New overpass going up Bridge Hill

[Joe Public]

Good comments regarding bottlenecks.

The signal at Rte 97 @ Abbott was never supposed to remain after the new bridge was constructed. It was not even in the plans, but the City of Kelowna demanded that it be reinstated to move vehicles through the downtown Kelowna commercial core. Pressure from developers made that bottleneck much worse and the current situation is repairable.

Boucherie is the bottleneck on the other end. Sneena is not designed to the standards that would allow it to accommodate all the traffic from Boucherie and process it through the Westside overpass, but it will be joined to Boucherie and will be able to accommodate considerable traffic in itself, to prevent vehicles from having to access Rte 97 from Boucherie, only to turn off at Westside.

The remaining issue is Boucherie, and it's signal. It will be turned into an overpass in the near future, probably with a signal on top such as Westside, as money and priorities become apparent. The fastest way to make that happen is to lobby your MLA's as we live in a political world.

[LoneWolf_53]

The remaining issue is Boucherie, and it's signal. It will be turned into an overpass in the near future, probably with a signal on top such as Westside, as money and priorities become apparent. The fastest way to make that happen is to lobby your MLA's as we live in a political world.

So how come the story keeps changing?

Not so long ago another member said that the plan was to direct Boucherie Road traffic onto Sneena, with Horizon Drive traffic redirected toward Nancee Way, in order for them to be able to completely remove the Boucherie Road light/intersection.

That plan sounds far better to me than frittering away money on an overpass, yet again, that isn't really warranted.

Redirect Boucherie Road traffic to fully utilize both Nancee Way underpass and Westside Road interchange, shut down the existing intersection, then build an overpass/interchange for Hudson/Westlake Road and the result will be far more sensible, not to mention less expensive.

Good Gawd how many over/underpasses are we to build for the WIB? Enough is enough.

[Rose Thompson]

Do we have a big pot of money somewhere that needs to be spent? We DO NOT need any more approaches to the bridge, any more overpasses or underpasses. This isn't Los Angeles for pete's sake! These road projects are coming out of left field for no reason.

[kumazatheef]

We DO NOT need any more approaches to the bridge, any more overpasses or underpasses. This isn't Los Angeles for pete's sake!

Yeah, let's leave it with the stop 'n go traffic lights every 500m, I love sitting in traffic.

/sarcasm.

[Volvotrucker]

Do we have a big pot of money somewhere that needs to be spent? We DO NOT need any more approaches to the bridge, any more overpasses or underpasses. This isn't Los Angeles for pete's sake! These road projects are coming out of left field for no reason.

I guess you don't use the HWY to make a living or don't mind wasting hours and gallons a fuel waiting in endless lines over the period of a year. Highway 97 is a transportation corridor for the movement of goods and services and it needs to be funded and upgraded as such. It is not only meant for seniors to get get groceries, golfing or wine tours. Upgrading on a highway to better standards is adding lights and bottle necks. Upgrading is removing them.

[kumazatheef]

... adding lights and bottle necks. Upgrading is removing them.

Amen.

[dodgerdodge]

Yeah, let's leave it with the stop 'n go traffic lights every 500m, I love sitting in traffic.

/sarcasm.

But we aren't gaining any lights nor are we losing any. They are adding yet another over/underpass a few feet from the existing one! Lets remove boucherie or Hudson or Ross or whatever but lets not add another underpass or overpass so close to the current one. That was the purpose of this thread and the comment made

[kumazatheef]

Whose this "We" you keep speaking of??
If you're members of WFN, then I can appreciate your perspective … but if you're not, then who is "everyone else" to dictate what they do with their money on their land?

[Joe Public]

"WE" I assume are a collection of people that use the highways for business and pleasure, and are certainly entitled to speak to the conditions that affect them every day.

You are correct in stating that the WFN can do whatever they choose to do with their developments, and I honestly wish them good luck as I support aboriginal economic development as a path forward. But the subject of what development which effects all users, and who is paying for that development are subject worth discussing.

[Volvotrucker]

We should not have a problem with the WFN building all these new mega developments. What we should have a problem with is the traffic these developments create and then instead of building a proper overpass to their land, developments (and their profits) we are stuck with a light at Butt Road that is nothing more than a bottleneck. Their should be a rule for all devoplments including the ones in Kelwona, build what you want but the development must include traffic upgrades that do not impact existing traffic flows. The Butt road access is going to be a pain in the butt for the next few decades!

[Joe Public]

There are such rules.

The MOT forces developers; all developers, not just WFN developers, to upgrade highway signals and street lighting to accommodate the increased traffic that these developments bring. The problem is that contrary to your desire, the volumes will nevertheless increase due to these developments, and it will never be possible to implement these improvements and restore traffic patterns and volumes to the way that they were.

This brings us back to the original reason for this thread; in that the WFN are building for the future developments that they intend to construct on the bluffs, and that the Westside Road overpass, the new bridge hill Sneena underpass, and the future Boucherie overpass are all designed for future traffic volumes and patterns. Nevertheless, volumes on Rte 97 itself will continue to increase and traffic will continue to slow down regardless of these improvements.

[Zoso]

Wfn isn't going to develope the bluffs . They don't own them . Private individuals do . Perhaps some out of town developer will develope the area. And when that that happens it will likely be occupied by tax paying Canadians like everyone else . As well every business in the area shopping center pays tax . Tax that supports improvement , improvement that helps comuters by building bridges . I don't see what all the big problem is with Wfn. They collect property tax . Pays for garbage picker uppers , Grass cutters ,Snow plowers ,Upgrades to water and sewer , Community centres .

Overpasses are for everyone by everyone. And while the getting is good before Wfn gets any more big ideas.



Go Canada