Hwy 99 Fraser River Tunnel (George Massey Replacement) | Proposed

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The reason that car and road transport is king is because we keep building road infrastructure that encourages car usage. If we spent the money on transit instead, or even if we at least spent as much money on transit as we do on roads, then we could move more people at less cost and have far fewer negative outcomes such as gridlock, accidents, pollution, greenhouse gases, etc.

While I'm not particularly in favour of 10 lanes and I'm not convinced that the proposed project is the most cost-effect way to reduce the gridlock, I recognize that something needs to be done. But my real gripe is all the money that rains down from the sky on road projects while transit suffers from a government that seems hell-bent on nickel and diming it to death.

Your point would be valid if not for the following numbers over the past 15 years in Metro-Vancouver:

Major Transit Capital Projects: $4.7 billion (Millennium Line, Canada Line, Evergreen Line)
Major Road Capital Projects: $3.8 billion (SFPR, Port Mann, HWY 1 upgrades, Golden Ears Bridge, Pitt River Bridge)

*shrug*

So the replacement GMT will push the numbers back over to the Major Road Capital, but that's life it bounced back and fourth, and people can HARDLY argue that transit isn't getting investment in Metro Vancouver.

And quite frankly, they add $3 billion to GMT replacement so roads are now $6.8 billion...with the Pattullo say another $1.5 billion so ~8 billion.

But in that same time how much do you think a Broadway subway and extension out to Langley for SkyTrain will cost? $4 billion? $5 billion? Numbers then become basically the same again.

The following isn't directly to you aberdeen but rather to everyone who keeps saying "UGH CANCEL THIS MORE TRANSIT..."


It's a myth that the region doesn't spend money on transit. Absolute BS myth. What _IS_ true is that a lot of the transit spending is skewed toward Vancouver and a few cities around (Burnaby cough, a bit of Richmond). That's where the myth came from because the investment is disproportionate to the overall population (though people would argue, and have a point, about it being focused on density). But to use this fact as meaning "transit isn't funded" in Metro-Vancouver is just false.

Also annoys the heck out of me when people pit Transit vs Roads.

THERE ISN'T A METRO REGION THAT HAS GOTTEN RID OF THEIR ROADS OR MAJOR ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE PLANET

There I said it. I've been to Portland. It has massive freeways and a giant major one cutting right through the center of the city. I've been to Copenhagen and drove a very large freeway to, from, and around the city. London has massive freeways. Paris has massive freeways. Germany is one massive freeway that everyone knows the name of. Every major city has major roads:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_9_(Hong_Kong)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_8_(Hong_Kong)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_7_(Hong_Kong)

etc. etc. etc. since everyone seems to think cities like Hong Kong only have transit.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jhausner

THERE ISN'T A METRO REGION THAT HAS GOTTEN RID OF THEIR ROADS OR MAJOR ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE PLANET

There I said it. I've been to Portland. It has massive freeways and a giant major one cutting right through the center of the city. I've been to Copenhagen and drove a very large freeway to, from, and around the city. London has massive freeways. Paris has massive freeways. Germany is one massive freeway that everyone knows the name of. Every major city has major roads:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_9_(Hong_Kong)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_8_(Hong_Kong)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_7_(Hong_Kong)

etc. etc. etc. since everyone seems to think cities like Hong Kong only have transit.

B.b.b.b.but what about that one in Seoul that every cyclist drones on about? Surely if those kar krazy Koreans can do it, so can we!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Your point would be valid if not for the following numbers over the past 15 years in Metro-Vancouver:

Major Transit Capital Projects: $4.7 billion (Millennium Line, Canada Line, Evergreen Line)
Major Road Capital Projects: $3.8 billion (SFPR, Port Mann, HWY 1 upgrades, Golden Ears Bridge, Pitt River Bridge)

Saying 15 years and putting the Millennium line in there is a bit of a stretch. And I'm pretty sure those road projects add up to more than $3.8B. You also forgot the Sea to Sky upgrades. But I'd love to see the math either way.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

^^^^this thread^^^^

[Marshal]

The endless discussions and debates about tolling and its effect on traffic flow changes, and bridge numbers is moot. The region is going to grow by a million plus people in the not distant future. All these roads will be full.

Transit vs roads: they are built for different ends, both are needed now, but even more so in the future. And both will be full in 20 years. We don't build either to just 'get around.' We use them as tools to shape the form and function of the city.

[As an aside: I have worked with planners for 20+ years. They are not what any of the mentioned stereotypes make them out to be. They certainly can be wrong, but the norm is that they are reasonable people who view the city with a critical eye, and support a balanced approach to transportation and other planning. Never forget - the poor planner is often stuck working out the best option to satisfy an ill-informed political agenda/strategy.]

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Major Road Capital Projects: $3.8 billion (SFPR, Port Mann, HWY 1 upgrades, Golden Ears Bridge, Pitt River Bridge)

The Province cites the capital cost of the Port Bridge/Hwy 1 and South Fraser Perimeter Road projects as being $4.6B.

$4.6 billion B.C. investment in the Port Mann Bridge/Hwy 1 and South Fraser Perimeter Road projects;

Source: https://news.gov.bc.ca/factsheets/factsheet-pacific-gateway-2005-2012

Now, that's the Province's PR mouthpiece, so let's separate out the SFPR from the Port Mann Bridge/Hwy 1 project.

Partnerships BC cites to capital cost of the Port Mann Bridge and Hwy 1 improvement project as $2.46B.

Source: http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/projects/operational-complete/port-mannhighway-1-improvement-project/

Partnerships BC cites $658M as the cost of the South Fraser Perimeter Road.

Source: http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/projects/operational-complete/south-fraser-perimeter-road-project/

Combined, Partnerships BC numbers give us $3.114B, which is well below the Province's PR numbers, at least based on the case studies of the two projects on Partnerships BC. Maybe the Province's PR numbers reflect the true cost, taking into account line items kept out of the Partnerships BC numbers?

On to other major bridge and highway projects: Golden Ears Bridge and the Pitt River Bridge.

The Golden Ears Bridge cost $808M according to Partnerships BC.

Source: http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/projects/operational-complete/golden-ears-bridge/

The Pitt River Bridge and Mary Hill Bypass were a steal, according to Partnerships BC, at only $198M.

Source: http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/projects/operational-complete/pitt-river-bridge-mary-hill-interchange/

So, totaling up these four projects, using their 'official' Partnerships BC capital costs yields $4.124B in initial capital expenditures.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

^^^^this thread^^^^

I think this describes it a bit better:

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by jhausner

THERE ISN'T A METRO REGION THAT HAS GOTTEN RID OF THEIR ROADS OR MAJOR ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE PLANET

San Francisco removed the elevated State Route 480 that used to run along its waterfront after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

Portland (which you mentioned) turned Route 99 from a freeway to a street in 1974, which opened up the western bank of the Willamette River for the massive park that runs along there today.

Milwaukee removed the Park East freeway and replaced it with at-grade streets and a drawbridge.

That's just three. What you've said is demonstrably false.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

San Francisco removed the elevated State Route 480 that used to run along its waterfront after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

Portland (which you mentioned) turned Route 99 from a freeway to a street in 1974, which opened up the western bank of the Willamette River for the massive park that runs along there today.

Milwaukee removed the Park East freeway and replaced it with at-grade streets and a drawbridge.

That's just three. What you've said is demonstrably false.

Those examples all seem like replacement of freeways with at grade roads, rather than outright removal. As we all know well in Vancouver, at grade roads can be made to handle freeway style volumes.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Those examples all seem like replacement of freeways with at grade roads, rather than outright removal. As we all know well in Vancouver, at grade roads can be made to handle freeway style volumes.

Some they are, but some of them aren't. The Portland example was replaced with a park.

I'll add a few more to the list:

• Montreal removed an interchange near Molson Stadium. It has made it much easier for people downtown to access the parks near the mountain.
• Montreal is also removing the Bonaventure Expressway and replacing it with a boulevard. This project is very similar in many ways to viaducts.
• Seoul, Korea removed a freeway covering a river. It is now a beautiful park and attraction. No new road capacity was created.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Some they are, but some of them aren't. The Portland example was replaced with a park.

I'll add a few more to the list:

• Montreal removed an interchange near Molson Stadium. It has made it much easier for people downtown to access the parks near the mountain.
• Montreal is also removing the Bonaventure Expressway and replacing it with a boulevard. This project is very similar in many ways to viaducts.
• Seoul, Korea removed a freeway covering a river. It is now a beautiful park and attraction. No new road capacity was created.

Great...............but youre still not done............. name a city where freeway infrastructure was removed in "its entirety" to counter the other guys argument.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Great...............but youre still not done............. name a city where freeway infrastructure was removed in "its entirety" to counter the other guys argument.

Thank you for that common-sense input. Unfortuantely, Vancouverites don't think like that. Here, freeways are evil, and to be avoided wherever necessary, at all costs.

[Metro-One]

I see all the classic highway removals have been used again.

I believe a post of minea page or two back has already talked aboutthis issue.

Roads like many other urban aspects are fluid.

some were poorly planned or built from the start so are removed, but at the same time in the same cities many new highway routes have been built.

Just a quick example, San Fran, yes they did tear down an old viaduct highway, which had been badly damaged in an earthquake, yet just two years ago they opened the worlds widest bridge (a project that makes this proposed one look like nothing).

Seattle and Boston have replaced both of theirs with tunnels.

Portland has also built and expanded its highway infrastructure recently.

Montreal has recently built new freeway routes and bridges and is currently building a massive new bridge to replace an old one (name escapes me currently)

Not to mention that every single city mentioned has far larger, wider, and complete freeway networks than metro Vancouver. In the end it is a non argument for distraction. The false belief that these cities are reducing their overall freeway networks. Not true, in most (if not all) their overall networks have increased in size while these few select roads have been removed.

This would be akin to pointing out how the Arbutus railbed has been removed, so we better not build anymore trains...

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I see all the classic highway removals have been used again.

I believe a post of minea page or two back has already talked aboutthis issue.

Roads like many other urban aspects are fluid.

some were poorly planned or built from the start so are removed, but at the same time in the same cities many new highway routes have been built.

Just a quick example, San Fran, yes they did tear down an old viaduct highway, which had been badly damaged in an earthquake, yet just two years ago they opened the worlds widest bridge (a project that makes this proposed one look like nothing).

Seattle and Boston have replaced both of theirs with tunnels.

Portland has also built and expanded its highway infrastructure recently.

Montreal has recently built new freeway routes and bridges and is currently building a massive new bridge to replace an old one (name escapes me currently)

Not to mention that every single city mentioned has far larger, wider, and complete freeway networks than metro Vancouver. In the end it is a non argument for distraction. The false belief that these cities are reducing their overall freeway networks. Not true, in most (if not all) their overall networks have increased in size while these few select roads have been removed.

This would be akin to pointing out how the Arbutus railbed has been removed, so we better not build anymore trains...

Exactly. It's basic economics - if you get rid of the source, you have to replace it with something else equal or better. Otherwise demand outpaces supply and creates a bottleneck.

So if there's no highway, and no road upgrades or rapid transit to handle the excess demand, you get gridlock.

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

• Seoul, Korea removed a freeway covering a river. It is now a beautiful park and attraction. No new road capacity was created.

In the case of Cheonggyecheon in Seoul, I wholeheartedly support them getting their river back... but the Koreans didn't replace their freeway with anything, and so now both roads on either side have heavier traffic.

[ssiguy]

Those cities may have gotten of of some highways but they still have vastly superior road network than Vancouver.

Vancouverites have got into their head that somehow there are 2 options....transit or highways which is lunacy. Forward looking cities do not plan for better transiit or roads but rather better TRANSPORTATION in all it's forms whether that be biking, walking, highways, or transit.

Cities with great transportation {and Vancouver certainly does not qualify} are ones that know that transportation cannot be viewed in isolation as it is a system where all modes work together to create a place where people and goods are moved quickly and efficiently in many different modes.

Vancouver has always thought that if we build transit all of a sudden the congestion will go away. What a juevenille attempt at regional transportation planning and it has left Vancouver with the 2nd longest commutes in NA in a city of just 2.5 million.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Those cities may have gotten of of some highways but they still have vastly superior road network than Vancouver.

Vancouverites have got into their head that somehow there are 2 options....transit or highways which is lunacy. Forward looking cities do not plan for better transiit or roads but rather better TRANSPORTATION in all it's forms whether that be biking, walking, highways, or transit.

Cities with great transportation {and Vancouver certainly does not qualify} are ones that know that transportation cannot be viewed in isolation as it is a system where all modes work together to create a place where people and goods are moved quickly and efficiently in many different modes.

Vancouver has always thought that if we build transit all of a sudden the congestion will go away. What a juevenille attempt at regional transportation planning and it has left Vancouver with the 2nd longest commutes in NA in a city of just 2.5 million.

Another reason to amalgamate Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, New West and possibly the north shore as one city so it can work in a cohesive manner instead of individual pet projects.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The PMB/Highway 1/Gateway project still had a number of budget cuts.

I wasn't here when that project kicked off. What did we end up missing and what was cut?

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by whatnext

B.b.b.b.but what about that one in Seoul that every cyclist drones on about? Surely if those kar krazy Koreans can do it, so can we!

Seoul, despite it's great subway network, is NOT an example of a megacity without cars. The city is full of 'em and there are congested 12-lane streets and freeways everywhere.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Those cities may have gotten of of some highways but they still have vastly superior road network than Vancouver.

Vancouverites have got into their head that somehow there are 2 options....transit or highways which is lunacy. Forward looking cities do not plan for better transiit or roads but rather better TRANSPORTATION in all it's forms whether that be biking, walking, highways, or transit.

Cities with great transportation {and Vancouver certainly does not qualify} are ones that know that transportation cannot be viewed in isolation as it is a system where all modes work together to create a place where people and goods are moved quickly and efficiently in many different modes.

Vancouver has always thought that if we build transit all of a sudden the congestion will go away. What a juevenille attempt at regional transportation planning and it has left Vancouver with the 2nd longest commutes in NA in a city of just 2.5 million.

exactly. The city seems to think goods just magically teleport by themselves. They seem to lack any understanding of smooth traffic flow and have done more to cause congestion in recent years, whether by adding traffic lights, removing lanes, or adding bike lanes on major corridors. More congestion = more cars idling = more greenhouse gases. Funny how Vancouver promotes itself as a "green" city.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Forward looking cities do not plan for better transiit or roads but rather better TRANSPORTATION in all it's forms whether that be biking, walking, highways, or transit.

Cities with great transportation are ones that know that transportation cannot be viewed in isolation as it is a system where all modes work together to create a place where people and goods are moved quickly and efficiently in many different modes.

someone actually gets what Transportation Planning is SUPPOSED to be about!!!!!!