ahzdeen Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Off Topic slightly: Am I the only one that still uses the cow tunnel? What's the cow tunnel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 14, 2013 Author Share Posted March 14, 2013 What's the cow tunnel? If it's where I think it is...it doesn't remotely help you cross the Fraser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coda Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 What's the cow tunnel? A very low and narrow tunnel under highway 99 highway in Delta. The only way across the highway between the Highway 17 and Highway 10 overpasses as far as I know. I'm guessing the vast majority of the 10's of thousands of commuters who cross it every day don't even know it exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 14, 2013 Author Share Posted March 14, 2013 A very low and narrow tunnel under highway 99 highway in Delta. The only way across the highway between the Highway 17 and Highway 10 overpasses as far as I know. I'm guessing the vast majority of the 10's of thousands of commuters who cross it every day don't even know it exists. Yeah except I think you'd land in the middle of the SFPR construction these days. Also, as I mentioned it doesn't remotely help you cross the Fraser. Really not much of help short of the odd time the 99 is an actual parking lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 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). Had they done that at the time (it's called lane continuity btw) and had three lane tunnels probably would still be fine. If they don't widen 99 it will be six lane bridge. If they put HOV/commercial/who knows lanes up and down 99 to the border (widen to middle) than it will be a 8 lane bridge. Existing tunnel is in the way of ships coming up the Fraser. I suppose we could make the inane's of the world happy and simply do massive infil of the tidal areas and move all the port facilities there but the greens that would fight that have a lot more friends and power than those that try to get you out of your car. 8 lane tolled bridge will be what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 I prefer option 5 if they were to make No. 8 connect to Boundary Rd. Edit: Basically two bridges (4 or 6 lanes). When you do that you do it in the name of improving flow of the Alex Fraser and toll both. Then the south fraser screenline is complete with no free option to distort the flow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 I would LOVE to see the truck suggestion implemented regardless of what, if anything, gets built. Maybe the NDP will have the balls but I doubt the Liberals with all the work they've done to increase shipping capacity will want anything to do with limiting that. The rapid transit suggestion is laughable though If we're stuck debating on whether there should be a UBC line built (it should) and who's paying for it, having one along the 99 corridor is actually not even laughable.... It's beyond ludicrous in comparison. It's more likely that you would see a dedicated truck lane built to the border than having a ban, at any time, on any day, for truck traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 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. Well a large amount of hwy 99 has dedicated bus lanes already built to it and the most logical reponse for transit to places like ladner and Twassen is rapid bus service so I personally think it would be shocking if they didn't include bus lanes. Mind you that means a ten lane bridge if you want to have the two lanes existing plus one for lane continuity for 17 plus one for the widening to the border plus one for the bus lane times two for a total of ten lanes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 About Oak st? Already in the rush hour 99 is configured to push three lanes into 2 and you loose a lane of traffic when you get to 91. Ideally you would have a three lane oak street bridge but unless COV didn't have parking on 99 for a significant stretch (ya right) it would be pointless. So there would be a line at the oak street bridge. At least people that hate that line would have the option of pulling off the highway, parking at the bridgeport park and ride, and getting on train the rest of the way. With a transit alternative in place I could live with the Q..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 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... Whatever government is in power will be busy trying to balance the budget in the face of rising health care costs. I wouldn't be too optimistic. And FYI the NDP is just as committed as the Libs to fixing the tunnel. It's in the way of ship traffic. Even they aren't THAT stupid as to alienate every voter south of the river by coming out against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 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 If the existing bus lanes had lane continuity they would be much faster and the existing express buses would be faster and able to do more trips a day even with the existing fleet. Transit from south surrey to downtown is already decent. If there was no delay for the tunnel it would be awesome. The main issue with transit in every suburb isn't trying to get downtown. The issue is trying to get anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 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 - Rest assured it will be tolled. - From 17 (aka the port) to the border it sure does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Some more information--how much evidence does one need before we wake up? Fewer teens/early 20's getting drivers licenses: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/03/15/as-youth-driver-licensing-dips-again-a-focus-on-the-millennials/ http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-autos-teen-driver-20130316-1,0,7422833.story Vehicle Miles Traveled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Some more information--how much evidence does one need before we wake up? Fewer teens/early 20's getting drivers licenses: http://dc.streetsblo...he-millennials/ http://www.latimes.c...0,7422833.story Vehicle Miles Traveled Fewer teens/early 20s people aren't driving because they don't have jobs or money........ The trend since 2007 (start of the great financial crisis) happens to coincide with a downturn in the economy (greatest traffic releiver ever) in an area where limited road (and transit) capacity doesn't have any ability to increase the amount of vehicle km travelled. Of course you won't see much higher volumes on facilities that are near or at capacity..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Fewer teens/early 20s people aren't driving because they don't have jobs or money........ The trend since 2007 (start of the great financial crisis) happens to coincide with a downturn in the economy (greatest traffic releiver ever) in an area where limited road (and transit) capacity doesn't have any ability to increase the amount of vehicle km travelled. Of course you won't see much higher volumes on facilities that are near or at capacity..... It's not that they aren't driving, they aren't even getting their license. This is in the US overall, not here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 It's not that they aren't driving, they aren't even getting their license. This is in the US overall, not here. Everything I said about the downturn in the economy affecting things is even more true in the US. I assure you traffic on US 101 in the bay area went way down after the dot com bust. You could graph just about anything (house prices, home starts, TV purchases, anything and everything) over that time period and it would go down. It's hardly a sign that people suddenly don't like the idea of houses, TVs, or driving............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Everything I said about the downturn in the economy affecting things is even more true in the US. I assure you traffic on US 101 in the bay area went way down after the dot com bust. You could graph just about anything (house prices, home starts, TV purchases, anything and everything) over that time period and it would go down. It's hardly a sign that people suddenly don't like the idea of houses, TVs, or driving............ The trends began earlier than 2007....the automakers themselves are acknowledging this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 20, 2013 Author Share Posted March 20, 2013 The trends began earlier than 2007....the automakers themselves are acknowledging this. And the trend of youth having less jobs, income, opportunity and more debt than their parents also began earlier....hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 The trends began earlier than 2007....the automakers themselves are acknowledging this. Immediately before 2007 Americans were approaching their highest levels of debt ever as they piled all their money into real estate when the US government made it easy for just about anyone to get a home as they tried to pull the economy out of the dot com crash. But good news! In 2007 the Canadian government, concerned about the slowing economy due to the great financial crisis, made it super easy for Canadians to pile all their money into houses and now were at record level of home ownership and per capita debt! If history repeats itself then you can look forward to some home grown decreases in car purchases/km driven/TVs bought too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 And the trend of youth having less jobs, income, opportunity and more debt than their parents also began earlier....hmmm If you think it pisses off a Vancouverite to talk about the realities of any green scheme they come up with don't even dream of talking about the economy. That REALLY pisses them off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.