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

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by lightrail

Port Mann as built was a mistake - you won't agree with me now, but you will in 10 years from now when it is congested and backup worse than it was before.

If congestion gets too bad then they can simply raise the toll to mitigate it. I think that will be the enduring legacy of the PMB - that it allowed transportation planners to introduce road pricing which can then be used as a tool to shape usage. The irony is that you didn't really need a new bridge to do that, you could have done it by simply building a toll plaza for the old bridge. Of course that would have been political suicide, but think of all the money we could have saved...

[st7860]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Or it will under perform like the Golden Ears bridge, and we still won't need 10 lanes.

I doubt the golden ears bridge would need all of its lanes even if there were no tolls on it.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Yep. Has anyone ever complained that the Granville St. Bridge is too wide?

Gordon Price just did!

SFU City Program Director Gord Price also feels critics need to take a longer view.

“You are building these structures for 100 years, so [it's] a little early to say whether it was justified or not. We’ll see how it works out.”

But he is a little surprised to see the span losing so much money.

“There’s always that possibility and so it’s built into the contract. No-one is going to sign a [public private partnership] unless they’ve got their risk covered and in the end it’s always going to be the taxpayer that has to pay the risk for something like a public asset, even if it’s privately built… But it’s certainly higher than I would have expected.”

However, Price also feels we also have a tendency here in the Lower Mainland to overbuild, and says Vancouver’s eight lane Granville Street Bridge being a prime example.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by lightrail

then what - widden Oak Street and Knight Street to accommodate more cars?

You might be unaware, but Knight Street has effectively been expanded by 50% capacity over the past 5 years. It has far more capacity today than it did a few years ago.

And I believe it is the CoV's position that Southeast Marine Drive has excess capacity as well.

Thus, both of those roads are uniquely suited to service a wider or twinned bridge.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Zassk

...Knight Street now has 3 full unimpeded lanes all the way to 1st Avenue).

Not the case from Kingsway to 12th Avenue. Two lanes in each direction with a centre median.

[whatnext]

For every Granville Street Bridge there's a Dinsmore Bridge (ie one that was built too narrow)

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by deasine

Not the case from Kingsway to 12th Avenue. Two lanes in each direction with a centre median.

I believe that Zassk was referring to the program of installing left turn bays at all the major intersections. That effectively added an extra traffic lane by eliminating queuing behind left turning vehicles.

There are no major streets between Kingsway and 12th for there to be any significant left turn issues.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Yep. Has anyone ever complained that the Granville St. Bridge is too wide?

You got it! .....

(Very much doubt that. IMO one of the most forsightful projects in all Vancouver. Beautiful? No not really. Wide? Rathèr. Description? The major north-south downtown connector, and a symbol of the city.)

[libtard]

10 lanes over the bridge (5 each direction) but the new interchange for the SFPR has an overpass that will only allow for 3 lanes each direction of hwy 99 MAX. Where will the other 4 lanes (2 each direction) go

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by libtard

10 lanes over the bridge (5 each direction) but the new interchange for the SFPR has an overpass that will only allow for 3 lanes each direction of hwy 99 MAX. Where will the other 4 lanes (2 each direction) go

The other two (local) lanes will probably start at the Highway 17/SFPR interchange.

As to their northern end, the two local can terminate at either Steveston Highway, Westminster Hwy, Highway 91, or before Oak Street Bridge. I say ending just before Oak Street Bridge is pretty likely.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by libtard

10 lanes over the bridge (5 each direction) but the new interchange for the SFPR has an overpass that will only allow for 3 lanes each direction of hwy 99 MAX. Where will the other 4 lanes (2 each direction) go

I suspect we will see the following:

1. 3 GP lanes NB from U.S. border to KGH;

2. 4th NB HOV lane added at KGH with direct Rapid Bus access to South Surrey Park & Ride akin to new Hwy 1 in Surrey;

3. 4th NB lane dropped/added at new Hwy 17 (SFPR) interchange due to major traffic off-flow/on-flow at that locale akin to new 160th St. interchange on Hwy 1;

4. 5th lane added at new Hwy 17A interchange and dropped off at new Steveston Hwy interchange;

5. 4 lanes to Westminster Hwy/Hwy 91 interchange;

NB from there will be interesting:

1. 3 lanes NB with another 4th lane added from Hwy 91 on-flow and dropped off at Bridgeport Road?

2. HOV lane also terminates at Bridgeport exit?

Unless the Oak Street Bridge will be replaced as a part of systems-wide improvements - Will have to wait and see for Project Definition Report next year.

[jlenko]

Originally Posted by libtard

10 lanes over the bridge (5 each direction) but the new interchange for the SFPR has an overpass that will only allow for 3 lanes each direction of hwy 99 MAX. Where will the other 4 lanes (2 each direction) go

Tear it down and build it bigger... again.

[tybuilding]

Sightline: British Columbia’s Traffic Delusion

The fiscal consequences of failed transportation forecasts can be pretty dire: see, e.g., the $35 to $45 million annual hole that the Golden Ears Bridge is blowing through the lower mainland’s transportation budget, because toll revenues from the bridge aren’t keeping pace with projections, even as bond payments to pay for construction keep coming due.

But has the province actually learned anything from the Golden Ears shortfalls, or the flat-lining of gasoline consumption in the lower mainland, or the failure of its early Port Mann forecasts to line up with forecasts? Apparently not. In fact, they’re doubling down on their risky bet on traffic growth, by moving forward with a costly and aggressive plan to replace the 4-lane George Massey Tunnel with a 10-lane bridge.

Meanwhile developers are salivating about paving over ALR with sprawl: http://www.straight.com/news/497816/deltas-real-estate-market-could-be-set-boom

Here is Gordon's Price's take:

Since the 1950s there have been four elements to every plan collectively agreed on by the local leaders of Metro Vancouver and its predecessors:

A compact region
‘Complete’ communities (or town centres)
More transportation choices (particularly rapid transit)
The green zone (largely the ALR, or Agricultural Land Reserve)
Sustainability, both environmental and economic, has subsequently been added.

Each of these foundations could well crumble in the next few years.

The ALR is under review.
The transit referendum is likely to put transit expansion at risk.
With the announcement of the Massey Bridge, there is a further commitment to massive road infrastructure, resulting in more vehicle-dependence of the fast-growing parts of the region – with more to come (see above) – and the extension of post-war-style sprawl (see Tsawwassen Mills).
Sustainability is being replaced with a ’carbon-transmission’ economic strategy – oil, coal, bitumen and LNG – accompanied by a de-facto abandonment of goals for greenhouse-gas reductions.
If it all happens, the regional plan is irrelevant and the vision is as good as dead.

This is potentially as dramatic a turning point for Metro Vancouver as any in its history – greater, indeed, than the freeway fight. And if the worst unfolds, this generation would be responsible for losing the greatest legacy of the previous generation of local leaders: one hopeful place on the planet where foresight and planning had seemed to make a difference.

The fight to save that vision, however, is just beginning.


The question is do we really want all of this to happen? Do we want to turn to more sprawl or build a city that is livable? Do we value farmland, open space, parks?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Sightline: British Columbia’s Traffic Delusion

You missed the most interesting part of that post - the graphic showing the Port Mann traffic forecasts in the face of declining traffic:


At least the 2007 forecast acknowledged that future traffic would be less than originally anticipated. But look at the 2011 forecast! Despite four more years of substantial declines, they're actually predicting that future levels are going to be more than they originally predicted. And all of this on the back of several years of flat traffic volumes prior to the 2008 recession.

It's not like this pattern in traffic volumes is unique to the Port Mann bridge - you can't say that it was Port Mann congestion that caused this. Exactly the same decline in traffic volumes has been going on all over North America.

And these are the same people who are saying that we need 10 lanes for Massey tunnel replacement. It's madness!

[LeftCoaster]

So replacing an aging underbuilt tunnel automatically causes the ALR to disappear and be paved over?

Good god, talk about fear mongering and running the slippery slope arguement to the bitter end.

Bottom line is the GM tunnel is old and way to small for current use. Argue all you want that 10 lanes is too much and 8 would be better etc... but replacing an aging underbuilt piece of infrastructure is not the same as blasting a new highway through farmland to service exurbs like the most egregious offenders of US/Canadian sububran sprawl.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

So replacing an aging underbuilt tunnel automatically causes the ALR to disappear and be paved over?

Good god, talk about fear mongering and running the slippery slope arguement to the bitter end.

Bottom line is the GM tunnel is old and way to small for current use. Argue all you want that 10 lanes is too much and 8 would be better etc... but replacing an aging underbuilt piece of infrastructure is not the same as blasting a new highway through farmland to service exurbs like the most egregious offenders of US/Canadian sububran sprawl.

But wait... that's arguably simplifying matters as well. A tunnel replacement with a bridge alone is fine by itself, but in this case it remains to be seen as to whether the scope of the project will expand like the PMH1 project to encompass the whole Highway 99 corridor.

If the latter were to become true, then it's likely that the project's effects will be similar to that of building a new highway: commute times will go down, which will entice prospecting land developers to build on them for a profit. Once that land is occupied by families, more cars will be added to roads, congestion is likely a few decades after, we'll eventually be back at where we started, etc.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

So replacing an aging underbuilt tunnel automatically causes the ALR to disappear and be paved over?

Look at the population that the other 10-lane bridge serves. Does the area south of the Massey tunnel look anything like that? If the government is pushing for a 10-lane bridge, then what does that tell you about their intentions for that land?

[LeftCoaster]

Highway 99 linkes directly to I5 so arguably serves a vastly larger population, but that's kind of a stretch.

Bridges are choke points so they are naturally going to be wider that the roads feeding in to them as they operate like a two sided funnel. I have no problem with a 10 lane George Massey, but I would have an issue with a 10 lane 99 on either side. i think of the NEW GMB as a 6 lane bridge for the 99 and with a 4 lane bridge for local traffic.

Also don't be so quick to discount the power of the ALR, you can't just pave over it willy nilly.

[tybuilding]

Also don't be so quick to discount the power of the ALR, you can't just pave over it willy nilly.

It is happening already with Tsawassen Mills, the push for port expansion. No it is not happening willy nilly but it is happening in a big way. The new highways feed the value of those lands for development.

Just because infrastructure is ageing doesn't mean it can't be upgraded. It was done with the Lions Gate. Sure we could of made that a 10 lane crossing but we kept it, upgraded it and it should last for a long time with proper maintenance.

[Steveston]

Hang on, hang on...

Everyone knows Tsawwassen Mills is a special case because of the treaty handing the land over to the TFN, unencumbered by the ALR designation. Unless there are a swarm of additional FN treaties negotiated on farmlands south of the Fraser, the T Mills case is not a precedent which will be repeated in East Delta

Much more concerning, however, are the plans of Port Metro Vancouver and their Terminal 3 expansion plans for Deltaport.