Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou
If I recall correctly, years and years and years ago Mt. Seymour Parkway and David Ave in the Tri Cities were designed to connect with a bridge over Burrard Inlet. Take a look at the RoW for David Ave and the bridge over Scott Creek and it's immediately obvious they were originally intended to be for a matching 4 lane parkway.
That's almost certainly politically impossible now, given the populations that live on both sides of where the bridge crossing would have been (Deep Cove and Belcarra, possibly the NIMBYest parts of the Lower Mainland). We're more likely to see rapid transit crossings at the First Narrows, Second Narrows, and between Lonsdale and Waterfront before a road bridge would ever be allowed across the "Third Narrows".
Ultimately that's probably the better solution for the North Shore anyway.
|
Do you know where you heard that for a road bridge?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger
|
Do you have a source for the Squamish Connector up Indian Arm? That would be a nightmare to build. Most of the proposals for a non-99 Squamish Connector involved plowing through one of the Watersheds.
I think the 'removal' of the ROW is more symbolic than anything.
David Ave is pretty much the
only option if you want any chance of
any development up there due to the lack of road capacity.
The ROW will most likely come back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
Even if built, how many people are trying to get from the Tri-Cities and Maple Ridge to the North Shore... or was this another harebrained scheme to get Valley/Sea-to-Sky traffic off the IWMB? Probably best that it didn't go ahead, either way.
|
Combined with the slowly-built Hwy 7/Golden Ears Bypass connector, it's kind of a '2nd ring road' for Vancouver (the first ring road being Hwy 1.)
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Maybe there's enough traffic?
If Hwy 7 gets full upgrading to expressway standards, you could also take some traffic from Langley and Surrey too.
Also, you could make a connector from Hwy 1 across the slopes of Burnaby Mountain to provide a faster connection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou
Yeah it's possible the story I know has been distorted over the years. I am seeing a lot of highway proposals in your link though, especially this one:
Wish I had access to the full story to know what their exact plans were.
I've never heard of the dam and causeway proposal though and it looks like it got pretty fleshed out. Now that's a proposal that would have heads rolling nowadays!
|
There was some possibility you could get electricity off the dam, but I doubt the current is strong enough to make it worthwhile.
For fresh water would make sense though. We don't need
that much though- unless you wanted to get rid of all the other watersheds because you wanted to develop the land (probably not).
Depth is also an issue. (in feet)
https://webapp.navionics.com/#boating@11&key=ys%7BkHr%7DfmV
Not impossible, but costly.
I always thought maybe a floating bridge would work best here- like on Lake Washington. They are planning LRT across the new bridge.
Most proposals are for rail for good reason, though.
Building a spur from the CP Burrard railway would narrow the already narrow 2nd Narrows, hindering navigation.
The current connection across the 2nd Narrows is a single-track railway that is now unlikely to be expanded due to passing though Brentwood (as well as requiring a long tunnel across increasingly dense suburbs.)
The rail idea has promise still, if only to provide an alternative to the 2nd Narrows railway crossing.
There's tons of land in Ioco around the former refinery and power plant that could be turned into industrial facilities (poor road access is a problem, though.)
Building a railway across Indian Arm to Gates Park, continuing onto the port facilities on 2nd Narrows would massively increase the amount of possible port lands to include those areas (Burrard Inlet is still deep enough for most ships up to Ioco) as well as solve the rail congestion problem across the 2nd Narrows.
Prev
Linear Mode
