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

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

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.

One of the much-touted benefits of the Port Mann project was that it would support a bus service because it would clear up congestion. The infrastructure was built to support this, but no funding was provided to run the actual buses, so Translink was forced to cut service in other areas in order to live up to the Province's promise.

Thus in my mind any transit promises ring hollow unless they also promise to provide funding to run them.

[Pinion]

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.

No, only hwy 1 is a nightmare, but that makes moving east to west impossible once you get east of Brooksbank or so. I live in a little bubble in the middle where traffic is never bad unless the highway is completely jammed and all the feeder routes are backing up for miles. In theory the new interchanges will completely fix that east-west issue, although Hwy 1 will still be terrible for going over the bridge.

[urbancanadian]

I'm usually skeptical of any promise the province makes in terms of transit - it's just not a priority for them. But in this case, I don't see why they wouldn't follow through.

The bus route already exists, doesn't it? (The limited-stop route between Bridgeport Station and South Surrey.) So as long as the "integrated bus stops" are built, it shouldn't be difficult to just re-route buses into the stops instead of forcing them to exit the freeway and then re-enter again.

When I read the proposal, the first thing that came to mind was this:
Integrated bus station on I-5, north of Seattle

All they need to build is a covered platform inside the median of the freeway, near the interchanges specified, and then short bus-only ramps from the HOV lanes. It functions similar to Calgary's highway LRT stations, but at a lower capacity.

[miniviews]

Originally Posted by Klazu

There is also a bridge in Philadelphia (I believe) where such zipper-machine is being used. In Honolulu they also have a long stretch of six-lane road where they manually add cones to make for a counter-flow lane every single day. Road officials drive down the road and keep placing traffic cones every so many meters to make for a 2+4 lane configuration. Interestingly enough, the left turn bays are kept where they are, so one has to cross a lane to get on one.

That must have been the most inconvenient counter-flow implementation I have ever seen.

For correction in Honolulu, left turn bays are closed where contraflow lanes are added. One exception is this location [https://www.google.com/maps/place/290+Sa...1s0x7c006e5bdc21d829:0x9ea4b0851d870761] due to contraflow lane is shifted to the median of the roadway.

More info here on a news article: http://www.civilbeat.com/2013/12/20662-f...onolulus-traffic-goes-against-the-grain/

I can't find direct info between the contraflow lanes implemented here in Honolulu by the two transportation agencies in Honolulu (City & County of Honolulu & State of Hawaii Department of Transportation).

V/r

[Stingray2004]

"A pile driving crane being set up on Deas Island near the south side of the George Massey Tunnel. The crane will run pile driving tests to determine soil density near a future tower location for Massey Bridge. The test results will shape design plans for the bridge and its foundations." - From BC MoTI

[hollywoodnorth]

all I can say is ........

GO CHRISTY GO!

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Not sure if you use the knight street bridge on a daily basis. But a lot of vehicles heading northbound take the marine drive exit and go east bound. Which tells me that a crossing at No 8 / Boundary is needed far more than a crossing at No 5 / Fraser. Also No 5 / Fraser is a bit too close to the knight street bridge. It would be better to just build a bigger knight street bridge instead.

As for the new GMT crossing I do support it. But I also wonder what impact in terms of increased traffic it will cause on the Oak / Knight bridge crossing.

The nice thing about building another bridge is that it reduces the need for merging on the existing bridges. In my opinion that is what causes most of the problems on the Oak and Knight Street Bridge and causes the backups on the freeways.

There is a lot of traffic between Richmond and Vancouver. If that traffic had a dedicated bridge connecting Locals in Richmond with locals in Vancouver it could drastically cut down on the traffic trying to merge onto those bridges at the last minute (to only exit right away on the other side).

If you were trying to get from residential Richmond into Vancouver, would you line up in the queue for the Knight Street bridge if there was a dedicated bridge a few blocks over (and closer) to you?

You could basically build a Golden Ears style parkway along the Shell Road ROW (because it will probably be abandoned soon) from Westminster Hwy to a bridge alignment with Fraser Street or Main Street. Both Fraser and Main are six lane width and would just need some time dependent no parking signs to make them reliable peak hour arterials (like Granville and Oak).

Richmond and Vancouver are so co-dependent it is shocking that there are so few bridge lanes between them. Could you imagine if there was no No 2 Road bridge and Russ Baker way (and the Arthur Liang bridge was Airport only)?

You could also build a No 8 road bridge, but I think you need more lanes connecting urban Richmond and Vancouver, and that would reduce congestion on the Oak and Knight. Let the highway bridges be for highway traffic and build better bridges for local use.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I actually find driving around city centres SOF, particularly fast growing ones like Surrey and Langley, to be worse than downtown Vancouver. Langley is like a gridlock around Willowbrook most days.

Congestion is comparable at times, but downtown Vancouver is so much larger. It's bad in the Willowbrook area, but that is really a few blocks wide. You get the same congestion from before main street to the Lions Gate Bridge or from Drake to Cordova. The other day I spent at least 10 minutes on Dunsmuir going from Citadel Place to Hamilton Street. And not too long ago it took me a good 20 minutes to travel from the GSB to Dunsmuir on Seymour. No accidents or anything, not even peak travel times. Just congestion.

It's bad in Langley and Surrey, but not that bad if you are on the Arterial. If you are on King George or 104 it's not terrible (but you may as well take a nap if you are on East Whalley). But even being on the main Arterials in downtown Vancouver is a nightmare.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

One of the much-touted benefits of the Port Mann project was that it would support a bus service because it would clear up congestion. The infrastructure was built to support this, but no funding was provided to run the actual buses, so Translink was forced to cut service in other areas in order to live up to the Province's promise.

Thus in my mind any transit promises ring hollow unless they also promise to provide funding to run them.

I would take that "compromise" any day. If it was leave it like it was vs a smaller bridge with provincially funded transit (on a still congested bridge) vs what we have? I would take what we have.

The infrastructure that the province put into the project for transit (even if they didn't fund the buses) is staggering compared to anything else done in Vancouver less than Skytrain. The dedicated exits at Lougheed and Langley and the huge park and ride. What has Translink done anywhere for bus service that remotely compares?

Add that to the work already done on highway 99 of adding dedicated lanes...

Thank you provincial government, thank you.

(I hope they widen the section between the GMT and Birdgeport to keep the dedicated bus only lane (in addition to HOV).

[officedweller]

Richmond opposes the bridge:

http://www.richmond-news.com/news/richmo...o-keep-tunnel-over-3-5b-bridge-1.2153907

[stump]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Richmond opposes the bridge:

http://www.richmond-news.com/news/richmo...o-keep-tunnel-over-3-5b-bridge-1.2153907

Reading the stupid shit that comes from this small-minded city council physically hurts me. I wonder which one of my neighbours keeps voting for them. I bet they have regular meetings with New West city council to get ideas on transportation.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by stump

Reading the stupid shit that comes from this small-minded city council physically hurts me. I wonder which one of my neighbours keeps voting for them. I bet they have regular meetings with New West city council to get ideas on transportation.

I know eh? So annoying with their desire for cost-effective transportation solutions made in the context of regional planning? Who do these people think they are getting in the way of true visionaries with their grubby, triffling concerns about downstream traffic chokepoints and unsustainable development patterns?

[Metro-One]

Again I find myself between the two extremes above.

To be honest this did not come off as crazy as a New West style of anti-road / we don't want to work with the rest of the region rhetoric.

I did not read it as them being fully against any expansion of the highway / tunnel replacement, just that they still have some concerns that have not been fully addressed / investigated.

Some of them are actually valid, others are not.

Worry about the ALR is valid and I hope this makes the province draw up a more detailed plan about the ALR regarding this project.

Worry about the traffic at Oak Street Bridge is also valid (although I don't think it will be as bad as Richmond is worrying about), and it seems almost as if the city of Richmond would support an expansion of that bridge (as would I).

Personally I think the Oak Street bridge should be re-built / expanded to 6 lanes (three in each direction) with expanded sidewalks on the sides.

With that said, the LRT comment is nonsense. A true rapid bus system is a far better option here. I am actually getting tired of hearing LRT for everything now, it has become a curse in North America. Metros and Heavy Rail Commuter trains and Rapid Buses are the three options we should be using, not the middle of the road for everything (but does everything generally worse) fix all LRT.

I do think Richmond should have held back those comments (and maybe this entire vote) until more information is brought forward about the bus only ramps / bus stops on the highway.

So, this report is not the worst thing in the world, but maybe a little preemptive and there are a couple silly parts.

The idea about upgrading the existing tunnel is the silliest. That would be a band aid / pissing money away solution.

[Metro-One]

Ugh, now there is a protest event called "Transit not Traffic" being planned against this project.

Why can other cities in Canada build a decent road system without all the nuts coming out? Never see this in Montreal.

It escapes them that some road projects / expansions will be necessary in a growing city with aging infrastructure. It also escapes them that such a project can enhance transit if built right with a decent rapid bus system (which this one is starting to show signs that is actually might do).

Edit: And I call them nuts because they are not reasonable people that want to maybe see the project scaled back a little, or have the province also commit funding to Transit, no, they are the "Never build a new (or expand a) highway / road bridge / tunnel anywhere ever again for any reason."

Which to me completely mutes any decent points they may have.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

...I call them nuts because they are not reasonable people that want to maybe see the project scaled back a little, or have the province also commit funding to Transit, no, they are the "Never build a new (or expand a) highway / road bridge / tunnel anywhere ever again for any reason."

Sometimes you need to start out with an extreme position in order to arrive at a reasonable compromise.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Sometimes you need to start out with an extreme position in order to arrive at a reasonable compromise.

This is a valid point, but it can be detrimental if they are able to achieve enough full out wins.

[Orcair]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

With that said, the LRT comment is nonsense. A true rapid bus system is a far better option here. I am actually getting tired of hearing LRT for everything now, it has become a curse in North America. Metros and Heavy Rail Commuter trains and Rapid Buses are the three options we should be using, not the middle of the road for everything (but does everything generally worse) fix all LRT.

100% Agree. The 351 works really well, especially if the bus lanes were to be expanded all the way to South Surrey. This would make be a more cost-effective solution vs. all the infrastructure required for LRT. That said, they could try and mimic the buses as pseudo-LRT cars, to trick those who have a anti-bus mindset.
E.g. something like this (although probably 40-foot?)

Article Link: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/...-plan-begins-move-express-lane/31460329/
Credit: Craig Ecleston

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

This is a valid point, but it can be detrimental if they are able to achieve enough full out wins.

The protesters and the City of Richmond have no chance of achieving anything on their own. The province can and will do whatever they want.

These groups just hope to encourage others to speak up. The more potential voters speak up, the more the government feels pressure. Now is prime time with the election about a year away. Suddenly Clark is all interested in taxing foreign real estate owners, after repeatedly saying it either wasn't a factor, or is too risky to try.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Sometimes you need to start out with an extreme position in order to arrive at a reasonable compromise.

You don't have to compromise if the proposed solution is the best solution. It is a false belief driven into children that you must always "compromise" to achieve the best solution.

Sometimes one side is just wrong. If you think the sky is blue and I think the sky is red, compromising and agreeing that the sky is purple isn't the best solution because I'm just plain wrong. The sky is blue. The proposed bridge and highway improvements is the best solution period. Even if you were to wiggle around between 8 lanes and 10 lanes, that ultimately doesn't change the final solution really, just the cost.

[Bdawe]

I get it, this is skyscraper page and we're all a bit biased towards the pouring of large amounts of concrete. Mega project engineering is fascinating and all, but you owe it to your arguments to actually grapple with opponents views rather than simply dismiss them as 'nuts'.

Here we are where regional planning is talking about reducing the number of cars on the road and implementing road pricing, and the province is wanting to spend ten figure sums contingent on a considerable increase in traffic, when they've never shown any signs of learning from their poor traffic modelling for the Port Mann.

If you just take it as a given that there needs to be more road space for more growth, in the same category that there needs to be more breathing oxygen for people to be alive, then sure, someone asking if we actually need more square meters of road might seem a little nuts.

But are we making the smartest use of our existing resources? The new bridge will be tolled, so is it nuts to ask that the present tunnel be tolled for demand management purposes instead? Even if that turns out to be insufficient, MOTI would have actual, real world data with which to model traffic on for the new bridge rather than the repeated traffic projecting failures of late.

Is it actually a sensible proposition to build more infrastructure for people to get about in single-occupancy vehicles? The bridge project is always framed in terms of commerce, but commerce isn't consuming the existing capacity - SOV is. What combination of tolling and bus frequency increases would bring peak-hour traffic flows down bellow the heavy-congestion thresholds? And how much less than $3 billion would this cost? Is an increase in this commuting pattern compatible with carbon emissions goals? What is the traffic capacity of trip-terminating areas in Richmond and Vancouver during peak hours, and what will it cost to increase that capacity? Is that even politically or economically plausible? And so forth.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

I get it, this is skyscraper page and we're all a bit biased towards the pouring of large amounts of concrete. Mega project engineering is fascinating and all, but you owe it to your arguments to actually grapple with opponents views rather than simply dismiss them as 'nuts'.

Here we are where regional planning is talking about reducing the number of cars on the road and implementing road pricing, and the province is wanting to spend ten figure sums contingent on a considerable increase in traffic, when they've never shown any signs of learning from their poor traffic modelling for the Port Mann.

If you just take it as a given that there needs to be more road space for more growth, in the same category that there needs to be more breathing oxygen for people to be alive, then sure, someone asking if we actually need more square meters of road might seem a little nuts.

But are we making the smartest use of our existing resources? The new bridge will be tolled, so is it nuts to ask that the present tunnel be tolled for demand management purposes instead? Even if that turns out to be insufficient, MOTI would have actual, real world data with which to model traffic on for the new bridge rather than the repeated traffic projecting failures of late.

Is it actually a sensible proposition to build more infrastructure for people to get about in single-occupancy vehicles? The bridge project is always framed in terms of commerce, but commerce isn't consuming the existing capacity - SOV is. What combination of tolling and bus frequency increases would bring peak-hour traffic flows down bellow the heavy-congestion thresholds? And how much less than $3 billion would this cost? Is an increase in this commuting pattern compatible with carbon emissions goals? What is the traffic capacity of trip-terminating areas in Richmond and Vancouver during peak hours, and what will it cost to increase that capacity? Is that even politically or economically plausible? And so forth.

I adamantly believe we need to replace the GMT. That’s my stance and I’m happy to see that we will be replacing the existing archaic structure- this better ensures we have a safe linkage to the rest of the region in the event of a natural disaster and better prepares us to meet the demand of the future.

That said, I agree with you. We need to better plan these mega projects to ensure we do not run into a situation where we have overestimated demand and increased the ability for more SOV to hit the road. The Gateway Project and the success and failures of the project should be studied to better plan out future freeway/highway corridors. I would say that the Highway #1 improvements remedied congestion, but we may reach a point very soon where we need to add lanes in the Burnaby/Coquitlam stretch. Congestion is getting worse.

Obviously there is the worry that there will be mounting pressure to unlock the ALR as a "solution" to address housing unaffordability. Many people of course will scoff at the thought, but this a reality, and will be seen as a viable solution to addressing unaffordability.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jhausner

You don't have to compromise if the proposed solution is the best solution. It is a false belief driven into children that you must always "compromise" to achieve the best solution.

Sometimes one side is just wrong. If you think the sky is blue and I think the sky is red, compromising and agreeing that the sky is purple isn't the best solution because I'm just plain wrong. The sky is blue. The proposed bridge and highway improvements is the best solution period. Even if you were to wiggle around between 8 lanes and 10 lanes, that ultimately doesn't change the final solution really, just the cost.

I don't disagree with your premise, but to say that the bridge is the best solution as-designed is ridiculous. First of all, we don't even have an idea of the final plans, cost, tolls, and so on. To make a final judgement today is silly.