HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1121  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2009, 4:06 PM
racc racc is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,241
An interesting article in the Tyee

http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/03/25/LightRail/

Want One Port Mann Bridge, or a Light Rail Metropolis?

UBC team says region could be transformed for $3.1 billion cost of span.

By David Beers
Published: March 25, 2009
printemailshare

TheTyee.ca

Last month British Columbians learned the public-private partnership to finance and build the Port Mann Bridge had fallen through. The provincial government now intends to go it alone, spending $3.1 billion to erect a new 10-lane bridge and widen the road on either end. The government is betting it eventually will recoup the costs by charging tolls starting at $3 per trip and likely to rise.

When the news broke, most of the debate was about whether the deal had been mismanaged. But a team of sustainable community design experts at the University of British Columbia got out their calculators and pursued a different question. They started with the assumption that public money isn't unlimited. They wondered how many citizens would get a real benefit from the finished bridge. And they folded in a goal that B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell espouses: reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

What other transportation infrastructure, they asked, could we instead have for $3.1 billion?

By the time Prof. Patrick Condon and researcher Kari Dow at the UBC Design Centre for Sustainability finished punching in the numbers and mapped their results, they produced a startling alternative vision. For the same money, concluded the team, the government could finance a 200-kilometre light rail network that would place a modern, European-style tram within a 10-minute walk for 80 per cent of all residents in Surrey, White Rock, Langley and the Scott Road district of Delta, while providing a rail connection from Surrey to the new Evergreen line and connecting Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge into the regional rail system.

Big savings on greenhouse emissions

"We were not trying to show a detailed system plan, we just were trying to demonstrate that it seems to be a very lot of money for one bridge when compared to an alternative way of spending the same amount," said Dow.

If half of the roughly 40 million annual trips anticipated for the new bridge were shifted to such a tram system, it would amount to a reduction of the roughly 10,000 metric tons of GHG per year, a reduction equivalent to taking more than 21,000 cars off Lower Mainland roads completely. This amount does not include the likely far greater reductions of car use throughout the south of Fraser region that would result from the light rail network, said Dow.

ADVERTISEMENT
Compared to the 200 km grid of light rail, the Port Mann Bridge, including approach spans, is a mere 2,093 metres long, though the entire project actually extends 37 km and includes widening Highway 1, adding two lanes each way on the east side of the bridge and an extra lane in both directions on the west side.

Dow and Condon factored in the cost of tearing down the original Port Mann Bridge and erecting a brand new one, as current plans dictate. They based their comparative figures on proven costs per kilometre for building a type of high-speed light rail tram widely used in places like Alicante, Spain; Budapest, Hungary; and Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Changing the commute culture

They point out that while building a bigger Port Mann Bridge reinforced commuting patterns in the region, building a robust light rail network likely would change how development occurs in the region, eventually shortening commutes as businesses elect to locate at various new public transit nodes.

"The Port Mann project is propelled forward by assumptions that are 20 years out of date. Commuting patterns are changing rapidly. The commute from Surrey to downtown Vancouver is relatively rare and getting even rarer each day. Jobs continue to move closer to housing all across the eastern part of the metropolis. What is needed is a system that gets us out of the car and serves our emerging complete communities, not guts them," said Condon.

Original vision changed

The Port Mann bridge deal started with a privately financed plan to twin the existing span to allow traffic to move faster through what's become a commuting choke point. The plan changed, and became more expensive, when the government announced it had decided, with its private partners, to tear down the old bridge and build a much bigger new one. Then on Feb. 26, the project's main private partner, Australian infrastructure firm Macquarie Group, dropped out as its stock price plummeted and credit tightened amidst the global financial downturn.

"We have determined that a traditionally financed arrangement is the better way to proceed at the current time," Falcon said when the deal fell through. "With P3s, every deal has got to stand on its own merits. If we can't make a deal that makes sense for us and for taxpayers, we don't do it."

The province will hire two of the remaining partners -- Peter Kiewit Sons Co. and Flatiron Constructors Canada -- to design and build the bridge at a previously agreed cost of $2.46 billion. Those private contractors will be obligated to absorb any cost overruns. The rest of the $3.1 billion price tag is for financing and maintenance costs.

Billions earmarked for mega-projects

The B.C. government is intending to build a number of other large transportation infrastructure projects, including a $1 billion Perimeter Road truck freeway between Deltaport and Highway 1, the $1.4 billion Evergreen Line extending SkyTrain to Coquitlam, and a $2.8 billion, 15 km SkyTrain spur along Broadway in Vancouver out to the UBC campus.

The expenditures are so huge, notes Condon, that "whatever the merits or demerits of the Port Mann proposal, we feel that the taxpayer only has so much in their pockets and these expenditures are gigantic. A real comparison between reasonable alternatives would enhance our ability to choose wisely. How we deploy the available billions on transportation infrastructure over the next 10 to 15 years will determine how sustainable this region will or won't be 100 years from now. We simply have to get it right."

When the UBC SkyTrain line was announced last spring, Condon and Dow produced a study showing that the same money could build a 175 km lattice of light rail lines restoring Vancouver's former trolley system and extending into bordering locales.
     
     
  #1122  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2009, 6:18 PM
vansky vansky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 928
If they can ever build an express train from abbotsford to lanley to surrey to richmond, I would then move to lanley or surrey. On the other hand, boarding on a fast train that offers a view of the mountains while cruising in suburban farm land is a good experience. It reminds me of trains in japan.
     
     
  #1123  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2009, 6:50 PM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by racc View Post
For the same money, concluded the team, the government could finance a 200-kilometre light rail network that would place a modern, European-style tram within a 10-minute walk for 80 per cent of all residents in Surrey, White Rock, Langley and the Scott Road district of Delta
One problem with that scenario though....

You would be replacing buses, that already run along the same routes along the same municipal roads, with streetcars that would also run along the same roads.

So why would someone who currently does not take the bus now decide to take a streetcar along the same route with the same travelling time in the same traffic????

Rubber or rail should not make a difference on the same ROW.



Source: The Tyee
     
     
  #1124  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2009, 7:03 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 18,034
Also these people keep forgetting that most of these European and Asian cities already have decent freeway, bridge, metro/subway and commuter rail systems in place, built over the last 60 years. They have now built tram networks to simply feed into these greater systems, they do not act as the backbone but are simply the icing on the transit cake. I am tired of people skipping steps 1 through 9 and thinking we can simply build step 10 and everything will be perfect! We need a decent skytrain system to act as the backbone metro for Greater Vancouver, essentially one day it should connect every major urban and suburban center. We also need decent, safe bridge structures and freeways that have proper interchanges and alignments to allow for safe effective travel for commercial vehicles and rapid buses. A 5 lane bridge as the regions main road artery is absolutely ridiculous. I am tired of having to go over this again and again, please do not post those stupid articles any more. In my opinion it is more up to the individual cities to build tram networks and up to the province to connect the individual cities through skytrain, commuter rail, bridges and freeways. And if people have problems with a tram network being so divided among communities, well then maybe this will give the proper incentive for people around here to drop the petty regionalism and finally amalgamate some cities into one (which this area desperately needs, there are to many bosses (mayors and councils) to get anything done properly and promptly (evergreen line anyone?).

PS - In my mind the north shore should be one city, Vancouver, Burnaby and New West should be one, Coquitlam, Port Moody and Port Coquitlam should be one and Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows should be one.
     
     
  #1125  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2009, 8:34 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,814
The Environmental Assessment Certificate for the Port Mann Bridge/Hwy 1 project has been amended.

Amendment available here:

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/html/deploy/epic_project_doc_list_247_c_amd.html

Technical information in support of Amendment:

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/html/deploy/epic_project_doc_list_247_c_yaa.html

Summary of changes versus the "Reference Concept" (twinning):




Last edited by officedweller; Mar 25, 2009 at 9:01 PM.
     
     
  #1126  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2009, 9:03 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna BC & Edmonton AB
Posts: 4,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
The Environmental Assessment Certificate for the Port Mann Bridge/Hwy 1 project has been amended.
You rock man.
     
     
  #1127  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2009, 9:31 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 40,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
One problem with that scenario though....

You would be replacing buses, that already run along the same routes along the same municipal roads, with streetcars that would also run along the same roads.

So why would someone who currently does not take the bus now decide to take a streetcar along the same route with the same travelling time in the same traffic????

Rubber or rail should not make a difference on the same ROW.



Source: The Tyee
looks like a good plan/idea

most people in surrey never ever go north of the fraser - maybe to that — night club in new west once in a while

good to give them better options
     
     
  #1128  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2009, 1:02 AM
geoff's two cents geoff's two cents is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 504
Another difficulty with the plan would stem from the need to accommodate the increasing (though admittedly, it is somewhat decreasing in the short term) amount of port traffic, much of which, to be sure, could be ameliorated using a more comprehensive freight rail system, though not all.

I am generally a fan of Gateway, including the bridge, though the Liberals could have saved themselves a lot of criticism if they announced plans for high-speed commuter rail (giving those commuters and travelers from east to west and vise versa - Cloverdale, Langley, Abbotsford, and perhaps even Chilliwack - a comfortable, attractive alternative to their cars) across the bridge as part of the original plan. What they currently have on the table seems, at least on the surface, to kowtow to SOV traffic more than is necessary.

Eight lanes of car traffic, plus two lanes of rail, would still represent a colossal improvement on the past - even for those who choose to commute by themselves in their smogmobiles. Both pro- and anti-SOV groups would have been quite pleased.
     
     
  #1129  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2009, 2:11 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
looks like a good plan/idea

most people in surrey never ever go north of the fraser - maybe to that — night club in new west once in a while

good to give them better options
its funny that you say that cause i've been trying to think the last time i did cross the river
might have been to go to metrotown
i seriously cant remember the last time i've been to Vancouver though its kinda funny
     
     
  #1130  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2009, 2:14 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff's two cents View Post
Another difficulty with the plan would stem from the need to accommodate the increasing (though admittedly, it is somewhat decreasing in the short term) amount of port traffic, much of which, to be sure, could be ameliorated using a more comprehensive freight rail system, though not all.

I am generally a fan of Gateway, including the bridge, though the Liberals could have saved themselves a lot of criticism if they announced plans for high-speed commuter rail (giving those commuters and travelers from east to west and vise versa - Cloverdale, Langley, Abbotsford, and perhaps even Chilliwack - a comfortable, attractive alternative to their cars) across the bridge as part of the original plan. What they currently have on the table seems, at least on the surface, to kowtow to SOV traffic more than is necessary.

Eight lanes of car traffic, plus two lanes of rail, would still represent a colossal improvement on the past - even for those who choose to commute by themselves in their smogmobiles. Both pro- and anti-SOV groups would have been quite pleased.
The rail lanes are set to be below the deck. So there will still be 10 lanes on this bridge
     
     
  #1131  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2009, 10:14 PM
van-island van-island is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Rubber or rail should not make a difference on the same ROW.
And yet it does. Rail based transit gets consistently higher ridership than buses do, even when travel times and routes are the same.
     
     
  #1132  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2009, 6:20 AM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is online now
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,219
But is that ridership worth 3.1 billion? Probably not.
     
     
  #1133  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2009, 1:45 AM
vango vango is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 77
Patrick Condon's UBC report was given prominent coverage on the Global Newshour tonight. The gist of the news item was trams everywhere instead of Gateway or other 'expensive' projects would solve all transportation problems. The usual videos of European trams were shown with no mention that these are only one part of a large transportation network in these cities. Very misleading reporting (as usual).
     
     
  #1134  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2009, 4:14 AM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,447
So, on a completely different topic than TRAMS, I'd like to ask a question WRT the NFPR.

I recall a while back that the federal government announced funding to "complete" the United Boulevard extension, build a 4-lane bridge to replace the 1-lane bridge from Coquitlam to New West, and a new interchange to link it into Brunette Avenue.

What the heck is happening with this? I'm assuming the money is still on the table, but I can't find an evidence of any movement on it.
Has this gone awry with petty inter-municipal bickering again? Or did it just fall off the radar completely?

It would make sense for it to be built-designed at the same time as the gateway improvements.

Last edited by Mininari; Mar 28, 2009 at 3:50 PM. Reason: Replacing stupid comment with question
     
     
  #1135  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2009, 8:31 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 40,131
the cape horn area of lougheed/coquitlam

they have chopped down a lot of trees on the one slope - the houses are completely exposed now - they must be pissed

more trees to be taken down - markings and fencing all over the place too

are they expanding the lougheed? or running something there? why are they dismantling the trees etc?
     
     
  #1136  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2009, 8:55 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna BC & Edmonton AB
Posts: 4,302
According to the conceptual designs the new hey 1 and Mary hill bypass ramp to lougheed hwy is going there. Could also be some traffic pattern changes to avoid distruptions during construction.
     
     
  #1137  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2009, 9:33 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 40,131
i should take pictures - its basically a cliff where the trees are - i don't know how they can use it
     
     
  #1138  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 5:20 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mininari View Post
I recall a while back that the federal government announced funding to "complete" the United Boulevard extension, build a 4-lane bridge to replace the 1-lane bridge from Coquitlam to New West, and a new interchange to link it into Brunette Avenue.

What the heck is happening with this? I'm assuming the money is still on the table, but I can't find an evidence of any movement on it.
Has this gone awry with petty inter-municipal bickering again? Or did it just fall off the radar completely?
Good question.

The federal funding announcement was made almost 2 years ago yet not much has been heard since. IIRC, I did read somewhere, sometime, during the interim, that further traffic modeling was to be undertaken considering the major upgrades to Hwy 1. But that's still remains a bit hazy in my memory.

As for the project itself, it's quite an expensive proposition at $165 million, considering that same comprises a 4-lane bridge over the Brunette River and a continuous viaduct over the rail line with an interchange at Brunette.

According to the feds, the completion date is apparently 2014:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/Programs/Surface/highways/bc.htm#northfraser

Quote:
Originally Posted by DKaz
According to the conceptual designs the new hey 1 and Mary hill bypass ramp to lougheed hwy is going there.
Yeah, looking at the conceptual design, the westbound Mary Hill Bypass and PMB off-ramp lanes will be constructed halfway up the embankment on the Cape Horn Bluff.

Probably will be a combination of off-ramp viaduct piers/retaining walls as the two lanes descend to the Lougheed Hwy westbound.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/PMH1/doc.../PMH1_11_Cape_Horn_Reference_Concept.pdf
     
     
  #1139  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 3:09 PM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,447
Thanks for the info!

Yeah, it definitely looks like they're lining it up to the Gateway Project completion then. It makes sense to try to have everything open as a network of improvements since theres not a heck of a lot they can really do with the Brunette - HWY 1 interchange, and Brunette East of HWY 1... but if the UB extension works as it is intended, then the brunette avenue choke-point should be loosened a bit.

Re: Lougheed clearing. Yep, according to the PDFs, that area will be a new ramp. Man, that area is going to look crazy when they split the Lougheed to run along either side of HWY 1. It will feel like a (very short) 'Toronto 401.' But really, the whole thing is just an interchange.

I've noticed that the gateway websites are posting new traffic updates, but we're not getting anymore significant news announcements. I wonder if the FINAL contract with Kiewitt-FlatIron will come out (an obvious election-boosting "convenient" announcement). They said they'd have the contract worked out by late March.... hmmm... (checks calendar).
     
     
  #1140  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 5:44 PM
CrazyCommute CrazyCommute is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23
First time poster and I gotta say I love this site and this forum in particular. As my name says, I have a crazy commute -- Tsawwassen to Port Coquitlam every day -- so I am very much looking forward to the insanely overdue improvements Gateway will bring.

In that vein and also in line with some recent posts, I am particularly interested in the NFPR, as I have the misfortune of having to drive through the —-backwards city of New Westminster everyday, a community that obviously despises commuter traffic and does everything it can to frustrate drivers in general.

I've been wondering what the status of the project is, and especially what the plan is to increase flow/capacity through the archaic Columbia/Brunette corridor. When you factor in the huge volume of truck traffic, that area has to be one of the biggest bottlenecks in the metro area.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:25 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.