Highway One Improvements: North Vancouver / Ironworkers Memorial Approach | Completed

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The problem is commuters, not goods movement. Did you read the article? Most of the truckers avoid the rush hours anyway, the congestion is being caused by commuters. According to the article if you could divert just 400 cars a day then traffic would go back to the way it was before all this recent congestion started.

aberdeen5698, I read the article but (such) articles don't always articulate wider pictures. The American freeway system was not originally built for private commuter traffic but rather to accommodate Cold War era military traffic across the country. Over time, big business in the U.S and private commuters came to appreciate the relative speed/time saving/potential money saving benefits of such freeway use. Hence when you look at the freeway configuration of say Los Angeles you'll see that there is a primary North-South freeway (re: the Interstate 5) designated to handle crucial Mexico to Canada commercial/truck traffic, along with complementary (local traffic based) North-South alternatives like the 605, 405 and the 710 etc. which dissect the metro area. Vancouver (for a number of reasons) however has only a single major East-West freeway system (re: the Trans Canada Highway 1) with which to handle crucial cross-country commercial traffic and local commuters (which presents a heightened opportunity for gridlock and a potential long-term liability for industry/business)!
Finally, while I agree with you that mass transit options can help alleviate Highway 1 congestion some (in the short term), over time myriad dynamic regional growth factors will serve to negate such gains and place a spotlight on the lack of freeway alternatives.

[GMasterAres]

The thing that baffles me about the Iron Worker's bridge is not so much the North Vancouver side but rather the Vancouver side. They've widened the tunnel to 3 lanes but the third lanes seem to exit only enter exit only multiple times.

So effectively "Through" there is still only 2 lanes and with adding the 3rd lanes all they've done is increase the lane changing and weaving.

There have been numerous traffic studies done throughout North America that show lane switching (weaving) is actually the highest #1 contributor to traffic congestion. So I'd argue increasing the need to switch lanes to get out and in the exit only lanes they've now added isn't helping matters on the North Shore.

They should just make the tunnel 3 THROUGH lanes and have all the other exits and merge points be just hat merge points and exits. So widen those sections up so the through flow from Willingdon -> North Vancouver = 3 lanes steady.

[GMasterAres]

As for the mass transit thing, I don't think transit as we do it today would really help many parts of the region not just the North Shore because we seem to build all mass transit with Vancouver as the center point.

Case and point you have a poster above living in PoMo who works in the North Shore. But transit isn't built for that flow at all. It is PoMo -> Vancouver -> North Shore which adds needless transfers and time.

Same thing with say Brentwood. If you wanted to "commute" to North Vancouver it is ridiculous. I just punched in Brentwood to North Vancouver (Lonsdale) in Google and it says 16 minutes by car, 50 minutes by transit. And the transit is a bus that goes over the same bridge the car does so if the car is delayed in traffic, so is the bus.

So you need to take almost an hour by transit to go 15 minutes by car distance. And people wonder why many drive still. As a region where the [live in the burbs --> Commute to Vancouver] doesn't really exist anymore, we need to see more expansion of transit services to de-centralized areas. Brentwood to North Vancouver. Coquitlam to Langley and Surrey. Langley to South Surrey. Richmond -> Surrey. Etc. etc.

Or more specifically our transit planner need to start looking at REAL LIFE commute patterns. They seem to be doing that with bridges thus the collector lanes on the Port Mann and the recent press release regarding the Tunnel replacement and traffic to/from Richmond vs Vancouver. But for Transit, Translink or the final decision makers just seem to keep going DURR MORE TRANSIT TO/FROM VANCOUVER!!!

That's the only real way I think transit becomes an alternative to the car. Until then expanding transit service as we've done in metro-Vancouver will do little to get people out of their cars.

If you don't think so just look to Broadway, the largest upcoming rapid transit expansion. It won't replace cars, it will actually replace buses. People that work along there already largely don't drive. Transit upgrades replacing transit. So just expanding or increasing transit doesn't directly impact vehicle movement.

Just one giant Myth that won't go away like closed muscle shells meaning they are toxic or daddy long legs being the most toxic spider. Myths everywhere in life.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Case and point you have a poster above living in PoMo who works in the North Shore. But transit isn't built for that flow at all. It is PoMo -> Vancouver -> North Shore which adds needless transfers and time.

I live in Vancouver and used to work in North Vancouver, so I took the Skytrain and the Seabus to work and back every day. They both have a huge advantage of being extremely reliable in terms of schedule no matter what else is going on in the region. So I was able to board a Skytrain every day that arrived at Waterfront Station about 5 minutes before the Seabus departure and walk across the rail yard down onto the Seabus just a minute or two before it departed. It was the most painless transfer between modes I've ever had.

And of course on the way home the high frequencies of the Skytrain meant that I didn't really have to worry about when the Seabus arrived. I just left work every day at the same time so as to hop on the Seabus just before it departed.

Frequency and schedule reliability really make transit so much more palatable than I think a lot of people realize.

[CanSpice]

There was a study (that I unfortunately can't find right now) done in Boston a couple of years ago that looked at traffic congestion. They found that the overwhelming majority of congestion was actually caused by a very small number of drivers -- four or five neighbourhoods. They also found that if these neighbourhoods could shift their driving times outside of peak hours, perhaps by as little as a half hour either way, then the large traffic jams would diminish.

That's the point of the above article -- shift a small number of drivers and you'll see congestion on the Second Narrows improve dramatically. It's a fairly simple solution that doesn't cost any money or any time or any additional infrastructure (be it either transit or more lanes) but for whatever reason it's not being tried.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

...shift a small number of drivers and you'll see congestion on the Second Narrows improve dramatically. It's a fairly simple solution that doesn't cost any money or any time or any additional infrastructure (be it either transit or more lanes) but for whatever reason it's not being tried.

That's why tolls are so effective at congestion management. Even if you just charged a buck per crossing it would probably shift enough traffic to other times or modes to make a pretty significant difference.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That's why tolls are so effective at congestion management. Even if you just charged a buck per crossing it would probably shift enough traffic to other times or modes to make a pretty significant difference.

For sure.

Day 1 of the new tolled Patullo Bridge is going to be all about how jammed the Scott Rd Skytrain is.

Day 1 of the tolled GMT replacement is going to see those South Surrey park and rides at capacity, and people lined up around the block for a bus.

[Pinion]

Tolling a third crossing is a-ok. Tolling an existing bridge without dramatic transit improvements (ie skytrain) is not.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Tolling a third crossing is a-ok. Tolling an existing bridge without dramatic transit improvements (ie skytrain) is not.

Sure, it makes so much more sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a new, larger bridge and then toll it so that the traffic levels go down to levels that could have been handled by the old bridge.

But I agree with you - if we're going to impose new tolls then we should be providing people with reasonable alternatives. Unfortunately the provincial government's policy seems to be that the alternatives have to be bridges for other highways. They don't seem to get the idea that transit actually has a complementary and important role to play in our transportation infrastructure.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Sure, it makes so much more sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a new, larger bridge and then toll it so that the traffic levels go down to levels that could have been handled by the old bridge.

Potential consequences of tolling Ironworkers without a third crossing for me, a regular lower middle class schmuck who lives nearby:

-My condo value drops by thousands of dollars. It's barely above water as is.
-My employer loses oodles of cross-inlet business and lays me off
-Hiring people at my place of employment becomes even more impossible, mostly because the commute is a nightmare with potentially four tolls per day for those SoF. We're trying to get someone to work here for two weeks for my vacation and can't even do that.
-My cost of travelling goes up, either through two very expensive two zone bus passes or by tolls. Luckily I'm one of the few that doesn't commute over the bridge.

Of course I guess all of this is solved by me being laid off? The solution to Ironworkers being a nightmare isn't to make it even harder to cross.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Sure, it makes so much more sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a new, larger bridge and then toll it so that the traffic levels go down to levels that could have been handled by the old bridge. But I agree with you - if we're going to impose new tolls then we should be providing people with reasonable alternatives. Unfortunately the provincial government's policy seems to be that the alternatives have to be bridges for other highways. They don't seem to get the idea that transit actually has a complementary and important role to play in our transportation infrastructure.

.....or use time-specific congestion road pricing where a substantial toll is charged during peak hours with flexible accommodations made to shift road pricing/toll levels to different time periods based on increasing traffic! But in the final analysis a healthy mix of road and mass transit improvement is key to regional mobility and a successful local economy!

[Metro-One]

Yeah, I really dislike the idea of simply tolling existing infrastructure without any improvements.

Again, if we want a socially and economically healthy region, we need good roads and good transit.

I don't believe in replacing the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge, but I fully support closing down the Lions Gate to general traffic and building a new tolled crossing near main (6 lanes, maybe including 2 HOV / Bus lanes).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yeah, I really dislike the idea of simply tolling existing infrastructure without any improvements.

Well, since recent bridges have seen revenue shortfalls that put the ability of tolls to eventually pay for them into doubt, maybe we should have a referendum to see if the public is willing to pay a 0.5% sales tax to fund these road improvements....?

It puzzles me why people are willing to have the government spend a huge wad of their tax money to build new bridges which then have tolls slapped on them as opposed to just putting the tolls up in the first place and saving all that construction money. Particularly if the tolls are directed to a fund to finance road improvements down the line.

Of course I know the answer - people hate to actually see how much money being spent on this stuff comes right out of their own pocket. A toll or a 0.5% sales tax is a little too visible - a little too easy to see exactly how much you need to pay to get a benefit. Better to have all this stuff come from general revenue and be "hidden" behind a veil of secrecy.

"Ignorance is bliss" is a pretty stupid mindset, IMHO.

[Pinion]

Orrrr maybe we like the tangible benefit of a nice wide bridge and are happy to pay for it.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Well, since recent bridges have seen revenue shortfalls that put the ability of tolls to eventually pay for them into doubt, maybe we should have a referendum to see if the public is willing to pay a 0.5% sales tax to fund these road improvements....?

It puzzles me why people are willing to have the government spend a huge wad of their tax money to build new bridges which then have tolls slapped on them as opposed to just putting the tolls up in the first place and saving all that construction money. Particularly if the tolls are directed to a fund to finance road improvements down the line.

Of course I know the answer - people hate to actually see how much money being spent on this stuff comes right out of their own pocket. A toll or a 0.5% sales tax is a little too visible - a little too easy to see exactly how much you need to pay to get a benefit. Better to have all this stuff come from general revenue and be "hidden" behind a veil of secrecy.

"Ignorance is bliss" is a pretty stupid mindset, IMHO.

Because I feel this "solution" is akin to simpy jacking up the price of a skytrain ticket to reduce overcrowding, instead of actually improving infrastructure.

Also many of these structures need to be replaced for other reasons (safety, age, poor designs, shipping, etc...) not just to expand car capacity. The GMT and Patullo are perfect examples of this.

Now, I would support tolling all bridges (maybe around 1 dollar to 1.50 a crossing) if that came with a bundle plan to replace the GMT, Patullo, and a new third crossing to the North Shore coincinding with the general traffic closure of the Lions Gate.

And just because the province fucked up with a stupid referendum for the transit tax, doesn`t mean roads should also suffer the same outcome. Instead, we should bring Transit funding up to how roads are funded, not bring road funding down.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Orrrr maybe we like the tangible benefit of a nice wide bridge and are happy to pay for it.

That's easy though, just toll it.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's easy though, just toll it.

Would be nice if we could try to not go in circles. Metro-One said it well last time the anti-car crowd brought that up, a few hours ago, in the post before yours.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I feel this "solution" is akin to simply jacking up the price of a skytrain ticket to reduce overcrowding, instead of actually improving infrastructure.

[cleowin]

Highway 1 Proposal:
This post is lengthy, so bare with me.
EB Proposal:
1) Creation of HOV on-ramp at Capilano Interchange creating 3 Lanes (HOV + 2 Thru)
2) HOV Lane from Capilano instead of Grandview
3) HOV + 2 Through Lanes from Capilano > Second Narrows Bridge
4) 4th Local Lane from Westview Drive to Main Street interchange (With separate exits/merges onto 4th local lane at Lonsdale, Lynn Valley Road, Mountain Hwy, Fern Street & Main Street)
5) C/D System (HOV/Th/Th/L/L) on Second Narrows Bridge with Separate On-Ramps from Phibbs Exchange & Main Street
6) C/D Exits: Hastings/McGill, Exit off Main Street to Enter C/D system
7) HOV + 2 Lanes from Cassiar Tunnel thru Grandview

WB Proposal:
1) Remove 3rd Lane Exit / Replace with 3rd Lane Through (separate exit lane after Tunnel onto McGill)
2) On-Ramp Local Lanes from McGill & Hastings (Creating 2 C/D Local lanes on East side of SNB, with C/D directed to Hastings Exit)
3) Extension of HOV from Grandview to Capilano Interchange
4) C/D Local Exits: Main St/Mount Seymour Pkwy/Lillooet/Mountain Highway)
5) HOV + 2 Thru Up Cut
6) 4th Local Lane from Mountain Highway thru Westview Dr (Exits at Lynn Valley Road, Lonsdale Ave & Westview Dr)
7) HOV exits at Capilano Interchange
8) 2 Through Lanes WB from Capilano Interchange

Challenges:
1) Creating a 4th Exit Lane WB to McGill
2) Creating C/D Configuration without Traffic Signals
3) Re-organizing messy Interchanges just Past the Bridge
4) Creating HOV on-ramps within existing Cap River Bridge
5) Expanding Highway without affecting Adjacent Properties

Thoughts?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by cleowin

5) C/D System (HOV/Th/Th/L/L) on Second Narrows Bridge with Separate On-Ramps from Phibbs Exchange & Main Street
6) C/D Exits: Hastings/McGill, Exit off Main Street to Enter C/D system
7) HOV + 2 Lanes from Cassiar Tunnel thru Grandview

How do you do this without double decking the bridge or replacing the entire thing?

At that point you're better off with a third crossing.

[ssiguy]

They already need a 3rd crossing and the clock is ticking for a Lion's Gate proposal.

The city only has about 20 years max left on the Stanley Park Causeway before they will be forced to find an alternative route. As much as Christy would like to force the city to keep the Causeway, it can't as Stanley is a City park so they have no authority. The Parks Board has reaffirmed it's position that the Causeway goes when the original contract expires and there will be no extensions as there shouldn't be because they did give the City an entire century to come up with an alternative.

The Parks Board has said that the only compromise they are willing to give is to continue to allow transit buses to use the corridor which seems quite reasonable.