Metro Vancouver Road Infrastructure Discussion - Page 290

Migrant_Coconut · #**5781** Posted **Apr 7, 2023, 12:18 AM**

Fair enough, although then we'd then have to ask ourselves why rerouting 60k+ vehicles through Belcarra and Anmore is in any way a wise use of resources.

fredinno · #**5782** Posted **Apr 7, 2023, 12:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Check the link again.

So a two-lane bridge could handle pretty much all of the Tri-Cities plus spillover from Maple Ridge and Langley; four lanes is overkill. But nobody's going to spend all that time and resources on just two lanes.

Well, the North Shore is free to pay for its own track; so far, CN (who own the bridge) are satisfied with the amount of capacity they have now, and the province evidently has other ideas.

That's per day, not per hour.
4 lanes can be infill lanes later on.

Well, the article points out the Port and the customers of the Ports aren't. CN may be waiting for subsidies from the government.

Again, just because they aren't doing it, doesn't mean it's not a good idea.
That's a fallacy. There are plenty of reasons you might procrastinate.

Point is that there aren't many other options. You can't double-up the Thornton Tunnel easily.

Migrant_Coconut · #**5783** Posted **Apr 7, 2023, 1:04 AM**

Good thing the INSTPP graphic is also per day; 3,250 x 2 = 6,500 trips/day, well under total capacity for a two-lane road.

There's a lot of things that need to be done in BC - not everybody gets what they want all the time (unless that "everybody" is Toronto or Montreal). The INSTPP itself is proof that Victoria's already trying to fix the North Shore's infrastructure.

jollyburger · #**5784** Posted **Apr 7, 2023, 3:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

eg. The Port leased out the Maplewood Flats for conservation for 50 years in the 1990s- a very strange thing to do unless you plan on maybe using them for industry in 50 years. (otherwise, you'd do a 99 or 999 year-lease).
Squamish Nation also has a massive chunk of port land staying empty around Lions Gate.

Same thing with the lack of a rail tunnel underneath Lonsdale.

It's the same 49 year lease as Portside Park. Seems doubtful it will ever be developed since they used marine rehabilitation to offset the Centerm project and it's surrounded by District of North Vancouver owned land.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**5785** Posted **Apr 7, 2023, 4:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Found this on Google with rail and road proposals:

Indian Arm Crossings That Might Have Been
http://www.ralphdrew.ca/articles/Indian_Arm_Crossings_That_Might_Have_Been.pdf

this was an interesting one i came across years ago. i tried to find out more about this history of the proposal, but never did. they really did think big back in the old days, that's for sure.

Proposed Interurban Canal & Harbour Development, 1910

MIPS · #**5786** Posted **Apr 7, 2023, 4:32 AM**

The days before environmental assessments and consultations was truly a wild time. There was so much they got away with that would never even be considered today.

fredinno · #**5787** Posted **Apr 7, 2023, 4:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

It's the same 49 year lease as Portside Park. Seems doubtful it will ever be developed since they used marine rehabilitation to offset the Centerm project and it's surrounded by District of North Vancouver owned land.

Doesn't necessarily mean anything, though.
CRAB Park was initially supposed to be a park for a new neighborhood in the Central Waterfront area (around the SeaBus and Helipad), which never materialized (and looks like it never will).

Also, the Port has re-designated 'park land' as industrial/port- most notably in South Westminster, where Surrey City and Port Metro Van are in conflict about the fate of the Waterfront around the Pautello Bridge (Surrey wants it to be Park, the Port wants industrial- both sides have acquired all the land in the area and are in a standoff, while Surrey has pretended it's already won and puts its section as 'park').

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**5788** Posted **Apr 7, 2023, 8:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MIPS

The days before environmental assessments and consultations was truly a wild time. There was so much they got away with that would never even be considered today.

yeah very true. we have gone wayyyyyy too far the other way, though. we have hit the point now where we can basically get nothing done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

Also, the Port has re-designated 'park land' as industrial/port- most notably in South Westminster, where Surrey City and Port Metro Van are in conflict about the fate of the Waterfront around the Pautello Bridge (Surrey wants it to be Park, the Port wants industrial- both sides have acquired all the land in the area and are in a standoff, while Surrey has pretended it's already won and puts its section as 'park').

hopefully it goes industrial. we need to make sure we have enough of that if we dont want to further ruin our economy. we cant keep going down the path of being a service industry city. i am a firm believer we need both the ALR and an ILR (Industrial Land Reserve).

jollyburger · #**5789** Posted **Apr 7, 2023, 5:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

Doesn't necessarily mean anything, though.
CRAB Park was initially supposed to be a park for a new neighborhood in the Central Waterfront area (around the SeaBus and Helipad), which never materialized (and looks like it never will).

Also, the Port has re-designated 'park land' as industrial/port- most notably in South Westminster, where Surrey City and Port Metro Van are in conflict about the fate of the Waterfront around the Pautello Bridge (Surrey wants it to be Park, the Port wants industrial- both sides have acquired all the land in the area and are in a standoff, while Surrey has pretended it's already won and puts its section as 'park').

Quote:

Conservation areas are primarily designated for
habitat conservation, enhancement, restoration,
habitat for project offsetting or banking for future
offsetting, and similar uses, and may be publicly
accessible. These areas are generally not intended
for development.

The only conceivable way it would be redeveloped is if they handed the land over to the First Nations.

Seems like the Surrey waterfront was more mixed-use than just a park?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...waterfront-surrey-fraser-river-1.5782574

https://www.surrey.ca/sites/default/file...hwestminterBridgeviewIndustrialAreas.pdf

Changing City · #**5790** Posted **Apr 7, 2023, 6:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

Doesn't necessarily mean anything, though.
CRAB Park was initially supposed to be a park for a new neighborhood in the Central Waterfront area (around the SeaBus and Helipad), which never materialized (and looks like it never will).

Not really. CRAB Park (Create a Real Available Beach) was lobbied for by DTES residents , led by Don Larson, to provide a waterfront access for DTES residents, because of the threat of major development along the waterfront - not for that development. It opened in 1987 on a 40 year lease from the Port Authority, so it's future isn't completely guaranteed.

Not sure what this has to do with road infrastructure...

hollywoodnorth · #**5791** Posted **Apr 23, 2023, 2:42 AM**

Low-hanging power lines are a problem for Surrey’s controversial 84 Avenue extension

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/low...rreys-controversial-84-avenue-extension/

Construction crews work on the 84 Avenue extension project in Surrey on Feb. 23, 2023, south of Bear Creek Park. (Photo: Tom Zillich) pic from >> https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/low...rreys-controversial-84-avenue-extension/

flipper316 · #**5792** Posted **Apr 30, 2023, 10:07 PM**

https://www.tricitynews.com/local-news/c...c-tie-ups-along-lougheed-highway-6923567

MIPS · #**5793** Posted **May 1, 2023, 1:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

Low-hanging power lines are a problem for Surrey’s controversial 84 Avenue extension

Even at the lowest point of the line sag, that's still 50 feet above the ground, is it not? What kind of traffic gets within ten feet of them without already requiring a route escort?

officedweller · #**5794** Posted **May 1, 2023, 1:37 AM**

There just seems to be a time lag in raising the lines.
Not a big deal really.
Hydro lines had to be raised for the SkyTrain down Fraser Hwy too.
Crazy how the curves in the road forced by the opponents are creating what they themselves call a 'boondoggle'.

jollyburger · #**5795** Posted **May 1, 2023, 2:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MIPS

Even at the lowest point of the line sag, that's still 50 feet above the ground, is it not? What kind of traffic gets within ten feet of them without already requiring a route escort?

It has to be outside the electrical field and not just the physical wire.

Effects of High Voltage Transmission Line In Proximity of Highways

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/drivin...d-guidelines/transmission_line_study.pdf

I think they are mostly 500 kV lines?

madog222 · #**5796** Posted **May 1, 2023, 3:21 AM**

^Yup, two lines of 500 kV and one 230 kV.

flipper316 · #**5797** Posted **May 7, 2023, 8:19 PM**

https://www.langleyadvancetimes.com/news/widening-of-langleys-208th-street-moves-forward/

fredinno · #**5798** Posted **May 7, 2023, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flipper316

https://www.langleyadvancetimes.com/news/widening-of-langleys-208th-street-moves-forward/

Finally!

If only they could widen Glover Road, that would be nice too.
It makes no sense how a provincial highway ends up 2 lanes at its end in Langley.

Klazu · #**5799** Posted **May 8, 2023, 1:43 AM**

Nice. Now do the same with 200 Street.

flipper316 · #**5800** Posted **May 11, 2023, 2:23 AM**

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/we-...ug-mccallum-says-of-84-avenue-expansion/