HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 10:08 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
Transit trips 14%
Car trips 86%
Productivity of the average car user...much higher then the average tranist user I would bet, and by much I mean 5-10 times more.

They can invest a $100billion in transit and I still wont be able to use it because I have tough time constraits and require maximum flexibility at all time.

So using your logic we are investing too much in transit, we should invest about 75% less to keep it in line with road investments. Oh and charge transit users more.


Lets think a bit more realisticly about these things...
Huh? So all of those people commuting downtown on transit aren't productive?

Not everyone on transit is on welfare, and not everybody driving a single occupancy vehicle is a CEO. Where did you dig that crap out of?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 10:10 PM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 3,803
At the end of the day whether you are pro public transit or not. Dont we all agree that it would be nice to have a crossing there that won't collapse in an earthquake? My understanding is that the tunnel now wouldn't be able to handle one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 10:18 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,272
A new bridge would be built on pilings, not preload, just like all other bridges built along the lower Fraser. None of them are sitting on the silt. The new Pitt River bridge pilings were driven 100m deep and I believe that modern pilings for other construction in Richmond are done to a similar depth. The Massey Tunnel is the only river crossing in this area that sits on silt to support its weight.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 10:20 PM
xd_1771's Avatar
xd_1771 xd_1771 is online now
(daka_x)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,519
Quote:
They can invest a $100billion in transit and I still wont be able to use it because I have tough time constraits and require maximum flexibility at all time.
That doesn't mean the investment won't benefit you. An investment in transit can be an investment towards decongesting roads so that you can have even more freedom and face less road-related flexibility issues. I think it really just depends on how competitive your transit investment is thus how many people will choose to use it - and transit investment can be competitive. Creating (more) competitive transit opens up the options for people who would otherwise drive because it was (until then) the most competitive and ideal solution. The Canada Line was successful in this regard because it provides an option that is unmatched in terms of travel time and reliability for heading into downtown Vancouver from the south. This is an improvement for both those who need to or choose to go into Vancouver via the rapid transit line (leveraging the immediate benefits) and those who will need to continue driving, who benefit as more transit riders are attracted over time. On the other hand, if the Canada Line was planned as an on-street LRT, then your points would make far more sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 10:32 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 3,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
I'm pretty sure the tunnel does not pose any issues to ships, but I looked into it. It has a depth of 22m now and panamex are only 13M, even new-panamex is only 15.2M deep leaving lots of clearance. The ships using Fraser docks already pass over it problem free.
I have heard it mentioned a few time that Fraser docks are losing business because of larger ships not able to sail over the Massey tunnel. Art Cowie mentioned this in a paper he wrote a while back. I am pretty sure he worked for the port at one time.

There must be some safety measure that goes beyond just the maximum depth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 10:36 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna, BC
Posts: 3,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Huh? So all of those people commuting downtown on transit aren't productive?

Not everyone on transit is on welfare, and not everybody driving a single occupancy vehicle is a CEO. Where did you dig that crap out of?
I also resent cornholio's statement. Not everyone needs a car. I rented a parking space from a well-off chiropractor with his own practice downtown who didn't own a car. Cars are money burning machines, if you don't need one, you will save thousands to ten thousand a year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 10:49 PM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 3,803
I dont need a car but I love driving and its totally worth the money!!! But the more people that take the bus the better for me
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 11:29 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,907
I used to work for the VPA too and never heard of issues with cargo ships using Fraser docks, if anything usageof the Fraser has exploded since I left. I'm sure any new tunnel would be at least as deep as the current one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 12:07 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: 85 floors above Metro Vancouver
Posts: 6,481
Good news, I suppose. I had never realized that the current tunnel is a submerged tunnel, so they could indeed completely replace it with a wider one.

I am definitely pro-tunnel, as to my knowledge it's the only tunnel in whole Metro Vancouver? It would be so "boring" to have yet another bridge there (and of course it would also impact the surroundings so much).

I also didn't know SFPR costs 1,2 billion. That's a lot for a pretty normal 4-lane road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 12:11 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 3,618
My last volley on this. A quote from Bruce Ralston MLA Surrey - Whalley from one of the local papers.

Quote:
NDP finance critic Bruce Ralston said there are real benefits to replacing the tunnel, particularly with a bridge instead.

"You could have ships with a deeper draft go further up the river up to Fraser port in Surrey," Ralston said, adding there's no doubt traffic outstrips the tunnel's capacity".
Whether he knows what he's talking about, I am uncertain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 12:20 AM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
My last volley on this. A quote from Bruce Ralston MLA Surrey - Whalley from one of the local papers.



Whether he knows what he's talking about, I am uncertain.
Well that quote says that even the NDP may have plans to replace the tunnel if elected next year.

Perhaps with the tides on the Fraser River, big ships are restricted from travelling over the tunnel in low tide, and going a few metres deeper would help out in that regard?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 12:35 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 11,191
You can be pro transit all you want but having your primary north south route (the 99) reduced to a single lane in one direction every weekday rush hour is asinine.

Tunnels and bridges need to be the widest points of roads, not the narrowest, for then they can properly act as regional and local routes.

And as also noted, even transit is horribly slowed using the tunnel in its current form, even with the que jumper lanes added.

Also a new structure would allow bike and pedestrian facilities to be added.

Add that with the age of low seismic grade of the structure, and it seems to me this is a pretty good case to build an 8 lane seismically sound structure with dedicated HOV / Bus Lanes with bike and pedestrian paths.
__________________
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
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 12:36 AM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,680
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the idea of the tunnel starting earlier or looping around the approach to go deeper through the channel...

As for the transit impact... well I agree with Metro_One, this is a bottleneck for everyone, transit included. Unless we're building a light rail or commuter rail line to Ladner (which for the former at present is not cost-effective) there will still be commuter buses running on the same roads as the cars, and at present there's just insufficient space in general. If one were to be an absolute stickler about this, we could just keep the number of normal lanes as is but add in two HOV lanes per direction for the new tunnel...

In any case, there's also the thing about the budget... the announcement coincided with the government making a new contract with BCGEU with increases funded by internal cost savings... that and we only heard a few months ago that we're still in a deficit situation. Add on the other promises announced today for four-laning the Trans-Canada from Kamloops to Alberta + new schools and road upgrades elsewhere, and I really can't see the numbers working out.

In short, don't exactly expect the project to go ahead... at least in the immediate future. I have doubts about the number and legitimacy of these promises when it's so close to election time (aka next year).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 1:33 AM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 6,451
It's a great idea, but then its going to run head first into gridlock at the Oak St Bridge. Unless of course the province barrels through Vancouver's drawbridge mentality and builds a new bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 1:36 AM
Blake Blake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 301
I'm in favour of replacing the GMT - although it doesn't need to be drastic. At this stage 3 lanes in each direction (with future capacity to increase to 4) would be sufficient. Anything more would lead to a massive further bottleneck at Oak Street bridge.

What I think should be done prior to any improvements to the GMT is to make improvements to Hwy 91 and see how this impacts traffic flow. If 91 added a 3rd lane from Hwy 99 in Surrey all the way to Knight Street/99 in Richmond (and removing that stupid light at 72nd) - this would go along way to encourage more traffic use on the 91 rather than the 99. This could be done much quicker and relatively cheap in comparison to a GMT overhaul. The Alex Fraser is already freeway standard and wouldn't require any changes.

For traffic to/from Surrey and the US border, most still chose the 99 because it of the perception that's it's a quicker, more direct route to YVR and Vancouver. The 91 is still perceived by many to be a slower, bypass type route that's not quite to freeway standard. In reality, the distances are relatively the same - but if 91 had a greater capacity, most would choose to use it - leaving the GMT primarily for ferry and traffic to/from Ladner and Tsawwassen.

The other advantage is that if 91 served as a main route to the City of Vancouver - many commuters would choose the Knight Street Bridge instead of Oak - thus not creating one single bottleneck at the Oak. Also a small bridge connecting Boundary Rd to the 91 via No. 8 road would do wonders...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 1:41 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,028
As a background, I regularly read Google news concerning the GMT and it seems to result in alot of letters to the editor, the City of Delta has commissioned its own engineering study to seek its replacement, Richmond council (of all political stripes) want its replacement, etc.

Rapid Bus/Park & Ride do provide good service to the Canada Line from SoF. I doubt that an extension of same South of the Fraser is feasible in any event.

Heading into downtown Vancouver on many mornings, Hwy 99 is backed up to the King George Highway interchange in South Surrey and can result in a slow crawl.

Throw in huge population increases expected in the South Surrey area (another 300,000? by some estimates IIRC), Deltaport expansion, the massive FN development in Tsawwassen, future BC Ferries growth (ferry traffic dumps), etc. and capacity matters come into play.

Remember that the 6 lane Alex Fraser Bridge was constructed as a 2nd crossing to alleviate GMT congestion in 1986 (26 years ago) and capacity there was realized quicker than anyone expected.

That aside, when I read in the Journal of Commerce over a year ago that future seismic upgrades of the GMT were put on hold ($10's of millions) due to a "value engineering study" I knew right there that the tunnel would be phased out.

Today we have confirmation of that with the message of a "replacement" for the GMT. The old GMT might be useful for a future lrt line (with seismic upgrades) but that's another discussion altogether.

Today was the first time the the BC guvmint mentioned both "replacement" of the GMT as well as a focus on said replacement. They have been quiet about that until now.

Based upon the upcoming election, of course it's political. Nevertheless, Delta South is Ind. Huntington's riding, Richmond ridings are centre-right and so are the White Rock and South Surrey ridings.

In any event, the next election is 2013, then 2017, then 2021, then 2025. I don't see an actual replacement financial commitment to be announced until 3 or 4 elections out.

And when one does come, I have no doubt that it will be a 2+3+3+2 bridge structure inclusive of HOV lanes in the express lanes.

The c/d lanes would likely commence in the south at the SFPR (future Hwy 17) and likely terminate at the junction of the Westminster Hwy with a potential for a direct link to the Knight Fwy. My thoughts at least.

As for the Steveston Hwy interchange, it's future locale would likely be further north and then looped around to meet Steveston Hwy. No big deal.

Back in 2006, BC MoT commissioned a study dubbed the "H99 Project" albeit the findings therein are likely dated. Just for reference.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...60736a&k=68953

BTW, a GMT replacement would also require "systems wide" upgrades inclusive of an Oak Street Bridge replacement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 1:54 AM
Blake Blake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 301
^ Agree with all your points, but who projects there to a population increase of 300,000 just in South Surrey? The entire City of Surrey is adding 12-15,000 residents per year. It will take 20-30 years to fill the entire city with an additional 300,000 and considering the South only makes up about 20-25% of the geographical area, I would imagine these people would be fairly evenly dispersed. I feel pretty comfortable concluding that South Surrey alone will not add 300,000 in my lifetime. (I'm in my 20's)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 2:06 AM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake View Post
^ Agree with all your points, but who projects there to a population increase of 300,000 just in South Surrey? The entire City of Surrey is adding 12-15,000 residents per year. It will take 20-30 years to fill the entire city with an additional 300,000 and considering the South only makes up about 20-25% of the geographical area, I would imagine these people would be fairly evenly dispersed. I feel pretty comfortable concluding that South Surrey alone will not add 300,000 in my lifetime. (I'm in my 20's)
The thing is, South Surrey, or what's east of Highway 99 is one of the large areas of land that is left available for development. The rest of it is either developed, will be intensified, or is ALR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 2:11 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake View Post
...who projects there to a population increase of 300,000 just in South Surrey? The entire City of Surrey is adding 12-15,000 residents per year. It will take 20-30 years to fill the entire city with an additional 300,000 and considering the South only makes up about 20-25% of the geographical area, I would imagine these people would be fairly evenly dispersed. I feel pretty comfortable concluding that South Surrey alone will not add 300,000 in my lifetime. (I'm in my 20's)
I put a question mark beside that estimate in my post as it didn't make sense.

BTW, heard that on the radio today FWIW. Should have confirmed it myself. Just checked the City of Surrey growth projections to 2041 and the pop. is expected to increase in South Surrey from ~80,000 this year to ~130,000 in 2041, which is over 50%.

http://www.surrey.ca/for-business/1418.aspx

So I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 View Post
The thing is, South Surrey, or what's east of Highway 99 is one of the large areas of land that is left available for development.
That's where much of the future growth will occur.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 2:23 AM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 View Post
The thing is, South Surrey, or what's east of Highway 99 is one of the large areas of land that is left available for development. The rest of it is either developed, will be intensified, or is ALR.
Speaking of the South Surrey land easy of Highway 99, progressive development is beginning to take place in these lands, notably seen by the residential zoning near the Pac highway crossing and Sunnyside. There should seriously be considered, along with a GMT replacement, a highway running from Hwy 99 down 16th avenue all the way to the Hwy 1 Mount Lehman interchange in Abbotsford. That should form a sophistical and interconnected regional roadway system that even transit users would foam at the mouth.
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 8:44 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.