View Single Post
  #3209  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2018, 11:56 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 17,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
The reason was that New Westminster didn't believe it could handle the traffic from a 6-lane, which was proposed at the time. Truthfully, creating induced demand in New West streets isn't exactly a great idea, I can understand the sentiment.

They had to compromise with a 4-land 'expandable'.


And really, only NOF mayors hate bridges. Mostly because they are more transit-oriented due to greater densities, unlike the suburban SOF.


Imagine what would happen when Surrey densifies. No highway expansions in Metro Van ever again.




I'll try to make an educated guess. https://buzzer.translink.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/translinkhistory.pdf

"Several options for governance were presented during the first workshop. The GVRD ultimately reached the conclusion that it wanted to play the central role in regional transportation, and move toward a solution on a broad and strategic level, while finding a way to use existing tax sources to buy a place at the table. "

"The second major event was a decision by the provincial government to unilaterally “declassify” the responsibility of approximately 600 kilometres of provincial secondary
highways to municipalities. Many municipalities found themselves with the unexpected burden of maintaining these newly acquired roads. The GVRD pounced on the decision as an opportunity to negotiate a new governance and funding agreement for not only the transit system, but the roads as well. Today, Cameron points at the declassification as being a major reason why ultimately a transportation authority was created, instead of merely a transit authority."

Translink is technically a transportation authority, not a transit authority (even though it's 90% transit, it does own Golden Ears).

The Province gave control of much of the highway system to the municipalities, giving them more control over the highway system (who then prompted to declassify them- which is why 1A and 99A no longer exist- and why the Pautello expansion was originally a Translink Project.)

The idea was to make the transit and highway system work together, in a way that would 'address the multi-modal needs of the region'.

However, the GVRD (and Translink) are largely controlled by the mayors. Who disagree on pretty much everything, and end up constantly trying to compete with each other.

This is both a good, and bad thing- it spurs transit and development growth- but it results in a lot of...unintended consequences.

Vancouver and Surrey are the most powerful municipalities. The Pautello and Port Mann had the Liberals and Surrey as backers. The George Massey has Delta, Richmond, and...no one else, seemingly.

Is it a wonder why it's dead in the water? We either have to wait until the Liberals come back into power, or the NDP is convinced enough to accept the expansion.

The mayors do not decide solely on transportation expansions. In the end, the province still owns Hwy 99. However, they do have a large amount of influence-more than most other cities.

The biggest issue is that the NDP just doesn't care. I mean, Richmond, Delta, and even S. Surrey were generally pretty strongly Liberal in the last election, or were either-or districts.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/bc-election-live-election-results-map/


The anti-highway NOF generally wins out due to higher population. Only Surrey really has the population to compete with the NOF. If the SOF controlled Metro Van, there would probably have been the (admittedly not well-thought-out) NFPR, more road expansions, and generally more sprawl.

It's a mixed bag. However, this is probably the main reason why so many SOF people feel SOF is being screwed over by NOF. Because they kind of are, due to demographics.




He isn't really against expending the crossing, he just wants it done by twinning for some reason.
For the Pattullo 6 lanes is the better option because each shoulder lane would have been an add drop lane. At the very least it should be opened with 5 lanes, 3 south 2 north. The 3rd south bound lane would continue from the Columbia Street West to Pattullo Bridge South on ramp and exit via the Pattullo Bridge South to SFPR West direct ramp.

That way you are not really adding any new lanes into New West and you won’t have what will obviously be a terrible merge point / choke point on the bridge.


As for all that about the Mayors and province, I understand the point of why things are what they are now, but it is still a broken system and I would argue that given its linkage between the border, airport, ferry terminal, Delta Port, etc... the highway 99 / GMB project goes far beyond the needs and concerns of the local mayors and even the province, unlike the Pattullo which really is a local Metro-Vancouver issue. (hence I wish the feds were to pay their share as well regarding the GMB).

Agree that removing the tolls was a terrible idea. Was against that from the start. Kind of a bizarre ideology, “We are largely against highway expansion but gosh darn it we are going to ensure that the existing highways and bridges are bursting at the seams!” The tolls really did reduce needless trips and instead of removing them completely they could have been re-structured (a year end rebate system for lower income earners, varied pricing throughout the day, etc...)

As for the news recently, we all knew that the 10 lane bridge is dead.

We can only hope that an 8 lane bridge structure is chosen, considering that the counter flow is already 3 lanes in a direction and the need for a rapid bus lane = 4 lanes a direction = just fine / wise compromise. It would also likely salvage all the work that has already been done instead of pissing it all away.

The twin tunnel idea is the worst, for all the reasons I have listed before (loss of ALR, need to eventually replace existing tunnel anyways, the fudged mess of cobbled interchanges it would create, the experience for pedestrians and cyclists, still no dangerous goods can be shipped, the narrow lane widths of the existing tunnel, etc...)

I really really hope at least some sensibility is kept in this project.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30634635@N03/with/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0_0h9qKlhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote