2245 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

I'm concerned about too many lights for McKenzie and Admirals traffic coming to the intersection, but maybe with lights timed right for am and pm it will be less an issue.

[nagel]

These are ok, but I'm not ecstatic about any of the options as a driver or as a cyclist.  As a cyclist I would have preferred if admirals/mckenzie traffic was raised and the Goose remained at level.  Switch bridge climbs are hard on less athletic cyclists and on electric batteries.  Oh well.

 

I'm not a big fan of option 2 as adding all that roadwork just to remove one set of lights for the TCH south to McKenzie traffic.  Not sure it will even improve flow since there's still another set of lights on the east side for this traffic flow.

[VicHockeyFan]

Forgive me if I can't see it clear.  Where does the Goose go on these options?  Up and over on all three?

[Mike K.]

People really, really hate tunnels along public walkways or paths. They attract crime and can be downright intimidating for a lot of people. I think cyclists should be ecstatic that the pathway will be over the road and travel uninterrupted.

 

The option with the roundabout makes the most sense. Traffic heading onto Admirals off the TCH northbound is light and that light won't be changing very often. And quite honestly there's a lot of traffic turning onto McKenzie off the southbound TCH but it's not a crazy volume, either.

[nagel]

Forgive me if I can't see it clear.  Where does the Goose go on these options?

All three of them are exactly the same.  A Switch Bridge style overpass over McKenzie and all the turning lanes.  No more car/bike interaction here.

[Mike K.]

Forgive me if I can't see it clear.  Where does the Goose go on these options?  Up and over on all three?

 

Yes. Clearly the intent is to avoid tunnels at all cost.

[VicHockeyFan]

I'm not a big fan of option 2 as adding all that roadwork just to remove one set of lights for the TCH south to McKenzie traffic.  Not sure it will even improve flow since there's still another set of lights on the east side for this traffic flow.

 

Ya, I think you are right.  Losing that much of the corner of Cuthbert/Homes will not be popular.

[VicHockeyFan]

People really, really hate tunnels along public walkways or paths. They attract crime and can be downright intimidating for a lot of people. I think cyclists should be ecstatic that the pathway will be over the road and travel uninterrupted.

 

True.  In  a perfect world, they are great as you use the downward grade to get you some torque coming up the other side.  But too dicey for that location.

[nagel]

People really, really hate tunnels along public walkways or paths. They attract crime and can be downright intimidating for a lot of people. I think cyclists should be ecstatic that the pathway will be over the road and travel uninterrupted.

 

The option with the roundabout makes the most sense. Traffic heading onto Admirals off the TCH northbound is light and that light won't be changing very often. And quite honestly there's a lot of traffic turning onto McKenzie off the southbound TCH but it's not a crazy volume, either.

Yeah I guess you're right about the tunnel.  I certainly don't like the Helmcken one.  I wish there was another way without the big grade climb but unless McKenzie was going to go down into the ground, it's not going to happen.

 

I'm not a fan of losing the Cuthbert Holmes parking lot for option 2.

[lanforod]

I prefer option 2 the most.

 

What is that little over pass to the north? A bike bridge?

[nagel]

I prefer option 2 the most.

 

What is that little over pass to the north? A bike bridge?

IMO: the existing pedestrian crossing, with an expanded downramp on the west side and Goose integration on the east side.

[sdwright.vic]

When are they going to stop with the left hand turns to get onto a highway? All entrances should be right only for proper flow.

[nagel]

When are they going to stop with the left hand friends to get onto a highway? All entrances should be right only for proper flow.

Umm when they don't have room for a full cloverleaf or the volumes don't support their cost?

[CedarSam]

It would be nice to see more than pictures, but actual computer models of what traffic would be like for each option, using current traffic patterns and projected patterns. These photos show almost no traffic which is hardly realistic.

 

The highway overpass is just like McKenzie and the Pat Bay, and that seems to work really well with heavy traffic. Maybe we don't need the cloverleaf.

[VicHockeyFan]

It would be nice to see more than pictures, but actual computer models of what traffic would be like for each option, using current traffic patterns and projected patterns. These photos show almost no traffic which is hardly realistic.

 

 

Yes, that would not be too hard to model, you are right.  That would be good to see.

[lanforod]

There must be some different price tags here too. They allude to these having different impacts and results, but don't specify. Hopefully they add all that information soon. It's hard to provide feedback without that info.

[malahatdrive]

It would be nice to see more than pictures, but actual computer models of what traffic would be like for each option, using current traffic patterns and projected patterns. These photos show almost no traffic which is hardly realistic.

 

The highway overpass is just like McKenzie and the Pat Bay, and that seems to work really well with heavy traffic. Maybe we don't need the cloverleaf.

 

Pat Bay and McKenzie has a partial cloverleaf. So option 2 would be exactly the same

[sdwright.vic]

Umm when they don't have room for a full cloverleaf or the volumes don't support their cost?

Yeah, see how well that worked for Millstream?

[amor de cosmos]

i think I like #1 & #2. less visual obstruction with hwy1 going under mckenzie

[nagel]

Yeah, see how well that worked for Millstream?

Millstream wouldn't be so bad with a double left turn. I think that could be done with minimal changes.