Brunette Interchange and United Boulevard Connector - Page 6

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**101** Posted **Nov 28, 2019, 7:19 AM**

the GreeNDP killed as many of these as they could and it was pretty obvious they would as well.

Metro-One · #**102** Posted **Nov 28, 2019, 7:33 AM**

This was actually one project I would have been okay with a slimmed down version (as long as it was a decent improvement)

Really wish Translink went ahead wit their original plan years ago, would have been done by now and they would have actually utilized that intentional dip in the Skytrain guideway.

sitchensis · #**103** Posted **Apr 4, 2024, 9:07 PM**

Heads up that the project page for this was updated in February, 2024:

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/t...nge-area-study

Engagement on concepts will be occurring this spring!

madog222 · #**104** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 12:08 AM**

Great to hear, no doubt the new design will have a far greater focus on active transportation than the previous.

Lexus · #**105** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 12:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by madog222

Great to hear, no doubt the new design will have a far greater focus on active transportation than the previous.

100%. Lots of room for cycling pathways improvement!

officedweller · #**106** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 4:26 AM**

Reminder of the proposals from back in 2016:

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

I can't see Option A working (or being accepted by the public) -
There's no Hwy 1 eastbound access from southbound Blue Mountain or southbound Brunette
- they are relying on traffic accessing Hwy 1 via Lougheed Hwy.
- that means the only eastbound access points from the Lougheed Mall to West Coquitlam area are from Cariboo Road interchange or from Lougheed Highway (near Schoolhouse Rd.).
That's a huge gap.

Simplified drawings of the options from the Golder Associates Environmental Impact Study:

OPTION A:

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/brunetteinte...nical-reports/

OPTION B:

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/brunetteinte...nical-reports/

OPTION C:

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/brunetteinte...nical-reports/

Metro-One · #**107** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 4:38 AM**

And 99% we ain't going to get anything this comprehensive / extensive this time around. I'm betting minimal, if any, improvements to the actual traffic flow / highway interactions.

Like, I'll be happy to eat crow if I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

trofirhen · #**108** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 7:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

And 99% we ain't going to get anything this comprehensive / extensive this time around. I'm betting minimal, if any, improvements to the actual traffic flow / highway interactions.

Like, I'll be happy to eat crow if I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

Haha. If you held your breath regading this, you'd pass out and we'd need the ambulance. Seriously, though, I agree pretty much totally. Vancouver specializes in "underbuilding" where roads are concerned.

officedweller · #**109** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 7:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

And 99% we ain't going to get anything this comprehensive / extensive this time around. I'm betting minimal, if any, improvements to the actual traffic flow / highway interactions.

Like, I'll be happy to eat crow if I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

Yeah, forgot about the change in government.
i.e. Steveston Hwy overpass triple stack versus what's being built.

CanSpice · #**110** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 4:09 PM**

Options B and C are likely non-starters now as Metro Vancouver has built their transfer station right where the Blue Mountain extension would go.

mcj · #**111** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 5:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Options B and C are likely non-starters now as Metro Vancouver has built their transfer station right where the Blue Mountain extension would go.

Option C could probably still squeeze in there. The diagonal ROW still seems to be there along the side of the building. Would probably need a substantial retaining wall though.

sitchensis · #**112** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 5:42 PM**

That intersection around Blue Mountain, Lougheed and Brunette has also densified considerably over the last several years. The Loma development being one of the more significant ones. I suspect any plan that adds underpasses or overpasses there is a non-starter by now -- and rightfully so. It would be a shame to lose that little bit of village urbanism to facilitate car movements.

I am very curious to see what the proposed revised options are. From what I recall, City of New West and the health authority threw its support Option C, as it directs heavy truck and vehicle traffic away from RCH and the Brewery District, itself a densifying residential and employment node. I also recall that Option A is a non-starter for the residents who live near Brunette along Rousseau. This is especially acute now with the corner of Brunette and Braid intensifying into residential development, along with the addition of the Urban Academy school.

I suspect we will see some kind of variant of Option C and Option B. My money would be on a favorable Option B variant, with the new revision focused on removing the need for underpasses at Brunette/Blue Mountain/Lougheed.

Vantage · #**113** Posted **Apr 7, 2024, 5:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Vancouver specializes in "underbuilding" where roads are concerned.

BC** specializes in "underbuilding" where roads are concerned.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**114** Posted **Apr 7, 2024, 6:06 AM**

i like how they had a plan 8yrs ago, in 2016, and we are still no further ahead almost a decade later; just like the Massey Tunnel.

madog222 · #**115** Posted **Apr 7, 2024, 8:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i like how they had a plan 8yrs ago, in 2016, and we are still no further ahead almost a decade later; just like the Massey Tunnel.

There was no “plan”. There were preliminary designs (some with questionable viability) presented, none of which the local municipalities agreed with.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**116** Posted **Apr 8, 2024, 5:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by madog222

There was no “plan”. There were preliminary designs (some with questionable viability) presented, none of which the local municipalities agreed with.

i see. so 8yrs ago, we spent a bunch of time coming up with a plan on what to do, then just abandoned it because reasons. gotcha.

better to just throw our hands up in the air and never do anything i guess.

CanSpice · #**117** Posted **Apr 8, 2024, 5:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i see. so 8yrs ago, we spent a bunch of time coming up with a plan on what to do, then just abandoned it because reasons. gotcha.

They didn't spend a bunch of time coming up with a plan, they came up with three preliminary designs and nobody in Coquitlam or New West were happy with them, so they put the project on hold.

Metro-One · #**118** Posted **Apr 8, 2024, 7:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by madog222

There was no “plan”. There were preliminary designs (some with questionable viability) presented, none of which the local municipalities agreed with.

I would be careful with always needing the local municipalities on board.

If so, we would have had at grade LRT Evergreen line and at grade #3 road LRT Canada Line.

At times the province has to think of the region over the local municipality, especially for highways and railway projects.

moosejaw · #**119** Posted **Apr 9, 2024, 5:52 PM**

Pretty sure New West would fight any sort of improvement to this scenario.

mcj · #**120** Posted **Apr 9, 2024, 6:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Pretty sure New West would fight any sort of improvement to this scenario.

Absolutely not, New West wouldn't fight an improvement that actually considered benefits to New West residents. New West supported Option C in 2016.

Quote:

City of New Westminster staff has recommended the city put forward Option C as its preferred option