HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 2:33 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus View Post
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.
As a matter of fact, the the Steer Davies Gleave report commissioned by BC MoT in the early 2000's took that all into consideration. The Southern Freeway corridor that you mentioned (which is also part of the last City of Surrey's transportation plan), the GMT upgrades/replacement as well as the Oak Street Bridge upgrades/replacement.

Full "systems-wide" upgrades.

Again, I don't expect a financial commtiment for same to be made until ~2025 and who knows how extensive same would be that far out from now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 2:53 AM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,347
The City of Surrey's Road Allowance Map dedicates both 16 Avenue and 24 Avenue to be built out to 6 lanes in the long long long term...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 2:57 AM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,669
Hmm... such talk about building 3 lane roads across the former ALR... I mean, I would support an improved east-west connection parallel and closely adjacent (e.g. ~750 m) to Highway 10, but this? sigh...

Just out of curiosity, should we go away with the entire ALR in this case? I mean, there's no point protecting something that's just going to be resold in one way or another to suburban homeowners...

Hello Los Angeles, welcome to Vancouver.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 4:36 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,531
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 suppose you missed the word "average".

Im not here trying to argue, the fact is that transit is a viable alternative for a insignificantly small percantage of our population. LARGE chunck of it is made of students, senior citizens and the very poor, less then half is made up of lower middle class to midle class workers and most of these use it to enter downtown and some smaller employment centers for the 9-5 job.

The return on investiment in roads is going to be significantly higher then the return on investment in transit. Doesnt mean we should not invest in transit but lets no pretend its anywhere close to road infrustructure on the importance ladder.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 5:09 AM
crazyjoeda's Avatar
crazyjoeda crazyjoeda is offline
Mac User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 861
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...
This is complete nonsense. In cities with $100 billion dollar transit systems transit use dominates. How many people commute by car in London or Manhattan?

Here in Metro Vancouver I commute through the tunnel to downtown, and I use transit because it's significantly faster and more convient than driving. Anyone driving through the tunnel to get into Vancouver doesn't care about productivity.

I understand not everyone is going downtown and for some practical transit options don't currently exist, but investing in transit benefits drivers. The Canada Line and improved bus service on HWY99 has increased road capacity by taking thousands of cars off the road.

Todays announcement was a joke anyway. The soon to be ex-premier has no means of bringing this project to life, and with out any new or expanded connections into Vancouver or Burnaby it wont solve the congestion problems.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 5:20 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyjoeda View Post
This is complete nonsense. In cities with $100 billion dollar transit systems transit use dominates. How many people commute by car in London or Manhattan?

Here in Metro Vancouver I commute through the tunnel to downtown, and I use transit because it's significantly faster and more convient than driving. Anyone driving through the tunnel to get into Vancouver doesn't care about productivity.

I understand not everyone is going downtown and for some practical transit options don't currently exist, but investing in transit benefits drivers. The Canada Line and improved bus service on HWY99 has increased road capacity by taking thousands of cars off the road.

Todays announcement was a joke anyway. The soon to be ex-premier has no means of bringing this project to life, and with out any new or expanded connections into Vancouver or Burnaby it wont solve the congestion problems.
Well under 50%. If you take small individual neighbourhoods that make up a fraction of the city then you will obviously get transit use above that number, just like you will get transit use in the single digits in other sections. Taken as a whole transit most deffenitly does not dominate.

*By the way I am pro tranist, dont get me wrong. I just hate it when people in order to support transit attack road infrustructure spending when infact this spending is even more important, AND lacking.


Regardless when I need to go downtown I sure as hell drive, its faster and as a result cheaper and gives me needed flexibility. If I worked a 9-5 job downtown then I would likely take transit, however people like that are a minority in our region. Vast majority of jobs are spread out all over the metro, and many have varying hours.

Last edited by cornholio; Sep 29, 2012 at 5:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 6:01 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 View Post
The City of Surrey's Road Allowance Map dedicates both 16 Avenue and 24 Avenue to be built out to 6 lanes in the long long long term...
Because of future residential growth in both those areas east of Hwy 99, I can foresee both 24th and 16th Aves upgraded to 4-lane boulevards (as Surrey prefers) for local traffic.

24th Ave. now already is upgraded to a 4-lane blvd. to ~ 162 Ave east of Hwy 99.

I also eventually foresee both also extended to 192nd Ave. at the far eastern edge of Surrey, which is the locale of the 1,900 Campbell Heights Business/Industrial Park with employment anticipated at ~21,000 at full build out.

While the 2010 City of Transportation master plan apparently omits specific mention of the Southern Fwy corridor (just north of 16th Ave. while specifically mentioned in their previous 1999 transportation plan), that corridor is considered vital to that future business/industrial node by Surrey.

BTW, a local 24th or 16th Ave. 4-lane blvd is not designed for regional thru traffic.

And 16th Ave. extends thru both Langley and Abbotsford to meet up with Hwy 1 (at least 3 -4 times the Surrey length of 16th).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 6:32 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyjoeda View Post
Here in Metro Vancouver I commute through the tunnel to downtown, and I use transit because it's significantly faster and more convient than driving. Anyone driving through the tunnel to get into Vancouver doesn't care about productivity.
Firstly, I support all regional transit initiatives... be it street cars in DT Van City, Skytrain lines, lrt, rapid bus etc.

That said, transit still only has a... what... ~15% share of modal use in Metro Vancouver?

Everyone I know, from youth to seniors now utilizes a vehicle as their transportation mode of choice. Yep, includes driving thru the GMT into Vancouver.

Just a fact of life in terms of convenience and necessity. And certainly they lead more productive lives in terms of productivity in their own social/business lives compared to the excessive time and inconvenience that they would experience taking transit, among other negative factors.

Quote:
I understand not everyone is going downtown and for some practical transit options don't currently exist, but investing in transit benefits drivers. The Canada Line and improved bus service on HWY99 has increased road capacity by taking thousands of cars off the road.
Au contraire. I now am stuck in gridlock at the King George Hwy interchange on Hwy 99 in the morning. That's near the U.S. border BTW. And it only gets worse with time.

As an aside, my cousin, residing in South Surrey, was dropped off and then parked at the South Surrey Park & Ride for 10 years, taking the 351 rapid bus to Granville & Broadway every day where his office is situate for his 9 to 5. After the Canada Line came into place, the transfers lengthened his travel time to the point that it was no longer worthwhile to take transit in terms of the extended travel time, inconvenience and internalized costs of same.

Different strokes for different folks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 7:07 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,612
... and remember that there's always the transport of dangerous goods issue regarding tunnels. A bridge would allow more goods transport options. See here:

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bcl...de/14_275_2006

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/tdg/clear-part4-476.htm#sec415
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 7:39 AM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,669
While this debate goes on, I wish to point out that different people will have different experiences based on where they live, and based on that their opinions on transit vs cars will be tailored to that locale. This is just a reminder so we don't go over the top with generalizations that do not apply to everyone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 8:04 AM
dubsH dubsH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Just a fact of life in terms of convenience and necessity. And certainly they lead more productive lives in terms of productivity in their own social/business lives compared to the excessive time and inconvenience that they would experience taking transit, among other negative factors.
Necessity? No... convenience? You betcha.

I drive right now to classes everyday and I could definitely transit, but what's my reason for not taking transit? I'm lazy, and I have to walk 15 minutes to catch the bus. If they improved transit so that it's within a 5-minute walk, would I ditch my car? Yep.

So because transit usage is only at 15%... we should devote all our resources onto keeping people on the road. This is unfortunately very backwards-thinking. Yes, we need roads and highways and I am in favour of building enough to keep industry goods flowing. I am also in favour of replacing the GMT with a 6-to-8 lane bridge/tunnel. However, this (and all major crossings) should be tolled. If the time stuck in a car in traffic is similar to the time stuck on a bus to get to a destination, I would rather have the latter situation as I can work, read, or sleep. People should be encouraged to move around and be active.

If TransLink can ever find alternative methods of raising revenue (e.g., through development of properties near SkyTrain stations), they can have a more sustainable mode of expansion.

I know it's a fallacy to say this ... but if you want more roads and better freeways, feel free to move to our neighbours to the South. They have plenty of those, along with inadequate transit, and I am sure you will find that your commute will be MUCH faster than (the lack of) transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 8:26 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 10,963
Ugh, I knew this would turn into a highways vs. transit debate, I hate the black and white stance both sides take regarding this issue.

The basic fact is, this is our primary north south route, and it is daily reduced to a single lane in one direction, which is asinine for such a route, I can not think of any primary freeway I have been on in Japan or Europe where a direction is reduced to a single lane for no good reason in an area as populous as ours.

This not only hurts the flow of commercial traffic and non commercial drivers, but also transit as well, for as I said, even with the que jumper lanes, this tunnel still brings transit to a hault and makes crossing it very annoying (I know since I have missed a ferry before because of this).

There is no reason for a region to have a "one or the other" attitude, when implemented right, like as in Asia and Europe, a region can have the best of both worlds (transit and highways) that actually compliment each other, as I am sure we will see with the new Port Mann and rapid bus system.

Bottom line is, this tunnel needs to be replaced, for it is ridiculously inadequate for our region's current needs, and a new structure (which could be tolled) would allow for no more counter flow bullshit, better transit connections, better c/d systems, safer seismic conditions, and also bike / pedestrian access.

I fully support transit expansion, as anyone here knows I love grade separated rail such as skytrain, but I also support our region having an adequate highway system. That said, I am ok with our highways being tolled, as long as it is an even toll across the region (hence I support the idea of every water crossing being tolled $1 instead of just a few being tolled $3 or more). I also wish that the SFPR was being built as a full freeway, but at the same time was going to be a tolled access freeway (free for commercial vehicles). To me that would make a lot more sense.

FWIW - 50% of my commuting is transit (mostly skytrain), 30% is driving because there is no way I can use transit at these times, and in all honesty, I enjoy driving (where I would love some better water crossings), and 20% is cycling (when it is dry out and I don't have to wear dress clothes to where I am going).
__________________
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
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 9:07 AM
Pinion's Avatar
Pinion Pinion is online now
Lower Lonsdale YIMBY
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: City of North Vancouver
Posts: 4,084
As I said in the Gateway thread, these infrastructure improvements are not about commuters. It's about port access. Public transit investment is great, but it's not an either/or thing. We either improve gridlock or lose lucrative business/employment to other west coast cities. The ports directly employ 50,000 people in BC alone, and another 100,000 across Canada.

I'd be surprised if it's replaced by a bridge considering DP World/Vanterm already say Lions Gate is too low for them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 9:10 AM
Dave2 Dave2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 410
History... with a comment from the son of George Massey http://historytothepeople.ca/2011/06...george-massey/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 12:40 PM
Blake Blake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 301
Question: How long does it currently take to get from say, King George/99 to Alderbridge/99 in morning rush hour? Just curious how much worse things have gotten since I moved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 4:29 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake View Post
Question: How long does it currently take to get from say, King George/99 to Alderbridge/99 in morning rush hour? Just curious how much worse things have gotten since I moved.
The morning rush our from what I experienced, certainly isn't terrible, when you have the 3 lanes in, and you're actually lucky there's no accident blocking a lane somewhere in the stretch.

It's the PM rush in Delta where you have 5 lanes and onramps merging into 1 lane. That's the problem with the structure primarily.

Travel times, I wouldn't know, but yes, it is certainly slow now all the way back to King George Blvd alot of mornings. Not at a standstill, but slow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 5:07 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKaz View Post
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.
Very true. I don't think people can put 2 and 2 together when they add up the costs of buying and maintaining a car. My wife and I split a single car, even though we could afford one each. It's worth at least a great vacation every year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 6:10 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyjoeda View Post
This is complete nonsense. In cities with $100 billion dollar transit systems transit use dominates. How many people commute by car in London or Manhattan?....
Dominates? Not really.

In 2007/08, half of trips wholly within Outer London were by car (as either driver or passenger), while 15 percent were by public transport, predominantly bus. In contrast, within Inner London (outside the centre), car accounted for a quarter of trips and public transport for a further quarter (bus 18 percent, rail and Underground 7 percent). Most of the remaining trips were on foot.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...n-report-1.pdf
(P.3)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 6:50 PM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 2,926
Just found the Steer Davies Gleave report dated September, 2004, which was entitled "the Gateway Program".

The Gateway Program included everything that we know today PLUS:

1. The H99 project (albeit it looks like just adding another tube to the existing Massey tunnel back then) - Map is at page 16;

2. Highway 99 - Highway 1 Connector (unlike my previous post referring to the "Southern Freeway Corridor", this makes reference to the Serpentine Fwy Corridor with interchanges at Hwy 99, Hwy 10, Hwy 15, 200th St. and Hwy 1) - Map is at Page 17;

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/repo...-forecasts.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 8:45 PM
crazyjoeda's Avatar
crazyjoeda crazyjoeda is offline
Mac User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Au contraire. I now am stuck in gridlock at the King George Hwy interchange on Hwy 99 in the morning. That's near the U.S. border BTW. And it only gets worse with time.

As an aside, my cousin, residing in South Surrey, was dropped off and then parked at the South Surrey Park & Ride for 10 years, taking the 351 rapid bus to Granville & Broadway every day where his office is situate for his 9 to 5. After the Canada Line came into place, the transfers lengthened his travel time to the point that it was no longer worthwhile to take transit in terms of the extended travel time, inconvenience and internalized costs of same.

Different strokes for different folks.
With respect I have lived in South Surrey for many years and know the area very well.

The King George Boulevard on ramp isn't near the USA border, you must be thinking of 8th Ave; anyway, lengthy backups on KG and on 32nd Avenue have been occurring for years but have been made worse by recent population increases in South Surrey.

Where I have noticed some easing of congestion is at the tunnel. I used to drive into Richmond every morning and have experienced the painful delays at the GMT, but in the past couple years I have noticed the delays have been less severe.

Last year I switched to transit to go into Richmond it took longer than driving but the convenience and freedom from traffic was worth it. Now I go downtown and at rush-hour transit is so much faster than driving.

For most 351 commuters the Canada Line has meant major time savings. With the Canada Line and HWY99 bus lanes I now arrive downtown before the old bus route would have crossed the Oak Street bridge. Also the Cambie corridor has many more destinations and employment centres. Granville is mostly residential until 16th Avenue.

BTW: I am not against the tunnel replacement, something needs to be done but a larger tunnel won't solve the big problem. Where does the tunnel traffic go? During rush-hour Steveston and West Minister HWY both backup onto the 99 and the Oak Street Bridge often backs up to the East-West connector.
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 10:57 AM.

     

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