[CBBarnett]

Are those tunnels under the different roads for bikes (in green)?

Yeah that's one of the ideas - I assume if you are moving that amount of earth and raising everything up tens of metres, makes sense to put tunnels for pedestrian access in.

I don't think I am opposed to the project - lots of benefits for cars, bicycles and pedestrians on a busy intersection - my thoughts come more from being shocked by the price-tag and the scale of earthworks proposed.

 

[ethan.l.cecc]

The earthworks are certainly a large portion of the budget; there's a huge grade difference here. However, the budget also includes widening of Bow Trail and expanding Sarcee to 6 lanes beyond the interchange itself. According to the project site it will be completed in phases (Edworthy > Bow widening > Interchange > Sarcee widening), so the actual expenditure could be spread over quite a while if the city doesn't see a need for the widenings as early. It would be nice to see a breakdown between each of the phases

 

[CalgaryTiger]

I'm wondering about the Sarcee widening, with SW Stoney open, I'd be curious to see how that has changed traffic counts. I use to take Sarcee all the time, now, never.

 

[lemongrab]

Ooph. IMO it's totally insane and just perpetuates the whack-a-mole cycle. It only makes sense if you add lanes down Bow Trail and build an interchange at Richmond Road and add lanes to Sarcee and someday build another interchange at OBCR and another one at 85th and on and on and on.

We also have a mass transit line running parallel/along Bow Tr. But bus ridership from Broadcast Hill has always been pretty good. Add that third lane to EB Bow make it a bus lane (and convert a WB lane, too). It may seem odd to do this given the proximity of the blue lane, but it's no less odd than a major road expansion. Instead of feeding 69 St with shuttles you can feed Westbrook and/or run all the way DT and beyond. Maybe Max Teal should run up to West District. And so should Route 2

 

[darwink]

HUGE drops.

Pre Stoney (November 2022):

Post Stoney (April 2024):

 

[CBBarnett]

Nice find - that changes my opinion. When you see drops in volumes at Bow/Sarcee to such an extent, it strikes me as a reason to push this one off by 30 years rather than request it now.

Recall the Green Line is pushing out the Stephen Ave Subway 30+ years from the modelling they did on how additional Greenline capacity will take pressure off the Red Line. Here we have a similar situation but with real data, not just forecast volumes.

Stoney and West LRT both actually built and opened in the past 15 years that probably quintupled the total capacity of all routes on and off the hill ( at the combined price of several billion) and the request is for another $335M to add capacity to an intersection that's volumes are down 20 - 50%. I might be able to buy the grade-separation argument for a reliability benefit even if volumes are lower, but really struggle when it's more lanes, more capacity in all directions over huge stretches of both corridors when the volume trends are substantially decreased.

We don't seem to be able to conceptualize what to do when vehicle volumes decrease. All available options are always to expand capacity.

 

[lemongrab]

I wonder how the counters treat cyclists cutting across the middle between SW and NE corner. Those counts seem awfully low, I see active users more often than not.

This shows most of the significant inputs and outputs down like 30-50%. The EB-NB turn movement dropped from 919 to 210 in the AM! (and 434 to 167 in the PM). The other three PM left turn movements increased slightly, but negligible changes in the AM.

The only real constant is EB Bow Tr in the AM. So you can make a bit of an argument for the extra lane there, but it's still the epitome of one more lane, bro! Bow Tr streetscape could use work one way or the other, and the new Edworthy access would be good, especially in conjunction with Spruce Dr improvements.

Then if you want to improve the main intersection my radical idea is to kill the left turns off of Sarcee (saving 15-20% of the main light cycle time) and replace them with level ped crossing & U-turn about 600m either side of the main lights. Eliminating those turn lanes let's you reconfigure the Sarcee through-lanes to 3 instead of 2, and the yieldmerge onto SB Sarcee can just become it's own lane. Unlike the Bow Tr U-turn, I'd make these dual turns from the right side where you reduce the angle a bit:

It means both directions of Sarcee have to stop, but if you really rub your traffic optimization neurons together, you can time it to make sense with the main lights (just like they did for Bow Tr U-turn). You'd also need to slow this stretch of Sarcee down to 60, but that's a feature, not a bug.

Perhaps that is just what projects cost now and I am no engineer, but just seems like with a bit more tolerance for lower service levels and a simpler design philosophy we could have achieved 95% of the benefits for much less than $335M!

I think the above would be like 80% of the benefit for maybe 25% of the cost

 

[darwink]

I wonder, it is pretty unconventional.

An interchange where you split phases. Bottom, only the straight phases - people still have lights, but it just switches between the two phases.

5 metres above, a small intersection, only left turns. 1 lane in from each direction, 1 lane out to each direction. Thats it.

You more than double capacity for the intersection, at much lower cost. no need for huge bridges with curves to maintain speeds.

 

[FCC1982]

That is a huge price tag for that Bow-Sarcee interchange.
Perhaps that money could be better spent elsewhere like Crowchild “Medium Term” improvements (from 2017).

Crowchild Trail Upgrades: Medium and long-term plans

www.calgary.ca

 

[jhappy77]

That is a huge price tag for that Bow-Sarcee interchange.
Perhaps that money could be better spent elsewhere like Crowchild “Medium Term” improvements (from 2017).

Crowchild Trail Upgrades: Medium and long-term plans

www.calgary.ca

Or extending the LRT to some neighborhoods it isn't serving yet

 

[The ChosenOne]

That is a huge price tag for that Bow-Sarcee interchange.
Perhaps that money could be better spent elsewhere like Crowchild “Medium Term” improvements (from 2017).

Crowchild Trail Upgrades: Medium and long-term plans

www.calgary.ca

Or glenmore - blackfoot section

 

[trtcttc]

That is a huge price tag for that Bow-Sarcee interchange.
Perhaps that money could be better spent elsewhere like Crowchild “Medium Term” improvements (from 2017).

Crowchild Trail Upgrades: Medium and long-term plans

www.calgary.ca

That price tag for one interchange is kind of crazy, especially to support those traffic volumes. Latest count at Crowchild/Kensington had peak at 3670 North Approach and 2957 South approach.