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

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Hmm - I included the bit of the October survey with 3 days over 30 minutes. That 20 minutes appears rounded up. That 50 minutes is an extreme value.

Hmmmmm..... I have always avoided the GMT and taken the AFB after 3 pm. NB from WR. Which I have `mostly` always done. When I have ignored my own advice, on numerous occasions, with crossed-fingers I took the GMT as a short-cut. (Thinkin`that I would beat the one lane scenario by 3:30 pm). Dumb. Doesn`t matter. Traffic always backs up causing me delays until the 3:30 pm gate comes down.

The wait to get from one side of the GMT to the other has ALWAYS been a minimum 30 - 45 minutes. Has just been brutal. I have no idea where they get that 20 minute figure from. Just never had the pleasure to experience same. Seriously. And the dead-stopped traffic with numerous lanes converging into one creates a helluva lot of agitation amongst drivers.

Obvious that ya have never experienced that 6 lane (Hwy 99, Hwy 17, River Road) to 1 lane NB conversion. Mostly stand-still. Worst traffic scenario in Metro Vancouver. Period.

PS. And then ferry dumps are thrown into that mix... then perhaps ya get my drift.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

I just re-read a chunk of the PMB thread and noticed that ya posted numerous posts thereto looking forward to `drive` certain segments of the new Hwy 1 upgrades. Why didn`t ya just take `transit`? If ya deny same, I will re-post your posts thereto. No skin off my back.

Well let's see - I found a post about being impatient for the completion of the Willingdon overpass - but that's because I wanted to use its bike lane.

And I did mention that I'd be taking a sightseeing trip across the new Port Mann bridge once it was completed. And I did. And I paid my toll happily. Is that a crime?

You've gotta understand that I'm not really against replacing aging infrastructure or even building new roads - what I'm against is the lopsided imbalance between road and transit improvements, particularly in light of the government's recent intransigence towards transit funding.

I own a car (although growing number of Vancouverites don't) so of course I drive on our roads. But I don't do it during peak times and back in the days when I commuted it was by transit and bicycle.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Well let's see - I found a post about being impatient for the completion of the Willingdon overpass - but that's because I wanted to use its bike lane.

And I did mention that I'd be taking a sightseeing trip across the new Port Mann bridge once it was completed. And I did. And I paid my toll happily. Is that a crime?

You've gotta understand that I'm not really against replacing aging infrastructure or even building new roads - what I'm against is the lopsided imbalance between road and transit improvements, particularly in light of the government's recent intransigence towards transit funding.

I own a car (although growing number of Vancouverites don't) so of course I drive on our roads. But I don't do it during peak times and back in the days when I commuted it was by transit and bicycle.

Agreed. The GMT needs replacement but while mayors scramble to find money to contribute to transit expansion the province simply green lights massive and expensive road expansion projects. Putting this under the guise of protecting the environment by removing idling vehicles off the highway while removing ALR land and requiring increased in vehicle numbers to pay off the expansion via a toll is ridiculous. Want to save the environment? Invest in transit expansion to remove cars from the road. This road building ideology is very 50 years ago.

It's a constant catch up. PMB and related Hwy 1 improvements have moved the bottle neck from being centred around the old PMB to being centred around the Cassiar tunnel. The GMT replacement project is going to move the centre of the bottle neck from the tunnel to the Oak Street Bridge.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

This newspaper report from 2006 mentions the preferred option being a new bridge into Burnaby. Blundell interchange isn't happening like they wanted 10 years ago either.

https://web.archive.org/web/201512220514...hmondreview/archive/RR20060218/news.html

Where would you put a new bridge (in a fantasy)?

No 5 Rd to Fraser St? Shell Rd to Main St? Both would have to extend clear to SW Marine Dr likely. I'd have probably chosen No 5 road.

I always thought Boundary to No. 8 would would be the best bet, roughly in the middle of Knight and Queensborough. Boundary is probably the best equipped to handle additional traffic.

[CanSpice]

The problem with the GMT is the number of single-occupancy vehicles at rush hour, primarily. I wonder if any studies were done that threw $3.5b at other non-bridge solutions that would help to reduce the number of SOVs through the GMT. You don't need to shift very many to make a big difference -- somewhere around 5-15% would do the trick.

Has there been any serious talk about finding cheaper solutions to the problem?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Finally there wasn't as much congestion in the data as advertised here and in the fluff, matching my experience occaisionally using the tunnel-I can't recall ever waiting more than 20min or so to get through and usually it's much less, like 5-7mins which is pretty typical. Waiting more than that as outlined does happen-primarily in the summer months and whenever there's an extraordinairy event like an accident.

Thanks for going through the numbers, they are interesting compared to the hyperbole often associated with traffic.

It has actually been shown in studies that people waiting in line as little as 3 minutes and longer actually grossly overestimate the time they have been waiting. It's a real psychological tipping point.

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

As long as, for 10 lanes, the users are willing to pay the higher tolls, the federal government isn't suckered into contributing any other way than the Building Canada Fund (no impact to potential transit or sewage monies for metro Van), the province doesn't extend freeways further, and the ALR remains intact, hey we live in a democracy and the Liberals got elected with this promise partly by those SOF. We all make our bed and have to sleep in it. Lobbying re. tolls by politicians-well sure they have to appear to make a fuss to get re-elected. Average daily tunnel user, especially a SOV, wanting free flow traffic-well be honest, if you're lobbying agaisnt tolls you're just being selfish. Those on the North Shore didn't want them either and under a different government they got what was most important to them.

I think the 2006 comment regarding a third bridge either into Vancouver or Burnaby has merit given this goes ahead. I'd pick No 5 Rd to Fraser or No 8 to Boundary.

Good point. We voted for the Liberals, and against the HST. I'll admit Christy ran a good campaign and Dix stumbled. We shall see what happens in 2017. Fool me once and all that...

[s211]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Seriously. And the dead-stopped traffic with numerous lanes converging into one creates a helluva lot of agitation amongst drivers.

Which, unfortunately, is what social engineers want: hate driving so much you'll switch to another means of transport.

Nothing says being a sanctimonious zealot more than using a poisoned, pointed stick instead of a carrot.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by s211

Which, unfortunately, is what social engineers want: hate driving so much you'll switch to another means of transport.

Nothing says being a sanctimonious zealot more than using a poisoned, pointed stick instead of a carrot.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that the government building public infrastructure for motorists is any less 'social engineering' than subsidizing other ways of moving people and goods.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The problem with the GMT is the number of single-occupancy vehicles at rush hour, primarily. I wonder if any studies were done that threw $3.5b at other non-bridge solutions that would help to reduce the number of SOVs through the GMT. You don't need to shift very many to make a big difference -- somewhere around 5-15% would do the trick.

Has there been any serious talk about finding cheaper solutions to the problem?

I'm not sure about local numbers but a study has shown that if average persons per car could be increased from 1.1 to 1.2 in L.A. that would aliviate virtually all congestion.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by SOSS

Agreed. The GMT needs replacement but while mayors scramble to find money to contribute to transit expansion the province simply green lights massive and expensive road expansion projects. Putting this under the guise of protecting the environment by removing idling vehicles off the highway while removing ALR land and requiring increased in vehicle numbers to pay off the expansion via a toll is ridiculous. Want to save the environment? Invest in transit expansion to remove cars from the road. This road building ideology is very 50 years ago.

It's a constant catch up. PMB and related Hwy 1 improvements have moved the bottle neck from being centred around the old PMB to being centred around the Cassiar tunnel. The GMT replacement project is going to move the centre of the bottle neck from the tunnel to the Oak Street Bridge.

To be honest with you, I think it's more like the current BC government is trying to catch up with dilapidated bridges and tunnels from the total lack of investment in road infrastructure especially between 1986 (opening of AFB and the 91) to 2008 (start of Gateway Project). During the 1990s, Metro Vancouver experienced almost ZERO improvements and modernization to road infrastructure while the NDP was in power. The only significant improvement done region wise was the addition of HOV lanes on Hwy 1 and one EB lane on the old PMB. At the same period, Expo and Millennium Skytrain Lines were being constructed and the implementation of 98 and 99 B-Line routes, as well as the beginning of the WCE.

If successive provincial governments made constant but incremental road infrastructure upgrades throughout the past 50 years, we wouldn't need to pay dearly for single massive road projects.

Transportation planning must involve BOTH transit systems and cars. They're not mutually exclusive. I'm all for the M-Line extension to UBC and rapid transit in Surrey. However, the radical left's emphasis of ONLY transit improvement and NO road infrastructure improvements is getting annoying and ridiculous with every passing day. Buses need efficient road network to pick up passengers on time and travel quickly as well! It is impossible to trying to artificially create congestion in order to force people off cars to take transit so that congestion can be reduced. There are many people, like myself, due to the nature of their jobs and careers, who would have to commute by car to work. For example, I will NEVER take transit to work because I go from one clients' house to another throughout the Lower Mainland during a typical work day, and that is the nature of my career.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Hmm - I included the bit of the October survey with 3 days over 30 minutes. That 20 minutes appears rounded up. That 50 minutes is an extreme value. The summer is worse than the more granular, daily data provided for Oct. Your anecdotes are still appreciated and understood. You chose to live where you do and your commute.

Anyway I gained some appreciation after access to some actual data versus a chart with check marks and associated fluff. Also interesting to see this wasn't as out of the blue as I'd thought per 10 year old MOTI ministerial comments that it was next after the Port Mann. Finally there wasn't as much congestion in the data as advertised here and in the fluff, matching my experience occaisionally using the tunnel-I can't recall ever waiting more than 20min or so to get through and usually it's much less, like 5-7mins which is pretty typical. Waiting more than that as outlined does happen-primarily in the summer months and whenever there's an extraordinairy event like an accident.

As long as, for 10 lanes, the users are willing to pay the higher tolls, the federal government isn't suckered into contributing any other way than the Building Canada Fund (no impact to potential transit or sewage monies for metro Van), the province doesn't extend freeways further, and the ALR remains intact, hey we live in a democracy and the Liberals got elected with this promise partly by those SOF. We all make our bed and have to sleep in it. Lobbying re. tolls by politicians-well sure they have to appear to make a fuss to get re-elected. Average daily tunnel user, especially a SOV, wanting free flow traffic-well be honest, if you're lobbying agaisnt tolls you're just being selfish. Those on the North Shore didn't want them either and under a different government they got what was most important to them.

I think the 2006 comment regarding a third bridge either into Vancouver or Burnaby has merit given this goes ahead. I'd pick No 5 Rd to Fraser or No 8 to Boundary.

I think a potential bridge connecting No.5 Rd to Fraser would be a better idea than the one on No.8 Rd. That's going to take a great idea of traffic away from OSB and KSB. Also, there's no ALR issue to contend with, since the bridge goes over mostly industrial land. Heck, before the KSB was built, the No.5 Rd bridge was THE bridge connecting Richmond to East Van.

However, if the No.5 Rd bridge becomes a reality, I wonder how it's going to navigate around all the warehouses and other buildings in Mitchell Island.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

I think a potential bridge connecting No.5 Rd to Fraser would be a better idea than the one on No.8 Rd

Ah yes, the Twigg Island Bridge, I remember riding my bike over it to "Lulu Island" back in the 60's.

However, if the No.5 Rd bridge becomes a reality, I wonder how it's going to navigate around all the warehouses and other buildings in Mitchell Island.

Not a problem - the road from the original bridge is still there. I you look at Google Earth you'll see how well Fraser Street, Mitchell Road and No. 5 Road all line up.

[Klazu]

Damnit. I wrote a long reply but lost it. I was curious to know more about the counter-flow lane system.

- Why does the counter-flow at GMT change direction during rush hour? The rush hour direction does not seem to be the problem, but the traffic against it.
- They use counter-flow in a clever way on LGB, changing direction often. Do they change it also during rush hour?
- Why have they never implemented counter-flow on AFB? The bridge has excessive capacity and could easily serve in 4+2 lane configuration during rush hour. Has this even been considered?

To prove a point with a photo. Note little few cars are flowing against the rush hour.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

However, the radical left's emphasis of ONLY transit improvement and NO road infrastructure improvements is getting annoying and ridiculous with every passing day. Buses need efficient road network to pick up passengers on time and travel quickly as well! It is impossible to trying to artificially create congestion in order to force people off cars to take transit so that congestion can be reduced. There are many people, like myself, due to the nature of their jobs and careers, who would have to commute by car to work. For example, I will NEVER take transit to work because I go from one clients' house to another throughout the Lower Mainland during a typical work day, and that is the nature of my career.

Who are these mythical radical left straw men you are creating? The NDP spent a ton of money building a giant highway on the island in the 90s. They did the same short-sighted vote buying that the BC Liberals are doing.

[ssiguy]

I understood that the province was only contributing about $40 million to the project {please correct me if I'm wrong} so how is this notion of the province spending money on roads coming from?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

This newspaper report from 2006 mentions the preferred option being a new bridge into Burnaby. Blundell interchange isn't happening like they wanted 10 years ago either.

https://web.archive.org/web/201512220514...hmondreview/archive/RR20060218/news.html

Where would you put a new bridge (in a fantasy)?

No 5 Rd to Fraser St? Shell Rd to Main St? Both would have to extend clear to SW Marine Dr likely. I'd have probably chosen No 5 road.

Interesting quote from that article:

Steves said a tunnel expansion wouldn’t impact farmland as another idea floated years ago would—a bridge connecting with No. 8 Road. And now that it’s part of the province’s long-term plans, the city should go “full out” in trying to secure the project, including expanding and elevating Highway 99, which could also act as a mid-island dyke.

Here's a map from the 1991 GMT Expansion Planning Study with the then Long Term Plan.
Note that we already have the SFPR along part of the "New Freeway" segment.
You can also see where a No. 5 Rd. - Fraser connection would lie (just to the left of Knight St. Bridge)
- it lines up with the Hwy 99 & Richmond Freeway interchange.


http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/fil...Massey-Tunnel-Expansion-Plan-Study-1.pdf

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Damnit. I wrote a long reply but lost it. I was curious to know more about the counter-flow lane system.

- Why does the counter-flow at GMT change direction during rush hour? The rush hour direction does not seem to be the problem, but the traffic against it.

Because there are more cars heading in the counterflow lane direction than in the opposite (minority) direction. If you didn't have the counterflow lane then presumably the backup would be worse in the direction most people are going.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

To be honest with you, I think it's more like the current BC government is trying to catch up with dilapidated bridges and tunnels from the total lack of investment in road infrastructure especially between 1986 (opening of AFB and the 91) to 2008 (start of Gateway Project). During the 1990s, Metro Vancouver experienced almost ZERO improvements and modernization to road infrastructure while the NDP was in power. The only significant improvement done region wise was the addition of HOV lanes on Hwy 1 and one EB lane on the old PMB. At the same period, Expo and Millennium Skytrain Lines were being constructed and the implementation of 98 and 99 B-Line routes, as well as the beginning of the WCE.

If successive provincial governments made constant but incremental road infrastructure upgrades throughout the past 50 years, we wouldn't need to pay dearly for single massive road projects.

Transportation planning must involve BOTH transit systems and cars. They're not mutually exclusive. I'm all for the M-Line extension to UBC and rapid transit in Surrey. However, the radical left's emphasis of ONLY transit improvement and NO road infrastructure improvements is getting annoying and ridiculous with every passing day. Buses need efficient road network to pick up passengers on time and travel quickly as well! It is impossible to trying to artificially create congestion in order to force people off cars to take transit so that congestion can be reduced. There are many people, like myself, due to the nature of their jobs and careers, who would have to commute by car to work. For example, I will NEVER take transit to work because I go from one clients' house to another throughout the Lower Mainland during a typical work day, and that is the nature of my career.

Very good points. I feel the fact that BC (vancouver specifically) let its mickey mouse road system sit un-changed (while the regions population exploded) Is a fact that many people seem to over look. Playing catch up is exactly what is going on here. In my opinion.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

I think a potential bridge connecting No.5 Rd to Fraser would be a better idea than the one on No.8 Rd. That's going to take a great idea of traffic away from OSB and KSB. Also, there's no ALR issue to contend with, since the bridge goes over mostly industrial land. Heck, before the KSB was built, the No.5 Rd bridge was THE bridge connecting Richmond to East Van.

However, if the No.5 Rd bridge becomes a reality, I wonder how it's going to navigate around all the warehouses and other buildings in Mitchell Island.

That`s certainly an interesting concept. However, back in the day, No. 5 Road was basically a farming area with also a large Drive-In Movie Theatre, if I recall my history.

Today, south of Bridgeport Road is basically residential while north of Bridgeport Road is industrial. One would need to concurrently punch a freeway standard connector to Hwy 99 through that long stretch and I doubt that it would be feasible.

I would think that a bridge connecting Cambie could be feasible as a concept down the road - with a much shorter route (via viaduct) to connect with Hwy 99.

As an aside, over the years, have had extreme difficulty locating pics of the old Fraser Street Bridge that ya mentioned. In fact there were apparently two - a shorter, steel, swing-span connecting Mitchell Island with Van City and a second larger, wooden trestle structure connecting Mitchell Island with Richmond.

Here`s a pic of the southern, wooden structure facing north landing on Mitchell Island (circa mid-1950`s - posted on SSP about 5 years ago):



And here`s a pic from the 1940`s looking north:



And a final pic from 1962 facing NW:



Source: Garry Cullen - FB

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Who are these mythical radical left straw men you are creating? The NDP spent a ton of money building a giant highway on the island in the 90s. They did the same short-sighted vote buying that the BC Liberals are doing.

That would be folks who are irrationally and ideologically anti-development and anti-road infrastructure development at all costs.

I'm specifically talking about Metro Vancouver during the 90s. True the BC NDP built the 19 in Vancouver Island, but they have COMPLETELY neglected Metro Vancouver in terms of infrastructure development at the same time (At that time, they could've moved forward with the 3rd narrows crossing to the North Shore and the Stormont tunnel at the very minimum). In general, I think the BC Liberals are much more pragmatic and realistic when it comes to investments in both transit and road infrastructure. Of course the outcomes of all their completed projects are not all perfect (my biggest gripe being the half-assedly completion of the 17), but I'm pretty sure if the NDP is in power for the past 10 years, the Canada Line, the Gateway Project and the new 17 would not have taken place and heck, perhaps even the Evergreen Line project would still be in planning and debate stage right now, because they're more likely to give way and fall to the NIMBYs.