Metro Vancouver Road Infrastructure Discussion

[Metro-One]

Well you tunnel before the causeway, the causeway would become pedestrian and possibly LRT.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

"no more lanes to Vancouver policy"

You know if the Provincial Government insisted and rammed their way through, the city really can't do anything to stop them.

[jlousa]

I've love to see the stats of how many people walk across the Lions Gate now, seeing as there's practically nothing on either side of the bridge I can't imagine there's very many people to warrant it being a cycle/ped bridge.
I know the Parks board thinks the bridge will be shut down in just over a decade but personally I don't see anything changing with it.

[nname]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

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

The inlet between Belcarra and Deep Cover is well over 100m deep. I think the only possible choice there is probably a float bridge.

[SpongeG]

they could market it as a tourist attraction

people cross the golden gate on foot like in the hundreds

[Metro-One]

I am sure, especially in the summer, that it would have many cyclists if made into a designated cycling route, which would also include the causeway, and of course have proper integration into the North Shore. As i said before you could even have festivals on it, make it a true tourist destinations.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by nname

The inlet between Belcarra and Deep Cover is well over 100m deep. I think the only possible choice there is probably a float bridge.

yeah something anyway

even if they made that alternate route to whistler that was thought out before they decided to fix the sea to sky might take some pressure off the north shore crossings

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I am sure, especially in the summer, that it would have many cyclists if made into a designated cycling route, which would also include the causeway, and of course have proper integration into the North Shore. As i said before you could even have festivals on it, make it a true tourist destinations.

they could make it end in a trail up to the grouse grind

[Stingray2004]

The reason crossings were built at First Narrows and Second Narrows in the first place was due to the short crossing length (i.e. "narrows"). A third crossing would cross the Burrard Inlet at the other extreme (i.e. "widens").

Prohibitive from a cost point of view and both sides would require highway connections that are non-existent.

I would also like to see a 4/6 lane tunnel under Stanley Park and across to the North Shore... never going to happen... in our lifetimes. Again prohibitively expensive. And the Lions Gate Bridge will still be feeding traffic in 50 years (Forget about the 2030 Parks Board policy of closing it down. Won't happen.)

What will eventually happen is the twinning of the Second Narrows Bridge for through traffic. 3 thru traffic lanes plus 1 or 2 auxiliary lanes for add-on/drop-off traffic at each end of the bridge.

In other words, upgrading the IWMSNB bridge from a sub-standard 70 km/hr crossing into a 90km/hr modern standard with increased capacity.

At the same time, we studied widening the bridge to eight lanes to full modern standards, which almost doubles the width, as the current lanes are substandard, and for adding transit.

http://www.b-t.com/projects/snb.htm

Perhaps another 10 - 20 years down the road.

[G-Slice]

Originally Posted by deasine

You don't have to. The Northshore bridges run quite smoothly in Vancouver compared to the rest of the bridges throughout Metro Vancouver.

On the North Shore side (all elevated):



We could build this in Norgate as an alternative to that noisy polluting bus depot all those nimbies were complaining about.

[mr.x]

IMO, these should be the options for the future North Shore transit/road crossing expansions:

Option 1:
- demolish Lions Gate for new six-lane bridge

Option 2:
- Lions Gate closed off to road traffic, open for pedestrian, cycling, and possibly for transit usage
- six-lane tunnel built under causeway

Option 3 (my personal preference):
- Lions Gate Bridge becomes a three-lane inbound road crossing
- 3-lane tunnel built under causeway for outbound crossing
- optional addition: North Shore SkyTrain extension via under causeway tunnel

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

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!

Ditto for New York. They have always had a balanced approach to transportation and have added lanes into the city aswell as mass transit. These cities prove it doesn't have to be one or another. You can have both.

[deasine]

Option 2 thank you.

[fever]

The intersection at Denman and Georgia is about as much of a bottleneck as the Lions Gate Bridge. On a good day, it might be able to handle one more lane's worth of traffic. Increasing the capacity of the crossing alone won't increase capacity from downtown to the North Shore. Since the intersection and the downtown street system is not going to change, there's no advantage to building a 6 lane bridge over a 4 lane bridge.

There have been proposals for a bridge between the Mountain highway area and Renfrew, where the crossing is bit narrower, and a tunnel from Main. Clark's a good choice too.

I think all of this is unnecessary. What are the benefits? More development around Squamish? More development on the North Shore? Good luck. Whistler? Built out.

I'm with Jlo on the bridge prediction. Leave it like it is. Keep it well maintained and look at it again in 30 years. The bridge is a long, steep climb, and the distances are too great for the average person to bike regularly. It also has a pretty wide sidewalk, and almost nobody walks over it. This isn't the Burrard Bridge.

[Alex Mackinnon]

They wouldn't build it under the lions gate though. If they put it anywhere they'd put it under an area which doesn't end in a bluff like the lumberman's arch.

[worldwide]

what about a bridge from deep cove to belcarra?

[Metro-One]

The Belcara area has very few roads and is actually quite disconnected from Coquitlam and Port Moody. As i said before a connection from the Barnette to Deep Cove or area would be a better placement for regional access.

[fever]

To expand a bit. The North Shore is in a sort of equilibrium right now. It's nice. There are a few problems, but the bridge isn't really one of them. The population is stagnant. Bridge congestion isn't bad, except on sunny weekends in the summer. There's no good reason to change it.

One thing they could do to increase capacity is to extend the queue jumper for North Van buses on the north side towards the merge point. That might give it a two minute advantage over cars.

[Hong Kongese]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Ditto for New York. They have always had a balanced approach to transportation and have added lanes into the city aswell as mass transit. These cities prove it doesn't have to be one or another. You can have both.

Agreed, Hong Kong not only has one of top transit systems in the world, its also building more and more freeways in the city.

[s211]

Originally Posted by deasine

That's just making a freeway system under downtown. No No No No No.

YES YES YES YES YES.
So much of the traffic in the downtown core is actually thru-traffic. Let's bury it!