New overpass going up Bridge Hill

[Joe Public]

I have seen the current plans that are being used in the construction, which is ongoing as we speak. I haven't seen a publicly released version, so I can't provide them, but when I found that recent project statement earlier, I was actually looking for publicly released plans, and could not find any, so I suspect that there are no public versions. I think that the powers to be wish to limit information and debate on the purpose for this project, as well as the source of funding.

I'm not familiar with the design development so I was unaware of an initial design which suggested an overpass, but I can think of a couple of good reasons for an underpass. The receiving grade on the bluff side is lower than the highway which makes an underpass cheaper in the long run, as well as supports the aesthetic view of the city. Face it, when the development is eventually built, the ugly billboards will disappear and city views will be of prime importance to everyone.

To me, it's plausible that the original design could have shown an overpass as proof of concept, and the final product could have changed due to a more detailed engineering examination as a result of a deeper consultation with the stakeholders. I have no doubt that an existing design concept for the Boucherie overpass will not be the same by the time the final project is approved, but I'm convinced that it's coming due to the Sneena Road extension to Boucherie.

[wonderland]

I think it is great planing ,could you imagine the future traffic congestion. People would be saying hay how come they did not think of the future and build an underpass think about it . Most people complain about the hwy now and now they are improving it for the future

[LoneWolf_53]

I think it is great planing ,could you imagine the future traffic congestion. People would be saying hay how come they did not think of the future and build an underpass think about it . Most people complain about the hwy now and now they are improving it for the future

I don't. There isn't really all that much land on the Bluffs side of the highway, and much less yet if they plop a hospital on it.

Where exactly do you predict all this "congestion" to be coming from?

I'll remind you that land is adjacent to Old Ferry Wharf Road, that's how we accessed the Bluffs when they had concerts, and I don't recollect any lingering trauma from having had to do so.

Bearing that in mind, please explain to me why whatever people need to access that area, can't do so by using either the new Westside Road interchange and turning right on Old Ferry Wharf Road, or by travelling up or down toward the Campbell Road Interchange which could also be utilized with minimum alteration/addition to what already exists?

Who says that anyone that happens to be on Sneena has to be able to cross Highway 97 directly? They never have been in the almost three decades that I've been here. All the shops are nestled up against the Westside Road Interchange, so it would be what maybe 30 seconds driving difference, if they are forced to use Ferry Wharf Road as opposed to going under the highway. Oh the horror of it all if that were the case. LOL

Speaking of future planning, the smartest move would be to lay out any residential that there might be on the Bluffs lands, in such a way that traffic flow gets directed toward Old Ferry Wharf Rd. Seems to be working just fine for the West Harbour development.

In the end I admit it's just my opinion, however I'm sure I wouldn't have too difficult of a time, finding a lot of other people that would also quickly question, the intelligence of spending what in the end will probably be close to 10 million dollars, simply to service 25-30 acres of WIB lands which really aren't hard to access as everything sits right now.

They aren't exactly isolated with access available from two directions already, and that is my main issue.

This is a dumb idea, and given how scarce info is, and how little news was released pertaining to this structure, it seems safe to speculate that those in government responsible for it, know that all too well.

Someone humour me and give an example of anywhere else that there's four major over/underpasses in an approximately 2km stretch of highway.

For decades we've had a number of locations that scream for over/underpasses, now all of a sudden they're popping up like dandelions, all on the same "future lawn" which hasn't been seeded yet. Good grief!

I'll bet Derrickson's laughing his butt off.

[wonderland]

I'm sure the same points were made when they made a three lane bridge years ago

[Anonymous123]

There isn't really all that much land on the Bluffs side of the highway, and much less yet if they plop a hospital on it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the hospital was going on the same side of the highway as the WFN Offices.

[LoneWolf_53]

There isn't really all that much land on the Bluffs side of the highway, and much less yet if they plop a hospital on it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the hospital was going on the same side of the highway as the WFN Offices.

I don't really know, just saw an artists rendering that grammafreddy or someone put up, and it looked like a big curved structure sitting in a large meadow, which to me applies more to the Bluffs side than the WIB office side.

In any case if the hospital is to go in on the other side, and not the Bluffs, then even less reason for an underpass. It's not as though a 25-30 acre residential project needs a highway running through it.

[LoneWolf_53]

I'm sure the same points were made when they made a three lane bridge years ago

Well with all due respect, back when they built that bridge the population of Kelowna was what maybe 40K?

It's all well and good to plan for the future, but costs and availability of money, weighed against more pressing issues, all need to be factored into making a decision.

Back in the 50's I'm sure they didn't envision Kelowna as a large metropolis in need of a five lane bridge.

When it comes to major monetary expenditures on a provincial highway, priority should be given to areas where improvements can save lives and enhance traffic movement immediately, rather than years down the road on the speculation that some lands already easily enough accessible get further developed.

No one can convince me that this underpass is a priority of any sort, let alone needed at all.

More like some backroom deal, amongst a few players that would be happiest if it went in completely under the radar.

[wonderland]

I wonder how many people think that a 5 lane bridge was an error and that one day it will need replacing with a larger one and I don't think in another 20 years you doubters will be very happy with the hwy infrastructure if it were to stay the way it is today.Keep in mind most people don't like it the way it is today and think it needs improvement.

[wonderland]

small fixes are more costly then the big picture and doing it right the first time.

[wonderland]

when was the last time you herd of people talking about a second crossing? my point exactly

[LoneWolf_53]

I wonder how many people think that a 5 lane bridge was an error and that one day it will need replacing with a larger one and I don't think in another 20 years you doubters will be very happy with the hwy infrastructure if it were to stay the way it is today.Keep in mind most people don't like it the way it is today and think it needs improvement.

Well it's not like we have to agree, but for what it's worth on this remark I don't agree with you. The new bridge with 5 lanes is more than sufficient. What good would more lanes be when Hwy 97 through the whole Okanagan Valley is only 4 lanes or less? As long as the bridge can handle the same flow as Hwy 97 that's really all you can expect.

In so far as planning for the future goes, I actually was for a second crossing at one point in time, but have since changed my mind.

I feel it would make far more sense to pursue a true Kelowna, Lake Country, and Vernon bypass by redesigning Westside Road. Kill two birds with one stone so to speak, in that it would fix/improve Westside Road, plus provide a sensible alternative for trucks and such to truly bypass several urban areas if they are merely passing through on their way north.

The more I thought about it the more it makes perfect sense, and with a true bypass there'd be little need for a second bridge for a long time yet, if ever.

[wonderland]

I understand your points but at the same time Kelowna is a world wide destination for many famous and rich people it is growing and becoming even more desirable to wealthy people with good intentions of moving here, a lot of people would like west side road to be improved and would just make it easier to access I don't think that restricting traffic flow is in the Okanagan's best interest the population in the Okanagan is only going to increase and to sit idle and not make improvements is to be honest silly.
It might not be the improvement you would like to see right now but non the less it is going to be a improvement overall.

[wonderland]

You know every long weekend when going south the traffic is always backed up to Gordon all the way across the bridge and up bridge hill I think it's a great idea to have more alternate routs for lake view heights west lake road ect.

[LoneWolf_53]

You know every long weekend when going south the traffic is always backed up to Gordon all the way across the bridge and up bridge hill I think it's a great idea to have more alternate routs for lake view heights west lake road ect.

OK but how do you figure an underpass for Sneena accomplishes that? It's not an alternate route for the areas you mention and never will be.

At best it's an expensive route to service a few acres of WIB land and that's about it. It's just an underpass remember, not an interchange, so it's not as though you could use it to get to Lakeview.

For an alternate route to Lakeview it would make far more sense to cut through a road from Casa Loma, but the residents in there like being cut off and would never support that concept.

Westlake is way up the highway yet so whether there's another underpass for Sneena will have zero impact on that as well.

My opinion is based on a pretty sound knowledge of the area.

Lakeview would have better access if they'd complete the plan to direct Boucherie Road down to Sneena so that traffic can use the Westside Road interchange to the fullest, and allow for removal of the Boucherie Road light, something that in itself should improve southbound Hwy97 traffic flow.

No matter what gets done though, expectations can only go so far because as I've mentioned before it always comes back to the same thing, that being that Hwy 97 is at best four lanes wide, so you can only move so much traffic. A ten lane bridge wouldn't make any difference if you have a bottleneck at either end of it.

I think another thing we all simply have to come to grips with is the area has grown immensely and continues to do so, result of which traffic congestion during peak rush hours, long weekends, summer weekends, etc., will happen and there's not much that can be done about it.

Happens in Vancouver every day, and for much longer than anything we have to complain about in the Okanagan Valley. I recall having to deal with two hours stuck on a freeway in Toronto as a daily occurrence back in the 60's, and I've never seen anything remotely close to that here, not counting the times the old bridge got stuck in the up position.

[dodgerdodge]

Exactly. Its the bottlenecks we need to fix and that is costly and extremely difficult. We build a nice new bridge but have 3 lights within short space of one another at one end then at the other end we build a new overpass and an underpass to service a few shops but do nothing to service the hundreds of vehicles that now get stuck at Boucherie lights, which is on a uphill grade so re starting in a large semi just sucks and consequently backs up traffic.