Highways in Canada

[eemy]

I don't get what's so offensive about hipster_duck's post... you disagree with him?

You might not understand how forum's work, but the whole point is to foster debate and discussion. If you disagree with someone, tell us and show us why hipster_duck is wrong. If it's as clear cut as you claim, that should be pretty easy.

[sonysnob]

It is good engineering practice for a large bridge such as this to be wider than the roads that feed into it. Admittedly, I am not too familiar with the area, but by the looks of what I can see from streetview, the freeway on both sides of the bridge is already six lanes wide. Because the bridge needs to have enough height to cross the shipping channel, the approaches will require long grades which can be difficult for heavy trucks to climb at full speed. Slow trucks quickly erode highway capacity, so it is normal for a bridge to have an extra lane for climbing. This extra capacity is particularly important for a road that carries a high volume of trucks, which given the land uses in the area, seems as though it could be the case.

Additionally, the river and canal is a significant barrier to the local road network on either side of the bridge, so again, it's not uncommon for a large structure such as this to have additional capacity to support the local road network. All that said, without having read the technical justification for the project, it seems that an eight lane bridge might suffice, but a ten lane bridge doesn't seem unreasonable either.

[MolsonExport]

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

PS. Yep. Just cannot do it in terms of reporting Hippy Duck. Am not the narc type.

That's probably wise. When the last 3 posts of yours basically consist of ad hominem attacks and you calling me childish names, you don't exactly have much of a leg to stand on.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

It is good engineering practice for a large bridge such as this to be wider than the roads that feed into it. Admittedly, I am not too familiar with the area, but by the looks of what I can see from streetview, the freeway on both sides of the bridge is already six lanes wide. Because the bridge needs to have enough height to cross the shipping channel, the approaches will require long grades which can be difficult for heavy trucks to climb at full speed. Slow trucks quickly erode highway capacity, so it is normal for a bridge to have an extra lane for climbing. This extra capacity is particularly important for a road that carries a high volume of trucks, which given the land uses in the area, seems as though it could be the case.

Additionally, the river and canal is a significant barrier to the local road network on either side of the bridge, so again, it's not uncommon for a large structure such as this to have additional capacity to support the local road network. All that said, without having read the technical justification for the project, it seems that an eight lane bridge might suffice, but a ten lane bridge doesn't seem unreasonable either.

Thanks. That's a good rebuttal.

I think all of us (who know about this project) feel that the tunnel is a seismic time bomb (there was actually an earthquake here last night!) and is in need of replacement.

Where I disagree with most people on a construction forum is that the replacement needs to be this gargantuan project to begin with.

British Columbia has built 2 major crossings over the Fraser River in the Lower Mainland over the past 10 years, and both of those were delivered over budget and had lower usage than expected. The Port Mann Bridge ended up tripling in cost to $3.3 billion and is far below original estimates of use.

I wouldn't be surprised if a project of the scope of the Massey Tunnel Replacement - which is even larger than the PBM - ends up costing more than $5 billion, taking years and being - you guessed it - underused. After all, it's difficult to avoid to PMB and its tolls, and yet people do it. It's very easy to avoid the tunnel replacement bridge because there is a free highway that connects to an existing free bridge (the Alex Fraser) that largely parallels the same route for the majority of users. The tunnel is busy now because it's free.

The other problem - which will never be ameliorated - is that the Oak Street bridge on the Vancouver side is a mere 4 lanes and it already is a bottleneck for northbound traffic in the morning. I can't see how you can fit expanded bridge traffic over the Oak bridge and into Vancouver's overloaded city streets without making modifications that will be political suicide and economically ruinous.

[eemy]

What is the expected life of the new bridge? A major bridge isn't the sort of thing you want to rebuild in 20 years because there is insufficient capacity.

[ssiguy]

I guess one of the major question about the GMT is, does it really have to get replaced?

Certainly it is vastly over capacity and something should have been done 20 years ago but is the tunnel itself a write-off? There are far older tunnels in the world so why couldn't the tunnel be brought up to seismic codes and save a fortune?

The problem is not the traffic level per-se but rather where it is. A lot of the traffic is only travelling about 2 km..............getting from Steveston Road to Ladner. Perhaps a better investment would be to build a new tunnel connecting those two cut-offs and keep the current GMT for travellers going to WR/SS exclusively.

The one tunnel could be built and when done the GMT could close for a year for seismic upgrades. This would have the added benefit of having 2 points for travel across the Fraser. If there is accident on the bridge, which of course there will be eventually, the whole road comes to a screeching halt but having 2 separate tunnels at least offers some alternative in such a scenario.

The problem is with the province {who is actually contributing VERY little to the project} and the Port Authority. The PA wants to get rid of the tunnel in order to allow larger and deeper ships which is fine but I don't see them coughing up any money to help build the bridge.

There wouldn't be as much debate about the whole project if the province actually listened to what people thought as opposed to a communication exercise.........they had long since made up their minds and what the citizens thought about the plans were of no consequence. Also it is hard to have a meaning conversation about the project when tolls are one of the biggest concerns and the province refuses to state how much they will be even though they already know.

[MolsonExport]

I lived in Steveston for 4 years. Is there any significant traffic starting in Richmond and ending in Ladner? My feeling is that this load would be a relatively insignificant proportion of the total tunnel traffic. I took the tunnel to get to the US border, Tswassen ferry terminal, White Rock, and less often, to South Surrey/Delta. Rarely (maybe a handful of times) did I drive to Ladner. No reason to do so.

The tunnel absolutely must be replaced, but I also recognize the issue of what to do with the enhanced 99 traffic downloading onto the woefully inadequate Oak and Granville Streets.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

What is the expected life of the new bridge? A major bridge isn't the sort of thing you want to rebuild in 20 years because there is insufficient capacity.

100 years. Most new structures are built with a 100 year expected life span in metro Vancouver.

Of course, as we all know, this can be extended if desired once that mark is reached if a structure is still satisfying its duty.

[FrAnKs]

For 2016, my new intro will be featuring Highway 401 thru toronto.

• Video Link

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

100 years. Most new structures are built with a 100 year expected life span in metro Vancouver.

Of course, as we all know, this can be extended if desired once that mark is reached if a structure is still satisfying its duty.

The Confederation Bridge between NB and PEI also has a 100 year life expectancy. This must be the industry standard. I imagine the bridge will actually last much longer than this........

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

For 2016, my new intro will be featuring Highway 401 thru toronto.

• Video Link

good one. Drove that stretch 4 times over the holiday break.
Happy New Year, and may the freeways be with you.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The Confederation Bridge between NB and PEI also has a 100 year life expectancy. This must be the industry standard. I imagine the bridge will actually last much longer than this........

Yep. 100 years has been the industry standard since about 1990. Prior to that, 50 years was standard.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I lived in Steveston for 4 years. Is there any significant traffic starting in Richmond and ending in Ladner? My feeling is that this load would be a relatively insignificant proportion of the total tunnel traffic. I took the tunnel to get to the US border, Tswassen ferry terminal, White Rock, and less often, to South Surrey/Delta. Rarely (maybe a handful of times) did I drive to Ladner. No reason to do so.

The tunnel absolutely must be replaced, but I also recognize the issue of what to do with the enhanced 99 traffic downloading onto the woefully inadequate Oak and Granville Streets.

You would be surprised.

Around 40% of the traffic gets on/off between Steveston Road and the cut off for Ladner and Tswassen {some now via SFPR which is only a km further down} so the idea of a bridge/tunnel connecting just those two areas does make a lot of sense.

[caltrane74]

Just posted on my friends Facebook feed..

Very wide highway north of Toronto.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Just posted on my friends Facebook feed..

Very wide highway north of Toronto.

yup. they've built their way out of congestion /sarcasm.

[Innsertnamehere]

That's the 401 in Mississauga.

That particular stretch of the 401 typically isn't too bad, it's once you get to the smaller sections east and west of it that it clogs up.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by SOSS

yup. they've built their way out of congestion /sarcasm.

Look. It's obviously that ya are either trolling or "concern" trolling with your comment. Ya are just gonna annoy and piss people off across Canada. Not cool. Again, ya are just another inner Van City transit freak/anti-highway freak. Have read your previous posts in the Van City threads to corroborate same.

Akin to the Hippy Duck poster, also from inner Van City, that called for a "draw-bridge" to replace the GMT. Just utter stupidity as everyone else in the Metro Van region would concur.

BTW, the pic is obviously the 401 through Mississauga whereby it expands to 18 lanes. Here in Metro Van, Hwy 1 is designed to expand to 12 - 14 lanes thru western Burnaby in a express-collector system as well.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Look. It's obviously that ya are either trolling or "concern" trolling with your comment. Ya are just gonna annoy and piss people off across Canada. Not cool. Again, ya are just another inner Van City transit freak/anti-highway freak. Have read your previous posts in the Van City threads to corroborate same.

Akin to the Hippy Duck poster, also from inner Van City, that called for a "draw-bridge" to replace the GMT. Just utter stupidity as everyone else in the Metro Van region would concur.

BTW, the pic is obviously the 401 through Mississauga whereby it expands to 18 lanes. Here in Metro Van, Hwy 1 is designed to expand to 12 - 14 lanes thru western Burnaby in a express-collector system as well.

That part of the highway has always had a congestion problem. No matter how many lanes they put in, they will not reduce the congestion.

That is not an anti highway statement. It is a fact.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That part of the highway has always had a congestion problem. No matter how many lanes they put in, they will not reduce the congestion.

That is not an anti highway statement. It is a fact.

I understand that. I know the area. And the GTA population. Perhaps I should put it this way. Metro Van has outdated (severely) 4-lane freeways. Brutally congested.

Perhaps we should just reduce the 18-lane 401 thru Mississauga back down to perhaps 6 or 8 lanes? Massive congestion will then just cause these 401 commuters to utilize transit? Eh?

And perhaps the new Champlain Bridge in Montreal, across the St. Lawrence Seaway, should also be just a 4-lane drawbridge?

And perhaps the proposed new Gordie Howe International Bridge between Windsor and Detroit should also just be a 4-lane draw bridge?

Based on some of the sentiments of other posters on here... that would be waaaaaayyyyy cool. But I have a background in transportation & logistics (understand highway design) and believe that I know better.

PS. But why is it always pro-transit & anti-highway BC posters from inner Van City that post these sentiments on here? And not elsewhere across Canada? Haha. Go figure.