399 replies to this topic

[Robb]

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.

Has anyone ever seen an interchange project's benefits calculated to include time and fuel savings?

I was just thinking about the difference between stopping at a light and passing through an interchange.

~4,000 vehicles per hour at peak times. All those cars idling while the light was red, then accelerating back to highway speed.

Surely that adds up in terms of fuel use, carbon emissions, etc? Especially over the lifetime of an interchange, 25yrs or more?

Also the minute or two of each person's time they could be using doing something else.

Hmm...

[Coreyburger]

Has anyone ever seen an interchange project's benefits calculated to include time and fuel savings?

I was just thinking about the difference between stopping at a light and passing through an interchange.

~4,000 vehicles per hour at peak times. All those cars idling while the light was red, then accelerating back to highway speed.

Surely that adds up in terms of fuel use, carbon emissions, etc? Especially over the lifetime of an interchange, 25yrs or more?

Also the minute or two of each person's time they could be using doing something else.

Hmm...

If you calculate that, you also need to calculate the increased driving due to shorter commutes (which will lengthen to longer commutes as more cars hit the road).

[Bingo]

Has anyone ever seen an interchange project's benefits calculated to include time and fuel savings?

I was just thinking about the difference between stopping at a light and passing through an interchange.

~4,000 vehicles per hour at peak times. All those cars idling while the light was red, then accelerating back to highway speed.

Surely that adds up in terms of fuel use, carbon emissions, etc? Especially over the lifetime of an interchange, 25yrs or more?

Exactly... so why are we now talking about yet another interchange on the Pat Bay Highway, when after decades of talking about the MacKenzie interchange we still have all those idling vehicles wasting fuel and spewing pollution?

[sebberry]

MacKenzie interchange we still have all those idling vehicles wasting fuel and spewing pollution?

That's because the LRT will take care of that

[G-Man]

Exactly... so why are we now talking about yet another interchange on the Pat Bay Highway, when after decades of talking about the MacKenzie interchange we still have all those idling vehicles wasting fuel and spewing pollution?

If the preferred option proceeds there will be no net increase in traffic lights and in fact Northbound there will be a decrease in lights.

I am failing to see how people are equating this with "adding a light".

[Phil McAvity]

If you calculate that, you also need to calculate the increased driving due to shorter commutes (which will lengthen to longer commutes as more cars hit the road).

So you really think that the added time spent in traffic that lights create keeps people from going to and from their jobs and grocery shopping and things like that? The commute wouldn't be shorter either it would just be faster thus minimizing gas, time, money and pollution. The most pathetic thing of all is how many of our elected officials operate under a similar delusion that if you just make it hard for drivers they will abandon their cars in favour of healthier modes of transportation but studies have shown that people don't do that so all we end up with is more congestion and pollution.

[Robb]

If you calculate that, you also need to calculate the increased driving due to shorter commutes (which will lengthen to longer commutes as more cars hit the road).

As the use of that interchange increases, the benefit increases also.

More cars on the road strengthens the argument for a safer, more efficient interchange.

[rjag]

The most pathetic thing of all is how many of our elected officials operate under a similar delusion that if you just make it hard for drivers they will abandon their cars in favour of healthier modes of transportation but studies have shown that people don't do that so all we end up with is more congestion and pollution.

Cant believe I'm saying this but I agree with Phils comment, especially because he wrote it without poking a stick in anyones eye

Just to add to the comment, seems like some of our elected officials would love to socially engineer the rest of us to their version of utopia and perchance this may be their sole reason for running for public office.

[Robb]

http://www.saanichsouth.blogspot.com/

Lana Popham's post regarding the community meeting.

Looks like the MOT is going to go ahead with some of the recommendations.

[Mike K.]

I can't believe it will take "12-24" months before we see the deceleration and acceleration lanes.

[liek_a_love_song]

Intersection has too many problems and police aren't able to effectively nail the issue. It isn't people speeding against the pathetically low 80 limit we have. It's those that don't indicate well enough in advance and those that follow too closely. That combined with anyone not anticipating the speed of traffic correctly and coming on/off the highway unsafely.

Problem 1: Lack of acceleration lanes, northbound and southbound
Problem 2: Lack of a proper exit, northbound
Problem 3: Troublesome exit, southbound (Bus stop, gas station and exit lane will have people decelerating at different rates which is something high risk especially given that heavy trucks use that exit lane)
Problem 4: Local access

There are only a handful of solutions, but if there is any hesitation to having an overpass, there is another solution at hand. I noticed in an earlier report that an overpass here was difficult to have due to many factors and I believe that some of those issues are beyond the government's control.

Eliminate the light at Sayward completely. Have it right on / right off only with a median going down the center. Also, make the southbound exit a double lane so that giant trucks can pull into the gas station without risk of rear ending anyone / being rear ended. Doing this means that Northbound access to the highway is cut off from the Elk Lake side and Southbound access to the highway is cut off from the Cordova Bay side. Both of these problems created are fixed easily.

Southbound access from the Cordova Bay side: go to the light at Haliburton.

Northbound access from the Elk Lake side: Head southbound down the highway and turnoff at Cordova Bay rd, then go up Alderly which turns onto Sayward and then back onto the highway.

If this is implemented, advance left signals should be implemented at Haliburton which allows more green time for cross traffic at that intersection AND stalls traffic at the Haliburton light so that those at the Cordova Bay intersection can easily make their left turns. A congestion amber would probably have to be installed somewhere around the Royal Oak on ramp northbound.

Problems with this are decreased business access and more traffic on Alderly rd.

[Mike K.]

What do congestion lights accomplish?

[Bernard]

What do congestion lights accomplish?

These have been used in various locations in the lower mainland to control the flow of traffic onto the freeways, heavy traffic is like managing a liquid. Controlling how quickly more traffic is added improves the flow for everyone. In Germany they control congestion through have the speed limits alter to slow the traffic to improve the flow.

Here in the CRD we still do not have an significant traffic problems, the Colwood Crawl is really not very bad compared to what you get in a large city.

[Robb]

These have been used in various locations in the lower mainland to control the flow of traffic onto the freeways, heavy traffic is like managing a liquid. Controlling how quickly more traffic is added improves the flow for everyone. In Germany they control congestion through have the speed limits alter to slow the traffic to improve the flow.

Here in the CRD we still do not have an significant traffic problems, the Colwood Crawl is really not very bad compared to what you get in a large city.

What they are proposing is a flashing light on the main route warning of congestion ahead, much like the "prepare to stop" lights. (Activated by a steady signal from an induction loop placed far back from the intersection I'm assuming.)

There is already one southbound near McDonald Park Rd in Sidney warning of traffic backing up at the Beacon Ave intersection.

[Mike K.]

Ok, but what do these lights accomplish other than warn of congestion ahead? Whenever I see them flashing I don't alter my speed until I'm forced to stop or slow by the congested traffic ahead of me. To me those signs just mean "hey, you're likely to get stuck at a light for a few moments."

[Robb]

Ok, but what do these lights accomplish other than warn of congestion ahead? Whenever I see them flashing I don't alter my speed until I'm forced to stop or slow by the congested traffic ahead of me. To me those signs just mean "hey, you're likely to get stuck at a light for a few moments."

I agree, not much.

I think they are meant as a heads-up to the out of area drivers who thought they were on a normal limited-access highway.

[Phil McAvity]

Ok, but what do these lights accomplish other than warn of congestion ahead? Whenever I see them flashing I don't alter my speed until I'm forced to stop or slow by the congested traffic ahead of me. To me those signs just mean "hey, you're likely to get stuck at a light for a few moments."

Exactly. Like you wouldn't stop otherwise. They're about as useful as the "prepare to stop" signs I see sometimes. I'm always prepared to stop although it doesn't really take that much preparation.

[sebberry]

They're about as useful as the "prepare to stop" signs I see sometimes.

The "Prepare to stop" signs are timed to be useful if you're driving at the posted limit, which most drivers don't do.

When I see those signs flashing I feel like an idiot slowing down for a green light.


I think the "congestion ahead" signs are more useful to those who are following too closely as a warning to increase their following distance because traffic may slow down abruptly.

[Phil McAvity]

The "Prepare to stop" signs are timed to be useful if you're driving at the posted limit, which most drivers don't do.

When I see those signs flashing I feel like an idiot slowing down for a green light.

Seems like an ironic move for someone opposed to speed limits.

I'm opposed to our unecessarily low speed limits too which is why in that situation I would usually hit the gas rather than the brakes.

[bluefox]

Seems like an ironic move for someone opposed to speed limits.

I'm opposed to our unecessarily low speed limits too which is why in that situation I would usually hit the gas rather than the brakes.

Full agreement - 80-90 km/h is too low on limited-access portions of a right-of-way... the problem being most of Highway 17 right now isn't limited access.