Kings Landing | 21m | 6s | Uptown Residential | NORR

1875 said:
realise hating cars is popular but no way 4 lane macleod trail is happening or is feasible.
Click to expand...
I mean...it can't be over-emphasized just how inefficient the current setup is there is space for everyone to get generous helpings of whatever they want.

We could keep 6 lanes plus a bunch of turn lanes, add a BRT, add sidewalks, add bike lanes plant literally thousands of trees and we wouldn't have to even expand the right-of-way.

Such is the remarkably land-inefficiency thanks to 1960s era car-only highway designs.
 
Last edited:
Red Star said:
I think that entire area is prime for redevelopment. But to expand on your points, I think the city needs to invest in sidewalk, connectivity and landscaping improvements before redevelopment can occur. The streets are already built in grids and there's a lot of room on either side of the road for streetscape improvements. It just takes capital and political will to make the streetscape investments.

View attachment 591290

The city could also reduce 'Macleod trail from 6 lanes to 4 lanes and install a dedicated bus lane running down the middle of the road for the #10 bus (Similar to what was done in Forest Lawn).

Click to expand...
Reducing Macleod to 3 lanes and adding the bus lanes like Forest Lawn doesn’t make any sense. First of all there is a CTrain line that runs parallel to most of Macleod. It makes sense in Forest Lawn because it can easily be switch to an LRT line if required in the future.
We all want walkable streets. Unfortunately some just will have to be what they are built for… moving a lot of cars from the south into the centre of the city.
 
CBBarnett said:
And it's certainly doable - MacLeod's right-of-way here is a remarkable 55m+, excluding building setbacks from the property line.

View attachment 591249

Hardly a world-beating feat of public space design, but even the 2012 corridor study concluded that - yeah it's a pretty east fix from a geometry perspective.

In comparison to the endless scrappy fights for space on minor streets to allow for a street trees... meanwhile MacLeod can plant a practical forest, keep all lanes (and a unnecessary median), widen all sidewalks to 5m(!) and add a 4m bike path:

View attachment 591252

But as with all ignored and forgotten corridors, the real trick is never geometry ... it's actually convincing anyone that this place doesn't have to suck.
Click to expand...
This is what needs to happen. MacLeod is a major commuter road and has the LRT beside it or very close to it for it's entire length, reducing traffic lanes will just add to the existing congestion. Add more trees, wider sidewalks and bike lanes and it will be good to go.
 
Mountain Man said:
This is what needs to happen. MacLeod is a major commuter road and has the LRT beside it or very close to it for it's entire length, reducing traffic lanes will just add to the existing congestion. Add more trees, wider sidewalks and bike lanes and it will be good to go.
Click to expand...
I know we don't do this here, but it is entirely possible to create safe and efficient crossings for bicycles and pedestrians along and across major roads.
 
CBBarnett said:
I know we don't do this here, but it is entirely possible to create safe and efficient crossings for bicycles and pedestrians along and across major roads.
Click to expand...
Outside of a cap (because although it is the most obvious answer, it would be expensive) how do you bridge Glenmore? Macleod is relatively easy.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
Outside of a cap (because although it is the most obvious answer, it would be expensive) how do you bridge Glenmore? Macleod is relatively easy.
Click to expand...
The best-in-class on how to have crazy multi-lane roads that are still walkable is probably Spain. Here's what we should do with Glenmore and MacLeod.

Take this one in Madrid. Check out streetview here: link to location

Essentially it's the same setup - a sunken highway, major cross road with 8 lanes, ~6ish through lanes. multi-lane turn movements with local access ramps. They event have a weird u-turn thing on the left side of the image below and a few extra streets connecting randomly:
1724855418108.png


Here's MacLeod/Glenmore for comparison:
1724855632816.png


So generally solving the same issues, but here's the differences to make it not a pedestrian death-trap and hellscape. Check out the crosswalks over the sunked highway in parallel to the main road. Enormous width, massive pedestrian refuge island. Traffic controls.
1724855822085.png


This is Calgary's version. Essentially it's lacking in everything that keeps pedestrians safe from substantial vehicle movements - no pedestrian refuge at all, the random u-turn literally is shared with the crosswalk. Curves are to facilitate car turns at speed rather than accessible walking. Multiple no-stop slip lanes everywhere.

It's an intersection designed to kill people and prioritizes duplicative, redundant vehicle movements at speed over providing even a single safe route for pedestrians:
1724855966491.png


We don't need to be Madrid. But there's so much space - even here at this MacLeod and Glenmore intersection - that you can keep 99% of road capacity, all of the movements you want. You just have to prioritize pedestrian access/safety over speed in intersection designs.
 
CBBarnett said:
The best-in-class on how to have crazy multi-lane roads that are still walkable is probably Spain. Here's what we should do with Glenmore and MacLeod.

Take this one in Madrid. Check out streetview here: link to location

Essentially it's the same setup - a sunken highway, major cross road with 8 lanes, ~6ish through lanes. multi-lane turn movements with local access ramps. They event have a weird u-turn thing on the left side of the image below and a few extra streets connecting randomly:
View attachment 591841

Here's MacLeod/Glenmore for comparison:
View attachment 591842

So generally solving the same issues, but here's the differences to make it not a pedestrian death-trap and hellscape. Check out the crosswalks over the sunked highway in parallel to the main road. Enormous width, massive pedestrian refuge island. Traffic controls.
View attachment 591843

This is Calgary's version. Essentially it's lacking in everything that keeps pedestrians safe from substantial vehicle movements - no pedestrian refuge at all, the random u-turn literally is shared with the crosswalk. Curves are to facilitate car turns at speed rather than accessible walking. Multiple no-stop slip lanes everywhere.

It's an intersection designed to kill people and prioritizes duplicative, redundant vehicle movements at speed over providing even a single safe route for pedestrians:
View attachment 591844

We don't need to be Madrid. But there's so much space - even here at this MacLeod and Glenmore intersection - that you can keep 99% of road capacity, all of the movements you want. You just have to prioritize pedestrian access/safety over speed in intersection designs.
Click to expand...
What a great reply, thank you for the time you put into this.
 
Where would you ever find the space for more pedestrian refuge to shorten crossing distances at Glenmore and Macleod?
1724861124408.png

Everyone needs a nearly 8m wide turning lane, 💩. Are mobility engineers even doing there job if they aren't making pedestrians have to defy death by crossing an intersection? Cars deserve to comfortably merge in a slip lane at 50-60km/hr, pedestrians be damned.
 
Last edited:
Went through a little exercise where I challenged myself to make the intersection better. Came up with making it a more traditional overpass intersection, essentially two intersections on either side of Glenmore. The current slip lanes and u-turns take too much space away from pedestrians while adding too many interactions between cars. Essentially making the interchange more dangerous than it needs to be.

My solution is four simple light sequences that eliminate car interactions while moving pedestrians across the interchange in two light sequences. The more boxy intersection should slow drivers down and I believe these sequences are ones that drivers are use to. The tighter intersection should also give pedestrians a lot more sidewalk and you could given put some planter boxes with trees or lilac bushes to make it even more pedestrian friendly. Hope these diagrams make sense...

Two EB lanes plus a slip lane can drive
  • SB on to Macleod via EB slip lane
  • EB on to Glenmore or to Fisher Street
  • NB on to Macleod
  • WB on to Glenmore, into Chinook Centre or to 5 Street
1724868982103.png


Three SB Lanes, a turn lane, plus a WB slip lane can drive
  • SB on Macleod
  • EB on to Glenmore or to Fisher Street
  • WB lanes can drive NB on to Macleod via WB slip lane
1724868433475.png


The other sequences just reverse the first two
Two WB lanes plus a slip lane can drive
  • NB on to Macleod via WB slip lane
  • EB on to Glenmore or to Fisher Street
  • SB on to Macleod
  • WB on to Glenmore, into Chinook Centre or to 5 Street

1724868441332.png


Three NB Lanes, a turn lane, plus a EB slip lane can drive
  • NB on Macleod
  • WB on to Glenmore
  • EB on to Glenmore, into Chinook Centre or to 5 Street
  • EB Lanes can drive SB on to Macleod via EB slip lane
1724868448881.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top