Metro Vancouver Road Infrastructure Discussion

[red-paladin]

Let's leave the talk about imaginary freeways that will never get built to fantasy thread so we can have this one to focus on real projects

[DKaz]

But everyday I encounter drivers who treat city streets like a freeway, and as a 50cc scooterist it can be down right scary. In theory, more freeways would mean safer city streets.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by DKaz

But everyday I encounter drivers who treat city streets like a freeway, and as a 50cc scooterist it can be down right scary. In theory, more freeways would mean safer city streets.

More freeways would just mean more cars...

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by Zassk

It's even simpler than that. These city councils see congestion as a useful strategy to encourage other modes of transportation. Freeway or not, they don't want congestion to be reduced.

This is very true and a method used by Calgary to increase ridership and reduce use of existing roads was to have some of the highest downtown parking rates anywhere.

Encouraging use of other modes of transportation is smart, more efficient, and cheaper. Even when thinking of the big projects. i.e. Canada Line - can you imagine the cost of building a 10 lane road from Richmond to downtown Vancouver!? Which neighborhoods would get ripped up? Where would they park? Way cheaper to build the Canada Line.

[s211]

Originally Posted by SOSS

This is very true and a method used by Calgary to increase ridership and reduce use of existing roads was to have some of the highest downtown parking rates anywhere.

With waiting lists many many years long, mind you, so price doesn't seem to matter to many.

[Metro-One]

Freeways are not a black and white issue, and those against freeways will use either outcome to back their opinion.

Freeway opens under projections "Look at that, we didn't need it, no one is using it"

Freeway opens over projections "See, it only encourages more people to drive!"

You can't have it both ways.

Fact is even the most transit friendly cities still need some form of a highway network.

I do not believe in the American overkill model, but the European / Japanese models are good comparisons to follow, and currently even compared to most of those cities metro Vancouver is arguably under-built.

Having higher capacity free flow corridors can actually make regular streets safer / more open places if implemented correctly. Take the 1st Ave / hastings corridor for example. My ideal situation is that a 4 lane 70km/h controlled access tollway is built largely following the cut. Buses and commercial vehicles have free access, general purpose has distance based tolling (as should have been the case with the SFPR alongside with it being built with full interchanges). After said road opens, the capacity of the existing surface streets (1st Ave, Hastings, etc...) is greatly reduced through traffic calming engineering, introduction of bus only lanes, bike lanes, etc...

That way you are not "encouraging" the highway to be filled up with new commuters, but now those who used the corridor have a true expressway to use (removing all the heavy traffic from the surface streets) and the regular surface streets are re-designed to be far more neighborhood friendly.

A similar road should also be built along Knight Street. The two expressways would meet at the base of a new Burrard Inlet crossing that would then allow the Lions Gate to be closed to general traffic.

Again, all tolled (with reasonable prices), 4 lanes (maybe the bridge would be 6), 70km/h urban design speeds (therefore it fits into the urban fabric instead of bulldozing through it), free for industrial and transit vehicles, coinciding with great reductions in road capacity along city streets.

And this is what annoys me about talking about highways on this forum, it is either the "all highways are bad and no where needs them" group or the "we need 10 lane highways everywhere with 120 km/h design speeds through urban areas..." Honestly the truth is in the middle for a healthy urban area.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

More freeways would just mean more cars...

As Metro pointed out, freeways would mainly move existing cars off the roads and onto the freeway/expressways, rather than creating new traffic. This makes things better for everyone.
Drivers don't have to deal with slow city streets with lots cross traffic, cycling gets safer as the previously clogged city streets have fewer cars and could even have the speed limits lowered to 40 (same benefits apply to pedestrians).

If people are going to drive, and there will always be some people driving, the best place for them is on some form of expressway. It's quicker for drivers, and it keeps cars away from areas with lots of pedestrians and cyclists.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Freeway opens under projections "Look at that, we didn't need it, no one is using it"

The only under projection freeway projects that I'm aware of are those that didn't meet their goals due to tolls. This tells me that rather than spending money on bigger freeways we can address congestion far more economically by imposing tolls on the existing ones, raising money to pay for alternatives such as transit in the process.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Freeways are not a black and white issue, and those against freeways will use either outcome to back their opinion.

Freeway opens under projections "Look at that, we didn't need it, no one is using it"

Freeway opens over projections "See, it only encourages more people to drive!"

You can't have it both ways.

Fact is even the most transit friendly cities still need some form of a highway network.

I do not believe in the American overkill model, but the European / Japanese models are good comparisons to follow, and currently even compared to most of those cities metro Vancouver is arguably under-built.

Having higher capacity free flow corridors can actually make regular streets safer / more open places if implemented correctly. Take the 1st Ave / hastings corridor for example. My ideal situation is that a 4 lane 70km/h controlled access tollway is built largely following the cut. Buses and commercial vehicles have free access, general purpose has distance based tolling (as should have been the case with the SFPR alongside with it being built with full interchanges). After said road opens, the capacity of the existing surface streets (1st Ave, Hastings, etc...) is greatly reduced through traffic calming engineering, introduction of bus only lanes, bike lanes, etc...

That way you are not "encouraging" the highway to be filled up with new commuters, but now those who used the corridor have a true expressway to use (removing all the heavy traffic from the surface streets) and the regular surface streets are re-designed to be far more neighborhood friendly.

A similar road should also be built along Knight Street. The two expressways would meet at the base of a new Burrard Inlet crossing that would then allow the Lions Gate to be closed to general traffic.

Again, all tolled (with reasonable prices), 4 lanes (maybe the bridge would be 6), 70km/h urban design speeds (therefore it fits into the urban fabric instead of bulldozing through it), free for industrial and transit vehicles, coinciding with great reductions in road capacity along city streets.

And this is what annoys me about talking about highways on this forum, it is either the "all highways are bad and no where needs them" group or the "we need 10 lane highways everywhere with 120 km/h design speeds through urban areas..." Honestly the truth is in the middle for a healthy urban area.

How would you pay for all of this? Think of the property value and the land acquisition required for such an expansive network upgrade... Or if you bore it... Yikes. Terribly expensive.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by s211

With waiting lists many many years long, mind you, so price doesn't seem to matter to many.

Correct. They have controlled DT traffic with two major means. Pricing and supply. Supply is very limited also to encourage C-Train or bus use.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by SOSS

How would you pay for all of this? Think of the property value and the land acquisition required for such an expansive network upgrade... Or if you bore it... Yikes. Terribly expensive.

The same arguments could be used against expanding the skytrain. The costs are just something people accept as part of improving the network.
Same thing needs to apply to expressways. While skytrain is fine and dandy for people commuting to work, goods travel by road, and expressways as a result help the economy grow. Thus they are also worth the cost. If the economy were to go bad, we wouldn't need the skytrain for commuters, as no one wouldn't have a job to get to.

[Tfreder]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

As Metro pointed out, freeways would mainly move existing cars off the roads and onto the freeway/expressways, rather than creating new traffic. This makes things better for everyone.
Drivers don't have to deal with slow city streets with lots cross traffic, cycling gets safer as the previously clogged city streets have fewer cars and could even have the speed limits lowered to 40 (same benefits apply to pedestrians).

If people are going to drive, and there will always be some people driving, the best place for them is on some form of expressway. It's quicker for drivers, and it keeps cars away from areas with lots of pedestrians and cyclists.

In theory it makes sense, but I'm not sure if that is entirely accurate. Personally speaking, it takes me about 50 minutes to drive downtown. If there was a freeway system in place in Vancouver that would make it possible to get downtown in 30 minutes or less, I would be driving downtown. Instead, I just take the skytrain / bus because I don't have the patience to drive for 50 minutes

I don't think having freeways in Vancouver will mark the death of the city. Montreal is a vibrant city with a large core even though it has a freeway running through its downtown.

[Pinion]

I think it makes more sense to have the theoretical highway that will never happen go over the rail tracks on Burrard inlet than down the Grandview cut. Downtown is on the inlet, Trucks servicing the port need to be near the inlet, and those train tracks/ports aren't going anywhere so you don't get the usual whining about ruining pristine oceanfront (although I'm sure we still would by dumb people).

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Tfreder

In theory it makes sense, but I'm not sure if that is entirely accurate. Personally speaking, it takes me about 50 minutes to drive downtown. If there was a freeway system in place in Vancouver that would make it possible to get downtown in 30 minutes or less, I would be driving downtown. Instead, I just take the skytrain / bus because I don't have the patience to drive for 50 minutes

I don't think having freeways in Vancouver will mark the death of the city. Montreal is a vibrant city with a large core even though it has a freeway running through its downtown.

More realistically, the limiting factor in terms of driving downtown would be trying to find parking. Doesn't matter if it takes me fifteen minutes or an hour to get there. If I spend half an hour trying to find a parking spot, I'm not going to bother driving.
Even if a freeway were to be put in, I don't think there is any possibility of extra parking downtown (a good thing IMO).

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Tfreder

..................
I don't think having freeways in Vancouver will mark the death of the city. Montreal is a vibrant city with a large core even though it has a freeway running through its downtown.

Perfect example !!! Thank you !!

[Klazu]

You can tell it has been a beautiful Saturday and people have been out of town to enjoy it! Driving back from Whistler there was a 40 minutes queue to the Lions Gate Bridge and to Second Narrows Bridge traffic on Highway 1 was backed up until Londsdale Avenue overpass!

Never seen the latter happen, but goes to tell how Highway 1 in North Vancouver should be widened to have 6 lanes. Took us 20 minutes to reach the bridge.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Klazu

You can tell it has been a beautiful Saturday and people have been out of town to enjoy it! Driving back from Whistler there was a 40 minutes queue to the Lions Gate Bridge and to Second Narrows Bridge traffic on Highway 1 was backed up until Londsdale Avenue overpass!

Never seen the latter happen, but goes to tell how Highway 1 in North Vancouver should be widened to have 6 lanes. Took us 20 minutes to reach the bridge.

Backing up to Lonsdale happens all the time. There are similar line ups on Keith, 3rd and Low Level that get to at least St Andrews (three blocks from Lonsdale) frequently. It's really funny when the back ups for Lions Gate and Ironworkers almost touch each other.

But we don't need improvements because there's no growth on the north shore!

[Klazu]

Good God, I hadn't realize it's such a traffic nightmare on regular basis. You guys really need a better public transportation, if such volumes are heading to Downtown (I suppose they mostly are).

I guess I am not moving to North Shore, as I could not stand spending time in those line-ups.

[cleowin]

I know this proposal was already thought of, but I was thinking this is what should happen:

-Build a 4 Lane Expressway that uses the Grandview Highway exit north of Willingdon, and have it travel along the Skytrain route (either tunneled or elevated), with the freeway connecting to Main Street & 1st (or Terminal), where it just continues as an arterial road. Use a fixed toll price (as suggested by someone else), with the same in reverse.

2nd Proposal: Build a connector south of Richmond over to connect with Boundary Road. - Perhaps build an elevated Expressway that connects to Highway 1.

[Klazu]

No elevated highways. They are a known earthquake hazard and separate communities they run through. A trenched highway or a tunnel is the only one I would like to see, latter the better.