HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #541  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 9:16 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 2,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
How would such a flyover be overkill? The Golden Ears is an arterial bridge and it arguably has the largest amount of elevated structures in Metro Vancouver.

Hence beautification would be an avenue to look at. Would be great if we could have such an interchange also landscaped like they do elsewherein the world with shrub gardens (that are actually manicured as well).

I agree with option C being a poor choice.

After option D I support A upstream.

For Surrey option A is the way to go, allowing the best free flow for truck traffic. Again, the area in the loop could be landscaped.

The funny thing is at the meeting there was a reverse NIMBY who lives in the strange block of buildings the New West roads will be wrapping around. She wants her property to be bought out and demolished! She wants translink to remove that block!

Also, here is the bad news, Translink plans to make the bridge a 50km speed zone. I did complain about this and suggested that given its free flow status the route between 6th ave and the first set of lights in Surrey should be at least 60kmh, or 70kmh, similar to the speeds found on urnab arterial roads in Japan and Europe with similar free flow designs with tight interchanges.
That block of buildings in new west should have never been built in the first place. Imagine your home values if all of a sudden your condo or building is in the MIDDLE of an interchange?

Speedlimit of the bridge should be 70 km/h. I know Surrey's had considered raising King George Blvd up to 70 km/h from Pattullo right up the hill towards 108 Avenue.

They're probably be silly and design it with a 50 km/h design speed too, causing trucks to tip over, lanes being too narrow, super tight ramps (especially on the Surrey side - where there's so much room to expand if they really wanted it)

Just remember, Translink thought it was a good idea to build the Golden Ears Connector with a 60 km/h speed limit on the Surrey side, while it should easily be 80 km/h through there. It's a rural arterial roadway.....

Speed limits in Metro Vancouver are honestly usually 10 to 30 km/h below what they should - and people complain about speeding....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #542  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 9:19 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 18,193
Overkill in that the speeds for an arterial road bridge won't be that high and it'll be a stone's throw from a traffic light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #543  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 9:21 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 8,840
yeah, 70 would be best, but I would be ok with 60, but 50 is a no no. For me, given the areas being connected, 80 would be to much.

The funny thing about GEW is that from what I can see its current design could easily support 70 or 80 km h speeds. I see no reason why it is lower...
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my video production website at: http://www.hailstorm-media.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #544  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 9:23 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 2,124
Personally, I think Translink should look at this area as being fully available for road construction, regardless of the buildings there. They should have all that space completely available for construction if need be, and then infill the edges if possible.

The ****storm that is going to happen in that internal block will be HUGE and could block the entire project from happening...

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?msid=2...008537,0.01929
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #545  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 9:28 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 2,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
yeah, 70 would be best, but I would be ok with 60, but 50 is a no no. For me, given the areas being connected, 80 would be to much.

The funny thing about GEW is that from what I can see its current design could easily support 70 or 80 km h speeds. I see no reason why it is lower...
$$$ from ticketing....

They have cops always on there, and as well, that Golden Ears Bridge SB ramp to 200 Street has a 50 km/h speed limit. You come flying off a bridge doing 80-100 km/h, and suddenly have to slam on the brakes due to that flyover (which was designed with a 50 km/h design speed) and can be quite sharp. Not sure why that was done in the first place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #546  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2012, 1:26 AM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 856
Why can't these plans have some thoughts about cycling? All of the plans should show how the cycle paths are going to work. I don't see anything! I guess I am going to have to ask myself to see what the thoughts are tonight. There was talk about having a pathway suspended under the bridge which would be cool. Looking at the plans it looks like a bike path could only really work on the west side and not both sides.

A reminder, open houses:

February 21, 2012
6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. Centennial Community Centre
65 East 6th Avenue, New Westminster

February 22, 2012
6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. Surrey City Centre Library
10350 University Drive, Surrey

February 23, 2012
6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. Inn at the Quay
900 Quayside Drive, New Westminster

February 27, 2012
6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. Surrey City Centre Library
10350 University Drive, Surrey

Last edited by tybuilding; Feb 23, 2012 at 1:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #547  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2012, 1:45 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 8,840
A cycling network is going to be part of the final plan, these are just very preliminary master alignments.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my video production website at: http://www.hailstorm-media.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #548  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2012, 1:56 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 8,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 View Post
$$$ from ticketing....

They have cops always on there, and as well, that Golden Ears Bridge SB ramp to 200 Street has a 50 km/h speed limit. You come flying off a bridge doing 80-100 km/h, and suddenly have to slam on the brakes due to that flyover (which was designed with a 50 km/h design speed) and can be quite sharp. Not sure why that was done in the first place.
I have no problem with ramps being 50km hour, especially when they exit to traffic light controlled intersections such as this one, in most places in the world urban free flow arterial roads have exit ramp speeds between 30 and 50km an hour.

This is why I would be ok with the Pattullo being 60km h. It is not a major freeway, and it is in an urban setting. In Japan most of the urban free flow expressways have speed limits of 60km h.

But 50km h is too slow, because we give the same speed limits to residential streets!

Again, I would prefer 70km, but 60 is understandable, but 50 is not.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my video production website at: http://www.hailstorm-media.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #549  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2012, 2:50 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 2,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
A quick note on option D, here McBride would be trenched up to 6th Ave.
Interesting. And the Stormont Connector is under MoT jurisdiction AFAIK. Should that link finally be built in a further trench to connect Hwy 1... you will have an expressway standard (if not freeway standard) regional connector over the Fraser to connect with the SFPR.

I certainly think an 80 km/hr posted speed limit would be appropriate. Traffic coming down the KGB hill from the Surrey side likely already has an operating speed of ~80 km/hr right now.

Heck, I've had to utilize the GEB during quite a few mornings over the past month and traffic flows at ~90 km/hr - 100 km/hr in the 60 km/hr posted segment along the western GEB connector to Hwy 15. Silly and unreasonable speed limits in this neck of the woods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #550  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2012, 3:23 AM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 2,124
One rule of traffic.

Regardless of what you set the speed limit, unless you have EXTREMELY heavy enforcement. People drive what they feel comfortable doing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #551  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2012, 5:49 AM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,879
Just curious why are they even considering downstream configurations? Upstream seems to be by far the more direct route, on both sides of the river...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #552  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2012, 8:54 PM
BurnabyAaron BurnabyAaron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 47
They do that so they can say they looked into it, even if they aren't serious about developing it further than a concept. Its done quite often for projects like this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #553  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2012, 11:02 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
A cycling network is going to be part of the final plan, these are just very preliminary master alignments.
Yah, I know that the cycling network will be there on the final plans but I would like to see as much thought put into cycling route connections as traffic patterns at the same time as these conceptual designs. It seems only fair if cyclists/pedestrians are as important as they make it out to be. Getting the public to choose an preference for an alignment without seeing those details to me is not right as we didn't see the full picture. Some of those options presented may not work as well with cycling/walking as others do.

This new bridge was compared last night to the Golden Ears bridge which has really good cycling except for a few problem areas. I would like to see the problem areas not there right at the end of construction with this one. As much as the Golden Ears bridge and Golden Ears way is great for cycling there is a 5 block stretch in Langley that seemed to be forgotten.

For the Surrey stretch and the bridge there are great bike paths (Google Street View) but in the Langley stretch there are annoying detours that route you onto 96th Ave with only crappy bike lanes (Google Street View)and back onto 201st. On the Surrey side there is a really good path that is great for anyone to cycle on, even with kids. But the official route through those 5 blocks in Langley is not very good. Personally I have gone both ways and I prefer going though the industrial area on the north side than going to 96 Ave.

For the Patullo bridge there are a number of routes and considerations for cycling with the preliminary designs that will need to be worked out and I hope we have higher quality access routes that we did for the GEB with that bad Langley stretch when this bridge is completed and not 40 years later or whenever development catches up and we see something of high quality as is the case in Langley. I want high quality bike routes right at the start when construction is finished, I don't think that is too much to ask and I think that means planning up front!

Some things to consider for example:
  • I think the New West side option A and B could work best for cycling.
  • Will the cycling be adjacent to roadways or below (like the Canada Line)
  • What happens when the cycle paths have to cross off/on ramp loops that access the new SFPR? Most cycle traffic will go straight to King George or Scott Road. Do we really need the north loop from SFPR to bridge, can we move vehicle/truck traffic to join with Scott Road from SFPR instead?
  • How to cyclists access SFPR since it will be a designated cycle route?

I drew potential routes on my handouts last night and gave it to the Translink reps at my table.

As far as speed limits go get yourselves out of the driver seat and onto a bike seat and consider all users. It is not good to have speeds of 80-90km/hr with bike infrastructure that crosses all of the access roads and access ramps. Vehicles turning can come up to vulnerable users crossing access roads way to quickly as drivers often fail to adjust to speeds that are safe when turning corners off the main road. I think keeping 60km/hr speed limits for a bridge that goes between two urban settings is reasonable.

Last edited by tybuilding; Feb 23, 2012 at 11:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #554  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2012, 12:17 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by tybuilding View Post
Yah, I know that the cycling network will be there on the final plans but I would like to see as much thought put into cycling route connections as traffic patterns at the same time as these conceptual designs. It seems only fair if cyclists/pedestrians are as important as they make it out to be. Getting the public to choose an preference for an alignment without seeing those details to me is not right as we didn't see the full picture. Some of those options presented may not work as well with cycling/walking as others do.

This new bridge was compared last night to the Golden Ears bridge which has really good cycling except for a few problem areas. I would like to see the problem areas not there right at the end of construction with this one. As much as the Golden Ears bridge and Golden Ears way is great for cycling there is a 5 block stretch in Langley that seemed to be forgotten.

For the Surrey stretch and the bridge there are great bike paths (Google Street View) but in the Langley stretch there are annoying detours that route you onto 96th Ave with only crappy bike lanes (Google Street View)and back onto 201st. On the Surrey side there is a really good path that is great for anyone to cycle on, even with kids. But the official route through those 5 blocks in Langley is not very good. Personally I have gone both ways and I prefer going though the industrial area on the north side than going to 96 Ave.

For the Patullo bridge there are a number of routes and considerations for cycling with the preliminary designs that will need to be worked out and I hope we have higher quality access routes that we did for the GEB with that bad Langley stretch when this bridge is completed and not 40 years later or whenever development catches up and we see something of high quality as is the case in Langley. I want high quality bike routes right at the start when construction is finished, I don't think that is too much to ask and I think that means planning up front!

Some things to consider for example:
  • I think the New West side option A and B could work best for cycling.
  • Will the cycling be adjacent to roadways or below (like the Canada Line)
  • What happens when the cycle paths have to cross off/on ramp loops that access the new SFPR? Most cycle traffic will go straight to King George or Scott Road. Do we really need the north loop from SFPR to bridge, can we move vehicle/truck traffic to join with Scott Road from SFPR instead?
  • How to cyclists access SFPR since it will be a designated cycle route?

I drew potential routes on my handouts last night and gave it to the Translink reps at my table.

As far as speed limits go get yourselves out of the driver seat and onto a bike seat and consider all users. It is not good to have speeds of 80-90km/hr with bike infrastructure that crosses all of the access roads and access ramps. Vehicles turning can come up to vulnerable users crossing access roads way to quickly as drivers often fail to adjust to speeds that are safe when turning corners off the main road. I think keeping 60km/hr speed limits for a bridge that goes between two urban settings is reasonable.
I remember seeing that loop to being a waste. Well yes it maybe cut a few mins it just seems to be a pointless.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #555  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2012, 5:18 PM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,710
For speeds, 60 is reasonable, 50 is not. I don't really subscribe to the "must be slow for bikes" argument. That's silly because pedestrians are more vulnerable than bikes so should speed limits be reduced to 30 kph? Maybe we should just even everything out and make everything including bikes restricted to 5 kph.

It's just silly. I still think 60 kph is reasonable though given the area.

As for the diagrams, I'll put my vote behind Option A Upstream Surrey side and a toss up between Option B Upstream and Option D. I don't like A at all because the on ramps south backwards since technically trucks would be merging at the top (north end) and cars coming from Royal Ave would need to cross the truck lane to get to traffic lanes. The only thing I do like about Option A is that it sweeps traffic up to Royal Ave where B does not. D doesn't either though.

Given how New West is though I'd say they would go with B since it keeps traffic on Columbia and within their pave the city with cobblestone and replace all cars with horse-drawn buggies directive.

I won't give C any attention it just looks messy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #556  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2012, 6:19 PM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,870
I'm still a fan of option B upstream for surrey. Since in both B and A your gonna have to wait at a light along scott road to turn left onto the bridge. and then you add the fact king george is still free flowing and not held up at any lights there itself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #557  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2012, 6:46 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 2,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whalleyboy View Post
I'm still a fan of option B upstream for surrey. Since in both B and A your gonna have to wait at a light along scott road to turn left onto the bridge. and then you add the fact king george is still free flowing and not held up at any lights there itself.
Yeah, but trucks and vehicles coming from New West will require to make a left hand turn onto Scott road to access the SFPR to connect to Highway 1.
Option A provides a loop ramp to remove that. That's the only change in the entire plan between A & B

Anywhere where you can remove a heavy left turn and replace it with a loop ramp without creating weaving (check!) you should.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #558  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2012, 7:07 PM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 View Post
Yeah, but trucks and vehicles coming from New West will require to make a left hand turn onto Scott road to access the SFPR to connect to Highway 1.
Option A provides a loop ramp to remove that. That's the only change in the entire plan between A & B

Anywhere where you can remove a heavy left turn and replace it with a loop ramp without creating weaving (check!) you should.
Yeah but with the right connection on new west side i have doubt many would jump across this bridge when the port mann can be used. Personally I just dont think its worth the space its gonna take up
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #559  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2012, 7:19 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 2,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whalleyboy View Post
Yeah but with the right connection on new west side i have doubt many would jump across this bridge when the port mann can be used. Personally I just dont think its worth the space its gonna take up
It takes up the room of a parking lot. There's literally nothing there right now. It's open space.

Trust me, if you're coming from New West and want to head into the Valley, taking Pattullo to the SFPR will be far quicker than taking Columbia/Brunette to Highway 1 over the Port Mann.

That "right connection" you mentioned isn't being built anytime soon...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #560  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2012, 7:21 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 8,840
I agree as well, the loop still takes up relatively little space, and it could nicely landscaped. Also seems like the perfect spot to lace the Welcome to Surrey sign, haha.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my video production website at: http://www.hailstorm-media.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:55 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.