HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #461  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 6:04 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,145
Actually, the "Tree Island" crossing is much further west near the 91/91A split and was intended to add capacity to the Queensborough Bridge corridor, but would have safety and operational issues due to its very close proximity to the 91/91A split.

Too far west to have any impact upon regional traffic and the Pattullo Bridge corridor, IMHO.



Source: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...t/newwest2.jpg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #462  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 6:10 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chadillaccc View Post
The only downside that is absolutely unavoidable for now is the insane traffic on Columbia from just east of downtown all the way to Brunette. It sucks, it's a hot mess and I wish they could somehow double the roads width or just divert truck traffic.
Columbia used to be four lanes, actually. They decided to put all that stupid angle parking in instead of the curb parking that was previously there as a traffic calming measure, as well as that sharp corner on the east side.. then you have to consider all the other traffic measures that they have put in to frustrate drivers (30km/hr speed limits, refusing the NFPR, etc etc..) and add the fact that there are no real destinations or reasons for someone to go to New West aside from the fact that they live there or need to drive through it.. and what are you left with?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #463  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 6:36 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
I think he's referring to Brunette where it's the 3 lanes.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #464  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 11:31 AM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,921
Why does there need to be a connection with TCH? All the times I've crossed the bridge, the traffic seemed to majorly go east or west immediately, not north-south.

And would this create previously unanticipated use of the TCH to the point that the 8 lane expansion is filled to capacity right away?
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #465  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 3:11 PM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,742
Not entirely if TransLink applies tolls on the bridge, which I think it will do in the end despite all the controversy....

The cut and cover tunneled connection with the Gaglardi is being proposed because New Westminster doesn't want to host all of the traffic that currently leaves the bridge and causes traffic jams on their streets. They'd much rather have it redirected into one or two primary corridors and hidden from view.... Of course, that does leave open the question of what to do with the NFPR and its future connection to the Pattullo Bridge as it runs right through the city centre...

And as for where most of the traffic to and from the bridge comes from... I don't think there's ever been a study on that...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #466  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 6:20 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna BC & Edmonton AB
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeCee View Post
Columbia used to be four lanes, actually. They decided to put all that stupid angle parking in instead of the curb parking that was previously there as a traffic calming measure, as well as that sharp corner on the east side.. then you have to consider all the other traffic measures that they have put in to frustrate drivers (30km/hr speed limits, refusing the NFPR, etc etc..) and add the fact that there are no real destinations or reasons for someone to go to New West aside from the fact that they live there or need to drive through it.. and what are you left with?
Um, take Royal Ave. as I said a dozen posts ago? I go through New West quite often and always take Royal Ave. The rare occasion I will take Columbia to pick up a coffee at Starbucks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #467  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 7:31 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Actually, the "Tree Island" crossing is much further west near the 91/91A split and was intended to add capacity to the Queensborough Bridge corridor, but would have safety and operational issues due to its very close proximity to the 91/91A split.

Too far west to have any impact upon regional traffic and the Pattullo Bridge corridor, IMHO.



Source: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...t/newwest2.jpg
I think there are two "Tree Island" concepts - maybe the newer one is more of a "Sandbar Island" concept. The more recent one to the east was also floated with a Fraser Port container storage facility on the sandbar islands.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #468  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 7:38 PM
trofirhen trofirhen is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Actually, the "Tree Island" crossing is much further west near the 91/91A split and was intended to add capacity to the Queensborough Bridge corridor, but would have safety and operational issues due to its very close proximity to the 91/91A split.

Too far west to have any impact upon regional traffic and the Pattullo Bridge corridor, IMHO.



Source: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...t/newwest2.jpg


Well, if nothing else it would serve a large catchment area going to YVR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #469  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 7:40 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
I think there are two "Tree Island" concepts - maybe the newer one is more of a "Sandbar Island" concept. The more recent one to the east was also floated with a Fraser Port container storage facility on the sandbar islands.
The one to the east could work, but in all honesty it would be best if they built then entire structure (including the interchange) elevated. Otherwise the flooding risk seems far too high, along with other environmental concerns.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #470  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 7:54 PM
wrenegade's Avatar
wrenegade wrenegade is offline
ON3P Skis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lower Lonsdale, North Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,593
I've usually hear "Tree Island" referred to as "Poplar Island". Further east the sandbar area has always been called "Sapperton Bar" as far as I know. Apparently some people call the little tufts with trees "North Sapperton Island", "South Sapperton Island", and "Lone Tree Island".
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #471  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 8:41 PM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKaz View Post
Um, take Royal Ave. as I said a dozen posts ago? I go through New West quite often and always take Royal Ave. The rare occasion I will take Columbia to pick up a coffee at Starbucks.
I've tried to take Royal a few times when headed to the ferries.. it's not usually much better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #472  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 8:45 PM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,056
For the record, I don't hate New West just like I don't hate any other city in Metro Vancouver. What I do hate is how New West seems to stick the middle finger up to the rest of the region on a consistent basis. Why should _I_ care about New West if it starts the situation by not caring about anyone else.

It's the same reason why a lot of people outside Burnaby dislike Derek Corrigan. They high-five and puff up their chest when the region supports initiatives in their city but when the region tries to help other cities out other than Burnaby, he sticks the middle finger up and votes NO on everything. New West does exactly the same thing. "If we get the main benefit then BY ALL MEANS everyone else can pay for it, but if it helps other cities NO WAY NOT ON MY WATCH!"

It's selfish.

But again I don't dislike New Westminster. I just think it is less relevant to the region than it thinks and if the region builds around them they'll be in for a little shock and so will its citizens when tax rates increase.

Same happens with Burnaby and Richmond. They get other mayors in the region supporting initiatives for Canada Line, Sky Train, you name it. Mayors from south of fraser in the past votes yes to help them. Then gas tax comes along to help South of Fraser and Coquitlam? Guess who votes no. Richmond, Burnaby, New West? Of course. "We got our stuff SCREW THE REST OF YOU!"

I give props to Gregor in Vancouver even though I don't agree with many of his initiatives, for having the balls to think regionally and not just Vancouver centric.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #473  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 9:08 PM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,056
Cost per km on tunneling depends also on what rock and geology they need to go through. Bore tunnels can actually be fairly inexpensive depending on what they actually have to bore through. Not every tunnel costs billions of dollars.

I personally think going down McBride makes sense then at the park just before you hit 6th do a split. So the main McBride would dive into a tunnel with right exit and left entrance which would connect to "above ground McBride" for local traffic. The Tunnel would then bore to the right and pop out just past 16th Avenue between Cumberland and Cariboo. That would reduce the required tunnel length to about 2km at maximum.

Even at a high water mark that would place it in the $500 million range which is not too unreasonable. Then from the Patullo you simply get rid of the off ramps to Royal Avenue / Columbia. That means if people want to go to New West then they have to use either 6th, 8th, or 10th.

To be honest though I still don't understand New West's beef. People traveling "through New West" already bypass it down McBride. If people want to go to New West it doesn't matter where the tunnel is they would still need to drive on the "roads made for horses and buggies" to get there regardless of where they entered from.

Maybe it is time for New West simply to upgrade it's trails and make them into roads.

As for cost though, again I don't think the tunnel would be _that_ expensive. Remember, Canada Line cost $2 billion. That's for a fairly long bore tunnel, an equally long cut and cover, elevated track through Richmond, multiple stations, a new bridge, and brand new SkyTrain cars. Not to mention the servicing area in Richmond and a base of operations. For this we're simply talking about a road tunnel. The majority of the cost of the project would be in the bridge itself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #474  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 9:54 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
I don't think you need a tunnel. That's just getting a little crazy. It's just spending my money so that people in New West would have the privilege of not looking at cars.

McBride has plenty of space around it. You could easily add an extra lane each way and still have space to put in sound buffering structures and trees. And you need the surface connections because a lot of traffic off the bridge isn't bound for Coquitlam or the TCH, but other parts of Burnaby and New West itself.

The main problem with the surface street is the intersection at 8th (mainly because there is no right turn lane). And that is only bad because people are using 8th to bypass 10th or Columbia to get to East Burnaby and Coquitlam.

If Columbia/Brunette were improved and Newcombe was built to connect McBride and Gaglardi, then people wouldn't be using 10th and 8th to cut across to NE Burnaby and Coquitlam. If the NFPR and McBride could handle traffic, then people wouldn't be driving through New West, meaning that the lights wouldn't have to change so much, meaning better traffic flow.

As it is right now, the biggest problem in New West in the PM rush isn't anything to do with McBride, it's the bridge. McBride squeezes down to 1 lane to go onto the bridge, which causes the backups. So I don't think you even need an extra lane on McBride, just proper flow onto a new bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #475  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 10:24 PM
hollywoodnorth's Avatar
hollywoodnorth hollywoodnorth is offline
Blazed Member - Citygater
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Downtown Vancouver
Posts: 6,120
OK lets clear this up for everyone

Tree Island (part of Richmond) >> http://g.co/maps/q2m62 (not really an island any more as it's been filled in and connected to the shore)

Poplar Island (part of New Westminister) >> http://g.co/maps/dczfm

Sapperton Bar aka The Sandbar Islands (part of New Westminister) >> http://g.co/maps/y4zgb
__________________
Quote of the Decade on SSP: "what happens would it be?" - argon007

"orange vested guy" - towerguy3
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #476  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 10:29 PM
kev_427 kev_427 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Kelowna
Posts: 127
There's another tree island under the Port Mann.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=tree+is...sland&t=m&z=15
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #477  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2011, 10:34 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
As for cost though, again I don't think the tunnel would be _that_ expensive. Remember, Canada Line cost $2 billion. That's for a fairly long bore tunnel, an equally long cut and cover, elevated track through Richmond, multiple stations, a new bridge, and brand new SkyTrain cars. Not to mention the servicing area in Richmond and a base of operations. For this we're simply talking about a road tunnel.
A road tunnel that will need at least 2-3x the bore diameter... The Canada Line tubes are not even wide enough for 1 lane of traffic.

I'll hazard a guess that a TBM at twice the diameter is far more than twice the cost, and digs slower.

I'll also assume that, due to logistics, nobody would ever dig such a tunnel without building in contingency space for an extra future lane... so that's minimum 3+3 configuration. That's a big bore diameter.

Think Cassiar Tunnel, but bored.

I bet the cost is at least 4-5x the cost of Canada Line bored tunnels per km.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #478  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2011, 12:31 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zassk View Post
A road tunnel that will need at least 2-3x the bore diameter... The Canada Line tubes are not even wide enough for 1 lane of traffic.

I'll hazard a guess that a TBM at twice the diameter is far more than twice the cost, and digs slower.

I'll also assume that, due to logistics, nobody would ever dig such a tunnel without building in contingency space for an extra future lane... so that's minimum 3+3 configuration. That's a big bore diameter.

Think Cassiar Tunnel, but bored.

I bet the cost is at least 4-5x the cost of Canada Line bored tunnels per km.
The Alaskan Way Tunnel will be double decker to fill out the circular bore, have a toll and be crazily expensive to build.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2014209656.pdf


http://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/s...624786/detail/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #479  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2011, 12:33 AM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeCee View Post
Columbia used to be four lanes, actually. They decided to put all that stupid angle parking in instead of the curb parking that was previously there as a traffic calming measure, as well as that sharp corner on the east side.. then you have to consider all the other traffic measures that they have put in to frustrate drivers (30km/hr speed limits, refusing the NFPR, etc etc..) and add the fact that there are no real destinations or reasons for someone to go to New West aside from the fact that they live there or need to drive through it.. and what are you left with?
What if you needed a wedding dress?

I really like Columbia and traffic calming was needed for the Greenway going through it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #480  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2011, 2:00 AM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,742
I seriously doubt we'll go farther than a cut and cover tunnel for the underground Mcbride-Gaglardi connector for all of these cost reasons...
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:33 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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