HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #9321  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2012, 12:38 AM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by st7860 View Post
see all the people in the comments section whining about tolls - lol
http://www.vancouversun.com/technolo...127/story.html
From the article:
Quote:
However, traffic modelling completed during the environmental assessment process for the new Port Mann suggested long-term traffic on the Pattullo will increase by only one per cent more than what it would be if there was no Port Mann project, the Ministry of Transportation said in a statement.
Was this the same software they used for the Golden Ears Bridge? The only way Patullo traffic will rise by only 1% is if the bridge is already at 99% capacity. And at that point the number of vehicles per hour becomes meaningless as a measure of demand and you have to turn instead to the length of the lineups.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9322  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 3:46 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
formerly tin²ium
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
From the article:


Was this the same software they used for the Golden Ears Bridge?
That's a non sequitur comment.

Quote:
The only way Patullo traffic will rise by only 1% is if the bridge is already at 99% capacity. And at that point the number of vehicles per hour becomes meaningless as a measure of demand and you have to turn instead to the length of the lineups.
You state that as fact. However, in reality, we don't know how the Patullo will be affected. We can only guess. The good news is that traffic on that bridge will only increase to a point where people weigh the cost of the alternative.

I suspect Patullo will get more people from within Surrey, but very few will exit the highway to take it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9323  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 4:11 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by twoNeurons View Post
That's a non sequitur comment.
Perhaps you missed my point - traffic modelling was a critical part of the decision to build the Golden Ears bridge, and so far the actual traffic levels are significantly different than the model's predictions. That was also a bridge which introduced tolls, so clearly there was something about the model that didn't reflect the actual situation.

That being the case, it seems foolish to place a lot of credence on this new prediction, particularly since it again tries to model the impact of tolls on drivers.

Quote:
You state that as fact. However, in reality, we don't know how the Patullo will be affected. We can only guess.
Yes, exactly right. And IMHO most people would guess that a 1% rise in Patullo traffic is way too low.

The big question is: how much time (waiting in line for the bridge) are people willing to loose in order to save a few bucks a day. During peak times there are ALREADY lineups leading to the Patullo, so it's really a question of how much longer the lineups are going to get. If you include all traffic over 24 hours I'd be very, very surprised if the number doesn't rise substantially above 1%.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9324  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 4:33 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 8,670
There is a saying in GIS, and that is all models / predictions are wrong, but some are useful.

People who do not understand modeling, from traffic flows to climatic predictions, tend to take them at face value, but the truth is that essentially 0% are 100% accurate.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my video production website at: http://www.hailstorm-media.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9325  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 4:46 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
formerly tin²ium
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Perhaps you missed my point - traffic modelling was a critical part of the decision to build the Golden Ears bridge, and so far the actual traffic levels are significantly different than the model's predictions. That was also a bridge which introduced tolls, so clearly there was something about the model that didn't reflect the actual situation.

That being the case, it seems foolish to place a lot of credence on this new prediction, particularly since it again tries to model the impact of tolls on drivers.
Oh, I agree that the traffic modelling for the Golden Ears didn't turn out like they planned, however, I was just saying that the studies for the Patullo aren't necessarily related.

Quote:
Yes, exactly right. And IMHO most people would guess that a 1% rise in Patullo traffic is way too low.

The big question is: how much time (waiting in line for the bridge) are people willing to loose in order to save a few bucks a day. During peak times there are ALREADY lineups leading to the Patullo, so it's really a question of how much longer the lineups are going to get. If you include all traffic over 24 hours I'd be very, very surprised if the number doesn't rise substantially above 1%.
Completely agreed. I actually DO think it's likely that the Patullo will have a considerable increase. However, I think that most of the gains (percentage-wise) will come off-peak. Overall, I have no idea... but I just can't see people taking that route during the rush unless they're either really frugal or have time to burn. I'm not sure how much traffic is during the rush and how much is off-peak, so I don't know what that means for overall gain.

As for me, I do mostly evening trips south of Fraser, so unless the toll is reduced off-peak I'll likely be switching to the Alex Fraser, as most of my trips South of Fraser are along the 64th Ave corridor east of 168th.

Off-peak, it's a few km longer, and a few minutes.

I really think they are wasting an opportunity if they don't introduce peak-price tolling. It's a good faith opportunity to win people SOF over. It would cost little to implement as the bulk of traffic is crossing during the rush and it would make a lot of people happy as they would feel like they're getting a sale! It would also potentially make the bridge more efficiently utilized as certain people doing certain errands will wait for off-peak before taking the Port Mann.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9326  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 9:10 PM
st7860 st7860 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 205
http://publicola.com/2010/04/26/why-...has-ours-beat/
Zach Shaner, a Vancouver-based transit writer, has a great (and damning) critique of Seattle’s transit system today over at his blog.

Predictably, Seattle’s transit service doesn’t fare well when compared to Vancouver’s; surprisingly, it’s not because ours offers less service overall (Seattle-area transit agencies provide 5.68 million service hours a year, only slightly behind Vancouver’s 6.18 million), but because of the way those service hours are allocated.

Not to get all Hugeasscity on you, but I’m going to have to get into the weeds for a minute. Warning: Graphs ahead.
First of all, Shaner notes that while Seattle has nearly twice as many bus routes as Vancouver (395, compared to Vancouver’s 215), an astonishing 37 percent of those routes operate only during commuter hours—i.e., they don’t run during midday at all. Compare that to just 13 percent of Vancouver routes that don’t offer midday service. “While Seattle offers the commuter market a wealth of one-seat rides to the downtown core, it does so at the explicit expense of the system’s intuitiveness and its ability to compete with the spontaneity of the car,” Shaner writes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9327  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2012, 5:40 AM
McPaul McPaul is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Westminster
Posts: 360
Today I must have fell asleep because I ended up at waterfront station. Past waterfront actually, at the commuter train platform. It gave me a good chance to get a good look at waterfront, which is curious to me, in that everything is up on columns. Is there a good resource, preferably visual that discusses the history of building that part of the line? Just looks like that whole area is full of stories and since I'm not from Vancouver, I haven't heard them.

Thanks!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9328  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2012, 6:28 PM
st7860 st7860 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 205
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Tran...500/story.html


TransLink Commissioner Martin Crilly has rejected a proposed fare increase of 12.5 per cent for 2013, saying TransLink needs to find new cost savings rather than tapping riders for more money.

Crilly, whose Regional Transportation Commission is the independent regulator of Translink, said TransLink should find $40 to $60 million in cost savings between 2013 and 2015.

And those savings can be found wihout cutting current services or projects, Crilly said.

The call for a 12.5 per cent fare boost came from a 2009 report from Metro Vancouver mayors.

Cash fares may still rise in 2013, as TransLink needs no approval to increase individual fares by two per cent annually.

Single-zone TransLink fares could rise to $2.75 from $2.50 in 2013, while three-zone fares may increase to $5.50 from $5. Single-zone fares were last increased in January 2008.

Crilly’s ruling, however, ensures the cost of FareSaver booklets will not rise in 2013.

“TransLink now seeks fare increases outpacing inflation. The farebox is a crucial and sustainable funding source, and there is much to be said in favour of the userpay principle,” Crilly said in a news release.

“The ruling limits fare increases to two per cent per year and sets targets for costsaving by TransLink — but without trimming or deferring service improvements.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9329  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2012, 6:58 PM
NetMapel's Avatar
NetMapel NetMapel is offline
Hello World
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,263
So the whole one-zone and three-zone increase still may or may not happen, eh ? Hope it all works out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9330  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2012, 7:01 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 26,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by McPaul View Post
Today I must have fell asleep because I ended up at waterfront station. Past waterfront actually, at the commuter train platform. It gave me a good chance to get a good look at waterfront, which is curious to me, in that everything is up on columns. Is there a good resource, preferably visual that discusses the history of building that part of the line? Just looks like that whole area is full of stories and since I'm not from Vancouver, I haven't heard them.

Thanks!!
around 1994 - gives you an idea of the terrain in the area
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9331  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2012, 7:23 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
formerly tin²ium
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,225
I have vivid memories of taking the SkyTrain and then seeing the bright light as it came out of the downtown tunnel past Burrard.

EDIT: Here's a good image circa 1986. You can really see how open it is. Just off to the left of this image you have Canada Place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9332  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2012, 9:31 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 17,774
...and the reason everything is essentially on stilts is because there's a rocky escarpment along the north side of downtown which tapers off east-west towards closer to Gastown and Stanley Park and the "at grade" was built to match the top of the cliff.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9333  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2012, 10:33 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,500
Hastings Street is approximately the top of the ridge that overlooked the harbour when Granville & Hastings was still the residential area of Vancouver.

Here's a photo from the Vancouver Archives showing the first CPR transcontinental train arriving from Montreal in 1887.


[ Vancouver Archives AM54-S4-: LGN 460 ]

It appears that the photographer was on the top edge of the ridge looking east towards Gastown. The the rocky outcropping of the ridge can be seen on the left edge of the photo. I believe the crowds celebrating the arrival of the train are standing on a pier that is in line with Granville Street. This pier continues north to connect to the waterfront docks and wharves that are also built on piers to get to the deeper water of the harbour north of the station.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9334  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2012, 10:56 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
formerly tin²ium
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbertram View Post
Here's a photo from the Vancouver Archives showing the first CPR transcontinental train arriving from Montreal in 1887.


[ Vancouver Archives AM54-S4-: LGN 460 ]
Ah, memories.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9335  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 6:41 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 2,113
http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/04/1...-be-cancelled/

Quote:
Surrey’s long promised King George B-Line, rapid bus service across the new Port Mann, upgrades to Surrey Central SkyTrain station, expanded capacity on Fraser Highway, and a new bus route between White Rock and Langley – all projects that are increasingly likely to be cancelled in the coming weeks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9336  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 8:46 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 17,774
Vancouver City Council motion to ask Translink to buy bi-articulated buses for the 99 B-Line:

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...s/motionb1.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9337  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 9:11 PM
Gordon Gordon is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 688
These buses are 80 feet long and have a capacity up to 200 passengers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9338  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 9:13 PM
s211 s211 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Vancouver City Council motion to ask Translink to buy bi-articulated buses for the 99 B-Line:

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...s/motionb1.pdf
Does that make the city bi-curious?

Sorry, it's Friday afternoon and I'm stuck at my desk.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9339  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 11:04 PM
bardak bardak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Vancouver City Council motion to ask Translink to buy bi-articulated buses for the 99 B-Line:

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...s/motionb1.pdf
I'm probably being paranoid but I hope that they would remove parking along Broadway or build bus bulges if they do get bi-articulated buses so that bus drives don't have to try and force an 80 foot bus in and out of traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9340  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 11:16 PM
Mac Write Mac Write is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 644
If this did pass, how much would it cost and how long would it last before UBC opens up? Then what to do with the buses?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:15 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.