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

[Vancouver_Highrise]

Even Brisbane, Australia which is the same size as Vancouver, has a decent highway system but now that hwy 1 is on it's way to being completed they are pretty comparable.

I hope they replace the oak street bridge at the same time as the tunnel. I feel like even if they replace the tunnel it will still be the same problem down the road at oak st.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by 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

Vancouver's pretty decent at paving actually, apart from all the small patches for sewer works that happen between paving cycles. In fact, I cannot recall of too many places where there are bumps all over, apart from say Knight Street south approach (which thankfully is getting resurfaced tonight).

In fact, the most problematic area for paving in this region would be Simon Fraser University, where they are grinding out the old concrete road and replacing it with paved patches... one square at a time. Those make for seriously rough rides on the buses heading there. Too bad no government has taken up the job to fund their entire reconstruction.

Anyway, the point of this thread is not quality of roads, but the options for GMT at present. I don't have too many concerns about the options presented, although clearly there needs to be some expansion for extra traffic. As I've said before, however, transit should play a role in this project as well, whether it be by HOV/HOT lanes or even light rail provisions.

Therefore, on that note, I'll probably be more inclined to support bridge or tunnel methods that stay close to the existing alignment of the George Massey Tunnel. This is because:
- less need to have to reroute buses through the middle of nowhere
- HOV/HOT lanes can be integrated pretty easily to the connecting roadways on either side

Other reasons for supporting an expansion of the current corridor include:
- more direct connections to major corridors and destinations, rather than a roundabout "alternate" route
- easier access to trails and walkways on either side of the existing corridor, vs in the middle of nowhere for the upstream bridge

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by 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

Money saving tactics, or just bad technique, I wonder?

[adrianroam95]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

In fact, I cannot recall of too many places where there are bumps all over, apart from say Knight Street south approach (which thankfully is getting resurfaced tonight).

I don't mean to stray off topic here, but are they actually getting around to paving the south approach to the Knight Street Bridge? The quality of the pavement there has been horrendous, to say the least. And it's been that way for quite a long time too.

[ryanmaccdn]

I think Vancouver in terms of driving is a horrible city and we have to many choke points.

My commute from my house in New West to parked outside of Pacific Centre is around 16 mins.... when I head into work at 11PM.

Take that same trip at 8am or 4pm .... it triples at the best of times.

And someone made a comment about the Queensburough connector ? That thing is a joke... its already at capacity and its 4 years old. That's a complete failure....

[idunno]

New West to Pacific Centre? They have something else for that during rush hour - it's called Skytrain!

[nname]

Originally Posted by ryanmaccdn

My commute from my house in New West to parked outside of Pacific Centre is around 16 mins.... when I head into work at 11PM.

No offense, but if you can do that trip in 16 min any time of the day, then it means you're really speeding. Even if all lights are green, you must drive faster than 100km/h on TCH and/or 65km/h on all local roads combined

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by ryanmaccdn

I think Vancouver in terms of driving is a horrible city and we have to many choke points.

My commute from my house in New West to parked outside of Pacific Centre is around 16 mins.... when I head into work at 11PM.

Take that same trip at 8am or 4pm .... it triples at the best of times.

And someone made a comment about the Queensburough connector ? That thing is a joke... its already at capacity and its 4 years old. That's a complete failure....

ummmmmm are you for real?

1) you can't do that in 16 minutes at 11 PM. sorry to burst your bubble.

2) ever heard of this wonderful thing called SKYTRAIN?

[GMasterAres]

16 minutes from New West to Pacific Center? Slight exaggeration. It takes 10-15 minutes just to get from downtown Vancouver to HWY1 even with no rush hour due to these things called traffic lights.

I'd say best case scenario you'd do that in 30-35 minutes if you sped the entire way and darted in and out of traffic. In rush hour though it would probably take you 45 minutes or so depending.

And has been pointed out above... SkyTrain. Anyone driving from New West to downtown Vancouver is a bit silly. Of all the places to take SkyTrain, working downtown is almost a must if you live anywhere along the line.

As for the tunnel, someone pointed out above why I think the tunnel replacement is still a lower priority. Unless they are adding lanes at Oak Street and improving the light at 70th, it will simply move the traffic forward. Knight Street Bridge is already a nightmare as it is.

I actually think a bridge across to Boundary has some merit. I don't like it as a front runner but it gets you away from this massive distance between crossings. The Tunnel after all is quite the distance from the Alex Fraser bridge and you have to do a giant circle if you live or work anywhere in the middle aka Metrotown area.

And I don't entirely buy the notion of "Ooooo losing more ALR!!!" because you wouldn't really. Not to mention Richmond says in one breath they don't want to lose ALR then say another highway would cut the city in half. It isn't the highways cutting the city into pieces, it is the ALR! As long as the ALR is around and all that farm land/golf courses are around, Richmond will be cut into pieces. And the road is already there.

I don't think Boundary could take the extra traffic though. *shrug* It would be more efficient for trucks though since they'd have more direct access to the Boundary flats there in Burnaby and could relieve some load on the Alex Fraser and Tunnel without even doing anything.

Still I think some of the big concern has to do with the port but as someone else mentioned, I'm more for better road and infrastructure for cars/transit than for the port of Vancouver/Surrey Fraser. Let's face it, they're expanding Delta Port anyway. If they had to they'd just convert some of Delta Port to take the deep sea ships and move others to Surrey Fraser.

[makr3trkr]

http://www.richmondreview.com/news/201303011.html

Richmond Chamber of Commerce poll results:

[DKaz]

People really don't like being inside tunnels or something.

I wonder exactly how a bridge would be worse for wildlife in the area than a tunnel? Or whatever the reason was.

[LeftCoaster]

Strange, I wonder what the context of the new tunnel was? I don't understand why there would be so much support for a bridge but non for a tunnel.

[Metro-One]

I also wonder this as well, in many ways a tunnel is less invasive than a bridge, but oh well, it would have to be quite an impressive bridge structure, probably longer than the Port Mann I am guessing.

[LeftCoaster]

Would provide some spectacular views over flat Richmond with the mountains in the background as well.

Looks to be awfully close to being in the NW/SE runway's flight path though.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Strange, I wonder what the context of the new tunnel was? I don't understand why there would be so much support for a bridge but non for a tunnel.

Perhaps a tunnel might've cost more? Anyone can compare the costs of a tunnel VS a bridge? I personally would love to see a tunnel replacement (10 lanes total), as it'll make the freeway feel more modern.

[Metro-One]

I would also love to see more tunnels in Metro Vancouver, heck, BC in general (there are a few parts of the Malahat that would make great tunnel sections).

[Zassk]

Tunnels have significant drawbacks in terms of dangerous goods movement and emergency response. To me, they are necessary in some situations, but not a general-purpose solution.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by jhausner

16 minutes from New West to Pacific Center? Slight exaggeration. It takes 10-15 minutes just to get from downtown Vancouver to HWY1 even with no rush hour due to these things called traffic lights.

I'd say best case scenario you'd do that in 30-35 minutes if you sped the entire way and darted in and out of traffic. In rush hour though it would probably take you 45 minutes or so depending.

Just to play the devil's advocate:

16 minutes is an exaggeration, but depending on where you live in New Westminster, it's not too far off.

The distance is as short as 16km. An average speed of 48km/h will get you there in 20 minutes.

Kingsway off the rush hour can be a green-light-utopia... and most people are doing 70km/h easy at that time of day. Google puts that trip at 28 minutes, but that's calculated using speed limits.

Just sayin'

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Just to play the devil's advocate:

16 minutes is an exaggeration, but depending on where you live in New Westminster, it's not too far off.

The distance is as short as 16km. An average speed of 48km/h will get you there in 20 minutes.

Kingsway off the rush hour can be a green-light-utopia... and most people are doing 70km/h easy at that time of day. Google puts that trip at 28 minutes, but that's calculated using speed limits.

Just sayin'

True but you're talking small percentage chance. I mean I can drive from my place to my work once in a while in 25 minutes if I hit every green light and there is no traffic anywhere. My average though is 40 minutes. So I wouldn't say "Hey it takes me 25 minutes!" because 95% of the time it doesn't.

95% of the time it doesn't take 16 minutes or even 20 minutes to drive that stretch I'd bet on that. I never say never though but he was still exaggerating the difference for effect.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Tunnels have significant drawbacks in terms of dangerous goods movement and emergency response. To me, they are necessary in some situations, but not a general-purpose solution.

On the plus side of tunnels, I've never heard of anyone tying up traffic for a whole day by threatening to jump off a tunnel.

Yeah, the current tunnel gets closed due to bad accidents, but so do all the bridges. If a new tunnel was built with a little bit more vertical clearance on the inside then it would be easier to tow out the big rigs that wreck in there. The tunnel was built when the kinds of trucks we have today were unheard of.

And it is nice to have a few roads that dangerous goods can't go down, they tend to be some of the biggest, slowest trucks around.