[SpongeG]

finally a group speaks sense

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - There are too many bodies of water and not enough bridges to cross them. A local transportation promotion group believes our traffic congestion could be solved if we just built more and bigger bridges.

A study commissioned by Get Moving BC found Portland Oregon, with about half the population of the Lower Mainland, has 75% more bridge capacity.

Other cities in Canada and Europe were also looked at, and they too had more bridges with more lanes available. Get Moving BC says twinning the Port Mann should be just the start of new bridge construction.

It says the Pattullo Bridge needs to be replaced and expanded, and the Massey Tunnel should be replaced with a high capacity bridge. Get Moving BC is also calling for another crossing over the Fraser somewhere west of the Port Mann.

The group says any new or expanded bridges should have room for rapid transit.

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20071015_123132_4944

[j4893k]

I love how they tag the rapid transit onto the end just like everyone else. It's so typical you almost have to laugh.

[The_Henry_Man]

The eastbound traffic on Hwy 91A from Queensborough Bridge all the way back to the exit from Hwy 91 to Westminster Hwy is now becoming literally a parking lot, from around 1430h all the way to 1830h. It is just ridiculous. Several times, I tried to bypass all this by getting off the exit to Westminster Hwy and get back onto Hwy 91A via Howes St, but the traffic pileup also started just just before Boundary Rd separating New West/Richmond. Getting past this to the on-ramp to Hwy 91A itself took 30 MINUTES and this is less than 2km. Remember, this is a route for many bus routes, including 410 (important bus route for Richmond residents going to SFU), 301, 340 and so on, and traffic jam on this route also greatly deteriorate the quality of bus service on these routes.

Although I'm an advocate for better alternative modes of transportation, I'm sorry, but we need to wake up to reality. More road capacity has to be built and more bridges should be built, in order to respond to the demands of population growth, as well as to accommodate better, faster and more efficient public transit (buses and rail), over the bridge, esp from the South of Fraser to Burrard Peninsula. Whether we like it or not, the population of Metro Vancouver will continue to expand. Whether we like it or not, even though we need to get more people to take public transit, we have to appreciate the fact that more people will continue to drive than take public transit because not all areas can be convenient to public transit like Vancouver proper. Remember, this is not NOT Hong Kong, since our density is not even close to them and we have a much larger land mass than HK. Therefore, whether we like it or not, we need to have a balanced approach to the development of our transportation network.

We need to stop fantasizing that by simply only investing more on public transit system, we can get everyone to stop driving all of a sudden.

[bils]

"There are too many bodies of water and not enough bridges to cross them. A local transportation promotion group believes our traffic congestion could be solved if we just built more and bigger bridges."

..... they had to do a study in order to confirm this? well done, folks.....

:koko:

[twoNeurons]

i was out south of fraser last night and I had to commute across the port mann this morning.

I left early... 6:30am... and the line-up on 176th to get ON to the highway was 30minutes long. Traffic was backed up past 176th westbound. Taking side roads to get to 160th wasn't any good either.

All in all, a commute that usually takes 20 minutes could take close to 2 hours for the same distance.

If ANYONE here criticizes gateway, that's fine, as long as you have suffered this commute a few times. Or try it for a week and see if you don't go crazy.

I know the whole idea of living where you work is nice, but some people, distance-wise LIVE closer to employment centres across rivers. Eg. Living in North Surrey and working in PoCo.

[Nutterbug]

Whether we like it or not, the population of Metro Vancouver will continue to expand. Whether we like it or not, even though we need to get more people to take public transit, we have to appreciate the fact that more people will continue to drive than take public transit because not all areas can be convenient to public transit like Vancouver proper. Remember, this is not NOT Hong Kong, since our density is not even close to them and we have a much larger land mass than HK.

But the land mass to the east is supposed to be untouchable agricultural reserve.

Maybe it's time we took the more disciplined approach of the HK'ers and worked up to their level of density, without demanding the luxury of a detached house with our own back yards.

[Nutterbug]

Upgrading the crossings might be good in a way. It'll give them an excuse to charge tolls on them.

[j4893k]

Therefore, whether we like it or not, we need to have a balanced approach to the development of our transportation network.


How can you say this when it is unbelievably clear that there is not a balance already? Our roads may be inadequate, but they still far outweigh our public transportation system and it needs to catch up. The valley is about to take on hundreds of thousands of people and they are begging for some guidance and leadership to resemble somewhat of a urban area. And what do we give them? A BRT on a widened freeway. "Here, go build some density around those new four lane interchanges of yours!" Some balance...

[WBC]

Most of locals see the traffic as being in a bad shape. And it's true. However, the reason for this is not that we are some sort of a huge megalopolis - it's because our infrastructure is something that belongs to the 3rd world. Not having done a study, but being a well traveled guy having seen what other people do I think that the following would be a sensible approach:

1) Start new commuter trains from the valley. The idea here would be to connect Abbotsford, Langley, Surrey , Burnaby And Vancouver with something that's fast, does not have too many stops and is reliable. Preferably use the existing tracks.

2) Beef up the existing commuter rail from Mission. Increase frequency, add stations (Burnaby).

3) Do the gateway (leave space for rail). Highway 1 is pathetic. On and off ramps are something that you would not see even in a 3rd world country (short and dangerous). Build feeder roads to support highway 1.

4) Add bridges and tunnels. One more Fraser crossing. in Coquitlam area. One more bridge to Richmond (Boundary street?). One more bridge to Delta (or expand the existing tunnel). Add 6 lane tunnel to West Vancouver (leave space for rail) and make the Lions' Gate a pedestrian bridge (that bridge is a current state is an embarrassment).

5) Extend Millennium line to UBC using SkyTrain.

6) Connect Millennium and Expo Lines at Broadway, so that trains from Downtown can go direct to Coquitlam. And no, I don't care how it looks or whether it ruins somebody's view.

7) Do the evergreen line - phase 1 - North alignment, phase 2 loop back on the south alignment back to New West.

All that would just make us catch up with where we should be as a supposed "world class city", as opposed to be a parochial backwater NIMBY village.

[twoNeurons]

6) Connect Millennium and Expo Lines at Broadway, so that trains from Downtown can go direct to Coquitlam. And no, I don't care how it looks or whether it ruins somebody's view.

There's no reason to do this. It would reduce frequencies too much and would offer less flexibility.

The VIEW wasn't the main concern at this location, it was the technical feasibility.

Otherwise good suggestions... but would require some serious committment from upper levels of government.

[Canadian Mind]

I agree with the article. I think the Metro should expand it's road network, effectively lightening traffic in the short term, which helps with bus routes, commercial shipping, etc. This 5 year grace period would give the cities of the metro time to density around successful BRT lines. then when i gets clogged again, translink has the justification to expand the skytrain network, such as along highway 91A where the buses are now always getting clogged in traffic.

[Stingray2004]

Yup, it's also very important to note that Vancouver/ Burnaby/ New Westminster citizens are also beholden to some of these snarling choke-points as witnessed by late afternoon northbound rush-hour traffic on the Oak/ Knight/ and Queensborough bridges.

Some future likely scenarios:

1. Massey Tunnel - Twinning with a bridge; (confirmed future MoT project);

2. Arthur Laing Bridge - Twin (YVR long-term plans);

3. Oak St. Bridge - Twin (confirmed future MoT project in conjunction with Massey Tunnel system upgardes);

4. Knight St. Bridge - Twin;

5. Queensborough Bridge - Twin (MoT study);

6. IWM Second Narrows Bridge - Twin (MoT study);

7. Patullo Bridge - Twin or rebuild (current Translink study underway);

Over the next 20 years, I'm sure that may of the aforementioned projects will be underway.

[deasine]

Yup, it's also very important to note that Vancouver/ Burnaby/ New Westminster citizens are also beholden to some of these snarling choke-points as witnessed by late afternoon northbound rush-hour traffic on the Oak/ Knight/ and Queensborough bridges.

Some future likely scenarios:

1. Massey Tunnel - Twinning with a bridge; (confirmed future MoT project);

2. Arthur Laing Bridge - Twin (YVR long-term plans);

3. Oak St. Bridge - Twin (confirmed future MoT project in conjunction with Massey Tunnel system upgardes);

4. Knight St. Bridge - Twin;

5. Queensborough Bridge - Twin (MoT study);

6. IWM Second Narrows Bridge - Twin (MoT study);

7. Patullo Bridge - Twin or rebuild (current Translink study underway);

Over the next 20 years, I'm sure that may of the aforementioned projects will be underway.

To be honest, I'm am very much against all of what you have said. Twinning is not the answer. I would say before we even jump to the conclusion that we twin bridges and tunnels, we have to first implement new transporation services, rebuild certain areas, and then determine whether we really NEED to expand the road infrastructure.

For instance, let's focus on the Massey Tunnel...

Highway 99 around the approach to the tunnel is horribly done: a mess of counterflow lanes and HOV lanes. Let's first REBUILD the entire thing. Simplfy everything.

From Landner Truck Road interchange. 4 regular traffic lanes: 2 in each direction. 1 HOV counterflow lane.

At 62 B St: complete redo of the entire overpass. Make it so that it is a diamond interchange (see wikipedia) with HOV counterflow lane having easy access to the exit.

At the approach to the tunnel: 4 lanes (like usual) but the conterflow direction is only for HOV.

north of tunnel: 4 regular traffic lanes: 2 in each direction. 2 HOV lanes, one in each direction. 1 HOV counterflow lane. This might sound complicated but basically the peek hour traffic gets 2 HOV lanes in each direction.

Public Transit improvements: more express buses. Park and Ride at 62 B St. to allow commuters a choice between travelling on Hwy 99 by car, by bus, or by other park and ride commuter cars (w/e they are called XD)

With regards to the traffic at Oak St. Bridge. Vancouver won't allow any more bridges entering the city. And even if you twin it, there is no room for another bridge around that area anywas.

So I would suggest a bridge from Shell Rd @ Bridgeport to Marine Dr. @ Main St. This would give commuters from Richmond another choice.

Knight St. Bridge - like I said, build the Main St. bridge instead.

Queensborough bridge - I don't think there is actuallly THAT much traffic. No need for a twin.

Second Narrows Bridge - no need for a twin. People have said about the tunnel from Main St. ~ but I would say try increasing public transit services first.

Pautello Bridge needs to be replaced. Simple as that.


I would also like to see more Park and Rides near the approach to a bridge or a tunnel, reminding commuters they have a choice for public transit. I'm sure many commuters will take the Park and Ride especially when they are actually stuck in traffic.

[Nutterbug]

Yup, it's also very important to note that Vancouver/ Burnaby/ New Westminster citizens are also beholden to some of these snarling choke-points as witnessed by late afternoon northbound rush-hour traffic on the Oak/ Knight/ and Queensborough bridges.

Some future likely scenarios:

1. Massey Tunnel - Twinning with a bridge; (confirmed future MoT project);

2. Arthur Laing Bridge - Twin (YVR long-term plans);

3. Oak St. Bridge - Twin (confirmed future MoT project in conjunction with Massey Tunnel system upgardes);

4. Knight St. Bridge - Twin;

5. Queensborough Bridge - Twin (MoT study);

6. IWM Second Narrows Bridge - Twin (MoT study);

7. Patullo Bridge - Twin or rebuild (current Translink study underway);

Over the next 20 years, I'm sure that may of the aforementioned projects will be underway.

I'm surprised there's no mention of the Lions Gate.

[SpongeG]

you'd think there would be a direct connection between richmond and burnaby - burnaby other than its land neighbours has no connections to its across the water neighbours

i think one bridge maybe at the foot of boundary that hooks onto the east-west connector would be a big help

and a new link between surrey and coquitlam - i was thinking like near IKEA to scott road area

all the bridges could than have better bus connections if not LRT or something

[Lee_Haber8]

They should just expand public transportation crossings. One skytrain tunnel or bridge holds the equivalent volume as a ten-lane freeway crossing. It also leads to more compact, friendly development and doesn't require the expropriation and destruction of so many properties

[mr.x]

They should just expand public transportation crossings. One skytrain tunnel or bridge holds the equivalent volume as a ten-lane freeway crossing. It also leads to more compact, friendly development and doesn't require the expropriation and destruction of so many properties

Actually, no. The Canada Line holds a capacity of 15,000 pphpd....SkyTrain today has about 30,000 pphpd. That means SkyTrain has a capacity equivalent to about 20 lanes of road.

[Nutterbug]

They should just expand public transportation crossings. One skytrain tunnel or bridge holds the equivalent volume as a ten-lane freeway crossing.

Is that ten lanes in each direction, or both combined?

[Stingray2004]

For instance, let's focus on the Massey Tunnel...

-------
With regards to the traffic at Oak St. Bridge. Vancouver won't allow any more bridges entering the city. And even if you twin it, there is no room for another bridge around that area anywas.
-------
Knight St. Bridge - like I said, build the Main St. bridge instead.
-------
Queensborough bridge - I don't think there is actuallly THAT much traffic. No need for a twin.
-------
Second Narrows Bridge - no need for a twin. People have said about the tunnel from Main St. ~ but I would say try increasing public transit services first.

It's always good to disagree...

1. Massey Tunnel:

The District of Delta, Translink Chair Malcom Brodie, even long-time Richmond councillor and New Democrat Harold Steves (among others) all agree that the Massey Tunnel requires expanded capacity.

Here's an excerpt from a Province newspaper article from over one year ago:
_________________________________________________________________
Province looking at twinning tunnel

By Matthew HoekstraBlack Press
Mar 18 2006

The George Massey tunnel will be twinned and both Highway 99 approaches widened from four lanes to six once the province’s more pressing transportation projects are complete, Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon said.

Ministry officials considered adding the project to its $3-billion Gateway Program, but left out upgrades to the 47-year-old link for now.

“What we have done is noted that that is part of our longer range plan. So post-Gateway, the next project that would come onto the radar screen would be the Massey Tunnel,” Falcon said.

Falcon said the twinning the tunnel isn’t an immediate priority of government since tunnel bottlenecks occur only during the morning and afternoon commutes.

“The latest numbers show us that that’s not the crisis point. In fact, when we go ahead with the Gateway Program, especially the new South Fraser Perimeter Road, we believe we will see increased flows of traffic through the Massey Tunnel because of traffic diversion.”

The Gateway Program definition report says twinning the tunnel would also require improvements to other crossings over the North Arm of the Fraser, such as the Oak Street and Knight Street bridges, or a new crossing to connect with growing central Burnaby.

Falcon said the plan is to twin the tunnel — and pay for it in part through tolls — after the Gateway project and other major infrastructure projects, such as the Sea-to-Sky Highway widening and Golden Ears Bridge, are complete. That puts tunnel upgrades at least 15 years away.

But veteran Richmond Coun. Harold Steves said the time to move on the tunnel expansion is now. “I wanted Richmond council to get involved a year ago and insist that they should twin the tunnel. Instead we end up with a motion of council that we tabled saying we should twin the Port Mann Bridge,” he said.

“Why are we worried about the Port Mann when we’ve got an opportunity of twinning the tunnel?”

Steves said a tunnel expansion wouldn’t impact farmland as another idea floated years ago would—a bridge connecting with No. 8 Road. And now that it’s part of the province’s long-term plans, the city should go “full out” in trying to secure the project, including expanding and elevating Highway 99, which could also act as a mid-island dyke.

A twinned tunnel could also incorporate light rail transit, said Steves, and ultimately connect with the Richmond’s future Canada Line.

“I don’t think it’s a matter of the money or when to do it, because they’re looking to do it with tolls.”

Mayor Malcolm Brodie said any step to create more capacity over the Middle Arm of the Fraser is “important.” He said twinning the tunnel is the logical solution, but might not be the only one, although he ruled out a new bridge that would drive highways through farmland.

“To me, the biggest need in terms of decongesting that corridor is in relation to the movement of goods, because we have the land in the Fraser Port in the southeast corner of Richmond, and we’re hoping as part of any kind of major improvement that they would put in a Blundell interchange. That will enable the land to be fully developed.”
_________________________________________________________________

2. Oak Street Bridge:

In conjunction with system-wide improvements to the Hwy 99 corridor, expansion of the Oak St. bridge would also be required and such expansion has already been determined to be feasible. A 3 + 1 HOV lane configuration in each direction would be optimal. As for the City of Vancouver's (representing just ~27% of the metro population) flawed policy regarding expansion of river crossings, just look at the City of Burnaby's policy regarding expansion of Hwy 1 as an example.

3. Knight Street Bridge:

That crossing is one of the most dangerous in Metro Vancouver (ICBC stats) due to design flaws in terms of weaving and on-ramp bridgehead congestion. A 3 + 1 HOV lane configuration would be optimal.

4. Queensborough Bridge:

Over the last ten years, that crossing has witnessed an incredible surge of truck traffic, making it appear busier than the Oak St. Bridge during daylight hours. The study looked at a 2 + 1 HOV configuration southbound for the existing structure (wider lanes and shoulder for disabled traffic).

5. IWM Second Narrows Bridge:

An unsafe and substandard 1950's design with reduced speeds, narrow lanes, and no shoulder. The existing structure would be reconfigured to 3 + 1 HOV northbound. Really, the two narrows are the only financially viable areas for crossing Burrard Inlet.

For years, the Boundary Road corridor has also been bandied about as a potential crossing linking with Hwy 91, although that likely should be a longer term goal.

[Stingray2004]

Actually, no. The Canada Line holds a capacity of 15,000 pphpd....SkyTrain today has about 30,000 pphpd. That means SkyTrain has a capacity equivalent to about 20 lanes of road.

Port Mann Bridge = ~150,000 vehicles/day (5 lanes and assuming only 1 passenger per vehicle)

Utilizing that analogy, 5 Skytrains equal one existing Port Mann Bridge.

Ooops... I hope I interpreted pphpd correctly!

[mr.x]

Port Mann Bridge = ~150,000 vehicles/day (5 lanes and assuming only 1 passenger per vehicle)

Utilizing that analogy, 5 Skytrains equal one existing Port Mann Bridge.

Ooops... I hope I interpreted pphpd correctly!

Nope. PPHPD, or people per hour per direction, is a term for capacity. That means that on the Canada Line, according to these technical details there could be as many as 30,000 people in trains at one time in an hour - or 15,000 people per hour per direction.

Note that SkyTrain's capacity is near 30,000 pphpd, but due to its short train lengths it only uses about 16,000 pphpd today.

[deasine]

^LOL go ahed and disagree... I support it!! That's the point of fourms: to have discussion.

Basically my main point is that we should think before we jump to conclusions, something I have really learned from many users here, such as mr.x2, SFUVancouver, and officedweller. I would say before we actually start expanding our road infrastructure, we should actually give a commuters a second option. I can understand why many of us say that public transit is not an option because of "such and such and such." But if we first strengthen our public transit, it would then be a viable choice. As a result, many commuters will be off the cars and into buses.

Of course life doesn't always work that way. If strengthening public transit has been done and we still see the same problem, then go ahed and expand.

I'm not trying to say I dont' recognize the fact that traffic is horrible in Vancouver. I would say instead of expanding, we give people the second option. I've been stressing that too much now, you get the point! XD

[SpongeG]

^LOL go ahed and disagree... I support it!! That's the point of fourms: to have discussion.

Basically my main point is that we should think before we jump to conclusions, something I have really learned from many users here, such as mr.x2, SFUVancouver, and officedweller. I would say before we actually start expanding our road infrastructure, we should actually give a commuters a second option. I can understand why many of us say that public transit is not an option because of "such and such and such." But if we first strengthen our public transit, it would then be a viable choice. As a result, many commuters will be off the cars and into buses.

Of course life doesn't always work that way. If strengthening public transit has been done and we still see the same problem, then go ahed and expand.

I'm not trying to say I dont' recognize the fact that traffic is horrible in Vancouver. I would say instead of expanding, we give people the second option. I've been stressing that too much now, you get the point! XD

yeah but public transit still needs roads to run on

busses are much more viable than LRT and need better bridges and roads to be of any use or attraction to commuters

[fever]

A study commissioned by Get Moving BC found Portland Oregon, with about half the population of the Lower Mainland, has 75% more bridge capacity.

This stat would be highest in cities with a lot of narrow waterways, which are relatively easy for bridge building, and it would depend a lot on how the city's laid out around them. I bet we beat Phoenix, and maybe Toronto.

The capacity of freeway lanes can be approximated at around 2000 cars/lane, but it depends on the design of the road, the width of lanes, the number of lanes, the weather, and, temporarily of course, stalls and accidents. Mr. x has provided the approximate values for skytrain: 15,000 people per hour per direction for the Canada Line, and 30,000 people per hour per direction for the Expo Line. True heavy rail subway can move double this or more (http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/west_rail/).

In Greater Vancouver, which is trying to develop point-to-point regional commuting patterns, freeways are used mostly for commuting. I would rather see more options for these people than for the current pattern to be frozen in with an endless campaign of freeway building.

Trucks take a relatively small portion of roadway capacity in Greater Vancouver. They can be accommodated by a few well chosen bridge and freeway projects and displace commuter traffic over time on existing routes. I think twinning is a poor response to congestion. I'd prefer bridges spaced further apart to cut distances, rapid transit, and congestion charging.

[lightrail]

I hate these reports written by right-wing nut-cases and funded by the oil and auto companies and Kevin Falcon.

Building capacity simply DOES NOT WORK!

Look at the Alex Fraser Bridge - it carried about 40,000 vehicles shortly after opening a reduced traffic congestion significantly - for about two years. If traffic on the bridge equaled development, today that bridge would carry about 65,000 vehicles - it actually carries over 100,000 vehicles per day. and guess what, the congestion now is worse than before the bridge was built.

If we're going to build more capacity, it should be specifically for HOV, Commercial transport and rapid transit.

The Port Man will be a disaster if twined as proposed my Kevin "Pave Everything" Falcon. Studies show the bridge, if not twinned, will handle 167,000 vehicles by 2015 - up from 130,000 today. I predict if the bridge is twinned, by 2015 it will carry well in excess of 200,000 vehicles per day, and the congestion will the same or worse than it is today.

The Minister of Transportation should be forced to read Anthony Downs and his "Triple Convergence Principle". Generally, when you build more capacity, three things happen - people who adjusted their time of travel, will now travel during the peak (time convergence), people who travelled by alternative route, will now travel by the new quicker route (spatial convergence) and peopel who travelled by alternative modes (such as transit or carpool) will travel in an SOV (modal convergence). In other words, twinning the bridge will result in more SOVs, lower transit use and more cars generally in the rush hour period.

Mr. Falcon - if you want more info on the Triple Convergence Principle go to http://www.anthonydowns.com/congestiontostay.htm

I'm an optimist that Kevy is reading these boards :)

[East Van]

how come the lower mainland doesnt have a system similar to the GTA's GO system ? The West Coast Express is nothin in comparison.

[mr.x]

double

[SpongeG]

LRT is not the saviour

the study is not pro-freeway

its stating a fact and that fact is Vancouver is not up to par with proper infastructure for a city of its size

The lower mainland dropped the ball some 20 years ago - i believe thats when the last bridge was built - and is dealing with not keeping things with growth

there is a lack of bridges

even this ideal of heavy rail from abbotsford into surrey would require a new bridge! ! there is no way that rickety old bridge in new westminster could handle any more

[SpongeG]

how come the lower mainland doesnt have a system similar to the GTA's GO system ? The West Coast Express is nothin in comparison.

cause there are no tracks

they have to lease them as it is for the westcoast express and have restricted usage and hours

[lightrail]

More thoughts on bridge capacity:

Assume that the safe travelling distance at 90km/h is 2 seconds behind the vehicle ahead. If each car was spaced 2 seconds behind the vehicle ahead and all were travelling at the exact same speed, the maximum theoretical capacity of a single lane on a bridge is 1,800 vehicles per hour. Therefore, if the Port Mann Bridge has 4 travelling lanes, then the bridge capacity is 7,200 vehicles per hour. If traffic was evenly spaced over 24 hour period, the bridge could theoretically handle 172,000 vehicles per day with no slow down - note the assumption here! This is an impossible assumption, but used for illustration.

In reality, the bridge is used most during the morning and peak periods. If we assume the Port Mann will handle 170,000 cars per day by 2015 (I think this is an under-estimate) and if we also assume that most traffic is travelling through during the morning and afternoon peaks (so a six hour period to handle about 100,000 vehicles) - then we would need 10 lanes to ensure we can travel through at 90km/h without slowing down (I'm not sure of the breakdown regarding direction, so lets assume these are bi-directional lanes that casn be switched according to traffic demands). This assumes that traffic is evenly spaced over that six hour period - most likely it will not be, so we would actually need more lanes. Traffic will not be spaced 2 seconds apart, so we would need even more lanes. Given this, we'd need about 15 lanes in each direction to ensure no congestion.

Note that if we built those 10 lanes (or 15 lanes), it would attract more traffic causing slow downs (remember, if we attract even just one more than the 100,000 vehicles in the assumption, or attract unevenly over the period of time, we cause congestion and a slow down on the bridge) - so congestion is a fact of life. We cannot escape it no matter how much we build because we cannot build for the worst case possibility, or the 1 minute of the day, or the one hour of the day, or the few hours of the day that more than the bridge capacity is reached.

So let's not kid ourselves. Expanding the Port Mann bridge will not reduce congestion.

[lightrail]

cause there are no tracks

they have to lease them as it is for the westcoast express and have restricted usage and hours

Go Transit lease tracks too.

I think the reason is geography - the rail infrastructure is not there to adequately serve population centres. The tracks and limited bridges are relatively slow, designed for freight movements.

[SpongeG]

maybe not but i think the golden ears opening in two years will show some dramatic change in traffic patterns

I cross that bridge enought to know that a good 75% are getting off at the first coquitlam exit - i follow the cars from surrey as they crawl along

once you get past that first exit the traffic flow is great

surrey and the valley is in dire need of something

go hang out along 104th on a friday rush hour

[SpongeG]

Go Transit lease tracks too.

I think the reason is geography - the rail infrastructure is not there to adequately serve population centres. The tracks and limited bridges are relatively slow, designed for freight movements.

probably

Vancouver is not very suitable for heavy rail with all the mountains etc

it would however work really well in the fraser valley if it were to hook up to skytrain somewhere

the north side of the fraser is a bit of a dead loss

[mr.x]

how come the lower mainland doesnt have a system similar to the GTA's GO system ? The West Coast Express is nothin in comparison.

The West Coast Express runs on only one-track. It also has limited funding and limited subsidies, thus it is unable to purchase more rolling stock for a higher frequency.

Unlike the GO system, the WCE operates on a track that is owned by CP Rail (or CN, can't remember). They charge absurdly high rental fees anually that make it quite difficult for the service to improve. The GO Train had the federal government negotiate fees with the private rail companies...in BC, we had the NDP do that and they weren't much of an influence on the corridor owners.


What I'd like to see is a double-tracked WCE, service for both directions, using Bombardier Talent vehicles rather than locomotives with carriages. Each train will have a capacity of 600 passengers. From 5 am to 8 am and 4 pm to 7 pm, trains will run every 10 minutes. From 9 am to 10 am and 3 pm to 4 pm, trains will operate every 15 minutes. and from 10 am to 3 pm, every 20 minutes. From 7 pm to 10 pm, every 30 minutes. And from 10 pm to midnight, every 60 minutes. Trains can be coupled together if more capacity is needed.

This is for weekdays. Weekend service will be from 6 am to 11 am, running on an average of every 20-30 minutes. Shorter trains will be used.

http://www.railway-technology.com/contractor_images/bombardier5/1-Talent.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/VT644_RB23.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/643022_Interior.jpg/800px-643022_Interior.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Otrain.jpg

xpnqnjweQqA

[East Van]

cant forget that the GO system has a fleet of buses that seem to go everywhere.

when the south fraser lands are completed, this development should add to the demand for more capacity over the Fraser.

[Canadian Mind]

bleh, why can't Vancouver have a semi - high speed rail system (120-180kph) that goes around the valley? With 1 or 2 stops per major area it enters. Have it leave Downtown for Richmond, with one stop in Richmond near a major transit hub; then down into Tsawassen with a near-ferry terminal stop; then up northeast into Surrey, with one stop near say, King George Station; then into Langley, with a Station there; cross the River into Maple Ridge, station there; then south into Mission with a station there, cross the river once again into Abbotsford, with a station there. Possibly have it go to Chillowack and even Hope.

The other side of this route would leave Downtown Vancouver, and head Directly east into the Tri-cities, with a station Near PNE grounds on the way there.

[SpongeG]

would be nice

hopefully they can get that old route revived

[Canadian Mind]

I'm concerned about speed of getting to downtown. while skytrain and these trains or nifce, eventually they are going to be at a point where it takes just as long by skytrain (and heavy rail) as it does by car. Cost isn't always a factor, make time a part of the alternative choice. at 180 kilometers an hour the train leaving surrey for downtown will still beat skytrain, even though it loops down and back up again (about a 40 minute ride).

[officedweller]

Unlike the GO system, the WCE operates on a track that is owned by CP Rail (or CN, can't remember). They charge absurdly high rental fees anually that make it quite difficult for the service to improve. The GO Train had the federal government negotiate fees with the private rail companies...in BC, we had the NDP do that and they weren't much of an influence on the corridor owners.

Go Transit only owns a part of the Lakeshore line - track that GO Transit laid down themselves. The rest of the routes are on leased track. I think they also have issues about freight / passenger conflicts.

As mentioned by others, the biggest difference is the number of lines feeding into downtown Toronto versus the numbers feeding into downtown Vancouver. Toronto also has a unified station at Union Station.
Vancouver's stations were not unified - so the CP Station is at Waterfront and the CN /VIA Station is at Main Street (now dubbed Pacific Central Station). The Main Street CN / VIA Station is not in a convenient location for comuter service (requiring a Skytrain transfer) and the route past Burnaby Lake is a heavily used freight corridor.

The only north-south line close to downtown is/was the Arbutus Line and the trestle bridge crossing False Creek (to the Expo Lands railway yards) was demolished sometime before 1985.

If that bridge had been retained, you may have a commuter line to the south along the Arbutus corridor - but the north side of False Creek would have to be very different to allow a heavy rail route through it unless a new rail tunnel was bored to the CBD.

Here's a 1982 Global Air Photo showing the railway trestle bridge between the Arbutus corridor and the Expo Lands. As far as I know, that' how the interurbans got to downtown (as well as running along 6th Ave.?). Couldn't you have seen the rail line heading into a tunnel under Granville Street?

http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/vancouver/1982/vch1982_071.jpg

[Stingray2004]

The only north-south line close to downtown is/was the Arbutus Line and the trestle bridge crossing False Creek (to the Expo Lands railway yards) was demolished sometime before 1985.

If that bridge had been retained, you may have a commuter line to the south along the Arbutus corridor - but the north side of False Creek would have to be very different to allow a heavy rail route through it unless a new rail tunnel was bored to the CBD.

I remember that crossing quite vividly... it had an old, industrial, brownfield look to it and, IMHO, was glad to see it removed circa 1985... its removal enhanced the visual quality of False Creek.

That said, the adjacent Burrard St. bridge had train portals originally cut into its piers below the bridge deck.... hmmmmmmmm....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8e/Burrard_bridge_at_night.jpg/350px-Burrard_bridge_at_night.jpg

[twoNeurons]

perfect for a street car or LRT line, no?

[cornholio]

^^From what I understand if there was a rail line/lrt built below the bridge then there wouldn't be enough clearance for most ships/sailboats and it would have to be raised and lowered. I think one of the options a few years back for a new pedestrian/bike link across false creek was to build it beneath Burard st bridge but the same problem threw out that option. Im sure someone on here has more info though regarding this.

[Canadian Mind]

http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/vancouver/1982/vch1982_071.jpg

Real history photo right there. I bet we could figure out the exact day that picture was taken.

Need a hint? look at GM place, the dome is about 80% inflated. From what I read in recent news articles, deflation only ever happened once before, and that is when the stadium was first constructed.

Another note, what is that building on Burrard Street a block south of Hotel Vancouver? big wide, ugly office looking thing. Is it still there, or was it torn down and something new put in it's place?

And just so this post can have a little bit of relevance to this thread: Is there still some remnants of the old rail crossing on the south shore of false creek? I could have sworn I saw SOMETHING there the last time I was over there. Can't remember what it was though, could have been a few tracks or studs.

[deasine]

Real history photo right there. I bet we could figure out the exact day that picture was taken.

Need a hint? look at GM place, the dome is about 80% inflated. From what I read in recent news articles, deflation only ever happened once before, and that is when the stadium was first constructed.

Another note, what is that building on Burrard Street a block south of Hotel Vancouver? big wide, ugly office looking thing. Is it still there, or was it torn down and something new put in it's place?

And just so this post can have a little bit of relevance to this thread: Is there still some remnants of the old rail crossing on the south shore of false creek? I could have sworn I saw SOMETHING there the last time I was over there. Can't remember what it was though, could have been a few tracks or studs.

there still is, just outside of the Credit Union Central building.

[hollywoodnorth]

Real history photo right there. I bet we could figure out the exact day that picture was taken.

Need a hint? look at GM place, the dome is about 80% inflated. From what I read in recent news articles, deflation only ever happened once before, and that is when the stadium was first constructed.

Another note, what is that building on Burrard Street a block south of Hotel Vancouver? big wide, ugly office looking thing. Is it still there, or was it torn down and something new put in it's place?

And just so this post can have a little bit of relevance to this thread: Is there still some remnants of the old rail crossing on the south shore of false creek? I could have sworn I saw SOMETHING there the last time I was over there. Can't remember what it was though, could have been a few tracks or studs.

GM place eh? seems more like BC PLACE 2 me ;) But I'm no expert ;) actually I am :notacrook:

[Canadian Mind]

I was a letter off, geeze. They are right beside each other on the keyboard. :P

GM place doesn't even exist yet in the photo, so I'm sure you understood what I meant.

[djp]

Whether we like it or not, the population of Metro Vancouver will continue to expand. Whether we like it or not, even though we need to get more people to take public transit, we have to appreciate the fact that more people will continue to drive than take public transit because not all areas can be convenient to public transit like Vancouver proper.

If the commute is so horrendous then, no, people will not continue to drive rather than take public tranist. As they crawl along at 10km/hr on the bridge, guess how many people would willingly choose a rapid train line instead, if one were built.
Development doesn't just happen in a certain way. The ways in which cities develop is almost entirely reliant on how infrastructure and planning is carried out. Vancouver is a prime example of that, and the forward-thinking policies of the past are why we are globally recognized today as a great urban-planning example. Gateway advocates and freeway junkies now want to jeopardize that and throw our progress off-course. The people of Vancouver have to step in and stop them, before it's too late.

[SpongeG]

gateway will benefit the areas that need it more than Vancouver city which is fine on its own

but the valley and anything east of burnaby really needs it

[twoNeurons]

I was a letter off, geeze. They are right beside each other on the keyboard. :P

GM place doesn't even exist yet in the photo, so I'm sure you understood what I meant.

Two letters off. not that anyone's counting. :D

It looks like GM Place is under construction in that picture.

[Dave2]

Two letters off. not that anyone's counting. :D

It looks like GM Place is under construction in that picture.

No, it can't be, this photo was taken no later than 1983, and GM Place wasn't built until the mid 90s.

[officedweller]

Another note, what is that building on Burrard Street a block south of Hotel Vancouver? big wide, ugly office looking thing. Is it still there, or was it torn down and something new put in it's place?

That's the old BC Hydro Building (or is that GM Hydro? :)) - now The Electra condos. It was fully reclad with a new curtain wall that reduced the size of the spandrels and increased the vision glass. Some say it destroyed the original facade which had more pronounced horizontal banding.

You can also see to the left of the Hotel Vancouver, the original cladding on the Burrard Building, which also featured horizontal banding, but which was more severely altered to a fully reflective glass facade in the 1990s.

Just to the left of the Burrard Building, you can see an old hotel on Georgia Street that I think was called The Ritz.

[twoNeurons]

No, it can't be, this photo was taken no later than 1983, and GM Place wasn't built until the mid 90s.

Ah yes... I think it's the CBC building I'm looking at... now that I look a little closer... GM Place was built in the surface parking lot behind it right?

[paradigm4]

How come I don't see Canada Place out north? When was it built for Expo?

[Stingray2004]

How come I don't see Canada Place out north? When was it built for Expo?

That's Pier B-C that you can see jutting out into Burrard Inlet.

I can't exactly tell from this photo, but it appears that the old pier buildings have already been demolished to make way for the Canada Pavillion/Pan Pacific Hotel construction.

[worldwide]

thats the bc hydro building. definatley one of my favorites in the city. its a shame they re-clad it it used to be even cooler

[mezzanine]

I was a letter off, geeze. They are right beside each other on the keyboard. :P

GM place doesn't even exist yet in the photo, so I'm sure you understood what I meant.

Take that, Canadian Mind!!;)

I think that the south bridgehead of the kits trestle is now owned by the musqeuam.

Anyway, some thoughts:

-get moving BC is a langley group run by a close friend of the BC libs, so i take what they say with a grain of salt.
-I doubt there is any more political capital for the effort to build a new crossing other than what is laid out in gateway.
-I think that the libs will get a lot of brownie points if they implement more rail solutions *now* in south fraser. It could be evergreen, it could be a new WCE service on the old interurban, but that should go ahead first. It should link into skytrain as there still is a lot of spare capacity (my obesrvations) over skybridge.

[Canadian Mind]

Take that, Canadian Mind!!;)


Awe sucks, not another one! :yuck:


I think that the south bridgehead of the kits trestle is now owned by the musqeuam.

Anyway, some thoughts:

-get moving BC is a langley group run by a close friend of the BC libs, so i take what they say with a grain of salt.
-I doubt there is any more political capital for the effort to build a new crossing other than what is laid out in gateway.
-I think that the libs will get a lot of brownie points if they implement more rail solutions *now* in south fraser. It could be evergreen, it could be a new WCE service on the old interurban, but that should go ahead first. It should link into skytrain as there still is a lot of spare capacity (my obesrvations) over skybridge.

Wasn't Skybridge specifically built for skytrain though? While I'd like to see it put to other uses besides skytrain, I don't think it can handle anything else.

Unless of course I missed your point completely and more rail links to skytrain would mean larger trains running more frequently over the bridge. :koko:

[mr.x]

^ lol, there's a lot of spare capacity on SkyBridge (it uses about 2/7ths) of its capacity....just not a lot of weight capacity, forget heavy commuter trains.

[cornholio]

If the commute is so horrendous then, no, people will not continue to drive rather than take public tranist. As they crawl along at 10km/hr on the bridge, guess how many people would willingly choose a rapid train line instead, if one were built.
Development doesn't just happen in a certain way. The ways in which cities develop is almost entirely reliant on how infrastructure and planning is carried out. Vancouver is a prime example of that, and the forward-thinking policies of the past are why we are globally recognized today as a great urban-planning example. Gateway advocates and freeway junkies now want to jeopardize that and throw our progress off-course. The people of Vancouver have to step in and stop them, before it's too late.

housing prices getting out of reach for most families and lower to middle class people in the core while housing prices in the burbs would be proportionally lower, businesses locating out of the core, businesses that don't serve the Vancouver market would just not locate in the region while the movement of goods and all other services/construction/etc. that rely on the roads would become more expensive which would result in a high regional inflation which would result in the region being even more expensive to live in. anyways its a bit more complicated and really there are no examples of a modern city being able to function with out roads, so where do you draw the line on how many roads are needed. well lets see if you don't have enough roads then the region doesn't grow and mass transit will never be feasabel or afordabel, so in reality what you need is to strike a balance between road expansion and transit expansion. what you seem to be is saying is that well, dodnt expand roads and everyone will just take transit, and everything will be better...well no the world doesnt worl that way. this region is seriously lacking in bridge capacity and the road infrustructure has been ignored for way to long, but i will agree that the number one expansion through the Burrard penuisula should be only aimed at commercial and HOV traffic since i think this area has enough of a mass and good transit to begin to put presure on the commuters to try using transit(though transit still needs to be much improved even in this area to work for most).

[Bert]

so where do you draw the line on how many roads are needed. well lets see if you don't have enough roads then the region doesn't grow and mass transit will never be feasabel or afordabel
The region doesn't grow without roads? Actually, it just grows in a more controlled way (as we've seen with the growing transit oriented developments and shrinking average commute times in the past few years), which is a great thing in my opinion. I would personally like to see an approximately 40%+ public transit mode share (like Tokyo (http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-tokmkt.htm)). So looking at it like that, much more transit is needed before any roads are built. I agree that there is a massive economic cost to impeding goods movement, but I'd rather see single occupant vehicle (SOV) congestion priced away rather than building more "general purpose" roads which simply cater to more SOVs.

[EastVanMark]

housing prices getting out of reach for most families and lower to middle class people in the core while housing prices in the burbs would be proportionally lower, businesses locating out of the core, businesses that don't serve the Vancouver market would just not locate in the region while the movement of goods and all other services/construction/etc. that rely on the roads would become more expensive which would result in a high regional inflation which would result in the region being even more expensive to live in. anyways its a bit more complicated and really there are no examples of a modern city being able to function with out roads, so where do you draw the line on how many roads are needed. well lets see if you don't have enough roads then the region doesn't grow and mass transit will never be feasabel or afordabel, so in reality what you need is to strike a balance between road expansion and transit expansion. what you seem to be is saying is that well, dodnt expand roads and everyone will just take transit, and everything will be better...well no the world doesnt worl that way. this region is seriously lacking in bridge capacity and the road infrustructure has been ignored for way to long, but i will agree that the number one expansion through the Burrard penuisula should be only aimed at commercial and HOV traffic since i think this area has enough of a mass and good transit to begin to put presure on the commuters to try using transit(though transit still needs to be much improved even in this area to work for most).

Yes! BALANCE!; is the key word there. The pains of rapid growth and all of the problems that come with them cannot just be solved with just one method. Different people find themselves in different situations with different needs, so trying to force one solution for all is ridiculous. As you put it, the real world doesn't work that way.

[worldwide]

housing prices getting out of reach for most families and lower to middle class people in the core while housing prices in the burbs would be proportionally lower,

and transportation costs would be much, much higher. not to mention social costs to the individual and the city

........................and really there are no examples of a modern city being able to function with out roads, so where do you draw the line on how many roads are needed. well lets see if you don't have enough roads then the region doesn't grow and mass transit will never be feasabel or afordabel,

mass transit will always be more affordable than highways. to build it and for the consumer. its a win win

................... but i will agree that the number one expansion through the Burrard penuisula should be only aimed at commercial and HOV traffic

i can agree with you on this one. building roads for commuters is about the worst thing we can do. its 2007 not 1960