June 15, 2016

The End of the Era of Infrastructure

screen-shot-2013-09-20-at-5-55-07-pm

Gordon Price called it first, with the title of post-motordom.

And here it is-Amy Schmitt  in this article on Streetsblog Network describes the death of the big infrastructure project. Why? Because most of the existing infrastructure systems have been built and  need little expanding-and in some cases, could be shrunk.

With analogies to the railroads and the interstate highways of the 19th and 20th centuries where usage is shrinking, Schmitt sees new infrastructure occurring for surface transport such as High Speed Rail and urban transit projects, and for the provision of water and energy.  New systems such as internet and wireless, uber and autonomous vehicles redeploy existing technologies, and readapt them.

So what of building a new tolled  ten lane Massey Bridge   across the Fraser River to move cars onto fewer lanes of highway on either side?

Hmmm…we may have another Fraser River bridge to look at for the answer to that question.

 

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

Leave a Reply to AnonymousCancel Reply

  1. While I’m by no means an advocate of a 10-lane bridge, to be fair it’s not true that there are only 4 lanes worth of highway capacity on either side…

    1. Southside:
      River Road south to Ladner, 1 lane.
      17A southbound to Delta and Tsawwassen – 2 lanes.
      17A northbound to Tilbury – 2 lanes
      17 (SFPR) southbound to the main BC Ferries Terminal for Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands and Deltaport – 2 lanes.
      17 (SFPR) northbound to South Westminster and a direct highway link to Highway 1 (The Trans-Canada Highway) – 2 lanes
      99 south to North Delta, southern Surrey, South Surrey and parts of Langley, White Rock and the USA – 2 lanes.

      That’s 11 lanes.

      Northside; 99, Steveston, 91, Bridgeport and Richmond, Knight Street, Marine Drive east & west, Oak Street, etc.
      That’s at least a dozen lanes.

      1. That is creative arithmetic.

        Many of your listed roads are not highways (with highway lane capacity) or do not feed the bridge, as they feed each other. Knight Street Bridge feeds 91 which feeds 99 (in part, some of the traffic goes east). You counted both separately. Oak Street Bridge feeds 99 (in part, some goes to Bridgeport) and you counted both.

        On the north side approach to the new bridge, only Steveston Hwy adds to 99, and a portion of that volume heads north away from the bridge.

        Does this explain how we got to 10 lanes for the bridge?

        1. What would you consider the number of feeder lanes northbound is a fair calculation, considering the three now merging from the two 99 and the one from the SFPR and the two from 17 north and the two from 62b south?

          Should we say, perhaps, only half, 5?

          You’d have to agree that southbound some traffic peals off to Ladner (1 lane), then a couple of lanes immediately go south to South Delta and Tsawwassen, maybe a few go to 62b and Tilbury, then just a kilometre further more goes off to the SFPR north and south. Then a steady flow continue south towards South Surrey, Delta and the USA.

          When considering the need for a fast route for transit there does seem to be an urgent need for more than the present 3 lanes at rush hour and only one (!) in the opposite direction.

        2. I honestly don’t know the number of lanes required based on just counting the existing built infrastructure, I would want to check measured volumes, and consider when in the day those volumes occur. Consider 17 and 17A northbound, which serve similar demand. It needs more than just counting lanes, partly due to how full the lanes are and partly due to travel speeds. Bridgeport Rd, as an example, does not carry the same traffic per lane per hour as 99.

          I can see the logic of doing something about the existing tunnel. Given the remaining useful life, it would appear to be cheaper to build a parallel tunnel or bridge than an entire new bridge. At a high level, let’s agree that a combined transit/HOV lane is required in each direction. Same approach as Hwy 1. Here, the transit lane doesn’t appear to be given credit for handling any existing HOV volume. Then, with the reduction of current volume due to HOV lane users and the imposition of tolls, how many total lanes would be required? Less than 10, I’d suggest. Recall that the 10 lanes are not required due to the traffic volumes. Due to the height of the new bridge, there is a 5% grade on each side, and with interchanges right at the bridge abutments, the curb lanes are provided as crawler lanes for trucks not moving at highway speeds.

          Another approach would be to consider how Translink and the impacted municipalities approached the planning for the replacement for the Pattullo bridge. They have settled on four lanes, plus bike/pedestrian lanes. Quite a contrast with the Massey replacement planning.

          I asked the engineering team why there was no counterflow lane in the plan. . Counterflow makes sense when there is a defined choke point, with no access over the length of the counterflow section. Here, there is a large amount of traffic joining or leaving on either side of the new bridge, which makes it look like a reasonable solution. The response was that it wasn’t being considered.

          It isn’t just the cost of a 10 lane bridge. At Steveston Hwy, there are both on and off ramps for each direction east and west (1 or 2 lanes in each case). If you look at the model for that interchange, immediately north of Steveston Hwy the new road will be 16 lanes wide, due to the on and off ramps. Plus separation between the ramps due to the elevation differences. The ramps don’t all fit, so the intersection will be stacked. We need to keep in mind that a 10 lane bridge demands feeder roads of the same capacity, and it is a vicious cycle.

          The 24 km of new highway construction (Bridgeport to Hwy 91) will be greatly expanded. That doesn’t just mean widening, it means new overpasses at every cross street. Commuters coming from Steveston to the Oak St Bridge, and some drivers on the south side of the bridge, may use just a portion of the total project scope. I wonder whether the new highway sections will be tolled in addition to the bridge itself, or if people crossing the bridge will pay for all those other users benefiting from sections apart from the bridge.

        3. Given that you, “… agree that a combined transit/HOV lane is required in each direction.” and you mention that trucks will be going slowly as they climb the grade, so they will be crawling in the curb lane, it gets us back to arithmetic.

          One extra lane in each direction because the original was built over a half century ago. That means 3 lanes, instead of the current 2. One more lane for HOV and transit and a curb lane for trucks using the SFPR and going to and from the massive container shipping port. This means two more. 3 + 2 = 5. Times 2 = 10.
          QED

          We’re all on the same thinking track as the ministry. The environmental benefits are impressive too. Our grandchildren will thank us.

          Let’s just hope that TransLink gets its act together soon and figures out that a fast rail link is needed along this increasingly important corridor.

        4. Nice try.

          Firstly, if you don’t bring trucks in at the bridge abutment you don’t need the crawler lanes. Bring them in on the flat, from roads like the SFPR, which was after all designed for truck traffic.

          Secondly, you don’t need to add lanes simply due to the passage of time. We know from the Ministry that total daily volumes have been very flat since before 1990, and that they peaked around 2005, dropping since. They don’t carry fewer vehicles just for being a few years older. Check the Project Definition Report. It is the Ministry’s own data.

          Thirdly, if you are designing for free flowing traffic with three lanes, you don’t need to add an HOV lane. If you do include one (and I would) it takes traffic off the standard lanes. You are double counting, which was the original arithmetic problem. Triple counting, actually, since you are echoing the Ministry line that there will be three lanes, just like today. Unlike today, trucks/buses/HOV vehicles will be outside those three lanes.

          So no, not QED. Just LOL.

          Our grandchildren may or may not be thanking us, but they will be paying the debt.

        5. We also mustn’t ignore the geometry of road space.

          The traffic on the old Port Mann rang in at 71% Single Occupant Vehicles on average. Let’s say many drivers saw the light (more likely paid the high fuel prices of a few years ago) and started carpooling and busing it, and that proportion came down to 66%.

          Applied to Massey and any road infrastructure initiative, each SOV and an associated car length buffer space on either side (i.e. two car lengths between cars) will occupy an 18m section of lane. One 50-passenger bus with one open bus length on either end will occupy a 50 m section of lane, but will displace up to 50 cars, which in turn occupy 900 lane metres.

          In effect, one bus can remove the need for 850 lane metres of road. Similarly, a 300-passenger train can remove up to 5,400 lane metres. Six trains an hour can displace 1,800 cars an hour that collectively occupy over 32 km of road space. Getting the 2/3rds SOV portion down to half or less would be a lot easier with decent transit options.

          This is just one way to illustrate that the geometry of transit is only one of several ways to measure it superiority (per passenger energy consumption, emissions and cost are others) and is an obvious choice to alleviate the immaturity and enormous public waste of over-engineered road megaprojects first dreamed up by traffic engineers with Bewitched reruns still playing in their heads.

    2. 8 lanes would have likely sufficed. But 10 is not a lot more expensive. We may get a bridge to Vancouver Island at some point. That allows us in the future to have TWO HOV lanes per direction. One for AVs, one for 3+ people or e-cars (Tesla ownership comes indeed with privileges) and the other 3 lanes for normal humans. Visionary !

      SFPR is already TOO NARROW. 4 lanes. Give me a break. All them trucks. That should have been 6 to 8 !

      Get over it. We need more road AND more public transit capacity for a region where 2/3 of BC will live and which will have 6M people in 50 years AND which is THE major export/import hub on the Pacific coast for Canada and competing with Seattle and Portland for this traffic and associated business & jobs !

      In 2050 they will call the bridge “visionary” and rename it the Christy Clark bridge ! Maybe we have a UBC subway by then. Maybe.

    3. My basic point is this: there are more than 4 lanes’ worth of traffic feeding the bridge. If you’re going to present an argument against the bridge being 10 lanes wide then speaking untruths will just sabotage your efforts. Trump may get away with it, but I would hope that we have a higher level of discourse here in Canada.

  2. The sad part is that public money is being shoveled into ridiculous projects like this instead of being used to address the critical infrastructure gaps in our cities: sewer treatment and source separation, safe and durable water systems, drainage and dike works, upgrading and improving the efficiency of public buildings, moving towards a zero-carbon energy future. Local Governments are scrambling to find ways to pay for these critical works, while the provincial budget for new asphalt seems bottomless. The opportunity costs here are staggering, and will be felt for generations.

    1. Sewer & water upgrades comes out of the water / sewer bills, which btw are not sub-metered for many of Vancouver’s single family homes.

      zero-carbon on buildings: yawn .. in a balmy province where most buildings are heated or cooled electrically 95%+ of electricity is from hydro. More important is to reduce car traffic and its associated pollution in dense parts of W-Van, N-Van and Vancouver with zero subways plans anywhere in sight. THAT is the real short-sightedness in Vancouver. Where are the raised parking fees on residential roads ? Where are the bridge tolls on all bridges incl. bridges into Vancouver. Where is the subway to E-Van, N-Van and W-Van, under 41st and to UBC ? Why should the province fund more wobbly diesel buses as that is all the mayors could come up with to solve the transit woes.

      1. You are partly wrong, Thomas.

        Ongoing maintenance and operations are funded through the standard tax rates. New and replacement projects are funded through plebiscite-approved debt which is repaid through additional taxes over several years. These projects often qualify to receiving grants from senior governments which help to offset the local tax draw.

        Unneeded monster projects like Port Mann and Massey seriously erode the ability of the province to provide adequate grants for needed local and regional utility replacement, transit, seismic upgrading of schools, etc., let alone social programs.

        That is shameful. So is the fact the province has no overseeing body to regularly audit these political projects.

        1. Every four year there is an audit, called an election.

          Yes to more RAPID transit funding. Buses won’t cut it to lure folks from their temperature controlled, spacious car with music of their choice at any volume at any time to a scheduled crowded bus that is often too hot with unpleasant smells or noises by a few dozen close by. You can’t lure them with lower fares, only with faster commute times as severe comfort reduction and increased inconvenience has to be compensated .. In saved time !!

        2. An audit is not like an election because it’s based on cold, hard, boring, dry analysis, not on propaganda, silly rhetoric and factual errors often conveniently called “misspeaking.”

  3. Another example of the provincial governments misplaced priorities .On the other hand it will get people used to paying road user fees

  4. Remember that there’s generally a trend of underbuilding highways in BC (to control budgets) – so there will be continuing projects to upgrade those facilities over time.

    Remember when Hwy 91 (Annacis Highway) had a traffic light for the left turn to the Richmond Connector?

    Last week, the Province FINALLY announced funding for the removal of the last traffic light on the Annacis Highway (@ 72nd Ave.).
    They also announced a review of counterflow lanes for the Alex Fraser Bridge.

    http://globalnews.ca/news/2749544/new-interchange-in-delta-hopes-to-decrease-traffic-congestion-on-alex-fraser-bridge/

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/highway-91-annacis-island-1.3412946

    The South Fraser Perimeter Road has a number of traffic lights that will require upgrading in the years to come. Most notable is the constant backlog of trucks from SFPR to the Alex Fraser Bridge.

    The proposed Patullo Bridge replacement also has several traffic light at its northern and southern approaches and interchanges.

    1. “there’s generally a trend of underbuilding highways in BC”

      Source?

      I would have said that there is generally a trend of underfunding transit, thereby forcing vehicles onto those highways for lack of alternatives. And if we want to watch the budget, we are better off to spend a higher percentage on transit than on more kilometers of highway lanes.

  5. The traffic light at 72nd Avenue in Delta is a glaring example of under-building. Stationery traffic daily. Whereas, the only reason for the light is for the traffic turning from 91 S to 72nd east and it’s really minimal.

    Whatever happens is more costly. Transit is all subsidized, so more bus passengers just means more buses and each ride costs the taxpayer one dollar.

    It will be interesting to see what Trudeau comes up with tomorrow. Or will it? I guess we all know what’s coming.

    1. Sure, each transit trip costs the public one dollar, but also saves the taxpayer $1.75 by recovering half its operating costs. By comparison, every car trip rungs in between $2.50-5.00 in subsidies, depending on the number and length of trips, with no operating cost recovery.

      And you are disregarding the massive multipliers transit has on development, employment and tax revenue decades after construction, and the savings in health care.

      Are you employed by the MoTH Massey planning team?

      1. Maybe the transit per trip math is more like $1.38 in subsidy, and $1.38 in farebox recovery. Nonetheless, TransLink calculated a 50% operating cost offset.

      2. There’s an idea. Instead of trying to be drill sergeants and teachers and disciplining imagined naughty drivers, whether they be business people or whatever, why not try and find another way to fund the massive transit deficit.

        Maybe we should take the cost of more buses out of the health care budget, since the experts in the universities all say that more transit will save us money for health care.

      3. No,I’m not now and never have worked for the government or any of the consultants or contractors associated directly or indirectly in transportation or any other department.

        Are you with TransLink or Metro or the city of Vancouver? Perhaps part of their massive and growing communications monitoring and steering multitude?

        Since the other day you praised user fees for operators of vehicles do you also believe in user fees for any other government services, or only for drivers?

        1. No, I don’t work for the organizations you mentioned. And the user fee issue vs social benefits was asked and answered.

        2. However, I would support road tolls, or at least transit-like zoning fro insurance charges where you pay for the distances you actually travel.

  6. “Transportation is all subsidized, so more bus passengers just means more buses and it costs the taxpayer less than building and operating roads for SOVs.”

    Fixed it for you 😉

    1. Roads are built for commercial vehicles, service vehicles, municipal vehicles and transit, as well as the essentials; police, fire department vehicles, ambulances and private vehicles. We always have had and we always shall have roads.

      1. Excessively designed freeways and bridges are supposedly designed for commercial vehicles, but in actual use accommodate a vast majority of single occupant cars. You don’t read that in the justifications.

    2. You are creating a straw man argument, Eric. Nobody claimed that we don’t need roads. Yes, we will always have them.

      The discussion is about the need for a 10 lane bridge. The truck volume, during rush hours, is reported by the project team to be under 5%. Explain how that supports your claim that we are building a 10 lane bridge for “commercial vehicles, service vehicles, municipal vehicles and transit,…..” It is being designed to accommodate more single occupant vehicles during rush hours.

  7. The 9th and 10th lanes are supposed to be “climbing” lanes that can be expected to be occupied by slow moving trucks – because it’s a tall bridge and trucks travel slowly on hills. That’s why the NDP added that 5th lane to the old Port Mann Bridge in the 1990s, for trucks climbing the bridge from Pacific Reach Business Park.

    Of the other 8 lanes, 2 lanes are new HOV lanes (which don’t currently exist through the tunnel).

    That leaves 6 general travel lanes (3 lanes each way).
    That provides the same as in the current counterflow direction in rush hour, without the need for a counterflow.

    If it were an 8 lane bridge, there would be only 4 general travel lanes (or 6 if you count the climbing lanes)
    – arguably a reduction in the current rush hour situation since the climbing lane would be slow.
    (Next time you drive the Coquihalla, Hwy try driving behind a truck in the curb lane.)

    If you look at the plans for the highway north and south of the bridge past the adjacent interchanges, you’ll see that the highway on either side is not 10 lanes wide.

    SFPR Interchange
    https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1490/24257276289_74d6cc8cd8_h.jpg

    Hwy 17A Interchange (note HOV median bus station)
    https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1606/23996868174_c084152151_o.png

    Steveston Highway Interchange (note HOV median bus station)
    https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1714/23998200203_3a90d92509_o.png

    1. “If you look at the plans for the highway north and south of the bridge past the adjacent interchanges, you’ll see that the highway on either side is not 10 lanes wide.”

      If you look at the drawing you provided of the Steveston Hwy interchange, you will see more than the 16 lanes I referenced, due to the slip lanes to and from the transit station located in the centre of that highway interchange.

      Where as the three ‘standard’ lanes (taking out the HOV and truck lanes) are the same count as the current situation when the counterflow is in, those current lanes handle HOV and truck traffic, so there is a significant expansion here. And why no counterflow?

    2. Bus stops in the middle of 8-10 lane freeways…

      OK I understand that it’s really efficient for the bus, but what about the passengers? How exactly does one reach a bus stop in such a location? I see a lot of ramps going in different directions, but cannot see how a pedestrian is supposed to reach these, um, “appealing” places.

      In Los Angeles where many LRT stops are in the middle of freeways, they are placed at overpasses without any on/off ramps. That way people can walk straight along the sidewalk to the stairs or elevator leading to the station. It’s still a hideous place to put a transit stop (not actually near anything, surrounded by noise and exhaust fumes), but at least there’s a clear path between civilization and the train. The Highway 99 plans make LA freeways look like a pedestrian paradise.

      1. I think it will be more of a bus transfer station than a walk-to station. Buses along Steveston will transfer passengers to buses on Hwy 99. There will be platforms on multiple levels, with elevators. The roadway is on three levels there.

        There are walkways through the interchange (as well as bike paths, or at least multi-use paths) and they are all grade separated, with tunnels under ramps. Not straight paths, somewhat convoluted due to the number of vehicle ramps, but at least grade-separated.

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles