Port Mann/Highway 1 Improvements | Completed

[bulliver]

Yes, in Alberta when they construct phased freeway projects they almost always include the 'ultimate stage' earthworks and preloading during the original construction so that when traffic warrants it they can do the upgrades with a minimum of disruption in a relatively short time.

Edit: OD, that is the Anthony Henday - Ray Gibbons/184 St interchange in northwest Edmonton. The earthworks there are for a future stage where eastbound Henday traffic (coming from the top left of the picture) will use a flyover to turn north on Ray Gibbon without stopping at a light, as in the current configuration.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

IIRC, the bridge was supposed to have 8 lanes open in 2013 and 10 lanes in 2014, so it is actually opening earlier than they said it would.

In one of the earlier news reports they did mention this. Sometime last year I believe.

But in the latest news report it was said that the bridge would open in late 2012. What they conveintly forgot to mention was that it isn't the full bridge. But they gave the impression that it was the full bridge.

Mind you this also could have been piss poor media reporting. Either way someone is miss leading people.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Smooth

Unfortunately I don't think modest tolls really work because of the costs to set up and operate the tolling system. Modest tolls would only act as a deterrent for people using the bridge. Unless you're charging several dollars per trip, most of the money from tolls would just be going back into the tolling system.

As others have said in the past, I think raising the gas tax is the most fair way to get people to pay for how much they drive and what type of car they drive. If you drive a short distance in a small car you'll be paying a lot less than someone who drives into Vancouver from Langley every day in their SUV. Also, the gas tax is already in place so there are no additional operating costs associated with raising it.

The two big downsides to gas taxes is

1. It punishes people more for the type of vehicle they drive. Although for an enviromental stand point this is good. It would just be nicer if every vehicle paid the exact same amount in gas taxes.

2. What happens when we move away from fuel based cars to electric cars. We would then have vehicles on the road that don't have to pay a gas tax.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by bulliver

Edit: OD, that is the Anthony Henday - Ray Gibbons/184 St interchange in northwest Edmonton. The earthworks there are for a future stage where eastbound Henday traffic (coming from the top left of the picture) will use a flyover to turn north on Ray Gibbon without stopping at a light, as in the current configuration.

I realize that, its just that the allignment looks like it's bigger arc than is necessary, as it almost looks like it ends up parallel to the stretch of highway it will join.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I realize that, its just that the allignment looks like it's bigger arc than is necessary, as it almost looks like it ends up parallel to the stretch of highway it will join.

Nope. It's called building things to a modern standard.

Ontario builds it's freeways to a 150 km/h design speed. 150 km/h! I'm assuming Alberta is up there too. You're lucky if you get a 100 km/h design speed in BC for anything. Honestly, the highway designs here are so piss-poor. Even Gateway isn't impressing me that much, especially since it's becoming evident that cutbacks are starting to show up.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I realize that, its just that the allignment looks like it's bigger arc than is necessary, as it almost looks like it ends up parallel to the stretch of highway it will join.

Don't mind the details, the two ramps will probably not be so conjoined like that as the flyover has to make grade, and at the end of that flyover the curves look pretty dangerous, but hey not bad for a Microsoft Paint job.

Alberta mostly builds roads to handle big trucks handling extremely heavy loads for the oil industry, but the side benefit is that things are built for a higher speed limit. Too bad they artificially keep some roads low, (at 100km/h on the AHD it feels too slow plus the remaining at grade intersections on the SW sector are reduced to 70km/h... there's just no need with advanced Red Light Signals) and too bad Edmonton has photo radar, but in most cases driving the speed limit was sufficient.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Nope. It's called building things to a modern standard.

Ontario builds it's freeways to a 150 km/h design speed. 150 km/h! I'm assuming Alberta is up there too. You're lucky if you get a 100 km/h design speed in BC for anything. Honestly, the highway designs here are so piss-poor. Even Gateway isn't impressing me that much, especially since it's becoming evident that cutbacks are starting to show up.

I think using the terms "cutbacks" and "starting" is an understatement.

Somehow we have now essentially lost half of the entire project, yet with the same price tag....during an economical slump!

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I think using the terms "cutbacks" and "starting" is an understatement.

Somehow we have now essentially lost half of the entire project, yet with the same price tag....during an economical slump!

Here's what I got so far:

• Brunette Interchange basically staying the same
• 192 Street interchange to remain the same with the HOV lanes going around the existing 1960s bridge piers
• 216 Street Interchange is not being built

[Metro-One]

The largest downgrade is the fact that the Willingdon C/D system will not be built, which also means the Willingdon and Grandview Highway interchange re-designs have also been downgraded (the only parts going through seem to be the HOV fly overs). There is also the loss of the truck only ramps and I believe an overpass in that area as well, but that may have had something to do with the city of Burnaby.

Not to mention we are now hearing that many of the proposed interchanges along the SFPR may become signaled intersections (something I warned this thread of a long time ago and everyone thought I was crazy, I heard it through the grapevine at a social gathering with many industrial insiders). this is something I still hope is false deep inside, hehe, but it seems many other people have now also heard the same rumors.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Don't mind the details, the two ramps will probably not be so conjoined like that as the flyover has to make grade, and at the end of that flyover the curves look pretty dangerous, but hey not bad for a Microsoft Paint job.

Alberta mostly builds roads to handle big trucks handling extremely heavy loads for the oil industry, but the side benefit is that things are built for a higher speed limit. Too bad they artificially keep some roads low, (at 100km/h on the AHD it feels too slow plus the remaining at grade intersections on the SW sector are reduced to 70km/h... there's just no need with advanced Red Light Signals) and too bad Edmonton has photo radar, but in most cases driving the speed limit was sufficient.

Thanks - guess it's the higher speed limits...

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The largest downgrade is the fact that the Willingdon C/D system will not be built, which also means the Willingdon and Grandview Highway interchange re-designs have also been downgraded (the only parts going through seem to be the HOV fly overs). There is also the loss of the truck only ramps and I believe an overpass in that area as well, but that may have had something to do with the city of Burnaby.

Not to mention we are now hearing that many of the proposed interchanges along the SFPR may become signaled intersections (something I warned this thread of a long time ago and everyone thought I was crazy, I heard it through the grapevine at a social gathering with many industrial insiders). this is something I still hope is false deep inside, hehe, but it seems many other people have now also heard the same rumors.

It is starting to get downright depressing checking up on these projects. I can live with various dumbed-down parts of the PMH1 project, but the SFPR is starting to sound like hundreds of trucks starting from idle at a traffic light, struggling to get back up to speed before they hit the next light... Its going to be another Mary Hill Bypass, when it SHOULD be a full freeway.

I thought we were supposed to be investing in *MOVING* goods...

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The largest downgrade is the fact that the Willingdon C/D system will not be built

Not to mention we are now hearing that many of the proposed interchanges along the SFPR may become signaled intersections

Not to be pedantic, but was the Willingdon C/D ever explicitly announced as being part of this Gateway project? I thought it was simply part of the overall future highway redesign that was done at the same time as Gateway.

As for SFPR, I don't recall it ever being stated to be signal-free, was there an announcement as such? I thought it was described as if it would be 100% signalized, like the Nanaimo Parkway, and it seems that the final result will actually have less signals than we expected at any point in the past two years.

[Mininari]

I guess we just have to patiently wait for them to finally tell us what they are ACTUALLY building in both cases.

Since the full build-out for both projects would have been submitted to the Environment Assessment for approval... does this mean that any parts that are NOT constructed now (Willingdon C/D, SFPR interchange or two...) can be done at a later date without extensive EA work?

[Mininari]

Double post for breaking news:
(interesting statement in bold...)

B.C. Transportation Minister: no problem with drivers paying to use unfinished Port Mann Bridge
Says congestion will be significantly reduced
Dave White Aug 26, 2010 15:29:52 PM
Be the first to Comment
0 Recommendation(s)
Related Stories

* News1130 Exclusive: Port Mann Bridge to be tolled before completion

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - After we broke the news that Port Mann Bridge will be tolled before it's completely open to traffic in 2012, the Minister of Transportation says drivers will get good bang for their buck.

The bridge will be open to eight lanes, instead of 10 for a year, and drivers will still be paying $3 each way. But, Minister Shirley Bond says she wants the replacement span up and running right away. "When we open, it will be substantially complete, there will be tolls in place, and there will be some finishing work to do with the other two lanes. But let's be clear -- today, people are spending considerable amounts of their lives in congestion. That's going to change in 2012."

Bond denies any downgrades to the scope of the project or to rebuilt interchanges along the Highway One corridor.

When asked if tolls need to be charged a year early to finish funding the bridge replacement project, Minister Shirley Bond says the plan has always been to have tolls in place upon substantial completion. "We're going to see eight lanes of traffic moving across the Port Mann Bridge. So people want to get out of congestion, they want to move on with their lives, and that's exactly what we're going to do."

When we broke the news on Monday, project planners told us their research shows commuters generally favour tolls, but out listener line this week has been painting a very different picture. "If Gordon Campbell figures that it's ok to take the last dollar away from the very residents who need this bridge to put food on their table, go to school, or provide activities for their kids, your time is up."

Another listener says, "I won't be traveling over just to visit people, or to go shopping out there. I will be sticking to Vancouver, where there are no tolls."

Bond says she feels there's still plenty of time to work out how and when toll invoices can be paid. She adds the Port Mann/Highway One upgrade is on time and on budget.

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...rt-mann-bridge

[Metro-One]

The Willingdon C/D system was presented in the conceptual designs for this specific improvement project, they are probably still posted on the website.

The same is true for the SFPR, where from the Highway 17 interchange, all the way east to the Pattullo Bridge it was proposed as a free flow roadway.

this included interchanges with highway 17 (Deltaport), Highway 99, Tilbury, Sunbury/Nordel Way, and Tannery Road. The only two signaled intersections were to be Bridgeview Drive and 136th Street. After that there would be another interchange on its East end with 104th Ave.

Here is the website link:

http://www.gatewayprogram.bc.ca/

Go to SFPR and click on Reference Concept. there you can see all of the preliminary designs. Although it says Tilbury intersection, if you click on that map it is clearly an interchange (they updated it sometime last year).

I posted all of these maps last year of the SFPR gateway thread.

What I was ultimately hoping they would do is cancel the Bridgeview Drive and 136th street intersections, and simply build an interchange between these two intersections. That was, as proposed before, the SFPR would be a full freeway end to end.

But that makes to much sense for how we build things around here.....

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The largest downgrade is the fact that the Willingdon C/D system will not be built, which also means the Willingdon and Grandview Highway interchange re-designs have also been downgraded (the only parts going through seem to be the HOV fly overs). There is also the loss of the truck only ramps and I believe an overpass in that area as well, but that may have had something to do with the city of Burnaby.

Not to mention we are now hearing that many of the proposed interchanges along the SFPR may become signaled intersections (something I warned this thread of a long time ago and everyone thought I was crazy, I heard it through the grapevine at a social gathering with many industrial insiders). this is something I still hope is false deep inside, hehe, but it seems many other people have now also heard the same rumors.

Originally Posted by Mininari

It is starting to get downright depressing checking up on these projects. I can live with various dumbed-down parts of the PMH1 project, but the SFPR is starting to sound like hundreds of trucks starting from idle at a traffic light, struggling to get back up to speed before they hit the next light... Its going to be another Mary Hill Bypass, when it SHOULD be a full freeway.

I thought we were supposed to be investing in *MOVING* goods...

Originally Posted by Zassk

Not to be pedantic, but was the Willingdon C/D ever explicitly announced as being part of this Gateway project? I thought it was simply part of the overall future highway redesign that was done at the same time as Gateway.

As for SFPR, I don't recall it ever being stated to be signal-free, was there an announcement as such? I thought it was described as if it would be 100% signalized, like the Nanaimo Parkway, and it seems that the final result will actually have less signals than we expected at any point in the past two years.

To take a major, light-signalled intersection on a major highway and convert it into full, non-stop interchange patterns can be a real pain. It often seems better to think proactively and to install a signal-free intersection, even if the road size or traffic volume does not seem to warrant it at the present moment.

A classic case in point is the Upper Levels Highway, especially the Lonsdale Interchange. (Westview also was converted) At Lonsdale, they had to scour a deep dip in the highway to pass under Lonsdale, with the on/off ramps at the sides.

It works, but looks aesthetically weird and ugly, and could also be hazardous in snowy or icy road conditions, given the grade involved in the dip going under Lonsdale.

[twoNeurons]

So the comment really relates to the 1960s(?) decision to remove tolls from the Lions Gate Bridge after the Province bought it some time before.

Yep. However, I think that politically it would be too hard to do. There are a lot of people with money or political clout on the North Shore who would veto this pretty quick... despite the fact that there used to be a toll.

I know it's easier to ask people to pay for improvements (politically), but it makes more sense to me to charge a convenience charge when people have an alternative, especially during peak times.

TO do this though, you'd need to beef up the seabus frequency during the day.

[Stingray2004]

The ball began to roll with the Program Definition Report ("PDR") dated January 31, 2006.

That PDR expressly stated at page 32 therein:

Grandview Highway Interchange:

Currently, traffic entering Hwy 1 eastbound via the Grandview Highway on-ramp mixes with traffic exiting Hwy 1 eastbound to Willingdon Avenue. The mixing of these two high-volume traffic streams over a short distance results in a weaving pattern that slows all traffic, including through traffic on Highway 1. The pre-design concept calls for separation of these two traffic movements and eliminating the weave through the construction of a new overpass.

Grandview Highway to Douglas Street Overpass:

This area of Highway 1 sees some of the highest traffic volumes, with complex traffic operations due to the close spacing of several interchanges and the resulting interaction of the on-and-off ramps. The pre-design concept calls for maintaining the existing six lanes for highway through traffic. Barrier separated auxiliary lanes are being considered to have high volume merging take place away from through-traffic, thus avoiding traffic slowdowns and associated safety concerns that currently exist on the highway on/off ramps.

That's definitely an unsafe area for Hwy 1 and witnesses some of the highest accident rates in BC.

That PDR expressly stated at page 29 therein:

Subsequent to decision on scope and timing, the preferred concepts will be submitted for Environmental Assessment review.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/repo...PDR_013106.pdf

Those preferred concepts, including the 2+3+3+2 express-collector system between Grandview Hwy and Douglas Road, were approved by the EAO and have been posted online at the ministry's website.

The only scope change thereafter was the removal of the new Wayburne overpass.

Then the dozers and graders were supposed to come in....

I still don't understand what the frick happened.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cabotp

The two big downsides to gas taxes is

1. It punishes people more for the type of vehicle they drive. Although for an enviromental stand point this is good. It would just be nicer if every vehicle paid the exact same amount in gas taxes.

2. What happens when we move away from fuel based cars to electric cars. We would then have vehicles on the road that don't have to pay a gas tax.

Your "downsides" are my "upsides".

1) YES, that's EXACTLY what a gas tax SHOULD do. There are a helluva lot of people who drive gas guzzlers for no good reason, and for the others the reason (trade, commercial vehicle) often pays for the tax. Good transportation policy should reward those who use less gas, whether it's because they drive less OR because they drive a more fuel-efficient car.

2) YES, electric cars SHOULD get a break. See above. Electric cars reduce our dependence on oil (especially in hyrdo-powered BC) which is a really, really good thing for a lot of reasons (peak oil, geopolitical strife, pollution), even if you don't believe in global warming.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Zegby

We already have the highest gas prices in North America. Another gas tax will not happen. It would economically cripple too many people

It won't economically cripple anyone any more than price hikes due to oil scarcity will. Better to start weaning people off oil gradually rather than waiting until we're out of options. We can do that by using those taxes to build alternatives.