Difference between revisions of "April 2022"

From committees
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "== In attendance == Colin, Andrew, Colleen, Vince, Dragana Guests: Geoffrey Keyworth, Monique Beaudry, Breanna Jackson (Associated Engineering) == Bedwell Bay Road Transpo...")
 
Line 51: Line 51:
 
# Single-sided could get fairly tight where space is constrained
 
# Single-sided could get fairly tight where space is constrained
 
# Single sided could be uncomfortable at speed, downhill
 
# Single sided could be uncomfortable at speed, downhill
Action item: Andrew to write an informal email to Geoffrey Keyworth expressing informal preference for bi-directional MUP.
+
Possible action item: Andrew to write an informal email to Geoffrey Keyworth expressing informal preference for bi-directional MUP.

Revision as of 19:54, 5 April 2022

In attendance

Colin, Andrew, Colleen, Vince, Dragana

Guests: Geoffrey Keyworth, Monique Beaudry, Breanna Jackson (Associated Engineering)

Bedwell Bay Road Transportation Study

Presented by Geoffrey K, + transportation engineers Breanna Jackson + Monique Beaudry

PoMo partnering with Metro on this project. Belcarra and Anmore declined partnership offer.

Bedwell Bay Road is the main access to temtemixwten/ White Pine Beach

Terrible traffic in summer

HUB requested Sasamat Greenway in 2021 (yay Colleen)

This corridor is also listed in Metro 2050 Vision

Project objectives: safety, active transportation corridor, nix illegal parking

Needs assessment: no dedicated space for walking/cycling, parking situation makes this worse. Area has high transit use.

Four key improvement areas:

  1. Bedwell Bay Road
  2. White Pine Beach Road intersection
  3. Floatwalk access
  4. Tum Tumay Wheuton intersection.

Bedwell Bay Road may get concrete barrier separating bidirectional MUP, like some sections of Spirit Trail in Nvan Or else unidirectional ped/cycling facilities on either side, separated by TBD delineators

Currently, planning team has run a quick sanity check on both options and identified some areas where achieving exact objectives may not be possible. Bidirectional path has a little more flexibility to reduce width while remaining usable

(can go down to 2.7 while retaining Translink funding)

Geoffrey: Translink is not likely to fund this, as it's pretty rural. But too early to talk about this. Maybe Metro, Federal Active Transportation Plan

Study aiming to produce a "functional plan".

They are also working on an Ioco Road study which hasn't been started yet. They're thinking of doing them concurrently for potentially better integration.


Committee has informal preference for bi-directional MUP in this case

  1. Nice solution for restricting illegal parking
  2. More bi-directional flexibility
  3. Single-sided could get fairly tight where space is constrained
  4. Single sided could be uncomfortable at speed, downhill

Possible action item: Andrew to write an informal email to Geoffrey Keyworth expressing informal preference for bi-directional MUP.