HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2016, 4:28 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,635
Although I'm not sure this could work well at Brunette, check out what WSDOT is implementing:

Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2016, 5:50 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeCee View Post
Option A seems to include a considerable amount of land acquisition, also includes the ICBC Claim Center.
I wonder if that ICBC Claim centre can be merged with the ICBC Centralized Estimating Facility 3.0km east on Hartley Ave.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/ICB...8467367,17.19z
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2016, 8:01 PM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by osirisboy View Post
Option a just makes so much sense. So that's probably the one we won't get lol

The Province probably already has chosen its preferred option, which I am guessing *IS* option A.

I realize it is comparing apples to oranges, but given the three options we were presented for the McKenzie Interchange, it was pretty clear which one the Province wanted (parclo to handle the heavy left-turn volume to McKenzie Ave). People got to 'vote' in a popularity poll (that option won), but the Saanich council and several local groups were very opposed to it.

The province ignored a vote by Saanich Council to investigate other options, and proceeded with the Parclo design (U/C now). I cannot see the Province handling the New West / Coquitlam squabble any differently... "You're entitled to your opinion, but we are driving the bus here and we are building THIS."

I expect option A to prevail, if this goes to construction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2016, 8:33 PM
rickvug rickvug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 40
For those that might be interested, I pulled New Westminster's position paper out of tonight's council agenda. See http://imgur.com/a/3tIPx. Note that it is an unapproved draft at this point but I'd wager that approval at the council table is a lock. As expected they are making a case for Option C.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2016, 10:10 PM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,483
Can someone tell me why these renders never show the true picture. What do I mean? Do you see a single semi-truck in them?

That is like 50+% of the traffic along those routes. Yet they always show nicely spaced cars. Seriously it is semi-truck traffic that slows EVERYTHING down the majority of the time on these dinky little urban narrow roads.

As such, given the flow I see, I think Option A is the best option though C has some interesting concepts. It is far too expensive for much less benefit though and quite frankly Option C's interface with HWY1 is confusing as all hell.

I'd vote Option A though I don't really get a vote nor in the grand scheme of things does it actually affect me as I avoid that area as much as humanly possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2016, 10:19 PM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickvug View Post
For those that might be interested, I pulled New Westminster's position paper out of tonight's council agenda. See http://imgur.com/a/3tIPx. Note that it is an unapproved draft at this point but I'd wager that approval at the council table is a lock. As expected they are making a case for Option C.
I don't actually think Option C is horrible. It is expensive though and doesn't really have long term benefits.

I think the biggest issue with New West is they don't really want any truck traffic despite the fact that they sit between 2 major industrial areas so they can't avoid it at all. They would be better off just embracing that corridor as a transport corridor and go with the best option for moving stuff QUICKLY through their city which seems to be Option A.

But they would never do that given it (Option A) is closer to the spirit of the NFPR of past which they were completely against. They couldn't possibly now support that option.

We'll see I guess. I just really dislike the interface with HWY1 for both Options A and B. I think it is extremely confusing and would lead to some awkward access to the various streets. Also, in my experience, one of the biggest bottle necks is at Braid street and only Option A remove that entirely. Heck I had to go not far from Ikea just last Saturday. It was 12 noon on a weekend, and it took me longer to get through the braid intersection than it did to get there from Surrey Central over the Patullo bridge. There was actually a point where a train was going by and all the traffic directions were red lighted for 4 minutes (I counted). Made absolutely no sense. I was sitting there thinking "Why can't we move over the overpass? Why is our light red with a train going parallel? This is stupidly designed."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 8:29 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
I don't actually think Option C is horrible. It is expensive though and doesn't really have long term benefits.

I think the biggest issue with New West is they don't really want any truck traffic despite the fact that they sit between 2 major industrial areas so they can't avoid it at all. They would be better off just embracing that corridor as a transport corridor and go with the best option for moving stuff QUICKLY through their city which seems to be Option A.
Options A and B keep truck traffic on Brunette. Option C would divert it through the existing industrial zone and away from Brunette (and the hospital).

New West (and Metro Vancouver) also have in their long-term goals a goods movement tunnel through New West (presumably to replace Front Street). Option C's tunnel would be able to connect to that in the distant future.

New Westminster will never go for Option A, because it not only involves bulldozing houses, it also involves the radical transformation of lower Sapperton, turning Rousseau Street into a fairly major thoroughfare. At last night's council meeting, city staff presented some traffic forecasts for Rousseau (which I believe they got from MoTI): Rousseau currently gets 75 cars per hour in the afternoon/evening rush. Option A would increase that to 1500. I can't see how anybody would think New Westminster would want that option.

Quote:
We'll see I guess. I just really dislike the interface with HWY1 for both Options A and B. I think it is extremely confusing and would lead to some awkward access to the various streets. Also, in my experience, one of the biggest bottle necks is at Braid street and only Option A remove that entirely. Heck I had to go not far from Ikea just last Saturday. It was 12 noon on a weekend, and it took me longer to get through the braid intersection than it did to get there from Surrey Central over the Patullo bridge. There was actually a point where a train was going by and all the traffic directions were red lighted for 4 minutes (I counted). Made absolutely no sense. I was sitting there thinking "Why can't we move over the overpass? Why is our light red with a train going parallel? This is stupidly designed."
With Option C you wouldn't even go on Brunette at all, you'd take the tunnel to the new Blue Mountain connector and get to IKEA that way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2016, 1:27 AM
ronthecivil ronthecivil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 36
Best option of them all!!!!!

Here's a cost effective idea. Just close all the on and off ramps at Brunette!

If that was done, that removes the lights and most of the traffic!

It means that people that avoid queues on the Port Mann when traffic is stalled on the main line can no longer take the Coquitlam exit and then just enter again at Brunnette (Global news loves to suggest this, happens at least once a week).

There's already a giant interchange in Mallardville. It's called the Cape Horn Interchange. If your coming from the west, it's way faster to take that if going to Mallardville, and pretty darn close going to New West! Besides, they can always take the SFPR to the Putello, and that's getting an upgrade shortly anyways.

It completely services New West's ideals by putting freeway commuters on the freeway and not in New West. Kills shortcutting to the Putello!

If you're going EB on Highway 1, just go east on Hwy 7 and connect at Gaglardi. If they want to put a Hwy 7 overpass and what not there in what is an industrial area, or build the Stormont connector, or whatever floats New West's boots, then let's listen. If not, the status quo for that area, or a connection to United Boulevard, or whatever they are hoping for, is fine with me. No rush.

Do an EMME 2 analysis on that and see what happens with the traffic, and compare it with all the metrics they are measuring against, and see how that works.

I know my idea is at least 500 million dollars cheaper........
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2016, 1:33 AM
ronthecivil ronthecivil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
I don't actually think Option C is horrible. It is expensive though and doesn't really have long term benefits.

I think the biggest issue with New West is they don't really want any truck traffic despite the fact that they sit between 2 major industrial areas so they can't avoid it at all. They would be better off just embracing that corridor as a transport corridor and go with the best option for moving stuff QUICKLY through their city which seems to be Option A.

But they would never do that given it (Option A) is closer to the spirit of the NFPR of past which they were completely against. They couldn't possibly now support that option.

We'll see I guess. I just really dislike the interface with HWY1 for both Options A and B. I think it is extremely confusing and would lead to some awkward access to the various streets. Also, in my experience, one of the biggest bottle necks is at Braid street and only Option A remove that entirely. Heck I had to go not far from Ikea just last Saturday. It was 12 noon on a weekend, and it took me longer to get through the braid intersection than it did to get there from Surrey Central over the Patullo bridge. There was actually a point where a train was going by and all the traffic directions were red lighted for 4 minutes (I counted). Made absolutely no sense. I was sitting there thinking "Why can't we move over the overpass? Why is our light red with a train going parallel? This is stupidly designed."
Heck, if we got rid of the interchange at Brunnette, you could eliminate the at grade train crossing, and turn the intersection of Brunette and Braid back into a T intersection. Get rid of the connection New West went to court to stop! That's got to fit into the "meet New West priorities" tick box!

Imagine how nice a connection you would have from Coquitlam into New West for local traffic if you didn't fight the trains or the freeway traffic in the area!

Heck, with 500 million dollars, you might actually have the money to put in a collector distributer section on the mainline of highway 1 through Burnaby! What a great idea for improving the flow of truck traffic that might be!

Let's do those ideas and run them through the EMME 2 analysis, and then compare them with the stated community objectives!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2016, 1:48 AM
ronthecivil ronthecivil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by osirisboy View Post
Option a just makes so much sense. So that's probably the one we won't get lol
It's the best of a bad lot......

Some comments on it though.....

Only one lane westbound along brunette under the Laughead overpass. As a bare minimum, make one regular lane, and one HOV lane, so at least the bus will finally be able to make it to Braid station faster than one can walk there. (Which is about once a week currently).

No connections from Brunette to Laughead. What, do they hate the residents and the school kids on Alderson? I suppose their traffic model doesn't show a lot of those movements since that's not exactly a secret way around that mess at Brunette as is. I guess just making the city core ugly isn't good enough, have to make sure all the nearby local streets are clogged up to boot!

For some strange reason, it's Coquitlam insisting on the ramps that give you the EB Highway 1 to Mallardville ramps. Is Coquitlam centre so far away they don't know anyone that can tell them it's much, much faster to just take United Boulevard?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2016, 1:52 AM
ronthecivil ronthecivil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
Can someone tell me why these renders never show the true picture. What do I mean? Do you see a single semi-truck in them?

That is like 50+% of the traffic along those routes. Yet they always show nicely spaced cars. Seriously it is semi-truck traffic that slows EVERYTHING down the majority of the time on these dinky little urban narrow roads.

As such, given the flow I see, I think Option A is the best option though C has some interesting concepts. It is far too expensive for much less benefit though and quite frankly Option C's interface with HWY1 is confusing as all hell.

I'd vote Option A though I don't really get a vote nor in the grand scheme of things does it actually affect me as I avoid that area as much as humanly possible.
Gotta love how options C puts in it's impacts "impacts former landfill site". I guess that sounds better than "destroys local golf course".

I guess all the beginners can just quit golfing, and we will leave that as an elite sport for the rich, with the only other course in the area being the private Vancouver golf club. (Feel free to build an interchange or a landfill on that...)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2016, 1:58 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: PH level above Vancouver clouds
Posts: 6,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by twoNeurons View Post
Although I'm not sure this could work well at Brunette, check out what WSDOT is implementing.
Thanks for posting! That is so simple yet clever and should be the new standard everywhere! Not to say that roundabouts are a bad design either, but I wasn't really thrilled with them in Ireland where they are simply everywhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2016, 7:18 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronthecivil View Post
Gotta love how options C puts in it's impacts "impacts former landfill site". I guess that sounds better than "destroys local golf course".
The land that the golf course is on is owned by Metro Vancouver. The golf course only leases it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2016, 7:47 PM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
Options A and B keep truck traffic on Brunette. Option C would divert it through the existing industrial zone and away from Brunette (and the hospital).

New West (and Metro Vancouver) also have in their long-term goals a goods movement tunnel through New West (presumably to replace Front Street). Option C's tunnel would be able to connect to that in the distant future.

New Westminster will never go for Option A, because it not only involves bulldozing houses, it also involves the radical transformation of lower Sapperton, turning Rousseau Street into a fairly major thoroughfare. At last night's council meeting, city staff presented some traffic forecasts for Rousseau (which I believe they got from MoTI): Rousseau currently gets 75 cars per hour in the afternoon/evening rush. Option A would increase that to 1500. I can't see how anybody would think New Westminster would want that option.



With Option C you wouldn't even go on Brunette at all, you'd take the tunnel to the new Blue Mountain connector and get to IKEA that way.
Good points. I took a look at an overhead and Rousseau Street would need a big upgrade if it was expected to jump to 1500 cars. I'd imagine they'd have to buy all the houses on both sides and widen it fully.

And you're right with Option C.

Still think B/C have the most confusing interface with HWY1 though. Given you would have this then not much further East the joy just before the Port Mann, going to make for a lot of lost people. That said, that's their problem.

Anyway you make good points. I wouldn't go that way to Ikea anyway, I always take the Port Mann because driving anywhere near New West is an exercise in pure frustration and I have better things to do with my time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2016, 10:23 PM
ronthecivil ronthecivil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
The land that the golf course is on is owned by Metro Vancouver. The golf course only leases it.
It is none the less a golf course. The only public one even remotely close to Mallardville.

With that logic, many public parks would be fair game for conversion into just about anything. Heck, Stanley park is technically still leased by Vancouver from the Feds. Just think of all the condos we could put there!

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2016, 10:29 PM
ronthecivil ronthecivil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
Good points. I took a look at an overhead and Rousseau Street would need a big upgrade if it was expected to jump to 1500 cars. I'd imagine they'd have to buy all the houses on both sides and widen it fully.

And you're right with Option C.

Still think B/C have the most confusing interface with HWY1 though. Given you would have this then not much further East the joy just before the Port Mann, going to make for a lot of lost people. That said, that's their problem.

Anyway you make good points. I wouldn't go that way to Ikea anyway, I always take the Port Mann because driving anywhere near New West is an exercise in pure frustration and I have better things to do with my time.
If new west wants a truck tunnel that replaces front, by all means connect it all the way through Coquitlam to the highways. Just do it at Cape Horn. Widen United Boulevard to six lanes to get it to the highway. It's big box land there anyways.

Option C is great for New West, terrible for taxpayers, and of all the Mallardville destroying options, it does the best job.

Why does New West get to have all it's truck traffic in a tunnel on the perimeter while Mallardville has to suffer destruction of it's historic core?!?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2016, 6:53 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 809
MoTI has posted some technical reports on the project, including traffic volumes. Currently in the AM 1800 vehicles per hour travel westbound on Brunette. Option A sees this increase to 2250, B increases to 2100, and C reduces it to 900.

There are a load more traffic volume numbers in there, it's nice to see these reports being made public (although they should have been made public weeks ago, before the two open houses).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2016, 7:17 PM
ronthecivil ronthecivil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 36
A logical option B

My option A is to just remove all the ramps. Probably too extreme for New West who aren't keen on exiting at Gaglardi when coming from the west. So instead just do an option where people coming from the East still just use the Cape Horn interchange or Putello to access Highway 1. In this option you rejig the ramps to something close to how it used to be. Widen the bridge to three lanes to allow for slip lanes to the ramps. Still no lights. Put in the multiuse pathway as a grade separated structure to get pedestrians and cyclists past the mess (but less of a mess than today, and certainly not the monstrosities planned).

I have it drawn up in google earth but suck at inserting jpegs....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2016, 11:53 PM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronthecivil View Post
If new west wants a truck tunnel that replaces front, by all means connect it all the way through Coquitlam to the highways. Just do it at Cape Horn. Widen United Boulevard to six lanes to get it to the highway. It's big box land there anyways.

Option C is great for New West, terrible for taxpayers, and of all the Mallardville destroying options, it does the best job.

Why does New West get to have all it's truck traffic in a tunnel on the perimeter while Mallardville has to suffer destruction of it's historic core?!?
They shouldn't that's just the thing. They have 1/5th the population of Surrey thus should have 16% say in the final Patullo bridge configuration imho.

Same deal with this, Coquitlam has double the population so New West should have 33% of the say. Not 50/50. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?

*shrug* guess we'll see what happens. I certainly don't think the tax payer of Metro-Vancouver should have to pay a sizable amount more just to make New Westminster happy when they are actually the cause of all their traffic woes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2016, 12:01 AM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
MoTI has posted some technical reports on the project, including traffic volumes. Currently in the AM 1800 vehicles per hour travel westbound on Brunette. Option A sees this increase to 2250, B increases to 2100, and C reduces it to 900.

There are a load more traffic volume numbers in there, it's nice to see these reports being made public (although they should have been made public weeks ago, before the two open houses).
It doesn't reduce it to 900. It reduces it to 900 only for the stretch from Braid to East Columbia where the tunnel exits. After that, and into New West itself, the number is 2050. So ultimately New Westminster center would see about the same with all the options.

So hitting Patullo/New West center area:

Today = 1800
Option A = 2250
Option B = 2100
Option C = 2050

200 vehicle difference is not an unbelievable spread imho and these are just estimates after-all so prone to error.
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 5:38 AM.

     

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