Jump to content

           



Latest VV Article


Victoria International Airport “Q&A” with President & CEO Geoff Dickson

VibrantVictoria’s question-and-answer special feature with the president and CEO of the Victoria Airport Authority answers a series of questions relating to the Victoria International Airport (YYJ) as posed by members of VibrantVictoria’s discussion forum. The questions focus on marketing the airport, flights and airlines, and airport infrastructure. [Read more]


Photo

Pat Bay Highway (Highway 17) discussion


  • Please log in to reply
201 replies to this topic

#1 sebberry

sebberry

    Super Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 9,611 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 29 February 2012 - 09:57 PM

Ministry asks: How would you improve the Pat Bay Hwy and Sayward Road intersection?

The Ministry of Transportation wants your ideas today on how to improve a crashprone intersection in Saanich.


The ministry and Saanich South MLA Lana Popham are holding an open house to discuss options on improving the intersection of Patricia Bay Highway and Sayward Road, near Elk Lake.

[...]


Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz1nqGQ1cvL


So, what would VV do to fix up the highway?

#2 Robb

Robb
  • Member
  • 164 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:08 PM

Remove direct access to highway from businesses south of intersection.
Add a southbound acceleration lane
Add a northbound acceleration lane

The only close calls I've had there were from drivers pulling out onto the highway when it wasn't safe to do so.

#3 Sparky

Sparky

    Super Duper Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 5,943 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:14 PM

It's the northbound acceleration lane that does not exist that causes all the problems.

It's been that way since I was a boy.

Turning north from Sayward towards Sidney while traffic is in full flow.....is deadly.

As far as the politicians are concerned, this media event is stupid.

If the politicians really want to find out how to fix the intersection...
ask the hundreds of police officers that have had to attend to mop up after the accidents over the years.

#4 Robb

Robb
  • Member
  • 164 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:46 PM

2009 Safety Analysis

Table A-7 Benefit Cost Review is very interesting.

I'm always for government spending our tax money to save lives and money. ICBC would probably even fund it.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

#5 sebberry

sebberry

    Super Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 9,611 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:33 PM

Looking at the pretty graphic in that document it appears that 68% of collisions at that intersection are rear-enders, which are strictly the result of driver inattentiveness and following too closely.

The SPD has a heavy presence on this highway. In the name of safety, put down the radar guns and start picking off drivers for following too closely.

There, problem largely solved. Where can I send my consulting invoice?

#6 Robb

Robb
  • Member
  • 164 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:46 AM

Looking at the pretty graphic in that document it appears that 68% of collisions at that intersection are rear-enders, which are strictly the result of driver inattentiveness and following too closely.

The SPD has a heavy presence on this highway. In the name of safety, put down the radar guns and start picking off drivers for following too closely.

There, problem largely solved. Where can I send my consulting invoice?


I've never heard of anyone getting a ticket for following too close other than after they've rear-ended someone.

Has anyone else here?

#7 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 5,060 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 07:55 AM

Some of the rear ending happens when turning right and you are slowly inching out into traffic. The vehicle behind you is doing the same thing and as the driver looks left to check traffic, the car in front stops. Bang!

Acceleration/merge lanes should rectify most of that problem.

I think that there should be no traffic crossing east to west at Sayward, and eliminate the stop light. Instead, improve the intersection at Haliburton.

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance" - Socrates


#8 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 1,214 posts
  • LocationCRD

Posted 01 March 2012 - 07:56 AM

IRSU was out in full force just north of Sayward, I counted 6 marked and at least 3 unmarked....all with their radars out....it gets boring after a while but I guess low hanging fruit provides statistics.

I was rear ended at the Sayward light in 1985, lost 6 weeks of work and my back has never been the same since.

I drive that road 2-3 times a day and my only suggestion is to remove the light completely and create acceleration lanes for both directions. For traffic trying to cross over to the lake or the businesses from Northbound a simple single lane flyover from the weigh scale to the other side would work. Any traffic coming from Cordova bay would come through from the hill at the gravel pit.

Its a bad intersection, speed has little to do with it, the lights and following too close shre the primary burden of responsibility.

#9 Hotel Mike

Hotel Mike

    Hotel Mike

  • Member
  • 702 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 10:03 AM

Losing the light and adding the acceleration lanes makes a lot of sense environmentally as well. The Pat Bay Highway traffic would no longer have to stop, idle and then accelerate at Sayward when the light changes.

#10 sebberry

sebberry

    Super Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 9,611 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 01 March 2012 - 10:41 AM

I've never heard of anyone getting a ticket for following too close other than after they've rear-ended someone.

Has anyone else here?


I'm sure it happens, but I doubt it happens much. Collecting enough evidence against a speeder is easy, but it's a bit trickier to build a case against a tailgater.

With all the highly visible speed enforcement and media campaigns against speeding, the vast majority of drivers exceed the posted limit. I'm not sure how successful a similar campaign against tailgating will be.

#11 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 17,903 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:13 AM

Meanwhile a new traffic light is planned to coincide with the Costco development in Central Saanich...

Skyscraper Source Media Inc.

July 15, 2014: [Mayor] Fortin told C-FAX's Bruce Williams that he expects the [Johnson Street Bridge] project to be completed "on time and on budget."


#12 sebberry

sebberry

    Super Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 9,611 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:30 AM

In the region of eternal studying, planning and review by committee you'd think traffic lights would be the last thing approved.

#13 sebberry

sebberry

    Super Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 9,611 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:20 PM

Thanks for breaking this off into it's own thread, whoever did that :)

#14 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 10,225 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:48 PM

^^ Mike there is no new light planned in CS for teh Costco development unless you mean Option 3 which removes the current light at Island View and puts one Southbound only at East Saanich. So it would be the same southbound and one less light northbound. The other two options are for an overpass with no changes to lights.

Also +1 for removal of Sayward lights. How much traffic is really going across the road and turning left. This can easily be accomodated at Haliburton.
Density Fanboy

#15 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 17,903 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:53 PM

Yes, I mean option three, and apparently that's the favoured option at the moment. Any changes along that highway should be to remove lights and add overpasses, not move lights from one intersection to another. This is nonsensical and a waste of money.

Thanks for breaking this off into it's own thread, whoever did that


NP.

Skyscraper Source Media Inc.

July 15, 2014: [Mayor] Fortin told C-FAX's Bruce Williams that he expects the [Johnson Street Bridge] project to be completed "on time and on budget."


#16 bluefox

bluefox

    ex-Victorian

  • Member
  • 490 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 04:38 PM



It would be interesting to see how much this re-configuration would cost, but it's something I just cooked up on the fly.

The main premise of this idea is basically that we remove any at-grade left turns from either direction, sacrifice through traffic on Sayward for the purposes of safety and enable uninterrupted through traffic on both directions of the highway.

Anyone needing to go north on Highway 17 from Sayward would just need to head north to Island View instead; likewise any intended southbound traffic off Sayward westbound would need to access from Royal Oak.

This would also involve the expropriation of the FasGas station's lands to facilitate the wider curve of the merge lane to southbound Highway 17.

I'm sure I made this look a little bit more complicated than it actually is but I also wanted to see if it was possible based on the layout to preserve access to at least PetroCanada despite the changes.
(Not the owner of, nor am I associated with, the Blue Fox Café, in any way.)

#17 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 1,214 posts
  • LocationCRD

Posted 01 March 2012 - 07:45 PM



Look at the weigh station on the northbound route. See how the exit lines up perfectly with the entry to the southbound lane on the other side of the road?

Perfect for a flyover.

#18 Sparky

Sparky

    Super Duper Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 5,943 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 07:59 PM

Thanks for breaking this off into it's own thread, whoever did that :)


Your Moderators are here to serve. We toil during the wee hours of the morning, the late light of the candle, and during the business day grind as well, in order to deliver the organizational qualities that you have grown to enjoy/appreciate.

If we were to identify the diligent Mod that preconceived your yet to be divulged pleasure.....he/she would expect/deserve some sort of recognition.

Let's not spoil it. :P

EDIT: That was off topic. Darn.

#19 splashflash

splashflash
  • Member
  • 34 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 05:24 AM

2009 Safety Analysis

Table A-7 Benefit Cost Review is very interesting.

I'm always for government spending our tax money to save lives and money. ICBC would probably even fund it.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.


Thanks for the link to the report. The accident mitigation benefits for the interchange are quite high, really at >$11 million versus $18 million cost for an interchange. All the other measures are much greater than 1, so should take place immediately if the interchange wouldn't be built.

If a complete benefit/cost analysis, including time savings for motorists etc. were done, I wouldn't be surprised to see benefits easily outweigh costs for an interchange. The highway east of Kamloops certainly does not merit upgrading based on an accident prevention cost/benefit analysis (or for that matter any of the highway projects - Cariboo Hwy upgrades, Kicking Horse Pass, Lower Mainland highways), and the projects outside the Lower Mainland likely wouldn't have good overall benefit/cost ratios. The metric has been applied to deny certain projects (eg. Horne Lake Connector) to make sure there is enough money for pet projects (non-Vancouver Island projects).

#20 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 10,225 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 07:19 AM

MoT did a full plan for an overpass just north of the current intersection why don't they just go ahead and implement the plan. Surely a contract for work that included the new Costco overpass, a flyover at East Saanich or Keating and this Overpass would come in at a significant cost savings over building them at different times.
Density Fanboy

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users