Port Mann/Highway 1 Improvements | Completed

[mr.x]

Well, it is a 10-lane bridge....not surprised by the size, though worried about the region's future sustainability.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Well, it is a 10-lane bridge....not surprised by the size, though worried about the region's future sustainability.

While I think it's important to improve our main highway throughout the region, I really think it's more important to expand our rapid transit infrastructure in conjunction with the road infrastructure expansion. As of now, the only transportation improvement to the South of Fraser is the Port Mann (and the not-so-useful bus that comes with it). Now that Falcon is off the chair, I hope we blanket the South of Fraser with LRT lines.

[wrenegade]

I think it looks fantastic. Huge, crazy, but fantastic. As mentioned above, this is THE interchange of highway systems in Vancouver. As big as it is, it is needed for the number of lanes in that area in order to avoid bottlenecks. If you think it is monstrous don't worry, it will be the largest of any for the foreseeable future.

Hopefully the do the interchange at Brunette just as well (although I'm sure a little smaller with lower ramp speeds).

[Mininari]

Finally!

Wow!

Thanks for the find, Stingray. Good stuff!
It certainly looks worth of an interchange handing the intersection of four major arteries. The biggest difference people should notice (barring any ridiculously low speed limits) is the higher speed merging traffic coming onto the bridge from the properly engineered, wide-radius ramps. Making big trucks accelerate from 30 to 80 at the Cape Horn has always been a reason why that interchange is so congested.

[osirisboy]

ah that thing is sooo needed. we cant all take the friggin bus so yes its needed

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by lightrail

OMG - that is just horrible. A road engineers — maybe - but come on. I can't believe they're spending $3 billion on this sh*t when climate change is such an agenda issue. You've got to be kidding me.

Originally Posted by vansky

is this really necessary?... maybe having more bridges accross the fraser is a more practical option...

Originally Posted by mr.x

Well, it is a 10-lane bridge....not surprised by the size, though worried about the region's future sustainability.

Agreed. I was initially in support of this project, and I'm still somewhat on the fence, but after traveling extensively in the US the past two summers and seeing their highway system, I'm becoming more and more uncomfortable with the thought on an 8-lane highway bisecting the region. I mean, this interchange is the perfect example of US-style freeway infrastructure that's coming to the Metro.

The lack of highways in Vancouver proper is precisely why we are so livable. After visiting LA, it's quite clear and I too fear for the future sustainability of our region...

Originally Posted by deasine

It is big, but I have to say, it is needed. As Metro-One said, this is an interchange connecting many major arterials. Finally, road infrastructure that doesn't create bottlenecks.

Until more cars than the design capacity use the infrastructure. Then we're back where we started. The question is, where do we draw the line and stop expanding roads and invest in other modes of transport...?

Originally Posted by deasine

Now that Falcon is off the chair, I hope we blanket the South of Fraser with LRT lines.

While Falcon was a staunch SkyTrain supporter, I have more doubt that any major transit infrastructure will be built with Bond at the helm. At least Falcon had the gumption to get things done.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Until more cars than the design capacity use the infrastructure. Then we're back where we started.

we can say the same thing about building skytrain.

the region is so poorly connected and an 8 lane highway is not that big. the pics look crazy b/c its an interchange but really we are only adding a lane in each direction right?

dont worry the roads in metro vancouver are so poor that this one project wont threaten our "sustainability". we cant all use public transit.

[Metro-One]

The funny thing is how people think that they are simply building it larger and that we will have the same traffic problems as before.

There are so many more issues being fixed here, traffic clogs horribly on the #1 for several reason. First of all it narrows at its most important point, the Port Mann Bridge, creating a horrible choke point, especially since over 40% of the vehicle traffic on the bridge is only using the bridge portion of the freeway!. Making the bridge the widest part of the highway is a smart move that they do often in Asia and Europe.

Next, this freeway will be using collector and feeder lanes, (giving it much of its width in its widest parts) which allow traffic to flow much more smoothly as cars exit and enter the freeway. This reduces the chances for clogs on the through lanes.

Next, this freeway will have proper merging lanes that allow trucks and other vehicles to reach highway speeds before actually entering the through traffic lanes, unlike the current design.

The connections between the Lougheed and the #1 will allow motorists to continue high speeds while merging from one to the other, this also keeps traffic flowing better and reduces start stop travel. The only other interchange built to this standard in the Lower Mainland is the 91/99 interchange and I have never been in a jam on it.

Again, this is where 4 major arteries interact, and this is the heart of the entire Lower Mainland road network! The entire freeway is not going to look like this, and this is not going to divide the region, simply because this interchange is surrounded by the river, industrial lands, a prison, and park lands. All these are needed, and al these "divide regions" so no where better to place the main interchange eh?

I could go on, not to mention the bridge toll will stop a lot of nonsense commutes that occur today.

It is hard to explain to people who only look at the images but do not understand the functions. The same way one can look at the Canada Line guide-ways in Richmond and say they are ugly and diving, but we know the purpose they serve for we look deeper into the function of the infrastructure.

[osirisboy]

thank you metro-one you said exactly what i was thinking (except i have had a bottle of wine and cant articulate my thoughts as well as i would like)

[mr.x]

The Gateway project scope is much bigger than what was originally proposed at a cost of almost $6-billion...the SFPR (which is needed) is being beefed up, and the Port Mann is now on steroids. An additional 5-lane bridge proposal is now 10-lanes, the entire bridge project will cost $2.5-billion which is nearly the original cost of the ENTIRE Gateway project. And not one penny, except the ~$100-million for that useless rapid bus service, is geared towards serious transit.

When you cut out the P3 funding for the Port Mann, that's more than $4.5-billion in publicly funded road investments. We could easily fund Evergreen today by swiping about $600-million from Gateway to extend SkyTrain (last i checked, about $100-million/km) or LRT further into Surrey...or then again, we could use it to fill in Translink's funding gap for the Evergreen Line and then some (the $175-million shortfall they were expecting from a P3).

Hell, if they were going to throw in a billion in public money for the much larger $2.5-billion Port Mann wouldn't it be more ideal to spend it on a new Pattullo which is only a gazillion more years older than the Mann?

Are they really expecting Translink to fund the new Patullo all by themselves as well? By the time it's built, the "target date" is 2020, the Patullo will be almost 90 years old - same age as the Lions Gate. That bridge is ready to fall apart. In contrast, the Port Mann would be 49-years old when they demolish it after the new one opens in 2013.



I would be more at ease if more of the highway expansion lanes are for HOV and commercial vehicles, but the design benefits single-occupancy vehicles. All I can say is at least it'll be tolled. Roads are definitely necessary, so my main peeve would be what these lanes are used for. Paradigm is right in that the lack of road capacity has kept this region, or Vancouver at least, quite livable.

The only parts of Gateway I'm really supportive are the SFPR for the ever growing port traffic and the new Pitt River Bridge replacing the old unreliable swing bridge.

[Stingray2004]

People have to understand that it's "just an interchange" albeit the region's major interchange involving Hwy 1, the Lougheed Hwy, and the Mary Hill Bypass. The two latter routes are the only effective corridors from Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, and Port Moody albeit the Barnet Hwy also provides another routing.

Compare that to Vancouver City proper, which has Granville, Oak, Cambie, and Knight (among others) that effectively provide 24 north/south lanes by themselves. Otherwise, if an east/west river bisected the City of Vancouver proper, traffic would be a considerable mess and put a further crimp into Vancouver's quality of life.

I understand the design of the Cape Horn interchange as well as its purpose but when I saw the diagrams earlier this morning I assumed that some posters would immediately think....

Look at it this way... it's building for the future near designated high growth areas.

I bet that when the original 2-lane (later four shoe-horned lanes?) Granville St. Bridge was designated for replacement almost 60 years ago, and when folk at that time saw the design of the new 8-lane Granville St. Bridge with double 2-lane off-ramps at the bridgeheads back then, they were probably also taken aback.

But back then they built for the future. 55 years later I'm sure that most here would agree that the Granville St. Bridge is an effective piece of infrastructure for Vancouver proper.

I guess one could also use the same analogy vis-a-vis the platform lengths for the Canada Line - They should have been built for the future.

As for the PMB, I would have actually looked at a 2+4+4+2 configuration for the future.

[Metro-One]

Good way to put it Stingray

But i do understand where mr.X is coming from, I also feel that the government needs to honor its 15 billion dollar long term transit commitment as well.

I feel this highway is needed, but they also better make with the Evergreen Line and the UBC/Expo extensions.

I should also add people should keep in mind that the extremely wide portion of the freeway pictured in the renders is not just the #1, but also the Lougheed running along its sides, along with all of the Mary Hill Bypass connections.

[Zassk]

Yes, this bridge will cost a lot, and a portion could pay for Patullo or Evergreen, but we still need it. This bridge and interchange are playing catch-up for 40 years of neglect.

Mr. X, how about we not replace the Patullo at all, just tear it out instead, and let the big modern bridges (New Port Mann, Alex Fraser and Skybridge) take care of all Surrey traffic?

From where I sit, far away in Richmond, it would still be better to have this one new 10-lane massive bridge built, even if we lost 9 lanes of old bridges on the balance...

P.S. new poster, old lurker

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I should also add people should keep in mind that the extremely wide portion of the freeway pictured in the renders is not just the #1, but also the Lougheed running along its sides, along with all of the Mary Hill Bypass connections.

And that's a very important point.

The diagram shows the TCH-1 running alongside the re-aligned 4-lane Lougheed Hwy as well as the 2-lane on/off ramps to the Mary Hill Bypass.

Many here might not understand that from the diagram. All they see is some sort of Hwy 1 behemoth.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Yes, this bridge will cost a lot, and a portion could pay for Patullo or Evergreen, but we still need it. This bridge and interchange are playing catch-up for 40 years of neglect.

Mr. X, how about we not replace the Patullo at all, just tear it out instead, and let the big modern bridges (New Port Mann, Alex Fraser and Skybridge) take care of all Surrey traffic?

We seem to be surviving right now. This whole notion that we *need* a 10-lane Port Mann is a bit ridiculous. If anything, the lack of capacity is constraining car usage from the Valley, and while that cost will simply be translated from time to money in the future, we will ultimately be no better off. We're paying one way or the other, not to mention the tolls will go towards the construction of the bridge and not funding any other infrastructure. It's just my personal opinion, but I'd rather pay through a 6-10 minute wait during the morning rush than a $3 toll each way.

Pattullo is a priority in the system considering it actually kills people.

[cabotp]

Temporarily ignoring the personal vehicle that will use this interchange. Who I feel can sit in traffic as well. As really it is there own personal time and they decided to drive across the bridge.

This is needed for the commercial traffic more than the personal vehicle traffic.

And while the new bridge is nice. The biggest improvement is the new on-off ramps and express lanes. It will flow better and be safer because of it.

Oh and I would actually support keeping the toll on the bridge indefinitely and not removing it once the bridge is paid off.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

We seem to be surviving right now. This whole notion that we *need* a 10-lane Port Mann is a bit ridiculous. If anything, the lack of capacity is constraining car usage from the Valley, and while that cost will simply be translated from time to money in the future, we will ultimately be no better off. We're paying one way or the other, not to mention the tolls will go towards the construction of the bridge and not funding any other infrastructure. It's just my personal opinion, but I'd rather pay through a 6-10 minute wait during the morning rush than a $3 toll each way.

Pattullo is a priority in the system considering it actually kills people.

Technically, I would say the Port Mann isn't really a 10 lane bridge. I would consider it as two separate bridges since it services two different set of commuters. Yes, people use the Port Mann to go to the Lougheed Highway, but if they had another option, they would use it. The Port Mann really services two different sets of commuters and is really like two bridges in one.

The main problem I think with the Gateway project is of course, the lack of transit to take advantage of the numerous upgrades, but it's because it's packaged in one. If the Government chose not to brand these upgrades in one big project and just separated each of them, it wouldn't be as big as a problem the media/environmentalists are depicting.

The amount of carbon dioxide you are spewing into the air + gas you are using up because of the commute is just going to add up. It's often not a 6-10 minute wait to the bridge...

[cabotp]

West bound down johnston hill it can easily and usually is a 30 minute wait. And that is on a good day when things are actually flowing. To this day I still don't know why people have to go so slow down that hill and yet try and drive the F1 circuit going up it.

[Vancity]

Sorry for asking this question, and for my ignorance on this subject. But where exactly is this project going to be built? Can someone provide a map of where it'll be? Thx.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Agreed. I was initially in support of this project, and I'm still somewhat on the fence, but after traveling extensively in the US the past two summers and seeing their highway system, I'm becoming more and more uncomfortable with the thought on an 8-lane highway bisecting the region. I mean, this interchange is the perfect example of US-style freeway infrastructure that's coming to the Metro.

I've traveled the US extensively as well. I would agree that this is a familiar sight in US suburbs, but I'd argue that south of the Fraser is much the same as AnyTown, USA anyway. The liveable region that we are so happy with in Vancouver, is really Metro Vancouver north of the Fraser. The reason that the #1 is so jammed and the PMB is in gridlock for 23.5 hours a day is precisely because the suburbs south of the Fraser have been designed in the typical fashion that dominates North America. Unfortunately it's far too late to undue. Obviously we need more transit options for these folks, and encourage more development like Central City, but as far as the #1 highway goes, the horse has left the barn and the PMB expansion is what we need.

That being said I fully support the toll option.

Originally Posted by paradigm4

While Falcon was a staunch SkyTrain supporter, I have more doubt that any major transit infrastructure will be built with Bond at the helm. At least Falcon had the gumption to get things done.

What transit did he "get done" exactly? I'll believe once I see shovels in the ground.