Calgary Roads

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

Not having airport trail go east bound saves the airport a ton of cash in not building a crazy system of spaghetti ramps for terminal access. In fact, they won't really need any ramps at all, and will be able to eliminate traffic lights with only one bridge, south bound Barlow into the terminal.

i really don't understand the need for any ramps with airport rail extending east under the tunnel. do you have a diagram or anything to support your thought?

[lubicon]

A little light hearted-ness


Spell-binding mistake causes some to ask 'Y'

By NADIA MOHARIB, SUN MEDIA

Last Updated: 16th April 2009, 3:20am

Street signs leading motorists to Symons Valley Rd. in the city's northwest reflect a time when it was spelled with an I not a Y.

While the signs speak to a curious debate that goes back to the 1990s between city officials and would-be developers on how it should be spelled, the fact they are still standing appears to be an 'oops' down at City Hall, says an amused Glynn Hendry, vice-president with Calgary Operations for Qualico Homes, builders of a community in the Symons Valley area.

"I think someone made a mistake," he said.

City roads department spokeswoman Lorie Boychuk, however, said Simons wasn't always a mistake.

"As far back as we can tell, the spelling changed around 1996," she said.

"It was technically not an incorrect spelling until it became an official development."

Given plans for future subdivisions the signage, albeit incorrectly spelled, was left as is.

Boychuk said the discrepancies between the signs along Berkshire Blvd. and Country Hills Blvd. routing motorists to Simons Valley Rd., which is actually now Symons Valley Rd., have likely remained unchanged because it is not a priority, doesn't pose safety concerns and will soon be gone.

"It could have just been lower on the priority list when they realized it's Symons with a Y," she said. "Certainty, everything going forward will be spelled with a Y.

"The signs will be retired once the Stoney Tr. interchange is complete and people will likely not be going through those communities to get there."

Historian Harry Sanders said it's not the only instance in the city where spelling is incorrect.

Lowery Gardens, in the southwest, is named after John Lawrie and unless it's changed recently has been spelled incorrectly for more than 100 years, Sanders said.

The Calgary Board of Education also seems to have some Simon/Symon issues of its own. Its Simons Valley school, in the community of Sandstone, is named after a postmaster in the early 1890s named Mr. Symon.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by lubicon

Lowery Gardens, in the southwest, is named after John Lawrie and unless it's changed recently has been spelled incorrectly for more than 100 years, Sanders said.

Same guy as John Laurie Blvd?

[lubicon]

I was wondering the same thing when I saw the article.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by MonctonGoldenFlames

i really don't understand the need for any ramps with airport rail extending east under the tunnel. do you have a diagram or anything to support your thought?

Since the airport under agreement from the city pays for any roads on airport land, and most definitely likes the idea of traffic light free access to the terminal, you get this:
Without the tunnel, Barlow north and Airport Trail West have light free access to the terminal roads (up is north of course, different colours are grade separations).

With the tunnel, to keep the same degree of access, you need a full stack (I didn't draw even a full stack, for simplification, but you end up with alot more bridges if you want to keep traffic lights off the access)

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

Since the airport under agreement from the city pays for any roads on airport land, and most definitely likes the idea of traffic light free access to the terminal, you get this:
Without the tunnel, Barlow north and Airport Trail West have light free access to the terminal roads (up is north of course, different colours are grade separations).

With the tunnel, to keep the same degree of access, you need a full stack (I didn't draw even a full stack, for simplification, but you end up with alot more bridges if you want to keep traffic lights off the access)

Without the tunnel, all those ramps would just be required at both McKnight and on Country Hills Blvd. Oh wait, land isn't being set aside along Country Hills Blvd for interchanges. Guess how much everything is going to cost then?

All the current community plans have Airport Trail as the expressway, and Country Hills Blvd as the Major Road. That absolutely MUST switch if the tunnel is not built. I think Country Hills Blvd has something like 7 proposed traffic lights in a short distance North of the Airport? It will become gridlock like this city has never seen before if it's left that way and the tunnel is not built. It's almost too late to make those changes, and the changes would likely end up costing the city much more in the end.

I would go as far as to say that without the tunnel, much of the currently undeveloped land around country hills blvd becomes completely undevelopable. The developments that may go in there would be built somewhere else, perhaps outside the ring road in the same area.

Originally Posted by Garth Atkinson - Airport Authority CEO

“I’m not personally aware of any interest in committing public funds to this project.”

It should be mentioned that this quote is a blatent lie. The city has already committed to it's share of the money if the other parties provide their share.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Without the tunnel, all those ramps would just be required at both McKnight and on Country Hills Blvd. Oh wait, land isn't being set aside along Country Hills Blvd for interchanges. Guess how much everything is going to cost then?

All the current community plans have Airport Trail as the expressway, and Country Hills Blvd as the Major Road. That absolutely MUST switch if the tunnel is not built. I think Country Hills Blvd has something like 7 proposed traffic lights in a short distance North of the Airport? It will become gridlock like this city has never seen before if it's left that way and the tunnel is not built. It's almost too late to make those changes, and the changes would likely end up costing the city much more in the end.

I would go as far as to say that without the tunnel, much of the currently undeveloped land around country hills blvd becomes completely undevelopable. The developments that may go in there would be built somewhere else, perhaps outside the ring road in the same area.

Plan It does not include the Airport trail runway crossing. Not having the road cross the runway does mess up circulation patterns, but it will still be an expressway.

It won't be as bad as you prognosticate, but it will certainly effect land use patterns. It will also put more pressure on McKnight to be finished with a rebuilt interchange at Deerfoot. Country Hills is likely close enough to Stoney that most traffic crossing from east to west would go further north, except for more local traffic.

Edit: And it doesn't matter for the airport that Country Hills has no room to move things around, the fact is the airport has little financial penalty for not building it. They will still be able to advertise having freeways on the immediate periphery of the entire airport, which is what counts for leasing out the airports land base.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

Since the airport under agreement from the city pays for any roads on airport land, and most definitely likes the idea of traffic light free access to the terminal, you get this:
Without the tunnel, Barlow north and Airport Trail West have light free access to the terminal roads (up is north of course, different colours are grade separations).

With the tunnel, to keep the same degree of access, you need a full stack (I didn't draw even a full stack, for simplification, but you end up with alot more bridges if you want to keep traffic lights off the access)

I thought the entrance to the airport moves roughly half way between Barlow and Deerfoot as the current entrance will become tarmac and a terminal expansion. Therefore, I don't think the interchange design can change.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

I thought the entrance to the airport moves roughly half way between Barlow and Deerfoot as the current entrance will become tarmac and a terminal expansion. Therefore, I don't think the interchange design can change.

Right now the roads go east out of the terminal, since there were originally built to connect to Barlow. In the future, they will go north to intersect directly with Airport Trail. It would make sense to make that intersection be where Barlow and Airport Trail currently meet, as it would be cheaper no matter what.

There is lots of land north of the terminal to get the roads to align where it is cheapest.

With the cost of construction being what it is, I am sure the airport will choose the cheapest way. In any case, without the tunnel, you reduce any arrangements complexity by an order of magnitude.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

Plan It does not include the Airport trail runway crossing. Not having the road cross the runway does mess up circulation patterns, but it will still be an expressway.

It won't be as bad as you prognosticate, but it will certainly effect land use patterns. It will also put more pressure on McKnight to be finished with a rebuilt interchange at Deerfoot. Country Hills is likely close enough to Stoney that most traffic crossing from east to west would go further north, except for more local traffic.

Edit: And it doesn't matter for the airport that Country Hills has no room to move things around, the fact is the airport has little financial penalty for not building it. They will still be able to advertise having freeways on the immediate periphery of the entire airport, which is what counts for leasing out the airports land base.

Airport Trail without the tunnel will be a pointless expressway that leads to nowhere and noone will drive on. Seriously, the only reason for anyone to drive on it would be to access the ring road to the east, but how many people will do that? It wouldn't be the quickest way to most places in the city. (I'm talking about the portion of Airport Trail east of proposed tunnel).

And when everything is built out, Country Hills Blvd will be the main road to get to Deerfoot for a LOT of homes and businesses. It would be like what 162nd ave south would be like right now if the Midnapore and James McKevitt accesses to McLeod Trail were completely blocked off. And I don't think I'm using hyberbole when I say that. IMO, Country Hills Blvd would have to be an 8 lane freeway, at the very least.

And, as I've stated in other posts regarding the tunnel, not having the tunnel there is quite detrimental to the economy of the airport as well. All the hotels and Air Services in the McKnight/ Barlow area might as well be in Douglasdale for how easy it would be to get to the airport if the tunnel doesn't get built.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

Since the airport under agreement from the city pays for any roads on airport land, and most definitely likes the idea of traffic light free access to the terminal, you get this:
Without the tunnel, Barlow north and Airport Trail West have light free access to the terminal roads (up is north of course, different colours are grade separations).

With the tunnel, to keep the same degree of access, you need a full stack (I didn't draw even a full stack, for simplification, but you end up with alot more bridges if you want to keep traffic lights off the access)

Thanks for explaining your view Kyle. I just always assumed that a single set of lights would not be a huge issue to deal with.

[fusili]

Don't know if there has been any discussion on here regarding Farrell's proposal to close down memorial on Sunday's in August. Just a short comment:


Good idea. Wrong road.

[Beltliner]

^^^ And that sentiment could just as easily be applied to last year's decision to squeeze in the 11 Street SW bike lanes. The unintended consequences of knocking out a traffic lane--backed-up left turn movements; near misses consequent to taxis, lorries, and delivery vans parking half in the bike lane and half in the through lane to wait in front of buildings; and DIY lane settings in rush hour or in foul weather--have undone all of the good will and the komil'fo driving and cycling behaviour that should by rights have resulted from bringing the bike lanes online.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Also some city workers don't seem to know how they work, a while back in my 'hood the city needed to block access to one road off a roundabout, and they choose the 2nd method instead of the 1st one:

I came across this exact scenario in Mount Royal once!

I was a little confused about what exactly they wanted drivers to do....



Claeren.

[twsnagel]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Same guy as John Laurie Blvd?

No, John Laurie was an educator and political activist.

[Beltliner]

My last word* on the Great Memorial Drive August Sunday Promenade Experiment™:

The tenor of recent discussions over the proposal to close a portion of eastbound Memorial Drive for a pedestrian promenade on Sundays in August has become unnecessarily hostile.

If no-one bats an eyelash at the closure of Fourth Street SW through Mission and the Beltline for the annual Lilac Festival, and if the civic consensus is that the closure of most of the downtown road grid for the Calgary Stampede parade is worthwhile, then what is the rationale for opposing this pilot project with such vitriol? It can’t be the notion that both of these events are abject failures in bringing Calgarians together and in reclaiming our civic spaces. It can’t be the premise that both of these events gridlock the city-wide street network to a smoggy standstill. Most importantly, it can’t be the idea that event organisers and civic officials conjure up public activities out of thin air with the express intention of sticking it to the automobile.

Let’s take the Memorial Drive promenade proposal for what it is—a pilot project to test whether Calgarians will warm to our riverfront spaces under specified conditions and using specified incentives. There’s only one way to find out, right?

_________________
* Arright, arright, my last 198 words, if you really want to get technical.

[MichaelS]

^ But those closures you mention all are closures for a reason, like a festival or a parade. Simply closing a road and saying "Okay, go walk on it" will not be enough in my opinion to justify its closure. If a market were to be set up on the closed roadway, or some other event, my opinion would change. And as has been pointed out by another poster, due to the berm on the south side it is a bit of a stretch to call it riverfront.

Bigtime did bring up a good point about it being a way to test a small section, and then use it as justification to close down busier streets. I agree that this is a good plan, however fear that it could backfire. By closing down a street that doesn't have much of a draw to people (my opinion), if it isn't successful critics could use this failure as a reason to oppose the closure of the busier streets that may be more popular.

[Beltliner]

^^^ From what I understand, the game plan incorporates things like wandering minstrels, cotton-candy sellers, and machete jugglers and the like to try and draw a festive kind of crowd.

What I will concede is that they could have communicated this idea much more effectively. Still, if you're going to run this kind of pilot project, I defy you to tell me it would work better during the Friday afternoon rush.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Beltliner

^^^ From what I understand, the game plan incorporates things like wandering minstrels, cotton-candy sellers, and machete jugglers and the like to try and draw a festive kind of crowd.

What I will concede is that they could have communicated this idea much more effectively. Still, if you're going to run this kind of pilot project, I defy you to tell me it would work better during the Friday afternoon rush.

Well I was unaware of those plans. That makes me feel better about it. I was under the impression that they would simply close off the road, and that was it. Not a big draw in my books.

And, I do feel like I accomplished something in that I got a few more "last words" out of you on the topic

[YYCguys]

Does anyone else think that the City of Calgary needs to pull up its socks when naming roads? I am thinking of Barlow Trail which stops and starts with no relation to the previous leg of that road at various points throughout the city. With the new runway cutting out a part of Barlow, this fragments t his road even further! Barlow will travel south from Barlow Cres to the north of the airport to Airport Rd and then stop. It will then start again farther east from CHB south to McKnight and then continue on to 17 Ave SE. It then restarts at Peigan and goes to Deerfoot. The City has a lot of renaming of those portions of Barlow to do! End rant of the day!