[lightrail]

And what are those HOV vehicles, buses, commercial vehicles and van pools suppose to use? Traffic lights? Look at any freeway in Japan, Honk Kong, Korea, Taiwan, China, United Kingdom, France, Chile, Germany, Australia, Italy etc... and you will see such interchanges as this. Proper interchanges allow smoother transitions and higher speeds, and they are safer. This is Vancouver's only true freeway, and it is our only true connection to the rest of the nation to the east. This freeway serves 2.3 million directly in Metro Van and indirectly serves the 1.5 to 2 million people in our hinterland (Vancouver Island, the Okanagan and the Fraser Valley). Look at almost any city in the industrialized would the same size as, or even smaller than Vancouver and they will all have larger freeway systems then we do.

You're missing the point. Those cities you mention all have advanced rail infrastructure, high speed trains. They have dedicated bus lanes. They don't just cater to the single occupant vehicle.

A freeway is not the answer. It's not sexy - it's a disgusting waste of land use as planned at Port Mann - it could be so much better.

[DKaz]

I think the tolls will help, but I hope the Rapidbuses + local buses are convenient enough. There are industrial areas that can be better served at least during rush hour. There are residential areas too but they can use park-and-rides for the time being until it's deemed feasible to bring transit a bit closer to them.

[WarrenC12]

anyone remember from oceans 11 "the pinch"... this is very tempting ( though i am not going to graduate with a physics degree so i dunno... i guess i could transfer but meh) 2013 come now!!!! :P

Hmmm domestic terrorism? I'll let CSIS take care of you. :notacrook:

I know you are an NDP supporter, so with that in mind I really think you need a new image. That picture makes James look like a psycho.

[jhausner]

You're missing the point. Those cities you mention all have advanced rail infrastructure, high speed trains. They have dedicated bus lanes. They don't just cater to the single occupant vehicle.

A freeway is not the answer. It's not sexy - it's a disgusting waste of land use as planned at Port Mann - it could be so much better.

So you'd be all for a $3.5 billion LRT line from Surrey to Abbotsford and doubling of the fleet of buses through Surrey and Langley as regional priorities?

[WarrenC12]

Fine. But just don't make it any easier to drive in a single occupant vehicle. Without demand management in place, the 3.3 billion project is going to do nothing for congestion. The Province needs:
1. to provide dedicated HOV, bus and truck lanes
2. to charge tolls to discourage peak travel and reward off-peak travel and to generally discourage SOV vehicles
3. provide rapid transit alternatives

Dude did you read the whole plan?

1. Already part of the plan.
2. Transit is toll-free, vanpools are toll-free, trucks are cheaper. The peak idea might be good depending on how busy the bridge gets.
3. Remember they are going from NO transit over this bridge to essentially dedicated lanes, and future rail possibilities.

[DKaz]

Perhaps we make the toll $5 Monday to Friday 6am-6pm and $1.50 for all other hours ($4/$1 if you have a transponder).

We should toll the Pitt River Bridge while we're at it.

And with the Golden Ears Bridge, no tolls for anyone simply driving to Maple Meadows Station or Walnut Grove Park and Ride, as long as they have a valid 28 day parking pass at the park and ride.

[WarrenC12]

CKNW was reporting this morning that there would in fact be on/off peak rates. At least for the trucks that run 24/7.

[twoNeurons]

So... just to be clear...

The center lanes are express, right?

And you can only access them from 156th, right?

[DKaz]

The two centre lanes are HOV and Rapid buses only, and only HOV and express buses may use the 156th St ramps.

[usog]

Fine. But just don't make it any easier to drive in a single occupant vehicle. Without demand management in place, the 3.3 billion project is going to do nothing for congestion. The Province needs:
1. to provide dedicated HOV, bus and truck lanes
2. to charge tolls to discourage peak travel and reward off-peak travel and to generally discourage SOV vehicles
3. provide rapid transit alternatives

I'm curious what region of the GVRD you live in, probably somewhere in Vancouver? I live in Fraser Heights, an area that is *literally* right next to the port mann bridge. How about you try leaving/accessing anywhere near Guilford/North Surrey anytime other than midnight, there's traffic. Its practically a parking lot. And how do you suppose rapid transit would fix this? Practically all of North Surrey is a decent distance away from an every-15-minutes bus now.

And like I said, those HOV lanes you love? Take a drive along the highway-one stretch near coquitlam, you'll find that not nearly as many people share your enthusiasm, and that a lot of the users are SOV drivers who just want a fastlane. The new bridge has them anyways though.

Honestly, this bridge is exactly what we need because not only does it ease congestion with cars in general, but we can finally run bus routes on it. It even has provision for (skytrain I'd hope, not LRT) rapid transit to run on it. I can't see how you can say it won't ease congestion.

[GeeCee]

Well, they could always cut a hole out of one of the regular car lanes, right into the river.. that'd push people into transit. :)

edit: oops, didn't realize that this was going on the next page.. this was in response to lighrail.

[Metro-One]

I really like the idea of being able to add rail under the main deck, finally people here are thinking big and for the future. That way you can add rail without decreasing road capacity and causing construction nightmares.

[DKaz]

I'm curious what region of the GVRD you live in, probably somewhere in Vancouver? I live in Fraser Heights, an area that is *literally* right next to the port mann bridge. How about you try leaving/accessing anywhere near Guilford/North Surrey anytime other than midnight, there's traffic. Its practically a parking lot. And how do you suppose rapid transit would fix this? Practically all of North Surrey is a decent distance away from an every-15-minutes bus now.

It's more of a consequence of wanting to live in low density areas -- transit services just aren't as viable. Hopefully, with the new bridge, more people will turn to transit for commuting and just using their cars evenings and weekends.

And like I said, those HOV lanes you love? Take a drive along the highway-one stretch near coquitlam, you'll find that not nearly as many people share your enthusiasm, and that a lot of the users are SOV drivers who just want a fastlane. The new bridge has them anyways though.

I feel that three general lanes + an HOV is the best solution for urban freeways. The right lane would be for slower vehicles (RVs, some semis and passenger vehicles), the middle lane would be the general travelling lane for those maintaining the speed limit (some semis, most passenger vehicles), and the left lane would be strictly for passing only. I think they should remove the restriction of when you can enter/exit the HOV lanes, Seattle doesn't have them except when it's double lined in certain areas, but 90% of the time you can enter and exit the HOV lanes as long as it's safe to do so.

Honestly, this bridge is exactly what we need because not only does it ease congestion with cars in general, but we can finally run bus routes on it. It even has provision for (skytrain I'd hope, not LRT) rapid transit to run on it. I can't see how you can say it won't ease congestion.

I think high speed commuter rail straight down the median from Chilliwack would be better than either LRT or Skytrain for that particular corridor. It'd be cheap, it'd be fast. Have it operate at 140km/h+ and the new Port Mann Bridge will never be congested.

Chilliwack-Sumas-McCallum-Mt.Lehman-Walnut Grove-Surrey-Braid-Willingdon-Commercial Dr-Waterfront

If it is a new Coquitlam/Surrey rapid transit line, LRT would make more sense IMO.

[twoNeurons]

It's more of a consequence of wanting to live in low density areas -- transit services just aren't as viable. Hopefully, with the new bridge, more people will turn to transit for commuting and just using their cars evenings and weekends.



I feel that three general lanes + an HOV is the best solution for urban freeways. The right lane would be for slower vehicles (RVs, some semis and passenger vehicles), the middle lane would be the general travelling lane for those maintaining the speed limit (some semis, most passenger vehicles), and the left lane would be strictly for passing only. I think they should remove the restriction of when you can enter/exit the HOV lanes, Seattle doesn't have them except when it's double lined in certain areas, but 90% of the time you can enter and exit the HOV lanes as long as it's safe to do so.



I think high speed commuter rail straight down the median from Chilliwack would be better than either LRT or Skytrain for that particular corridor. It'd be cheap, it'd be fast. Have it operate at 140km/h+ and the new Port Mann Bridge will never be congested.

Chilliwack-Sumas-McCallum-Mt.Lehman-Walnut Grove-Surrey-Braid-Willingdon-Commercial Dr-Waterfront

If it is a new Coquitlam/Surrey rapid transit line, LRT would make more sense IMO.

High-speed Rail in the Median between Chilliwack and Vancouver. Now we're talkin'

However, I don't know about the demand for that kind of service.

Which is why... meandering or not... the railway that through the heart of Surrey, Newton, Cloverdale and Langley is a better choice for a SOF(South of Fraser) route. It hits population centres where the people actually are. A railway down the freeway would only really serve Walnut Grove and a small part of Surrey.

One could perhaps justify it if Chilliwack were on the way to Seattle and it was part of a larger vision to connect two large metropolitan areas together (Seattle and Vancouver), but it's not.

Of course, before any of this happens, the Rail Bridge that crosses the Fraser must be replaced.

Either that or an agreement to keep the bridge closed during the mornings and evenings and restrict boat movements.

[officedweller]

Looking at the render of the Johnston hill section, it doesnt seem to add up.

The only reason (in my mind) that there is a semi basket-weave happening there, (if thats right) would be that cars getting on from 156 st would need to transfer to head into vancouver. But that cant be, because 156st is a centre on ramp!
However, how then would cars coming on from 152nd enter the expressway? Unless they transfer on after the cape horn? Or one ramp from 152nd diverts, heading east then looping around and connecting to the expressway. Bottom line is, where are those 2 collector lanes coming from?!
I know the render is preliminary, but the sign reads "Coquitlam" implying this will lead you to the Lougheed.

Im not sure if all this makes sense... Im saying it anyway!

I think it depends how far east the collector lanes start. Assuming that the ramp entering on the far right is a 152nd ramp (side note: could there be two separate ramps in the new configuration?), that means that the collector to express ramp is for the benefit of cars that entered the collector lanes further east than the 152nd interchange (which suggests that the collector lanes start at least one interchange further east).
It could also be a "diversion" function - if the collector lanes get jammed up, through traffic (who happen to be caught in the collector lanes) can divert to the express lanes.

[usog]

wait, what? I just noticed, there's an on-ramp to the highway on 156th? That can't be right, they are just finishing building an underpass from Guilford to Fraserheights in that area going under the highway with no connection whatsoever. The only on-ramps for highway one are 152nd and 160th.

[DKaz]

I'm going to leave all speculation on how the C/D system is going to work. We need to find design drawings!

wait, what? I just noticed, there's an on-ramp to the highway on 156th? That can't be right, they are just finishing building an underpass from Guilford to Fraserheights in that area going under the highway with no connection whatsoever. The only on-ramps for highway one are 152nd and 160th.

Ultimately there will be. The gap between the two new overpasses is wide enough for the on-ramps and it'll likely open when the new Port Mann opens. Emphasis on the HOV and transit only part!

High-speed Rail in the Median between Chilliwack and Vancouver. Now we're talkin'

However, I don't know about the demand for that kind of service.

Which is why... meandering or not... the railway that through the heart of Surrey, Newton, Cloverdale and Langley is a better choice for a SOF(South of Fraser) route. It hits population centres where the people actually are. A railway down the freeway would only really serve Walnut Grove and a small part of Surrey.

I'm guessing once the West Coast Express hits capacity, they'll start thinking about building what's been termed "South Fraser Express" by other users. I don't think it's going to happen for another 20-30 years though, if ever.

There is demand though, half of the people who board the West Coast Express come from Abbotsford and Chilliwack. When the Golden Ears Bridge opens, it'll open up the West Coast Express to Langley and Cloverdale residents. But as of right now, there probably isn't enough demand to justify the costs yet. The Rapidbuses will do for now. Surrey residents will be able to take a Rapidbus up to Coquitlam Station then connect to West Coast Express.

Of course the Interuban is much needed. It will benefit so many people, travelling between those communities, but it will be a slow way of commuting to Vancouver.

[usog]

No, I mean with the geography of the area, 156th on both sides goes into a depression under the highway. That's why they are building an underpass in that alignment, it's almost finished as a matter of fact. The underpass and the geography of the area make it kind of impossible to put an on-ramp at that alignment. Dunno, I'm kind of curious how they will make it work, anyone have any road diagrams for the feeders yet?

[DKaz]

No diagram for the C/Ds yet but this is what 156 St will ultimately look like.

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p247/d24665/1189028781427_a472fd1478e9414c83aed4d70a214df5.pdf

[deasine]

That's no different from the original plan.

Anyways... this is what I think about the eastbound "express" lanes and "local" lanes:
- Center 3 lanes are for Highway 1 through traffic (duh that's obvious) past 152nd Street
- Right 2 lanes are for traffic heading to 152nd Street (and maybe perhaps 160th Street).

If you take a look at the existing (http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/PMH1/docs/reports/reference_concepts/PMH1_15_152nd_Street_Reference_Concept.pdf) 152nd Street interchange configuration, there is already one lane that is exit only. The media reports (but the media isn't always correct) that the right two lanes are for "local" traffic, so I wouldn't be surprised if these right two lanes are just for 152nd and 160th Street. That way, if there are any backups, this would only affect commuters going to 152nd Street and 160th Street "local", as opposed to affecting commuters going past 160th Street. HOVers would also not be affected because they are on the express side and have a dedicated exit at 157th Street.

[usog]

No diagram for the C/Ds yet but this is what 156 St will ultimately look like.

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p247/d24665/1189028781427_a472fd1478e9414c83aed4d70a214df5.pdf

Mmm, interesting, I'll give it that. But according the the diagram notes, it's already out of date by at least two revisions. I'd also bet that's for the twinned concept not the super-bridge. Still, its kind of amusing how they are trying to shoe-horn that into there. I'll try to get some pictures of the underpass as it is now sometime to help show why I'm kinda confused about it <.<"

[officedweller]

No, I mean with the geography of the area, 156th on both sides goes into a depression under the highway. That's why they are building an underpass in that alignment, it's almost finished as a matter of fact. The underpass and the geography of the area make it kind of impossible to put an on-ramp at that alignment. Dunno, I'm kind of curious how they will make it work, anyone have any road diagrams for the feeders yet?

The ramps come from below and would go to the HOV in the express lanes (buses exit at Brunette).

[deasine]

The ramps come from below and would go to the HOV in the express lanes (buses exit at Brunette).

Unfortunately, the don't have a physical HOV exit at or near Brunette. Why did the Government Street HOV overpass get canceled?

The bit in the press release about being able to deliver bus service is also dubious, there's no reason they couldnt have simply added a queue jumper lane going WB in Surrey for buses to overtake the traffic backup, as is being done on HWY 99 approaching Oak St (although this one branches off to the Bridgeport offramp, since its meant to serve the Canada Line). I like the potential for future LRT, though who knows how long that will take to ever happen. Based on the renders, it also appears that the RapidBus is in a run-of-the-mill HOV lane, rather than a dedicated bus lane. Hopefully this is the result of whoever did the rendering not bothering with their homework. It will be a hell of a lot harder (politically) to convert to LRT if cars are using the bus lane, because then you're removing a lane of traffic, which is just about impossible to do in this region

Sorry for replying so long, but I have to say the situation is quite different here (between Oak Street and Hwy 1). Essentially, we are removing buses from Oak Street bridge (at least the highway coach buses) and terminating them at Bridgeport Station. Like you said, this is why we need a HOV lane that branches to the offramp. With the Port Mann, we are introducing bus service over the bridge. If you look closely at the 152nd Street configuratio (http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/PMH1/docs/reports/reference_concepts/PMH1_15_152nd_Street_Reference_Concept.pdf)n, there is a HOV queue jumper lane. But I have a feeling the configurations will be very different now that we have that collector lane system.

[officedweller]

I think the division of the highway into collectors and express is just so that you don't have a lot of weaving. I would expect a driver to be able to choose to use the collectors to travel all the way through from their start to their merging back with the express lanes (you would just have to deal with cars merging in and out).

Unfortunately, the don't have a physical HOV exit at or near Brunette. Why did the Government Street HOV overpass get canceled?

Don't know - it just disappeared from those pre-design drawings - maybe it will reappear?
Either the collectors and express lanes will merge before Brunette or there will be an exit to the collectors before Brunette - to allow buses to go from the HOV express lane to the outside lane to exit at Brunette.

******************

As a side note came across this 2004 TransLink report on characteristics of Port Mann / Hwy 1 traffic:

http://www.livableregion.ca/pdf/port_mann_8percent_trucks.pdf

Diagram showing westbound am destinations:

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/3205/73504199dd2.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/73504199dd2.png/1/w592.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img410/73504199dd2.png/1/)

[Blake]

They've updated the media section on the Gateway website with new video and animations of the PMB: http://www.gatewayprogram.bc.ca/

Also there is a relatively new video of the SFPR that I hadn't seen before.

After watching the video, I think we really underestimate the impact the SFPR is going to have. Aside from the obvious of moving of goods and truck traffic, it seems to not take any consideration as to the impact on commuter traffic.

This will provide a more direct link from areas like North Langley, Maple Ridge, Abbotsford to YVR, and the Tsawwassen ferries.

With Central Surrey poised for growth, the Tannery Road exit which becomes 104th will give a more direct route into the city centre from YVR, makes it easier to access and hopefully will increase the economic viability of the area.

It should also remove much commuter traffic from local roads in New West and Surrey.

This project could also position South Delta (Ladner and Tsawwassen) to be a high growth area in the future as well. It's draw back is that's it's been difficult to access the rest of Metro Vancouver, especially jobs and retail, but now with direct freeway access to more jobs in Port Kells, North Surrey, New West, it could make South Delta the new White Rock. Similar lifestyle and climate, now with easier access.

On the downside, I noticed that they are still installing traffic lights at 80th Street in the Tilbury Industrial Park and again at the connection to Hwy 1 and the Golden Ears. I realize that the sensitivity of Burns Bog likely restricts the ability to build elevated interchanges at Tilbury, but the other one makes little sense. I give it another 10 years before it's congested and they decide to do it right, similar to how the 91 and 91A connection was redone within 12 years.

[ravman]

Eight months ago, the government said twinning the Port Mann bridge would cost about $1.6 billion, with not a penny from provincial taxpayers.
A private consortium would build the bridge and maintain it in return for the future toll revenue. Good deal.
But now, the cost is $3.3 billion.
Taxpayers are on the hook for $1.2 billion in financing.
Oh, and the bridge isn't being twinned anymore. The existing bridge will be pulled down after a new 10-lane bridge is built.
There is a good case for another bridge to get people across the Fraser River. Traffic is a mess for large chunks of the day. (Though the question of what happens to the thousands of additional cars when they get off the bridge is still largely unanswered.)
But this announcement by Premier Gordon Campbell does not inspire confidence.
The government said the soaring cost is caused by inflation, the decision to tear down the existing bridge and a more realistic look what's involved in the project, like feeder roads.
Still, a doubling of costs before the first shovel of dirt is moved is hardly reassuring. Especially from the government that stuck taxpayers with $500 million worth of surprise overruns on Vancouver's convention centre.
That's far from the only worry.
The government has said the initial toll will be $3, rising with inflation. With a modest increase in traffic, that would produce $100 million a year for the bridge operators. (Toll collection will be high-tech. Electronic devices would log regular users crossings and deduct the toll from an account.)
When the bridge was to cost $1.6 billion, $100 million in revenue wasn't bad. That's about a 6.5-per-cent return, plus whatever other revenue the consortium could negotiate from the province.
But at $3.3 billion, the return is down to three per cent. The consortium is not likely to go ahead - especially not with the risks of construction cost overruns, shortfalls in revenues and interest cost - without more revenue.
So what will the province - that is to say, you the taxpayers - pay to keep the private companies committed to the project? Will it be $100 million a year, on top of the tolls, or more?
And then there's the whole question of the $1.2 billion taxpayers are advancing to pay for the project.
It's apparently a loan, at commercial rates. If it's repaid, the government should make money given its low borrowing costs.
The project is being funded with $1 billion from the construction consortium, which includes Macquarie Group, an Australian investment business that has done well in its dealings with government, but hit tough times. The province is to put up $1.2 billion; other lenders another $1.2 billion.
The theory is that provincial taxpayers are protected. The consortium, with $1 billion at risk, has a big incentive to make sure the project is completed.
But no other lender, no bank or pension fund around the world, could be found to provide the $1.2 billion in financing. That's why the province stepped forward.
OK, it's a skittish time for lenders.
But does that mean taxpayers have to take on the risk? Or should the government have waited for a year, developing a clearer assessment of the risks and a realistic business plan?
Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon, who has championed the bridge and other Lower Mainland road projects, says traffic delays cost B.C. $1.5 billion a year in lost productivity. If the Port Mann cuts that problem by 25 per cent, it's a good investment.
But that's not clear. And the government's leap into this megaproject is looking a little blind. It's hard not to worry that the desire to get a deal done before the provincial election is encouraging too much haste.
It's been tough to get information about other private-public partnerships. This time, the government should recognize the legitimate public concern and answer all the questions before the deal is done.
Footnote: The project is popular, mostly, in the Lower Mainland. But Liberal candidates in the rest of the province might find it a challenge to defend going ahead with another Vancouver-area megaproject even as cost estimates soar.
Paul Willcocks

[Blake]

You're grasping at straws if the only ammo against Campbell and the Liberals is a decision to build a better bridge, instead of polishing that turd of the old bridge (that would be nearing 50 years old at that time). Why don't you just bring up Campbell's DUI 7 years ago while you're at it?

Let's review the NDPs track record on delivering transportation projects, and ones on budget for that matter.

1. The Millennium Line - Overbudget
2. Hwy 1 HOV - Overbudget
3. Fast Ferries - LOL
4. Island Higway - Overbudget
...........

Contrast that to Gateway, Canada Line, Sea to Sky, Golden Ears Bridge etc. A much longer list of well managed, fiscally responsible projects.

Let's face it: Campbell and Co. will win again in May. Their track record speaks for itself and the only case James and her socialist boneheads can make against the Libs starts and ends with the Convention Centre and his DUI.

4 MORE YEARS!

[Blake]

Besides, the toll revenue on the bridge makes the cost pretty much negligible.

$3.00 per cross X 120,000 cars day X 40 years = a hell of a lot more than $3.3 billion.

[officedweller]

The M-Line was actually on-budget or slightly under budget.

http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/335410/rapid_transit_ar_2004_05.pdf

Note: The "Coquitlam Pre-Build" noted in the financials is for the track switches @ Lougheed for the Evergreen Line.

*******

Here's the Gateway webpage with the Port Mann and SFPR videos.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/info_centre/multimedia.htm

[deasine]

Unfortunately, the M-Line was delayed.

***

Thanks for the videos od =)

About 40% of all westbound Port Mann Bridge traffic exists at the Cape Horn Interchange...
Source: Ministry of Transportation Port Mann Video

I knew it was a lot, but not to that extent.

[lightrail]

Dude did you read the whole plan?

1. Already part of the plan.
2. Transit is toll-free, vanpools are toll-free, trucks are cheaper. The peak idea might be good depending on how busy the bridge gets.
3. Remember they are going from NO transit over this bridge to essentially dedicated lanes, and future rail possibilities.

1. not enough - could be much better

2. missing the point - the pricing is to reduce congestion, how busy the bridge is has nothing to do with it - but it needs to be region wide tolling, not just on the Port Mann and not just on bridges.

[lightrail]

So you'd be all for a $3.5 billion LRT line from Surrey to Abbotsford and doubling of the fleet of buses through Surrey and Langley as regional priorities?

Not quite.

#3.5 billion for:
1. extended rapid transit - yes
2. extended rapid buses - yes
3. improve the rail infrastructure to move good, with intermodal facilities - why the focus on trucks anyway? Use the railways, they much more efficient for moving freight.
4. some road improvements - but every new lane should be HOV, bus and truck ONLY

I also think replacing the bridge is wasteful. Bridges last much longer than that.

[lightrail]

I'm curious what region of the GVRD you live in, probably somewhere in Vancouver? I live in Fraser Heights, an area that is *literally* right next to the port mann bridge. How about you try leaving/accessing anywhere near Guilford/North Surrey anytime other than midnight, there's traffic. Its practically a parking lot. And how do you suppose rapid transit would fix this? Practically all of North Surrey is a decent distance away from an every-15-minutes bus now.

And like I said, those HOV lanes you love? Take a drive along the highway-one stretch near coquitlam, you'll find that not nearly as many people share your enthusiasm, and that a lot of the users are SOV drivers who just want a fastlane. The new bridge has them anyways though.

Honestly, this bridge is exactly what we need because not only does it ease congestion with cars in general, but we can finally run bus routes on it. It even has provision for (skytrain I'd hope, not LRT) rapid transit to run on it. I can't see how you can say it won't ease congestion.

Please read this carefully - it will be a dream when it opens - but it will be just as congested within 5 years - then what!!! Double it again. It's called Triple Convergence. Build a new freeway (or bridge) and then:
1. people who take transit will switch to driving
2. people who drive in the off peak to avoid the traffic will start driving in the peak
3. People who drive a different route will start to use the new route.

When the New Port Mann opens, you'll see a massive increase in traffic during the peak, congesting other roads around it, and you'll see a drop in ridership on the transit system - the modal share will shift more towards the private car. The rapid bus sounds nice, but it's going to be failure. Not going to work.

And you'll never see LRT or SkyTrain crossing it either - that's just a cheap design throwaway to get support for the bridge. Why would you run trains down that corridor? - it makes no sense. The LRT or SkyTrain would run further south and/or north of the Fraser - where there's population.

Sorry, but the bridge as conceived is a big mistake. Big.

[officedweller]

I knew it was a lot, but not to that extent.

In the 2004 report it was only 32%. At 40%, that's an 8% increase in 4 years or so.

[usog]

Please read this carefully - it will be a dream when it opens - but it will be just as congested within 5 years - then what!!! Double it again. It's called Triple Convergence. Build a new freeway (or bridge) and then:
1. people who take transit will switch to driving
2. people who drive in the off peak to avoid the traffic will start driving in the peak
3. People who drive a different route will start to use the new route.

When the New Port Mann opens, you'll see a massive increase in traffic during the peak, congesting other roads around it, and you'll see a drop in ridership on the transit system - the modal share will shift more towards the private car. The rapid bus sounds nice, but it's going to be failure. Not going to work.

And you'll never see LRT or SkyTrain crossing it either - that's just a cheap design throwaway to get support for the bridge. Why would you run trains down that corridor? - it makes no sense. The LRT or SkyTrain would run further south and/or north of the Fraser - where there's population.

Sorry, but the bridge as conceived is a big mistake. Big.

Likewise, read this carefully:
1. I don't know how many people you talk to, but people who take transit are the ones who already gave up on cars. Co-workers, classmates, friends, they all either don't have a car or leave it at home for almost everything.
2. See above.
3. See the pattullo Bridge debacle. All that hoopla over increased transit service and such, and even when faced with the huge inconvenience of doubled traffic times, most of them still stuck with their cars. Like I said, people who decide to drive are often the ones who disregard transit as an option.

The city grows, that's a fact. No matter how much you want to deny it, the amount of drivers grow. The amount of drivers increases as the amount of transit riders also does so. Oh and someone else made an excellent point earlier. More trucks are on the road because of the choke-point that is the port mann. Decrease congestion, you decrease the amount of runs needed to be made since they can be made faster, voila, you've just taken a decent amount of trucks off the road.

Regarding the rest of your post, your negativity and cynicism amuse me. Disregarding possibilities because they make your point smaller or contradict them. Rapidbus on the port mann will be a huge boon as we have lots of people commuting between the tri-cities and the south of fraser area. And why would gordo make the huge point about the possibility of rapid transit, if he won't follow through? Infact, leaving this provision in probably jacked up the cost quite a bit, making him look worse actually. And we've been over this before, HOV lanes are counterproductive for the most part. They take lanes away from everyone else and gives them to a group that is tiny. And half of it's users aren't even qualified to be on it.

And skytrain along the bridge would actually work quite well. I'd assume that when they do persue that option, it will be part of a major construction project for something like a new line. If you put a skytrain station at highway-one, its perfectly placed for a huge park-and-ride. Everyone coming from the east could park there and take a skytrain into town. The line could even connect with the millennium line if they wanted to. The possibilities are endless. This is definitely a good investment for the future.

Oh and triple post? Please

[lightrail]

Likewise, read this carefully:
1. I don't know how many people you talk to, but people who take transit are the ones who already gave up on cars. Co-workers, classmates, friends, they all either don't have a car or leave it at home for almost everything.
2. See above.
3. See the pattullo Bridge debacle. All that hoopla over increased transit service and such, and even when faced with the huge inconvenience of doubled traffic times, most of them still stuck with their cars. Like I said, people who decide to drive are often the ones who disregard transit as an option.

The city grows, that's a fact. No matter how much you want to deny it, the amount of drivers grow. The amount of drivers increases as the amount of transit riders also does so. Oh and someone else made an excellent point earlier. More trucks are on the road because of the choke-point that is the port mann. Decrease congestion, you decrease the amount of runs needed to be made since they can be made faster, voila, you've just taken a decent amount of trucks off the road.

Regarding the rest of your post, your negativity and cynicism amuse me. Disregarding possibilities because they make your point smaller or contradict them. Rapidbus on the port mann will be a huge boon as we have lots of people commuting between the tri-cities and the south of fraser area. And why would gordo make the huge point about the possibility of rapid transit, if he won't follow through? Infact, leaving this provision in probably jacked up the cost quite a bit, making him look worse actually. And we've been over this before, HOV lanes are counterproductive for the most part. They take lanes away from everyone else and gives them to a group that is tiny. And half of it's users aren't even qualified to be on it.

And skytrain along the bridge would actually work quite well. I'd assume that when they do persue that option, it will be part of a major construction project for something like a new line. If you put a skytrain station at highway-one, its perfectly placed for a huge park-and-ride. Everyone coming from the east could park there and take a skytrain into town. The line could even connect with the millennium line if they wanted to. The possibilities are endless. This is definitely a good investment for the future.

Oh and triple post? Please
You have your mind made up. So not worth continuing with this.

[DKaz]

Why does this even need to be an argument? We need a good road system just as much as we need a good public transit system. The point is we've neglected both and we need to play catchup and it has to be balanced. We cannot throw all eggs into one basket.

[deasine]

Why does this even need to be an argument? We need a good road system just as much as we need a good public transit system. The point is we've neglected both and we need to play catchup and it has to be balanced. We cannot throw all eggs into one basket.

Thank you =)

[officedweller]

From today's Vancouver Sun:

Total Port Mann cost always near $3 billion, official says

$1.5 billion figure announced was capital cost in 2005 dollars

By Jonathan Fowlie, Vancouver Sun
February 7, 2009

The B.C. Liberal government has long assumed it would cost close to $3 billion to build and finance the project to twin the Port Mann Bridge and expand portions of Highway 1, a senior government official said Friday.

"We had a number that wasn't that far off from $3.3 billion," Frank Blasetti, assistant deputy minister of transportation, said in an interview.

"We were around $2.8 billion."

As he unveiled the design Wednesday for a new single-span bridge, Premier Gordon Campbell said the entire project will cost $2.46 billion to build, and close to $3.3 billion including the cost to maintain, operate and finance the project between now and 2013, when construction is expected to be complete.

The announcement came as a surprise to a public that in January 2006 heard Campbell announce the project's estimated price tag at $1.5 billion.

On Friday, Blasetti insisted that other than an anticipated overrun, and some additional project features, not much has really changed.

He said the $1.5 billion was the capital cost, which was stated in 2005 dollars and did not include the cost of financing.

He added the government used $230 million last year from a project-related contingency fund to account for overruns, bringing the declared price tag to $1.73 billion.

On top of that, the winning consortium, Connect BC Development Group, opted to make upgrades in its final proposal.

During the bidding process, Blasetti said, two out of the three consortiums proposed scrapping the two-bridge idea and building a single 10-lane span. This would cost more, but would also allow the winning consortium to avoid having to maintain the existing structure.

The winning bid unveiled this week comprised a single span, but also added other upgrades, such as dedicated lanes for local traffic and a more advanced system to lessen the risk of lost toll revenue.

These upgrades helped the consortium win the bid, but are also expected to translate into higher toll revenues.

When these upgrades and inflation are taken into account, Blasetti said, the final price reaches $2.46 billion.

But that's just the cost of construction.

Behind that number, the province has always made assumptions about factors such as what it would cost to finance the project.

Blasetti said he didn't want to get into specifics about the government's estimates and assumptions, fearing that might give an advantage to consortiums bidding for future projects. But he acknowledged that even before the upgrades, the total number, including financing and inflation, has been close to about $2.8 billion.

Add the new bridge features, he said, and that number gets pretty close to the $3.3 billion announced this week.

Blasetti said it is this $2.8 billion figure -- and not the $1.5 billion -- that the province has used to set the $3 starting toll rate. Tolls, which will pay for the entire project, will begin at a maximum of $3, and are allowed to rise 2.5 per cent each year to account for inflation.

The one element Blasetti said remains to be finalized is the financing.

He said the financing was originally supposed to close last October or November, and that it was planned to be spread across a syndicate of about five to seven banks.

Then global credit markets were hit with an unprecedented crisis.

"The reason we're still trying to finalize the financial terms is the bids were due about a week after the second major bank failed in the United States," he said, explaining that markets at the time "went crazy."

"Banks are not willing to put big numbers into an individual project right now," he said, adding that the consortium is now trying to spread the financing across about 13 to 15 banks.

This, of course, is after the province stepped in with the promise of a $1.15-billion loan to help finance the project, effectively cutting in half the amount needed from the banks.

Blasetti said it was still not clear what the final bank financing rate will be from the banks, but said the $3.3-billion price tag was calculated using the highest anticipated rate.

Another concern raised recently is that Connect BC includes the Macquarie Group, an international toll-road operator and investor that has has encountered financial difficulty as a result of the global credit crisis.

Media reports this week said Macquarie will like take writedowns of $2-billion Aus, or $1.6 billion Cdn, this year.

Macquarie is expected to put up $1 billion in equity for the Port Mann project, with the remaining $1.15 billion coming from a syndicate of banks.

Blasetti said the province was convinced the company can make good on all of its commitments.

"We are confident they can come up with the money," he said.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

[usog]

Man, they really need to move faster on this. Just got home today, was 20 minutes just to get from Guilford to the 160th street overpass. Traffic was backed up to the east as far as you can see from the overpass too.

[Metro-One]

Small update, the road lanes under the overpass being constructed at the Pitt River Bridge interchange have been opened. Looking at the road alignments and design it seems that here is another overpass immediately west of this overpass that has yet to begin construction. I wonder why they have yet to start on that structure.

[DKaz]

Yah it's been open for a few weeks now, sorry I'm neglecting my northeast reporting duties!

[Mininari]

Small update, the road lanes under the overpass being constructed at the Pitt River Bridge interchange have been opened. Looking at the road alignments and design it seems that here is another overpass immediately west of this overpass that has yet to begin construction. I wonder why they have yet to start on that structure.

Would this overpass you speak of maybe be the flyover for traffic heading southbound onto the Mary Hill Bypass from the yet-to-be constructed Fremont Connector in Port Coquitlam? (look at the artist's rendering, or detailed drawing)

I wonder if that part will be deferred since there has been no construction on the Fremont connector to date.

[Metro-One]

:previous: Yeah thats the one, good point.

[red-paladin]

Here is the rendering again. This would help you to see what is going on there.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/prb-maryhill/images/pitt_river_aerial3crop.JPG

[Metro-One]

Hmm, but you would think that with this project they would build the ramps now so they are ready for when the connecter is put in place.

[David]

Fremont Connector is decades away according to most Poco planning documents, so I wouldnt expect much progress at this point

[WarrenC12]

Why does this even need to be an argument? We need a good road system just as much as we need a good public transit system. The point is we've neglected both and we need to play catchup and it has to be balanced. We cannot throw all eggs into one basket.

Agreed! PMB traffic is a killer drain on the economy and the patience of people. Plus there's no buses on it now, I don't see how a replacement that includes transit options can be bad in anyone's mind.

[mr.x]

^ there are some people who are simply opposed to any sort of economic development.

A week ago, i attended a Student Olympic Conference at UBC and one of the speakers was saying how the Richmond Olympic Oval has emitted a significant amount of carbon emissions through the construction process and the enormous amount of use in concrete. Yes, this guy has a problem with concrete - unaware the building he was speaking at was made out of concrete. He also goes on to mention how many trees were chopped to build it, not mentioning that they were all pine beetle infested. He continues with saying something like how "we only minimize the damage" with LEED practices. Shouldn't that be enough?

[Blake]

Fremont Connector is decades away according to most Poco planning documents, so I wouldnt expect much progress at this point

Yes, unfortunately there is little incentive for Poco to construct Fremont until after Burke Mtn residents congest like likes of Shaughnessy, Oxford and Coast Meridian.

Fremont would better serve Coquitlam residents connecting David Ave to Fremont, and unless Coquitlam starts writing cheques Fremont won't be built until Burke Mtn is built out 20 years from now.

Basically how David Ave wasn't connected to Port Moody until basically Westwood Plateau and Heritage Mtn were completely built out, almost 15 years after it was basically a done deal.

[red-paladin]

Agreed! PMB traffic is a killer drain on the economy and the patience of people. Plus there's no buses on it now, I don't see how a replacement that includes transit options can be bad in anyone's mind.

I never liked the argument that says don't build roads, because they'll get congested.
After all, they same argument would apply to paid transit. Once the millenium line was built only a few years ago and it is jam packed these days. Canada line will also likely be jam packed in 10 years and have to add the C-cars. So someone could say that those projects also create congestion like they say about roads.

[agrant]

I never liked the argument that says don't build roads, because they'll get congested.
After all, they same argument would apply to paid transit. Once the millenium line was built only a few years ago and it is jam packed these days. Canada line will also likely be jam packed in 10 years and have to add the C-cars. So someone could say that those projects also create congestion like they say about roads.Exactly. As long as the population continues to increase, there will be a need to expand all infrastructure.

[twoNeurons]

1. people who take transit will switch to driving
2. people who drive in the off peak to avoid the traffic will start driving in the peak
3. People who drive a different route will start to use the new route.

I think you don't give enough credit to how cheap people can be. People who currently daily pay $3 to go by SkyTrain aren't going to suddenly pay $3 + gas to do the same.

As for a different route... what other routes? Patullo? Alex Fraser? These routes serve completely different areas.

People who live near the Patullo aren't going to switch just to drive over a bridge and enjoy the privilege of $3/trip. The time savings won't be enough to allow for that.

You may have a point with point #2... but honestly, if you have actually driven over the Port Mann... there really isn't much of an off-peak time.

It can be congested at 8PM on a Sunday night.

Even if they do, they'll be paying $3 a trip to do it. There is a chance of offering off-peak rates as well. $3.50 peak, $2 off-peak would have a LOT of people reconsider travel times.

I've already talked to people who say they're disappointed in the toll, and that it has influenced their decision to move out to Surrey (to own a house).

I think the toll will do more to encourage transit than congestion ever did. People can get used to congestion and just accept it as a way of life... but when it starts costing $120/ month to get to work, you start to think... maybe I should look into taking a bus/carpooling/SkyTrain to work.


When the New Port Mann opens, you'll see a massive increase in traffic during the peak, congesting other roads around it, and you'll see a drop in ridership on the transit system - the modal share will shift more towards the private car. The rapid bus sounds nice, but it's going to be failure. Not going to work.


I don't think so. We'll see, but I think you'll find that people are more toll-conscious. I think you'll see more people spending $5 in fuel to avoid the toll than people clamoring to cross the new shiny bridge.


And you'll never see LRT or SkyTrain crossing it either - that's just a cheap design throwaway to get support for the bridge. Why would you run trains down that corridor? - it makes no sense. The LRT or SkyTrain would run further south and/or north of the Fraser - where there's population.

Sorry, but the bridge as conceived is a big mistake. Big.

Now, here we agree. I think the LRT is for support... but I wouldn't say "never"

Of course, I can't see SkyTrain, but I can see DMUS connecting with the rest of the system. But we'll see. I think it should be built as a feature from the get-go personally.

[mr.x]

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/8412/32653813ah3.gif

[deasine]

Hey that's kinda cool.

[lightrail]

I never liked the argument that says don't build roads, because they'll get congested.
After all, they same argument would apply to paid transit. Once the millenium line was built only a few years ago and it is jam packed these days. Canada line will also likely be jam packed in 10 years and have to add the C-cars. So someone could say that those projects also create congestion like they say about roads.

People congestion verse car congestion

And it's not an argument - it's a reality. Building freeways does not reduce congestion, it makes it worse.

Having said that, I do like the transit options on the Port Mann, I just wish there was more of it and more focus on moving people and goods, not cars.

I'm not against development. From an engineering point of view, I'm excited to see the Port Mann Bridge project too. But, my concern is it will do nothing to help congestion in the long run.

Buses on the Port Mann - initially, the new lanes will make it easier to drive, so why would anybody take the bus? Later, when the single occupant lanes get congested (in about 5 years if the Alex Fraser Bridge is any indication), then maybe the buses will be a success - provided the dedicated lanes for them survive.

[WarrenC12]

On the topic of the new PMB and transit, does anybody have ideas as to what the future rail line might look like? I do want to get into an LRT war, but where would this line start and end? I assume it would meet up with an evergreen station on one side and down into Langley on the other?

[djmk]

And it's not an argument - it's a reality. Building freeways does not reduce congestion, it makes it worse.



you know what else adds to congestion.... 1 million more people in metrovancouver since expo'86

i'm just saying.....;)

[twoNeurons]

People congestion verse car congestion

And it's not an argument - it's a reality. Building freeways does not reduce congestion, it makes it worse.

To be fair. It's a not a freeway that's being built. It's one that's being upgraded. The bridge is also a choke point, because on either side of the bridge, there will be four lanes. There are currently 6 lanes of road and 5 narrow lanes of bridge.


Buses on the Port Mann - initially, the new lanes will make it easier to drive, so why would anybody take the bus?

Perhaps because it will be less expensive. Remember, initially, there will only be 3 lanes for SOV traffic. This is similar to the 2nd Narrows. I think we're underestimating the power of a toll. $6/day + car expenses isn't pocketchange for many.

Later, when the single occupant lanes get congested (in about 5 years if the Alex Fraser Bridge is any indication), then maybe the buses will be a success - provided the dedicated lanes for them survive.
Given that they're only really adding one lane, you may be right.

[LeftCoaster]

And it's not an argument - it's a reality. Building freeways does not reduce congestion, it makes it worse.


No, after a certain time it will return to the same equilibrium... no literature states that it makes it worse.

I am not one for huge road expansions, but you would have to be pretty close minded to not see the necessity of this new bridge.

[SpongeG]

there will also be the golden ears to share the congestion and i am sure people will notice a difference this fall when its been in operation a while - no one will go out of their way to save $ of the toll and spend more in gas $ and time

as it is now congestion can't get any worse - on saturday night it took me 20 minutes to go from 96th ave to 104th along 160th - usually takes about 3 minutes for that stretch - traffic was so backed up because of hwy #1 and the port mann - due to volume and the hockey game goers apparently

[SpongeG]

maybe this fits in here

MLA wants overpass

Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows MLA Michael Sather has put his name on record in the legislature, calling for an overpass at Harris Road and Lougheed Highway.

“The Golden Ears and Pitt River bridges will not be able to adequately function without a new interchange,” Sather said in the legislature Monday.

He also said Pitt Meadows motorists are endangered by freight trains that could cut them off from emergency access to Ridge Meadows Hospital, because of lack of an overpass across the CP Rail tracks.

“I’ve been after them a long time,” said Sather after his statement.

“I didn’t expect a reply directly, but hopefully it’s just one more piece to keep them aware that we’re concerned.

“It’s great to have the bridges, but without the supporting infrastructure, its’s still going to be a problem.”

Mayor Don MacLean wasn’t aware of Sather’s pitch for Pitt Meadows.

“Why would he? He never lobbied for it before,” he said, pointing out there’s a provincial election in May.

“Every time he comes to town it’s to attack us on something.”

Sather said he’s discussed the interchange with the city, but then the topic moves to the North Lougheed Connector, the parallel road north of Lougheed which could take westbound traffic off Old Dewdney Trunk Road.

The City of Pitt Meadows has applied to take land out of the Agricultural Land Reserve for the road.

“I don’t want a road going through more agricultural land. The worst part of it, it sets a precedent for removing land north of the Lougheed Highway beyond the commercial strip,” Sather said.

He maintains adding a third westbound lane on Lougheed and an overpass at Harris Road would be enough to take westbound motorists from Maple Ridge to the Pitt River Bridge, without having to carve through farmland.

MacLean agrees an overpass will help Pitt Meadows motorists move more easily, but not through-traffic from a growing Maple Ridge and Mission.

“That would, at best, be a stop-gap solution.”

For the 210th Street/128th Avenue intersection in Maple Ridge, “we’ve been told that will be at capacity on Day 1,” of the Golden Ears Bridge opening.

“I think it’s absolutely necessary that we proceed with both.”

He said, in principle, the land commission supports the road, saying it will form a hard edge between shopping centres and farms.

MacLean noted a 120-metre strip along Lougheed, west of Meadow Gardens Way, was approved for land reserve exclusion in the late 1980s. That later was changed to a 180-metre-deep strip for a shorter distance.

The application to take land out of the reserve for the North Lougheed Connector remains before the commission, although MacLean pointed out the city has no money to build the road. “So it’s going to be a partnership either with the private sector or with government.”

Smart!Centres, the big box mall developer, owns land on the Lougheed, but there’s no application yet for development,

Sather says the provincial Gateway Program, which is building the arterial roads, has said the road isn’t their project.

He says that’s not true, though, because Pitt Meadows will require provincial dollars for the road, or TransLink will have to become involved in acquiring the land for the right of way.

The overpass at Harris Road is at the top of Pitt Meadows’ list of infrastructure projects, which could get some of Ottawa’s $30-billion recession-busting budget.

But the city has no money set aside to fund even its possible one-third share of the $42-million project.

However, two other projects, $2 million to $3 million in improvements for the Pitt Meadows Arena and an artificial sports field for Pitt Meadows secondary ($2.2 million), have a better chance for federal dollars (from the Recreational Infrastructure Fund) because they’re closer to being “shovel ready” and able to get people on the job quickly.

Pitt Meadows has identified seven projects that could qualify for the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, projects which have to start in 2009-2010.

Top of the list is the Harris Road overpass. Next are:

• extension of runway at Pitt Meadows Regional Airport, $1.8 million;

• replacement of Kennedy Road Bridge, $500,000;

• New flood box, McKechnie drainage catchment, $750,000;

• New Pitt Polder pump station, $1.7 million;

• Raising height of dike, Area No. 3, $5 million;

• Repaving Rannie Road, $700,000.

The city also has identified South Bonson Amenity Building and the renovation of the fire hall as two projects which could qualify under the Building Canada Fund. Maple Ridge also has submitted an extensive list of projects. The Conservative government has yet to announce criteria for qualifying for the funding, that was announced in its Jan. 27 budget. Most of the money will have to be matched by the other governments,

http://www.bclocalnews.com/tri_city_maple_ridge/mapleridgenews/news/39404484.html

[David]

i dont understand how an interchange at harris and lougheed would help the problems with the at grade rail crossings? am i missing something

[Stingray2004]

i dont understand how an interchange at harris and lougheed would help the problems with the at grade rail crossings? am i missing something

I believe that the context of the argument is for upgrading the Lougheed Hwy to free-flow between the new 8 -lane Pitt River Bridge and the Golden Ears expressway.

That portion of Hwy 7 is part of BC MoT's North Fraser Perimeter Road program. But an interchange is also required at the north end of the new Pitt River Bridge (Old Dewdney Trunk Road) as well as another interchange further north along with frontage roads, among other necessary improvements.

Rail crossings don't fit into the picture along Hwy 7. It's just a localized municipal matter

[jhausner]

The argument that building highways doesn't reduce congestion so it shouldn't be done is and always will be ridiculous. Anyone arguing that point completely ignores that fact that over the last 15 years or so, we've built nearly exclusively transit and LRT based infrastructure yet our congestion has increased 10 or 20 fold.

Realities work that way unfortunately. It's like saying "banning guns will save lives" as an argument. No... no it won't. Putting criminals in jail and dealing with parents that don't parent will because bans = laws, criminals = breaking laws, so criminals = ignoring bans. That's reality and logic. Same with highways vs transit.

The reality of the argument is that we need both. We can't have highway infrastructure that ignores transit considerations. At the same time we can't have transit that ignores highway infrastructure. The Gateway project HWY1 expansion is adding a transit component the region hasn't seen in what 50, 60 years? Buses and transport between Surrey and Coquitlam. The Golden Ears bridge is another road infrastructure project the region needs to help develop Langley and Maple Ridge industrial wise.

At the same time though, I really think the Expo line Sky Train expansion needs to speed up. I'm not happy as to how slow it is/will be going. I also think serious consideration has to be looked at for increased LRT South of the Fraser and even consideration for an LRT line from Central Surrey to Abbotsford International Airport in less than 20 years to relieve pressures on YVR and further encourage smart growth this side of the river.

[Removed by Moderator]

[twoNeurons]

You just HAD to go political, didn't you?

[city-dweller]

Its not political. Its uninformed.

Your argument to paraphrase: Not building infrastructure to support auto travel in the last few decades and spending money on transit has not stopped congestion from becoming much worse.

Californiacation of Metro Vancouver will not work. I believe updated existing infrastructure has been passed by unfortunately. Expanding the existing network is just going to pass the problem on to a later date.

There has been a great lack of transit investment in areas south of the Fraser. Transit capital funding is always a begging job for translink to the province. (why do you think they need to have a real estate arm?) Transit is successful. Those who take transit face congestion now too. Ironically, transit funding is competing upgrading existing routes to ease congestion (new modes like bus to sky train) and routes where there is low or now transit (south of fraser).

I find it hard to believe if we switched the transit investment for the last 15years to road building, we would have less congestion. That said, I am not against infrastructure improvements that provide an alternative to SOVs. HOV lanes, tolling, transit options. (bringing it back to this thread) The PMH1 project is good for separating through traffic and local traffic, and implementing tolling on the new PM. In addition to a future provision for rapid transit, they should initiate the study of how rapid transit could service that route. Provisions for transit with no actual plan for transit is ridiculous, but very political.

As such, I change my initial statement to this is political, but his argument remains uninformed.

[lightrail]

The argument that building highways doesn't reduce congestion so it shouldn't be done is and always will be ridiculous. Anyone arguing that point completely ignores that fact that over the last 15 years or so, we've built nearly exclusively transit and LRT based infrastructure yet our congestion has increased 10 or 20 fold.

Realities work that way unfortunately. It's like saying "banning guns will save lives" as an argument. No... no it won't. Putting criminals in jail and dealing with parents that don't parent will because bans = laws, criminals = breaking laws, so criminals = ignoring bans. That's reality and logic. Same with highways vs transit.

The reality of the argument is that we need both. We can't have highway infrastructure that ignores transit considerations. At the same time we can't have transit that ignores highway infrastructure. The Gateway project HWY1 expansion is adding a transit component the region hasn't seen in what 50, 60 years? Buses and transport between Surrey and Coquitlam. The Golden Ears bridge is another road infrastructure project the region needs to help develop Langley and Maple Ridge industrial wise.

At the same time though, I really think the Expo line Sky Train expansion needs to speed up. I'm not happy as to how slow it is/will be going. I also think serious consideration has to be looked at for increased LRT South of the Fraser and even consideration for an LRT line from Central Surrey to Abbotsford International Airport in less than 20 years to relieve pressures on YVR and further encourage smart growth this side of the river.

But besides all that, if people want to argue that we should have 1 without the other, or their entire argument is that it doesn't reduce congestion, I suggest you enter into politics and join the NDP. Your talents would be put to better use. Oh woops I went ideological at the end there.. my bad.

Not true. A lot of money has been spent on road infrastructure in this region - the East-West COnnector, the tunnel on Highway 1, the Alex Fraser Bridge and Hwy 91.

Much more needs to be spent on rapid transit. Vancouver is not a good example - look at London England or any European City that can't survivie without rapid transit. Even LA is moving towards extensive rapid transit - they know building freeways makes no sense.

Building highways reduces congestion, for a short while, then it right back where you started, except you know have twice the traffic volumes. The onyl way out is to keep building and paving over paradise. Do you really want that?

[SpongeG]

there is lots of rapid transit planned - the evergreen line, the expo line surrey extension, the possible revival of the fraser valley train thing, the vancouver street car, a new sea bus, a new rapid bus from guildford to lougheed town centre are all going to happen in the next decade

as is the highway

they are all needed

you have this weird thing going on too - people are like oh no more sprawl but then they say well we need more LRT and transit etc south of the fraser and what will that do? it will cause even more sprawl

the city needs to plan on being double or triple the size in the coming decades and roads, transit etc are all needed

unless people in Vancouver say yes please demolish my neighbourhood and erect towers the city ain't going to get any denser

[Metro-One]

Not true. A lot of money has been spent on road infrastructure in this region - the East-West Connector, the tunnel on Highway 1, the Alex Fraser Bridge and Hwy 91.

Hmm, he said in the last 15 years, the Alex Fraser & Hwy 91 are 20 years old, also the tunnel on highway one is an element that should have been built when the highway opened in the 60's, in fact that list is tiny and pails in comparison to any of your "European" cities with similar populations. What European and Asian cities have discovered is that well designed & enxtensive freeway and transit systems together create good transportation.

LA is finally building some transit because they need to, they have a metro population that is many times larger than our provincial population, i sure hope they are building transit. LA's problem was they decided to rely only on freeways over the past few decades, therefore today they have 6/8/10+ lane freeways and highways every 10 blocks or less going east/west & north/south. Not to mention they have countless smaller roads that are still what we consider to be freeways with interchanges. For metro Vancouver to have a similar freeway km per capita ratio as the greater LA area i bet we would have to be building at least 5X the planned gateway program (SFPR, NFPR, Hwy 1 and bridges) all as freeways (SFPR is not a freeway for it has traffic lights and narrower lanes i believe), maybe closer to 7X. That is the funny thing, people in metro Vancouver, Vancouver especially, are so insulated from roads that they believe 60km/h, 4 narrow lane roads with countless traffic lights are highways! My friends from Asia and Europe often laugh at our road network and what we call highways.

While LA is a good example at building to many freeways (which we are extremely far away from, and would take 5 to 7 gateway programs to maybe catch up to at our current population), but only building transit and allowing or freeways to decay and never expand is just as short sighted and narrow minded as building only freeways.

[city-dweller]

Rapid transit in the valley doesn't equal sprawl. The idea is to live next to transit. The valley trend is to densify in certain areas. The actual urban area hasn't increased in the Metro Vancouver in the last 5 years. The increases are on existing urban land. I am not suggesting the low density areas are going to all change. The infrastructure investment should drive and guide future growth and land use in the few dense centers (existing or proposed).

Also for Europe and Asia, they can leverage greater populations to support transit and highway programs. I believe the P3 program is some what ideology and somewhat we don't have enough money.

[lightrail]

Hmm, he said in the last 15 years, the Alex Fraser & Hwy 91 are 20 years old, .

Ouch - now I feel really old :)

Your point is taken. Thanks

[cornholio]

Rapid transit in the valley doesn't equal sprawl. The idea is to live next to transit. The valley trend is to densify in certain areas. The actual urban area hasn't increased in the Metro Vancouver in the last 5 years. The increases are on existing urban land. I am not suggesting the low density areas are going to all change. The infrastructure investment should drive and guide future growth and land use in the few dense centers (existing or proposed).

Also for Europe and Asia, they can leverage greater populations to support transit and highway programs. I believe the P3 program is some what ideology and somewhat we don't have enough money.

Vancouver is sprawl from the east, and all thanks to rapid transit(railroad).
connect the dots

[wrenegade]

One thing people seem not to remember is that we are a MAJOR port city. Goods are moved by truck and heavy rail. Buses and LRT don't do anything to improve this. Ok, maybe they do something by taking a handful of cars off the road and making congestion a little better allowing trucks to move more freely. I know that will be the argument.

We need both here. Obviously we need more transit and LRT south of the Fraser. But we also are a port city, one with a population of 2+ million people. Regardless of what transit system we have or will have, we still need a real freeway. No one can argue the 4-lane No. 1 is a real freeway.

[usog]

You overrate Vancouver. The entire GVRD has only 2 million people. And we're talking about a pretty big area here. If you look on the ranking of areas based on population, we're 150+, pretty far down the chart. And you want a multi-billion dollar transit system expansion? Even while our bridges are now sometimes clogged at all times of the day? Get real, it's not happening. The LRTs and things you want are not possible/won't be worth it until we densify more. A *LOT* more. Until then we'll be using the car as our main transportation method for everything besides commuting.

[Metro-One]

We are well over 2 million now, i think the GVRD is closing in on 2.2 million last time i checked. If you include nearby Abbotsford and Area you are looking at around 2.4 million. Not to mention that the #1 through Greater Vancouver also connects the Island to the interior and reverse, so it is also our main regional artery that connects us to the rest of the country. Also we are among one of the largest ports on the continent so that adds a lot more traffic to our system then a 2.2 - 2.4 million city in the middle of the continent. Also we are the transportation hub for the entire region, passenger and freight. People can be so narrow minded to whom the roads are for, this one small road links us the rest of Canada. Vancouver's hinterland (The Island, Whistler area, Fraser valley & the interior has a population of 2 million, and this one road links them together as well :)

[giallo]

^Good post.
Highway 1 is Vancouver's only real road to the outside world (to the rest of Canada anyway). To leave it be and focus only on regional transit is foolish.

[ravman]

Port Mann a case of pouring good money after, er, good

Vaughn Palmer
Vancouver Sun

Thursday, February 12, 2009

The B.C. Liberal plan to replace the existing Port Mann Bridge with an all-new crossing means scrapping a multimillion-dollar upgrade of the span completed just seven years ago.

The previous New Democratic Party government launched a Port Mann renovation in 1999, after hesitating for several years over its own plan to twin the heavily travelled span.

"The Trans-Canada Highway should be expanded to six lanes plus two high-occupancy-vehicle lanes and we need to twin the Port Mann," then NDP highways minister Art Charbonneau declared during debate in the legislature in 1993. He estimated the project would cost "in the range of half a billion dollars."

Three years later, his cabinet colleague Glen Clark had gotten the ballpark estimate down to "$300 million." For that price, he vowed to "twin or widen" the Port Mann, one of the many promises he made in his successful campaign to replace resigning premier Mike Harcourt in the party leadership.

Clark noted that the government was already building HOV lanes on the western approach to the bridge, which to his way of thinking made marginal sense without widening the crossing as well. "The government will deliver," he told reporters. "It's just a question of when."

The highways ministry's own analysis bore out his concern. Traffic loads on the Port Mann were increasing at several times the rate of other crossings. The bridge was classified as "congested" for 15 hours a day.

But after Clark was ensconced in the premier's office following the 1996 election, a budget squeeze forced him to scale back his ambitions, including those for the Port Mann.

Finally, in early 1999, he announced a much-reduced plan. Gone was the big-ticket twinning and/or widening. In its place, a more modest Port Mann Improvement Project, priced at $74 million.

The Cape Horn interchange on the western side of the bridge would be upgraded, with improved ramps and better lane dividers. The bridge itself would be widened to add a single HOV lane heading out of the city. Plus the span would undergo a seismic retrofit.

"When finished the bridge will be able to withstand an earthquake registering seven on the Richter scale," said the release from the highways ministry. "The added strength will be achieved by reinforcing some of the steel members on the arches, replacing some bearings on the approaches, strengthening some concrete columns, beams and footings, and densifying the soils at the base of the bridge that are now prone to liquefaction."

News reports of the day had Clark smiling, which must have taken some effort. The announcement came just days after the police raid on his home in March of that year.

Mere "electioneering," said the Opposition B.C. Liberals. But it didn't help Clark, who resigned as premier later that year, or the New Democrats, who went on to lose the election.

Still, the work on the Port Mann went ahead. By the time the Liberals took office in the spring of 2001, most of it was well underway.

They slammed the brakes on the rest, cancelling the remaining seismic work on grounds of questionable merit and capping spending at $61 million.

Still, the finished product was nothing to be ashamed of. Indeed, the ministry won accolades for managing the delicate task of widening the bridge without seriously disrupting a traffic flow of 120,000 vehicles a day.

The consulting engineers of B.C. gave the Port Mann Improvement Project their award of excellence. The institute of transportation engineers named project manager Brian Stone "transportation professional of the year" for 2001.

There things stood until the Liberals reactivated the idea of twinning the span, turning it into a full-blown campaign promise before the 2005 election. But where the New Democrats had toyed with, then rejected, the idea of tolling, that became a mainstay of the Liberals' scheme to pay for the entire project.

They first determined what the public would stand in terms of a toll, via a far from scientific survey of public opinion as noted here Saturday. Then they called for tenders based on the projected flow of revenues from a starting toll of $3, escalating by 2.5 per cent annually over a 35-year operating agreement.

Prospective bidders were in effect invited to say what they were prepared to build based on an initial cash flow of $144 million a year, increasing with traffic and inflation by a factor of three or four to the end of the agreement.

The winning bidder weighed in with the proposal to build an all-new 10-lane span by 2013, then remove the old one. More expensive up front, but cheaper to maintain over the life of the operating agreement.

Still, it means that the renovated bridge will be scrapped less than a dozen years after the province spent $61 million on widening, earthquake-proofing and other improvements. "Sunk costs," the B.C. Liberals say by way of justification

Some of the intersection improvements will be retained. The rest will be absorbed in the estimated $3.3-billion cost of the entire project, and covered by the folks who pay the tolls.

[Spork]

I am assuming that that article was to harp on the Liberals for planning to demolish the bridge 12 years after it was upgraded. If so, that says absolutely nothing. Did we gain some benefit from the bridge being upgraded? Yes - 12 years of it. Do we expect those benefits to last forever? No. Things eventually need to be demolished or re-done to provide access for thousands of more people per day.

Further, this is the very definition of the sunk cost. The fact is that the money was already spent, and there is absolutely NO logical or financial reason to NOT look towards the future and build a whole new "superbridge". If anything, the previous government was incorrect to provide insufficient upgrades to the bridge in the first place. However, perhaps they did not know about the future traffic demands.

Finally, it has already been proven that creating a new "superbridge" will be more financially effective than simply twinning the current bridge and having to pay escalating operating and maintenance costs on it. Do you want your taxes raised by more than they need to in order to maintain an NDP legacy project, Ravman? I didn't think so.

Also, try posting an opinion based upon facts for once rather than simply hammering an opinion article up there and forcing us to imply your opinion, for I am certain that you will come back on me for "misinterpreting" your intent.

[ravman]

I am assuming that that article was to harp on the Liberals for planning to demolish the bridge 12 years after it was upgraded. If so, that says absolutely nothing. Did we gain some benefit from the bridge being upgraded? Yes - 12 years of it. Do we expect those benefits to last forever? No. Things eventually need to be demolished or re-done to provide access for thousands of more people per day.

Further, this is the very definition of the sunk cost. The fact is that the money was already spent, and there is absolutely NO logical or financial reason to NOT look towards the future and build a whole new "superbridge". If anything, the previous government was incorrect to provide insufficient upgrades to the bridge in the first place. However, perhaps they did not know about the future traffic demands.

Finally, it has already been proven that creating a new "superbridge" will be more financially effective than simply twinning the current bridge and having to pay escalating operating and maintenance costs on it. Do you want your taxes raised by more than they need to in order to maintain an NDP legacy project, Ravman? I didn't think so.

Also, try posting an opinion based upon facts for once rather than simply hammering an opinion article up there and forcing us to imply your opinion, for I am certain that you will come back on me for "misinterpreting" your intent.

i am posting a news article from the Vancouver Sun... since i cant post NDP press releases... i figure i will post news article about the topic at hand since everyone else posts news articles

[Smooth]

I don't interpret the article as being pro-NDP. If anything it could cast a negative light on the band-aid decision to only expand the bridge to 5 lanes when there was already a need for a new structure.

It's interesting in this case that it's the NDP being accused of penny-pinching. Seems to me that any decisions regarding the Port Mann Bridge are "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

[Stingray2004]

Vaughn Palmer
Vancouver Sun

Thursday, February 12, 2009

"The Trans-Canada Highway should be expanded to six lanes plus two high-occupancy-vehicle lanes and we need to twin the Port Mann," then NDP highways minister Art Charbonneau declared during debate in the legislature in 1993.

And it's over 15 years later, we finally get on with it, and we will finally get it done right when the PMB opens 20 years later.

Many things certainly do get completed at a snail's pace in Metro Vancouver.

[GeeCee]

Seems to me that any decisions regarding the Port Mann Bridge are "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

Doesn't matter what it is.. some people can't help but whine and complain about everything that goes on if it takes a single penny of taxpayer dollars. Any big project we undertake around here is met with resistance.. "We don't need this, put it towards the homeless / healthcare!" :P

[geoff's two cents]

:previous: Yes, democracy can be time consuming.

[Kodii]

Although it might not even apply to this project, does anyone know what those giant wooden beams sticking out of the ground periodically along the freeway starting in Langley going west? The only thing I could think of was some sort of base support for an advertisement, but that just doesn't make sense to me.

[03SVTcobra]

I don't like how they divided each direction into 3 / 2 lanes. IF the cars from the regular lanes had to get around something or had to move into the other 2 lanes for whatever reason, they should be able too. There should only be 1 divider separating different directions

[Smooth]

Although it might not even apply to this project, does anyone know what those giant wooden beams sticking out of the ground periodically along the freeway starting in Langley going west? The only thing I could think of was some sort of base support for an advertisement, but that just doesn't make sense to me.

Sounds like the posts for the "your tax dollars at work" signs. A couple just went up on either end of the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge stating that the bridge is being repainted at a cost of over $1 million. There's also some posts near the Willingdon overpass that have yet to get signs.

[David]

last time I drove down the freeway (Saturday night) the poles were covered by your typical Gateway program signs. They said things like "CAPE HORN INTERCHANGE: IMPROVING SAFETY & ACCESS" etc.

[DKaz]

I don't like how they divided each direction into 3 / 2 lanes. IF the cars from the regular lanes had to get around something or had to move into the other 2 lanes for whatever reason, they should be able too. There should only be 1 divider separating different directions

This has been discussed before if you read previous posts in this thread. The C/D system proposed is a good idea. If you have 5 lanes of traffic and say a semi coming in from Kamloops to the Port of Vancouver, that truck is going to stay in the 3rd lane which is frankly quite dangerous. By keeping that semi on the right lane of the express lanes, you improve safety by not having cars passing that semi on the right.

[twoNeurons]

This has been discussed before if you read previous posts in this thread. The C/D system proposed is a good idea. If you have 5 lanes of traffic and say a semi coming in from Kamloops to the Port of Vancouver, that truck is going to stay in the 3rd lane which is frankly quite dangerous. By keeping that semi on the right lane of the express lanes, you improve safety by not having cars passing that semi on the right.

If I understand it correctly, the lanes will be as follows:

(updated)

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



HPV will be for Passing trucks and other slow-moving HOVs... not "High Priority Vehicles"

If that's the case, the barrier will stop "sov" cheats.

[TLSE-VAN]

No, there will be 3 express lanes (from the rendering that is) one with HOV, then there are 2 c/d lanes. After a certain point all traffic entering the freeway enter into the c/d system (collector) and from there enter lanes that take them to their destination (distributor).

If you look at google maps of HWY 401 in Toronto, that to me is the best example... of course I have no idea if thats what the gateway programe is planning on doing in vancouver.... :)

[officedweller]

Yeah, the renderings show each direction to have 3 express lanes in the middle (the median lane of which is an HOV lane) and 2 collector/distributor lanes on the outside.

[twoNeurons]

Yeah, the renderings show each direction to have 3 express lanes in the middle (the median lane of which is an HOV lane) and 2 collector/distributor lanes on the outside.

I wonder where they'll put the express lanes entry. It makes sense (to me) for the people coming off of 152nd to only be able to access the express after the Cape Horn Interchange, taking most of the Surrey - Coquitlam traffic off the express lanes.

[Stingray2004]

If you look at google maps of HWY 401 in Toronto, that to me is the best example... of course I have no idea if thats what the gateway programe is planning on doing in vancouver.... :)

Yeah an express/collector set-up is also planned from the Grandview Hwy interchange eastward to the Douglas Road overpass. 3 + 2 in each direction similar to the new PMB set-up.

Also, the redesign of the new Hwy 1 overpasses as far east as Cariboo Road appears to allow for a much wider clearance. Looks like they have a future express/collector set-up in mind up to that point. Express/collector set-ups are useful when interchanges are spaced in relative close proximity.

BTW, the widest cross-section of Hwy 1 appears to be underneath the future Gilmore Road over pass - 1 HOV + 3 + 3 in each direction or 14 lanes in total.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/PMH1/docs/reports/reference_concepts/PMH1_3_Grandview_Hwy_Willingdon_Avenue_Reference_Concept.pdf

[SpongeG]

Although it might not even apply to this project, does anyone know what those giant wooden beams sticking out of the ground periodically along the freeway starting in Langley going west? The only thing I could think of was some sort of base support for an advertisement, but that just doesn't make sense to me.

sign posts

the last week or so they have finally started putting the signs on them

[officedweller]

I wonder where they'll put the express lanes entry. It makes sense (to me) for the people coming off of 152nd to only be able to access the express after the Cape Horn Interchange, taking most of the Surrey - Coquitlam traffic off the express lanes.

The renders issued by the Ministry may show otherwise. In the one below, you can see a ramp to the express lanes, with an obvious 152nd on ramp to the collectors downstream of that ramp - the ramp to the express could be a direct 152nd to express ramp - like what's proposed at Grandview - that would make sense, because who would need to move from the collectors to the express at that location? - the single highway would only have divided into express and collectors a short time before (unless the express/collectors configuration starts much further east). That would also give Surrey commuters an option if the collectors are jammed with an accident (though it's not clear where they would exit west of the bridge)

Here's the render from the Vancouver Sun Gallery:
http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.vancouversun.com/gallery+port+mann+bridge+widening+announced/1253899/1253928.bin?size=620x400

[TLSE-VAN]

Yeah, which means that there is either collector lanes that terminate right there, just past 152nd or one lane of collector curves and connects with the on ramps from 152nd... which would mean a c/d system starting from maybe 160th street?!

[TLSE-VAN]

So that would be 2 lanes in all coming in from 152nd... and the other 2 lanes in that picture would be on ramps from the express lanes, servicing coquitlam? tough to tell I guess, cause the on ramp to the expressway in that picture would have to loop east first then over the collector lanes, then under 152nd to connect to the express.... in that view lol

[officedweller]

Here's the draft configuration for the 152nd interchange from 2007 before the mega-bridge was proposed. It looks like the overpass is only one-way (I think there's an alternate overpass being built to exit the Bridgeview(?) community north of the highway), so there isn't a problem having ramps to both the express and the collector - which I've indicated in red.
Don't know what would happen for the exit ramps at 152nd - either everything merges or they are also separate.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/3046/85703256.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/85703256.jpg/1/w853.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img179/85703256.jpg/1/)

[Mininari]

I imagine someone who wants to get on at 152nd will have to travel in the outer lanes across the bridge, and then those lanes will split: exit freeway to capehorn, or merge into express lanes. Keep in mind there will also be merging traffic from the Mary hill at that same point though...

I would hope that they can let 152nd to (wherever) traffic get in a bit sooner than that, or it might be a new trouble spot. A lot of vehicles get on at 152nd, and I imagine most of them go farther than Cape Horn.