the vancouver project that never happenned

[twoNeurons]

What might happen in 2030 is the bridge will go to 2-lanes and the centre or one side willl be used for rail or bus HOV.

By 2030, there will be another crossing doine or in the works, probably around the DES. If this crossing is is a tunnel, it will be 6-lanes, expandable to 8... then the LGB will be transit/pedestrian/bike only and we'll get back Stanley Park.

[jlousa]

Personally I think the chance of the lions gate being closed to traffic in 2030are about the same as the burrad bridge becoming a bike only bridge or the PNE leaving hastings park. Possible but not probable.

[Lee_Haber8]

Anyone who thinks making a vehicular tunnel really has not put much thought into it. A rail tunnel makes a million times more sense!

- A 10 metre wide rail tunnel carries as many passengers as a 50 metre wide road tunnel. (Using the Canada Line volume projections)

-A road tunnel requires expensive ventilation

-A road tunnel would be very disruptive, requiring expropriation of properties and destruction to build on-ramp structures to the tunnel.

-Are incredibly complex and can go way over budget (Big Dig anyone?!)

Besides aren't we trying to get away from cars and get people to use more sustainable forms of transportation?

[phesto]

Here is a summary of a two-year study by the BCMOT on the north end of the Lions Gate:

Lions Gate to Highway 1 Connector Planning Study

March 2007

The Ministry of Transportation recently completed a two-year study of the two primary routes connecting the Lions Gate Bridge to Highway 1 (the Trans Canada / Upper Levels Highway) in North and West Vancouver. Taylor Way through West Vancouver is a provincial route and Capilano Road through North Vancouver is a municipal route.

This study followed, and built upon, two other recent studies. The first study, completed in November 2003, reviewed the intersection of Taylor Way and Marine Drive, concluding with 21 options for improvements ranging from signal timing to significant infrastructure investments. These major infrastructure investments could not be made without further study. The second study was an internal review of a number of rehabilitation options for the westbound bridge carrying Marine Drive over Capilano River.

The purpose of the study was twofold. Firstly, to identify and evaluate long-term network improvement strategies that reduce anticipated network delays forecast for 2021. Secondly, the Ministry sought to prepare a possible staging strategy of improvements that could potentially be implemented before 2010, and are supported by business cases that demonstrate favourable project benefits, impacts, costs and risks.

The recently completed study undertook consultation with North Shore municipalities, TransLink, the Vancouver Port Authority and the Squamish First Nation. After a preliminary screening of all alternative strategies, this study provides a “business case” assessment of all reasonable improvement options that examines the overall benefits, impacts and costs from a technical perspective. The Ministry generally considers advancing transportation projects with business cases that clearly show a need to address a problem (safety and efficiency are key factors), a cost-effective improvement strategy, minimized impacts on external stakeholders and optimized project timing.

Areas of specific focus included:
• Marine Drive & the Lions Gate Bridge Approaches
• Taylor Way & Marine Drive intersection
• Capilano Road & Marine Drive intersection
• Capilano Interchange

Twenty candidate improvement strategies were developed and evaluated for feasibility to address the key issues at these areas of focus. To ensure effective evaluation, a multi-step screening process was followed to identify any ‘fatal flaws’ based upon preliminary level review of the transportation and community impacts. Fourteen improvement strategies were developed and evaluated in greater detail using the Multiple Account Evaluation framework to highlight relative benefits, impacts and costs of each concept. Of these fourteen concepts, four were identified as ‘Tier 1’ that are required to support other options. For example, lengthening the westbound right-turn and left-turn lanes on Marine Drive at Taylor Way or widening the westbound Marine Drive Bridge over the Capilano River would support other improvements that enhance westbound travel on Marine Drive. Tier 2 concepts include all other roadway network improvement strategies that reduce the impacts of vehicle queues to the Lions Gate Bridge, provide enhanced access for southbound transit services and/or address known safety issues.

Short- and Long-term Implications

As part of the study, the implications of the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games were considered in the short-term. Longer-term growth and development challenges were considered as factors for short-term and long-term infrastructure investments.

Generally, improvements to the Lions Gate Bridge or the North Shore area network are not legacy projects required to host the Olympics. Staff from the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the games (VANOC) provided very preliminary plans for moving people between the events in Vancouver and those venues north of the Burrard Inlet. In general, they broadly identified that the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge would accommodate most traffic to and through the North Shore area. However, VANOC will soon start development of a complete transportation plan to host all Olympic-related traffic between each sport venue.

Beyond 2021, the capacity of the transportation network outside the study area and crossing the Burrard Inlet will not likely be increased in the foreseeable future. The concepts evaluated in this study concentrated on reducing vehicle line-ups for traffic approaching the Lions Gate Bridge through the North Shore municipalities. If the Lions Gate Bridge is not widened, the additional storage provided by some of these concepts would be fully consumed sometime within the next 20 years or so. It is imperative, therefore, that person-carrying capacity be increased across the bridge - as there is no scope for increasing vehicle-carrying capacity.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Some of the improvement strategies identified within this study can be implemented at relatively low cost and therefore make good investments. Given the single largest constraint – the Lions Gate Bridge lane capacity – the focus of most network improvements should be improving people moving capacity of the transportation system on the North Shore and across the Lions Gate Bridge. Transit supportive strategies such as modifying the transit priority facilities leading to the Lions Gate Bridge and other initiatives should be examined along with other improvements that address the impacts of vehicle queues on Marine Drive east of Capilano Road and west of Taylor Way. The study demonstrated that the queuing for the Lions Gate Bridge can be managed or relocated but there is no way to decrease the line-up. Some of the concepts identified within this study would support both of these goals.

Other considerations for the Ministry arising from this study will include the following:
• Minor capital improvements;
• Scope for safety improvements at Capilano interchange on Highway 1; and
• Rehabilitation or replacement of the westbound Marine Drive Bridge over Capilano River.

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Remember, the Lions Gate Bridge and causeway are slated for closure circa 2030 by Parks Board decree... which ain't that far away, relatively speaking...

Take out that link with its capacity...

Add in increased *through* traffic demand to Horseshoe Bay (Van Isle), the Sunshine Coast, the new Squamish commutershed, Whistler, etc. ...

And the proverbial "Houston we've got a problem" comes into play.

What about a combination vehicle/transit tunnel that connects with Knight Street? The 3rd crossing would bypass downtown and connect a North Arm crossing. The route is already the primary route for port traffic. Reroute Hwy 99 off Oak & Granville Streets and use Knight St, so through traffic on Hwy 99 doesn't go through downtown, Stanley Park, and the Lions Gate Bridge.

The trick would be finding a northern terminus of the tunnel.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by achu

Sorry dude, time to wake up and smell reality. Transportation funding is tied up with the sea to sky upgrade, golden ears bridge, and the gateway mega-boondogle. The politics game is focusing south of the Fraser, and now that Translink is expanding to include the Fraser Valley, you'll see less focus on the North Shore. The latest Translink long term plan already has a 3rd seabus in waiting. That's about as good as it'll get.

Besides, the LGB HAS been upgraded, albeit not a significant one. Granted, I agree with you that it hasn't been much of an "upgrade" but I do support planner's decision to limit expansion to capacity onto the north shore as a growth restraint mechanism.

Take a look at the projects timetable for the region: you have olympics and all related construction till 2010, plus add the gateway project which will probably run at least 5 years after that. Then you have coquitlam LRT and Millenium line expansion duking it out for $$ for the next 5-10 years, that's one decade already.

Take an economic downturn and add another decade.

Ya, your right about funding being tied up in other mega projects. But that doesn't change the fact that something needs to be done to a bridge that was designed for the 1930's. As far as the "growth restraint mechanism" take a look at some of the massive development being carved out of the mountain up by the British Properties, or take a drive up the Sea to Sky to see the amount of development going on to see if that growth is being "restrained."

The lack of vision to upgrade infrastructure for years and years is what got us into this mess in the first place, whereby you have to build everything at once. Sadly, I think your prediction for anything being done anytime soon will probably come true.

[fever]

I think we pretty much agree, phesto. With some slight modifications, the downtown side could handle four lanes. But because of the low growth rates on the North Shore, improving the bridge or building alternative routes is not going to be worth the expense in the foreseeable future.

Just to give some numbers to the growth rates, from 2001 to 2006 the North Shore grew by 2000 people and just over half that was in the city. Nearly all of the city's growth (new construction) is within walking distance of the Seabus. Squamish grew by 700. Lions Bay shrunk by 50.

[achu]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

As far as the "growth restraint mechanism" take a look at some of the massive development being carved out of the mountain up by the British Properties, or take a drive up the Sea to Sky to see the amount of development going on to see if that growth is being "restrained."

The lack of vision to upgrade infrastructure for years and years is what got us into this mess in the first place, whereby you have to build everything at once. Sadly, I think your prediction for anything being done anytime soon will probably come true.

Thanks for the agreement. However, British Properties have been one of the largest and earliest developers in the lower mainland. They have had an incredible amount of clout in local politics and have contributed alot to the built landscape, giving us Canada's first shopping mall (Park Royal) and the richest postal code (West Van). That area's been earmarked for mansions for a long time.

As for the Sea to Sky, its only been the case due to the recent expansion and upcoming Olympics. Back 10, 20 years ago when Whistler was booming I'm sure we would've seen an Aspen-Interstate 70 style sprawl in the valley if Hwy 99 wasn't so treacherous back then.

[achu]

Originally Posted by dmuzika

What about a combination vehicle/transit tunnel that connects with Knight Street? The 3rd crossing would bypass downtown and connect a North Arm crossing. The route is already the primary route for port traffic. Reroute Hwy 99 off Oak & Granville Streets and use Knight St, so through traffic on Hwy 99 doesn't go through downtown, Stanley Park, and the Lions Gate Bridge.

The trick would be finding a northern terminus of the tunnel.

I read back a few years ago that if there would be a 3rd crossing or LGB replacement, it would branch off of Main street, not Knight street. However, it seems that all of these plans will have to be redone since there will be too many changes to the city's landscape in the next decade or two. With the new hospital, traffic and development will change in that area of Strathcona. The Canada line "will" change traffic patterns on Cambie/Granville/Oak corridor (hopefully).

A connection from Knight street sounds good, but then it would require new roads and interchanges to accomodate the new traffic patterns, plus the endless NIMBY-ism you'll hear from residents along Knight street. Luckily we don't have a Robert Moses type of planning department to shove a highway through this city.

[twoNeurons]

if West Van wants a bigger bridge, then they should do what their forefathers did... build it on their own.

I mean... in toady's world, a bridge would NEVER be allowed to be put through Stanley park.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by fever

I think we pretty much agree, phesto. With some slight modifications, the downtown side could handle four lanes. But because of the low growth rates on the North Shore, improving the bridge or building alternative routes is not going to be worth the expense in the foreseeable future.

Just to give some numbers to the growth rates, from 2001 to 2006 the North Shore grew by 2000 people and just over half that was in the city. Nearly all of the city's growth (new construction) is within walking distance of the Seabus. Squamish grew by 700. Lions Bay shrunk by 50.

Wow thanks, I didn't realize the growth numbers were that low for all the North Shore. I’m a little surprised by Squamish growing only 5% over that period, as it seems to be booming whenever I pass through.

I notice that the BC gov’t (before the Olympics announcement) was projecting a population growth of 100% for the Squamish-Lillooet region from 2001-2031. As of 2006, it is on pace for about 35%.

[Coldrsx]

vancouver needs both the skytrain to north van/lonsdale/burnaby and a tunneled 2 lane roadway from georgia to lower lons.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by achu

Thanks for the agreement. However, British Properties have been one of the largest and earliest developers in the lower mainland. They have had an incredible amount of clout in local politics and have contributed alot to the built landscape, giving us Canada's first shopping mall (Park Royal) and the richest postal code (West Van). That area's been earmarked for mansions for a long time.

As for the Sea to Sky, its only been the case due to the recent expansion and upcoming Olympics. Back 10, 20 years ago when Whistler was booming I'm sure we would've seen an Aspen-Interstate 70 style sprawl in the valley if Hwy 99 wasn't so treacherous back then.

Actually, the area of land known as the "British Properties" was developed in the early 30's. Vancouver already had a population of about 400,000 and had been incorporated for about 50 years already. Also, Park Royal shopping centre stands on native land and was developed by a private company. The Lion Gate was built by one member of a wealthy family which begot the mansions found today. Those actually inhabiting those mansions actually contributed little to nothingto either of those projects and are responsible for killing numerous other development proposals. Look no further to them denying a company who was willing to replace the aging overpasses directly by the bridge's north end for NO COST.

Also, regardless of the reason why the Sea to Sky region is expanding, the bottom line is just that, it IS expanding. So to continue ignoring the growth is just plain irresponsible.

[murman]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Also, Park Royal shopping centre stands on native land and was developed by a private company.

Only part of Park Royal is on native land.

[204]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Those actually inhabiting those mansions actually contributed little to nothingto either of those projects and are responsible for killing numerous other development proposals.

What proposals did they kill? The Park Royal shopping mall? The B.C. Ferries docks at Horseshoe Bay? The Upper Levels Highway? Do tell.

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Look no further to them denying a company who was willing to replace the aging overpasses directly by the bridge's north end for NO COST.

Which kind-hearted company was willing to build a free bridge?

A number of different proposals were considered in the 1990's including building a new bridge beside the existing bridge.

However, a new bridge wasn't built because of the City of Vancouver's objections to any increase in traffic into the downtown core and the province's unwillingness to spend much money on the project.

[twoNeurons]

S2S may be growing, but there's no reason that directly translates into all those cars wanting to go downtown.

[achu]

[QUOTE=204;3002396]What proposals did they kill? The Park Royal shopping mall? The B.C. Ferries docks at Horseshoe Bay? The Upper Levels Highway? Do tell.



Which kind-hearted company was willing to build a free bridge?

QUOTE]

I'm with 204, I wanna know about these cases. Otherwise its just another person's "opinion" about West Vancouver.

The British Properties were originally developed by the Guiness family:
http://www.britishproperties.com/aboutus3.html

Park Royal WAS developed by the Guiness family, though you may be right EastVanMark, that it was a separate development company, nonetheless it was still the idea of the Guiness family:

http://www.westvanlib.org/Historical...Y/HISTORY5.HTM
http://www.westvanlib.org/Historical...oyal_thumb.htm

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by 204

However, a new bridge wasn't built because of the City of Vancouver's objections to any increase in traffic into the downtown core and the province's unwillingness to spend much money on the project.

That's right - when the Lions Gate rehabilitation project started, a number of possibilities were examined - including double decking both the bridge and the causeway (in tunnel) (for 6 lanes), twinning the bridge or building a new wider 5 lane bridge. A full tunnel replacement was also proposed, but I don't think it was seriously considered (this was separate from the later rehash of the Bentson (sp?) proposal for a new tunnel with island).
The City of Vancouver opposed disgorgingor backing up more traffic into the West End, and the North Shore residents opposed a toll that would accompany the high cost of rebuilding to increase capacity - so the bridge was just structurally upgraded and lanes widened.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by 204

What proposals did they kill? The Park Royal shopping mall? The B.C. Ferries docks at Horseshoe Bay? The Upper Levels Highway? Do tell.



Which kind-hearted company was willing to build a free bridge?

A number of different proposals were considered in the 1990's including building a new bridge beside the existing bridge.

However, a new bridge wasn't built because of the City of Vancouver's objections to any increase in traffic into the downtown core and the province's unwillingness to spend much money on the project.

All of the projects you mentioned above were initiated by either the 1) private companies or 2) either the Provincial or Federal Government. I'm glad you mentioned the ferry terminal because residents (some of which were later found not to be living anywhere NEAR the terminal were all up in arms about the improvements that were made to the roads leading up to the terminal in the late 90's). They squashed a proposed expansion to the terminals in the 70's.

As far as the company that was willing to replace the overpasses, I believe it was the same company who built a pedestrian overpass in New Westminster(also for "free").

The whole Lions Gate saga in the 90's was a joke from start to finish. The province commissioned a study to find out if the bridge needed to be expanded. Sure enough the study came back stating that either a the bridge should be expanded, or a tunnel should be constructed to the North Shore. The NDP government was awash in deficits and had no money to take on the project. Can't help but wonder why even bother paying for a study if you have no money to act on its recommendations.

[Mininari]

Another (lesser) NDP boondoggle?

I guess people on the North Shore deal with the Lions Gate Situation, but you really have to wonder what the Whistler-bound tourists think when they fly into town and are forced to drive through the congestion of downtown vancouver, just to get stuck waiting to get onto an antiquated 3-lane bridge?

As for that park-board promise to close the bridge by 2030... do they have any authority to actually enforce that come 2030? Sounds like an empty promise to appease the people who were up in arms over some second-growth trees getting cut down in the park.

Still, placement of a replacement crossing is an interesting challenge that will have to be tackled at some point in our lifetimes. I do have to admit, the Lions Gate as a bus / cyclist / pedestrian only route would be absolutely wonderful. They could even run an LRT over it (nevermind paying the extra to tunnel for LRT).