HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 3:40 AM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,693
I'm leaning towards Option A, but am not quite sold on three things.

Firstly, Brunette is meant to be grade-separated from Blue Mountain and Lougheed. The only way I can see that happening is via a tunnel or overpass. The overpass would loom like an eyesore over historic Malliardville... the tunnel method is passable, but might cut off local businesses if it starts in the village proper. Now, there isn't really a lot of space to move things around, but I tried to do that below:



Legend:
- yellow dots = traffic lights

You will also see on my concept that I added back the ramps to and from Brunette, but only on the Vancouver direction. That is just to make it easier for local residents to get in and out, and could be deferred until traffic levels warrant it.

The other thing that I'm not sure about is the diamond interchange where United meets Brunette. I know there's not a lot of space there either, but I thought they were falling out of style in other parts of the continent in favour of other kinds of interchanges (e.g. a SPUI). But I might be wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 3:43 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 11,614
You are thinking about clover leaf interchanges. Those have been largely deemed an obsolete design.

Diamond interchanges are still very popular where free flow movement is not needed for both intersecting routes.

Diamonds are generally a good choice for areas with space constraints.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 3:48 AM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
You are thinking about clover leaf interchanges. Those have been largely deemed an obsolete design.

Diamond interchanges are still very popular where free flow movement is not needed for both intersecting routes.

Diamonds are generally a good choice for areas with space constraints.
I knew the cloverleaf was falling out of style for sure, but I also have heard of things like the SPUI and the diverging diamond interchange... and both of them seem to be geared towards replacing clogged up traditional diamond interchanges. In any case, I'll leave it to the experts to decide that one...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 7:23 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,450
Option C seems to have been included only to placate New West. Spending all that money for such a small improvement overall to traffic flow? Putting the truck traffic underground is an out of sight, out of mind thing, I suppose..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 7:56 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 11,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan_kuan View Post
I knew the cloverleaf was falling out of style for sure, but I also have heard of things like the SPUI and the diverging diamond interchange... and both of them seem to be geared towards replacing clogged up traditional diamond interchanges. In any case, I'll leave it to the experts to decide that one...
I think it depends on how heavy traffic flows are expected to be for the cross road and other factors (such a topography and area constraints).
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 3:39 PM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
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.
About 80% of the cost of the PMB itself.

Although I do wonder why they don't just make Lougheed an over/underpass at this point. There's an empty field and a parking lot it's not like there isn't room.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 5:47 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,491
I think we should just take out that tire place and put in a giant European style traffic circle. We could put a big monument to Gordon Campbell in the middle of it and call it Gordo's Circus.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 5:53 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is online now
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathcona
Posts: 1,565
Does anyone else think this is a giant amount of money that should be directed at building a Stormont Connection instead? It would definitely ease congestion at Columbia.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 6:19 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna, BC
Posts: 3,222
I don't think any of the options will solve anything. Braid, Brunette, and Lougheed Hwy will still be gong shows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 6:23 PM
rickvug rickvug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 73
I found these renders posted on Twitter. Not in the discussion guide but were on display at the consultation. Maybe the MOT is hoping people won't notice?

Option A


Option A - Rousseau flyover over Brunette


Option A - Brunette underpass at Lougheed


Option B


Option B - United to Brunette interchange


Option C


Option C - Columbia to Edworthy Way tunnel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 6:27 PM
rickvug rickvug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 73
Wow, images were larger than expected! Sorry about that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2016, 7:38 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,491
Interesting the renders in B and C show Bernatchy connecting through to Tupper at an intersection with Brunette while the discussion guide does not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2016, 3:43 AM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,693
That Brunette-Malliardville underpass already makes me cringe... and this is only the draft render. Really wishing now that they consider moving it further south so the existing shops at the corner aren't as badly overshadowed by it. Not to mention, the way they drew Lougheed Highway on top at that spot makes it seems less steep than it actually is...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2016, 7:37 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna, BC
Posts: 3,222
That underpass is a lot better than what I envisioned it to be. Not like it's a pedestrian friendly corner right now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2016, 8:01 PM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,300
I have to say, I'm now pleased they didn't rush ahead with an expensive 'band aid' improvement to the Brunette Interchange as part of the PMH1 Project (that said, they did reconfigure the offramps). At first, I was pretty angry they appeared to have 'cheaped out' but it was clear they wanted to see how traffic patterns shifted WRT the Gateway projects (HWY 1 and SFPR) and then assess the road system as a whole. Including the United Boulevard connector in the project is great; the Province effectively takes leadership of getting that done, as well as making a significant improvement at Brunette. Will it make a difference? I don't know, but surely their traffic modellers are telling them something good will come of it (I am personally watching the McKenzie Interchange project here in Victoria with the same wonder) -- some movements will definitely improve, but probably not all. This project won't make the crawl through New Westminster go away though.

500-600M though; not a cheap project, but thats to be expected with the number of structures and also land expropriation requirements.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2016, 11:23 AM
red-paladin's Avatar
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,317
New West at least says that it wants to come to an agreement with Coquitlam on this project, then go to the Province with a common preferred design.

http://www.newwestrecord.ca/news/new...ffic-1.2078404
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2016, 1:13 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by red-paladin View Post
New West at least says that it wants to come to an agreement with Coquitlam on this project, then go to the Province with a common preferred design.
Given the past record of New West's ability to agree with Coquitlam on anything, that may just be code for "over our dead body".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2016, 3:30 PM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Given the past record of New West's ability to agree with Coquitlam on anything, that may just be code for "over our dead body".
The article is also about 13 months old, so I imagine that if they were going to come to an agreement on anything (ha!), they would have done so by now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2016, 3:41 PM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 4,115
Option a just makes so much sense. So that's probably the one we won't get lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2016, 4:05 PM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,450
Option A seems to include a considerable amount of land acquisition, also includes the ICBC Claim Center.

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 7:07 PM.

     

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