Port Mann/Highway 1 Improvements | Completed - Page 11

WarrenC12 · #**201** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 1:40 PM**

Quote:

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.

You could say the same for the entire transit system. Nobody is dying waiting for the 99 B Line at Broadway are they?

Metro-One · #**202** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 1:53 PM**

One reason I can think of for replacing the Port Mann before the Pattullo (besides the fact that the Port Mann is used for local, regional & national travel while the Pattullo is almost entirely local) is the fact that New Westminster is so hard to deal with in any highway expansion project. Just look at the 1 lane wooden bridge at the end of Boulevard for an example!

urbanizer405 · #**203** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 2:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

One reason I can think of for replacing the Port Mann before the Pattullo (besides the fact that the Port Mann is used for local, regional & national travel while the Pattullo is almost entirely local) is the fact that New Westminster is so hard to deal with in any highway expansion project. Just look at the 1 lane wooden bridge at the end of Boulevard for an example!

Why is that still even there? I assume it's going to be replaced and widened with the North Fraser Perimeter Road project.

Chikinlittle · #**204** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 2:14 PM**

Quote:

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.

Agree. Disgusting.

Stingray2004 · #**205** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 3:34 PM**

At least Calgary gets it right with less than half Metro Vancouver's population. C-Train expansion and the Southwest Stoney Trail Ring Road design with an ultimate 16-lane configuration - 4+4+4+4

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/Ultimate%20SWRR/FCP162AUS.pdf

And some of the interchange designs seemingly blow away the Cape Horn interchange design.

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/Ultimate%20SWRR/SMTSUS.pdf

tom_g · #**206** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 3:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

The engineering nerd in me loves it but the urban planner in me is afraid of it.

I think that sums up my reaction exactly. Will be amazing to watch this grow around a working freeway over the next few years.

osirisboy · #**207** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 3:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

Agree. Disgusting.

haha i think what we have no is whats disgusting

raggedy13 · #**208** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tom_g

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

The engineering nerd in me loves it but the urban planner in me is afraid of it.

I think that sums up my reaction exactly.

Ditto.

Zassk · #**209** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 4:18 PM**

You would think that the gov't could have run light transit across this bridge from the start.

But I guess that begs the question - is there enough ridership that would use it? Hwy 1 doesn't go really go through any town centers south of the Fraser.

Are there enough people who want to get from Coquitlam to Guildford or vice versa? Will there ever be enough demand to justify light rail along this bridge?

In terms of getting rail out to Langley or Abbotsford, it seems like there are much better routes than putting rails along Hwy 1... I would think that a WCE bridge from Mission to Abbotsford would be the first choice, and a regional connection to Expo Line for Langley.

Metro-One · #**210** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 4:30 PM**

Exactly my resoning.

One ofthe best things about our main freeway is that it does not go through any major town centers, it simply acts as the main artery connecting them.
i through smaller branching roads and highways (such as Willington, Lougheed, First Ave, 152nd, etc...)
Because of this brilliant allignment, it makes it not bode well for LRT. To run LRT over the bridge today would make no sense, because an entirely different project would have to be well established and in place already. Such as an LRT that runs from Braid along Boulavard, crosses the Faser using the port Mann, and then runs up 152nd.

When the time comes the bridge will be able to have a lower deck added allowing an LRT crossing.

DKaz · #**211** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 4:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

At least Calgary gets it right with less than half Metro Vancouver's population. C-Train expansion and the Southwest Stoney Trail Ring Road design with an ultimate 16-lane configuration - 4+4+4+4

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/Ultimate%20SWRR/FCP162AUS.pdf

And some of the interchange designs seemingly blow away the Cape Horn interchange design.

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/Ultimate%20SWRR/SMTSUS.pdf

That interchange is two level at best and is just extremely spread out. Three loops and only one second level flyover? Come on, it does not blow away Cape Horn's interchange by any means, I would compare it to 99 and 91 interchange in Richmond.

Have you seen Edmonton's Anthony Henday Drive planned stretch between Whitemud and Yellowhead?

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType353/production/ahdltplan.pdf

Cape Horn is well designed for being a high speed 3 level interchange with NO LOOPS while still mostly remaining within its existing highway corridor, whereas Edmonton and Calgary can build cheaper sprawled out 2 level interchanges just because they can (exception: Hwy 2 and AHD interchange is quite impressive, and AHD and Whitemud will ultimately be a 3 level interchange as well)

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanizer405

Why is that still even there? I assume it's going to be replaced and widened with the North Fraser Perimeter Road project.

Patullo Bridge is under Translink jurisdiction unfortunately, it's no longer a Provincial bridge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

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.

You said it. Eventually Surrey and Langley will become a transit friendlier city but for now it is very much an auto-centric city and bumper to bumper traffic is not going to help anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

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

Canada Line is arguably Falcon's child.

Metro-One · #**212** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 5:05 PM**

That is another thing to keep in mind is this interchange is very compact compared to many others, and if it were spread out like those in Calgary it would not look "so big."

crazyjoeda · #**213** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

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.

I agree that the environment is a big issue, but in the decades to come we will see more vehicles using alternative energy sources such as electric and hydrogen. The fact remains that hwy 1 is well over capacity and dangerous; it needs a major upgrade which is over 40 years over due. And the tolls on the bridge will make public transit a more attractive option for some.

WarrenC12 · #**214** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 5:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

ink jurisdiction unfortunately, it's no longer a Provincial bridge.

Another reason the Translink structure is a joke. They should be public transit-only, or all roads and transit. Not half and half.

DKaz · #**215** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 5:31 PM**

Yah like hmmm pay $8-10 a day on the bridge toll, or pay $136 a month for transit and not have to pay tolls or gas or stuff like that unless you're just going to Walnut Grove P&R or something.

WarrenC12 · #**216** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 5:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zassk

You would think that the gov't could have run light transit across this bridge from the start.

But I guess that begs the question - is there enough ridership that would use it? Hwy 1 doesn't go really go through any town centers south of the Fraser.

LRT could run from Guildford Mall to the WCE at Coq Ctr (for example). I'm sure there would be demand for it shortly after the bridge completion. Alternatively it could run to Lougheed Mall. Who knows what things will look like, there's still another election in 2012. If promises are made then, we could see LRT rolling by the completion date of the PMB. Or, I'm just dreaming...

Stingray2004 · #**217** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 5:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

That interchange is two level at best and is just extremely spread out. Three loops and only one second level flyover? Come on, it does not blow away Cape Horn's interchange by any means, I would compare it to 99 and 91 interchange in Richmond.

Cape Horn is well designed for being a high speed 3 level interchange with NO LOOPS while still mostly remaining within its existing highway corridor, whereas Edmonton and Calgary can build cheaper sprawled out 2 level interchanges just because they can (exception: Hwy 2 and AHD interchange is quite impressive, and AHD and Whitemud will ultimately be a 3 level interchange as well)

Technically, you are correct. I was trying to be simplistic in that when posters here saw the Cape Horn interchange visuals, some just saw a gargantuan behemoth, which some seemingly did not understand. In that vein, I was attempting to make some comparsons to Calgary as an example.

Quote:

Patullo Bridge is under Translink jurisdiction unfortunately, it's no longer a Provincial bridge.

Yeah the Pattullo was downloaded in the late 1990's, IIRC, as it was just a localized crossing.

However an argument could be made that the province should re-assume responsibility for its replacement. Why? Because it has the potental for a new regional focus with the SFPR connection on the south end and a potential Stormont Connector to Hwy 1 on the north end. And that's also in conjunction with Translink's low design standards vis-a-vis the GEB highway. Translink should just stick to transit.

Metro-One · #**218** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 5:44 PM**

the funny thing is i find the GEB one of the best designed pieces of infastructre we have in the enire region, i would not call it a low design standard. the use of viaducts and ramps between Lougheed and the first traffic light on the south side (about a 4 to 5 km drive) is better than almost anyhting we have in Metro Vancouver.

the only thing they goofed on was the speed limits.

Zassk · #**219** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

LRT could run from Guildford Mall to the WCE at Coq Ctr (for example). I'm sure there would be demand for it shortly after the bridge completion. Alternatively it could run to Lougheed Mall. Who knows what things will look like, there's still another election in 2012. If promises are made then, we could see LRT rolling by the completion date of the PMB. Or, I'm just dreaming...

Well, if you're going to build LRT from Guildford to Coquitlam, then logically its destination will be the Evergreen line. But instead of building LRT over the Port Mann, you could just build LRT from Guildford along 104th to the Expo Line... that would be a lot shorter and cheaper, wouldn't it?

Who are these people who would prefer getting to the rest of the transit network via Port Mann? Commuters? Langley residents? Shoppers dissatisfied with Guildford and Willowbrook? I guess I just don't quite understand the need for LRT over Port Mann. Guildford isn't high density and isn't planned to become high density. It needs to be connected to Surrey City Centre first, doesn't it?

Chikinlittle · #**220** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

At least Calgary gets it right with less than half Metro Vancouver's population. C-Train expansion and the Southwest Stoney Trail Ring Road design with an ultimate 16-lane configuration - 4+4+4+4

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/Ultimate%20SWRR/FCP162AUS.pdf

And some of the interchange designs seemingly blow away the Cape Horn interchange design.

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/Ultimate%20SWRR/SMTSUS.pdf

Sorry but Calgary doesn't do much right. C-Train expansion yes. Ring-road construction, no. That's 1950's planning, not 21st century planning. In case you haven't noticed, with the exception of some densification in the inner city over the last couple of years, almost all of Calgary's growth has been in creating new suburbs whilst expanding the city limits to accommodate - predominantly single family housing. Not so much 'getting it right' in my books.