Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Crazy Ham

Looks like KGL is doing a realignment down in the SW on Monday. The two overpasses at McKevitt and 6th are to open.

http://www.swcrrproject.com/2020/09/...g-highway-22x/

Ooh might need to go for a drive to the old neigbourhood.

[Crazy Ham]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Ooh might need to go for a drive to the old neigbourhood.

Happened to be down their last night visiting the outlaws in Silverado, noticed the traffic signals on the bridge at 6th/Silverado were in operation. Add in the partial opening of the ramps to Macleod later in the week, it is going to sow some confusion and no doubt a couple of collisions.

[bittabola]

Originally Posted by Crazy Ham

Looks like KGL is doing a realignment down in the SW on Monday. The two overpasses at McKevitt and 6th are to open.

http://www.swcrrproject.com/2020/09/...g-highway-22x/

Significant changes! I live in Evergreen and seeing the construction progress is pretty exciting.

[slowroll]

Originally Posted by Crazy Ham

Looks like KGL is doing a realignment down in the SW on Monday. The two overpasses at McKevitt and 6th are to open.

http://www.swcrrproject.com/2020/09/...g-highway-22x/

Very interesting to see such significant changes to move traffic to permanent road in the 22X area. Makes me wonder if the portion of the SW ring road that gets fully opened this year will be significantly more than Sarcee-Fish Creek Blvd section that was reported earlier. I'm not very familiar with the status of the section between Fish Creek Blvd and James McKevitt though.

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by Crazy Ham

Looks like KGL is doing a realignment down in the SW on Monday. The two overpasses at McKevitt and 6th are to open.

http://www.swcrrproject.com/2020/09/...g-highway-22x/

Traffic lights were being installed on James McKevitt road at either end of the bridge over 22x this afternoon. Looks like still quite a bit of work to do on signage and road connection paving. I'll stay well away this weekend to avoid traffic snarls as it will likely be messy.

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by slowroll

Very interesting to see such significant changes to move traffic to permanent road in the 22X area. Makes me wonder if the portion of the SW ring road that gets fully opened this year will be significantly more than Sarcee-Fish Creek Blvd section that was reported earlier. I'm not very familiar with the status of the section between Fish Creek Blvd and James McKevitt though.

I suspect that the interchange where the ring road turns north and 22x continues west is likely to be what holds things up. It's quite a major interchange. But with all the other intersections and bridges being completed perhaps they will be able to focus more on it??

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by Wyku

A little off-topic, but as someone who isn't a local and has driven past the PetroCan many times, I've always wondered why do so many people park on the road around there? I'm guessing it's some sort of bus pickup for a mine or something?

Originally Posted by Mazrim

It's a great spot to meet up with other people to carpool out to the mountains for hikes and such.

Off topic for this thread but I've always wondered if the province could put in a Park n Ride parking lot at TCH 1/Hwy 22, even it's a more temporary, lower cost, gravel lot. It would be less of an eye sore (and probably more safe) than a bunch of vehicles parked along the service road. During the week it could be utilized for area traffic heading into Calgary.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by dmuzika

Off topic for this thread but I've always wondered if the province could put in a Park n Ride parking lot at TCH 1/Hwy 22, even it's a more temporary, lower cost, gravel lot. It would be less of an eye sore (and probably more safe) than a bunch of vehicles parked along the service road. During the week it could be utilized for area traffic heading into Cslgary.

Not a bad idea at all. The amount of property damage and theft that happens every year could well be more expensive than the cost of a parking lot with cameras.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Not a bad idea at all. The amount of property damage and theft that happens every year could well be more expensive than the cost of a parking lot with cameras.

If they make a parking lot for people there, wouldn't they be assuming some liability for what happens there? I've always guessed since they're informally parking on the side of a road that it's different.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

If they make a parking lot for people there, wouldn't they be assuming some liability for what happens there? I've always guessed since they're informally parking on the side of a road that it's different.

No idea. But the province builds parking lots for recreation in many places, I don't see how building what we're talking about being much different.

[YYCguys]

Has AB Transportation/the construction companies been that negligent in communicating changes/updates/etc? And it seems like Ric McIvor doesn’t give a shit what the residents feel. Although the demand to buy them out seems a bit extreme.

“Residents demand province buy out homes whose value undermined by ring road
Some residents insist the work on the north end of the west Calgary ring road and its final product is bulldozing their property values”

Bill Kaufmann
Publishing date:Sep 06, 2020

“When Tracy D’Amour glimpses the heavy equipment plowing the way for a ring road interchange just outside her backyard, she says it’s a reminder of how intolerable it’s made living there.

And she’s convinced that’s how any prospective home buyer would now view her Valley Ridge home that backs onto 16 Ave. N.W. and a massive construction zone that’ll produce an off-ramp just metres from her back fence....”

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...-7b03c28f58f9/

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

And it seems like Ric McIvor doesn’t give a shit what the residents feel.

Nor should he. We need infrastructure and NIMBYs get in the way of that, pandering to them today will set a precedent to give them more in the future.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Nor should he. We need infrastructure and NIMBYs get in the way of that, pandering to them today will set a precedent to give them more in the future.

I’m sure the owners of those homes knew of the impending construction and had made peace with it. But when the government moved the roadway closer to the homes, that is the thing I have a problem with. And I am not a NIMBY. I don’t even live near a TUC.

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

I’m sure the owners of those homes knew of the impending construction and had made peace with it. But when the government moved the roadway closer to the homes, that is the thing I have a problem with. And I am not a NIMBY. I don’t even live near a TUC.

Agreed. When you buy a property backing onto a Transportation/Utility Corridor (TUC) you get the benefit of a green space and not being overlooked, perhaps for many years. But eventually the TUC will be used. At this time home owners should be consulted, listened to, and kept informed, but at the end of the day the use of the land was predetermined many years ago.

My beef is when land use changes, such as when a golf course is re-zoned for residential or commercial use. However even in this case residents concerns appear to be rarely taken into account by developers or the city.

[milomilo]

If you start compensating people for things done outside someone's property line, that would open up all sorts of complaints, and we'd never be able to build anything. Cities are not static, we must be able to make changes.

[Crazy Ham]

Originally Posted by slowroll

Very interesting to see such significant changes to move traffic to permanent road in the 22X area. Makes me wonder if the portion of the SW ring road that gets fully opened this year will be significantly more than Sarcee-Fish Creek Blvd section that was reported earlier. I'm not very familiar with the status of the section between Fish Creek Blvd and James McKevitt though.

Went through there yesterday when I went out to visit the folks outside Millarville. Not sure, if it will open earlier or not, though I suspect it might by year end.

Here are the observations:

- the at grade intersections at 6th/Sheriff King, McKevitt/Spruce Meadows and 37th have to be eliminated. What I mean, they need to separate the eastbound and westbound crossings. Would not expect this will take much effort.
- the need to get the grade and resurface done at McKevitt and 37th. Approximately the distance is 100m or so.
- westbound lanes between 53rd and 69th St, needs to be finished. The sub grade looks done.
- as Pegasus has mentioned, bridge 19 needs a bit of work (westbound overpass to 22X as Stony turns north). The work platform is still on the bridge.
- did see areas where hydroseeding was taking place, predominantly along steeper slopes.
- gantries with signs have been erected but there were some stored on the westbound lanes near McKevitt. (probably for signage for southbound McKevitt)
- between 22X and Fish Creek, signs and pavement is done, though not sure if this is the top lift.
- when I was out getting some food for the outlaws in Silverado last Thursday night, I talked with an KGL worker, mentioned to him the progress was great and asked when it was to open. He mentioned they are opening to 162nd, but I think he was mistaken as I would think payment schedules would be set by segment completion.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

But when the government moved the roadway closer to the homes, that is the thing I have a problem with. And I am not a NIMBY. I don’t even live near a TUC.

How does 11 meters to 6 meters away materially affect someone? In my opinion, it doesn't. They could move the road 1 meter instead of 5 meters closer and they would still complain. They're trying to tell everyone that they would be able to see or hear the difference from their yard, standing 10 meters from their fence line. I think everyone agrees that the construction process is disruptive. I wouldn't want to be around it either. However, the finished product doesn't come with that disruption. Construction vehicles sound quite a bit different from cars driving by.

They're saying the same things people in the NW and SW said during construction of the ring road. They're also the same people who will enjoy a boost in property values once it's done - and if they don't like it, they'll be advertising the amazing value of the ring road when they sell their house. They should be focusing their complaints on Alberta Transportation's lackluster noise wall policy. I'm sure they'd be fine with a noise wall there and I'm willing to bet by Calgary's guidelines they would need them.

Originally Posted by Pegasus

My beef is when land use changes, such as when a golf course is re-zoned for residential or commercial use. However even in this case residents concerns appear to be rarely taken into account by developers or the city.

Is there something in land use designations that says it can never be changed?

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Is there something in land use designations that says it can never be changed?

Come on now! If you buy a house on a TUC you can expect it to be built on at some point. If you buy a house backing onto a golf course or park and it is re-zoned for residential or commercial use, you should be compensated by the developer for loss of value. This compensation should be included in the cost of any new development that required re-zoning that impacts adjoining properties.

How would you feel if you lost your natural view, were now overlooked, and saw a significant drop in the value of your property. Could you afford to loose tens of thousands of dollars just so a developer can make a profit from a development?

Development should be for the overall good of the City and must be done in a way that is fair to residents.

[milomilo]

No one has a right to a view, no one has a right to have their community stay unchanged in perpetuity. And for the most part, these land use changes and development will increase property values nearby. In that case, I suppose the developers should be able to levy a fee on nearby residents to capture the external wealth they have created, if they too are to be responsible for decrease in value?

[Corndogger]

.