HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2009, 7:41 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
PS - I feel that Vancouver's current policy of adding no more lanes entering the city is retarded at best.
Or a brillant policy that will rival not allowing a freeway thru downtown when we look back in 30years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2009, 7:46 PM
DKaz DKaz is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna BC & Edmonton AB
Posts: 4,261
And of course not building transit using the money that would've been spent on the freeways otherwise. No transit, no freeways, just pure transportation chaos.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2009, 7:52 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,829
No a stupid one, because it is eventually going to choke off downtown, what happens if 40 years from now metro Vancouver is nearing 5 million or more? We are still going to have the same roads and bridges connecting downtown? Also by then all those bridges we have (knight street bridge, 99, etc... will be at the end of their life span, then what? We are not going to replace them? And what about the Lions Gate, what happens when it closes? No replacement, and if they do build a replacement are they going to build another ridiculous 3 lane structure so they don't upset the policy? I just feel they did not fully think this one through. Living in a growing area riddled with inlets and rivers it is necessary to build new bridges. In 40 years if Vancouver has not added a single lane going downtown then i can see the business centre shifting from Vancouver to maybe Burnaby or Surrey.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2009, 7:52 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
I think your Willington Bridge is a good idea. It is amazing the Burnaby currently has zero bridges crossing the river. The city of Burnaby seems to be relying on New West and Vancouver for crossings.

Also, as for a third crossing of Burrard Inlet, how about placing the bridge on the north side of SFU (going from Barnet to Deep Cove)?

And yes, i also agree that the Lions gate should become a pedestrian and cyclists bridge (maybe we could even have annual festivals on the bridge!) while being replaced with a six lane tunnel.

PS - I feel that Vancouver's current policy of adding no more lanes entering the city is retarded at best.
i know right - its like the stupidest thing ever that burnaby has no bridges and forces its traffic on other municipalities - i always thought a boundary road bridge to richmond was needed - people from richmond could get to north van via it much quicker
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2009, 9:01 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Why would it choke off downtown? As long as we don't remove capacity Vancouver will still be accessible by at least as many people as it is now. With the opening of the RAV line and then the Evergreen line the amount of people that can access Vancouver will have gone up substainally.
Not to mention that by increasing density across the city there are more and more people that can live closer to work negating the need to cross bridges in there commute.
Whenever Metro Vancouver gets to 5 Million most of us will be dead, those that aren't will see the regional town centres vastly expanded and having taking alot of the needed growth from the downtown penisula again negating the need for an increase in capacity.
The City's last bridge was built over 20years now, and looking at the stats into downtown, traffic has been reduced in the last decade, and thats w/o any new bridges.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-road, and I'm a supporter of Gateway and the associated projects, but Vancouver isn't lacking in it's connectivity. The suburbs need to be better connected amongst each other.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2009, 10:44 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,139
yes its the suburbs that need more connecting

Vancouver as is is pretty good and I think its done really well without a freeway

I could envision a freeway from 99 linking with #1 via burnaby so north shore could get to the airport quickly and vice versa

as well as skiers driving up from the US border could by pass the slow and get to whistler etc and not get lost or stuck in commuter traffic
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2009, 11:07 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hong Kongese View Post


from flickr.
Another awsome Jerm Inc print. I dont know how he does it, these things are everywhere.



I'd say a bridge from Boundary would work a lot better. The road is already an artery all the way to marine (willingdon turns into a 2 lane road after Imperial) and you could hook it up the 91 just as it begins its turn south, saving a good chunk of new freeway.

A boundary road would also have no current evictions, its a pretty sweet alignment, and you could probably work in an overpass of marine way to speed up traffic going east west too.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2009, 11:13 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,139
doesn't willingdon end near metrotown? like at a graveyard? and than houses are all down that slope

you would have to buy a lot of property to get a road to the river
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2009, 11:13 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
Why would it choke off downtown? As long as we don't remove capacity Vancouver will still be accessible by at least as many people as it is now. With the opening of the RAV line and then the Evergreen line the amount of people that can access Vancouver will have gone up substainally.
Not to mention that by increasing density across the city there are more and more people that can live closer to work negating the need to cross bridges in there commute.
Whenever Metro Vancouver gets to 5 Million most of us will be dead, those that aren't will see the regional town centres vastly expanded and having taking alot of the needed growth from the downtown penisula again negating the need for an increase in capacity.
The City's last bridge was built over 20years now, and looking at the stats into downtown, traffic has been reduced in the last decade, and thats w/o any new bridges.
I wholeheartedly agree. No one said anything about not allowing increased capacity. It was about increasing ROADS, or vehicular capacity. When Cities like Tokyo or Osaka or New York want to increase capacity, they think in terms of people. x number of people want to get from point a to point b... hmmm... lets build a new subway line there... or let's build a monorail! or... let's build a new ferry! or... let's add more trains!!!

In younger cities, they tend to lose that focus, and think... hmm... x number of "cars" needs to get from here to there. We need more roads.

By banning any increase in vehicular capacity, they are doing what more mature cities already do... thinking in terms of people, and not limiting themselves to one mode of tranport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2009, 11:23 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
doesn't willingdon end near metrotown? like at a graveyard? and than houses are all down that slope

you would have to buy a lot of property to get a road to the river
Yup it does. If you take a look at my pics for a south Burnaby one way system you can see how good the alignment would actually be.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2009, 11:37 PM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
Expected commuter crush on SkyTrain didn't happen


By Gerry Bellett, Vancouver Sun
January 20, 2009 3:01 PM

METRO VANCOUVER - Where did they all go?

That was a question Ken Hardie, TransLink's chief spokesman asked himself at 9 a.m. today when he boarded the SkyTrain at Surrey's Scott Road station.

"I took my own advice and decided to delay coming into work and I was amazed to find there were only six people in the car," said Hardie who had asked commuters to change their travelling times if possible and avoid overloading transit services during peak hours.

He had been expecting a crush as commuters - unable to use the Pattullo Bridge following a weekend fire damaged part of its wooden structure - flocked to SkyTrain.

But for some reason that didn't materialize, he said.

He said ridership was slightly heavier today than normal but was handled without any problems.

Meanwhile, commuters crossing the Fraser River Tuesday morning faced long delays as the Pattullo Bridge remains closed.

The Port Mann Bridge was backed up to 200th St. in Langley at 7:30 a.m. because of the extra traffic load.

There were also long delays on the Alex Fraser Bridge and George Massey Tunnel because of the fire that forced the closure of the Pattullo Bridge on Sunday.

There is a meeting today involving TransLink officials, the City of Surrey and provincial highways staff in which plans will be made to deal with the traffic overload caused by shutting the bridge which handles 80,000 vehicle trips a day - 20 per cent of the traffic passing over the Fraser River in Metro Vancouver.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun





Commuters forced to deal with long bridge, tunnel delays


By Kelly Sinoski, Catherine Rolfsen and Gordon Hamilton,
Vancouver Sun
January 20, 2009 3:00 PM

METRO VANCOUVER — Commuters crossing the Fraser River Tuesday morning faced long delays as the Pattullo Bridge remains closed.

The Port Mann Bridge was backed up to 200th St. in Langley at 7:30 a.m. because of the extra traffic load.


There were also long delays on the Alex Fraser Bridge and George Massey Tunnel because of the fire that forced the closure of the Pattullo Bridge on Sunday.

TransLink says the commute was even worse than on Monday because traffic is generally heavier on Tuesday.


TransLink has added extra SkyTrain cars and Coast Mountain buses and will open the George Massey Tunnel counterflow lane 45 minutes earlier than usual to keep traffic flowing.

Ken Hardie, TransLink's chief spokesman, said SkyTrain ridership was slightly heavier Tuesday than normal but was handled without any problems.

TransLink CEO Tom Prendergast said even though public transit is running at near capacity now, TransLink may consider fare discounts to get people using buses or SkyTrain and keep cars from choking the tunnel and clogging the Alex Fraser and Port Mann bridges.

Early Monday morning, tunnel traffic was backed up along the King George Highway into south Surrey, while buses on 108th Avenue in Surrey had to be rerouted before they reached Highway 1 because they couldn’t get through, TransLink spokesman Ken Hardie said.

The evening rush also saw long lines snaking into Guildford and along the Alex Fraser and the tunnel. A bicycle ban on SkyTrain remains in effect because of the overcrowding, and police have warned they will be enforcing rules governing HOV-lane use.

“The traffic tie-ups were rather substantial,” Prendergast said, adding that despite extra transit services, people chose to drive to work earlier or later than usual.

“We’re really trying to promote carpooling,” he said. “We need to minimize the number of cars traversing the Fraser River.”

The Pattullo Bridge had to be closed Sunday after a suspicious fire engulfed an 18-metre section of wooden trestle at its south end. The bridge’s 80,000 daily commuters have been diverted to the Port Mann and Alex Fraser bridges, the tunnel and onto public transit.

TransLink says the fire may have been started by homeless people, who were huddled under the trestle and lit a candle to keep warm. The area was blocked by a chainlink fence, but Hardie said “there were signs that people got in.”

Surrey RCMP are still investigating.

The bridge, which connects Surrey and New Westminster, serves about 20 per cent of the commuter traffic across the Fraser River.

It is expected to be closed to all traffic — including pedestrians and cyclists — for at least a month, while TransLink repairs the wooden trestle, at a cost of about $2 million. The money will come out of TransLink’s contingency budget, Prendergast said.

“What we’re really focused on now is getting it done as soon as possible,” he said.

The charred trestle, which contains asbestos and creosote, was demolished Monday. TransLink now plans to scour Metro Vancouver for a prefabricated four-lane chunk of unused bridge that can be cut to size to replace the span.

Prendergast said the bridge repair is complex because the trestle is located on an elevated embankment of soft soil that is sinking. If it can’t find an unused section of bridge, TransLink will have to find the right materials and fabricate them to fit the span. New footings and girdings are also needed.

The trestle, which has been shored up over time to keep it stable, had been slated for replacement within the next five months in a bid to keep the bridge safe and maintained for the next 10 years while a replacement six-lane bridge is built. The design for the new bridge is 85-per-cent complete.

But Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts said the bridge should have already been in place. The situation, she said, underscores the need for more buses, trains and transit in Metro Vancouver’s second-largest city.

The Pattullo, opened in 1937, was the first major commuting route between Surrey and communities to the north and west. Over the years, its narrow lanes and sharply curved approaches have been blamed for numerous head-on collisions.

In 1952, then-provincial highways minister “Flying Phil” Gaglardi said the bridge was almost obsolete. But instead of replacing it, he chose to build the George Massey Tunnel, linking Richmond and Delta.

“It just speaks to the aging infrastructure [in Surrey],” Watts said. “We’ve been asking for the replacement of that bridge for eight to 10 years. This exacerbates the problem which is frustrating commuters already. South of the Fraser infrastructure has been far less than any in the Lower Mainland.”

Watts said depending on the design of the new bridge, both the Pattullo and the new twinned Port Mann Bridge should be dealt with together.

Prendergast said the details are still to be finalized on the location of the new Pattullo, saying only that it will follow the existing corridor. TransLink is calling for tolls on the new bridge, but Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon said that should be a last resort.

Bruce Ralston, New Democrat MLA for Surrey-Whalley, agreed infrastructure in Surrey has lagged in comparison to its rapid growth, whether it be a lack of buses, the long-awaited SkyTrain extension or light rail.

“To be told we have to wait another 10 years for a replacement won’t make a lot of people out here happy,” he said.

Meanwhile, Prendergast said TransLink will look at other bridges and infrastructure in Metro Vancouver to see if they are also in need of repairs or protection.

TransLink owns the wooden Westham Island Bridge leading to the Reifel Bird Sanctuary in Delta, while several rail bridges are also made of wood and coated with creosote to keep them from rotting, Hardie said.

ksinoski@vancouversun.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2009, 11:59 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,829
Quote:
I wholeheartedly agree. No one said anything about not allowing increased capacity. It was about increasing ROADS, or vehicular capacity. When Cities like Tokyo or Osaka or New York want to increase capacity, they think in terms of people. x number of people want to get from point a to point b... hmmm... lets build a new subway line there... or let's build a monorail! or... let's build a new ferry! or... let's add more trains!!!
So strange seeing how Japan has one of the best freeway systems in the world, in fact it seems that ever 50 meters there is a road bridge beside a train bridge crossing the rivers in Tokyo and Osaka, among other places. Again, they created a fantastic train and freeway system, not just one or the other. the same could be said for New York as well. In fact when i was in Osaka last year they were building more freeways!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2009, 12:55 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
i find it funny how transit expects people who have lived in an area lacking on transit service to suddenly change and just jump on it....they have to face the fact they messed up big south of the fraser cause they haven't made transit easy access for us here
surreys core is the only area where it really is easy to access
so people from other parts of surrey and people from langley arent use to using transit all that much so there gonna stick to what they know and thats driving
transit should blame its self for these long waits now cause if they were smarter they wouldnt have been so vancouver oriented with transit and maybe they could have started looking years ago to adding better transit service to south fraser region like they should have and people might have started seeing transit is good when it easy to work with
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2009, 4:29 AM
G-Slice G-Slice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x2 View Post
The Lonsdale Bridge is a terrible idea....it would flood the heart of downtown, where all the pedestrian activity is, with car traffic.....not to mention it goes right through Canada Place. :p As deasine said, simply tunnel underneath the Stanley Park causeway for expanded capacity to the North Shore.
I hate the idea of through traffic clogging up downtown, and if there is to be a third crossing, that is pretty much guaranteed absent some additional infrastructure on the Vancouver side. We can't just plop a tunnel from Lonsdale to Burrard and hope for the best.

I think they need to connect it with some sort of underground "express route" on the Vancouver side, especially if the crossing ends up going straight into the downtown peninsula. How about a bored tunnel from Lower Lonsdale (or nearby) connected directly to the north end of the Cambie Bridge? I'd put the tunnel under Granville, curving so that it ends up under Nelson (Southbound) and Smithe (Northbound). Toll it at $0.50 for the downtown section and $5 for the crossing itself.

Here's a map of the downtown section:



I'm not really qualified to make an estimate, but I'd peg this at $4-5 billion. Not the best use of transport dollars by any stretch, but an interesting thought nonetheless?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2009, 5:10 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
That's just making a freeway system under downtown. No No No No No.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2009, 5:13 AM
G-Slice G-Slice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
That's just making a freeway system under downtown. No No No No No.
Where would you put a third crossing (if anywhere)?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2009, 5:17 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Slice View Post
Where would you put a third crossing (if anywhere)?
You don't have to. The Northshore bridges run quite smoothly in Vancouver compared to the rest of the bridges throughout Metro Vancouver.

Not to mention, you will still be having a traffic back log in the long run even if you build a third crossing. That would be a huge mess in downtown and then we would have to build a fourth link and that huge ugly cycle continues over and over.

I just think we need to upgrade the Lions Gate Bridge... by the means of building a tunnel. Have it six lanes, three per direction, and that's pretty much it. Downtown doesn't need more access. The only access it needs now are better rapid transit connections and routes, and cycling & pedestrian infrastructure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2009, 5:39 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,139
they could do a thired crossing or tunnel from burnaby to deep cove perhaps or belcarra side to deep cove

just keep it a slow moving roadway not meant to be a freeway or fast alternative but at least an option
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2009, 5:39 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,829
I agree a third crossing is not needed (especially to downtown) but that my problem with the "no more lanes to Vancouver policy" has to do with the replacement of the Lions Gate. As i said earlier the Lions Gate itself should be converted into pedestrian and cycling only (maybe streetcar or a short LRT line to connect the North shore with downtown, more specifically West Van since North Van has sea-bus already, if necessary and feasible). As a replacement i think a 6 lane tunnel 3/3 should be built starting from the entrance of Stanley Park to the North Shore. That is where the policy is silly, because doing so would break it (we would have to build a 3 lane tunnel to abide by it, and anything built with odd # of lanes is silly, they would have to add at least 1 to make it an even 4).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2009, 5:43 AM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,096
If you're going to do another whole tunnel I'd think a Clark or a Main to Lonsdale tunnel could work. It would let you avoid having to expand the causeway and the interchange on the north end.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
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 > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:37 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.