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

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

I don’t understand why anyone would even argue that Kelowna doesn’t need a second crossing. It’s only going to continue to grow and 2 lanes east bound into Kelowna and 3 lanes westbound out of the city aren’t enough. It’s not even a legitimate freeway. It feeds onto an avenue in Kelowna city centre. Our infrastructure is crap and I pray the day never comes when we rely on it for our safety. Because it will fail.

Where do you put bridge #2, though? There's no room to twin the WAC, and the only other narrow point of the Okie is at Vernon. Best case scenario appears to be an 8-lane replacement... which gets us about 27-30k more vehicles per day. After that, it's probably time for bus lanes, a tunnel or a metro.

Originally Posted by Repthe250

I’m not talking about that because that only helps the issue from South of Fraser to Richmond. I’m talking North of Fraser to Richmond/delta. Maybe if we had a bridge at the bottom of boundary to Richmond that linked up with no. 8 road and highway 91, it would alleviate some of the stress off of queensborough and Royal Ave/Stewardson in New Westminster. I’ve had to commute across the Queensborough bridge for years and it is an absolute nightmare and I feel bad for anyone that lives in Queensborough because that neighborhood comes to a complete standstill from 2 to 7 every day. I’ve witnessed ambulances stuck in gridlock with their sirens on for a good 5 minutes before they were able to wedge thru the congestion to get across the bridge. It’s a disaster. This whole provinces highway infrastructure is a disaster and yes, I feel very strongly about it because I have been around North America and I can say, for what BC claims to be, for the taxes we pay, and the “progressive” attitude we claim to have, we are the farthest behind in highway infrastructure on the continent for our population

While it's not a bad idea, doesn't a Boundary Bridge just shift the bottleneck to Annacis and the East-West Connector? Highway 91 and Bridgeport are already crowded as-is.

It's a perfect storm: we're on a delta, we don't get as much funding as the eastern half of the country, and cars just really suck at moving people once the population hits the two million mark.

[WarrenC12]

E-bikes is an interesting thing to consider for the future. They will make longer trips bearable in all weather, and cost a fraction of what cars do.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

E-bikes is an interesting thing to consider for the future. They will make longer trips bearable in all weather, and cost a fraction of what cars do.

I picture a jetpack world haha

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Where do you put bridge #2, though? There's no room to twin the WAC, and the only other narrow point of the Okie is at Vernon. Best case scenario appears to be an 8-lane replacement... which gets us about 27-30k more vehicles per day. After that, it's probably time for bus lanes, a tunnel or a metro.

While it's not a bad idea, doesn't a Boundary Bridge just shift the bottleneck to Annacis and the East-West Connector? Highway 91 and Bridgeport are already crowded as-is.

It's a perfect storm: we're on a delta, we don't get as much funding as the eastern half of the country, and cars just really suck at moving people once the population hits the two million mark.

Not necessarily, those travelling from Brentwood/Metrotown/East Van needing to get to highway 91 won’t need to travel all the way to the Queensborough or Knight street, alleviating the congestion on both bridges. Annacis bottleneck will be there no matter where the traffic feeds from but that’s because of poor planning regardless of how you shift the traffic flow.

As for the Kelowna bridge question, the bridge would, or SHOULD go at the north end of Downtown at Manhattan Point (I believe there is a trailer park there and old warehouses/old train tracks, all things that could be removed cost effectively for a bypass or secondary “highway” thru the city) and connect at Westside rd. Of course Westside road would need a complete upgrade as well. It wouldn’t be cheap but Kelowna needs a secondary route across the lake. It’s creeping up on Saskatoons size and imagine if Saskatoon only had one 5 lane bridge across the Saskatchewan river? West Kelowna is growing rapidly and to have to rely on one bridge to get to the hospital is a disaster waiting to happen. Hell even kamloops has more bridges connecting both sides of the river.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by Klazu

The entire Thompson-Okanagan region is over 600,000 people these days, so the road infrastructure there is seeing a lot of use. While a new crossing north of the existing one is likely the most ideal, I have always wondered if a better bypass would be a bridge across the lake nearby where Okanagan Connector terminates? It's a bit wider body of water and I am not sure how deep it is there, but the eastern side of the lake is mostly undeveloped and the new highway would serve South Kelowna residents.

600,000 residents. That number probably doubles in the summer time.
A second bridge would be welcomed anywhere at this point. South Mission would be ideal too, to connect with 97 at Gellatly and bypass all of West Kelowna. But again the road infrastructure in the Mission would need a complete overhaul. Could be done but all the environmentalists and area homeowners would quickly oppose and we all know how that’ll end

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

E-bikes is an interesting thing to consider for the future. They will make longer trips bearable in all weather, and cost a fraction of what cars do.

i dont know if electric bikes will change the fair weather mentality of biking here. the rain will still have the same impacts with a bike or electric bike.

though i do think all crossings should have bike/pedestrian connections. it would be crazy to not build them, but, underpasses are never a safe design. that's just factual.


as for connections, they should re-build the Fraser Street bridge to take pressure off the Knight Street Bridge. then a Boundary Road Bridge to the 91 connector. that would help with congestion for sure plus add in bike/pedestrian connections to river road in Richmond and the future Arbutus/Riverway Greenway.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Long-range e-scooters. Not rain-proof, but twice as portable.

Originally Posted by Repthe250

Not necessarily, those travelling from Brentwood/Metrotown/East Van needing to get to highway 91 won’t need to travel all the way to the Queensborough or Knight street, alleviating the congestion on both bridges. Annacis bottleneck will be there no matter where the traffic feeds from but that’s because of poor planning regardless of how you shift the traffic flow.

As for the Kelowna bridge question, the bridge would, or SHOULD go at the north end of Downtown at Manhattan Point (I believe there is a trailer park there and old warehouses/old train tracks, all things that could be removed cost effectively for a bypass or secondary “highway” thru the city) and connect at Westside rd. Of course Westside road would need a complete upgrade as well. It wouldn’t be cheap but Kelowna needs a secondary route across the lake. It’s creeping up on Saskatoons size and imagine if Saskatoon only had one 5 lane bridge across the Saskatchewan river? West Kelowna is growing rapidly and to have to rely on one bridge to get to the hospital is a disaster waiting to happen. Hell even kamloops has more bridges connecting both sides of the river.

I meant Brentwood/Metrotown/East Van drivers headed to the GMT - those two interchanges are problematic too. That's four crossings on the north arm and two on the south arm, and I doubt there'll be a bridge at Tilbury any time soon.

Dunno about that, the Okie near Manhattan is nearly twice as wide as Siwash. And even if it's possible, since it doesn't really have an exit, you can expect a lot more traffic down Pandosy and Ellis. Kelowna's kind of painted itself into a corner here.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i dont know if electric bikes will change the fair weather mentality of biking here. the rain will still have the same impacts with a bike or electric bike.

I found that biking in the rain can be quite comfortable if you have a good set of waterproof overpants, jacket, hood and gloves. I've gotta imagine that it's even better on an electric bike because you don't need to work up a sweat that builds up under the waterproof clothing.

For me the biggest drag of biking in the rain was donning and doffing my wet weather gear. The actual ride was great.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Long-range e-scooters. Not rain-proof, but twice as portable.



I meant Brentwood/Metrotown/East Van drivers headed to the GMT - those two interchanges are problematic too. That's four crossings on the north arm and two on the south arm, and I doubt there'll be a bridge at Tilbury any time soon.

Dunno about that, the Okie near Manhattan is nearly twice as wide as Siwash. And even if it's possible, since it doesn't really have an exit, you can expect a lot more traffic down Pandosy and Ellis. Kelowna's kind of painted itself into a corner here.

I think we’re all forgetting about the old floating bridge in Kelowna. Why can’t we make that an option? I believe there is a floating bridge in Seattle across lake Washington. Depth and length should not be a deterrent as there are ways around it.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

I think we’re all forgetting about the old floating bridge in Kelowna. Why can’t we make that an option? I believe there is a floating bridge in Seattle across lake Washington. Depth and length should not be a deterrent as there are ways around it.

Uhhh.. big boats need to traverse the Fraser.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Uhhh.. big boats need to traverse the Fraser.

Uh, I’m talking about Kelowna. But easy mistake, this is the GMT thread.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

Uh, I’m talking about Kelowna. But easy mistake, this is the GMT thread.

Lift span bridges become wildly impractical when it's an arterial route and you have to contend with oversize watercraft.
One of the reasons they replaced it with a high clearance deck on the west end was because the regular stoppages to raise the bridge murdered traffic flow.
Their piers are also navigational hazards because it bottlenecks the water route. The Second Narrows Rail Bridge has been hit multiple times. Regardless of road or pedestrian/bike routing for the GMT it's something that isn't on the table.


Canadian Rail

[Migrant_Coconut]

I believe the existing bridge also uses pontoons, just in a way that allows lake and road traffic to cross at the same time.

Originally Posted by Repthe250

I think we’re all forgetting about the old floating bridge in Kelowna. Why can’t we make that an option? I believe there is a floating bridge in Seattle across lake Washington. Depth and length should not be a deterrent as there are ways around it.

The problem isn't physics, it's cost and disruptiveness. They already floated (no pun intended) the idea of a Manhattan Point crossing back in 2017, and that was effectively rejected for its $1 billion price tag and environmental impact.

[MIPS]

The new bridge is still pontoon in the middle because of the lake depth (200 to 700 feet). Lake Washington's pontoon bridges are there because the relatively shallow lake (about 100 feet, which make it easy to view the sunken i90 bridge after the 1990 accident) has too much sediment at the bottom to viably piledrive foundations to stable soil. Raised bridge sections only work closes to to shore but that restricts all marine traffic to the shallower edges of the lake or river.
Now you can take advantage of the fact your road deck is pontoons to allow for larger opening sections for marine traffic but you are still floating around road deck weighing several thousand tons and prone to weather events, so the longer the deck, the longer it takes to open and close which again is impractical for a major route. The only options remain either a monolithic suspension bridge or a tunnel.


Considerably more off-topic than Kelowna's bridge to the GMT replacement, if you want to see the old SR 520 bridge it's moored up in Pitt Meadows.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I believe the existing bridge also uses pontoons, just in a way that allows lake and road traffic to cross at the same time.



The problem isn't physics, it's cost and disruptiveness. They already floated (no pun intended) the idea of a Manhattan Point crossing back in 2017, and that was effectively rejected for its $1 billion price tag and environmental impact.

Funny how nobody seems to consider the impact of NOT having a second crossing has on the environment. As the region continues to grow and attracts hundreds of thousands of tourists from all over the country, hot summer days idling in traffic on Hwy 97 surely will be worse.

[Klazu]

Very interesting read and I knew some of these points. Didn't know it's the lowest road in Canada.

https://biv.com/article/2022/05/5-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-massey-tunnel

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

Funny how nobody seems to consider the impact of NOT having a second crossing has on the environment. As the region continues to grow and attracts hundreds of thousands of tourists from all over the country, hot summer days idling in traffic on Hwy 97 surely will be worse.

Idling engines technically contribute a whole lot less CO2 than adding 50,000 more vehicles/day or removing wetlands. The latter also makes Kelowna more vulnerable to flooding, which would probably shut the new bridge down anyway.

Sure, Kelowna could use more capacity to get across the lake. It's just not necessarily a Manhattan Point crossing.

[Repthe250]

I don’t understand the logic of “a new bridge will add 50,000 new vehicles.” Those vehicles are already on the road. No one’s going out and buying a car if they don’t already have one just because a new bridge opens up. Since the new Port Mann and Golden Ears opened, not once have I been stuck in bumper to bumper traffic crossing either. Before it opened you couldn’t move more than 5 km an hour from Langley to Burnaby any given weekday.

Also what wetlands, and where? Manhattan point is already developed. And if they don’t build a bridge there, it’s going to be developed into condos anyway.

I did say that the Mission could be a second option but it’ll take hundreds of millions of dollars in road upgrades on either side of the lake connected to 97. Manhattan point would have been the cheapest as there’s an old rail corridor that easily links up to 97 in Rutland , connects to Clement and ends at Richter.

[Repthe250]

Nothing gets done in this province because of “what ifs”. But isn’t having a second crossing better than not, for emergencies and detours anyway? Like what is there to lose? The only what ifs we should be concerned about is what if there’s a major forest fire in West Kelowna that closes access to highway 97 westbound to Merritt and a fire closing down Westside road to Vernon, yet there’s mass evacuation orders, the only lifeline is that one bridge. Two lanes westbound. And vice versa if there’s a big fire in Kelowna shutting down highway 97 northbound, the only way out of the city is by that one bridge. Now what happens if there’s a major accident on that bridge at the same time? There’s no real alternative that can handle much traffic. There’s no route for fire trucks or ambulances (remember, only one hospital) or any emergency services to get thru. These are things the government needs to worry about and not the dangers of maybe slightly increased car traffic on the road. It’s gonna happen regardless as the city grows.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

I don’t understand the logic of “a new bridge will add 50,000 new vehicles.” Those vehicles are already on the road. No one’s going out and buying a car if they don’t already have one just because a new bridge opens up. Since the new Port Mann opened, not once have I been stuck in bumper to bumper traffic crossing it.

Also what wetlands, and where? Manhattan point is already developed. And if they don’t build a bridge there, it’s going to be developed into condos anyway.

I did say that the Mission could be a second option but it’ll take hundreds of millions of dollars in road upgrades on either side of the lake connected to 97. Manhattan point would have been the cheapest as there’s an old rail corridor that easily links up to 97 in Rutland , connects to Clement and ends at Richter.

Yeah, those existing 50k drivers won't be a problem. I'm talking about the other potential 50k drivers that might take a trip across the lake now that there's capacity; guesstimating traffic is a very tricky business. Even 10k more trips would likely offset any CO2 savings from reduced gridlock.
As for the Port Mann, it's smooth-sailing... for now. When this version fills up, what replace it? 12 lanes? 14? 18? Pretty sure it's diminishing returns from here on out.

It's in the second article: the plan for Manhattan Point includes extending Clement to McCurdy along the rail line. If Mill Creek is anything like Still Creek (in Burnaby) or Sumas Lake, that might not be the best idea - any flooding means you're down to one highway anyway.

Kelowna could also look at bus lanes. Sure, they're not going to help with provincial traffic, but if most of the local traffic just needs to get to West K. and back, that'd take a lot of cars off the bridge. They'd also help contain sprawl and coalesce density for when a Kelowna Metro finally makes sense. I'm also kind of surprised that Kelowna, being a town on both sides of a lake, doesn't have any kind of ferry service.

Originally Posted by Repthe250

Nothing gets done in this province because of “what ifs”. But isn’t having a second crossing better than not, for emergencies and detours anyway? Like what is there to lose? The only what ifs we should be concerned about is what if there’s a major forest fire in West Kelowna that closes access to highway 97 westbound to Merritt and a fire closing down Westside road to Vernon, yet there’s mass evacuation orders, the only lifeline is that one bridge. Two lanes westbound. And vice versa if there’s a big fire in Kelowna shutting down highway 97 northbound, the only way out of the city is by that one bridge. Now what happens if there’s a major accident on that bridge at the same time? There’s no real alternative that can handle much traffic. There’s no route for fire trucks or ambulances (remember, only one hospital) or any emergency services to get thru. These are things the government needs to worry about and not the dangers of maybe slightly increased car traffic on the road. It’s gonna happen regardless as the city grows.

There's Highway 97 to Penticton? I doubt Goats Peak and Bear Creek will be on fire at the same time. Not ideal, but you've still got three and a half ways in and out. Vancouver Island has to be content with one highway for everybody.

At any rate, redundancy and capacity are two different things. For the former, nobody builds bridges they don't need "just in case," and for the latter, solving traffic requires more than just roadspace.