No Left Turn From 97 to Spruce Street

Monday, August 25, 2008 11:21 AM

PRINCE GEORGE, B.C. - The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure will not permit the construction of a left-turn lane from Highway 97 into the Spruce Street area because it would be unsafe to do so, announced Minister Kevin Falcon today.

"The Province committed to taking a final look at a left-turn lane into Spruce Street area. This latest study clearly shows that a left-turn in this area of Highway 97 would be unsafe and interrupt Highway 97 traffic flow," said Falcon.

At the request of the MLA for Prince-George-Mount Robson, Shirley Bond, the Province commissioned a final study of the issue. The independent study was conducted by EBA Engineering Consultants, Dr. Paul de Leur, Ph.D., P. Eng of de Leur Consulting Ltd. and Mr. Marco Guarnaschelli, M. Eng., P. Eng. of NovaTrans Engineering Inc. Their findings show that
a left-turn lane would reduce safety at the intersection and compromise the long-term traffic flow of the Highway 97 corridor.

Specifically, the report cited:
* A 100 per cent increase in collision frequency.
* An increase in the severity of the collisions (e.g. "head-on" and "T-bone" crashes).
* Additional financial collision costs estimated to be at least $2.5 million dollars over 15 years.

The ministry has reviewed the case for a left-turn lane on five separate occasions since 1971. Consistent with the findings from this independent study, these reviews have all affirmed that a left-turn lane in the area would be unsafe for motorists.

During the construction of the approaches to the Simon Fraser Bridge, the ministry will install a raised median to stop illegal u-turns in the area. This median will match the safety standards outlined in the Cariboo Connector design strategy.

In an effort to partner with the local business owners, the ministry will provide additional signing directing southbound traffic to the Spruce Street area.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, August 25, 2008 11:21 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: taxinapothole on August 25 2008 12:04 PM

yet there is one just down the highway(97) for access to the casino. What a bunch of bull. It appears that they are putting in a new left turn lane om highway 16 for the new Sandman Hotel.

When travelling into Kamloops from the east, there are many left turn lanes to access motels, eateries and shopping. This of course is the Trans Canada highway, just a back road compared to highway 97!!

I continue to shake my head at the way things are run in this country!

Posted by: diplomat on August 25 2008 1:00 PM

Another case of an issue *studied* into oblivion by a bunch of people with more degrees than a thermometer.

Posted by: metalman on August 25 2008 1:09 PM

The business owners (large wall, carmel, etc) do not have as much clout as mr. minor. Oh yeah, didn't he pay for part of the L. turn lane?
Overpass overpass overpass. Make the concrete people lotsamoney with the overpass, but improve traffic flow.
metalman.

Posted by: MrPG on August 25 2008 1:12 PM

Why would these independent consultants have any vested interest in shutting down a left turn lane here? Other left turn lanes and their locations are irrelevant. Every situation is different.

The whole left-turn lane thing has been brought to the forefront by business owners who want better traffic flow into their places of business, which is understandable. And didn't they also want taxpayers to foot the bill?

Posted by: seamutt on August 25 2008 1:40 PM

Major won't allow the left turn lane as the affected businesses are in direct competion with Major's gold mine.

Posted by: MrPG on August 25 2008 1:55 PM

That's stretching it, seamutt. You obviously have proof if you're speaking so frankly on the subject. I'm sure the Opinion250 staff would like to see what you've got.

Posted by: BCRacer on August 25 2008 2:36 PM

I guess money gets what it asks for...
but you bet I will never grace his premises.
Something really underhanded is going on here in my opinion....not sure what but things are not adding up right in my mind....

Posted by: bohemian on August 25 2008 2:45 PM

taxinapothole said: "When travelling into Kamloops from the east, there are many left turn lanes to access motels, eateries and shopping."

Something that would help us all visualize it would be concrete examples in the forms of links to google maps.

Are you up to it?

Posted by: Palopu on August 25 2008 3:04 PM

This is a very simple situation complicated by posters who see a conspiracy under every tree.

BOTTOM LINE;

A left turn into oncoming traffic on 97 North from the Simon Fraser twinned bridges is deemed to be unsafe, and therefore will not be allowed. This concept shouldnt be to hard to grasp.

There will be no left turn and the discussions are over, lets get on to something else, that is somewhat less mundane.

Posted by: He speaks on August 25 2008 3:31 PM

Of course if your the casino a left turn is OK.

Posted by: taxinapothole on August 25 2008 3:39 PM

bohemian said "something that would help us all visualize it would be concrete examples in the forms of links to google maps"

Go to google earth, type in Kamloops B.C., Canada and hit search. Now zero in on the Trans Canada east of Kamloops, the area is called Valleyview. Here you will see many left turn lanes.

Highway 97, north or south, is no longer a bypass. It goes right through the middle of our city. One should expect to come across traffic lights and left turn lanes.

As far as the businesses along that stretch paying for it?? When they built their businesses, there were left turns permitted!! That was taken away from them, without consideration for the impact it would have on their investment.

If the province refuses to put a left lane there, then I would suggest they put a concrete barrier all the way to the bridge, to stop this very dangerous act of corking u-turns there. And by the way, just for the record the sign at this particular spot says no left turn, it does not say no u-turn!!

Posted by: bohemian on August 25 2008 3:50 PM

Well, then I'll do it. Here's a link (finally found one that wasn't a controlled intersection):

http://tinyurl.com/6b5l2y

Posted by: MrPG on August 25 2008 4:12 PM

First of all, to the couple of businesses that had their left turns 'taken away from them', sorry, but things can't stay the same forever -- traffic volumes and patterns change. If the lack of one left turn is affecting business that much, maybe it's a good idea to relocate.

Secondly, who cares what they have in Kamloops or any other example you can find... yes, there are left turns off of highways elsewhere in the world. So what?

As palopu said, it's over... move on.

Posted by: camoose on August 25 2008 4:30 PM

Mr. PG I can't buy your answer...."maybe it's a good idea to relocate" That's just a new twist on "if you don't like it here, go back to where you came from" People are entitled to their opinions and fair treatment for their businesses that aren't casinos. Just because the government has decreed that there will be no left turn lane doesn't make it right and people can still disagree without being told to relocate if they don't like it. Typical response from a certain segment of our population.

Posted by: acrider54 on August 25 2008 5:57 PM

Good! and they should close the other coming from the south into the casino. Just more traffic tie ups.

Posted by: Harbinger on August 25 2008 7:00 PM

Told ya so!! Nyah! Nyah!

Posted by: MrPG on August 25 2008 7:48 PM

So camoose, what's your solution for these businesses? Read the story again. Indepedent study, commisioned by the government. The government didn't 'decree' anything, just reported the findings of the study. The turn would be too dangerous taking into account current traffic flow. Period.

You're right, people are enititled to their opinions, but that doesn't change the facts.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on August 25 2008 11:08 PM

The facts are that there is a left turn into the casino. The fact is there is no difference in the traffic 200 meters to the east. It all two lane and concrete barriered.

I have no axe to grind either way, but why not use the same traffic study that gave the casino a left turn? Was there something wrong with the casino study?

Posted by: taxinapothole on August 26 2008 12:29 AM

and I said, if we can't get a left turn lane by the Carmel, then please, continue the concrete barrier to the bridge!! It is a dangerous piece of road, where people continue to make u-turns. My customers want me to cork a uie there, so they can save a couple of bucks. If the concrete barrier is there, they have no argument, and everyone gets home safe! IT IS SO SIMPLE, why don't they get it???

Posted by: MrPG on August 26 2008 8:09 AM

"The fact is there is no difference in the traffic 200 meters to the east."

Except that it's travelling in the opposite direction and there's an intersection nearby... but other than that, no difference.

As for the barrier, according to the Citizen article this morning, there will be a barrier constructed/extended to prevent illegal U-Turns.

Posted by: scorpio on August 26 2008 6:00 PM

There is accessibility to the casino from north, south, east and west. What more could you ask for? I don't begrudge John Major at all, it is the government that wants this cash cow easily accessibile, and that's why the left turn is there. No more,no less.
If I were the businesses involved, I think I would launch a class action lawsuit against the government, maybe even a blocade at the left turn to the casino.
Call BCTV out to film it, get the people behind you. Action speaks louder than words.

Posted by: scorpio on August 26 2008 6:07 PM

Posted by: lostfaith on August 26 2008 8:36 PM

LMAO, I would love to see a blockade.
They better get some first nations on the line or it won't work.

Posted by: Harbinger on August 26 2008 9:06 PM

Might be easier to get a slot machine or two into the Carmel coffee shop. That might do it.