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

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So the final result of "public consultation" is now an 8 lane bridge? Did this get buried in the news?

http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2014/...eorge-massey-tunnel-replacement-project/

Wow that was painful to read what bs

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Genauso

I was thinking about the new highway speed limit increases in light of the recent local increases, and regional population growth where Vancouver-Seattle might be as big as Los Angeles of today in population (and size for that matter) in a couple decades.

It occurred to me that potentially the greatest value from increased speed limits might be the highway between Vancouver and Seattle.

They are ~240km apart airport to airport.
They are each other's nearest large neighbour.
They are too close for trips to be faster by air, or to be cheaper by sea/rail.
The terrain is flat.
It would benefit both when outsiders are looking to place a hub within the larger region, or planning a vacation.
There are many sectors for residents of each city to cooperate more with each other, and many complementary services/experiences you can only together in a much larger market.

Bringing a distinct city closer is a different game shaving time off regular commutes.

Speed limits vary between ~90-120km/h? today, and could feasibly increase to 160km/h in good weather.

As part of the George Massey replacement, wouldn't it be cool if both governments committed to guaranteeing 30 minute or less border wait times 99% of the time and to upgrade HWY99/I5 to 160km/h and 100mph?

With a 240km distance, on the high side for most, that's a 90 minute trip plus border interruption.

Even 120km/h and 75mph, that becomes 2 hours travel plus border time.

Increasing the speed limits won't have a huge impact on actual speeds, which are largely dictated by road design and traffic congestion.

Seattle by bus transit is a really popular day trip for Asians visiting Vancouver.
Many times a visitor will take an early morning bus, spend the day in Seattle (4-6 hours) and be back here late at night.

The huge unknown will unfortunately ALWAYS be the border when you're bringing your own vehicle.

If you want to REALLY make the cities closer, you have to get rapid rail transit down to 120 minutes. Private automobiles running at 160 km/h sounds insane.

The plan in the Long-range plan was to have sometime between now and the end of the decade:

• over 400,000 yearly pax between Vancouver and Seattle
• travel time down to 3:25 (2:40 bs 2023)
• 3 daily round trips. (4 by 2023)

We have:

• We're closer to 150k right now.
• 4:30 to 4:55 travel time!!!
• 2 daily round trips (Yay Oympic legacy!)

Travel time is the killer. Between 2:04 and 2:18 hours are spent getting between Vancouver and Bellingham according to the schedule.

Bellingham is a 1 hour trip by car from downtown. Even accounting for the border, it's usually only 10 minutes at the times the train crosses.

Anyway... as much as I love the idea of a high speed train along the corridor... the BC Government's inaction on the rail infrastructure will make tunnel projects like the George Massey tunnel even more important. I can't say that I LIKE the idea of spending all that money to built a new crossing, but it will continue to be a well-used piece of infrastructure for a long time.

EDIT: As for costs... for a single driver not sharing gas, it's 50L of fuel alone. At $1.40/L, that's $70. Amtrak (train) is $62 (USD) return. For a single passenger, the train is actually cheaper. Interestingly, the cheapest bus is $80 return.

[libtard]

So its going to be 8 lanes now and not 10? This is terrible news

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Wow that was painful to read what bs

Yes, but it was the only source I saw for the info.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by libtard

So its going to be 8 lanes now and not 10? This is terrible news

I think 8 lanes is plenty. It seemed to be the consensus on this thread.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I think 8 lanes is plenty. It seemed to be the consensus on this thread.

8 would barely be sufficient for current traffic, and that not taking into account future growth.

As it stands we have 3 southbound lanes during rush hour. And 8 lane bridge would probably have a 3 + 1 HOV configuration. That means we would only gain 1 HOV lane for southbound traffic during rush hour. That is just not acceptable and would not ease the sea of congestion you see going southbound on 99.

[Metro-One]

Good news on the decision but wow, that was an extremely biased painful article (as others have mentioned).

And yes, 8 lanes is more than enough for this corridor.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by libtard

8 would barely be sufficient for current traffic, and that not taking into account future growth.

As it stands we have 3 southbound lanes during rush hour. And 8 lane bridge would probably have a 3 + 1 HOV configuration. That means we would only gain 1 HOV lane for southbound traffic during rush hour. That is just not acceptable and would not ease the sea of congestion you see going southbound on 99.

If we had a six lane bridge today with the proper approaches, we'd be fine. The GMT and the counterflow lane is a sloppy implementation and not a true representation of the volume capacity of 3 lanes in a single direction.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Good news on the decision but wow, that was an extremely biased painful article (as others have mentioned).

And yes, 8 lanes is more than enough for this corridor.

For now, I think yes. With the counter flow lane in, going south bound in the PM is a breeze so if it were to become an 8 lane bridge today it would be plenty. However, with the Tsawassen mega mall being built and South Surrey sprawling like crazy, I'm not sure 8 will be enough over the long term. Either way, how much more can 2 extra lanes cost? Better safe than sorry.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

For now, I think yes. With the counter flow lane in, going south bound in the PM is a breeze so if it were to become an 8 lane bridge today it would be plenty. However, with the Tsawassen mega mall being built and South Surrey sprawling like crazy, I'm not sure 8 will be enough over the long term. Either way, how much more can 2 extra lanes cost? Better safe than sorry.

This is BC

They never plan for the long term

[Metro-One]

I know eh Libtard? If it is not an American style super freeway it sucks eh??

In all honesty, if 8 lanes is not enough for a corridor then the best solution is either a new corridor is warranted or better transit is warranted.

4 lanes per direction is plenty in nearly every other developed nation in the world outside of the USA, especially for an urban area under 5 million people.

As others have noted, the extremely poor current configurations of the current counter flow system and the poor interchange designs are the main source of the current traffic problems

3 through lanes plus and HOV / Bus lane in each direction will be future proof along as the bridge is built with completely new interchanges designed with modern standards (akin to many of the new interchanges on the highway 1 project).

Given that the majority of the land south of this bridge is ALR and therefore the current areas being developed will largely be increasingly more dense developments rapid bus service over a new 8 lane bridge will help keep it future proof.

Again, I support road expansion in metro Vancouver (and we have seen many road projects over the last 10 years) but we don't need US style super freeways.

8 and 10 lane highways are as large as any properly designed city / metro area should ever go for their freeway trunk routes.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So the final result of "public consultation" is now an 8 lane bridge? Did this get buried in the news?

http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2014/...eorge-massey-tunnel-replacement-project/

Wow. Amazing how someone (the author of that article) just dripping with absolute bias can accuse Translink of bias. Pot calling kettle black. This is such a great example of how not to write a persuasive argument. He would have did much better to actually use logic and facts rather than a completely negative and exaggerated tone.

Kind of glad it was buried in the news.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I know eh Libtard? If it is not an American style super freeway it sucks eh??

In all honesty, if 8 lanes is not enough for a corridor then the best solution is either a new corridor is warranted or better transit is warranted.

4 lanes per direction is plenty in nearly every other developed nation in the world outside of the USA, especially for an urban area under 5 million people.

As others have noted, the extremely poor current configurations of the current counter flow system and the poor interchange designs are the main source of the current traffic problems

3 through lanes plus and HOV / Bus lane in each direction will be future proof along as the bridge is built with completely new interchanges designed with modern standards (akin to many of the new interchanges on the highway 1 project).

Given that the majority of the land south of this bridge is ALR and therefore the current areas being developed will largely be increasingly more dense developments rapid bus service over a new 8 lane bridge will help keep it future proof.

Again, I support road expansion in metro Vancouver (and we have seen many road projects over the last 10 years) but we don't need US style super freeways.

8 and 10 lane highways are as large as any properly designed city / metro area should ever go for their freeway trunk routes.

Who said anything about the freeway? We haven't heard anything about plans to expand the freeway on either side of this new bridge. And after all the rapid bus lane construction they've completed over the past couple years, I don't see anything about 99 really changing. The Westminster and Blundell overpasses won't change. The Steveston overpass will but again we don't know to what extent.

This is a discussion about the bridge. IMO it needs to be like new Port Mann. It needs to be 10 lanes with at least 6 through lanes. The other 4 on each side will be collector/distributor lanes.

Did you expect them to just pave a brand new 10 lane highway from Oak street to the border?? Clueless weaboo

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So the final result of "public consultation" is now an 8 lane bridge? Did this get buried in the news?

http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2014/...eorge-massey-tunnel-replacement-project/

I wouldn't put much weight on that alleged info. In fact, the quote comes directly from a guy in Tsawwassen who runs a blog. And is an enviro, anti-development type. Hardly the source for the final configuration of the new bridge structure.

Certainly no decision has yet been made when looking at the GMT project replacement website.

[GMasterAres]

And 8 is fine. 3 lanes general + HOV/bus is completely fine for this stretch. I think if the south HWY99/91 corridor were to increase in population such that it would start pressuring an expanded tunnel, as Metro-One said, we should really consider an alternate route at that time. Expansion of SFPR and another crossing maybe near Boundary Road.

Or even a North-South route to HWY1.

On my own opinion, as I've said a dozen times now, I am fine with 8 or 10 lanes (no less than 8). For me it would come down to price. Aka if you are spending $3 billion for 8 lanes and it would be $3.1 billion for 10, I'd argue 10 makes more sense. If it is $3 billion for 8 and say $3.8 billion for 10, then 8 is AOK by me.

If the cost differential remains unknown, then I'm fine with 8 lanes in 4(3+1)x4 (3+1) configuration.

3 + 2 + 3 seems just overly complicated.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by jhausner

And 8 is fine. 3 lanes general + HOV/bus is completely fine for this stretch. I think if the south HWY99/91 corridor were to increase in population such that it would start pressuring an expanded tunnel, as Metro-One said, we should really consider an alternate route at that time. Expansion of SFPR and another crossing maybe near Boundary Road.

Or even a North-South route to HWY1.

On my own opinion, as I've said a dozen times now, I am fine with 8 or 10 lanes (no less than 8). For me it would come down to price. Aka if you are spending $3 billion for 8 lanes and it would be $3.1 billion for 10, I'd argue 10 makes more sense. If it is $3 billion for 8 and say $3.8 billion for 10, then 8 is AOK by me.

If the cost differential remains unknown, then I'm fine with 8 lanes in 4(3+1)x4 (3+1) configuration.

3 + 2 + 3 seems just overly complicated.

Why would we expand the SFPR?? That makes zero sense. It was built with no plans for expansion in the future.

And as for a crossing at Boundary... Boundary is a terrible, congested, and overall bad road. Its barely an arterial with absolutely zero room for expansion in the future and its lined with houses and side streets. Not to mention you'd be cutting across prime farmland in Richmond (environuts will never allow it)

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If we had a six lane bridge today with the proper approaches, we'd be fine. The GMT and the counterflow lane is a sloppy implementation and not a true representation of the volume capacity of 3 lanes in a single direction.

And if the new bridge is tolled then that will cut usage. The only lasting benefit I see with this bridge and the new Port Mann is that they have provided an excuse to implement tolls. Congestion is easily managed with tolls because you can simply raise the crossing cost to reduce congestion.

Of course, it's unfair to do this unless you also provide an alternative by increasing transit service. The government said it was going to do that with the Port Mann but failed to actually provide any money to do it. They basically forced Translink to cut other services in order to implement that promise.

That's the real issue with these new bridges - the government is throwing money at the road network and starving the transit network. I'm much, much more frustrated about the latter than the former.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by libtard

Who said anything about the freeway? We haven't heard anything about plans to expand the freeway on either side of this new bridge. And after all the rapid bus lane construction they've completed over the past couple years, I don't see anything about 99 really changing. The Westminster and Blundell overpasses won't change. The Steveston overpass will but again we don't know to what extent.

This is a discussion about the bridge. IMO it needs to be like new Port Mann. It needs to be 10 lanes with at least 6 through lanes. The other 4 on each side will be collector/distributor lanes.

Did you expect them to just pave a brand new 10 lane highway from Oak street to the border?? Clueless weaboo

The highway will be expanded and reconfigured along with the new bridge. That includes moving the HOV lanes to the center like on HWY1 and they mentioned a few times expanding to 3+1 configuration as far south as KGB at least. It already is arguably 3+1 northbound from the tunnel to East-West connector. They would just have to add a lane southbound from Oak -> New Bridge.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

And if the new bridge is tolled then that will cut usage. The only lasting benefit I see with this bridge and the new Port Mann is that they have provided an excuse to implement tolls. Congestion is easily managed with tolls because you can simply raise the crossing cost to reduce congestion.

Of course, it's unfair to do this unless you also provide an alternative by increasing transit service. The government said it was going to do that with the Port Mann but failed to actually provide any money to do it. They basically forced Translink to cut other services in order to implement that promise.

That's the real issue with these new bridges - the government is throwing money at the road network and starving the transit network. I'm much, much more frustrated about the latter than the former.

I do agree that money should have been provided to run the transit service as part of this project, but at least they did keep their promise in that they did indeed build the physical infrastructure itself to run a true rapid bus system.

If they slashed those components from the project, then I would have been angry.

Also, given the needs of the Port of Vancouver, the Seismic risk of the tunnels, the incredibly dangerous and inadequate current set up of the counter flow system, the lack of pedestrian and cycling space, the narrow lanes, etc... simply tolling the current tunnels to reduce congestion is a terrible solution. There isn't even space in them to add proper transit (as in a true fast and reliable rapid bus).

Also, the immense expanses of farmland on both sides of the tunnel (but especially the south side) don't make simply building skytrain or an LRT a realistic solution either.

Even if you are not the biggest fan of highways, this is a project where the only real solution is to build some new road infrastructure (a bridge) to accommodate highway traffic, cyclists, pedestrians, and yes, hopefully a rapid bus system safely.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Even if you are not the biggest fan of highways, this is a project where the only real solution is to build some new road infrastructure (a bridge) to accommodate highway traffic, cyclists, pedestrians, and yes, hopefully a rapid bus system safely.

As I said, my real beef is that the government is showering money on roads while at the same time starving the transit system. There should be a better balance, especially considering that transit is far cheaper on a per-capacity basis. The Skytrain bridges over the Fraser, which are way cheaper than all these new highway bridges, are said to have the same passenger carrying capacity as a 10-lane freeway - each.