Roads, Highways & Infrastructure

[MuzikMachine]

Has there been any measured improvement on the Crowchild after those upgrades were completed? I drive over that bridge almost everyday and I don't notice much of a change.

One of the main problems with growing road capacity, is that it just shifts bottlenecks rather than removing them. Yes, people will be able to move *around* the city more quickly on the new ring road, but eventually they're going to want to get *into* the city. Once that happens, they'll get dumped onto the same old road network with the same capacity as before.

In terms of adding more traffic, the ring road will just speed up the rate of sprawl. It will pull investment toward previously inaccessible greenfields, which are cheaper to develop. Soon the newest, most attractive shopping centers and amenities will require longer drives to get to. The construction of fancy new YMCAs on the far outskirts of the city, combined with the closure of the downtown YMCA, is a perfect example of how more traffic is going to be generated.

I feel that one might not be directly correlated with the other. For example, if the City of Calgary took a hardline, no greenfield development approach, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't happen anyways. There might be some more inner-city, higher density development, but you would also see increased growth in communities outside Calgary. I remember before the 2014/15 oil crash, there were separate items on the news about how Crossfield approved a plan for growth up to 25,000 and there might be a community of 10,000 built in the Katheryn-Kemona area - had those gone through what would that have done to urban sprawl? There still exists the market demand for a segment of the population to own a single family house.

I also use the Lower Mainland as an example of the limitations of the theory of induced demand. Vancouver is praised for its high density urban design, yet there is still continuous development (sprawl) as far east as Langley, with places like Abbotsford and Chilliwack continuing to grow. For years, TCH 1 was not expanded in part for concerns of induced demand, yet they finally had to expand it because growth and traffic demands made it necessary. One used to be able to travel from Abbotsford to Langley at 100 km/h, but now it's stop & go traffic, not because of induced demand but because of overall population growth.

Finally, in regards to the YMCA, I don't think that most users would be going downtown had those two not existed. Also, both are quite far from Stoney Trail; it's not that some users wouldn't take Stoney Trail, but I think most users would be already living in that general area.

 

[CityScapeFan]

At the end of the day, with continued population growth, it seems some improved road capacity is inevitable while also focusing on more sustainable options. But you're right, @MuzikMachine that induced demand is a real concern too.

Overall it's good to see the city actively planning upgrades. But a balanced, multi-modal approach considering all angles is key.

 

[accord1999]

If calgarians want their city to improve, we need to mimic the places we like to visit. Walkable, with easy transit connections, and few cars threatening to kill you every time you cross the street.

Places you visit on vacation aren't always the places you want to live and work and do all of your regular activities, especially if you can't afford to pay tourist rates 365 days of the year.

The City of Paris is the most visited city in the world, but it's shrinking in population for 100 years, as population growth goes to the suburbs because of the high cost of housing and congestion in the central core.

The only way to achieve this is by restricting access to cars in urban areas and dramatically investing into our transit system, 10 fold.

The City of Calgary already spends more money on transit than it does on streets and roads, and Stage 1 of the Green Line by itself already accounts for more than 50% of the City's currently allocated capital budgets. The reality is that in the developed world, no amount of spending on transit will ever make much of a dent on car modal share. We can see that in Europe where the car remain dominant despite massive taxes on fuel and ownership.

 

[darwink]

Can work to lift mode share for transit and cycling for sure but the time savings for many trips means if we aren’t designing communities to be walkable from the start it doesn’t matter. You’ll shift commuting but nothing else.

Add cycling infrastructure that is as protected as driving infrastructure is and you can really shift the mode share over time.

 

[CBBarnett]

At the end of the day, with continued population growth, it seems some improved road capacity is inevitable while also focusing on more sustainable options. But you're right, @MuzikMachine that induced demand is a real concern too.

Overall it's good to see the city actively planning upgrades. But a balanced, multi-modal approach considering all angles is key.

The City of Calgary already spends more money on transit than it does on streets and roads, and Stage 1 of the Green Line by itself already accounts for more than 50% of the City's currently allocated capital budgets. The reality is that in the developed world, no amount of spending on transit will ever make much of a dent on car modal share. We can see that in Europe where the car remain dominant despite massive taxes on fuel and ownership.

I don't really think it's a matter of amount of investment in absolute terms or even the ratio between car or other types of infrastructure. In any future we are spending money on all modes, with roads and transit being the massive majority in pure scale of funding required. With improving land uses, mode shift will happen - it's just slow and spotty given just how low density most of the existing city is.

But for the infrastructure itself, it's still not really about the money - it's the design choices and which mode "wins" when inevitable trade-offs need to be made. None of these things are even expensive:

• Every bus bay is a transit investment that does nothing to improve transit
• Most pedestrian bridges over busy roads are pedestrian investments that make walking less efficient
• Every curb cut, sloped sidewalk ramp, and wide swooping corner curb are things that exist everywhere to prioritize cars and speed over basic safety and accessibility of pedestrians, wheel chairs, and strollers.
• Every street with street parking and narrow sidewalks you can't walk down is a trade-off that benefits driving.

Of stuff that is expensive, my favourite example is the $200M+ 17th Avenue SE Transitway from the early 2010s. Huge transit investment and the buses that use it still don't have signal priority nearly 10 years after that thing was built. I mean come on... how does a $200M project, with all the political and project momentum required to get something of that scale built, not win signal priority against private vehicles? Transit priority on a transitway is the entire point and it didn't happen. This is highly unusual - big budgets are bullies, funding a thing usually means that thing gets it way.

That's the real problem - the amount of money isn't solving these basic prioritization questions on the ground. Cars and driving are often being prioritized regardless of stated policy objectives, funding availability and the local context. Over time, it's this informal prioritization that makes driving so much more attractive over other modes for many people, not the big ticket infrastructure investment ratio between transit and roads.

 

[badc0ffee]

Most pedestrian bridges over busy roads are pedestrian investments that make walking less efficient

I feel like this is the consensus over the last 10 years or so, but I've never bought it. I love not waiting to cross a road. I love having more options for places to cross roads. I love not crossing tracks on foot.

Getting from Anderson station to Southcentre mall, for example, would be so much worse if we gave it the new-Victoria Park treatment and eliminated the pedestrian bridge.

 

[CBBarnett]

I feel like this is the consensus over the last 10 years or so, but I've never bought it. I love not waiting to cross a road. I love having more options for places to cross roads. I love not crossing tracks on foot.

Getting from Anderson station to Southcentre mall, for example, would be so much worse if we gave it the new-Victoria Park treatment and eliminated the pedestrian bridge.

There are exceptions for sure. But think about it this way - the only reason the pedestrian can’t walk in a straight line without changing grade with a series of ramps/stairs, is because cars have created a condition unsafe or unacceptable for the pedestrian to do so.

In the name of safety, we add a bridge. Pedestrians get a safer but longer, less accessible walk. What do drivers get? That straight line commute remains for them, and if we now remove the at-grade crosswalk as it’s no longer needed due to the bridge, that’s one-less traffic signal too.

So for a few million on a “pedestrian improvement”, we sped up cars, and made pedestrian trips less direct and accessible. That’s what most pedestrian bridges do. It doesn’t mean they can’t be useful, just means the main beneficiary isn’t usually pedestrians.

 

[MuzikMachine]

Of stuff that is expensive, my favourite example is the $200M+ 17th Avenue SE Transitway from the early 2010s. Huge transit investment and the buses that use it still don't have signal priority nearly 10 years after that thing was built. I mean come on... how does a $200M project, with all the political and project momentum required to get something of that scale built, not win signal priority against private vehicles? Transit priority on a transitway is the entire point and it didn't happen. This is highly unusual - big budgets are bullies, funding a thing usually means that thing gets it way.

The two issues I have with the transitway are its median location and the bus timings. The median location forces all users to cross 17 Avenue in order to use the bus lines. The big concern is if one is running a little late for the bus, some people will take the chance of crossing 17 Ave on a green to make it. Most other bus stops on the right just have the typical bus sprint. There are some bus routes that end up using 17 Ave for a few blocks and don't use the transitway, stopping on the right lane anyway, which seems counterintuitive.

The biggest pet peeve of mine is that while the #1 and MAX Purple use the transitway, their schedules seem to have a lot of overlap, so you'll often see the two busses tailing each other in a convoy formation. If the #1 happens to be the lead, the trailing MAX Purple might have to stop more frequently in Inglewood if it's unable to pass. While I haven't analyzed it closely, they both seem to be every 15 min during peak periods and 25 min during off-peak periods. A simple fix would be to stagger the buses instead of having the two trail each other, even if the individual line is 15-25 minutes, the transitway frequency could be every 7.5-12.5 minutes. I'm sure in reality there are differences in scheduling, but it's baffling to see the two buses traveling together.

 

[darwink]

The frequency issue should be fixed with the Calgary transit reinvestment authorized in November. Will take awhile however, need to purchase buses and hire drivers. My understanding is the investments will catch up from both the late Nenshi freeze (cut?) in operating hours (which stopped the max lines from having high frequency) and the post Covid cut.

 

[Chinook Arch]

Research practically universally that suggests that people who walk to work instead of drive are happier and healthier.

I'd be happy to provide specific studies if requested, but any simple Google on the topic will support this notion.

I don’t disagree that people who walk or cycle to work are happier and healthier. Those studies are kind of pointless though, especially for North American cities.
There’s no study that shows the effects if the 90% of the people who drive or take transit to work, suddenly had to walk or cycle.
Those studies point out the obvious. That people who choose to walk or cycle, and are a position to do so, are generally happier and healthier.
So by that conclusion, we should make it so everybody is in a position to walk or cycle to work but that’s pretty much impossible.
The best thing we can do is what most people on this thread have already been saying, and that’s to keep pushing pedestrian and cycle infrastructure, but it’s naive to think that everybody can live a car free life.

 

[Zoom]

We can all agree that we need to keep building and improving pedestrian/cycling infrastructure - myself included.
Realistically there is only so much we can do in a certain period of time, so we need to choose our battles.
IMO the best bet is to focus the resources mostly on the core and inner city areas. It’s the only area where people actually have a shot at living a car free lifestyle.

 

[ThujaPlicata]

Since moving to Mission I have stopped driving to a point that I am borderline thinking if I should sell my car. I walk to work on days I want to go to the office and essentially do all my errands on foot and I do feel happier and connected to my community. Most colleagues and family members find it weird that I don't have life style that is car centric - especially in Calgary. I feel like the disconnection that people have to their communities in a car centric neighborhood can certainly lead to sadness.

 

[accord1999]

Since moving to Mission I have stopped driving to a point that I am borderline thinking if I should sell my car. I walk to work on days I want to go to the office and essentially do all my errands on foot and I do feel happier and connected to my community. Most colleagues and family members find it weird that I don't have life style that is car centric - especially in Calgary.

Of course, a lot of that lifestyle requires significant privilege, like knowing that you'll work at the same office for the same employer (or yourself) and picking the days you want go in, and that can be near residential areas for most of your working life.

But for most people, they can't be so choosy. They also have to weigh pay/benefits, opportunity to use their education and skill and getting hired in the first place. And with job security these days, most people aren't going to be working at the same physical location for decades at a time anymore. Should they move their home every time they also change jobs? That's why the car is popular, its fast point-to-point travel means you have more flexibility about where you work and where you live.

I feel like the disconnection that people have to their communities in a car centric neighborhood can certainly lead to sadness.

I think that disconnect is really from living in a metro area of millions of people, rather than a small town or village. A major point of living in a larger city is to avail yourself of the many, many employment centres, amenities and services that are more than walking distance away.

 

[CBBarnett]

I find the more compelling arguments about cars is the personal and societal cost we force onto people by giving fewer options by creating such a car dominated system.

Even if you have to drive for work due to a dispersed employment market, we also design communities to be difficult to walk anywhere else that isn’t work too, while also making any walking that does exist often unpleasant and unsafe (due to the incremental desire to always speed up and increase capacity of cars in all areas at all times).

All this means cars have far more importance than they need to - choice has been removed from people, to the point having the most expensive mode choice starts to feel like the only practical choice. Decades go by, tens of billions of private dollars and tens of billions of public dollars are spent to maintain and expand a system that on the surface level helps with choice, but in the long run restricts it for more people.

That’s the real privilege gap that formed - we force almost everyone regardless of means and income to rely on the most expensive form of transportation for not just work trips, but all trips. For those of modest incomes, this system keeps them on a debt and cost of living treadmill most of their lives - being forced to own and drive a car daily is a constant drain on personal finances with fuel, maintenance, insurance, and having to purchase a new vehicle every 10 - 20 years for their entire lives. If you aren't above average income, it's very difficult to break even for most of your life as a result of car dependence. It's a trap that removes choice.

The other real privilege gap that forms with such a car dominated system is for those that can't drive - always at least 15 - 20% of the population. Most notably, we force all children to be put at constant risk on their own streets because speed of a car is prioritized over the life of a child. They can't walk anywhere because things are too far apart and it's too dangerous to do so in many places. We can think of any number of design choices on almost any street where the goal of car speed was prioritized over pedestrian access and safety to predictable results.

The good news is with ongoing improvements to neighbourhood designs and incremental land use improvements in the inner city we are starting to turn the needle. There is more choice becoming available for people. People are demanding more walkable and interesting places with the ongoing infill boom and recent successes of University District and Marda Loop emerging as new urban districts that focus increasingly on walking and non-car experiences.

In no future will cars go away, but in any good future they must be de-prioritized so that people have real choices in their lives. This should be reflected in both how we invest and how we design our city. It doesn't mean we should stop investing in roads, but it does mean we should design them differently and prioritize the convenience and directness of travel for all other modes most of the time. Combined with better land use mixing and it's a recipe to allow more people off the treadmill.

 

[Tarsus]

In no future will cars go away, but in any good future they must be de-prioritized so that people have real choices in their lives. This should be reflected in both how we invest and how we design our city. It doesn't mean we should stop investing in roads, but it does mean we should design them differently and prioritize the convenience and directness of travel for all other modes most of the time. Combined with better land use mixing and it's a recipe to allow more people off the treadmill.

This last paragraph sums it up well. Realistically acknowledging that roads and cars won’t go away, and that some people have no choice but to drive vehicles and instead of shaming people for driving cars we need to work towards better infrastructure for those who can’t, or don’t want to drive cars. I am 100% good with that.