HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2016, 12:36 AM
ronthecivil ronthecivil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
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.
If they ran the traffic projections on my two options, the traffic through New West would be way lower. Congestion would pick up on the freeway. But with 500 million extra to spend, they could build a collector/distributer system through Burnaby.

The way that works is that there's two through lanes from Gaglardi to boundary, a barrier, and three general lanes + auxiallary lane from Gaglardi to Boundary. Thus if you want to exit at Gaglardi, Kengsington, or Willingdon, you exit onto the local system at a divergence between Brunette and Gaglardi. If you are going to Vancouver or beyond, you take the bypass lanes. No more Burnaby traffic slowing down the freeway!

Same deal in the other direction.

Not to sure I would trust the traffic projections as they certainly didn't pick up the congestion that moved from the Port Mann to the Burnaby stretch instead.

Far better use of 500 million.

Before anyone asks, fairly sure it does in fact already fit.... :wink:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2016, 4:23 AM
Xrayal's Avatar
Xrayal Xrayal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Westminster
Posts: 121
Option A Musings

I played around with google mymaps and put together an alternate access plan to Braid Station and the Sapperton Green development site. It would require a land swap but I think it's a wise move for all parties. Of course it's assuming Option A would be chosen. What do y'all think?
Briad Station Access with option A by mullux, on Flickr

Last edited by Xrayal; Nov 21, 2016 at 5:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2016, 12:15 AM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
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.
Yes, and that's the stretch of Braid that has Royal Columbian Hospital on it, so if two of the goals of this project is to improve access to RCH and reduce air pollution around RCH, then only Option C meet those goals. That's why I brought up the traffic volumes near RCH.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2016, 2:34 AM
ronthecivil ronthecivil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
Yes, and that's the stretch of Braid that has Royal Columbian Hospital on it, so if two of the goals of this project is to improve access to RCH and reduce air pollution around RCH, then only Option C meet those goals. That's why I brought up the traffic volumes near RCH.
I suppose if you only limit yourself to the options currently on the table, then Option C only meets that goal.

If you want to do either of my partial or full closures to the Brunette interchange, include the new intersection of Brunette and Braid in the sketch above (except instead of a T intersection include an arm on the New West side of Brunette), close the existing rail crossing, and build the tunnel connection to New West as shown in Option C, that would be fine.

You don't need to destroy Mallardville to "fix" (whatever your definition of fix is) the connection to New West.

Besides, the traffic in New West is going to right itself as soon as the Putello tolls come into place. I loved the weekend closures over the summer. It was the only time I could pick up my buddy in New West for golf without wanting to punch my steering wheel!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2016, 5:41 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronthecivil View Post
I suppose if you only limit yourself to the options currently on the table, then Option C only meets that goal.
Those are the only options that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has presented, and since they're the ones that are making the decisions here, those are the options that we're limited to.

Quote:
If you want to do either of my partial or full closures to the Brunette interchange, include the new intersection of Brunette and Braid in the sketch above (except instead of a T intersection include an arm on the New West side of Brunette), close the existing rail crossing, and build the tunnel connection to New West as shown in Option C, that would be fine.
Agreed. Have you shared this with MoTI?

Quote:
You don't need to destroy Mallardville to "fix" (whatever your definition of fix is) the connection to New West.
I totally agree! This shouldn't be a Coquitlam vs New West situation (again!), this should MoTI sitting down with both Coquitlam and New West at the same time to work on something that works for everybody.

Quote:
Besides, the traffic in New West is going to right itself as soon as the Putello tolls come into place. I loved the weekend closures over the summer. It was the only time I could pick up my buddy in New West for golf without wanting to punch my steering wheel!
Amen!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2016, 11:53 PM
ronthecivil ronthecivil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
Those are the only options that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has presented, and since they're the ones that are making the decisions here, those are the options that we're limited to.



Agreed. Have you shared this with MoTI?



I totally agree! This shouldn't be a Coquitlam vs New West situation (again!), this should MoTI sitting down with both Coquitlam and New West at the same time to work on something that works for everybody.



Amen!
Not only am I going to go to share my ideas with MoTI, I am going to write the Coquitlam Engineering department and the mayor with my concerns, and ask them why they aren't standing up for Coquitlam.

The Sapperton residents association is against the project as is (though they might like our carefully constructed compromise) and I am thinking of contacting them and asking if they want a Mallardville rep (who as you may guess knows what I am talking about on these things) to help them carefully craft their responses while acting as a Coquitlam diplomat.

The concerns New West has regarding people shorting through their town to get to the free bridge also affect my community, so it's not like I don't have a vested interest in listening to them.

The problem is that some people can't think outside the box.

I live in the area, drive through it all the time. I take every mode of travel through the area, and know all the short cut and diversion routes.

I am the kind of guy that can envision a Cad model of the road as I drive down it, a truck turning movement when I see a truck turning, and can envision traffic pattern changes easily with a simple change in design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2016, 2:30 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,558
I can't see Option A working (or being accepted by the public) -
There's no Hwy 1 eastbound access from southbound Blue Mountain or southbound Brunette
- they are relying on traffic accessing Hwy 1 via Lougheed Hwy.
- that means the only eastbound access points from the Lougheed Mall to West Coquitlam area are from Cariboo Road interchange or from Lougheed Highway (near Schoolhouse Rd.).
That's a huge gap.

Simplified drawings of the options from the Golder Associates Environmental Impact Study:

OPTION A:


http://engage.gov.bc.ca/brunetteinte...nical-reports/

OPTION B:


http://engage.gov.bc.ca/brunetteinte...nical-reports/

OPTION C:


http://engage.gov.bc.ca/brunetteinte...nical-reports/

Last edited by officedweller; Nov 23, 2016 at 2:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2016, 4:45 AM
Xrayal's Avatar
Xrayal Xrayal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Westminster
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
I can't see Option A working (or being accepted by the public) -
There's no Hwy 1 eastbound access from southbound Blue Mountain or southbound Brunette
I was puzzled by this also. But I think the omission is actually part of the plan. Correct me if I'm wrong but if you enter the freeway using the eastbound flyover ramp from Lougheed Hwy you have no choice but to be in the local traffic C/D lanes on the bridge. In short they might be trying to corral the local commuter traffic (Coquitlam to Surrey) by not allowing it to mix with the inter-regional traffic on that busy stretch before the bridge.
My guess anyways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2016, 4:55 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,558
Yeah, it's intended.
You can access either the collector or express lanes from the Lougheed onramp.

Options B and C have eastbound onramps to Hwy 1.

So Option A is probably designed to reduce volume on the overpass through the interchange
- i.e. it's not much different that what exists now, so they need to reduce volume to avoid gridlock on the overpass.

Whereas Options B and C have a lot more redundancy (even though they have more traffic lights), so it can allow more movements.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2016, 4:12 PM
ronthecivil ronthecivil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 36
If you want to get to east bound highway 1 from the laughead mall (and future massive development) just stay on Laughead for three more blocks and take the direct ramp onto the bridge or the Mary Hill bypass.

But it does bring up my option 3. Close Brunettte (keep the bridge as a local connection) and build an interchange at North Road. The freeway over North road is already elevated. Just build ramps up to it.

The whole area is being torn up anyways. The new development will completely clog Laughead between any version of an interchange between Gaglardi and Brunnette. So why not just put one right there? North road lead directly to the Sapperton Green development as well. Both developments are going to strain Coquitlam, so why not put the interchange to deal with it right at the border between the two?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2016, 4:19 PM
ronthecivil ronthecivil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xrayal View Post
I was puzzled by this also. But I think the omission is actually part of the plan. Correct me if I'm wrong but if you enter the freeway using the eastbound flyover ramp from Lougheed Hwy you have no choice but to be in the local traffic C/D lanes on the bridge. In short they might be trying to corral the local commuter traffic (Coquitlam to Surrey) by not allowing it to mix with the inter-regional traffic on that busy stretch before the bridge.
My guess anyways.
Option A is as close to the non political solution (take away the ramps that connect Mallardville with eastbound highway 1 that are only in there due to pressure from Coquitlam) as you can get.

Options B and C are trying to please everyone, which as always, pleases nobody.

If New West wants their tunnel (careful what you wish for) instead of the small piece of the NFPR legacy in Option A, then why not just take out the stupid ramps Coquitlam wants, and connect United Boulevard whatever way New West wants, even if it's in a tunnel?

P.S. Even if they think they do, I can assure you, you will regret that decision. Think about what happens when there's an accident on the Massey Tunnel what happens, and how hard it is to clear it. Then think about what an ugly mess it will make when it's daylighted.......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2016, 11:42 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronthecivil View Post
If you want to get to east bound highway 1 from the laughead mall (and future massive development) just stay on Laughead for three more blocks and take the direct ramp onto the bridge or the Mary Hill bypass.
Yeah, but that stretch of Lougheed is already congested.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2016, 6:37 PM
ronthecivil ronthecivil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Yeah, but that stretch of Lougheed is already congested.
If the back up on the Braid Interchange didn't spill all the way onto the double left turn from Laughead, it wouldn't be nearly as congested.

If we do the my option A of closing the Brunette interchange, it's even less congested. It complete eliminates all people that go around queues on the Port Mann by take the Laughead exit and entering the highway again at Braid. It forces way more people that are coming from the Mary Hill area, PoCo etc. to stay on the freeway unless their goal is to access New West of the Laughead mall area.


If you have the partial interchange, you only really get the benefit of the reduced queue backing up onto laughead.

If there's a desire to more easily funnel traffic into New West, then however that is done is no skin off my back. Build an elevated freeway down United Boulevard for all I care. But New West doesn't understand that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Making it convenient from New West residents also makes it convenient for those rat running through the town to hit Putello of the Queenbourough......

P.S. It would be super easy to build an exit form the freeway that connected to the Bernatchy intersection on North Road. Beef that up and then at least you can start having a bit of a circulatory system running that has a hope of letting things move.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 6:53 AM
madog222 madog222 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: New West
Posts: 164
Quote:
Cities of Coquitlam and New Westminster establish joint task force on the Brunette Avenue Interchange Project


The neighbouring cities of Coquitlam and New Westminster have established a task force in an effort to develop a joint response to the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) on plans currently underway for a new Brunette interchange. The Brunette Interchange Project is being advanced by MoTI as part of its 10-year transportation plan which includes new interchange improvements on highways in the Lower Mainland.

“ICBC statistics show this interchange has the highest frequency of crashes of any location within Coquitlam,” said Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart. “It’s the only interchange that remained unchanged during the recent Port Mann Bridge / Trans-Canada Highway upgrade, and it’s the main route from the Tri-Cities to Royal Columbian, our regional hospital. We look forward to working collaboratively with the City of New Westminster in order to move the Brunette Interchange Project forward”.

Co-chaired by the Mayors of Coquitlam and New Westminster and consisting of two councillors from each city, the task force will be supported by their respective senior engineering/transportation staff.

“Given the potential impacts of a new Brunette Avenue interchange it is critical that we work together to ensure the best interests of our respective communities are kept front and centre,” said New Westminster Mayor Jonathan Coté. “This joint task force is an ideal forum for New Westminster and Coquitlam to advocate for that to occur.”

The Coquitlam-New Westminster Joint Task Force on the Brunette Avenue Interchange Project will conclude its work and report out to respective councils no later than February 27, 2017.
https://www.newwestcity.ca/city_hall..._post/2141.php
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2017, 1:18 AM
logicbomb logicbomb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 496
Initially I would have just been content with the original plans as shown here but I think the MOT needs to look at this more in depth. Hwy 1 between Coquitlam and Vancouver is absolute hell to drive through nowadays and there's a number of accidents occurring due to moronic drivers and flawed designs.

Brunette is an interesting case because the interchange itself isn't too terribly flawed; but the through traffic along Hwy 1 makes it absolutely hell to merge or exit.

EB is a particularity big concern as you got idiotic POCO/Coq bound commuters making such stupid decisions along the stretch between North Rd and the Cape Horne which leads to congestion along the entire stretch between Cape Horne to Grandview.

This combined with Surrey bound commuters coming off Brunette that are trying to merge and switch 3 lanes over leads to numerous fender benders and significant accidents which is causing massive daily delays.

Ideally, the simplest solution would be a similar config to Cape Horne or to completely omit the EB Brunette portion to reduce congestion. No doubt, they have to start seeing whether or not it's feasible to install jersey barriers starting from just west of Brunette and have one segment lead to Brunette/Coq/POCO and the other to Surrey
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 10:20 AM.

     

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