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

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by s211

I can only laugh outside (and cry inside) every time a social engineer says we need to put our roads on a diet. For a metro area with a road network that's presently anorexic, telling the metro to go on a diet is like telling a person with anorexia to starve itself to death.

If a 2 lane road can handle 20,000 vehicles per day and there is a 4 lane road that provides less than 15,000 vehicles per day, the route is supposed to be a bike route, or it would be useful if it was, wouldn't it be prudent to provide bike lanes and put that road on a diet?
- This was done on a few roads in Surrey in the 90's. There are some 4 lane roads that only have 5000 vehicles per day. (150 street in Guildford for example)

If a collector road has parking on both sides but only 25% of spaces typically are filled, its a bike route with no bike lanes, wouldn't it make sense to provide bike lanes and put the road on a diet? - many examples but most recent is 188 street in Cloverdale.

These are "road diets". These roads are not anorexic, they are obese!

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by s211

I can only laugh outside (and cry inside) every time a social engineer says we need to put our roads on a diet. For a metro area with a road network that's presently anorexic, telling the metro to go on a diet is like telling a person with anorexia to starve itself to death.

Going from 4 lanes to 10 is not a diet, it's a binge.

The problem we have in the region isn't roads, it's underfunding of transit. A dollar spent on transit moves a heckuva lot more people than the same dollar spent on freeways. And don't resort to the "goods movement" argument - congestion in our region isn't caused by goods movement, it's caused by commuters. If we can provide good transit alternatives that attract commuters out of their cars we can solve congestion problems without having to keep building one 10-lane bridge after another.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by Zassk

I see the extra 2 lanes as being relief for AFB.

Really, how much more can it cost to make 10 lanes vs. 8?

Probably $100 million for the bridge, $100 million for the roads leading to it. It depends how far the lanes extend.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Going from 4 lanes to 10 is not a diet, it's a binge.

The problem we have in the region isn't roads, it's underfunding of transit. A dollar spent on transit moves a heckuva lot more people than the same dollar spent on freeways. And don't resort to the "goods movement" argument - congestion in our region isn't caused by goods movement, it's caused by commuters. If we can provide good transit alternatives that attract commuters out of their cars we can solve congestion problems without having to keep building one 10-lane bridge after another.

Commuters are in reality "goods". I would like to see some studies to back up your claim that a dollar spent on transit moves a heck of a lot of people then a dollar spent on highways. Just like you can't look at one transit route and ignore the rest of the transit system, you can't look at one highway and ignore the rest of the road system.

We spend a lot of money on transit, in fact I believe it is around to 25% of transportation infrastructure spending (correct me if I am wrong). Given the fact that only some 14% of the people use transit and that transit does not move goods nor is it flexible I would say it is not as good a deal as you say. Now I am pro transit, it has its place, but maintaining our road infrastructure at acceptable standards should imo always be a priority.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by Zassk

I see the extra 2 lanes as being relief for AFB.

Really, how much more can it cost to make 10 lanes vs. 8?

Don't forget that if it's 10 lanes, one of the lanes for each direction is reserved exclusively for public transit vehicles and HOV. So that's not really an overkill. For once (twice, after the new PMB), let's think forward to the future and not create a new bottleneck at a river crossing.

[TransitFreak]

Keep in mind that you'll also have SFPR and old Hwy 17 (for Ladner and Ferry traffic) essentially entering at the bridge approach, so in order to keep traffic flowing, I can see them creating a collector lane system like Port Mann.

So here's my theory on how they will utilize a 10 lane crossing. Cross section heading Northbound will be:

HOV/99NB/99NB////Steveston/Steveston

They will segregate the traffic at the SFPR interchange...those who want Steveston will enter the local lanes, and the local lanes will collect those off the old 17 and SFPR. This will keep any trucks going from SFPR to Steveston out of the way.

There will be an exit valve similar to Hwy 1 EB after 152nd for all the collector traffic continuing past Steveston, and will be a 'pick up' lane from the bridge...also collecting the Steveston traffic. The stretch from Steveston to Westminster will give ample distance to position the Vancouver traffic to the proper lanes. I could see Hwy 99 4 lanes all the way to OSB, with a flyover for HOV to cross over to Bridgeport, or, and what I would really like, is for the HOV to go 'under', and elevate the approach to OSB further out, say to the Sandman suites, so that there are no flyovers similar to Grandview. This extended elevated approach would support any eventual replacement of the OSB. It would be reverse for SB.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by TransitFreak

Keep in mind that you'll also have SFPR and old Hwy 17 (for Ladner and Ferry traffic) essentially entering at the bridge approach, so in order to keep traffic flowing, I can see them creating a collector lane system like Port Mann.

So here's my theory on how they will utilize a 10 lane crossing. Cross section heading Northbound will be:

HOV/99NB/99NB////Steveston/Steveston

They will segregate the traffic at the SFPR interchange...those who want Steveston will enter the local lanes, and the local lanes will collect those off the old 17 and SFPR. This will keep any trucks going from SFPR to Steveston out of the way.

There will be an exit valve similar to Hwy 1 EB after 152nd for all the collector traffic continuing past Steveston, and will be a 'pick up' lane from the bridge...also collecting the Steveston traffic. The stretch from Steveston to Westminster will give ample distance to position the Vancouver traffic to the proper lanes. I could see Hwy 99 4 lanes all the way to OSB, with a flyover for HOV to cross over to Bridgeport, or, and what I would really like, is for the HOV to go 'under', and elevate the approach to OSB further out, say to the Sandman suites, so that there are no flyovers similar to Grandview. This extended elevated approach would support any eventual replacement of the OSB. It would be reverse for SB.

I won't be too surprised if an expanded or replaced OSB will be part of the equation for the GMT replacement project. If a permanent HOV lane is to be implemented on the left side of the freeway (which it will since so many expresses buses from South Delta/White Rock will travel through this route), there needs to be a dedicated HOV exit, and it will be at the Bridgeport interchange. Also, the merging lane coming from Sea Island Way NB to the OSB is extremely short and is a major cause of the backup. As a result, the current Bridgeport interchange will definitely be redesigned and rebuilt. Since the interchange is immediately adjacent to OSB, the OSB will have to be either widened or completely rebuilt to accommodate these changes.

Do you think the current OSB can be widened to accommodate say 6-7 lanes (since it's pretty difficult to build a replacement OSB without affecting current traffic, as there are buildings very close to the OSB on the southern approach)?
I think 7 lanes (4 NB, 3 SB) would be the most ideal arrangement. On the NB approach, the right lane will become the exit lane to Marine Drive for both WB and EB, while the rest will connect to Oak Street's 3 NB lanes. Similarly, Oak Street's 3 SB lanes can be seamless with the OSB's 3 SB lanes, marking the start of the freeway.

And I hope a new Blundell interchange can be built to relieve traffic congestion on the Steveston interchange.

[bardak]

Trust me I'm a huge fan of transit and am not happy with how this project is not being put forward without definite tolls but the tunnels need to be replaced. It is not up to the standards of today and is deteriorating. the one thing to remember is that at ten lanes it is only adding one general purpose lane compared to the peak direction flow at rush hour. If the bridge goes down to 8 lanes it will probably lose the HOV/bus lanes.

[TransitFreak]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

Do you think the current OSB can be widened to accommodate say 6-7 lanes (since it's pretty difficult to build a replacement OSB without affecting current traffic, as there are buildings very close to the OSB on the southern approach)?
I think 7 lanes (4 NB, 3 SB) would be the most ideal arrangement. On the NB approach, the right lane will become the exit lane to Marine Drive for both WB and EB, while the rest will connect to Oak Street's 3 NB lanes. Similarly, Oak Street's 3 SB lanes can be seamless with the OSB's 3 SB lanes, marking the start of the freeway.

And I hope a new Blundell interchange can be built to relieve traffic congestion on the Steveston interchange.

I would love to have the OSB and Bridgeport area included as well, I'm just drooling at the opportunities to eliminate that 5-10 min gridlock of the express buses leaving Bridgeport and having to navigate the double light on Garden City to access the highway, and have the buses funnel unabated to the Station...talk about providing pure rapid bus service there.

My comments were more considering status quo of OSB due to current CoV policy regarding no more roads, and using existing structures. Given that 50 yrs seems to be the life cycle of these crossings, OSB might be on the docket as well. If so, I'm thinking they'll do an 8 lane crossing, building on either side of the existing (think PRB), then tie in one side to the Vancouver side, have a 4 lane side functional, demolish old approach, and tie in other 4 lane side to newly cleared area. This is the only way I can think that they can deliver a full 8 lane new replacement of OSB without building in parallel 4 lanes, demolish old OSB and rebuild in same ROW, similar to Willingdon overpass on Hwy 1. Same philosophy would apply to the Richmond side.

That being said, don't know if there is any actual room to basically have in its final condition a 12 lane footprint (4 lanes SB new//old OSB ROW//4 lanes NB new) over the Richmond side...Vancouver shouldn't be an issue as I don't recall any buildings impeding it...other than the Marine Dr east exit, but that could be realigned...that's the only solution I can think of in delivering quickly an 8 lane replacement on it's current path without building one side, then demolishing old OSB and rebuilding on same path which I presume would be longer...

And a Blundell exit would definitely be a good idea...I've done the double back before just to avoid the line up at the Steveston exit by using Westminster Hwy...there's no good mid-point entry to Richmond from the highway...

[libtard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If you take the tunnel today, it's fine most of the time, but a mess at rush hour. However it isn't the rush direction that's a problem, it's the single lane the other way that causes an issue. When you are going with the rush, there is very little if any delay when you are part of 3 lanes of traffic.

With that said, a 6 lane crossing would be perfect for "today". I'd advocate for that plus 2 lanes of either bus only, or ideally rail crossing. So 8 lanes total.

10 lanes really is overkill.

Um its terrible in both directions. South bound gets backed up to the HWY 91 overpass every afternoon. Steveston Hwy exiting onto southbound 99 is a NIGHTMARE aswell.

[Zassk]

The answer might be an expansion of Knight Street Bridge instead... and routing 2 full lanes of Hwy 99 in that direction. There is plenty of space to expand that bridge, and more than enough lanes on the Vancouver side to accommodate traffic (assuming some bridge lanes are dedicated to Marine Drive, and given that Knight Street now has 3 full unimpeded lanes all the way to 1st Avenue).

[st7860]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Going from 4 lanes to 10 is not a diet, it's a binge.

The problem we have in the region isn't roads, it's underfunding of transit. A dollar spent on transit moves a heckuva lot more people than the same dollar spent on freeways. And don't resort to the "goods movement" argument - congestion in our region isn't caused by goods movement, it's caused by commuters. If we can provide good transit alternatives that attract commuters out of their cars we can solve congestion problems without having to keep building one 10-lane bridge after another.

what would you say about the canada line and its 2 car design?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by st7860

what would you say about the canada line and its 2 car design?

I'm disappointed in the platform lengths, but my understanding is that they can be expanded in the future. And of course there's a huge potential for increasing capacity just by buying more trainsets in order to increase frequencies.

By way of comparison of rail transit vs. vehicular transit, the North Arm bridge that carries the Canada Line over the Fraser River has the same passenger carrying capacity as a 10-lane highway (I assume that means a highway with a typical mix of vehicles, the vast majority of which are single occupancy vehicles). Yet it costs only a fraction of what a 10-lane bridge costs.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I'm disappointed in the platform lengths, but my understanding is that they can be expanded in the future. And of course there's a huge potential for increasing capacity just by buying more trainsets in order to increase frequencies.

I just don't understand why the canadaline wasn't built with stations that hold more cars in the first place. The provision is there but to have to go in and do more construction seems counterproductive especially when they were pushing almost all long distance travel from southern areas to the canadaline. Of course there is going to be lots of traffic from the get go. They also should have built the 33rd station from the get-go as well. At least the city pushed for the OV station to be built but now with the pending development all along cambie it would have been smart to look into the future but that obviously isn't translink's strong suit. I'm sure the cost to fully build the system when they were in there would have been far less than having to go in again and start anew.

[s211]

Originally Posted by theKB

I just don't understand why the canadaline wasn't built with stations that hold more cars in the first place. The provision is there but to have to go in and do more construction seems counterproductive especially when they were pushing almost all long distance travel from southern areas to the canadaline. Of course there is going to be lots of traffic from the get go. They also should have built the 33rd station from the get-go as well. At least the city pushed for the OV station to be built but now with the pending development all along cambie it would have been smart to look into the future but that obviously isn't translink's strong suit. I'm sure the cost to fully build the system when they were in there would have been far less than having to go in again and start anew.

Why? There's nothing there except general proximity to a park, there's no transit node....

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by theKB

I just don't understand why the canadaline wasn't built with stations that hold more cars in the first place.

It is built that way because the mayor's council didn't believe the ridership projections and insisted on shaving the price down.

Ultimately, that was also the reason Bombardier was unable to win the price war. SkyTrain needed 80m stations from the start, which cost a fortune on an underground line.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by Zassk

The answer might be an expansion of Knight Street Bridge instead... and routing 2 full lanes of Hwy 99 in that direction. There is plenty of space to expand that bridge, and more than enough lanes on the Vancouver side to accommodate traffic (assuming some bridge lanes are dedicated to Marine Drive, and given that Knight Street now has 3 full unimpeded lanes all the way to 1st Avenue).

These discussions on the OSB and KSB, just make my point - all you're doing is spending billions of dollars to move the congestion somewhere else. That is bad planning. So then you rebuild the OSB and KSB - then what - widden Oak Street and Knight Street to accommodate more cars? Why not just build a freeway through Vancouver then?

We're moving backwards with these bridge projects. Port Mann as built was a mistake - you won't agree with me now, but you will in 10 years from now when it is congested and backup worse than it was before.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by lightrail

These discussions on the OSB and KSB, just make my point - all you're doing is spending billions of dollars to move the congestion somewhere else. That is bad planning. So then you rebuild the OSB and KSB - then what - widden Oak Street and Knight Street to accommodate more cars? Why not just build a freeway through Vancouver then?

We're moving backwards with these bridge projects. Port Mann as built was a mistake - you won't agree with me now, but you will in 10 years from now when it is congested and backup worse than it was before.

Or it will under perform like the Golden Ears bridge, and we still won't need 10 lanes.

[GlassCity]

But then we'll have them for later. Why risk underbuilding? We'll end up in the same situation we're in now.

[DKaz]

Yep. Has anyone ever complained that the Granville St. Bridge is too wide?