HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2016, 12:53 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 2,926
Brunette Interchange and United Boulevard Connector

Re: Proposed new Brunette interchange at Hwy 1...

No schematics yet, but here are the details of the 3 three design options:

Option A: Brunette Interchange with Separate Municipal Connections and United Blvd. Connection – The main crossing of Highway 1 is separated into two corridors – a two-lane corridor for local traffic and a four-lane corridor for regional and provincial traffic.

Option B: Blue Mountain Interchange with United Blvd. Connection – This option extends Blue Mountain St. over Highway 1 to United Blvd. Interchanges become the main access to Highway 1.

Option C: Blue Mountain Interchange with Braid Industrial Area Connector – The direct connection between United Blvd. and Brunette is replaced by a two-lane connection from Blue Mountain St. to Columbia St. via a new connector with a two lane tunnel under the rail lines and Brunette River.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2016, 3:24 AM
Xrayal's Avatar
Xrayal Xrayal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Westminster
Posts: 121
Brunette Interchange guess work

Thanks Stingray2004 for sharing. Since the other day I've been trying my best to understand the various options presented. As an aid to myself I've made up some maps to try and visualize what they are proposing. Would be a lot easier if they just released their concepts from the start. Also with the reworked ramps to east columbia from the new pattullo bridge and this project it seems we are slowly getting the NFPR delivered piece by piece.
Option A Guess
Brunette Option A Guess by mullux, on Flickr
Option C Guess
Brunette Option C guess by mullux, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2016, 11:06 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,558
Thanks for the heads up!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2016, 4:07 AM
Xrayal's Avatar
Xrayal Xrayal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Westminster
Posts: 121
Took a walk down in the Braid industrial area to have a look around.
Found this.
IMG_1390 by mullux, on Flickr
Updated my musings accordingly.
Option C, plus new info by mullux, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2016, 8:57 PM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,296
Brunette Interchange and United Boulevard Connector

The Province is finally bringing out the options for the Brunette Interchange Project, which appears to have evolved into a Brunette / United Boulevard Connector project. Since our NFPR thread seems to have evolved into purely a SFPR thread, I think this potentially large-ish and complex project deserves it's own thread. Also, it sounds like some of the more complex forum-user proposals for utilizing the Blue Mountain corridor are being considered as well.

http://www.tricitynews.com/news/opti...eyed-1.2377546

Options for Brunette interchange eyed
Project would reduce gridlock, make roads safer, Ministry of Transportation says- open house next week will have more info

Diane Strandberg / Tri City News

October 27, 2016 12:38 PM

...
Three options are being considered to reduce gridlock along the Brunette Avenue corridor between Coquitlam and New Westminster, and one includes a tunnel under railway tracks and the Brunette River that would replace the the railroad and bailey bridge crossing between the cities.
...
• Option A — Brunette interchange with separate municipal connections and United Boulevard connection: The main crossing of Highway 1 would separated into two corridors: a two-lane corridor for local traffic and a four-lane corridor for regional and provincial traffic.

• Option B — Blue Mountain Interchange with United connection: This option extends Blue Mountain Street over Highway 1 to United and the interchange becomes the main access to Highway 1.

• Option C — Blue Mountain interchange with Braid industrial area connector: The direct connection between United and Brunette (over bailey bridges and railway tracks) would be replaced by a two-lane connection from Blue Mountain to Columbia Street via a new connector, with a two lane tunnel under the rail lines and the Brunette River.

The open house will take place Nov. 2 at Maillard middle school, 1300 Rochester Ave., Coquitlam from 5 to 8 p.m. A second open house takes place in New Westminster the next day, with a third open house in early December, although no date has been set.

A public engagement page on the government's website has also been established at engage.gov.bc.ca/brunetteinterchange.
...

So, no visuals of the options yet, but they'll be released on November 2nd.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2016, 9:03 PM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,296
And I find this after I create a new thread for it. Sorry.
I'll leave it up to the mods to keep the 'Brunette Interchange United Boulevard Connector' Thread, or delete it and keep the discussion here. That said, I do think it deserves it's own thread

It is also *really* good to see the Province take the leadership on making some kind of United Boulevard / Braid / Brunette Connector happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2016, 10:45 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,618
So it looks like this will be a bigger project than connecting United to Brunette.

Looking forward to the drawings!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2016, 11:21 PM
red-paladin's Avatar
red-paladin red-paladin is online now
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,248
I moved the related posts from the Metro Van Infrastructure thread to this one.

Also, a website has been created for the interchange portion of the project: http://engage.gov.bc.ca/brunetteinterchange/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2016, 12:24 AM
rickvug rickvug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 35
Article in The Record: "Brunette changes will impact New Westminster". An interesting quote from Mayor Cote:
“I think residents will potentially see some options that might provide some relief to some of the transportation challenges we see, but I think there is going to be items in these options that are going to create significant concern for residents,” he said. “I think it’s important for residents across the city, particularly residents in the Sapperton neighbourhood, to pay close attention to this and have a good look. I think their input is definitely going to be important in this process.”
I don't like how this consultation is setup. Full information isn't going to be available until the day before the consultation. Generally people are not going to be informed. I worry that the provincial government will try to ram this through. I'm sure that they are trying to "learn" based on their experience with the UBE. It would be great if someone could post those resources for comparison. There are some good blog posts with diagrams at https://voony.wordpress.com/category/united-boulevard.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2016, 12:49 AM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathcona
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickvug View Post
Article in The Record: "Brunette changes will impact New Westminster". An interesting quote from Mayor Cote:
“I think residents will potentially see some options that might provide some relief to some of the transportation challenges we see, but I think there is going to be items in these options that are going to create significant concern for residents,” he said. “I think it’s important for residents across the city, particularly residents in the Sapperton neighbourhood, to pay close attention to this and have a good look. I think their input is definitely going to be important in this process.”
I don't like how this consultation is setup. Full information isn't going to be available until the day before the consultation. Generally people are not going to be informed. I worry that the provincial government will try to ram this through. I'm sure that they are trying to "learn" based on their experience with the UBE. It would be great if someone could post those resources for comparison. There are some good blog posts with diagrams at https://voony.wordpress.com/category/united-boulevard.
To be fair, the City of New West has a history of scuttling things which are important to the region. Why do you think they had to repair the Patullo Bridge just to keep it standing while a replacement is being built?

New West got in the way at every opportunity. Then there's United Blvd.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2016, 5:09 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is online now
zoom zoom
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,379
It is well past time for the province to ram this kind of project through. Nimbyminster just holds the area back at every opportunity when it comes to road transportation.

Either way, there's no way that Sapperton Green (land around Braid station) can go ahead without some massive improvements to the road network immediately surrounding it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2016, 6:47 AM
ilikeredheads ilikeredheads is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 84
lol nimbyminster

this is the same city that tries to push for a one lane bridge replacement between Braid and United blvd. A single lane, not 1 lane each direction, but just 1 lane. Do they still think they live in the 1800s?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2016, 8:47 AM
Marshal Marshal is offline
from the inside out
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver 3/4 - Vienna 1/4
Posts: 627
I am no fan of New Westminster's city government, but this old knock on the city doesn't actually make complete sense. Like it or not, New West (like central Vancouver and the City of North Van) is geographically different from most other municipalities.

But, the point is this: the infrastructure New West rejects doesn't fly anywhere else either. Just considering roads: there has been no major roadway expansions or new routes rammed through standing neighbourhoods anywhere in the region; not in Burnaby, Surrey, Richmond, or anywhere else. In all of those places there is room to route things (like the SFPR, Hwy1, the Alex Fraser Bridge, . . . ) through industrial or unused land. In those places corridors are already established and their expansion happens within them.

New West's rejections are usually tied to incomplete projects that don't carry all the traffic from and to where it needs to go. This usually means a money issue. Who can blame a city trying to makeover its downtown from rejecting the NSPR unless it were separated so it didn't contradict what the city wants to be. Tunnel it, along with the rail lines, they would accept that eventually. But for the money. The new Patulla Bridge: the 4, then six lane option is a bit of a joke. It will be six lanes sooner than later. But would any other municipality accept a six lane bridge that connects to no high capacity route in their town? Not likely. A good example is the lack of connector from the Lions Gate to the Upper Levels. Those city governments have acted parallel to New West every time anyone proposes a link there. For the new Patulla, the Storemont connector is obvious. If it was in a tunnel, New West residents, and then their politicians , would accept that. Budgets will reject it.

Truth is, New West has acted within its duties to its own citizens. We can't fault that. The fault should be aimed at the Province for not make regional infrastructure planning a reality.
__________________
Check out these guys: Luigi Moretti, Atelier Deshaus, Alvaro Siza, John Pawson, Sigurd Lewerentz, Jean Nouvel, Miralles and Pinos, Bolles/Wilson, Toyo Ito, Arne Jacobsen, Giovanni Michelluci, Eladio Dieste, Jürgen Engel, Anacleto Angelini & Alejandro Aravena, Bernard Tschumi, Gio Ponti, Lina Bo Bardi, Nameless Architecture, Wiel Arets, Selgas Cano Architecture

Last edited by Marshal; Oct 28, 2016 at 9:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2016, 9:34 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is online now
zoom zoom
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikeredheads View Post
lol nimbyminster

this is the same city that tries to push for a one lane bridge replacement between Braid and United blvd. A single lane, not 1 lane each direction, but just 1 lane. Do they still think they live in the 1800s?
It was actually just a one lane bailey bridge for years and years.. even before United Boulevard was completed. Rather than put in a real bridge or even another bailey bridge, New West just put up a big fence to block traffic that they didn't want coming that direction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2016, 5:22 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathcona
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal View Post
New West's rejections are usually tied to incomplete projects that don't carry all the traffic from and to where it needs to go. This usually means a money issue. Who can blame a city trying to makeover its downtown from rejecting the NSPR unless it were separated so it didn't contradict what the city wants to be. Tunnel it, along with the rail lines, they would accept that eventually. But for the money. The new Patulla Bridge: the 4, then six lane option is a bit of a joke. It will be six lanes sooner than later. But would any other municipality accept a six lane bridge that connects to no high capacity route in their town? Not likely. A good example is the lack of connector from the Lions Gate to the Upper Levels. Those city governments have acted parallel to New West every time anyone proposes a link there. For the new Patulla, the Storemont connector is obvious. If it was in a tunnel, New West residents, and then their politicians , would accept that. Budgets will reject it.

Truth is, New West has acted within its duties to its own citizens. We can't fault that. The fault should be aimed at the Province for not make regional infrastructure planning a reality.
I don't think New West has pushed for Stormont in conjunction with Patullo. They have plenty of room for McBride to be upgraded without a tunnel being construction. As is, it's almost an expressway. Just eliminate a few driveways to the strip malls and add overpasses at key intersections.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2016, 5:44 PM
rickvug rickvug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post
I don't think New West has pushed for Stormont in conjunction with Patullo. They have plenty of room for McBride to be upgraded without a tunnel being construction. As is, it's almost an expressway. Just eliminate a few driveways to the strip malls and add overpasses at key intersections.
I have not heard Stormont been talked about at all. I don't think it is addressed in the Master Transportation Plan either. I'd actually say that the view is the opposite. There is specific conversation about the Pattullo Bridge landing in an urban environment, similar to say the Oak Street or Burrard Bridge, and that the design of McBride should be updated to reflect this. For example, if Option B for the new Pattullo bridge was chosen (it was not), it would have an additional stoplight on McBride. Many on council supported this as it would be a clear sign that you're now entering an urban environment and should slow your speed accordingly. The only way that I'd see Stormont being supported is if there was a massive amount of tunnelling on the New West side, not just in Burnaby along Newcombe Street. I'd see that being a non-starter budget wise.

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2016, 6:38 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal View Post
I am no fan of New Westminster's city government, but this old knock on the city doesn't actually make complete sense. Like it or not, New West (like central Vancouver and the City of North Van) is geographically different from most other municipalities.
I don't really buy the special snowflake defence, sorry.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2016, 6:49 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathcona
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickvug View Post
Many on council supported this as it would be a clear sign that you're now entering an urban environment and should slow your speed accordingly.

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.
I'd counter by saying that McBride is about as urban Hwy #97 in Prince George. It's got Stroad written all over it, which is an awful compromise.

Almost no buildings face the road, except maybe strip malls and gas stations. So urban, much wow.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2016, 7:02 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal View Post
I am no fan of New Westminster's city government, but this old knock on the city doesn't actually make complete sense. Like it or not, New West (like central Vancouver and the City of North Van) is geographically different from most other municipalities.

But, the point is this: the infrastructure New West rejects doesn't fly anywhere else either. Just considering roads: there has been no major roadway expansions or new routes rammed through standing neighbourhoods anywhere in the region; not in Burnaby, Surrey, Richmond, or anywhere else. In all of those places there is room to route things (like the SFPR, Hwy1, the Alex Fraser Bridge, . . . ) through industrial or unused land. In those places corridors are already established and their expansion happens within them.

New West's rejections are usually tied to incomplete projects that don't carry all the traffic from and to where it needs to go. This usually means a money issue. Who can blame a city trying to makeover its downtown from rejecting the NSPR unless it were separated so it didn't contradict what the city wants to be. Tunnel it, along with the rail lines, they would accept that eventually. But for the money. The new Patullo Bridge: the 4, then six lane option is a bit of a joke. It will be six lanes sooner than later. But would any other municipality accept a six lane bridge that connects to no high capacity route in their town? Not likely. A good example is the lack of connector from the Lions Gate to the Upper Levels. Those city governments have acted parallel to New West every time anyone proposes a link there. For the new Patullo, the Storemont connector is obvious. If it was in a tunnel, New West residents, and then their politicians , would accept that. Budgets will reject it.

Truth is, New West has acted within its duties to its own citizens. We can't fault that. The fault should be aimed at the Province for not make regional infrastructure planning a reality.
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2016, 7:18 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathcona
Posts: 1,410
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.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
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 > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:29 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.