Roads Fantasy Thread

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

I like that for the most part. Pretty good design, not too complicated either.

Only thing I would change is to have the 70A Avenue connection instead connect down 232 Street. Alot of traffic uses 232 Street so it should be connected through with an intersection.

You make an interesting point, but unfortunately because of the creek location in that area, connecting 232 street with that intersection would be much more complicated, perhaps not even doable. 232 Street would connect where it currently does under this plan with no change.

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Oh, and another collision there today EB right at the merge point. Traffic back to 200 Street. Yet the MOT says they need warrants to do any upgrades. An accident every other week or so says nothing?

Why this wasn't included in Gateway is beyond me...

There seems to be less attention paid to things like these. You should make the MOT aware of that in another e-mail. You are a frequent driver of the area, I'm sure they will listen.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

You make an interesting point, but unfortunately because of the creek location in that area, connecting 232 street with that intersection would be much more complicated, perhaps not even doable. 232 Street would connect where it currently does under this plan with no change.

Well, your other option could be realigning Highway #10 along 72 Avenue and then giving the ROW from 72 Avenue to Glover Road. North on Glover Road would be an intersection, (signalized) but you would need to turn off HIghway #10 to access Glover Road North.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

There seems to be less attention paid to things like these. You should make the MOT aware of that in another e-mail. You are a frequent driver of the area, I'm sure they will listen.

I emailed back with a response mentioning that I was simply curious whether or not the MOT was planning to do some studies/warrants to see if upgrades were actually warranted (which I'm sure they are). And likewise, again, the only way you could possibly get things implemented or changed within Surrey is by contacting the City with your concerns, and even possible solutions.

[xd_1771]

I'm not too sure about 72nd. Great idea route-wise, but it's a hit to development along the road, as well as any Hwy 10 4-laning potential. Of course routing 232nd to be the main road to hit that intersection rather than 70A is not impossible, but might result in even more land expropriation requirement.

[ruggedscot]

Vancouver is probably in the top ten of places in the world thats livable. A truly beautiful city. But it is cursed with an infrastructure that is inadequate to cope with the traffic that the city generates.

How do you solve such a blight? A difficult one indeed. The city core itself wont take any multiple lane freeways without detriment to the city. At least any surface or elevated. But using tunnels would provide some relief. Keep long distance traffic out of Vancouver - provide an orbital route of high class - yes its a freeway but these have been proven to work - they provide interconnection and can take considerable traffic away from the core.

The ferry at Horeshoe generates traffic - is this not better served by developing the lower mainland ferry terminal to serve both Nanimo and Victoria ? Provide decent freeway from this terminal up to towards vancover and the wider lowland area.

Park and ride facilities along with rapid transport to the city. P&R integrated with the freeway network. Tunnelled connections from the city to the suburbs.

[DKaz]

Some concepts for the viaducts removal by me...

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by ruggedscot

Vancouver is probably in the top ten of places in the world thats livable. A truly beautiful city. But it is cursed with an infrastructure that is inadequate to cope with the traffic that the city generates.

How do you solve such a blight? A difficult one indeed. The city core itself wont take any multiple lane freeways without detriment to the city. At least any surface or elevated. But using tunnels would provide some relief. Keep long distance traffic out of Vancouver - provide an orbital route of high class - yes its a freeway but these have been proven to work - they provide interconnection and can take considerable traffic away from the core.

The ferry at Horeshoe generates traffic - is this not better served by developing the lower mainland ferry terminal to serve both Nanimo and Victoria ? Provide decent freeway from this terminal up to towards vancover and the wider lowland area.

Park and ride facilities along with rapid transport to the city. P&R integrated with the freeway network. Tunnelled connections from the city to the suburbs.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I agree with just about everything you say. But be warned. People in Vancouver (or many of them anyway) have a "thing" against tunnels. I remember suggesting that and I got either over-intellectual responses why tunnels were tabou, or sometimes something tantamount to "No-o-o-o-o-o-o...." I don't understand it either.

[Political_R]

Unless the province wants to pony up the dough for something near Iona Island, you can forget the idea of another terminal. I think SFPR might help with traffic relief from Horseshoe Bay since it will make it easier to access Tsawwassen from Maple Ridge onward. Tsawwassen-Duke Point for regular vehicles is still underutilized except during the summer weekends.

Although, my fantasy was to create a new bridge across the narrows with a six lane tunnel that bypasses downtown to the Oak Street bridge. Although we will have to wait for the Massey to be twinned before that happens.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by Political_R

Although we will have to wait for the Massey to be twinned before that happens.

Now there is a real fantasy.

[xd_1771]

I remember someone else on here before mentioned his/her idea of 2 or 3 lane uni-directional (AM or PM) expressway from Rte 1, tolled, and similar to the effective Melbourne Citylink, to provide an express link into the downtown core and move traffic off of city streets; it may also provide a new source of revenue for the City of Vancouver.

I actually find this a decent idea, then Vancouver can work to reduce traffic on local streets incl. First Ave, Hastings, Powell, be able to viably further reduce their capacity and increase on pedestrian friendliness and transit service (First doesn't even have any transit along the route at the moment) along those corridors. I was thinking such an expressway (which could run along the BC Rail/Millenium Line corridor) could link up with the viaducts. I know lots will disagree instantly at the thought of "expressway in Vancouver", but do think about it and the potential benefits to the street level infrastructure. An optimized design with little to no merges on the route will move fairly well from Highway 1 and not jam LA-style.

I do like Dkaz's concept and from an overall perspective it can and will work very well, but there are a few minorities I would do differently (the lack of turn lanes may be a problem when adjacent to the road are prioritized bike lanes; the redesigned Dunsmuir includes right turn bays at all intersections (at the cost of a through lane, but Dunsmuir moves more efficiently like this anyway) as turning traffic has to yield to bicycles.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

It would not help get downtown at all. IOCO and Barnet is probably THE worst intersection, in congestion for turns, in BC (I have seen the left turn line back up to Moray St). I would drive over the Ironworkers any day, any time than try to turn left off Barnet onto IOCO at rush hour.

So, IMO, the cost of building a bridge, plus the cost of improving the roads in the area at both ends, would never be worth it for the number of drivers using the crossing, ever.

If you actually really wanted a crossing, I would propose a small ferry, like the Albion ferry but with tolls, from the Dollarton Hwy to the Barnet Hwy. Or a high speed passenger only seabus connecting several ports of call, but I don't think there would ever be enough passengers to justify it.

A small ferry with road expansion

[trofirhen]

The new Gateway crossing, when finished and fully operational, will carry large volumes of traffic northwestward, westward, and possibly be heading for downton peninsula, the West Side, and a percentage going over the LGB. What therefore would be the main c/d system for this traffic? Would, and could things remain the same, with First Avenue loaded with westbound traffic, among others? Powell and Cordova still the best in/out CBD and west routes? Won't the volume increase? Won't there be structural issues that will have to be taken into consideration? If anyone's up to speaking to this ...... great. Thanks.