Myles86
Active Member
Update for the Stoney Bow River Bridge today
|
|
|
Roads, Highways & Infrastructure
- Thread starter Oddball
- Start date
adamyyc
Active Member
FCC1982
Active Member
I think it would be a mistake to go to the effort & expense of building an underpass at 11 street without vehicle access, especially since vehicles can cross there currently.
I think improved connectivity for ALL modes of transportation between Downtown & Beltline is beneficial.
I think improved connectivity for ALL modes of transportation between Downtown & Beltline is beneficial.
FCC1982
Active Member
I don't know why the City is trying to make 16th Ave. accommodate all these different road classifications in a single corridor. I'm fine with "urban boulevard" improvements through Montgomory because it makes sense given what it has become in that location .
What I would love to see is the City identify a corridor across the north to become an actual freeway to accommodate the TCH. Could be similar to what Glenmore Tr. is in the south. The best corridor I can think of for this is JL Blvd-McKnight. The problem is linking this up with the existing TCH west of Shaganappi/Sarcee. Perhaps Shag or Sarcee becomes the connector heading south to Crowchild Tr. and Crow links up with the TCH west of the city. Sarcee makes some sense as a connector that could run down to 16th Ave. but we all know the firestorm that would start trying to cross the river.
Anyway - that's my dreamworld.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
As long as we get real sidewalks with real widths (say 3m+) I am all for keeping car access. Car access is important, but the future is more and more pedestrians so the right balance is needed.
I don't know why the City is trying to make 16th Ave. accommodate all these different road classifications in a single corridor. I'm fine with "urban boulevard" improvements through Montgomory because it makes sense given what it has become in that location .
What I would love to see is the City identify a corridor across the north to become an actual freeway to accommodate the TCH. Could be similar to what Glenmore Tr. is in the south. The best corridor I can think of for this is JL Blvd-McKnight. The problem is linking this up with the existing TCH west of Shaganappi/Sarcee. Perhaps Shag or Sarcee becomes the connector heading south to Crowchild Tr. and Crow links up with the TCH west of the city. Sarcee makes some sense as a connector that could run down to 16th Ave. but we all know the firestorm that would start trying to cross the river.
Anyway - that's my dreamworld.
My takeaway is we ended up with these quasi-freeway treatments in North and NW Calgary as each successive freeway plan couldn't be realized or was unacceptably expensive/disruptive or impractical. Rather than "finish" one route, we left it as a weird half-freeway and moved to the next to "solve the problem once and for all".
My vote would be in the other direction, where as we continue to intensify and urbanize we need less quasi-freeways not more. History has taught us that every freeway plan that was ever built to solve the problem once and for all eventually gives way to another that proposes the same thing because the first can't due to induced demand and ever increasing traffic. The result is an endless creep of expensive auto-dependency and congestion that can never be solved by freeways alone. The only way to beat/manage congestion is denser and mixed land uses with a huge increase in non-driving travel.
Have you seen these? 1970s Calgary was dreaming big, some of the ideas you mentioned were considered before. Really cool look at what could have been! From this site: http://albertaroads.homestead.com/Calgary/plans/index.html
Goodbye Bowness main street and Edworthy Park, hello Sarcee and Shaganappi interchanges!
Probably the most destructive section for both what existed when proposed and what would come in future decades. Looks like two options were considered for TransCanada and Crowchild intersections. Both would have removed much of Banff Trail and Mount Pleasant. You can see one part that was already built in anticipation for this system, in the weird 14th Street and 16th Ave interchange that still stands today.
Deerfoot and 16th Avenue intersection turned out much like what was proposed. The missing part was the freeway on 24th Avenue N and the mega-stacked intersection where Mayland Heights currently is.
NE Calgary really didn't exist much so not nearly as disruptive on this one. Kind of wild to think this was the edge of the city only 50 years ago.
The site also has the more famous and even more destructive Bow Trail Freeway plan. No more Inglewood or Bow River path/park system with that one.
Really interesting stuff. If I can find it, the "downtown penetrator" image is also impressive. With an elevated freeway going between 11th and 12 Aves.
Joborule
Active Member
I would what the costs would be to eliminate the 14 street interchange, and make it an at grade intersection? The wasted space around that area could be developed into something better as a result.
FCC1982
Active Member
I say keep the 14 St. - 16 Ave interchange but move the lights off 16th and put them on 14th.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Thanks for digging up those old plans @CBBarnett ! I had seen them before, but it has been a while. Always good to remember that "the best, present day thinking" can be way off the mark in some regards.
outoftheice
Active Member
I think the real story hasn't really been captured by the media yet.... Why is the City of Calgary spending tens of millions of dollars on an underpass at this location? Answer: because CP wants to have 4 tracks at this location and extend the space they have to park and switch trains in downtown Calgary.
Same reason that Ramsay lost one of their north/south access points as well. Personally it infuriates me a bit that Calgary taxpayers have to foot the bill for a massive underpass just cuz CP wants to add 2 tracks. This is the same CP that dug its heels in during Green Line negotiations and has pushed back against passenger rail to Banff using their tracks. Not exactly a great corporate citizen.
Imagine what the money for this underpass could do if it was spent on revitalizing Olympic Plaza or Stephen Ave instead? It's not like the status quo is in failure mode or does anything more than occasionally inconvenience users. Doing all this to accommodate CP is the tail wagging the dog and I think Calgarians deserve to know why because personally I think that if CP wants 4 tracks there so badly, they can pay for this underpass.
zagox
Active Member
Hopefully there is some give and take in the relationship between the City and CP -- I'd like to see the City come up with a final design so it can be costed, and then it can become another bargaining chip as Green Line and Banff rail needs evolve.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Ah the old Downtown Penetrator!
DougB
Senior Member
The CP mainline was there before Calgary was there so the City must accommodate
FCC1982
Active Member
^Can’t be that cut & dried.
DougB
Senior Member
Unfortunately yes. CP has in effect allowed the City to implement the crossing at 11th. CP can close the crossing at will. Adding two more tracksets will definately complicate opeations, so it wouldn't be surprising for CP to shut down the level crossing.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Time to give CP rail the Mayor Daley treatment.
"To do this any other way would have been needlessly contentious." - Richard M. Daley.
"To do this any other way would have been needlessly contentious." - Richard M. Daley.