Quote:
Originally Posted by paulsparrow
Based on your argument you will now have the opposite. Congestion on the bridge. How is it going to look when you have three lanes going northbound down to 2 lanes on McBride? This is the point I'm trying to make.
Even if you reconfigured the overpass on the north side to allow three lanes each way under it you will still have too much traffic trying to go down McBride (like now) so just like the Alex Fraser north bound the traffic will back up two lanes up the new Pattullo.
|
You wouldn't have every lane on the bridge exit onto McBride. Almost half the traffic exits at the Royal/Columbia exit. And more would exit there if it were more convenient/direct or if Brunette were widened to make it a faster alternative than McBride.
If you had 4 lanes northbound on the Pattullo, 2 lanes would exit onto the 2 lanes of Mcbride, and 2 lanes would be exit only onto Royal/Columbia. Or there are different configuration options where the primary lanes might continue onto Columbia/Front/NFPR and the must exit lanes would take you to McBride and Royal (depending on where you want to send the majority of traffic to flow). On the South side, the lanes could have dedicated exits onto the SFPR, Scott, and King George.
Think about how the Granville street bridge is. It has 4 lanes in the middle, and they split at each end: it works pretty well. Or on the AFB, it is 3 lanes, and at each end, one lane exits. The PMB is also more lanes that the freeway.
And so what if the congestion actually moves to on the bridge. If there is going to be congestion, it would be better if it were on the bridge. Then instead of everyone being stuck in traffic, only those using the bridge would be slow moving while people driving locally around the city would face much less congestion.