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

[Metro-One]

Looking at the project a few thoughts.

I hope bus shelters are built at the platforms to protect riders from the weather.

The bus exit lanes should maybe extend another 100 or 200 meters further south on the north end, just to make sure buses wont be caught in traffic merging onto the Oak Street Bridge.

As more detailed drawing / renders are released I would like to see how the bus stations are accessed by pedestrians and local buses.

If any part of this project is to be downsized I hope it is only the bridge width. Maybe instead of 10 lanes is could be 8 (and the money saved from that could be used to extend the HOV / Bus lane south to King George)

I really, really hope that the interchanges are not downsized or majorly altered. I really really like both designs on both ends of the bridge.

I also feel the northern end of the project is not as polished simply because one day the Oak Street Bridge will need tobe replaced, and at that time that region of the highway will be modified again.

[dleung]

Everyone ignored my 4-lane bridge idea =( I was dead serious! You all just like to see everything get built as big as possible!

The typical highway in London is 4-6 lanes. There's a 8-lane stretch in the distant burbs near the airport, but that's about it. On a related note, here's how their biggest vs typical freeway interchange looks like:

I really like one with the traffic circle, as you can totally see it at "street level" and integrating with the urban fabric, with one trenched freeway and one elevated freeway.

This is how much space the Cape Horn Interchange takes up, at the same scale:

[Vantage]

Originally Posted by dleung

The typical highway in London is 4-6 lanes. There's a 8-lane stretch in the distant burbs near the airport, but that's about it. On a related note, here's how their biggest vs typical freeway interchange looks like:

I really like one with the traffic circle, as you can totally see it at "street level" and integrating with the urban fabric, with one trenched freeway and one elevated freeway.

This is how much space the Cape Horn Interchange takes up, at the same scale:

You're kinda comparing apples and oranges here. The Cape Horn interchange is complex and thus larger for of a whole bunch of different reasons.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Vantage

You're kinda comparing apples and oranges here. The Cape Horn interchange is complex and thus larger for of a whole bunch of different reasons.

That's kind of his style.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2016/01/PDR-Concept-Dec-2015.pdf (page 11)

Google Earth



They are showing two regular sized shoulders, an HOV lane, three general purpose lanes, and a merge lane, all on the southbound side of the farm overpass.

Yes this is the overpass I was thinking of (not the sfpr) the plans show ten lanes (including merge lanes) passing under this structure.

This is not possible (I'm sure of it) at least the way it is built right now.

The other direction is even narrower.
[IMG][/IMG]

It looks to me you could fit three lanes maximum in that direction.

[Metro-One]

Save for the 91 / 99 interchange, all the interchanges on this project look to be very compact (especially regardingfor how much movement / functions they will be handling).

So not really much to worry about there. As said, there will be very little added footprint with this project compared to what is already taken up. In same areas it looks as if the new footprints will be smaller (Steveston Interchange for example).

Also remember areas under the bridge will be freed up for other potential purposes as well.

Even the Cape Horn is actually relatively compact for how many movements it has (especially compared to other Canadian / American freeways).

It seems that giant sprawling interchanges is something we arguably dont have a problem with (and this project will not change that).

It always amazes me how huge interchanges are in such areas as the desert states, the Prairies, and Ontario for the amount of movements they have.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Anyone else think it's a bit odd that the onramp flyover from Hwy 17A (Ladner) become the fast lane on the bridge?
That would prevent a express/collector lane system on the bridge in future.
i.e. in comparison, the onramp from 152nd to Port Mann Bridge drops vehicles towards the outer lanes (though it splits).

I don't think we would need an express/collector lane system on this bridge in the near or even medium term future. The only reason they did an express/collector lane system on HWY 1 was because there is a justifiably large amount of traffic (40%) that is travelling the PMB just to go between Surrey and Coquitlam.

You won't have that with this bridge because depending on the time, the bulk of traffic is from 1 area or the other area. Rush hour most traffic is from SFPR/Surrey. Non-Rush Hour, most traffic is when the Ferry's let out and that traffic typically now sticks to SFPR also. So your largest amount of traffic is coming from the same place on the Surrey side.

On the other side ok maybe you have a split between Richmond and Vancouver but their destination is predominantly SFPR or southbound on 99, there isn't really a split.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by dleung

Everyone ignored my 4-lane bridge idea =( I was dead serious! You all just like to see everything get built as big as possible!

I think people ignored it because it's been posted many times in past pages including by me ( but I will repeat ) that we already HAVE a 4-lane bridge in the current tunnel and it is to capacity.

Why would you ever spend a huge amount of money to replace something that is at capacity and doesn't work with the same thing just above ground and under water? It's rather silly. Earthquakes aren't a reason unfortunately. If they were, they wouldn't still be arguing over upgrading schools with children in them in Vancouver...

So the next argument is "what about a 6 lane like the AFB" and the short answer is, again during rush hour we already have a 6 lane bridge in the rush-hour direction. The tunnel becomes 3 lanes in the rush-hour direction and even that isn't adequate. You have 3 lanes southbound backing up almost daily now to Oak Street or at the very least Westminster Highway. And that's _with_ 3 lanes. With a 6 lane bridge, everyone would demand at least 1 HOV so you would actually end up with 2 general + 1 HOV instead of the 3 general we have so you would actually worsen traffic.

So the next option is 8 lane bridge. And that's where we sit with some people on this forum. 8 lane or 10 lane. I've made the arguments and evidently I'm backed by the Province and the study material in my opinions that 8 lanes is not future proofed for how much is being built in the corridor and the truck problem in addition to the fact we likely, due to truck traffic and the bridge being a giant climbing lane in either direction, may actually need 10 lanes with 1 dedicated to climbing, like the Province pointed out.

That to me leaves 10 lanes. But 8 lanes is still a valid argument so while I don't agree with it, I can respect those that do. Personally I think anyone arguing for 8 lanes never drives the 99 or uses the Tunnel. Anyone arguing for 10 lanes drives the 99 and uses the tunnel. Just my opinion, but that said, 8 lanes is still a valid argument depending on your view point.

But 4 lanes is just a tad silly.

[GlassCity]

I went to the open house tonight and spoke with one of the lead engineers, and it was quite interesting. I mostly asked about buses, and the member here that pointed out the stop signs on the ramps to Bridgeport Station was right—it will in fact be so narrow that they will have to stop and wait for one direction to pass before the other can go.

The stops along highway 99 will just be centre medians, though I didn't ask anything about enclosures or anything like that. At the interchange with Steveston Highway and Highway 17A alike, Highway 99 will be on a lower level, and there will be bus stops directly above it, with stairs and elevators connecting the two directions. Supposedly it will be easy to reach these both on foot and by bike.

As far as the multi-use path goes, they have decided to have a three metre path on each side of the bridge, both multi use. They will be one-way only, in the same direction as traffic. The Richmond end will connect directly through the integrated transit stop, and then merge with Steveston Highway, though they don't have any drawings of this so I don't know exactly what it will look like. In fact, they haven't completely worked it out themselves yet, as they are still meeting with HUB and the like. The Delta end will connect to the River Road exit going west, and then have a loop under the bridge if you wish to connect going east. They are also trying to figure out a way of connecting directly to Highway 17A for cyclists, as requested by the Corporation of Delta.

He also kept mentioning that the bridge would have a 5% grade, and said this worried him with regards to walkers and cyclists sharing a path. Wonder if they'll do anything about this. He also mentioned that they'd be putting in a multi-use path on every new overpass, including Blundell, Shell and Highway 10.

Anyway, that's all I remember talking about. Hopefully someone else went too and has some other insights to share!

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by dleung

The typical highway in London is 4-6 lanes. There's a 8-lane stretch in the distant burbs near the airport, but that's about it. On a related note, here's how their biggest vs typical freeway interchange looks like:

You can't compare London to Metro Vancouver.

1. Their highways don't cross any major shipping rivers so there is no need for a finite amount of really high bridge crossings like we have in Metro Vancouver

2. Because of #1, where roads (and a few highways) cross the River Thames, they can build small low bridges to the point in London Center itself there are dozens of bridges within a 1 KM stretch.

3. One of your interchanges you linked you failed to point out that M25 leading into and out of it is 8 lanes wide connecting to a 6 lane highway and that isn't even the M1.

4. You also aren't really being honest because right in London, the majority of "highways" by our standard are actually 6 lanes, not 4. And also many of the 6 lane highways through large stretches are 8 lanes wide.

5. We have far less cross regional highways and roadways compared to London which is a giant circle. I'm talking East<>West and North<>South again limited in Metro Vancouver due to Geography and that darned major shipping line called the Fraser River that cuts the Region nearly in half. As a result, with less cross regional highways those lower number need to have higher capacity.

Think of #5 this say. You can either build 50 power lines going left to right at 1v each, or 1 power line going left to right with 50v. In the case of our Geography, we're forced to only have 1 power line going left to right so our highways just need a bit more capacity.


6. Other than the HWY1 improvements completed only last year, prior to that ALL our highways were effectively 4 lanes (I don't count HOV) with the odd 6 lane stretch here or there and were that way for decades past. So upgrading 2 of our major highways to 6 lanes... really that's too much? The bridge remember the point about NOT MANY BRIDGE CROSSINGS!

7. London has an amazing transit system that was built a long time ago that has helped them combat some levels of traffic.

8. Despite 7, if you've spent any amount of time actually in London not just as a tourist, you'll realize quite quickly that LONDON HAS HORRIBLE TRAFFIC and in many ways worse traffic that we'll ever see in Vancouver. There are loads of times where if you need to take the M1 after work home, you're better off staying in the city, going to the Pub, having some dinner, then heading home at 8pm when traffic is semi-reasonable.

On a regular basis.

It's not a traffic utopia. So quite honestly I think London could use more lanes on many of their highways...

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I went to the open house tonight and spoke with one of the lead engineers, and it was quite interesting. I mostly asked about buses, and the member here that pointed out the stop signs on the ramps to Bridgeport Station was right—it will in fact be so narrow that they will have to stop and wait for one direction to pass before the other can go.

The stops along highway 99 will just be centre medians, though I didn't ask anything about enclosures or anything like that. At the interchange with Steveston Highway and Highway 17A alike, Highway 99 will be on a lower level, and there will be bus stops directly above it, with stairs and elevators connecting the two directions. Supposedly it will be easy to reach these both on foot and by bike.

As far as the multi-use path goes, they have decided to have a three metre path on each side of the bridge, both multi use. They will be one-way only, in the same direction as traffic. The Richmond end will connect directly through the integrated transit stop, and then merge with Steveston Highway, though they don't have any drawings of this so I don't know exactly what it will look like. In fact, they haven't completely worked it out themselves yet, as they are still meeting with HUB and the like. The Delta end will connect to the River Road exit going west, and then have a loop under the bridge if you wish to connect going east. They are also trying to figure out a way of connecting directly to Highway 17A for cyclists, as requested by the Corporation of Delta.

He also kept mentioning that the bridge would have a 5% grade, and said this worried him with regards to walkers and cyclists sharing a path. Wonder if they'll do anything about this. He also mentioned that they'd be putting in a multi-use path on every new overpass, including Blundell, Shell and Highway 10.

Anyway, that's all I remember talking about. Hopefully someone else went too and has some other insights to share!

Yah don't know how they would combat the 5% grade. I agree could be an issue. Then again I don't honestly think there will be much walkers and cyclists over this bridge given its location.

But the grade I don't think they could do anything about as you just need that grade to be high enough over the river and not overshoot 17A and Steveston on either side.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I went to the open house tonight ...

Thanks for the info!

Roundabouts are supposed to be inhospitable to pedestrians - so it'll be interesting to see how the 17A bus platform will be accessed (ditto for the Steveston one given the swooping ramps)

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by jhausner

You can't compare London to Metro Vancouver.

8. Despite 7, if you've spent any amount of time actually in London not just as a tourist, you'll realize quite quickly that LONDON HAS HORRIBLE TRAFFIC and in many ways worse traffic that we'll ever see in Vancouver. There are loads of times where if you need to take the M1 after work home, you're better off staying in the city, going to the Pub, having some dinner, then heading home at 8pm when traffic is semi-reasonable.

On a regular basis.

It's not a traffic utopia. So quite honestly I think London could use more lanes on many of their highways...

Not to mention that -- even though it's panned compared to France and Germany -- the passenger rail network into London is far more comprehensive than Vancouver and takes a lot of vehicles off the roads. I have friends living in Brighton who use the train to commute into central London regularly for work

I worked in London for three years, and the traffic congestion is a whole different level of hurt compared to Vancouver. I can recall a number of times where it took me well over an hour to drive on the M25 from Heathrow to my home 12 miles away.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

I worked in London for three years, and the traffic congestion is a whole different level of hurt compared to Vancouver. I can recall a number of times where it took me well over an hour to drive on the M25 from Heathrow to my home 12 miles away.

"But I thought Tom-Tom said we have the worst traffic on the planet?!" /s

I agree, I have worked for short periods in London. Traffic is ridiculous, even in the congestion zone.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I think people ignored it because it's been posted many times in past pages including by me ( but I will repeat ) that we already HAVE a 4-lane bridge in the current tunnel and it is to capacity.

Why would you ever spend a huge amount of money to replace something that is at capacity and doesn't work with the same thing just above ground and under water? It's rather silly. Earthquakes aren't a reason unfortunately. If they were, they wouldn't still be arguing over upgrading schools with children in them in Vancouver...

So the next argument is "what about a 6 lane like the AFB" and the short answer is, again during rush hour we already have a 6 lane bridge in the rush-hour direction. The tunnel becomes 3 lanes in the rush-hour direction and even that isn't adequate. You have 3 lanes southbound backing up almost daily now to Oak Street or at the very least Westminster Highway. And that's _with_ 3 lanes. With a 6 lane bridge, everyone would demand at least 1 HOV so you would actually end up with 2 general + 1 HOV instead of the 3 general we have so you would actually worsen traffic.

So the next option is 8 lane bridge. And that's where we sit with some people on this forum. 8 lane or 10 lane. I've made the arguments and evidently I'm backed by the Province and the study material in my opinions that 8 lanes is not future proofed for how much is being built in the corridor and the truck problem in addition to the fact we likely, due to truck traffic and the bridge being a giant climbing lane in either direction, may actually need 10 lanes with 1 dedicated to climbing, like the Province pointed out.

That to me leaves 10 lanes. But 8 lanes is still a valid argument so while I don't agree with it, I can respect those that do. Personally I think anyone arguing for 8 lanes never drives the 99 or uses the Tunnel. Anyone arguing for 10 lanes drives the 99 and uses the tunnel. Just my opinion, but that said, 8 lanes is still a valid argument depending on your view point.

But 4 lanes is just a tad silly.

I said a "4 lane bridge to supplement the tunnel". 8 lanes total. Yes, we can keep the tunnel since earthquakes aren't the immediate issue. "Future proofing" road infrastructure to me is the opposite of how I'll "future proof" rapid transit - that is is design for declining car volumes as the region reaches a critical density to support mass transit as the primary mode of transportation. Like I mentioned with the Granville bridge example

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jhausner

You can't compare London to Metro Vancouver.

1. Their highways don't cross any major shipping rivers so there is no need for a finite amount of really high bridge crossings like we have in Metro Vancouver

2. Because of #1, where roads (and a few highways) cross the River Thames, they can build small low bridges to the point in London Center itself there are dozens of bridges within a 1 KM stretch.

3. One of your interchanges you linked you failed to point out that M25 leading into and out of it is 8 lanes wide connecting to a 6 lane highway and that isn't even the M1.

4. You also aren't really being honest because right in London, the majority of "highways" by our standard are actually 6 lanes, not 4. And also many of the 6 lane highways through large stretches are 8 lanes wide.

5. We have far less cross regional highways and roadways compared to London which is a giant circle. I'm talking East<>West and North<>South again limited in Metro Vancouver due to Geography and that darned major shipping line called the Fraser River that cuts the Region nearly in half. As a result, with less cross regional highways those lower number need to have higher capacity.

Think of #5 this say. You can either build 50 power lines going left to right at 1v each, or 1 power line going left to right with 50v. In the case of our Geography, we're forced to only have 1 power line going left to right so our highways just need a bit more capacity.


6. Other than the HWY1 improvements completed only last year, prior to that ALL our highways were effectively 4 lanes (I don't count HOV) with the odd 6 lane stretch here or there and were that way for decades past. So upgrading 2 of our major highways to 6 lanes... really that's too much? The bridge remember the point about NOT MANY BRIDGE CROSSINGS!

7. London has an amazing transit system that was built a long time ago that has helped them combat some levels of traffic.

8. Despite 7, if you've spent any amount of time actually in London not just as a tourist, you'll realize quite quickly that LONDON HAS HORRIBLE TRAFFIC and in many ways worse traffic that we'll ever see in Vancouver. There are loads of times where if you need to take the M1 after work home, you're better off staying in the city, going to the Pub, having some dinner, then heading home at 8pm when traffic is semi-reasonable.

On a regular basis.

It's not a traffic utopia. So quite honestly I think London could use more lanes on many of their highways...

One correction - there is one point where the M25 crosses a large river and shipping channel (the Thames Estuary). Funnily enough the crossing is 8 lanes total! The original 2 lane tunnel did not have enough capacity, so another was bored, which still didn't have enough capacity, so they built another large 4 lane bridge alongside. And it's still not enough! The lack of bridges in east London is a common complaint.

I don't know why on earth anyone would want London's road network and congestion though, but I'm sure many of the idealists on this board view the traffic as a 'good thing'.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.4650791,0.2628931,2336m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by dleung

I said a "4 lane bridge to supplement the tunnel". 8 lanes total. Yes, we can keep the tunnel since earthquakes aren't the immediate issue. "Future proofing" road infrastructure to me is the opposite of how I'll "future proof" rapid transit - that is is design for declining car volumes as the region reaches a critical density to support mass transit as the primary mode of transportation. Like I mentioned with the Granville bridge example

Will it be not an "immediate issue" when thousands are crushed/drown when the big earthquake inevitably comes?

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by dleung

I said a "4 lane bridge to supplement the tunnel". 8 lanes total. Yes, we can keep the tunnel since earthquakes aren't the immediate issue. "Future proofing" road infrastructure to me is the opposite of how I'll "future proof" rapid transit - that is is design for declining car volumes as the region reaches a critical density to support mass transit as the primary mode of transportation. Like I mentioned with the Granville bridge example

That would be fine if the purpose of replacing the tunnel was to combat traffic. It isn't. It is for industry and helping traffic is just a nice side effect. We shouldn't kid ourselves and in our down turned economy, we kind of need to encourage business and industry, so I think it is a perfectly valid reason alone to do the project. They want to dredge the Fraser River deeper at the point of the tunnel so they can fit larger ships and/or ships loaded more up to Surrey Fraser docks. It will also better facilitate traffic to/from the US and to/from Richmond/Airport to South of Fraser where all the shipping companies have moved now.

So don't kid yourself, it is all about getting rid of the tunnel. Bye bye tunnel gone.

As for the city reaching critical density to support mass transit, you're not living in the same place as the rest of us are you? You do know that the majority of cities that have large and successful major transit that actually directly and effectively combats cars are like 5+ times the size of Vancouver right? I mean New York City is ranked #5 in the top 10 worse cities for traffic in the US and it has parts far denser than anything Metro Vancouver has and has around the population rivaling CANADA in it. If they can't replace cars, you're living in an illusion if you think Metro Vancouver can.

I mean you'd think the largest city in the United States with 6,000+ high rises, a city density of 27,857.9/sq mi (Vancouver has 13,590/sq mi remember so they have us beat by a fair margin), and a metro area of over 20 million people, would be some sort of car-free utopia.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=manhattan...9#q=manhattan+traffic&tbm=isch&tbs=isz:l

Bonus marks, count the lanes in many of those photos. You should realize quickly that many "streets" straight through Manhattan are wider than our widest freeway in Metro Vancouver and some are wider than both directions combined...

Honestly I think the biggest problem is people have this fantasy that Vancouver is a really big city. It may be the 3rd largest metro-region in Canada, but on the grand scale of things, we're rather insignificant. We don't even crack the top 100 world wide. #100 on the list has 3.7 million people which last I checked was a bit more than Metro Vancouver as a whole; about 1.4 million more people that Metro Van and more than our region will have in 2040.

Let me put that in another perspective... in 24 years, Metro Vancouver as a whole will still have 500,000 people (roughly all of Surrey) less than the 100th largest city in the World has TODAY.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by milomilo

One correction - there is one point where the M25 crosses a large river and shipping channel (the Thames Estuary). Funnily enough the crossing is 8 lanes total! The original 2 lane tunnel did not have enough capacity, so another was bored, which still didn't have enough capacity, so they built another large 4 lane bridge alongside. And it's still not enough! The lack of bridges in east London is a common complaint.

I don't know why on earth anyone would want London's road network and congestion though, but I'm sure many of the idealists on this board view the traffic as a 'good thing'.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.4650791,0.2628931,2336m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Woops my bad. Haven't really spent any time in east London. Still like you said...

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by dleung

I said a "4 lane bridge to supplement the tunnel". 8 lanes total. Yes, we can keep the tunnel since earthquakes aren't the immediate issue.

Ya gotta be friggin kiddin me. Not only is the GMT substandard in terms of highway design... but it is also a structure... along with the Pattullo Bridge... that will likely suffer catastrophic failure with just a shallow 7 quake. Ya wanna be in there when that happens? BTW, cable-stayed bridges can withstand structural damage in an 8.5 - ya know - the big one?