Obviously the people that did this study never got behind the wheel of a stupid B and drove Victoria and Queensway. How much did this study cost?
Victoria will not score well with increased traffic either.

10 years??

When talking to the ladies that were at the information session last night it sounded like the study was a sham for it seems like they never found out which direction that the most goods came from, where they go to or looked at the roads that are already there out side of the city. Most of the goods that travel through the city that don't travel by truck travel by rail and the rail lines and switching is done along 1st ave rail yard or the BC rail yard to the south and travel along the river across from Queensway. So if there was a major spill on the rail which is Federally regulated most or all or the city would have to be evacuated or the people would have to be protected in place in their homes.

Well, at least they are talking about it.
Maybe someday we will ahve a dangerous goods route, but I believe it will be in an election year far from now.
metalman.

In a nutshell

the dangerous goods study as it sits right now, and as it will likely unfold if past experience is any indication, is DANGEROUS TO THE PEOPLE IN THIS CITY.

Frankly, it is best to leave things as they are, or hire a new consultant.

FINALLY they got it-
"Rocchi says the long term solution would be best to push now, �That would create a type of ring road around the city and dangerous goods wouldn�t need to be in the bowl area at all.�
Kinsley spent 24 years on Council and didn't get it.

Wow, something actually happened in city hall.

"Rocchi says the long term solution would be best to push now, �That would create a type of ring road around the city and dangerous goods wouldn�t need to be in the bowl area at all.�

If she thinks that, then why is she increasing the number of routes there are above the ones which are currently being used?

The more you show that you can cope with the status quo, the less likely it is that you will get any improvements.

So, in my opinion, her actions don't back up her words.

I am not a trucker, so take my words with a grain of salt.

The Tyner, University, Foothills, Chief Lake Rd. route, which is now being included, apparently as a result of suggestions from "the public" has several infrastructure problems the way I see it.

1. same as peden hill, a traffic light at the bottom of two long, relatively steep hills - University at 5th and Foothills at North Nechako. Likely need brake checks at the top.

2. the Tyner Road portion from Ospika onward is substandard.

3. trucks will then turn at Tyner, when they currently go straight through. I think a more frequent truck turning movement there will create an addtional dangerous movement at the worst intersection in town.

4. the turn plus virtual immediate traffic light positioning after coming out of a sloped, tight curve which is blind to the signal and any traffic stopped there at the bottom is dangerous for anyone, especially trucks with trailers.

Which then leads me to conclude tht this is not really an engineering study, but a public opinion study, or, if she has actually travelled that route, she does not know anything about road safety even though she is employed by a road engineering firm.

As far as dangerous goods in the city. Of course they will be in the bowl. They do not look at the "local delivery". They look at the main "arterials".

The only way one would ever remove dangerous goods form the bowl is by putting all facilities which require such goods delivered to them out of the bowl.

Wait 50 years and we might get there. That is a stupid statement and something which is not a realistic short to intermediate goal.