Thanks. I'm guessing it will be similar to the 52nd street access near new Brighton?
52 St is a full interchange, you can access both directions from both roads with the 4 ramps there. I don't have the plans in front of me, but this is likely a 2 ramp interchange... so no access from one direction (WB Stoney I think) and then you can't go to EB Stoney from the bridge.
The Following User Says Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
Haven't been following it, honestly... going to be a while before anything gets done. They need approval yes, then the province has to draw it all up and then the contractors bid on it.
Does anyone know what the gov means by the term "partial interchange"? I ask because we have family in Silverado and they're worried they wont have north/south access when the ring road is completed. Currently there is an intersection at 22x and 6th street. I assume this will be eliminated but will traffic be able to flow from Silverado north on 6th street?
Silverado residents need to push for a connection to Spruce Meadows Way. That will be the closest full interchange with Stoney Trail.
Movements to and from Silverado are going to be limited with the current design. Will be the same as how the north access to Cranston was affected by Stoney Trail.
52 St is a full interchange, you can access both directions from both roads with the 4 ramps there. I don't have the plans in front of me, but this is likely a 2 ramp interchange... so no access from one direction (WB Stoney I think) and then you can't go to EB Stoney from the bridge.
Here is a link to the 2009 Functional Planning Study. Very limited movements.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DoubleK For This Useful Post:
Silverado residents need to push for a connection to Spruce Meadows Way. That will be the closest full interchange with Stoney Trail.
Movements to and from Silverado are going to be limited with the current design. Will be the same as how the north access to Cranston was affected by Stoney Trail.
Doesnt the diagram on link indicate they will have full access just not with freeway speeds. The lights will give Silverado access East and West no?
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
The lack of access sucks, but anyone who has been through the 22X/Deerfoot complex can attest to the efficiency of that interchange. Okotoks to Airdrie either direction, you don't even have to slow down.
There will be no direct access from WB Stoney into Silverado.
There will be no direct access to EB Stoney from Silverado.
There exists the potential for u-turn routes via the Spruce Meadows interchange.
Well, that is bull####. At least with Cranston people will be able to enter the community from the south once the off ramp from Stoney Westbound to Deerfoot Southbound is completed. No such option exists for Silverado as their is only one paved entrance to the community. The thing that pisses me off the most is that there is more than enough room for four way access/egress if they simply utilized the available space in the Transportation/Utility corridor.
The thing that pisses me off the most is that there is more than enough room for four way access/egress if they simply utilized the available space in the Transportation/Utility corridor.
There isn't enough distance between 6th St SW and McLeod interchange. In order to accommodate these movements several bridge structures would have to exist to allow for weaving. It simply isn't cost effective, which it is why it's not in the scope. These distances are well understood by transportation planners.
Silverado residents need to pursue a connection to Spruce Meadows Way via 194th Ave.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DoubleK For This Useful Post:
Druh Farrell is such an embarrassment to this city.
While I am definitely not a fan of Druh Farrell, I do think there is legitimacy in challenging the per user cost of the ring road.
When the city was going through the process of the temporary bike lanes in downtown, there was outrage of the expense for "relatively few riders" It was pretty common for anti's to justify not installing the bike lanes by challenging the per user cost.... That was for a $7.5MM project.
The SW ring road is closer to $135MM in direct cost to the city and over $5B cost to the province. At a time when neither the city or the province is running anything close to a surplus, it is my opinion that these kinds of expenses need to be challenged (not discarded, but the decision needs to be challenged and if it is still a good project then it should proceed)
A lot of time and energy was wasted opposing and defending a $7.5MM expenditure, but your expectation is that everyone jumps on board a project that has a cost that is over 650times larger??
The Following User Says Thank You to gasman For This Useful Post:
The plan was to build a RING road. At what point do we just start calling this thing a semi circle road. Just get it done. The existing road proves excellent efficiency and really takes some heat off other major roads.
Yeah we all knew the costs would be high going in, just not the final number. I think if the SW portion was the first section to be done and there would be no ring without it, I'm sure there would be more support. But now that everyone else has their ring portion they are more than happy to say we need N-SE LRT instead.
While I am definitely not a fan of Druh Farrell, I do think there is legitimacy in challenging the per user cost of the ring road.
When the city was going through the process of the temporary bike lanes in downtown, there was outrage of the expense for "relatively few riders" It was pretty common for anti's to justify not installing the bike lanes by challenging the per user cost.... That was for a $7.5MM project.
The SW ring road is closer to $135MM in direct cost to the city and over $5B cost to the province. At a time when neither the city or the province is running anything close to a surplus, it is my opinion that these kinds of expenses need to be challenged (not discarded, but the decision needs to be challenged and if it is still a good project then it should proceed)
A lot of time and energy was wasted opposing and defending a $7.5MM expenditure, but your expectation is that everyone jumps on board a project that has a cost that is over 650times larger??
Based on what though? I support the cycle track entirely and if anything want to see it increased substantially to see enormous expansion. I just think that these per user figures on either side are a sales pitch though. Its like when you're buying a car or house and the salesperson gives you the "its only $10 a week" and you spend the extra $5000 on a car.
I also don't like the "we had trouble getting the cycle-track approved, so now were going to jerk around with you getting this project approved" mentality. To me that just creates more conflict and eventually nothing gets done because of the politics. I don't think that anyone, urban or suburban, votes for that kind of thing.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
