The North Shore News ran this report....
Related article from 2015:
http://www.nsnews.com/news/highway-1-no-longer-making-the-cut-1.1989414
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Ministry and DNV reveal plan for Cut, Council skeptical
Last week the Ministry of Transportation and DNV planners revealed a new possible plan for The Cut. Traffic congestion problems in North Vancouver are ongoing and it seems almost everyday sometimes twice, there is some sort of of traffic incident that involves the approaches to the Cut being backed up for kilometers. Sometimes it's just sheer volume of traffic that causes the 'slow hours' Is the new plan the solution?
The North Shore News ran this report....
Related article from 2015:
http://www.nsnews.com/news/highway-1-no-longer-making-the-cut-1.1989414
The North Shore News ran this report....
Related article from 2015:
http://www.nsnews.com/news/highway-1-no-longer-making-the-cut-1.1989414
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
54 comments:
I am fascinated by all of the comments that blame North Van growth for the traffic.
The stats just don't match up.
2011 84,412, 2006 82,562, 2001 82,310, 1996 80,418
May is Census month, but we won't have the Pop data released until mid 2017. For the twenty years leading up to this census term the District had a growth rate of (on average) 0.24%. All the while, the average age was going up near the fastest in the region meaning fewer drivers, specifically fewer peak hour commuters from the District.
Our problem is more directly related to a hot economy on the North Shore. The number of workers that are coming to the District for new dense construction are absolutely dwarfed by the number of new workers coming for home renovations, seniors in home servicing, landscaping, film industry, and keep in mind the shipbuilding hasn't even really begun yet.
Its going to get busier whether we grow or not.
Ok I'm no expert and I can read stats, but how is it that you can't blame the traffic problems one eensee teensee little bit on density growth in North Vancouver? Are you going to respond that it is insignificant? In Lynn Valley do you think all the building that's going on doesn't and won't affect traffic congestion there. And dont tell me all the ship builders, construction workers and home care workers will be buying up the condos. The people who will buy and have bought the condos are the ones who can afford to and I can tell you they aren't finding high paying jobs in North Vancouver. Hence the more you
build, the more you contribute to the mass exodus and
mass return to the community everyday.
Nah, congestion has nothing to do with development !
'All the comments' you say? Please note that you are the first commenter and therefore 'all the comments' consisted of YOUR comment alone.
You might just have been prescient though.
I heard Mr. Walton state that the surprising statistics they believe the council has, shows that in fact there IS extra traffic and it's tradesmen who don't live on the North Shore causing this. Well I guess they do their share, but that will eventually end as the Town Centres reach the optimal sustainable density, right? Those 350 plus new condos in Lynn Valley will, after all, only be filled with those that choose biking, walking and crowded buses to complete their 'trips' rather than using cars.
The transporation planner said so and that means it must be true.
The link was to a news story on NSNews.com, and let me assure you it has plenty of comments about density ON the North Shore increasing traffic TO the North Shore.
I am not prescient, just one step ahead.
Yes, new buildings are going up at a slow rate (30,000 dwellings in the District with about 300 new coming on each year or 1%), but that 3,000 sqft house that used to have two parents and three children, now has only two seniors (hence the comment about aging). The children have left the nest and with no lower-cost housing they have moved to lower Lonsdale as a no-kids couple or they are starting their own family 30 miles from town where they can afford it.
That is why even though there has been new building over the last 20 years the population is not going up at anywhere near the same rate.
The issue is not one of population which indeed is growing at a relatively slow rate. The issue is car ownership which is growing at a rate far exceeding population growth. ICBC reports the ownership numbers and they are startling. On the North Shore the rate of car ownership for new residents is almost 1:1. That compares to the car ownership of North Shore residents prior to 2009 which was 0.62 cars per capita. This rate is partly a function of smaller household size and also the relative wealth of new residents. In addition, Translink reports an increase in trips per day on the North Shore. Translink also reports a remarkable statistic. 96% of trips using a road (i.e not walking) are made by....car, with the relative use of buses and the Seabus down and cycling, while up, remains negligible. In fact absolute use of the Seabus is down 10%. The Seabus use problem is that it used to deliver workers to downtown Vancouver when 60% of jobs in Metro Vancouver were in the City of Vancouver. Today that number is down to 35%. Job growth is in Surrey, Burnaby and Richmond, yet the region's public transit system was based on trips to and from downtown Vancouver. Traffic will only get worse in the DNV and it has nothing to do with density and population. It is based on levels of car ownership, number of trips per day and the lack of viable public transit to places people actually travel - Burnaby, Surrey and Richmond. Ask DNV Council how they get to municipal hall. Matthew Bond rides his bike God bless him. The others drive including Roger Bassam who lives about a 25 minute walk from municipal hall. Doug MacKay Dunn almost drives past Lisa Muri's house but they do not car pool. If our civic leaders rely that much on their cars, its a safe bet to say the rest of us do.
Whoops! There's an accident on the Second Narrows. There's a tree that fell over the Stanley Park Causeway. The new Cut comes to a standstill.
Accident matters are entirely a function of grandstanding by the RCMP whom, as bullies put the CNV and DNV to shame. The RCMP should no more be managing road accidents than my back ass lol
Hey drivers!!!
Happy to be paying 17 cents per litre of motor fuel tax paid directly to Translink? Feeling so goood about the further 6.67 cents per litre carbon tax on top of that? Try subtracting 23.67 cents per litre off your last fillup and see if gas under a buck a litre feels better.
Now here's one more way you ( and only you, not bike riders, not pedestrians) will be gouged by the 'sustainable' holy workers at DNV ...
DNV council is now entertaining a 'pilot' project to institute PAY PARKING at a number of parks on the north shore. The pay parking 'pilot' is proposed for Cates Park, Panorama Deep Cove Park, Fromme Mountain, and Lynn Canyon.
This should be seen as the first sneaky thin edge of the wedge to institute invasive and restrictive parking policy everywhere in the District. If you think that's a good idea, try going to the doctor or dentist in the City of North Vancouver and finding a parking space where you won't be ticketed after one hour.
This pay parking pilot should be seen for what it really is and resisted vehemently by everyone. It is a BAD idea.
Or you could pay to support your bad habit. Time for car drivers to start paying for the heavily subsidized infrastructure that they enjoy.
Oh i see.. you'd prefer a network of mud pits for your bike I suppose. Heavily subsidized my ass. Heavily paid for over decades more to the point.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving-true-costs/412237/
http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf
American study but makes the point. Automobile drivers aren't paying their way.
Let's license the bikes and make the bikers pay insurance who share the road with licensed and heavily insured automobiles!
Bikers want to play on a level playing field, don't they? Start paying for it kids!
The costs of those new-fangled bike paths aren't coming out of bikers' pockets...
The problem with your American study is that it is not that relevant in a BC context. Last night I paid $1.13/Liter to fill my car. I was in the states last week and filled my wife's vehicle for US$2.03/Gallon. Fortunately for my lame math skills, today US$0.80 buys CA$1.00, and CA$1.25 buys US$1.00. That means that US$2.03 Gallons is CA$2.55/gallon. A US Gallon equal 3.785 Liters, so the US price is CA$2.55/3.785 Liters or $0.67/Liter.
That means that our Gas is 68.7% higher than the gas I bought in Bellingham. We pay so much tax on fuel in Canada that our situation is not comparable to the US. Metro Vancouver released a figure last year that said the average person in the lower mainland contributes $1,500/yr. to major regional infrastructure through their gas taxes alone. Taxes on gas are so high in Canada that the national average is over $0.39/l, but here in the lower mainland it is ~$0.65/l due to 6.6 cents/l Carbon Tax, 17 cents/l Translink Tax, 8.5 Cents/l Provincial Fuel Tax, and of course since GST is calculated on retail price, we pay significantly more GST per litre than anywhere else in the country.
Yes, we drivers pay plenty of tax for road infrastructure.
Local roads are paid by property taxes, not gas taxes.
http://www.kitsilano.ca/2013/06/24/no-free-rides-for-cyclists/
https://patrickjohnstone.ca/2014/03/who-pays-for-roads.html
"People who don't drive much -- including most true bike zealots -- significantly subsidize those who drive a lot. And in any kilometre-by-kilometre comparison of city residents who travel exclusively by one mode or the other, drivers tend to pay less than their real costs, while riders pay more."
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=186543e6-149d-46dc-85e8-316559a172e1
"Local roads are paid by property taxes, not gas taxes'
Ok and how MUCH does Translink pay for use of those roads?
How much do non property owning bikers pay for use of those roads?
In any case, using my car to go to the park is not a "bad habit" ( except to a zealot ).
This really is about maintaining our parks and the increased cost of that. The 'easy' solution is to dump the cost onto an easily identifiable subgroup of all users ... namely those that use the parking lot to store their car while they hike and picnic. Unfortunately, this is not the FAIR solution but is the one eagerly sought by eco zealots.
My suggestion is.. if you want to maintain the parks find some money being wasted somewhere else. TRAFFIC CALMING infrastructure comes to mind. You know.. the useless, rat breeding, ground cover planted roundabouts at dead intersections, the pedestrian-hiding curb bulb-outs ( reduces parking dont ya know). How many MILLIONS are going into this stuff?
Take care of our parks instead counsellors.
What makes you think owning property means you pay more than anyone else? Renters are paying property taxes via their rent. Renters are no less entitled to use the roads than you are, regardless of them driving, cycling or walking.
You really think traffic calming is a bad idea? You don't care about the safety of all road users? You really think 50+km/h is acceptable in residential neighbourhoods? Do you ever walk or ride a bike anywhere and experience what's going on on our streets? Take care of people, not cars. Slow down, you might enjoy things a bit more.
Everyone benefits from roads, everyone pays for roads.
I think 'traffic calming' is a very expensive idea that brings no benefits in increased safety for anyone. What it DOES do is advance the agenda to make car driving unpleasant and it does that at a very high cost. That money would be far better spent in properly maintaining our parks before rejigging our streets and crosswalks, which have, for the most part, worked well for many decades. That's what I'm saying.
Go find a 'traffic calming' project and research the actual installed cost, as I did. You might be shocked.
Oh and since I AM a property owner and I DO pay property tax, I don't want to pay for those kind of projects.
That's fine. Ask the question leading up to the next election and see who agrees and give them your vote. The meager traffic calming that North Van has done is probably pretty sensible. My neighborhood doesn't have any, but I did ask them to upgrade the crosswalk near Parkgate Rec Centre across Mt. Seymour Road, because I have witnessed a couple near misses and have heard that they are quite common. The skiers come down the mountain at highway speed and don't adjust to the pedestrian traffic by the rec center and school.
Which intersection chaps your hide?
I'm also a property owner and pay property taxes and am grown up enough to realize that I don't get to pick and choose what my taxes pay for. Don't like something than elect the person who best represents your values. Chances are, you and I will cancel each other out because I'm always going to vote for the person who supports slow streets and safety for all users. Wanna go fast? Use the highway.
If traffic calming saves pedestrians from being injured or killed by motorists, then the price will be worth it. Or, anon 11:23:00 am, are you the sort of person who places a monetary value on a human life? Is your need for speed worth more than a single human life?
There are people who say, "I do not own a car, so why do I have to pay for roads?" The answer, "How do your groceries get to the supermarket? How does the bus get to your neighborhood? How does the paramedic get to your front door? How does the staff at your son's school get to work? How do the contractors that fix your plumbing get to your home.?"
Happy to pay for roads and I have been doing that for 40 odd years.
NOT happy to poay for expensive obstacles in the middle of said roads to satisfy the anticar agenda of 'sustainable' planners.
I mean the roads work just fine without that stuff and the parks need extra maintenance due to increased useage. Can the traffic 'calming' baloney and maintain the parks with the savings.
Oh, and by the way, driving my arthritic bones to the park is nobody's "bad habit".
Roads work fine for cars but for nobody else. Especially in urban centres. Get out of you car sometime and walk or ride a bike and see how poorly roads without any sort of calming actually function. And no, I'm not a zealot. I drive a car, I ride a bike and I walk.
Well ok. I think you ARE a zealot.
Roads built for cars work well for cars. Big news. Oh.. UNTIL you decide to spend all your park maintenance money on ADDED ROAD OBSTACLES designed to make roads NOT work well for the transport mode they were intended to support.
Oh but so what?
I mean today's roads don't work well at all for hovercrafts either, I would guess, but is it a reasonable use of tax money to promote 'hover calmed' neighbourhoods at great cost.
NOPE it AINT.
Maintain the parks councillors.
Traffic calming isn't an obstacle to anyone but those who feel they're entitled to drive as quickly and carelessly they want while ignoring the fact that they share the roads with pedestrians and bike riders. As we progress to designs which promote slower speeds, streets will be safer and more usable for everyone.
Lowering speeds and adding traffic calming has no material impact on accidents and the like. By far the two most dangerous aspects of roads are: (1) left turns where there is no advance green and a dedicated left turn lane, and (2) cars parking on streets between which pedestrians cross the road.
Sources please, anon 10:07am. Because I have a feeling that the impact on a pedestrian by a vehicle moving 30km/h is substantially different than it would be if the same vehicle is travelling at 50km/h.
Im not anon 10:07 .... but...
ICBC does have some fatality stats on their website. It lets you see statistics on 'contributing factors' in terms of the number of fatalities per year averaged since 2006.
For the Lower Mainland:
SPEED was a contributing factor in 24 fatalities per year.
HIGH RISK DRIVING BEHAVIOUR was a factor in 42 fatalities.
DRIVER DISTRACTION ... 27 fatalities.
ALCOHOL or MEDICATION .. 21 fatalities.
http://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/newsroom/Documents/contributing-factors.pdf
How many of those fatalities might have had a better outcome if speeds in urban areas were limited to 30km/h or less? One death at the hands of a motorist is one too many. Time to give priority to those users of our roads that aren't 'controlling' a 3,000+ pound machine.
How many fatalities? Well nobody knows. They dont actually know if,say near dawn and dusk, in the drizzle and dark days we get on the North Shore, if these obstacles are doing any harm . The PEDESTRIAN CURB BULGES on Fromme st near Argyle Secondary School for example.
These bulges, which are often covered with signage and greenery, put the pedestrian out further into the road, ostensibly because said walker will be more visible to a driver approaching. However, unable to resist the 'more visible' location for fancy signage, the traffic planners near put traffic control signs out on the end of the bulge too, precisely where your young student pedestrian is standing (now parially hidden by the new signs) with earbuds blazing. Now the way that pedestrians that are crossing become VISIBLE is usually, in my experience, through the driver becoming aware of MOTION... ie the pedestrian starts to walk. In the old style curb system, you sometimes had a parked car blocking the view of the first steps taken, and then the pedestrian's motion would be detected as they moved past the obscuring parked car.
The times when noone was parked close to the crosswalk, you got extra time to detect a walker and could easily see the first steps taken. With the 'bulge' system, the reaction time to a moving pedestrian is permanently reduced. There is less time for a car driver to react before the pedestrian is in the collision zone, because the bulge curb puposely places them further out in the road to start with. I am sure, and this is from personal experience driving in our dark rainy afternoons, that this is not always a benefit or a safer alternative. Please note, this non benefit applies to speeding bikers as well. They need to be able to detect pedestrians and are similarly handicapped by these bulge control structures.
Unfortunately, they are not as able to dodge or brake in the rain as can a car.
Assumptions make an ASS of U and ME.
Don't assume European style traffic meddling is a very very expensive benefit.
Good lord, you're stretching! Traffic bulges make peds more visible than the old system of parked cars and set back curbs for both motorists and cyclists alike. The trick is for you to be paying attention the task at hand, your surroundings and not on your radio dial or cell phone. Share the roads with other users and stop acting like they're provided for your sole use.
I'm actually not stretching. I know this because I've been down to Argyle to see these bulges, I've driven the road before and after bulges and in all kinds of weather both day and night. You, of course, have not and like all zealots, have finally come to the place where you are just parroting what your doctrine has implanted so dear has it become to your soul and sense of self.
Worth. Self worth, I meant.
Only Argyle? You know there are bulges in other locations as well? I drive by them, cycle by them and walk on them on a daily basis. Rather than driving to and from Argyle every day, get out of your car and walk or bike the same route. The roads are for everyone and are being redesigned to accommodate everyone, not just the self-important motorist, My doctrine is safe roads for everyone, yours seems to be 'damned everyone else but me'. Good luck with that.
My doctrine is..you can't have everything. I prefer parks be maintained rather than have unnecessary roadway obstacles at very high cost which might benefit the very few that choose to cycle in the rain. I think I said that before, though and it falls on deaf ears.
Write your councillor ( Muri I think is the one wanting put parking meters in the parks) and tell her what you think. I did.
Time to clear the decks for other commenters.
Signing off.
*crickets*
What's that?
That's the sound of a closed mind.
Time to learn how to share the roads. They're no longer considered the sole realm of the automobile.
Completely off topic, but I see that Kerry Morris is already advertising in the north shore news for his run for mayor in 2018. Do campaign advertising not apply to municipal politics? Does anyone know? I think generally, campaigning isn't permitted until a writ is dropped, but don't know if this holds true in municipal politics. Legal or not, campaign advertising over two years in advance strikes me as pretty distasteful. Not that he's getting my vote anyways, but this sort of thing seals it.
That should read, "Do campaign advertising RULES not apply to municipal politics?"
No. Municipal Elections are kind of the wild west. You can spend as much as you want, raised from any source including developers, and the only (important) drawback is you cannot issue a charitable receipt for it. If the last election was any indication, Kerry Morris is probably spending his own after-tax money to promote himself. Best of luck Kerry, but until you can learn to work with others you will lose this election for generations to come.
Money cannot make you a statesman.
There is no writ in a municipal election. The only restriction is the municipal sign bylaw. Whether Morris wins or losses is moot. What he can do is create awareness of the bias at City Hall for policies/projects that solely benefit the Mayor, the slate and their friends.
He can do that, but the public will see his self interest when he approaches it as a candidate for Mayor. If money is no object to Mr. Morris, he should consider larger advertorials where he attacks a particular subject with more information.
In the May 6th NSNEWS ad on A9, the "Option 1" 10.9% increase sounds scary, but didn't the council approve a 3.9% budget increase instead? Are you paying for an ad in May to criticize a staff provided option that wasn't approved by council in early April?
Admittedly, Option 1 is usually a scary number to make option 2 look measured and reasonable, but taking out an ad to criticize an option that was already rejected by the council is a bit bizarre, bordering on misleading. Maybe I am missing something important here, but I am probably not alone and more information would have been helpful.
Also, if you own the kerrymorris.ca domain name, you should consider a kerry@kerrymorris.ca email address. A gmail account with numbers in it (kerry.morris1249@gmail.com) looks less professional.
One more thing... I think you should be pumping out the email addresses of council with these ads:
Let the Council know how upset you are! CNVCouncilMembers@cnv.org and CC me at kerry@kerrymorris.ca
It's not fair to equate demand for traffic capacity with population - LOTS of people use the Upper Levels who don't live in North Vancouver. Among other things, it's the main route to Horseshoe Bay and Whistler.
If the need for traffic improvements was strictly based on population do you seriously think the Sea to Sky improvements would ever have gotten made?
A lot of this is the fact that Dan Jarvis made no real effort in his last years as MLA to get North Vancouver's share of the highways budget. If he had this would have been built 10 years ago. That's how we got simultaneous grants from Victoria to build from Capilano River to Squamish and from the Port Mann to the N end of the 2nd Narrows.
I seriously doubt I have to spell out for you folks who was left out of the budget. Now it's our turn and it can't happen soon enough!
PS. I don't think this is a District or a City issue but no question it's hugely important for North Shore residents. How many days a week does The Cut have to be backed up from Mt Hwy -> Lonsdale before Victoria notices?
The City of Vancouver has made traveling through Downtown so slow that every car coming down the 99 goes over the iron workers instead of Lion's Gate.
Both City of Vancouver parties have said they want to shut down the car traffic on the Lion's Gate bridge, but the NPA has clearly stated they won't do it without a third crossing. Vision has been hinting that they want the traffic load through the park reduced so they have been screwing with the intersection timing on the South end to slow down the through traffic. They have done the same thing around the Viaducts to make them look like they don't function.
By stopping through traffic on the Lion's Gate with punishing traffic management, they have forced all South Vancouver and Richmond bound traffic to go all the way around to the Ironworkers.
Where are your sources for these conspiracy theories, anon 10:33am?
A variety of sources such as the City of Vancouver's 2040 plan on page 79, where it states:
In 2000, an agreement was reached between the BC Transportation Financing Authority, the Insurance Corporation of BC, TransLink, the City of Vancouver, and the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. The agreement committed each party to a long-term objective to remove private automobile traffic from the Stanley Park Causeway and Lions Gate Bridge by 2030, with the facilities being reconfigured as a dedicated transit, cyclist, and pedestrian route, or turned back to park use. It further stipulated that this repurposing would take place in conjunction with the development of a new Burrard Inlet Crossing that is consistent with the aspirations of the communities that it will connect.
Regarding the conspiracy on the viaducts I was a daily commuter on the Dunsmiur viaduct and the morning commute used to sail through the Beatty intersection, then when the bike lane was added the timing of the lanes changed and it fails to clear all morning long causing huge backups.
No, I know the goal is to eliminate traffic through Stanley Park. Where's your evidence that they're screwing with the lights? And if it's true, why aren't we hearing about it in the news? Because I have a feeling that if it were true, the political backlash would be resounding. Your own anecdotal evidence doesn't really prove a conspiracy.
Just to interject here... 8:22 is a clever poster.. my opinion is though... You are right. 'anecdotal evidence doesn't prove a conspiracy'.
However, nobody was talking conspiracy, only you tried to discredit what was said with that old but effective smear. Tell me the difference, if you will, between a political agenda and a conspiracy? Politics in general, is people conspiring to make things come out the way they want. I think the other anon was saying what he or she knows from driving the viaducts. I'd be betting YOU don't have that direct experience, and that furthermore YOU don't have any evidence that would disprove what is being said. You just smear.
I think you don't like what he or she is saying because you've been indoctrinated with an agenda and like all good zealots, try to smear both the person and the evidence whenever you think they conflict with your indoctrinated view.
And by the way, just to reference an earlier part of this thread, TRAFFIC CALMING is exactly what you said. SCREWING WITH THE LIGHTS or anything else that facilitates car traffic.
And you don't have to believe any of us.. just look up TRAFFIC CALMING in depth. Where did it come from..how should a planner implement it... where did that NAME come from?
Try Googling ICLEI.
Prove that the government has been screwing with the timing of the intersections. You said it, so the onus is on you to prove your assertion. Where are your studies and stats? Tired of being stuck in traffic? Then don't be traffic. That's what I did.
The test you have set up is impossible to meet. It assumes that I would have actually timed and documented all of the lights on my commute on the off chance that in future the times would be changed to meet some dark conspiracy theory. All I have is that I know Geoff Meggs, Heather Deal and Andrea Reimer personally and I wouldn't put it past them to screw with the timing of the lights to produce a report that shows that the viaducts are useless. I like all three of them but they find evidence to support their conclusions.
As for your quip about don't be traffic, I would be pleased as punch to get rid of my commute entirely but that is not feasible without uprooting my family, taking my children out of the North Van School they are in and finding an undersized apartment downtown. As for a transit alternative, I live near deep cove and the service is limited.
What a load of horse pucky. Sixty some odd messages about bikes and dividers and blah blah blah and yet none of you considered talking about the "Cut" which is the topic here.
The problem is on ramp and off ramp loading of the highway.
Get rid of the Mountain Hwy off ramp. altogether as it interferes directly with the more functional on ramp from Seymour Parkway. Or at the very least remove the left turn to access Keith Road (use the Seymour off ramp as a loop instead)
Extend the third lane of the North bound off the Memorial bridge all the way to the "Cut" 50% which is already a lane or at least paved as an off ramp or on ramp somewhere and already goes under the overpasses. The lane over the Lynnmour bridge is the only two lane bottleneck at this time which with the new Keith road expansion should have expanded the Hwy not Keith Road (what a waste of resources).
All this is moot as the next stupid project is to redesign the MTN HWY over pass into a full on/off ramp over pass so more bottle necking will occur as bad drivers with no merging skills attempt to stop in the middle of the freeway to get to the next lane they should have been in in the first place (merge at speed means = if approaching merge lane of hwy maintain speed - do not slow down! If on Hwy also means MAINTAIN SPEED - do not slow down nor speed up!)
Remove the Dollarton Hwy on ramp to the memorial bridge and allow access to the secondary road beside the Bus Terminal to access a left "light" off Mtn Hwy to Main Street which is already a third lane to the bridge.
All that is now missing is higher through traffic Southbound down the Cut but by eliminating the one trickiest on ramp (traffic accident waiting to happen) to blended traffic flow is steady. Secondly, extend a no merge area for the first 20 yards of the Main street off ramp on to the bridge so people are up to speed instead of diving across lanes right at he end of the curve because of buses and trucks going to the outside lane and car jumping into the fast lane. Make slow buses and or Trucks stay in the lane they are in until the crest of the bridge so as to maintain flow of traffic. Once over the hump they have 100-150 meters to merge right if they need or are already in the lane to go into the tunnel.
Just some thoughts tying to apply common sense design to a complex yet simple problem!
Post a Comment