HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 8:51 PM
s211 s211 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Blanket statements = fascist form of arguing.
Umm, wasn't that a blanket statement?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 1:03 AM
Windex's Avatar
Windex Windex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 111
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...
Hot dang, what a bunch of tripe. So what's your plan, triple lane all residential streets to handle traffic congestion?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 1:41 AM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathcona
Posts: 1,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
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.
On the other side of the coin, being in an area with crappy transit usually means housing is significantly cheaper. So you either sink money into your house or your car.

Compared to real estate, a car is many magnitudes cheaper right now. Unless of course you live in the US.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 1:59 AM
xd_1771's Avatar
xd_1771 xd_1771 is offline
(daka_x)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubsH View Post
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.
Why don't you bike to the stop and/or bike-on-the-bus?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One
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.
Until recently whenever I thought of Japan I thought of the ridiculously well-organized train systems connecting all points of the country. Then, I found a YouTube channel that had some fast-motion driving videos featuring the road system.

All I could say was "wow". There seems to have been a serious amount of investment in road systems, with elevated 6-lane freeways traversing countryside alignments and other amazing things like the Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge.

I agree, I think that having a balance is going to be good for all of us. The problem here is that at the same time there's not really been a huge amount of balance being placed onto dedicated transit investments either in this region - and there's a huge list of needed improvements to tackle there. If the funding is balanced so that it does come and from the right sources. If this is really about enhancing port connections, there should be far more federal and provincial than local investment.

Last edited by xd_1771; Sep 30, 2012 at 2:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 2:43 AM
red-paladin's Avatar
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,249
Let's stay on topic please
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 4:15 AM
xsoccerplayer18x xsoccerplayer18x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 19
Does anyone see an issue with the alignment of a new structure? A western alignment would pass through Deas Pacific Marine and new developments in Captain's Cove. An eastern alignment would require a fair amount of tree removal on Deas Island.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 4:18 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 10,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771 View Post
Why don't you bike to the stop and/or bike-on-the-bus?

Until recently whenever I thought of Japan I thought of the ridiculously well-organized train systems connecting all points of the country. Then, I found a YouTube channel that had some fast-motion driving videos featuring the road system.

All I could say was "wow". There seems to have been a serious amount of investment in road systems, with elevated 6-lane freeways traversing countryside alignments and other amazing things like the Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge.

I agree, I think that having a balance is going to be good for all of us. The problem here is that at the same time there's not really been a huge amount of balance being placed onto dedicated transit investments either in this region - and there's a huge list of needed improvements to tackle there. If the funding is balanced so that it does come and from the right sources. If this is really about enhancing port connections, there should be far more federal and provincial than local investment.
Which is why I would hope the replacement of the George Massey tunnel would also include a full highway 99 rapid bus system and a proper C/D system between SFPR and Westminster highway.

Such a rapid bus system could not be implemented today. I would also be happy if they were to keep the 4 lane tunnel, and add to the highway a separate 6 lane structure, 2 lanes Rapid Bus / Bus only, 2 lanes trucks only, and 2 lanes HOV only. That way there would be no increase in general purpose lanes but transit, commercial, and car pooling travels would be far improved.
__________________
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
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 4:20 AM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 3,650
so we cut trees down whats the problem
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 4:49 AM
xsoccerplayer18x xsoccerplayer18x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by osirisboy View Post
so we cut trees down whats the problem
The nimbys will be up in arms! Not to mention, Ocean Fisheries is right across the river on the same alignment. I'm just wondering, would the government just buy these properties out, or just build a longer span over top of them?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 5:59 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 xsoccerplayer18x View Post
Does anyone see an issue with the alignment of a new structure? A western alignment would pass through Deas Pacific Marine and new developments in Captain's Cove. An eastern alignment would require a fair amount of tree removal on Deas Island.
Firstly, I expect that the new crossing will be a cable-stayed bridge. Seems to be the most cost-effective structure these days.

I further expect that the new structure will be slightly up-stream from the existing GMT. Ergo, bridge piers for the main span would be placed on the north side of the Fraser River as well as on Deas Island.

Makes sense looking at Google Maps in terms of encroachment and was also corroborated by a 2003 Delcan Engineering study for a then contemplated new immersed tunnel tube, which was also to be situate up-stream from the existing GMT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Sep 30, 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
I have previously posted in other threads that a new replacement for the GMT would be in the 2025 - 2030 time frame. Still makes sense.

Clark said that a new replacement would be at least 10 years out. In that vein, we would be looking at 2022 - 2023 at the earliest. But that could have also been the project definition report ("PDR") release within that time frame. Remember that the PDR for the Hwy 1/PMB was not released until 2006, then public consultation, then environmental assessment/ certification, then construction.

All told, from commencement, the Hwy 1/PMB upgrades will have taken 6 - 7 years until final completion.

A September, 2009 article from the Journal of Commerce stated:

Quote:
Massey Tunnel seismically upgraded to today’s standards

The Deas Island tunnel was designed in the 1950s when seismic stability played a lesser part in the design process.

Awareness of the effects of serious seismic activity has increased dramatically since construction was completed in 1959.

The river bed is a 600 metre thick layer of sediment on top of bedrock.

This sedimentary layer could liquefy during a major earthquake, causing serious damage to the tunnel.

Buckland & Taylor Ltd. was retained in 1999 to prepare a seismic assessment of the structure, which identified seismic vulnerabilities and established feasible seismic retrofits and costs.

A retrofit project was then initiated to increase the survivability of the tunnel in the event of a significant earthquake.

In May 2001, Buckland & Taylor Ltd. was selected to prepare the final design for the seismic retrofits.

Subsequently, the B.C. Ministry of Transportation upgraded the pumping and emergency power system and Buckland & Taylor Ltd. performed this work. The retrofits were completed in 2006.

Upon completion, the ministry decided not to proceed with the other improvements. A second value engineering exercise took into consideration that there is a plan to replace the tunnel with a new crossing in the next 20 years.
Source: http://www.joconl.com/article/id3519...ch_term=massey tunnel

So a completion date would be ~2029 in that regard. Again, makes sense. Again, we would be looking at a PDR in the ~2023 - 2025 time frame.

The Greater Vancouver Gateway Council ("GVGC") utilized Delcan Engineering for a July, 2003 analysis of contemplated upgrades to Hwy 99/ GMT. Back then, a new 2-lane immersed tube upstream was proposed for a 3 + 1 HOV flow in each direction at peak hours. IOW, an 8-lane crossing (in terms of counterflow at peak) 10 years ago.

http://www.gvgc.ca/pdf/MCTS_EconImpAnalys_appendR.pdf

The PDR won't likely be produced for another 10+ years and it will also need to look at longer term future traffic flows. That's why I'm convinced that a 2+3+3+2 c/d cable-stayed bridge will also be its replacement. BC MoT has now learnt something from it's initial dabbling in a c/d for the new PMB. The new major river crossing template, so to speak.

And I still think that the existing GMT could be utilized for a future lrt line.

The GVGC report also includes an expansion of the Oak St. Bridge to 6 lanes. I suspect that an entirely new structure will replace the OSB as part of the new "system-wide" upgrades for Hwy 99/GMT down the road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 3:29 PM
Gordon Gordon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 912
a bridge replacement is more likely but wuld have to have the same amount of clearence as the Alex Fraser Bridge does to allow passage of today's larger ships.

They could also go with a bored tunnel which would likely be more expensive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 4:10 PM
red-paladin's Avatar
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,249
You can't bore a tunnel through silt/mud though right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 4:38 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,836
Boring a tunnel wouldn't work in the conditions present, but you shouldn't have issues dredging a deeper channel if required, driving piles and then sinking precast sections to rest onto those piles. Wether they go with a bridge or tunnel remains to be seen, but I suspect a tunnel could be done cheaper in this case.

Last edited by jlousa; Sep 30, 2012 at 11:50 PM. Reason: fixed typo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 5:43 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
The GVGC report also includes an expansion of the Oak St. Bridge to 6 lanes. I suspect that an entirely new structure will replace the OSB as part of the new "system-wide" upgrades for Hwy 99/GMT down the road.
I don't know why this is part of the plan... the current OSB provides more traffic than Oak St can handle...

Unless there is a more direct linkage over to Granville St, it doesn't make sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 6:38 PM
huenthar huenthar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
I don't know why this is part of the plan... the current OSB provides more traffic than Oak St can handle...

Unless there is a more direct linkage over to Granville St, it doesn't make sense.
Probably dedicated lanes for Marine Drive I would assume, since there's a lot of traffic that turns off.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 7:24 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathcona
Posts: 1,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by red-paladin View Post
You can't bore a tunnel through silt/mud though right?
You probably could do it, but it would be a nightmare. Grout grout grout and more grout.

If we can hit a clay seam or something more competent than mud we could likely do it. Look up EPB tunnel boring machines.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 7:35 PM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,296
Welp, sure didn't see this coming.

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...unnel-upgrades

NDP questions plan for Massey Tunnel upgrades
Adrian Dix says creating jobs and skills training should be the priorities
Joanne Abshire Sep 29, 2012 14:12:10 PM

...
When it comes to election promises, Dix thinks there are more significant priorities such as creating jobs and skills training.
...

Basically, a vote for the NDP is a vote for not moderning this ancient piece of infrastructure.

Steveston Hwy / 99 could be another Cape Horn Interchange-esque revamp... but honestly, if the new tunnel would go C/D, then they could make the 2/2 "C" system terminate more or less with Stevenston Hwy with some fancy large-radius ramps.

In all fairness, the 3-1 configuration in the morning sends 3 lanes of traffic northbound, so maybe the existing Oak Street Bridge could handle an expanded GMT. the c/d system on the south side could extend as far as the SFPR...

Tolls on this project would be a must with AFB as the free alternative.

But oh wait, I forgot, the NDP is coming to power soon.
Dare I say I already miss Kevin Falcon and his army of marching men with shovels, flanked by bulldozers, dumptrucks, and asphalt layers?

Last edited by Mininari; Oct 1, 2012 at 6:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 8:02 PM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,669
Well that puts a bit of a dent in the image of the NDP as of present...

Arguably Dix could have been more smart and said... we'll look into it... rather than just issuing a flat out denial that's got a number of people hopping mad.

Mind you, perhaps he's being honest that it won't probably happen until near the end of or even after his term, given how the Liberals already see this project as being a 20 year plan?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 8:38 PM
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 jlousa View Post
Wether they go with a bridge or tunnel remains to be seen, but I suspect a tunnel could be down cheaper in this case.
When the cable-stayed Alex Fraser Bridge was constructed it was touted as being able to withstand a seismic event of 8.5 on the Richter Scale. I suspect that subsequent cable-stayed bridges across the Fraser River have as good or better inherent seismic design.

While the GMT has had seismic upgrades I doubt that it could withstand an 8.5 event. Frankly, both the Pattullo and the GMT are the last places I would want to be during a major seismic event.

I understand that the GMT was designed as an immersed tunnel in the first place due to the then technically challenging soft silts going to a depth of 600 m to bedrock.

Seismically active Japan also has immersed tunnels but I doubt that underlying bedrock goes to 600 m at those locales.

http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir...-68d526a6d9cd/

I suspect that enormous costs would come into play for a new immersed tunnel at the GMT locale to withstand an 8.5 seismic event. And I also suspect that seismic factors will be one of the determinators along with the induced visual impairment entering the GMT during daylight hours that can cause traffic to slow.

That's why I still see a new PMB-like structure will eventually be chosen as a new GMT replacement.
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 5:56 PM.

     

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