Roads Fantasy Thread

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

xd_1771, please relax. There's no point in fuming about criticism that may be valid or otherwise.

(btw I know it's been awhile since that post was made but I still find the language of it somewhat over-reactionary.)

He obviously didn't even bother looking at my design at all which is outrageous
I've worked on a new revision of it that addresses some issues anyway:

Key changes:

• Lougheed overpasses rather than everything else, this might be a bit easier
• Certain things such as yield/merge lanes, right turn lanes use less space
• New left turn movement from Brunette westbound > Lougheed eastbound allows for that missing Blue Mountain -> 1 eastbound (via Lougheed) movement.

How Lougheed/Brunette would be detoured during construction (rough concept for now):

[Millennium2002]

I still highly doubt that any overpass will survive poking its way through Malliardville. Even the current plan will wreak destruction and havoc on the little place... and I expect very high opposition as a result. Can you try something else... e.g. a simplified road realignment or something like that? =S

Also, he probably did take a look as he wouldn't have commented otherwise. Frankly I also find access to IKEA to be more indirect with your method than what exists right now.

[xd_1771]

I worry that an alternate but more indirect route as opposed to an overpass (i.e. following the Route 7 construction detour route somewhat) would plow through even more businesses and homes than this does, or result in just another new and even worse "confusion corner". Though an overpass goes through Mallardville in my plan, many existing developments stay. In addition, the highway and the community below are more separated, which can prove to be beneficial in some things such as safety for pedestrians. Remember, Highway 7 through this area is used very heavily and there are plenty of turn movements - it is also a fairly high speed route both to the west and east.Perhaps a cut-and-cover underpass/tunnel would be an option to consider instead of an overpass, if ever? IKEA access may be more indirect coming from some directions, but it's still there and if well signed should work just fine.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

He obviously didn't even bother looking at my design at all which is outrageous
I've worked on a new revision of it that addresses some issues anyway:

Key changes:

• Lougheed overpasses rather than everything else, this might be a bit easier
• Certain things such as yield/merge lanes, right turn lanes use less space
• New left turn movement from Brunette westbound > Lougheed eastbound allows for that missing Blue Mountain -> 1 eastbound (via Lougheed) movement.

How Lougheed/Brunette would be detoured during construction (rough concept for now):

I obviously DID look at your designs, as my criticisms are those that any remotely rational person would have after looking at them. I did point out that there is NO WAY to go from Blue Mountain to EB #1, which you admitted to. So I obviously looked at them from a perspective you never did.

At least with your new idea you are giving some thought to the construction process. The problem though is your routing for the detoured Lougheed Highway (and then future Roderick) rips through the corner of a new Condo Building at the corner of Blue Mountain and Roderick. Do you actually propose that you tear down that building? What about the other residential and commercial properties that front onto Roderick Ave? With your ramps and turn lanes, the properties between Lougheed and Roderick are 100% inaccessible, so they may as well be empty. Places like Woodys' and French Quarter are already hard to access, but impossible with the Lougheed routed around them like that. Also, with Woolridge going over Lougheed, and Blue Mountain becoming a major road, who do you access Sherwood? And business access to commercial properties on Tupper Ave now have to take the long way, through a residential neighborhood. As well, I'm not sure you accurately grasp the distance you need for Woolridge to go over Lougheed, that is going to be one steep ramp from Ikea.

My other original complaint was that nothing made up for the fact that Brunette didn't go through. One of the heaviest travel patterns is from Brunette through, passing over #1. Your design completely marginalizes the through traffic. Yes, there is North Road, but it almost dead ends in residential New Westminster at Braid and doesn't conveniently connect with the NFPR. But what I was talking about wasn't for traffic from Burquitlam to New Westminster, I was talking about traffic from Eastern Coquitlam (or as I call it: MOST OF COQUITLAM) to New Westminster, the NFPR, and the Pattullo.

For example, lets say you are coming from the Pattullo or NFPR (Columbia/Front) and heading to South Eastern Coquitlam. You are reduced to ONE lane, which is an exit, then immediate merge at what is the most confusing intersection I have seen, then travel through some more intersections before you get to where you would have been with the current roads. Brunette is a major local road, and you have replaced a straight, direct through route with a confusing system of turns and exits and merges. Same in the other direction. There is no direct through road from Southern Coquitlam to New Westminster.

It's also making Braid more busy. To get from that end of New Westminster to Coquitlam, drivers will have to go through heavy industrial land and contend with trucks making turns and trains making movements.

And I don't know if that improves traffic flow like you claim. In your revised design, all traffic to and from the #1 and the NFPR still have to go through very major intersections. SO I don't see the point of building huge overpasses and elevated roadways if you are still going to have major choke points where traffic has to make A LOT of turns. It's spending a lot of money and destroying a neighborhood for very little gain.

If you are coming from Ikea to Pattullo, you still need to travel through 4 intersections. Even if you are gong from the Ikea to the #1 WB, you travel through 3 intersections, instead of the 2 you do now. If you are coming off #1 and onto Brunette, to continue on Brunette you have to travel through 3 intersections, instead of 1, plus you need to do some MAJOR weaving with traffic coming off Lougheed onto Blue Mountain. If you are coming down Blue Mountain to #1 WB, you still need to traverse 2 major intersections, instead of the 1.5 you do now. From Lougheed EB to #1 WB, now you make 2 right turns, with your design you will have to make a left, right, then right.

The only routing that is improved is from #1 WB to NFPR WB, and NFPR EB to #1 EB. Almost every other travel pattern is worse off, or just as bad as it is now. Yes, you have a few overpasses that replace intersections, but you just create new major intersections down the road. You are only moving the current problem at Lougheed & Brunette to Blue Mountain & Brunette, Blue Mountain & Roderick and Lougheed & Roderick, and destroying properties in the process.

I'm also confused as to the design around United Blvd and Braid. Just what roads go over the others? To me it looks like they change, and there is no room for them to make that much vertical movement in the amount of space you use. Either Blue Mountain has to skyrocket up and over #1 then dive down and under the NFPR #1 ramps to the intersection, or the NFPR ramps are super tall and need to dive down onto the #1 and the exits from that dive down to the intersection at United. It just seems to me that there are going to be a lot of very tall, and steep ramps.

And you didn't really placate my concerns regarding Braid. There are 3 major tracks there, in constant use, and another track to the east a bit. I do not see any room around them to be able to dig a trench for them. On top of that, I don't think you grasp the kind of distances you need to have the proper grade for these tracks. Braid is very close to where the switches are with the other line, and I don't think there is room to have the tracks lower enough to go under Braid. Trains have a hard time traveling on grades steeper than 3%, and that is probably impossible in an area where trains need to accelerate from a stop. Just look at the length of track that runs up to the Rail Bridge, and that is only 1 truck level over the road.

So please, take my recommendation to heart, instead of brushing it off with the statement "I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem". That's not proof of any kind or even addresses my concern. There is no way the tracks are going over or under the road, and there is no room for the road to go over or under (unless it goes under Brunette too). That is why they want to close the road through there, there is no way around having a level crossing at that point. And keeping Braid&Brunette a 4 way intersection keeps the timing long anyway. Traffic between the #1 and Brunette to the South is still going to have to wait at this really long light.

I'm also confused by your ideas for the Cape Horn. From your designs, it looks like you need at least a 12 lane bridge. I also don't think you make any significant improvements over the official design, except maybe having an extra lane for Lougheed Highway EB traffic to go through on. But there are some limitations to your designs. You have MHBP traffic merging with Lougheed traffic, then an immediate exit onto #1. There would be a lot of weaving there in your design over a very short distance. You also have a very short Exit from #1 EB to #7 EB. You also have no way to go from #7 EB to the MHBP EB. There is also no way to go from Lougheed highway to the through lanes on the bridge, you have all traffic coming off Lougheed going onto the Collector lanes destined for the exit at 152 st.

Before dismissing my criticism as someone who "obviously never looked" at your designs, maybe you should think I looked at them from the point of view as someone who actually has to use what you designed. Just because you brush off my points with childish language and unfounded (and obviously) wrong accusations doesn't make you right (as it is pretty clear I looked over it with some of the comments I made). While in your head it probably makes perfect sense and is an elegant solution, to other people it is a confusing mess of ramps and intersections.

I'm not saying your plan is completely useless, and that nothing should be done. Clearly, some things need to be done in the area and you are giving it a shot. But you also need to consider other people are going to see major problems with your ideas, even bigger problems than I have, and calling them names and inferring they are idiots is not how you deal with the shortcomings of your designs. There is nothing "seriously wrong" with me for disagreeing with your designs and voicing my criticisms. If you can't rationally defend yourself without resorting to "shee-yeah", "lol wut", and name calling, you are not going to convince many other people that you are right.

[adrianroam95]

My take on it:
-Add a single 2 laned flyover ramp from WB Lougheed to SB Brunette, rising where the current left turn lanes are, curving over the intersection, and coming back down at the Petro-Canada gas station. Motorists already heading SB on Brunette would merge into the traffic from the flyover.
AND
-Make it 2 lanes turning right from NB Columbia onto NB Brunette down in New West instead of the current 1 lane.

[xd_1771]

BCPhil: I have not known of the Roderick Avenue developments. Perhaps my design would indeed have to be revised to allow for that, but it would help if I knew where everything is.
The Woolridge uphill segment does not look like it will be too steep, especially with the elevation being higher on the north side already.

Access from most of Eastern Coquitlam to the NFPR & roads would still be possible via the Blue Mountain overpass setup; there is a slip lane/yield lane connecting from Blue Mountain SB to the United -> NFPR on-ramp, passing under the elvated NFPR. A few extra turn movements would be needed, sure, but I am pretty sure that won't be a problem for the majority considering where most traffic movements actually go.

What's better, being reduced to one lane for one short stretch and having to face only around 2-3 intersections at up to 80km/h or more, or having two lanes at 60km/h with plenty of lights and curves and other obstructions? This is a vast improvement from the current movement using Brunette. The "most confusing intersection you have ever seen" was also purposely designed to allow for swift movement where needed.

The original plan featured the railways descending into cut-and-cover underpasses under Braid; they will be out of the way.

The only way to prevent off-ramp traffic from going through major intersections is... frankly, building more overpasses. I'm sure none of us wants that.

You have misunderstood the design concerning the IKEA - Patullo movements.
IKEA to Patullo would require about the same amount of movements. Currently most people take Woolridge north, turn left on Lougheed, then share a heavily used left turn to Brunette; this would still only involve two left turns, one onto realigned Brunette and one onto Blue Mountain (with this movement being completely separate from Route 7 traffic), with the only other slight and not as important difference being taking the right turn lane/slip ramp onto the NFPR on-ramp. The NFPR connector to the Pattullo that is being proposed is something I anticipate should be at least somewhat faster to make up for any slowdown that could happen here, but I doubt there would be any. Along with the left turn movements no longer sharing the heavy movement from Route 7, it would be a lot better.

These next movements you have mentioned would either be not much different in time or a lot faster:

• Highway 1 eastbound traffic going to Brunette no longer has to deal or wait for the full force of Highway 7. Right turn lanes make the movement fairly efficient and keep it moving as much as possible across all the intersections.
• Blue Mountain to 1 WB would actually be much faster; apart from the one southbound intersection - which with a right turn and left turn lane, as well as not having to combat a major highway route, would be more efficient than what is currently there - you no longer have to face a stop sign and a potentially long wait against a wall of cars coming down Brunette; this would also help Lougheed, lines that may back up and compromise Lougheed would no longer even exist.
• Lougheed EB to 1 WB in this area... with Gaglardi to the west and being a fairly reliable route, I have high doubts as to this being used that often except for the community perhaps between North Road & Blue Mountain, with Austin bordering it to the north. Aside from the eft turn, I anticipate this movement would flow well with the right turn lane from Rderick/Brunette EB forming another right turn lane on Blue Mountain SB.

I do agree the United/Braid segment should be a bit more clear, I am at the moment tweaking this area so that people more easily know which road goes over which; to provide an explanation, NFPR goes over everything, and Braid intersects United. With some movement and proper grading the Blue Mountain overpass should be fairly manageable.

Apparently this railway design is really quite confusing to me. A lot of the tracks are redundant (such as the second railway bridge after which the track simply ends) or are really there for no purpose other than to store train cars. A small change in layout, and movement of one track to the east and two to three to the west of the Skytrain pillars, will allow ample room to construct the cut-and-cover tunnel for three or four tracks.

If you have seen the plans Translink has actually put up for building an overpass to replace this connection, you'd probably think of it as much worse than my design is. The design is well under-capacity; there are sharp turns and loop ramps, and plenty of horrendous single lane portions and merges onto busy road that would involve a lot of trucks. This is a movement that simply can't be compromised to the point where it becomes indirect - especially with the links to Highway 1 westbound going to be just to the north in my plan.

A reduction of some lanes would bring the bridge back to the current 3 lane express/ 2 lane collector design in my design (rather than 3 lane express/3 lane collector) without much problem. Howeverhe bridge deck, with the lanes digging just a bit into the shoulder space, should be capable of handling a 3/3/3/3 lane configuration. It was recently announced on here, I'm pretty sure, that any light/heavy rail transit built on this new bridge would be built below the road deck and not sharing it, so this won't be a problem.

Perhaps you are confused because I haven't posted the other side of the design. My design is meant so that Highway 1 express traffic is fully unimpeded through both the bridge and interchanges on either end; traffic from Surrey merges with traffic exiting Route 1 bound for Rte 7; both movements proceed on the collector lanes across the bridge (hence there are 3 lanes in my design for adequate support) with no merging onto route 1 before the bridge, and then you can choose to exit to Coquitlam or stay straight to merge with Highway 1 after the bridge where there is more room, or exits toward Highway 7. Same with the other direction; once on the other side of the bridge, then you decide to continue on Highway 1 or exit to Surrey. The advantage is that it supports all movement - making sure movement to/from Coquitlam/Surrey is unimpeded in just the same way that movement from Langley/Vancouver, etc. is unimpeded. I worry that the current design involving the ramps splitting with some merging happening before the bridge - on both the collector and express lanes - will be in time, a repeat of the Port Mann as it is today.

If you pay close attention to the laning setup on that westbound portion of Lougheed, you can see that the setup is not much different than what was planned for eastbound Highway 1 (with route 7 merging onto Highway 1 - a much riskier movement - and then exiting onto the collector lanes). With lanes reserved for certain movements (i.e. leftmost lane is strictly MHB -> Hwy 1 west) it'll resolve some of the issues that could possibly be created. Some of the laning design is incomplete in this area also (i.e. the eastbound Highway 1 exit to Route 7 eastbound), just so you know.

Whether you like it or not, it has already been said and planned that Blue Mountain replace Brunette as the primary north-south connector, which is why the Brunette interchange is barely getting any upgrades as part of Gateway; this is just my take on it to make things more streamlined where possible. Do consider that this is an amateur draft; I wasn't hired and I don't require any absolutely precise measurements or markings, and I shouldn't have to absolutely focus on that. If I waited until my design was complete (if I tried extremely hard and focussed on this design for a few months, it'd probably hamper things such as my grades) before I posted it here, then the construction would be well underway and my presentation would be too late. You have to understand there is a line I must set between perfection for me and perfection for everybody else, both in concerning the design quality and the design itself.

Or perhaps it was unwise of me to enroach your territory, because I know your voice would be as loud as mine would be if they decided to screw up a design in Surrey around where I live. Oh wait, they already did (104th & 160th lane narrowing, that's going to be a doozy when it's done), and of course I tried what I could, and I understand that you'd do the same, but please, please, try not to be ridiculous. There is one thing that is a serious pet peeve for me, and that is when people completely miss the obvious; if you had really well studied my design as you have so claimed, you will see that the movements are not so bad after all. Your ridiculous complete miss of some of the movements in and out of IKEA in the schoolhouse area that resulted in some rather useless bashing of this design had annoyed me quite a bit. This was mostly designed on the concept of moving traffic efficiently while appealing to both myself and as much of the people on here as possible; movements that seemed missing were still there and improved on where possible, and existing movements have been improved upon also. Lastly and most of all, this plan would probably be much better than whatever crap Translink would come up with or has already come up with, so I'm pretty proud of what I've been able to do.

adrianroam95: Adding that flyover seems to be the right thing to do for now, but would not solve the movement in regards to Blue Mountain and not tie in with the plans to build a new Blue Mountain overpass.

[DKaz]

I strongly oppose anything that involves the demolition of French Quarters Pub. Back to the drawing board, xd_1771.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Its amazing how the parking lots always are full at car dealerships.

[xd_1771]

If I absolutely have to, I'll go around it for you a-la pine tree on Hwy 1 EB near Langley

[adrianroam95]

My thoughts on this:

[xd_1771]

I have doubts to a few parts of your plan adrian:

• SPUI being the primary connection between NFPR and Highway 1 (modifying the interchange to allow for a more freeflow NFPR NB -> Highway 1 EB movement, same other way around wouldn't be too hard; this is a major & primary movement that will not be able to withstand being intersection controlled - much more, being a SPUI intersection - much longer)
• Tupper Avenue as a major street (to expand to 4 lanes could be pretty hectic on the surrounding property, including the Greyhound terminal)
• Movement between NFPR and United? There should be at least partial movement off-ramps/on-ramps there.
• Woolridge & King Edward won't have a direct connection with each other, just so you know
• May not as effectively serve movements between Highway 1 EB -> 7 EB, 7 WB -> 1 WB

I think your plan seems of a rather perfect compromise though between what's been shown so far, however the bulk of the plan actually looks really good. it doesn't compromise Mallardville and does work for the most part.

I would recommend:

• The modification of adding some ramps between NFPR & United to the east (just as in my plan), it'd be much easier on the Braid/Brunette intersection
• Modifying of the Route 1 connections segment so that on the Blue Mountain overpass:
• Freeflow movements from NFPR NB -> Highway 1 EB, Highway 1 WB -> NFPR SB; controlled flow movements from Highway 1 WB -> Blue Mountain NB, and other way around
• Ramps to serve movements to/from Highway 1 to the west be served at Brunette, with a connection to the Blue Mountain non-freeflow ramps (i.e. Hastings Street exit style?)

I'm coming up with a concept myself based on this, it is interesting. I'm considering merging a variant of this with my existing CorelDraw plan.

[xd_1771]

It looks like Tupper Avenue will be able to expand into 4 lanes without much demolition if at all, however it would consume some existing parking lots.

This is my new take based on adrianroam's plan:

Key changes:

• Freeflow NFPR -> Route 1 east movement
• Ramps/connections to Tupper Avenue (redirected Brunette)
• Movement at the Brunette/Tupper/Woolridge modified slightly so Tupper becomes more of a continuous Brunette
• Other highway 1 ramps spaced differently to allow for more streamlined and adequate movement (Reminds me of many of Calgary's interchange ramps actually)
• Braid street "overpass" (railway cut-and-cover underpass) retained

Tell me if there's anything wrong with this i.e. am I cutting into someone's proprety/front lawn

[xd_1771]

(Note: You may need to zoom in further (ctrl + scroll wheel or arrow keys) to see the details better); also the map is obviously not exact/to scale
This is the first of a new new series of concepts I'll be putting up regarding the expansion of Highway 99.

What many people have been thinking is huge expansion including, as one person here said, a 5+2 lane replacement for the George Massey Tunnel. I want to prove that this isn't the case. This isn't Highway 1 a.k.a. the busiest corridor in Western Canada that we're talking about; it's just a bit constrained by some current things, that's all. Most of the overpasses are good enough as it is or newly constructed, often not allowing on the highway level for a ridiculously huge and unnecessary expansion anyway (i.e. 3+1 all the way to 8th Ave.) I think the plan should focus on keeping existing capacity or expanding only to absolute need as much as possible (with room for expansion), except of course at the Massey Tunnel & Oak Street Bridge, and adding HOV priority like Highway 1, while still having something new to impress Americans coming into the Vancouver area.

At the moment I only have the plan drawn out on paper and a few incomplete parts on the computer being constructed. It's fairly detailed, and what relevant parts I can tell you about it are:

• 2 lanes + 1 HOV Highway 99, with 3 lanes + 1 HOV between the interchanges (outer lanes always exit) up to 32nd Ave. and then just 2+1 till 24th
• No new interchanges apart from the already u/c SFPR, 24th and 16th
• Interchange expansions at 152nd, Shell Rd & Highway 91/no major design changes elsewhere
• Massey Tunnel replacement bridge is 3+1 lanes, or 3 lanes/direction + 3 HOV in Lions Gate-style counterflow
• Bigger, 4+1 lanes between Steveston & Westminster; 2+1 express and 2 collector beyond that
• New Oak Street Bridge is same style as new Port Mann lane-wise; the inner express lanes proceed straight to Oak St, while the outer lanes diverge for Granville, the Arthur Laing Bridge & Marine Dr.

If there are any objections (i.e. the north facing 24th Ave. ramps going over Croydon - AFAIK there are a lot of new developments there, but placement of regular half-diamond interchange is tough with narrow ROW), do tell me about it. You may also notice the 4-lane highway standard 16th Ave; that's supposed to be part of an alternative to create a Highway 10/15-class road to Highway 1 in Abbotsford, in case the BC MOT pulls a BC MOT and a full freeway isn't constructed for this conceptualized southern connector. If a freeway is constructed, ramps can be adjusted to allow for it.

[adrianroam95]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

(Note: You may need to zoom in further (ctrl + scroll wheel or arrow keys) to see the details better); also the map is obviously not exact/to scale
This is the first of a new new series of concepts I'll be putting up regarding the expansion of Highway 99.

What many people have been thinking is huge expansion including, as one person here said, a 5+2 lane replacement for the George Massey Tunnel. I want to prove that this isn't the case. This isn't Highway 1 a.k.a. the busiest corridor in Western Canada that we're talking about; it's just a bit constrained by some current things, that's all. Most of the overpasses are good enough as it is or newly constructed, often not allowing on the highway level for a ridiculously huge and unnecessary expansion anyway (i.e. 3+1 all the way to 8th Ave.) I think the plan should focus on keeping existing capacity or expanding only to absolute need as much as possible (with room for expansion), except of course at the Massey Tunnel & Oak Street Bridge, and adding HOV priority like Highway 1, while still having something new to impress Americans coming into the Vancouver area.

At the moment I only have the plan drawn out on paper and a few incomplete parts on the computer being constructed. It's fairly detailed, and what relevant parts I can tell you about it are:

• 2 lanes + 1 HOV Highway 99, with 3 lanes + 1 HOV between the interchanges (outer lanes always exit) up to 32nd Ave. and then just 2+1 till 24th
• No new interchanges apart from the already u/c SFPR, 24th and 16th
• Interchange expansions at 152nd, Shell Rd & Highway 91/no major design changes elsewhere
• Massey Tunnel replacement bridge is 3+1 lanes, or 3 lanes/direction + 3 HOV in Lions Gate-style counterflow
• Bigger, 4+1 lanes between Steveston & Westminster; 2+1 express and 2 collector beyond that
• New Oak Street Bridge is same style as new Port Mann lane-wise; the inner express lanes proceed straight to Oak St, while the outer lanes diverge for Granville, the Arthur Laing Bridge & Marine Dr.

If there are any objections (i.e. the north facing 24th Ave. ramps going over Croydon - AFAIK there are a lot of new developments there, but placement of regular half-diamond interchange is tough with narrow ROW), do tell me about it. You may also notice the 4-lane highway standard 16th Ave; that's supposed to be part of an alternative to create a Highway 10/15-class road to Highway 1 in Abbotsford, in case the BC MOT pulls a BC MOT and a full freeway isn't constructed for this conceptualized southern connector. If a freeway is constructed, ramps can be adjusted to allow for it.

Not sure how this doesn't count as significant expansion of Highway 99 - I'm sure no one really thought that a 3+1 arrangement all the way down to 8th Ave was necessary, since most of the traffic headed down Highway 99 that far south is headed for White Rock and not the border. But I think your plan is great and it works. Now the problem is, how is BC MOT gonna get the $$$ for both an 8 laned GM tunnel replacement AND a 10 laned Oak St Bridge?

[xd_1771]

What I meant by 3+1 all the way to the border is a bit of an exaggeration; some plans on here involved more than 3 lanes past 32nd and the overpass construction just can't accomodate that. If we still want an at least better highway down to that area, we should just add an HOV lane since there's really not much need for extra capacity yet down there.

This plan will have to mature and taken into account only with time. MOT does seem pretty well broke as it is, but this upgrade has got to happen eventually as traffic volumes continually increase on this major road along with developments and other new roads being put up, as well as the standard safety concerns including what happens if an earthquake hits. My approach takes it quite minimalistically, upgrading only where needed and being able to avoid a sense of "cheaping out" (i.e. Hwy 1 lanes split around old 192nd overpass). For the very least this seems at least much less expensive than the Route 1 refurb when you consider that unlike PMH/1, you don't have to go through the task of replacing pretty much every single bridge over the highway since a lot are more recent, however the requirement of having to replace two big crossings as well as a few more might indeed seem scary for cash; however, neither would have to be nearly as long as the new PMB, cost as much to implement, or have to look as pretty.

Also, would there be any chance that the GM tunnel could be replaced with a much more cost efficient bridge - or due to the soil in the area, is this not possible? Perhaps a pontoon bridge similar to the ones over Lake Washington, with an elevated span or two closer to the shorelines for boats to pass through?

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

What I meant by 3+1 all the way to the border is a bit of an exaggeration; some plans on here involved more than 3 lanes past 32nd and the overpass construction just can't accomodate that. If we still want an at least better highway down to that area, we should just add an HOV lane since there's really not much need for extra capacity yet down there.

This plan will have to mature and taken into account only with time. MOT does seem pretty well broke as it is, but this upgrade has got to happen eventually as traffic volumes continually increase on this major road along with developments and other new roads being put up, as well as the standard safety concerns including what happens if an earthquake hits. My approach takes it quite minimalistically, upgrading only where needed and being able to avoid a sense of "cheaping out" (i.e. Hwy 1 lanes split around old 192nd overpass). For the very least this seems at least much less expensive than the Route 1 refurb when you consider that unlike PMH/1, you don't have to go through the task of replacing pretty much every single bridge over the highway since a lot are more recent, however the requirement of having to replace two big crossings as well as a few more might indeed seem scary for cash; however, neither would have to be nearly as long as the new PMB, cost as much to implement, or have to look as pretty.

Also, would there be any chance that the GM tunnel could be replaced with a much more cost efficient bridge - or due to the soil in the area, is this not possible? Perhaps a pontoon bridge similar to the ones over Lake Washington, with an elevated span or two closer to the shorelines for boats to pass through?

The problem is while the floating bridge on lake Washington allows boats to pass under, SHIPS navigate the Fraser River. The reason the Port Mann and Alex Fraser are so high aren't a side effect of the bridge design, they are required to be that high and have a span that long so container ships and car carriers can navigate under them.

A bridge at the GM tunnel would have to have a span as wide as the river is at that point, about 630m. That's longer than the span in the AFB (465m) and planned Port Mann. It would also have to be just as high as the AFB (55m), requiring a very long approach from both sides, like the AFB. The reason they built the tunnel was because at the time it was much more economical than a bridge. While a bridge would have to get over 50m of clearance, the tunnel only goes about 22m below the surface of the water, making the tunnel take up much less land on either end for its approaches.

Also, the problem with building exits around 24 ave is the space. For instance, the design of your exit from 99 onto Croydon goes straight through a brand new Best Buy and if they are ramps, would block a lot of access to Morgan Crossing. There is not a lot of room in that area for large elevated structures. As well, your HOV ramp exits look like they go straight through the building that Original Joe's is in.

Something needs to be done in that area, but I think they have something similar planned as what's at 32 Ave Div.

[Stingray2004]

From the Hwy 99/KGH interchange southward to 32nd Ave. 3 thru lanes in each direction should be constructed - with an auxilary lane connecting the on/off ramps at each end. Southward from there just 3 general purpose lanes need to be built to the U.S. border.

Northward from the Hwy 99/KGH interchange, a 3 + 1 HOV lane cross-section in each direction would be sufficient.

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The reason they built the tunnel was because at the time it was much more economical than a bridge.

My understanding was that the silts were too soft in that locale and that they didn't have the necessary pier technology at the time to compensate so they went with the more expensive and difficult engineering-wise tunnel option back then.

[xd_1771]

Yes, I had anticipated that would be a problem actually, just didn't think that ship height would be that high. The span does seem very long, but would a tunnel remain the more economical choice today, again, is the question - we now have technology to better build in the soils of that area. Even if it has to be much bigger than a pontoon bridge and much more expensive, replacing the GMT is something we definitely have to do in the upcoming years, since it's not exactly built very well to withstand any earthquakes and well over capacity.

How I have the 24th Ave. ramps planned is to have a narrow 1-lane-per-direction viaduct go directly over Croydon Dr. and then descend and use Croydon for a ~200m section to connect with 24th; it doesn't appear to be hampering any development by far, and I do understand that there has been a lot of new development there - but if I located the ramps to meet with 24th as if it were similar to Highway 1/192nd St, it could be potentially tough on the ROW for the ramps and a few of the access options may have to be eliminated. Worst case scenario, any connections at 24th would have to be eliminated from the plan, but with the new business areas nearby and the industrial to the east at around 192nd, it does seem like a very logical choice to place a new exit. I think, however, that it should maintain full accessibility in all directions between the highway and the local roads.

From the Hwy 99/KGH interchange southward to 32nd Ave. 3 thru lanes in each direction should be constructed - with an auxilary lane connecting the on/off ramps at each end. Southward from there just 3 general purpose lanes need to be built to the U.S. border.

Northward from the Hwy 99/KGH interchange, a 3 + 1 HOV lane cross-section in each direction would be sufficient.

I argue that 3 lanes is not necessary at all past 32nd and that's a basis of my plan. The only actual lane additions past there (aside from interchanges and a few other short auxiliary lanes between interchanges) should be HOV lanes up to 24th. There's just not enough traffic volume there yet to warrant it. Besides, many of the new (and old) overpasses (including the 24th Ave. one) cannot accomodate any more than 3 lanes. North of 32nd and until Highway 17, Highway 99 will maintain 2+1 through lanes, with an auxiliary lane for 3+1 operation between the interchanges, that exits at the interchanges. Until the GMT there's not much need to worry about capacity especially with proper HOV lanes included and RapidBus services implemented.

[xd_1771]

Here's a preview of my newest concept. This is an incomplete, rough draft of my idea for a revamped Highway 99/King George Highway interchange. Loop ramps are removed for the main movements (KGB NB -> 99NB, 99SB -> KGB SB, etc.); as well these movements are more streamlined and get an extra lane. There is also an expanded park & ride and ramps to/from HOV lane (not shown yet - and the HOV lane is in red, marking the centre of Highway 99). Merges/acceleration lanes have, of course, been improved. The concept will require some 3 or 4 overpasses to be built (not counting those for the HOV interchange) - only one of them wider than 2 or 3 lanes; no multilevel ramps. These overpasses aren't marked as of yet, you may have to figure them out yourselves; as reference text, everything present in the map goes over Highway 99, nothing goes under.

Do note once again that this is incomplete, a few oddities will show up here and there in the layout.

[Spork]

Is that area that bad now? The only time I can remember there being poor traffic is when we randomly got 2 feet of snow in about 6 hours back in... er... 2005?