Mountain Man
Senior Member
This would be amazing! unfortunately elections happen and politicians (and the policies they produce), are only concerned with winning the next election.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Oddball
- Start date
CBBarnett
Senior Member
While true that politics exist, this doesn't actually get to the fallacy what started this in the first place - the forecast that we "need" all those interchanges. Sure politics and random noise over time influences everything, but the forecast actually reveals a large amount of status-quo assumptions and bias in how we (the planners and transportation engineers who created) think about it. The forecast is not a list of needs, it's just a model whose published outputs list 99 interchanges.
Importantly - this forecast and the assumptions that apply to it, are not the product of some democratic process or public hearing. They are hidden - you don't get to challenge the design speed at an open house for an interchange.
Apologies in advance, this triggered me enough to go for a long-form rant. Organized so you all can argue against me more effectively to specific points.
Forecasts, Assumptions and "Needs" - Why you get interchanges whether you voted for them or not
Let's unpack this mess using an example - the Sarcee/Richmond monstrosity below. @jhappy77 listed it at around $100 - 120M on the previous page.
As you can see, the proposed interchange is a giant future-proofed 6 to 10 lane Sarcee/Richmond combined with all sorts of turn movements and a giant 10 lane-wide overpass bridge.
How did we get this $120M beast in the forecast? Let's look at the assumptions used to create it.
Assumption #1: there's a problem [congestion] and it's bad enough we should do something about it [build an interchange].
Congestion is bad - wastes time, money, adds stress and reduces economic productivity. But is it bad enough to do anything about in this location? What happens if we just change our assumptions - say that we think it's bad, but the threshold for "doing something" is actually 50% higher? All of a sudden the forecast would show half as many interchanges - poof! Saved $5B! All we did is assume congestion isn't as big of a deal as the current forecast does and all those "needs" evaporate.
The second part is the assumption that an interchange is the solution to congestion. This is highly debatable as decades of evidence pointing to changing mode share away from cars to more efficient transit, walking and cycling is the only permanent solution to congestion. For example, here's my alternative assumption to solve the congestion problem:
- By 2076, 50% of all trips in Calgary will be bicycle. This is possible because of a warmer climate, advances in e-bicycle design, and all homes are now within 200m of a cycletrack.
In summary - this interchange only exists as a potential project because we are assuming it should.
Assumption #2: we should build an interchange big enough to accommodate forecast growth.
Okay so turns out we all love driving so much that we decide to build an interchange. To move from a dot on an forecast map to an actual design, we need a whole lot more assumptions for Sarcee/Richmond to get the size, shape and cost:
- Assume forever growth in population and vehicles
- Assume limited or no mode-share change from today
- otherwise a change in mode share in the future would negate the "need" for the interchange in the first place - we can't have that!
- Assume that holding land for this future interchange "need" has no opportunity cost nor are there any better, more productive land uses instead of freeway ramps in the future.
- Assumes land use changes and trips generated from those land uses are limited:
- Traffic to 2076 is easy to predict - but imagining a world with better land uses? Impossible!
In short, a total crap-shoot based on status quo thinking and biases, but with the quantitative backing of a forecast model, so gives a nice "scientific" engineering accuracy feel to it. But it's going to get worse.
Assumption #3: everyone [cars] using this new interchange should be able to turn everywhere, at as fast of speed as possible, and wait as little time as possible.
Now that we have infinitely growing car volumes and a huge amount of lanes and land, we need to help those cars through all their turn movements. Assumptions:
- Cars should always move fast and turn fast. Therefore we need wide, swooping corners to maintain high speed turns. Collectively, this adds kilometres of pavement, eats up huge amounts of land and $$$.
- Cars should never wait long at lights. If our model says "acceptable" wait times are exceeded, add dual turns, triple turns and stacking lanes. Again, collectively adds kilometres of pavement, eats up huge amounts of land, and $$$.
Assumption #4: 2076 traffic volumes, 2020s highway design, and 1980s cycling design.
My pet peeve. We assume we need this merge removal for safety:
But not any of these conflict points for safety of anyone not in a car:
Of course raising this issue risks the standard way we "solve" conflicts - remove the access for cyclist and pedestrians. Thankfully, that assumption isn't included here - look at all those nice green lines everywhere! So much walking and cycling now possible in the future in this half-kilometre wide, 10 lane super-sized interchange.
A great example of winning a battle/losing the war: mandate pedestrian and cycling access everywhere, while understanding zero about what makes places hospitable to those modes.
Assumption #5: we have zero (or maybe positive) climate and environmental impact for any of this.
How can we build giant interchanges and meet our climate goals? Recall that climate and greenhouse gas reduction are also policies, enacted and approved by various level of government. Surely we need to account for some of these issues.
So how can we possibly still build these things with acres of new pavement and still be climate compliant? Guess what - more assumptions! Common
- Reducing congestion actually means less pollution, because idling of cars is the big issue we actually care about. If the cars don't stop they are more efficient and waste less fuel!
- True-ish, but this completely ignores that if hadn't induced demand that generates more traffic by building this thing, we'd have fewer cars and less pollution in the first place.
- We added tons of walking and cycling paths - so that will reduce greenhouse gases (see assumption #4 for why that's a fallacy)
- If you don't buy any of those reasons, all the cars will be electric anyways so who cares?
Conclusion
Let no one tell you that we "need" $9B of interchanges based on forecasts as these forecasts are based on assumptions. Some assumptions may be reasonable, some are total crap and some assumption create a causal loop where the only possible output is $9B of future interchanges. Due to many layers of other assumptions most of these interchanges will be overly large, overly hostile to be outside a car, and overly expensive all for made-up reasons that we don't get to vote on, and have any ability to influence politically once the process begins.
Sarcee/Richmond will probably be built one day and it will probably temporarily help reduce congestion. Every assumption I listed can be scaled down (e.g. assume longer waits are ok, assume less speed is okay, assume a lower growth rate is okay etc.) and you can end up with an interchange much less hostile, expensive and bad for the climate. But let's not fall for the trick - needs are made up, the forecast doesn't mean that's our future. We can build any city we want.
Attachments
Last edited:
darwink
Senior Member
I wish we costed everything versus both a 'do nothing' and a super basic 'lets move the through lanes of one direction up or down but nothing else—everything else runs through the existing intersection.'
FCC1982
Active Member
I’m actually surprised the total for 99 interchanges is only $8B. Obviously that total would be much higher when inflation is factored in over 50 years. It really doesn’t seem like much at all when you consider the price tag for the ring road or the green line.
I don’t think all these interchanges are needed as not every artery needs to be a freeway but getting Glenmore, Crowchild, Airport and Beddington Trails free flow would be a good use of funds IMO.
And please let’s not follow Vancouver’s roads policy.
I don’t think all these interchanges are needed as not every artery needs to be a freeway but getting Glenmore, Crowchild, Airport and Beddington Trails free flow would be a good use of funds IMO.
And please let’s not follow Vancouver’s roads policy.
Last edited:
whatchyyc
Active Member
Of course that $8B is interchanges only and doesn't include any other new roads or road upgrades and things like utility work like it would for the ring road. Green line has a 3km tunnel, 1km elevated guideway, tracks, stations, trains, maintenance and storage facility... yada yada
CBBarnett
Senior Member
I don't know if there's much logic to the $9B number I was throwing around. Easy to assume +/- 100% over time due to inflation, but also just because the specific scope of each interchange, including whether it's ever needed at all, is subject to much debate and assumptions. The price of each potential project would vary wildly based on specific designs and timing.
My only assumption is that building interchanges are more expensive than not building interchanges.
lemongrab
Active Member
I'd be interested in the math/modelling to quantify the 'benefits' of interchanges vs. no-interchange. I suspect the perceived benefit is much greater than the actual benefit.
Lets take NB Sarcee from that example (unfortunately the last published count is from 2017, but we can guess the growth later) - PM 2 hour peak:
1. NB to NB = 1190
2. NB to WB = 587
Total =~1800
If we assume current green time is about 50% for this south approach then we can assume about 900 cars per hour go through with negligible delay and the other 900 have some delay. With an interchange, 1200 would have no delay, and the 600 cars turning WB would still face a similar (if not slightly greater) delay.
3. EB to NB = 365
Maybe a marginal improvement with an interchange, but probably close to negligible.
4. EB to EB = 922
5. WB to WB = 951
These guys would go from current ~25% green time to ~50% green time.
So rounding up in all cases:
300 = much faster (some of #1)
2000 = slightly faster (4+5)
1900 = negligible change (rest of 1+2+3)
I've probably bastardized this a bit and maybe its hard to follow without looking at the diagram, but is that summarized benefit (multiply x 2 for the NB approach) really worth $100M?
Lets take NB Sarcee from that example (unfortunately the last published count is from 2017, but we can guess the growth later) - PM 2 hour peak:
1. NB to NB = 1190
2. NB to WB = 587
Total =~1800
If we assume current green time is about 50% for this south approach then we can assume about 900 cars per hour go through with negligible delay and the other 900 have some delay. With an interchange, 1200 would have no delay, and the 600 cars turning WB would still face a similar (if not slightly greater) delay.
3. EB to NB = 365
Maybe a marginal improvement with an interchange, but probably close to negligible.
4. EB to EB = 922
5. WB to WB = 951
These guys would go from current ~25% green time to ~50% green time.
So rounding up in all cases:
300 = much faster (some of #1)
2000 = slightly faster (4+5)
1900 = negligible change (rest of 1+2+3)
I've probably bastardized this a bit and maybe its hard to follow without looking at the diagram, but is that summarized benefit (multiply x 2 for the NB approach) really worth $100M?
adamyyc
Active Member
Positive changes coming to the permit parking program.
calgary.ctvnews.ca
There's a fee for that: City of Calgary launches first change to permit parking program
The city has launched the first of several changes to its 2023 residential parking permit program, and if you think parking permits are now going to cost you, you're right.
YourBoy007
Active Member
This is an average subway station in Taiwan (technically a third world country)...
FriendlyDrunks
Active Member
I don't think many people use the Three Worlds Theory anymore. More a holdover from the Cold War.
Taiwan is considered a developed country these days, but around the world there are plenty of cities in developing countries with more modern transit systems or stations that what Calgary has - Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Johannesburg, New Dehli, Pyongyang, Moscow, Caracas, Almaty - to name a few. The average wealth per person is far less than what it is for Calgary, so it's not a question of wealth, but more of what we do with the wealth.
One thing those other cities have in common is they, are magnitudes more dense than Calgary. This also allows them to focus more on a rail system and less on roads and even busses. And in many cases a large percentage of their population can't even afford cars.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be spending more on our rail systems, only that it's not a function of wealth. It's a function of priorities, and the added downside of low density which makes it less efficient cost wise.
Last edited:
FCC1982
Active Member
^Well summarized Surreal - you hit on all the points I would make.
That does look like a great subway system in Taiwan regardless.
That does look like a great subway system in Taiwan regardless.
FCC1982
Active Member
Just a quick observation here:
Driving north on Sarcee Trail approachig 16th Ave. I notice the relatively new signs don’t reference the TCH (i.e.no maple leaf shield with #1).
Is this intentional or just an oversight ?
Driving north on Sarcee Trail approachig 16th Ave. I notice the relatively new signs don’t reference the TCH (i.e.no maple leaf shield with #1).
Is this intentional or just an oversight ?
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
Taiwan hasn’t been a “third world” country in decades, like literally 40 years since they became a fully industrialized (first world) country. Do you like… know anything about what you post? Like reading and stuff? Or just rage-post with nonsense?
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
Pyongyang’s system is definitely not more modern than Calgary’s. Not by a long shot. It’s only underground, if that’s the definition of “more modern” that is an incorrect assertion.