http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/images/Gateway_Header-G.jpg

The Gateway Program is a $3.0 billion regional transportation project for Greater Vancouver that is being run by the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation. On January 31, 2005 the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation introduced the Gateway Program as a means to address growing congestion. The scope of the Gateway Project includes building a second bridge to double the capacity of the Port Mann Bridge.

$300 million of the project is a dedicated contingency in case it goes out of budget.

Completion: 2012


http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7218/gateway1nh1.jpg





Port Mann Bridge/Highway 1
- $1.5 billion

The program includes a plan for the Port Mann Bridge to be expanded from 4 lanes to 8 lanes to alleviate congestion and frequent delays. Currently, the Port Mann Bridge is congested 90% of the time between the hours of 6 a.m. to 7 p.m.; the definition of "congested" has not been specified. Since 1985, traffic on the bridge has increased 65% from 77,000 vehicles per day to 127,000.

Two of the new bridge lanes would be for HOV as part of the BC Ministry of Transportation's goal to expand Greater Vancouver's HOV network from the McGill Street to 216th street in Langley, a distance of 37 kilometres. Upgrades to interchanges are intended to increase safety, improve connections between municpalities, and reduce backups onto local streets. The Gateway Program also includes a $50 million investment in cycling infrastructure including separated cycling lanes across the Port Mann Bridge.

The new bridge is designed to be able to accommodate LRT in the future. In addition, the Port Man twinned bridges may be tolled to help pay construction costs.

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6008/port2fs9.jpg
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6008/port2fs9.jpg
http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/9599/port3yl9.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5831/port4gg7.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7740/port5vb0.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/2345/port6iv6.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/451/port10zc5.jpg
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/5372/port7ke7.jpg
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/5817/port11ud6.jpg




South Fraser Perimeter Road
- $800 million

A new 4 lane highway approximately 40-km long, 80km/h route along the south side of the Fraser River extends from Highway 17 in southwest Delta to meet up with the Golden Ears Bridge connector road. It would help the rapidly growing port facilities, rail and industiral yards.

Opponents argue that this route will increase pollution near residential neighbourhoods and schools; destroy the hydrology of Burn's Bog, a threatened and sensitve ecosystem; and pave over valuable farmland.

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/3372/gateway2ji4.jpg
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/6005/gateway3fl5.jpg
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/6812/gateway4dt7.jpg
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1734/gateway5mm8.jpg
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/4830/gateway6tw4.jpg
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6120/gateway7iq0.jpg





North Fraser Perimeter Road/Pitt River Bridge and Marry Hill Interchange
- $400 million

The North Fraser Perimeter Road is a set of proposed improvements to existing roads along the north shore of the Fraser River, to provide an efficient, continuous route between the Queensborough Bridge in New Westminster and TransLink’s new Golden Ears Bridge in Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows. Proposed upgrades would improve safety and reliability along this key goods movement corridor and better serve growing communities in the northeast sector of Greater Vancouver.

The Pitt River Bridge and Mary Hill Interchange Project includes a new bridge to replace the existing swing bridges and an interchange to replace the existing Lougheed Highway and the Mary Hill Bypass intersection. The project is a stand-alone component of the North Fraser Perimeter Road Project.

The new cable-stayed bridge will be located between the existing bridges and will have 3 lanes of westbound traffic and 4 lanes of eastbound traffic on opening day. It will also provide up to 16 metres of vertical marine clearance, as well as providing facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. The bridge will be designed to accommodate different lane allocations and future light rapid transit.

The existing intersection at Lougheed Highway and Mary Hill Bypass will be replaced with a grade-separated interchange with on and off ramps that would allow for free-flow of traffic, while also providing for future connection to the Fremont Extension, to support development in Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam.

Combined with the new bridge, these improvements will allow for the elimination of the current counterflow system.

The project is being funded by the federal and provincial governments. As part of its recent Asia-Pacific Gateway & Corridor Initiative, the Government of Canada has committed $90 million in funding for costs associated with the construction of the bridge and a new grade-separated interchange at Lougheed Highway and Mary Hill Bypass. The Province is providing $108 million.

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/6131/gateway8tr0.jpg




Official website: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/



Websites against the Gateway plan:
http://gatewaysucks.org/
http://www.livableregion.ca/

Problem isn’t fixed by doing more of what created it


Brian Lewis
The Province

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Gordon Price is a Simon Fraser University professor of regional planning who also served six terms on Vancouver City Council — but I think he’s missed his calling.

The 57-year-old should have been a chef because, as a panellist yesterday in a Greater Vancouver Regional District-sponsored meeting on transportation south of the Fraser River, he displayed a talent for stirring pots.

“The Gateway proposal, as it currently stands, will fail,” he said.

“We know it will fail but we’re going to do it anyway,” he told mayors, councillors, bureaucrats and ordinary citizens who gathered for the discussion at a Surrey golf course.

When Price dropped that gem, his co-panellists — Fraser Port Authority president Allen Domaas and B.C. Trucking Association boss Paul Landry — grimaced like any golfer would when the tee shot finds water.

That’s because their organizations have a huge stake in seeing the multibillion-dollar Gateway Project completed.

Greater Vancouver’s ports and its trucking industry play a vital role in this region’s economy — and the national economy, for that matter — and completing mega-transportation projects such as the Golden Ears Bridge, the South Fraser Perimeter Road and twinning the Port Mann Bridge under the Gateway label are all seen as vital to our growing trade with Asia.

Gateway is also being billed as a solution to regional traffic congestion and as a way to make the commuting lives of those who live south of the Fraser much easier.

But Price says allowing the ports, truckers and the B.C. government’s backers on Howe Street the most input on these projects is like letting the fox design the henhouse’s security system. Nor has there been enough input from other public stakeholders.

“Never let the guys who drive the big trucks design your region, because they’ll only do what works well for them,” he warned.

And this, Price maintains, is what has happened to Gateway.

He says it’s being pushed through by the B.C. government as individual projects with little focus on the overall consequences. And many of the negative impacts will occur south of the Fraser, especially in Delta, where a major port expansion is already under way.

“I recognize that in a growing region like ours you have to make a commitment to infrastructure, but simply expanding the road system, even with modest tolls, will only result in people becoming more car-dependent,” Price said.

“The new capacity will only be quickly filled up, so instead of four lanes of trucks stuck in traffic you’ll have eight lanes of trucks stuck in traffic.” He also said before we spend billions expanding the regional road system, we should improve efficiencies in the current system.

Nor have Gateway planners taken into account the consequences of climate change, the increased concerns about fossil-fuel emissions or the loss of local farmland to make way for new roads, he added.

“In the end, you don’t solve a problem by doing more of what created that problem in the first place,” Price said.

Yes, I think the professor would have been a dandy chef because he cooks up some tasty food for thought.




[B] Translink Report: Commuters will abandon transit and take cars

19 July 2006

VANCOUVER – Today the Translink board voted to support the provincial government’s Highway1/ Port Mann Bridge expansion plans, despite its own study that found transit ridership would decrease if the roadway was twinned, said the Livable Region Coalition, a group of concerned citizens, city planners, environmental organizations and transportation experts.

“This is a huge U-turn for the GVRD,” said Ian Bruce, climate change campaigner with the David Suzuki Foundation. “We’re heading down the same congested road as cities like Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles, and Toronto.”

If the highway1/Port Mann project goes ahead as planned, Translink staff stated, ridership on the SkyTrain Expo line would decline by as much as 500 trips during the morning rush hour, while the proposed Evergreen Line would lose as much as 5% of its potential commuters. Construction of the Evergreen Line is already in jeopardy due to a lack of funding commitments from the B.C. government. A forecast of lower ridership numbers as a result of Hwy1/Port Mann expansion means operating costs for this line would be more expensive than budgeted for.

“Putting a priority on more roads makes future rapid transit projects like the Evergreen Line less feasible, if not impossible,” said David Fields, Transportation Campaigner with Society Promoting Environmental Conservation (SPEC).

The project has yet to go through an environmental assessment and will go before the GVRD board this fall.

This project makes me nervous...I'm definitely more of a transit guy than a highway guy, and like the Translink report suggests, the Gateway project undermines the success of its own transit projects.

i think if the powers in charge had not neglected infastructure for so long we wouldn't be where we are today and this is long overdue

once its complete than they can concentrate on transit projects

i really don't see people abandoning skytrain to take their cars - are they really saying all these people work in the downtown core?

parking rates are ridiculous not to mention gas

I don't agree with Gateway as a rule but with 2 exceptions. They should extend HOV to atleast 200th with special access for buses so buses could actually use the bridge including commuter buses to downtown. Right now due to the traffic they can't due to not being able to keep any kind of schedule.
Second I strongly agree with the South Perimeter highway but only as far as Nordel and then widen River Road not thru the Delta. It is essential to have a fast route to the Port and Twassen. Transit is not an otion for people getting to the Island and transports need a fast route to get to the Port and the Island. Right now all the transports have to go thru urban areas with all the traffic, unsafety, pedestrian inaccessiblity, smog, and noise that comes with them. It will get the transports out of residential areas and funnel them thru a fast industrial/port corridor. f

The Roberts Bank rail infrastructure improvements should also be mentioned as well as part of the overall transportation scheme.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/majorissues/APGCI/rbrc.htm

http://www.tc.gc.ca/majorissues/APGCI/images/rbrc-map.jpg

i think if the powers in charge had not neglected infastructure for so long we wouldn't be where we are today and this is long overdue

once its complete than they can concentrate on transit projects

i really don't see people abandoning skytrain to take their cars - are they really saying all these people work in the downtown core?

parking rates are ridiculous not to mention gas
People will abandon Skytrain for cars because, from Surrey and beyond, bus service (to get to Skytrain) is terrible. I drive this bridge almost every day because it's so bad. Just toll the bridge (without expansion) and buy some more Nova buses with the cash to improve bus service so I can take it without having to wait a long time only to be passed up by a full bus. Thanks.

Toll revenues beckon to shortlisted builders of Port Mann project

Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, August 07, 2007

VICTORIA - The B.C. Liberals have settled on three potential finalists for the Highway 1/Port Mann bridge project, including some of the leading builders and operators of toll roads in the world.

All have since posted the required $1-million, nonrefundable bond to be included in the final round of consideration on the estimated $2-billion project.

The short list is headed (alphabetically) by the Connect BC Development Group.

The main player is Australia's Macquarie Infrastructure Group, which is already a private partner in building and operating the Sea to Sky Highway improvement project here in B.C.

Joining with Macquarie in the bid is Transtoll, also Australian, a designer and operator of electronic tolling systems.

Second on the short list is Gateway Mobility Partners.

Cintra, a Spanish firm, is one of the partners. It operates toll roads in Spain, Portugal, Ireland and the U.S., as well as Highway 407, the 100-kilometre electronic toll highway around Toronto.

Skanska, a Swedish-based developer and builder, is the other player in this consortium. It operates a toll road in Chile and public-private partnership highways in Norway and Finland.

Lastly, there's the Highway One Transportation Group. The lead player is Germany's Bilfinger Berger group, builder of all manner of infrastructure, including transportation projects, offshore oil platforms, schools and wind farms.

Bilfinger is already heavily involved in B.C., with build-and-operate agreements on the new Golden Ears Bridge and the widening of Highway 1 through Kicking Horse Canyon.

For this project, Bilfinger teamed up with Transurban, another Australian firm specializing in developing and operating toll roads in its home country and the U.S.

While all three were strong contenders for the short list, there are some notable absentees, including Canada's SNC/Lavalin.

The firm was expected to put in a bid, having already staked out its turf with the public-private partnership on the Canada Line rapid transit project.

But it did not make the final cut when the Liberals shortened the list of contenders to three from six last week.

Next step will see the three finalists prepare their detailed proposals for submission early next year.

The plan calls for building a second span of the Fraser alongside the Port Mann, widening some 37 kilometres of the Trans-Canada, reconstructing a dozen-and-a-half intersections and installing the sophisticated electronic tolling system.

It is cast as a public-private partnership, builders to underwrite construction on their own, then recover their costs over a 35-year operating agreement while providing maintenance over the same period.

The government is looking for a creative approach to construction, new ideas in traffic management, and other innovations.

Vetting will be done by the Ministry of Highways and Partnerships B.C., the provincial agency for overseeing P3s.

The process will be scrutinized by an independent fairness adviser, put there to oversee the public interest in equal treatment of all three bidders.

The B.C. Liberals are perhaps hoping to avoid the kind of controversy that has dogged one of these players in Texas. Cintra is embroiled in controversy over its contract for the Trans-Texas Corridor, because of allegations of too-close ties to Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

The current plan here in B.C. calls for the selection of a preferred bidder in the spring of 2008, a closing round of negotiations over the summer and a final contract signed in the fall.

Along the way, the road-and-bridge widening will also have to secure approval from the provincial environmental assessment office.

That process is slated to get underway next month, with a call for public comment. But the B.C. Liberals are treating the outcome as a near-inevitability, having already advised potential bidders that "certification is anticipated by early 2008."

Construction is slated to begin in late 2008, as per Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon's promise that we'll see "pilings rising from the river" before the May 2009 election.

Completion is set for 2013, whereupon the winning builder will inherit the 35-year operating agreement.

The key there is obviously the cash flow from tolls, to be set by the province, which also intends to hold back a share for itself.

Figure a minimum of $3 for starters. Taking current traffic levels of 127,000 vehicles a day and allowing for some growth, the tolls should bring in $2.5 million to $3 million a week, as much as $150 million a year.

Extrapolate those figures over the life of the operating agreement and you can see why there was so much private interest in this project.

But once the final bidding round is completed, it will be up to the government to demonstrate what benefits accrued to taxpayers and the traveling public from this ambitious exercise.

vpalmer@direct.ca


© The Vancouver Sun 2007

Oh great, another of those PPPs that will end up looting the public purse by "guaranteeing" profits. Why do the Liberals must insist on PPPs on everything that's being built? There should be a law stipulating that there are no PPPs unless it can be proven that it's much cheaper to the tax payer than using only the public money.

Uh, from the latest article that Mr. X posted it sounds like the PortMann/Highway 1 portion of this project is going full speed ahead? That's scary to me considering the earlier articles where Translink stated the impact that will have on transit ridership.

parking rates are ridiculous not to mention gas

Compared to who? Columbians, Americans, Qataris? Canada has some of the cheapest gas on the planet. It's an absolute steal. $1/litre gas doesn't even come close to reflecting it's real price to the planet. I feel like I'm getting a free ride when I fuel up here.

I don't mind PPP and tolls to pay for them. User pay.............if you don't want to pay then take transit. That said they must get VERY frequent bus service to Lougheed and commuter buses to downtown.
One problem is that after the project is paid for they will continue to toll it for a revenue service a la Coquhalia.

^^ One problem is the "guarantees" the government gives to the consortium, which only causes inconvenience to commuters and taxpayers. For the Canada Line, Translink "guaranteed" to InTransitBC that they would be "guaranteed" a certain amount of profit (which will come from fares) while they run it for 35 years. If Canada Line usage is more than projected, Translink pockets the remaining cash. However, if Canada Line usage is LESS than projected, Translink will have to PAY InTransitBC the shortfall, and this could end up costing taxpayers millions.

Some toll highways in Australia have already seen this problem: the government gives a private company the concession for a toll road. There is one suburban highway in Sydney that saw such low usage that the toll revenues did not even finance the interest on the loans, so the government ACTUALLY CLOSED PARALLEL ROADS TO FORCE PEOPLE TO USE THE TOLL HIGHWAY. This still didn't work, and the company fell into receivership, and taxpayers picked up the tab. I fear a future BC government that faces a fiscal deficit might, say, narrow the Patullo bridge to force people onto the Port Mann.

Since transit is generally a money losing operation, the real comparison would be how the payments to InTransitBC compare to the losses that Translink would suffer if it operated the line itself. I suppose one operational disadvantage is that costs cannot be spread across multiple lines (i.e. Expo Line subsidizes operation on the M-Line to break even overall).
But the real advantage of the P3 is the upfront funding of the line - InTransitBC is providing $700M of the cost of building the line - more than any one governmental agency.
Trying to come up with that much of a "funding gap" from government sources would have been insurmountable - just look at the Evergreen Line and its $400M funding gap.
If InTransitBC went bankrupt (after completion of the line), I'm not sure if taxpayers would be on the hook for much (it would be different if it went bankrupt during construction). The Canada Line will be owned by Translink once built (I don't know how the Austrailian highway project would have been structured), so on bankruptcy, Translink wouldn't have to "buy-back" the line from a trustee in bankruptcy, it would have to find a new operator. InTransitBC's creditors would end up losing big time, but Translink wouldn't be a creditor of InTransitBC.
Granted, the two pension funds that invested in InTransitBC to make up the funding shortfall would be creditors, but that was their independent investment decision.

BTW - the Patullo is Translink jurisdiction, the Port Mann is Provincial jurisdiction. That's why the Province hasn't fixed the Patullo.

I am going to weigh in and add that I am generally not very concerned with the future obligations component of P3s. While the SkyTrain Canada Line contract includes more than a billion in future obligations to SNC-Lavalin/Serco (InTransitBC) for operating the line, the exact figure is going to be on-par with the operating costs that Translink operating subsidiary "SkyTrain" would incur if it were operating the line. The proverbial electric bill will be paid to keep the lights on. However the cheque will have to be slightly larger to cover SNC-Lavalin/Serco's guaranteed return-on-investment profits versus having it sent directly to BC Hydro by Translink.

The higher operating costs are the trade-off of going straight to the private equity market via a private sector broker, in this case SNC-Lavalin/Serco which simultaneously has a proportionally poorer credit rating than government and a profit imperative for investors.

Instead of using traditional governmental finance tools to front-load the cost of buying the SkyTrain Canada Line and amortizing the cost over a long period of time at a low rate, the governmental powers that be opted to offload a large component of the cost of buying the line and accept higher amortization costs in the form of an operating concession. The public put a chunk of the line on someone else's credit card and we agree to pay them back with interest plus something extra to show our gratitude for helping out in a pinch, though I'm still at a loss to identify the pinch.

Delivering transportation or infrastructure by P3 is an altogether different beast than delivering health care or education services by P3. The former is a fairly simple proposition that can be predicted and cost out while the latter is inherently unpredictable.

My real concern about the SkyTrain Canada Line contract is that we, as the public, don't know a lot of the important operational details yet. Such as whether the line will be branded "SkyTrain" and conceptually integrated into information materials. I am choosing to call it the SkyTrain Canada Line to start reinforcing that concept regardless of whether it is official policy. Another issue is who will decide when to add more service and who will pay for it. When the point is reached when the initial 20 trains are deemed insufficient to meet demand, will SNC-Lavalin/Serco proportionately share in the cost of procuring new trains? If Translink buys the trains will it have to increase the value of the operating concession to account for the additional maintenance and operational costs of a larger fleet? Who will pay to expand the OMC yard to accommodate more trains, and who will decide when to retire or retrofit the original trains? Lastly, what are the conditions whereby the operating concession can be cancelled due to a potential lack of compliance?

Serco has had considerable success operating the Docklands Light Railway in London during its 7 year concession but it was Transport for London that instigated extensions, though I'm unsure how the operating concession agreement was modified with the changing line. One key facet of the Dockland Operating Contract was that Serco’s targets would increase over the life of the concession rather than stay static.

Good querstions - I think they fall into the realm of "difficult to forecast" so I suspect they would be dealt with as they arise on a case by case basis. i.e. capital contributions to buying more cars would depend on the number of cars (i.e. size of order & price). Presumably, it would be in InTransitBC's interests to encourage ridership, but to achieve efficiency, I suspect that it would always try to keep ridership at the upper end of the "sardine factor", although passenger comfort is a factor in their performance review (as posted in the redacted Concession Agremeent on the Canada Line website).

Also, I found this news release on the Woolrich Arsenal extension to the Docklands Light Railway in London, UK. It is a P3 where the private partner does not operate the line - presumably because of the operational agreement with Serco and that the work is an extension of an existing line - seems a bit odd, but this structure could work for the Evergreen Line.

The concessionaire, WARE, will be responsible for designing, financing, constructing and maintaining the Extension and DLR will make payments to WARE for every day that the Extension is available for DLR to operate train services. WARE was selected in December 2004 as the preferred bidder following a competition between four consortia.

http://developments.dlr.co.uk/extensions/woolwich/details.asp?id=21

^^^^^^^
Urbanfar89........I appreciate what you are saying about the Sydeny experience I don't think a true anology can be drawn from it. This is not a regular road but a bridge with almost no alternative to get to Vancouver except the oversapacity bridge into NuWest which the gov't has said it could also be tolled. There will be no alternative routes for people who want to avoid the toll.

well it would be free for pedestrians right... and theres always transit..

look at it this way. people move to surrey so they can afford a house but they end up incurring huge transportation expenses. people could live in vancouver and bike or take the bus saving thousands a year and being better off overall. im all in favour of the tolls if it will encourage people not to live in surrey. and if they choose to live there at least they will be paying the true social costs of our road system. lets raise these gas prices aswell!

Compared to who? Columbians, Americans, Qataris? Canada has some of the cheapest gas on the planet. It's an absolute steal. $1/litre gas doesn't even come close to reflecting it's real price to the planet. I feel like I'm getting a free ride when I fuel up here.

that was in reference to people who would abandon transit and drive downtown and pay to park

i was pointing out that they are much better off using skytrain instead of driving

Cool Bridge :master:

Since this thread is about expressways in British Columbia, I might as well ask my question in here.

Is there a reason why Highway 99 and Highway 1 don't connect with an expressway? At least to me, from looking on a map, a limited-access highway to connect the two would help to connect the Fraser Valley and ultimately central British Columbia (like Kamloops, etc) to I-5 and the Pacific Coast cities in the U.S. Has anything been proposed to link the two expressways? Why or why not?

Since this thread is about expressways in British Columbia, I might as well ask my question in here.

Is there a reason why Highway 99 and Highway 1 don't connect with an expressway? At least to me, from looking on a map, a limited-access highway to connect the two would help to connect the Fraser Valley and ultimately central British Columbia (like Kamloops, etc) to I-5 and the Pacific Coast cities in the U.S. Has anything been proposed to link the two expressways? Why or why not?

The 99 is also the #1 in the North Shore.....and note that we hate highways up here. There was a massive highway expansion plan in the 70's that was canceled due to the effort of NIMBY's.....which is a great thing, otherwise Vancouver would be a freeway mess. Much of our downtown waterfront and eastern Stanley Park wouldn't have been condos and parks and a seawall, but rather pavement.

Gateway's South Fraser Perimeter Road will connect the 99 with the Trans-Canada.
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7218/gateway1nh1.jpg

Since this thread is about expressways in British Columbia, I might as well ask my question in here.

Is there a reason why Highway 99 and Highway 1 don't connect with an expressway? At least to me, from looking on a map, a limited-access highway to connect the two would help to connect the Fraser Valley and ultimately central British Columbia (like Kamloops, etc) to I-5 and the Pacific Coast cities in the U.S. Has anything been proposed to link the two expressways? Why or why not?

its an odd thing for sure

the east west connector sort of does it but its not a complete connection

as mr x as layed out there will be a better connection between the two but its still not a freeway completely

those who know and come from seattle direction use the truck crossing which than takes them up 176th to hwy #1 and can get to whistler etc enabling them to bypass vancouver downtown its much quicker as the 99 hwy really curves and takes you on a longer trip

Since this thread is about expressways in British Columbia, I might as well ask my question in here.

Is there a reason why Highway 99 and Highway 1 don't connect with an expressway? At least to me, from looking on a map, a limited-access highway to connect the two would help to connect the Fraser Valley and ultimately central British Columbia (like Kamloops, etc) to I-5 and the Pacific Coast cities in the U.S. Has anything been proposed to link the two expressways? Why or why not?

i dont know why this forum is being glitched right now but its putting posts in the wrong chronological order. anyways...

they have proposed a highway between the two as seen in the map on the first post. its the red line, south fraser perrimiter road

Here is a post from Steven Rees' transportation blog (http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/the-big-lies/)

The big lies
September 7th, 2007 by Stephen Rees

The Provincial Government and its allies have been promoting the Gateway program, essentially a series of major road building schemes, saying it is essential for the future prosperity of the region, BC and Canada that the port and airport are not strangled by traffic congestion.

I am indebted to Stuart Ramsey, a Transportation Planner with the City of Burnaby for the following:

"94% of the Port of Vancouver’s freight moves by rail. Only 6% moves by truck. Of that, virtually all is destined within Metro Vancouver. Only about 0.2% leaves Metro. As such, the provincial highway system has no significant role in linking the province or country to the Port. The region’s road network still has a role in intra-regional goods movement. But the presence of a port in Vancouver does not create additional requirements for long-distance truck traffic, beyond what might be found in any urban centre."

Also today the province released a huge number of documents for the Port Mann Bridge/Highway 1 expansion Environmental Assessment. According to one of these documents:

"In 2021 the model forecasts that there will be approximately 1% more daily traffic on the Pattullo Bridge and 2% less traffic on the Alex Fraser with the PMH1 project in place as there will be in the 2021 base case (no project) scenario. Within the limitations of traffic forecasting, this effectively represents no change."

The reason for this is that the model is based on a false assumption, that traffic is simply a function of land use. The number of trips are fixed, it says, and they simply get distributed differently around the network when it is changed. I cannot imagine anyone believing that it is possible to double the size of the region’s major traffic artery and not generate one trip! The fact that there is congestion in the network now shows that there are suppressed trips. Trips are not being made because people find other things to do than sit in traffic. But if you add to the network a huge increment in capacity, even though you charge a $2.50 toll, the total number of trips in the region will increase, even if there is no change in land use. And every region that has expanded its highway network has seen this effect, just as every region that has taken sections of highway out has seen traffic volumes decline - which is the same effect in reverse. If we have learned anything at all from our post second world war experience it is that traffic expands and contracts to meet the capacity available.

Whether or not Kevin Falcon or Gordon Campbell understand this is besides the point. The people who have been pushing for the Gateway knew this and the people at the Gateway know this now. The expansion of the highway system is not necessary for the port, and will do nothing to relieve congestion except for a very brief period after opening day. It is not a sensible or a sustainable solution, and its proponents know that.

It is startling that by the Province's own projections the Gateway program won't make any measurable difference to bridge congestion on the Pattullo and Alex Fraser bridges.

Lots of background documents - preliminary designs included in Vol 1.

http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/html/deploy/epic_project_doc_list_247_r_app.html

I like the direct HOV to/from Grandview on and off-ramps.

The reconfigured Willingdon interchange looks much safer - no opportunity for racing across Willingdon to get into the eastbound left turn lane for Canada Way eastbound. Could lead to some queues on the off-ramp, but much safer design.

The truck only ramps at Douglas Road to/from the industrial areas should take trucks away from Willingdon.

The North Rd transit only off-ramp/on-ramp has disappeared. Maybe Port Mann buses would exit to Braid Station at Brunette?

The Cape Horn interchange will take a while to digest.
Eastbound Lougheed Highway splits at Schoolhouse Rd. with 3 eastbound lanes overpassing the Trans-Canada to the south side joining up with a 2-lane off-ramp from the TCH. Of the 5 resulting lanes - only 1 heads north as Lougheed Highway but is joined by a (Lougheed-direct) 2-lane off-ramp from the TCH to reform a 3 lane eastbound Lougheed Highway. Of the other 4-lanes of the Lougheed eastbound ramp, they split into a 2-lane off-ramp to the TCH (merging to 1-lane before entering the TCH) and a 3-lane ramp. The 3-lane ramp splits, with 1-lane to United Blvd and 2-lanes directly becoming Mary Hill Bypass.
There are direct on-ramps and off-ramps from Port Mann Bridge to/from Lougheed Highway.
The westbound off-ramps from TCH and Lougheed are more straightforward. The on-ramp at Coleman Rd. is a proper on-ramp without a traffic light (facilitated by Lougheed diverting to the south of the TCH).
There is a new off-ramp from the westbound TCH to the Pacific Reach/United Blvd Industrial Park into Fawcett Rd. and from Fawcett Rd. directly to the TCH eastbound. Eastbound TCH to Pacific Reach/United Blvd Industrial Park is via the Lougheed Highway ramp mentioned above. Pacific Reach/United Blvd Industrial Park to westbound TCH looks more complex - I think you'd have to take United Blvd to Lougheed Highway and enter via westbound Lougheed Highway.
Looks like truck traffic to/from the Port Mann Bridge from/to Port Coquitlam/Pitt Meadows would take Lougheed Highway. Truck traffic to/from Vancouver from/to Port Coquitlam/Pitt Meadows would take either Lougheed Highway or Mary Hill Bypass.

sounds complicated

Honestly, this looks like like it'll make my highway commute slower (at least the eastbound morning part), not faster.

I work in Port Kells, and I either exit the highway at 176th St. or 192nd St. First, they'll inexplicably be cutting off access to Barnston Drive at 176th. And although they're adding a lane on 192nd (at least, north of the highway), cars already queue well back onto the shoulder of the highway at that off ramp. With the additional traffic of Gateway (especially considering the deletion of the 176th and Barnston Drive intersection and the addition of the nearby Golden Ears Bridge), I can't see my eastbound commute being any faster - likely it'll be slower. Westbound, it will be faster (for a decade, anyway), but you really can see how adding more highway lanes just requires more and more lanes everywhere or the chokepoints remain. :ohno:

Hopefully they lenghten the Westbound on-ramp at Boundary Road. It's really short right now, and theres barely any room to merge in, because the highway changes to only two lanes, just a few hundred metres before the on-ramp.

Hopefully they lenghten the Westbound on-ramp at Boundary Road. It's really short right now, and theres barely any room to merge in, because the highway changes to only two lanes, just a few hundred metres before the on-ramp.
On the map, it looks like they're almost doubling the length of the merging lane, which I agree is desperately needed.

Since this thread is about expressways in British Columbia, I might as well ask my question in here.

Is there a reason why Highway 99 and Highway 1 don't connect with an expressway? At least to me, from looking on a map, a limited-access highway to connect the two would help to connect the Fraser Valley and ultimately central British Columbia (like Kamloops, etc) to I-5 and the Pacific Coast cities in the U.S. Has anything been proposed to link the two expressways? Why or why not?


In the long term there is a plan to build a freeway directly connecting highway 1 to highway 99 that would run roughly north to south between Surrey and Langely called the "Serpentine Freeway", likely named for the Serpentine River in Surrey.

Honestly, this looks like like it'll make my highway commute slower (at least the eastbound morning part), not faster.

I work in Port Kells, and I either exit the highway at 176th St. or 192nd St. First, they'll inexplicably be cutting off access to Barnston Drive at 176th. And although they're adding a lane on 192nd (at least, north of the highway), cars already queue well back onto the shoulder of the highway at that off ramp. With the additional traffic of Gateway (especially considering the deletion of the 176th and Barnston Drive intersection and the addition of the nearby Golden Ears Bridge), I can't see my eastbound commute being any faster - likely it'll be slower. Westbound, it will be faster (for a decade, anyway), but you really can see how adding more highway lanes just requires more and more lanes everywhere or the chokepoints remain. :ohno:

I'm not that familiar with the area, but it looks like they are diverting east/west traffic to the 96th Ave. diversion which is part of the Golden Ears Bridge road system.

http://www.goldenearsbridge.ca/code/navigate.php?Id=4

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/5382/untitled1qy5.jpg

they are creating a new road and overpass to 96th

96th is a direct route into "downtown" surrey

currently that section is very rural

it looks very odd when you get to 176th and 96th currently as the new route makes for an awkward intersection

Gateway project will impact air quality, official says

Randy Shore, Vancouver Sun
Published: Wednesday, September 12, 2007

British Columbia's ambitious Gateway freeway expansion plan will fuel population and traffic growth in the Fraser Valley with unpredictable implications for air quality in the Lower Mainland, a Metro Vancouver official says.

Regional district division manager Roger Quan said today a provincial environmental impact report that predicts "negligible" impacts on air quality fails to take into account the growth that could result from the Gateway project itself.

Officials at the Metro Vancouver regional district - formerly known as the GVRD - say unknown variables in the province's environmental assessment are simply too big to support the report's conclusion that air quality would not be affected by the freeway project.

The government's basic assumptions and methodology have been the subject of considerable wrangling between Gateway officials and the regional district since late in 2006, said Quan.

The ministry agreed to change its methodology to better reflect the regional district's observations about fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and issued an update in July.

The new projections show a 28-per-cent increase in the number of kilometres driven in the lower Fraser Valley by 2021, if the Gateway project goes ahead. Without the freeway expansion, the report assumes a 25-per-cent increase over the same period.

But a Metro Vancouver assessment of the province's numbers suggests the $3-billion project will likely fuel "significant" population and traffic growth in the Fraser Valley, and that effect is not accounted for in the province's scenario.

Gateway includes widening Highway 1 from Vancouver to Langley, twinning the Port Mann Bridge and building truck routes on both sides of the Fraser River.

"The Gateway folks are assuming that the number of cars would be the same with or without Gateway," said NDP environment critic Shane Simpson. "The regional district is saying quite rightly that it will change land-use patterns and it will change the volume of cars.

"That has been the case in other places that have done major roadway expansions," he said. "There's no sense of that in these numbers."

Mike Proudfoot, executive director of the Gateway project, says that while the growth projections of local governments do not include the impacts of Gateway, that is what the provincial government brings to the table.

"Our conclusion through the environmental assessment process is that air quality is going to improve by 2020 and that health effects from GHG emissions will drop," he said.

Recent government initiatives, including the adoption of California tailpipe-emission standards and clean-air retrofits for commercial trucks, "will only improve the situation," Proudfoot said.

Quan remains skeptical. Changes in land-use patterns, fuel consumption and emissions, and increased traffic associated with freeway expansion remain huge unknowns.

"[Gateway] bases their future traffic estimates on regional growth strategies developed by Metro Vancouver," said Quan. "But none of those growth scenarios included the impact of Gateway.

"New emission standards could bring GHG emissions down, but the net effect is impossible to know," Quan said.

The Gateway expansion includes dedicated on-ramps for transit vehicles, which will allow buses to begin using the Port Mann Bridge for the first time in 20 years, but Simpson doubts that a major highway expansion will encourage people to leave their cars at home and take the bus.

The government of B.C. has a stated goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 per cent by 2020.

"I don't see how that squares with this project," Simpson said.

rshore@png.canwest.com

When I first moved to Vancouver, Vancouver's lack of freeways amazed me. Coming from Toronto, with the 14 lane 401, it boggeled my mind how things like the 2 lane sea to sky highway could actually work. But I guess the smaller population, better public transportation system, and "live where you work" mentality really make up for it. That said, its unrealistic to think that a booming city will never require any major road upgrades. I think its possible for a project like this to meet future traffic needs without building freeways that rip through communities.

But the olympics is going to be a traffic disaster hands down...but hey thats only two weeks who cares?

It is perfectly realistic that we don't need THESE KIND of "upgrades".

In the end, this project is being pushed ahead to serve provincial & national trade and transportation interests, hence the name, "Gateway". I work in an industry that is a huge freight transportation/port user, plus I'm a long distance commuter. I should be loving this project, but I'm not. Besides it looking like it may possibly increase my personal morning commuting time, it will undoubtedly add thousands of car trips to the region. And not only those suppressed trips Rees mentions (in Vancouverite's posting) will be added, but the major impact will be from the long-term sprawl Gateway facilitates. Because of Gateway, the region will be required to inefficiently spend many millions (even billions) to serve this sprawl for decades to come, so who knows what the real cost will be.

If BC wants to spend billions on road infrastructure to enhance trade, then at least RESERVE IT for the trucks who need it by adding only commercial vehicle lanes. BC should not be encouraging (via additional general vehicle lanes) so much population growth in far-flung regions that can only be served by inefficient & expensive highways, bridges, and decentralized services. Are roadspace additions even needed at all? Why didn't they study alternatives like rail or tolling existing infrastructure? The solution they're going with has already been disproven time and time again.

To me, and I guess a lot of us here, the major impact of Gateway is on land use and the pattern of urbanization it creates (sprawl) with pollution being a secondary (albeit significant and related) concern. We've made great strides at developing downtown & rapid transit-linked town centres with amenities, moving toward sustainability, and now we're falling backward and again serving the single family suburban home with two-to-three cars. I don't want to be part of a generation that repeats mistakes and allows this through at a time when sustainability and the environment are actually en vogue. The problem is that Gateway is being forced upon us in a top-down manner by a minister who looks only at the trade benefits (and possibly his personal commuting benefits), and has no understanding of the problems he's creating.

Zonie, very well said! That is a first draft of a great letter to the editor.

I've been saying for a while that I would actually not have a problem with the highway widening and bridge twinning IF all that was added was HOV/Goods/HPV (high priority vehicles) lanes. The South Fraser Perimeter Road should be tolled for all non-freight users. Most important would be the immediate planning for new commuter rail, light rail, SkyTrain extension, park-and-rides, and bus service south of the Fraser along with better land use planning in the suburbs and a reinforcement of the street grid with an emphasis on fostering a pedestrian-oriented built environment.

To say that the current Gateway plan is for goods movement is disingenuous. The Gateway project cannot be looked at without considering the Golden Ears Bridge and the new Pitt River Bridge. Clearly these road systems are being built to facilitate and support residential growth south of the Fraser and the form of development they are supporting will be low-density and automobile-dependent. All land use patterns create traffic. But we know that low-density highway-oriented development creates mainly vehicle traffic and little, if any, pedestrian traffic. Medium- and high-density development create proportionately more pedestrian traffic and can support public transportation and bicycling.

We already know what the Gateway Program will fail to provide congestion relief for those south of the Fraser and we know that the land-use patterns the highway upgrades will foster will only make things worse. Goods movement will be even more challenging after Gateway because of the additional trips the expanded infrastructure will attract and induce. We know that public transit is desired south of the Fraser and that rapid mass transit is a very high priority for residents and politicians and that a huge regional rift is forming over the order of mass transit construction, not whether we should be building it at all.

Lastly, we know that an automobile dependent suburban lifestyle has very real economic, social, environmental, and health consequences and that urban residents live longer and anecdotally have larger social networks and greater access to amenities and services. Bearing all of this in mind, Minister Falcon and his enablers are still going ahead with it and are wilfully oblivious to the consequences of their actions.

We have only two cities in Metro Vancouver. One is decidedly urban and built on the "DNA" of a street grid that predates the automobile and spans political boundaries along historically-determined streets and neighbourhoods. The other is decidedly sub-urban, automobile-dependent, and, unfortunately, growing. It is remarkable to consider that the former is making isolated inroads into the latter while the latter is completely unsuccessful at making inroads to the former.

The former is winning awards the world over for its livability and is actually making progress towards becoming a more sustainable place to live, all the while the population is growing rapidly and without any encrouchment on open space or a forgoing of public amenities. Amazingly the former is witnessing decreasing commute times and dwindling number of vehicles on the road, something unimaginable even twenty years ago. None of these things are happening in the other Vancouver where commute times are increasing, green space is encroached upon, and the negative effects of an automobile-scaled urban fabric are being accentuated, and enthusiastically so.

I understand the economics behind the growth of suburban Metro Vancouver but so much of the inertia that fosters it is through the externalizing of costs. Low-density distributed forms of urban development are inherently economically unsustainable. They cannot finance themselves the way proper cities can. Suburban municipalities cannot afford to put in the road infrastructure that is necessary, nor can they afford to evenly provide enough services and parks to offer all of its citizens adjacent public amenities and instead this is forgone. I argue that the literal distance many suburban residents reside from public amenities decreases their opinion of government and narrowly associates it only with roads, which are the one function of government they are constantly in contact with. Suburban residents see their property taxes go up to pay for unseen services and to finance the losing battle of road maintenance. They associate higher densities with more traffic and a further drain on their tax dollars.

Fundamentally it is the spatial arrangement of cities that matters most and the Gateway Program as it stands now will only accentuate the negative.

Zonie, very well said! That is a first draft of a great letter to the editor.
Thanks... but, hell, I'm not half the writer you are, Vancouverite! What you just wrote would make an excellent newspaper article, nevermind letter to the editor. Still, if you want to include any of my ideas (hyperbolic ranting), feel 1000% free!

Remember that the provincal government wants a green agenda next year. They will be holding many public consultations and i'm sure many of us will be talking about the Gateway then. The cape horn interchange looks gross. Overdo - we don't need that many lanes...

The thing about Vancouver is not only the roads very small and near non-existent but also the fact that the transit system is mickey-mouse.
There is no way to get from the valley to Vancouver except on the overcapacity tonka-toy known as SkyTrain.
People will continue to take their cars from the valley if they have to get on a infrequent bus to a packed SkyTrain at Surrey Centre and then hyperventilate for 40 minutes to downtown.

The area has to get commuter rail to downtown so there is a TRUE alternative to the car.
The WCE is a pathetic attempt. 9,000 passengers / day compared to GO's 250,000.

BTW..............I agree that relatively very little truck traffic heads to the Port its the cars from the valley and beyond trying to get to YVR but especially the transport trucks and cars heading to the ferries.
There is no alternative except a true South Perimeter road which I strongly endorse. I endorse it but only to Nordel and then it can merge with a higher capacity River Road...............I do not agree with the further ext thru the Delta. They are widening HWY10 and the road is crammed with transports.
The traffic on roads in SouthSurrey/WR are packed with transports all trying to find a fast way to Twassen.

Like I said I also strongly agree with HOV all along HWY 1 to atleast Abbostford to encourage car-pooling and commuter buses to downtown as they are impossible now due to the inability of keeping to any form of schedule.

the skytrain may be smaller than say the toronto subway, but its hardly a tonka train. it runs so frequently that it has the capacity of larger trains that run less frequently. have you ever taken the toronto subway? how long did you wait for a train. and it takes so long at each station. i'll take the skytrain any day

what they need to do is put in parking garages at stations like braid, king george or scott road whatever to encourage more people to use it and make it free or next to free to park - like portland has done at its outlying stations

someone at work once parked at lougheed mall to go to a concert only to come back and find a ticket for doing so - even after the mall was closed!

there just is nowhere to park at the furthest out stations

you can get people to go halfway - but to expect them to get on a bus and than the train is something they won't do

^ I agree... we don't have enough park and rides near major transportation exchanges such as Lougheed.

braid would be a great spot for a park and ride. theres even a huge chunk of land right there thats been empty for a long time. production way had a park and ride but not anymore. i think scott rd is the only station with a true park and ride right now.

The thing about Vancouver is not only the roads very small and near non-existent but also the fact that the transit system is mickey-mouse.
There is no way to get from the valley to Vancouver except on the overcapacity tonka-toy known as SkyTrain.
People will continue to take their cars from the valley if they have to get on a infrequent bus to a packed SkyTrain at Surrey Centre and then hyperventilate for 40 minutes to downtown.

The area has to get commuter rail to downtown so there is a TRUE alternative to the car.
The WCE is a pathetic attempt. 9,000 passengers / day compared to GO's 250,000.

I'd be interested to know what exactly makes the WCE a failure, in your opinion, beyond just a lack of riders.

I'd be interested to know what exactly makes the WCE a failure, in your opinion, beyond just a lack of riders.

I agree. Given the resources Translink has (funding, one track, number of trains bought by the NDP gov't), the WCE is a success.

Posted by Mr. X over at SSC from Gordon Price's blog:


MAJOR EVERGREEN LINE/GATEWAY PROJECT UPDATE

According to Gordon Price, this is coming from a very reliable source:
http://pricetags.wordpress.com


Regarding the Evergreen Line, a mayor of an eastern municipality is convinced an announcement is coming soon. Perhaps at the UBCM. The mayor also thinks that the Evergreen Line will take the southwest route along Lougheed AND a branch will head off over the Port Mann to Guildford (maybe further).

I wouldn’t be surprised if rail goes to Walnut Grove and then down 200th to Willowbrook and Langley Centre. Jordan Bateman, a Langley councillor and Liberal insider has been pushing light rail on 200th.

There is massive development being planned along the Lougheed United Boulevard corridor included Fraser Mills and Riverview. Both United and Lougheed are lined with low density retail and industrial development which Wilson seems keen on redeveloping.

The southwest route is significantly less expensive than the northwest route due to the lack of tunnelling. If the construction of the Guildford branch is concurrent with the highway expansion, the cost to Coquitlam Centre and Guildford would be similar of the northwest route to just Coquitlam Centre.

The southwest route also means there is a old Canada Line tunnel boring machine sitting around that could be used for the Millennium Line extension. It also means that the Evergreen Line won’t be going through Port Moody which might be why Trassolini is not very happy.

It seems odd in the RFP that they are building the space for light rail now. This is an extra expense that will not increase the revenue in the first few years of operation. Rail over the bridge both in the short and long term will likely generate more revenue than using the two lanes reserved for light rail for general purpose traffic.

Rail also protects project revenue against increases in gas prices and TDM measures designed to reduce automobile use because as car use and revenue goes down, rail use and revenue would go up.

Since most of the opposition to the expansion is coming from Vancouver and Burnaby, the province might also choose to delay the expansion west of Coquitlam.

It also wouldn’t surprise me if the Gateway Program is moved over to the new TransLink. It always seemed rather cumbersome to have both Ministry of Transportation and TransLink responsible for roads in the region. This could be the real reason why Falcon is rejigging TransLink.

Again all of this is rumor and guesswork. Given Campbell’s ability to outmanoeuvre the opposition, none of this would surprise me at all.

Map posted by Mr. X over at SSC:

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/866/lrtmaplk0.png
Green = original Evergreen Line route, probably now canceled
Red = probably what is now being proposed for the Evergreen Line, to be part of the Gateway program
Blue = proposed bus corridor by Translink and City of Surrey, will be LRT in the future

an edited version of paradigm4's map that starts from Lougheed.

See discussion in the Evergreen Line thread.....

...also may explain why the transit only ramps at Gaglardi Way and at North Road are absent from the Gateway plans posted to the EAO website.

Note: A Vancouver councillor David Cadman is proposing that truck traffic should be allowed on major highways only during night time periods. I dont' have an offical news article online for this but some of you maybe aware of this after watching the insight on the News Hour.

I don't completely agree with this although I would like to see more truck traffic on highways during night periods. He is saying that doing this should stop/prevent the twinning of the Port Mann bridge. But I don't think trucks are the only problem with highway one, it's the amount of cars on the road. Quite frankly, i would like to see a lot more public transportation iniatives in the South of Fraser before we can jump to the Gateway program. If we introduce more rapid transit and there is still demand to expand Highway 1 to the "gateway state" then by all means do so. But let's try some inovative ideas to take cars off the road rather than taking away items that aren't necessarly causing the problem.

^ the thing is, the ports are closed at night.....imagine how fast we could get goods in and out if ports/trucking went in operation 24 hours.....and at night, where there's nobody on the roads.

From my conversations with a couple port people, the ports would love to open at night, but it's the trucking companies that don't seem to want to do that. They've tried it before.

I'd be interested to know what exactly makes the WCE a failure, in your opinion, beyond just a lack of riders.

Exactly that, a lack of riders. It obviously has a lot of problems if so few want to take it.
The ride and vehicles/ammenities are excellent................no question about that. I use to take it about 3 times/month and it is a pleasant experience.

The problem is that is slow for a commuter rail. All the way thru the city of Vancouver its at walking speed with only one station. Same thing when it croses the Pitt River.
It is useless for anyone going reverse commuting which is increasing fast as employment centres are more spreadout. It stops at 6pm from Waterfront. God forbid if someone gets off work and want to go for a drink or coffee with friends after work.

It is not a true commuter transit system but more like a glorified shuttle bus.

It could be a very attractive TRANSIT system and backbone if they greatly increased frequency all the way thru the day and til late night, that would not be needed for Mission........................besides rush hour they do not need service as they are out of Translink authority or more importantly responsibility.

During the day and late night they could run small diesel trains with 30 minute frequency a'la Ottawa's O-Train. They are a little longer that a MK11 SkyTrain car. All of those OTrain types should be at present zone 3 passes.......in other words make it a true part of the everyday/workaday transit system.

A stop at Commercial is essential for anyone not going downtown or the westside.

An Otrain design is very low diesel emmision, surprisingly quiet, would be faster due to faster pickup from stations and not being so cumbersome along the curvey current rail line and that horribly slow part thru Vancouver city.

Considering that it serves an North of Frazer population of 300,000, 9,000 is pretty pathetic. Right now it is a very comfortable, pleasant, and a nice way to travel downtown in rush hour but is seen as a premier service with a premier price.
GO trains/buses are seen, used, and operate as part of a true regional transit service not a premium one. WCE has huge potential which it does not take advantage of and that is what makes it a failure.

Exactly that, a lack of riders. It obviously has a lot of problems if so few want to take it.
The ride and vehicles/ammenities are excellent................no question about that. I use to take it about 3 times/month and it is a pleasant experience.

The problem is that is slow for a commuter rail. All the way thru the city of Vancouver its at walking speed with only one station. Same thing when it croses the Pitt River.
It is useless for anyone going reverse commuting which is increasing fast as employment centres are more spreadout. It stops at 6pm from Waterfront. God forbid if someone gets off work and want to go for a drink or coffee with friends after work.

It is not a true commuter transit system but more like a glorified shuttle bus.

It could be a very attractive TRANSIT system and backbone if they greatly increased frequency all the way thru the day and til late night, that would not be needed for Mission........................besides rush hour they do not need service as they are out of Translink authority or more importantly responsibility.

During the day and late night they could run small diesel trains with 30 minute frequency a'la Ottawa's O-Train. They are a little longer that a MK11 SkyTrain car. All of those OTrain types should be at present zone 3 passes.......in other words make it a true part of the everyday/workaday transit system.

A stop at Commercial is essential for anyone not going downtown or the westside.

An Otrain design is very low diesel emmision, surprisingly quiet, would be faster due to faster pickup from stations and not being so cumbersome along the curvey current rail line and that horribly slow part thru Vancouver city.

Considering that it serves an North of Frazer population of 300,000, 9,000 is pretty pathetic. Right now it is a very comfortable, pleasant, and a nice way to travel downtown in rush hour but is seen as a premier service with a premier price.
GO trains/buses are seen, used, and operate as part of a true regional transit service not a premium one. WCE has huge potential which it does not take advantage of and that is what makes it a failure.

I have to disagree. The trains are running full - there is no capacity to increase ridership, unless more trains are added.

The speed is slower than I'm used to (being English), but the train is faster than driving or the bus. Before the WCE, there used to be the 160 and 190 express buses that would twice as long as the bus and make as many stops.

I agree more stations in Burnaby area, but not at commercial - this is intended as a peak hour rapid transit system

Comparing WCE to GO is apples and oranges. GO is a network of trains and buses - similar to what Translink is in Vancouver - we just have a single operation running buses, trains, skytrain to all municipalities in the region, instead of the mess in Greater Toronto. If Vancouver had the Toronto model, each city (Vancouver, burnaby, North Vancouver, Surry, Richmond, etc) would all have their own undependant transit systems and Translink would run some interregional buses and the WCE. I know West Van has it's own system, but the fare structure is integrated and other than bus colour, you'd never the difference.

Go Trains is not fast either. I've been on Go trains that crawl on poor track - the Lakeshore is decent, but the rest of the lines are peak hour only - just like WCE.

Trainbus runs in the evening leaving at 7:00pm and 8:00pm - the trains are timed for the peak travel times. There are midday trainbus and more planned, including weekends (these are like GO Buses for your Toronto reference). Don't forget that Translink runs highway coach buses from Vancouver to White Rock, Surrey and South Delta - these are like the Go buses.

Finally, the WCE train is much more comfortable and first class feeling than GO - The GO Trains feels like a diesel operated subway to be honest.

Have you actually ever taken the WCE or do you just enjoy being negative? I'd rather have the train than nothing and yes I'd like to see it expand.

The Ontario Government shold just have Go Transit take over all of the transit operations in Greater Toronto covering the area of Go operates - now that would be a forward thinking feat.

It is also worth remembering what the "GO" in GO Trains stand for: Government of Ontario. The provincial government of BC doesn't spend a dime on the operational cost of public transit in the lower mainland. They provide money on an ad hoc basis for the capital portion of a project.

Also, the rail lines the Westcoast Express runs on are leased from CP and CP is profiteering on the route. Despite the WCE running full CP is unwilling to provide any more track time for expansion. I have heard from several people that the WCE operating deficit is entirely due to the severity of CPs gouging. To paraphrase: the public would be up in arms if they knew how much CP was taking us for. Naturally it is a secret contract.

It is also worth remembering what the "GO" in GO Trains stand for: Government of Ontario. The provincial government of BC doesn't spend a dime on the operational cost of public transit in the lower mainland. They provide money on an ad hoc basis for the capital portion of a project.

Also, the rail lines the Westcoast Express runs on are leased from CP and CP is profiteering on the route. Despite the WCE running full CP is unwilling to provide any more track time for expansion. I have heard from several people that the WCE operating deficit is entirely due to the severity of CPs gouging. To paraphrase: the public would be up in arms if they knew how much CP was taking us for. Naturally it is a secret contract.

can't we do something about it? put it on the front page of The Province....it'll be the one and only time something good came out of sensationalism.

so why is there a maple meadows station and not a newport village station

to be fair the WCE serves such a small area and of that small area its a small amount that actually needs to get downtown to work - so 9000 is pretty impressive imo

i think more people from the tri cities and maple ridge and mission don't even go downtown and big chunk of them don't have any transit options to go from A to B - instead they have to get bounced all over the lower mainland if they attempt the trip on transit

and Toronto has an Office culture and office jobs that Vancouver will never have or ever has had

^^
Correcttion..........Toronto and Montreal have TRANSIT cultures. In Vancouver transit is still seen as a mode of last resort. Everyone in Tor/Mon take transit regardless of their income unlike Vancouver.
As far as asking me if I ever took WCE then I suggest you read my comment. I had nothing but good comments about its pleasant cras, amenities, and experience. It is a very pleasant service and I have taken it many times.
My problem with it is that it is so slow and is only a rushour service. GO service runs all day and this includes all suburban areas not just one.
Also just because Translink is getting hosed by CP is strickly Translinks problem and therefore fault.
Wher is the commuter rail from Langley? A railine running from Langley to Cloverdale to Newton to Scott Road to NewWest to Lougheed to Broadway/Commericial to Waterfront that is sitting vacant and would be ideal for an OTrain like service. OTrain day service should be offered all day to the tri cities and in the evening.
Where is the bus commuter service from Langley/Aldergove/Guilfor/Abbostford to downtown using the HOV on HWY 1 ?
If I worked downtown and lived in any of those areas I'd take the car too as opposed to a packed 35 minute SkyTrain ride and then another 30 minutes minimum to get home.
All that could be solved by 20 commuter buses and some simple cue-jumpers.
These are not expensive options but Translink seems intent on draining the capitol budgets on things like RAV with very small trains/station with ridership levels of an estimated 70-80k/year by 2015. A much cheaper LRT line would have done the same at a fraction of the price.

^^
Correcttion..........Toronto and Montreal have TRANSIT cultures. In Vancouver transit is still seen as a mode of last resort. Everyone in Tor/Mon take transit regardless of their income unlike Vancouver.
As far as asking me if I ever took WCE then I suggest you read my comment. I had nothing but good comments about its pleasant cras, amenities, and experience. It is a very pleasant service and I have taken it many times.
My problem with it is that it is so slow and is only a rushour service. GO service runs all day and this includes all suburban areas not just one.
Also just because Translink is getting hosed by CP is strickly Translinks problem and therefore fault.
Wher is the commuter rail from Langley? A railine running from Langley to Cloverdale to Newton to Scott Road to NewWest to Lougheed to Broadway/Commericial to Waterfront that is sitting vacant and would be ideal for an OTrain like service. OTrain day service should be offered all day to the tri cities and in the evening.
Where is the bus commuter service from Langley/Aldergove/Guilfor/Abbostford to downtown using the HOV on HWY 1 ?
If I worked downtown and lived in any of those areas I'd take the car too as opposed to a packed 35 minute SkyTrain ride and then another 30 minutes minimum to get home.
All that could be solved by 20 commuter buses and some simple cue-jumpers.
These are not expensive options but Translink seems intent on draining the capitol budgets on things like RAV with very small trains/station with ridership levels of an estimated 70-80k/year by 2015. A much cheaper LRT line would have done the same at a fraction of the price.

I don't think our transit system is a last resort in Vancouver. Many Vancouverites use our transit system to commute to work, to school, etc. and they love doing so. I'm one of them for sure!

I agree with your langley/aldergrove/etc. Commuter Rail.

I would say you are naive if you don't know that Hwy 1 has horrible traffic. How the hell can buses move fast enough to attract commuters to use that bus service... That's why there is a Gateway program to have commuter buses to travel to Lougheed Town Centre, then allow commuters use SkyTrain.

Our SkyTrain network is reliable (despite the minor train problems with the Mark I trains lately) and is fast. We just need LONGER TRAINS and increase of frequency (but every 45 seconds to me is pretty fast.... there aren't that many networks in the world that have that kind of frequency...)

LRT on Arbutus to Richmond vs to Automated Trains to Richmond [C Line]... the C Line would be much faster. yes I agree with you the platforms aren't long enough and the trains aren't long enough - but the speed is a big issue to commuters. Personally, as a transit user, I would want speed and being stuffed in a train rather than slow... AS many has said earlier (officedweller), the LRT Arbutus can be easily implemented when C-Line is overcapacity.

It is also worth remembering what the "GO" in GO Trains stand for: Government of Ontario. The provincial government of BC doesn't spend a dime on the operational cost of public transit in the lower mainland. They provide money on an ad hoc basis for the capital portion of a project.


This is not true. The BC Government funds transit in Vancouver just as it does in the rest of the Province, though through different agreements and channels. The BC Government fully funded both Skytrain lines, funded the implementation of SeaBus, the implementation of West Coast Express and partially funded the Canada Line. The government provides funding annually to Translink and transfers a 9 per cent gas tax. The government has provided additional funding for buses and other costs - including the rapid buses and the proposed Port Mann Rapid Bus.

Outside Vancouver, the BC Government provides planning, research and funding for another 77 transit systems around the Province through the Crown corporation BC Transit under the Municipal Systems Program - the funding is up to 46% of the operating cost, and the local government gets to keep the fare revenue. This includes Central Fraser Valley Transit System in Abbotsford/Mission, which connects with Translink at Mission Station (West Coast Express) and in Aldergrove (with the new connector service connecting to Translinks 502 service).

In terms of operating costs, the Province only enables GVTA to raise revenue through legislation that allows GVTA to impose the gas tax, parking stall tax, property tax, etc. I don't think there is a direct payment from the Province to GVTA on account of operating expenses. That would be different than the other BC Transit run services.

Here's the 2006 GVTA annual report. The General Fund revenue breakdown does not specify a Provincial contribution. Note that the General Fund does not include capital project funding, which is under the Capital Fund heading (and includes funding from senior levels of government).

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/board_files/meet_agenda_min/2007/06_27_07/Annualreport.pdf

speaking of Transportation , what would be great is a Maglev from the Lower main land , to Kamloops down to Kelowna and back to the coast . maybe in 2090 ? lol

http://robertomaxwell.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/800px-jr-maglev-mlx01-2.jpg

^ lol 2090? it could happen by then...assuming Metro Vancouver isn't in an economic crisis because half of it is underwater. :D

Gateway vote? It's just a dream
But not in Seattle, where voters nixed project

Frances Bula, Vancouver Sun
Published: Friday, November 16, 2007

SEATTLE - Imagine that everyone in Metro Vancouver was able to vote on whether the $3-billion Gateway roads-and-bridges project should be built.

Imagine advocates from both the pro- and anti-Gateway groups dressing up in polar-bear costumes and parading around in downtown Vancouver -- say, outside a hall where Bill Clinton and Al Gore were giving speeches on global warming -- and claiming you could only save the environment by a) voting for Gateway or b) voting against Gateway.:notacrook:

Imagine those groups also spending $5 million on ads and billboards and flyers and phone banks to convince voters that a) Gateway is bad or b) Gateway is good.

That's a fantasy scenario here.

B.C. Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon simply announced the Gateway project two years ago and public input since then has consisted of information meetings, angry letters to the editor or calls to radio shows, and whatever can be achieved by impromptu lobby groups.

But the fantasy scenario has been a reality for almost a million voters only 200 kilometres away.

People in three Seattle-area counties got to campaign and vote on what's called Proposition 1, a mammoth $18-billion, 20-year plan aimed at solving traffic problems in one of the U.S.'s most notorious cases of urban gridlock.

It included plans to add 300 kilometres of road, replace two bridges, and build 80 kilometres of light rail from Everett to Tacoma, with a side spur to Redmond in the east.

Proposition 1 -- which was narrowly defeated on Nov. 6 during civic elections -- is also an object lesson to everyone in B.C. about what might happen here if the public had a say.

Until the vote, both sides were fighting frantically to win the hearts of voters, who seemed to be evenly split in their opinions, according to polls.

Some of the arguments sounded uncannily like the same ones Metro Vancouver residents are hearing.

The anti-Prop-1 groups, in particular, focused on the negative environmental impacts.

The Sierra Club came out strongly against the proposition, in spite of the 80 kilometres of light rail and the transit investments, because of what the local spokesman admits is a much more hard-line attitude to road-building than environmental groups had even two years ago.

"There was a long time that lasted until a couple of years ago where the debate was, 'How much roads versus how much transit?'" said Mike O'Brian. He was speaking at the tail end of a rally, held a few days before the final vote, during which about 30 supporters demonstrated outside an American mayors' conference on global warming where Clinton and Gore were speaking.

Now, O'Brian said, populist environmental groups like the Sierra Club are saying they don't care how much transit planners add to any transportation package, they just won't accept anything that adds road space.

"Roads just fill up in urban areas, so 180 miles of more roads is 180 miles of more emissions," said O'Brian.

That's certainly how Julie McCoy felt.

McCoy brought her five kids, all dressed in polar-bear costumes, to the rally to support the cause.

"Global warming is real, it's here, it's bad," said McCoy, who lives in the north-Seattle neighbourhood of Broadview. "We feel like all of our resources need to go to fixing transit."

The pro-Proposition 1 side arguments also sounded eerily familiar.

"Vote 'Yes' to unclog major traffic choke points [and] fix our roads,'" said one piece of campaign literature. Another emphasized that "improving freight mobility will allow our region to compete in an expanding global economy."

But there were also differences between the U.S. and Canadian debates, because of how the U.S. system works. There, voters have to be sold on supporting initiatives and are much more likely to think about the negative tax impacts.

Proposition 1 would have meant sales taxes rising from 8.9 to 9.5 per cent and the cost of what Seattleites call car tabs, part of the car-licence system, would also rise.

That's much different from here, where big regional transit projects are not voted on directly by the public, and voters don't always see an immediate link between the project and their taxes.

Here, the Gateway project was largely driven forward by a coalition of businesses that got together in the late 1990s and successfully lobbied the provincial government for the project.

It has been opposed by Metro Vancouver, Vancouver and Burnaby city councils, two impromptu opposition coalitions, and every environmental group around.

In Seattle, Proposition 1 was crafted by two different public organizations -- the Seattle equivalents of TransLink and Metro Vancouver -- and was supported by a coalition of city councils or individual councillors from around the region, labour groups, business groups and even some environmental groups. Although the Sierra Club was opposed, other groups like the Tahoma Audubon Society, Washington Environmental Council and Transportation Choices Coalition endorsed the project.

All of that meant that there was a lot more for transit and light rail put into the project, in an effort to make it attractive to voters worried about road-building. And there was a much broader coalition campaigning for it.

That kind of process is definitely more stressful than Canada's, admitted one of main pro-Proposition 1 organizers.

Aaron Toso, working with Keep Washington Rolling, also acknowledged that "some of these decisions might be better made by a group of transportation-planning experts."

In a big project like this, it can become easy for people to vote against the whole project because they don't like some part of it.

But ultimately, Toso said, he thinks the American system works better.

"I'd go with our way. It's vital for the community to be supportive and we have seen a broad consensus. And I don't think a central authority can know what every neighbourhood needs."

As it turned out, Toso was doomed to be disappointed by voters who didn't buy into that consensus.

About 55 per cent of those who voted rejected Proposition 1 last Tuesday.

Within that group, almost half voted against it because they objected to the higher taxes they'd have to pay.

But 20 per cent voted against it because of the global-warming impacts.

They were people like Amie Marston and Diane Schumacher, who were both waiting at the bus stop across the street from the Sierra Club rally.

Marston, an analyst at the University of Washington and city resident who'd been issued her ballot and voters' guide a couple of weeks earlier, had already voted against it.

And suburban commuter Diane Schumacher was sounding equally unenthusiastic.

Neither like the increased taxes.

But neither thought it did enough to get people off the road. In fact, it encouraged them.

"I haven't owned a car in five years, so I feel like in Seattle, we've got it figured out," said Marston. "But then we're asked to subsidize people even more who choose to live in the boonies."

fbula@png.canwest.com

Seattle's "car tabs" are equivalent to the "vehicle levy" that was prooposed by Translink for funding but nixed by the Province.
Imagine the public voting to pass a vehicle levy - what do you think the chances of that remotely passing up here would be?

Proposition 1 “combined a $30.8 billion Sound Transit proposal to add 50 miles of light rail line over 30 years and a $16.4 billion plan to build 186 miles of new lanes and ramps in the three counties.”

Of the roads portion, the biggest chunk would have gone to the replacement of the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (SR520) - $1 billion in toll revenue and $1.1 billion in sales taxes and car tabs (vehicle levies) towards the $4.4 billion project. The Governor is now "finding" the funding elsewhere for the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge.

$2.8 billion has been separately budgeted towards the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

The twinned Tacoma Narrows Bridge (now tolled) just opened up this year.

“Proposition 1 would impose a six-tenths of a percent sales tax and an eight-tenths of a percent tax on car licenses in the urban areas of the three counties, on top of current sales and license levies. If passed, it would raise the sales tax in Seattle to 9.4 percent.”

“If you lived in an urbanized area of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties, you would pay 6 cents on a $10 purchase. That would pay for the rail and road portions of the measure, an increase of $150 a year per typical household. Also a car-tab tax of $80 for each $10,000 of vehicle value would go to roads. ”

That is in addition to the existing sales taxes and car tabs:

“Taxes already levied for Sound Transit — 4 cents in sales tax on a $10 purchase and $30 for every $10,000 of value in car-tab tax (scheduled to end in 2028, when bonds are repaid) — remain in effect regardless of the outcome.”

I find it surprising that voters voluntarily vote to increase their taxes. That’s actually quite impressive. If you had asked GVRD voters whether they wanted to pay Translink’s Vehicle Levy, my guess is that the voter response would have been a more resounding “No” than 55%. Given that the total car-tab burden for a $20,000 car would have increased from $60 annually to $220 annually, plus tolls, I am surprised that the “Yes” camp garnered roughly 45% support.

King County voter turnout was only 36 percent, becuase its not a Governor/Presidential election year.

Given that more money under the Proposition was allocated to transit than to roads - it could just as easily be viewed as the overtaxed population not wanting to spend on anything (including transit). One comment in the P-I article notes:

“I want to see how the Sea-Tac light rail (segment) goes before we put up 50 more miles of it.”

Remember, Seattle defeated their light rail line proposal the first time, and had to go back to the voters a year later before passing (sound familiar?), and they passed the monorail expansion twice before finally killing it in 2005.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/338623_transpo07.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/338787_transpo08.html

This article might be of interest,

http://www.theworldedition.com/government/vancouver.php

I think the vast majority of well educated people who actually understand why freeway expansion doesn't work would have this project stopped in a heart beat, but unfortunately we are not in the majority among everyone else. I really expect that this project will go forward, but I will be kicking and screaming the whole way.

Screw all the haters. I <3 the gateway project. 2 lane highways are not cool.

Couple things I don't understand about this project though. So we're only getting 3 lanes + 1 HOV lane?? Isn't the port man bridge 5 lanes though?? What happens to that 5th lane?? And what happens to all those over passes east of the port man bridge that cross over highway 1? A lot of them have no extra room underneath to squeeze in 4 more lanes (2 in each direction). But yeah I really like this idea. More roads with more lanes!!!!

I can't believe people are against this. The roads are already congested in Vancouver, because they are 2 lanes. It still boggles my mind that Vancouver's main highway is only 2 lanes and 3 in the City ( + Burnaby). Even Calgary is ahead. A city pushing 2 and a half million people can't live on one main highway with 2 lanes. THATS WHY ITS SO CONGESTED. Yes, adding another lane will bring more traffic, but it will just get worse and worse if the extra lanes aren't added, because Vancouver is gonna grow no matter what.. and it will be a royal pain in the arsehole when the population hits 3 million people, and half of those people need to get to and from work/school everyday.

it's something called transit. currently, people's argument is that transit isn't working. but if you want to solve congestion, it's clearly not about making room for MORE cars - it's about getting rid of cars!!! how do we do that? expand public transit, especially rail and LRT and the sort...NOT BUILD HIGHWAYS!!!

it's something called transit. currently, people's argument is that transit isn't working. but if you want to solve congestion, it's clearly not about making room for MORE cars - it's about getting rid of cars!!! how do we do that? expand public transit, especially rail and LRT and the sort...NOT BUILD HIGHWAYS!!!

Sorry but I'd rather drive in my car than share the smelly, cramped room of a skytrain or LRT. And I speak for the majority of people in the lower mainland that drive cars. They're just more practical for everyday living. Lots of people work at multiple locations which means they have to drive from job to job. What if someone needs to pick their kids up from school after work? Or they need to stop off an get groceries? Skytrain and LRT can't accomodate any of those people. You need to get used to cars and highways because they are not going anywhere. Thats a fact of life.

IMO Vancouver needs this highway upgrade no matter what. 2 lanes just aren't enough. Look at every major city in the US, and even Toronto and Calgary. They all have extensive, multi laned highways. Our highway is an absolute joke. We're so far behind with our infrastructure its ridiculous. We need an 8 lane highway right NOW. It should have been built years ago in anticipation for the amount of traffic we have nowadays. The fact that we haven't even started building the gateway project is disturbing. Because by the time its finished we'll still be behind and more lanes for highway 1 will be needed.

I agree transit must be the first choice but I also agree that Vancouver's road/highway system is truly pathetic.
I'm not crazy about Gateway but could handle it if one of the lanes in each direction was BUS only and another for HOV with bus priority lanes /overpasses to get onto the freeway.
It will eventually have to be widened of that there is no doubt especially as the South of Frazer area population continues to soar. In the near future I can see PortMann traffic actually decline due to the opening of the GoldenEars but it will quickly fill up.

I can handle no expention of them roads {except of course for safety reasons and bus access priority roadways} but I STRONGLY support the South Frazer freeway.
It will create a much needed fast route to the airport/ferries/DeltaPort.
It will mostly go thru industrail areas anyway and they are not areas that could be created for residential.
Right now all the car and especially truck traffic going to those areas anywhere east of NuWest have to go thru Surrey/Langley and it is very slow/dangerous/and polluting as the traffic crawls especially the transports.

It would also greatly releive the pressure on the PortMann so again it may not have to be widened. Contrary to what people think most on the PortMann are not going to Vancouver but rather Burn/NuWest/Ferries/DeltaPort/YVR but have no option but to take the PortMann as a relative fast route.

The South of Frazer freeway should be completed freeway.................no lights all the way to Ladner Trunk and then widen and upgrade the Ladner Trunk to freeway standards {which most of the area in Ladner/Twass already is}. It should no go thru the bog.

Sorry but I'd rather drive in my car than share the smelly, cramped room of a skytrain or LRT. And I speak for the majority of people in the lower mainland that drive cars. They're just more practical for everyday living. Lots of people work at multiple locations which means they have to drive from job to job. What if someone needs to pick their kids up from school after work? Or they need to stop off an get groceries? Skytrain and LRT can't accomodate any of those people. You need to get used to cars and highways because they are not going anywhere. Thats a fact of life.

IMO Vancouver needs this highway upgrade no matter what. 2 lanes just aren't enough. Look at every major city in the US, and even Toronto and Calgary. They all have extensive, multi laned highways. Our highway is an absolute joke. We're so far behind with our infrastructure its ridiculous. We need an 8 lane highway right NOW. It should have been built years ago in anticipation for the amount of traffic we have nowadays. The fact that we haven't even started building the gateway project is disturbing. Because by the time its finished we'll still be behind and more lanes for highway 1 will be needed.

I think you've got a lot to learn with regards to how this region works on an urban/transportation planning perspective. Right now, transit IS an incompetent form of going around the region....which is why it needs to be IMPROVED as nova9 mentioned. Once you give people a viable and competent transportation alternative, they will think twice about taking their cars out of the garage. Certainly, the car is needed when traveling in the south of Fraser.

What you describe, with regards to mass highway expansion, has turned into dismal failures in the United States. Toronto is a disaster, Calgary is a sprawling disaster, and so are many many American cities.

Your perception of what works and what is needed is very flawed. A certain level of road capacity is needed, which is why I do support the South Fraser Perimeter Road and the new Golden Ears Bridge and to an extent the Port Mann upgrades. But that, in addition to transit upgrades, will be sufficient for road capacity upgrades for a long time to come.

northwest2k, i beg to differ. i see people doing exactly what you say is not done on skytrain. whether they chose to or not, i see families commuting together. families that use transit probably aren't those that would be dropping their kids off here and there because they;d be going to a community school in close proximity. perhaps you've never been to vancouver, downtown or not, but most of us can get what we need just by walking. and a fact of life does not make it a smart idea or thing to continue.

i recognize that some people cannot rely on transit, especially if you've got 3 kids and have the life where you got to shuttle them to this extracurricular or the other. or if you already own a car for work, i can see how it would be easier to just drive. but transit options require far more will and strength to stick to and i'm proud of people that can do it.

it's something called transit. currently, people's argument is that transit isn't working. but if you want to solve congestion, it's clearly not about making room for MORE cars - it's about getting rid of cars!!! how do we do that? expand public transit, especially rail and LRT and the sort...NOT BUILD HIGHWAYS!!!

You will never get rid of cars. No matter how much transit you have, people are still going to need cars for things that are just not conducive to transit.

I still can't see why it always has to be an either/or scenario. Why can't it be both? I think a balanced approach helps the entire region much better than trying just one thing.

For example, with the widening of the highway, it is now possible to add express buses travel the highway, and, the twinning of the bridge allows for a transit or light rail component to be added.

I think you've got a lot to learn with regards to how this region works on an urban/transportation planning perspective. Right now, transit IS an incompetent form of going around the region....which is why it needs to be IMPROVED as nova9 mentioned. Once you give people a viable and competent transportation alternative, they will think twice about taking their cars out of the garage. Certainly, the car is needed when traveling in the south of Fraser.

What you describe, with regards to mass highway expansion, has turned into dismal failures in the United States. Toronto is a disaster, Calgary is a sprawling disaster, and so are many many American cities.

Your perception of what works and what is needed is very flawed. A certain level of road capacity is needed, which is why I do support the South Fraser Perimeter Road and the new Golden Ears Bridge and to an extent the Port Mann upgrades. But that, in addition to transit upgrades, will be sufficient for road capacity upgrades for a long time to come.

Your definition of "disaster" differs greatly from mine. Explain how Calgary is a disaster. It seems any city that isn't overrun with light rail and alternative modes of transportation is labeled a "disaster" by you. If anyone's infrastructure is a disaster its ours.

Calgary's highway system is actually very well planned and efficient. The highway between Edmonton and Calgary is 6 lanes and it rarely experiences extended delays unlike our stretch of highway 1 or highway 99.

Its going to take more than just added lanes and perimeter roads to alleviate the highway 1 traffic. We also need all the small, subtle things that make a highway flow. Like 4 leaf clover exits. Anything less is un-acceptable.

Is it just me or are the only people in favor of more transit upgrades broke students.

Is it just me or are the only people in favor of more transit upgrades broke students.

^ It is just you.

I think you are pretty naive about the connection between transportation infrastructure and urban growth patterns.

You are absolutely correct that Calgary, et al., have proportionately more robust highway systems than Metro Vancouver. However the low-density, highly distributed land use patterns that extensive urban highway systems foster are not desirable to many on this forum, let alone those in professional urban planning and policy circles.

Your definition of "disaster" differs greatly from mine. Explain how Calgary is a disaster. It seems any city that isn't overrun with light rail and alternative modes of transportation is labeled a "disaster" by you. If anyone's infrastructure is a disaster its ours.

Calgary's highway system is actually very well planned and efficient. The highway between Edmonton and Calgary is 6 lanes and it rarely experiences extended delays unlike our stretch of highway 1 or highway 99.

Its going to take more than just added lanes and perimeter roads to alleviate the highway 1 traffic. We also need all the small, subtle things that make a highway flow. Like 4 leaf clover exits. Anything less is un-acceptable.

Again, you don't understand urban planning concepts. You're making over generalizations, and creating opinions about things you don't know about.

As we all know, Calgary is currently in a major population boom and it is rapidly accommodating all that growth by uncontrollably building vast suburbs. The region has absolutely no land constraints like Vancouver's (mountains, river, inlets, border, green belt, agricultural reserve). And much of this is fueled by their highways and highway expansion projects. Urban planners everywhere have said that this city is a disaster in a making. Houston saw similar during its oil and population boom in the 1970's. It grew exactly like how Calgary is growing today, and before you knew it this is what you got:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/2027856.jpg


Many auto-dependent American cities like Houston and Los Angeles have decaying urban fabrics just because of that. It leads to an unhealthy lifestyle, unhealthy habits, and you can bet that all that congestion and all those cars add quite a bit to air pollution. I could go on and on about this, but I don't have time.

Is it just me or are the only people in favor of more transit upgrades broke students.

That's quite an ignorant statement. Really, you don't know how this region's transportation and growth pattern works...nor do you understand the healthy and sustainable models of transportation and urban growth.

Your definition of "disaster" differs greatly from mine. Explain how Calgary is a disaster. It seems any city that isn't overrun with light rail and alternative modes of transportation is labeled a "disaster" by you. If anyone's infrastructure is a disaster its ours.

In addition to the sprawl point already explained by mr.x, how about fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions? Or if you don't believe in global warming, how about effect on local air quality, which is more noticeable?

BTW, your name looked familiar. Aren't you the one who got in trouble for the new brake pads? ;)

Personal transportation such as cars will always be around, and rightfully so. However with time the difference between cars and public transit will blur as we become more technologically advanced. The automation of cars, which is not even close to happening will increase the efficiency of our roads beyond imagination. Cars maybe inefficient today, and also pollute allot but at some point in the future, possibly in our lifetimes that will change and cars will make a comeback. After all personal transportation is the best way of moving individuals efficiently and quickly form point a to point b, its just that today our cars pollute and are inefficient...mostly because of the fact that they are driven by people who are inefficient operators and have virtually no awareness of the condition of the rest of the regional roads or the plans of other vehicles. Automated and networked vehicles could route themselves and drive themselves in the most efficient way, eliminating the need for lights, increasing speed limits, reducing the gap between vehicles, so on and so on. Right now it sounds like a pipe dream but as long as people dont wipe themselves out and keep chugging along then it will happen..no doubt about it, only problem is that we are not even close yet to doing this safely on a local scale.

In addition to the sprawl point already explained by mr.x, how about fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions? Or if you don't believe in global warming, how about effect on local air quality, which is more noticeable?

BTW, your name looked familiar. Aren't you the one who got in trouble for the new brake pads? ;)

No, they didn't have the type he wanted, so he didn't buy any. ;)

Personal transportation such as cars will always be around, and rightfully so. However with time the difference between cars and public transit will blur as we become more technologically advanced. The automation of cars, which is not even close to happening will increase the efficiency of our roads beyond imagination. Cars maybe inefficient today, and also pollute allot but at some point in the future, possibly in our lifetimes that will change and cars will make a comeback. After all personal transportation is the best way of moving individuals efficiently and quickly form point a to point b, its just that today our cars pollute and are inefficient...mostly because of the fact that they are driven by people who are inefficient operators and have virtually no awareness of the condition of the rest of the regional roads or the plans of other vehicles. Automated and networked vehicles could route themselves and drive themselves in the most efficient way, eliminating the need for lights, increasing speed limits, reducing the gap between vehicles, so on and so on. Right now it sounds like a pipe dream but as long as people dont wipe themselves out and keep chugging along then it will happen..no doubt about it, only problem is that we are not even close yet to doing this safely on a local scale.


you seem to have a very limited understanding of the issues surrounding personal automobile use. it is not only that they are polluting, there are many other bad things associated with cars such as:

urban sprawl. cars allow people to live far away from their daily needs such as shopping and a job. sprawl forces people to drive as cars are the only effective way of moving people around these poorly designed places. more roadspace given up to cars is less total space, parks or otherwise that is left over for the residents of said cities. another issue here is parking. parking is a hugely inefficient land use and its mere existence causes even more urban sprawl as distances get further and pedestrian travel gets less and less enjoyable. an automated roads system would be highly unsafe for anyone not in a car. instead of streamlining for higher speeds we need to introduce more traffic calming that will force drivers to slow down and pay attention. "eliminating the need for lights" that is just outrageous. how would pedestrians cross? and you better not say overpass. grade separation is a mistake we learned from long ago. roads should be for the shared use of everybody wether for travel or recreation...

sorry im just venting i could type alot more but i would be late for class. you dont seem to have thought this idea out very well though. try and prove me wrong

edit: the use of cars and sprawl also causes bad urban form, bad architecture, loss of open space especially farmland, and fat lazy people.

No, they didn't have the type he wanted, so he didn't buy any. ;)

:lol:

I still can't see why it always has to be an either/or scenario. Why can't it be both? I think a balanced approach helps the entire region much better than trying just one thing.

.

transit is the balanced aproach we need. the roads already exist so now we build the transit. cars arent going to disapear but if we can build more transit more road space will be available from people who want to take transit but cant.

in the book "sustainability and cities, overcoming automobile dependence" they refer to traffic as a "gas" if you expand capacity cars will fill it up, however if you reduce capacity a large number of cars just disapear from the roads. of course this aproach would have to be supported by transit.

another thing to think about is the necessity of traveling far distances. if you work at YVR do you really have to live in langley? do you really have to drive 2 km to get to the closest store? not if you DECIDE to live closer to your services. perhaps creating a better local road network would help congestion too as instead of having a hierarchical system of roads that force all traffic onto major arterials you allow multiple routes to every destination.

the region is going to have to densify regardless of what happens because of the ALR and GVRD green zone. it has been proven that density does not work without urbanism because traffic congestion gets too high. roads can only be efficient in very low density areas. if we are concentrating growth in the growth concentration areas we need to expand transit and not roads.

I can't beleive people are down on Calgary or Toronto for sprawl.
First, Toronto has FAR higher density than Vancouver and its regular transit service gets nearly triple the ridership of Translink. That does not take into account GO Transit which carries 250,000 passengers a day as opposed to WCE 9,000. This also down't take intop account all the suburban transit usuage like Missisauga where transit usuage is as high Translink.
Ontario is embarking on a massive $18billion rapid transit extentions which inludes a total of 900km of new and upgrades including 200km of new LRT and 20km of subway.....60% will be completed by 2016 and all will be completed by 2020. The Ontario gov't is also paying 100% of the city's costs unlike BC's transit plan.
As for Calgary, yes there is sprawl but Calgary has changed its density levels. Calgary now has NO density restrictions anywhere in the city. Also the CTrain carries more passengers than the longer MLine and Expo Line...........COMBINED but were built at todays dollars at one third the cost. Calgary has also started a very aggressive LRT expansion program which will add 25km by 2014 and extentions continuing ongoing on to brand new lines after that including a probably subway section downtown.

It is VANCOUVER that has become completly unruly as it was the last major city in Canada to get rapid transit. Both Calgary and Ottawa have higher transit ridership levels than Vancouver/GVRD.

OH, please don't give me the "we have too many waterways to cover" shit. Montreal is an island as is Laval but Montreal has a transit system and riodership level that Vancouver could only dream of.

I agree with you that Hwy 1 needs to be expanded HOWEVER, I would want more HOV.

Anyways look at expanding highways:
http://www.evworld.com/images/latraffic_dawn.jpg
Los Angeles - This is a daily thing

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061019/061019_traffic_hmed_3p.hmedium.jpg
San Francisco - One of the most costliest commutes in America

http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/j0399720.jpg
New York - it's faster to travel on the metro than by car

http://www.gotransit.com/PUBLIC/news/Traffic%20June%202006-291_small.jpg
Toronto

Is it just me or are the only people in favor of more transit upgrades broke students.

This is VERY OFFENDING :bash: You're a fucking idiot. And a really selfish one too.

Our transit system is relied on by MANY people of ALL classes. I know MANY WEALTHY WEST END PARENTS and STUDENTS are using the transit to commute.

Just because you hardly use transit does not give you the right to say such a thing.

I can't beleive people are down on Calgary or Toronto for sprawl.
First, Toronto has FAR higher density than Vancouver and its regular transit service gets nearly triple the ridership of Translink. That does not take into account GO Transit which carries 250,000 passengers a day as opposed to WCE 9,000. This also down't take intop account all the suburban transit usuage like Missisauga where transit usuage is as high Translink.
Ontario is embarking on a massive $18billion rapid transit extentions which inludes a total of 900km of new and upgrades including 200km of new LRT and 20km of subway.....60% will be completed by 2016 and all will be completed by 2020. The Ontario gov't is also paying 100% of the city's costs unlike BC's transit plan.
As for Calgary, yes there is sprawl but Calgary has changed its density levels. Calgary now has NO density restrictions anywhere in the city. Also the CTrain carries more passengers than the longer MLine and Expo Line...........COMBINED but were built at todays dollars at one third the cost. Calgary has also started a very aggressive LRT expansion program which will add 25km by 2014 and extentions continuing ongoing on to brand new lines after that including a probably subway section downtown.

It is VANCOUVER that has become completly unruly as it was the last major city in Canada to get rapid transit. Both Calgary and Ottawa have higher transit ridership levels than Vancouver/GVRD.

OH, please don't give me the "we have too many waterways to cover" shit. Montreal is an island as is Laval but Montreal has a transit system and riodership level that Vancouver could only dream of.

Really, if you didn't get it the first hundred times you wouldn't get it this time....you're wasting bandwidth at this point.


With regards to Montreal, you may have completely forgotten that it was founded in the 1600's. It's much older than Vancouver.

Oh god this discussion is becoming a "WHY WON'T VANCOUVERITES TAKE TRANSIT?" again...

From SFUVancouver:


couple of things, the first of which cannot be emphasized enough: Metro Vancouver is a multi-centred, geographically constrained city and this poses a significant challenge for transit service provision. The City of Vancouver receives well over half of all transit service and accounts for most of the ridership yet it is only one of 22 municipalities, it is only 4% of the geographical area of Metro Vancouver, and it accounts for only a quarter of the overall metropolitan population. There are really two Vancouvers, the City of Vancouver and everything else. The City of Vancouver is compact, covers only 115 square kilometres and is home to about 600,000 people, for an approximate density of 5,200 people per square kilometre/13,000 people per square mile. Metro Vancouver covers an area of 2,800 square kilometres, has a population of about 2.2 million, and a density, which the City of Vancouver skews, of about 2,200 people per square kilometre / 7,500 per square mile. Of our 2,800 sq km area, a full 15% is farm land and the "green zones", protected parks, watersheds, and agricultural land, make up about 70% of the total regional area.

Green Zones and Urban Areas
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8772/greenzonesvl9.jpg

Translink Service
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2317/transitqu9.jpg

Looks comprehensive doesn't it? It isn't. Many of the outlying routes operate with abysmal frequency and they seldom go from where people live to where they want to go. Moreover, many of the southern routes are actually commuter buses that head straight downtown with few stops in between.

The combination of geography, highway infrastructure and green zones have channeled growth in to six broad areas: the north shore, Burrard Peninsula, northeast, the south, the southeast, and the Fraser Valley (which is excluded from Metro Vancouver despite being a functional part of it). Currently transit is almost wholly concentrated in the Burrard peninsula. Rapid transit only reaches a little bit into the southeast area (Surrey) and covers some of the Burrard Peninsula. The plan is to extend rapid transit to the south (Richmond), the Northeast (Evergreen LRT) and further into Surrey. Until that rapid transit backbone is in place and it connects the suburban centres to each other there is little, if any likelihood, of any significant numbers of people traveling by transit.

The vast majority of people living in the region do not go into the City of Vancouver on a daily basis, much less into the downtown core. Yet this is the anticipated travel pattern that much of the transit system is set up to facilitate.Virtually everything outside of the City of Vancouver, save for some historic townsites and occasional streetcar suburb, was designed for the automobile and this is reflected in the scale of the streets and the urban built form. Between 1958 and 1986 there was no rail transit in the city at all and the public transit system was neglected to the point of collapse. The City of Vancouver was laid out in the 1880s to be primarily a walking city and then in the 1890s as streetcar/transit city. This "DNA" is deeply ingrained in the rhythm of the city and it is reflected in the overwhelming success of non-motorized travel in the neighbourhoods and downtown core that make up the City of Vancouver.

Throughout the City of Vancouver, according to the City's 2004 research, 17% of people take transit, 17% walk, and 3% cycled with the remainder driving or being driven. In Downtown Vancouver a full 30% take transit, 27% walk, and 3% cycle. (City of Vancouver Transportation Plan Update).

Between 1994 and 2004 there was a 23% increase in the number of trips within the city, reflecting a time of significant population growth concentrated in the downtown core's new dense and walkable Yaletown and Coal Habour neighbourhoods. During that same time frame transit use went up by 20% to approximately 340,000 trips per day, while walking increased by 44% to approximately 320,000 trips per day, and cycling went up an immense 180% to about 55,000 trips per day. Meanwhile vehicle use actually fell by 10% to about 380,000 trips per day. Furthermore, the total kilometres driven by city of Vancouver-registered vehicles fell by 29% and the average commute time for all of Metro Vancouver did not increase throughout the decade, unlike all other major Canadian cities, including Toronto. A proportionally greater number of people walk to work in Vancouver than in Toronto, Montreal, Seattle or Portland, and perhaps it should come as no surprise that Vancouver is Canada's healthiest big city and has some of the longest living citizens on the continent. (City of Vancouver Transportation Plan Update).

The buses in the city of Vancouver are full virtually every hour of the day. The 99 B-Line BRT line along broadway moves more than 70,000 people per day, while the 98 B-Line moves almost 50,000, both more than Toronto's Sheppard-Yonge subway. Translink has been buying buses like it is going out of style and expanding the fleet while replacing the large number of old junkers it inherited from BC Transit. More than 640 new buses have been ordered or delivered in the last four years alone, including more than 270 new electric trolleys as part of a total trolley fleet replacement. These electric buses are the workhorses of our transit system and I was told once by a senior Translink planner that the electric trolley routes through the City of Vancouver carry fully half of all bus passengers in the system, which would work out to something in the neighbourhood of 60 million passengers a year on no more than a dozen routes, all but one exclusively in the City of Vancouver.

The SkyTrain is packed during rush hour and comfortably full the rest of the time. 24 (2-car mk2) trains are on order with lots more to come thanks to the BC Gov't 2020 transit plan. The Millennium SkyTrain Line will be extended underground through Vancouver to UBC while the Expo Line will be extended further out into Surrey and connect with several new BRT lines out to the Fraser Valley and south to White Rock. The Evergreen LRT line will be built up to the fast-growing Northeast. The stations are being enlarged to fit longer trains (6-car Mk2 trains or 10-car Mk1 trains like the ones that run on the Scarborough RT and these run with less than a minute's headway already during rushhour.) Along its entire route is explosive high density residential growth. Metrotown and New Westminster in particular have been shaped by SkyTrain in the last two decades.

I should add that the new SkyTrain Canada Line is going to be a game-changer for Transit in Vancouver. It is nearing completion and it will connect the City of Vancouver's downtown and major Central Broadway District to the booming City of Richmond (50+ high rise proposed, under construction, or built around the stations) and the Vancouver International Airport (17 million passengers a year, 25,000+ employees). Moreover, virtually all of the City of Vancouver's high-rise population growth has occurred away from the existing SkyTrain network. Perhaps as many as 40,000 people call Yaletown home and a Canada Line station is right smack in the middle of it. Also, the new Olympic Village is expected to be home to upwards of 10,000 people by the end of the decade and it is sandwiched between the existing Main Street SkyTrain station on the Expo and Millennium Lines and the new Olympic Village station on the Canada Line. The larger Southeast False Creek neighbourhood, of which the Olympic Village is the first phase, is expected to be home to more than 25,000 people by the end of the next decade.

SeaBus runs flat out and carries a quarter million people per month and it is full most hours of the day, so much so that a third one is being built. Seabus connects to the North Shore, home to North Vancouver and West Vancouver.

The Westcoast Express commuter train, which is not operated by the Province like the GO Train, carries more than 150,000 people per month on tracks that the CPR leases at usurious rates, completely torpedoing the otherwise healthy finances of the system and severely impeding further expansion. Don't forget we've got by far the busiest port in Canada that moves nearly all of its tonnage by rail and there is seemingly no political will to invest in public heavy rail infrastructure for commuter rail if it might possibly impact the flow of goods. The Westcoast Express only began in the late 1990s and it just introduced limited weekend "train bus" service and added regular trips by this mode on weekdays. However it is starved for assets and it literally has a bus or two, five trains and six locomotives. GO Transit, by comparison, began operating in 1977 and has 38 trains, 45 locomotives, and 316 buses in addition to the TTC fleet.

I think we have pretty thoroughly addressed the question of why Vancouver's rates of transit ridership are below our big city peers. We've discussed geography, the historical context, the agricultural land reserve and green zones that make up almost three quarters of our region, and our internationally lauded strategic regional growth plan that has successfully fostered the very centres you lamented. There are now billions in the pipeline for new and improved transit links.

Futhermore, we have have some great success stories to tell. Most significant has been our ability to grow at the rate we have without it coming at the cost of the agricultural land reserve and the erosion of the green zones. Compared to that the "Vancouver Miracle" of the downtown core pales in comparison as far as I am concerned.

On the transit front perhaps nothing is as significant as the B-Line bus rapid transit lines. In particular the 99 B-Line has stepped up to the plate to carry way more passengers along the congested Broadway-UBC corridor than was ever intended, or even believed possible for mixed-in-traffic BRT service in the Canadian urban context.

Today the 98 and 99 B-Lines carry upwards 40,000 and 60,000 passengers a day, respectively, compared to Toronto's busiest bus route, Dufferin Street, with its 37,000 daily riders (source). The two B-Line's combined 100,000 daily passengers even surpass the combined ridership of Toronto's two busiest streetcar routes, the King and Queen lines, which together carry about 91,000 people daily. (source). Of course there is no denying that the TTC is light years ahead of Translink in terms of scope, ridership, mode share, and cultural significance.

The key for transit is metropolitan land-use and density patterns. That is where Metro Vancouver has put most of its efforts and to a very large degree the built environment is ready, while adequate transit remains lacking. So, the new name of this thread is appropriate and it is a damn good question too.

First, Toronto has FAR higher density than Vancouver and its regular transit service gets nearly triple the ridership of Translink. That does not take into account GO Transit which carries 250,000 passengers a day as opposed to WCE 9,000. This also down't take intop account all the suburban transit usuage like Missisauga where transit usuage is as high Translink.
Ontario is embarking on a massive $18billion rapid transit extentions which inludes a total of 900km of new and upgrades including 200km of new LRT and 20km of subway.....60% will be completed by 2016 and all will be completed by 2020. The Ontario gov't is also paying 100% of the city's costs unlike BC's transit plan.


Ummm:
The federal government will be asked to pay a minimum of 35 per cent of the costs of construction over the life of the projects, for a total of $6 billion. This is consistent with other infrastructure projects of national economic and environmental importance such as the Pacific Gateway and the Manitoba Floodway.

Is it just me or are the only people in favor of more transit upgrades broke students.

That is a vile comment to make. The very fact you equate transit with 'poor people's mode of transportation' shows a position coming from a misinformed, sheltered, suburban existence. I highly doubt the lobbying solely by broke students would garner as much political attention as it has.

it's something called transit. currently, people's argument is that transit isn't working. but if you want to solve congestion, it's clearly not about making room for MORE cars - it's about getting rid of cars!!! how do we do that? expand public transit, especially rail and LRT and the sort...NOT BUILD HIGHWAYS!!!

Oh my god. You seriously think people would take a bus from Abbotsford to Vancouver if they could just drive there own cars that they paid good money for? No. I honestly wouldnt. You cant make people change the way they live, just to make a few people like you happy. And its not like were LA and building freeway on top of freeway in neighborhoods and people back yards. No, were simply adding onto a few highways, BFD

Again, you don't understand urban planning concepts. You're making over generalizations, and creating opinions about things you don't know about.

As we all know, Calgary is currently in a major population boom and it is rapidly accommodating all that growth by uncontrollably building vast suburbs. The region has absolutely no land constraints like Vancouver's (mountains, river, inlets, border, green belt, agricultural reserve). And much of this is fueled by their highways and highway expansion projects. Urban planners everywhere have said that this city is a disaster in a making. Houston saw similar during its oil and population boom in the 1970's. It grew exactly like how Calgary is growing today, and before you knew it this is what you got:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/2027856.jpg


Many auto-dependent American cities like Houston and Los Angeles have decaying urban fabrics just because of that. It leads to an unhealthy lifestyle, unhealthy habits, and you can bet that all that congestion and all those cars add quite a bit to air pollution. I could go on and on about this, but I don't have time.

Um those cities you mentioned, like LA and Houston, have populations 10 times the size of Calgary.. in States with the as many people as Canada. In no way can you compare.

And also, if transit ridership in Vancouver is so low, then upgrading it would be a waste of money, since you'd think more people would use it because it services the most populated areas... so really, numbers wouldn't change by much if you extended it out to lesser populated parts of the region...

And also, if transit ridership in Vancouver is so low, then upgrading it would be a waste of money, since you'd think more people would use it because it services the most populated areas... so really, numbers wouldn't change by much if you extended it out to lesser populated parts of the region...

The point of upgrading is to try to attract people out of the cars.

Improving transit in the "so called lesser populated parts" is to plan for the future. The South of Fraser is slated for a huge population increase in the coming years. More people, more houses, which results in more cars. However, if we plan today, such as building LRT lines or extending SkyTrain services or even improving bus service, we give people choices. If they choose to drive their Hummers then that's their decision.

Those who think transit is smelly, low-class: those are just stereotypes. We are in the 21st century now: no more suburban culture. Yes our transit system is near our current capacity, and that's why we are expanding it - to attract more to use our transit system.

Um those cities you mentioned, like LA and Houston, have populations 10 times the size of Calgary.. in States with the as many people as Canada. In no way can you compare.

Ummm hello? They all started as the size of Calgary. Instead of investing in transit, they decide to pave asphalt and concrete everywhere - a network of freeways. The so called American dream.

And because of what they did, they encouraged cars and more cars.

I have to say at least Calgary is building on their LRT system. Many NA cities, such as Seattle are only introducing their first "rapid transit" system.

I would use the skytrain and bus until I got a car. People by cars so that they dont have to ride the bus..

And why? BECAUSE OUR BUSES ARE SO FULL OR THEY DON'T SERVE THEM PROPERLY!!!!! WHICH IS WHY WE NEED MORE TRANSIT!

One day. One day you'll realize people aren't going to give up cars. Not until we run out of oil anyways. We may as well try and upgrade/expand our highways to accommodate to huge influx in traffic we're expecting in the future.

Ummm hello? They all started as the size of Calgary. Instead of investing in transit, they decide to pave asphalt and concrete everywhere - a network of freeways. The so called American dream.

And because of what they did, they encouraged cars and more cars.

I have to say at least Calgary is building on their LRT system. Many NA cities, such as Seattle are only introducing their first "rapid transit" system.

Um hello, when Los Angeles was Calgary's size, it was the 1930's. Transit wasn't the best investment. And, in LA, the metro line sees ridership of over 29,000,000 each month. Thats impressive.

And why? BECAUSE OUR BUSES ARE SO FULL OR THEY DON'T SERVE THEM PROPERLY!!!!! WHICH IS WHY WE NEED MORE TRANSIT!

Um no because people would rather be able to drive themselves, sit comfortably, listen to music, smoke, and do whatever the hell they do while they drive. Driving is relaxing for me. Its my time to be alone.

One day. One day you'll realize people aren't going to give up cars. Not until we run out of oil anyways. We may as well try and upgrade/expand our highways to accommodate to huge influx in traffic we're expecting in the future.

I'm not saying we should give up our cars. And excuse me I do realize that. I'm not an ignorant LET'S JUST IMPROVE TRANSIT AND IGNORE HIGHWAYS AND ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE kind of person.And frankly speaking (and u clearly stated this), not everyone will do so. And if we run out of oil, there will be alternative energy sources (=D).

Now don't get me wrong, I like the Gateway project. I do want Highway one to be expanded. Highway One south of Fraser has such a bad highway that it's actually pretty embarrassing. But once we finish the expansion, do we really need another one? Currently, Port Mann Bridge itself isn't a parking lot, just the merge points that are the problem. So once we fix Highway 1 after the Gateway project, many merge points will be extended to improve the flow of traffic. Some will become their own lanes and go across the Port Mann bridge.

Oh and I think Port Mann Bridge is to be changed back to a four lane bridge, as it was originally. We don't NEED five lanes going across the bridge deck (in one direction). We aren't the size of San Fran.

What you said right there is like saying "Oh those repeated offenders will always commit the same crimes over and over again, might as well just let them do so"

Um no because people would rather be able to drive themselves, sit comfortably, listen to music, smoke, and do whatever the hell they do while they drive. Driving is relaxing for me. Its my time to be alone.

I agree whole heartedly. And I'm sure the majority of the province does too.

Skytrain / LRT supporters are a niche group at best

One day. One day you'll realize people aren't going to give up cars. Not until we run out of oil anyways. We may as well try and upgrade/expand our highways to accommodate to huge influx in traffic we're expecting in the future.

Don't forget by the time we run out of oil, hybrid technology will probably advance far enough that cars will probably be running mostly on electricity by then anyways. :)

I'm not saying we should give up our cars. And excuse me I do realize that. I'm not an ignorant LET'S JUST IMPROVE TRANSIT AND IGNORE HIGHWAYS AND ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE kind of person.And frankly speaking (and u clearly stated this), not everyone will do so. And if we run out of oil, there will be alternative energy sources (=D).

Now don't get me wrong, I like the Gateway project. I do want Highway one to be expanded. Highway One south of Fraser has such a bad highway that it's actually pretty embarrassing. But once we finish the expansion, do we really need another one? Currently, Port Mann Bridge itself isn't a parking lot, just the merge points that are the problem. So once we fix Highway 1 after the Gateway project, many merge points will be extended to improve the flow of traffic. Some will become their own lanes and go across the Port Mann bridge.

Oh and I think Port Mann Bridge is to be changed back to a four lane bridge, as it was originally. We don't NEED five lanes going across the bridge deck (in one direction). We aren't the size of San Fran.



I'd like to see them twin the Massey Tunnel after the gateway project is finished.


What you said right there is like saying "Oh those repeated offenders will always commit the same crimes over and over again, might as well just let them do so"
Considering that the BC government hasn't made any laws against driving cars, I'd say your statement is flawed.

Um no because people would rather be able to drive themselves, sit comfortably, listen to music, smoke, and do whatever the hell they do while they drive. Driving is relaxing for me. Its my time to be alone.

Your personal comfort is more important than the greater environment?

Surely, you're not suggesting that we set up our infrastructure to further facilitate this selfish and environmentally destructive lifestyle, are you?

northwest2k and spoolmak, retard twin powers activate!

Oh my god. You seriously think people would take a bus from Abbotsford to Vancouver if they could just drive there own cars that they paid good money for? No. I honestly wouldnt. You cant make people change the way they live, just to make a few people like you happy. And its not like were LA and building freeway on top of freeway in neighborhoods and people back yards. No, were simply adding onto a few highways, BFD


Until the day highspeed rail connects Abbotsford to Vancouver, any form of commute borders on insanity, wether it be by transit or by the likely car. The lures of surburban life for me would be a minimum of a half acre property with a house so pimp I could have 50 people spaciously enjoying themselves at a Saturday evening techno party; if I'm going to sit in a parking lot for over 3 hours a day there better a DAMN good reason.

but here's the kicker then spoolmak and northwest2k, you can stay in your suburbs. but i'm not going to have the suburb and rural folks determine how i can live in my cosmopolitan-esque city. you can stay in richmond and kamloops and choke on the pollution while you sip away at your starbucks, listening to your music. good on you.

let's let them be and just ignore them because they come from a place that cannot understand. i doubt they;ve even ever tried using transit. i own a car and i still use transit - i'll drive if it's more convenient but i live in vancouver (and not even downtown) and i use transit at least 50% of the time.

Your personal comfort is more important than the greater environment?

Surely, you're not suggesting that we set up our infrastructure to further facilitate this selfish and environmentally destructive lifestyle, are you?

without even thinking about the natural environment look at what cars are doing to our urban environment. parking lots and highways. suburban sprawl and shopping malls. thats beutiful bc for ya

Until the day highspeed rail connects Abbotsford to Vancouver, any form of commute borders on insanity, wether it be by transit or by the likely car. The lures of surburban life for me would be a minimum of a half acre property with a house so pimp I could have 50 people spaciously enjoying themselves at a Saturday evening techno party; if I'm going to sit in a parking lot for over 3 hours a day there better a DAMN good reason.


i went out to abbotsford the other day to talk with the planning department at city hall. i just took the 502 bus and transfered to the bc transit 21 bus in aldergrove. it was relatively painless and it took me right acroos the street from city hall. i didnt have to wait around at all and i got to chill and listen to music. i could have been drunk if i wanted to. cant say that about a car :)

I would use the skytrain and bus until I got a car. People by cars so that they dont have to ride the bus..


this is the general public were talking about though. they havent proven to be the smartest people in the past. they just do what works best for them and dont look at the bigger picture at all.

the only people who complain about traffic are the ones who are driving cars themselves. i cant even explain to you how good it feels to fly past gridlock traffic on my bike :)

Calgary's highway system is actually very well planned and efficient. The highway between Edmonton and Calgary is 6 lanes and it rarely experiences extended delays unlike our stretch of highway 1 or highway 99.

Calgary's highway system sucks actually. All traffic lights and only one real freeway.

this is the general public were talking about though. they havent proven to be the smartest people in the past. they just do what works best for them and dont look at the bigger picture at all.

the only people who complain about traffic are the ones who are driving cars themselves. i cant even explain to you how good it feels to fly past gridlock traffic on my bike :)

...until one of them runs into you.

People who think Vancouver doesn't need better and expanded road/freeways is ignorant. Cars are here and they are here for good, period.
I too beleive that emphasis should be on transit but Vancouver's highways are truly pathetic. Vancouver will always be playing catchup to other cities because it was the last major city in Canada to get rapid transit so much of the damage was done.

Better highways with Hov/Bus only lanes give people an alternative. Why do you think there are not any express buses going on HWY 1 even though there are HOV lanes?.....because getting to the PortMann is so long that they couldn't possibly keep to a schedule. This will not be solved with the new transit plan as there will be no express buses on HWY1 to downtown even if Port Mann expansion is completed, causing more to take their cars with the traffic and pollution associated with crawling cars.
If I were Langley I would much rather take a comfortable express bus to downtown which would be faster than SkyTrain any day of the week.

Billions to be built on rapid transit but not $20 million for a fleet of express buses from Chil/Abb/Alder/Lang/Guil to downtown. Such is Translink.

Roads are a neccessity especially in a city that depends much on its Port.
The South Frazer is not optional. Get the trucks off the secondary roads and it also provides a fast route to the Port/YVR/Ferries. I don't beleive it should go thru the Bog but be a complete freeway to connect with an upgraded to freeway standards River Road which is with the exception of the intersection of Ladner Trunk is already freeway from HWY99/Tunnel to Twassen.

NO ONE EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT NOT IMPROVING VANCOUVER'S HIGHWAY SYSTEM!!!!! Both Mr. X and I have said we do need the Gateway project... but not in a way that we need to double the capacity of the Port Mann. If you believe that there should be an emphasis on transit, than your previous posts should have reflected this, so that statement contradicts the previous ones.

The Gateway Project is needed, period, end of discussion. But I think there should be more emphasis on a consistent HOV/Bus system and increasing the priority of commercial vehicles that transport the region's goods. Currently, the Gateway Project - Port Mann section, has 1 HOV lane in each direction as well as one additional lane. That's a total of four lanes, doubling the capacity. We should instead have 1 HPV Lane (high priority vehicle lane for HOV, hybrids, buses, and commercial trucks) and 1 HOV Lane (HOV, buses, etc.) and 2 regular traffic lanes.

The Provincial Transportation Plan fails to address concerns of direction transportation between Downtown and the South of Fraser. HOWEVER, TransLink is researching demand for a "exclusive WCE-style bus system", including connecting commuters from Whiterock to Downtown (current commuter buses will terminate at Bridgeport station after the opening of the Canada Line), Whistler to Downtown, and SOF to Downtown. I will find the source of this when I can.

People who think Vancouver doesn't need better and expanded road/freeways is ignorant. Cars are here and they are here for good, period.
I too beleive that emphasis should be on transit but Vancouver's highways are truly pathetic. Vancouver will always be playing catchup to other cities because it was the last major city in Canada to get rapid transit so much of the damage was done.

Better highways with Hov/Bus only lanes give people an alternative. Why do you think there are not any express buses going on HWY 1 even though there are HOV lanes?.....because getting to the PortMann is so long that they couldn't possibly keep to a schedule. This will not be solved with the new transit plan as there will be no express buses on HWY1 to downtown even if Port Mann expansion is completed, causing more to take their cars with the traffic and pollution associated with crawling cars.
If I were Langley I would much rather take a comfortable express bus to downtown which would be faster than SkyTrain any day of the week.

Billions to be built on rapid transit but not $20 million for a fleet of express buses from Chil/Abb/Alder/Lang/Guil to downtown. Such is Translink.

Roads are a neccessity especially in a city that depends much on its Port.
The South Frazer is not optional. Get the trucks off the secondary roads and it also provides a fast route to the Port/YVR/Ferries. I don't beleive it should go thru the Bog but be a complete freeway to connect with an upgraded to freeway standards River Road which is with the exception of the intersection of Ladner Trunk is already freeway from HWY99/Tunnel to Twassen.

I'd like to see them twin the Massey Tunnel after the gateway project is finished.

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned about twinning the Lions Gate... for Christ sakes...


Considering that the BC government hasn't made any laws against driving cars, I'd say your statement is flawed.

It's not flawed... let's just invest purely in roads is flawed. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A DEMAND FOR TRANSIT. Just because you don't use it does NOT mean other people won't. We do have CONSIDERATE, ENVIRONMENTALLY-CONSCIOUS, and EDUCATED Vancouverites.

Your personal comfort is more important than the greater environment?

Surely, you're not suggesting that we set up our infrastructure to further facilitate this selfish and environmentally destructive lifestyle, are you?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that most people aren't going to give up something like that to sit on a crowded bus, that would likely take twice as long as it would to drive.

And Mr. X, just because I have a different view on this, doesn't make me a retard. You should really watch what you say.

...until one of them runs into you.

actually gridlock is one of the safest times to ride. you cant get hit if nobody is moving.

plus isnt taking risks one of the best parts of the human experience.

but here's the kicker then spoolmak and northwest2k, you can stay in your suburbs. but i'm not going to have the suburb and rural folks determine how i can live in my cosmopolitan-esque city. you can stay in richmond and kamloops and choke on the pollution while you sip away at your starbucks, listening to your music. good on you.

let's let them be and just ignore them because they come from a place that cannot understand. i doubt they;ve even ever tried using transit. i own a car and i still use transit - i'll drive if it's more convenient but i live in vancouver (and not even downtown) and i use transit at least 50% of the time.

Are you serious? I live in Kamloops. Of course I have used transit. It takes me an hour and a little bit to get from one side of town to the other. Transfering buses, waiting in the cold and wind, when I could easily drive my own car, in the heat, to get wherever the hell I'm going twice as fast. Whoever does not prefer that then good for them so be it. I personally don't, and most people I talk to would agree with me. The only people so far who haven't are the people on this site. Good for all of you I say, keep taking the bus it doesn't affect me, I will still drive me car whether or not the highways get widened. What about the ones who cant take transit, they will still be stuck on the 2 lane freeway, going no where.

What about the ones who cant take transit, they will still be stuck on the 2 lane freeway, going no where.


and what about those who cannot drive. will they forever be stuck on the "crappy" bus system?

as I said clearly earlier we do need to only have road investments. Is twinning or even tripling routes even justified?

The problem is northwest2k just SOLELY believes that road infrastructure is the way to go and OBVIOUSLY this is not true.

and what about those who cannot drive. will they forever be stuck on the "crappy" bus system?

Yeah, thats life. Shitty for them. People coming into Vancouver though from Kelowna, the states, Kamloops, Alberta and shit CANT take transit.

And Mr. X, just because I have a different view on this, doesn't make me a retard. You should really watch what you say.

There's a fine line between opinion and an educated opinion. :|

Being from Kamloops, you wouldn't understand how big cities work.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that most people aren't going to give up something like that to sit on a crowded bus, that would likely take twice as long as it would to drive.

Therefore what they need to do is set up the infrastructure to improve the cost-benefit ratio for transit vis-a-vis cars, and not the other way around.

There's a fine line between opinion and an educated opinion. :|

Being from Kamloops, you wouldn't understand how big cities work.
It doesn't take a high education to know people like driving better than transit.
And by the way I was born in Vancouver and lived there till I was 13. I moved to Kamloops when my Parents split and my Mom moved to Kamloops and my dad moved back to Quesnel, and there was no way I was living there.

Oh and I know how Big cities work, and Vancouver, with its pathetic highway system doesnt.

Yeah, thats life. Shitty for them. People coming into Vancouver though from Kelowna, the states, Kamloops, Alberta and shit CANT take transit.

ive traveled to kelowna vernon and portland and i dont own a car. i dont see whats stopping you

Nothing is stopping me. I guess Vancouver's slogan should be "Welcome to Vancouver, Please Leave your car Langley."

Obviously if you bussed or flew to Vancouver you would need transit, but why would you bus to Vancouver and then take Transit to Langley or abbotsford. Why wouldn`t you just take a Charter bus specifically to Langley or Abbotsford. Yes transit does need to connect those cities to Vancouver, badly, but you cant expect that everyone will use it. There will still be traffic, lots of it, and the highway will need to be widened no matter what.

sure, widen it, just give the extra lanes over to transit and goods movement. that should free up some space for cars.

Yeah, thats life. Shitty for them. People coming into Vancouver though from Kelowna, the states, Kamloops, Alberta and shit CANT take transit.

Well fuck you can continue to get stuck in your car in congestion. That's life.

It doesn't take a high education to know people like driving better than transit.
And by the way I was born in Vancouver and lived there till I was 13. I moved to Kamloops when my Parents split and my Mom moved to Kamloops and my dad moved back to Quesnel, and there was no way I was living there.

Being in a city in Kamloops, which has a horrible transit system, it is normal for one to believe transit is not good. When you lived in Vancouver, it was most likely BC Transit (or the beginning of TransLink) and it did have a horrible transit system. Times have changed. Our city is growing. Thus, our public transit infrastructure should do the same.

I guess when I lived in Van I got driven everywhere. But yeah I shouldn`t argue with you, you live in Vancouver so you`re right. Kamloops has a horrible transit system, maybe thats what throws me off. Kamloops bus systems stop running after 11 pm at night.

I guess when I lived in Van I got driven everywhere. But yeah I shouldn`t argue with you, you live in Vancouver so you`re right. Kamloops has a horrible transit system, maybe thats what throws me off. Kamloops bus systems stop running after 11 pm at night.

That explains quite a bit wouldn't you think?

Last i recalled, Kamloops has about three dozen buses.

Are you serious? I live in Kamloops. Of course I have used transit. It takes me an hour and a little bit to get from one side of town to the other. Transfering buses, waiting in the cold and wind, when I could easily drive my own car, in the heat, to get wherever the hell I'm going twice as fast. Whoever does not prefer that then good for them so be it. I personally don't, and most people I talk to would agree with me. The only people so far who haven't are the people on this site. Good for all of you I say, keep taking the bus it doesn't affect me, I will still drive me car whether or not the highways get widened. What about the ones who cant take transit, they will still be stuck on the 2 lane freeway, going no where.

You're not even thinking on the level of transit in an actual city. Not to dump on Kamloops because I like the Loops when I head up to visit my cousin at TRU but your experience with transit is from your small town transportation system. I've used transit in Vancouver but also experience it in Hong Kong, Manila, Macau, and Shanghai so I FEEL I have a better handle of public transit than you. I'd suggest you stop commenting on how bad our transit system is until you've actually used it in a genuine fashion and for a significant amount of time.

I'm not trying to dump on you spoolmak, i'm just sick of people commenting on things without actually having experienced it fully. it's like saying a movie sucks based on its trailer.

And your attitude needs to change. While our transit options may not affect you, your car and the accompanying pollution affects the rest of us and your utter disregard is completely selfish.

Yeah my car and MY pollution affects all of you. HA. Go move to Nunavut.

Sometimes I dream that I'm driving on a 14 lane highway that goes right through Vancouver

Then I wake up :(

Sometimes I dream that I'm driving on a 14 lane highway that goes right through Vancouver

Then I wake up :(


That dream sounds like a nightmare to me :lol:

I actually despise driving everyday between Burnaby & Surrey, but I currently have no choice unless I wanted to lose up to two hours every day commuting on the bus. If there were an LRT in Surrey through Port Kells, then it would be a no-brainer for me - far less environmental damage, lower price, and a far less dangerous & stressful journey than driving. But the current bus route is just too crowded, unreliable, and infrequent (resulting in pass-ups or 45 minutes in cramped quarters). I've been signed up with Jack Bell Rideshare (http://online.ride-share.com/en/my/) for many months, and although it's a great website, it sadly doesn't seem to have strong enough marketing, as I have yet to locate anyone I can carpool with.

I'm so fiercely against Gateway because I believe relative commuting time is the biggest barrier to transit ridership. Gateway, with its ridiculous added general traffic lanes will definitely cement the private vehicle as the transportation mode of choice in (and out of) Surrey and the Fraser Valley for the foreseeable future. Massive tolling is the only way I can see out of this mess.

Sometimes I dream that I'm driving on a 14 lane highway that goes right through Vancouver

Then I wake up :(

and they could just route it through the dtes. 2 birds with 1 stone

Worldwide, cars and road infrastructure are not the cause of sprawl. Like you said look at the bigger picture. Infact public transit has exactly the same effect on sprawl. Personal transportation is the most efficient way of getting around, as we become more technologically advanced this will only become more true. Im not saying not to build public transportation, clearly public transportation is important, though that will not be the case for ever. Like I said with time the difference between public transit and private transit will blur, private vehicles are the future. Again private vehicles are the future, ill be happy to argue with you some more and prove you wrong, because i know i will. Oh yeah and remember that by future I mean many decades from now. I will also remind you again that cars, roads, highways have nothing to do with sprawl, thats like saying guns kill people...no people kill people....sometimes with guns.

the type of low density tract housing we see in our suburbs would not be possible without cars.

sprawl would still happen with transit, but developments would be more compact and pedestrian acessible instead of spread out and decentralised.

[QUOTE i own a car and i still use transit - i'll drive if it's more convenient but i live in vancouver (and not even downtown) and i use transit at least 50% of the time.[/QUOTE]

Can I borrow your car?

ive traveled to kelowna vernon and portland and i dont own a car. i dont see whats stopping you

See if you can do that with your wife, 3 kids and your mother-in-law plus a dog.

Deasine...........you earlier said twinning the Lion's Gate. Well that is impossible, infact you don't know your city well. The Lion's Gate is CLOSING to traffic {except possible buses} come 2031.
Ther bridge was built for free and one of the conditions was that it would have to be removed out of Stanley Park in 100 years. Well that is only 21 yearsn away.
Why do you think that the NDP didn't add lanes to the Lion's Gate like they wanted to when they were redoing it? Because the parkboard said no because they would not allow anymore space from Stanley Park being taken up. They also didn't want an excuse the Government could use to not turn over the Parkway over to the city parks and close the Stanley Park lanes.
The only true alternative for that is an underground tunnel probably extending from either Main or Commerical.

If Vancouver had any vision {which it doesn't} it will create a whole fleet of commuter buses like the ones from White Rock which are very fast, comfortable, and well patronized.
Of course that would require a $20-$30 million for a fleet and instead we get mass transit for $9 billion but then what's a few billion between friends?

The UBC extention past Alma/Dunbar is an offensive waste of money. To Alma yes, but after that its a horrid waste of funds. That is pure politics. Right now the whole line past Alma has just two buses.....99B and #9 and they are fine. It is not a very high density corridor as opposed to Hastings.
Right now there are 6 regular buses using Hastings which doesn't include ezxpress buses and traffic and the buses crawl. They should save the money from MLine west of Alma and use the funds to extend the Expo east along Hastings from Waterfront to Kootenay Loop/Boundary.

It would have far higher ridership, offers more development opportunities, and would rejuevenate Vancouver's once premier street.........Hastings.
It is already high density streets that result in high ridership just ask Toronto or Montreal. Vancouver build rapid transit for suburbanites first than urbanites which is illogical. Just look at the MLine or the RAV which have higher density of stations than Vancouver and the most heavily populated area on Cambie is at 16th but has no station. Why? becuase YVR set the terms and now we have a $2billion tonka toy.

It was also noted earlier that road tolls should be introduced...........that is exactly what should NOT take place.
If upgraded/widened/new bridges are tolled which the government says will take place is completly unfair.
Why should someone from Chill/Abb/Lang be able to go to work with no toll but anyone in Richmond has to pay? Why should someone travelling from PoCo to vancouver get a free ride but the person who choose to live near his/her work who lives in MapleR or PittM and works in PoCo have to pay eventhough they are commuting much further and polutting far more?.................they shouldn't.

The only fair way is gas taxes. The more you travel the more you pay, the more feul efficient your car you pay less. I live in WR. If I worked in Surrey Central I would travel free but someone in NuWest crossing a bridge has to pay but they are travelling less than a third the distance?

Gas taxes are the only way for equity and promotes the idea of a smaller commute and more feul efficent cars.

Deasine...........you earlier said twinning the Lion's Gate. Well that is impossible, infact you don't know your city well. The Lion's Gate is CLOSING to traffic {except possible buses} come 2031.
Ther bridge was built for free and one of the conditions was that it would have to be removed out of Stanley Park in 100 years. Well that is only 21 yearsn away.
Why do you think that the NDP didn't add lanes to the Lion's Gate like they wanted to when they were redoing it? Because the parkboard said no because they would not allow anymore space from Stanley Park being taken up. They also didn't want an excuse the Government could use to not turn over the Parkway over to the city parks and close the Stanley Park lanes.
The only true alternative for that is an underground tunnel probably extending from either Main or Commerical.

If Vancouver had any vision {which it doesn't} it will create a whole fleet of commuter buses like the ones from White Rock which are very fast, comfortable, and well patronized.
Of course that would require a $20-$30 million for a fleet and instead we get mass transit for $9 billion but then what's a few billion between friends?

The UBC extention past Alma/Dunbar is an offensive waste of money. To Alma yes, but after that its a horrid waste of funds. That is pure politics. Right now the whole line past Alma has just two buses.....99B and #9 and they are fine. It is not a very high density corridor as opposed to Hastings.
Right now there are 6 regular buses using Hastings which doesn't include ezxpress buses and traffic and the buses crawl. They should save the money from MLine west of Alma and use the funds to extend the Expo east along Hastings from Waterfront to Kootenay Loop/Boundary.

It would have far higher ridership, offers more development opportunities, and would rejuevenate Vancouver's once premier street.........Hastings.
It is already high density streets that result in high ridership just ask Toronto or Montreal. Vancouver build rapid transit for suburbanites first than urbanites which is illogical. Just look at the MLine or the RAV which have higher density of stations than Vancouver and the most heavily populated area on Cambie is at 16th but has no station. Why? becuase YVR set the terms and now we have a $2billion tonka toy.

That statement was just to compliment northwest2k's twinning of the massey tunnel dream. Of course I know the Lions Gate bridge is going to close soon... But I'm kind of against that since I think it's still important for West Van/North Van access to the downtown. The plan was (or still is) for a tunnel from North Van to Vancouver's Main Street and it would be funded by private investors (probably rich West Vancouver residents).

As I said earlier, TransLink is studying an exclusive commuter service from Downtown to Whiterock. Such features include plugin-audio and TV, trays for commuters, headphones, washrooms, reclining seats, individual temperature reading light controls; coffee and newspapers for sale. And there will be stations for these buses, with next bus services (will be offered to many routes across the Lower Mainland), heated (or a/c), and wireless internet access. Each ride will cost $6.75, similar to the WCE. SOURCE (http://www.bclocalnews.com/tri_city_maple_ridge/tricitynews/news/12907786.html)

And since I know you live in Whiterock, remember there will be the RapidBus to Bridgeport Station (I prefer the exclusive commuter service I said earlier) and RapidBus to Surrey.

I don't think Hastings needs a SkyTrain, but a LRT or StreetCar service instead. I liked the idea of LRT for the Evergreen Line, but I opted for SkyTrain as it was faster and "seamless." LRT would be look really nice along Hastings and it would obviously improve connections between Downtown, Vancouver North, and Burnaby North.

I do agree with you that the Canada Line needs a station at Cambie Village.

M-Line extension to UBC: I wouldn't think it's a waste of money. Many commuters will be commuting from UBC to Coquitlam, UBC to Vancouver, UBC to Downtown (the current 44 bus is always full), UBC to richmond, etc.

Considering how much money it would cost to build a new crossing, as well as all the required planning and consultation needed, i think Lions Gate Bridge general road traffic will be staying around for a long time to come.

I'm not exactly sure how you would create traffic control for a new crossing at Main Street....i doubt it would work, you'd see congestion without any free flows on both ends. Though i do see some positives about that: all that added traffic to the area could possibly help revitalize the Downtown Eastside, and a tunnel under the inlet could also open up the opportunity of making it a dual-use tunnel - a road tunnel and a SkyTrain tunnel. We've discussed this a few times, we could extend the Expo Line from Waterfront to North Vancouver (with a stop at Gastown before it makes a turn north towards Main Street to join with the road tunnel).


Building the M-Line extension only all the way to Alma would be an half-assed job. Once you're at Alma, you might as well just go all the way to UBC...and really, considering the importance of the university and its size, it definitely does deserve it.

Worldwide, cars and road infrastructure are not the cause of sprawl. Like you said look at the bigger picture. Infact public transit has exactly the same effect on sprawl. Personal transportation is the most efficient way of getting around, as we become more technologically advanced this will only become more true. Im not saying not to build public transportation, clearly public transportation is important, though that will not be the case for ever. Like I said with time the difference between public transit and private transit will blur, private vehicles are the future. Again private vehicles are the future, ill be happy to argue with you some more and prove you wrong, because i know i will. Oh yeah and remember that by future I mean many decades from now. I will also remind you again that cars, roads, highways have nothing to do with sprawl, thats like saying guns kill people...no people kill people....sometimes with guns.

We have a winner.:bash:

Does anyone really believe that the Lions Gate bridge will be closed in 2031? The parks board would like a lot of things, but the truth is it's just not going to happen. That bridge will remain open to the public for the indefinite future. At some point a new crossing will be built and then and only then might it be closed to private cars. Heck maybe they could take the streetcars that should be in place by then in Stanley park across the bridge to the North Shore. But we will not a tunnel or bridge built for a long time to come.

It was also noted earlier that road tolls should be introduced...........that is exactly what should NOT take place.
If upgraded/widened/new bridges are tolled which the government says will take place is completly unfair.
Why should someone from Chill/Abb/Lang be able to go to work with no toll but anyone in Richmond has to pay? Why should someone travelling from PoCo to vancouver get a free ride but the person who choose to live near his/her work who lives in MapleR or PittM and works in PoCo have to pay eventhough they are commuting much further and polutting far more?.................they shouldn't.

The only fair way is gas taxes. The more you travel the more you pay, the more feul efficient your car you pay less. I live in WR. If I worked in Surrey Central I would travel free but someone in NuWest crossing a bridge has to pay but they are travelling less than a third the distance?

Gas taxes are the only way for equity and promotes the idea of a smaller commute and more feul efficent cars.

It is new infrastructure after all... But yes I agree with you that it's not fair. We can either have all bridges in the Lower mainland taxed.... or introduce Carbon taxes.

We have a winner.:bash:


no kidding. last i heard cars and highways had just a little bit to do with sprawl.

See if you can do that with your wife, 3 kids and your mother-in-law plus a dog.

in that situation id have no problem with you driving a car.

but i would also have no problem with you sitting in traffic for a bit.

Looks like the Stormont-McBride Connector isn't getting built.

no kidding. last i heard cars and highways had just a little bit to do with sprawl.



in that situation id have no problem with you driving a car.

but i would also have no problem with you sitting in traffic for a bit.

You would be stuck in traffic with me too, because your bus is behind me. :)

You would be stuck in traffic with me too, because your bus is behind me. :)

Not unless I'm on a HOV or Bus Lane =D

Not unless I'm on a HOV or Bus Lane =D

With my wife, 3 kids, mother-in-law and the dog I think I can use 2 HOV lanes :lol:

I can understand why people out here get frustrated.
Its great for people who live in Rich/Van/Burn to complain about Gateway but for them its strickly hypothetical.
Especially the people in Vancouver I bet many don't even cross the PortMann more than once or twice a month.
Let's face it unless you are going to the interior there is no reason to go east of NuWest.
Going to WR for the fay or Seattle, The Islands, Whistler..............none of that requires PortMann crossings.
Most who get fire in their eyes about PortMann twinning never have to cross it. I am not a great fan of Gateway except the SouthFrazer Highway but for people living downtown setting urban planning for the valley does piss people off out here. Academics will give the higher than thou speech about you should try to live close to where you work. I think they should too, so why doesn't the government buy them all a house. Most live out here for two reasons.....close to work and affordability. Overwhelming majority of Vancouver's can't even dream about buying a decent place in Vancouver.

Gateway nay-sayers are getting schooled left and right

Metro Van should have a ring road system like the ones in Regina and Saskatoon. Edmonton and Calgary are working on their own freeway system.
The city of Van and Winnipeg are the only two in N. America without one.

I am in favour of Gateway, only because the existing highway needs work, I believe the perimeter roads will really help as well. But I'm not in favour of continuous expansion, I think these upgrades should be it for another 25yrs then we can re-evaluate.
The very thought of ring roads is mind boggling. Have you been to Regina,Saskatoon,or Calgary? (I'm leaving Edmonton out as I don't have experience with it) Those cities are sprawling terribly, their commute times are raising each and every year (by the way Vancouver's commute times have actually decreased while every other city's time have increased).
Do you not find it interesting that cities are trying to copy Vancouver? I don't see many urban planners copying Regina,Saskatoon or Calgary. I'm not trying to put down those cities either.

The whole point of having a ring road is for bypassing the city, avoiding the heavy traffic of the inner city. There isn't really any point of having one for Vancouver.

Gateway nay-sayers are getting schooled left and right

you really think so?

you really think so?

I think northwest2k is just ignoring us now. =)

I am in favour of Gateway, only because the existing highway needs work, I believe the perimeter roads will really help as well. But I'm not in favour of continuous expansion, I think these upgrades should be it for another 25yrs then we can re-evaluate.
The very thought of ring roads is mind boggling. Have you been to Regina,Saskatoon,or Calgary? (I'm leaving Edmonton out as I don't have experience with it) Those cities are sprawling terribly, their commute times are raising each and every year (by the way Vancouver's commute times have actually decreased while every other city's time have increased).
Do you not find it interesting that cities are trying to copy Vancouver? I don't see many urban planners copying Regina,Saskatoon or Calgary. I'm not trying to put down those cities either.

EXACTLY. Thank you.

And we can't really have a ring road... unless we build on water =D

I am in favour of Gateway, only because the existing highway needs work, I believe the perimeter roads will really help as well. But I'm not in favour of continuous expansion, I think these upgrades should be it for another 25yrs then we can re-evaluate.
The very thought of ring roads is mind boggling. Have you been to Regina,Saskatoon,or Calgary? (I'm leaving Edmonton out as I don't have experience with it) Those cities are sprawling terribly, their commute times are raising each and every year (by the way Vancouver's commute times have actually decreased while every other city's time have increased).
Do you not find it interesting that cities are trying to copy Vancouver? I don't see many urban planners copying Regina,Saskatoon or Calgary. I'm not trying to put down those cities either.

Yes I have been to those cities before and they are all really nice places.
There's very little resemblance between them and Vancouver, so I don't
think they are trying to copy Vancouver in any way. When I was there I
enjoyed driving on the Ring Road in Regina and the Circle Drive in Saskatoon,
because I could drive by pass those busy streets. In Regina, for example.
I could go from U of R in the south all the way to the northeast corner of the
city wthout any stops. Same thing in Saskatoon that I could enter the city
from the south and went straight to downtown non-stop. I know those cities
that you were talking about copying Vancouver. So you must know that the
city of Portland, which has roughly the same population as Vancouver, has one of the most successful transit network but also a magnificent freeway
system around the city in North America.

p.s. Have you been Regina and Saskatoon before?

EXACTLY. Thank you.

And we can't really have a ring road... unless we build on water =D

Sure, why not? Just like an old Chinese saying, If you have the will, you could move the mountain and fill the sea.

Sure, why not? Just like an old Chinese saying, If you have the will, you could move the mountain and fill the sea.

So you're one of those that would have wanted Vancouver to look like this?
http://pricetags.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/big-trench.jpg

http://pricetags.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/project-200-early.jpg

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/7199/86355511kj2.jpg


This would've meant the urban downtown core, as well as Historic Gastown (which would've been completely demolished to make way for freeways), would not have existed today. Heck, we would be one fugly city....instead of the postcard city we are today. Thankfully, this mega 1970's freeway proposal was axed. Canada Place, waterfront parks, convention centre, etc. would never have existed.

Interestingly to note, Vancouver is the only major urban centre in Canada to not see its commute times rise substantially....we must be doing something right.

I can assure you, if those projects had gone ahead we would not have the relatively clean air we all enjoy today.



There are many other things that I would want to "move the mountains and fill the sea" with, but this is certainly not one of them. I certainly do appreciate the Chinese "can-do" attitude towards everything....thus, it is how they've accomplished so much in so little time for the Beijing 2008 Olympics.

And really, all of you newbies do not know your urban planning. You should ask what Houston, Los Angeles and other highway-invested American cities think about their city highways....and their answer will be "it was a huge mistake". It's in reports, studies, everywhere that these massive freeway expansions never work. It's a huge fundamental principle to modern urban and transportation planning.

Right now, Philladelphia, Minnesota, Seattle, Houston, L.A., etc. are all trying to retract from the mistakes they made decades ago - they're trying to move back towards transit. Unfortunately, the damage has already been done with all those highways encouraging urban sprawl, car use, longer distance commutes.....it's all a very unhealthy lifestyle.



And I couldn't blame you if you didn't understand this, as you're all from suburban communities or from small towns: all of which are car-oriented. You guys don't know any better.:cheers:

What would be a good analogy for this? Ummm.....brainwashed Nazi-Germany after World War II.:lol:

Right now, Philladelphia, Minnesota, Seattle, Houston, L.A., etc. are all trying to retract from the mistakes they made decades ago - they're trying to move back towards transit. Unfortunately, the damage has already been done with all those highways encouraging urban sprawl, car use, longer distance commutes.....it's all a very unhealthy lifestyle.

Add on San Francisco. They were one of the first. They changed the Embarcardero to a very beautiful avenue with historic streetcar. Look at their rail system, BART and MUNI. And their commuter train: CalTrain.

And thanks for posting up those *horrifying* photos as I didn't have access to them earlier. But I'm sure those pictures are northwest2k's dream. sigh.

^ The key is to make car use more difficult and at the same time providing a competent transit alternative. Walking, cycling, and taking transit are the most healthy lifestyles.

High density areas are one of the best examples. Since we have newbies around here, we'll have to go to the basics: the most extreme example for high density would be Hong Kong....there is something like 50,000 people living there per square kilometre. There are very few parking spaces (don't think about parking your car at your condo's parking lot, you'd be lucky to find a building that has one), but those parking space rates/fees are also extremely expensive. Car insurance rates are also sky high, and there is an additional fee (also huge) for just owning a car in Hong Kong. Add on to that, vehicle road tolls. There is also a high level of road congestion in the city.

So, this makes car use quite unattractive and difficult in a city like Hong Kong - and this was purposefully done by the government. What they then did was provide everyone with a competent transportation alternative - a high quality and level of transit service....and it is much more affordable than the car and also easier to get around. And with the high population density, it's quite feasible to expand transit service.

The car certainly does have its place in Metro Vancouver, but if we want to stay as a healthy region we need to step back a bit from the car....definitely not to the same extent as Hong Kong, but enough to make a significant difference in the environment and health of this region and its people. Major highway expansion in Vancouver will allow people to live farther away, instead of living closer to where they need to go. It would completely hinder the region's aim at building denser communities; to focus population growth in these areas, and then providing transit service to these cores....as it's always easier to service high density areas with transit. In sprawled areas, like much of the Fraser Valley and Kamloops, it is difficult to provide quality transit because it's a money loser. The population is sparse, and is scattered. No wonder why you need to rely on your car with the crappy level of transit service....but it doesn't mean city planners should continue to encourage car-use. That's like saying "i can never give up smoking/drugs, therefore i should just keep on puffing cigarettes/doing drugs." These areas need to encourage more higher density developments, use space more efficiently, and then provide more transit service.

There is currently a very high demand for transit in the Metro Vancouver region....and the only reason why transit ridership hasn't increased proportionally with our population growth is because transit service hasn't been expanded proportionally. And because of that, transit service is unreliable...packed buses, trains, having to wait for multiple buses and trains, etc. It's almost equivalent to a child outgrowing his clothes: a kid that is 14 years old but is still wearing clothes he wore when he was 8 years old, and when he tries to put his shirt on he finds it hard to breath...until the shirt rips and explodes. That's why people turn to car-use, because they have no other transportation alternative when transit in low-density communities is a complete farce.

I do support the Gateway Project, but the mistake with it is that it lacks HOV lanes...the additional lanes are meant to primarily serve single-occupancy vehicles, and that's not good. When there is a decent level of transit service in all areas of the region, I would also like to see every crossing tolled: every major bridge and tunnel. It'll get people to think twice before taking their cars out of the garage, get people to think twice about where they live.

Extensive highways enable people to live farther and farther away from their place of work (in the states, you have people commuting 2-hours away everyday and they also live 100 kms away).

There is a ton of research that has proven long commutes are extremely unhealthy:
http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/103291/The-Most-Unhealthy-Commutes-in-America
http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/23/health-commute-pollution-forbeslife-cx_avd_0724commute.html

Some American communities are so car-oriented that some neighbourhoods don't even bother building sidewalks as there is no point in it....you need a car just to buy groceries from the store that is kilometre away.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/7199/86355511kj2.jpg
If this was built, I'd imagine that the traffic on there would be as bad as Port Mann bridge now, if not worse... So there would probably be another component to the gateway project... 5 billions for twinning the downtown tunnel and crossing!

Just look at Boston's example from the last decade. Didn't they spend billions correcting their mistakes of a highway network? But there's was more about reclaimation of land for development and moving highways into out of sigh tunnels. Because of our stance in the 70's,we aren't back tracking and wasting money correcting mistakes.

Of course I've been to Regina, did you read my post? The only city I haven't spent much time in is Edmonton. I'll go into detail with Regina as I know it very well and have in-laws there. That Ring Road you are so fond off has hurt the city more then it has helped it. The city has now expanded to outside the ringroad and will most likely continue to grow outside of it. You now have succeeded in creating a man-made barrier cutting off those homes from the rest of the city, as it is very difficult to cross w/o being in a car. The ring road should've been used to limit sprawl (only allow construction inside of it) thus increasing density. In that case the Ring road would've been a great idea and acted like water does to Vancouver. Instead there is now talk of building a new ring road farther outside, gee what a great idea now you'll have communitys locked between two ring roads.

Heres a fact for you, I live in Vancouver and can drive d/t, to UBC, to the airport, a mall, anywhere in the city in about 15minutes. In Regina it would take me the about the same amount of time even though there is much less traffic, this is due to having to travel much larger distances to get to things there. That is the advantage of density. If I took public transit I could still get anywhere within Vancouver in under 40 minutes. Can the same be said about those citys? Before you mention that the same can not be said about our suburbs, I'll agree with you, but there is progress being made.

The Gateway Project is much needed because for a metro area the size of Vancouver, there simply isn't easy access to the city by land considering projected growth. Think of evacuation routes and you get the picture. There are only about five major routes which lead in or out of the metro area, and only two are four lane freeways. Most cities a fraction of Vancouver's size have as many or more highways accessing them. Also, we are not dealing with putting expressways through the city itself like Boston, only access to free up the many bottlenecks caused mainly by the river crossings.

Also, I'm glad someone pointed out that transit lines out to the suburbs also facilitate urban sprawl. This was the case with streetcar suburbs and still holds true. I think both conventional highways and transit routes are needed, but sprawl is inevitable - the form and the space that it takes however, is the important factor. Without enough density, suburban transit lines are uneconomical.

Right now, Philladelphia, Minnesota, Seattle, Houston, L.A., etc. are all trying to retract from the mistakes they made decades ago - they're trying to move back towards transit.

The wise words of a broke student that doesn't travel. Have you been to Seattle lately? They're doing major highway expansions as we speak. Overpasses, mountain sides, even city blocks are all being torn up to make way for more lanes on I-5 up to Everett. You really need to stop talking out of your ass.

The wise words of a broke student that doesn't travel. Have you been to Seattle lately? They're doing major highway expansions as we speak. Overpasses, mountain sides, even city blocks are all being torn up to make way for more lanes on I-5 up to Everett. You really need to stop talking out of your ass.

LOL....and you probably didn't read my post. Seattle is building more HOV lanes, not single-occupancy vehicle lanes like Gateway.

Read the reports, read the studies, read what city and urban planners have said...don't just "look".


Obviously, you don't know that Seattle is undergoing a major LRT expansion project.
http://www.soundtransit.org/images/newsroom/photos/2008/20080208_lrtTesting.jpg

http://www.soundtransit.org/images/newsroom/photos/2007/20071116_airportAlign.jpg

The wise words of a broke student that doesn't travel. Have you been to Seattle lately? They're doing major highway expansions as we speak. Overpasses, mountain sides, even city blocks are all being torn up to make way for more lanes on I-5 up to Everett. You really need to stop talking out of your ass.

Broke student... hahahahaha... do you have any other comeback?

Anyway read this:
Planning for the Future

UPDATE: Board moves forward with regional transit discussion.

The Sound Transit Board of Directors continues to look at options for the future of the regional transit system, including targeted investments in more buses and rail.

The Sound Transit Board of Directors held a special workshop on January 31, 2008, directing staff to continue working on potential options for extending the region’s mass transit system that can be completed by 2020. The Board will be looking at transit improvement options that could potentially be cheaper, built faster and contain more accountability measures than the Proposition 1 ballot measure that was defeated by voters last November. The Board is continuing this work based on research that indicates voters remain interested in investing the transit system, but they wish to do so in smaller increments, with clearly defined accountability measures.

The staff will bring back options with more specifics, including affordability, to the Board in coming weeks.
The workshop follows on the heels of the January 24, 2008, Board meeting, where agency staff presented a draft “Summary Needs Assessment”. This study indicates that existing regional transit services are at or near capacity. Moreover, substantial job and population growth over the next 20 years is projected to greatly increase demand for increased transit options.

To view a .pdf version of the PowerPoint presentation that was shared at the January 31, 2008 Board meeting, click here >>>

Materials from the January 24, 2008, Board meeting --

To view the draft Summary Needs Assessment, click here >>>

To view a .pdf version of the Power Point presentation that was shared at the January 24, 2008, Board meeting, click here >>>

Want to stay informed about Sound Transit’s effort to plan for the future? Subscribe and receive Sound Transit future planning updates via-mail.

Source: Sound Transit

And if you didn't believe Mr. X, here is the regional map showing all infrastructure projects by Sound Transit:
http://members.shaw.ca/clauf/s11.PNG

I think there's some reading comprehension problems around here.

Those proposed highway pics are damn scary!

On Boston, look at how much they destroyed the historical centre of the city with the Central Artery to then spend $14 billion on replacing it with a tunnel and the Rose Kennedy Greenway. Staggering to say the least.

Now it is great, Seattle not only beat us in the number of population, a much much much better highway system ( compare to theirs ours is just a service road ), and now they will beat us to the dust with their wonderful new transit plan. Pretty soon Calgary, Edmonton and even tiny humble Regina will be ahead of us.

Now it is great, Seattle not only beat us in the number of population,
I guess you support banning condoms. :nuts:

a much much much better highway system ( compare to theirs ours is just a service road ),
They also have a much worse air pollution problem.

and now they will beat us to the dust with their wonderful new transit plan.
We're 75% finished with Canada Line, we're getting three SkyTrain extensions, seven BRT lines, and 1,000 buses for the Metro Vancouver by 2020. From the map, Seattle's plan is unfortunately less ambitious. And our transit usage isn't something to brag about, but it's much higher than any US city except NYC.

Pretty soon Calgary, Edmonton and even tiny humble Regina will be ahead of us.
Calgary and Edmonton are greatly expanding their LRT (unfortunately the same can be said about their land area). We'll see what happens once the effects of peak oil come into full swing. And they won't be pretty.

Now it is great, Seattle not only beat us in the number of population, a much much much better highway system ( compare to theirs ours is just a service road ), and now they will beat us to the dust with their wonderful new transit plan. Pretty soon Calgary, Edmonton and even tiny humble Regina will be ahead of us.Nobody told me we were in a breading competition. Also, if you're going to go as small as Regina, might as well use Hope or Kamloops as a comparison. The highway systems in those towns are fantastic, serving everyone very well. ;)

i grow tired of city to city bravado. it's so petty and beneath us vancouverites.

I guess you support banning condoms. :nuts:




Sure, if your partner doesn't mind !:cheers:

Good summary of the environmental impact here:

http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/the-impact-of-twinning-the-port-mann-and-expanding-highway-1/

Nobody told me we were in a breading competition. Also, if you're going to go as small as Regina, might as well use Hope or Kamloops as a comparison. The highway systems in those towns are fantastic, serving everyone very well. ;)

I have something even smaller than Hope, which would be your home. In your own house you can walk around without using any transit and no highway,no
air pollution. But no worry, you can still be able to ride on your stationary bike.:lol:

Of course I've been to Regina, did you read my post? The only city I haven't spent much time in is Edmonton. I'll go into detail with Regina as I know it very well and have in-laws there. That Ring Road you are so fond off has hurt the city more then it has helped it. The city has now expanded to outside the ringroad and will most likely continue to grow outside of it. You now have succeeded in creating a man-made barrier cutting off those homes from the rest of the city, as it is very difficult to cross w/o being in a car. The ring road should've been used to limit sprawl (only allow construction inside of it) thus increasing density. In that case the Ring road would've been a great idea and acted like water does to Vancouver. Instead there is now talk of building a new ring road farther outside, gee what a great idea now you'll have communitys locked between two ring roads.

Heres a fact for you, I live in Vancouver and can drive d/t, to UBC, to the airport, a mall, anywhere in the city in about 15minutes. In Regina it would take me the about the same amount of time even though there is much less traffic, this is due to having to travel much larger distances to get to things there. That is the advantage of density. If I took public transit I could still get anywhere within Vancouver in under 40 minutes. Can the same be said about those citys? Before you mention that the same can not be said about our suburbs, I'll agree with you, but there is progress being made.

I have in-laws live in Regina too, may be yours and mines someday get together and discuss how to push their government to build the third ring road in the city.:) You must be a slow driver compare to me, it takes me only 20min. from Surrey to Metrotown every morning by using the Alex Fraser
bridge. When I was in Regina, I could go from u of r to North Gate mall in 5 min. and I haven't killed anybody yet.:lol:

i grow tired of city to city bravado. it's so petty and beneath us vancouverites.

Are some people just too immature to handle some objective and insightful city comparisons?

not too immature, just tired. i like all those cities separately. and sorry but a lot of it was not that insightful and it was definitely NOT objective.

please.

I can understand why people out here get frustrated.
Its great for people who live in Rich/Van/Burn to complain about Gateway but for them its strickly hypothetical.
Especially the people in Vancouver I bet many don't even cross the PortMann more than once or twice a month.
Let's face it unless you are going to the interior there is no reason to go east of NuWest.
Going to WR for the fay or Seattle, The Islands, Whistler..............none of that requires PortMann crossings.
Most who get fire in their eyes about PortMann twinning never have to cross it. I am not a great fan of Gateway except the SouthFrazer Highway but for people living downtown setting urban planning for the valley does piss people off out here. Academics will give the higher than thou speech about you should try to live close to where you work. I think they should too, so why doesn't the government buy them all a house. Most live out here for two reasons.....close to work and affordability. Overwhelming majority of Vancouver's can't even dream about buying a decent place in Vancouver.

You bring up a good point. Expecting different regions with different needs, populations, cost, etc etc to all follow the same plan is unrealistic and foolish. The problem is that the vast amount of those in local government (Vancouver's) live downtown and never go east of Main Street, nevermind the Port Mann. For those just starting out,(especially those with young families), who happen to work in downtown Vancouver, living close to work is just a pipe dream and the choice to live in far off suburbs where there meager savings go a lot further will always win out over living close to work in Vancouver.

This pic looks a lot like the Oakland side of the Bay Bridge.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/7199/86355511kj2.jpg

http://baybridgeinfo.org/Editor/assets/oakland-td.jpg

They've started tearing up the ground in the middle median on highway 1, near the port man bridge. I assume its part of the Gateway Project construction

^^:banana:

They've started tearing up the ground in the middle median on highway 1, near the port man bridge. I assume its part of the Gateway Project construction


Yes I was wondering about that as I was taking the bus up to Kamloops this week. I still think it's the infi waste of money, rather see a rail link down the median.

rather see a rail link down the median.

Well thats great. The majority of the province disagrees with you

First we need to upgrade BC's horrible excuse for a highway system, then we'll worry about alternative modes of transportation.

Well thats great. The majority of the province disagrees with you

First we need to upgrade BC's horrible excuse for a highway system, then we'll worry about alternative modes of transportation.

alternate mode of transport? why don't you travel the world and look around you - in europe and asia, rail is often the PRIMARY mode. it is only twisted here in north america because of bad decisions - decisions that you so foolishly follow zealously.

alternate mode of transport? why don't you travel the world and look around you - in europe and asia, rail is often the PRIMARY mode. it is only twisted here in north america because of bad decisions - decisions that you so foolishly follow zealously.

Your "higher than thou" attitude is pretty pathetic. Get off your public transit high horse.

This is north america, where the car rules. Anything else is an alternate mode of transportation. Get used to it :lol:

it'll be our own little slice of phoenix in BC. paradise

it'll be our own little slice of phoenix in BC. paradise

Please don't compare Phoenix's godlike highway system to our pathetic excuse for one.

They have 14 lane highways :master:

We have 4 lane highways :puke: , with an 8 lane upgrade proposed :ohno:

Please don't compare Phoenix's godlike highway system to our pathetic excuse for one.

They have 14 lane highways :master:

We have 4 lane highways :puke: , with an 8 lane upgrade proposed :ohno:

Your reasons for wanting us to increase highways, sprawl and pollution, and destroy the environment are?

Please don't compare Phoenix's godlike highway system to our pathetic excuse for one.

They have 14 lane highways :master:

We have 4 lane highways :puke: , with an 8 lane upgrade proposed :ohno:


That's some nice brown haze....
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/getaways/122597/art/birdpix1.jpg

And of course, one can only wonder what is the leading cause of America's health crisis....car dependency has resulted in a lack of physical exercise, longer commutes, stress, and poor air quality as already mentioned. Not to mention the tearing apart of the urban fabric of cities. Read the studies....there are thousands of them.



Fact: you're an idiot.

eco nazis are maaaaad :lol:

eco nazis are maaaaad :lol:

Other people's lung ailments are their problem?

seeing you makes me mad >_<

And rail would not be going down the middle of Highway 1 no matter what. I would say it's a stupid thing to do. Should Light rail ever go across the twinned Port Mann bridge, it would be on the side (eastbound side).

Your "higher than thou" attitude is pretty pathetic. Get off your public transit high horse.

This is north america, where the car rules. Anything else is an alternate mode of transportation. Get used to it :lol:

Higher than thou attitude? Was it not you in the Canada Line thread that said transit was strictly for the poor? I think the one with the higher than thou stance is you.

Your insistence of creating Vancouver into a Canadian version of the muddle lanes and smog-choked existence that are American cities (thinking of Phoenix, LA, even Honolulu (but they're lucky their climate clears it up for them) ). A great region isn't simply about their roads and highways - if anything, it's about their transit options and culture and aesthetics. Your version of Vancouver would be stumpy little buildings surrounded by a miasma of roadwork...mmm....attractive.:nuts::ohno:

Does everyone remember how fun traffic was on the TransCanada when they were building the HOV lane? And the party begins again...

Let's play a game to see how many homes and businesses are going to be expropriated to make way for this project, first one's the winner! :D

Oh my god. You seriously think people would take a bus from Abbotsford to Vancouver if they could just drive there own cars that they paid good money for? No. I honestly wouldnt. You cant make people change the way they live, just to make a few people like you happy. And its not like were LA and building freeway on top of freeway in neighborhoods and people back yards. No, were simply adding onto a few highways, BFD

I have a car and I take transit from Mission and Abbotsford to Vancouver, either via transit, West Coast Express, or Greyhound. What's your point? I think relaxing on transit and listening to my iPod is 100x better than dealing with idiot drivers.

I have a car and I take transit from Mission and Abbotsford to Vancouver, either via transit, West Coast Express, or Greyhound. What's your point? I think relaxing on transit and listening to my iPod is 100x better than dealing with idiot drivers.

yeah... idiot drivers like him/her... AHEM

If there are more RapidBus/express routes that take you directly from Abbotsford to Surrey/Burnaby, there would be more people taking transit from there.

And of course, one can only wonder what is the leading cause of America's health crisis....car dependency has resulted in a lack of physical exercise, longer commutes, stress, and poor air quality as already mentioned. Not to mention the tearing apart of the urban fabric of cities. Read the studies....there are thousands of them.



Fact: you're an idiot.

mrX you are hilarious.

and for me its not even really about the environment, although thats an added bonus. for me its mainly about the way transportation affects a city's urban form. also i love being able to ride my bike without getting run over by some dudes hummer.

Your reasons for wanting us to increase highways, sprawl and pollution, and destroy the environment are?

so he can live as far away as possible from any other human in his fenced little suburban prison and yet still get to downtown vancouver in 25 minutes :)

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/5817/port11ud6.jpg



This is absolutely disgusting

Lights on a highway on-ramp???? God damn that is so full of suck. It should be a 4 leaf clover on/off-ramp or nothing.

This is absolutely disgusting

Lights on a highway on-ramp???? God damn that is so full of suck. It should be a 4 leaf clover on/off-ramp or nothing.

Just out of curiosity, nw2k, are you the type that would sneak onto and use an HOV lane illegally?

4 leaf clover, because that's such an nice aesthetic to look at or drive on. (eyeroll)

4 leaf clover, because that's such an nice aesthetic to look at or drive on. (eyeroll)

And because space is so abundant.

4 leaf clover, because that's such an nice aesthetic to look at or drive on. (eyeroll)

It's a highway. You're worried about looks?? lol

And yes 4 leaf clovers do look better than some random on-ramp with traffic lights. And they're obviosuly better for driving on.

Well you were with regards to Canada Line concrete columns.

How is it that you are so inconsistent with your own logics and arguments?!?!

Well you were with regards to Canada Line concrete columns.

How is it that you are so inconsistent with your own logics and arguments?!?!

Stupid comparison. The skytrain is obtrusive and sticks up above the ground and it's on 3 road.

The highway is a highway, not 3 road. It's already there. Adding 1 more lane wouldn't make it look any worse. Plus 4 leaf clover exits would make the highway look better anyways.

How is it that you are so inconsistent with your own logics and arguments?!?!

double standards.

Stupid comparison. The skytrain is obtrusive and sticks up above the ground and it's on 3 road.

The highway is a highway, not 3 road. It's already there. Adding 1 more lane wouldn't make it look any worse. Plus 4 leaf clover exits would make the highway look better anyways.

All the four leaf clovers were removed from the 401 in Toronto by either removing a couple of the "leafs" or converting them to other stack style interchanges. Four leaf clover interchanges are best for freeways which are in more rural areas, which do not have high level traffic volumes.

Why? It's far too dangerous. The turning radius on the ramps is such that it causes vechiles to slow down and speed up as they move onto or off of the interchange. This creates dangerous crossweaving with other traffic, leading to higher accident rates than with other types of interchanges. Also, clover leafs require much more land expropriation than diamond style interchanges, and land is something that Metro Vancouver is trying to conserve.

The benefits of having a free flow interchange which then transfers traffic onto non-free flow arterials is even more diminished by conditions during rush hour, where high level traffic volumes simple get caught at the next traffic light coming off the freeway. Then traffic just backs up onto the freeway anyways.

And lastly of course they are more expensive than diamond interchanges. Sorry man, it's just not a good idea all around.

Well NW2K, there are many American cities such as Seattle that has exits and highway entrances with traffic lights.

I think NW2K loves the Cape Horn Interchange
http://members.shaw.ca/adrian_leung/Cape%20Horn%20exchange.PNG

All the four leaf clovers were removed from the 401 in Toronto by either removing a couple of the "leafs" or converting them to other stack style interchanges. Four leaf clover interchanges are best for freeways which are in more rural areas, which do not have high level traffic volumes.

Why? It's far too dangerous. The turning radius on the ramps is such that it causes vechiles to slow down and speed up as they move onto or off of the interchange. This creates dangerous crossweaving with other traffic, leading to higher accident rates than with other types of interchanges. Also, clover leafs require much more land expropriation than diamond style interchanges, and land is something that Metro Vancouver is trying to conserve.

The benefits of having a free flow interchange which then transfers traffic onto non-free flow arterials is even more diminished by conditions during rush hour, where high level traffic volumes simple get caught at the next traffic light coming off the freeway. Then traffic just backs up onto the freeway anyways.

And lastly of course they are more expensive than diamond interchanges. Sorry man, it's just not a good idea all around.

His ideas aren't good all around. I would give long descriptions and lectures just to teach him but I gave up now.

Does anybody suspect that nw2k has attention deficit problems?

Sounds like he's a hazard on the road and shouldn't be allowed to drive if he gets so high-strung about having to wait at a stop light.

Traffic lights on on-ramps are good, why? Take a look at Lougheed eastbound to TC eastbound, as well as Mary Hill Bypass eastbound to TC eastbound. They help meter vehicles one by one to give each vehicle enough space to properly accelerated onto the TransCanada. The result is less slowdown on the freeway itself. Seattle and LA has had metered on-ramps for a long time and I'm glad Vancouver has adopted these meters.

But of course you knew all this right NW2k?

This is absolutely disgusting

Lights on a highway on-ramp???? God damn that is so full of suck. It should be a 4 leaf clover on/off-ramp or nothing.

Do you even read what you post?

As many have pointed out, ramp meters, as these stop lights at freeway entrance ramps are known, are common on Interstate on-ramps in the United States. Typically they are located at congested on-ramps, or where traffic engineers feel they are necessary. I don't see anything aesthetically displeasing about them.

I am all for the on ramp lights. They do help. Los Angeles has em, so does Seattle if I'm not mistaken.

^^
I saw several of them off of I-5 in Portland a couple years ago as well. The are very common in large US cities.

I would dare say they are safer too. While I would think most people know how to merge onto highways or do whatever else on a highway besides driving straight, the minority that don't can pose a huge danger to those of us that know how to drive. These lights take away the guessing in terms of safe merging or whatever, so it's good for everyone involved. Even if it isn't as aesthetically pleaseing (to some), it should be an obvious choice based on just ease of use alone.

I swear, that map of the proposed Cape Horn interchange scares me. The current interchange seems fine, just some minor tweaking and you're fine.

And northwest2k, have you ever driven on a ramp with meters? It is certainly much better than just having everyone cram onto an on-ramp fighting to get onto the mainline lanes of a highway.

I imagine you're sitting on a on-ramp right now about to blow your brains out...

^^
I saw several of them off of I-5 in Portland a couple years ago as well. The are very common in large US cities.

Coquitlam has two of them :banana:

they are very handy in heavy rush hour traffic

the four leaf clover has proven to be useless - a lot of the older ones have been changed or will be getting a major overhaul soon

I swear, that map of the proposed Cape Horn interchange scares me. The current interchange seems fine, just some minor tweaking and you're fine.

And northwest2k, have you ever driven on a ramp with meters? It is certainly much better than just having everyone cram onto an on-ramp fighting to get onto the mainline lanes of a highway.

I imagine you're sitting on a on-ramp right now about to blow your brains out...

no it will be much better

as it is now you have to go in a circle basically to get onto the freeway - the new interchange will be much easier and smoother

He's from Richmond, there aren't many ramps with meters, although I think the Steveston one going southbound has them...

The Cape Horn interchange is scary... but the current one isn't good. I do like the new configuration but it's MASSIVE. I think they can make it a little smaller and cause less damage to the warehouse district. I wonder how future light rail will be routed (should there even be light rail [the port mann twin is designed for future integration]).

they could do a harsh turn like the red line in portland does when it comes off/on the freeway

Perimeter Road gets eco stamp
Opponents vow to continue fight against project
Frank Luba, The Province; With a file from Staff Reporter
Published: Sunday, July 27, 2008

Opponents of the South Fraser Perimeter Road vowed to continue their fight against the provincial project after it was announced Friday the 80-kilometre connection between Surrey and Delta had received its environmental-assessment certificate.

The new four-lane road, which is part of the province's controversial Gateway Program, is expected to cost $1 billion -- $300 million for property acquisition and $700 million for construction.

Running along the south of the Fraser River, the road helps connect Deltaport with highways 1, 91 and 99, as well as TransLink's new tolled Golden Ears Bridge.

It hasn't attracted the same attention as other Gateway projects, like twinning the Port Mann Bridge and widening the Trans-Canada Highway, but South Fraser foes say it will ruin neighbourhoods like Sunbury and Annieville, as well as impact environmentally sensitive Burns Bog.

Eliza Olson, president of the Burns Bog Conservation Society, was aghast the certificate approval was announced on the eve of the 17th International Bog Days that run this weekend.

"We'll have a petition out there [Bog Days]," she promised as an immediate response to the granting of the certificate.

"I'm appalled at the premier," Olson said of Gordon Campbell. "He ran in 2001 on protecting the bog. I've got pictures of him walking with me, promising to protect the bog."

Olson said the road plan is flawed.

"They [the province] based their plans on 80 cents-per-litre gas," she said of information revealed through a Freedom of Information request. "We're not going to see that again."

Olson also believes much of the shipping to Deltaport will divert to Prince Rupert once its expansion is complete in 2012, lessening the need for the South Fraser road.
But she also railed against what she saw as hypocrisy coming out of Victoria.
"You're going to put a carbon tax on everybody, and then you turn around and destroy the largest carbon sink in the Lower Mainland, probably the west coast of North America," said Olson.

Also surprised by the certificate news was Don Hunt of the Sunbury Neighbourhood Association.

"It's not over yet," said Hunt. "They have to get federal approval," he said in reference to the Departments of Transport and Fisheries and Oceans.

Hunt was also surprised that the project received its certificate while it was still being reviewed by provincial ombudsman Kim Carter for what he called "misinformation" about the project.

Anne Murray, the conservation chair for the Federation of B.C. Naturalists, expressed shock at the approval.

"This road will run right through the feeding grounds of migratory Sandhill Crane," she said in an e-mail, adding the birds are endangered in Washington and blue-listed (just downgraded from red-listed) in B.C.

"Sandhill Cranes are migratory birds, with a small and declining population in the Lower Mainland, an extremely endangered breeding population here."

More details about the environmental certificate can be found at www.eao.gov.bc.ca.
Details about the opposition to the project is available at www.savedelta.ca.

fluba@theprovince.com

Source: The Province

INFORMATION BULLETIN
For Immediate Release
2008ENV0081-001172
July 25, 2008
Ministry of Environment

SOUTH FRASER PERIMETER ROAD PROJECT APPROVED
VICTORIA – The Ministry of Transportation (the proponent) has received an environmental
assessment certificate (EA) for the South Fraser Perimeter Road Project, which is part of the
government’s Gateway Program.
The project is a new four-lane, 80 km/h route along the south side of the Fraser River,
extending from the Highway 17/Deltaport Way intersection in southwest Delta to 176th Street in Surrey
with connections to highways 1, 91 and 99, and TransLink’s new Golden Ears Bridge connector.
Currently, there is no east-west transportation corridor to serve the port facilities, industrial sites and
commuters on the south side of the Fraser River.
In addition to the provincial EA, the project also triggered an environmental assessment as a
screening under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The EAO and federal agencies have
undertaken a co-operative environmental assessment process in accordance with the Canada/British
Columbia Agreement for Environmental Assessment Cooperation. Based on its assessment report,
EAO has concluded that effects from the project will be within acceptable levels, subject to
implementation of mitigation measures and commitments agreed to by the proponent.
Environment Minister Barry Penner and Community Development Minister Blair Lekstrom
made their decision to grant the EA certificate after considering the details of the harmonized review.
Before the project can proceed, the proponent must obtain the necessary provincial licences,
leases and other approvals, as well as regulatory approvals from the federal authorities responsible (in
this case, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Transport Canada).
The environmental assessment included approximately 140 commitments that the proponent
must implement throughout various stages of the project. Key commitments include:
• Ensure the design, construction and operation of the project complement long-term
management objectives of the Burns Bog Ecological Conservation Area.
• Implement measures to enhance agricultural productivity in Delta, such as improving existing
drainage and irrigation networks and farm vehicle access within the ALR in Delta.
• Provide an air quality and dust control plan to all relevant agencies prior to construction, and
mitigate all noise and vibration impacts during design, construction and operation.
• Work with the Musqueam Indian Band and other interested First Nations to develop a mutually
acceptable plan for the Glenrose/St. Mungo area, to preserve archaeological deposits during
planning, design, construction and operation of the project.
- 2 -
• Consult with local governments, stakeholders and the public during all stages of project
development.
Capital costs are expected to be $1 billion, including $300 million for property acquisition and
$700 million for construction. The project is expected to generate approximately 4,200 person-years of
employment and contribute an estimated $387 million to the provincial gross domestic product.
More information on the environmental assessment certificate can be found at:
www.eao.gov.bc.ca
-30-
Media
contact:
Kate Thompson
Manager, Media Relations
250 953-4577
For more information on government services or to subscribe to the Province’s news feeds using RSS,
visit the Province’s website at www.gov.bc.ca.

Source: Environmental Assessment Office of British Columbia

Plans can be found here (I'll post the pictures when I have time): http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/html/deploy/epic_document_196_22426.html

Thanks for the info deasine

Now for an $800 million dollar road, why would the province pay to put in intersections instead of making a continuous freeway? Also, I noticed with the River Road on ramp to SFPR, that it appears to be the good old short on ramps that are found on highway 1 in north vancouver.

Why has the province not come up to United States standards in building roads with acceleration lane of 300 meters length (on ramp to the merge area) and 300 meter length to merge? Merges of 200 meters or less can be potentially dangerous for cars that do not have the acceleration capability. If needed to with exits too close together, what we have done in Washington on SR 16 is have drop lanes where the lane from an on ramp goes to the next off-ramp and then merges with the freeway.

If the province wants to put dollars into roads, I do not have an issue with that, what I have an issue with is if the money is being used for better standards than the current or using it for the same old standards.

Well we wouldn't want massive 8 lane interstates LMAO but yeah I understand - we definitely need longer acceleration lanes. That's actually one of the main causes to the Port Mann Hwy 1 problem we have now.

If you add overpasses instead of intersections, that would jack up the cost of the SFPR not to mention that there are only very few intersections throughout the route... At the moment, I don't see a need although it would be nice...

BC has the lowest freeway on/off ramp standards in Canada.

BTW................I have to laugh. Only in Vancouver would people be scared of a glorified overpass. Must be because BC hardly has any freeways and the widest length is ony 6 lanes for 12km.
If Vancouverites had to spend even one day in either Montreal or Toronto they would have heart failure. Not only do they have REAL highways but the people know how to drive on them. This is truly the only place I have ever been to where people actually drive slower than the speed limit on freeways. Where someone is doing 115km/hr is considered really fast.
When myself and then slowly the whole family moved to BC from Ontario we all couldn't beleive how slow people in this province drive.
In Ont/Que 100km/hr is only viewed as a suggestion.................the normal speed is well over 120 especially in Tor/Mon where only the traffic will slow down hard core eastern drivers.

"scared" of a freeway......................you guys don't know what a freeway is and how real people drive on them.

Shut the fuck up. Real people? BRITISH COLUMBIANS ARE FAKE EVERYONE I REPEAT WE ARE ALL FAKE. We are fake because we can't control how our highways were once built? Its not our fault that our freeways aren't up to other provinces standards. And buddy, I know what a mother fucking freeway is. So please shut your mouth, I shuddered off everything else you said, but British Columbian's are real people. Go back where you came from.

I never knew what i said was so explosive.

BTW, how haver BCers not responsible for their freeways being up to provincial standards?

^^

Dude we know more about freeways than you think. Most of us have driven in Seattle at a minimum. I've been through those 4 and 5 level stack interchanges they have in LA and Orange county, driving on 14 lanes of I-5 in anaheim with two HOV lanes that have direct onramps from the HOV lane on one freeway to an HOV lane on another. It's not that bad, it takes a day or 2 and you get used to it.

And shit man all of this stuff costs money. We live in the toughest place to build freeways in all of Canada. If BC was a country, it would be almost the size of Colombia, and it is very similar in terrain too, and yet we have like 1/10 the people that that country does, and our roads are a hell of a lot better than there. I don't think you get how good our roads really are considering how big a territory BC is. We're really sparsely populated outside of Victoria and Metro Vancouver, and are way better things we can be spending our money on nowadays than freeways.

Can't we all just get along?

Daguy, I've seen mergers at highway 15 and the trans canada, that type of interchange design is waiting for an accident to happen if you cannot floor it and someone is coming off to get to southbound 15. Capilano Road, you can't floor it, you're pretty much toast. The mergers are way too short and should be lengthened to improve safety instead of just simply ignored in freeway expansion. The province has already decided to spend money on it, and they might as well spend it right.

I never knew what i said was so explosive.

BTW, how haver BCers not responsible for their freeways being up to provincial standards?

What pissed me off was how actually said we are not real people because we don't have superhighways like Los Angeles or Toronto. Vancouver has a population of 2.2 million, and the closest major Canadian city is Calgary. So why would Vancouver need to have major freeways like the US or Ontario? I can understand why Ontario needs 'em, they support a pop. of just about 13 million. BC has 4.5 million people.

Anyway................................

BC has managed to get itself into this fix because Bc never truly invested in any of its transport infastructure.........transit or highway.
The LowerMainland is relativly flat compared to most Eastern Places yet has a very poor highway system and Vancouver was the last of Canada's 6 largest cities to rapid transit and has the second lowest per-capita transit ridership levels of our 6 largest metros, only beating out Edmonton.

There is also a lot of mind boggling mistakes made.
The Island Highway which was suppose to be freeway but due to Clarke is only 4 lanes with some freeway parts. No alternate route ever built , or worse, never planned for so any alternate to the ferries, YVR, DeltaPort is now going to be both out of the way, expensive, and require hundreds of people displaced. A ferry coorporation that refuses to even consider passenger only vehicles. Succesive governments that have extended the Okanagan Connector but not all the way to the Coquihalla. Instead they upgrade the road to Merrit which is out of the way. If they would have had a true connection it would save autos 25 minutes and transports 40 minutes from its current configuration being both more direct and avoiding the massive hills into Merrit. All this so Merrit can benefit from detoured traffic.

Anyway................................

BC has managed to get itself into this fix because Bc never truly invested in any of its transport infastructure.........transit or highway.
The LowerMainland is relativly flat compared to most Eastern Places yet has a very poor highway system and Vancouver was the last of Canada's 6 largest cities to rapid transit and has the second lowest per-capita transit ridership levels of our 6 largest metros, only beating out Edmonton.

Funny how all you ever do is bitch and moan about everything and anything. Time and time again, it's the same bitching and moaning.


1) We did have a rapid transit network, before SkyTrain. It was a expansive regional wide tram system that was later decomissioned in the 50s and 60s with the arrival of the car.


2) The Lower Mainland said NO to freeways in the 1970's, which has arguably made Vancouver a much more livable place compared to American cities with freeways that part and destroy their urban areas.

I'm also guessing you didn't realize Metro Vancouver has a huge inlet and a major and wide river right through it, which makes it difficult and expensive to build any crossing. Not to mention that the region is composed of 21 municipalities, each going at different directions in regards to city planning.


You don't live in White Rock BC, you live under a white rock.



Vancouver will be seeing huge investments with its road and transit infrastructure over the next decade or so through Gateway and Transit 2020.....either way, you'll probably still be complaining.




The Island Highway which was suppose to be freeway but due to Clarke is only 4 lanes with some freeway parts. No alternate route ever built , or worse, never planned for so any alternate to the ferries, YVR, DeltaPort is now going to be both out of the way, expensive, and require hundreds of people displaced. A ferry coorporation that refuses to even consider passenger only vehicles. Succesive governments that have extended the Okanagan Connector but not all the way to the Coquihalla. Instead they upgrade the road to Merrit which is out of the way. If they would have had a true connection it would save autos 25 minutes and transports 40 minutes from its current configuration being both more direct and avoiding the massive hills into Merrit. All this so Merrit can benefit from detoured traffic.

Wheeee......I saved 25-minutes. Is it wrong to keep a town's fortunes flowing or is it more important that you save 25-minutes on your trip?

Wheeee......I saved 25-minutes. Is it wrong to keep a town's fortunes flowing or is it more important that you save 25-minutes on your trip?

That's 25 minutes of extra fuel wasted to detour around a town (Merritt) that nobody cares for.

If they cared as much for Cache Creek's fortunes, the Coquihalla never would have been built in the first place.

Merrit benefits greatly from the freeway. When the coquihalla was built it completely bypassed the town, and now development has sprung up all around the easternmost interchange for obvious reasons.

There's more to consider than just fuel too, punching a second road straight through to the coq is a bad idea from an eco friendly perspective, removing more forested/argicultural land, and fragmenting connectivity pathways for animals.

They might not twin the Port Mann Bridge but replace it altogether with a new super structure.

Quote:
Provincial officials refused to say whether the end product is still expected to be twin bridges or one single super-bridge, after speculation the project concept may change to include the demolition of the existing span.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/27233669.html

Three possible reasons for a new super bridge:

1. The existing PMB will be fifty years old by the time it's twinned;

2. The existing PMB does not meet current seismic standards in terms of an 8.5 magnitude event and it will be very expensive to bring it up to same standard;

3. After the PMB was built in 1964, several of the piers began to sink as the piling did not reach bedrock during construction. You can see some of this sinkage heading westbound just through the golden arch where the deck dips and can see the steel plates in place on the deck;

They might not twin the Port Mann Bridge but replace it altogether with a new super structure.

Its a good decision and is much better on the long run.

^ i agree....makes sense, huge cost savings in the future when the Port Mann is already half a century old.

As long as they get it right, it would be more attractive instead of an old bridge next to a new bridge.

On a side note, would anyone know how much it would cost to add a new connection to the rails to perhaps allow commuter rail to be feasable and allow rail transport a time savings from going to the rail bridge near the Patullo?

Also, in the draft papers, is that the final plan? I still see the short merge lanes in the plans and the problems that are advertised to be gone are still present. I wonder if it would be best to have 10 lanes and have a drop lane from both sides of the bridge to allow better traffic flow to allow a merge later. :gaah:

Well a lot of the plans that they submitted to the Ministry must be changed... so cross your fingers with longer merge lanes.

I never knew what i said was so explosive.

BTW, how haver BCers not responsible for their freeways being up to provincial standards?

I don't really care and I don't understand what you're japping on about.