News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 6.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 33K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 3.2K     0 

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
2,745
Reaction score
9,621
They aren’t building up for the turning movements. But maybe isolating the weaves will work?? I don’t know.
 

JoeUrban

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 25, 2017
Messages
360
Reaction score
1,068
City:
Calgary
I recall seeing an old ring road map that not only listed more or less the current one under construction but also where the next one might be located. Probably something from the 50s-80s. Anyone remember or have that handy?
 

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
2,745
Reaction score
9,621
I recall seeing an old ring road map that not only listed more or less the current one under construction but also where the next one might be located. Probably something from the 50s-80s. Anyone remember or have that handy?
Something like this:
1669658922287.png

from our friend @JesseLikesCities

I remember seeing a similar black and white map from the province once--Jesse also saw it and based his map on his recollections, but it seems to be down the memory hole now.
 

UrbanWarrior

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
5,351
Reaction score
31,504
Lol what? The Deerfoot/Glenmore interchange won't be corrected until the city is like 2.5 - 3 million people? (2050 - 2076)

That's f*cking stupid.
 

jhappy77

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 14, 2022
Messages
68
Reaction score
315
Lol what? The Deerfoot/Glenmore interchange won't be corrected until the city is like 2.5 - 3 million people? (2050 - 2076)

That's f*cking stupid.
The upgrade of that i/c in 2050-76 is from the Blackfoot/Glenmore interchange being upgraded, which will also reconfigure the Deerfoot/Glenmore one as a result. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see a Deerfoot/Glenmore reconfiguration much earlier given the plans to expand the number of lanes on Deerfoot. The forecasting toolbox is primarily for, well, forecasting, so it's important not to view it as dictating the order of things.
 

CBBarnett

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
9,187
The forecasting toolbox is primarily for, well, forecasting, so it's important not to view it as dictating the order of things.
This is really important. The toolbox and all the published materials on that site are based on assumptions which in general favour the status quo - basically they can't predict policy or economic changes so they baseline to 2015 then apply growth rates and mode share assumptions over time. They really aren't a prediction or plan for the future. Just a calculation using those assumptions projected forward.

Unfortunately they didn't publish the full methodology so we really don't know what we are looking at - I would assume some combo of business as usual / achieve the development plan baseline.

Most importantly, the baseline can always change - Vancouver famously decided to assume no new traffic lanes for cars back in the 2000s. They updated this type of forecast map and guess what - it removed all projected interchanges or highway expansions because the assumption was we don't build those anymore. They were no longer "needed" on any timeline simply because we assumed they weren't needed. That's how forecasting works.

In the Calgary forecast, the 2076 park and ride assumptions assume zero change in existing park-and-rides, which would be unrealistic. Consider that 2076 (53 years from now) is farther in the future than 1981 was ago (42 years ago) when our LRT and modern park-and-rides began. We are already discussing removing some park and rides for future development, surely a city of 3 million would redevelop some of them by 2076. Would we even have parking in 2076?

So forecasts and maps are interesting stuff, but we should be really suspicious of "needs" based on these kinds of forecasts, as it's assuming a bunch of status quo things that we may not actually want, or stuff that shouldn't happen or can't actually happen. It's just a tool for exploring options, that's all. If you ever go to an open house for a interchange, don't let a highway engineer try to trick you with one of these forecasts as the only proof we "need" to build it.
 

jhappy77

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 14, 2022
Messages
68
Reaction score
315
So forecasts and maps are interesting stuff, but we should be really suspicious of "needs" based on these kinds of forecasts, as it's assuming a bunch of status quo things that we may not actually want, or stuff that shouldn't happen or can't actually happen. It's just a tool for exploring options, that's all. If you ever go to an open house for a interchange, don't let a highway engineer try to trick you with one of these forecasts as the only proof we "need" to build it.

No kidding. I made this for fun, but if you start to do the math on how much this should cost, it shows just how mind-bendingly expensive following this model would be.

The toolbox forecasts 99 interchanges and upgrades up until 2076. Let's take a look at some of the most recent interchange projects in Calgary to get an idea of their costs:
1674509051582.png

(sources:
[1]-https://globalnews.ca/news/3706937/...ada-highwaybowfort-road-interchange-thursday/
[2]-https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/new-glenmore-trail-and-ogden-road-interchange-partly-opens
[3]-https://majorprojects.alberta.ca/details/Cranston-Seton-Interchange
[4]-https://majorprojects.alberta.ca/details/Macleod-Trail-and-162-Ave-S-Interchange
[5]-https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/city-council-sarcee-interchange-ring-road-1.4527556 )

So through very crude math, $88.8 M * 99 = $8.79 Billion. That's an eye-watering cost. Even if you cut it by half it's still a ridiculous figure.

And that’s just for interchanges; it doesn’t even count the huge list of roadway expansions we’re also planning to build.

These kinds of projects almost never receive scrutiny, and it seems like they can sail through council with full support because they’re always perceived as “desperately needed to relieve congestion”. But I think we need to take a bird’s eye view of our transportation policies and really ask how much sense they make. The taxpayer burden of turning practically every major road into a freeway is just absurd, and it would hurt us in so many other ways.

This is especially important given that research from 500+ cities has shown that roadway expansions don’t really solve congestion longterm, whereas congestion pricing and good public transit do. (source: https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article-abstract/22/5/931/6333639?login=false)

All that’s to say, I think we need a paradigm shift in Calgary. I’m considering making a post about this on reddit, but before that I’d be interested to hear people’s thoughts and counter-arguments.
 

MichaelS

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
2,430
Reaction score
17,503
It would be interesting to see the results of a poll to Calgarians, what would you rather spend $6 billion on:
a. Approximately 65 interchanges throughout the city; or
b. A train from Eau Claire to Shepard.

Would the interchanges cost us $40 million a year in operating losses?
 

jhappy77

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 14, 2022
Messages
68
Reaction score
315
It would be interesting to see the results of a poll to Calgarians, what would you rather spend $6 billion on:
a. Approximately 65 interchanges throughout the city; or
b. A train from Eau Claire to Shepard.

Would the interchanges cost us $40 million a year in operating losses?
This is a moot point. The green line is already happening.
First off, admin should make decisions based on what will solve problems, not popularity contests. Secondly, there are far better and cheaper ways to improve transit beyond building another $6 Billion rail line after the green line.
For example, actually giving a damn about buses and service for the first time in the city's history.

So my counter poll question is:
a. 99 interchanges
b. $1B worth of interchanges, 500M for bus projects, 1B for extra transit operations, and ~$6 billion less in taxes
 

Top