aGENT Posted March 12, 2013 Author Share Posted March 12, 2013 2 very different situations. The Lions Gate is a 3 lane bridge, so you are constantly looking at a 2-1 split. With the Massey, at worst a 2-2 split means the compression of 3 lanes into 2, which is really nothing considering the 3rd lane is HOV. First the lane count really makes no difference. There's more traffic flow each direction at certain times of the day. You manage the lanes to make the best use of available lanes to move that traffic. Plain and simple. The amount of lanes makes no difference. Also, you're not including the traffic to and from Hwy 17 and Steveston Hwy. They're basically at least an additional "lane" of traffic each (and along with the aforementioned trucks the ACTUAL causes of the majority of tunnel congestion IMO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsedin33 Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Build a parking lot and have them swim across with Dolphins. From there take a train. Toll the parking lot to pay for the Dolphins and train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 http://m.news1130.com/2012/07/05/no-need-to-build-more-massey-tunnel-capacity-expert/ Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 12, 2013 Author Share Posted March 12, 2013 http://m.news1130.co...apacity-expert/ Yep It's half right. And yes any replacement option should prioritize transit and HOT lanes (yes HOT, not HOV) as the increased capacity. And as I already pointed out to you in a previous thread, congestion and volume are not the same thing and the more congestion you have, the less volume gets through. I'd love to see that truck rule brought up earlier instated to see what effect it would have on the congestion issue and see what that does to volumes. Be VERY interesting IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 It's half right. And yes any replacement option should prioritize transit and HOT lanes (yes HOT, not HOV) as the increased capacity. And as I already pointed out to you in a previous thread, congestion and volume are not the same thing and the more congestion you have, the less volume gets through. I'd love to see that truck rule brought up earlier instated to see what effect it would have on the congestion issue and see what that does to volumes. Be VERY interesting IMO. How do you answer his point the SFPR? We spend billions on a new route and then the claim is we need the tunnel to deal with all the traffic... And as he says, the upgrade the tunnel, now all the sudden you need to upgrade the Oak st bridge (of course that was Kevin Falcon's position when he said the tunnel upgrade would be pointless without the Oak st bridge upgrade--whatever happened there I wonder....) etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 13, 2013 Author Share Posted March 13, 2013 How do you answer his point the SFPR? We spend billions on a new route and then the claim is we need the tunnel to deal with all the traffic... And as he says, the upgrade the tunnel, now all the sudden you need to upgrade the Oak st bridge (of course that was Kevin Falcon's position when he said the tunnel upgrade would be pointless without the Oak st bridge upgrade--whatever happened there I wonder....) etc... Realistically something needs to be done with the tunnel regardless of the SFPR. The SFPR will just make it that much worse. I'd be happy if that "something" was the banning of commercial truck traffic during rush hours (say 7-9AM and 4-6PM) to start with. Do that and see what the results are and go from there. It would also be pretty easy (cheap) to convert (and expand) the existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes before and after the tunnel. That would also improve transit service FWIW. As for Oak street...after the tunnel you have options East and West to get in to Richmond, Burnaby and Vancouver. It's less of a problem. But by all means use some of that HOT lane money to upgrade Oak if it's deemed important (along with the Steveston and Hwy 17 interchanges) Otherwise, the tunnel will need at the very least structural upgrades and there's the aforementioned issues with water depth and shipping to take in to consideration as well. We have to look long and hard whether or not to "throw good money after bad" or not and simply upgrade or if replacement and improvement would be better options/"bang for our buck". And by all means, have any lane expansion be transit/HOT lanes to have continuity through the corridor. A 6 lane bridge with 2 of the 6 lanes being transit/HOT seems a pretty good, long term compromise for better traffic flow, transit options and ability to aid in shipping expansion as well. Hell if we're smart, we integrate capabilities to add skytrain say on the underside of the bridge for even longer term planning. Have the structure there and engineered for the appropriate loads and then add the track etc later when demand is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverpig Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Anyone else think they should just make a huge ramp and force the cars to jump the river? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 From Gord Price: Why isn’t transit included as part of any review, not ancillary to it? The Minister of Highways and Infrastructure maintain they can provide additional road space for transit – but are not responsible for the service itself. That’s someone else’s job, that has to come from some other funding source. So as a consequence, planning for the road expansion omits the possibility that increased transit today could address the congestion problem that the road expansion is designed to address. Which means that Motordom might not get their next billion-dollar project, nor generate the induced traffic to justify the next one after that. The assumption here seems to be any new tunnel will have transit/HOT/etc... Why would you assume that? The new Port Mann wasn't going to have any transit until people screamed enough so that it now has mediocre service. But if you'll remember one of the big PR bits about the Port Mann back when it was proposed was how great it would be for new transit. Well, that didn't happen now did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 13, 2013 Author Share Posted March 13, 2013 From Gord Price: Why isn’t transit included as part of any review, not ancillary to it? The Minister of Highways and Infrastructure maintain they can provide additional road space for transit – but are not responsible for the service itself. That’s someone else’s job, that has to come from some other funding source. So as a consequence, planning for the road expansion omits the possibility that increased transit today could address the congestion problem that the road expansion is designed to address. Which means that Motordom might not get their next billion-dollar project, nor generate the induced traffic to justify the next one after that. The assumption here seems to be any new tunnel will have transit/HOT/etc... Why would you assume that? The new Port Mann wasn't going to have any transit until people screamed enough so that it now has mediocre service. But if you'll remember one of the big PR bits about the Port Mann back when it was proposed was how great it would be for new transit. Well, that didn't happen now did it. No disagreement here. It's shortsighted to not look at both transit and vehicle movement in any major infrastructure upgrade. Both not only should be considered when planning but IMO transit should in fact be generally, a very high priority, not an afterthought. You have any comments on my earlier post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 No disagreement here. It's shortsighted to not look at both transit and vehicle movement in any major infrastructure upgrade. Both not only should be considered when planning but IMO transit should in fact be generally, a very high priority, not an afterthought. You have any comments on my earlier post? About Oak st? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 13, 2013 Author Share Posted March 13, 2013 About Oak st? Well actually about the entire "project" but yes, including Oak Street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Realistically something needs to be done with the tunnel regardless of the SFPR. The SFPR will just make it that much worse. I'd be happy if that "something" was the banning of commercial truck traffic during rush hours (say 7-9AM and 4-6PM) to start with. Do that and see what the results are and go from there. It would also be pretty easy (cheap) to convert (and expand) the existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes before and after the tunnel. That would also improve transit service FWIW. As for Oak street...after the tunnel you have options East and West to get in to Richmond, Burnaby and Vancouver. It's less of a problem. But by all means use some of that HOT lane money to upgrade Oak if it's deemed important (along with the Steveston and Hwy 17 interchanges) Otherwise, the tunnel will need at the very least structural upgrades and there's the aforementioned issues with water depth and shipping to take in to consideration as well. We have to look long and hard whether or not to "throw good money after bad" or not and simply upgrade or if replacement and improvement would be better options/"bang for our buck". And by all means, have any lane expansion be transit/HOT lanes to have continuity through the corridor. A 6 lane bridge with 2 of the 6 lanes being transit/HOT seems a pretty good, long term compromise for better traffic flow, transit options and ability to aid in shipping expansion as well. Hell if we're smart, we integrate capabilities to add skytrain say on the underside of the bridge for even longer term planning. Have the structure there and engineered for the appropriate loads and then add the track etc later when demand is there. Yeah, it all sounds good. But it doesn't happen. The province says they don't meddle in translink's planning except of course that they control the purse strings. So it's completely assinine to say you're not involved. Anyway, aren't there already HOT lanes before and after the tunnel? It's great to give them a lane, but if you don't provide more busses... It's not like I don't see something has to be done with the tunnel. I'm just extremely skeptical of any of these plans actually putting transit as anything other than an afterthought. I have no reason to believe otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 13, 2013 Author Share Posted March 13, 2013 Yeah, it all sounds good. But it doesn't happen. The province says they don't meddle in translink's planning except of course that they control the purse strings. So it's completely assinine to say you're not involved. Anyway, aren't there already HOT lanes before and after the tunnel? It's great to give them a lane, but if you don't provide more busses... It's not like I don't see something has to be done with the tunnel. I'm just extremely skeptical of any of these plans actually putting transit as anything other than an afterthought. I have no reason to believe otherwise. Only if you consider occasionally getting ticketed for driving in the HOV lanes a "toll"? The existing lanes (like all of the GVRD as far as I know) are HOV, not HOT. Which (as usual) is shortsighted, stupid and inefficient. No disagreement that the government and planning are both poor. So how do we fix THAT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Only if you consider occasionally getting ticketed for driving in the HOV lanes a "toll"? The existing lanes (like all of the GVRD as far as I know) are HOV, not HOT. Which (as usual) is shortsighted, stupid and inefficient. No disagreement that the government and planning are both poor. So how do we fix THAT? No, I think the lanes leading up to and after the tunnel are bus only. Not HOV. I don't drive that often enough to be sure, but I think they are... Raise a stink I guess. I don't know. Certainly a change in government can't be worse with regards to transit, but will it be substantially better? We'll see I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 13, 2013 Author Share Posted March 13, 2013 No, I think the lanes leading up to and after the tunnel are bus only. Not HOV. I don't drive that often enough to be sure, but I think they are... Raise a stink I guess. I don't know. Certainly a change in government can't be worse with regards to transit, but will it be substantially better? We'll see I guess... Unless it's recently changed... definitely HOV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Unless it's recently changed... definitely HOV. Website is totally out of date, but it does say bus only lanes : http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayprojects/Hwy99_Bus_Lanes/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 13, 2013 Author Share Posted March 13, 2013 Website is totally out of date, but it does say bus only lanes : http://www.th.gov.bc...Lanes/index.htm Perhaps the parts closer to Whiterock on the South and Vancouver on the North are but immediately before and after the tunnel are HOV as far as I know unless that's changed. Regardless...doesn't really matter. Both could be improved and expanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 An added transit option is a ridiculous idea neither side is dense enough for it something like that can be tunneled in after Priorities are 1.Coquitlam 2.Surrey 3.UBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Off Topic slightly: Am I the only one that still uses the cow tunnel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnabyJoe Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 I guess the tunnel is getting old? - How can we afford this? - Does HWY 99 really need another lane? We already have a Los Angeles Freeway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.