Metro Vancouver Road Infrastructure Discussion

[xd_1771]

Unless we have an extremely narrow 4-lane corridor with short merges and extremely narrow service roads (i.e. something like Hotel Circle in San Diego, except without the 8-lane monster freeway), I don't think it would be possible to turn any portion of the Langley Bypass into a full freeway...
There were also some discussions before about the potential to have a freeway that would more closely parallel the 16th Ave corridor, rather than Route 10.

I don't think there's any way we can turn Knight into a freeway or any sort of corridor with above a 60km/h or 70km/h speed limit, but improvements can be made to improve the safety of the entire corridor, as well as balance the road between goods movement and transit movement... Lately I posted my own vision for Knight Street in Vancouver:

• Remove street side parking (move that to adjacent residential streets). On such a corridor it is simply inappropriate.
• Investments to make the corridor more transit-friendly, as it is a very busy transit corridor. I.e. turn the curbside parking lane into a bus priority lane, which can be used by potential B-Line infrastructure on the corridor - Clark/Knight would be effectively repurposed to 2 general purpose (passenger & freight traffic) lanes + 1 bus lane/right turn lane, a fair combination. This combination should be implemented THROUGHOUT the corridor.
• Full through-lane protection (i.e. prevent left turns from through lanes). By full through-lane protection, I mean:
  • Installation of additional left turn bays at major intersections (mostly done)
  • Construction of median barriers along the entire corridor, to prevent left turns onto minor intersections where left turn lanes cannot be added due to corridor width restriction (note that such barrier would not necessarily block the ability to cross the road by pedestrians and cyclists, who may still cross at traffic signal controlled intersections by way of gaps big enough for passing through*). This would not only allow for safe freeflow movement, but largely increase the overall travel safety. It is a fact that installing median barriers has the largest effect on increasing road safety.
  • Or, keep intersections without left turn lanes but with strict left turn prohibition, at select locations.
  • Note: As the Vancouver local road system is grid-based, it will not be difficult to find alternative direct routes to one's home where left turns are blocked.
• Increase in pedestrian traffic signal count to allow for safer crossing and to make up for the loss of ability to cross the road at some minor intersections
• Optimized light timing (slightly longer green lights/green waves) to make up for the increased traffic signal count
• This can be done while maintaining the 60km/h arterial road speed limit

* - for an example of what I mean, have a look at what is done at Clark & E 10th Avenue. Imagine that but with a narrower jersey barrier, along the narrower 6 lane/no turn lane sections.

[Mousey]

So I really try not to complain about our traffic problems, since many other cities have it worse; but today is an exception.
I don't know what happened this morning, must of been the cloudy weather, the sight of clouds in the sky must of made a few people forget how to drive. Because the delays this morning for the AFB and Tunnel were ridiculous.
99NB: Accident in the counterflow lane, a stall before the 17, a stall after the 17, and a stall at 17@10... The delays had Hwy 99 backed right to the 91 with 17 backed to 34B.
91NB: Accidents at Westminster, Cliveden, and Nordel, numerous stalls too. The delays were even worse here. 91 backed to 10, 10 backed to 128th, 64th to Scott, 72nd to 122, Nordel to Scott.
It took one of my friends who lives at 64th@Scott 3 hours to get to UBC this morning... Left at 7 got there at 10...

I could understand if it was a heavy rainstorm or snowing, but the roads were dry... There was no excuse for something like this. Not since the Pattulo was closed have I ever heard of delays as bad as this morning.

The only funny thing was a report from AM 730 that the accident at 91@Nordel, had the two drivers get out of there cars and start fighting eachother on the side of the road.

[go_leafs_go02]

Pressure builds to replace the Massey Tunnel. I'd be fine if they tolled $1.50 for ALL fraser river crossings in Metro Vancouver all the way out to the Golden Ears Bridge - heck even the Mission Bridge crossing I'd be OK with tolling.....

http://www.news1130.com/traffic/arti...ver-these-days

And the Alex Fraser Bridge doesn't seem to fare much better these days either. I've been back in Ontario for school for the last few weeks, and man, I don't miss the roads in BC. The mountains, yes, but driving around and trying to cross a bridge anytime during daylight hours.. - certainly not.

[officedweller]

Seems like the east half of Seymour Street has been repaved (south of Georgia) - practically overnight.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Pressure builds to replace the Massey Tunnel. I'd be fine if they tolled $1.50 for ALL fraser river crossings in Metro Vancouver all the way out to the Golden Ears Bridge - heck even the Mission Bridge crossing I'd be OK with tolling.....

Better yet, make it a $1 and include the 1st and 2nd Narrows.

[Pinion]

Lions Gate already paid itself off with tolls.

Although I'd be fine with a toll if we got a 10 lane bridge too.

[wrenegade]

^ Really all we need is one extra lane. Traffic is rarely an issue if the counterflow lane is going in your direction. Technically one extra lane wouldn't violate the CoV's policy of "no more lanes into Vancouver" as the extra lane would capacity leading traffic out of the city. But who builds a brand new 4 lane bridge to replace a 3 lane bridge? No one. Especially when the Patullo, George Massey and Ironworkers all need to be replaced first.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by awvan

^ Really all we need is one extra lane. Traffic is rarely an issue if the counterflow lane is going in your direction. Technically one extra lane wouldn't violate the CoV's policy of "no more lanes into Vancouver" as the extra lane would capacity leading traffic out of the city. But who builds a brand new 4 lane bridge to replace a 3 lane bridge? No one. Especially when the Patullo, George Massey and Ironworkers all need to be replaced first.

We went through this debate in the mid-90's when the NDP were in power. All alternatives were considered, including: twinning the bridge (preserving the same style), replacing it with a 4-lane similar-looking bridge, burying the causeway, and building a tunnel across the inlet at Brockton Point. There was absolutely no consensus on what to do, and therefore the existing bridge deck was merely rebuilt with outboard sidewalks added. The CoV made itself a major obstacle in the whole process.

[nname]

Build a new 4-lanes bridge/tunnel, and convert the existing bridge and causeway into SkyTrain/LRT + pedestrian/bike route...

[Mousey]

Heard something interesting today on Global News. Ever since they have shut down the Clark access to the Port of Vancouver, truck traffic has been forced down Renfrew lately. Trucks who do not wish to use Knight/Clark, started using Nanaimo, but that had a by-law put in place prohibiting trucks, so they went to Renfrew.
Um... I'm no expert on this, but either partially re-open the Clark entrance, or improve Hastings Street and the Cassiar interchange for trucks between Clark/Cassiar/Comissioner CONSIDERABLY. As much as they shouldn't use Renfrew, they do not have a good alternative. The residents of Renfrew were pretty upset about this sudden nuisance, and they have a right to be mad, this problem has never happened before for them. What is the city doing shutting down the most easily accesible entrance to a Major Port, and not putting in a proper alternative...?

[Metro-One]

umm, what? They shut down the Clark road access to the port?? So that overpass is now closed? Am i reading this right? Is this a permanent move, is this another elevated structure Meggs is displeased with?

[Zassk]

If I recall correctly, Clark wasn't closed, Clark became out-only in an effort to streamline port movements. I think it likely that this decision will be revisited.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

umm, what? They shut down the Clark road access to the port?? So that overpass is now closed? Am i reading this right? Is this a permanent move, is this another elevated structure Meggs is displeased with?

It was a move by Ports Canada because the Clarke Drive entrance was too congested. The problem is that the McGill entrance has a lot more room for queues of trucks than the Clarke Drive entrance does.

I think rather than simply closing the Clarke Drive entrance they need to meter it somehow. Perhaps establish a radio channel for truckers that broadcasts the wait times so that truckers use the best available entrance, much as the border wait signs to at Peace Arch / Pacific Crossing. Or perhaps levy a fee for using it, and adjust the fee as necessary to get a decent balance between the two.

Ultimately the long term solution would be to increase the capacity of the Clarke Drive entrance as it's so well lined up with the major north/south truck route through the city.

[Metro-One]

ok, thanks!

[tybuilding]

An idea floated recently is keeping the original Port Mann as a unique linear park. I suppose the same can go for the Patullo but it is in worse shape. I think it is worth investigating the possibility. I imagine that the seismic requirements to have 2' of dirt and park visitors is lower than a congested bridge with vehicles.

http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2011/...-own-highline/

The Patullo is a better location for a park like this but either would be really cool and would probably attract development.

[Metro-One]

I really like that idea, but i don't think it can be done, simply because the old approaches need to be taken down to complete the super structure of the new bridge (hence only opening with 8 lanes).

But this would be a great idea to investigate for the eventual Patullo Bridge as well.

[LeftCoaster]

No doubt its a cool idea, but it would be prohibitively expensive I would imagine.

One of the main reasons for building the new bridge was because the maintenance of the old one was going to get exponentially higher. Keeping an aging expensive bridge to use as a park seems like an awfully expensive park. I'd rather see that money go towards multiple land based parks.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I really like that idea, but i don't think it can be done, simply because the old approaches need to be taken down to complete the super structure of the new bridge (hence only opening with 8 lanes).

But this would be a great idea to investigate for the eventual Patullo Bridge as well.

Yeah, the bridge needs to be taken out to finish the new Port Mann. Even if it that wasn't the case, I think it would be too close to the new bridge and be a hazard to the new bridge in case of an earthquake. I could just see a support or two snapping on the old bridge in a major quake and see it topple, damaging the new bridge.

But this would be a great idea for the Patullo. Being built in the 30s, I think the bridge has some historical significance it would be nice to see it preserved.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Yeah, the bridge needs to be taken out to finish the new Port Mann. Even if it that wasn't the case, I think it would be too close to the new bridge and be a hazard to the new bridge in case of an earthquake. I could just see a support or two snapping on the old bridge in a major quake and see it topple, damaging the new bridge.

But this would be a great idea for the Patullo. Being built in the 30s, I think the bridge has some historical significance it would be nice to see it preserved.

An idea I had several years ago was to have the steel superstructure of the old Port Mann bridge removed but leave the concrete piers in place.

Then a new railway box bridge structure can be built on top of the saved concrete piers. The new railway bridge would connect on the north side to a railway spur ROW that runs parallel to Glacier St in the Mayfair Industrial area. This ROW is currently a spur line that leads to the major CPR rail line that runs beside the Lougheed Highway and connects to the CPR yards in Port Coquitlam and the yards along United Blvd and along Brunette Ave.

On the south side of the Port Mann Railway Bridge, a connection can be made to the CN main line and possibly the yards on the south banks of the Fraser as well.

Using the full width of the piers, perhaps a dual-track connection can be made between the "CPR side" on the north side of the Fraser and the "CN side" on the south side of the river.

[Mousey]

Originally Posted by Zassk

If I recall correctly, Clark wasn't closed, Clark became out-only in an effort to streamline port movements. I think it likely that this decision will be revisited.

Thanks for properly explaining what happened. I was going by what Global told me, and it sounded really strange to me too. Still becoming a major problem though, and something really needs to be done. Renfrew is fairly busy on its own, adding semi-trucks is only creating more problems.

I love that park idea, but I have a strong fear of heights, so I would never visit it. It was dead in the water from day one though due to the reasons listed. Great idea though, and has worked in NYC and in France!