Roads, Highways & Infrastructure

[lemongrab]

Sorry for spamming this thread, but there is some interesting stuff about the engagement process through to the 'What we Heard' report.

I believe City Council just had a motion about concerns around the engagement process. This situation is a great example. Here is the high-level summary:

"Support for an interchange or other infrastructure
changes to improve traffic flow and safety in the
study area."

This is just a bald-faced misrepresentation of the engagement, though I can see where they tried to have a little wiggle room with the text I bolded.

I did a CTL+F for 'interchange' in the verbatim comments. There were 26 comments supporting an interchange. And 52 comments explicitly against! (also another ~25 comments where support/non-support wasn't totally clear, but I inferred that more were leaning against than for).

Subjectively, a lot of the supportive comments were very brief (655 words total), whereas the rejecting comments were generally more thoughtful and showed their work (1926 words) - but of course I acknowledge my bias here. I've got them all copied into a spreadsheet; perhaps I'll find a way to share it if anyone is interested.


Now obviously engagement has its limitations, but it is insulting to see feedback so blatantly ignored and misrepresented.

 

[FCC1982]

Not sure why anyone wouldn’t want an interchange here - seems like a no brainer.
What were some of the comments opposed to the interchange ?

 

[Golfing guy]

This thread has been NIMBY’d!

 

[trtcttc]

Now obviously engagement has its limitations, but it is insulting to see feedback so blatantly ignored and misrepresented.

That's how it's been for everything. The LAP, basically the admin comes in with a draft and resident's have changes. They make some tiny changes but ignores the ones that generate lots of comments and say "We've heard you love this plan". I find it rather pointless, since the residents represent interests already living there, while the city has to represent those people and other that might move there. much like the rezoning public hearing, mostly just hot air.

 

[lemongrab]

This thread has been NIMBY’d!

I'll gladly accept the charges as a NIMBY who wants the land used for more housing in my backyard, instead of roads. I'd love to see another 10 row houses on the east side of the Strath temp access road. And a bunch of units on the NW corner where I drew earlier. And they should build the direct access to Edworthy, with some condo buildings on the west side (ie. where there is currently an unpaved parking lot). And there is an old walkup building on the SE corner where the building uses 6000 sq ft on a 22000 sq ft lot - I'd love to see that infill even denser some day!

I'd also staunchly oppose an interchange at say John Laurie/Shag or JL/Sarcee or Anderson/14th or any similar project elsewhere in the city

That's how it's been for everything. The LAP, basically the admin comes in with a draft and resident's have changes. They make some tiny changes but ignores the ones that generate lots of comments and say "We've heard you love this plan". I find it rather pointless, since the residents represent interests already living there, while the city has to represent those people and other that might move there. much like the rezoning public hearing, mostly just hot air.

For sure; I should rephrase - it's only insulting to see it misrepresented. Unsurprising to see it ignored, but pretty frustrating when the justification to build is so weak without the claim that residents support it.

 

[Red Star]

Not sure why anyone wouldn’t want an interchange here - seems like a no brainer.
What were some of the comments opposed to the interchange ?

What is the efficacy of this interchange? How much money will it cost to build vs. how many cars/people will it move? What I'm trying to say, is it really required? Could the money be better spent towards something else?

 

[darwink]

What is the efficacy of this interchange? How much money will it cost to build vs. how many cars/people will it move? What I'm trying to say, is it really required? Could the money be better spent towards something else?

In the document is there an all movement study that was completed post Stoney opening? I suspect some relatively simple solutions could be used but would need to see.

 

[Red Star]

I know I'm on the wrong thread...but a cheaper alterative would be to implement MAX service BRT from West District to Downtown. With a few tweaks in the road network, the city could move more people, more efficiently to downtown.

Build a bus-only westbound off-ramp from Bow Trail to Coach Hill Road and build a bus-only eastbound flyover from Coach Hill Rd, to Bow Trail.

Connect these roads and build an intersection for Buses.

 

[CBBarnett]

Not sure why anyone wouldn’t want an interchange here - seems like a no brainer.
What were some of the comments opposed to the interchange ?

In the document is there an all movement study that was completed post Stoney opening? I suspect some relatively simple solutions could be used but would need to see.

That's the part that I don't get - they open with this saying traffic volumes are down 24 - 30% during rush-hour thanks to the Ring Road.

The action as a result of this fact... we need to prepared to build more car capacity and an interchange? The data referenced (but not provided) should point to the opposite conclusion - Forgetting all the real trade-offs about park space and land consumption. How can we get to the conclusion we need an interchange when traffic volumes have collapsed?

 

[darwink]

That's the part that I don't get - they open with this saying traffic volumes are down 24 - 30% during rush-hour thanks to the Ring Road.

View attachment 609938

The action as a result of this fact... we need to prepared to build more car capacity and an interchange? The data referenced (but not provided) should point to the opposite conclusion - Forgetting all the real trade-offs about park space and land consumption. How can we get to the conclusion we need an interchange when traffic volumes have collapsed?

Looking at the last traffic study, and having driving through there hundreds of times, the trouble is the length of the full cycle with every phase, and there is an easier way to 'buy' more time than the interchanges they designed. If it is still congesting,

Diverting east-west traffic entirely to a bridge removes 45% of capacity demand (phase time demand) from the intersection at PM peak, and 55% of capacity demand during the AM peak. A single lane each way would be enough, but would likely cause bunching at either end, so a 4 lane bridge would be built instead.

 

[badc0ffee]

Not sure why anyone wouldn’t want an interchange here - seems like a no brainer.

Disclaimer - I have not read the comments. But, beyond the green space and value-for-money concerns, probably also people who would see or hear the interchange from their property. In a sense it's taking the existing heavy traffic, and elevating some of it 15 feet off the ground. I seem to remember opposition to Crowchild + 24th Ave with similar concerns, although that is a much more built up area than this.

That's the part that I don't get - they open with this saying traffic volumes are down 24 - 30% during rush-hour thanks to the Ring Road.

I think Bow Trail did increase in volume, though. It serves a lot of traffic to/from Stoney Trail, now. They probably couldn't make the green light phases for Bow Trail any longer than they already are.

 

[CBBarnett]

I think Bow Trail did increase in volume, though.

I pulled that fact from their project website that said traffic volumes have decreased... therefore an interchange is probably a thing we need still in the future still.

 

[FCC1982]

What is the efficacy of this interchange? How much money will it cost to build vs. how many cars/people will it move? What I'm trying to say, is it really required? Could the money be better spent towards something else?

I’m not saying it should be the top transportation priority but I’m in favour of building an interchange here at some point. It’s just Bow Tr. and Richmond Rd. to complete and then Sarcee is free-flow.

Personally I have Crowchild from Kensington through 24th Ave. at the top of my wish list.

 

[FCC1982]

I'd also staunchly oppose an interchange at say John Laurie/Shag or JL/Sarcee or Anderson/14th or any similar project elsewhere in the city.

You oppose interchanges because of the amount of land they eat up (just asking).

 

[Red Star]

I’m not saying it should be the top transportation priority but I’m in favour of building an interchange here at some point. It’s just Bow Tr. and Richmond Rd. to complete and then Sarcee is free-flow.

Personally I have Crowchild from Kensington through 24th Ave. at the top of my wish list.

I'd like to see 19th street and 16th Ave. go ahead with a simple interchange.