Cambrian Medical Campus | 23m | 5s | Northwest Healthcare | NORR

MichaelS

MichaelS

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
3,062
Reaction score
25,537
This one was mentioned in the Urban Development and Proposals thread when the DP got submitted:
Drawings are now available online.
1639682255200.png

1639682347971.png


1639682369623.png

1639682688473.png
1639682669110.png

1639682731250.png

1639682759092.png

1639682794423.png

1639682827801.png


1639682894642.png
 
I get it, it's boring car-centric medical campus development, painfully close to everything but still a pure car-centric play. Can't win them all.

....but the regional pathway is literally right there, like 5 metres from the back fence at the same grade. That's just insulting. I am going to take a wild guess that there's no secure bicycle storage either.

Could we at least pretend active transportation networks exist when drafting/reviewing these types of plans?
 
Speaking of how car-centric this development is, are there any plans to get rid of the tangle of cloverleaf interchanges in this area? So much wasted space just so that 16 Ave, Shaganappi, Bowness Road, and West Campus have a brief stretch with no traffic lights. There's also no merge lanes on any of these on-ramps, which make them de facto stop signs with terrible visibility issues. The whole situation in pure lunacy.

Edit: I see there is a plan to change this stretch: https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/...nsportation-planning-studies/east-segment.pdf. In some ways, this seems even worse. Why go through the expense to build a new bridge that allows 16 Ave to go over Shaganappi? 16 Ave already hits multiple traffic lights to the west and the east. Why pay to put a bridge over one street? (Sorry this is all off topic)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that corridor study was the amalgamation of a few updates on 16th Ave, into a more comprehensive report for the corridor. The 16th Ave / Shaganappi interchange was it's own study, completed in 2018. It was called the South Shaganappi Study, found here, where you might get more detailed answers to your questions (satisfaction not guaranteed)
www.calgary.ca

South Shaganappi Study

www.calgary.ca www.calgary.ca

1639693860953.png
 
The only purpose it serves is to burn a lot of money and carbon, accomplishing nothing other than swapping one misguided flavour-of-the-month road design circa 1960 for another misguided flavour-of-the-month road design circa 2000. Imagine how much prime land could be opened to development (public or private) if these pretend expressways were just treated like regular streets with at-grade lighted intersections - which they all are everywhere but in this one tiny stretch.
 
Last edited:
Relocate to the appropriate road thread if needed.

I sketched up a very modest proposal which would allow much less infrastructure, and a much smaller footprint.
Here are the 2015 movements:
1639773004448.png


Instead of trying to build an interchange, just remove a bunch of demand from the intersections, and instead you have much lower capacity flows which can be handled by much smaller intersections.
1639773071857.png

So you get to do this, but with far fewer lanes since you don't need them to ensure throughput because the intersection cycle times are drastically reduced due to remove the 16th Ave through e-w flows. The price? a 3 lane flyover (with a reversible middle lane). Could probably get the lane count low enough to make that central space a usable park.
1639773184395.png
 
darwink said:
Relocate to the appropriate road thread if needed.

I sketched up a very modest proposal which would allow much less infrastructure, and a much smaller footprint.
Here are the 2015 movements:
View attachment 369902

Instead of trying to build an interchange, just remove a bunch of demand from the intersections, and instead you have much lower capacity flows which can be handled by much smaller intersections.
View attachment 369903
So you get to do this, but with far fewer lanes since you don't need them to ensure throughput because the intersection cycle times are drastically reduced due to remove the 16th Ave through e-w flows. The price? a 3 lane flyover (with a reversible middle lane). Could probably get the lane count low enough to make that central space a usable park.
View attachment 369905
Click to expand...
Great post, would love to see a similar take on the Crowchild expansion, love engineers input I just say fuck cars in the classicVancouver approach. No city needs a better use of ROWs for cars worse than Calgary. Give me a person on this forum who knows how to critique roadways widths and designs here and we got it made
 
darwink said:
Relocate to the appropriate road thread if needed.

I sketched up a very modest proposal which would allow much less infrastructure, and a much smaller footprint.
Here are the 2015 movements:
View attachment 369902

Instead of trying to build an interchange, just remove a bunch of demand from the intersections, and instead you have much lower capacity flows which can be handled by much smaller intersections.
View attachment 369903
So you get to do this, but with far fewer lanes since you don't need them to ensure throughput because the intersection cycle times are drastically reduced due to remove the 16th Ave through e-w flows. The price? a 3 lane flyover (with a reversible middle lane). Could probably get the lane count low enough to make that central space a usable park.
View attachment 369905
Click to expand...

Calgcouver said:
Great post, would love to see a similar take on the Crowchild expansion, love engineers input I just say fuck cars in the classicVancouver approach. No city needs a better use of ROWs for cars worse than Calgary. Give me a person on this forum who knows how to critique roadways widths and designs here and we got it made
Click to expand...
Considering from that corridor study that 16th Ave is road with intersections on both sides from Shaganappi, is there a particular reason why they decided to stay with it Shaganappi having a interchange? Is it because of safety due to the slope of the hill? Because it seems like it would make more sense to just do it as at-grade intersections completely so it's cheaper, and can make more use of the surrounding land.
 
Wasn't there a mixed use residential development also planned for one of the lots south of this one? I remember seeing a proposal floating around a while ago... 2-3 towers with a parking lot.

Not sure if it was on the morgue site or the other one.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top