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.

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
https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5569/3...be4bacf8_o.jpgBrunette Option A Guess by mullux, on Flickr
Option C Guess
https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5831/3...f7cea7d6_o.jpgBrunette Option C guess by mullux, on Flickr

Thanks for the heads up!

Took a walk down in the Braid industrial area to have a look around.
Found this.
https://c8.staticflickr.com/6/5494/3...abaf2158_b.jpgIMG_1390 by mullux, on Flickr
Updated my musings accordingly.
https://c8.staticflickr.com/6/5767/3...dbb2780a_b.jpgOption C, plus new info by mullux, on Flickr

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.

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 :cool:

It is also *really* good to see the Province take the leadership on making some kind of United Boulevard / Braid / Brunette Connector happen.

So it looks like this will be a bigger project than connecting United to Brunette.

Looking forward to the drawings!

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/

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. :koko:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

I don't really buy the special snowflake defence, sorry.

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.

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?

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.

I have personally been to several consultations and meetings in New Westminster and the vast majority of spectators or "concerned" citizens are individuals older than age 60. Discussions I heard included proposals to limiting through-traffic by permanently closing Front Street and the Patullo (to all trucks as well) to requesting an immediate shutdown of the railyard.

Again, much like the NIMBYS of Arbutus. You have a few vocal NIMBY'S ruining a neighborhoods reputation. If it were up to some of them, they would ban cars from entering certain neighborhoods.

I wasn't actually talking about the bridge, I was talking about New West's tactics in limiting traffic through its downtown by not supporting more lanes into the city being similar to how North Vancouver or West Vancouver would resist more lanes or a full interchange to properly merge traffic before it gets to the bridge.

In any case, we don't blame the Parks Board for not wanting more traffic through the park either... even though it's an area of the park few actually can use. And it's not just the parks board that doesn't want a wider road through the park, it's a lot of people in Vancouver. I think the road should be buried through Stanley Park as well, but that's a pure vanity thing.

The point is... that area is a through point for traffic between the North Shore/Squamish/Nanaimo and the rest of the region. We can't fault New West for doing the same thing.

Eminent Domain is American. The Canadian term is expropriation. Sorry to be picky but this particular usage really annoys me.

What is a snowflake defense?

"I'm a special snowflake, those rules don't apply to me."

As far as the Stormont connector goes:
- the comments that it is not part of current planning are correct (as far as I know)
- I raised it as a good solution to the north end traffic flow.
- But, it is not just a New West thing: Alex Mackinnon is correct that McBride could easily be turned into a freeway, but the real issue is in Burnaby where the Stormont would carry traffic to HWY 1 and so make a major connection that would be good for the region.
But, the argument for turning McBride into a freeway (or close) flies in the face of what most other municipalities arer working towards: Surrey want's King George to change its character away from being solely a throughfare; North Van District is doing the same to Marine; and there are many other cases - so why should New West favour doing the opposite?

As for the Lions Gate: the causeway is not a problem unless a bigger crossing is built, it is currently built to the same standard as the bridge. There is no reason to widen it to 4 lanes if the bridge is 3 lanes. The north end dumps onto Marine, which is fine, but the two connections to the Upper Levels are not good and do not handle the traffic very well. A true connector would be as valuable there as for the Patullo in New West. The issues are similar, and the resistance is similar.

Burnaby already owns all the land for this, unless they supported the construction of this I'm sure they would have sold it.

The difference between McBride and your examples are quite simple: McBride isn't a centre for development, and as of now has not been planned as such. It's a bypass of downtown, uptown and Sapperton. In my opinion it should also be a bypass for Edmonds and Canada Way. Downtown New West is a destination, Uptown New West wants to be a destination, and Central Surrey wants to be a dense urban city. I've yet to see anything about the area surrounding McBride that doesn't say suburban truck route.

Metro Vancouver is a nodal city. The areas in between the nodes need to be allowed to carry things and people between the nodes. Not every area on the Burrard Peninsula needs to be urbanized as such. McBride is definitely a gap in a convenient place.

You're also wrong about the Lions Gate Bridge. Expanding the causeway would absolutely increase throughput. It would mean a lesser number of cars would have be cleared when switching the bridge directions, so the centre lane would have a higher utilisation.

Your characterization of McBride is not one I recognize. Through New West, it is a busy 4 lane arterial that runs between the city's premier park and the park-like Woodlands neighbourhood (medium density residential with several high rise condo towers), a major institution (JI), also with a park-like setting, a school with an adjacent park, and a TWO BLOCK section of strip mall before a couple of blocks of high density residential up to 10th.

We agree it should be a bypass.

Regardless, I am talking about how large scale infrastructure is dealt with by municipalities. I'm not into arguing each case. I am simply pointing out that New West council is not some aberration blocking regional plans. They are simply doing what all the other municipalities do when confronted with such changes. Municipalities are generally NIMBY forces on these kinds of issues - especially with new and expanded roads.

Lion's Gate - your thought doesn't make sense, but let's agree to disagree.

This already looks like an expressway. Everything is right-in-right-out.

I didn't realize that McBride was only one block long.

It looks a lot like an expressway to me too. Open space along the road and most of the buildings are set back, usually with a large hedge as a dividing line.

That's the segment you described as being surrounded by high density housing.

No, he was talking about Victoria Hill. Here's Victoria Hill. I don't think that anyone would disagree that McBride has characteristics of a Stroad right now. The question is how it evolves in the future and what land uses are going to be around it. This might feel like a slight tangent, but look at the land use plan around 8th Street and McBride (snazzy gif of current zoning vs. new OCP draft by CanSpice):

http://i.imgur.com/movDV1S.gif

McBride and 8th Street are zoned for highrise (mixed use and residential) on both sides. Eventually those strip malls will go and the area will become a more prominent node. The current design of McBride is not conducive to that.

Looking back down to Victoria Hill again, there is still vacant land close to McBride. Because of the speed and nature of McBride residents of Victoria Hill favour a new bridge design that is similar to the status quo in alignment, ensuring that traffic as as far away as possible. The other alternative (called Option B during consultations) would have made for much more efficient land use around McBride and Royal. It would have also had a stop light for North bound traffic. With that bridge design and perhaps some further tweaks further down McBride, I think the road would have a much different feel. It would have also opened up a lot more land for parks and residential development, contributing to an urban feel with better connectivity between neighbourhoods (excuse my awful Skitch):

http://i.imgur.com/WP48MBR.jpg

Some might feel that this is getting a little bit off topic for the Brunnette Interchange but that interchange is closely tied to the bridge, future traffic flows through New West as well as land use changes in the area.

Discussion guide is now posted with some conceptual maps. Option B is my favorite but that's just a five second glance.

Option A seems needlessly complicated?

I responded in the Pattullo bridge thread

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.

Option A overall looks to be the best.

I'm just not sold on the 'whirlpool' interchange I guess.

Option A by far is the best!!

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:

http://i.imgur.com/NBk2SGW.png

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.

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...

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..

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).

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.

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.

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.

I don't think any of the options will solve anything. Braid, Brunette, and Lougheed Hwy will still be gong shows.

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
http://i.imgur.com/hDpTD4Y.jpg

Option A - Rousseau flyover over Brunette
http://i.imgur.com/hntY9H8.jpg

Option A - Brunette underpass at Lougheed
http://i.imgur.com/al9piAh.jpg

Option B
http://i.imgur.com/2t81ZS7.jpg

Option B - United to Brunette interchange
http://i.imgur.com/gXwkZyI.jpg

Option C
http://i.imgur.com/R2Vf5Gm.jpg

Option C - Columbia to Edworthy Way tunnel
http://i.imgur.com/qxkYCpf.jpg