I like the art program but the tweak I would suggest is when the infrastructure is not well suited for public enjoyment (ie an interchange) that the funding flow to the nearest adjacent community or communities rather than putting the art where it can only be seen at 100 km/h.
Edit: although I do like the 'textures' that are put on some interchanges, ie like the glenbow fish, I think that's all that is needed to beautify that sort of infrastructure.
Enjoying public art at 100 km/h is a safety risk.
Calgary's public art program has been a disaster:
-despite an alleged review panel, several issues (ex. plagiarized photos on 5th Ave underpass, culturally insensitive rock platforms at Bowfort) slipped through
-much of the art looks like tacked on afterthoughts (ex. blue hoop)
-potential of roadside art targeted at drivers to cause distraction and create safety issues
-potential of roadside art targeted at drivers to be completely overlooked by drivers
As mentioned, a better approach would be:
-focus the art on the surrounding pedestrian realm (ex. the GE5/Glenmore Causeway project has an eagle sculpture along the bike path, the pedestrian overpass close to Crowchild has an instructive piece about physics with words like "compression" embossed in the concrete)
-extend the concept of "art" to encompass design. Overpasses, for example, could have better aesthetic design. The art deco flourishes on viaducts in LA , for example, could be inspiration
I find much of the public art in places like Paris and Vienna and Montreal to be garish. Also, the statues, fountains, sculptures etc. of these cities would be completely inauthentic in Calgary. I much prefer subtle terrazzo insets etc. that relate to the purpose of the infrastructure. Hoover Dam is a great example.