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

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Genauso

The only people who use the terminology NoF and SoF are people that are arguing for Surrey, but wanting to hide it.

Langley is too far to have the same transportation interest. White Rock is closer to Delta and Richmond in patterns than Surrey. Burnaby and Coquitlam are NoF but in very different camps than Vancouver, UBC, North Van, West Van. If you wanted to segment, I'd say #of hours/minutes spent on a given Hwy during a normal weekday.

It's used both sides not just by people in Surrey. Like I have been pointing out, when we talk transportation the SoF and NoF 'thou shalt not pass' line becomes pretty ridiculous. We're a region it's that simple and we cross the river back and fourth. We need good flow both directions across that river as it benefits both sides equally.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I don't know what that is trying to prove. If that does happen, that tolls keep people away from the tunnel, what does that imply? That that many people would give up working in Vancouver? Because thousands of homes won't suddenly come into existence at affordable prices in CoV. Less traffic means less intercity commerce. How is it good for Vancouver to tell those people to fuck off and stay on their side of the river?

I think he is saying there is a lot of traffic through the tunnel bound for Richmond. Many jobs and industry over the last decade have moved from Vancouver to Richmond. So people still go through the tunnel but not all the way to Vancouver.

Also, when I used to go through the tunnel in the AM peak, there would be a lineup of container trucks from Steveston to past Blundel, waiting for their turn in the one lane. A climbing lane would be greatly appreciated.

Not just Richmond. Tilbury/Annacis (Delta) and Port Kells (Surrey) also. There is also industry in Burnaby too but that is more centered regionally around the Pattullo and Port Mann bridges. You also have a shift in cargo. Most cargo went in and out of Burrard Inlet through the Vancouver docks. Now most goes in and out of Roberts Bank (Delta) and Surrey Fraser Docks (Surrey).

Now combined that with the fact our largest regional airport is in Richmond and many of the logistics companies like FedEx for example have moved their warehouses to Surrey, that also means goods coming in-out of the airport need to travel to the distribution centers in Surrey. That means they need to cross either the tunnel (non dangerous goods) or the AFB (dangerous goods) to get out to near the Surrey Fraser docks.

It's just crazy now much truck and train traffic is out this way and travelling across the Fraser River today compared to 20 years ago. And that's just goods to and from our ports! That doesn't take into account getting from distribution centers to actual retail and commercial locations. Or heck residential locations. Look at how the world has shifted to people buying online more now. Well you go and buy something from Amazon.ca where do you think it comes from? International -> Plane to Richmond -> Truck to Surrey Distribution -> Truck to your home.

[WarrenC12]

Many of these points are good. It all bolsters the argument that Transportation of all types should ideally be governed by Metro Vancouver, and managed the way sewers and water are. Everybody needs it, money has to come from somewhere, and it needs to be managed as a whole instead of bickering and infighting.

Cities need to be on the same page in terms of smart planning, or pay the price if they want to build cul-de-sacs and complicated subdivisions.

The province needs to butt-out of the picture if all they are going to do is announce billion dollar projects on one side for votes, and punish other areas for what I can only assume is political reasons.

[officedweller]

Article from the Richmond News regarding some land acquisition to widen Hwy 99 between Blundell Rd and Steveston Hwy (behind the religious institutions along No. 5 Rd.):

http://www.richmond-news.com/city-hall/e...bs-over-farmland-premier-clark-1.2087707

Excerpts on project status from the City of Richmond report.
I wonder what the 3-level Steveston Interchange would look like?
I suppose that would require some traffic lights on Steveston Hwy.


http://www.richmond.ca/agendafiles/Open_Council_10-13-2015.pdf


http://www.richmond.ca/agendafiles/Open_Council_10-13-2015.pdf

[Mininari]

Wow, very little information coming out of this project, and its highlighted within the above posts by numerous instances where the project team is unable to clarify things, etc. The above-noted project definition report due out by the end of the year will be the first big unveiling, as it was for the Gateway Program. I'm sure there will be a few 'extra' elements included that may not be built intitally (like the C/D system between Grandview Hwy and Douglas, and the 216 interchange). The real interesting stuff will be when the preliminary designs are released for the various interchanges, etc.

Without a doubt, the 'North Scope' being Hwy 91 is a huge red flag for the traffic implications at the Oak Street Bridge. The political 'hot potato' of increasing 'lanes of traffic' into the City of Vancouver will be tossed around while the Province builds it's megabridge and makes the Fraser Navigable for bigger, heavier ships.

I wonder what the potential for protestors dogging the EA process and initial construction will be. That would coincide with the BC Prov. election in 2017...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Mininari

I wonder what the potential for protestors dogging the EA process and initial construction will be. That would coincide with the BC Prov. election in 2017...

I think the protests could be similar to Gateway, which had some media attention, but was really a small group. I guess it depends how much ALR or farmland is being absorbed by this project.

I think the biggest questions will be around funding and tolling projections. If the PMB is still bleeding heavily, that could become a significant issue with this crossing as well.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Without a doubt, the 'North Scope' being Hwy 91 is a huge red flag for the traffic implications at the Oak Street Bridge. The political 'hot potato' of increasing 'lanes of traffic' into the City of Vancouver will be tossed around while the Province builds it's megabridge and makes the Fraser Navigable for bigger, heavier ships.
...

I think that's a good thing - as it would help distribute traffic to the Knight St. Bridge (although that's a TransLink bridge).

I thought the retention of the tunnels ends, in place, was odd.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

lets just hope this is the interchange they plan on building. the DCMI (Double Crossover Merging Interchange)

[Stingray2004]

Nice find OD. Surprised at how little info has been released to date.

A couple of things pop out:

1. The original northern limit of the project was at Bridgeport Road at the Oak Street bridgehead. Looks like they moved it further south and then now further north again to Hwy 91.

Suspect that down the road that a 1957-era Oak Street Bridge replacement project will also include the remaining section from Hwy 91 northward.

2. The City of Richmond has always favoured a Blundell Road interchange and a previous design was also in place. Now it appears the CoR seems to be balking for whatever reason;

3. Also wonder if a direct connection from Hwy 99 to the end of the Knight Fwy will be considered.

And yes, the retention of the tunnel ends is a strange twist. Perhaps a lasting momento of same?!

[crazyjoeda]

A direct connection to the Knight St. Bridge would be a good idea, but that bridge is very congested as it is. My concern with the Massey Tunnel replacement project is that it won't alleviate traffic congestion since there will still be bottle necks at the Oak and Knight Street bridges and this project is likely to make traffic congestion even worse.

I'd like to see a new bridge at Boundary Road, which would relieve congestion from the Knight and Queensborough bridges and provide a relatively quick connection between highways 99/91 and highway 1.

This should be funded by a compressive regional tolling scheme with variable congestion pricing on all major bridges in Metro Vancouver.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

A direct connection to the Knight St. Bridge would be a good idea, but that bridge is very congested as it is. My concern with the Massey Tunnel replacement project is that it won't alleviate traffic congestion since there will still be bottle necks at the Oak and Knight Street bridges and this project is likely to make traffic congestion even worse.

I'd like to see a new bridge at Boundary Road, which would relieve congestion from the Knight and Queensborough bridges and provide a relatively quick connection between highways 99/91 and highway 1.

This should be funded by a compressive regional tolling scheme with variable congestion pricing on all major bridges in Metro Vancouver.

A bridge at Boundary wouldn't make much difference for Massey tunnel / bridge traffic as they'd have to backtrack to get to it - unless Richmond really wants to have a new highway across farmland...

Where it would make a difference would be for Alex Fraser traffic as it would be a fairly direct route from there. Some traffic from the SFPR would use it if they're close to the Alex Fraser - otherwise they'll just stick with the Massey and the Oak / Knight St bridges.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

A direct connection to the Knight St. Bridge would be a good idea, but that bridge is very congested as it is. My concern with the Massey Tunnel replacement project is that it won't alleviate traffic congestion since there will still be bottle necks at the Oak and Knight Street bridges and this project is likely to make traffic congestion even worse.

I'd like to see a new bridge at Boundary Road, which would relieve congestion from the Knight and Queensborough bridges and provide a relatively quick connection between highways 99/91 and highway 1.

This should be funded by a compressive regional tolling scheme with variable congestion pricing on all major bridges in Metro Vancouver.

If the bridge is a 10 lane structure I feel it will not add much more congestion north on Oak and Knight if it is built similar to the PMB with a CD system.

If 4 of the 10 lanes are for local / on off traffic (via a C/D) then that leaves only 6 through lanes. 2 of those through lanes should be HOV / Bus lanes leaving only 4 through general highway lanes on the new bridge.

I feel this is the best option for removing a major bottle neck without making a new one.

I also agree with tolling throughout the region. Again, this should be a distant based toll system charged on all controlled access highways in the region.

[libtard]

There will not be a collector/distributor system in place

Northbound: 2 lanes for 99 traffic, 2 lanes coming from 17A flyover onto the bridge, 1 lane for HOV

Why is that so hard to understand?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by libtard

There will not be a collector/distributor system in place

Northbound: 2 lanes for 99 traffic, 2 lanes coming from 17A flyover onto the bridge, 1 lane for HOV

Why is that so hard to understand?

I didnt realize you were part of the design team for this project.

Please tell us more of your inside info.

Also, always a nice tone in your posts

[urbancanadian]

Originally Posted by libtard

There will not be a collector/distributor system in place

Northbound: 2 lanes for 99 traffic, 2 lanes coming from 17A flyover onto the bridge, 1 lane for HOV

Why is that so hard to understand?

I think you're taking the flythrough video they made way too literally. That video was a very rough concept.

With regards to the lack of information, I've been following the local city council reports on the project for a while now. It seems like they have been asking for a looong time now for some sort of information, but the Province is just not giving anything to the local municipalities. Every time there is a "project update", there is next to zero new info to give. It's usually only about how the "extent" of the project has changed slightly. This has been by far the largest update so far, and it's not much.

Personally, I think it's very irresponsible to keep the local governments in the dark like this. Like how are they supposed to plan for what is to come? Weren't we told this was going to be the most transparent government in all of Canada?

[WarrenC12]

I thought it had already been shown much of the traffic going North into Richmond never makes it as far as Oak St?

In rush hour, the GMT is far, far busier than Oak St, and both are 4 lanes.

Looking at a map, anybody using the GMT then accessing 91 East in Richmond is taking a really inefficient route. I can't see that happening much. They are far better off just taking the SFPR.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I thought it had already been shown much of the traffic going North into Richmond never makes it as far as Oak St?

In rush hour, the GMT is far, far busier than Oak St, and both are 4 lanes.

Well, evening rush hour NB from Richmond into Van City sees considerable back-ups along the Knight St. Bridge/Fwy due to the considerable traffic on the 2 on-ramps at Bridgeport Rd.

Even back in the 1990's (according to MOTI studies) the Knight Street Bridge was to be expanded to 6-lanes. Will be required eventually with the growing metro population.

Similar withe the 1957-era Oak St. Bridge. Will also likely be replaced with a new structure. A "stand-alone" project". Likely still a couple of decades out methinks.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

Personally, I think it's very irresponsible to keep the local governments in the dark like this. Like how are they supposed to plan for what is to come? Weren't we told this was going to be the most transparent government in all of Canada?

Yeah. But that's a political statement. Not an analytical statement. Look forward to the Project Definition Report myself apparently within the next few months.

PS. Burnaby was not at all interested in the Hwy 1 Project Definition Report both pre and subsequent FWIW. In any event, it's a MoTI project. That's how the real world works.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

And yes, the retention of the tunnel ends is a strange twist. Perhaps a lasting momento of same?!

I'm wondering if the removal of the tunnel ends, after construction of the bridge, might destabilize the footings for the bridge towers (if the bridge towers will straddle the existing tunnel alignment)?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by libtard

There will not be a collector/distributor system in place

Northbound: 2 lanes for 99 traffic, 2 lanes coming from 17A flyover onto the bridge, 1 lane for HOV

Why is that so hard to understand?

your name is quite fitting for what i have seen of your posts. haha. so condescending and you seem to know it all and yet you are from the USA. im sure you know all about how British Columbia does/plans on doing things.

Originally Posted by officedweller

I'm wondering if the removal of the tunnel ends, after construction of the bridge, might destabilize the footings for the bridge towers (if the bridge towers will straddle the existing tunnel alignment)?

well they were citing environmental things in the report that i saw posted earlier. sounds like a way to save money by not needing to do some remediation. i don't know if the tunnel would impact the bridge piers since the tunnel isn't very deep but the bridge would need to go to bedrock.