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

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Great news that they will be taking the 10 lane approach. It will be enough for the next 100 years. 8 lanes might become congested when the population increases by 1 million. Just look at the new 8-lane Highway 1 and how full of cars it is every morning already now.

Widening the bridge will not prevent or even reduce this kind of congestion. If the bridge is successful, it will make this congestion worse everywhere but on the bridge, and eventually the 10 lanes will be just as useless as 8 lanes. If the bridge is unsuccessful a la the Port Mann, the congestion elsewhere will stay the same and the tolls will not recoup the cost of the 10 lane build. Immediate widening is a lose lose.

[officedweller]

It could just be that logistically, in order to straddle the tunnel, the tower footings (and accompanying pile-driving, etc.) need to be X distance from the tunnel so as not to destabilize it - and that accommodates 10 lanes.

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

The part I bolded is giving me some problems. Does this mean the only upgrade to the rest of the highway, is going to be extended hov lanes? While this is great, I would feel more then a little disappointed if they didnt add at least one general purpose lane in each direction as well. If they dont I fear it will be another 60 years before they do so.

Hopefully I am just misunderstanding what I read.

You aren't misunderstanding. More general purpose lanes arent needed. The right decision is being made on this. What doesn't make sense is adding an extra all purpose lane in each direction on the bridge at the same time.

The bridge is not the bottleneck; the access points on and off the bridge (ie the interchanges and more specifically the roads leading to them) are in fact the real bottleneck (see the knight St bridge situation). Adding extra bridge lanes doesn't get rid of the bottlenecks and in fact through induced car mode share increases makes the bottlenecks worse, leading to a need for road widening everywhere in order to accommodate an ever increasing demand. Widening the bridge feeds into this cycle; adding hov bus lanes cuts back against it.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

You aren't misunderstanding. More general purpose lanes arent needed. The right decision is being made on this. What doesn't make sense is adding an extra all purpose lane in each direction on the bridge at the same time.

The bridge is not the bottleneck; the access points on and off the bridge (ie the interchanges and more specifically the roads leading to them) are in fact the real bottleneck (see the knight St bridge situation). Adding extra bridge lanes doesn't get rid of the bottlenecks and in fact through induced car mode share increases makes the bottlenecks worse, leading to a need for road widening everywhere in order to accommodate an ever increasing demand. Widening the bridge feeds into this cycle; adding hov bus lanes cuts back against it.

When you say bridge I'm going to assume you actually mean tunnel. I'm sorry but I have to disagree. The tunnel is absolutely the bottleneck. Five or six lanes into one, is the very definition of bottleneck, in my opinion. I do agree with you to a point though. Many of the highway interchanges belong in a third world country, and a total rebuild/redesign of them could make drastic improvements to traffic flow. If they do not add an extra general purpose lane I feel they are squandering an opportunity, and wasting money as it will have to happen eventually might as well do it when there is all ready going to be a huge construction proiject happening, and its associated delays.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by officedweller

It could just be that logistically, in order to straddle the tunnel, the tower footings (and accompanying pile-driving, etc.) need to be X distance from the tunnel so as not to destabilize it - and that accommodates 10 lanes.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Likely this is the reason why we will get 2 extra lanes "on the side". It is overall quite interesting concept that they will build the bridge on top of the tunnel and not next to it. I wonder what kinf of precautions they have to take to make sure nothing falls on the tunnel and floods it. Will be interesting to watch for sure!

I know this is controversial topic but the tunnel has to be replaced. There is no alternative. And it makes sense to built it future-proof. I cannot see traffic amounts keep reducing if the population is going to be growing by 33%.

Also, please give Port Mann Bridge a break already. It is there and will stay there forever. People have already forgot what a bottleneck it used to be and the rant is all about the toll.

[Metro-One]

The tunnel and its abutting interchanges are the problem, luckily both will be replaced with this project.

I am happy with the 10 lanes, given that 1 will be HOV and another will be "slow vehicles" (AKA truck lane). I think 3 general purpose each way is justifiable.

I wonder if 2 general purpose lanes, one slow vehicle lane, 1 HOV / Bus lane, and one C/D lane would be a better way to go?

As for the entire alignment of the highway, I would be happy with just a proposer HOV lane being built for the entire length.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

The bridge is not the bottleneck; the access points on and off the bridge (ie the interchanges and more specifically the roads leading to them) are in fact the real bottleneck (see the knight St bridge situation).

If the Knight Street bridge had three lanes then traffic joining the bridge via the on-ramps at either end wouldn't have to immediately merge and it would significantly improve flow on the bridge. The choke point might then move to intersections that feed those ramps, but right now that's not where the bottleneck is.

If the Massey Tunnel is truly at end-of-life then I accept that it needs to be replaced. But the Port Mann bridge should stand as a stark warning about traffic projections and tolling revenue. I believe the new bridge should be tolled because that provides a way to control congestion - but if it's tolled then it won't need 10 lanes. It never will because when congestion becomes an issue the tolls can simply be raised in order to divert traffic elsewhere.

This is why I'm so incensed that regional transit improvements are subject to a referendum while all these highway improvements aren't. Congestion management through tolling works, but only if you provide commuters with a reasonable alternative.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i would really like for the HOV lane to be down the middle with its own ramps like the new #1. that would be way better then the side lanes they have now.

i also think for Steveston Highway they should build this type of interchange. it would greatly improve traffic flow. the Double Crossover Merging Interchange (DCMI)
http://www.dcmiinterchange.com/


source wikipedia

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

Widening the bridge will not prevent or even reduce this kind of congestion. If the bridge is successful, it will make this congestion worse everywhere but on the bridge, and eventually the 10 lanes will be just as useless as 8 lanes. If the bridge is unsuccessful a la the Port Mann, the congestion elsewhere will stay the same and the tolls will not recoup the cost of the 10 lane build. Immediate widening is a lose lose.

Hilarious. They could eliminate the ALR, fill in Burns Bog and build condos all the way to the border and a 10 lane bridge will still be a good idea. Might need another one, in fact!

[WarrenC12]

Any news on the total cost as well? I'd say this is more complex than the PMB, maybe $1.5B when all is said and done.

Just to give some perspective:

GMT daily traffic, 2014: 79,105 (was 85,284 in 2005)
AFB daily traffic, 2014: 107,785 (was 97,863 in 2005)
PMB daily traffic, 2015: 108,500 (was 122,040 in 2005) - different source for 2015 traffic

So the question here is... where is all of this traffic going to come from to require 10 lanes? Or more importantly, what is the cost difference to go 10 instead of 8.

[Metro-One]

I still think 8 would be ideal (2 of them being HOV / Bus lanes).

I guess the Port wont get its 64 meter high wish? Seems okay to me, unless they are willing to pay the extra cost.

[Chikinlittle]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Of course, as populations have increased the traffic has decreased, from a peak of 85284 per day in 2005 to 79105 per day in 2014 [source]

The Golden Ears Bridge was drastically overbuilt. The Port Mann Bridge was drastically overbuilt. And now we're going to drastically overbuild the Massey Bridge? Meanwhile people will be pissed off at paying tolls to cross it, and those tolls will have to last longer than anticipated because traffic volumes won't hit projected targets (just like the GEB and PMB).

They should do the same thing they're planning with the Pattullo Bridge: don't build the biggest possible bridge from the start, but build a smaller bridge that can be easily expanded if the traffic volumes require it.

But I guess the difference is that this is a provincial bridge, and nobody really gives a shit about how much money they blow on over-building bridges, whereas TransLink is corrupt and wasteful and can't budget worth shit, right?

Exactly... over-build roads and bridges and under-build (or event prevent from building at all) rapid transit.

[Metro-One]

I love the relative experiences of people, if there is one thing that you cannot accuse BC of doing in general that is "overbuilding roads and bridges."

I am not like ssiguy or others who rant that BC has the worst highways in the universe etc... (we actually now have some pretty good highways and a decent collection of bridges), that being said, we are very far from being "overbuilt." We are still largely playing catch up.

Also, while I agree that transit funding should have never gone to a plebiscite, and that we do need to get moving on building more skytrain, I would not call our transit system under-built relatively speaking (having 4 metro lines for a metro of 2.5 million is actually pretty good / standard around the world and amazing for NA).

The Canada line has its problems, but in general I feel it was a fantastic addition to our transit network (and superior to the numerous at grade projects around the continent). The Evergreen Line is now u/c and it is by no means an "under-built" project.

Metro-Vancouver will be at its best with a well developed transit and road system, and in a region criss crossed with river deltas and fiords, well, massive bridges just become part of the game. Not to mention important north/south and east/west corridors criss cross the metro. having one of the largest ports in NA also adds pressure for tip top roads and rail.

So, I hate the either or approach.

Yes, the plebiscite should have never happened, but just because it did doesn't mean we should also handy-cap any road expansion as well. Instead of pulling roads down, transit should be propped up.

Trust me, I dream of having a new GM Bridge and highway 99 interchanges, but I also dream of a Broadway subway and skytrain out to Langley in the Fraser Valley. A couple more commuter rails would also be nice on my Christmas wish list.

[GeeCee]

Clearly we should tear down all our infrastructure and replace it with pedestrian pathways and bike lanes!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I love the relative experiences of people, if there is one thing that you cannot accuse BC of doing in general that is "overbuilding roads and bridges."

In the past, no. Certainly the original PMB and the GMT were underbuilt. The 2nd Narrows, Patullo and AFB you could argue were underbuilt, or you could argue that the planners at the time thought additional crossings would be built when they were required.

But today, you could easily argue the GEB and PMB were overbuilt. They were built based on financial and volume projections that simply aren't happening, and they are bleeding money that could otherwise be used for other infrastructure projects.

Now there is a proposal to build another bridge with extremely high capacity, but without any evidence to back up the necessity.

We can always build bigger and wider, but there's only one taxpayer and one pile of money.

[Metro-One]

IMO the Alex Fraser was not under built, 6 lanes is just right for a secondary crossing (the 91/99 to me are secondary highways in importance).

The GEB at only 6 lanes was not overbuilt, it has been wisely future proofed. From the start I knew those projections were overestimates, yet 6 lanes was still the way to go (building any major link with 4 lanes is a waste of money IMO, it is akin to building surface LRT along key corridors where a true metro would be the wiser choice). 4 general purpose lanes and 2 HOV / Bus lanes is also okay. In the future if it is ever warranted to have a rapid bus connecting Maple Ridge / Pitt Meadows to Langley and Surrey, well, the infrastructure is already there to do so.

The PMB you can argue either way, but given that it is the #1 road in all of BC over the #1 crossing and it acts as both a regional bridge and local bridge via the C/D system (only 6 lanes are true freeway through lanes) overbuilding a little is justifiable IMO.

Having your bottle necks (around the world bridges are almost always bottlenecks) a little over built than under built is a good thing.

I agree that a 10 lane GMT bridge is a little overbuilt and 8 lanes is my preferable option. That being said, I wonder how much more it really is to add 2 extra lanes to a structure that is already 8 lanes wide.

The #1 and the 99 are our regions two main road corridors, so having some beefy bridges on them is okay for me. All other secondary corridors with major bridge crossings are fine with 6 lane wide bridges (99/91/Lougheed/GEW, etc...). Obviously tertiary roads are fine with 2 and 4 lanes bridges.

[WarrenC12]

Based on my numbers above it seems like 80k/day is the theoretical "max" for a 4 lane crossing, like the GMT.

For comparison, GEB is lucky to hit 30k/day today. So we're talking a 400% increase to around 120k/day before it is "maxxed out".

[s211]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

Clearly we should tear down all our infrastructure and replace it with pedestrian pathways and bike lanes!

Geoff? Geoff Meggs? Is that you?

[Klazu]

I think both Golden Ears Bridge and Port Mann Bridge would be much more popular if there wouldn't be tolls (like there one day won't be). People are just so cheap and I have to admit that I also don't take GEB because of the tolls and as a result Pitt River Bridge is always very busy.

I don't think GEB is going to feel overbuilt in the future when Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge grow past 100k and Surrey becomes the de facto second center in region. Latter may still take 20 years to happen, but it eventually will, driving more traffic on GEB.

Alex Fraser Bridge has enough lanes but the problems is the approaches and the fact that the bridge is very steep climb for trucks, slowing the rightmost lanes down to crawling speed. A new wide George Massey Bridge will definitely help, but the traffic won't balance between these two crossings when one of them is going to be tolled. They both should be tolled once the new bridge opens.

[GMasterAres]

Pattullo bridge will be built full width. They are just going to paint the lines to be 4 lanes to start to make everyone happy. It will be a 6 lane wide bridge though don't kid yourself.

Under building infrastructure is far more costly than over building in my experience. Case and point the intersection before the Queensborough bridge they had to turn into an interchange. Or the SFPR intersections or 72nd avenue on 91. Those aren't even bridges but when they build the interchange for Queensborough or when they go to build them on the SFPR it is going to cost the taxpayer way more on money and time than if it would have been "overengineered" and they built them from the get go.

Yah have to do full construction to route the highway traffic around the interchange then build the interchange then deconstruct the bypass. That's 3 full construction projects instead of just 1.

Same deal with a bridge. If they built an 8 lane bridge with expansion to 10 it would cost far more than building a 10 lane bridge to start. I'm sure of it.