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

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Isn't the Oak Street Bridge already a bottleneck for the 99? It always seems congested whenever I drive over it, and I never drive over it in rush hour.

Well, Oak St. itself is the bottleneck. That's where the road turns from a freeway to an arterial road.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Some land acquisition news:

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/p...assey+bridge+project/11513133/story.html

Interesting details:

- Looking at widening Hwy 99 by 15 meters (how many lanes might that be?)
- Hints of the new bigger scope and giving agricultural land back (what does that mean, land under the long lead up to the bridge deck?)
- 60% of traffic doesn't make it to Oak St. bridge, alleviating the bottleneck fears there

HWY 99 under the SFPR interchange can't be widened though. There's no room on either sides of the lanes...

[Steveston]

Some posters have argued that the primary reason for replacing the GMT is to allow deep-draft ships passage up the river. If that's the case, then in addition to tolling vehicles driving over the bridge, let's toll deep-draft ships passing UNDER the bridge. I figure $5,000 per ship per direction might be adequate compensation.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by libtard

HWY 99 under the SFPR interchange can't be widened though. There's no room on either sides of the lanes...

I don't think it matters really. It's almost a 10 lane express/collector setup up to that point. Some traffic will split off and take the 17, and 17a.

It's like the planned the Hwy 17 interchange to accommodate a giant bridge

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I don't think it matters really. It's almost a 10 lane express/collector setup up to that point. Some traffic will split off and take the 17, and 17a.

It's like the planned the Hwy 17 interchange to accommodate a giant bridge

I was thinking this too; they've already got the beginnings of a separated C/D system heading towards the tunnel.

I think they could probably 'squeeze' in 6 lanes for hwy 99 under the SFPR overpasses if need be, but boy why are they building new overpasses so narrow underneath these days??? 160st overpass on HWY 1 is another prime example of this...

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Mininari

I think they could probably 'squeeze' in 6 lanes for hwy 99 under the SFPR overpasses if need be, but boy why are they building new overpasses so narrow underneath these days??? 160st overpass on HWY 1 is another prime example of this...

Actually, the SFPR overpass at Hwy 99 was constructed to allow a future 3-lane cross-section with shoulder under same. I suspect that locale will see a similar set-up as 160th St./Hwy 1 with a 4th add-on/drop-off lane based upon traffic movements thereto.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by libtard

HWY 99 under the SFPR interchange can't be widened though. There's no room on either sides of the lanes...

And wrong... The overpasses were clearly built for 6 through lanes. And the interchange design clearly displays that a wider C/D system will originate from the interchange north.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Actually, the SFPR overpass at Hwy 99 was constructed to allow a future 3-lane cross-section with shoulder under same. I suspect that locale will see a similar set-up as 160th St./Hwy 1 with a 4th add-on/drop-off lane based upon traffic movements thereto.

I can see that the main overpass for the SFPR has plenty of room under it, but I was basing my comment off of the SFPR "flyover" overpass that handles Northbound HWY 17 to Northbound 99. There looks to be space for 3 lanes northbound under that structure, but is there room for 3 lanes southbound with a shoulder? It looked tight, but yeah... I can see 3 going through there now.

In anycase, I'm doing this from google streetview, so I'll have a closer look in person next time I'm on the mainland.

I agree they were definitely planning for a C/D system with a likely 2-3-3-2 configuration, with the Northbound 2 "C" lanes commencing from that flyover. The 2 "C" lanes heading south will exit at 17A & 17. The real question is how far north beyond the GMT would they extend a C/D system? all the way to 91??? That would be something, but probably overbuilt a bit?

Project definition report coming out in weeks... of course, believe that when we have it downloaded on our computers!

[officedweller]

City of Richmond Council Report July 10, 2015.
http://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/_15_Update_GMT_Replacement_Project_Council_07271542046.pdf

This is a bit out of date - being from July 2015 - but it provides some background information (some of which may be superceded by more recent information (i.e. tunnel ends being left in place).

There's more info at the link (not all is shown below).

It also confirms that 60% of traffic through the tunnel goes to Richmond, and 40% goes to Vancouver. Of the 40% Vancouver component, it is divided 30% via Oak Street Bridge and 10% via Knight Street Bridge.


http://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/_15_Update_GMT_Replacement_Project_Council_07271542046.pdf


http://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/_15_Update_GMT_Replacement_Project_Council_07271542046.pdf


http://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/_15_Update_GMT_Replacement_Project_Council_07271542046.pdf

[The_Henry_Man]

^I really hope the potential new interchange at Blundell Rd would be built. The COR report emphasized the potential negative effect of heavier traffic spilling into Sidaway Rd. While they do have a point, however, I think they really underestimate the benefits it would bring to residents particularly in west and west-central Richmond. I live in this part of Richmond and having a Blundell interchange would make commuting to East Van/Burnaby/Tri-Cities/South of Fraser and beyond much quicker and more convenient as I can bypass the increasingly congested No. 4/Westminster/Alderbridge corridors in order to access Knight St or the 91, or Steveston and No.5 Rd to access the 99 southbound. With the Blundell Interchange, I can simply go on Blundell eastwards all the way to the interchange with the 99, hop on the 99 north to Knight St or the 91 without encountering any traffic lights along the way.

Having the Blundell interchange on the 99 would greatly reduce the traffic load on No.4/No.5/Westminster/Alderbridge relating to accessing KSB or 91.

[Klazu]

Quite surprised to hear that 60% of the traffic is heading to Richmond, as I have never thought Richmond being a major job center. I would have expected something like 30%, max. Also surprised to hear that so little traffic continues to Knight Street Bridge, although it is only convenient if you are heading to Burnaby and then you likely take Alex Fraser Bridge from the get-go.

I don't think Oak Street Bridge would be such a bottleneck if the traffic lights on the north side could be worked around somehow. Would it be possible to dig through lanes under the intersection so that the traffic would flow more along Oak Street itself. This would help disburse traffic on many side streets and not cause such a bottleneck as there today is.

Any thoughts on that? I don't think the 4-lane bridge itself would be the major bottleneck but those traffic lights on Vancouver's side.

[officedweller]

Mininari is asking a similar question.

Could it be that Hwy 99 will be widened all the way to Hwy 91 (project area/scope) to divert traffic away from Oak St. Bridge to Knight St. Bridge?

Originally Posted by Mininari

I The real question is how far north beyond the GMT would they extend a C/D system? all the way to 91??? That would be something, but probably overbuilt a bit?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

^I really hope the potential new interchange at Blundell Rd would be built.

From my own, admitedly very selfish point of view I like it the way it is. Knight Street / Number 6 / Blundell / No. 4 is my secret route to Ironwood Mall from Vancouver - because Blundell is isolated from the freeway it avoids all of the traffic issues that plague Steveston Highway. I suppose the new bridge and interchanges will alleviate those issues for a while, but I still like the idea of having a way to get across the freeway that is totally independent of it.

[dharper]

Richmond is worried about no net farm loss, or they don't want to lose farmland to freeways? They don't seem to be to worried about losing farmland for development. If it were not for the ALR, Richmond would be one big subdivision.
(My opinion is through the eyes a farmer)

[urbancanadian]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Mininari is asking a similar question.

Could it be that Hwy 99 will be widened all the way to Hwy 91 (project area/scope) to divert traffic away from Oak St. Bridge to Knight St. Bridge?

I'm not sure how well that would work out. IIRC, the Knight St. Bridge is the busiest crossing per-lane in the entire region. (Although that might be measured over a 24-hour period.) Which would mean that Oak has slightly more capacity remaining?

Originally Posted by dharper

Richmond is worried about no net farm loss, or they don't want to lose farmland to freeways? They don't seem to be to worried about losing farmland for development. If it were not for the ALR, Richmond would be one big subdivision.
(My opinion is through the eyes a farmer)

From what I've observed, Richmond seems to be sincere in their desire to protect farmland. They seem to loudly oppose anything that could result in any loss, and to my knowledge they haven't proposed to make any changes to the ALR, unlike some other municipalities. There are still some parcels of land that have small-scale farming, which have been replaced by dense suburban development, but that was always designated as General Urban anyway.

[SOSS]

I'm glad Richmond is concerned with ALR land because as I see it, the province definitely isn't.

[dharper]

I was referring back to the 50's and 60's, when Richmond was mostly farmland. Then the wave of subdivisions started to take over the island, only to be greatly slowed by the ALR. Like I said, it was an observation from a farmer, that if it wasn't for the ALR, in the early 70's, Richmond would probably be one large subdivision. I am sure Richmond was probably the main reason the ALR was established.

I don't travel HWY 99 that often, but isn't it like HWY 1 was, with the wide median to accommodate a highway 'fill in', not a widening for extra lanes?

[grid_master]

At last week's BC Roadbuilders conference, Minister Todd Stone said that the project would go all the way from the Oak St. bridge in the north to Hwy 91 in the south.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I don't think Oak Street Bridge would be such a bottleneck if the traffic lights on the north side could be worked around somehow. Would it be possible to dig through lanes under the intersection so that the traffic would flow more along Oak Street itself. This would help disburse traffic on many side streets and not cause such a bottleneck as there today is.

Any thoughts on that? I don't think the 4-lane bridge itself would be the major bottleneck but those traffic lights on Vancouver's side.

A two-lane (in each direction) underpass at Oak and 70th would be a good idea. That way you have through traffic that isn't stopped/slowed down at that intersection and you can have left-turn bays north- and southbound on the surface to allow turning onto 70th.

I'd also like to see a similar setup at Lougheed and Willingdon in Burnaby.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by dharper

I don't travel HWY 99 that often, but isn't it like HWY 1 was, with the wide median to accommodate a highway 'fill in', not a widening for extra lanes?

No, HWY 99 was built with a narrow grass median, wide enough for 2 extra lanes (like Hwy 1 had in Burnaby before it was widened in the late 90's). This makes sense if you think about it, since HWY 99 was actually built first.

But HWY 99's median was already reclaimed long ago, to accommodate the counterflow system installed at the tunnel in the 80's. There is no longer a median until south of the new Hwy 7 interchange.

With modern standards for shoulders and lane widths, the old grass median actually only allowed for one new lane plus a jersey barrier. The 6th lane had to be built on the outside of the roadway.

At this point, the right-of-way needs to be widened.