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

[urbancanadian]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I agree with all the excitement and am also impressed with the designs.

Grumpy time: These could be reduced/simplified quite a bit so that the 'gold standard' budget could free up money to finish other road projects: finish the SFPR properly, or make the Mary Hill/Laugheed Hwy free flowing to Maple Ridge, as examples, etc.

Do we really need that level of exchange at Steveston Hwy? I thought of this when I squinted and the interchange looks like the meeting of two main freeways. But Steveston Hwy is far from that. It goes east to very little, and very little developable land for the future, and it goes west to a very low growth, low density area.

Here's a thought though: maybe Steveston Hwy will be extended east way out past No 9 Rd. and a connection with the Alex Fraser/Queensborough nexus. That might be a useful.

I know what you're saying, but I think going for much less than proposed would just mean needing to rebuild parts of the freeway in the medium-term anyway. Highway 1, to me, was designed very well and is very modern - something that we should be trying to emulate wherever possible on the 99.

The thing is, there are already some significant issues such as the Cambie Road overpass, and way too many needless merge points. And we haven't even seen the inevitable cutbacks yet. Anyone have any guesses as to what might be cut first? My first thought was that the Steveston interchange might be reduced from a fully grade-separated diverging diamond setup, to a more simplified one that still includes flyovers.

But I still think the Steveston interchange is pretty forward-thinking (well, as far as freeway interchanges go) in terms of how compact it is. Reducing the scope of it would mean sacrificing more productive farm land.

I could also see Steveston Highway being extended further east as the port lands grow. Although a future interchange at Blundell Road was meant to accomodate that...

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by libtard

Extending steveston highway that far would never work. And yes this interchange is pivotal. East of 99 gets back up all the way to silvercity. West is even worse, getting backed up all the way to shell road. Unless you've been in this area at rush hour you wouldn't understand

Not only that but in the morning rush hour most people don't realize (if they don't travel the route a lot) that the tunnel is 3 lanes through Northbound but 1 full lane (the right most) is often backed up solid through the entire tunnel to HWY 17A just by vehicles trying to exit at Steveston. That's how long the line is because of the intersections and ridiculousness that is the Steveston Hwy interchange today.

This definitely needs to be done. Steveston isn't a 'freeway' but it is a majorly traveled and quite busy through-way and with recent developments Richmond side, is worthy of such an interchange imho. If they don't, then the new GMBridge will have a lane backed up just as far because the 10 lane bridge will allow more cars to get to the interchange quicker.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

important to remember that the next nearest ext/entrance in Richmond is Westminster Highway, which is about 4km's away from Steveston Highway. that is a huge gap which means it gets a ton of traffic.

and yes, that interchange is 100% needed there. traffic gets very bad on that stretch along Steveston Highway. E or W, it is brutal. ideally they also need to widen Steveston Highway to 4 lanes all the way to Silver City.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by adrianroam95

Here is a short thread on existing examples of dedicated bus lanes that cross over one another to provide access to a central median platform for passengers:

http://humantransit.org/2012/06/request-for-information-busways-that-cross-over-at-stations.html

Some prominent examples in North America include:

• I-110 and I-105 in Los Angeles
• 46th Street and I-35W in Minneapolis

Some points that come to mind:

• Having one central platform instead of two side platforms reduces the physical footprint of the busway and is a good deterrent for criminal behaviour (CPTED).
• Having a bus stop located under a freeway interchange might be unappealing to transit riders due to high noise and air pollution.
• Clear signage and/or traffic control is required at the crossovers to reduce the risk of distracted/negligent drivers crossing into oncoming traffic.

If the stations are busy enough having some form of shelter at the bus stop could help with this.

[urbancanadian]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

ideally they also need to widen Steveston Highway to 4 lanes all the way to Silver City.

I think you can pretty much guarantee this will happen. Once the new interchange is complete, the only 2-lane stretch remaining will be from about Sidaway Road to Palmberg Road which is less than 500m. I imagine the City of Richmond will be responsible for this and will jump on the chance to cut costs through synchronization with the H99 project.

[Mininari]

Wow. The Steveston Interchange proposal is amazing. That would be the first basketweave-style interchange in BC, no?

I'm warming up to this project a bit now that I can see what the proposed scope of the improvements are, but I still think its going to be a gong-show for Oak Street Bridge.

I *know* the present-day traffic counts and modelling suggest it won't change much, but I'm sure they said the same for traffic entering Vancouver from an expanded Highway 1. Keep your modeling base parameters stable (i.e. population distribution), then sure... except now the crazy property market is pushing families further out into the Valley to find affordable homes, and they will end up having to commute to their jobs in town. I suppose both the PMB and GMT projects will end up with growing traffic volumes as a result, and toll revenue to match.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by libtard

Extending steveston highway that far would never work. And yes this interchange is pivotal. East of 99 gets back up all the way to silvercity. West is even worse, getting backed up all the way to shell road. Unless you've been in this area at rush hour you wouldn't understand

Actually I have. The intersection is indeed important, and putting a higher volume through is also important. Neither of those 'facts' dictate the scale and complexity of the design. There is more volume at Willingdon & Hwy 1, and it is doing well enough with a simpler/cheaper approach . . . and the volume there has much more potential to increase than at the Steveston location. The point is: do we need this much investment at this location, or do we need to be able to drive the SFPR without hitting traffic lights every 5 kms. This project is a typical injection of the Provincial Government without much thought to the whole transportation system . . . where they are happy to push their responsibilities onto less capable bodies.

Also, why would extending 'never work?'

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Do we really need that level of exchange at Steveston Hwy? I thought of this when I squinted and the interchange looks like the meeting of two main freeways. But Steveston Hwy is far from that. It goes east to very little, and very little developable land for the future, and it goes west to a very low growth, low density area.

Here's a thought though: maybe Steveston Hwy will be extended east way out past No 9 Rd. and a connection with the Alex Fraser/Queensborough nexus. That might be a useful.

Port Metro Vancouver also owns significant lands to the east of there.

This story has a map with location of Gilmore Farms:
http://www.vancouversun.com/Port+purchas...cultural+land+reserve/1570348/story.html

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/246003701.html?mobile=true

http://www.theprovince.com/news/richmond...er+agricultural+land/11652581/story.html

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by libtard

Extending steveston highway that far would never work. And yes this interchange is pivotal. East of 99 gets back up all the way to silvercity. West is even worse, getting backed up all the way to shell road. Unless you've been in this area at rush hour you wouldn't understand

I thought there was talk of extending the railway and roadway from the existing end on Portside Road through to Steveston Highway, so that commercial traffic has another exit from the ports there, and the car-port there is connected (by road and rail) more easily to the rest of the port.

[Millennium2002]

I'm still not a huge fan of those centre platforms for buses.

If one of the crossovers gets messed up due to an accident, then what? Just avoid entirely for a few hours while they get towed out and all the customers fume in between?

And not to mention, it's so prone to deadlock unless you intentionally limit the number of buses going through at once, and yet doing that limits the growth potential of the route / design.

Finally, on both sides, they make it so difficult to access locally by forcing people to wind around a whole bunch of extra ramps just to save on a few extra elevators / escalators / stairs. This might be fine for the rural Ladner side but not so for the neighbourhoods on the Steveston side.

They really should design this for the future and install side platforms... and the Steveston side should be more like an LRT / SkyTrain station with elevator and escalator access. But will they do it?

All in all, just another example of BC Ministry of Transportation throwing more problems at TransLink and the region...

[GlassCity]

Both "intergrated transit stops," on both the Steveston side and the Highway 17A side, will be fully accessible through the use of elevators. I agree that the crossover isn't ideal with the large number of busses, but for the most part I think it's a pretty good solution. I can't think of how you'd fit side platforms in there any other way.

[CanSpice]

Metro Vancouver had a press conference today where they came out against the Massey Bridge saying they're "unable to support the scope and size" of the replacement. The chair of the Metro Vancouver utilities committee said that it could cost between $500m and $1b to relocate the utilities. Greg Moore is opposed because of the lack of consultation on 10 lanes, it doesn't fit the regional planning, and it has ecological impact.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Metro Vancouver had a press conference today where they came out against the Massey Bridge saying they're "unable to support the scope and size" of the replacement. The chair of the Metro Vancouver utilities committee said that it could cost between $500m and $1b to relocate the utilities. Greg Moore is opposed because of the lack of consultation on 10 lanes, it doesn't fit the regional planning, and it has ecological impact.

How much more out of touch with reality and their constituents can they be?

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Metro Vancouver had a press conference today where they came out against the Massey Bridge saying they're "unable to support the scope and size" of the replacement. The chair of the Metro Vancouver utilities committee said that it could cost between $500m and $1b to relocate the utilities. Greg Moore is opposed because of the lack of consultation on 10 lanes, it doesn't fit the regional planning, and it has ecological impact.

Again, I get we're on a forum where we like to see colossal mega projects get built. I was in favour of the SFPR and PMB upgrades but this GMB project really seems silly in the grander scheme of things. It seemed horribly rushed... to address one choke-point without even addressing capacity on the narrow Oak Street Bridge and Knight Street Bridge. We've also seen how far people will go to avoid tolls, so I sort of hoped the bc government would have made provisions for regional tolling across every crossing to off-set potential gridlock on Hwy 91.

I do think the bridge needs to get built, but would have welcomed more consultations before they just went ahead with it.

Disagree with the ecological/environmental impacts, especially when you see the gridlock during rush-hour.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by cornholio

How much more out of touch with reality and their constituents can they be?

Has there been region-wide polling about the GMB project?

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Again, I get we're on a forum where we like to see colossal mega projects get built. I was in favour of the SFPR and PMB upgrades but this GMB project really seems silly in the grander scheme of things. It seemed horribly rushed... to address one choke-point without even addressing capacity on the narrow Oak Street Bridge and Knight Street Bridge. We've also seen how far people will go to avoid tolls, so I sort of hoped the bc government would have made provisions for regional tolling across every crossing to off-set potential gridlock on Hwy 91.

I do think the bridge needs to get built, but would have welcomed more consultations before they just went ahead with it.

Disagree with the ecological/environmental impacts, especially when you see the gridlock during rush-hour.

There's been 5+ years of discussion of the bridge outside and in the public eyes (discussion started before announcements back in 2012) to the public. So I don't know how much more consultation there should be.

Let's be real, most of the politicians coming out for and against this project at this time are doing so purely for political reasons and that's it. For example Richmond's council saying they haven't been consulted when discussions with the province and Richmond staff have been ongoing for years and in great detail.

There comes a point and time when there's been enough talk. People want "more consultation" only when the solution doesn't match what they want aka people against the bridge will constantly cry for more consultation until the project meets exactly what they want even if that means cancelling it.

I also question the "ecological" impact given this isn't a new crossing, there is already a tunnel there, and quite frankly the bridge will open up new land that is currently covered by road and a bridge across the slew on the Delta side not to mention helping with traffic movement and congestion. Idle cars pollute far more than moving cars and right now during rush hour on a regular basis it takes 30+ minutes just to get from 1 end of the tunnel to the other. That is a distance that should take 1-2 minutes with no traffic.

So every single vehicle using the tunnel is operating 30+ minutes every day extra x how many thousands? That is impactful.

It's just silly talk now from those against and everyone against so far are people that don't ever use the tunnel. Vancouver is only pissy because the cars will get to its 2 self-imposed choke points quicker (Oak Street and Knight Street) making them look like the bad guys now for refusing to address vehicle infrastructure in the city outside of taking away road lanes.

Richmond also has horribly laid out roads so traffic getting there quicker will against underline some poor road design on their part. Anyone that has driven around Bridge Port near the Casino will know how boneheaded the road system is there.

Farm impact will be minimal since there is effectively _NO_ farmland near the footprint of the new bridge. Just look on google maps. And the sheets that were shown above have very few parcels of "farm land" being affected for a project of this scale.

It's magnitudes less ALR impact than the SFPR was for some perspective.

Like I said, just all silly talk now.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Has there been region-wide polling about the GMB project?

Don't think so but I don't think it would be meaningful. People affected directly will want it, and those that aren't will not want it, simply because there are big $$$s involved.

I don't have to hold a poll to know the results will be that way. People in Delta, Surrey, etc. will be YAY, people in Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, etc., will be NAY. I mean how would you answer a poll that asks you "Do you want to spend a large amount of tax dollars on a project happening in a city you don't live in on a corridor you don't drive along?" which is basically what people are saying. They never say "that all the goods you buy in the shops travels along, that due to congestion is increasing your prices in your local Safeway." so people are informed before they make a decision.

That goes for every regional project that has impact in a localized area. Do a regional poll on Subway down Broadway and most of the YAYs will be people living in Vancouver. Most NAYs will be those not.

The whole point of a Provincial Government is to be in a position to make decisions for the Province that affects the greater region and see beyond the narrow vision individual cities and regular citizens have. Just look at the Brexit in the UK. You had a lot of people that voted to leave the EU who didn't even know WHAT the EU was and simply voted because of a slogan on the side of a bus that was actually a complete lie... people are dumb. Cities can be dumb too look at Surrey and LRT along Fraser Highway. That goes completely against a regional transit plan but they are only thinking about themselves and their citizens not the bigger picture which is why you need a Translink or Province to say "Ok wait a second let's be smart about this and look at the bigger picture."

I would prefer to not ask the general population their opinions on regional issues. That's what elections are for and that's when people have a say on what goes on imho.

[Steveston]

There was indeed a significant period of consultation.

I wonder, however, to what extent that consultation influenced the decisions which were made. I have the sense that once the province decided that the big bridge was the way to go, that there was little that they were going to hear in the way of public feedback to change that primary decision. Sure, there may have been some tweaking of minor points, but it's not like they were going to go back to a twin-tunnel option, even if the vast majority of the feedback wanted it.

I don't agree with public referenda on every decision. I wouldn't have wanted one on this, just as I thought that the plebiscite on the Transportation Plan was a bad idea. It just seems like hypocrisy to say that one needed approval via public vote and the other didn't.

My opinion is that the bridge is too big; that the current traffic doesn't justify the dollars necessary to expand the carrying capacity at this crossing by the degree planned. Yes, something has to be done. The backups are horrendous, both on the freeway and along Steveston Hwy (I drive it everyday, so I speak from experience).

I think a second 4-lane tunnel would have accomplished all of the objectives necessary, at far less cost.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Don't think so but I don't think it would be meaningful. People affected directly will want it, and those that aren't will not want it, simply because there are big $$$s involved.

I don't have to hold a poll to know the results will be that way. People in Delta, Surrey, etc. will be YAY, people in Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, etc., will be NAY. I mean how would you answer a poll that asks you "Do you want to spend a large amount of tax dollars on a project happening in a city you don't live in on a corridor you don't drive along?" which is basically what people are saying. They never say "that all the goods you buy in the shops travels along, that due to congestion is increasing your prices in your local Safeway." so people are informed before they make a decision.

That goes for every regional project that has impact in a localized area. Do a regional poll on Subway down Broadway and most of the YAYs will be people living in Vancouver. Most NAYs will be those not.

The whole point of a Provincial Government is to be in a position to make decisions for the Province that affects the greater region and see beyond the narrow vision individual cities and regular citizens have. Just look at the Brexit in the UK. You had a lot of people that voted to leave the EU who didn't even know WHAT the EU was and simply voted because of a slogan on the side of a bus that was actually a complete lie... people are dumb. Cities can be dumb too look at Surrey and LRT along Fraser Highway. That goes completely against a regional transit plan but they are only thinking about themselves and their citizens not the bigger picture which is why you need a Translink or Province to say "Ok wait a second let's be smart about this and look at the bigger picture."

I would prefer to not ask the general population their opinions on regional issues. That's what elections are for and that's when people have a say on what goes on imho.

The challenge here is that we do have a regional body that's trying to do what's best for the region, and they have regional transportation plans, and then the Province comes along and announces a project that's at odds with those regional transportation plans. What's the point in having Metro Vancouver come up with a transportation plan that works for the entire region when the province is just going to do their own thing?

Metro Vancouver is trying to say "wait a second let's be smart about this and look at the bigger picture" when the province is just coming along and doing it without looking at Metro Vancouver's bigger picture plans.

Or is it that transportation is actually a provincial matter and not a regional one so what's the point in having Metro Vancouver (or hell, TransLink) have any jurisdiction over transportation at all?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Has there been region-wide polling about the GMB project?

Perhaps a referendum?

For me the issue is the money. Word is this will be north of $4B now.