[Stingray2004]

Uh oh. Looks like some engineers from the City of Vancouver transportation ranks have now infested MoT's ranks.

Even local Delta councillors are now rankled by the decision to downgrade some proposed SFPR interchanges to intersections "until traffic warrants conversion".

- 80th St. (Tilbury interchange) I can forgive BUT not the anticipated high-volume Sunbury interchange connecting Hwy 91/Nordel Way with the SFPR.

New Highway Intersections Worrisome

Civic Politicians Concerned About At Grade Crossings of Perimeter Road

By Sandor Gyarmati, The Delta Optimist October 6, 2010

Intersections planned for the South Fraser Perimeter Road in Delta could be dangerous locations, say local officials.

"Priority one should be safety. One of the highest crash incident intersections in the Lower Mainland is the (Highway) 91 and 72nd (Avenue) because it's not really effective in the format it's in right now," said Coun. Anne Peterson.

A four-way intersection is to be built at 80th Street, near the Delta Community Animal Shelter in Tilbury, while another is to be built near Nordel Way and River Road in Sunbury.

A recent report to Delta council notes staff had not seen revised concept design drawings for the SFPR, but the government informed Delta the Sunbury and 80th Street locations will be intersections, whereas the Highway 17 and Highway 99 connections will remain as interchanges.

At a recent Delta council meeting, Coun. Scott Hamilton said the municipality's position has always been that those locations should be interchanges, because the intersections could be "a recipe for disaster."

CAO George Harvie said the safety concerns would be raised at an upcoming meeting with Gateway Program officials.

The report to council notes the province acquired sufficient land to allow the Sunbury and 80th Street intersections to be upgraded to interchanges "when traffic volumes warrant."

A spokesperson with Ministry of Transportation and Highways told the Optimist traffic studies found those intersections could accommodate the anticipated opening day traffic volumes. The project has acquired and preloaded property for future interchange construction.

Peterson, however, said it would make sense to construct the interchanges now rather than take on the additional expense in what could be the not too distant future

"It had always been intended to be interchanges. To turn it into intersections at this late date and say they'll do something in 20 years when capacity calls for it isn't good enough. If you're going to build it, build it right the first time.

"Back when they built the (Highway) 91 and the Alex Fraser (Bridge), they had all sorts of intersections coming on and off the bridge. Within six months they had to change that and make them interchanges and change the configuration to remove the lights, because it was creating such a havoc," she added.

Delta forwarded the concerns to ICBC for review, Peterson said.

The South Fraser Perimeter Road will be a four-lane, 40-kilometre highway extending northeast of the existing Highway 17/Deltaport Way intersection to highways 1, 91 and 99 and the Golden Ears Bridge.

This summer the government announced it had entered into a design, build, finance and operation agreement with Fraser Transportation Group. The construction cost is $658 million.

The completion date for the South Fraser Perimeter Road project has been pushed back a year to the end of 2013.

© Copyright (c) Delta Optimist


Read more: http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/highway+intersections+worrisome/3631615/story.html#ixzz11ciMWLn0

[go_leafs_go02]

And Golden Ears Way/SFPR/Highway 15/104 Avenue is all going to be an at-grade intersection when it was envisioned to initially be an interchange.

SFPR will tie in with Highway 15. 104 Avenue will continue and eventually turn into 96 Avenue east of Golden Ears Way.

[Metro-One]

:previous: Looks like I was right many many months ago when I first blew the whistle about many of the pro[osed interchanges being downgraded to intersections! My inside source was right on the money, I was really hopping I was wrong!

What a bunch of BS, if you are going to go through the trouble purchasing land and pre-loading for the interchanges why not just build them now! Spend the extra money now to save more money in the future. I am really getting tired of this bizarre MoT approach to constructing highways. look ow efficient they have been replacing the terrible 91A 72nd intersection. The only remaining traffic light on the entire freeway!

You would think they would have at least kept the Golden Ears Way connecter an interchange. Honestly, all this project needs is for them to build 4 extra interchanges alongside the 2 that are still being built. i just don't get it. Also, I worry building these junctions as intersections opens the door for them to build more traffic light intersection in the future and haveing the SFPR simply become another Lougheed.

[go_leafs_go02]

Can I honestly ask who makes these awful decisions. They can't look anywhere else in North America and realize that signalizing freeways or major highways is asinine?

I have never seen such poor planning for road building anywhere since I moved here. So many laughable items that makes me wonder - how did this start, and what's the reasoning behind all these jokes of decisions.

It feels like the Lower Mainland is completed viewed as a separate entity. The island and interior feels like they have much better designed roadways. Heck, they want to widen the Cariboo Connector up to 4 lanes to Prince George. I personally haven't been north of Cache Creek, but is there a demand there more than a demand for better roads in Metro Vancouver? Honestly....

[BurnabyAaron]

I drive that Caribou Connector frequently - 5 times in the last 9 months. And the most painful part of the entire trip is from Burnaby to Cache Creek. After that the additional passing lanes this "4 laneing" has brought is nice, but I haven't been in traffic that says to me this highway has to be upgraded.

The SFPR is just turning into a disappointment. They should have stuck with the original plan. I'd like to see how much less the project is going to cost now that these have been downgraded.

[Zassk]

It grates on me to say this... but it will still be really nice to have the SFPR, even in its "castrated" form, and it will really transform commuting habits over time. For the first time, we'll have a single connector linking all of the Fraser crossings.

[xd_1771]

It grates on me to say this... but it will still be really nice to have the SFPR, even in its "castrated" form, and it will really transform commuting habits over time. For the first time, we'll have a single connector linking all of the Fraser crossings.

This, it'll at least solve the horrific truck problems 104th Avenue in Surrey is experiencing at the moment.
I'd still rather have a full-freeway SFPR though :yuck: I mean, the Island Highway (19) was built as a full freeway for long, long sections around Qualicum Beach and such and those aren't even heavily used sections. I have no doubt that the SFPR will become a parking lot similar to 91A NB approaching 72nd or Fraser/Hwy 15 within the first 6 months.
Come to think of it, if any of these intersections were in Surrey rather than Delta... I'm pretty sure Mayor Watts wouldn't allow it whatsoever :D *referencing what she said about the New Patullo/SFPR*

Honestly what go_leafs_go said about the Lower Mainland being viewed as a separate entity is quite right. Look at the Route 17 project on the Island, soon enough there will be no intersections on that route whatsoever when the upgrades are completed - although it is a more long-term project than the SFPR in general.

EDIT: If anyone has noticed, the SFPR plans [link] (http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/SFPR/docs/proposed_alignment/proposed_alignment.html) on the Gateway Program site have changed to reflect the downgrading of these interchanges to intersections.
And if I saw that right, the right turn lanes on the Sunbury intersection are way too short. We'll end up with the madness that is 104 Avenue all over again...

-For the very least Tannery Road is still an interchange, but looks like southbound traffic will be facing a very short acceleration lane there-- honestly I think there shouldn't be any short on-ramps at all, even at the most minor interchanges, because this route is supposedly meant for trucks - which are very long, and need lots of acceleration/merge time.
-Bridgeview Drive is most definitely going to be a disaster though, considering it's so close to the Patullo Bridge, there's an intersection at the SFPR with a dual left turn in the westbound SFPR lanes, and the entire Bridgeview Drive itself is only two lanes; not to mention it'll add to existing traffic problems at the King George/Bridgeview intersection.
-The other intersection over there (136-138) is probably not a problem at all, for it's really only for accessing a few properties north of the SFPR.
-Golden Ears Way Connector appears to still be an interchange, but the diagram is now marked as "construction by others". I don't think that intersection (if an intersection) will become too much of a major traffic problem - i.e. Highway 15 & 96/Golden Ears Connector still manages okay.

[Metro-One]

The funny thing is they are not even saving an money, the budget appears to be the same, 800 million, in fact i believe i has risen by about 30 million.

I realllly want to know why the cost has not sunk with the downgraded design, especially since the SFPR was announced, and given the ballpark 800 million dollar figure, before the current recession. One would think that commodity prices and contract labour (due to less demand) has at least fallen slightly!

In response to highway 17, that section really does need to become a full free flow artery. i would say given the fact that the Greater Victoria area is around 350 000 people and that they are our provincial capital, they have a very poor road and transit network. So I really would not try and say that they are getting a better deal than metro-Vancouver. The highway 17 upgrade is far overdue, especially considering it connect the Greater Victoria region with the ferry system, and therefore the rest of BC.

And seeing how North of Victoria is the remainder of the Island, with a population also near 350 000 people, if not more (Greater Nainaimo over 100 000 people alone, not to mention its important mainland connections via the ferry system). The Island highway needed to be built, but the sections north of Nanaimo did not need to be free flow (traffic lights where the interchanges are now would have been ok). What should have been done in the Island highway project was making the section from Victoria to Nanaimo a proper 4 lane freeway. I am still surprised that the most important part of the Island Highway is a 2 lane dangerous trek through the mountains (or big hills I guess, hehe).

[go_leafs_go02]

News 1130 is now reporting the downgraded SFPR on their newscast.

[Metro-One]

It is amazing how watered down these projects have become.

Think about how much the highway 1 expansion has been downgraded, now this. I swear, the Evergreen Line better start construction early next year, as currently promised. If not I may have to go to Victoria and kick the liberals out myself.

What I find the most funny is how people on the Golden Ears bridge thread kept on saying how they wish MoT built that bridge instead of Translink because they are so much better, well, lets look at the SFPR now, thanks MoT!

Best case scenario is it becomes another 91A before the new interchanges were built the other year, in which maybe one day it will become a proper freeway (still designed to 80kmh though), worst case scenario is it becomes another Lougheed, where the continue to tack on new intersections with traffic lights to no end, building more and more sprawling big box shopping centres..... This is my biggest worry in its current design.

In regards to the renders, I see that the Tilbury and Sunbury interchanges have been re-rendered as their downgraded traffic light controlled intersections, but the Tannery Road interchange and 104th Ave interchange renders remain. Does this mean that these two will remain as interchanges, or that MoT simply has not replaced their alignment PDFs yet?

If they do downgrade the Tannery Road interchange to an at grade intersection, that will be laugh out loud funny, simply because the "artist's rendering" of the Tannery Road Interchange has been a prominent graphic on nearly all of the SFPR display boards, forms and web pages.

As shown here:

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/photo_pages/photos.asp?caption=SFPR%20Tannery%20Road%20Interchange&img=sfpr/large/090119_SFPR_02.jpg

Sorry, I see XD_i771 beat me to the punch, hehe

[SpongeG]

The funny thing is they are not even saving an money, the budget appears to be the same, 800 million, in fact i believe i has risen by about 30 million.

I realllly want to know why the cost has not sunk with the downgraded design, especially since the SFPR was announced, and given the ballpark 800 million dollar figure, before the current recession. One would think that commodity prices and contract labour (due to less demand) has at least fallen slightly!

In response to highway 17, that section really does need to become a full free flow artery. i would say given the fact that the Greater Victoria area is around 350 000 people and that they are our provincial capital, they have a very poor road and transit network. So I really would not try and say that they are getting a better deal than metro-Vancouver. The highway 17 upgrade is far overdue, especially considering it connect the Greater Victoria region with the ferry system, and therefore the rest of BC.

And seeing how North of Victoria is the remainder of the Island, with a population also near 350 000 people, if not more (Greater Nainaimo over 100 000 people alone, not to mention its important mainland connections via the ferry system). The Island highway needed to be built, but the sections north of Nanaimo did not need to be free flow (traffic lights where the interchanges are now would have been ok). What should have been done in the Island highway project was making the section from Victoria to Nanaimo a proper 4 lane freeway. I am still surprised that the most important part of the Island Highway is a 2 lane dangerous trek through the mountains (or big hills I guess, hehe).

i used to live north of nanaimo - the old island highway was painful very painful

the new one is amazing and quick - cuts more than hour of travel time to get to courtenay - well worth it

the dangerous part is two lanes - cause um have you seen the terrain?

[Metro-One]

:previous: I think you misread my quote, i agree that then new Island Highway needed to be built, I just don't think it needed the few interchanges it has north of Nanaimo. Now that they are there I have no problem with them (why would someone?) but I just believe that the Island Project should have been a project that made the Island Highway a full freeway from Greater Victoria to Greater Nanaimo (and through Nanaiomo) and then north of Nanaimo built in its current form as we see it today, but just with no interchanges in order to save funds needed for the southern sections.

And yes I know why there are 2 lane sections, I have driven the Island Highway many times, and I know the dangerous terrain there, but that is the point! Often the most dangerous sections of highways have the worst terrain and are the most expensive sections to build but they are often the sections that should be upgraded first! But here in BC we like to pick the low fruit first before tackling the larger problems.

[SpongeG]

its not that much of pressing issue in my eyes - it functions and well weather and accidents happen 2 lanes or 10 lanes

[Metro-One]

:previous: well people would probably enjoy it for reasons just as you displayed for the new island highway north of Nanaimo. Given the fact that the southern section of the island highway connects the two largest cities on the island (not to mention Greater Victoria to the rest of the island in general) I would argue it is an important artery that needs upgrading.

[whatnext]

Uh oh. Looks like some engineers from the City of Vancouver transportation ranks have now infested MoT's ranks.

Even local Delta councillors are now rankled by the decision to downgrade some proposed SFPR interchanges to intersections "until traffic warrants conversion".

- 80th St. (Tilbury interchange) I can forgive BUT not the anticipated high-volume Sunbury interchange connecting Hwy 91/Nordel Way with the SFPR.

Read more: http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/highway+intersections+worrisome/3631615/story.html#ixzz11ciMWLn0

How can they claim this will save money? Costs will have risen dramatically when they finally do build them. Very shortsighted. :hell:

[SpongeG]

:previous: well people would probably enjoy it for reasons just as you displayed for the new island highway north of Nanaimo. Given the fact that the southern section of the island highway connects the two largest cities on the island (not to mention Greater Victoria to the rest of the island in general) I would argue it is an important artery that needs upgrading.

we would have a whole sea to sky fiasco over the costs to do it though

upgrade the train instead - i loved using the E&N

[cabotp]

The funny thing is they are not even saving an money, the budget appears to be the same, 800 million, in fact i believe i has risen by about 30 million.

I realllly want to know why the cost has not sunk with the downgraded design, especially since the SFPR was announced, and given the ballpark 800 million dollar figure, before the current recession. One would think that commodity prices and contract labour (due to less demand) has at least fallen slightly!

In response to highway 17, that section really does need to become a full free flow artery. i would say given the fact that the Greater Victoria area is around 350 000 people and that they are our provincial capital, they have a very poor road and transit network. So I really would not try and say that they are getting a better deal than metro-Vancouver. The highway 17 upgrade is far overdue, especially considering it connect the Greater Victoria region with the ferry system, and therefore the rest of BC.

And seeing how North of Victoria is the remainder of the Island, with a population also near 350 000 people, if not more (Greater Nainaimo over 100 000 people alone, not to mention its important mainland connections via the ferry system). The Island highway needed to be built, but the sections north of Nanaimo did not need to be free flow (traffic lights where the interchanges are now would have been ok). What should have been done in the Island highway project was making the section from Victoria to Nanaimo a proper 4 lane freeway. I am still surprised that the most important part of the Island Highway is a 2 lane dangerous trek through the mountains (or big hills I guess, hehe).

Welcome to the world of politics where projects are always under estimated.

My guess is the $800 Mil for SFPR was a low ball estimate. They probably knew the real cost was going to be higher. But of course it is easier to sell something when it is cheaper.

They then come out later and downgrade parts of the project to try and meet the $800 Mil original estimate.

I'm not saying I support this tactic. But it doesn't shock me that all politicians do exactly this. No matter what party they are in.

[Stingray2004]

Watching the concept plans evolve, my initial biggest concern was that the SFPR/Hwy 99 interchange was to be constructed as a parclo A-4, which would have resulted in signalized intersections on the SFPR at both ends of the interchange. Thankfully that concept has been kiboshed in favour of a free-flow interchange.

Considering that we are talking about a 40 km route, having 4/5 signalized intersections is not that bad considering the grander scheme of things. The project will still entail several interchanges, numerous over/underpasses, two viaducts, and a split grade alignment among other structures.

Just wish that they would have ponied up the cash for full free-flow from the outset. For me, utilizing the SFPR to connect with Hwy 1, south of the Fraser, will still be much quicker than utilizing 16th Ave. or Hwy 10.

[go_leafs_go02]

If you signalize it, i just wish wish wish that in advance of signals, trucks are forbidden from driving in the left thru lane. That's honestly the worst congestion for cars, loaded trucks crawling because they can't speed up more.

Still think it's pathetic. Can't they see that a signal now is going to end up being just as retarded as 72 Avenue @ Highway 91? Really.....

[Pennywise604]

This just isn't funny anymore. Comon Delta! What were you thinking when you allowed this to happen. Take the 72nd @ Hwy 91 mess, (that I have to deal with at least 4 days a week) and do it to a brand new highway, where you actually have the chance not to f*** it up this time... :sly: Do they not know just how many trucks use River Rd. every single day? On bad days, it will literally be backed up from 90th Av. until 72nd st in Tilbury. That's a 9 km. long backup, because of just how many trucks use it. The hill has something to do with it, but if there wasn't the hill, even more trucks/cars would use it. So think about just how busy the Nordel/SFPR intersection will be. The fact that it will be considered a highway and not a residential road will mean many more cars will use it. Myself as well will use it on a regular basis. The reason people don't like to use it now is because it's single lane with no room to pass anywhere, and trucks take forever to get up the hill, so it's not worth it. So once the SFPR is completed, many drivers will use it than how many use it now. SO WHY WOULD YOU PUT A STUPID LIGHT IN A STUPID PLACE! :sly: I would bet a lot of money on saying that the light at Nordel/SFPR will actually be worse than 72nd @ Hwy 91, take longer to get through, and a much longer back up. Tilbury is bad enough and will jam up, but a lot of cars use Nordel, and once the Hwy's done many more will. I would also bet they will have to fix it within a month, and realized they f***ed up.

I know why the Island Hwy Bypass was built. It may seem pointless but trucks need to get from Nanaimo to Courtney/Comox/Campbell River fast and efficiently. It may be an empty Hwy but it is an absolute necessity and vital to North Island. The same can be said about why I-5 is 3 lanes each way between Mt. Vernon to Everett. Also from Southcentre to Tacoma where it's anywhere from 5-8 lanes wide the whole way. It may not always need that many lanes, but keeping traffic moving at 70 mph, is a huge priority, on major truck routes. Too bad Vancouver never adopted this, and is playing catch-up, but is still trying to cut corners...

[xd_1771]

This just isn't funny anymore. Comon Delta! What were you thinking when you allowed this to happen. Take the 72nd @ Hwy 91 mess, (that I have to deal with at least 4 days a week) and do it to a brand new highway, where you actually have the chance not to f*** it up this time... :sly: Do they not know just how many trucks use River Rd. every single day? On bad days, it will literally be backed up from 90th Av. until 72nd st in Tilbury. That's a 9 km. long backup, because of just how many trucks use it. The hill has something to do with it, but if there wasn't the hill, even more trucks/cars would use it. So think about just how busy the Nordel/SFPR intersection will be. The fact that it will be considered a highway and not a residential road will mean many more cars will use it. Myself as well will use it on a regular basis. The reason people don't like to use it now is because it's single lane with no room to pass anywhere, and trucks take forever to get up the hill, so it's not worth it. So once the SFPR is completed, many drivers will use it than how many use it now. SO WHY WOULD YOU PUT A STUPID LIGHT IN A STUPID PLACE! :sly: I would bet a lot of money on saying that the light at Nordel/SFPR will actually be worse than 72nd @ Hwy 91, take longer to get through, and a much longer back up. Tilbury is bad enough and will jam up, but a lot of cars use Nordel, and once the Hwy's done many more will. I would also bet they will have to fix it within a month, and realized they f***ed up.

Guess what
IT HAS ONLY SINGLE LEFT TURN LANES TOO.
Nothing else for me to say there, except that the idiot intersection also lacks right turn lanes. 104 Avenue in Guildford, anyone?

If the backups extend on Nordel Way to the 91 interchange and onto 91 though, there goes my primary route from Richmond to Surrey...

If anyone noticed the Highway 7 rapid bus lane became part of the Gateway Program on the website.

[Metro-One]

:previous: Actually you guys Delta is upset that the promised interchanges are being downgraded. It is the Provincial Government at fault on this one, not Delta. From the comments I heard and read this past week Delta was hoping for a complete free-flow highway and is angry to hear these recent announcements.

[whatnext]

I see the usual ragtag band of kooks was out protesting the SFPR yesterday.
http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1292661

[Stingray2004]

I see the usual ragtag band of kooks was out protesting the SFPR yesterday.

Yeah, this Bohemian crowd should stick to smoking ganja and playing bongo drums on the Drive in Vancouver instead treading on suburban turf. The SFPR is a done deal, has been for several years. :tup:

The City of Vancouver centric, anti-SFPR Bohemian crowd included:

1. The Council of Canadians;
2. The Wilder Snail (Grocery and Café) 799 Keefer St, Strathcona (Vancouver);
3. People’s Co-op Books 1391 Commercial Dr. Vancouver, BC
4. Check Your Head;
5. East Vancouver Abolitionists;
6. East Vancouver Grandview Woodland Area Council;
7. Greenpeace;
8. No Tanks;
9. Pedal Revolutionary Radio;
10. Root Force;
11. Solidarity Notes Labour Choir;
12. Streams of Justice;
13. Unitarian Church of Vancouver Environment Committee;
14. Vancouver Action;
15. Village Vancouver;

http://gatewaysucks.org/

[whatnext]

:previous: I support #8. I'm dead against allowing tanks on the SFPR as well. They'll just slow down traffic. :haha:

[Metro-One]

I always find reading these articles funny. The funniest thing is, akin to the groups that are against skytrain, they come off as uneducated by their lack of terminology.

In this article they refer to the SFPR as a "freeway," and a freeway it is not, especially with the recent downgrades. Even before the downgrades there were 2 at grade intersections, therefore not making it a freeway.

If they are going to protest something, at least refer to it in the proper context. I guess the term "freeway" just has more zing to it.

[cabotp]

:previous: I support #8. I'm dead against allowing tanks on the SFPR as well. They'll just slow down traffic. :haha:

Ya but if you're in the tank you wouldn't have to stop for anyone or anything. :haha:

Plus with all the arterially you can shoot off anyone who pisses you off.

[Pennywise604]

I heard that there was Ancient Native Remains of what experts believe to be well, very old down, underneath the AFB. People were protesting that as well. The news reported it was before Egyptian Times, so if that's the truth, they made it sound like the SFPR will demolish it... If this is actually the case, than it's the first time I have to support the Protesters, EVER! :koko: Everything else they are arguing is a waste of time since the Government just doesn't care. But if those remains are really that old, that is pretty amazing and should be preserved. <=== This was on Global I believe 4-5 days ago.

I didn't read that right about Delta/Gov't deciding on who downgraded them. Makes sense too, since Delta has so many traffic problems. I'd expect it to back up onto the Hwy 91, and back up into Tilbury also. Once they realize their f*** up and fix it with a full interchange, Hwy 91 @ 72nd might actually see less traffic. :D I will hope only a slight bit. It could back up to 64th during the rush hours maybe 6 times a week instead of the 10 that happens now!

[whatnext]

Ya but if you're in the tank you wouldn't have to stop for anyone or anything. :haha:

Plus with all the arterially you can shoot off anyone who pisses you off.

Hmm, that does sound tempting, doesn't it?

What exactly are the East Vancouver Abolitionists. Are they trying to abolish East Vancouver? What would happen to it? Would the West Side just end at Boundary?

[SpongeG]

Hmm, that does sound tempting, doesn't it?

What exactly are the East Vancouver Abolitionists. Are they trying to abolish East Vancouver? What would happen to it? Would the West Side just end at Boundary?

they want a more tolerant society

they aare also part of the animal rights movement thing that wants to make society vegan and get rid of meat etc. from society

[Metro-One]

:previous: So they want a more tolerant society but wish to control people's individual choices in what to eat? (sounds pretty totalitarian to me)

I love hypocrites!

[jhausner]

I'd like to commute to work in a tank. :-( Would make getting through the tunnel easier I'd imagine.

[BCPhil]

:previous: I think you misread my quote, i agree that then new Island Highway needed to be built, I just don't think it needed the few interchanges it has north of Nanaimo. Now that they are there I have no problem with them (why would someone?) but I just believe that the Island Project should have been a project that made the Island Highway a full freeway from Greater Victoria to Greater Nanaimo (and through Nanaiomo) and then north of Nanaimo built in its current form as we see it today, but just with no interchanges in order to save funds needed for the southern sections.

And yes I know why there are 2 lane sections, I have driven the Island Highway many times, and I know the dangerous terrain there, but that is the point! Often the most dangerous sections of highways have the worst terrain and are the most expensive sections to build but they are often the sections that should be upgraded first! But here in BC we like to pick the low fruit first before tackling the larger problems.

I don't know what you are talking about. Between Nanaimo and the Cumberland/Courtney-Comox turn off, there are 4 interchanges. If you take the whole Inland Highway project, from Duke Point interchange to Campbell River, that's 160Km with 7 interchanges (Duke Point, Nanaimo Pkw, Parksville, Coombs, Pacific Rim Hwy, Denman Ferry, and Cumberland/Courtney). It's not that impressive as there about 4 or 5 times that many intersections. And the Parksville exit was an (substandard) interchanges before the Highway project anyway.

The intersections on the old highway around Parksville used to be a nightmare even in the 80's. With far more tourist travel in the area now, those interchanges are needed. And Nanaimo is like the Mid-Island hub. It's where you shop if you live anywhere from Campbell River to Ladysmith (or at least it was when the Highway was built). There is far more traffic between Nanaimo and the North Island than to the South. Weekend traffic in and out of North Nanaimo is crazy. The exodus of shoppers from the Woodgrove area on a Saturday evening is like peak weekday traffic in Vancouver.

The interchanges around Parksville are required because that's the area where traffic from the different cities (Courtney, Port Alberni, Parksville, Qualicum) all converge on their trek to Nanaimo.

You throw in traffic going between Port Alberni, Parksville, Qualicum and Coombs on a summer weekend, and without those interchanges traffic would crawl through the area. You have no idea how bad it used to be around the old Parksville bypass-Coombs junction. The Pacific Rim Highway interchange is busier than people would think, between 1/3 and half the traffic on the Inland Island Highway exits there. Highway 4 is the busiest access/cross road between the Nanaimo Parkway and the Courtney turnoff. If it were made an intersection it would be akin to the Light at 72nd on hwy 91.

Highway 4 is the only link for some 30,000 in the Alberni Region to the rest of the world. All traffic from Alberni and Qualicum goes through that interchange. In fact, the interchange as built is a bit substandard for the volume of traffic as there is still a light on highway 4 that stops most of the traffic exiting the freeway.

[Stingray2004]

I heard that there was Ancient Native Remains of what experts believe to be well, very old down, underneath the AFB. People were protesting that as well. The news reported it was before Egyptian Times, so if that's the truth, they made it sound like the SFPR will demolish it... If this is actually the case, than it's the first time I have to support the Protesters, EVER!

You're referring to the St. Mungo and Glenrose Cannery archeological sites near the AFB that apparently date back perhaps 5,000 years. Archeological digs have occurred in those locales since at least the early 1970's. Remember that these archeological deposits extend 10 - 20 feet below ground level.

In order to avoid or mitigate potential impacts, an Archaeological Mitigation / Monitoring Plan will be developed and implemented by MoT. It may not be as bad as it is made out to be according to this seemingly knowledgeable archeologist who posted in the following link as follows:

I have to be careful not to cross the line of confidentiality agreements, but ... the critical part or the current [SFPR] development is the phrase “immediately adjacent to, or on, the southern limit of intact archaeological deposits“.

I was first concerned that the highway was going to go over the wet site (which it isn’t). I just read over my 1990 report on the wet site (preparing an abstract for an upcoming publication)

Much of the wet site is now capped by geotextile and rip-rap boulders in an effort to protect it from boat wash and pothunters.

The government-funded study that we did included geological study (by Dr. John Harper of clam garden fame) and engineering study, and was followed up by a study of the less-significant but contemporaneous St Mungo wet site.

http://qmackie.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/glenrose-location-matson-coupland.jpg?w=466&h=480

https://qmackie.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/glenrose-cannery-under-threat/

[Metro-One]

Well the renders are now out displaying the eastern end of the SFPR, and hold your breath............it is a crap fest!

http://www.pmh1project.com/inforoom/documents/20101021FHE-CombinedDisplayBoards-FINAL.pdf

That should link you to the displays.

About the only good aspect of that entire render is the Barnston Drive Overpass.

As expected the SFPR is not free flow with its connection to the #1, and its connection with the Golden Ears connector has been downgraded from an interchange to a signalized intersection.

In fact the 104th intersection is bizarre, it is still being built with really tight on and off "ramps" with no merge lanes it appears, but the two roads meet at grade just for SFPR eastbound to turn left onto GEW. This entire design reminds me of a even worse rendering of our old Cape Horn (which is finally getting replaced).

The entire meeting of these 3 roads looks terrible, and will likely have to be redone in the near future.

And the new segment of the GEW is being built with 3 more at grade intersections (including the one with the SFPR)

lackluster!
:koko:

[Stingray2004]

http://www.pmh1project.com/inforoom/documents/20101021FHE-CombinedDisplayBoards-FINAL.pdf


1. Hwy 1/SFPR interchange - Parclo A4: Nothing changed from original plan;

2. Barnston Drive overpass: original plan was RIRO with left-hand turns - so an improvement;

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p196/d22426/1160690125223_8472cae2a0154601bf12ab205e7b4d0f.pdf

3. SFPR/104th intersection: downgraded;

4. GEW - original plan was mostly 2-lane - so an improvement;

Again, 4/5 intersections along the entire length of 40 km is good enough for now. (even though I'd prefer all of the bells and whistles from the outset). I still suspect higher traffic volumes along the SFPR will be from the Pattullo Bridge westward.

[Metro-One]

The SFPR/104th intersection is not only downgraded, it is horrible.

And trust me, the original design was bad enough, I cant believe you are content with this turd setup. This is where the SFPR meets the #1 (not to mention GEW as well), this is possibly its primary source of vehicle traffic, if any part of this project should be built with a proper full interchange (alongside where the SFPR meets the 99) it is here! In fact, if built properly (and for the long term) all three routes (The SFPR, GEW and #1) should be meeting at a single interchange. Look at how many signal controlled traffic lights exist in this one junction (considering all three routes).

I don't know, just if you are going to build something, build it right the first time, and then make it truly for commercial traffic by charging all non commercial and transit vehicles a toll to use it to recuperate the cost for the interchanges.

I can see many pinch points being generated at this "junction" in the future. All we have to look at is the 91 A for an example of the "lets build what we can now and finish the interchanges later" *cough* 72nd *cough*

[go_leafs_go02]

The SFPR/104th intersection is not only downgraded, it is horrible.

And trust me, the original design was bad enough, I cant believe you are content with this turd setup. This is where the SFPR meets the #1 (not to mention GEW as well), this is possibly its primary source of vehicle traffic, if any part of this project should be built with a proper full interchange (alongside where the SFPR meets the 99) it is here! In fact, if built properly (and for the long term) all three routes (The SFPR, GEW and #1) should be meeting at a single interchange. Look at how many signal controlled traffic lights exist in this one junction (considering all three routes).

I don't know, just if you are going to build something, build it right the first time, and then make it truly for commercial traffic by charging all non commercial and transit vehicles a toll to use it to recuperate the cost for the interchanges.

I can see many pinch points being generated at this "junction" in the future. All we have to look at is the 91 A for an example of the "lets build what we can now and finish the interchanges later" *cough* 72nd *cough*

It's really not much different than how they built the south end of the Golden Ears Bridge with crappy connections to just arterial roads with countless signals, low speed limits (50-60 km/h).

Just the same here. It's going to be a gong-show from day one, but this is Vancouver. Any traffic is bad bad bad anyways, so might as well make it suck for them so you can save costs.

104 Avenue is a perfect example. Oh let's go and build a loop ramp so heavy trucks have to go through the same bloody intersection twice. So two times they slow down, have to stop, speed up, turn, and repeat process. That's moronic.

Who really makes these decisions.. Really. It's mind-boggling to be honest.

[Metro-One]

:previous: Actually I find the GEW far more adequate in design for its specified role in our metro region, it is a short local connector with a 6 lane cross section through its most important portion and uses large expanses of elevated structures, not to mention its price tag was already 800 million spanning a far shorter distance, roughly 1 quarter the distance of the SFPR. There actually was no true need to directly connect the GEW to the #1 since the GEB/W was designed to connect the communities of Surrey, Langley, Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge. The SFPR is suppose to be seen as a major artery connecting the two disjointed areas of our freeway network (not to mention the SFPR primary purpose is to direct freight traffic to the largest port in Canada).

I have never understood what you guys expected from the GEB, it far surpassed any idea I had of what was going to be built, over 5 km of elevated structures (including fly overs and ramps), 1 full interchange at its north base, and 2 more half interchanges (where the bridge meets 200th and the ramps near staples in Maple Ridge) plus two more free flow ramps at Lougheed. The only thing I would have added to its design is a fly over at the Lougheed intersection (GEW NB to Lougheed WB). I would have kept lougheed EB to GEW NB a signalized intersection because north of the Lougheed the GEW turns into a 2 lane rural road that does not need to be free flow.

In the future, if MoT were designing the new portion of the GEW it is designing/building with the SFPR properly, along with a proper interchange between the three arteries where they meet (SFPR, GEW, #1) all that would be need to make the entire GEW free flow from a #1 of SFPR off ramp to the Lougheed would be to convert the 192nd street intersection into a diamond interchange.

As for speeds, I agree they are ridiculous, but that is Metro-Vancouver, the GEW could easily be raised to 80KMH its entire route with no loss to safety. All that involves is switching a few signs. Many parts of the Lougheed in Maple Ridge that use to be 80 are now 50 and 60, an example of another road where speed limits are far too low for its design.

Having the SFPR built as a full freeway form the get go would be ideal, because it would finally connect our freeway network together, and all the fright using it would not have to start and stop (the whole purpose of building it in the first place.

[Zassk]

We now see the truth: SFPR is a "road". It is not the SFPF (South Fraser Perimeter Freeway).

[Stingray2004]

The SFPR is being constructed akin to Stoney Trail (Calgary's Ring Road) and Anthony Henday Drive (Edmonton's Ring Road) with interchanges, overpasses AND signalized intersections, which will be converted as traffic warrants.

In that same vein, Hwy 91 was constructed in a similar fashion with a couple of signalized intersections near the Annacis Channel bridgehead. But the signalized intersection at the junction of Hwy 91/91A was the mother of all downgrades. Now THAT should have been stepped up from the beginning.

Edited to add: Gateway’s executive director Geoff Freer stated the projected amount of traffic on the SFPR does not warrant building the on and off ramps until 2020. So, the traffic lights and intersections are part of the plans.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/105477033.html

[go_leafs_go02]

The SFPR is being constructed akin to Stoney Trail (Calgary's Ring Road) and Anthony Henday Drive (Edmonton's Ring Road) with interchanges, overpasses AND signalized intersections, which will be converted as traffic warrants.

In that same vein, Hwy 91 was constructed in a similar fashion with a couple of signalized intersections near the Annacis Channel bridgehead. But the signalized intersection at the junction of Hwy 91/91A was the mother of all downgrades. Now THAT should have been stepped up from the beginning.

Edited to add:

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/105477033.html


So it's cheaper to build intersections, pay for signals that last 8-10 years, and then rip it all up and re-build in less than a decade? Is that really cost-effective?

Pretty sure this road will be at or near capacity by 2013 - just by how things go around here.

http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/delta/1987/dlh1987_027.jpg

Wow - what a gongshow that must have been.

[DKaz]

That "left turn" loop is just weird. Just weird. Almost as weird as the 19A offramp from 19 on Vancouver Island.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=49.241474,-124.062316&spn=0.003558,0.010021&t=h&z=16

[tybuilding]

That "left turn" loop is just weird. Just weird. Almost as weird as the 19A offramp from 19 on Vancouver Island.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=49.241474,-124.062316&spn=0.003558,0.010021&t=h&z=16

Even with the recent upgrades on Highway 91A (new on ramp) and north side interchange it now backs up to the interchange with the 91 anyways. Goes to show how useless sometimes major road expansions can seem as the roads quickly fill up to capacity anyways. Now major expansion of transit on the other hand seems much more effective.

[bulliver]

The SFPR is being constructed akin to Stoney Trail (Calgary's Ring Road) and Anthony Henday Drive (Edmonton's Ring Road) with interchanges, overpasses AND signalized intersections, which will be converted as traffic warrants.

Speaking for Henday, the signals are a leftover from the previous phases' construction, and not surprisingly, they led to ridiculous congestion. Interchanges are currently under construction to remove all remaining signalized intersections, and the NW phase currently under construction will open complete free-flow.

Edmonton learned its lesson...

[Stingray2004]

At least they got the SFPR/99 interchange designed right. The initial Parco A4 design was a non-starter for that locale:

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p196/d22426/1160689598388_8472cae2a0154601bf12ab205e7b4d0f.pdf

And then they later came up with a very functional/superb design:

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/SFPR/docs/proposed_alignment/dwgs/sfpr-rfp-issue-s40.pdf

As for future interchange conversion, I suspect they will follow in this order:

1. Sunbury;
2. 104th Ave;
3. Tilbury
4/5. 130/136th St.;

[xd_1771]

Well the renders are now out displaying the eastern end of the SFPR, and hold your breath............it is a crap fest!

http://www.pmh1project.com/inforoom/documents/20101021FHE-CombinedDisplayBoards-FINAL.pdf

That should link you to the displays.

About the only good aspect of that entire render is the Barnston Drive Overpass.

As expected the SFPR is not free flow with its connection to the #1, and its connection with the Golden Ears connector has been downgraded from an interchange to a signalized intersection.

In fact the 104th intersection is bizarre, it is still being built with really tight on and off "ramps" with no merge lanes it appears, but the two roads meet at grade just for SFPR eastbound to turn left onto GEW. This entire design reminds me of a even worse rendering of our old Cape Horn (which is finally getting replaced).

The entire meeting of these 3 roads looks terrible, and will likely have to be redone in the near future.

And the new segment of the GEW is being built with 3 more at grade intersections (including the one with the SFPR)

lackluster!
:koko:

Jughandle ramps!? Seriously now?
The "no merge lanes" thing means it is probably going to be accompanied by a yield sign (moreso like a yield lane). The lack of proper right turn lanes (i.e. Golden Ears connector to SFPR northbound, you could easily see cars lining up and completely blocking out the yield lane) also disturbs me. Trucks really shouldn't be using that loop ramp anyway though, they can just continue straight on the existing Golden Ears Way and meet Route 15/1 from there.

If they downgrade Tannery Road though I will rage, for that will mean no interchanges at all on SFPR. 2020 is much sooner than I thought though.

Also, if I'm looking at that drawing right they've removed one of the promised 4 lanes at the 104th interchange. I expect no less than severe traffic problems at that interchange since you basically have your current configuration of 2 lanes + 1 HOV lane instead of a continuous 3 + 1 to the Port Mann Bridge. I have been only and thoroughly disappointed with this project.

So anyways, who wants to go with me and mob the MOT headquarters building and kill it with fire :D

[BCPhil]

The thing with 104th is that while it should be an interchange, based on the amount of traffic that will be merging there to go on the SFPR, I think the GE-connector to 176th south using that loop is going to be mostly unused. Most traffic from the bridge bound for the border will continue down GEW and take the left turn at the intersection at 176/96/GWE. Same with traffic coming from the border heading to the bridge, they'll just use GEW, not this connector.

While I don't mind if traffic on the GEC and 104th hits a few intersections, it should have been free flow from 176 onto the SFPR. It would be great if the whole thing was a freeway, as it would connect the Tsawwassen Ferries and the Airport to the rest of the provincial population via freeway (not just make things easy for the port and trucks), but I can see the politics behind it. Freeway expansion in this province is looked upon in such a bad way that building a brand new freeway would have been suicide in the last election. Freeways plus the HST, and we might have had the first premier with a negative aproval rating (people from other provinces would move here just to vote against him in the next election).

However I will give them some credit: It looks like the lanes on the 176 st overpass of Hwy 1 are arranged in such a manner that if you come off the SFPR and are heading to Hwy1 EB or WB, you won't have to stop at any lights at the interchange. Which means that it's freeflow from HWY1 WB onto SFPR and SFPR onto HWY1 EB (which would be the majority of trucks and provincial traffic). Now if 104th weren't an intersection, then you could go quite a long way before you hit a light (that won't even be that busy).

Maybe after they get rid of the light on h91 and 72nd they'll upgrade SFPR, at least from HW1 to 91 into a freeway. It doesn't seem promising (given the light at 72nd), but they did upgrade 91A and Queensborough not too long ago. Maybe traffic patterns will change enough to warrant it become a full freeway sooner than we think, like the East-West connector did.

That "left turn" loop is just weird. Just weird. Almost as weird as the 19A offramp from 19 on Vancouver Island.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=49.241474,-124.062316&spn=0.003558,0.010021&t=h&z=16

That's actually a very efficient intersection. It should be an interchange, and the way it is designed can allow it in the future. But the NDP when they were building it were basically broke, and planned for an overpass there, but couldn't afford it.

But what it does allow is a very fast, high volume transfer of traffic from 19 to 19A. It's far more efficient than a dual left turn, because traffic can move through the intersection at a higher rate of speed, and it allows far more room for traffic making the turn to line up. There is zero risk of through lanes getting blocked by people spilling out of the left turn lanes, like what happens on the highways all over Victoria.

[xd_1771]

The thing with 104th is that while it should be an interchange, based on the amount of traffic that will be merging there to go on the SFPR, I think the GE-connector to 176th south using that loop is going to be mostly unused. Most traffic from the bridge bound for the border will continue down GEW and take the left turn at the intersection at 176/96/GWE. Same with traffic coming from the border heading to the bridge, they'll just use GEW, not this connector.

While I don't mind if traffic on the GEC and 104th hits a few intersections, it should have been free flow from 176 onto the SFPR. It would be great if the whole thing was a freeway, as it would connect the Tsawwassen Ferries and the Airport to the rest of the provincial population via freeway (not just make things easy for the port and trucks), but I can see the politics behind it. Freeway expansion in this province is looked upon in such a bad way that building a brand new freeway would have been suicide in the last election. Freeways plus the HST, and we might have had the first premier with a negative aproval rating (people from other provinces would move here just to vote against him in the next election).

However I will give them some credit: It looks like the lanes on the 176 st overpass of Hwy 1 are arranged in such a manner that if you come off the SFPR and are heading to Hwy1 EB or WB, you won't have to stop at any lights at the interchange. Which means that it's freeflow from HWY1 WB onto SFPR and SFPR onto HWY1 EB (which would be the majority of trucks and provincial traffic). Now if 104th weren't an intersection, then you could go quite a long way before you hit a light (that won't even be that busy).

Maybe after they get rid of the light on h91 and 72nd they'll upgrade SFPR, at least from HW1 to 91 into a freeway. It doesn't seem promising (given the light at 72nd), but they did upgrade 91A and Queensborough not too long ago. Maybe traffic patterns will change enough to warrant it become a full freeway sooner than we think, like the East-West connector did.

That's actually a very efficient intersection. It should be an interchange, and the way it is designed can allow it in the future. But the NDP when they were building it were basically broke, and planned for an overpass there, but couldn't afford it.

But what it does allow is a very fast, high volume transfer of traffic from 19 to 19A. It's far more efficient than a dual left turn, because traffic can move through the intersection at a higher rate of speed, and it allows far more room for traffic making the turn to line up. There is zero risk of through lanes getting blocked by people spilling out of the left turn lanes, like what happens on the highways all over Victoria.

I'd have to agree with that; the loop ramp would be much better than a left turn considering the angle, and due to the existing Golden Ears Way would be pretty much unused except for some local traffic. I'm pretty sure if they build an interchange they can remove the loop ramp and throw in a left turn with much less turning radius. The movement from SB SFPR to EB GE Connector (and vice-versa) could get possibly busy (they already have a dual left turn and an acceleration lane rather than a yield sign in the other direction), I guess it's also a bit of a toss up between a partial interchange with north-south ramps and an intersection; with the partial interchange it could cost less but you'd be removing a major link between Fraser Heights and everything to the east. I guess the situation right now is indeed similar to when the NDP's built the 19 > 19A ramp; the Liberals are basically in the reds in terms of budget right now, which is translating into cuts that are affecting education among other things. I guess building the interchanges later would indeed benefit the short term, but if it turns into a Nanaimo Bypass or 72nd Street where the interchanges are NEVER built at all then I will be furious.

[dharper]

Where does everyone find these drawings and plans that are being discussed on here? On the Gateway, SFPR website, all I find is concept drawings from Feb 09.

A link would be appreciated. Thanks.

[xd_1771]

Where does everyone find these drawings and plans that are being discussed on here? On the Gateway, SFPR website, all I find is concept drawings from Feb 09.

A link would be appreciated. Thanks.

The drawings are the display boards found at presentations, also available as PDF's online. The SFPR drawings get updated in time though they say Feb. 09.

[Mininari]

Agreed that the left-turn loop is a bit strange, but it may not be as bad as it looks. It looks like they're trying to avoid having left-turn cycles at the light there, which would make the intersection more efficient. I can see traffic volumes turning left onto Golden Ears Way (i.e. onto 96th) being the lesser versus the GEW traffic from the GEB bridge, or the Hwy1 traffic that is wanting to access the SFPR. GEB traffic makes a right onto the SFPR.

I'm willing to accept this (albeit strange) design, but I cannot, and will not accept anything less than a full interchange at Sunbury. Nordel - 91 - SFPR connected by a freaking intersection? I was only joking earlier about the 91 - 99 section being 2-lanes on opening, but now I'm starting to think I'd rather see that than the traffic nightmare awaiting us for this Sunbury debacle. At least the single line of trucks will be moving, rather than idling at a brand new intersection from hell.

I'm really irked about this notion of "helping move goods," yet we're just throwing up more traffic lights to slow them down.

At least we're getting a contiguous route... not sure I'd be willing to label it continuous just yet!

[DKaz]

Just a reminder to everyone to keep Gateway non Highway 1 and Port Mann Bridge related discussion here.

I have no idea why the Highway 7 bus lanes are built, yes the 701 and 791 are busy buses but most of the transit commuters use West Coast Express. Should make them HOV lanes.

[xd_1771]

Just a reminder to everyone to keep Gateway non Highway 1 and Port Mann Bridge related discussion here.

I have no idea why the Highway 7 bus lanes are built, yes the 701 and 791 are busy buses but most of the transit commuters use West Coast Express. Should make them HOV lanes.

HOV lanes would really help, but what we really need are interchanges. Highway 7 is (aside from the [tolled] Golden Ears) the only way in and out of the Pitt/Maple area to the rest of Vancouver and it's often jam-packed despite having what, 3 lanes in each direction? One interchange at Kennedy Road--just ONE interchange--and a lot of problems would be solved, I swear. I don't even know if it was this bad during the old swing-bridge era; it seems like an issue of "if you build it, they will come". Building more transit would definitely help lessen the traffic volume, but consider the frequency of the WCE: not very often. The buses that traverse Route 7 are often slowed down by the amount of traffic, so expanding bus probably wouldn't do that much. Maybe an alternate route dedicated or more suitable for buses or a low-end LRT line could help get things moving.

[Political_R]

There needs to be a way to expand WCE service. That would be the most beneficial way in reducing traffic.

[DKaz]

HOV lanes would really help, but what we really need are interchanges. Highway 7 is (aside from the [tolled] Golden Ears) the only way in and out of the Pitt/Maple area to the rest of Vancouver and it's often jam-packed despite having what, 3 lanes in each direction? One interchange at Kennedy Road--just ONE interchange--and a lot of problems would be solved, I swear. I don't even know if it was this bad during the old swing-bridge era; it seems like an issue of "if you build it, they will come". Building more transit would definitely help lessen the traffic volume, but consider the frequency of the WCE: not very often. The buses that traverse Route 7 are often slowed down by the amount of traffic, so expanding bus probably wouldn't do that much. Maybe an alternate route dedicated or more suitable for buses or a low-end LRT line could help get things moving.

How often are you on Hwy 7? I used to do the drive daily and I can tell you that Hwy 7 through Pitt Meadows is NOT the main problem... it's getting onto Highway 1 from Mary Hill Bypass which can take 15 to 30 minutes. Getting onto MHB from Hwy 7 used to also be bad but it's ok now. I would eventually like to see an interchange at Harris and Kennedy/Old Dewdney but the two intersections probably add two minutes each to the commute? Hardly anything to complain about.

I used to take the 791 to save money as well, the main holdup would be turning left from Harris Road onto Hwy 7. The 701 goes straight up Harris to Old Dewdney during the peak hours to bypass that left turn.

BTW, there are currently NO buses on Hwy 7 between Harris Road and Golden Ears Way where they're building these bus lanes, and the WCE easily carries more passengers than any bus route in Pitt Meadows. I would say at least 4,000 passengers a day east of Pitt River.

[red-paladin]

Consultation for the extension of United Blvd as part of the NFPR is starting:


http://www.translink.ca/en/Be-Part-o...Extension.aspx



November 18, 2010
5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Justice Institute of British Columbia
715 McBride Boulevard
New Westminster

November 25, 2010
5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Place des Arts
1120 Brunette Avenue
Coquitlam

[DKaz]

It would help to copy the ENTIRE URL and not just the one abbreviated with the ... in the middle. ;)

http://www.translink.ca/en/Be-Part-of-the-Plan/Public-Consultation/Current-Consultations/United-Blvd-Extension.aspx

[SpongeG]

theres some closures on the coquitlam exit ramp from the port mann this week

[Stingray2004]

I'm just blown away by the estimated costs of the United Blvd. extension. Afterall, it's just a nondescript, relatively short 4-lane extension of a local municipal road that I'd never personally have use for.

Four options were presented at the stakeholders meeting, which includes an overpass built overtop the railway tracks, the SkyTrain line and much of the Braid industrial area.

Some of the options would also involve the loss of land in the Braid industrial area, resulting in a loss of industrial taxes for the city, and the possible expropriation of land near Rousseau Street.

The budget for the extension could be as high as $170 million, depending on the option chosen.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/greater_vancouver/newwestminsternewsleader/news/108468504.html

I (hopefully) wonder if they might think about closing the existing Braid/Brunette intersection when they construct the overpass and Rousseau St. extension:

http://nwep.ca/img/UnitedBoulevardExtension.png

http://www.tenthtothefraser.ca/2010/11/14/united-boulevard-extension-open-houses/

[allan_kuan]

I quite dislike that proposal... not the least because it seemingly doesn't produce a direct connection with the rest of the NFPR corridor.

Here's my take:

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/1971/unitedbvldovpex.th.png (http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/1971/unitedbvldovpex.png)

(created by me)

[officedweller]

Man, that diagram makes mine look like sh*t.

Anyways, I've mentioned this one before - it avoids the needs to go over the SkyTrain track
--> create a T-intersection on the elevated portion of Brunette (Shown in red below)
(you just need to go over the railway tracks, which the existing overpass elevation already does).
Or alternatively, reallign the Brunette overpass to directly connect to the United Blvd Extension (Shown in orange below)
This also keeps the traffic away from the residential areas.

If Brunette is going to be downgraded to a local road (no interchange @ TCH) when the Blue Mountain interchange is built,
there won't be congestion at the [non-existent] Brunette ramps (and Brunette could even be through-routed to United Boulevard).

I doubt that Blue Mountain will have an interchange with United Blvd - it will be an interchange with the TCH (Shown in blue below)

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4269/30973970.png (http://img153.imageshack.us/i/30973970.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[red-paladin]

It would help to copy the ENTIRE URL and not just the one abbreviated with the ... in the middle. ;)

http://www.translink.ca/en/Be-Part-of-the-Plan/Public-Consultation/Current-Consultations/United-Blvd-Extension.aspx

That was probably the stupidest thing I've done in a year!
:slob:

[huenthar]

I am really not understanding this part of the project. Could someone explain why Brunette + Lougheed is not good enough (especially with the new Cape Horn making Lougheed<>Mary Hill easy)? Why do we need THREE major east-west routes within 600m of each other? What traffic is meant to go on United instead of Lougheed, and why?

[allan_kuan]

I presume that both BC MoT and TransLink want seperate "corridors" for all three highways... and in most cases they serve generally different purposes:
1. Highway 1, express, from Victoria to St Johns via East Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey, and Langley
2. Highway 7, local, from Vancouver to Hope via Burnaby, Coquitlam, and Port Coquitlam City Centres
3. NFPR, local, from South Vancouver to Hope (through H7) via New Westminister and South Port Coquitlam

In addition, the terrain of this region in general is a huge obstacle to building direct traffic routes around here. There are hills and Fraser River to the south of these three routes in New Westminster... there are more hills at the place where Highway 7 turns to Coquitlam City Centre from Port Mann... to the east there's Burnaby Lake, Still Creek, and Burnaby Mountain to deal with. This is the main reason why the three routes are all squeezed together in the South Coquitlam Industrial Lands. (Reminds me of calculus and the squeeze theorem that we went over recently.) ^^; It's certainly not efficient with all that redundancy, but it's the only "cheap" thing that can be done without needing expensive tunnels or costly terraforming. Besides, maybe redundancy is a good thing too if there was an accident somewhere that stalls one or two of the routes.

[Stingray2004]

The SFPR interchange/intersection debate continues. From the Delta Chamber of Commerce regarding the SFPR:

Interchanges, Not intersections, Needed At Tilbury & Sunbury Access Points To South Fraser Perimeter Road – Now, Not In 10 Years

<snip>

The problem is that the official plan for the SFPR calls for intersections with traffic lights at two key points. One is at the access to the Tilbury industrial park where many of the trucks and containers will be going to the warehouses for large retailers or intermodal centres for further distribution by train and truck. The other is nearby in the Sunbury area.

To keep commercial traffic flowing with no delays interchanges in these locations are needed, not intersections with traffic lights which will bring traffic to a standstill. To avoid a significant financial cost to business and community, and environmental cost from idling vehicles in stop-and-go traffic, interchanges are needed.

For instance, large conventional trucks hauling trailers or shipping containers can be 70 feet long. To accelerate and decelerate, especially when fully loaded, they need 1000 feet of dedicated acceleration and deceleration lanes as part of interchange systems. Intersections cannot accommodate these lanes.

Furthermore, in planning the SFPR, the Gateway Program based decisions on data projecting employment growth of 9.4% between 2003 and 2031 and resulting demand on the highway and road system. Separate traffic analysis by an independent traffic consultant indicates that 9.4% is well below estimates, indicating that demand on the SFPR will be far greater. By stopping traffic with an at grade intersection controlled by a traffic light – at either the Tilbury or Sunbury access point — will lead to SFPR’s becoming another version of Highway 17 with its regular gridlock.

The Gateway Program does project that 10 years from now there will be a need to upgrade from an intersection at each of the Tilbury and Sunbury access points to a proper interchange. Compared to the cost of building interchanges now — while the momentum and efficiencies are available as the SFPR is being constructed – the many millions of dollars cost will be significantly higher in 2020.

<snip>

http://www.deltachamber.ca/2010/11/10/interchanges-not-intersections-needed-at-tilbury-sunbury-access-points-to-south-fraser-perimeter-road-%E2%80%93-now-not-in-10-years

Chamber Tells Minister Interchanges Needed

Effectiveness of South Fraser Perimeter Road Will Be Compromised By Pair Of Intersections, Bond Advised

The Delta Optimist November 17, 2010

http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/Chamber+tells+minister+interchanges+needed/3842449/story.html

Pre-loading adjacent to current Hwy 17/ Deltaport Overpass:

http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/3843373.bin?size=620x400

http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/3843373.bin?size=620x400

[officedweller]

I am really not understanding this part of the project. Could someone explain why Brunette + Lougheed is not good enough (especially with the new Cape Horn making Lougheed<>Mary Hill easy)? Why do we need THREE major east-west routes within 600m of each other? What traffic is meant to go on United instead of Lougheed, and why?

United / NFPR is supposed to be the truck route - linking from the warehouses and railyards in Port Coquitlam and Pitt Meadows through the Pacific Reach Business/Industrial Park to the manufacturing areas in Big Bend (Burnaby) and Delta and Annacis Island.

Presumably, when the NFPR was conceived, the TCH at Cape Horn was a nightmare - so the plans provided an alternate so truck traffic would not be forced to use it. The existing / old connections from the industrial areas in Pacific Reach Business/Industrial Park to TCH and to Lougheed require the use of circuitous routes through the Cape Horn interchange and through Brunette interchange. Lougheed is often backed up with traffic and would make a poor truck route with all of the traffic lights.

Conceivably, the new TCH could eliminate the need for upgrading United Blvd. to provide a through route, since Mary Hill will have excellent access to and from the TCH with the new ramps in both directions - but on the west end of the area trucks would still have to enter and exit at Brunette (which has a poor cloverleaf configuration westbound to southbound). The improvements provided by the Gateway Project plus an upgraded Brunette interchange could probably replace the United Blvd segment of the NFPR.

However, Brunette is slated to be downgraded, so trucks headed for points south (Annacis, etc.) would have to use the new Blue Mountain interchange - and guess what? That lies east of the one lane bridge - which recreates the NFPR / United Boulevard problem.

How about building the Blue Mountain interchange, but also building truck-only ramps at Brunette interchange (a flyover from westbound TCH to southbound Brunette) and an exit ramp from northbound Brunette to eastbound TCH (it would have to do a basket weave with the Blue Mountain exit)? Apart from that, make the bridge two-lanes and leave the level crossing at Braid.

[xd_1771]

Man, that diagram makes mine look like sh*t.

Anyways, I've mentioned this one before - it avoids the needs to go over the SkyTrain track
--> create a T-intersection on the elevated portion of Brunette (Shown in red below)
(you just need to go over the railway tracks, which the existing overpass elevation already does).
Or alternatively, reallign the Brunette overpass to directly connect to the United Blvd Extension (Shown in orange below)
This also keeps the traffic away from the residential areas.

If Brunette is going to be downgraded to a local road (no interchange @ TCH) when the Blue Mountain interchange is built,
there won't be congestion at the [non-existent] Brunette ramps (and Brunette could even be through-routed to United Boulevard).

I doubt that Blue Mountain will have an interchange with United Blvd - it will be an interchange with the TCH (Shown in blue below)

[image]

The thing with this is that it would make United Boulevard a part of the NFPR, a fairly unattractive route due to a limited access highway just above; which means you'd have crowded left turn lanes on EB United up to Blue Mountain NB, a fairly unused United that eventually becomes clogged to because the left-turn creates trouble, and way too much movement for cars in that area - not to mention, it'd cost a lot of money to upgrade United and it'd be a waste. I e-mailed a study team about the NFPR concerning this issue lately. I would rather have Highway 1 become a part of the NFPR than United Blvd. Remember that the NFPR is meant to be a truck route like the SFPR.

In all honesty I think that interchange should be a partial one. Once Highway 1 WB > Highway 7 WB access is made easier, the Highway 1 WB > Brunette NB ramp will be just redundant. They should focus more of the ramps into actually leading into the NFPR than to the north; the interchanges to the east Cape Horn) and possibly even to the west at Gaglardi & Government (transit-only) can fill in for those traffic movements.

They are also planning to replace the one lane bridge as part of the NFPR's phase 1.

[officedweller]

United Boulevard IS a part of the NFPR.
"NFPR" is just a number of existing roads that have been or will be upgraded - it's not a limited access corridor (like SFPR may eventually be).

They are: Lougheed Highway to Pitt River Bridge, Mary Hill Bypass, United Boulevard, Brunette, Front St., Stewardson Way and to Queensborough Bridge and to Marine Way.

The Blue Mountain interchange with TCH has been stated to be a part of the NFPR planning process, so it is highly likely that the two will intersect (or do so with ramps (which I think is unnecessary).

My subsequent post indicated that the TCH between Mary Hill Bypass and Brunette could serve as the NFPR on that stretch with proper truck ramps to and from Brunette.

[xd_1771]

I tend to think of NFPR as the connector starting at Front Street's west end and heading east through that area to connect to an upgraded Highway 7B. I wouldn't like the idea of United as part of the main connector. I had a look at allan_kuan's concept and decided to create my own concept. Sorry allan but I really don't think your old-Cape-Horn style trumpet interchange treatment will work that well. This is my take on the interchange @ Highway 1. It's simple, effective, low-cost, has minimal intersections and works well with the Cape Horn interchange.
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/5923/nfprinterchangeplan.th.png (http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/5923/nfprinterchangeplan.png)
One more thing: I'm not sure about the room there but the Brunette/Braid intersection could be converted into a compact SPUI interchange if traffic volumes warrant it.
My plan can be built up in steps; i.e. the grade-separated NFPR connection could be built later (just have the NFPR-bound ramps lead to the Braid Street connector in the meantime), as with the SPUI at Brunette-Braid. Even then, it won't be very costly due to the simplicity of it.

The NFPR on-ramps/off-ramps would tie in perfectly with the extra 5th lane (if you've seen the Cape Horn diagrams) that exits at Cape Horn to become the Mary Hill Bypass. It also ties in with some of the existing planned areas (i.e. the WB Highway 1 on ramp from Brunette tying in with the WB climbing hill that'll be kept part of the highway)

[officedweller]

I wouldn't go that complex.
Your NFPR still has to be elevated high enough to go over the SkyTrain tracks - that would rankle the neighbours.

Here's a Global Air Photo of the guideway:

http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/new_westminster/2009/nwh2009_318.jpg
http://www.globalairphotos.com/large/BC/New_Westminster/Sapperton/2009/318/2


BTW - here' the official map - it's clearly United Blvd.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/photo_pages/NFPR/large/project_extents.jpg
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/photo_pages/NFPR/large/project_extents.jpg

[BCPhil]

I am really not understanding this part of the project. Could someone explain why Brunette + Lougheed is not good enough (especially with the new Cape Horn making Lougheed<>Mary Hill easy)? Why do we need THREE major east-west routes within 600m of each other? What traffic is meant to go on United instead of Lougheed, and why?

Something needs to be done to the route itself, because for long periods of the day, traffic is almost gridlocked between Brunette@Braid and Columbia@Mcbride, and all the way down Front Street. And it's not the fault of Highway 1 (well sometimes it is).

The other day I was in New West then went over to Ikea, the trip down Columbia and Brunette took 40 minutes, middle of the day (not peak).

The upgrades don't need to be a highway, it just needs to move large volumes of traffic without becoming gridlock.

[DKaz]

I wouldn't go that complex.
Your NFPR still has to be elevated high enough to go over the SkyTrain tracks - that would rankle the neighbours.

That's what the dip in the tracks is for, it's always been the intention that the new United Blvd/NFPR goes over the Skytrain and rail tracks.

xd_1771, you need to connect United Blvd to the NFPR and from what I hear it has to be freeflow. The original intent was for United Blvd to become the NFPR. Also, once the Blue Mountain overpass is done, I assume that Brunette interchange will no longer be used... so you need something for Coquitlam north to/from Hwy 1 east, unless you intend for them to use the NFPR ramp?

[officedweller]

I know that's what the dip was intended for.
Presumably they favoured that option to move the junction far from the Brunette interchange (where congestion already occurs).
But if the Brunette interchange is going to disappear, then I think that the plans should be flexible enough to change so as to avoid what would be a major point of opposition from the perspective of local residents.
Also, remember that the lands around Braid Station are proposed fro transit-oriented development so if the overpass can be avoided, then I think they should change those original plans.

[xd_1771]

That's what the dip in the tracks is for, it's always been the intention that the new United Blvd/NFPR goes over the Skytrain and rail tracks.

xd_1771, you need to connect United Blvd to the NFPR and from what I hear it has to be freeflow. The original intent was for United Blvd to become the NFPR. Also, once the Blue Mountain overpass is done, I assume that Brunette interchange will no longer be used... so you need something for Coquitlam north to/from Hwy 1 east, unless you intend for them to use the NFPR ramp?

I would agree with connecting United directly to NFPR but to make United a part of NFPR and potentially sacrifice a direct Highway 1 connection to do so would be madness. United does not need to be the main truck byway except for trucks actually accessing the businesses there, and it will likely not be anyway because more trucks would just connect over to Highway 1 to the north. Without direct, limited-access connections to Highway 1 you'd have trucks going over slow ramps and intersections and it would basically become another gridlock. Even then for the people who continue and use United, there's property access, intersections with traffic lights, a low speed limit and lack of right turn lanes. Not a very attractive place to funnel most/all NFPR traffic to. To create United into a loop route would make United Blvd. very efficient, create a viable alternative to Highway 7 and do so in a way so that traffic does not use it, though that's an optional part of my plan; the centrepiece is the limited-access connection to Route 1 to the east and the ramps to Route 1 west + Braid intersection/connector.

My plan isn't even that complex, it's certainly by no means as big of a scale as Cape Horn. The ramps I laid out also make use of an area near the original Brunette interchange, so it wouldn't affect transit operations that much and still provide well-maintained access by commuters to the Braid transit junction.

[SpongeG]

whats being sacrificed?

[Metro-One]

I know that's what the dip was intended for.
Presumably they favoured that option to move the junction far from the Brunette interchange (where congestion already occurs).
But if the Brunette interchange is going to disappear, then I think that the plans should be flexible enough to change so as to avoid what would be a major point of opposition from the perspective of local residents.
Also, remember that the lands around Braid Station are proposed fro transit-oriented development so if the overpass can be avoided, then I think they should change those original plans.

There are residents around the Cape Horn interchange as well. I am sure the people who live near that area are aware that they moved into a major transportation hub (heavy rail, skytrain, #1 and Brunette), not to mention the industry in the area, so what is the surprise that these aspects would grow as the metro grows? Does this area really need to be residential anyways? Again, to me it seems the area around Braid is far better suited for industry than residential expansion, especially since residential growth is going to be concentrated around Sapperton now, which is more than far enough away from such proposed structures.

Again, I am currently in Japan (Kobe area) and there are countless elevated train guidew-ways, elevated highways, and many, many random overpasses, underpasses, pedestrian bridges, etc... all built only meters away from residential houses and condos. Japan has true mixed use where lower income people can also buy a home (often near such structures) instead of Metro-Vancouver's luxury mixed use approach where everything is built to resort standards (and so are the relative prices!).

[officedweller]

I think that Brunette will be the dividing line betwen the industrial on the riverfront and the residential further inland.

*****

I think that my view also alligns with xd-1771's in recognizing that United Blvd is not a "highway" route and that there is a "highway" alternative (for through traffic) readily available from Mary Hill via the TCH to Brunette.

So my question would be - do you need a very large overhead structure to carry traffic from one arterial road to another arterial road (each of which has traffic lights and driveways)?

[Zassk]

The overhead structure in question will reduce the amount of traffic that must cross Hwy 1 (twice) for local travel. That is a very desirable result. Also, each lane of traffic on United/NFPR is less traffic using Lougheed for these local movements. Again, very desirable.

[finalcoolman]

FYI. Removal of the old Pitt River bridges will finally be completed as of Monday November 22nd. It only took a year :S

[BCPhil]

I think that Brunette will be the dividing line betwen the industrial on the riverfront and the residential further inland.

*****

I think that my view also alligns with xd-1771's in recognizing that United Blvd is not a "highway" route and that there is a "highway" alternative (for through traffic) readily available from Mary Hill via the TCH to Brunette.

So my question would be - do you need a very large overhead structure to carry traffic from one arterial road to another arterial road (each of which has traffic lights and driveways)?

Because of trains.

The last time I was on United/Braid, I was about 4 cars back from the light (whose cycle seems to take about 12 minutes coming from that direction) when a train went through. The train itself took almost 25 minutes to pass, all told I spent 45 minutes on Braid/United. The intersection at Braid and Brunette is horrible. Add in the train movements and the single lane bridge and to get from New West to the Fraser Mills area you need to cross on the Brunette overpass.

That's just focusing traffic from 3 cities onto one overpass and interchange. The overpass not only handles exit/on ramp traffic from TCH, it's also the only way from South of the CPR to North (and North road, because of the plaza, is horrible too). There is also a lot of regional truck traffic originating/terminating in the river front area in Coquitlam. United is not just used by trucks passing through, there is A LOT going on in that area. Like the Sony distribution center and Coca-cola bottling plant distribute products to stores all over the lower mainland, not just focusing on getting out of town via TCH.

Building a new major road through to United takes care of much more than truck movements. It's a whole new travel option for locals and people shopping. The east end of United has great connections to Marry Hill and Hwy 7, and is going to be well connected at King Edward with the new overpass, and will probably connect through to Blue Mountain in the future. And keeping traffic from entering the TCH for 1 exit and keep it on a local artery will help maintain flow on the TCH on the lead up to the bridge, currently the slowest section (and it will be again in the future). Coquitlam is also planning on expanding residential areas into the area around King Edward, and having more travel options would help.

Think of this overpass as a beefier Quayside drive in New West, trying to make reliable roads that are actually useful to people in the area. It's not an expressway; it's going to be a very useful road.

I just hope that there is also plans to improve the area around Brunette and Columbia in the first phase.

[Stingray2004]

Here are the various options/design concepts for the United Boulevard Extension:

Option A:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs948.snc4/74161_161031127271865_143459552362356_288435_5476160_n.jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs578.ash2/150078_161031133938531_143459552362356_288436_6305366_n.jpg

Option B:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs1126.snc4/148811_161031150605196_143459552362356_288437_4818832_n.jpg

Option C:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs1129.snc4/149180_161031163938528_143459552362356_288438_441142_n.jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs588.ash2/151094_161031203938524_143459552362356_288440_6191687_n.jpg

Option D:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs945.snc4/73893_161031210605190_143459552362356_288441_3466498_n.jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs1122.snc4/148415_161031230605188_143459552362356_288442_3655723_n.jpg

Source: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=30815&id=143459552362356

[xd_1771]

I nearly puked at these options
WHY ARE THEY ALL LOW CAPACITY!?
Can't we have a two lane ramp to the connector without any loops!? or intersections!?

Option C I definitely do not approve of, they're going to ruin the lazertag place if they choose that option :(

[officedweller]

Thanks for posting.

Not keen on Option A - looks obtrusive, esp. at that cost.

Option B is still full movement - looks a lot like Kensington / Lougheed.

Option C - not keen because it uses Braid St. for half the movements.

Option D eliminates an off ramp (compared to Option B) and replaces it with a left turn ($12 M savings) - may not be a bad compromise if it also eliminates the parallel off-ramp issue (also seen at Kensington).

The parallel ramp issue appears in Options A or B, where cars/trucks heading off the ramp (to northbound Brunette) will weave with cars exiting Brunette to the eastbound TCH which lies a block away (although off-ramp traffic from Pacific Reach may also be accessing eastbound TCH) - the weave issue could be exacerbated because both lines of traffic may stop at a red light at Braid and then have to weave from a standing start.

So of those options, I would favour either Option B or Option D.

Because of trains.


That's why in my suggestion, I had United Blvd link up with the existing Brunette overpass - which is already elevated above the train tracks (but north of the SkyTrain tracks). But based on the options, it looks like they want a full movement interchange.

[Metro-One]

Option B or C for me.

[BCPhil]

Thanks for posting.

Not keen on Option A - looks obtrusive, esp. at that cost.

Option B is still full movement - looks a lot like Kensington / Lougheed.

Option C - not keen because it uses Braid St. for half the movements.

Option D eliminates an off ramp (compared to Option B) and replaces it with a left turn ($12 M savings) - may not be a bad compromise if it also eliminates the parallel off-ramp issue (also seen at Kensington). In this case here, cars/trucks heading off the ramp (to northbound Brunette) will weave with cars exiting Brunette to the eastbound TCH which lies a block away (although off-ramp traffic from Pacific Reach may also be accessing eastbound TCH) - the weave issue could be exacerbated because both lines of traffic may stop at a red light at Braid and then have to weave from a standing start.

So of those options, I would favour either Option B or Option D.



That's why in my suggestion, I had United Blvd link up with the existing Brunette overpass - which is already elevated above the train tracks (but north of the SkyTrain tracks). But based on the options, it looks like they want a full movement interchange.

The problem with connecting to United after the intersection with Braid, is that all traffic still has to flow through 1 intersection. And that's what causes most of the problems currently on Brunette/Columbia.

This is what I like about option C. It reduces congestion around that 1 intersection, and still provides options to access United from all directions (coming off TCH, Braid or Brunette), and provides access to all those as well coming off United.

Option C, to me, seems to handle the United <-> Braid flow of traffic better than the other options. It reduces traffic making turns at Braid. By using Rousseau, you are cutting down on the volume that needs to go through Braid@Brunette, thus speeding up the light, keeping traffic moving.

In Options A and B, if you are coming off United, you have no access to Braid at all. In option D you have to make a left then a left. As well, those are two major intersections just a few hundred meters or so apart. Option D would just be Brunette & Blue Mountain at Lougheed all over again, something I think we should avoid.

The only flow that C doesn't do directly is United -> NB Brunette -> TCH; although you can by taking Rousseau and doing a left at Brunette off Braid, but this will be the smallest amount of traffic.

In B, Traffic coming down Braid wanting access to United, is going to have to make a right turn, contend with traffic coming through the intersection, also wanting on the ramp, and get on the ramp right away. By using Rousseau in C, it can bypass the whole busy intersection, and keep Brunette moving and safe.

Another thing about option C is that it provides amazing access for buses using Braid station. The 177 would no longer have to snake all over the place and can be more convenient for people that work south of the TCH who commute by transit.

Because A and B make getting on to Braid impossible, I think the choice is between C and D. And that choice depends on which is more important access, Braid or the TCH. C is best for traffic to/from Braid, D is best for traffic to/from TCH. Personally, I think C would be best.

However, A doesn't cost the city any homes, so New West will probably push for that, oh well.

[xd_1771]

The problem with connecting to United after the intersection with Braid, is that all traffic still has to flow through 1 intersection. And that's what causes most of the problems currently on Brunette/Columbia.

This is what I like about option C. It reduces congestion around that 1 intersection, and still provides options to access United from all directions (coming off TCH, Braid or Brunette), and provides access to all those as well coming off United.

Option C, to me, seems to handle the United <-> Braid flow of traffic better than the other options. It reduces traffic making turns at Braid. By using Rousseau, you are cutting down on the volume that needs to go through Braid@Brunette, thus speeding up the light, keeping traffic moving.

In Options A and B, if you are coming off United, you have no access to Braid at all. In option D you have to make a left then a left. As well, those are two major intersections just a few hundred meters or so apart. Option D would just be Brunette & Blue Mountain at Lougheed all over again, something I think we should avoid.

The only flow that C doesn't do directly is United -> NB Brunette -> TCH; although you can by taking Rousseau and doing a left at Brunette off Braid, but this will be the smallest amount of traffic.

In B, Traffic coming down Braid wanting access to United, is going to have to make a right turn, contend with traffic coming through the intersection, also wanting on the ramp, and get on the ramp right away. By using Rousseau in C, it can bypass the whole busy intersection, and keep Brunette moving and safe.

Another thing about option C is that it provides amazing access for buses using Braid station. The 177 would no longer have to snake all over the place and can be more convenient for people that work south of the TCH who commute by transit.

Because A and B make getting on to Braid impossible, I think the choice is between C and D. And that choice depends on which is more important access, Braid or the TCH. C is best for traffic to/from Braid, D is best for traffic to/from TCH. Personally, I think C would be best.

However, A doesn't cost the city any homes, so New West will probably push for that, oh well.

But what are they going to do about Planet Lazer at New West (or at least the indoor softball centre, I think Planet Lazer only takes up one half of that building)!? I have fond memories in there, it's an awesome lazertag stage :hell:
The other reason I don't like Option C is because the Rousseau/Braid intersection obviously won't be able to handle the load, what with the lack of proper, unblocked right turn lanes in places (yield lanes don't count, more than one car or one truck going straight and your right turn is instantly ruined) and heavy truck use.

Loop ramps and merges, definitely no. The last time they used this method (specifically, the Queensborough Bridge), it was unsuccessful and traffic became a major problem in such areas. What used to be a much faster route westbound to Richmond (via Pattullo, Royal & Queensborough/91A) is now ruined and I have to take the Alex Fraser via 88th which is much farther and slower.

TCH and Route 7 should be the more important access routes here. A lot of people in Burquitlam take North Road south to Braid, when they could take Lougheed/Blue Mountain (when it is complete) instead which would be much faster. In that section North and Braid both go through residential areas and are not suited for the capacity. Traffic should be redirected more to the major arteries. United should not be a major access route at all.

The problem with these plans is that they're all so low-capacity and they favour bringing traffic to not just these low-capacity routes but other ones as well such as Braid. Single lanes, loop ramps, inadequate merges, etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah.... why don't they just build the United overpass connector (with ADEQUATE connections to the 1), a much cheaper railway overpass over Braid (instead of expropriating and terraforming so much land for the interchange), keep the Braid intersection and keep it simple but high-capacity? You'll end up expropriating less land too. It's all under my plan:
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/5923/nfprinterchangeplan.th.png (http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/5923/nfprinterchangeplan.png)
With a few revisions to my plan you could connect Braid & United nonstop without much issue & complication.

[officedweller]

Whether Option C is a contender may depend on what happens to the lands north of Brunette and whether those stay industrial or not.
If they are to stay industrial for a while then be converted, then Option D may offer more flexibility of movements without sending trucks through a future residential area (i.e. they won;t be able to get futre money to "fix" it in future.)
I tend to think that while Option C allows for many movements, it really de-emphasizes the non-NFPR movements by forcing them through a couple of traffic lights and drivers may find it a hassle to use (and people unfamiliar with it may miss the turnoff at Braid) - but it makes sense for access to Braid Station, and if there aren't a lot of vehciles making non-NFPR movements, it may not be that bad.

[allan_kuan]

A second take in the United Bvld, Blue Mountain, and Brunette St area:

Proposal in 2014:
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/8152/unitedbvldovpex2014.th.png (http://img821.imageshack.us/f/unitedbvldovpex2014.png/)

Proposal in 2030:
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2750/unitedbvldovpex2030.th.png (http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2750/unitedbvldovpex2030.png)

(All created by me with data from Google)

[BCPhil]

But what are they going to do about Planet Lazer at New West (or at least the indoor softball centre, I think Planet Lazer only takes up one half of that building)!? I have fond memories in there, it's an awesome lazertag stage :hell:
The other reason I don't like Option C is because the Rousseau/Braid intersection obviously won't be able to handle the load, what with the lack of proper, unblocked right turn lanes in places (yield lanes don't count, more than one car or one truck going straight and your right turn is instantly ruined) and heavy truck use.


I think you are over estimating the flow of Braid <-> United. It will be important, yes, but not a huge flow of traffic. The turn onto Rousseau is a lot better because it separates 2 different intentions into 2 different intersections. 1. traffic for United makes a turn at Rousseau, 2. Traffic for Brunette makes a turn there. Making 1 turn at Rousseau seems a lot easier to me than 2 turns (at Brunette then onto United overpass).



Loop ramps and merges, definitely no. The last time they used this method (specifically, the Queensborough Bridge), it was unsuccessful and traffic became a major problem in such areas. What used to be a much faster route westbound to Richmond (via Pattullo, Royal & Queensborough/91A) is now ruined and I have to take the Alex Fraser via 88th which is much farther and slower.


Are you kidding me? You obviously have no recollection of what Queensborough used to be like. AT ALL. NONE. ZERO!

It is a million times better now than it used to be, especially for the route you described.

Before, if you were on Stewardson, you HAD to stop at the light at 20th St. You had to stop, at least once (usually much much more) and wait at that light. All traffic, be it for the bridge, or Marine, went through that stupid light. And you had traffic merging off 6th too and another light there. Then you had to deal with drivers coming down off 20th making a crazy move to merge into the lane for the bridge. Now you have to slow down and merge a bit, at a much better, controlled point. And the traffic up to that point moves so much faster because there are 2 less lights and 2 fewer merge points.

It is also a lot faster coming off the bridge. Before, all traffic got off the bridge at the same point for Stewardson AND 20th. It was CRAZY BAD. Left turn traffic onto 20th would back up and Block access to Stewardson (and add in traffic coming off Marine wanting to turn left onto 20th), it was a nightmare. The best part about how it is now, is that you can go from Stewardson to Marine without having to go through a light or deal with bridge traffic. And you can come off the bridge and straight onto Marine without dealing with traffic bound for 20th.



TCH and Route 7 should be the more important access routes here. A lot of people in Burquitlam take North Road south to Braid, when they could take Lougheed/Blue Mountain (when it is complete) instead which would be much faster. In that section North and Braid both go through residential areas and are not suited for the capacity. Traffic should be redirected more to the major arteries. United should not be a major access route at all.

The problem with these plans is that they're all so low-capacity and they favour bringing traffic to not just these low-capacity routes but other ones as well such as Braid. Single lanes, loop ramps, inadequate merges, etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah.... why don't they just build the United overpass connector (with ADEQUATE connections to the 1), a much cheaper railway overpass over Braid (instead of expropriating and terraforming so much land for the interchange), keep the Braid intersection and keep it simple but high-capacity? You'll end up expropriating less land too. It's all under my plan:
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/5923/nfprinterchangeplan.th.png (http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/5923/nfprinterchangeplan.png)
With a few revisions to my plan you could connect Braid & United nonstop without much issue & complication.


If you look at the diagrams for C and D, they both clearly show 2 lanes of traffic coming off United bound for SB Brunette, and I think they show 2 lanes coming off NB Brunette onto EB United. That's adequate. Traffic bound for for the TCH can use a less congested Braid intersection (as it becomes 3 way instead of busy 4 way) and the ramps off Brunette onto the TCH for now. Why force extra traffic onto Highway 7 and TCH, both are past capacity now, and while the improvements will be great, we shouldn't neutralize them by forcing extra traffic onto them. It only takes a couple minutes for traffic to go End to End on United, and the local connection it will create between Coquitlam and New Westminster is huge.

I don't think you are properly grasping the point. It's not a highway like the SFPR. Like you said, those exist. Why spend three times as much on what you proposed, when you can already access Highway 1 from Brunette just fine? Your overpass from Brunette, over United, just bypasses 1 light. You also have Braid continue across the tracks still, which will keep causing problems on Braid and Brunette like it does now.

There already is a direct connection between Brunette and Highway 1, it's called exit 40. The proposed overpasses creates a whole new travel option, REDUCING traffic NEEDING to use Lougheed and Highway 1 for short distances.

[xd_1771]

allan: I'm not confident about the way a SPUI is used for Blue Mountain; that just promotes redundant movements (such as the famed Highway 1 WB > Highway 7 WB via Brunette, which will be replaced effectively by the new Cape Horn ramps), will be much more expensive to construct, and will likely not be able to adequately handle the traffic load there (traffic backing up onto the highway). I did like what you did with Brunette though (the curvy redirect around that area seems quite creative; is this what is actually planned out?). There will be a lot of weaving in a short distance on the three northbound lanes approaching the Highway 1 interchange; you've got left turn lanes and right turn lanes to set up too, remember. That plan is just way too complex and results in too many redundant movements; I feel that it would be much, much more expensive than my suggestion.

BCPhil:
I was talking specifically about the westbound access to the bridge and not about anything else at Queensborough; that direction was pretty much ruined by the loop ramp & merge.You really didn't have to deal with 20th bound traffic coming off the bridge either so long as you stayed in the right lane.

That intersection will be the basis of all other traffic movements towards Brunette that don't follow the NFPR route; they are obviously not up to capacity with the lack of right turn lanes. Remember, trucks are much longer than cars, and with lots of trucks stopping at the intersection, lanes will be blocked and the backups could be severe. There is only one lane coming from United and no right turn lane whatsoever; a single truck in front and you are absolutely stuck. In addition, two intersections is a lot worse than one, especially in such a short distance; considering there will be long trucks stopping there, one or more of the intersections could block up fairly easily.

What appears to be two lanes in that diagram is just the greenway/pathway making it appear to have two lanes. There is only one lane, and after the loop ramp you have to deal with a merge on Brunette which is not a very good idea at all. There is also only one lane on the exit ramp, which will be a big problem because you may be dealing with trucks climbing, very slowly, up that with no room to pass. On a snow day such as today, you'd just want to skip out entirely due to the high risk of a truck slipping while moving up and crushing you into the other car waiting behind you. I find a 3 way vs. 4 way intersection doesn't make too much of a difference except for in a few directions; you're still dealing with a left turn signal for the direction where the ending road is on the left; because absolutely all traffic on the cross road is turning you are dealing with slower moving traffic which can often mean a longer light for them.

Highway 7 and TCH are both past capacity NOW, but I am confident that Highway 1 will provide more than enough capacity in that area for NFPR traffic. There will be 5 lanes (4 + 1 HOV) in that section alone between Brunette & Cape Horn, the outermost a dedicated lane entering/exiting at Brunette (soon Blue Mountain or whatever they put up); the outermost lanes later exit or entrance from Highway 7B and Highway 7, so it is a direct connection without requiring you to change any lanes but giving you the option of doing so. United is definitely not built for highway traffic, with a slower speed limit, intersections, property access and a lack of goddamned right turn lanes. I will compare this to 104th Avenue in Surrey, which you've obviously never seen. It's a local connection road that's being treated as a highway right now due to it being the only access way for trucks going into Whalley and eventually the makeshift "SFPR" that is River Road; it is crowded as hell. The lineup westbound approaching 156th is filled with trucks that have to crawl slowly uphill, and often times only one truck will make the light even though there are consecutive trucks behind it. There is only one intersection on the entire route with right turn lanes (152nd) and it is extremely efficient; the other intersections are absolutely mediocre without right turn lanes. They are not built to handle that kind of traffic. On a regular day you will see eastbound backups all the way from the Highway 1 off/on ramp intersections all the way to 152nd; not too long ago it backed up to 144th on a lightly rainy day.

I would consider the NFPR a major highway, for you are underestimating the amount of trucks and traffic using this route now. I don't need to list down the examples, you probably know them already: Front Street, just before the North Road/Brunette split, and Brunette at Braid. The proposed plans will be removing all (or most of) Highway 1 access from Brunette in favour of an interchange. If you've actually studied Braid traffic, most of the traffic on Braid that doesn't go straight turns left for Highway 1, and it is coming from North Road southbound. Believe me, I used to live in Burquitlam; it turns out to be a great way to access the 1. The traffic on Braid going straight is usually also coming from North Road southbound. The future Highway 7/Blue Mountain route will do the same thing, however providing you with a highway route and bypassing the residential areas and allowing you to bypass the railway; it is a much smarter choice of route and I do not think it will take too long for people to realize it. As such, I do not believe Braid will be such a major problem in the future that it will require so much focus, considering the plans they have right now.

----

In other news, I am now constructing a lane-by-lane diagram in CorelDraw of my NFPR interchange plan. Since there's plenty of time before they make a final decision on the interchange, I guess it is best I do this now.

[huenthar]

One thing the diagram doesn't show for option D (maybe option C as well, I forget) is that access to Rousseau/Sherbrooke from Brunette will be closed.

If they have to build one I pick D. I think I'd rather they use the money for Evergreen and Skytrain station upgrades and forget about this overpass for right now, though...

In this case here, cars/trucks heading off the ramp (to northbound Brunette) will weave with cars exiting Brunette to the eastbound TCH which lies a block away (although off-ramp traffic from Pacific Reach may also be accessing eastbound TCH) - the weave issue could be exacerbated because both lines of traffic may stop at a red light at Braid and then have to weave from a standing start.

Don't really understand the weave issue with option D: northbound vehicles on Braid for EB TCH should be in the right lane already, before they hit this intersection; cars coming OFF United should have no need to go to the EB TCH so they should be fine turning onto Brunette and staying in the left lane. What weaving is necessary?

[Mininari]

Regarding a future Blue Mountain Overpass / Interchange, I sure hope that that project includes some kind of grade seperation at the Lougheed-Brunette-Blue Mountain "Triangle." The recent double-laning and 6-thru-laning along Lougheed has helped greatly, but the mess that presently occurs at Brunette WILL be shifted towards this already-busy intersection. They'll undoubtably need to re-assess traffic travel patterns post-gateway, and come up with a design that is conducive to the most efficient traffic movements.

Given the topography of the area, it would seem to make sense to elevate Blue Mountain St. over Lougheed AND Brunette AND the railway / hwy 1 in one structure... but its a challenging and tight location to work. I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of concepts they come up with this, but I imagine we won't see anything happen here until 2020 or so -- unless post-gateway Brunette Ave is an absolute $%^&show. Ideally it would be built in concert with the NFPR United Boulevard connection... of course, that would easily double the amount of money needed...

Otherwise, I really like the concept in post #1987! Very nice efficient use of ramps, and you've got the prevailing traffic demand and movements well covered. I know its probably next-to-meaningless to do this, but I suggest trying to promote that to Translink / MoT.

[xd_1771]

Regarding a future Blue Mountain Overpass / Interchange, I sure hope that that project includes some kind of grade seperation at the Lougheed-Brunette-Blue Mountain "Triangle." The recent double-laning and 6-thru-laning along Lougheed has helped greatly, but the mess that presently occurs at Brunette WILL be shifted towards this already-busy intersection. They'll undoubtably need to re-assess traffic travel patterns post-gateway, and come up with a design that is conducive to the most efficient traffic movements.

Given the topography of the area, it would seem to make sense to elevate Blue Mountain St. over Lougheed AND Brunette AND the railway / hwy 1 in one structure... but its a challenging and tight location to work. I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of concepts they come up with this, but I imagine we won't see anything happen here until 2020 or so -- unless post-gateway Brunette Ave is an absolute $%^&show. Ideally it would be built in concert with the NFPR United Boulevard connection... of course, that would easily double the amount of money needed...

Otherwise, I really like the concept in post #1987! Very nice efficient use of ramps, and you've got the prevailing traffic demand and movements well covered. I know its probably next-to-meaningless to do this, but I suggest trying to promote that to Translink / MoT.

I'm thinking if we completely close Brunette as a through route over its Highway 1 overpass (which would become redundant) and redirect Brunette to intersect Blue Mountain north of Lougheed (leaving only a Lougheed-Blue Mountain intersection), some problems would be greatly solved.
Glad you like my concept!! Hope my upcoming lane-by-lane diagram interests you more :) I've been noticed by road construction/planning teams before (specifically those in charge of the PMH/1 program regarding interchanges in Surrey), so I might indeed bring my concept to Translink, just how to do it is the problem.

[huenthar]

The problem with these plans is that they're all so low-capacity and they favour bringing traffic to not just these low-capacity routes but other ones as well such as Braid. Single lanes, loop ramps, inadequate merges, etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah.... why don't they just build the United overpass connector (with ADEQUATE connections to the 1), a much cheaper railway overpass over Braid (instead of expropriating and terraforming so much land for the interchange), keep the Braid intersection and keep it simple but high-capacity? You'll end up expropriating less land too. It's all under my plan:


You wouldn't be able to build a ramp over the rail tracks at Braid and get it down under the SkyTrain guideway - you can't even move the rail tracks far enough east to make it possible (according to one of the staff at the open house). Or do you mean, put the trains over the roadway? I think that would also be expensive...

Also, the reason they don't keep the United/Braid intersection is because the City of New Westminster specifically wants that through route closed (so that Braid is not used as an arterial) - they want all the traffic off of Braid.

[BCPhil]

BCPhil:
I was talking specifically about the westbound access to the bridge and not about anything else at Queensborough; that direction was pretty much ruined by the loop ramp & merge.You really didn't have to deal with 20th bound traffic coming off the bridge either so long as you stayed in the right lane.


What exactly is the problem with the loop? When you come off Pattullo onto Royal, you deal with a loop there, and it's great. What makes going around in a loop so unbearable there it makes it slower than driving though Surrey?

I really don't think you properly remember what it used to be like before. To get onto the bridge westbound, you had to go through the light at 20th, and deal with people COMING OFF 20th. They would dive across the right lane into the left lane to get to the bridge. That movement was way worse than a proper merge point. Yes, you have a loop, but you have 2 less traffic lights to go through, traffic before and after had to merge into 1 lane (and before you had to do it twice). At peak times it does back up, but it used to back up to about 14th. As well, traffic on Stewardson bound for Marine now has a lane that people aren't cutting through, and driving through to Burnaby is much more dependable.

Did you ever actually drive yourself through there before it was changed? I'm sorry if you think it is worse for you, but it's a lot better for far more people, for almost all of the day.


That intersection will be the basis of all other traffic movements towards Brunette that don't follow the NFPR route; they are obviously not up to capacity with the lack of right turn lanes. Remember, trucks are much longer than cars, and with lots of trucks stopping at the intersection, lanes will be blocked and the backups could be severe. There is only one lane coming from United and no right turn lane whatsoever; a single truck in front and you are absolutely stuck. In addition, two intersections is a lot worse than one, especially in such a short distance; considering there will be long trucks stopping there, one or more of the intersections could block up fairly easily.


If you mean a truck coming off United, down Rousseau, heading for Brunette to the TCH, then I think you are WAY overestimating how much that will happen. Most trucks starting on United will be in the east end just head East and onto Lougheed (or use King Edward) and use Cape Horn to get where they are going. And that's only until they build a Blue Mountain interchange (if they do). Then there won't be ANY trucks coming off united bound for NB Brunette. Traffic coming off United will mostly be heading SB on Brunette or EB on Braid.


What appears to be two lanes in that diagram is just the greenway/pathway making it appear to have two lanes. There is only one lane, and after the loop ramp you have to deal with a merge on Brunette which is not a very good idea at all. There is also only one lane on the exit ramp, which will be a big problem because you may be dealing with trucks climbing, very slowly, up that with no room to pass. On a snow day such as today, you'd just want to skip out entirely due to the high risk of a truck slipping while moving up and crushing you into the other car waiting behind you.


You really want to plan around the 2 times it snows? 2 lanes doesn't make the grade easier. Trucks will just slide into both lanes. And besides, trucks are quite capable, if a truck can't make it in the slow lane, usually 2WD cars won't in the fast lane either.

What's with the speed demon stuff? The grade isn't crazy and Trucks aren't going to be starting from a stop, so a one lane exit from Brunette isn't the end of the world. And neither is one lane coming off onto Brunette. It simplifies flow. Unless Brunette and United were 8 lanes, there is going to be merging at some point.


I find a 3 way vs. 4 way intersection doesn't make too much of a difference except for in a few directions; you're still dealing with a left turn signal for the direction where the ending road is on the left; because absolutely all traffic on the cross road is turning you are dealing with slower moving traffic which can often mean a longer light for them.


If you speed up one direction, you speed up them all. Having 2 fewer left turns happening means more cars can drive straight through. The cycles will also be shorter, or longer, allowing more cars through. Turning traffic doesn't need to be slow because Braid to Brunette is a very wide turn. And it can last longer because now you don't have to let traffic from the East side through (and turn left) because it isn't there anymore.

Seriously, you can't see how it would be a lot faster?

Again, I think you are missing the point of the road. It's a way over the tracks and industrial land, directly connecting 2 areas of different cities. It's not a freeway. You're not really supposed to be going fast enough to pass a lot of trucks, that's not the concern. It's so traffic on Brunette can get to industrial lands in Coquitlam, or get to Marry Hill bypass or Coquitlam Center without having to go momentarily take Hwy 1 or get on a very busy Lougheed.


Highway 7 and TCH are both past capacity NOW, but I am confident that Highway 1 will provide more than enough capacity in that area for NFPR traffic. There will be 5 lanes (4 + 1 HOV) in that section alone between Brunette & Cape Horn, the outermost a dedicated lane entering/exiting at Brunette (soon Blue Mountain or whatever they put up); the outermost lanes later exit or entrance from Highway 7B and Highway 7, so it is a direct connection without requiring you to change any lanes but giving you the option of doing so. United is definitely not built for highway traffic, with a slower speed limit, intersections, property access and a lack of goddamned right turn lanes.


United is not a highway. It's an arterial. And IT DOES in fact have right turn lanes. There is a right turn lane at Brigantine and Schooner. The other roads don't have that much traffic. The road is 2 lanes and speedsters can use the left lane to go around turning trucks. The speed limit isn't 90, so it's not dangerous for trucks to turn.

And again, it won't be that busy. Most car traffic heading through the area can, and will just get on TCH or Lougheed.


I will compare this to 104th Avenue in Surrey, which you've obviously never seen.


Hey kid, what makes it obvious I've never seen it? I live in Surrey bro. And honestly, how many trucks turn OFF 104 ave?


It's a local connection road that's being treated as a highway right now due to it being the only access way for trucks going into Whalley and eventually the makeshift "SFPR" that is River Road; it is crowded as hell. The lineup westbound approaching 156th is filled with trucks that have to crawl slowly uphill, and often times only one truck will make the light even though there are consecutive trucks behind it. There is only one intersection on the entire route with right turn lanes (152nd) and it is extremely efficient; the other intersections are absolutely mediocre without right turn lanes. They are not built to handle that kind of traffic. On a regular day you will see eastbound backups all the way from the Highway 1 off/on ramp intersections all the way to 152nd; not too long ago it backed up to 144th on a lightly rainy day.


You're right, 104 ave is a street. It's not a highway. Brunette is not a highway. United is not a Highway. But why does that happen on 104? Because it's a lot of traffic using one on/exit ramp to put traffic onto a busy freeway. That's what you will cause with your idea for the NFPR. You are dumping traffic onto Highway 1 that wants to avoid it. There already IS access to highway 1, and the Problem is people are stuck in highway traffic, that just want to go around it. By building a road around that traffic, you are creating more options.


I would consider the NFPR a major highway, for you are underestimating the amount of trucks and traffic using this route now. I don't need to list down the examples, you probably know them already: Front Street, just before the North Road/Brunette split, and Brunette at Braid.


Just to nitpick, the road is called E. Columbia there. That area does need improvement, but it's not a freeway. The intersection of Columbia and Brunette needs some work, but there will still be intersections on the route. And the intersection at Braid and Brunette will be a lot better as 3 way, as each direction currently needs dedicated left turns. It will be a lot faster through it after the United overpass is built.


The proposed plans will be removing all (or most of) Highway 1 access from Brunette in favour of an interchange. If you've actually studied Braid traffic, most of the traffic on Braid that doesn't go straight turns left for Highway 1, and it is coming from North Road southbound. Believe me, I used to live in Burquitlam; it turns out to be a great way to access the 1.


Hey, I used to live in Burquitlam too, probably more recently. And I would have to disagree with you. It depends on what part of Burquitlam you are in, but if you are in Burquitlam Plaza Burquitlam, the fastest way onto TCH Is Como Lake onto Gaglardi and use that on ramp. That way you don't go through the North Road Plaza area and avoid traffic around the mall. If it's night time, Blue Mountain to Brunette is much faster.


The traffic on Braid going straight is usually also coming from North Road southbound.


I would disagree. If you are SB on North, that means you are coming from North of Lougheed (or were on it) and it would be much, much faster to just use Lougheed.

Most traffic on Braid, is already on Braid/8th by Columbia, and is coming from New West, Burnaby, or the Pattullo. And I wouldn't say MOST of the traffic on Braid is heading for TCH, maybe half. And hardly any traffic goes through on Braid to United. The route is so unreliable (or was until they put in the control light on the oneway bridge) that people avoid it and go around the long way. Lets say you are on Braid and going to the Casino, most people turn left, use Brunette, turn right on Lougheed and then turn onto King Edward and then onto United. I don't see how your idea helps people on Braid at all anyway, so why are we talking about traffic on Braid?


The future Highway 7/Blue Mountain route will do the same thing, however providing you with a highway route and bypassing the residential areas and allowing you to bypass the railway; it is a much smarter choice of route and I do not think it will take too long for people to realize it. As such, I do not believe Braid will be such a major problem in the future that it will require so much focus, considering the plans they have right now.


How will it do that? I sort of lost what you are talking about in that part.

[DKaz]

Did you ever actually drive yourself through there before it was changed? I'm sorry if you think it is worse for you, but it's a lot better for far more people, for almost all of the day.

He's not even old enough to drive as we speak...

It was horrible before. Stewardsson Way would be backed up to whatever, it would take forever to get through the light for 6th Ave and 20th St., now the only thing you have to deal with is people getting on from 20th St. although I would really improve it... have 20th St. have it's own dedicated lane onto the bridge and have Stewardson Way have it's own dedicated lane onto the bridge with Marine Way people left merging onto the Stewardson Way lane. Would really improve things.

[DKaz]

Just as a clarification xd_1771, I don't ever mean to knock you, you have very good ideas at your age. I highly suggest you get into civil and structural engineering out of school. You'll get to pursue your passion but in the end you'll realize there is fiscal responsibility involved even for government projects and that if there is a budget to stick to, there is a budget to stick to. Not building that 500m of fourth lane through the 160th interchange probably saved the project at least $10 million for example and if the designers didn't convince the government enough that it was absolutely needed, the provincial government would've gone "Oh, well thanks for saving us $10 million!" I'm in mechanical engineering and too many times have good green solutions been shelved for more standard options because of budget restraints, both in the public and private sector.

Metro Vancouver's such an expensive area to build anything in. I have as big of a road and transit upgrade list in my mind as you and everyone else here but we only have so much money available. We could very well jump in and do everything that's required, but your generation will be paying off that debt for years and years. I wouldn't wish it on your generation. We're already taxed to death as it is. These road upgrades are only bandaid solutions, in the end we need to make transit more attractive because really no matter how wide we make the roads, it'll just get filled up.

[officedweller]

Don't really understand the weave issue with option D: northbound vehicles on Braid for EB TCH should be in the right lane already, before they hit this intersection; cars coming OFF United should have no need to go to the EB TCH so they should be fine turning onto Brunette and staying in the left lane. What weaving is necessary?

Sorry, the weave issue was for Options A & B - I must have edited the post but not realized that left some text stranded. I've changed it now

[xd_1771]

Just as a clarification xd_1771, I don't ever mean to knock you, you have very good ideas at your age. I highly suggest you get into civil and structural engineering out of school. You'll get to pursue your passion but in the end you'll realize there is fiscal responsibility involved even for government projects and that if there is a budget to stick to, there is a budget to stick to. Not building that 500m of fourth lane through the 160th interchange probably saved the project at least $10 million for example and if the designers didn't convince the government enough that it was absolutely needed, the provincial government would've gone "Oh, well thanks for saving us $10 million!" I'm in mechanical engineering and too many times have good green solutions been shelved for more standard options because of budget restraints, both in the public and private sector.

Metro Vancouver's such an expensive area to build anything in. I have as big of a road and transit upgrade list in my mind as you and everyone else here but we only have so much money available. We could very well jump in and do everything that's required, but your generation will be paying off that debt for years and years. I wouldn't wish it on your generation. We're already taxed to death as it is. These road upgrades are only bandaid solutions, in the end we need to make transit more attractive because really no matter how wide we make the roads, it'll just get filled up.

For one I highly doubt that fourth lane (or at least an overpass with a proper four-lane-per-direction expandability option) would cost $10m and even then, that's not that much when you consider entire project cost. I have a sense of budget whenever I plan things; I'm thinking my ideas (with a few tweaks here and there) would be a lot more cost-effective due to the simplicity. I usually try to avoid property acquisitions as well. If it helps to know, I've already chosen to pursue a career in film and literature, though I like sharing my ideas here and there. It might run in my family though, as my dad actually is a civil engineer. I'm here discussing about this and occasionally bringing up my ideas to the design team themselves specifically because of the words you said in bold; I find modern designers to underlook a lot of issues nowadays.

He's not even old enough to drive as we speak...

It was horrible before. Stewardsson Way would be backed up to whatever, it would take forever to get through the light for 6th Ave and 20th St., now the only thing you have to deal with is people getting on from 20th St. although I would really improve it... have 20th St. have it's own dedicated lane onto the bridge and have Stewardson Way have it's own dedicated lane onto the bridge with Marine Way people left merging onto the Stewardson Way lane. Would really improve things.

I've never had to deal with such horribleness; it used to be a fast route for me. The merge westbound between Stewardson and 20th is a bit short, and I have a feeling they seemingly designed it to be congested; you can see in a PDF, the very first screenshots of the new layout completed show traffic in that portion already. You might have a good point concerning the laternative plans, with Marine way left-merging, since I doubt that's a more heavily travelled entrance route onto the Queensborough from what I've seen.

--------------
And here comes a long long long long long long long long...
...long long long long long long....
list of responses.

What exactly is the problem with the loop? When you come off Pattullo onto Royal, you deal with a loop there, and it's great. What makes going around in a loop so unbearable there it makes it slower than driving though Surrey?
I don't think that's a very fair example. The loop has much more lanes (including a dedicated right turn lane onto Royal) and usually never backs up. It's also nearly never used by long trucks.

I really don't think you properly remember what it used to be like before. To get onto the bridge westbound, you had to go through the light at 20th, and deal with people COMING OFF 20th. They would dive across the right lane into the left lane to get to the bridge. That movement was way worse than a proper merge point. Yes, you have a loop, but you have 2 less traffic lights to go through, traffic before and after had to merge into 1 lane (and before you had to do it twice). At peak times it does back up, but it used to back up to about 14th. As well, traffic on Stewardson bound for Marine now has a lane that people aren't cutting through, and driving through to Burnaby is much more dependable.

Did you ever actually drive yourself through there before it was changed? I'm sorry if you think it is worse for you, but it's a lot better for far more people, for almost all of the day.

Yes, and I can honestly say that I never had too many problems with the old layout. Then again, I usually only came on/off the bridge from a certain direction. IMO that is also the fault of traffic on 20th street, they are SUPPOSED to be YIELDING. I'd consider it a bit worse for 20th street southbound now, they not only have to face a merge point but also a light. I'll have to agree Marine/Stewardson movement is a big faster though depending on where you're going.


If you mean a truck coming off United, down Rousseau, heading for Brunette to the TCH, then I think you are WAY overestimating how much that will happen. Most trucks starting on United will be in the east end just head East and onto Lougheed (or use King Edward) and use Cape Horn to get where they are going. And that's only until they build a Blue Mountain interchange (if they do). Then there won't be ANY trucks coming off united bound for NB Brunette. Traffic coming off United will mostly be heading SB on Brunette or EB on Braid.
Regardless of which way trucks will be going at that intersection, trucks will be using that intersection and without proper right turn lanes and median barriers the safety and capacity problems at hand could be quite large.

You really want to plan around the 2 times it snows? 2 lanes doesn't make the grade easier. Trucks will just slide into both lanes. And besides, trucks are quite capable, if a truck can't make it in the slow lane, usually 2WD cars won't in the fast lane either.

What's with the speed demon stuff? The grade isn't crazy and Trucks aren't going to be starting from a stop, so a one lane exit from Brunette isn't the end of the world. And neither is one lane coming off onto Brunette. It simplifies flow. Unless Brunette and United were 8 lanes, there is going to be merging at some point.
Chance-wise it is better to have two lanes, for with one lane as soon as a truck slips you are completely out of luck whatsoever. Trucks usually default to the right lane/slow lane anyways, and could be otherwise instructed to do so via radio if a snowstorm ever happens again. Even when there's no snow, some trucks are horrendously slow and with only one lane going up you could cause backups behind. It's a safety concern too; if a truck's engines were ever to fail going up, it would be at the cost of everybody behind. The ramp has to go up and over a Skytrain overpass (two levels) so I'd consider that crazy enough.

If you speed up one direction, you speed up them all. Having 2 fewer left turns happening means more cars can drive straight through. The cycles will also be shorter, or longer, allowing more cars through. Turning traffic doesn't need to be slow because Braid to Brunette is a very wide turn. And it can last longer because now you don't have to let traffic from the East side through (and turn left) because it isn't there anymore.

Seriously, you can't see how it would be a lot faster?

Again, I think you are missing the point of the road. It's a way over the tracks and industrial land, directly connecting 2 areas of different cities. It's not a freeway. You're not really supposed to be going fast enough to pass a lot of trucks, that's not the concern. It's so traffic on Brunette can get to industrial lands in Coquitlam, or get to Marry Hill bypass or Coquitlam Center without having to go momentarily take Hwy 1 or get on a very busy Lougheed.
I rather think that Translink is missing a point here. They seem to be deliberately removing a major highway connection that involves going through one intersection and then getting on the on-ramp, when in the future you'd have to go through the uphill ramp and two sets of on-ramps with a lot of weaving and merging in short distances just to get onto the Highway. United should not be a focus for the heavy through truck movement between Brunette/New West and the Mary Hill Bypass/Port Coquitlam. Highway 1 will have enough capacity to handle such traffic with 4+1 HOV lanes (a massive upgrade from 2+1), and I think provisions least wide enough to add a 3+1HOV+2 collector/direction C-D system if the time comes. It is also the only major connection for commuters/non-trucks going between all of Coquitlam and New West during the morning or afternoon commute, and a lot of people in this metropolitan area move such distances to go to work; whether in a car or on a bus, the issue is the same.

United is not a highway. It's an arterial. And IT DOES in fact have right turn lanes. There is a right turn lane at Brigantine and Schooner. The other roads don't have that much traffic. The road is 2 lanes and speedsters can use the left lane to go around turning trucks. The speed limit isn't 90, so it's not dangerous for trucks to turn.
Lack of right turn lanes cause bigger problems than you think; a lot of people don't signal right away so they'll be signalling only a few meters before the turn and slamming the brakes, which could be a safety issue considering trucks need more time to decelerate. If there are pedestrians or other such traffic there, you're basically SOL until they move out of the way and often times by the time the pedestrian light ends and they are out of the way, the light turns yellow and red, and therefore you are stuck. With the amount of trucks and general traffic being added onto the route there will be near-zero opportunity to pass in the left lane. This is a major problem in Surrey right now and I worry it could become a major problem somewhere else.

What you said about United not being a highway is right, hence Translink should not convert United into a major truck route.

And again, it won't be that busy. Most car traffic heading through the area can, and will just get on TCH or Lougheed.
That's a major problem, there are currently no provisions for being able to get on the TCH or Lougheed easily without a lot of merging, weaving, and stopping via low-capacity ramps. In fact I'd rather think of them as removing these provisions, possibly on purpose.

Hey kid, what makes it obvious I've never seen it? I live in Surrey bro. And honestly, how many trucks turn OFF 104 ave?

You're right, 104 ave is a street. It's not a highway. Brunette is not a highway. United is not a Highway. But why does that happen on 104? Because it's a lot of traffic using one on/exit ramp to put traffic onto a busy freeway. That's what you will cause with your idea for the NFPR. You are dumping traffic onto Highway 1 that wants to avoid it. There already IS access to highway 1, and the Problem is people are stuck in highway traffic, that just want to go around it. By building a road around that traffic, you are creating more options.

Trucks or not, as I said avenue right turns are a major problem in Surrey. I have seen way more of Surrey roads than you have, sitting at at least two intersections at similar times of day waiting for the bus, every day for 2 months, studying the traffic flow as I wait. The same issues I fear could happen to United because all that traffic on E. Columbia is apparently being directed onto United - a very similar amount of traffic to 104th Avenue today with a mix of trucks, commuters in cars and buses. There already is access to Highway 1; it will be removed. With the additional capacity, as I once again said, there will be no reason to avoid the 1 at least in the short term. United will still be there as an alternate route, but by no means should it become a primary route for traffic.

Just to nitpick, the road is called E. Columbia there. That area does need improvement, but it's not a freeway. The intersection of Columbia and Brunette needs some work, but there will still be intersections on the route. And the intersection at Braid and Brunette will be a lot better as 3 way, as each direction currently needs dedicated left turns. It will be a lot faster through it after the United overpass is built.
I agree, it does not have to be a freeway. However, consider how bad intersections are treated in this area and how often they're placed where they shouldn't be. Think of the lineups on Highway 91 northbound every single morning at 72nd. Think of the total mess 104th is all day, every day between 152nd and the Route 1 on-ramp. Think of the Mary Hill Bypass. I think intersections will at least need to be minimized on such a busy route. Not every direction needs dedicated left turns; some left turns, including Brunette > Braid WB (use North Road damnit) will be or are already redundant. I try to avoid redundancy where possible, it just results in extra costs and problems.

Hey, I used to live in Burquitlam too, probably more recently. And I would have to disagree with you. It depends on what part of Burquitlam you are in, but if you are in Burquitlam Plaza Burquitlam, the fastest way onto TCH Is Como Lake onto Gaglardi and use that on ramp. That way you don't go through the North Road Plaza area and avoid traffic around the mall. If it's night time, Blue Mountain to Brunette is much faster.
You had a better option of Como Lake. I lived south of Burquitlam plaza much closer to Lougheed Town Centre and the best route for me was to go south, especially eastbound. For people living further east (where most people are concentrated in Burquitlam) Blue Mountain would be the better option.

I would disagree. If you are SB on North, that means you are coming from North of Lougheed (or were on it) and it would be much, much faster to just use Lougheed.

How will it do that? I sort of lost what you are talking about in that part.
The current Brunette interchange/on ramps option ruins everything there. It seemed much faster to use North-Braid-Brunette-TCH1 EAST on a non-busy day when no trains were crossing, since you didn't have to deal with a stop-sign-controlled dual right turn, sharp angles turns and an unsignalized left turn preceding a curve in the road where it is very hard to turn... I'm pretty sure other people thought the same. Once Blue Mountain is constructed, the triangle at Lougheed/BM/Brunette is resolved and ramps are better angled, that problem will have been solved.

Most traffic on Braid, is already on Braid/8th by Columbia, and is coming from New West, Burnaby, or the Pattullo. And I wouldn't say MOST of the traffic on Braid is heading for TCH, maybe half. And hardly any traffic goes through on Braid to United. The route is so unreliable (or was until they put in the control light on the oneway bridge) that people avoid it and go around the long way. Lets say you are on Braid and going to the Casino, most people turn left, use Brunette, turn right on Lougheed and then turn onto King Edward and then onto United. I don't see how your idea helps people on Braid at all anyway, so why are we talking about traffic on Braid?

There's one point proven by yourself. A lot of people in New West may choose to avoid the Pattullo, especially for more long-distance trips east of Surrey. Braid > Brunette > Rte. 1 East is also the only reliable route from New West to Coquitlam and proper. I'm thinking that the one way bridge is more of a problem than the rail crossing right now, and even then I doubt it would cost that much to build a very short cut-and-cover tunnel for the railway if it is such a problem, and would likely end up the better option as it would keep traffic moving straight on a better, higher-capacity route. The money saved from ramp/overpass simplicity and little property acquisition can be put onto that.