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

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The quote from Spacing that I quoted mentioned the 1954 establishment of a Technical Committee for Metropolitan Planning, which produced a 1959 plan that included an Arbutus Freeway. If the issue of freeways was prevalent enough in 1954 for the establishment of a Committee (and you know how slowly government works), then there would have been discussion about freeways for many years before that.

So as you, Stingray2004 and Aberdeen mention, in the 1950s, there would have been a general desire to accommodate future freeways, without there being a specific design or plan.
i.e. as you mention, like future rapid transit over the future Massey Bridge.
Another example would be the City of Vancouver's purchase of the Kettle of Fish building for a vehicle ramp from Burrard Bridge to Hornby St.

Guess a very rough historical time-line on these matters might be apropos and further clarify:

1. Robert Moses - had influence in NYC area constructing `parkways` back in late 1940`s and early 1950`s;

2. The Pennsylvania Turnpike was constructed as a 4-lane rural roadway, with 2-lane sections such as tunnels, that was tolled back in the 1940`s;

3. When the Granville Street was designed back in the late 1940`s, it incorporated one-way connections with Seymour and Howe on the north side and Hemlock and Fir on the south side. Simply put, was a superb design back then... looking into the future. Back when Van City was still a way out there `hicksville`. So kudos to them. Without the one-way connections, the then new GSB would have been just a 6-lane bridge connecting Granville Street on either side.

4. Eisenhower, supreme commander in WW2 Europe, became U.S. prez in 1952. More importantly, he was very impressed with the German autobahnen during his military tenure. So much so, that he authorized the Interstate Highway System back in 1956. That`s where everything in terms of `freeways` in N.A. REALLY started and then took off. And where the terminology `freeway` began to become part of the public lexicon.

5. Back to Van City. A fella by the name of Gerald Sutton-Brown became head of Van City planning back in 1953. Sutton-Brown also formed and became head of the BC Planning Institute back in 1954 as well - which I suspect was the impetus for the 1954 establishment of a Technical Committee for Metropolitan Planning. Later Sutton-Brown became Van City commissioner (I guess the somewhat equivalent of city manager today) albeit an even more powerful position back then.

Sutton-Brown drove the entire freeway agenda in Van City from the mid-1950`s inclusive of the 1959, 1964, 1967, 1968, and 1970 freeway reports. I reviewed all of these engineering reports (numerous with even more numerous options for every routing) well over a decade ago. From today`s perspective, was mind-boggling.

Again, when the GSB was designed, `freeway` was not even in the public or engineering lexicon, back in the late 1940`s or early 1950`s in the then backwater of Van City. The GSB was just very well designed for future growth. That`s it. Nothing more than that. Certainly, much later, the GSB could have been perhaps incorporated into part of a future freeway system involving the Arbutus corridor.

And whatever happened to Gerald Sutton-Brown? He was turfed when the then long-time NPA council was defeated by TEAM (Mayor Art Phillips) back in 1972.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Again, when the GSB was designed, `freeway` was not even in the public or engineering lexicon, back in the late 1940`s or early 1950`s in the then backwater of Van City.

Although the word may not have been coined, the concepts were certainly there. The very design of Granville bridge itself with its on and off-ramps and positive traffic separation shows the thinking of the time.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Same government that's building giant bridges all over the burbs.

I was speaking about the municipal governments
Neither has built anything of significance when it comes to roadways in decades; and both live in a blissful state of denial

[ssiguy]

Vancouver and Price can't seem to get their heads around how people and business move effectively in a metropolitan area.

When they think of transportation they automatically think of transit............a parochial notion that entails not only a lack of understanding but also a lack of vision.

Great cities of the world {sorry Vancouver that doesn't include you} are ones with great TRANSPORTAION depts. , not transit departments. Vancouver seems to view them as adversaries as opposed to complimentary. Tell them that clogged roads also lead to buses coming to a screeching halt draws a blank face from the mandarins at City Hall.

They view it as an "us vs them", urban vs downtown", "left vs right" discussion which of course it isn't. They espouse how great ridership is but do so by making comparisons with US cities which is akin to an Indian saying how rich their country is when compared to Bangladesh.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

I was speaking about the municipal governments
Neither has built anything of significance when it comes to roadways in decades; and both live in a blissful state of denial

There isn't much the three north shore municipalities can do to improve things. The local roads are fine. No one opposes a third crossing on the north side.

[s211]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Vancouver and Price can't seem to get their heads around how people and business move effectively in a metropolitan area.

When they think of transportation they automatically think of transit............a parochial notion that entails not only a lack of understanding but also a lack of vision.

Great cities of the world {sorry Vancouver that doesn't include you} are ones with great TRANSPORTAION depts. , not transit departments. Vancouver seems to view them as adversaries as opposed to complimentary. Tell them that clogged roads also lead to buses coming to a screeching halt draws a blank face from the mandarins at City Hall.

They view it as an "us vs them", urban vs downtown", "left vs right" discussion which of course it isn't. They espouse how great ridership is but do so by making comparisons with US cities which is akin to an Indian saying how rich their country is when compared to Bangladesh.

Post of the month.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Guess a very rough historical time-line on these matters might be apropos and further clarify:
...
3. When the Granville Street was designed back in the late 1940`s, it incorporated one-way connections with Seymour and Howe on the north side and Hemlock and Fir on the south side. Simply put, was a superb design back then... looking into the future. Back when Van City was still a way out there `hicksville`. So kudos to them. Without the one-way connections, the then new GSB would have been just a 6-lane bridge connecting Granville Street on either side.
....

So I guess the ramps for the Granville Bridge were the first elevated ramp structures anywhere in Metro Vancouver? and the first ones to use a pylon (T) type structure?

The old Georgia Viaduct was more of a bridge / trestle, and the other area bridges and bridge approaches seem to have the same sort of designs with steel trusses or post and lintel type of designs.

I wonder how much "push-back" they got for being innovative? or whether people complained about view blockage (like they do about the SkyTrain guideway, today?)

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Vancouver and Price can't seem to get their heads around how people and business move effectively in a metropolitan area.

When they think of transportation they automatically think of transit

Cars don't need cheerleaders, they have plenty enough already. The provincial government's treatment of transit vs. highway funding is exactly why transit needs this kind of moral support.

[Metro-One]

Can we just create a roads vs. transit thread and remove this endless bickering from every road and transit thread?

It was okay when the comments were directly relating to the GMB project itself, but the last couple pages have essentially had nothing to do with this project.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by officedweller

So I guess the ramps for the Granville Bridge were the first elevated ramp structures anywhere in Metro Vancouver? and the first ones to use a pylon (T) type structure?

The old Georgia Viaduct was more of a bridge / trestle, and the other area bridges and bridge approaches seem to have the same sort of designs with steel trusses or post and lintel type of designs.

I wonder how much "push-back" they got for being innovative? or whether people complained about view blockage (like they do about the SkyTrain guideway, today?)

Firstly, the GSB main span was constructed as a cantilever/truss bridge similar to the later IWM 2nd Narrows Bridge. I guess an apropos design for the era.

In that vein, the cable-stayed bridge design was first utilized in the AFB during the early 1980`s and later became the standard design for bridge structures in the region. (Suspect cost-effectiveness and high seismic standards were behind same - AFB designed to withstand 8.5 on the Richter Scale for structural damage).

Similarly, the off-ramps for the GSB were the first constructed as a pylon (T) type structure in the region (as ya describe same) as I suspect that was the then new construction method - as opposed to the steel posts of the original GSB, Cambie Street Bridge, and viaduct constructed back circa in the early 1900`s. Obviously different construction techniques back then.

Again. Time-line wise the original GSB replacement was proposed in 1948. Say 1949 & early 1950 for design. November, 1950 election for by-law approval with construction commencing in 1951.

Both my gut as well my sense of history, in terms of that era, tells me that the GSB was just good, long-term design. Have never seen any evidence to conclude that Granville St. on either side of False Creek was determined to be upgraded to `freeway standards` in that era - when Van City was still a major back-water.

Certainly, the concept of utilizing the GSB as a freeway connector was there perhaps a decade after the fact.

In that vein, the new Cambie Street Bridge, approved in the early 1980`s under Mayor `anti-freeway` Mike Harcourt, also had many off-ramps as well. Certainly the Cambie Street Bridge could be connected to a future freeway network... but we all know that concept was not on the radar screen back then either.

In any event, I certainly can`t say anything definitive about the GSB from circa 1950. But ya got the bug in my ear and now I wanna go down to Van City Archives (one of these days) and review both the council and CoV correspondence & internal reports, from back then, as well as the GSB engineering report as well in order to confirm my suspicions.

PS. As far as I know, in that `conservative` era of early 1950`s, the concept of civic `push-back` was non-existent. Seems that concept only came into vogue after 1965 with Bob Dylan`s then apt top-hit: "The Times They Are a-Changin" defining that subsequent turbulent era.

[officedweller]

Yeah, I was just referring to the structural design of the on-ramps and off-ramps (with T pylons) as first of their kind in Vancouver (I guess that also applies to the use of cloverleaf ramps at either end of the bridge, too).

WRT the Granville St. Bridge itself, I read somewhere that the same engineer/architect/designer had also designed the Burrard Bridge and had wanted a clean design for that bridge, but the City wanted a more ornate design because it was expected to a gateway to the proposed City Hall precinct at Burrard and Pacific.

For Alex Fraser Bridge, yeah, I recall it may have been the longed cable stayed bridge in the world at one point, so definitely "cutting edge".

Came across this Granville St. Bridge video from 1954 -
- no mention of "freeway"
- main concerns were height to avoid a swing span
- it does mention cloverleafs to keep traffic moving
- it also mentions wooden piles

http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/granville-bridge-sound-version

This model pic shows the bridge described as a "modern highway bridge".

http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/uploa...a-4c8a-bb62-2880aa950190-CVA180-3686.jpg

[urbancanadian]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Can we just create a roads vs. transit thread and remove this endless bickering from every road and transit thread?

It was okay when the comments were directly relating to the GMB project itself, but the last couple pages have essentially had nothing to do with this project.

Total agreement. Virtually every thread in the Canada section has become political. Can we please not do the same in the local section, because it feels like that's where we're heading. There are already so few places to talk/read about urban issues in this city...

[Stingray2004]

Speaking of GMT lack of seismic upgrades... we just had a damn earthquake!!!! Dishes fell off the counter. Felt like a freight train. Never experienced same in my entire life.

4.8 or up to 5.1 apparently centred near Victoria.

[officedweller]

I felt it at the office.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Can we just create a roads vs. transit thread and remove this endless bickering from every road and transit thread?

It was okay when the comments were directly relating to the GMB project itself, but the last couple pages have essentially had nothing to do with this project.

You are right and now back to the GMT.........

I have several issues with the GMT and one of them is that I don't believe the province and with good reason. There should be no need for bus-only/HOV lanes to Ladner Trunk because they were suppose to be built 5 years ago as the province promised. Part of Campbell's McCanada line was that it was suppose to include BRT to SS/WR and a major part of that was HOV in both direction from the GMT all the way to KG and the SS Park n Ride.

I also don't believe them on "bus integration" on the system. Don't any of you find it very odd that they have provided a detailed map of the route, overpasses, and HOV lanes but nothing of the supposed "bus integration"? I know I do.

I have absolutely no idea how they plan on having "bus integration" when the bus/HOV lanes is in the far left lane. It could be possible if they created a much wider median and placed a station and bus on/off ramp but there is no indication of any of that one their detailed maps.

They lied before about BRT to SS/WR so I can't imagine they have any trepidations about doing it again.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Pinion

There isn't much the three north shore municipalities can do to improve things. The local roads are fine. No one opposes a third crossing on the north side.

Well, even if nobody on the north side opposes it (which I'm still skeptical about), Vancouver is plenty apposed to the idea.

[officedweller]

Here's the BC Environmental Assessment Office webpage for the project:

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/html/deploy/epic_project_home_430.html

The proponent's document entitled "Project Description and Key Areas of Study" is here:

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/html/deploy/epic_document_430_39646.html

- it doesn't have any detailed design, but that will likely be filed in the future with the actual application in 2016.
- the document doesn't mention the Hwy 91 overpass replacement shown in the technical presentation (unless that's considered part of the Westminster Highway interchange).
- it does mention the integrated transit stations "within the interchange" and pedestrian walkways to access them

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Pinion

There isn't much the three north shore municipalities can do to improve things. The local roads are fine. No one opposes a third crossing on the north side.

The local roads on the NS are a nightmare. Moving east/west is becoming impossible. I'm praying that the new interchange around Seylynn will make things better or else I'm giving up going to Lonsdale ever again.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, I was just referring to the structural design of the on-ramps and off-ramps (with T pylons) as first of their kind in Vancouver (I guess that also applies to the use of cloverleaf ramps at either end of the bridge, too).

WRT the Granville St. Bridge itself, I read somewhere that the same engineer/architect/designer had also designed the Burrard Bridge and had wanted a clean design for that bridge, but the City wanted a more ornate design because it was expected to a gateway to the proposed City Hall precinct at Burrard and Pacific.

For Alex Fraser Bridge, yeah, I recall it may have been the longed cable stayed bridge in the world at one point, so definitely "cutting edge".

Came across this Granville St. Bridge video from 1954 -
- no mention of "freeway"
- main concerns were height to avoid a swing span
- it does mention cloverleafs to keep traffic moving
- it also mentions wooden piles

http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/granville-bridge-sound-version

This model pic shows the bridge described as a "modern highway bridge".

http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/uploa...a-4c8a-bb62-2880aa950190-CVA180-3686.jpg

Saw this this and thought 'although this is considered unsightly by some, it provides large-scale vehicle volume between the peninsula and into south van as far as yvr. All in all we would have been at a chaotic loss had it not been built. A later bridge might have worked.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by djmk

The local roads on the NS are a nightmare. Moving east/west is becoming impossible. I'm praying that the new interchange around Seylynn will make things better or else I'm giving up going to Lonsdale ever again.

That's a shame, as there are a number of pleasant districts and streets in North Van. Could you imagine a major road infrastructure redesign, or are you "stuck" with what you have, for whatever reason?