[Moncton] East (Harrisville, Lewisville, Tankville, Irishtown) Developments - Page 47

riverviewer · #**921** Posted **Jul 27, 2017, 12:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ifyoubuildit

Costco needs a minimum of 2-3 controlled traffic intersections with ease of ingress and egress.

Rather than rebuild Mclaughlin into a ramp, they should create a new offramp into the Vision Lands.

This could serve both the Elmwood retail and the Vision Lands while taking pressure off Mclaughlin, as it could be realigned.

benvui · #**922** Posted **Jul 27, 2017, 1:56 PM**

I also heard that the CEO was in last week, one of my coworkers happened to be in the store at the same time and he said the employees were acting strange so he asked what was going on and was told the CEO was there to make an announcement to the staff but they didn't know what it was yet. Presumably it was to announce the new store location.

MonctonRad · #**923** Posted **Jul 27, 2017, 2:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by riverviewer

Rather than rebuild Mclaughlin into a ramp, they should create a new offramp into the Vision Lands.

This could serve both the Elmwood retail and the Vision Lands while taking pressure off Mclaughlin, as it could be realigned.

Good job thinking outside the box!

If you take your realigned rte 490 (yellow line) and extend it further south, not only would it service the Vision Lands, you could make it line up with MacBeath Ave & Vaughan Harvey. It could be a straight shot into the city core! Add in another interchange for Wheeler Blvd and this could be a game changer for traffic flow in the city.

MonctonRad · #**924** Posted **Jul 27, 2017, 2:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by benvui

I also heard that the CEO was in last week, one of my coworkers happened to be in the store at the same time and he said the employees were acting strange so he asked what was going on and was told the CEO was there to make an announcement to the staff but they didn't know what it was yet. Presumably it was to announce the new store location.

OK - That's three independent confirmations. This is getting damned serious........

riverviewer · #**925** Posted **Jul 27, 2017, 3:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Good job thinking outside the box!

If you take your realigned rte 490 (yellow line) and extend it further south, not only would it service the Vision Lands, you could make it line up with MacBeath Ave & Vaughan Harvey. It could be a straight shot into the city core! Add in another interchange for Wheeler Blvd and this could be a game changer for traffic flow in the city.

Extending Macbeath to the THC would require some houses to be moved, but makes sense. It would give out-of-town emergency vehicles a direct hospital exit off the THC!

The extension of VH to THC would also would help me getting from Riverview to the new Costco location

Currently there is no easy way to get onto the THC/Elmwood from Riverview.

Ammn_guy · #**926** Posted **Jul 27, 2017, 4:46 PM**

Is definitely a great idea. It would also provide a direct route from the DT center to the highway, a direct link to riverview/fundy.

This would be super costly to do but.. so was dieppe blvd. Dieppe seems to have a more visionary approach planning then Moncton though when doing future based infrastructure development.

It would probably help alleviate some traffic issues in both elmwood, and north moncton, definitely spread the traffic out more. It would probably help contain sprawl as well to within the TCH limit, encourage development of the vision lands.

The hospital would definitely need a pedestrian bridge.

And more importantly, wife could get to work faster(hospital). lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by riverviewer

Extending Macbeath to the THC would require some houses to be moved, but makes sense. It would give out-of-town emergency vehicles a direct hospital exit off the THC!

The extension of VH to THC would also would help me getting from Riverview to the new Costco location

Currently there is no easy way to get onto the THC/Elmwood from Riverview.

riverviewer · #**927** Posted **Jul 27, 2017, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ammn_guy

The hospital would definitely need a pedestrian bridge.

Perhaps Edgett Ave could be cleared of houses to make room for a connecting corridor. Then Macbeath could be used for hospital drop off only.
We can't have patients stepping out into highway traffic.

Patapouf26 · #**928** Posted **Jul 28, 2017, 2:22 PM**

I really like the "Vision Land" off ramp idea. It would have all the positives you all mentioned, plus help spur development for this area (in which we discussed a few pages back).

The "yellow line" south of the TCH may not be that expensive if it can hug the creeks in the area without many crossings (minimum bridges). It's another story for the off and on-ramps, but that would be the case anywhere in between Elmwood and Mapleton exits. Then the it would connect to an extended LJR Parkway (in blue).

Btw, new land has been cleared to make way for an apartment complex (see red square) in the Hall's Creek development. With a few more residents in this area and a proposed new school within a couple of years, this area may finally get the development it deserves.

riverviewer · #**929** Posted **Jul 28, 2017, 4:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patapouf26

The "yellow line" south of the TCH may not be that expensive if it can hug the creeks in the area without many crossings (minimum bridges).

Wow, we need to avoid the wetlands? Gives me new appreciation for Alcide's job.

I checked the Wetland map data on GeoNB map and looked for the best connection to VH. Definitely the best option is Edgett as there are two wetlands we need to squeeze between. Once through those wetlands, we almost to plaza blvd, so we might as well save money and use that exit for one side of wheeler.

viewer

Patapouf26 · #**930** Posted **Jul 28, 2017, 4:53 PM**

I was mostly referring to bridges as a cost to avoid, but indeed, they definitely need to be careful of wetlands. And then we can have LJR Pkway connect to Crowley Farm Road right where it's on wetland (it's already there!)

Scarface · #**931** Posted **Jul 28, 2017, 5:42 PM**

It seems there might have been people who called on the city/province about the new Harisville/Wheeler Blvd on/off ramps, and the overpass to If I heard correctly a double diamond back intersection. The cost would be less then the cost of there curently planed intersection, and on/off ramp. Hope they look into this if it is a safer, and more cost effective option it should be done.

mylesmalley · #**932** Posted **Jul 28, 2017, 5:52 PM**

People would sooner suffer than change...

MonctonRad · #**933** Posted **Jul 28, 2017, 6:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarface

It seems there might have been people who called on the city/province about the new Harisville/Wheeler Blvd on/off ramps, and the overpass to If I heard correctly a double diamond back intersection. The cost would be less then the cost of there curently planed intersection, and on/off ramp. Hope they look into this if it is a safer, and more cost effective option it should be done.

Where did you hear this? I have heard nothing to suggest that the province is backing away from the dogbone roundabout interchange design. I'm sure some people may have complained to the government about the design (people don't like change as myles stated), but the government would have sunk lots of money into the design and engineering studies for their proposal. It would seem unlikely they would change things just because a few people are disgruntled, especially since roundabouts are becoming more and more popular (at least with traffic planners) nationwide..........

mylesmalley · #**934** Posted **Jul 28, 2017, 7:10 PM**

A diverging diamond (double diamond) interchange would be just as controversial, if that's what the people you heard were referring to.

Wikipedia

You'd still have two sets of traffic lights and you'd have the confusion of having traffic crossing the overpass on the 'wrong' side of the road.

Scarface · #**935** Posted **Jul 28, 2017, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Where did you hear this? I have heard nothing to suggest that the province is backing away from the dogbone roundabout interchange design. I'm sure some people may have complained to the government about the design (people don't like change as myles stated), but the government would have sunk lots of money into the design and engineering studies for their proposal. It would seem unlikely they would change things just because a few people are disgruntled, especially since roundabouts are becoming more and more popular (at least with traffic planners) nationwide..........

Quote:

Originally Posted by mylesmalley

A diverging diamond (double diamond) interchange would be just as controversial, if that's what the people you heard were referring to.

Wikipedia

You'd still have two sets of traffic lights and you'd have the confusion of having traffic crossing the overpass on the 'wrong' side of the road.

Yes Myles that is what I have seen, and heard about it. I'm not sure the province would change the intersection unless this was proven to be safer. The people who create this use what seems to be false info about the differences in accidents between A diverging diamond (double diamond), and a dogbone intersection.