HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > General Discussion

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 5:34 AM
Distill3d's Avatar
Distill3d Distill3d is offline
Glorfied Overrated Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver (Burnaby), British Columbia
Posts: 4,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hourglass View Post


Really cool pics SpongeG. Interesting to think how it would have changed the feel of the CBD.

All I can say is that I'm so very glad they didn't go through with this plan.
i'm with you on this one. this thing is bloody hideous!!!
__________________
The Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?

Pinky: I think so, Brain, but this time, you put the trousers on the chimp.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:07 AM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by djh View Post
In many cases the people that drive from the North shore to Vancouver on a daily basis are senior people in downtown companies who live in nice, expensive North shore neighbourhoods. Due to their senior positions, they would consider a toll bridge just another commuting cost of business.
For all the other people, they would continue to use the other bridges and the ferry.

So I think another (tolled) route (bridge or tunnel) is viable
As long as it had a transit component to it and the tolls came off when it got paid off.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 5:14 PM
djh djh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan6969 View Post
I gotta disagree, as a resident of west van and someone who uses lions gate everyday, i generally wouldn't bother driving into north van to use a tunnel,
I didn't suggest the tunnel was in North Van. Would you use it if it was in West Van, or if it was half-way between North and West Van?

Quote:
and i certainly wouldn't if a toll was required.
I didn't suggest everybody would use the toll tunnel. The idea I was suggesting was that those who could afford it as a business expense would use it. This would relieve the pressure a little on the other modes of transit (Lions Gate, 2nd Narrows, Seabus).

Quote:
I really don't think there is a need for a third crossing,
?!?!?LOL You drive it daily and you don't think the route is inordinately slow? How would you suggest making that crossing an acceptable speed, if not with another crossing?

Quote:
sure it'd be nice if lions gate was 4 lanes, but traffic isn't really that big of an issue.
Again, wha? I've taken half an hour to cross Lions Gate Bridge. If my time is money in a downtown law firm or something, then I would consider a half-hour to travel 2 miles or so "an issue"

Quote:
Besides the tunnel would be kinda useless without the accompanying freeway, there would still be no more street space downtown. Just like if u replaced lions gate with an 8 lane bridge, once the cars get across there's no where for them to go.
The LGB is the bottleneck. Three to four lanes (North Shore) feeding onto a 2-lane (max) bridge deck is illogical. And at the other end, two lanes (max) on the bridge deck feeding onto a 3-4 lane road (Georgia Street) is obviously under-utilised road capacity. The ideal solution, as has been discussed here many times, would be to either a) double-deck the bridge, or b) widen the bridge, to make the bridge capacity the same as its entrance and exit route's capacity. Since it is such a revered piece of architecture - if not a quasi-heritage structure, those 2 options are never going to happen (and it's not going to be knocked-down and replaced, period).
Hence, the next best option is to add capacity elsewhere. End of story.

Last edited by djh; Aug 7, 2007 at 8:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 6:44 PM
crazyjoeda's Avatar
crazyjoeda crazyjoeda is offline
Mac User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 861
The reason why Vancouver is such a great city is because that project didn't go through. IMO downtown freeways ruin cities, Seattle sucks because of them and Toronto would have a much nicer water front with out one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:51 PM
achu achu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 42
What you guys are all forgetting is that any kind of rapid transit into the north shore will never occur because there is no growth there. All the growth in the lower mainland is occuring south of the Fraser and up in the tri-cities. We already have problems getting LRT into Coquitlam, and we're probably looking at another 5-10 years before the Millenium line is extended to Granville/UBC.

Any kind of demand for a third crossing/rapid transit will follow growth in that area, and the area most likely for growth is the Squamish/Whistler corridor. Fortunately, congestion on the two bridges and the upper levels highway is all that is saving us from urbanizing this pristine area, though it is already happening.

Granted, any kind of super mega project involving a land link to Vancouver Island, and we'll probably see some major work being done to expand capacity in the form of a third crossing. Lions Gate is already stated to be decommishioned as a second crossing in a few decades anyways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 8:21 PM
phesto phesto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: yvr/bwi
Posts: 2,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by djh View Post
The LGB is the bottleneck. Three to four lanes (North Shore) feeding onto a 2-lane (max) bridge deck is illogical. And at the other end, two lanes (max) on the bridge deck feeding onto a 3-4 lane road (Georgia Street) is obviously under-utilised road capacity. The ideal solution, as has been discussed here many times, would be to either a) double-deck the bridge, or b) widen the bridge, to make the bridge capacity the same as its entrance and exit route's capacity. Since it is such a revered piece of architecture - if not a quasi-heritage structure, those 2 options are never going to happen (and it's not going to be knocked-down and replaced, period).
Hence, the next best option is to add lanes elsewhere. End of story.
Generally speaking, I’m not an advocate of any approach to congestion that involves merely increasing capacity; the phenomenon of latent traffic demand has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout North America.

What bugs me about the Lion’s Gate though is that so much of the congestion is caused by the inability to deal with periods such as weekend afternoons when there is considerable traffic volume in both directions and counterflow operations force one side of the bridge to merge four lanes into one.

There’s the argument that existing road network could be unable to handle the capacity of a fourth lane, but I don’t buy it, and any bottleneck that would occur as a result of this additional capacity would pale in comparison to what is occurring now. But what’s done is done….
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 9:27 PM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by achu View Post
What you guys are all forgetting is that any kind of rapid transit into the north shore will never occur because there is no growth there. All the growth in the lower mainland is occuring south of the Fraser and up in the tri-cities. We already have problems getting LRT into Coquitlam, and we're probably looking at another 5-10 years before the Millenium line is extended to Granville/UBC.

Any kind of demand for a third crossing/rapid transit will follow growth in that area, and the area most likely for growth is the Squamish/Whistler corridor. Fortunately, congestion on the two bridges and the upper levels highway is all that is saving us from urbanizing this pristine area, though it is already happening.

Granted, any kind of super mega project involving a land link to Vancouver Island, and we'll probably see some major work being done to expand capacity in the form of a third crossing. Lions Gate is already stated to be decommishioned as a second crossing in a few decades anyways.
A few decades? That bridge has been in desperate need of a serious upgrade for decades already! Can't even imagine how much worse things will be in a few more decades. Maybe instead of waiting half an hour to travel from downtown to the north shore, the wait will increase to an hour. Or even more! having 4 lanes merging into 1 didn't make sense decades ago, not now, nor will it ever. Its time to either increase capacity on the bridge, or failing that, add a third crossing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 11:11 PM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,143
I remember, around the late 90's, that Vancouver was going to implement a 3rd crossing to North Vancouver via a tunnel under Stanley Park and then under Burrard Inlet, contiguous to Lion's Gate Bridge. That plan did not realize because of high construction costs and poor reaction to the proposal.

However, a tunnel can be constructed to North Vancouver, if needed be, that would not require immense land reclamation and would not impact the downtown core, such as the one found below.



Of course, this is just an idea. However, after the Olympic's galvanize more people to visit Vancouver, and an increased population, access to the downtown core from North Vancouver, as well as access to North Vancouver and Whistler from the south will require accommodating transportation networks that are fast and easily accessible (something that mass transit has not yet become).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 11:32 PM
achu achu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastVanMark View Post
A few decades? That bridge has been in desperate need of a serious upgrade for decades already! Can't even imagine how much worse things will be in a few more decades. Maybe instead of waiting half an hour to travel from downtown to the north shore, the wait will increase to an hour. Or even more! having 4 lanes merging into 1 didn't make sense decades ago, not now, nor will it ever. Its time to either increase capacity on the bridge, or failing that, add a third crossing.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 11:32 PM
djh djh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by phesto View Post
Generally speaking, I’m not an advocate of any approach to congestion that involves merely increasing capacity; the phenomenon of latent traffic demand has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout North America.

What bugs me about the Lion’s Gate though is that so much of the congestion is caused by the inability to deal with periods such as weekend afternoons when there is considerable traffic volume in both directions and counterflow operations force one side of the bridge to merge four lanes into one.

There’s the argument that existing road network could be unable to handle the capacity of a fourth lane, but I don’t buy it, and any bottleneck that would occur as a result of this additional capacity would pale in comparison to what is occurring now. But what’s done is done….
I agree, widening roads always leads to the extra capacity being taken-up.
I was suggesting that extra *capacity* was added, not extra lanes (the version of my quote you got was before I edited out that typo). Nevertheless, in the case of the LGB, I don't think it would be unreasonable to modernise the bridge with extra lanes to *meet* (not exceed) the capacity of the road it feeds and the road that feeds it, just to ensure a smooth crossing at that one small point.

Either way, when I said the best option is to add extra capacity, I think that could take several forms: more seabuses, more buses, more road lanes, even more rapid transit (e.g., a rapid transit bridge or tunnel), or combinations of any of the above. Of course, the best option may be the least affordable, and the population densities over there might not warrant the capital costs (as has been mentioned), so it's a moot point. But increased capacity of some sort is still necessary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 2:18 AM
fever's Avatar
fever fever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,019
The lions gate isn't congested much in the morning rush hour. It's unusual for someone who commutes to downtown in the morning to get stuck in traffic for more than five minutes, and that's avoidable by going earlier or later.

It's usually congested toward downtown on sunny afternoons, especially on the weekend. I guess that's what most people who aren't from the North Shore experience and why they think it must be horrible to commute over. Often, traffic lines up down the causeway from Denman and Georgia though I've never seen this happen when the counterflow on Georgia is westbound.

When they replaced the old bridge deck with the new wider bridge deck they had to use light weight deck panels to make up for it. I doubt it could handle additional traffic lanes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 2:28 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,147
Quote:
Besides, the LGB HAS been upgraded, albeit not a significant one.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 2:50 AM
Distill3d's Avatar
Distill3d Distill3d is offline
Glorfied Overrated Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver (Burnaby), British Columbia
Posts: 4,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
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...
someone care to explain why this is? and what exactly do they plan on doing with the bridge once its closed? tear it down?
__________________
The Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?

Pinky: I think so, Brain, but this time, you put the trousers on the chimp.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 3:56 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Distill3d View Post
someone care to explain why this is? and what exactly do they plan on doing with the bridge once its closed? tear it down?
i think it was a bike/pedestrian trail, though it would be nice to use the bridge and causeway as a transit corridor for bus and rapid transit rail as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 4:29 AM
Distill3d's Avatar
Distill3d Distill3d is offline
Glorfied Overrated Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver (Burnaby), British Columbia
Posts: 4,151
i could encourage that.

besides, driving on LGB scares me because of how the renovated it back in 1998(??). i saw a discovery channel special on that.
__________________
The Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?

Pinky: I think so, Brain, but this time, you put the trousers on the chimp.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 5:30 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 29,682
that was neat to watch - the whole renovation

its pretty amazing how it happenned and just how much wider it was afterwards
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 6:03 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Distill3d View Post
i could encourage that.

besides, driving on LGB scares me because of how the renovated it back in 1998(??). i saw a discovery channel special on that.
I would say driving on the Pautello is scarier =S Don't even understand how that bridge is still standing.

To be honest with many of you, I have to say driving from Van to North Shore isn't actually THAT bad. I travel on the bus during rush hours and I can see the traffic but it isn't that bad (now don't even go to the HOV argument). A third crossing will just promote more driving...

And also be realistic, the City of Vancouver made it clear that there won't be any new crossings entering the city, something I also support.

Let's start off with some a B-Line connecting downtown and North Shore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 6:08 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 29,682
yeah i have driven it a few times - just a couple weeks ago - it wasn't that bad at all

its is confusing in north van though - we trying to get to park royal and got stuck in the bridge line up - only when you get closer do you discover the signage
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 6:17 AM
Distill3d's Avatar
Distill3d Distill3d is offline
Glorfied Overrated Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver (Burnaby), British Columbia
Posts: 4,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
its is confusing in north van though - we trying to get to park royal and got stuck in the bridge line up - only when you get closer do you discover the signage
park royal is west van isn't it?

as far as preference, when i lived and drove in vancouver last time, i enjoyed taking the SeaBus across (after i got used to the idea of the float planes landing close to it lol) to the North Shore. and if i had to drive across, i'd take Second Narrows.

As for Pautello, yeah that thing is nearing the end of its life cycle i'm sure. some work needs to be done...
__________________
The Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?

Pinky: I think so, Brain, but this time, you put the trousers on the chimp.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 3:58 PM
phesto phesto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: yvr/bwi
Posts: 2,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by fever View Post
It's usually congested toward downtown on sunny afternoons, especially on the weekend. I guess that's what most people who aren't from the North Shore experience and why they think it must be horrible to commute over. Often, traffic lines up down the causeway from Denman and Georgia though I've never seen this happen when the counterflow on Georgia is westbound.
Neither have I, and that is kind of my point. I’ve never seen it that congested on either end when there are two lanes open and counterflow is in effect, such as morning or afternoon rush hours. This would seem to suggest that a fourth lane would have had a considerable effect in alleviating congestion during those periods when there is high demand in both directions. (ie. 20-30 weekends per year), and where heavy traffic has to merge into one lane on one side.

The Lions Gate can easily accommodate rush hour traffic, but the 3-lane system leaves it completely unable to cope with the heavy demand in both directions on ‘sunny weekends’. I suppose it isn’t much of a concern since this traffic is mostly comprised of tourists, ferry traffic etc, rather than commuters. I’m just glad the North shore isn’t really growing or I can imagine these peak periods occurring more frequently than just sunny weekends.

For now locals should know when it will be backed up and should just avoid it – but I’m still amazed (and often get caught) in standstill traffic on the LGB on late Sunday afternoons.
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 > General Discussion
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:11 PM.

     

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