial endeavour is complete nonsense.

As is every other solution that's been suggested.

They did the best with the constraints that exist at that location.

Traffic movements in that part of the city are better now than they were before it opened.

This whining is an insult to anyone who worked on the project and frankly, it's unacceptable.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I'm sure the transportation engineers would love access to your crystal ball and seemingly unlimited resources.

This whining is very reminiscent of the whining from Cranston when the SE leg opened.

I'd be pretty surprised if transportation engineers believed that forecasting was some form of magic and outside the scope of their work.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I can't explain why there isn't a directional ramp like EB 22x to NB Deerfoot

There is.

Sarcee/Glenmore is functionally the same as 22X/Deerfoot, 16 Ave NE/Stoney, or Henday NW/Yellowhead; the two more important opposing left turn movements are flyovers, and the lesser two are loop ramps.

Given the constraints at Sarcee/Glenmore, to add a third left turn flyover would either have to be a tunnel under the whole complex, or would have to go over top of the SB-EB flyover which would be massively expensive.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Acey

There is.

Not for the movements that you had originally referenced.

It sounds like the most active movements were appropriately prioritized.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Not for the movements that you had originally referenced.

It sounds like the most active movements were appropriately prioritized.

Yeah I explained that confusingly. What I meant is that it wasn't an oversight, but rather like I said the only way for a directional ramp on the WB-SB movement would be the insurmountable movement of the substation, or a big flyover all the way over top the entire complex which would have been a big challenge given the proximity of 37 St as the approach would have to start really far back, so that leaves only a tunnel.

So finding some way to skew the interchange to give them just enough room to build a 2 lane loop ramp might have been the least of all evils.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I can't explain why there isn't a directional ramp like EB 22x to NB Deerfoot, but all this talk about moving the substation like it is some trivial endeavour is complete nonsense.

As is every other solution that's been suggested.

They did the best with the constraints that exist at that location.

Traffic movements in that part of the city are better now than they were before it opened.

This whining is an insult to anyone who worked on the project and frankly, it's unacceptable.

I don’t understand this sentiment.

If the design was forecast to have backups at 2023 traffic volumes on that movement then the province should be stating that this was the design intent. If that was the design intent they should be stating the logic behind that decision for the costs.

If one of the movements on a 3 year old interchange backs up while all the other interchanges are functional that is a failure on some aspect of the design. Whether that was justified given the costs to solve the issue and was the issue correctly predicted is something the project owners should be commenting on.

In any project you are held to the design spec. So is this movement handling the anticipated throughout or was the modeling wrong or is it working as intended.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Acey

Yeah I explained that confusingly. What I meant is that it wasn't an oversight, but rather like I said the only way for a directional ramp on the WB-SB movement would be the insurmountable movement of the substation, or a big flyover all the way over top the entire complex which would have been a big challenge given the proximity of 37 St as the approach would have to start really far back, so that leaves only a tunnel.

Agreed.

Having worked on some of the enabling works, a tunnel at that location would have required moving an astounding amount of utilities. Some of these underground utilities may or may not be in the correct locations per the drawings.

I haven't viewed any of the profile drawings for the complex (my project was underground), so not clear if the directional would have been a 3rd or 4th level. You would know better than me why 37th is a constraint, perhaps they could have sacrificed that movement and started the directional much further back.

The road has been open for a week. The current traffic patterns are just that, current. Drivers will adjust and find better routes for their specific trip.

This criticism is way overblown IMO.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Agreed.

Having worked on some of the enabling works, a tunnel at that location would have required moving an astounding amount of utilities. Some of these underground utilities may or may not be in the correct locations per the drawings.

I haven't viewed any of the profile drawings for the complex (my project was underground), so not clear if the directional would have been a 3rd or 4th level. You would know better than me why 37th is a constraint, perhaps they could have sacrificed that movement and started the directional much further back.

The road has been open for a week. The current traffic patterns are just that, current. Drivers will adjust and find better routes for their specific trip.

This criticism is way overblown IMO.

The back up at various times has happened over the past 3 months well before the new section was opened.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by GGG

The back up at various times has happened over the past 3 months well before the new section was opened.

There is way more volume now leading to late merges, bad driving, etc, that would further confound that movement.

[Acey]

The one advantage of the westbound Glenmore exit to 69 St being a loop is that traffic using it to U-turn only has to go through one light to get back eastbound. Then, it's not like there's a ton of traffic coming out of Discovery Ridge going NB on 69 St in the PM rush, so there'd be a relatively high amount of free cycle time at the southern intersection to heavily favour left turners, as if it were the AM rush.

[Mathgod]

Wait a minute... couldn't they simply add a mini-exit immediately after the Glenmore overpass bridge? That way you add a 2nd lane to the exit loop leading to TT south without needing to make any changes to the single-lane bridge. But there's probably a reason why it hasn't been considered. Just spitballing here.

[csnarpy]

Well I loaded up the kids in the truck, stopped for coffees & hot chocolates and drove the entire loop from Anderson to Anderson. Just a sweet ride. The new section is a definite game changer.

[Lubicon]

Technically not part of the ring road but part of the project and a topic of discussion here recently. Speed limit of WB TCH has been raised to 110 now, just as you leave the City. Used to be 80 all the way to Old Banff Coach Road.

[Manhattanboy]

Sorry late to the thread. What part of the SW design is everyone upset about? Thanks.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Sorry late to the thread. What part of the SW design is everyone upset about? Thanks.

Everything except the WB Glenmore off-ramp to SB Stoney.