Metro Vancouver Road Infrastructure Discussion

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Speaking of Smith I had to laugh (or cry) at the amount of personnel, time and money the City of Vancouver is spending on a one block bike lane on Smithe between Expo and Beatty. The amount of city trucks that have been hanging about there the last few weeks is a total joke.

http://vancouver.ca/streets-transpor...e-street-.aspx

There's an equal amount of work going on down on Kent & Cambie, for 1 block of sidewalk... that was already there(!)

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

Its almost like Vancouver is actually starting to build roads (well bridges anyways) appropriate to a city this size.

I'm not sure about this one... 10-lanes is byfar a significant increase for Hwy 99 and to be honest, while I think there needs to be a replacement for this crossing, I don't think there needs to be 10-lanes for Hwy 99.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Speaking of Smith I had to laugh (or cry) at the amount of personnel, time and money the City of Vancouver is spending on a one block bike lane on Smithe between Expo and Beatty.

Not familiar with the project, but the description on the web site says that new catch basins were to be installed before the bike / pedestrian changes. I suspect that wasn't an insignificant piece of work.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by deasine

I'm not sure about this one... 10-lanes is byfar a significant increase for Hwy 99 and to be honest, while I think there needs to be a replacement for this crossing, I don't think there needs to be 10-lanes for Hwy 99.

What if only three lanes went through while two lane functioned like they do on the port man. They would connect industry and port lands on the north side of the Fraser main channel and industry and port lands on the south side of the Main channel. I think 10 lines is ok, especially with the number of trucks that will use the bridge. (1 hov, 2 general purpose, 1 extra lanes to handle non 99 traffic, i climbing and descending lane for heavy trucks.

[hollywoodnorth]

Commuter choas on Highway 99
Police say an overheight truck struck the overpass at Highway 10

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/BC/ID/2415038584/

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by cornholio

What if only three lanes went through while two lane functioned like they do on the port man. They would connect industry and port lands on the north side of the Fraser main channel and industry and port lands on the south side of the Main channel. I think 10 lines is ok, especially with the number of trucks that will use the bridge. (1 hov, 2 general purpose, 1 extra lanes to handle non 99 traffic, i climbing and descending lane for heavy trucks.

Why would we need a lane to handle non 99 traffic, if they are not on the 99 why would they need a lane. Maybe we should have a lane for horses and buggys in case an amish community springs up?

One lane HOV, 2 through lanes, 1 for the 17 joining up is plenty wide enough. 4 lanes each direction is plenty. Some merging should be expected from bridges. Otherwise we would need 2 lanes for the 17 from the south, 2 from the east, 2 from the 99 and 1 for the HOV, heck lets throw one in from Ladner as well so lets build a 16 lane bridge!

I agree with Deasline that 10 lanes is overkill

[Zassk]

It is only overkill by 2 lanes - and I see those last 2 lanes as being relief for AFB which is now maxed out.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

Commuter choas on Highway 99
Police say an overheight truck struck the overpass at Highway 10

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/BC/ID/2415038584/

This was bad enough to back up the 91 and Westminster Hwy into Richmond and compromise 410 service. I was on a bus from Steveston that night whose driver had apparently given up and short turned, noting that the alternative would be to get stuck there for hours upon hours.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by Zassk

It is only overkill by 2 lanes - and I see those last 2 lanes as being relief for AFB which is now maxed out.

Some people really don't want Ladner/Tsawassen to grow, *at all* - so specifics about the number of lanes that are or are not overkill don't really strike at the heart of the matter.

Some people see the congestion at the tunnel as a *great* thing insofar as it constricts regional growth.

Look no further than the recent comments made by David Suzuki about limiting immigration and how Canada is "full."

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Look no further than the recent comments made by David Suzuki about limiting immigration and how Canada is "full."

That is a separate discussion in itself. To me, it is selfish to say that Canada is full at a time when other continents are strained from overpopulation. We now know that world population is stabilizing around 2050. The most responsible way to manage that stable population would be to distribute it equally around the world - which would mean a further massive immigration from overpopulated regions to the Americas. If we want to play our part in solving the world's problems, then there is no getting around the fact that the Americas must accommodate more people.

In the local context, the best way to deal with a doubling of population would probably be to plan out a new Vancouver-sized city somewhere nearby on the coast - not on arable land, but on otherwise serviceable land - rather than to allow Vancouver to double its population in this agricultural valley. But realistically, BC is not going to build another large city on the coast, so we will have to deal with growth here, even in the ALR-dominated parts of the region.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Or you could just double Metro Vancouver's population density, which would be served by all sorts of high quality infrastructure.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Zassk

That is a separate discussion in itself. To me, it is selfish to say that Canada is full at a time when other continents are strained from overpopulation. We now know that world population is stabilizing around 2050. The most responsible way to manage that stable population would be to distribute it equally around the world - which would mean a further massive immigration from overpopulated regions to the Americas. If we want to play our part in solving the world's problems, then there is no getting around the fact that the Americas must accommodate more people.

In the local context, the best way to deal with a doubling of population would probably be to plan out a new Vancouver-sized city somewhere nearby on the coast - not on arable land, but on otherwise serviceable land - rather than to allow Vancouver to double its population in this agricultural valley. But realistically, BC is not going to build another large city on the coast, so we will have to deal with growth here, even in the ALR-dominated parts of the region.

BC has barely any arable land when compared with other provinces or states, let alone arable land by the coast so I don't think we have to worry about building on any

[Millennium2002]

I think our existing strategy of protecting the farmland that still remains here works (although perhaps it could be stronger). Coupled with the regional strategy to distribute dense development nodes around the region and to interconnect these nodes with roads and transit, I think we'll be able to handle most growth for many years to come without needing to take up more land.

[trofirhen]

When David Suzuki mentioned Canada being "full," it is possible that he meant "full" - relative to the geography of the country. On a map, sure, Canada is enormous. But when it comes right down to it, there is a relatively small amount of the country that lends itself to city building and development.

The High Arctic is out of the question (and comprises nearly a third of the country); the Canadian Shield, with its bedrock, is sparsely populated, the largest city being Thunder Bay.

The boreal forest area of the territories (Yukon, NWT, Nunavut) has climatic and issues like permafrost, (and don't forget the taiga and tundra of what is most of Quebec).

Edmonton, Calgary, and other prairie cities could expand, I think, but already, the temperate regions of the country east of the Rockies - Southern Ontario and Quebec - are where over half of all Canadians already live. And so it goes.

If Canada were geographically and climatically more like the USA, and still with only its current 35 m people, it would be a different story altogether. But this is not the case, and perhaps this is what Dr. Suzuki meant when he said the country is "full."
I think importing another 200m or 300m people here will present insurmountable challenges, just in infrastructure alone, disregarding cultural and economic issues.
OK, back to topic, excuse me please.

[makr3trkr]

http://globalnews.ca/news/949901/van...merica-report/

For the first time, Vancouver has surpassed Los Angeles as the city with the worst traffic congestion in North America.

The average Metro Vancouver resident with a 30 minute commute is wasting 93 hours per year stuck in delays. That’s the equivalent of 11.6 working days.

For every hour, about 41 minutes are wasted in traffic delays in Metro Vancouver.

TomTom says their data goes beyond people’s perceptions of congestion, by using data from the thousands of sensors in their GPS units in vehicles.

The company says the data shows that the way traffic is managed "needs to change."

[osirisboy]

The cheapest thing vancouver could do to help congestion is limit left turns on streets like oak Granville Hastings. They used to have no left turn signs in south Granville until a few years ago when the city decided to take them out. Never understood that one

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

http://globalnews.ca/news/949901/van...merica-report/

For the first time, Vancouver has surpassed Los Angeles as the city with the worst traffic congestion in North America.

The average Metro Vancouver resident with a 30 minute commute is wasting 93 hours per year stuck in delays. That’s the equivalent of 11.6 working days.

For every hour, about 41 minutes are wasted in traffic delays in Metro Vancouver.

TomTom says their data goes beyond people’s perceptions of congestion, by using data from the thousands of sensors in their GPS units in vehicles.

The company says the data shows that the way traffic is managed "needs to change."

Is this figure assume only vehicles equiped with tom tom devices?

[Spork]

Signs went up within the past week or so for the Steveston Highway NB offramp redevelopment. They have also demolished what I believe was the tourist information centre just after the tunnel on the north side - it looks like they will be repurposing that stretch to extend the NB exit lane.

[spm2013]

CBC article on TomTom road congestion study:

A new study by GPS makers TomTom is being disputed, after Vancouver was judged the most traffic-congested city in North America, ahead of Toronto and Los Angeles.

The study's congestion index uses data provided by TomTom’s GPS users to measure how long a commute takes in non-peak hours — for example, Sunday morning at 5 a.m., with nobody on the road — and then compares that number to peak travel times (for example, 5 p.m. on a Monday).

Vancouver scores an overall index of 36%, meaning 36 percent more time is required to drive at 5 p.m. on Monday compared to 5 a.m. on Sunday. The equivalent numbers are 35% in LA and 27% in Toronto.

However, Joe Cortright, president and principal economist for Impresa, a consulting firm in Portland, Oregon, has studied the question of traffic congestion and sees real problems with the TomTom study.

'A lot of the cities that do well in these surveys – sprawling cities like Birmingham, Richmond and Oklahoma City – people drive twice as far as people do in the average city'- Joe Cortright, president and principal economist, Impresa

“If you live in Vancouver and have an average 15-minute commute and it takes an extra five or six minutes longer — that’s your 36% increase. If you live in Los Angeles and have a 45-minute commute and it takes you 10 minutes longer, that’s only a 20 percent or so increase."
Cortright says that the index doesn’t look at the distance people actually travel, or even the total amount of time they travel.

“A lot of the cities that do well in these surveys – sprawling cities like Birmingham, Richmond and Oklahoma City – people drive twice as far as people do in the average city,” he notes.

He doesn’t feel that such indexes are useful in comparing one city to another, as they doesn’t accurately reflect the commuting realities in each city.

Few would argue, for example, that commuting in a densely populated urban centre like Vancouver is the same as driving across sprawling cities like L.A., with a road network eight times Vancouver's size.

But Cortright does see value in looking at trends over time in individual cities.

“If congestion were increasing or decreasing in Vancouver over time, you could compare last year’s number to the next year’s number,” says Cortright.

Funny that an economist wouldn't actually read the report and what's being measured.

"Time delay per year for commuters- Delay per year with a 30 minute commute. Based on 230 work days per year and two peak periods per day."

Maybe their are flaws in the study, but this analysis seems like BS. Especially the example that it's Vancouverites driving 15 minutes to work had a 5 minute delay.

And the CBC article even includes that TomTom tries to reflect the different road networks and driving distances:



I dispute the analysis of the disputed TomTom study.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...rica-1.2417288

[WarrenC12]

The analysis that the economist makes is exactly what TomTom puts on that info-graphic. They just aren't sharing enough info to make a good comparison.

I guarantee if you show that TomTom study to people who have commuted in all three cities they'll laugh at it.