[amor de cosmos]

As an aside, Portland's version of the Port Mann twinning - the new I-5 bridge over the Columbia River - has the support of Portland City Council - a tolled 12-lane span with LRT.

Construction began on Ft McMurray's version of the Port Mann twinning yesterday:

Construction begins on new five-lane bridge in Fort McMurray

Fort McMurray... Construction has begun on the $127-million five-lane bridge across the Athabasca River in Fort McMurray. The new bridge will have the province’s largest bridge deck when it opens to traffic in 2011, weather permitting.

etc

This project includes construction of the new northbound Highway 63 bridge over the Athabasca River and the first stage construction of the new overpass structure over Franklin Avenue. Traffic disruptions during construction of the bridge will be limited.

The new bridge will be 33 metres wide and 472 metres long, with a deck area of 15,576 square metres, making it the largest provincial bridge deck. The bridge will provide three lanes for northbound Highway 63 traffic and two lanes for the northbound traffic from Franklin Avenue. The bridge will include a 4.2-metre wide sidewalk and major utility lines. The bridge has been designed to carry up to a 6.4-metre wide, 1.1 million-kilogram (2.3 million-pound) overload vehicle, which is 12.5 times our usual designs.
http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200806/23851B7284BF9-B4AC-120B-FAFADD0668698E11.html

[deasine]

12 lanes :drool:

12 Lanes = 6 Lanes per direction

6 - 1 lane for LRT = 5 lanes per direction

Not necessary for that portion of the I-5, there is congestion, but not necessarily enough to need a 5 lanes per direction. Maybe 4 lanes w/ one of them being HOV.

[northwest2k]

12 Lanes = 6 Lanes per direction

6 - 1 lane for LRT = 5 lanes per direction

Not necessary for that portion of the I-5, there is congestion, but not necessarily enough to need a 5 lanes per direction. Maybe 4 lanes w/ one of them being HOV.

Mmmm nope its actually 6 lanes for cars in each direction + 1 lane in each direction for LRT. Look at the picture.

[deasine]

Mmmm nope its actually 6 lanes for cars in each direction + 1 lane in each direction for LRT. Look at the picture.

Looks like plans have changed. Sorry.

Either way it's kind of disgusting - they need to dramatically widen the rest of I-5 down Portland. Around the rosemont corridor (which is one of the busiest parts of I-5 in Portland), it narrows to two lanes per direction.

[clooless]

12 lanes :drool:

From the article:

The task force is expected to endorse a proposal that replaces the six-lane bridge with a high-capacity 12-lane toll bridge, light rail, fixes for six interchanges and wider bike and pedestrian paths.

[jhausner]

As an aside, Portland's version of the Port Mann twinning - the new I-5 bridge over the Columbia River - has the support of Portland City Council - a tolled 12-lane span with LRT.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/06/portland_council_backs_new_i5.html

Background info:

http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/Background/Default.aspx

So why the hell do a lot of critics use Portland as an example of transit and in the same statement say "see we should build ONLY transit LIKE PORTLAND"? It seems to me Portland is actually doing exactly what we are doing here aka dealing with both transit & road infrastructure at the same time.

:-| I like how critics always ignore half the story just to make their points.

Thanks for the info.

[officedweller]

That's pretty much why I posted it.
In addition to good transit, Portland has massive highway infrastructure surrounding its core - both I-5 and I-405 ring the downtown core and I-205 provides a Portland by-pass further afield.

[Nutterbug]

12 lanes :drool:

Maybe if you stay sober when you drive, you won't need that many lanes to swerve around without driving off the side of the road.

[deasine]

Maybe if you stay sober when you drive, you won't need that many lanes to swerve around without driving off the side of the road.

:haha:

[SpongeG]

That's pretty much why I posted it.
In addition to good transit, Portland has massive highway infrastructure surrounding its core - both I-5 and I-405 ring the downtown core and I-205 provides a Portland by-pass further afield.

and that i80 (is that the number?) does a nice east - west criss cross and having ridden the LRT that runs down the side - rush hour traffic looks awfully backed up - much worse than hwy 1 here

[northwest2k]

I don't see how they're going to complete the gateway project by 2012 if they haven't even started yet. They need to hurry up. This should be the province's top priority

[SpongeG]

its already started hasn't it?

they are building the underpass in surrey now

they have put sticks/marks along hwy #1 in burnaby

[mr.x]

don't forget the new Pitt River Bridge.

[Cypherus]

...and don't forget the South Fraser Perimeter Road.

[The_Henry_Man]

I don't see how they're going to complete the gateway project by 2012 if they haven't even started yet. They need to hurry up. This should be the province's top priority

I think they started it already. I drove by the Surrey section of Hwy 1 last week and you can see construction max speed and new pavement just beside the modified sections.

[vanlaw]

its already started hasn't it?

they are building the underpass in surrey now

they have put sticks/marks along hwy #1 in burnaby

The underpass in Surrey at Hwy 1 and 156 st isnt necessarily part of the gateway program - it is simply an underpass to service the residential areas noth of the hwy to allow better conenction to south of hwy/guilford area because the 152nd and 160th overpassess are clogged with commuter traffic most of the day.

The underpass btw 176 and 192 is part of the Gateway program however. That is part of the system to flow traffic from the Golden Ears Bridge through Port Kells and out to 176 interchange.

[WarrenC12]

I don't see how they're going to complete the gateway project by 2012 if they haven't even started yet. They need to hurry up. This should be the province's top priority

I'd rather they start giant projects when the cost of labour and materials has dropped a little, post-2010.

[Dave2]

The underpass in Surrey at Hwy 1 and 156 st isnt necessarily part of the gateway program - it is simply an underpass to service the residential areas noth of the hwy to allow better conenction to south of hwy/guilford area because the 152nd and 160th overpassess are clogged with commuter traffic most of the day.

The underpass btw 176 and 192 is part of the Gateway program however. That is part of the system to flow traffic from the Golden Ears Bridge through Port Kells and out to 176 interchange.

Isn't that part of the new transit only interchange?

[Blake]

The underpass in Surrey at Hwy 1 and 156 st isnt necessarily part of the gateway program - it is simply an underpass to service the residential areas noth of the hwy to allow better conenction to south of hwy/guilford area because the 152nd and 160th overpassess are clogged with commuter traffic most of the day.

The underpass btw 176 and 192 is part of the Gateway program however. That is part of the system to flow traffic from the Golden Ears Bridge through Port Kells and out to 176 interchange.

Actually you have it in reverse.

The 156 underpass is part of Gateway as it was planned in conjunction with the transit only off/onramps for the Hwy 1 expansion.

The underpass between 176 and 192 is part of the Golden Ears Bridge project and is Translink's responsibility.

[Bert]

:-| I like how critics always ignore half the story just to make their points.Come on now, jhausner; that's not very sporting. Nobody has (seriously) replied to b5baxter's last post or my own last post yet. We've been waiting patiently and we've been directly addressing this so-called "ignored half" of the story, so it's not fair to say things like that.

In the face of the fact that real alternatives were not evaluated, do you not think we should evaluate them? Especially now, when the project was modelled with what we now know were such flawed assumptions, i.e. 80 cent/L gas prices? Would you not support a second look?

To me, the process has been something like "we need a new computer for our daughter; let's look at some alternatives" - option A: Mac, option B: Commodore 64, option C: IBM 286. Only Option A makes any kind of sense, but why haven't the MoT considered realistic alternatives - spending a more comparable sum - like a Windows PC or a Linux PC as well? Really, we are limited by dollars, so the MoT looking essentially only at "effectiveness" as the criteria (quoted, as this will be regressive for our region in solving long term congestion), and not looking at efficiency (value) at all makes little sense when the MoT was weighing (poorly chosen) options of such varying costs. I'd say it appears to be another sign of corruption among the BC Liberals, as I doubt the MoT is really that inept.

But back to the story: 4 years down the road, you've long decided on a Mac, but still haven't bought it. The price of Apple software has doubled, but well, we (the MoT) think that the efficiency of software has doubled in 4 years, so our daughter will be fine - she'll surely be able to get twice as much done.

Would it still be a good idea to buy that Mac without even considering some realistic alternatives?

[officedweller]

Then there's also the possibility that you come full circle 4 years down the road and have to pay a much higher price for what you decided against in the first place.
i.e. Evergreen Line. NDP planned for $700-800 million Port Moody-Coquitlam branch of the Millennium Line. Liberals cancelled the branch due to cost cutting measures (core review?). Translink and Liberals supported cheaper LRT line instead. Liberals then decide to switch back to Skytrain based on business case. Price has now increased to $1.4 billion.

[The_Henry_Man]

Then there's also the possibility that you come full circle 4 years down the road and have to pay a much higher price for what you decided against in the first place.
i.e. Evergreen Line. NDP planned for $700-800 million Port Moody-Coquitlam branch of the Millennium Line. Liberals cancelled the branch due to cost cutting measures (core review?). Translink and Liberals supported cheaper LRT line instead. Liberals then decide to switch back to Skytrain based on business case. Price has now increased to $1.4 billion.

I don't think it was the Liberal's idea of putting LRT on Evergreen Line. I think it was just Translink's.

[Bert]

Granted, officedweller. However, there is also a significant risk that a big part of the construction industry will go bust, given that real estate inventories have been skyrocketing this year (http://bp1.blogger.com/_rt16FZ_z1N8/SERBHlfZNyI/AAAAAAAABAw/_SUERWrtQRw/s1600-h/REBGV+Active+Listings.JPG), which may eventually smother demand for new residential construction. In that case, we might in fact be paying peak construction prices by embarking on this project now.

And even if we did come back to the same conclusion, I'd say that's a very small risk in comparison to blindly going ahead with a controversial project that will have irreversible long-term consequences, without doing due diligence on alternatives.

[officedweller]

The issue of traffic crossing the Fraser River near Port Mann has been studied for years. It has only been pushed forward (in the form of the bridge twinning) by the present Liberal government.

The NDP government back in the mid 90s had a plan for an arterial road/highway bridge from Surrey east of the Port Mann on the south side landing on the western boundary of Colony Farm and up Coast Meridian Road on the north end - it linked with a new east west highway north of the Fraser River with a new bridge across the Pitt River south of (and in addition to) the Lougheed Highway allignment. Even this plan accommodated a twinned Port Mann Bridge in addition to the arterial road bridges.

In terms of costs, you can always second guess timing. Even if local construction rates decrease in the future, that could be offset by increased worldwide steel prices? In addition, the project would be bid on by international players, so you've got both international (i.e. finance) and local (i.e. labour) factors at work.

[Bert]

The issue of traffic crossing the Fraser River near Port Mann has been studied for years. It has only been pushed forward (in the form of the bridge twinning) by the present Liberal government.This happens to be the same argument the MoT has in reply to those calling for more studies, like me. The truth is, modern, system-wide congestion charging is very new technology with immense promise, which the MoT has never studied. The flexibility (p.1) (http://www.nycedc.com/NR/rdonlyres/E8EB50D6-8EE9-42BB-AF14-80734E2C8F78/0/IBMCorporation.pdf) and lower cost technical supporting infrastructure (http://frumin.net/ation/2007/12/congestion_pricing_is_a_technology.html) of the last proposed system (New York's forgone one) was amazing, and simply wasn't possible even 2 years ago (London and Stockholm have significantly costlier, less flexible systems). The MoT certainly didn't even study it, as the tech was in development for one thing, not to mention the MoT's entire lack of willingness to give any alternatives a proper evaluation. This new technology factor, together with the gas price factor, represent two massive changes that the MoT has not accounted for. This project badly needs to be reevaluated in light of these changes, and in order to give proper consideration to other multi-faceted alternatives.

It is only rational to evaluate solutions (i.e. zone tolling) that have proven successful in other jurisdictions (http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/pdfs/RGSBackgrdr3-RoadPricing.pdf) (see appendix). It is so incompetent not to do this, especially in the face of GVRD discussions persistently calling (http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/sustainability/pdfs/TransportationDialogueBoardReport2007.pdf) for road pricing (http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/sustainability/summit/Energy-MetroVancouverTransportationEnergyBoardReport.pdf), that one can only conclude that the BC Liberals are corrupt (if not in the explicitly-pandering-to-friends/bribery way, then Gateway's backers are, at the very least, corrupt in the sense of political spinelessness and dishonesty).

Again, this is akin to a Broadway corridor transportation study which didn't include SkyTrain (or some other blindingly obvious, realistic alternative) in its scope.

The NDP government back in the mid 90s had a plan for an arterial road/highway bridge from Surrey east of the Port Mann on the south side landing on the western boundary of Colony Farm and up Coast Meridian Road on the north end - it linked with a new east west highway north of the Fraser River with a new bridge across the Pitt River south of (and in addition to) the Lougheed Highway allignment. Even this plan accommodated a twinned Port Mann Bridge in addition to the arterial road bridges.Interesting, although it's not their current position. More recently (last September), the NDP opposed Gateway (http://nid-16939.carolejames-speakingoutdetail.bcndp.ca/), calling it yesterday's solution. The Greens have outright promised to cancel Gateway (http://www.greenparty.ca/files/VisionGreen_GPC_oct1507_rev1.pdf) (p.19).

In terms of costs, you can always second guess timing. Even if local construction rates decrease in the future, that could be offset by increased worldwide steel prices? In addition, the project would be bid on by international players, so you've got both international (i.e. finance) and local (i.e. labour) factors at work.Agreed. I just wanted to point out that costs could go either way.

[officedweller]

I think that zone pricing (like a distance-based toll) is better than a bridge toll, because it doesn't penalize people making a short trip who are contrained merely by the geography of having a river between their destinations.

If the Province were to unilaterally implement a distance based toll on Hwy 1, the impact on neighbouring arterial roads (under the jurisdiction of Translink or various municipalities) would probably be more significant than the bridge toll (where the alternatives are the other bridges (Patullo (Translink) or Alex Fraser (Province)). i.e. in Burnaby, you'd see much more traffic on both Lougheed Highway and Canada Way.

I think you'd probably see a huge outry from the municipalities is the Province tried to implement distance tolls without "buy-in" from the municipalities and Translink. For that reason, I don't think that a distance based toll is something that the Province would implement unilaterally. You would need agreement between the Province and Translink (at a minimum) and likely cooperation from the municipalities. Now getting the municipalities to agree - that's a different story. Burnaby would be the first to complain that toll avoiders would rat-run through Burnaby streets.

[Bert]

I'm not saying it would be politically easy to implement, although I think the larger challenge would be in selling alternatives to business interests than municipalities (with a couple exceptions, bearing in mind the results of the latest survey showing only Langley/Aldergrove voters were still in favour of PMH1). As I've mentioned before, however, I do think that better business alternatives exist for our economy as a whole (except possibly not for the road transportation industry). I would certainly hope that the Province wouldn't consider a unilateral implementation as you say, and we'd look at an integrated tolling system instead. Of course, the Province did get a huge outcry from Burnaby for PMH1 as proposed by doing it without buy-in. I think honesty and trust plays a huge part in securing such buy-in, and the MoT have been severely lacking in that department.

Whatever the case, the congestion pricing concept is definitely worthy of more than the quick brush off the MoT gave it. There are several alternative system-wide tolling schemes that could be implemented together with selected transportation capacity improvements, and I maintain we really, really need to study them. Badly.

Any private business, in a competitive market, that would make decisions in isolation from factor shifts and trends (i.e. major technological innovations or rising gas prices) or chooses to ignore realistic alternatives is dead, and the shareholders will demand answers. As a "shareholder" of the Province of BC, competing in the national and international economies, I'd like some answers too, please.

[Tom Bombadil]

Any private business, in a competitive market, that would make decisions in isolation from factor shifts and trends (i.e. major technological innovations or rising gas prices) or chooses to ignore realistic alternatives is dead, and the shareholders will demand answers.

How do rising gas prices support the case for road pricing?

[b5baxter]

"By this time next year we will likely see a 8% drop or more in vkt in
our region and gas prices of close to 2 dollars per liter.

If by then the province does not at least indefinitely delay the
twinning, we will most certainly be living in never never land."

Patrick Condon, Professor UBC, July 1st 2008

[Stingray2004]

The issue of traffic crossing the Fraser River near Port Mann has been studied for years. It has only been pushed forward (in the form of the bridge twinning) by the present Liberal government.

Yep, 15 years ago, then NDP highways minister Art Charbonneau made this statement in the legislature during 1993:

The 401 [sic] should be expanded to six lanes plus two HOV lanes, and we need to twin the Port Mann Bridge. The Cape Horn interchange needs to be reworked in order to facilitate that and the more direct connections onto the Mary Hill bypass.

http://search.leg.bc.ca/search?q=cache:ttsry0sZdsgJ:www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/35th2nd/h0615am.htm+%22Port+Mann+Bridge%22&access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&client=legislative_assembly&site=35th5th_transcripts%7C35th4th_transcripts%7C35th3rd_transcripts%7C35th3rd_transcripts%7C35th2nd_transcripts%7C35th1st_transcripts&proxystylesheet=legislative_assembly&oe=ISO-8859-1

The NDP government back in the mid 90s had a plan for an arterial road/highway bridge from Surrey east of the Port Mann on the south side landing on the western boundary of Colony Farm and up Coast Meridian Road on the north end - it linked with a new east west highway north of the Fraser River with a new bridge across the Pitt River south of (and in addition to) the Lougheed Highway allignment.

It's usually the ministry bureaucracy that does the studies/planning, irrespective of gov't, but nevertheless I've never heard of that contemplated crossing before. Perhaps that was a reference to a future Golden Ears Bridge crossing??

A study, however, was conducted during the 1990's for a "North Fraser Freeway" with a crossing of the Pitt River further east of the existing crossing in that regard, which I recall reading in the Vancouver Sun. Reference to same is made at page 38 in this document:

http://www.fvrd.bc.ca/About%20the%20FVRD/regionalgrowthstrategy/appendices/Documents/ALongRangeTransportationStrategyfortheFVRDbyMartin.pdf

I think that zone pricing (like a distance-based toll) is better than a bridge toll, because it doesn't penalize people making a short trip who are contrained merely by the geography of having a river between their destinations.

I would agree with ya if we would be talking about the 407 ETR, for instance, which has no major and costly structures. (forget about the existing cost structure and the politics thereto).

Nevertheless, the purpose of tolled crossings, from a land-use perspective, should come into play on Metro Vancouver... something akin to the San Francisco Bay tolled bridges.

The major highway expenditures in Metro Vancouver involve water crossings and, in that context, a toll of said crossings is probably preferable over distance-based pricing IMHO.

In that regard and historically, water crossings have been tolled in the region, namely:

1. Lions Gate Bridge;

2. Second Narrows IWM Bridge;

3. Queensborough Bridge;

4. Oak St. Bridge;

5. George Massey Tunnel;

These tolls were removed circa 1964.

As an aside, it's interesting to note that those tolls in 1959 were 25 cents per direction. If one wished to travel from Vancouver across the Oak St. Bridge and George Massey Tunnel, the total toll would equate to 50 cents per direction in 1959.

In today's dollars, that would equate to ~$3.75 per direction.

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/inflation_calc.html

[officedweller]

I think that the "North Fraser Freeway" must be the plans and reports that I've seen, but the location was south of the "slash" shown in that FVRD report..

WRT tolling bridges, the Pattulo had tolls too (as did its predecessor, the upper level of the New Westminster railway bridge).

http://modena.intergate.ca/personal/pl8s/BC1A/Hwy_1A_1.htm

BTW, part of what is now Hwy 1 was originally called the 401. The name changed in the late 60s.

In 1964, the Clearbrook-Rosedale section of Highway 1 was restored to its original alignment. Also in that year, a new expressway, originally designated as Highway 401, opened up on Highway 1's current alignment between West Vancouver and Rosedale. The expressway became part of Highway 1 in 1973.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Highway_1

[Tom Bombadil]

"By this time next year we will likely see a 8% drop or more in vkt in
our region and gas prices of close to 2 dollars per liter.

If by then the province does not at least indefinitely delay the
twinning, we will most certainly be living in never never land."

Patrick Condon, Professor UBC, July 1st 2008

Is this quote meant to be a response to my question in Post#228? It does nothing to explain why high petrol prices are supportive of a road pricing scheme. It seems to me that the high (and rising) petrol prices are serving the same function of congestion pricing.

[SpongeG]

i still think for a growing metro area that whether we like it or not will push 4 million in the coming decades needs better infastructure

we have an infastructure for under 1 million as things are now and are having to play catch up now

[Bert]

How do rising gas prices support the case for road pricing?Tom, I didn't mean to imply that. Yes, you are correct that rising gas prices have a similar effect to congestion pricing. Although, to be clear, they are not exactly the same. Gas prices are a bit more of a distance tax, whereas congestion pricing seeks to solve the peak demand problem.

What I meant by needing to take rising gas prices into account was that it simultaneously makes the case for twinning look worse while it makes the unstudied alternatives look better every day.


i still think for a growing metro area that whether we like it or not will push 4 million in the coming decades needs better infastructure

we have an infastructure for under 1 million as things are now and are having to play catch up nowSpongeG, wouldn't you like your tax dollars to be spent responsibly, rather than spending them blindly? Why do you think we should build a bridge without studying alternatives? At Gordon Price's blog, I posted a bit of a summary of my deconstruction of the PMH1 project rationale (comment #6) (http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/explain-to-me-again-why-are-we-building-gateway/), and why we should study alternatives.

[SpongeG]

as long as they spend money on something i say go for it

its not my first choice but its a start

i think some new bridges for local traffic - such as coquitlam - surrey, richmond - burnaby, port moody - north vancouver would be better than the port mann but its getting really awful out here

this city needs more bridges, more LRT, streetcars, more skytrain, more busses and better highways

i'm all for the better good but come on we have an infastructure for a small town and if vancouver wants to be a city and future city state it has to get up to speed now to compete

falling behind isn't going to help anyone and being this little town by the sea ideal is long gone

[Bert]

I'd argue that rushing in to build anything, irrespective of consequences, will make us significantly worse off in the long-run.

Highway building is a very expensive way of giving us short-term congestion relief. After the honeymoon, we run headfirst into compounded congestion and pollution (partially as a result of accelerated sprawl), and all manners of associated problems. It's a solution we know will never work in the long run, while congestion pricing is proven to work.

What we need is to alleviate congestion for the long term, without all the negative side effects of road building. Road capacity for its own sake just gets us into trouble in the future. There is plenty of existing capacity already for essential users if we provide alternate, more efficient ways of travel for commuters. That would really be getting ahead. Falling behind in the long run is what PMH1 will cause.

You have to do things differently to gain a sustainable competitive advantage over other cities. We've been doing that to some degree, so it's sad that we'd abandon that "vision".

[SpongeG]

I think at minimum the #1 should be 3 lanes to abbotsford at least

there are plenty of people who never go north of the fraser and going anywhere in surrey/langely area is getting to be a pain

some kind of highway linking the 99 and hwy 1 would be great

I just look to Portland it has a great freeway/highway network in addition to its much praised MAX and street car systems

one can get from east to west or north to south in a very quick time - less time spent idling away in traffic like we do up here

remember busses need roadways and bridges as well - as do LRT's - combining cars/LRT crossings is a good idea and thats part of the plan of the LRT

I cross the portmann at least 6 times a week and a good percentage of the vehicles bumper to bumper down the johnson hill get off at the first exit on the coquitlam side

maybe if they had an alternative bridge - such as the one between the IKEA area and surrey/scott road area people could avoid the #1 and eliminate the need for a twin portmann

[Stingray2004]

I'd argue that rushing in to build anything, irrespective of consequences, will make us significantly worse off in the long-run.

Falling behind in the long run is what PMH1 will cause.

Frankly it's that sort of "rushing in" (code word for "study, study, study") mindset that will see nothin' ever getting built (or ever would have been built).

Using that same mindset:

1. We would still be using the shared two-lane/rail 2nd Narrows Bridge crossing instead of the 6-lane structure that we have now;

2. We would still be using the 2-lane Granville St. Bridge instead of the 8-lane structure we have now;

3. We would still be using the derelict 4-lane Cambie St. Bridge instead of the 6-lane structure we have now;

4. We would still be using the 2-lane Marpole Bridge instead of the 4-lane Oak St. Bridge we have now;

5. We would still be using the 2-lane Moray Channel Bridge to YVR instead of the 4-lane Arthur Laing Bridge/ 5-lane Moray Channel Bridge set-up we have now;

6. We would still be using the 2-lane Fraser St. combo instead of the 4-lane Knight St. Bridge we have now;

7. We would still be using the Ladner/No. 5 Road ferry instead of the 4-lane George Massey Tunnel and 6-lane Alex Fraser Bridge we now have;

8. We would still be using the 2-lane Pitt River Bridge instead of another subsequent twin, notwithstanding the 7-lane new structure being constructed now;

9. We would still be using the Albion Ferry instead of the new 6-lane Golden Ears Bridge being constructed now;

10. And of course, we would still be using the deficient Pattullo Bridge instead of the Port Mann Bridge;

And as for the most strategic crossing in Metro Vancouver, the PMB, which should have been twinned at least 15 years ago????

"Transportation" involves a balance of both transit as well as highways and we are 10 - 20 years behind in terms of both. Yep, the ol' infrastructure deficit still lingers.

[b5baxter]

Is this quote meant to be a response to my
question in Post#228?

No, it was just a timely quote on the subject of this thread.

[Bert]

SpongeG, I've mentioned that buses could use a reversible HOV lane and queue jumpers - a bridge need not be built. Actually, I guarantee that buses would be much more effective if the bridge were NOT twinned, despite what Campbell, Falcon, and Co. would have us believe. Why? Because the relative travel time of a bus in the HOV lane with queue jumpers would be so much faster compared to a car stuck in today's congestion that you'd see a massive shift toward transit (see my post about utility (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=3614278&postcount=180)) - you see that bus whizzing buy, and you're jumping on it. Spending that $1.5B+ on LRT lines in Surrey to control sprawl and link the cities with the rest of the rapid transit network would probably be money much better spent.

I'd also argue that Portland's lower density than Vancouver is a consequence of their freeway infrastructure. Without even considering environmental consequences, will we be able to afford to keep living the way we've been living as people in China, India, Brazil, etc. use ever more energy resources? From that perspective, I'm not convinced Portland is a viable model for us.

Going places in Surrey/Langley is a pain because there's so much sprawl, and there's so much road traffic (Highway 1 is only one of the bottlenecks, and alleviating it will only end up bottlenecking other Surrey/Langley roads). I drive the Port Mann every day. I know what's it like. But, if Surrey/Langley got some rapid transit allowing them to direct growth intelligently, then it wouldn't be such a pain to get around everywhere. Adding more roads is simply throwing fuel on the fire. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - road infrastructure scales incredibly poorly in comparison to rail, and it's subject to a tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) unless priced.

By the way, by what metrics are you calling Vancouver a village, SpongeG? Road km per capita? Is that such a bad thing? Instead, look at the CPI figures I provided earlier (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=3614278&postcount=180), Vancouver has one of the lowest rates of consumer price inflation over the past 6 years and is basically at an average Canadian price level overall, with the cheapest transportation in the country. A lack of roads is not costing us that dearly.

Frankly it's that sort of "rushing in" (code word for "study, study, study") mindset that will see nothin' ever getting built (or ever would have been built).Stingray - when the study was so badly botched and biased, more studying is the only rational thing left to do. Thank you for putting words in my mouth, but I'm not saying we should delay forever at all (if they just took 20% longer to do a proper study without having made their minds up first, then we'd probably all have a clear answer by now; also, even if I was saying "study, study", is that really worse than the BC Liberals' "gamble & lie" approach?). We should take action, but not rash, blind action. For such an important transportation problem, it's more important to do the job right than to do the job a bit faster, wouldn't you say?

Again, look at the CPI, particularly the transportation component. Vancouver is the least expensive city in the country for private transportation (cars) and the second cheapest in the country for public transportation according to Statistics Canada (2005 Inter-city CPI comparison - the latest figures available). The huge transportation infrastructure deficit you speak of is not manifesting itself in prices relative to the rest of Canada, as business proponents of Gateway like to claim. In that light, it certainly doesn't seem to be so urgent that it can't even wait for a proper study.

Freeways with nonexistent or ineffective tolling (i.e. like the planned toll on the Port Mann itself, exclusive of other bridges or other parts of the freeway) just lead to a tragedy of the commons - a grossly inefficient use of resources. I, personally, would like my tax dollars to actually be useful for supporting our economy and moving people efficiently in the long run.

[EastVanMark]

Frankly it's that sort of "rushing in" (code word for "study, study, study") mindset that will see nothin' ever getting built (or ever would have been built).

Using that same mindset:

1. We would still be using the shared two-lane/rail 2nd Narrows Bridge crossing instead of the 6-lane structure that we have now;

2. We would still be using the 2-lane Granville St. Bridge instead of the 8-lane structure we have now;

3. We would still be using the derelict 4-lane Cambie St. Bridge instead of the 6-lane structure we have now;

4. We would still be using the 2-lane Marpole Bridge instead of the 4-lane Oak St. Bridge we have now;

5. We would still be using the 2-lane Moray Channel Bridge to YVR instead of the 4-lane Arthur Laing Bridge/ 5-lane Moray Channel Bridge set-up we have now;

6. We would still be using the 2-lane Fraser St. combo instead of the 4-lane Knight St. Bridge we have now;

7. We would still be using the Ladner/No. 5 Road ferry instead of the 4-lane George Massey Tunnel and 6-lane Alex Fraser Bridge we now have;

8. We would still be using the 2-lane Pitt River Bridge instead of another subsequent twin, notwithstanding the 7-lane new structure being constructed now;

9. We would still be using the Albion Ferry instead of the new 6-lane Golden Ears Bridge being constructed now.

And as for the most strategic crossing in Metro Vancouver, the PMB, which should have been twinned at least 15 years ago????

"Transportation" involves a balance of both transit as well as highways and we are 10 - 20 years behind in terms of both. Yep, the ol' infrastructure deficit still lingers.

Absolutely brilliant post :tup: :worship:

[deasine]

SpongeG, I've mentioned that buses could use a reversible HOV lane and queue jumpers - a bridge need not be built.

Great concept and it would work extremely well for buses, but can't really apply to HOVs unless:
1) Every exit/entrance has a HOV exit/entrance
2) Buses move into a separate lane when they are approaching a bus stop (or station for that matter)

The problem with that is it's very confusing and incredibly expensive to do. I'm not saying the bridge is cheap, but then it also comes in conflict with the direction of traffic. Trust me people will get so confused and I can see it being a nightmare.

But I support such a thing for bus traffic. In fact, I would want the Hastings BRT to use this so we can have single median stations.


I'd also argue that Portland's lower density than Vancouver is a consequence of their freeway infrastructure. Without even considering environmental consequences, will we be able to afford to keep living the way we've been living as people in China, India, Brazil, etc. use ever more energy resources? From that perspective, I'm not convinced Portland is a viable model for us.

That's one of the many problems. The lack of surface or "real rapid" transit is another one in addition to commuter rail.



Going places in Surrey/Langley is a pain because there's so much sprawl, and there's so much road traffic (Highway 1 is only one of the bottlenecks, and alleviating it will only end up bottlenecking other Surrey/Langley roads). I drive the Port Mann every day. I know what's it like. But, if Surrey/Langley got some rapid transit allowing them to direct growth intelligently, then it wouldn't be such a pain to get around everywhere. Adding more roads is simply throwing fuel on the fire. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - road infrastructure scales incredibly poorly in comparison to rail, and it's subject to a tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) unless priced.

That's what they need. If Surrey began filling the gaps with Langley, rapid transit will arrive much earlier. I'm still mad about how TransLink nor the Provincial Gov't never considered using the Interurban railway, even using DMUs to provide a fast connection btwn Langley, Newton, and Scott Road. They could use that along with a few BRTs such as King George and Fraser Highway (which is coming, just taking a little too long) and an extensive network of frequent transit as a temporary solution before extending SkyTrain and adding LRT. Once there is a basic more "rapid" and "frequent" network, more people will be using it, which increases the demand of public transit; basic formula. Of course I would rather start with LRT, but that's not going to happen for sure, at least at this rate.

But having said all of that, road infrastructure has been horrible in the South of Fraser and there needs to improvements made the Highway 1. I don't mind the twinning of the bridge, but I would much prefer them adding rapid transit alternatives along with road infrastructure improvements. Run LRT from King George to Guildford then to the trans Canada over the bridge then to Poco via Lougheed Highway. =D They should also add commercial vehicle only lanes on the bridge as well as sections of the highway.

[Bert]

Absolutely brilliant post :tup: :worship:Don't confuse sound reasoning with a lack of ambition. There's a place for both.

Yes, I agree that having sound reasoning without ambition gets you nowhere - I'm not saying we do that. I'd love to see BC do great things, and build a sustainable competitive advantage over other North American cities - freeway building is not going to help us achieve that - it's just more of the same, tired, ineffective approach.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sure looks like you're advocating ambition without sound reasoning. Bear Stearns can tell you where that takes you.

On the other hand, the most dynamic, successful organizations in the world today have both. Take Google, for example. Google's organizational culture is founded on the basic principle of open, honest communication - a rarity. Google is legendary for debate and careful, well-reasoned deliberation on alternatives, which is something their communication culture enables. This means that when Google does make its decisions, it knows where the major risks and potential benefits are, and that's one of the main things that makes the company more successful than just about any other. This also lets Google thrive on rather than fear change.

It's not the 60s anymore - change is difficult but necessary to evolve. Organizations that don't change enough, like Lotus Software, get left behind (remember when Lotus 1-2-3 was the leading spreadsheet software in the world?). When you consider all the knowledge and technology advancements we've had in the past few decades, as well as recent factor shifts and trends (i.e. oil prices and awareness of the need to reduce CO2), freeway building is all ambition, and very weak reasoning.

[officedweller]

Well said Stingray!

In order to serve people's needs by transit you would need to reverse much of the development and job centres that have already been established and concentrate them in the Town Centres (and that's just the non-industrial job base). Otherwise transit would not be economical to operate. Transit does not serve scattered destinations well.
i.e. move the jobs in Discovery Parks @ BCIT (Electronic Arts, BCAA, Telus Mobility, MDS Metro, etc.) and Glen Lyon Business Park in Burnaby to Brentwood Town Centre or Lake City close to transit. Likewise in Richmond, Crestwood Business Park and the other business parks in East Richmond - move those office jobs onto No. 3 Rd.

[Bert]

Deasine:
I don't know about needing a queue jumper on every single exit & entrance... I'd say focus on the handful of really congested ones where it would be most beneficial (and also the moderately congested ones where it would be as simple as laying down a strip of asphalt). We don't need to break the bank on this - HOV access alone will make the bus quite competitive with SOVs in travel time.

Actually, as a bit of an aside, I don't really understand the reasoning that says buses can't be used today to some degree, without infrastructure changes. I travel from 200th at the Langley border, down 96th Ave and so forth, eventually getting on to the highway at 152nd St. in the afternoon reverse rush hour, and my driving times from 200th to crossing the bridge are consistently within +/-5 minutes depending on traffic at 152nd (i.e. even when there's no traffic at all, like this Monday, it's only 10 minutes faster than when there's a ton of traffic). After the bridge, it's almost freeflow for the rest of my journey. AM Eastbound is usually pretty much freeflow the whole way down the freeway.

The 152nd St. on-ramp intersection (I'm talking about the North side of the freeway here where 110th Ave hits it) has buses on it, and, essentially, it has a queue jumper lane already, so it's schedule would be maybe +/-3 minutes, even without extending that "queue jumper" all the way out onto the highway (which would be a very economical, strip of asphalt job in that location, by the way). But the buses go over the overpass over the freeway, rather than over the bridge. It seems weird to me that scheduling concerns would be so big, when there are plenty of routes, such as the 129 in Burnaby, that regularly miss their schedule by up to +/-15 minutes.

OD:
While that Richmond office park might be difficult to serve (I'm not familiar with Richmond's routes), every single one of those places you mention in Burnaby can potentially be well served (i.e. by putting the 129 route on a 10-minute frequency), or is already well served by transit (i.e. BCAA & Telus each have a 123 bus stop on their doorstep and are just a block from the very frequent 130 & 25 routes on Willingdon; EA is also served by the 129, 25, and 130). For an office park setting, these places at least have moderate, easily transit serviceable density. Many of the offices in the area, North of the highway, are within walking distance from SkyTrain too.

I'm all for reversing the pattern of development - encouraging office space in town centres - but I think it's a real stretch to say we'd need to "reverse" existing development, moving those jobs out just to support transit. Do you have evidence to support that view?

We need to think outside this box we've been stuck in for decades. Does it really make sense today to spend billions to let us drive from West Vancouver to Langley in 30 or so minutes for a few years? On the other hand, if we had a denser region, there would be a lot more places (i.e. entertainment, jobs, shopping, walkable neighbourhoods) to go to within a few kilometres of where we lived. Freeways just keep everything spread out.

[deasine]

I think i misunderstood "reversible" HOV lanes and queue jumpers, I'm sorry.

Bleh I need a cup of coffee.

[Hong Kongese]

I think i misunderstood "reversible" HOV lanes and queue jumpers, I'm sorry.

Bleh I need a cup of coffee.


Coffee at MacDonald is the best!:D

[Tom Bombadil]

Deasine:
I don't know about needing a queue jumper on every single exit & entrance... I'd say focus on the handful of really congested ones where it would be most beneficial (and also the moderately congested ones where it would be as simple as laying down a strip of asphalt). We don't need to break the bank on this - HOV access alone will make the bus quite competitive with SOVs in travel time.

If this solution was put in place would it sufficiently meet your commuting needs. My wife commutes to Langley from Burnaby, and I imagine there would be quite a few transfers from here. I'm quite sure that she would not choose this option.

[jhausner]

The underpass in Surrey at Hwy 1 and 156 st isnt necessarily part of the gateway program - it is simply an underpass to service the residential areas noth of the hwy to allow better conenction to south of hwy/guilford area because the 152nd and 160th overpassess are clogged with commuter traffic most of the day.

The underpass btw 176 and 192 is part of the Gateway program however. That is part of the system to flow traffic from the Golden Ears Bridge through Port Kells and out to 176 interchange.

No it is actually part of it because as part of Gateway they are redesigning 152nd so that there is no turn in and out to Fraser Heights. The entrance from 152nd to HW1 will just be that, for traffic to HW1.

That's why the underpass has to be constructed first. It is also going to serve as the entrance/exit for the rapid bus lines which aren't technically part of Gateway, but are going to be possible as a result of Gateway's twinned Port Mann.

It all kind of ties together.

[officedweller]

.... every single one of those places you mention in Burnaby can potentially be well served (i.e. by putting the 129 route on a 10-minute frequency), or is already well served by transit (i.e. BCAA & Telus each have a 123 bus stop on their doorstep and are just a block from the very frequent 130 & 25 routes on Willingdon; EA is also served by the 129, 25, and 130). For an office park setting, these places at least have moderate, easily transit serviceable density. Many of the offices in the area, North of the highway, are within walking distance from SkyTrain too.

I'm all for reversing the pattern of development - encouraging office space in town centres - but I think it's a real stretch to say we'd need to "reverse" existing development, moving those jobs out just to support transit. Do you have evidence to support that view?

I just think that once a commute involves a transfer to a bus, the number of riders drops significantly. It's all about convenience.
"Reversing" trends would involve re-zoning those areas to exclude office space (maybe retaining industrial uses) so that existing uses are non-conforming uses. Eventually, when the buildings become obsolete or demand declines, they will be replaced with permitted uses (such as industrial or residential depending on the particular site - whichever is more suitable). It wouldn't be a quick process.

[ssiguy]

The traffic/commuting woes that Metro Vancouver now faces started decades ago. It started when they built.....................................nothing.
Not only does Vancouver have a horrid freeway system but was the last of Canada's 6 largest metros to get rapid transit. When it comes to infastructure Vancouver kicks and screams so loud that nothing ever gets built. I applaud Campbell for his massive investments in transit and the highway system . After Gateway, Vancouver will STILL have the worst road network in the country. Even when BC does build large infastructure projects they always look to the next 5-10 years, not the next 30-50-100 years. That is called urban planning which, in terms of transportation, Vancouver has historically chosen not to partake in. This lack of vision and will has placed Vancouver and Vancouverites in the situation they are now.

Vancouver's defiency is due to it's lack of transportation planning. Transit is part of that but not the only part.
Look at cities with great transit systems and ridership levels.......Toronto, Montreal, NewYork, Paris, Madrid, Berlin and they all have one thing in common...............great highway/freeway networks. They realize that cars and freeways are here and always will be. Goods and servicer can't travel by transit and nor can the business sales person, constructioners, painters, thru-city traffic, people going to the airport, or border, or ferry, or just families visiting the relatives. There are also many who just don't want to take transit and that is their choice.

Toronto, as we all know, has a incredible freeway network but it also has a transit system, service, and ridership levels that Translink could only dream of. If Vancouver could reach ridership levels as high as Toronto's is now within 40 years they will have done very well.

I'm not the type who promotes freeway construction as an answer to all. It's faulty logic and unstainable. I strongly support HOV/bus-lanes along HWY#1 to Chilliwack and on #99 to White Rock. I think the new Golden Ears bridge may help relieve a little traffic on the PM and HOV would mean renewed service between Guilford/Langley to Lougheed/downtown Van.
The biggest improvment they could make and the only one I truly support except HOV is the SouthFraser HWY.
The SFH would take many transports off hwy #1 before the PM as most of the transport traffic is going to Annaisis Island, River Road, DeltaPort, or Twassen. Relativley little actually makes it's way past Burnaby. It would also get rid of all the traffic heading for Richmond and especially YVR and Twassen.

It should be full freeway until River Road which should be upgraded all the way along to Ladner/Twassen. There should be no stops at all. It could do this and avoid intruding on Burn's Bog, ALR Delta.

[Hong Kongese]

^^^ Agreed! Even Calgary and Edmonton are expanding their LRT and freeways systems at the same time. Portland is my most favorite city in terms of transit and freeway networks design.

[The_Henry_Man]

The traffic/commuting woes that Metro Vancouver now faces started decades ago. It started when they built.....................................nothing.
Not only does Vancouver have a horrid freeway system but was the last of Canada's 6 largest metros to get rapid transit. When it comes to infastructure Vancouver kicks and screams so loud that nothing ever gets built. I applaud Campbell for his massive investments in transit and the highway system . After Gateway, Vancouver will STILL have the worst road network in the country. Even when BC does build large infastructure projects they always look to the next 5-10 years, not the next 30-50-100 years. That is called urban planning which, in terms of transportation, Vancouver has historically chosen not to partake in. This lack of vision and will has placed Vancouver and Vancouverites in the situation they are now.

Vancouver's defiency is due to it's lack of transportation planning. Transit is part of that but not the only part.
Look at cities with great transit systems and ridership levels.......Toronto, Montreal, NewYork, Paris, Madrid, Berlin and they all have one thing in common...............great highway/freeway networks. They realize that cars and freeways are here and always will be. Goods and servicer can't travel by transit and nor can the business sales person, constructioners, painters, thru-city traffic, people going to the airport, or border, or ferry, or just families visiting the relatives. There are also many who just don't want to take transit and that is their choice.

Toronto, as we all know, has a incredible freeway network but it also has a transit system, service, and ridership levels that Translink could only dream of. If Vancouver could reach ridership levels as high as Toronto's is now within 40 years they will have done very well.

I'm not the type who promotes freeway construction as an answer to all. It's faulty logic and unstainable. I strongly support HOV/bus-lanes along HWY#1 to Chilliwack and on #99 to White Rock. I think the new Golden Ears bridge may help relieve a little traffic on the PM and HOV would mean renewed service between Guilford/Langley to Lougheed/downtown Van.
The biggest improvment they could make and the only one I truly support except HOV is the SouthFraser HWY.
The SFH would take many transports off hwy #1 before the PM as most of the transport traffic is going to Annaisis Island, River Road, DeltaPort, or Twassen. Relativley little actually makes it's way past Burnaby. It would also get rid of all the traffic heading for Richmond and especially YVR and Twassen.

It should be full freeway until River Road which should be upgraded all the way along to Ladner/Twassen. There should be no stops at all. It could do this and avoid intruding on Burn's Bog, ALR Delta.

BRAVO!!!

[jhausner]

Here's an example of a typical travel day. Now I work in the South Delta area and commute to and from my home on Fraser Highway in Fleetwood. Since the widening of Highway 10 from Scott Road to 152nd has been complete, my commute time is about 22 minutes to and from work. That's over 32 km.

Now a few times in the last month I've gone over to Nanaimo with my sister and her boyfriend. This involved me going the 'other' direction through the tunnel towards the city of road hell, Vancouver. So it took me 42 minutes to get through the tunnel (1 lane, 7 lanes going into 1, Ferry Traffic at the same time). In non-rush hour it takes about 45 seconds to do that same distance.

So I'm already double my commute time to home, heck I could have driven all the way home and back and still wouldn't have been through the tunnel probably.

So after that I drive towards Oak Street Bridge. Sure enough the bridge is stopped so I zip over to the Arthur Lang. That shaves maybe 10 minutes trying to get across Oak Street Bridge. Now I'm on Granville and we're up to 55 minutes of commute time. Well along Granville, every street that had left turn lanes had the left turn lanes closed for some reason (construction?) so it took me 30 minutes to get to 41st basically. I then got pissed off and turned to head down to Arbutus. I get on Arbutus, guess what. Same thing left turn lanes closed. So it took another 30 minutes to get to 4th where my sister and he rboyfriend live.

Final tally:

Commute 1: To home AWAY from Vancouver

Distance: 32.3km
Time: 22 minutes in rush hour

Commute 2: To Vancouver

Distance: 21.5km
Time: 1 hour, 42 minutes roughly

Needless to say I've decided when I have to go to Nanaimo with my sister and her boyfriend, I'm meeting them there and jumping the ferry in Tsawwassen. The added taxi/bus 15-20 minute ride on the other side is far less than the frustration of trying to get to their home. If the entire purpose of not upgrading infrastructure in Vancouver itself is to discourage people from driving there, I think it's just dicouraging people from not going there thus why so many people are moving both residence and business wise out to the burbs and why Surrey will pass Vancouver in population in the not to distant future.

[city-dweller]

SSIGUY, I believe you are on the right track, but I would go further. The reason transit in the cities, between the cities, and through the cities( like in jhausner case) is not just from a history of slow and late transportation planning, but also the lack of integrating city planning and development with transportation planning at the regional scale.

A few comments back on this thread, there is talk about location and relocation of business. This land-use discussion for me is an echo of the discussion with Metro Vancouver's LRSP about focusing growth on regional town centers and what to do about the city town centers.

Also with regards to the transportation system, there many different groups making transportation decisions. Translink balances regional demand at the sacrifice of community demand. The city's have their own priorities with most road engineering giving local traffic the priority over through traffic. Found more lights, driveways, and left turn lanes on the same route you would have taken 10 years ago?

[EastVanMark]

Don't confuse sound reasoning with a lack of ambition. There's a place for both.

Yes, I agree that having sound reasoning without ambition gets you nowhere - I'm not saying we do that. I'd love to see BC do great things, and build a sustainable competitive advantage over other North American cities - freeway building is not going to help us achieve that - it's just more of the same, tired, ineffective approach.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sure looks like you're advocating ambition without sound reasoning. Bear Stearns can tell you where that takes you.

On the other hand, the most dynamic, successful organizations in the world today have both. Take Google, for example. Google's organizational culture is founded on the basic principle of open, honest communication - a rarity. Google is legendary for debate and careful, well-reasoned deliberation on alternatives, which is something their communication culture enables. This means that when Google does make its decisions, it knows where the major risks and potential benefits are, and that's one of the main things that makes the company more successful than just about any other. This also lets Google thrive on rather than fear change.

It's not the 60s anymore - change is difficult but necessary to evolve. Organizations that don't change enough, like Lotus Software, get left behind (remember when Lotus 1-2-3 was the leading spreadsheet software in the world?). When you consider all the knowledge and technology advancements we've had in the past few decades, as well as recent factor shifts and trends (i.e. oil prices and awareness of the need to reduce CO2), freeway building is all ambition, and very weak reasoning.

But thats just it. Its not sound reasoning. You are correct; building a freeway will not solve all the problems, but it will help. And, as of now, no other other option has been PROVEN to be better. Whenever somebody emerges out from the woodwork to advocate for a viable alternative, the only thing they seem to do is tell us what WON'T work, not provide any proof of what will. Or even worse, they try to pass off some far off idea for something that worked for a small town in Norway, or a village in Asia. Hardly an appropriate comparison.
Continuing to ignore a problem will not make it go away. Things like the twinning of the Port Mann has been studied to death over the years by various organizations for different governments with all them arriving at the same conclusion. During that time, the cost of the project has just gone up. Enough studies, its time to put shovels into the ground before we fall even further behind.

[b5baxter]

But thats just it. Its not sound reasoning. And, as of now, no other other option has been PROVEN to be better.

There are many example of what works all over the world. Zurich is one of the best examples because it is an affluent city like Vancouver. But there are dozens of cities in Europe and North America that have much higher transit modal shares than Vancouver.

Of course, people always come up with some excuse why these comparisons don't apply to Vancouver. But what they don't seem to understand is that any comparisons is flawed because the current situation is unprecedented. Ideas from the 1950s and 1960s about freeway expansion no longer apply in the current situation where we must address climate change and rising fuel costs.


..., the only thing they seem to do is tell us what WON'T work, not provide any proof of what will.

Again this has been provided many times. A couple of good examples:
http://www.livableregion.ca/pdf/Transport_for_a_Sustainable_Region.pdf
http://www.livableregion.ca/pdf/FVLR_Alternative_to_Gateway.pdf

... been studied to death over the years by various organizations for different governments with all them arriving at the same conclusion. ..

The only studies that support the highway expansion are the studies PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT. Every other study opposes it. Every academic, city planner and transportation planner that I have ever heard speak on the subject OPPOSES it.

[Stingray2004]

There are many example of what works all over the world. Zurich is one of the best examples because it is an affluent city like Vancouver.

http://www.autobahnen.ch/images/600x450/pic01418.jpg

http://www.autobahnen.ch/images/pic00377.jpg

http://www.autobahnen.ch/images/pic00298.jpg


The only studies that support the highway expansion are the studies PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT. Every other study opposes it. Every academic, city planner and transportation planner that I have ever heard speak on the subject OPPOSES it.

Yeah... one can make many assumptions in a study and come to different conclusions.

Those that oppose are mostly Vancouver City-centric or have some ivory tower notion of transportation and land use planning... the REAL WORLD can sometimes be a whole different ball game.

With Highway 1 and the PMB twinning, that should be a no brainer!:rolleyes:

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/photos/hwy1_congestion.jpg

[ssiguy]

I can see the argument for a twinning of the PM but I think HOV in both directions all the way to Chilliwack will mean commuter bus would actually be an option as will bus-only lanes.

I still think the best thing for the PM would not to twin it but rather have an alternate route. the SFH would get most of the truck traffic off it and Richmond/YVR/Twassen bound traffic and would also get them off HWY#10.

Ask anyone who takes the current HOV lanes on HWY#1 and then they will agree.

HOV/bus-only lanes would work wonders on the approaches to the AlexFraser for about one km in on each side of the freeway. It would make bus service from Newton/Langley to YVR/Richmond/CanadaLine a true alternative for transit users. The traffic on the bridges is never the problem, it's the approaches to the bridges that block up. As part of the beginning of BRT to White Rock to Canada Line they are going to build bus-only lanes northbound from Westminster to Bridgeport so they don't seat in traffic for 20 minutes getting from Westminster Road to the Oak Street bridge.

[Tom Bombadil]

I can see the argument for a twinning of the PM but I think HOV in both directions all the way to Chilliwack will mean commuter bus would actually be an option as will bus-only lanes.


What would be the destination of the 'commuter' buses? How would Hwy. 1 buses integrate with the transit system? Hwy. 1 does not directly connect with our major commercial centers. Multiple connections would be needed to get just about anywhere. I don't believe Hwy. 1 is a very good alignment for transit.

IMHO, connecting the Fraser Valley via transit likely will require new dedicated infrastructure.

[twoNeurons]

imho, one thing i would LOVE to see... is Counter-flow HOV Lanes. Make the Highway 3 lanes a side with a 2-lane counter-flow HOV in the centre.

That way, you can pass while on the HOV, and it's easier to enforce against SOVs. You could also make it limited express, and on the North side of the River, have entrances and exits to HOV at The Bridge, Brunette, Kensington, Grandview and Hastings.

Just to illustrate:


| | | | | | | | | | |
|v|v|v| |H|H| |^|^|^|
|v|v|v| |O|O| |^|^|^|
|v|v|v| |V|V| |^|^|^|
| | | | | | | | | | |

[Smooth]

What would be the destination of the 'commuter' buses? How would Hwy. 1 buses integrate with the transit system? Hwy. 1 does not directly connect with our major commercial centers. Multiple connections would be needed to get just about anywhere. I don't believe Hwy. 1 is a very good alignment for transit.

IMHO, connecting the Fraser Valley via transit likely will require new dedicated infrastructure.

I could see commuter buses maybe dropping off passengers at Braid or Lougheed. Both are close to the highway and both would give commuters a decent selection of options.

Lougheed would be good because it will be more of a hub once the Evergreen Line opens.

Braid would be better if people wanted to take the Southern portion of the Millennium Line to downtown so that they wouldn't have to transfer at Broadway. It could also be the more environmentally friendly option because it would mean that buses wouldn't have to drive up that long uphill section along Highway 1 before Lougheed.

[Tom Bombadil]

imho, one thing i would LOVE to see... is Counter-flow HOV Lanes. Make the Highway 3 lanes a side with a 2-lane counter-flow HOV in the centre.
[/FONT]

Which direction would you counterflow? The difference in traffic volume for the 2 directions is not huge. Traffic is pretty bad in both directions approaching the PM during the afternoon rush.

[officedweller]

The plan for the Port Mann buses is to either connect at Braid Station or Lougheed Station. Probably Braid as proposed transit exclusive ramps at Lougheed Station (North Road) were not in the plans submitted to the Environmental Assessment Office).

[Tom Bombadil]

I could see commuter buses maybe dropping off passengers at Braid or Lougheed. Both are close to the highway and both would give commuters a decent selection of options.

Lougheed would be good because it will be more of a hub once the Evergreen Line opens.

Braid would be better if people wanted to take the Southern portion of the Millennium Line to downtown so that they wouldn't have to transfer at Broadway. It could also be the more environmentally friendly option because it would mean that buses wouldn't have to drive up that long uphill section along Highway 1 before Lougheed.

Braid seems like a sensible choice as it is the closest station to an exit. I'd be curious to see a study of travel times to/from various destinations.

[Smooth]

Thanks OD. Good to know.

It's too bad that the planned configuration of Lougheed probably means that you'd have to transfer if you were coming from Braid and wanted to head into Coquitlam via the Evergreen Line. At least I'm assuming that the Evergreen Line would continue along the Northern alignment of the Millennium Line where it meets Lougheed, thus forcing a transfer if you're coming from the South.

[deasine]

Isn't there going to be a new HOV Bus entrance/exit at Government Street that will alow buses to go directly to Lougheed Station?

[EastVanMark]

There are many example of what works all over the world. Zurich is one of the best examples because it is an affluent city like Vancouver. But there are dozens of cities in Europe and North America that have much higher transit modal shares than Vancouver.

Of course, people always come up with some excuse why these comparisons don't apply to Vancouver. But what they don't seem to understand is that any comparisons is flawed because the current situation is unprecedented. Ideas from the 1950s and 1960s about freeway expansion no longer apply in the current situation where we must address climate change and rising fuel costs.



Again this has been provided many times. A couple of good examples:
http://www.livableregion.ca/pdf/Transport_for_a_Sustainable_Region.pdf
http://www.livableregion.ca/pdf/FVLR_Alternative_to_Gateway.pdf



The only studies that support the highway expansion are the studies PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT. Every other study opposes it. Every academic, city planner and transportation planner that I have ever heard speak on the subject OPPOSES it.

Once again, a poor comparison. Zurich is a city with a population not even half the population of Vancouver. Also, it is a far older city whose road systems were designed CENTURIES before the birth of the automobile. Again, apples and oranges.

The Provincial Government has also invested (heavily) in new public transit initiatives, something that never would have happened in the 50's or 60's, so this IS a new way of thinking. Attacking this problem on 2 fronts will work far better than just one.

Bringing up examples form "the livable region.ca" is akin to citing comments about the Edmonton Oilers on a Calgary Flames website. The bias is obvious and therefore cannot be taken as being impartial.

Judging by that, the only academic or city planner you've heard of is somebody from here locally or, that noted megacity like Portland, Oregon. Also, like any government study, other studies against Gateway are usually by those with axes to grind. Again, not very objective.

[b5baxter]

Once again, a poor comparison. Zurich is a city with a population not even half the population of Vancouver. .

Shouldn't the fact that a small city was able to develop such a great public transit system mean that a larger city should be able to do even better?

Also, it is a far older city whose road systems were designed CENTURIES before the birth of the automobile. Again, apples and oranges. .

I never made the claim that the two cities were exactly the same. The point is the you can take a city with high automobile ownership and reduce the overall vehicle km travelled by developing a great public transit system. Why can't we do the same thing here?

. Attacking this problem on 2 fronts will work far better than just one. .

This is a meaningless platitude not supported by evidence.

Why we would want to attack a problem with two fronts when one of the fronts will give us more pollution, more health problems, more ghg emissions and not do anything to solve congestion? Why not put our resources into the solution that offers the cleanest and most efficient way of moving people?

.Bringing up examples form "the livable region.ca" ...The bias is obvious .

You claimed that there were no viable alternative plans. I presented one. Rather than point out any flaws in the plan you simply claimed it is biased. The bias was not so oblivious to all the the academics and transporation experts that endorsed the LRC's position. Maybe you could enlighten us?

... against Gateway are usually by those with axes to grind.

What are the axes that professors at SFU and UBC have to grind? And what about the 60 planners from all over the world you signed a document opposing Gateway? They were not all from Vancouver and Portland. Andres Duany, who I believe lives in Miami, for example.

Again, not very objective.

The question of bias and objectivity is interesting.

On the one hand we have experts from many different institutions, funded by many different sources and from all over the world that oppose Gateway.

On the other hand we have the Provincial Government who has as one of it's largest (if not the largest) contributors - the New Car Dealers Association.

Hmmm, I wonder where the bias might be.........

[worldwide]

duany of all people :)

[twoNeurons]

Which direction would you counterflow? The difference in traffic volume for the 2 directions is not huge. Traffic is pretty bad in both directions approaching the PM during the afternoon rush.

The HOV would alternative. Westbound in the morning. Eastbound in the afternoon.

I travel this route (but against traffic) when I don't feel like taking the train... and traffic is almost "LIGHT" when you're going West in the evening... but you can see it's hellish Eastbound.

The HOV would be mainly for rush-hour traffic... As it would be physically separated from the regular traffic, it would also cut down on HOV offenders (who can't use the HOV as a passing lane and are less likely to risk traveling on it if they can't escape)

[jlousa]

If the provincial government is in the pockets of the new car dealers as you put it. Why would they put forward $14Billion in planned public transit improvements (which is much more then will be spent on roads over the same timeframe), I don't understand the carbon tax either how does that help the new car lobby?
Lets try and leave politics out of this. The truth is, as has been posted in pics above, even beloved Zurich has a highway system vastly superior to our own.

[Tom Bombadil]

I travel this route (but against traffic) when I don't feel like taking the train... and traffic is almost "LIGHT" when you're going West in the evening... but you can see it's hellish Eastbound.


When are you driving west in the evening? I've driven from 200th in Langley to Brunette many times, and my wife does it everyday. Traffic routinely gets backed up to nearly 200th during the afternoon rush heading west. This is not almost 'LIGHT' traffic as you say.

Traffic is almost 'LIGHT' when you cross the Port Mann.

[officedweller]

Isn't there going to be a new HOV Bus entrance/exit at Government Street that will alow buses to go directly to Lougheed Station?

There was supposed to be - but it's not shown in the plans submitted to the EAO. Here are the plans submitted to the EAO for Gaglardi - Cariboo:

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p247/d24665/1189028471095_a472fd1478e9414c83aed4d70a214df5.pdf

And for Brunette:

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p247/d24665/1189028485533_a472fd1478e9414c83aed4d70a214df5.pdf

[Smooth]

Is there a public site that has PDFs of the plans for all of Highway 1?

[officedweller]

EAO documents.

See "Application and Supporting Studies" for maps and plans:

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/html/deploy/epic_project_home_247.html

[Smooth]

Thanks!

[twoNeurons]

When are you driving west in the evening? I've driven from 200th in Langley to Brunette many times, and my wife does it everyday. Traffic routinely gets backed up to nearly 200th during the afternoon rush heading west. This is not almost 'LIGHT' traffic as you say.

Traffic is almost 'LIGHT' when you cross the Port Mann.

Sorry, I should've clarified.

Traffic is bad from 200th westbound because of multiple merge lanes just going down a hill (152nd, 160th, 176th) all converging on a downhill portion of of a two-lane highway.

Yes, my wife does that route too... a few times a week.

I was speaking of post-gateway.

After you have the Port Mann twinned, 4 lanes a side, when cross the bridge, instead of increasing to 4 lanes a side, you essentially keep the existing 3 (but all three are non-HOV), then in the center, you have a two-lane HOV separated Expressway which can be alternated east or west depending on demand. (West in the morning, East in the Evening)


| | | | / | \ | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|v|v|v| |H|H| |^|^|^|
|v|v|v| |O|O| |^|^|^|
|v|v|v| |V|V| |^|^|^|
| | | | | | | | | | |

[b5baxter]

Why would they put forward $14Billion in planned public transit improvements

They haven't. 60% of the the $14 billion is supposed to come from other sources.

(which is much more then will be spent on roads over the same timeframe)

It is actually LESS than what the government is spending on transportation currently on a yearly basis.
see this article: http://www.canada.com/richmondnews/news/opinion/story.html?id=022f095a-0fb8-4759-87a1-8bf761480841&k=48609

I don't understand the carbon tax either how does that help the new car lobby?

The carbon tax at its current rate is so minimal it is not expected to have much affect on gasoline consumption. In fact, I think the Liberals own projections show that gasoline consumption will actually increase.

The truth is, as has been posted in pics above, even beloved Zurich has a highway system vastly superior to our own.


What do the pictures prove? I haven't seen any stats about kms of highways in Zurich. Two of the pictures show exits to Zurich but are they even in Zurich? As far as I know the A1, A3 and A4 motorways pass close to Zürich but none actually go through Zurich.

If anything the pictures reinforce my point - the best way to relieve congestion on highways is give SOVs the option of using public transit.

Here is the situation in Zurich:
- highest public transit ridership in Europe (modal share is at least 30% at all times up to 80% in the urban core) - much higher than here.
- this was archived beginning in the late 70s by reallocating roadspace to public transit

[jlousa]

I'm sure the photos of the highways feeding Zurich are a good example, our highways don't exactly come into Vancouver either.

Heres what the spending of Translink is, take a look at what they spend on Transit as opposed to roads. I took the time to put it together for you, but the info is clearly available at Translinks website for you to confrim.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/translinkspending.jpg

I'm happy Zurich's transit is so high and yes we should trying to catch them, but they are also hundreds of years ahead of us, and a very different culture. Hopefully we are able to catch them with a generation or two. Note they did not forgo the roads to acheive those figures they have worked on both sides.

[Tom Bombadil]

deleted

[city-dweller]

1: "Those that oppose are mostly Vancouver City-centric" Wrong. PM twining and highway expansion will have major implications for NewWest, Burnaby and Coquitlam traffic.

2: Vancouver-centric as I understand you mean it implies a
Vancouver priority before everyone else. How does defending other communities against highway expansion in favor of transit investment a Vancouver first position?

3:"...have some ivory tower notion of transportation and land use planning" Kudos for seeing (understanding?) that there is a connection between transportation and land use planning. Vancouver fought major highways projects in the past which is now attributed to the quality of life. Even so, land-use decisions have to this day not adequately addressed housing in the city. A regional strategy was needed. The local municipalities signed on to regional plans through the former GVRD to have consistent planning. This gateway project was foisted on them by the provincial government and goes against the original regional strategy. Shows they only respect the regional organization when it suits them.

4:"... the REAL WORLD can sometimes be a whole different ball game."
Eloquent. Go look at Toronto's highway expansion plans.

*Note: I am not against the twinning of the bridge. I am worried about how public consultation is joke for the project and how some believe this project will rid us of congestion (impossible - see LA for details).

[nickinacan]

1: "Those that oppose are mostly Vancouver City-centric" Wrong. PM twining and highway expansion will have major implications for NewWest, Burnaby and Coquitlam traffic.

Actually I believe that the region being Vancouver-centric is a contributing factor in what has caused us to end up in this situation in the first place. Many of the city of Vancouver's policies have encouraged urban sprawl in other suburbs indirectly. Biz box development was kept out of Vancouver for quite a long time, which ended up being developed in neighbouring cities. That is just one cause. I am not blaming it all on Vancouver, as there are many more inflencial causes to it, but it is a contributing factor.

2: Vancouver-centric as I understand you mean it implies a Vancouver priority before everyone else. How does defending other communities against highway expansion in favor of transit investment a Vancouver first position?

Actually this is the way it was for quite a long time, but that's because Vancouver was the business centre (Which it still very is, however it seems to be changing). Now with the population of the City of Surrey nearing that of Vancouver, Surrey will have a satellite "downtown" instead of a traditional city centre. Development will cause the population of the south of the fraser communities (Edging closer to nearly 1 million people) to have no need cross the river anymore, easing congestion. That said, The highway still needs to be upgraded, but at the same time, better transit needs to be offered commuters where regular and efficient transit is not available. I see just as many cars piling on to the highway from Burnaby, New West and Coquitlam as I do in Surrey and Langley. This is either a case of Transit not being an option or a car being more convenient. Many people forget that the Gateway has a side project that will also add new routes and ways for people to move around (Bus lanes right-of-ways on the )

3:"...have some ivory tower notion of transportation and land use planning" Kudos for seeing (understanding?) that there is a connection between transportation and land use planning. Vancouver fought major highways projects in the past which is now attributed to the quality of life. Even so, land-use decisions have to this day not adequately addressed housing in the city. A regional strategy was needed. The local municipalities signed on to regional plans through the former GVRD to have consistent planning. This gateway project was foisted on them by the provincial government and goes against the original regional strategy. Shows they only respect the regional organization when it suits them.

I think the original Livable Region Strategy was half baked. Add to that the growth spurt that happened in the suburbs and it looks completely pointless. The only thing that really curbed sprawl was the ALR. The updated version appears to be much more well thought out and more focused on developing the South of the Fraser and better connecting it to the North Side of the Fraser through various transportation methods.

4:"... the REAL WORLD can sometimes be a whole different ball game."
Eloquent. Go look at Toronto's highway expansion plans.

If you have ever been to Toronto, you'll know that the transit and highway systems there are by far superior to that of Vancouver's... unless you live outside the city of Toronto. One thing that Toronto has over Vancouver is that there has been more investment in multiple forms of transportation per capita in Toronto then there has been in Vancouver.

*Note: I am not against the twinning of the bridge. I am worried about how public consultation is joke for the project and how some believe this project will rid us of congestion (impossible - see LA for details).

I completely agree with you. Building highways will never eliminate congestion of the bridge or the highway. LA is a great example of this. However, LA has next to no transit alternatives and people are basically forced to drive cars. Vancouver needs a modernized highway that takes FUTURE GROWTH into consideration, without cost cutting. But in addition to this, they need to add more mass transit routes. If twinning the bridge means that we will get transit moving north and south along that route again, I say go for it.

[officedweller]

Some comments:

The City of Vancouver has also impacted the growth of the region's office space by charging high property taxes on commerial and industrial property. Businesses sought lower operating costs in moving to the suburbs. Developers in suburban municipalities were all too willing to comply and suburban municipalities were eager to attract businesses to add to their tax bases (and weren't about to scare them away by forcing them into high rent (i.e. construction cost) regional town centres under the LSRP).

The regional town centre concept has not been successful since the majority of suburban offices are in business parks. This results in a dispersed commuting pattern. That said, even if suburban offices were concentrated in regional town centres (with rapid transit) that still amounts to a dispersed commuting pattern, because not all workers will live in an area linked to the rapid transit connection that is available. One large radially based metropolis is much easier to plan for (i.e. Calgary) - although workers could face longer commutes.

Given the dispersed commuting patterns in the GVRD, I think that a basic level of highway/road infrastructure is required and that a twinned Port Mann will provide that. It will provide connectivity across the Fraser River. That's 8 lanes - the same width as the Granville Street Bridge in Vancouver. It's not like we're building a 12 lane bridge like Portland. And as someone mentioned, there are HOV components in the plans.

[Stingray2004]

EAO documents.

See "Application and Supporting Studies" for maps and plans:

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/html/deploy/epic_project_home_247.html

Interesting to note that while the collector/distributor system is to be built between Grandview and Douglas, the abutments for the new overpass structures further eastward are well back from the freeway ROW and appear to be designed for a future c/d extension to at least the Skytrain overpass at North Road.

As an aside, a few years ago I looked at a 1964 Ministry of Highways annual report at UBC Main Library and the then under construction Burnaby Freeway section was originally designed for an ultimate *8* lane cross-section.

That's why the Brunette overpass further east will still remain intact with just the removal of the two off-ramps running underneath the overpass replaced by a directional flyover off-ramp eastbound and another off-ramp design westbound.

[officedweller]

Interesting to note that while the collector/distributor system is to be built between Grandview and Douglas, the abutments for the new overpass structures further eastward are well back from the freeway ROW and appear to be designed for a future c/d extension to at least the Skytrain overpass at North Road.

As an aside, a few years ago I looked at a 1964 Ministry of Highways annual report at UBC Main Library and the then under construction Burnaby Freeway section was originally designed for an ultimate *8* lane cross-section.

That's why the Brunette overpass further east will still remain intact with just the removal of the two off-ramps running underneath the overpass replaced by a directional flyover off-ramp eastbound and another off-ramp design westbound.

If the Stormont Connector from New Westminster (and from a new Patullo Bridge) is ever built, the traffic loads could require an express/collector system that far to the east.
BTW did you notice the direct HOV to Grandview ramps which avoid the collector lanes (curbside HOV on Grandview, centre lane HOV on Hwy1)?

The ultimate build-out of 8 lanes makes sense as the ROW is quite wide. Some of the overpasses (i.e. over Lougheed Hwy) even have extra supports in place.

[b5baxter]

Heres what the spending of Translink is, take a look at what they spend on Transit as opposed to roads.

But you were referring to how much the Provincial Government spends not Translink. Of course, Translink spends more on Transit. Funding for Gateway is coming from the Province not Translink.

[jlousa]

The provincial governments budget for new roads is much smaller then Translinks annual budget. Take a look at the figures, the government does not spend very much money on road expansion but when it does they come in with large numbers. We just happen to be in a boom right now with the Kicking horse passage, the Sea-Sky upgrades, the new floating bridge in Kelnowa. But all those projects plus Gateway still won't come in near $14Billion.

[city-dweller]

Actually I believe that the region being Vancouver-centric is a contributing factor in what has caused us to end up in this situation in the first place. Many of the city of Vancouver's policies have encouraged urban sprawl in other suburbs indirectly. Biz box development was kept out of Vancouver for quite a long time, which ended up being developed in neighbouring cities. That is just one cause. I am not blaming it all on Vancouver, as there are many more inflencial causes to it, but it is a contributing factor.

True. It would have been interesting if the adjacent cities had taken the same approach. What would big box do.



Actually this is the way it was for quite a long time, but that's because Vancouver was the business centre (Which it still very is, however it seems to be changing). Now with the population of the City of Surrey nearing that of Vancouver, Surrey will have a satellite "downtown" instead of a traditional city centre. Development will cause the population of the south of the fraser communities (Edging closer to nearly 1 million people) to have no need cross the river anymore, easing congestion. That said, The highway still needs to be upgraded, but at the same time, better transit needs to be offered commuters where regular and efficient transit is not available. I see just as many cars piling on to the highway from Burnaby, New West and Coquitlam as I do in Surrey and Langley. This is either a case of Transit not being an option or a car being more convenient. Many people forget that the Gateway has a side project that will also add new routes and ways for people to move around (Bus lanes right-of-ways on the )

I don't disagree. I am worried about the price tag of the gateway project. If we spend billions $$ on necessary highway upgrades, is politically viable to also spend the necessary millions $$ (billions most likely)for transit upgrades in the same postal code?


I think the original Livable Region Strategy was half baked. Add to that the growth spurt that happened in the suburbs and it looks completely pointless. The only thing that really curbed sprawl was the ALR. The updated version appears to be much more well thought out and more focused on developing the South of the Fraser and better connecting it to the North Side of the Fraser through various transportation methods.

Not a very well researched answer but I agree the ALR has worked to some degree. The problem is the ease which cities like Abotsford can take land out and the control of development beyond the outer boundaries. (see ottawa greenbelt)


If you have ever been to Toronto, you'll know that the transit and highway systems there are by far superior to that of Vancouver's... unless you live outside the city of Toronto. One thing that Toronto has over Vancouver is that there has been more investment in multiple forms of transportation per capita in Toronto then there has been in Vancouver.

Superior? Explain. Give me stats if you are comparing investment. (with years and per capita) Also, you forget that in the rest of Canada roads are temporary structures. I don't think you have made a very convincing argument. Is your argument based on experience and/or research or speculation and hearsay?

[Stingray2004]

If the Stormont Connector from New Westminster (and from a new Patullo Bridge) is ever built, the traffic loads could require an express/collector system that far to the east.

That's a possibility but I have another hypothesis... typically a c/d system is a safer and more efficient design (with a wide cross-section to prevent weaving) when interchanges are spaced less than 3 km apart and, in terms of the Burnaby Hwy 1 section, they are spaced much, much closer than that.

In fact, with an 8-lane cross-section, there is NO need at the present time to rebuild the following interchanges (the on/off ramps could just be reconfigured akin to the Brunette Ave. interchange re-design):

1. Douglas;

2. Sprott;

3. Kensington;

4. Cariboo;

5. Gaglardi;

I have an ankling that BC MoT wants to bring the c/d system further eastward past Gaglardi much *sooner* rather than later (witnessed by the rebuilding of the forementioned interchanges at *huge* expense) with a *12-lane* c/d configuration as the ultimate design (not publicly released) but *current* Burnaby and Gateway politics likely dictates otherwise.

Interchanges south of the Port Mann Bridge (as well as the Cape Horn) certainly necessitate a rebuild though.

As an aside to the ever contemplated Stormont Connector, sometimes history books do get it wrong::D

October 24, 1978:

The Stormont Connector was officially opened. It pushed McBride Boulevard (which links to the Pattullo Bridge) through Burnaby to hook up with Highway 1 at Gaglardi Way. Highways Minister Alex Fraser cut the ribbon.

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:C-iCQ8Dwn3gJ:www.vancouverhistory.ca/chronology1978.htm+stormont+connector&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=ca

BTW did you notice the direct HOV to Grandview ramps which avoid the collector lanes (curbside HOV on Grandview, centre lane HOV on Hwy1)?

Yeah, neat design and that was done in conjunction with the City of Vancouver engineering dept. whereby the curbside HOV lanes will be extended westward past Boundary Road.

The ultimate build-out of 8 lanes makes sense as the ROW is quite wide. Some of the overpasses (i.e. over Lougheed Hwy) even have extra supports in place.

Good point. The twin Hwy 1 overpasses west of Grandview Hwy (Lougheed, 1st Ave., etc) were originally constructed circa 1964 with the inside piers extended inward to allow for the easy and simple placement of additional I-beams to provide for a final 6-lane configuration in that section.

So it will finally be done 40 years later? That's progress I guess.

[officedweller]

Makes sense WRT the Sprott, Kensington, etc area.
The Douglas interchange has truck only ramps but with added development in the Brentwood area, I could see that opening to general traffic and therefore requiring measures to avoid congestion on the highway. I've read that Wayburne is too close to Willingdon to add an interchange.
I tend to find the Sprott, Kensington interchange area confusing since there aren't exits for all directions. I noticed that they removed an eastbound exit at Kensington and added it to the Sprott interchange (not sure how much is new though).

[twoNeurons]

Where is the diagram located for the c/d system for Grandview / Willingdon. I'm interested in how it will work.

[Smooth]

Where is the diagram located for the c/d system for Grandview / Willingdon. I'm interested in how it will work.

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p247/d24665/1189028299140_a472fd1478e9414c83aed4d70a214df5.pdf

[Mininari]

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p247/d24665/1189028299140_a472fd1478e9414c83aed4d70a214df5.pdf

Is there a similar diagram (i.e. zoomable PDF, clear detail) for the Cape Horn Interchange and surrounding area?

Any updates on the SFPR and PMH1 projects? Ever since the PMH1 project got its Env. Certification, there hasn't been any further news since.

[officedweller]

Go to the link I posted earlier (previous page) and click on the application documents - there are maps from Second Narrows all the way out to Surrey.

[SpongeG]

has anybody been out to langley and the new 200th reconfiguration and especially where it meets the bridge?

its freaking amazing when you hit that intersection and see that bridge in front of you - can't wait

need some pics its pretty cool

[deasine]

has anybody been out to langley and the new 200th reconfiguration and especially where it meets the bridge?

its freaking amazing when you hit that intersection and see that bridge in front of you - can't wait

need some pics its pretty cool

I was just there on Saturday to pick up my new bike. Massive construction and they were posting wrong construction signs -_-"

Google maps is disgustingly deceiving now... I really didn't know there was so much development along 200 St. until I was there -_-" I was like WOW this is very different from what I thought it was... No wonder there is a need for a future RapidBus.

[SpongeG]

yeah 200th is insane - there is some huge thing going up along it - some government building

i was surprised to see the bridge feeling so in your face though when you hit that intersection just before it - i envisioned the bridge being further away from there but its so close

[Mininari]

Go to the link I posted earlier (previous page) and click on the application documents - there are maps from Second Narrows all the way out to Surrey.

Thanks!
Failure to look at previous pages!

[jhausner]

Yah don't trust in Google Maps/Earth for anything outside of Vancouver. For an example, Infinity 1 has been completed for a while now and was under construction for well over a year previous and the site is still reflected as a dirt and grass field on Google Maps/Earth. Not even the hole that was dug is reflected.

So that means their maps outside Vancouver are well over 2 years more than likely 3-4 years old. 200th street and especially Langley and Cloverdale in Surrey has changed a lot in 3-4 years and I find often when people actually drive out here to look they realize "Oh wait now we see why they want to twin the port man and expand to rapid bus service and extend skytrain... it's not just farms like 20 years ago."