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

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The congestion bubble is just going to get pushed towards the middle again when the GMT gets replaced with a tolled bridge. By single-crossing congestion standards it'll be a success, but it'll be a failure for the system as a whole.

If the Deas Island crossing gets tolled I don't think the Provincial Government is going to have much choice but to amend their tolling policy to include the Alex Fraser and Patullo bridges. And that's the thin edge of the wedge towards a more general road pricing initiative, which is what's really needed to manage traffic.

[dleung]

I rather spend the 3 billion on a subway to UBC, upzone areas already served by transit and use gridlock to discourage the uncontrolled growth south of the fraser. Heck I'd even block off one half of the existing tunnel just for buses and trucks to keep the port running. Yeah, let's see how much suburban sprawl you're gonna get with 1 lane each way. Let's face it, we're never going to "phase in" any kind of mass transit for this crossing - it's 20km of swampland between Richmond Center and Newton.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by dleung

I rather spend the 3 billion on a subway to UBC, upzone areas already served by transit and use gridlock to discourage the uncontrolled growth south of the fraser. Heck I'd even block off one half of the existing tunnel just for buses and trucks to keep the port running. Yeah, let's see how much suburban sprawl you're gonna get with 1 lane each way. Let's face it, we're never going to "phase in" any kind of mass transit for this crossing - it's 20km of swampland between Richmond Center and Newton.

According to the project report, 7000 trucks use the tunnel every day. That traffic needs the route regardless of whether a UBC transit line is built.

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2015/12/GMT-Project-Definition-Report-Dec-2015.pdf

The tunnel needs to be replaced, period. It's inadequate to handle existing traffic and it's unsafe.

[Gordon]

The gMB & associated highway expansion should include at least BRT infrastructure If not some sort of rail transit.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Jebby

According to the project report, 7000 trucks use the tunnel every day. That traffic needs the route regardless of whether a UBC transit line is built.

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2015/12/GMT-Project-Definition-Report-Dec-2015.pdf

The tunnel needs to be replaced, period. It's inadequate to handle existing traffic and it's unsafe.

It's inadequate to handle existing traffic when existing traffic is contingent on their being no cost to use the tunnel. We're building a toll bridge and that means that traffic today is not traffic tomorrow.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Gordon

The gMB & associated highway expansion should include at least BRT infrastructure If not some sort of rail transit.

If you look at the documents provided it looks like that may be exactly what is being done.

They show transit only ramps from the north end of the project (south end of Oak Street Bridge) directly accessing Birdgeport Station, and potentially centre median bus stops at the north and south ends of the bridge structure (akin to the I-5 in Seattle).

People should actually look at the documents before judging.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

It's inadequate to handle existing traffic when existing traffic is contingent on their being no cost to use the tunnel. We're building a toll bridge and that means that traffic today is not traffic tomorrow.

Simply slapping tolls on an aging / seismically unsafe structure with a severely outdated design regarding traffic flow and access (no room for pedestrians or bikes / narrow lanes ) will resolves very few of the problems associated with it.

Now, that being said, putting tolls on the bridge and the resulting change in traffic patterns does suggest that an 8 lane replacement may be superior to a 10 lane replacement.

Also, the tolling structure on highways and bridges needs to be completely re-done in Metro Vancouver. IMO all controlled access roads should have distant based tolls, and at the end of the year tax returns can be given to low income earners.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Gordon

The gMB & associated highway expansion should include at least BRT infrastructure If not some sort of rail transit.

Yup - that's what's being done. HOV lanes, bus ramp and "integrated" bus stations in 2 interchanges.

[GlassCity]

I'm curious to see the lengths of the lanes that will be bus only vs. HOV

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I'm curious to see the lengths of the lanes that will be bus only vs. HOV

The only thing I see is: "Construct dedicated transit/HOV lanes between Bridgeport Road in Richmond and Highway 91 in Delta".

I don't drive along the #1 during rush hour, but I feel like HOV as a concept is a bit of a failure. It's something you'll use if you happen to have a passenger, but not really something that is planned around.

That being said, if shared autonomous vehicles are a reality, the HOV will be suddenly busy.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The only thing I see is: "Construct dedicated transit/HOV lanes between Bridgeport Road in Richmond and Highway 91 in Delta".

I don't drive along the #1 during rush hour, but I feel like HOV as a concept is a bit of a failure. It's something you'll use if you happen to have a passenger, but not really something that is planned around.

That being said, if shared autonomous vehicles are a reality, the HOV will be suddenly busy.

Yeah, I agree, though I do still think it's useful in the way that it's fairer to let more efficient cars have more space, just as the rationale for transit-only infrastructure goes.

And yeah, whether it's HOV or transit-only will realistically not have any effect on transit speed on the corridor. I just like the symbolism of transit-only infrastructure I guess

[officedweller]

I think the only "Bus Only" part will be at the integrated bus stations and at the Bridgeport ramp.
HOVers will have to merge back to the general lanes at that point.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think the only "Bus Only" part will be at the integrated bus stations and at the Bridgeport ramp.
HOVers will have to merge back to the general lanes at that point.

That's an unnecessary merge point. Hopefully the bus ramps will be additional lanes instead.

[officedweller]

I think northbound near Bridgeport, an additional lane will form for the bus off-ramp, (like at Government Rd.) but HOVers will have to merge back into the general purpose lane since Oak St. Bridge is only 2 lanes.

Approaching the Bridgeport interchange, northbound I would see 4 lanes (HOV, GP, GP, On-Ramp) - HOV + GP merge and GP + On-Ramp merge to form 2 lanes on Oak St. Bridge. The bus ramp would fly up and over.

Southbound, the bus on-ramp would start the HOV and other HOVers could merge in.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's an unnecessary merge point. Hopefully the bus ramps will be additional lanes instead.

Yes, the bus ramps and bays are a lane over from the HOV lanes. HOV vehicles will be able to fly past on the right. buses will then merge back into the HOV lane.

Very similar concept to what's on I-5 north of Seattle.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Yes, the bus ramps and bays are a lane over from the HOV lanes. HOV vehicles will be able to fly past on the right. buses will then merge back into the HOV lane.
Very similar concept to what's on I-5 north of Seattle.

So finally we begin to catch on after 40 years or more, already. Shheesh.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by dleung

...and use gridlock to discourage the uncontrolled growth south of the fraser.

Growth South of Fraser (and throughout the Fraser Valley for that matter) is already heavily restricted by ALR. As long as growth SoF is taking place in the form of densification, it shouldn't be seen as an issue.

Most land that isn't ALR is already developed to some degree, so I think we'll be seeing a lot of additional density over the next 30 years.

What I'd like to see is some sort of (variable based on congestion) High Occupancy Toll lane set up on all the freeways in and around Metro Vancouver. Most commuters aren't going to pay the toll, so they'll sit in traffic as they do now, and hopefully reconsider their choice of transportation. On the other hand, commuters who carpool, buses, emergency vehicles, and people making other important trips (in which case it makes economic sense to pay the toll) will see large efficiency gains and time savings.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

What I'd like to see is some sort of (variable based on congestion) High Occupancy Toll lane set up on all the freeways in and around Metro Vancouver. Most commuters aren't going to pay the toll, so they'll sit in traffic as they do now, and hopefully reconsider their choice of transportation. On the other hand, commuters who carpool, buses, emergency vehicles, and people making other important trips (in which case it makes economic sense to pay the toll) will see large efficiency gains and time savings.

The last thing metro Vancouver needs are two tier roads. We've already chased off most of the working and middle class.

[urbancanadian]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

So finally we begin to catch on after 40 years or more, already. Shheesh.

Trofirhen, the integrated bus station on I-5 is relatively new and is the only one in Seattle. There are a couple more under construction (they may have just opened) on SR 520, which are quite nice. Unfortunately, these maps are out of date.

Evergreen Point Freeway Station

Yarrow & Clyde Hill Freeway Station

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Pinion

The last thing metro Vancouver needs are two tier roads. We've already chased off most of the working and middle class.

As long as no one is made worse off, why would it matter? For that condition to be met, the toll lanes would simply have to be created by adding capacity, rather than converting existing lanes.

Working class people wouldn't be affected negatively. They'd actually benefit on the odd occasion they really need to get somewhere in a timely matter. Even if you don't use the tolls lanes and prefer to sit in traffic 99% of the time, it's nice to have the option. It would also be beneficial for high priority business deliveries.

Then there's the question of where the toll revenue goes. If it goes towards improving highways for everyone, or even better, towards improving transit, then even people who can't afford to use the lanes benefit. It's a win-win. If the rich are willing to pay a significant amount of money to bypass traffic, all the more power to them. Especially if it means they are effectively subsidizing transit users.