Jump to content

      













Photo

[Trans Canada Highway] McKenzie Interchange - McKenzie Avenue, Admirals Road and TCH


  • Please log in to reply
1762 replies to this topic

#1 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,518 posts

Posted 18 December 2009 - 08:49 PM

...is still a long way off, but if if you could keep the traffic moving at that location there would be... no idling, and therefore less polution.

If you could keep the vehicles moving, commuters would be less inclined to detour through View Royal, Esquimalt and Vic West on their way in from the Western Communities.

The interchange was estimated to cost $17 million in 2000, but would likely be $50 million by now, with no signs of anything happening any time soon. A full interchange is probably not needed as the main need is for the traffic turning off and onto the Trans-Canada highway at McKenzie.

According to BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, there are 80 to 90 thousand vehicles per day passing west of that location, as counted during July 2009.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/TrafficData/

If there was ever an important infrastructure project, this is the one that has been talked about the longest. The money that is slated to be spent on a new Johnson Street Bridge, could have been better spent there. If an interchange can help alleviate traffic using the Point Ellis and Johnson Street Bridges, then the investment would be a sound one.

#2 North Shore

North Shore
  • Member
  • 1,646 posts

Posted 19 December 2009 - 12:34 AM

Wouldn't the traffic backup just move a mile down the road to the Tillicum intersection if there was a new interchange at Mackenzie?
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?

#3 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,518 posts

Posted 19 December 2009 - 07:54 AM

What if the Trans-Canada highway was left as it is, and Tillicum went under the highway, with no right or left turning lanes? If Tillicum was leveled on the north side of the highway, that might be the solution at that location. Vehicles would not be able to access the other road, but they would soon find alternatives ways to do that.

There will always be the case of tansferring the problem to the next stop light, but that could be said for any interchange. The new interchange on the Pat Bay highway near the airport is an example. There will still be a light at Beacon Avenue and the highway a few KM.s to the north.

#4 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,295 posts

Posted 19 December 2009 - 08:42 AM

I guess you have to consider every reason for building an intersection. The airport interchange is a good example of multiple benefits. The fact that it removes a light from the pat bay is secondary to the primary benefit of providing a modern and direct access to and from the airport for visitors.

I think that the Mackenzie Overpass also provides multiple benefits, first of all the tillicum light issue is a red herring that is always thrown out when this is discussed and really that only applies to the morning traffic. The real benefits to the overpass are the improvement of the pm rush out of the city which ends up backing internal city traffic along Douglas street and also the access to and from mackenzie avenue which serves as a bypass to Hwy 17.

#5 AnonAnnie2

AnonAnnie2
  • Member
  • 151 posts

Posted 19 December 2009 - 08:59 AM

Oh my dears please mind when speculating about how to handle traffic, the highway & Tillicum there is a little 5 acre parcel just below the highway and sandwiched between Tillicum and Burnside (which would pretty much make an under highway solution impossible).
To the uninitiated our buildings are nothing to look at from any of these streets...get into the centre, the heart, the courtyard of this package of land and you are surrounded by tall, beautifuly matured trees, shrubs of every spiecies imaginable and a venerable bird santuary. We also host the largest privately owned pool in Victoria.
Our community of 300 we are cheek by jowl, we know each others kids, pets names and who needs the steps shoveled because they can't when it snows. We know if we haven't seen Mr. So'nso for a bit to check on him and that once a week a unit on the other side of the pool always needs help on Friday at 5pm bringing in her groceries. Grams on the Burnside side, she always walks the property at 5:30 am in her jammies with a coffee mug in her hand (nothing ever in it) and the young lad who saved his money to buy in here with wages from working as a dishwasher moved in with nothing gets all furniture, dishes etc. that we would cast-off to the thrift store.
I understand over the years nobody has really spoken up much from this little community - but I and a few other community minded folks live there now, we are loud-mouths and magically some of the old timers have found their voices.
Anyway.....the old timers and even new-timers have noticed a marked increase in traffic since last summer - and a number of other things (increase in exhaust etc.). We have written to various agencies for help and been pretty much blown off.
We are now stragegising.
Our issues are increase in traffic, traffic idling far to long, speed and when traffic is backed up (morning & evening rush hour which by the way seems to be longer than even just a few years past) our entry exit is impossible and finally visibility.

#6 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 19 December 2009 - 09:01 AM

I'm not clear on why we are pushing for improved car access to the suburbs. But then again I'm dubious any visitor to Victoria is going to be significantly impressed by a "modern and direct access" to the airport when ye olde access worked just fine.

#7 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,295 posts

Posted 19 December 2009 - 09:04 AM

Ye olde access does not work well. As someone that uses the airport constantly the side road turnoff is very difficult when leaving the airport (even more so now in the dark and rain) and I know where I am going. For someone just arrived in Victoria they must be certain they are lost. This is not how I want newcomers to be introduced to the city.

#8 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 19 December 2009 - 09:18 AM

^ Fair enough - but that really has nothing to do with the interchange and could be fixed by putting a light and a sign at that intersection.

#9 piltdownman

piltdownman
  • Member
  • 539 posts

Posted 19 December 2009 - 10:24 AM

Just wondering why people feel "money saved on the jsb can be better spent on ..."? I thought one of the benefits not to build a new bridge was that there is no money and they would need to borrow it? And the jsb is a city of victoria project, why would that money go to build a interchange in the suburbs for people in another suburb?

#10 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,462 posts

Posted 19 December 2009 - 04:48 PM

I think a cheaper improvement than an overpass would be two right turn lanes off Mackenzie onto the hiway. If you then built two long (a mile or more) merge lanes where two lanes meld into one lane then meld into the hiway lanes you could keep traffic moving. The right turn traffic from Mackenzie would continue without stopping and then you could reduce the green light time for crossing traffic as there is never much of that. With increased green light time for the hiway you would mitigate the stop time there as well.

Not a perfect solution to be sure, but fairly cheap compared to an overpass and easily done with right of ways in place I believe.
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#11 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 19 December 2009 - 05:02 PM

that sounds like a very good idea

#12 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 44,458 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 09:34 AM

The cross traffic on Mackenzie isn't the problem, it's the left-turning traffic onto Mackenzie that significantly pads the wait for west bound traffic, and during rush hour you have a few vehicles turning left onto Admirals which delays eastbound traffic to some degree. This situation makes the intersection a perfect candidate for an interchange.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#13 Lover Fighter

Lover Fighter
  • Member
  • 653 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 02:06 PM

It still amazes we're going ahead with the McTavish intersection (where I've never seen more than a 12 car back-up during rush hour) when McKenzie should be our highest priority piece of road infrastructure. Well, I guess it doesn't amaze me (airport), but more irritates me.

#14 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 2,905 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 20 December 2009 - 03:24 PM

It still amazes we're going ahead with the McTavish intersection (where I've never seen more than a 12 car back-up during rush hour) when McKenzie should be our highest priority piece of road infrastructure. Well, I guess it doesn't amaze me (airport), but more irritates me.


The airport interchange is in the right riding. The McKenzie interchange is in an opposition riding - whose Member who crossed the floor of the HoC, at that!

#15 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,462 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 08:10 PM

The cross traffic on Mackenzie isn't the problem, it's the left-turning traffic onto Mackenzie that significantly pads the wait for west bound traffic, and during rush hour you have a few vehicles turning left onto Admirals which delays eastbound traffic to some degree. This situation makes the intersection a perfect candidate for an interchange.


That is certainly true, like I said it is not a perfect solution, just one that is doable for very little money and would help speed things up somewhat. Rather than a full blown overpass system you could tunnel Admirals under the hiway to Mackenzie and have the existing left turn traffic exit right off the hiway and feed into the tunnel. That together with the two right turn lanes previously mentioned would do the trick.
But now we are talking more money.
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#16 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,518 posts

Posted 25 July 2010 - 09:40 PM

If there was ever a project that all municipalities should share in funding, it is the building of the interchange at McKenzie and Highway 1. This has to be the most inefficient intersection in the region for travellers needing to use that bottleneck.

This is one of the main reasons that vehicles avoid the highway and cut through Esquimalt and Vic West to go over the two bridges into the downtown core. With the lane narrowing on Craigflower Road, this short cut will become even slower.

Has anyone determined the loss to businesses over the past two decades due to a lack of action on an interchange at Mckenzie and the Highway 1?

#17 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,295 posts

Posted 25 July 2010 - 10:03 PM

^ How would business be lost? Where would have gone?

#18 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 26 July 2010 - 06:22 AM

^ How would business be lost? Where would have gone?


No doubt the extra 2 minutes in traffic has prevented people clogged along this route from discovering the cure for cancer (rather than miss a .segment on Judge Judy).

#19 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,518 posts

Posted 26 July 2010 - 06:56 AM

^ How would business be lost? Where would have gone?


The same way that Victora claims business would be lost if there were delays due to bridge work being done, or any other kind of roadwork. This intersection has been a torn in the sides of drivers for 20 years or more, and may have discouraged shoppers from travelling to the next municipality.

#20 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 26 July 2010 - 07:06 AM

^ no doubt. And it likely has slowed development in the western comms and encouraged densification of the core. Let's not make Victoria into Southern California...

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


To advertise on VibrantVictoria, call us at 250-884-0589.