News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 4.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 6.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 3.8K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

Calgcouver said:
I'm genuinely appalled that this Crowchild expansion is still on the books and is one of the 'key ingredients' for this TOD. How the hell in the 21st century does the City thinks it is acceptable to do this kind of road widening in a highly transit supportive location like this.

Having lived just east of Crowchild on 24th Ave and gone to the U of C the expanse that is crossing Crowchild on 24 Avenue is already enormous. They have a considerable amount of good urbanism happening east on 24th Avenue as well, finally. And now they want to double the distance you have to travel across Crowchild? This will feel like crossing Stoney Trail to get to the University. Transportation Engineers have way too much power and pull at the City of Calgary. These people are planning roads like it is Houston in 1975.
Click to expand...
The Crowchild plan is from 2017, see here:
www.calgary.ca

Crowchild Trail Study

www.calgary.ca www.calgary.ca

and here:
www.calgary.ca

Crowchild Trail Upgrades: Medium and long-term plans

www.calgary.ca www.calgary.ca

Once complete you would’t be crossing Crowchild at 24th at grade but rather over a bridge.
 
Last edited:
FCC1982 said:
The Crowchild plan is from 2017, see here:
www.calgary.ca

Crowchild Trail Study

www.calgary.ca www.calgary.ca

and here:
www.calgary.ca

Crowchild Trail Upgrades: Medium and long-term plans

www.calgary.ca www.calgary.ca

Once complete you would’t be crossing Crowchild at 24th at grade but rather over a bridge.
Click to expand...
1620766884331.png

Wow plan created from 2017 that looks like it is based on best practices from 1987. So happy that the pedestrian connection across 24 Avenue to the University of Calgary, a very well used pedestrian route, will now have the same danger and appeal for pedestrians as crossing from Mckenzie Lake into Cranston. Nothing says best practices in an urban environment and TOD by a University like replicating this condition:
1620767368947.png

 
Last edited:
Calgcouver said:
View attachment 318911
Wow plan created from 2017 that looks like it is based on best practices from 1987. So happy that the pedestrian connection across 24 Avenue to the University of Calgary, a very well used pedestrian route, will now have the same danger and appeal for pedestrians as crossing from Mckenzie Lake into Cranston. Nothing says best practices in an urban environment and TOD by a University like replicating this condition:
View attachment 318915
Click to expand...
This design thinks that trickle-down economics works. Is Robert Moses still inflicting terror from the grave? How is this acceptable, but an economic driver of the Green Line is not approved. How many years will it take for them to recuperate the cost from this project? 60-years??? Unbelieveable.
 
Here's a close up.

1620769794974.png


In what world does 1 lane westbound 24th Avenue east of Crowchild need to transition to a 4 lane road - 3 lanes, plus an on-ramp? That's just replicating the dumb configuration of today, but elevated. I was assuming the current configuration is designed that way because the signal phase is so long for an at-grade crossing and that triggered some queueing requirements according to the dusty traffic design manuals. Surely part of the benefit of grade separation is you can reduce your queuing space requirements because the signal phases can be reduced?

Westbound 24th to southbound Crowchild movement now has a turning lane on the bridge. But the through lanes to 24th west of Crowchild are now two. Again, where does this extra lane need to come from? We only had 1 input lane to start from. If 24 Ave east of Crowchild is always going to be 1 lane in each direction (as all plans indicate), why would we ever need an additional lane westbound?

To my point earlier about how auto-movements are always preserved and enhanced, the plan also adds a access from east/west 16th Ave to Crowchild south. So for all that Banff Trail to southbound Crowchild traffic, you now have two access points instead of one. Great! ....but at the trade-off of extra-sized infrastructure everywhere, a bunch more pedestrian conflict areas and a degrading local environment that increasingly isn't a good place to live or be with all the highway noise, traffic and pollution. Do we really need every access?

Everything is so mega-sized and every trade-off comes almost exclusively at the expense of non-car travel and the general attractiveness to be in the immediate area. Exactly the opposite of the design treatment required adjacent to a high density employment hub and activity centre, with increasingly urbanizing and intensifying TOD sites. I am not saying don't keep Crowchild a freeway or don't improve it, but there's got to be tighter design options that doesn't sacrifice the entire area to commuter driver infrastructure for another 50 years.
 
W.Plan said:
This design thinks that trickle-down economics works. Is Robert Moses still inflicting terror from the grave? How is this acceptable, but an economic driver of the Green Line is not approved. How many years will it take for them to recuperate the cost from this project? 60-years??? Unbelieveable.
Click to expand...
It isn't funded.
 
CBBarnett said:
Westbound 24th to southbound Crowchild movement now has a turning lane on the bridge. But the through lanes to 24th west of Crowchild are now two. Again, where does this extra lane need to come from? We only had 1 input lane to start from. If 24 Ave east of Crowchild is always going to be 1 lane in each direction (as all plans indicate), why would we ever need an additional lane westbound?
Click to expand...
SB and NB Crowchild to WB 24th Avenue? People driving to the University, or University District? The traffic draw to and from Crowchild at this intersection is definitely west, not east.
 
MichaelS said:
SB and NB Crowchild to WB 24th Avenue? People driving to the University, or University District? The traffic draw to and from Crowchild at this intersection is definitely west, not east.
Click to expand...
Yes but in the future NB Crowchild to WB 24th Ave travelers to those destinations also have:
  • University Drive for a free-flow grade separated access to the same destinations.
  • If you are coming from north of there like 16th Avenue EB you still have University Drive, Plus West Campus Blvd, and Shaganappi
  • You also will now have NB Crowchild
For SB Crowchild you have 32nd, 24th and 16th just like today.

My point is these are many redundant and high capacity accesses to these destinations. Many already exist accesses today and the plan proposes more in the future. Redundant and alternative routes is great network design.

The problem is what is proposed is for only for one mode - driving. To pay for all that capacity and redundancy improvement's for drivers it's costly for everyone else and not just in the wild cost to build all this in the coming decades. We are limiting TOD development potential (i.e. the McMahon plan loses 10 acres for highway expansion) to pay for that redundancy. We add a ton of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at higher design speeds everywhere nearby to pay for that redundancy. This is all the more frustrating because unlike Mackenzie Towne interchanges, University and Banff Trail actually has a chance to be a more sustainable, vibrant and urban place.

I think we should improve Crowchild and I think we should add a grade-separation on 24th. I just think we have enough capacity and redundancy everywhere nearby for drivers it would be okay to cut back the scope of that bridge to something more reasonable like 2 lanes, good sidewalks and limited access. Perhaps make a stronger pedestrian access to all the densifying areas along 24 Avenue.

Meanwhile the whole Crowchild plan can be tightened up on all road dimensions by stop assuming we need high speed, free-flow level of service on every possible turn and route nearby. Save tens of millions in highway expansion costs and land acquisition, save a few pedestrian deaths and injuries proactively while allowing more developable land to produce a tax base of more transit-oriented development.
 
does this go to a public hearing where concerns like this can be logged. seems you guys have valid points that should be highlighted.

cant deny crowchild bisects the south but there isnt the density there really. not like someone is walking from marda loop to mru in the first place.
 
The Crowchild plans went through a couple of years of public engagement with ample opportunity to provide comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJX
FCC1982 said:
The Crowchild plans went through a couple of years of public engagement with ample opportunity to provide comment.
Click to expand...
Yup. But it is Council's job to provide the scope guidance which informs the bounds of the engagement, and to decide if the plan the engagement comes up with is just too expensive and doesn't fit with other objectives. For example, the upgrades to the Crowchild Bridge was actually not contemplated to happen as it did in any plan.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top