Metro Vancouver Road Infrastructure Discussion - Page 209

fredinno · #**4161** Posted **Nov 28, 2018, 10:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MIPS

I wasn't aware that False Creek Flats had a need for a new arterial route.

You got Prior/Venables Street to the north with a connection to the Viaduct and intersecting with Main and Clark, 2nd/Great Northern Way to the south which intersects the same two north-south arteries and Terminal Avenue running straight through it.

It's because they plan to remove lanes on Terminal Ave. for bike lanes.

Migrant_Coconut · #**4162** Posted **Nov 28, 2018, 11:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

It's because they plan to remove lanes on Terminal Ave. for bike lanes.

The same Terminal Avenue that's one of downtown's only two continuous E-W routes to Highway 1 and Boundary?

Just close off Union/Adanac, turn it into a bike highway and be done with it. Yeesh.

fredinno · #**4163** Posted **Nov 30, 2018, 4:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The same Terminal Avenue that's one of downtown's only two continuous E-W routes to Highway 1 and Boundary?

Just close off Union/Adanac, turn it into a bike highway and be done with it. Yeesh.

Hey, I'm just the messenger. I'm not the one who came up with that idea.

Changing City · #**4164** Posted **Nov 30, 2018, 4:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

Hey, I'm just the messenger. I'm not the one who came up with that idea.

Do you have a link, or are you making things up? The False Creek Flats Plan doesn't show aný reduced road capacity on Terminal, as far as I know. The new east/west connector is needed because the Prior route is supposed to be closed to through traffic. Trains can close the crossing for 15 minutes or more, and there are going to be more trains and greater dellays once it's double tracked. A Prior overpass would be both expensive and disruptive, so alternatives were canvassed, but there was no consensus on which alternate route was best. The Community Panel is an attempt to get agreement on which route is best - or least worst.

fredinno · #**4165** Posted **Nov 30, 2018, 6:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Changing City

Do you have a link, or are you making things up? The False Creek Flats Plan doesn't show aný reduced road capacity on Terminal, as far as I know. The new east/west connector is needed because the Prior route is supposed to be closed to through traffic. Trains can close the crossing for 15 minutes or more, and there are going to be more trains and greater dellays once it's double tracked. A Prior overpass would be both expensive and disruptive, so alternatives were canvassed, but there was no consensus on which alternate route was best. The Community Panel is an attempt to get agreement on which route is best - or least worst.

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanco...ats-draft-plan

Thankfully, it's just conceptual, but:

Quote:

And there could be changes to Terminal Avenue after the a new east-west connector is built. Preliminary conceptual renderings for Terminal Avenue seemingly show the roadway being reduced by one lane in each direction to provide space for a bike lane and widened sidewalk.

WarrenC12 · #**4166** Posted **Nov 30, 2018, 4:09 PM**

Worth noting that Terminal has a full time parking lane going each way right now. That could easily be done away with for cycling if required.

It's a 4 lane road anyway, it's not being reduced to 2 lanes, that's FUD.

Changing City · #**4167** Posted **Nov 30, 2018, 4:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanco...ats-draft-plan

Thankfully, it's just conceptual, but:

You shouldn't rely on a comment based on a conceptual drawing that 'appears to show' something. The approved plan, published after that comment, doesn't suggest any reduction in traffic lanes on Terminal. It also makes it clear that the new e-w route is to replace Prior.

The plan does include a proposal to improve pedestrian and bike movement along Terminal, but there's lots of space in the median and sidewalk alowance to do that without taking any traffic lanes away.

s211 · #**4168** Posted **Nov 30, 2018, 5:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Changing City

The plan does include a proposal to improve pedestrian and bike movement along Terminal, but there's lots of space in the median and sidewalk alowance to do that without taking any traffic lanes away.

I'll believe it when I see it in its finished form, because at this point the civic administration is so anti-car that it might as well just get to its inevitable end-game and plant IEDs along every street in the city.

WarrenC12 · #**4169** Posted **Nov 30, 2018, 5:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

I'll believe it when I see it in its finished form, because at this point the civic administration is so anti-car that it might as well just get to its inevitable end-game and plant IEDs along every street in the city.

Migrant_Coconut · #**4170** Posted **Nov 30, 2018, 8:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Let's admit it, that was actually pretty funny.

fredinno · #**4171** Posted **Dec 4, 2018, 6:39 AM**

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/lions...ent-agreement/

Quote:

An agreement between levels of government could shutdown the Lions Gate Bridge and Stanley Park Causeway to private vehicle traffic in 2030.
Under the deal, car traffic would be removed from the bridge and causeway, which will be converted to either an exclusive route for cyclists, pedestrians and transit or an extension of the park’s green space.
The four-party agreement between the provincial government, City of Vancouver, Vancouver Park Board and TransLink was signed in 2000. At the time, the bridge was undergoing a bridge deck replacement and required the removal of 47 trees from the park in order to widen the causeway.

However, there is one major caveat with the plan. For the shutdown to occur, the agreement stipulates that a new replacement crossing across Burrard Inlet from Vancouver to the North Shore would have to be constructed.

Do you think a Skytrain tunnel across the inlet could trigger this clause?

Would the Lion's Gate close because of such a tunnel?

Would it be worth it to make Stanley Park more 'park-like?'

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**4172** Posted **Dec 4, 2018, 7:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/lions...ent-agreement/

Do you think a Skytrain tunnel across the inlet could trigger this clause?

Would the Lion's Gate close because of such a tunnel?

Would it be worth it to make Stanley Park more 'park-like?'

1 - depends how it is phrased. does it mean replacement as in minimum current vehicle capacity, or replacement as # of people that cross it. words matter. also, is it binding? just because there is an agreement, doesn't mean it is binding and must be listened to.

2 - depends on answer to 1.

3 - i don't see why getting cars off the causeway would be a bad thing. but, i also don't see why the causeway cant be in a trench/tunnel with park space over top negating the effect of the causeway.

Metro-One · #**4173** Posted **Dec 4, 2018, 7:15 AM**

Having a single general purpose road bridge linking the entire North Shore / Sunshine Coast / Squamish Valley / Whistler area to the rest of metro Vancouver would be a terrible terrible idea that would not be floated anywhere else except here.

At minimum the closure would have to coincide with the opening of a new bridge consisting of 4 general traffic lanes and a mass transit element (preferably Skytrain). Of course I would prefer 6 traffic lanes, but need to be realistic.

The only way fathomable that the closure of the Lion’s Gate Bridge can be done without the opening of an entirely new crossing is if it coincides with the opening of a 10 lane replacement of the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge and a separate new transit connection (bridge or tunnel, again preferably Skytrain). This is less ideal than the above scenario IMO.

fredinno · #**4174** Posted **Dec 4, 2018, 7:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Having a single general purpose road bridge linking the entire North Shore / Sunshine Coast / Squamish Valley / Whistler area to the rest of metro Vancouver would be a terrible terrible idea that would not be floated anywhere else except here.

At minimum the closure would have to coincide with the opening of a new bridge consisting of 4 general traffic lanes and a mass transit element (preferably Skytrain). Of course I would prefer 6 traffic lanes, but need to be realistic.

The only way fathomable that the closure of the Lion’s Gate Bridge can be done without the opening of an entirely new crossing is if it coincides with the opening of a 10 lane replacement of the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge and a separate new transit connection (bridge or tunnel, again preferably Skytrain). This is less ideal than the above scenario IMO.

I don't believe there's enough room for more than 6 lanes on the Upper Levels without demolishment of the surrounding neighborhoods...

Migrant_Coconut · #**4175** Posted **Dec 4, 2018, 7:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

At minimum the closure would have to coincide with the opening of a new bridge consisting of 4 general traffic lanes and a mass transit element (preferably Skytrain). Of course I would prefer 6 traffic lanes, but need to be realistic.

The only way fathomable that the closure of the Lion’s Gate Bridge can be done without the opening of an entirely new crossing is if it coincides with the opening of a 10 lane replacement of the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge and a separate new transit connection (bridge or tunnel, again preferably Skytrain). This is less ideal than the above scenario IMO.

And we're more likely to see Seth Rogen win an Oscar before either of those happens.

ilikeredheads · #**4176** Posted **Dec 4, 2018, 6:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

I don't believe there's enough room for more than 6 lanes on the Upper Levels without demolishment of the surrounding neighborhoods...

He meant the bridge, not Hwy 1 in Upper Levels. Any new bridge should have more lanes than the freeway itself because it's a huge bottleneck.

scryer · #**4177** Posted **Dec 4, 2018, 6:49 PM**

Guys this is really early for April fool's day...

CanSpice · #**4178** Posted **Dec 4, 2018, 7:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

He meant the bridge, not Hwy 1 in Upper Levels. Any new bridge should have more lanes than the freeway itself because it's a huge bottleneck.

So then if the bridge has more lanes than the freeway doesn't that make getting off the bridge a bottleneck? I mean if you have an 8 lane bridge and a 6 lane highway you've got to merge 4 lanes into 3 when you get off the bridge, how is that not a bottleneck?

ilikeredheads · #**4179** Posted **Dec 4, 2018, 7:49 PM**

because there will be on/off ramps before either ends of the bridge. The reason our crossings are so prone to congestion is because you have multiple lanes merging just before the actual crossing. Forcing traffic to merge effectively slows down traffic. It's this slowing down of traffic that causes back up. Just look at our existing crossings. Most of them have 2 or 3 lanes of traffic merged into 1 lane.

This video explains it better than I can
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M

fredinno · #**4180** Posted **Dec 4, 2018, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

because there will be on/off ramps before either ends of the bridge. The reason our crossings are so prone to congestion is because you have multiple lanes merging just before the actual crossing. Forcing traffic to merge effectively slows down traffic. It's this slowing down of traffic that causes back up. Just look at our existing crossings. Most of them have 2 or 3 lanes of traffic merged into 1 lane.

This video explains it better than I can
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M

Still, that limits to an 8-lane on 2nd Narrows.

Not to mention you would likely have to expand the Cassiar Tunnel.