2245 replies to this topic

[Bingo]

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.

 

 Like you say # 2 seems the best option except that the southbound lane from the TC onto McKenzie is down to one lane from two. It also appears that there are bike lanes on all roads, or is that supposed to represent the shoulder. I would like to see what the #2 design would look like if the east/west Goose went under the Admirals/McKenzie roadway, instead of over it.

Perhaps the best thing is to go to the Open House tomorrow and see a larger view of the designs and talk to the experts.

[Bingo]

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

 

Unless they elevated that corner over the park instead of filling in the park to build the road.

[nagel]

Unless they elevated that corner over the park instead of filling in the park to build the road.

And then the people living in that park can just live under the clover. Win win.

[Kach]

Is this not really just 2 options?  Option 1 and Option 3 are essentially the same, except for which road goes over which.  Am I missing a nuance here that further distinguishes between the two.  Maybe cost?  Option 1 looks like a fair bit more excavation.

[nagel]

Yes option 1 and 3 are just flipped but the same. Option 3 uses way more fill and IMO is worse because it's going to require pedestrians to walk under the highway. Obviously this really detracts from the walking experience and brings in safety concerns. That's why option 1 is a better option in my opinion.

[sdwright.vic]

Why is everyone assuming the fly over is bicycle only and not multi use?

[Kach]

Why is everyone assuming the fly over is bicycle only and not multi use?

Are people assuming that?  I wasn't.  I would assume the current mixed use of the Goose would still apply.

[nagel]

It would continue to be multi use but that doesn't mean it's the way that pedestrians going down McKenzie should have to go to continue on admirals. I suspect option 1's overpass would be somewhat like Helmcken with bike lanes and sidewalks. There is a fair amount of foot traffic that walks down the dirt path on McKenzie currently. I'm sure Saanich will put sidewalks in up to Burnside during the process.

[sebberry]

The Gorge/Tillicum anti-car folks are complaining that the designs don't include 40+ feet for bikes and trains.

 

https://www.facebook...3021081/?type=3

[nagel]

The Gorge/Tillicum anti-car folks are complaining that the designs don't include 40+ feet for bikes and trains.

 

https://www.facebook...3021081/?type=3

I must have missed that post.  Doesn't really matter though, because there's no way BC is going with this option.  It's going to be #1 or #2 IMO, probably #1 to placate us local peeps, but the westshore crowd won't like it as much.

[Bingo]

Here is an unofficial version that attempts to save some of the Cuthbert Holmes Park as well as eliminating any traffic lights.

Southbound on the TC goes over the highway onto McKenzie.

Admirals/McKenzie goes under everything.

Mckenzie has a right turn west onto the TC and over Admirals/McKenzie.

Admirals has a right turn heading north and east onto the TC under the flyover onto McKenzie.

The bus lane heading west on the TC is gone as I didn't know how to keep that here.

The Goose is elevated over everything.

I don't know if this option would work, but I think it could be an improvement over what we have so far.. 

 

[lanforod]

Here is an unofficial version that attempts to save some of the Cuthbert Holmes Park as well as eliminating any traffic lights.

Southbound on the TC goes over the highway onto McKenzie.

Admirals/McKenzie goes under everything.

Mckenzie has a right turn west onto the TC and over Admirals/McKenzie.

Admirals has a right turn heading north and east onto the TC under the flyover onto McKenzie.

The bus lane heading west on the TC is gone as I didn't know how to keep that here.

The Goose is elevated over everything.

I don't know if this option would work, but I think it could be an improvement over what we have so far.. 

 

 

The main issue with this one is likely cost. Significantly more likely due to needing both a flyover and a underpass in order to meet all those requirements.

Otherwise, I think it works better than the 3 official versions.

[nagel]

The main issue with this one is likely cost. Significantly more likely due to needing both a flyover and a underpass in order to meet all those requirements.

Otherwise, I think it works better than the 3 official versions.

It definitely works better for cars.  As an area resident I don't like the slum zones it makes, and the pedestrian route would be fairly abysmal.  

 

I honestly thought there was going to be a flyover to McKenzie in the official designs.  I guess it costs too much.

[Bingo]

It definitely works better for cars.  As an area resident I don't like the slum zones it makes, and the pedestrian route would be fairly abysmal.  

 

I honestly thought there was going to be a flyover to McKenzie in the official designs.  I guess it costs too much.

 

It will cost more, but unlike the Johnson Street Bridge we can build it all here with local labour and materials, so if they get the design right in the first place it will seem like a bargain in comparison.

[nagel]

It will cost more, but unlike the Johnson Street Bridge we can build it all here with local labour and materials, so if they get the design right in the first place it will seem like a bargain in comparison.

So walking from McKenzie to Admirals (or biking) with your plan do I have to go in the cave (dealbreaker for me) or do I use the flyover and find some convenient way down?

[Coreyburger]

It will cost more, but unlike the Johnson Street Bridge we can build it all here with local labour and materials, so if they get the design right in the first place it will seem like a bargain in comparison.

 

No you can't. Like the JSB, the rules about procurement from TILMA and the international trade agreements apply. Province can no more specify origin of materials than the city could.

Edited by Coreyburger, 17 November 2015 - 12:12 PM.

[VicHockeyFan]

No you can't. Like the JSB, the rules about procurement from TILMA and the international trade agreements apply. Province can no more specify origin of materials than the city could.

 

I think the dirt and gravel and concrete and asphalt will be local.

[Coreyburger]

I think the dirt and gravel and concrete and asphalt will be local.

 

They could be, but don't have to be. Contractors will get from wherever is cheaper. For heavier items, I suspect that will be local or BC, but that is a function of economics of moving heavy things rather than contracts.

[jonny]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how they could bother going through all the trouble of building an interchange that doesn't include a flyover from TCH southbound to McKenzie eastbound.

[VicHockeyFan]

^ According to this, 14,500 come out that way each day down McKenzie to go northbound TCH, but only 10,700 go back that way, southbound in on TCH and onto Mckenzie.