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

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by cornholio

It is only 5.5 km's. Not a significant tunnel. Or 7.1 km's if you want to avoid a bridge over the North Fraser arm with a underground interchange at Marine.

Is that a thing? I could see installing the odd off/onramp assuming cut & cover, but an entire interchange? Seems prohibitively expensive if even possible.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cornholio

With a connection to 91 at Boundary it should be tunneled and free flow to the number 1.

This isn't a fantasy thread. Ideas like this are totally impractical in a reality where the cost far outweighs the benefits that could be achieved by spending the money on some of the many other projects that are needed.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by cornholio

With a connection to 91 at Boundary it should be tunneled and free flow to the number 1. 3 lanes would do if it would be direct with no exit points in between as you would not need significant grade and climbing lanes for all the trucks that would use it. Boundary road can function as a feeder route.

It is only 5.5 km's. Not a significant tunnel. Or 7.1 km's if you want to avoid a bridge over the North Fraser arm with a underground interchange at Marine.

This should be a regional priority and it would tie the region together by linking up the 91 to the number 1. In conjunction with this the Iron workers should finally have its 2 extra lanes added and the highway should be 3 lanned all the way to Capilano. Any other western city would have this planned, it makes so much sense looking at a map of the region and its highway network. It would create ring road of Vancouver and move lots of cross city traffic to a more efficient route.

Originally Posted by M00dy

Is that a thing? I could see installing the odd off/onramp assuming cut & cover, but an entire interchange? Seems prohibitively expensive if even possible.

Personally, I think underground interchanges are an option, although I will admit they are mega$$$expensive. Nevertheless, here's a YouTube "tutorial" on how to do it, if the will is there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVZK6defJmM It addresses different uses and tunnel plans.

[flipper316]

http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/delta...-cover-cost-of-project-review-1.23090623

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by flipper316

http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/delta...-cover-cost-of-project-review-1.23090623

Really? It's too onerous to spend a million bucks to make sure billions will be spent properly?

In my view the necessity for this falls in the Liberal's lap, not the NDP. It was the Liberals who tried to ram this through in the face of widespread opposition by the municipalities. If they were more transparent and spent more time seeking input and building support then we wouldn't be where we are today.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Really? It's too onerous to spend a million bucks to make sure billions will be spent properly?

In my view the necessity for this falls in the Liberal's lap, not the NDP. It was the Liberals who tried to ram this through in the face of widespread opposition by the municipalities. If they were more transparent and spent more time seeking input and building support then we wouldn't be where we are today.

all of this has been done already. it was all done when this process of replacement started in 2012. they had consultations, they had technical reviews, and the different reports even say the bridge uses less farm land, provides a more earthquake resistant structure, and trucks with dangers goods can now shorten their routes and not need to waste gas and GHG emissions detouring for no reason.

all of this shit was done, people just dont agree with the outcome. there are well over 100 documents about the process on the project website. including independent reviews spanning from the 90s-today.

this is all about typical NDP shit, not making a decision to piss off people on either side while making it look like they are making a decision.

[GlassCity]

Maybe once the review's done they'll decide to put an interchange at Blundell...


yeah right. But damn, they're gonna have to do it one day.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Maybe once the review's done they'll decide to put an interchange at Blundell...


yeah right. But damn, they're gonna have to do it one day.

it'll be easy to do, they have the detailed drawings of it which they did back in 2007.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

it'll be easy to do, they have the detailed drawings of it which they did back in 2007.

Oh I had no idea, that's good to hear.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Oh I had no idea, that's good to hear.

doubt it would happen, though. the idea of an interchange at Blundell was first planned for back in 1991. we are now in 2017 and cancelling a project to improve the highway. the government also talks about the widening of Highway 1 being cancelled. so don't hold your breath.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Really? It's too onerous to spend a million bucks to make sure billions will be spent properly?

In my view the necessity for this falls in the Liberal's lap, not the NDP. It was the Liberals who tried to ram this through in the face of widespread opposition by the municipalities. If they were more transparent and spent more time seeking input and building support then we wouldn't be where we are today.

Do you think that this new study will be any less biased? It really seems that the NDP also have a desired result already in mind (and decided).

If this new study really is unbiased, what if the end result is that the project proposed by the Liberals (or one of very similar form involving a completely new bridge that would likely be 8 lanes wide at the minimum) is the best option? Do you think that the NDP would be able to openly accept that?

Also as brought up before if we allowed the local municipalities dictate our roads and transit networks both would be far worse than they are today (no highway 1 improvements, at grade Canada Line, at grade Evergreen Line), so never put too much weight in their oppositions to such projects (hating on mega highway and even Skytrain projects in many municipalities is easy vote bait). Surrey’s hate of Skytrain is a perfect example of this.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

doubt it would happen, though. the idea of an interchange at Blundell was first planned for back in 1991. we are now in 2017 and cancelling a project to improve the highway. the government also talks about the widening of Highway 1 being cancelled. so don't hold your breath.

It's fun to dream.

[waves]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It's fun to dream.

I agree. The fantasies and the thought that goes into considering alternative options is what makes this forum so enjoyable.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It's fun to dream.

Originally Posted by waves

I agree. The fantasies and the thought that goes into considering alternative options is what makes this forum so enjoyable.

very true, maybe one day.


from GMT Expansion Plan Study 1, circa 1991

[libtard]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

very true, maybe one day.


from GMT Expansion Plan Study 1, circa 1991

Did someone just scribble something on a napkin and call it a design? Seriously how does this even apply to the current physical footprint of the blundell overpass??? The "render" shows 4 lanes south bound PLUS a 5th lane for merging from blundell eastbound -> 99 southbound. Sorry BC Muslim school I guess you're getting demolished. Blundell doesn't even NEED an interchange anyway. Terrible idea and would disrupt the flow of 99.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

very true, maybe one day.


from GMT Expansion Plan Study 1, circa 1991

1 9 9 0 ' s a e s t h e t i c

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by M00dy

Is that a thing? I could see installing the odd off/onramp assuming cut & cover, but an entire interchange? Seems prohibitively expensive if even possible.

Yes its a thing all over the developed world. It is not prohibitively expensive. Here are five examples within a 15min drive of me right now in a city nearly the city of Vancouver (metro's)

one

two

three

four

five

Last section opened three years ago was 5.5km's and in a more complicated geography and with multiple interchanges. A 91 to 1 connection is simple stuff that should already be in place in this region. Is Vancouver the first world or not?

Full section https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJs0qCS7cVw

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

This isn't a fantasy thread. Ideas like this are totally impractical in a reality where the cost far outweighs the benefits that could be achieved by spending the money on some of the many other projects that are needed.

This is standard infrastructure in any first world city. This has nothing to do with fantasy and all to do with the bare minimum required in this region. Its because of people with your attitudes this corner of the world is falling behind and is not keeping up with the most basic infrastructure.

[Metro-One]

But that is in car-rotientated Europe

Similar situation to you, when I was in Stockholm, Sweden years ago I was impressed with the layered (largely underground) freeway network that runs directly through their downtown.

Especially considering the size of the metro Stockholm's road and rail networks both put Vancouver to some serious shame.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

But that is in car-rotientated Europe

Similar situation to you, when I was in Stockholm, Sweden years ago I was impressed with the layered (largely underground) freeway network that runs directly through their downtown.

Especially considering the size of the metro Stockholm's road and rail networks both put Vancouver to some serious shame.

When it comes to engineering, be it transport or structural, nobody does it better than the Swedes. I'd like to hire some of them to come to Vancouver and design a system for us!!

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Yes its a thing all over the developed world. It is not prohibitively expensive. Here are five examples within a 15min drive of me right now in a city nearly the city of Vancouver (metro's)

one

two

three

four

five

Last section opened three years ago was 5.5km's and in a more complicated geography and with multiple interchanges. A 91 to 1 connection is simple stuff that should already be in place in this region. Is Vancouver the first world or not?

Neat. Thanks for the info. I can only imagine how challenging engineering & construction of underground interchanges like that would be!