HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2008, 9:48 AM
vanman's Avatar
vanman vanman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 5,222
Quote:
Opponents are up in arms over the potential impact to farmland.
I'd be up in arms over the potential impact to the bog. Fuck Farmland! (or in this case anyway)
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2008, 11:21 PM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,739
I don't think the arguments will go far to be honest on the SFPR. At this point it has to be built, and they've reduced the environmental impact as much as they can reasonably in my opinion, so it's really time to get full approval and start moving I think.
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2008, 11:50 PM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
Now hopefully they move forward with plans for expanding the highway 99 capacity through the tunnel and highway 99 in general. Several of the interchanges need a complete redo
Yeah, the "H99" project is the next major project in the works according to Falcon from a few years ago... so-called "Gateway2".

That would require system-wide improvements, ie. expansion of the Oak St. Bridge for safety improvements and HOV lane/auxilary lanes, rebuild of Cambie Rd. overpass, rebuild of Westminster Hwy interchange, new interchange at Blundell Rd. rebuild of Steveston Hwy interchange, new structure for northbound lanes at Deas Island Tunnel, and further similar improvements southward.

Interestingly enough, both Richmond and Delta would prefer that these improvements be done now.

Then there are the longer-term Serpentine and Southern freeway corridors linking Hwy 1 with Hwy 99.
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2008, 7:42 PM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Interestingly enough, both Richmond and Delta would prefer that these improvements be done now.
I know.

Quote:
Then there are the longer-term Serpentine and Southern freeway corridors linking Hwy 1 with Hwy 99.
SFPR will help in the Hwy 99 to Hwy 1 connection.
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 6:09 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 31,594
hwy #1 started its median diversion this past weekend

for the new underpass

also have noticed for a few weeks now - stakes with orange/pink tape/paint along hwy #1 in burnaby
__________________
belowitall
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted May 14, 2008, 2:50 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 31,594
As long as it runs at grade, says ministry Now Pitt Bridge OK for SkyTrain

The new Pitt River Bridge will accommodate SkyTrain, if that system ever extends east from Coquitlam.

Contrary to what the Ministry of Transportation said a week ago, the new bridge can handle a SkyTrain system.

But TransLink, if it ever decided to stretch its system east, would have a choice to make: get the SkyTrain down to ground level so it could cross the bridge on the deck – or build another bridge if wanted to keep the line elevated.

“If they [TransLink] wanted to use the bridge, they certainly can. You can run ALRT [SkyTrain] across it, but it must be brought down to grade first,” Tamara Little of the transportation ministry said Thursday.

The provincial government announced in January that Coquitlam’s new Evergreen rapid transit system would use SkyTrain technology, after years of TransLink promoting the cheaper, slower light rail transit.

The long-delayed Evergreen system is expected to be built by 2014 and will carry people from Coquitlam through Port Moody to Lougheed Centre in Burnaby.

Little said the Pitt bridge has always been designed to accommodate SkyTrain, also known as automated light rapid transit.

And because the load and weight restrictions for light rail transit are lower, it could easily handle a LRT system, too.

Nevertheless, any talk of a SkyTrain system for Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge is decades away because of the lack of population density.

The Ministry of Transportation agreed to design the Pitt River Bridge to accommodate light rail after lobbying by local mayors during the design phase.

But no announcement was ever made that the bridge could handle SkyTrain.

“It has always been that the design will accommodate ALRT,” Little said.

“That was always the design. The design has always anticipated ALRT.”

The bridge is expected to open in 2009, a few months after the Golden Ears Bridge across the Fraser River opens.

That bridge won’t be able to accept rapid transit of any kind.

Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon said earlier this year that ballooning costs for an LRT Evergreen Line, estimated at $1.2 billion, made SkyTrain, estimated at $1.4 billion, the better choice because it would attract more than twice as many riders and be twice as fast.

He estimated it would take 12.6 minutes to get from Coquitlam to Burnaby with a SkyTrain-like system, which would be separated from road traffic, compared to 23.6 minutes on light rail, which would run at street level, next to traffic.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/18496424.html
__________________
belowitall
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted May 14, 2008, 3:49 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,805
^ I would think that making SkyTrain reach at-grade would be cheaper than building a new bridge. With that said, such an extension is decades away....and by then, anything could happen.....we might even need a new Pitt River Bridge!
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted May 14, 2008, 2:13 PM
The_Henry_Man The_Henry_Man is offline
HA
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: St. Cloud, MN/Richmond, BC
Posts: 866
^I think the best way is to dramatically expand/revamp WCE after the current contract with CPR ends in 2015.
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted May 14, 2008, 9:03 PM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,147
Speaking of the new Pitt River Bridge, the piers are starting to take shape:

     
     
  #110  
Old Posted May 14, 2008, 11:56 PM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,739
I don't see how at grade Skytrain would be an issue. People seem to always be confused due to the term "Skytrain". It is just ALRT that happens to be elevated the majority of the time. It just runs on tracks which don't care if they are on the ground or on guideways.

Just look at the Canada Line. Many parts near the Airport are pretty much at-grade. And all the tunnels, that would technically be UNDERgrade. Not to mention on the Expo Line there are times when you drop down around Nanaimo and are at the same height as the road beside or under it.

So basically the answer is, yes the new Pitt River bridge can support Skytrain if required.

I say good. Mainly because it shows me that maybe the government is finally realizing that we have to design and build new instrustructure with the future in mind. Building the twin Port Mann bridge such that it can support ALRT and express busses is an example of that idea of planning for the future today not just meeting today's minimums.
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted May 17, 2008, 6:11 AM
Dave2 Dave2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 438
The approaches to the Pitt River Bridge are "middle of nowhere" enough that it should be no problem to run Skytrain at grade, as it does east of Nanaimo.
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 1:17 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,715
Burnaby residents, tomorrow (and over the next few days) in your local paper: you'll see a four page special about "Gateway to Gridlock" and how Derek Corrigan wants to stop the Gateway Program. This will be funded by your local taxpayer dollars. I think the number is about $10 000 - $15 000. =)

Many councilors are outraged over this. Very much so. Derek Corrigan always has odds with Kevin Falcon and on the Global news report, he said kevin falcon is a bully. He proposes to simply toll the bridge with no improvements and have more rapid transit. He also said BC Liberals is hypocritcal with the carbon tax initiative and now the Gateway. Funny, I was just laughing the entire time 'cuz he was against rapid transit development, such as the Canada Line.

This is so funny.
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 3:02 AM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,739
That's amazing coming from a guy completely against the Canada Line which oh wait... is transit and needed for Richmond and the Airport which employs thousands of people in the region. I'd bet a lot of money had there been no Gateway and the Liberals announced a $25 billion expansion of transit in the Fraser Valley, Coquitlam, and North Shore, Corrigan would want to stop it. He's so transparent.

I really hope Burnaby wakes up this election and votes Corrigan out. That is if they care at all for the entire region and not simply Burnaby. He can't stop Gateway anyway. His regional power is minimal now.
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 4:11 AM
Bert Bert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 411
Guys, like most of you, I'm no Corrigan fan. He is essentially anti-everything.

That said, think about the hundreds of thousands of dollars in bogus studies BC taxpayers have had to pay out to support Gateway - this is nothing in comparison.

So, I fully support Corrigan on this initiative. Even $15,000 is pocket change, and well worth it just to hear a different perspective than the pure propaganda we're subject to from the Liberals; especially, Falcon's Ministry of Transportation. At least Burnaby's studies ask some critical questions that the Ministry of Transportation (MoT) and Falcon can only avoid or resort to outright lying to answer. A couple of the big ones are: why have they not looked at any reasonable alternatives (MoT answered by avoiding the question), and why have they modelled traffic growth based on a price of gas of $0.80/L (MoT answered by lying that car efficiency has improved so much in the past 4 years that car operating costs are the same today, so the gas price rise has no effect on road demand).

In my mind, the biggest reason Greater Vancouver has developed as densely as it has (which really isn't all that dense, but is good in the Canada/US context) is the congestion, which is a real cost of driving (in time as well as fuel). See other dense places around the world with high real costs of driving, like Asia (where until fairly recently, many people couldn't afford cars) and Europe (where gas and other taxes keep the real cost of driving high). Compare that to places with cheap oil, and huge freeway infrastructure, like Houston or LA.

In the absence of high quality LRT or BRT with queue jumpers and system-wide tolling being implemented WELL BEFORE anything like the Port Mann Highway 1 project (not to mention the rest of Gateway) is built, we're going to lose a lot of the momentum toward density. Demand for sprawling development in Surrey, Langley, and beyond will absolutely skyrocket, to the detriment of high density development, once congestion temporarily disappears. This is a skyscraper forum... do you all really want that to happen? Have we forgotten about the opposition to freeways in Vancouver's past and the effect that's had on our urban development patterns?

Anyway, I read the "Gateway to Gridlock" special in the paper. It's targeted for a much less sophisticated audience than we have here. I highly recommend Burnaby's emailed report to the Environmental Assessment Office for anyone who is open to reading about many of the critical flaws in Gateway. Here is the MoT's response too, if you'd like to see what I was talking about the way they answer questions. If we're talking about wasted taxpayer money, it's not Burnaby who's wasting it.
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 4:15 AM
WBC WBC is offline
Transit User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Metrotown/Downtown
Posts: 707
So when is the gateway construction starting?
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 4:17 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,715
I just mind the fact that he is using taxpayer dollars to fund for something like this. Honestly, even today, I'm still not a fan of the project.
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 4:20 AM
Bert Bert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
I just mind the fact that he is using taxpayer dollars to fund for something like this. Honestly, even today, I'm still not a fan of the project.
That's fine. But you don't mind the unethical tactics and taxpayer dollars the Liberals have used to support Gateway?
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 5:24 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert View Post
That's fine. But you don't mind the unethical tactics and taxpayer dollars the Liberals have used to support Gateway?
Okay maybe I should be more specific now: I don't agree with the Port Mann but expansion of HOV Hwy 1 I don't mind: especially the HOV part leading up to the Port Mann Bridge. The NFPR and SFPR are really needed so I agree with that too.

I want to see the cabinet shuffle kick out falcon!
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 8:08 AM
urbanizer405 urbanizer405 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: YVR-SEA-PDX
Posts: 47
Maybe they should convert the HOV lanes into HOT lanes; probably would still add to sprawl but maybe have better effects?

The only thing I disagree with is the massive Cape Horn interchange. That motherf***er is scary! Isn't there an easier way to streamline and make the new interchange less complicated but still efficient?
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 8:18 AM
Punkster Punkster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 27
I think it's scary they will have the NFPR, expanded hwy 1, AND Lougheed Highway all carrying massive amounts of traffic parallel to each other. YUCK.

They need an LRT from PoCo to Coq Stn, following Lougheed highway across a twinned Port Mann to Guilford, have it swing to King George hwy down to 72nd and then down 72nd to Scott Rd and create a new Town Centre there.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:41 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.