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

[ssiguy]

Of course, as always, the devil lies in the details and for most people the biggest detail is how much will it cost in terms of tolls?

Even if the tolls are less than $3 {which I very much doubt} the Metro area has to have a real conversation about how roads are tolled in the entire area. As far as I'm concerned it is much fairer to toll all the bridges over the Fraser/Burrard Inlet and HWY#1 from Vancouver to Surrey in order to spread the pain around. The Barnet HWY should also be tolled.

It is grotesquely unfair that someone can drive on the newly widened Lougheed from Mission thru the new Pitt Meadows Bridge down the Mary Hill along the widened HWY#1
along the improved Upper Levels all the way to Whistler on the improved/widened Sea To Sky without paying a cent but some poor slob who lives in Ladner and works in Steveston has to pay a $4 {or whatever it is} toll.

It would be far fairer to toll all bridges by just one dollar.

Vancouverites don't have a problem with tolls for the Valley but do for their area because "it's different". If the area is to grow as a region it has to act like one.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Also, I'd like to see more details on how they handle the multi-use path. Supposedly it will be very wide (around 3 metres) so I'm not too worried about the conflict between modes. However, the document says it will connect to Steveston Highway at the north and River Road South at the south. Neither of these are cycling routes. Hope this is just a vague idea right now and they find a way to integrate it into the cycling networks better.

Also, what is up with that Highway 17A interchange? Are roundabouts really the most efficient way of doing that? I've never encountered an interchange like that before, but it seems like it would be really inconvenient and slow.

The multi-use path will probably fall between the first 2 off-ramps on each side of the bridge so it doesn't have to do a Cambie Bridge sort of down and up manoeuvre to avoid a ramp.
But if Steveston Hwy s the first ramp on the north side, what about the Rice Mill Road connection?
River Road South is the first ramp on the South.
I guess that means the path will be on the west side of the bridge (i.e. Steveston side).

Roundabouts are more and more common.
There's one at the exit from Hwy 99 to the truck crossing.
There's one under the north end of the Golden Ears Bridge.

Here's the one on the US side of Hwy 99 (just past customs) at Blaine:


https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/4586780162/

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The multi-use path will probably fall between the first 2 off-ramps on each side of the bridge so it doesn't have to do a Cambie Bridge sort of down and up manoeuvre to avoid a ramp.
But if Steveston Hwy s the first ramp on the north side, what about the Rice Mill Road connection?
River Road South is the first ramp on the South.
That means the path will be on the west side of the bridge (i.e. Steveston side).

They do confirm that the path will be on the west side, and I'm guessing it'll make use of the outer driving ramps to come to ground. The exactly connection configuration is what's confusing me.

River Road South is definitely what it looks like will be the connection right now, but it's not exactly ideal. When it comes to pedestrians, it doesn't even have sidewalks so there must be something they're gonna do there. For cycling, it isn't as bad as Steveston Highway, but still crappy. I'm just wondering if there's any way they can avoid that and have the path end up on a cycling route, of which there are plenty directly nearby. I know that Delta wants to extend River Road South eastward under the bridge deck once its built, so maybe they could upgrade it with bike lanes while they're at it instead. Still wouldn't solve the problem of trying to go east once you get there either though.

Rice Mill Road would be great for a cycling connection. I wasn't able to figure out how exactly it connects to the highway from the pictures though, so that's why I'm confused. Is that left road southbound from the highway, and the right road northbound to merge with the highway? With the pathway being on the left, if it was able to turn around and meet up with the ramp down to Rice Mill Road, that would be perfect. Unfortunately, the document specifically mentions Steveston Highway, so I'm just curious how exactly they're planning on resolving that.

Interesting about roundabouts too. I actually quite like them as an intersection, I just couldn't recall having seen them used within highway interchanges before. But if there's a precedent for it, then by all means. In any case, I'd barely ever have to use it myself.

[officedweller]

Sounds like Delta will improve River Road.

Not sure about Rice Mill Road either.
The diagram shows 2 lines - i.e. a northbound and a southbound ramp.
The southbound makes sense (downhill).
But northbound would be a steep uphill for trucks, wouldn't it?
The bridge looks pretty high above Rice Mill Road.

Originally Posted by SpongeG

http://www.cknw.com/2015/12/16/new-10-lane-toll-bridge-to-replace-massey-tunnel/?sc_ref=twitter

The only other possibility is that it's a surface route that occupies space under the north approach to the bridge to connect with Hwy 99 once the approach touches down (but wouldn't that cause merging/weaving issues with the Steveston Hwy ramps?)

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Sounds like Delta will improve River Road.

Not sure about Rice Mill Road either.
The diagram shows 2 lines - i.e. a northbound and a southbound ramp.
The southbound makes sense (downhill).
But northbound would be a steep uphill for trucks, wouldn't it?

The only other possibility is that it's a surface route that occupies space under the north approach to the bridge to connect with Hwy 99 once the approach touches down.

From my interpretation, the northbound ramp would go under the bridge deck and merge from the east. Maybe there'd still be enough space going northbound for the ramp to be more gradual?

Looking at the Steveston Highway interchange, the west side ramp turns east onto Steveston highway, so the multiuse path will obviously have its own ramp to the ground. Without a diagram of that, it's really impossible to tell where it might end up. And with River Road South, the map shows the path ending before the ramp onto it does, so again it looks like it may have its own. I guess all we can do is wait for more information to be released.

From what I understand, they're going to continue receiving feedback from stakeholders so there may still be some tweaks made and this is why it's not completely detailed yet.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Some of ya guys postin' here from inner city Vancouver should live the metro life on a daily basis. Perhaps then, and only then, ya will have a more "real world view"!

Thank you for all you posted. I wholeheartedly agree with what you said, even if I am one of those inner city guys. On those rare days I venture out of the core into the outer municipalities, I'm shocked how bad things have gotten with our existing infrastructure. We can't bury our heads in the sand and shriek "BIKE! TRANSIT! WALK! JET-PACK!".

[makr3trkr]

Google Streetview

The overpass was previously widened to accommodate the bus lane.

Would this imply they are going to add a proper shoulder, or add/drop lane, or both?

[ssiguy]

Much of it looks good but I will wait to see how this "integrated bus station" looks. Truth is I don't believe it and that's not due to sheer pessimism but on history.

Part of the Canada Line project was rapid bus from WH/SS with bus-only lanes all the way to KG. Of course once the Olympics were over Campbell "forgot" to build them.

Due to the HOV/bus lanes being in the far left lanes as opposed to the far right like they are now, it's going to be quite difficult and very expensive.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

The overpass was previously widened to accommodate the bus lane.

Would this imply they are going to add a proper shoulder, or add/drop lane, or both?

Good question.
I would expect a shoulder, at a minimum.
Since the HOV/bus lane will be in the middle, if they rearrange the lanes, I wouldn't trust any regular driver to drive in that existing HOV lane and not hit the jersey barrier.

********

WRT the HOV lanes, I'm assuming they didn't do any "direct to HOV" ramps (like Hwy 1) because there aren't any alternate interchange locations adjacent to major interchanges and population centres (i.e. lack of a developed road network adjacent to the freeway and lack of land development).
The only one I can think of is Blundell Road, but then that's so close to the end of the HOV lanes that it wouldn't be worth the expense.

Conceptually, funds could be apportioned for the "integrated transit stations" instead of the HOV interchanges seen on Hwy 1.

[s211]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Part of the Canada Line project was rapid bus from WH/SS with bus-only lanes all the way to KG. Of course once the Olympics were over Campbell "forgot" to build them.

Yes, you're right... Campbell must be to blame, deliberately or not.

[Metro-One]

Looking forward to seeing some more detailed renders / designs of this project.

3.3 KM bridge is pretty significant.

Excited to see some potential real flyovers. All the interchange re-designs look great. Another positive about this project is it seems really compact for such big improvements, therefore little (possibly no?) farmland will be lost.

I really want to see more about the bus ramps / connection at the north end to Bridgeport Station.

When this project is complete a true rapid bus can be implemented between Bridgeport and the Ferries.

[CanSpice]

Vicki Huntington either got her math wrong or thinks the tolls are going to be $30 each way when she said that tolls would cost Delta residents $15,225 per year.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Wow. I think enough has been said about the scope and details of the interchanges for the H99 project thus far.

My real concern is how the AFB is going to function after the new George Massey Bridge engages its new George Massey Toll. The Hwy 17 / Highway 91 connector (Sunbury) Interchange, Hwy 91 72nd Ave Interchanges NEED to be built. Furthermore, the pathetic single 'left turn lane' to access Northbound Alex Fraser Bridge from the 91 Connector needs to be improved.

Of course, in the interest of ensuring the tolled option is the preferred option, I can see the Province purposely keeping these key congestion points in place along the Hwy 17 / 91 corridors. I hope I'm wrong. I know there is funding in place for a 91 / 72nd Interchange, but it seems to be dead in the water (see my other thread about that).

I guess we can wait for the preliminary designs to come out -- I'm really curious to see how 10 lanes are tied into a corridor that really can only support 6 along the entire route.

There is not much you can do about the single left turn lane onto the AFB. I guess you've never driven down Nordel during rush hour? It can often back up to Scott Road. Most of the traffic making that turn is traffic skipping tolls at the PMB (and one day skipping tolls on the PB and GMT-B), they deserve to play second fiddle to local residents using their local bridge. The staggered nature of the left turn there also help the bus queue jumper.

They do need to widen the overpass over the 91 so that traffic NOT making the left turn can get past the queue and make it up Nordel without having to wait half an hour.

And they need to add the interchange so that through traffic on the SFPR can make it through there easier.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Couple things.............

First, the transit stop at Steveston although not super busy is an essential one for Richmond transfers and for bus drivers themselves as the bus depot is there. How are they going to continue to have a bus station when the HOV/bus lane will be in the center lane unlike the far right lane like it is now? Showing those designs of the Steveston/99 interchange I don't see how they can possibly do it.

Also...............why stop the HOV lanes at HWY#91 ? HWY#99 is busier between 91 and KG than between #91 and Ladner Trunk. Very odd and I hope WR and Surrey put pressure to get it all the way to at least KG.

The HOV plans stops at the 91 because there are already HOV lanes between the 91 and King George on the inbound side. They just need to repaint the lines so the HOV lane is on the inside. But yeah, they should also add an outbound HOV lane and replace the King George interchange while they are at it (the overpass is pretty old) with HOV lanes to the park and ride (so the buses don't need to change lanes). But as far as things go, that stretch outbound is usually one of the better moving parts of the 99.

I bet it will be an integrated bus platform in a second HOV lane, with an island platform between the lanes and stairs up to bus stops on the overpass (similar to some of the ones on the I-5). That way you can make a simple cross platform transfer from the 351 (from South Surrey) to the 420 (to the ferries). Unless you also build a fancy exchange at the 17A; but it might be nicer to let buses fly through one end and only stop at the other. But I think they will add dedicated bus exits at 17A.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Also, what is up with that Highway 17A interchange? Are roundabouts really the most efficient way of doing that? I've never encountered an interchange like that before, but it seems like it would be really inconvenient and slow.

There are roundabouts like that at the hwy 99 8th ave interchange. And they are not so bad, even when it gets pretty busy. I feel it is faster than if they had a light or 2.

With dedicated ramps from the 17A to 99 taking most of the traffic at that interchange, the traffic using the roundabouts would be pretty low.

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Google Streetview

The overpass was previously widened to accommodate the bus lane.

Would this imply they are going to add a proper shoulder, or add/drop lane, or both?

I actually think they have that backwards. That overpass is wide enough for the lanes they propose.

But under the Cambie overpass is NOT wide enough. There is only room for 2 lanes under each truss. There is no way to have 3 lanes together (center HOV lane and 2 GT lanes). That overpass (technically 2 overpasses put together) needs to be replaced.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Part of the Canada Line project was rapid bus from WH/SS with bus-only lanes all the way to KG. Of course once the Olympics were over Campbell "forgot" to build them.

Due to the HOV/bus lanes being in the far left lanes as opposed to the far right like they are now, it's going to be quite difficult and very expensive.

We did get quite a bit of that though. The stuff that is missing doesn't really mater because of the tunnel bottleneck. The HOV lanes are in place on the North side, and on the South side, only a small stretch is missing. And those additions required a lot of work. At least 6 interchanges were significantly altered to accommodate them.

And what's going to be expensive? For the most part, the lines just need to be repainted. Move the diamonds to the left lanes.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

But under the Cambie overpass is NOT wide enough. There is only room for 2 lanes under each truss. There is no way to have 3 lanes together (center HOV lane and 2 GT lanes). That overpass (technically 2 overpasses put together) needs to be replaced.

I hate that Cambie overpass, and wish it were replaced. But since the HOV work, it is actually 2+2+2+2 in capacity. So maybe that _is_ enough.

2+2 in the middle are enough for express lanes straight onto the bridge to Vancouver.

2 northbound outer collector lanes receive Shell onramp and lead to Bridgeport exit/new airport flyover/new bus route to Canada line.

2 southbound outer collector lanes receive on-ramps from airport/bus and lead to Shell exit / Hwy 91 exit.

It might be enough until Oak St Bridge is upgraded.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Zassk

I hate that Cambie overpass, and wish it were replaced. But since the HOV work, it is actually 2+2+2+2 in capacity. So maybe that _is_ enough.

2+2 in the middle are enough for express lanes straight onto the bridge to Vancouver.

2 northbound outer collector lanes receive Shell onramp and lead to Bridgeport exit/new airport flyover/new bus route to Canada line.

2 southbound outer collector lanes receive on-ramps from airport/bus and lead to Shell exit / Hwy 91 exit.

It might be enough until Oak St Bridge is upgraded.

Maybe they will do something like?

2 merge/exit || 2 SB-GT || SB-HOV + NB-HOV || 2 NB-GT

|| = pillar

And make the merge lane from Shell to NB-99 short or move it back up the hill a bit?

Or

2 SB-GT || 2 HOV || 2 NB-GT || 2 merge/exit

And make the exit lane to Shell very sudden. That way it gives you a lane to use to exit at Bridgeport that won't be blocked if the bridge was busy.

[bardak]

I fell like they have done pretty much everything they can for transit without building a proper rail line.

We have a direct bus connection from the foot of the oak street bridge to Bridgeport station. That should save a minimum of 2-3 minutes per bus.

Centre HOV/bus lanes along the entire corridor should allow the buses to cruise faster then they do today and avoids the some of the bottlenecks. that should also save a 2-3 minutes.

Hopefully when they say integrated transit stops it means that the buses do not need to come off the highway to pick up passengers like they do today. I'm thinking something simple like 555 stop at 152nd st but looking at the interchange plans it is hard to see where any transit stop would go?

The only thing that I would have like to see is bus interchange at the Cambie road overpass so that people can connect with the 410.

so it really come down to what they mean by integrated transit stops for me

[ClaytonA]

For those of you discussing tolls, perhaps there should be a plebiscite regarding an affordable scaled down toll-free bridge, or at least that put forward as an option for engagement/comment?

Remember that the reason the Lions Gate isn't tolled and wasn't replaced with some 10-lane world's widest long-span bridge in 2000 is because those on the north shore didn't want to pay a toll, those in Vancouver didn't want more traffic and Stanley Park impacts; therefore people sucked it up and still have congestion. Given the record of people rationally voting against fees and taxes on themselves...


cf; http://fraseropolis.com/2012/11/12/knocking-down-the-lions-gate-bridge/

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

For those of you discussing tolls, perhaps there should be a plebiscite regarding an affordable scaled down toll-free bridge...

I find it telling that the government's campaign promise of "no new taxes" that it says justified the transit referendum doesn't seem to apply to tolls, despite the fact that tolls have a much higher impact on those who have to pay them than the proposed half-percent tax increase would have. A $3.00 toll paid both ways over a year with about 200 working days is getting close to $2000, compared to the $200 or so the transit tax would have cost the average person.

[WarrenC12]

It's all optics. There's one taxpayer and we pay for everything from the new bridge to bombing ISIS. This road expansion will squeeze other services, but we'll get hit with MSP increases instead of additional PST.

They talk about safety and seismic issues for the GMT, but haven't upgraded the vast majority of the schools in the province. The priorities are clear.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It's all optics. There's one taxpayer and we pay for everything from the new bridge to bombing ISIS. This road expansion will squeeze other services, but we'll get hit with MSP increases instead of additional PST.

They talk about safety and seismic issues for the GMT, but haven't upgraded the vast majority of the schools in the province. The priorities are clear.

Congrats! Dumbest comment in this thread. You've overdone yourself here. Ya spiel out stupid... I will always call ya on it.