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

[moosejaw]

Does the Steveston interchange need the grade seperated crossovers?
Seems a little over designed to me
Is there that much traffic going north?

At the very least I can see the Southbound ramp value engineered to an at grade interchange. The diverging diamond is definitely an interesting proposition but I think it can function fine as at an grade schematic opposed to an unsightly series of ramps

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Does the Steveston interchange need the grade seperated crossovers?
Seems a little over designed to me
Is there that much traffic going north?

At the very least I can see the Southbound ramp value engineered to an at grade interchange. The diverging diamond is definitely an interesting proposition but I think it can function fine as at an grade schematic opposed to an unsightly series of ramps

Aren't you one of the regulars who often complain about how severely under built highways are in BC?

And now this is over designed and ramps are unsightly?

Seriously people, you can't have it both ways.

I think this interchange design is fantastic and i am very interested to see further renders.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

My beef is with the one-sided priorities and double standards being practiced by the provincial government. One one hand you have several massive highways projects being parachuted from on high with no public consultation and significant new user costs, and on the other hand we can't get any funding for transit without subjecting it to a referendum because, heaven forbid, we wouldn't want to impose new costs on people.

And now the Provincial government has said that the Massey Tunnel replacement is their top priority for Federal infrastructure funding. Where the heck did that come from? They were perfectly fine announcing and planning the project before the Feds came along, so presumably they had a plan for funding it. Meanwhile transit on the Broadway corridor, which serves more people per day than the tunnel, is just as congested and is completely stalled for lack of funding.

You can't solve congestion just by building roads. You'll just end up with even more car-oriented development which increases the number of car-dependent families which then inevitably creates more congestion. You need a balanced approach which includes user fees for road usage and reasonable transit alternatives for those who don't want to or can't pay those fees.

I disagree. You can solve congestion by building more roads. You just need to be able to keep up or slow growth, or both. Preferably stop growth, after all our birth rate in Vancouver is among the lowest on this planet and well bellow replacement levels. Ignoring all this, this project is mostly being paid by "un fair" user fees, unlike transit that gets funded mostly by general revenues by everyone. This project is important and one of the most beneficial dollar for dollar.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I disagree. You can solve congestion by building more roads. You just need to be able to keep up or slow growth, or both. Preferably stop growth, after all our birth rate in Vancouver is among the lowest on this planet and well bellow replacement levels. Ignoring all this, this project is mostly being paid by "un fair" user fees, unlike transit that gets funded mostly by general revenues by everyone. This project is important and one of the most beneficial dollar for dollar.

See, I don't agree with this either.

You can solve congestion with good roads and good transit. You need both, and Metro-Vancouver needs to improve both (although IMO with Gateway now done and the GEB / GEW completed over 5 years ago and the North Shore finally getting some improvements after this project is done Metro-Vancouver will be pretty solid for roads. Only upgrading the SFPR to free flow and the odd interchange upgrade (72nd for example) will be necessary IMO)

I put this project and the Broadway subway as equally important and do hope both open in 2022. The extension of the skytrain to Langley is a tad below these two projects, but I also hope it is opened by 2022 (or at least in progress).

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Does the Steveston interchange need the grade seperated crossovers?
Seems a little over designed to me
Is there that much traffic going north?

At the very least I can see the Southbound ramp value engineered to an at grade interchange. The diverging diamond is definitely an interesting proposition but I think it can function fine as at an grade schematic opposed to an unsightly series of ramps

The one time bc wants to build something properly right out the gate, and you want them to down grade it? I hope to god that doesn't happen.

[Cypherus]

You can solve congestion by building more roads to meet current and future demands. The reason we have congestion is because the current system is insufficient for goods movers and people. The 1955 overpasses is a symptom of neglect on BC highways. The anti-highway sentiment has persisted for quite some time, and never amounted to anything virtuous in BC. Urban sprawl still happened in Abbotsford, Langley, and Surrey, with a 4 lane Hwy 1. What was received in return was more idling in traffic, emissions increases, and wasted time, which have reduced thanks to the Gateway project.

The anti-highway sentiment also ignores the fact that container trucks cannot take transit, so roads are a necessity. Drive down 99 and hwy 1 and much of the congestion is influenced by idling trucks. Roads should be built to accommodate truck traffic and passengers taking mass transit, which this project will implement.

An economy with clogged arteries will not function. It will have a heart attack unless the walls of the artery are widened to accommodate existing pressures.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Aren't you one of the regulars who often complain about how severely under built highways are in BC?

And now this is over designed and ramps are unsightly?

Seriously people, you can't have it both ways.

I think this interchange design is fantastic and i am very interested to see further renders.

Wow so much for trying to be objective
I asked for opinions
Not to be subjected to criticism from previous posts where the subject at hand warranted the statement (i.e. South Fraser Perimeter Road)

Again my question was does the proposed steveston interchange warrant this kind of design? I do not know as I'm never in Vancouver

And I need to add we've seen this before. We have all seen the fantastic renderings where in reality the project gets downgraded and VE'd at the end of the day. That's a fact

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cornholio

You can solve congestion by building more roads. You just need to be able to keep up or slow growth, or both.

The problem is that when you build a bigger road to relieve the congestion, it makes land on the other side more valuable and attracts new development. If no transit has been built into the area, then it has to be built to accommodate cars instead. People who move into the area are then car dependent, and as a result you get more congestion.

This is exactly why Surrey is such a transit wasteland. All of the major shopping and business developments are ensconced in the middle of vast parking lots. Housing is a mess of cul de sacs which discourage walking and make convenient and efficient transit impossible. Once that stuff is built it's almost impossible to change.

You can't slow growth without building a Trump-style fence, which is impossible under Canadian law. This area is too desirable to live in. Even if foreigners weren't buying up property there's a while generation of baby boomers about to retire across Canada, many of whom would like to come here. The only viable solution is to manage growth through good planning, and to do that you have to recognize that transit is just as important as roads.

[ssiguy]

The province and city have done everything in their power to keep the house flipping alive with the resulting extreme prices but then turn around and tell everyone to "live near your work".

The housing market has forced, and will continue to do so, people having to live further from the city and their work because they have no options.

[ssiguy]

Vancouver has done a lot of good things in it's planning over the years but transportation has been a complete failure by any metric. For a city of just 2.5 million to have the second longest commute times on the continent is absurd and exemplifies how horridly wrong both the province and especially city have been when it comes to transportation.

The reason Toronto and Montreal [as well as Ottawa and Calgary} have higher transit usage is because they did not have this stupid "roads vs transit" mentality. They recognized that a modern city must have good systems of both in order to thrive and create an effective transportation system.

Vancouver transportation planning has been a monumental failure and as the area continues to sprawl that will only get worse.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Again my question was does the proposed steveston interchange warrant this kind of design? I do not know as I'm never in Vancouver

And I need to add we've seen this before. We have all seen the fantastic renderings where in reality the project gets downgraded and VE'd at the end of the day. That's a fact

Let me put it this way. Both Richmond and South Surrey areas were the only 2 areas to receive an additional provincial riding each under the recent BC Electoral Boundaries Commission report due to population increases.

When I travel along the 99 Fwy NB, I notice increased merging traffic from the Steveston Highway interchange heading NB.

When I utilize the Steveston Hwy interchange heading SB (and even NB), at peak periods, the thing is a back-up hell-hole at most times.

And since Blundell Road will not be converted into an interchange as a relief valve, the Stevseton interchange is the only Van City NB alternative for south Richmond residents - both now and into the next 30-year time frame. Westminster Hwy interchange is just too far north for these folk in terms of access.

BTW, when the PMB Project Definition Report was released (back in ~2006), the original Burnaby C-D system was VE'd and not implemented in final construction phase. That said, all underpasses were constructed for its future implementation. Can't do same VE for the Steveston Hwy interchange for its inauguration IMHO.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The problem is that when you build a bigger road to relieve the congestion, it makes land on the other side more valuable and attracts new development. The only viable solution is to manage growth through good planning, and to do that you have to recognize that transit is just as important as roads.

That's 1960's-era thinking though. All land outside the ALR, south of the Fraser River, has already essentially been developed. Period. Not gonna change things.

In that vein, the ONLY area, south of the Fraser River, that is still "greenfield", in terms of residential development, is in South Surrey - east of the 99 Fwy, roughly between 16th Ave. and 32nd Ave. - further eastward toward roughly 192nd St.

And due to incremental water/wastewater mainlines moving eastward, that area is booming right now in terms of new residential development. Nuthin' to do with any proposed GMB. As a matter of fact, a very close family member, back circa 1999, purchased a 20-acre site in the same area based upon longer-term, future anticipated residential development in the official Surrey Community Plan. Purchase price was $50,000/acre ($1 million) with an old house on same back then.

Several years ago, he sold same for residential development. Price? $1 million/acre ($20 million). That residential development/land appreciation had absolutely nuthin' to do with any proposed new GMB. Wasn't even on the radar screen.

In that vein, I will re-iterate - the 601 coach bus to Tsawwassen and the 351 coach bus to White Rock ALL experience lengthy delays (most of the day) with the existing GMT. Kinda ironic that the new GMB will permit consistent 100 - 110 km hour travel speeds to the Canada Line Station in Richmond saving perhaps 1/2 hour or more on each trip. Will further induce folk to move to transit. Don't ya think?!

PS. While South Surrey population growth is expected to increase by roughly another 140,000 or so over the next 30 years (IIRC), where are we gonna put the remaining ~1 million? Tear down all single family dwellings in Van City proper for high-rises? Just ain't gonna fly. Get real man.

PPS. I have supported EVERY Skytrain Line expansion since its inception. Period. And am also a major supporter of the Broadway subway. End of story.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

That's 1960's-era thinking though. All land outside the ALR, south of the Fraser River, has already essentially been developed. Period. Not gonna change things.

In that vein, the ONLY area, south of the Fraser River, that is still "greenfield", in terms of residential development, is in South Surrey - east of the 99 Fwy, roughly between 16th Ave. and 32nd Ave. - further eastward toward roughly 192nd St.

I agree that Delta, Ladner and Tsawwassen areas will be largely untouched in the foreseeable future. Which begs the question, where is all of this traffic going to come from to justify 10 lanes?

Just compare it to the PMB circa 2005. The Patullo is a joke, and the old PMB was jammed 18 hours a day. Surrey and Langley were growing like crazy, and Hwy 1 is the only real route east out of the Lower Mainland. The new PMB was built with 10 lanes, which I thought sounded reasonable, and yet the predicted traffic has yet to materialize. I wouldn't say it was a mistake, but it should have informed future planning.

Now look at the crossings to the west, the GMT and the AFB. Both are busy and the GMT needs replacement. However, the GMT today is not as congested as the PMB was before its replacement, and the prospects for growth south of the GMT are moderate at best.

Also consider AFB is a far better "toll free" alternative than the Patullo.

I stand by my belief that 8 lanes would have been plenty, and the reduced costs throughout the whole project area would likely be in the order of $500M which could be better spent elsewhere, and the future toll price could be reduced.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I stand by my belief that 8 lanes would have been plenty

Frankly, I obviously prefer and defer to MoTI civil engineers as well as their detailed info, at hand, in their final decision. As matter of fact, I can corroborate from personal experience and knowledge, their decision. More precisely, the 10-lane GMB option is obviously a major improvement to an 8-lane option, longer term, in terms of:

1. Relieving congestion;

2. Improving safety;

3. Supporting trade and commerce;

[SOSS]

Based on that chart, a 10 lane bridge is 3 times better at relieving congestion, 3 times better at supporting trade and commerce and 50 percent better at improving safety that a 8 lane bridge. To me, that makes no sense. More like they made a decision and now they're massaging the figures to support said decision.

How is safety any different? Maybe if the new bridge was 2+3+3+2 design, but it isn't.

3 times better at relieving congestion? Yeah right. It's just going to create a bigger bottleneck at the Vancouver border.

3 time better at supporting trade and commerce? Common, get even 20 percent of the people who currently use the tunnel for their daily commute onto transit and commerce and trade will have free flow traffic to use the route.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by SOSS

Based on that chart, a 10 lane bridge is 3 times better at relieving congestion, 3 times better at supporting trade and commerce and 50 percent better at improving safety that a 8 lane bridge. To me, that makes no sense. More like they made a decision and now they're massaging the figures to support said decision.

How is safety any different? Maybe if the new bridge was 2+3+3+2 design, but it isn't.

3 times better at relieving congestion? Yeah right. It's just going to create a bigger bottleneck at the Vancouver border.

3 time better at supporting trade and commerce? Common, get even 20 percent of the people who currently use the tunnel for their daily commute onto transit and commerce and trade will have free flow traffic to use the route.

Umm, no, it wont. The tunnel has been far over its saturation point for a long time. Even a reduction of 20% would still result in long line ups at rush hour due to several merges / lanes still converging into 2 lanes at either end.

Also, since it is a tunnel, dangerous goods cannot be transported through it.

The lanes are also quite narrow and the claustrophobic feel of the tunnel slows traffic down significantly even during free flow periods.

Then there are the safety aspects / seismic risks of the old structure.

And where is that transit going to go? To have a decent bus network through the tunnel true HOV lanes / rapid bus system will be needed, which still means a new bridge / tunnel structure would need to be built. Que jumper lanes already exist and transit is still delayed majorly though the tunnel.

yeah, I do feel they are fudging facts a little, just like the city of Van with the viaducts removal

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I agree that Delta, Ladner and Tsawwassen areas will be largely untouched in the foreseeable future. Which begs the question, where is all of this traffic going to come from to justify 10 lanes?

Just compare it to the PMB circa 2005. The Patullo is a joke, and the old PMB was jammed 18 hours a day. Surrey and Langley were growing like crazy, and Hwy 1 is the only real route east out of the Lower Mainland. The new PMB was built with 10 lanes, which I thought sounded reasonable, and yet the predicted traffic has yet to materialize. I wouldn't say it was a mistake, but it should have informed future planning.

Now look at the crossings to the west, the GMT and the AFB. Both are busy and the GMT needs replacement. However, the GMT today is not as congested as the PMB was before its replacement, and the prospects for growth south of the GMT are moderate at best.

Also consider AFB is a far better "toll free" alternative than the Patullo.

I stand by my belief that 8 lanes would have been plenty, and the reduced costs throughout the whole project area would likely be in the order of $500M which could be better spent elsewhere, and the future toll price could be reduced.

Now this is a criticism that I can understand and is worthy of discussion.

I also believe that 8 lanes is likely enough. 1 HOV / Bus lane, 2 general purpose, and one climbing lane (which is pretty much a general purpose for slow traffic, but knowing the driving skills of most Vancouverites all lanes will become climbing lanes...).

[KPELLY]

Originally Posted by SOSS

How is safety any different? Maybe if the new bridge was 2+3+3+2 design, but it isn't.

I would think that is because it allows a dedicated merge/climbing lane. So it gives those merging onto the highway more time and space to move over.

With a 8 lane configuration, they would have to merge into the 4th lane, with the 10 lane configuration, they basically extend the merge lane over the length of the bridge.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Now this is a criticism that I can understand and is worthy of discussion.

I also believe that 8 lanes is likely enough. 1 HOV / Bus lane, 2 general purpose, and one climbing lane (which is pretty much a general purpose for slow traffic, but knowing the driving skills of most Vancouverites all lanes will become climbing lanes...).

It's important to keep in mind that the whole freeway is going to be upgraded to 4 lanes in each direction (200km of roadway = 8 lanes x 24km).

Whether or not that's overbuilt is a separate issue.

The argument could be made that an 8 lane bridge would in fact be a bottleneck when you have 8 lanes leading up to the bridge plus multiple onramps at either end. I know it's not likely, but if they ever put commuter rail on the bridge, you are back down to 8 lanes again.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Now this is a criticism that I can understand and is worthy of discussion.

I also believe that 8 lanes is likely enough. 1 HOV / Bus lane, 2 general purpose, and one climbing lane (which is pretty much a general purpose for slow traffic, but knowing the driving skills of most Vancouverites all lanes will become climbing lanes...).

I would have love to have seen real options presented to the public, just like the Patullo study results that Translink shared 1-2 years ago. Multiple costed options, including an option of a crossing in a new spot. I don't think a different crossing spot is an option here, but it shows that the other group was at least thinking outside the box.

This study is just "it needs to be this, trust us."

There are no traffic or revenue projections, no talk of impact on the SFPR, Hwy 17A, 91 connector, AFB, and so on.