Port Mann/Highway 1 Improvements | Completed

[go_leafs_go02]

On another note, that old off-ramp to Townline Road in Abbotsford is being temporarily re-opened for 2 nights tomorrow night and Thursday night due to the bridge girders being installed at Clearbrook Road

http://www.clearbrookinterchange.ca/files/Clearbrook_Aug_2010_detour%281%29.pdf

[Alex Mackinnon]

Even many of California's interior highways are congested at times, yet we built the Coquihalla in the 80s and it's still clear sailing. There's such thing as overbuilding and then there's building up to a clear minimum standard. As far as I can tell we're still playing catch up and filling in obvious gaps in our network.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Toronto has 16 lanes, Montreal has 10 lane freeways. Calgary has 8 lane freeways, but yet Vancouver doesn't have a single freeway built to 6 lanes

Yet traffic is worse in every one of those cities... unbelievable!

FYI large portions of the 401 between 427 and allen rd now have 18-20 lanes... and its congested as ever. Driving in Toronto makes me dream for vancouver traffic.

[Metro-One]

yeah, North American cities are not the best examples, building European, Oceanic and Asian style freeway networks are the way to go.

That being said, Montreal, Canada's prime example of vibrant downtown life, cycling, transit, etc... has a very large, well connected freeway network.

I have always found that simply blaming freeways for a city's problems or solutions is a lazy game. They are only one cog in the urbanization wheel. And if built properly, and if the other cogs are also handled properly (zoning, transit, cycling networks, etc...) then freeway networks can be beneficial to a city. Hence North American freeways in most cities may seem evil because of the poor zoning regulations, community atmosphere, crime prevention tactics, transit / cycling systems also found in those particular cities.

Not everything s the freeways fault And I think most of Metro-Vancouver is doing a good job integrating freeways into the urban fabric. I agree Surrey is to far towards the sprawl method, and has bad zoning, but I also feel Vancouver proper is to far towards the ideological side of the argument.

[red-paladin]

I don't think I buy the more roads = more congestion = waste of time argument.
Someone could use that argument on transit, saying there is no point of building more skytrains because the Canada Line became very busy right away.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I don't think I buy the more roads = more congestion = waste of time argument.
Someone could use that argument on transit, saying there is no point of building more skytrains because the Canada Line became very busy right away.

My comment being the one that sparked off the debate, I want to clarify that I only said we need to be careful that we don't end up like California or other cities that due to the added freeways people lived further and further from where they work/play, resulting in more people needing to drive longer and longer distances or in other words, congestion. And like Metro-One said in the post just above(which I agree with), more roads does not automatically equal more congestion, just is one part of it, albeit a very visible part. So as long as everything else is done properly, having a better freeway should make things better.

I suppose one could say similar about rapid transit, but the environmental impacts of a rapid transit line versus widening/adding more highways are drastically different. But like freeways, if we do the other things right, like trying to maintain tight city centres, as we in Metro Vancouver are doing for the most part, means that the majority of the local people's needs and wants will be satisfied locally, whilst allowing easy travel for the things that are further away.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Zegby

Why is LA brought up in discussions about highway expansion to try and discredit it? What about all the other cities in North America?? You know, the ones that anticipated growth and expanded their highways because it was necessary and now are reaping the rewards instead of playing catch-up like Vancouver. Denver, Seattle, Phoenix, Detroit, Chicago, etc.

I'd like to know what all those rewards are. That those cities supposedly reaped for building out their freeways?

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I don't think I buy the more roads = more congestion = waste of time argument.
Someone could use that argument on transit, saying there is no point of building more skytrains because the Canada Line became very busy right away.

Look up induced demand you will understand why more roads = more congestion. The only way to control this would be through tolls that charge a high enough price to keep demand down.

Also more cars on a bigger freeway has a much higher negative impact on the environment, than more people standing or sitting in a train.

[WarrenC12]

I think you just need to look towards Seattle to see the mistakes of urban freeways. Very little rail transit (only building the beginnings now), huge freeways all over downtown, and yes, massive congestion. I was there last weekend and there was tons of bumper to bumper traffic on a Saturday and Sunday afternoon, on the 8 or 10 lane I5 in the city.

Freeways are not the answer.

[DKaz]

We need good freeways for the efficient movement of goods and services and we need good transit for the efficient movement of people. Where we are building roads, there should be a very good transit alternative to avoid clogging up the roads with commuters.

The combination of tolls and the RapidBus should help ensure that people aren't going to do a mass exodus to South of Fraser and that South of Fraser commuters going to North of Fraser has a very good transit choice now. That new Park & Ride might be expensive but it's going to do absolute wonders getting people there into transit.

Just look at Calgary, they shouldn't have the transit ridership they have right now because of their very sprawled out neighbourhods but they do because of park & rides.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Just look at Calgary, they shouldn't have the transit ridership they have right now because of their very sprawled out neighbourhods but they do because of park & rides.

...and very high parking rates as well as a centralized workforce.

[DKaz]

Was going to mention but forgot, thanks. Although Calgary does have their fair share of suburban businesses as well.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Name me a metro with more than a million people where the biggest freeway has less than 6 lanes total running through it.

I can pretty much guarantee that if Vancouver was in any other jurisdiction than BC, the metro freeways would not be as poorly built as they are.

Highway 99, 91, 1 - all still have 4 lanes (with a few minor exceptions) For a metro of 2.4 mil, that's pretty shoddy.

Heck Kamloops has more lanes than Vancouver.

No kidding. Many people here in Metro Vancouver still "don't get it".

BTW, Hwy 1 in Kamloops still has the highest number of contiguous non-HOV freeway lanes in BC:



Source: http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo311/FargoWolf/Highway%20Pics/DSCN0172.jpg

[Millennium2002]

Stingray2004, this is not a case of people being completely misled to think that freeways are horrible. Rather it's more of a difference of opinion... and one that is generally difficult to bridge. Even in this forum, there have been many contentious debates about freeways versus rapid transit before, and it'll probably go on and even intensify in the future as we try to complete the region's priority list within reduced budgets and cutbacks.

BENEFITS OF RAPID TRANSIT AND LRT
- takes up least amount of space while still retaining ability to build buildings on, over, or under tracks
- encourages dense developments and town/village centres at stations
- transports more people in communal setting
- generally faster and more convenient in conjunction with good interchanges, improved transit to destinations along with a shorter overall distance between destinations

DISADVANTAGES OF RAPID TRANSIT AND LRT
- inability to serve general freight, limited to special freight scenarios
- inability to cater to some 'minority destination' travellers
- generally impractical in rural areas with low population base

BENEFITS OF FREEWAYS
- allows transport to destinations less frequently traveled to by regular commuters
- better serves rural and suburban areas
- asphalt paving is generally cheaper than building rail infrastructure
- allows individual frieght to be transported in a quick and efficient manner
- gives people more freedom in choosing routes and side destinations

DISADVANTAGES OF FREEWAYS
- takes up large amounts of space
- generally has to be built on land for best effectiveness in terms of cost and capacity
- encourages large low-density developments
- can create situations where traffic wastes space (e.g. single occupant vehicles)

[DKaz]

I think it's fair that for every $1 we spend on transit, we spend $1 on roads. We spent $4 billion on Millennium Line, Canada Line, and Evergreen Line, so now we spend $4 billion on Hwy 1, SFPR, and Pitt River Bridge.

[Zassk]

^ Fair enough, but I think transit still loses if you look at projects in the same eras:

In the Expo era we built:
Coquihalla Hwy + Alex Fraser + 91 for at least $1.5 billion
Expo Line for... what... $1 billion including Surrey?

Around Y2K we built:
Island Hwy for $2.1 billion
Millennium Line for $1 billion

In recent years we built:
Gateway and Sea to Sky for $5 billion
RAV + Evergreen for $3.5 billion

In the near future, Victoria will be wanting money for their two-line LRT... every dollar spent there will be a dollar less spent in Metro Vancouver.

With the H99 megaproject on the horizon, something tells me that Metro Vancouver transit dollars will continue to lag compared to road construction dollars.

[cc85]

building additional road capacity brings in latent demand which negates any of the additional capacity developed. You cannot build your way out of congestion.

[go_leafs_go02]

I come from looking as an outsider presently, where there is absoultely no choice but to drive if you're from Abbotsford/Chilliwack.

I would actually more-or-less want a rail line running along the Highway 1 corridor than expansion of the highway. However, that's not in the works, nor likely will be an option.

You provide infrastructure for only cars, then you should ensure that that's as efficient as possible.

There's one route to Aldergrove in Langley, that's not express in any which way. Who wants to take transit when it would arguably take 2-3X as long as driving?

Vancouver also is region that connects the rest of the province to the island. Still Vancouver is seen as a complete bottle neck, with no freeway connection from Tswasseen to Highway 1 (SFPR will just be a highway). There also is limited transit connections to anywhere besides downtown Vancouver.

I'm a driver, I drive to work, but would take transit if presented to me. However, there's nothing of the fact right now, and I don't have a problem with major arterials only being 4 lanes. It's just the freeway network and road design is designed to service a small to mid-sized city.

Look at it this way, if a lane closure happens to take place on Highway 1 right now due to an accident. You instantly reduce the capacity by 50%. Expand the highway to 3 lanes, you reduce the capacity by 33%. While accidents do happen, it feels like if they do, you're screwed no matter what since 2 lanes turns into 1, and not 4 lanes turning into 3.

[DKaz]

I disagree, you're screwed even if it is 4 lanes into 3. Heck you're still screwed if it's 4 lanes each way and the accident is on the other side of the median with absolutely no lanes blocked on your side.

I'm mostly talking about $1 for road projects in Vancouver area = $1 for transit projects in Vancouver area.

[Spoolmak]

Yup highway 1 in Kamloops has 6 lanes, and its not congested. The reason the rural highways in Cali are congested is because like I said before, it has more people than Canada squished into a state smaller than BC. Obviously the freeways are going to be congested. If we upgrade the freeways in Van to 10 lanes or even 8 lanes, I doubt they will congest... there is not enough people in the metro, or the province to congest that much roadspace. Maybe due to the fact that there is a shortage of freeways in Van...but can't really fix that now, only thing to do now is expand.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Spoolmak

Yup highway 1 in Kamloops has 6 lanes, and its not congested. The reason the rural highways in Cali are congested is because like I said before, it has more people than Canada squished into a state smaller than BC. Obviously the freeways are going to be congested. If we upgrade the freeways in Van to 10 lanes or even 8 lanes, I doubt they will congest... there is not enough people in the metro, or the province to congest that much roadspace. Maybe due to the fact that there is a shortage of freeways in Van...but can't really fix that now, only thing to do now is expand.

And eventually all that extra road space would be used up, putting us exactly back to where we started.

But we most likely would of spent all our money to expand our freeways with no expension on rapid transit. Thus we would then have a lot more people driving in a car we no alternative to that option.