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

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

i just read an article written by RIchmond Mayor Malcom Brodie where he was deadset against the Steveston Highway interchange. He doesnt want a LA style freeway in his backyard.

He doesn't acknowledge that not of all the traffic using the tunnel is Oak Street Bridge bound.
Here is his article
http://www.richmond-news.com/opinion/letters/letter-mega-bridge-won-t-clear-massey-tunnel-congestion-1.20587782

I also saw another article where the author was critical of the bridge and even acknowledged the facts that not all tunnel traffic uses oak st bridge and that at least 40% find another route into Vancouver city limits (whether that would be knight or arthur lang bridge).... But went to say that if they went ahead with the new bridge, it would encourage massive sprawl that would ultimately choke oak street bridge. The guys solution was to make the tunnel 6 lanes and add another get this add another 4 lane bridge into the city of Vancouver. The money saved can be earmarked for skytrain into Delta. I mean come on? Where do people come up with this stuff

Brodie is an idiot. That interchange is Steveston is a major bottleneck. It is dated and completely incapable in handling current capacity. During afternoon peak, eastbound steveston gets backed up all the way to the Buddhist Temple every effing time.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

lol @ 8 lanes. yes because keeping the same amount of through lanes on a bridge designed to last 100 years is a smart idea. lol lol lol. thats a good use of 2 billion dollars.

1 climbing, 2 through, 1 HOV. lol lol lol lol lol. all you people thinking thats a good use of money. better to cancel then fuck it up and waste billions for little to no changes.

[Metro-One]

8 lanes is a fine compromise. It is double the current number of lanes, and with the well designed interchanges book ending the bridge 8 lanes will be quite adequate, also not to mention the addition of the superior bus service.

Sadly, it seems that the NDP and Greens may build nothing at all... 8 lanes is looking pretty good now...

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

8 lanes is a fine compromise. It is double the current number of lanes

no. 2 are HOV. so there are only 6 lanes. compared to 4. then with all the trucks that will be taking the route, that means on lane will be like it is on the AFB. a slow climbing lane. so it becomes 4 through lanes, same as the tunnel is now.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

with the well designed interchanges book ending the bridge 8 lanes will be quite adequate

you think the NDP and Greens will keep those interchanges? haha. good luck with that.

so this will end up a 2.5 billion dollar project that gives us minuscule improvement that will need replacing in another 50 years.

i would rather them do nothing then waste my money on building useless crap.

[Metro-One]

3 general purpose plus an HOV in each direction would be perfect for this crossing. That said the Pattullo should be 3 from opening day and not the planned 2 with possible expansion to 3.

And yes, I know the NDP and Greens will not keep the well designed planned interchanges.

I am saying I would be happy with an 8 lane bridge with the rest of the project remaining as planned (save for maybe upgrading the rapid bus elements). To me that would be a wise compromise politically and economically.

Sadly, the NDP and Greens may just throw bandaids on the highway, and the idea of twinning the tunnel is ridiculous

So I would agree, at that point doing nothing is better.

[WaxItYourself]

Sorry if this has been answered in previous pages but I thought the new government wasn't going to build the new bridge because it would promote continued use of cars and work against the regions plan on going greener.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by WaxItYourself

Sorry if this has been answered in previous pages but I thought the new government wasn't going to build the new bridge because it would promote continued use of cars and work against the regions plan on going greener.

So what happens when cars/trucks/ are all zero emission? Will they still be anti freeway? And off topic but why aren't there any solar panels on any buildings here? Metro van is obsessed with being green and anti freeway yet they seem to Be failing at basic things like having solar panels on all these huge buildings like big box stores and industrial buildings

[Metro-One]

The "we are green so we are never going to upgrade our roads and highways" approach is the laziest form of being "green" there is.

You can travel to many European and Asian cities that I would honestly say deserve the title of "being green" which have excellent bike networks, rail networks, build appropriately around transit stations (especially hubs), extensively use locally generated solar and wind power (rooftops are excellent spaces for doing such) and see that they still improve and expand upon their major road networks! (especially bridges and regional highways connecting cities together, which is exactly what the 99 is).

In Canada Montreal is a great example of a major city with a decent transit system (which will be getting a major boost in the coming years), a very dense urban core, and a fantastic freeway system that is constantly getting well planned modern upgrades and expansions!

I have long hated BC's (and particularly Vancouver's) lazy approach of self congratulatory bull-crap of being green. It is all about being against things, and never being pro-active. It is also always seeing everything in black and white, and not the important shades in between.

You will never be able to have a successful bus system along the 99 without re-building the entire highway and replacing the tunnels with a new bridge, which will also help the economy with more efficient goods / services transportation. Not to mention that modern design standards are safer than the 1950's standards the highway is built to now and will likely reduce emissions by eliminating the daily hour waits at the tunnel.

Also those here who claim "if you upgrade it you will just induce demand" null themselves for complaining about bridges and highways that are performing under projections currently, you cant have it both ways.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

3 general purpose plus an HOV in each direction would be perfect for this crossing.

Man. Ya gotta be kidding me. 3 GP lanes are already extant in morning/afternoon rush hour in each GMT direction with counter-flow. Sometimes afternoon SB traffic can be backed up to the Oak St. Bridge - with 3 GP lanes. Just add another HOV lane? For what? Current HOV lane is rarely utilized except for buses.

And major commercial rigs will have to enter from Steveston interchange SB, for example, at ~50 km/hr climbing uphill on a new bridge, further slowing down traffic. Alex Fraser Bridge realizes major slow-downs/congestion with major commercial rigs climbing uphill NB from Nordel Way on-ramp - with emergency flashers on. Completely slows down/snarls traffic.

And the Alex Fraser Bridge/Hwy 91 combo witnesses major congestion and diverted GMT traffic already.

You always say "compromise on 8-lanes". Compromise with who? NDP/Greens are against new GMB. Why bother to replace it then? Just not worth it.

Any traffic engineer worth his grain of salt will always advise to have a higher number of lanes on a bridge crossing than the through lanes attaching to same. Why? Because at every bridgehead, major arteries also dump traffic onto the bridge-deck aside from through traffic.

Every Metro Vancouver regional bridge structure has witnessed same to date. Congestion central.

[Metro-One]

Much of the current issues with the tunnel is not just the lane count alone, but also the narrow width of the lanes, the psychological factors of being walled in by the tunnel (this is proven, it makes people slow down) and the shit show interchanges on wither end.

If built with the far superior interchanges currently planned, 8 lanes will work fine.

[Stingray2004]

Problem is that I "live" the AFB & GMT and I actually see what's going on... over time... and it's getting worse. Most posting here don't - ergo Ivory Tower kind of stuff.

PS. 8 GP lanes will work fine for the new Pitt River Bridge - but we are talking about a completely different strategic Fraser River crossing here. Completely different traffic nodes/significance.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

So what happens when cars/trucks/ are all zero emission? Will they still be anti freeway?

Emissions aren't the only problem with cars. You don't have to look further than LA's gridlock to see how dysfunctional things get when you build roads roads roads and don't also build viable alternatives like transit.

An overcapacity bridge will encourage more sprawl and put a lot more pressure to develop the agricultural land reserve, both of which are very negative consequences.

[Marshal]

Damn I hate the simplistic shit!

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Damn I hate the simplistic shit!

Care to expand on that...

[Marshal]

Just being stupid, expressing the frustration that there often is no way to raise the level of a discourse. In spite of the "Ivory Tower" misnomer, I am used to the detail and subtlety of academic discourse - things that can truly bring real interest to a topic. Some people, not used to this level, glaze over and think it is stupid intellectual masturbation simply because they can't follow it, or can't imagine a discussion beyond the one they produce and share. So, like I said, I'm just being stupid and grumbling a bit . . . wasting time, etc.

Oh, and yeah: I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular . . . at least my stupidity shouldn't upset anyone. (and, with that, I'm leaving my office and going home, it's late and I have to stop wasting time - babbling on.)

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Emissions aren't the only problem with cars. You don't have to look further than LA's gridlock to see how dysfunctional things get when you build roads roads roads and don't also build viable alternatives like transit.

An overcapacity bridge will encourage more sprawl and put a lot more pressure to develop the agricultural land reserve, both of which are very negative consequences.

That hasn't really been the case with the port mann

Sorry but that just doesn't make any sense. That by upgrading the tunnel and interchanges will make it the same as la?? I think it's vastly different. Also, what's wrong with sprawl and what's the negative consequence to it? Are we all to live in Vancouver proper? This idea that sprawl automatically means a sea of single family homes in endless cul de sacs where you can't walk to anything is incorrect. And the other issue of preserving agriculture land is important. But allowing this project to go ahread doesn't undo the restriction in place.

[ryanmaccdn]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Emissions aren't the only problem with cars. You don't have to look further than LA's gridlock to see how dysfunctional things get when you build roads roads roads and don't also build viable alternatives like transit.

An overcapacity bridge will encourage more sprawl and put a lot more pressure to develop the agricultural land reserve, both of which are very negative consequences.

There is also some strong positives to sprawl including affordable housing options that is inclusive of all types of individuals and encourages diversity. Unlike your 1% rich person outlook .....

[WaxItYourself]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

So what happens when cars/trucks/ are all zero emission? Will they still be anti freeway? And off topic but why aren't there any solar panels on any buildings here? Metro van is obsessed with being green and anti freeway yet they seem to Be failing at basic things like having solar panels on all these huge buildings like big box stores and industrial buildings

I asked a question. I heard that the NDP were going to reevaluate the proposed bridge. You failed to answer my question and instead went on a tirade about green living. And there are a lot of other alternatives that are currently in use other than having solar panels on buildings. There are plans for wind turbines on buildings and there is currently renewable district energy systems such as the 2010 Olympic Village, the UBC and planned SFU systems, the Lonsdale system, the Surrey Central geothermal system, the Telus building system
and more.

[p78hub]

The problems we face are more complex than just sprawl this, gridlock that.

I'd say that housing pricing and shortages in Vancouver proper are encouraging sprawl way more than a highway ever will, and with the city's stupid policy on "no new lanes into Vancouver" we will likely never see a new crossing into the city until a city government with some backbone gets elected (or amalgamation happens). People can't afford to live in Vancouver, or even Richmond now since houses are getting up in the million dollar range, leaving south of Fraser the only option.

Brodie and the rest of Richmond City Hall don't help things either. They only see the surface - "it's an LA style interchange - NAY" - and don't see the underlying problem that the new interchange solves. The current setup is so poorly designed. You have people in the two rightmost lanes eastbound on Steveston suddenly finding themselves in the wrong lane after No. 5 road because 3 lanes suddenly turn into 1. Southbound 99 traffic is controlled by a traffic light. The northbound 99 loop is a waste of space and I've seen front wheel drive cars spin out on that loop in damp weather. I don't know how anyone can see that this is an appropriate interchange for even the 1970s, let alone now.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ryanmaccdn

There is also some strong positives to sprawl including affordable housing options that is inclusive of all types of individuals and encourages diversity.

I totally agree that house prices in Vancouver are completely out of hand. And you're right in that it does encourage sprawl. Unfortunately, the suburbs are replicating the low density single family housing which ends up fueling the high prices due to the scarcity of land.

Wrong forum for a long discussion of that problem, but if we must have sprawl then we need good transit as well as roads. Roads alone cannot solve the transportation problem - that was my point when I invoked Los Angeles.