Hwy 99 Fraser River Tunnel (George Massey Replacement) | Proposed

[Steveston]

Harold Steves never met a microphone (or reporter's camera) he didn't like. He never fails to remind people about being the originator/champion of the ALR, but when you go see his ever-diminishing farm in Richmond, you will find monster houses sprouting on the northern edges of his property.

He's part of the "oppose everything" group, and is (thankfully), a minority voice on Council.

In my view, the "keep the existing tunnel (with upgrades), and add a new parallel tunnel/bridge" option is the best, as it utilizes/upgrades existing infrastructure, forces improvement of the Steveston Hwy interchange, creates potential for a new interchange at Blundell, and is probably the most efficient use of funds. I know that this doesn't address the issue of deep-draft ships heading up the Fraser, but my evaluation criteria is based on expansion of roadway capacity and efficient use of funds, NOT Port Metro Vancouver's priorities.

Regarding tolling, all non-HOV traffic during the morning and afternoon rushes should be tolled.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

What's even worse is the blatant hypocrisy. Harold Steeve's family enriched themselves by selling off their farmland that was developed yet years later, all of a sudden he's become a champion for "protecting our food source." What a load of BS!

Too funny. What's even more funny is that the Steve's farm north of Steveston Hwy and west of No. 1 Road was sold by Steeves to a very close relative of mine back in 1972 for a single-family residential subdivision.

Then in August, 1972 Steeves was elected as the NDP MLA for Richmond under the Barrett NDP government and was instrumental in bringing in the ALR, which substantially decreased the value of farmland.

And another interesting tidbit. Within the past 5 years, Steeves has been advocating raising Hwy 99 through Richmond by 10 - 20 feet to act as a secondary levee in case the original along the foreshore bursts. Now that would def consume a good chunk of additional farmland!

Yep. Steves has always been an eccentric oddball.

[DKaz]

A secondary levee at that point to protect what, the farmlands??

[WarrenC12]

I'm in Toronto this week. All I can report is that more highways and more lanes are not the solution.

[Vancouver_Highrise]

^^ I just got back from Toronto and I can say that's true if you're driving in rush hour on the 401 or DVP/QEW, but besides that the highway system there is amazing, maybe you should have paid the toll on the 407 for a traffic free alternative (if you were stuck on the 401). I hate coming back to Vancouver to drive on our "highways" let alone the atrocious bad drivers that plague this city.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by Vancouver_Highrise

^^ I just got back from Toronto and I can say that's true if you're driving in rush hour on the 401 or DVP/QEW, but besides that the highway system there is amazing, maybe you should have paid the toll on the 407 for a traffic free alternative (if you were stuck on the 401). I hate coming back to Vancouver to drive on our "highways" let alone the atrocious bad drivers that plague this city.

Then you should stay in Toronto!

[Metro-One]

Yeah, that hate on our highways is often overblown I think, Are they the best, definitely not, are they the worst, no.

Especially with all the major improvements over the last 5+ years (New Pitt River Bridge, New GEB and GEW (which included metro Vancouver most extensive use of elevated roadway), all the interchange improvements that have been done (such as the Queensburough), the new SFPR (which is a well designed road save for the missing interchanges, but still a vast improvement), and the entire highway 1 project which IMO has upgraded it fully to a high level modern designed highway, not to mention the twinning of routes 10 and 15.

The nit picking on here does get funny sometimes, for one can do that with any highways system (and I have also seen some hypocrisy from a couple members where they will complain an aspect done here, but the praise it somewhere else).

[go_leafs_go02]

In the 4+ years I've been here, it's been a whirlwind of improvements. I first arrived in 2009:

No Golden Ears Bridge
No Pitt River Bridge
No Coast Meridian Overpass
No Gateway
No SFPR
No Port Mann Bridge, or Highway 1 improvements.
No Nelson Road interchange on Highway 91.
Highway 10 & 15 in Surrey were JUST widened.

[libtard]

I wouldn't say Vancouver's highways are the worst in the world. But definitely at the bottom of the pack for North American standards.

I think its just a lack of travelling. If you have lived in the lower mainland all your life, then yes the recent upgrades will obviously make everything look much better. But we're still far behind compared to the rest of the continent.

[Metro-One]

hm, lack of travelling, lets see, driving throughout BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and parts of Quebec.

Use to work in Nevada, driving the I-80 daily.

Driven throughout Washington, been to Salt lake City, San Fran, Chicago, West Virginia, Washington DC.

Lived in Japan, with a car, for over a year (going back again soon).

Travelled throughout Europe, with a rental car btw, twice.

Been to Africa (Senegal).

Yes, I need to get out more! haha

I would say overall compared to all the highways I have driven we are middle of the pack.

hate to say it, but most highways in the Prairies are in horrible shape, terrible lane markings, incredibly patch worked due to the freeze thaw cycle. etc...

The I-80 in Nevada is incredibly rough. In fact there were a couple horrid bumps where instead of smoothing them out they simply put up signs saying bump ahead.

The I-5 has terrible signage overall IMO and is like driving on a rumble strip for much of its length.

Don't even get me started on surface road quality in Quebec...

Most highways in Japan are only 60km to 80km designed expressways with incredibly tiny shoulders that you would just hate! (in fact that is why I love the GEW, with its elevated structures, big ramps, good lane markings, smaller shoulders, lower speeds, it honestly feels like it was transplanted straight out of Japan).

The highways in Sweeden were actually very comparable to BC's, and no surprise, they have similar population density as our province with lots of rocky land.

[nname]

The I-5 north of north of Seattle is incredibly rough for my family car. Every time we go south of the border, we always very glad when we got back onto highway 99.

There were once the road was so bad that we feel our 16-years-old car wouldn't made it without falling apart, so we left the highway and travel on local road instead...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vancouver_Highrise

^^ I just got back from Toronto and I can say that's true if you're driving in rush hour on the 401 or DVP/QEW, but besides that the highway system there is amazing, maybe you should have paid the toll on the 407 for a traffic free alternative (if you were stuck on the 401). I hate coming back to Vancouver to drive on our "highways" let alone the atrocious bad drivers that plague this city.

I did take the 407 at times. $0.22/km is insane though, I wouldn't pay that as a commuter.

Vancouver has some bad rush hour traffic, but so does everywhere else. If you build the highways, people will fill them.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

I liked this post. Why not have scenario 1 with expanded transit or a transit and active transportation only expansion? Even this will give the existing traffic more space as transit would use the expansion.

http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2013/03/2...rnment-what-he-thinks-and-so-should-you/

It seems that it is time to push the transit and active transportation agenda again.

Maybe the message should be that the billions the government will spend into putting more road lanes across the South Arm of the Fraser should go into transit and light rail transit in Delta, Richmond, into Surrey, to Tsawwassen ferry terminal, and to the US border first. Then the potential for mode conversion to transit will be understood before road expansion capacity is considered.

Maybe the scenario that should be pursued is a modified MOTI’s Scenario 1 – Maintain Existing Tunnel (which includes improved earthquake protection) plus transit investment.

There are options for bus service expansion. Additional transit scenarios that may eliminate need for additional lanes and are worthy to investigate include light rail solutions including LRT, extending the Canada Line, and fast commuter trains to the border.

The problem is I think it is false to assume just because it is an area where cars drive, then it makes sense to put transit there.

Driving and transit have different keys to success. Driving is about individual efficiency, while transit succeeds when it focuses on the needs of the many.

With driving, when building roads you want to reduce congestion. More cars means jammed roads, means more travel time, means reduced efficiency.

On the other hand, transit thrives best when more people use it. More people means more fares, means more services, means increase frequency, means more people.

So, when designing roads, you want them to be fast. So they will be direct between 2 points. This encourages people going between these 2 points to use it, while discouraging people not going to these points to avoid it. This makes it efficient.

When designing transit, being direct isn't as important as hitting as many high volume points as possible. (sometimes you can do both, like the Expo Line, but most of the time you end up with something that snakes around like the Evergreen Line).

So just because the GMT is busy with cars, doesn't mean it is the best choice for a mass transit crossing. The tunnel is a convenient (the fastest) crossing for people travelling from the entire South Surrey area and even into Cloverdale and Langley going to Richmond or Vancouver, but other cars are also crossing destined for the Knight Street corridor and East Richmond. There are a lot of diverse starting points going to a lot of diverse end points.

I don't know if a transit line would solve that problem. It would be good for those going from White Rock to Bridgeport Station, but what about those going to offices on No 5 Road, or into East Vancouver. Ladner is also a ways off the highway, so it would be a bit of a diversion to go into Ladner.

Extending the Canada Line would also slow down travel. Just between the tunnel and Bridgeport, the bus, in its current dedicated lanes have an average speed of around 80km/h (counting the stop and slow movement on Bridgeport). From Steveston to Bridgeport, counting stopping at stations, the average speed of the Canada Line would be half that. And on the other side of the tunnel there aren't many population/job centers to attract extra/new riders.

So if we are talking about spending Billions on transit, I think the money is better spent to the East. King George Blvd has density around it. If you were to extend Skytrain down King George all the way to White Rock (at probably a lower price as LRT from Bridgeport all the way to White Rock) you would not only serve the many riders heading into downtown Vancouver from White Rock, but also all the riders from White Rock heading into Surrey, New West, Burnaby, and Vancouver, as well as making transfers into Coquitlam. Add to that all the population along King George in Newton.

Compare that to a rail line that would only serve White Rock riders going to Richmond and those transferring into Downtown. LRT on hwy 99 wouldn't be any faster than buses in dedicated lanes, nor would it be faster than having a direct connection into Downtown Via Skytrain through King George. You would get equal travel times and serve far, far more people with probably a cheaper investment by extending Surrey Skytrain.

Yes, I think there should be dedicated bus lanes through the new crossing, as buses are the best solution, but rail transit in that part of the lower mainland is decades off and a distant priority over areas that are built up and needed rapid transit decades ago.

So using transit in this argument is just a deflection that distracts from the real priority of this crossing, which is vehicle traffic (including buses). We need a functioning road first and foremost for goods movement, and also because it is the welcoming gateway for travel into the Region from the USA.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Vancouver_Highrise

^^ I just got back from Toronto and I can say that's true if you're driving in rush hour on the 401 or DVP/QEW, but besides that the highway system there is amazing, maybe you should have paid the toll on the 407 for a traffic free alternative (if you were stuck on the 401). I hate coming back to Vancouver to drive on our "highways" let alone the atrocious bad drivers that plague this city.

ya except rush hour lasts from 8AM to 10PM here.

Honestly Iv'e never seen a city with traffic problems like this. You guys out west have no idea.

[dreambrother808]

I don't think any of us need another forum in our lives for posts like that.

Let's keep SSP meme pic free.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

ya except rush hour lasts from 8AM to 10PM here.

Honestly Iv'e never seen a city with traffic problems like this. You guys out west have no idea.

Agreed. It's an awful feeling to realize that you need to drive the DVP or the Gardiner during rush hour. What takes 5 - 10 minutes on a weekend or mid-day easily takes an hour or more and people are vicious when it comes to lane changes. It seems that turn signals are premium optional equipment, the use of which is carefully rationed to prevent premature bulb burnout or alternator failure.

[East Van]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

ya except rush hour lasts from 8AM to 10PM here.

Honestly Iv'e never seen a city with traffic problems like this. You guys out west have no idea.

When I lived there a few years back, the number of available lanes on the road network & how easily they were filled by vehicles was surprising. It was nothing I was used too in Vancouver or even Seattle. The feeling of Montreal rush hour was even at a greater scale than here. I traveled from Hamilton to Markham regularly in rush hour by GO train & 401 style. I've missed a flight because I decided to use the Gardiner, I've sat on the DVP for well over an hour. Most of you west coast whiners would probably have to pull over & cry in this type of traffic. There were some sections of that commute were operating speed would reach nearly 140kms/hr & then suddenly come to a halt & crawl because a semi truck has blown a tire from speeding & flipped. We may be Canada's largest port but the amount of truck traffic in Toronto is incredible. That corridor seems to easily have 2 or 3 times the amount of truck traffic we ever see. Suburban traffic also seems to be as bad as it gets in the US. For Canadian standards in ain't that bad here.

Vancouver's highway network is undersized but it seems to work alright, even better with all the improvements lately. It also doesnt help that Lower Mainland is nearly as spread out as Toronto or Montreal. In a geographically constricted region like this we always have to add crossing options. I'm in favour for a new alignment that links up with Boundary st.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

I liked this post. Why not have scenario 1 with expanded transit or a transit and active transportation only expansion? Even this will give the existing traffic more space as transit would use the expansion.

http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2013/03/2...rnment-what-he-thinks-and-so-should-you/

It seems that it is time to push the transit and active transportation agenda again.

Maybe the message should be that the billions the government will spend into putting more road lanes across the South Arm of the Fraser should go into transit and light rail transit in Delta, Richmond, into Surrey, to Tsawwassen ferry terminal, and to the US border first. Then the potential for mode conversion to transit will be understood before road expansion capacity is considered.

Maybe the scenario that should be pursued is a modified MOTI’s Scenario 1 – Maintain Existing Tunnel (which includes improved earthquake protection) plus transit investment.

There are options for bus service expansion. Additional transit scenarios that may eliminate need for additional lanes and are worthy to investigate include light rail solutions including LRT, extending the Canada Line, and fast commuter trains to the border.

I don't know if I entire buy that as an option. I am extremely familiar with that area and traffic patterns and there are a few key things that make the HWY99 stretch unique in the region.

1) You have a huge amount of ferry traffic. Transit simply doesn't really target that group because the ferry traffic are cars and trucks and there are already transit options. It's a ferry. It's a pipe dream to think you're going to hugely decrease car traffic on ferries. You need to build transit out to the ferries on the main land, then you also need rapid transit on Vancouver Island over to Victoria, and to Nanaimo for that to even happen. Pipe dream.

2) You have a decent group of people coming from the US as that is our main link to Seattle from the region. So much like 176th, you simply will not solve anything with increased transit. Same as above too, people coming from Seattle aren't going to take transit. Those that take busses already do, the majority drive. It's hours to drive from Seattle just to the border. I'd like you to find a huge amount of people that go "Ok let's go to Vancouver and let's take transit not our car." Again a pipe dream.

3) You have a large amount of truck traffic which may be solved when the SFPR is opened. If it isn't greatly reduced, again I don't see how transit, train, or anything of that nature will help. You can't put containers on a bus. So hopefully the SFPR helps with this.

So that leaves regular commuter traffic. I'm unsure how transit alternatives other than what you have today would help hugely in this regard.

Expanding transit to South Surrey is something we're trying to do in Surrey Central. We can't get that let alone I doubt we'd get anything direct down HWY 99 to South Surrey.

So then what? Ladner/Tsawwassen? The busses from Ladner are actually quite fast in getting you to/from Bridgeport already. I don't see that as a huge issue. Tsawwassen is also not bad. But you're talking population centers < 50,000 people. Not really warranting expanded transit.

Also you have to look at the demographics. People that live in South Surrey, Ladner, and Tsawwassen tend to be of a higher income bracket. You will not make them give up their BMWs for transit. Never. Remember transit is seen as "for the poor." when you reach that level of income.

So I really don't think a transit only solution would accomplish anything other than diverting transit funding away from the areas with greater need aka Broadway, Surrey, North Shore, Coquitlam, etc.

Open to options, but just not sure this works in reality.

[GMasterAres]

Also my opinion on the above re our highways in BC and Metro-Vancouver, I actually agree with the camp that says our highways are NOT that bad actually. I think we do have pretty decent highways. HWY 1 should have been expanded years ago though and maybe we could use 1 more bridge over the Fraser, but for the most part I think things are fine.

Where we fall down are little nigglies like the traffic light at HWY91 and 72nd, or the not putting full interchanges on the SFPR, or the 60kph speeds on the GEB approaches. Those little things are annoyances I think are un-necessary.

But the roads are not really too bad. It took me 50 minutes to drive in rush hour from South Delta to Port Moody yesterday, on Thursday a week day before a long weekend. I think that's pretty good.

Where we fall down though are when it comes to our drivers. I think drivers in Metro-Vancouver or horrible. Absolutely horrible. We can't go a single day without 5-10 major accidents on our highways. And that's because people drive way too fast for their abilities and far too close for the speeds they are driving. That and they are distracted more often than not.

I still see countless people texting or gabbing on cell phones while driving. That's more of our issue.

Massey Tunnel does need to be adjusted and tweaked but in this thread before I've stated my views that to me it is a lower regional priority than things like Broadway or transit increases in the Surrey core. Heck I'd put interchanges on SFPR above this.

[libtard]

Nowhere else have I seen a city go to such great lengths NOT to resurface the whole road. We'd much rather cut square patches all over them So uneven and sh1tty looking