Metro Vancouver Road Infrastructure Discussion

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by fever

More people will consider a longer bridge-dependent commute acceptable, more people will commute during rush hour, fewer people will carpool, and fewer people will take transit. The bridges will quickly reach a new equilibrium that isn't much different than it is now. People are willing to take so much congestion, after all. It won't even take that many people to change their habits for this to happen considering the combined capacity added by the two projects will be about 6000 vehicles/hour in each direction, less if a lane is devoted to commercial traffic.

Increasing average trip length, making people more dependent on bridges, and decreasing carpooling rates are obviously not the policy goal road-bridge building. But it has those effects. The policy goal of new bridges should be to speed up commercial traffic, as has been mentioned. But this will not happen if commuters are allowed to swamp the new bridges. Tolls/congestion charging and dedicated lanes are ways of dealing with that.

6 lane bridge should have 2 lanes dedicaed to commercial and Buses. shouldn't need anything more than 6 lane crossings except for the Port Mann, where I would push for 10 lanes (is that is how many there will be?): 2 Commercial/transit, 2 HOV/Commercial Transit, and 6 for regular traffic.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

while i agree with you on the need for more public transit, i disagree with you on your views on road infrastructure, do you even have any idea what it is like to go from maple Ridge to Surrey? With the new bridge we will actually be able to have proper bus transit between the two communities. I don't think you see the big picture so it is no use arguing with you.

Quite frankly, the number of people going from Surrey to Maple Ridge is absolutely insignificant compared to the number of Surreyites working in the city or in Langley, White Rock, Richmond, Burnaby, New West, Coquitlam or Vancouver.

Nobody goes to Maple Ridge.

[Metro-One]

Wow, that must be the most idiotic statement in a long while around here, yeah, no one goes to Maple Ridge, a community of 70+ thousand, there are never traffic jams on the 6 lane highway entering the city...there are never 5+ sailing waits on the ferry...and it is not as if there are large industrial zones on both sides of the river that the bridge is connecting...and no one ever goes to alloette lake during the summer, one of BC parks busiest camp grounds...and it is not as if Maple Ridge is one of the planned growth areas in metro Vancouver... I guess we can also say, besides SFU, which is directly connected to skytrain, no one goes to Surrey... There, see how dumb that sounds.

[jlousa]

I agree with paradigm4, when I first read it I thought what is he taking about, but after thinking about it he's right, nobody goes to Maple Ridge so much as they go thru Maple Ridge. Almost all of that traffic is cutting thru the city.

[Metro-One]

there actually are large industrial areas and large farming areas in Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge. Also all the through traffic in maple Ridge is funneled to a 2 lane bypass so quite a bit of the six lane traffic's final destination is Maple Ridge or Pitt Meadows. Not to mention a lot of people in maple Ridge will be traveling to Surrey. Golden Ears park is in Maple Ridge in the same context that Cypress is in West Van. Also not to mention that this bridge will open up Maple Ridge to the south encouraging growth. My goodness you people have no foresight. The same general comment can be made about Surrey or the north Shore that most people are only driving though them.

[racc]

The same old arguments for road building are really getting tired. These were all the same back in the seventies when many people thought that Vancouver would fall into economic ruin if it didn't blindly follow every other North American city and build freeways to, through downtown. Well, the people in Vancouver had the courage to say no. This was one of the best decisions that Vancouver made and is the reason why Vancouver is seen as one of the most viable cities in the world.

Now those that live south of the Fraser have the same choice. It is better to learn from others successes rather than follow the tragic path of highway building that has destroyed cities all around North American.

[Metro-One]

I would not call cities such as Montreal and new York destroyed, both of which have very large freeway systems. Also most European, Australian and Asian cities have freeway systems much larger than Metro Vancouver's on a per capita scale. The true failure of American cities is not just because of the freeways, but because of poor zoning and land management on behalf of the city and state governments. Everyone likes to blame sprawl on freeways simply because they are the obvious choice, but that is simply a quick blame game surface observation. There is much more to it than that.

[Hong Kongese]

I can not think of any great cities have no freeways. Even a classic city like London has a massive freeway network for crying out loud!

[racc]

Originally Posted by Hong Kongese

I can not think of any great cities have no freeways. Even a classic city like London has a massive freeway network for crying out loud!

London also has 6 times the population of Metro Vancouver. Their public transit is so good only 5% of people commute to downtown by car. We have a long ways to catch up before we have as good a transit system. Our road system is probably as good per capita if not better than theirs.

And since you mentioned it, they have just cancelled a lot of road widening projects and committed to investing in high-speed rail. They also just cancelled a $3 billion Gateway Bridge.

[Metro-One]

I would never call Vancouver's roadways better than London's. Not in a long shot. High speed rail is something that is not needed in van, we have no near by cities to connect to besides Seattle, and with the US border closing its doors more everyday it would make such a project less feasible. the ridership numbers would never make up for the capitol cost of a high speed train connecting Van to Vancouver island or to Calgary. The UK and Europe have multi millions of people in very close proximity to each other, the only regions in canada that should be investing in high speed rail are Windsor to Quebec City and maybe Edmonton to Calgary.

[Hong Kongese]

Originally Posted by racc

London also has 6 times the population of Metro Vancouver. .

But their freeways network is also 20 times bigger than ours. To be honest, I don't think there is a real " freeway" in the lower mainland.

[fever]

What is the benefit of commuter freeways - not port-related freeways, but freeways that are built so that a few thousand people can live a little further from work?

The important questions should be:
1) how much better does it make the city?
2) how much does it cost?



A lot of cities that were stagnating from the 1950s to 70s sliced themselves up to build urban freeways in a desperate attempt to stay relevant. Montreal and New York are prime examples. London probably counts, too.

[The_Henry_Man]

I am siding with Metro-One and Hong Kongese on this one.

Even though I'm a big supporter of massive expansion of the Skytrain/WCE and other public transit system projects, there has to be a BALANCED approach to investments in transportation network. Be realistic, you'll never, ever get everyone to switch from the car to a bus/Skytrain, because everyone has different lifestyles and careers catering to the ideal mode of transport. You can definitely entice people who usually drive to take more transit only if their lifestyle (work and play) allows convenient access to public transit (ex- lawyers, accountants,doctors working in downtown but he/she is still driving to work, or people working or living relatively close to good public transit access). These are the people who Translink and our province should target. On the other hand, you'll never, ever going to successfully convince people to take public transit who need cargo space to carry their tools that they need for work (ex- tradesmen, technicians, engineers, truck drivers etc). Also, what about trucks and commercial vehicles that need roads to deliver goods from one place to another to maintain trade with other countries/provinces (rail only commercial transport is not enough!!)? Buses also need roads to take people from one place to another (this argument in itself already nullifies the NDP's rationale to stop all highway expansion projects)

The closure of the Patullo Bridge is a wake-up call for our province to invest more in road building. We are over 30 years behind adequate road infrastructure. What happens if there's natural disasters like earthquakes are to occur? Without an adequate road network, ambulances and other emergency vehicles can't get from one place to another to save lives and cut communication and emergency response between both sides of the Fraser. With a good road network, it also allows enough capacity for people to evacuate the city (ex- American cities in the event of hurricanes).

Unfortunately, there's way too many nutty environmental lefties interfering with the progress of this province, especially the ones in COV.

[The_Henry_Man]

*Cont'd from the previous post.....

In regards to these road infrastructure projects:
1) SFPR- Don't know why anyone would oppose it. It's a crucial link to connect N-S Hwy 99,91,17 and Hwy 1/7. It gives residents from Richmond, southern part of Vancouver (Marpole, Fraserview etc) and South Delta a needed link to Hwy 1. It's a no-brainer.

2) Widening of Hwy 1- Widening should've been done from Abbotsford, not at 216th St. Have 6 lanes from there to 200th St. From there, 8-10 lanes all the way to Willingdon/Granview interchange. 6-8 lanes until the Cassiar interchange. Finally 6 lanes through the Cassiar Tunnel (one lane each way can be HOV/bus lanes). Given the controversy and the opposition faced for this project, the current plans are ok.

3) The Golden Ears Connector should've been made a freeway standard to better link the SFPR to be bridge. Don't know what Translink is smoking (they should never be allowed to design and build highways).

These are the very bare minimum to successfully improve our road infrastructure. So far, I think the Liberals have done a pretty good job with a balanced approach to transportation network projects.

[Hong Kongese]

^^ Well said!

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

3) The Golden Ears Connector should've been made a freeway standard to better link the SFPR to be bridge. Don't know what Translink is smoking (they should never be allowed to design and build highways).

DAMN STRAIGHT!
Not to mention Translink's projects always face massive multi-year delays from intital conception... (wasn't this bridge intitally earmarked to open in 2006???). Love em or hate em, at least highway projects managed by the current BC gov't are on pace, or have finished on time, (granted the P-3 funding model for some of the gateway projects might cause some delays due to the tight lending market).

As commented on earlier pictures, the Golden Ears "mainline" route in North Langley looks like United Boulevard in Coquitlam -- An office park boulevard.
This road should have been built to the same standard (at minimum) as which the SFPR is to be (80km/hr, limited access).

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

Even though I'm a big supporter of massive expansion of the Skytrain/WCE and other public transit system projects, there has to be a BALANCED approach to investments in transportation network. Be realistic, you'll never, ever get everyone to switch from the car to a bus/Skytrain, because everyone has different lifestyles and careers catering to the ideal mode of transport. You can definitely entice people who usually drive to take more transit only if their lifestyle (work and play) allows convenient access to public transit (ex- lawyers, accountants,doctors working in downtown but he/she is still driving to work, or people working or living relatively close to good public transit access). These are the people who Translink and our province should target. On the other hand, you'll never, ever going to successfully convince people to take public transit who need cargo space to carry their tools that they need for work (ex- tradesmen, technicians, engineers, truck drivers etc). Also, what about trucks and commercial vehicles that need roads to deliver goods from one place to another to maintain trade with other countries/provinces (rail only commercial transport is not enough!!)? Buses also need roads to take people from one place to another (this argument in itself already nullifies the NDP's rationale to stop all highway expansion projects)

I second the 'balanced approach' notion as well.
In addition to the issue of cargo space, trades, etc., today's family must also cope with the fact that if you have 2 or 3 kids, even if they walk to school, chances are they are still going to need to be picked up from school ANYWAY to get them to their various extracurricular activities. Parents have lots of stress in their life as it is managing groceries, doctors, dentists, kids' sports, and a crippling Vancouver mortgage, and driving an automobile makes life in a bit easier to handle, especially when your city is actually many smaller cities and shops and services you use are spread out everywhere.
Dense urban neighbourhoods ABSOLUTELY permit a person to conduct their errands without a car -- heck, I've spent some time in Yaletown and have marveled at "everything one could possibly need in their life" within a few blocks of where I was staying. But, the fact is, families typically live in the suburbs. People value their house and yard and personal space... and until our general societal paradigm of what a home should be changes, we're stuck with having to keep up on our road building too. I would LOVE to walk to a rapid transit station of some form, and pick up fresh produce everyday for dinner on the walk home, but chances are I'm going to have some other errand or appointment that requires me to drive, and lets not forget those car-dependent children.

So, we have to take a balanced approach with a primary focus on shifting the urban paradigm of family living towards transit-friendly option, BUT, keep up with the pace of development in general so that our standard of living doesn't suffer.

[DKaz]

Can't we agree to disagree? Transit is not quite convenient enough for everyone to use it. We're committing $14 billion in various transit improvements but until they're implemented we need roads to make sure people can get places.

I'm a transit user by nature but I welcome a safer Transcanada Highway with 33% more capacity, I welcome replacing the dangerous Patullo Bridge with a safer 6 lane structure, I welcome the Golden Ears Bridge and SFPR.

When I play hockey, do any of you want me carrying my stinky hockey gear onto transit? Heck no! (ok I used to do it when I was a poor college student lol, Febreeze is such a wonderful invention for these cases) (Burnaby 8 Rinks started a really convenient hockey gear storage service last year for you transit users).

[mr.x]

According to news reports, traffic has been flowing smoothly today on all crossings (Port Mann, Alex Fraser, Massey tunnel, etc.) despite the Pattullo closure.

It looks like everyone has adjusted!

[officedweller]

I also agree that you need a basic level of highway infrastructure which Metro Vancouver doesn't have.

WRT Vancouver's decision not to build freeways - that relates to "inner-city" freeways or "downtown" freeways that cut swaths through an pre-existing urban fabric.

None of Hwy 1, Hwy 91, SFPR or even Hwy 99 cut through "downtown" areas in any of Metro Vancouver's municipalities.

For Surrey, both Hwy 1 and Hwy 99 do not cut through the heart of the city - they bypass it - much like Hwy 1 doesn't come close to the centre of Vancouver.

The closest comparison would be downtown Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows of Maple Ridge with the Lougheed Highway - but the Lougheed "Highway" is really an arterial street that in many places is narrower than other "main streets" - such as Georgia Street or Burrard Street in downtown Vancouver.

[officedweller]

From the New West Record:

Pattullo gives city a break
Closed bridge is trouble for those on other side of river, but for some in the city it's clearing up the congestion

Theresa McManus, The Record
Published: Wednesday, January 21, 2009

While many commuters are facing gridlock due to the closure of the Pattullo Bridge, some local streets are quieter than usual.

The Pattullo Bridge was closed Sunday after a suspicious fire damaged an 18-metre section of wooden trestle at the south end of the bridge. The bridge normally accommodates 80,000 commuters a day.

Coun. Jaimie McEvoy, who lives near the bridge, said it may be time to move replacement of the bridge up the priority list of the region's transportation projects.

"That bridge is now over 70 years old," added Mayor Wayne Wright. "It is not functioning as it should."

With commuters diverted to the Port Mann and Alex Fraser bridges and the George Massey Tunnel, TransLink is encouraging commuters to take transit or carpool. TransLink expects it will be at least a month until the bridge reopens and the $2-million in repairs are complete.

New Westminster resident Paul Johansen said traffic on Royal Avenue, McBride Boulevard, Eighth Avenue and 10th Avenue has improved "dramatically" since the bridge was closed.He hopes this encourages officials to seriously consider the Sapperton Bar option for a replacement bridge.

At its Jan. 12 meeting, city council heard a presentation about the Pattullo corridor study, which was commissioned by TransLink to help decide what should be done with the bridge when it is replaced and/or rebuilt in the future. Four possible options have been developed:

w Option 1: This would be located about 50 metres upstream of the existing rail bridge.

w Option 2: This would be located along the existing New Westminster rail bridge alignment. (This option wasn't evaluated in the study because it's dependent on the separate replacement of the rail bridge.)

w Option 3: This would be located about 50 metres downstream of the existing Pattullo Bridge.

w Option 4: Sapperton Bar corridor. The option proposes structures across the river, connections with South Fraser Perimeter Road in Surrey and near the Brunette River in Coquitlam, with connections to United Boulevard. The route through New Westminster proposes a bridge from Sapperton Bar (a manmade industrial island suggested by the port authority) to East Columbia Street at Cumberland, then a tunnel under Cumberland to a portal on McBride Boulevard near Eighth Avenue.

Susan Hollingshead, TransLink's acting manager of road and infrastructure planning, said the TransLink board of directors directed staff in July 2008 to proceed with further study of alignments. Hollingshead said two of the options - those just upstream and just downstream from the current bridge - have been shortlisted for further study. She told council that TransLink is firm that the bridge would be financed by tolls.

The city's transportation staff have reviewed the report on the three main alignment options and their connections to streets, and offered analysis on impacts to New Westminster.

"There is no preferred winner," said Catherine Mohoruk, the city's transportation specialist. "Both options have trade-offs that we have to consider."

TransLink had recommended that the Sapperton Bar alignment shouldn't be considered because of high costs, significant environmental impacts on the river and limited traffic benefits and because it precludes the development of a combined road-rail bridge.

Hollingshead said a combined road/rail crossing over the Fraser is technically possible but would be "very challenging."

New Westminster city council has asked TransLink to keep the Sapperton Bar option under consideration as part of future financial analyses.

Coun. Bill Harper suggested some of the options would increase traffic in the city, but he believes the Sapperton Bar alignment could be highly beneficial for New Westminster. He noted it would give people easier connections to the freeway.

If money weren't an issue, Hollingshead said, TransLink would still be looking at the existing Pattullo Bridge corridor and not an alignment closer to the Port Mann Bridge.

"Option 4 does not respond to the traffic needs that are there," she said.

Hollingshead said the Pattullo Bridge serves local traffic, with many drivers travelling between Surrey and New Westminster.

"Option 4 doesn't really serve that traffic," she said. "If it is close to the Port Mann, it is really a duplication of the Port Mann."

Harper said he'd "like to see the data on that" because he doesn't really agree with that assessment.

Council also questioned why the Sapperton Bar alignment is viewed as having more environmental impacts than the other options.

Hollingshead said that assessment was based on the fact that infrastructure would be placed into an area of the river that doesn't currently have infrastructure. She said Sapperton Bar would require fill in fish-breeding areas.

Hollingshead said the consultant prefers Option 3, but more analysis will be done in the next phase of the study. The next phase will also consider the options' impacts on residential, commercial and other properties.

© The Record (New Westminster) 2009