[St. John's] Transport development (Highways, Airport, and Public Transit)

[jjavman]

Originally Posted by Offshore1

I remember seeing that image of the bridge across the narrows, way before I joined the forum. Yeah, I don't see it happening.
Instead of the bridge I've thought of a tunnel from Pitts (by the waste treatment facility) going under Signal Hill to meet up with East White Hills Rd.

Ditto for that though

Actually with today's technology, a tunnel might be more feasible using a TBM.

The problem with big infrastructure dreams like this, is that we do not have the population to support them unfortunately. I think we'd need the size of Montreal/Calgary at least to justify that one.

Would certainly be a neat addition tho' !

[Offshore1]

The whole tunnel thing makes me wonder though. They can make it work elsewhere like the Faroe Islands ( pop. approx 50,000 ) and Norway ( pop 5.25 million ).

https://www.tunntech.com/index.php/proje...ng-subsea-tunnels-connecting-the-islands

Too bad we're such an economic basket case.

[jjavman]

Originally Posted by Offshore1

The whole tunnel thing makes me wonder though. They can make it work elsewhere like the Faroe Islands ( pop. approx 50,000 ) and Norway ( pop 5.25 million ).

https://www.tunntech.com/index.php/proje...ng-subsea-tunnels-connecting-the-islands

Too bad we're such an economic basket case.

Norway seems to be very committed to infrastructure. With a population only a fifth of Canada's, they know no bounds when it comes to tunnels and bridges!

One of their tunnels will be a 'floating tunnel", suspended just under the surface of a 3 km deep fiord. Check out some of their other tunnels and bridges. They have tried just about everything; cut and fill, sea floor, solid rock bored.

I am fairly confident in saying, that if NL was in Norway, there's no question a fixed link to Labrador would be/would have been, built!

They've already built major infrastructure to more sparsely populated areas.

[Horsell]

One small difference between Norway and Newfoundland is that Norway has about $500 BILLION in net wealth whereas we are $20 Billion in the hole.

[Marty_Mcfly]

There's also the factor of there being no net benefit to a tunnel bypassing Kings Bridge, or under the narrows to link Pitts to East White Hills. While I like interesting and cool infrastructure projects, they have to be feasible.

I don't even think the fixed link to Labrador or Quebec is a good use of money, even if the Quebec highway were to be completed.

[jjavman]

Originally Posted by Horsell

One small difference between Norway and Newfoundland is that Norway has about $500 BILLION in net wealth whereas we are $20 Billion in the hole.

Good point!

[jjavman]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/fixed-link-1.5187489

[rthomasd]

So the recommendation is for a rail tunnel for the "16 Km" passage. Since you can't come in or out at the water depth, the tunnel would be how long? 25 Km ? Water depth is as much as 350 Metres along parts of the path, even close to shore on the Labrador side. So how long a run is needed for
a train to climb say 600 Metres?

I've travelled the Chunnel from the UK to France and while a marvellous development, it's fairly manpower intense vs the Norwegian tunnels which are auto tunnels, I believe. So, once built, how many workers would be needed to load, unload the vehicles, drive the trains, etc. Would it be a
24 / 365 service? If the economic argument is savings from the Straits Ferry, that would be blunted severely by a railway service.

Why is a rail tunnel proposed, rather than a vehicle tunnel?

[thevan]

"The draft transit plan is now available for feedback. Check out the Plan and then take the survey

Your feedback will be considered as the plan is finalized.

There are also two public drop-in sessions scheduled:

-Wednesday, June 26 at City Hall, Foran/Greene Room from 4:30 - 8:30 p.m.
-Thursday, June 27 at 348 Water Street from 12:30 - 2:30 p.m."

https://www.engagestjohns.ca/transit

Short notice but thought it would be worth reposting here. Cheers!

[jjavman]

A lot of flap in the news again about roundabouts with the imminent Costco opening. I should offer upfront that I'm a fan of roundabouts in general.

Here is the educational diagram put forward by city and governments, for the double lane variety.



The incident that happened to me recently, can be visualized by looking at the red and blue cars at the top of the diagram.

I played the part of the red car going straight (with signaling). The part of the blue car was played by a pickup truck that decided to continue around the loop and almost drove me into oblivion.

One can opine about the responsibility of drivers to educate themselves, but if I was a visitor from around the bay, I don't think roundabouts would be 'top of mind' for my daily reading. Not sure what the answer is.

[statbass]

Originally Posted by jjavman

A lot of flap in the news again about roundabouts with the imminent Costco opening. I should offer upfront that I'm a fan of roundabouts in general.

Here is the educational diagram put forward by city and governments, for the double lane variety.



The incident that happened to me recently, can be visualized by looking at the red and blue cars at the top of the diagram.

I played the part of the red car going straight (with signaling). The part of the blue car was played by a pickup truck that decided to continue around the loop and almost drove me into oblivion.

One can opine about the responsibility of drivers to educate themselves, but if I was a visitor from around the bay, I don't think roundabouts would be 'top of mind' for my daily reading. Not sure what the answer is.

A safety infraction I see on a regular basis (at least at the Kenmount-Karwood roundabout) are driver's crossing lanes while traversing the roundabout. I believe the rules may differ in other jurisdictions but I'm fairly certain crossing lanes isn't allowed here, someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Of course crossing lanes may be needed for entering or exiting lanes but not while traversing. There have been a couple incidents whereby a driver is entering the roundabout in the outer lane while, at the same time, another crosses from the inner to the outer.... then having to slam the brakes.

To comment on your point about driver education. I think there should be a shared responsibility between motorists and the municipality. As a motorist, I feel we should familiarize ourselves with rules and regulations, especially in unfamiliar territory. However, I think it's irresponsible of the town/municipality to put the onus squarely on the driver... it's typically council's decision to put infrastructure there in the first place.

[KnightFury]

Originally Posted by statbass

A safety infraction I see on a regular basis (at least at the Kenmount-Karwood roundabout) are driver's crossing lanes while traversing the roundabout. I believe the rules may differ in other jurisdictions but I'm fairly certain crossing lanes isn't allowed here, someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Of course crossing lanes may be needed for entering or exiting lanes but not while traversing. There have been a couple incidents whereby a driver is entering the roundabout in the outer lane while, at the same time, another crosses from the inner to the outer.... then having to slam the brakes.

To comment on your point about driver education. I think there should be a shared responsibility between motorists and the municipality. As a motorist, I feel we should familiarize ourselves with rules and regulations, especially in unfamiliar territory. However, I think it's irresponsible of the town/municipality to put the onus squarely on the driver... it's typically council's decision to put infrastructure there in the first place.

Moving from an inside to an outside lane does happen on the Ruth Ave roundabouts (without crossing the lines). If you are exiting westbound Pitts, heading to Galway, you'd be in the left lane and then move to the right lane while in the roundabout. (see pic) The same happens when coming from Mt Pearl and heading eastbound on Pitts. When the lines are painted it makes it easier to navigate.

[Engibeer]

Originally Posted by KnightFury

Moving from an inside to an outside lane does happen on the Ruth Ave roundabouts (without crossing the lines). If you are exiting westbound Pitts, heading to Galway, you'd be in the left lane and then move to the right lane while in the roundabout. (see pic) The same happens when coming from Mt Pearl and heading eastbound on Pitts. When the lines are painted it makes it easier to navigate.

This formation is pretty popular in Europe; however, I think it would have been much more straight forward for the general public if the planners stuck to a uniform double lane roundabout. They clearly had the space to do so. Even if not necessary, it would have been a degree simpler to understand.

[statbass]

Originally Posted by KnightFury

Moving from an inside to an outside lane does happen on the Ruth Ave roundabouts (without crossing the lines). If you are exiting westbound Pitts, heading to Galway, you'd be in the left lane and then move to the right lane while in the roundabout. (see pic) The same happens when coming from Mt Pearl and heading eastbound on Pitts. When the lines are painted it makes it easier to navigate.

Yes, you're right, but in this scenario (due to the design of the roundabout) the inner lane becomes the outer - so you are really staying in the same lane. The Karwood roundabout is a full double lane and the way you can traverse it differs.

Using my example of a safety infraction in this situation: a driver exiting Westbound Pitts enters the roundabout in the right lane, then crossing lanes (as to not exit onto Ruth) to proceed to Galway.

Unfortunately, having a mix of different roundabouts is bound to be confusing for drivers. It might be a good idea to have signs that read, "Stay in this lane to go to Costco". LOL!

[jjavman]

Originally Posted by statbass

Yes, you're right, but in this scenario (due to the design of the roundabout) the inner lane becomes the outer - so you are really staying in the same lane. The Karwood roundabout is a full double lane and the way you can traverse it differs.

Using my example of a safety infraction in this situation: a driver exiting Westbound Pitts enters the roundabout in the right lane, then crossing lanes (as to not exit onto Ruth) to proceed to Galway.

Unfortunately, having a mix of different roundabouts is bound to be confusing for drivers. It might be a good idea to have signs that read, "Stay in this lane to go to Costco". LOL!

I didn't even realize that the Karwood roundabout was different! I think I was on it when new before the lanes were painted.

I agree having different standards in roundabouts is gonna be very problematic!
These particular examples are in different municipal jurisdictions, so the responsibility lies with the provincial government to dictate a standard.
The more I think about this now, the more ludicrous it seems. It's one thing to expect out-of-towners to understand how to use these, but you reasonably can't expect them to learn each municipalitie's version of roundabout!

[statbass]

Originally Posted by jjavman

I didn't even realize that the Karwood roundabout was different! I think I was on it when new before the lanes were painted.

I agree having different standards in roundabouts is gonna be very problematic!
These particular examples are in different municipal jurisdictions, so the responsibility lies with the provincial government to dictate a standard.
The more I think about this now, the more ludicrous it seems. It's one thing to expect out-of-towners to understand how to use these, but you reasonably can't expect them to learn each municipalities version of roundabout!

That's correct and there are a number of single-lane roundabouts around the city as well.... the one by Paul Reynold's centre comes to mind. This is where a regional model or coordination would come in handy to help set standards on how roundabouts should be designed on the Northeast Avalon. I'm just wondering about the half-dozen roundabouts planned for Prince Philip Dr.

[jjavman]

Originally Posted by statbass

That's correct and there are a number of single-lane roundabouts around the city as well.... the one by Paul Reynold's centre comes to mind. This is where a regional model or coordination would come in handy to help set standards on how roundabouts should be designed on the Northeast Avalon. I'm just wondering about the half-dozen roundabouts planned for Prince Philip Dr.

The single lane versions are not an issue (at least as regards to lane crossing). I have seen older people stopping in the circle to let an entrance lane proceed, but that's rare.

I can't wait to see what will happen to the Prince Philip versions! Especially with level crosswalks at the entrances. It's going to be very hairy with traffic on that road.

I wonder if the planning is still ongoing with these, as they were announced 2 years ago?

[statbass]

Originally Posted by jjavman

The single lane versions are not an issue (at least as regards to lane crossing). I have seen older people stopping in the circle to let an entrance lane proceed, but that's rare.

I can't wait to see what will happen to the Prince Philip versions! Especially with level crosswalks at the entrances. It's going to be very hairy with traffic on that road.

I wonder if the planning is still ongoing with these, as they were announced 2 years ago?

You mention cross-walks and that brings up a good point that I haven't thought about yet. Most of the roundabouts so far have been constructed in areas where pedestrian traffic is low. The proposed roundabouts on Prince Philip Dr will be in an area of relatively high pedestrian traffic. I realize that drivers should treat the crosswalks no differently than any other crosswalk. But again, another element motorists have to be conscience about when using roundabouts. I've seen some drivers entering at fairly high speeds, and some others cutting off traffic in the roundabout.

[jjavman]

Originally Posted by statbass

You mention cross-walks and that brings up a good point that I haven't thought about yet. Most of the roundabouts so far have been constructed in areas where pedestrian traffic is low. The proposed roundabouts on Prince Philip Dr will be in an area of relatively high pedestrian traffic. I realize that drivers should treat the crosswalks no differently than any other crosswalk. But again, another element motorists have to be conscience about when using roundabouts. I've seen some drivers entering at fairly high speeds, and some others cutting off traffic in the roundabout.

Council originally looked at crosswalk tunnels (way back in this thread somewhere); and then deemed it not feasible for some reason. I think it's gonna be a real safety issue with level crosswalks and no lights.

[Tocchet22]

St. John's Intl Airport

Noticed on the way through departures last week that signage is up for freshii coming soon next to Tim Horton's full restaurant in area where security used to be. Some diversity from Tims is welcome. Seems like construction of this space is taking a long time!