Brunette Interchange and United Boulevard Connector

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by rickvug

I personally think that New West is doing the right thing by keeping the bridge to four lanes to start. They need leverage to demand necessary improvements to their infrastructure to mitigate the impacts of the additional traffic. The Bailey Bridge situation was unfortunate as it painted council as obstinate to any changes what-so-ever. In reality much of their concerns about road infrastructure are completely valid but are now viewed as NIMBYism by others.

I have personally been to several consultations and meetings in New Westminster and the vast majority of spectators or "concerned" citizens are individuals older than age 60. Discussions I heard included proposals to limiting through-traffic by permanently closing Front Street and the Patullo (to all trucks as well) to requesting an immediate shutdown of the railyard.

Again, much like the NIMBYS of Arbutus. You have a few vocal NIMBY'S ruining a neighborhoods reputation. If it were up to some of them, they would ban cars from entering certain neighborhoods.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

What on earth are you talking about?

The reason Lions Gate remains as ridiculous as it currently is has nothing to do with the north side traffic flows. It's all about the causeway. The Parks Board wants nothing to with a wider causeway. Widening that section of road is a huge uphill battle for any government. They would have widened that to 4 lanes long ago if there wasn't immense pushback about cutting down a small number of trees. The south side doesn't move quickly, but it definitely has a greater capacity than the bridge itself barring a major problem. The single-lane direction will always be the choke point unless they do a huge structural upgrade and double deck the bridge.

I've never been stuck in a jam waiting to get off the Lions Gate Bridge, especially when headed north. The big jams happen when the lanes switch direction, since the primary lane has to "decompress" before the middle lane can merge in. That's when the deck jams up.

I wasn't actually talking about the bridge, I was talking about New West's tactics in limiting traffic through its downtown by not supporting more lanes into the city being similar to how North Vancouver or West Vancouver would resist more lanes or a full interchange to properly merge traffic before it gets to the bridge.

In any case, we don't blame the Parks Board for not wanting more traffic through the park either... even though it's an area of the park few actually can use. And it's not just the parks board that doesn't want a wider road through the park, it's a lot of people in Vancouver. I think the road should be buried through Stanley Park as well, but that's a pure vanity thing.

The point is... that area is a through point for traffic between the North Shore/Squamish/Nanaimo and the rest of the region. We can't fault New West for doing the same thing.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Completely agree with these statements.
The Lion's Gate carries almost as many trips as the Patullo. We accept that it's always backed up because the CoV and the CoNV won't build highways through their downtowns to get people around.

How about a Limited Access Road that accesses the number 1. Some Eminent Domain could widen Taylor Way to make it 6 lanes... or built out a free-flow Interchange at Lower Capilano / Marine.

No one suggests these things because we know it would reduce livability of the area.

It doesn't MATTER that New Westminster is in the middle of the region, so to speak. If the region wants to ram traffic through New West, then the region should be prepared to pay for the privilege. This means a boxed-in bypass along Front Street, or a free-flowing way to access to Patullo from Brunette so that the already-built SFPR can be used instead.

Does anyone have any renders of what a boxed in Front street would look like?

Eminent Domain is American. The Canadian term is expropriation. Sorry to be picky but this particular usage really annoys me.

[Marshal]

What is a snowflake defense?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Marshal

What is a snowflake defense?

"I'm a special snowflake, those rules don't apply to me."

[Marshal]

As far as the Stormont connector goes:
- the comments that it is not part of current planning are correct (as far as I know)
- I raised it as a good solution to the north end traffic flow.
- But, it is not just a New West thing: Alex Mackinnon is correct that McBride could easily be turned into a freeway, but the real issue is in Burnaby where the Stormont would carry traffic to HWY 1 and so make a major connection that would be good for the region.
But, the argument for turning McBride into a freeway (or close) flies in the face of what most other municipalities arer working towards: Surrey want's King George to change its character away from being solely a throughfare; North Van District is doing the same to Marine; and there are many other cases - so why should New West favour doing the opposite?

As for the Lions Gate: the causeway is not a problem unless a bigger crossing is built, it is currently built to the same standard as the bridge. There is no reason to widen it to 4 lanes if the bridge is 3 lanes. The north end dumps onto Marine, which is fine, but the two connections to the Upper Levels are not good and do not handle the traffic very well. A true connector would be as valuable there as for the Patullo in New West. The issues are similar, and the resistance is similar.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Marshal

As far as the Stormont connector goes:
- the comments that it is not part of current planning are correct (as far as I know)
- I raised it as a good solution to the north end traffic flow.
- But, it is not just a New West thing: Alex Mackinnon is correct that McBride could easily be turned into a freeway, but the real issue is in Burnaby where the Stormont would carry traffic to HWY 1 and so make a major connection that would be good for the region.
But, the argument for turning McBride into a freeway (or close) flies in the face of what most other municipalities arer working towards: Surrey want's King George to change its character away from being solely a throughfare; North Van District is doing the same to Marine; and there are many other cases - so why should New West favour doing the opposite?

As for the Lions Gate: the causeway is not a problem unless a bigger crossing is built, it is currently built to the same standard as the bridge. There is no reason to widen it to 4 lanes if the bridge is 3 lanes. The north end dumps onto Marine, which is fine, but the two connections to the Upper Levels are not good and do not handle the traffic very well. A true connector would be as valuable there as for the Patullo in New West. The issues are similar, and the resistance is similar.

Burnaby already owns all the land for this, unless they supported the construction of this I'm sure they would have sold it.

The difference between McBride and your examples are quite simple: McBride isn't a centre for development, and as of now has not been planned as such. It's a bypass of downtown, uptown and Sapperton. In my opinion it should also be a bypass for Edmonds and Canada Way. Downtown New West is a destination, Uptown New West wants to be a destination, and Central Surrey wants to be a dense urban city. I've yet to see anything about the area surrounding McBride that doesn't say suburban truck route.

Metro Vancouver is a nodal city. The areas in between the nodes need to be allowed to carry things and people between the nodes. Not every area on the Burrard Peninsula needs to be urbanized as such. McBride is definitely a gap in a convenient place.

You're also wrong about the Lions Gate Bridge. Expanding the causeway would absolutely increase throughput. It would mean a lesser number of cars would have be cleared when switching the bridge directions, so the centre lane would have a higher utilisation.

[Marshal]

Your characterization of McBride is not one I recognize. Through New West, it is a busy 4 lane arterial that runs between the city's premier park and the park-like Woodlands neighbourhood (medium density residential with several high rise condo towers), a major institution (JI), also with a park-like setting, a school with an adjacent park, and a TWO BLOCK section of strip mall before a couple of blocks of high density residential up to 10th.

We agree it should be a bypass.

Regardless, I am talking about how large scale infrastructure is dealt with by municipalities. I'm not into arguing each case. I am simply pointing out that New West council is not some aberration blocking regional plans. They are simply doing what all the other municipalities do when confronted with such changes. Municipalities are generally NIMBY forces on these kinds of issues - especially with new and expanded roads.

Lion's Gate - your thought doesn't make sense, but let's agree to disagree.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Your characterization of McBride is not one I recognize. Through New West, it is a busy 4 lane arterial that runs between the city's premier park and the park-like Woodlands neighbourhood (medium density residential with several high rise condo towers), a major institution (JI), also with a park-like setting, a school with an adjacent park, and a TWO BLOCK section of strip mall before a couple of blocks of high density residential up to 10th.

This already looks like an expressway. Everything is right-in-right-out.

[Marshal]

I didn't realize that McBride was only one block long.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

This already looks like an expressway. Everything is right-in-right-out.

It looks a lot like an expressway to me too. Open space along the road and most of the buildings are set back, usually with a large hedge as a dividing line.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I didn't realize that McBride was only one block long.

That's the segment you described as being surrounded by high density housing.

[rickvug]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

That's the segment you described as being surrounded by high density housing.

No, he was talking about Victoria Hill. Here's Victoria Hill. I don't think that anyone would disagree that McBride has characteristics of a Stroad right now. The question is how it evolves in the future and what land uses are going to be around it. This might feel like a slight tangent, but look at the land use plan around 8th Street and McBride (snazzy gif of current zoning vs. new OCP draft by CanSpice):



McBride and 8th Street are zoned for highrise (mixed use and residential) on both sides. Eventually those strip malls will go and the area will become a more prominent node. The current design of McBride is not conducive to that.

Looking back down to Victoria Hill again, there is still vacant land close to McBride. Because of the speed and nature of McBride residents of Victoria Hill favour a new bridge design that is similar to the status quo in alignment, ensuring that traffic as as far away as possible. The other alternative (called Option B during consultations) would have made for much more efficient land use around McBride and Royal. It would have also had a stop light for North bound traffic. With that bridge design and perhaps some further tweaks further down McBride, I think the road would have a much different feel. It would have also opened up a lot more land for parks and residential development, contributing to an urban feel with better connectivity between neighbourhoods (excuse my awful Skitch):



Some might feel that this is getting a little bit off topic for the Brunnette Interchange but that interchange is closely tied to the bridge, future traffic flows through New West as well as land use changes in the area.

[yesheh]

Discussion guide is now posted with some conceptual maps. Option B is my favorite but that's just a five second glance.

[red-paladin]

Option A seems needlessly complicated?

[retro_orange]

I responded in the Pattullo bridge thread

[Stingray2004]

Holy smokes Batman! The 3 options have a price-tag ranging from $510 - $620 million. Likely the most expensive interchange to ever be built in BC and even Western Canada.

Looks like Option A provides the highest net benefits on an evaluation basis.

[Metro-One]

Option A overall looks to be the best.

[red-paladin]

I'm just not sold on the 'whirlpool' interchange I guess.

[osirisboy]

Option A by far is the best!!