Roads Fantasy Thread

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by awvan

Seriously, can the mods move the past 3 pages of this discussion to the Transit Fantasies Thread? It would make much more sense there...and we can probably the delete the bickering about Alberta's government/social services system. Take that to the political threads.

A couple notes on Allan's maps (I anticipate my comments will be moved as well).

Metro Vancouver Map:

Why re-align Highway 15 through Surrey? It's almost perfectly straight now and runs between ALR (with the exception of Cloverdale). Why re-route it to meet Highway 10 in the middle of nowhere?

Is a tunnel from North Rd in Burquitlam to the Barnet really necessary? It seems like overkill to connect those routes. Most people in the area are using the North Rd to get TO Port Moody/Coquitlam, not away from it. If they were, wouldn't they just go south to Highway 1? On that point though, a tunnel under St. Johns would make it a much nicer, more local type street.

I am unsure of your tunnel plans through Burnaby but don't really know the area well enough to accurately comment. If it were my choice, I would tunnel from the NW bridgehead of the (new, re-aligned) Patullo Bridge, underneath McBride Avenue to connect with Highway 1 somewhere in the Burnaby Lake stretch. I'd also look at tunnelling underneath New Westminster (SW corner to NE corner) to allow Royal and Columbia to be more local traffic. Again though, this isn't my neighbourhood and don't know it all that well.

I think a full interchange at 200th and Highway to connect to the Golden Ears Bridge is important. Not everyone will be approaching from Golden Ears Way (especially those coming from Abbotsford/Chilliwack).

I have to say a big dig type project from Granville/Oak under Downtown to Taylor Way/Highway 1 is a HORRIBLE idea. First of all, how in god's name do you plan to have a portal at Granville at 12th? Secondly, having tunnel portals off Granville on local streets would decimate the neighbourhood. Same goes for all those portals on the edge of the West End. The only places they would kinda work would be at the south end of the Granville Street Bridge, and even still the idea is dubious. The tunnel portals on the West Van side are easier to deal with, and the Highway 1 interchange doesn't look too bad (provided it's underground, otherwise that is a lot of neighbourhood to destroy). All that being said I don't think we can do a big dig in Vancouver because we wouldn't be connecting interstates (highways) on either end, we would be connecting arterial roads (key word being road).

However, on the other side of the North Shore, your interchange design for the north end of the Ironworkers Memorial is absolutely perfect. I don't think I would change a single thing. For it to work best I think we'd need an 8 lane highway standard bridge, but I'm guessing you took that to be a given.

You seem to be forgetting that Granville St in Vancouver is Highway 99, and Taylor Way in West Van is also Highway 99. Taylor is also Highway 1A.

Putting in some tunnels between Granville/Broadway in Vancouver and Taylor/Highway 1 in West Van IS building a better connection between the Federal Trans Canada Highway and the Provincial Highway 99.
It could be a Canada-BC infrastructure project when the next recession hits and Ottawa & Victoria need to buy some votes.

Maybe it will be built faster if its called the "First Narrows Harper-Campbell Tunnel"

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Argh, I didn't want to get dragged into the off-topic discussion, but...

If you're going to align the tunnel in that direction, then why not turn it another 30 degrees to the right and just make it go overland to the Brunette interchange instead, at a huge savings (probably billions of dollars savings) and less physical constrictions to adding lanes in future? What is so special about Gaglardi interchange, aside from the historical footnote of some unfinished ramps, that makes it so important to connect Patullo to it? The whole point is to connect Patullo to Hwy 1, right, not to build a tunnel just for the sake of it.

I think because Brunette would give alot of redundant routing, since the Port Mann bridge is quite nearby, while the Gaglardi traffic would connect better to Highway 1 going to downtown Vancouver & the North Shore.

What way would you take to get to Ikea from Guildford or even City Centre in Surrey? For some reason, I would likely take the Port Mann (barring traffic) so you're really not making any trips more efficiently except to Coquitlam and the like. (but that's covered by the PMB)

Surrey to Vancouver is best served by meeting Highway 1 somewhere around Burnaby Lake, but since Gaglardi already has had good ramps and ROW provided, it would be more ideal than Brunette.

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

You seem to be forgetting that Granville St in Vancouver is Highway 99, and Taylor Way in West Van is also Highway 99. Taylor is also Highway 1A.

Putting in some tunnels between Granville/Broadway in Vancouver and Taylor/Highway 1 in West Van IS building a better connection between the Federal Trans Canada Highway and the Provincial Highway 99.
It could be a Canada-BC infrastructure project when the next recession hits and Ottawa & Victoria need to buy some votes.

Maybe it will be built faster if its called the "First Narrows Harper-Campbell Tunnel"

No doubt if tunnels could be constructed it would be a superior connection between Highway and the 99, but I just don't think it can be done without creating big inconveniences. Also, while Granville St is labeled as "99" and Taylor Way is labeled as 99/1A, they are both roads that carry 50km/h speed limits and have sidewalks and traffic lights, not exactly highways.

And I'd be the first one to love for this to happen. I've lived in West Van all my life (now North Van) and had a girlfriend in Richmond for 3 years. Every frickin' day I did that drive I'd think about a way to make it work and I just don't think it can be reasonably done. Not without unbelievably high costs for somewhat limited benefit. A 4 lane Lions Gate Bridge/Causeway would make a significant improvement. Just having both lanes all the time would cause lineups to be at worst 5-10 minutes in either direction. The infrastructure on the downtown side can't handle any more anyways. People living on the North Shore will have to accept that nothing more can be done and adjust their lives accordingly. Seabus-Canada Line-YVR is already a massive improvement for people on the North Shore, and apart from going on overseas ski/golf/surf trips (or anything else with massive oversize luggage) I don't see why anyone would drive anymore.

Time and money on road infrastructure is better spent on finding solutions for those south of the Fraser, while Vancouver proper needs money for the UBC Skytrain extension and possibly streetcar.

[red-paladin]

I think the tunnel plans are impossible because of the geography.
You're talking about about a tunnel that starts in Vancouver, goes under False creek, the West End, Stanley Park, First Narrows, then under the ground up the North Shore. The part under Stanley Park in particular would have to be super deep. Think about how high Propect Point is above the water, and you're going to build a tunnel below the bottom of the narrows and then it will rise and go up the hill? The grade changes in this tunnel would be crazy!

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I think the tunnel plans are impossible because of the geography.
You're talking about about a tunnel that starts in Vancouver, goes under False creek, the West End, Stanley Park, First Narrows, then under the ground up the North Shore. The part under Stanley Park in particular would have to be super deep. Think about how high Propect Point is above the water, and you're going to build a tunnel below the bottom of the narrows and then it will rise and go up the hill? The grade changes in this tunnel would be crazy!

How did we EVER build the new Canada Line?

It starts nearly at sea-level at Waterfront, rises hundreds of feet up to get past The Bay and Sears, only to come back down to sea-level at Yaletown, then falls another 100 feet to get under False Creek, only to rise almost 400 feet again to get past Queen Elizabeth Park, and then falls almost to sea-level again as it crosses the border into Richmond.

It must have taken some amazing engineering minds to get something so big and bulky to be able to manage all those changes in elevation in less than 10 KMs.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by awvan

No doubt if tunnels could be constructed it would be a superior connection between Highway and the 99, but I just don't think it can be done without creating big inconveniences. Also, while Granville St is labeled as "99" and Taylor Way is labeled as 99/1A, they are both roads that carry 50km/h speed limits and have sidewalks and traffic lights, not exactly highways.

And I'd be the first one to love for this to happen. I've lived in West Van all my life (now North Van) and had a girlfriend in Richmond for 3 years. Every frickin' day I did that drive I'd think about a way to make it work and I just don't think it can be reasonably done. Not without unbelievably high costs for somewhat limited benefit. A 4 lane Lions Gate Bridge/Causeway would make a significant improvement. Just having both lanes all the time would cause lineups to be at worst 5-10 minutes in either direction. The infrastructure on the downtown side can't handle any more anyways. People living on the North Shore will have to accept that nothing more can be done and adjust their lives accordingly. Seabus-Canada Line-YVR is already a massive improvement for people on the North Shore, and apart from going on overseas ski/golf/surf trips (or anything else with massive oversize luggage) I don't see why anyone would drive anymore.

Time and money on road infrastructure is better spent on finding solutions for those south of the Fraser, while Vancouver proper needs money for the UBC Skytrain extension and possibly streetcar.

"The infrastructure on the downtown side can't handle any more anyways."

So why build bridges with more lanes that funnel more traffic into downtown streets that can't handle more traffic?

Build the Highway 99 first narrows bypass tunnels instead.

People who really DO need to go downtown can still use the bridges. People who are just passing through (and would rather NOT be stuck in downtown traffic or on the bridges) can use the tunnels instead.

How much of a toll would you have paid to use a tunnel that got you to your girlfriend faster?

[Zassk]

Wouldn't it be better to have through traffic take a different route instead of going through downtown? Only traffic that is destined for the peninsula should ever enter the peninsula, if you ask me. Find/make a different route for all other traffic.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Wouldn't it be better to have through traffic take a different route instead of going through downtown? Only traffic that is destined for the peninsula should ever enter the peninsula, if you ask me. Find/make a different route for all other traffic.

I look forward to seeing your map.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I look forward to seeing your map.

In most European cities, the fastest route from one side of the city to the opposite, isn't through the downtown, but around the outside of the city.

If Highway 1 and Boundary had an actual interchange, Boundary was cleared up around Kingsway and Central Park, and Boundary had a bridge over the river connecting to the 91, it would make a great 91B and connector to 99 from Highway 1. It doesn't need to be a freeflow freeway (SFPR will fill that need), but with just some basic improvements and a bridge, Boundary could handle a lot of traffic volume just fine, and be a speedy way from the North Shore to the border, airport, or ferries.

You could also extend the Boundary crossing all the way South through Lulu island and across the South Arm of the Fraser, making a new crossing primarily for commercial vehicles connecting to the SFPR, which would greatly ease congestion on the AFB and GMT. Most of the time, the problem on the AFB is commercial trucks trying to pass each other on the 2 outside lanes going up the bridge approaches, blocking all traffic behind them.

And I also think the Second Narrows bridge will see some improvement with the improved flow through the Cassiar and Grandview that Gateway will bring.

[deasine]

I decided to just change this thread to a Roads Fantasy Thread now that everyone is throwing concepts all over. Besides, the HWY 99 timeline and speculation is at the current stages, a concept.

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

Are you talking about my curving tunnel or the one that jsbertram made?

For mine, the ramp entrances could be adjusted somewhat to make the traffic flow smoother. Of course, I'm no traffic scientist or geologist, so this alignment will probably change by the time someone comes by to build it, whenever that occurs. =S

The curving of the tunnels to follow the surface is mainly to address the fact that tunnels with any kind of cars in them need ventilation shafts. Locating them near roads makes building them (and some emergency exits along with it) much easier.

Yes, I was referring to yours. But before I respond, I admit I do have a personal bias against roadway expansion unless I see it is absolutely critical. If you ask me, while I agree that there should be a tunnel to replace the Lions Gate, I do not see the need for a tunnel through the core.

Anyways, back to my point earlier, the choke points will occur because of the number of exits throughout the core. Looking at your map, we have an exit at Alberni and Pender Street Southbound. Alberni, remember, is more of a local street: it is not designed to handle as an arterial. And because Alberni is used as a exit point, drivers will use Alberni to get to other local roads roads such as Burrard and Robson Street, and thus, increases traffic on these local streets. Yes, it may reduce traffic on Georgia, but it doesn't reduce net traffic, it simply redistributes it onto local collectors.

Continuing southbound through the curve area, there is a total of three access points into the tunnel, all within a very short distance of one another. Unless you are proposing for exit to have its dedicated lane into the tunnel, this doesn't allow for longer acceleration lanes and requires drivers to make merges immediately into the main tunnel, which will cause traffic bottlenecks. The perfect example of one in the Lower Mainland is Knight Street and the Bridgeport Cloverleaf. The one reason why traffic slows down to almost a stop is not really because of the number of cars using Knight, but the fact that short acceleration lane forces an abrupt merge.

Next potential problem is the exits onto Fir and Sixth. Again, these aren't roads that are designed to handle more traffic than it already is. For Fir, the significant elevation change between Sixth and Broadway poses a construction challenge, not to mention, the Fir Street overpass.

Going northbound now, again 12th and Broadway entry points are within a short distance of one another, which poses short acceleration lanes and tight merges. These turns are also quite tight. On a normal cloverleaf, it might be acceptable because you have a larger field of vision, but in a tunnel situation, it can be much more dangerous.

Nelson and Hornby is also within a short distance of one another. If Nelson is taken away, for instance, how much harder is it to drive two blocks on Hornby to access Nelson?

Then, we also have Melville and West Pender entry points within a short distance of one another.

I didn't mention space required for these tunnel portals. It's one thing to draw a bunch of lines on a map, it's another to factor other information in, like topography, property acquisition needed, etc. For instance, Georgia Street isn't that wide to have room for a tunnel portals: it will come on the expense of other traffic lanes of pedestrians.

If one is proposing any tunnel through the downtown core for commuters to/from the North Shore, it should bypass downtown, with maybe a maximum of two entry and exit points in the core. Keep in mind, your proposal also reduces traffic on Granville Bridge, one that is overbuilt at its current state. I'm not sure what you meant by rebuilding the bridge, if that is even necessary.

Really, if people are going to downtown, they should only have a choice of using the bridges and not the tunnel. If people want to bypass downtown to the northshore, they should only use the tunnel.

Keep in mind though, I still don't support a tunnel going through downtown as I do not see the need for one.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

In most European cities, the fastest route from one side of the city to the opposite, isn't through the downtown, but around the outside of the city.

If Highway 1 and Boundary had an actual interchange, Boundary was cleared up around Kingsway and Central Park, and Boundary had a bridge over the river connecting to the 91, it would make a great 91B and connector to 99 from Highway 1. It doesn't need to be a freeflow freeway (SFPR will fill that need), but with just some basic improvements and a bridge, Boundary could handle a lot of traffic volume just fine, and be a speedy way from the North Shore to the border, airport, or ferries.

You could also extend the Boundary crossing all the way South through Lulu island and across the South Arm of the Fraser, making a new crossing primarily for commercial vehicles connecting to the SFPR, which would greatly ease congestion on the AFB and GMT. Most of the time, the problem on the AFB is commercial trucks trying to pass each other on the 2 outside lanes going up the bridge approaches, blocking all traffic behind them.

And I also think the Second Narrows bridge will see some improvement with the improved flow through the Cassiar and Grandview that Gateway will bring.

Thinking about this over breakfast (don't have a map in front of me), this Boundary Road connector could actually be extended south along No. 8 Road across Richmond (connecting to River Rd, the E-W Connector, the New West Highway, and Blundell Rd); then another bridge over Tilbury Island and extend south along 72nd Street (connecting to the other River Rd, Highway 99, Ladner Trunk Rd, and Boundary Bay Airport).

I may not be able to get much work done today while I mull this over.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Thinking about this over breakfast (don't have a map in front of me), this Boundary Road connector could actually be extended south along No. 8 Road across Richmond (connecting to River Rd, the E-W Connector, the New West Highway, and Blundell Rd); then another bridge over Tilbury Island and extend south along 72nd Street (connecting to the other River Rd, Highway 99, Ladner Trunk Rd, and Boundary Bay Airport)..

Actually, the SFPR goes almost exactly in line with Boundary/No. 8 Road, so you could just connect to that.

I guess I should make my own map!

Boundary Bay Airport is going to be served by a new interchange on Hwy 99 that I believe is going to be constructed in the next year.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by awvan

Why re-align Highway 15 through Surrey? It's almost perfectly straight now and runs between ALR (with the exception of Cloverdale). Why re-route it to meet Highway 10 in the middle of nowhere?

This is to bypass Cloverdale's residential areas by running the highway through yes... ALR farmland. ^^; A tunnel could work also but would cost much more and I doubt that'll happen there.

The goal that I set out in the South of Fraser area was to create more free-flowing routes... this means fewer traffic lights and more interchanges... and also often means that highways have to be pushed out of developed areas because there is little room to build a free-flowing interchange.

Originally Posted by awvan

Is a tunnel from North Rd in Burquitlam to the Barnet really necessary? It seems like overkill to connect those routes. Most people in the area are using the North Rd to get TO Port Moody/Coquitlam, not away from it. If they were, wouldn't they just go south to Highway 1? On that point though, a tunnel under St. Johns would make it a much nicer, more local type street.

Well the two projects (St Johns Street Tunnel and North Road Bypass) are supposed to provide a faster route to the TriCities without going through residential areas or the hilly curve that North Road currently does before intersecting with Barnet Highway.

As for the highway 99 tunnel that everyone's commenting about... I do acknowledge, there's probably not enough demand for the project right now... but when it's time to replace the Lions Gate Bridge (and its inevitable) something has to be done... and I doubt they'll build a new bridge and a wider causeway through the park as one of those methods... you'll get a lot of people yelling about the park's destruction and what not.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

As for the highway 99 tunnel that everyone's commenting about... I do acknowledge, there's probably not enough demand for the project right now... but when it's time to replace the Lions Gate Bridge (and its inevitable) something has to be done... and I doubt they'll build a new bridge and a wider causeway through the park as one of those methods... you'll get a lot of people yelling about the park's destruction and what not.

I agree, and this is a whole discussion in itself, but I predict there will be a significant change in transportation patterns when Lions Gate is finally decommissioned. Perhaps it will be replaced by a transit-only crossing at 1st Narrows + a road expansion of 2nd Narrows. I simply can't see a replacement of the current route through the park and spilling into downtown streets being built after this.

In fact, wouldn't the existing Lions Gate Bridge make an awesome SkyTrain-only bridge?

[Millennium2002]

It's been discussed before, but yes it would xD

In fact, my full-blown transit fantasy has one line running on the bridge itself. ^^

[adrianroam95]

Random. Made this off the top of my head. hehe. Anyways, here's what Highway 99 around the Oak St. Br. could look like once the whole freeway down to the border's widened and the George Massey is twinned. Now, the Authur Laing together with the older Sea Island Way Bridge could handle southbound traffic while the Oak St. Bridge gets to handle northbound traffic only. This way, we don't need to completely demolish Oak St. Br. and rebuild it from the ground up when it comes time to widen H-99 - we just have to reconfigure the ramps and stuff a bit and redirect some roads. i.e. No. 3 Rd, in my diagram, curves to the east and becomes Bridgeport Rd.
The only major concern is that the Sea Island Way Br. might need to have its road deck widened slightly (the sidewalks would no longer be needed since this road would be a fully grade separated roadway) or rebuilt, to accomodate 3-4 lanes. No biggie, a replacement wouldn't be too costly.

The diagram's pretty self explanatory:
SOUTHBOUND - RED
NORTHBOUND - BLUE
RAMPS - BLACK
CONNECTING ARTERIALS - ORANGE
and BTW, the U curve to the east south of the Arthur Laing would be similar to the one on H-91 north of Annacis Island. Not that big a deal either. Slap 70km/h speed limit signs on both sides of the road and you're done.

If you guys have any questions, ask.

[xd_1771]

That is too complex and costly to my liking, especially considering the existing system still works well. Then again, it would allow for a 3 lane Highway 99 with shoulders (or 4 lanes without) so you have a point. Perhaps the reduced lanes into Vancouver could be made up for with a new Boundary Road bridge. Also, a lot of the connections can be made just as well with existing structures and minimal upgrades (referring specifically to the Grant McConachie airport interchange).

Anyways, here's one of my recent fantasies involving the NFPR connection & Brunette/Blue Mountain:


EDIT: Here is another recent fantasy involving the Rte 1/Rte 10 interchange:
Phase 1:

Phase 2:

[Nutterbug]

I don't know if this has been suggested already, but how about a No. 8 Road/Boundary Road freeway and bridge for a direct freeway connection between Highways 91 and 1? Build a freeway at No. 8 Road in Richmond, a bridge over the North Arm Fraser connecting it to Boundary Road between Vancouver and Burnaby, and gradually upgrade the latter to freeway status.

[DKaz]

xd_1771, I don't know how you could be so against loops in one thread then design these small radius loops in this thread. Just sayin'.

Boundary Road is too developed to upgrade to freeway status...

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Boundary Road is too developed to upgrade to freeway status...

Can they do what was done to Cassiar Street?