Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
I don't think that's a very fair example. The loop has much more lanes (including a dedicated right turn lane onto Royal) and usually never backs up. It's also nearly never used by long trucks.
|
They are both loops, one in your opinion is fine, the other a "ruiner". The problem isn't with the loops, it's with the volume of traffic. At the PB, you have 1 lane exiting into 1 lane on Royal. At QB, you have about 5 or 6 lanes worth of traffic from different directions squeezing onto a 2 lane bridge. Loops or not, traffic is going to be bad at the QB just because of how many people want to use it at peak hours. It's fine the rest of the day, and better than it ever was before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
Yes, and I can honestly say that I never had too many problems with the old layout. Then again, I usually only came on/off the bridge from a certain direction. IMO that is also the fault of traffic on 20th street, they are SUPPOSED to be YIELDING. I'd consider it a bit worse for 20th street southbound now, they not only have to face a merge point but also a light. I'll have to agree Marine/Stewardson movement is a big faster though depending on where you're going.
|
This will be a big change once the SFPR opens. The improved flow between Marine and the Bridge will be useful when trucks use the SFPR then 91/91A to get into the Fraser Lands, instead of coming off the PMB and travelling through New Westminster. The SFPR is going to be a bigger game changer than the NFPR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
Regardless of which way trucks will be going at that intersection, trucks will be using that intersection and without proper right turn lanes and median barriers the safety and capacity problems at hand could be quite large.
|
At that point it is a city street, what are safety barriers needed for? Again, trucks are not going to be coming off United and to go NB on Brunette. It's not going to be a major issue. Tucks can use King Edward or the east end of United and use the Cape Horn interchange. And trucks have dedicated exits at Cape Horn for getting onto United, so SB Brunette to EB United isn't going to be an issue either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
Chance-wise it is better to have two lanes, for with one lane as soon as a truck slips you are completely out of luck whatsoever. Trucks usually default to the right lane/slow lane anyways, and could be otherwise instructed to do so via radio if a snowstorm ever happens again. Even when there's no snow, some trucks are horrendously slow and with only one lane going up you could cause backups behind. It's a safety concern too; if a truck's engines were ever to fail going up, it would be at the cost of everybody behind. The ramp has to go up and over a Skytrain overpass (two levels) so I'd consider that crazy enough.
|
The Skytrain really isn't that high at that point. The top of the guideway is hardly higher than the trains in the BNSF yard. It almost looks short enough you could touch the bottom of the guideway standing under it.
If you had a 2 lane exit, then you would need at least a 5 lane elevated structure to avoid merging issues at that point.
So what if someone is stuck behind a truck for a hundred or so meters, it's just a few seconds, then at the top you can change lanes and pass. Very few off ramps around here are 2 lanes. There aren't any lights leading up to where the overpass is going to be, so trucks will have a running start at the ramp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
I rather think that Translink is missing a point here. They seem to be deliberately removing a major highway connection that involves going through one intersection and then getting on the on-ramp, when in the future you'd have to go through the uphill ramp and two sets of on-ramps with a lot of weaving and merging in short distances just to get onto the Highway. United should not be a focus for the heavy through truck movement between Brunette/New West and the Mary Hill Bypass/Port Coquitlam. Highway 1 will have enough capacity to handle such traffic with 4+1 HOV lanes (a massive upgrade from 2+1), and I think provisions least wide enough to add a 3+1HOV+2 collector/direction C-D system if the time comes. It is also the only major connection for commuters/non-trucks going between all of Coquitlam and New West during the morning or afternoon commute, and a lot of people in this metropolitan area move such distances to go to work; whether in a car or on a bus, the issue is the same.
|
But like you've been complaining about, trucks are slow. What makes you think they'll be any faster at merging coming off your proposed on ramp, which is closer to Cape Horn than Brunette, and be up to speed to pick change lanes to the proper exit at Cape Horn? Why make a slow moving truck get on to a fast moving freeway for 2km, only to have him slow down an exit when it gets off? You were just complaining about slow moving trucks cramping your —, now you want to throw them on a 10 lane freeway?
A truck can still get on the TCH at Brunette. There is no need to build a $300 million Viaduct onto the TCH from Brunette. The improvements at Brunette are going to make a difference (but I would have like to see the original proposal built, Thanks Coquitlam) and Blue Mountain won't be done until after the SFPR is done and probably not until after the new Pattullo and McBride connector. Traffic from 91 or Burnaby will just use the AFB, and get on the SFPR. After the SFPR is done, we'll see fewer trucks on Brunette. It will mostly be traffic bound for the industrial area at the foot of the PMB or for Marry Hill bypass. It's going to be pointless for trucks to travel through New West to use a toll bridge when there are better, free options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
Lack of right turn lanes cause bigger problems than you think; a lot of people don't signal right away so they'll be signalling only a few meters before the turn and slamming the brakes, which could be a safety issue considering trucks need more time to decelerate. If there are pedestrians or other such traffic there, you're basically SOL until they move out of the way and often times by the time the pedestrian light ends and they are out of the way, the light turns yellow and red, and therefore you are stuck. With the amount of trucks and general traffic being added onto the route there will be near-zero opportunity to pass in the left lane. This is a major problem in Surrey right now and I worry it could become a major problem somewhere else.
What you said about United not being a highway is right, hence Translink should not convert United into a major truck route.
|
But that's what it was originally built as. It's a pretty beefy road, with a major interchange already built at the East end connecting United to Lougheed (which Gateway is taking advantage of).
There are very few (none at the moment) residents in the area, and most of the traffic already is industrial/commercial. Why not keep that traffic on a road that was built for them. Having truck congestion on that road isn't harming any commuter, except the few that work in the area. And that's the point, the increased traffic on United isn't going to harm residential areas or commuters.
Trucks that want to avoid it can. They can travel through Brunette to Lougheed and use the Cape Horn to get to Marry Hill or Lougheed to Coquitlam Center, or the PMB.
P.S., you might want to read up on your driver's manual. You are supposed to leave a safe distance to the car in front of you. That means you need to leave enough room so if the person in front of you slams on their brakes to avoid hitting a kitty cat on the road, you have enough time to react and apply your brakes too. If you are following so close you don't have time to react to people turning right, you aren't going to do well on your driver's test. As for trucks, the speed limit isn't going to be 90, they won't be riding people's asses when there are lights around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
That's a major problem, there are currently no provisions for being able to get on the TCH or Lougheed easily without a lot of merging, weaving, and stopping via low-capacity ramps. In fact I'd rather think of them as removing these provisions, possibly on purpose.
|
The ramps from Brunette are getting a major improvement. Again, not as good as it should have been, but it will be a lot better. I don't see how traveling through the Braid intersection to the Brunette interchange is a issue for car traffic. And at the east end of United at the existing interchange, it looks like Lougheed is going to be divided into 4 sections (sort of similar to how it is now) to divide traffic flow into to/from PMB and to/from the west.
I there will be any more merging or weaving than in your plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
Trucks or not, as I said avenue right turns are a major problem in Surrey. I have seen way more of Surrey roads than you have, sitting at at least two intersections at similar times of day waiting for the bus, every day for 2 months, studying the traffic flow as I wait. The same issues I fear could happen to United because all that traffic on E. Columbia is apparently being directed onto United - a very similar amount of traffic to 104th Avenue today with a mix of trucks, commuters in cars and buses. There already is access to Highway 1; it will be removed. With the additional capacity, as I once again said, there will be no reason to avoid the 1 at least in the short term. United will still be there as an alternate route, but by no means should it become a primary route for traffic.
|
It's great that you've studied 2 intersections so closely for 2 whole months. I've only driven all over the lower mainland in my car for years. I've lived in 7 different places in the region in the last 10 years. I've traveled in all kinds of different directions at all kinds of different times of day. I feel inadequate.
There is a difference between United and 104 ave. 104 ave is a major street through the heart of Surrey connecting 2 of the largest SoF town centers. It connects City Center to the TCH, and is used by trucks bound for the Fraser Docks and River Road.
United is through industrial land. It's not a road people NEED to use to get places. Commuter traffic is on the TCH. Who the — cares if United is a parking lot of trucks between King Edward and Marry Hill? There are other casinos nearby and Ikea is safe.
The important thing is to keep TCH and Lougheed as clear as possible for those who NEED it so that it's fast for commuters. Regular Travelers on Brunette don't need to get onto United, they stay on Brunette and can use the ramp to the TCH or go to Lougheed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
I agree, it does not have to be a freeway. However, consider how bad intersections are treated in this area and how often they're placed where they shouldn't be. Think of the lineups on Highway 91 northbound every single morning at 72nd. Think of the total mess 104th is all day, every day between 152nd and the Route 1 on-ramp. Think of the Mary Hill Bypass. I think intersections will at least need to be minimized on such a busy route. Not every direction needs dedicated left turns; some left turns, including Brunette > Braid WB (use North Road damnit) will be or are already redundant. I try to avoid redundancy where possible, it just results in extra costs and problems.
|
104 will be a lot better in a few years once SFPR opens. Which is sort of like what the NFPR will do, get trucks off roads used by local and commuting traffic.
Light controlled intersections are pretty few and far between on the Marry Hill Bypass (4 by my count), the major problem used to the the PRB, and the intersection at United (which won't be a problem after this). And between Highway 1 and McBride there are 5 lights on Brunette/Columbia. Improvements need to be made to that stretch, but the fault doesn't entirely lay on the lights.
There actually isn't a left turn at from Brunette to WB Braid, most people already do drive through Columbia to North road. Again, it's Columbia there, and New West wants to minimize traffic going through their city on E. Columbia; they've done as much traffic calming as possible and lowered the speed limit to 30. The only reason that intersection at Brunette and Columbia is still open is because of the Hospital. And it depends on which option they want to go with, but United to WB Braid should be a travel option once it's done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
You had a better option of Como Lake. I lived south of Burquitlam plaza much closer to Lougheed Town Centre and the best route for me was to go south, especially eastbound. For people living further east (where most people are concentrated in Burquitlam) Blue Mountain would be the better option.
|
In the rough and tumble shadow of the Vancouver Golf Club isn't really Burquitlam. But if you are already on the East Side of North, heading East on Austin is a lot faster than turning left onto North and going through the North Road Plazas. Going South on North Rd was only an option after 8pm, and only faster than Lougheed to Brunette if you went 90km/h down North.
[QUOTE=xd_1771;5065878]
The current Brunette interchange/on ramps option ruins everything there. It seemed much faster to use North-Braid-Brunette-TCH1 EAST on a non-busy day when no trains were crossing, since you didn't have to deal with a stop-sign-controlled dual right turn, sharp angles turns and an unsignalized left turn preceding a curve in the road where it is very hard to turn... I'm pretty sure other people thought the same. Once Blue Mountain is constructed, the triangle at Lougheed/BM/Brunette is resolved and ramps are better angled, that problem will have been solved.
[quote]
When it's not busy out, the most direct route is the fastest. Failing that, the route with the faster speed limit, and Lougheed was more direct and had a faster limit. If it's not busy out, there should be no problem turning right onto Brunette and turning left off Brunette on to the TCH. If its busy, heading to Gaglardi is the safest bet, it was longer but guaranteed to not be locked up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
There's one point proven by yourself. A lot of people in New West may choose to avoid the Pattullo, especially for more long-distance trips east of Surrey. Braid > Brunette > Rte. 1 East is also the only reliable route from New West to Coquitlam and proper. I'm thinking that the one way bridge is more of a problem than the rail crossing right now, and even then I doubt it would cost that much to build a very short cut-and-cover tunnel for the railway if it is such a problem, and would likely end up the better option as it would keep traffic moving straight on a better, higher-capacity route. The money saved from ramp/overpass simplicity and little property acquisition can be put onto that.
|
If people in New West are heading for points east of Surrey, they probably will use TCH, until the NFPR opens, then they can use Pattullo for free (for now) and access NFPR and avoid the PMB toll.
But if they do want to use the TCH they can already get on it at Brunette. Your plan makes it quite a bit harder for travelers in New West to access Highway 1. They go from 1 intersection to needing to use 2, plus cross rail tracks. And those tracks are not moving an inch. Not until a new billion dollar rail river crossing is built somewhere. There is no room for the tracks to go over or under and have room to make grade at where they cross the creeks and join with the other tracks. And there are 4 tracks there, it would be a pretty major project to move them if you could. Moving the tracks to a tunnel or overpass would cost orders of magnitude more than the proposed overpass, then on top of that we have to build your idea. It's turning from a $200 million project into something beyond the scale of GEB.
Prev
Aside from that, this concept would end up very, very, very expensive and probably not push through.
It might be costly though, you'd need to perform some upgrades to the Nordel Way interchange (since you're going to be dealing with a short left turn lane onto the on-ramp accommodating a bunch of trucks that could clog up the main road for travelers into Surrey) in order to accommodate that kind of traffic load.
Linear Mode
