News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

Calgcouver said:
View attachment 318911
Wow plan created from 2017 that looks like it is based on best practices from 1987. So happy that the pedestrian connection across 24 Avenue to the University of Calgary, a very well used pedestrian route, will now have the same danger and appeal for pedestrians as crossing from Mckenzie Lake into Cranston. Nothing says best practices in an urban environment and TOD by a University like replicating this condition:
View attachment 318915
Click to expand...
For anyone who would like to see better traffic flow and thinks the people opposing this are a bunch of NIMBY's, I'd encourage you to read about how urban/transportation planning has changed in the last 30 years. Much like with any science, we know a lot more now then we did in the 70's, turns out building highways through neighborhoods to connect further out communities doesn't have the effect we think it does. I know what you're thinking, "Supply & demand, wider road means faster travel times!" That would be correct, except it doesn't take into account a ton of negative externalities.

Travel times will probably get better for 2-5 years after completion, but after that it will get worse than before. Except now you've spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and done a ton of damage to the community and the other modes of transportation. This isn't an opinion, it's an academic fact.

“Widening roads to ease congestion is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt” Roy Kienitz, executive director of the Surface Transportation Policy Project
Click to expand...

If congestion is a problem you want to solve, providing a diversity of modes of transportation is your answer. Support transit, walking, biking, and communities that enable that. It's cheaper and better for people, traffic, and the environment.
 
MissingMiddle said:
For anyone who would like to see better traffic flow and thinks the people opposing this are a bunch of NIMBY's, I'd encourage you to read about how urban/transportation planning has changed in the last 30 years. Much like with any science, we know a lot more now then we did in the 70's, turns out building highways through neighborhoods to connect further out communities doesn't have the effect we think it does. I know what you're thinking, "Supply & demand, wider road means faster travel times!" That would be correct, except it doesn't take into account a ton of negative externalities.

Travel times will probably get better for 2-5 years after completion, but after that it will get worse than before. Except now you've spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and done a ton of damage to the community and the other modes of transportation. This isn't an opinion, it's an academic fact.



If congestion is a problem you want to solve, providing a diversity of modes of transportation is your answer. Support transit, walking, biking, and communities that enable that. It's cheaper and better for people, traffic, and the environment.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the ROW widths are incredibly wide and extreme overkill and the designs are at best very hostile for cyclists and pedestrians and heavily prioritize movement of a high volume of cars at high rates of speeds over everything else. Expanding a 40m ROW into a 80-150m ROW is absolutely preposterous and an enormous over-dedication of land.

I was shocked at how wide of an intersection the existing condition is at 40m being already extremely pedestrian unfriendly but it is traversable, 150m with slip-lane after slip-lane is so unbelievably dangerous and hostile to pedestrians and cyclists for an intersection within two TOD walksheds is crazy to see planned within the last 20 years. The thinking behind this is so clearly from a completely different era and time it is embarrassing to see.

For example, Surrey is known for having wide roads standards in comparison to a lot of municipalities in BC, and the widest an ROW for an arterial gets with Skytrain is 42m. This is 2-3x wider than that and is so far away from even pretending to use land efficiently or building something that resembles a human-scale.

This design caters entirely to high-speed automobile dependent designs, compromising the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and creating an environment that would resemble a successful TOD project. The city might as well throw the CTP and MDP in the trash with plans being created like this. This kind of shit might seem normal to someone who is used to Calgary, but anyone from outside this city would view this plan as extremely outdated and completely disregarding current best practices.

a 40 m walk across this, with two slip lanes to cross:
1620848146711.png

Vs a 150m wide expanse crossing 4 high speed slip lanes:
1620848428104.png

I'll take the existing condition with the light and a dedicated bike lane across 24 avenue all day over the bridge option.
 
Last edited:
MissingMiddle said:
For anyone who would like to see better traffic flow and thinks the people opposing this are a bunch of NIMBY's, I'd encourage you to read about how urban/transportation planning has changed in the last 30 years. Much like with any science, we know a lot more now then we did in the 70's, turns out building highways through neighborhoods to connect further out communities doesn't have the effect we think it does. I know what you're thinking, "Supply & demand, wider road means faster travel times!" That would be correct, except it doesn't take into account a ton of negative externalities.

Travel times will probably get better for 2-5 years after completion, but after that it will get worse than before. Except now you've spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and done a ton of damage to the community and the other modes of transportation. This isn't an opinion, it's an academic fact.



If congestion is a problem you want to solve, providing a diversity of modes of transportation is your answer. Support transit, walking, biking, and communities that enable that. It's cheaper and better for people, traffic, and the environment.
Click to expand...

This Australian show is so good it is frightening. Too bad it isn't on Canadian Netflix anymore.
 
All the strategies, policies and TOD plans don't seem to have an effect on highway design outcomes apart from sidewalks and pathways now being included and shown on the project maps.

The car-only thinking and failing to count property the external impacts is one angle of critique, but the other is it's just so wildly land inefficient. There's something broken in your project design and prioritization process when your future state is anticipated in 2060+ but you still imagine you need 80 - 150m highway car-only right-of-ways near the centre of a major city within two TOD sites, adjacent to a university. Even if you think you need all these lanes, turning movements and access points, surely we can tighten everything up so you preserve your land base? There's random unusable bits of grass and medians all over that don't contribute to tax base, community amenity or transportation needs.

What if we charged the transportation department a "property tax equivalent" - based on the average land value of adjacent parcels or something - to make it more costly to build bloated designs? We can get road right-of-ways constrained in the areas where land values are higher and prevent land hoarding for future-but-never-going-to-happen expansion plans. Any sort of mechanism is fine that would punish land inefficient projects, while over time unlocking more taxable land base in the highest value areas and areas set for urban transition like these TOD sites.
 
Last edited:
Ubran Outdoorsman said:
New proposal along bow trail
jemm.ca

The Bridge at Bridgeland Calgary - JEMM Properties

JEMM Properties is committed to growing communities, creating value, reflecting authenticity and introducing innovation while making sure urban life always feels fun.
jemm.ca jemm.ca
Click to expand...
The land use for this one of JEMM's goes to CPC next week. Report is here:
The applicant outreach summary has some updated concept renderings:
1621051682163.png

1621051706633.png


Shaganappi Community Association is opposed to it:
 
CBBarnett said:
"...
The car-only thinking and failing to count property the external impacts is one angle of critique, but the other is it's just so wildly land inefficient. There's something broken in your project design and prioritization process when your future state is anticipated in 2060+ but you still imagine you need 80 - 150m highway car-only right-of-ways near the centre of a major city within two TOD sites, adjacent to a university. Even if you think you need all these lanes, turning movements and access points, surely we can tighten everything up so you preserve your land base? There's random unusable bits of grass and medians all over that don't contribute to tax base, community amenity or transportation needs.
..."
Click to expand...
If I post it like this does it count as a retweet or a quote tweet? Either way, spot on.
 
MichaelS said:

This Australian show is so good it is frightening. Too bad it isn't on Canadian Netflix anymore.
Click to expand...

Wait... You're telling me that the Australians make sitcoms about transportation planning and induced demand!?!? Plus they managed to squash COVID? This country appears to be some kind of utopia and not at all like the country depicted on that episode of the Simpsons.
 
Silence&Motion said:
Wait... You're telling me that the Australians make sitcoms about transportation planning and induced demand!?!? Plus they managed to squash COVID? This country appears to be some kind of utopia and not at all like the country depicted on that episode of the Simpsons.
Click to expand...
The author of this series also wrote one of the best series about political operations in a government anywhere since Yes Minister, another comedy called "The Hollowmen". The policy office focuses on the long term implementation of the Prime Minister's agenda: beyond the immediate week.
 
Silence&Motion said:
Wait... You're telling me that the Australians make sitcoms about transportation planning and induced demand!?!? Plus they managed to squash COVID? This country appears to be some kind of utopia and not at all like the country depicted on that episode of the Simpsons.
Click to expand...
Not just transportation planning and induced demand, but all types of development and infrastructure. The show in Canada was called Dreamland, but its original Australian title is Utopia. I don't know how you can access it in Canada (without a VPN), and if anyone does, please share. I only saw the first 2 seasons when it was on Netflix, but I think there are many more.

I feel this entire series should be MANDATORY viewing for anyone with any role even tenuously related to development or city building. Not only is it hilarious, but they so accurately portray how decisions are made, influence on projects, etc... One of my favourite shows.
 
MichaelS said:
The land use for this one of JEMM's goes to CPC next week. Report is here:
The applicant outreach summary has some updated concept renderings:
View attachment 319681
View attachment 319682

Shaganappi Community Association is opposed to it:
Click to expand...
This is a good solid project, and spot on scale for that location. I'm shocked the CA is against it. :rolleyes:
 
I haven’t seen evidence of “induced demand” in Calgary. I’m thinking of the Glenmore ‘GE5’, Deerfoot south of Anderson, Crowchild north of 32nd Ave. All these road expansion/grade separation projects resulted in much better operation of these routes, and they continue to operate enormously better than they did pre-expansion even years/decades later.
 
FCC1982 said:
I haven’t seen evidence of “induced demand” in Calgary. I’m thinking of the Glenmore ‘GE5’, Deerfoot south of Anderson, Crowchild north of 32nd Ave. All these road expansion/grade separation projects resulted in much better operation of these routes, and they continue to operate enormously better than they did pre-expansion even years/decades later.
Click to expand...
Stoney SE is the only egregious case I can think of. That being said, Calgary's entire system is what some would call overbuilt - it is really really good. We basically paid to stay ahead of the problem by building the road capacity a larger city would need.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top