Roads Fantasy Thread

[Stingray2004]

Twenty plus years ago, River Road was a barely utilized corridor that fed into Hwy 99 south of the GMT. Today, it's heavily used as both a commuter and commercial route feeding into Hwy 99 from North Delta/Surrey.

Twenty years ago, one could drive through the GMT at 100 km+. Today one is lucky to achieve 60km/hr - 70 km/hr and that's in the left lane indicating that the LOS is decreasing over time.

Future traffic growth areas/considerations:

1. Van Isle ferry traffic;
2. Roberts Bank Superport expansion - Container truck traffic (which either heads EB on River Road or NB on Hwy 99)
3. Tsawwassen - another 442 sfh/townhouse units at Tsawwassen Golf Course; another 1,100 sfh/townhouse units on FN lands;
4. The South Surrey/Cloverdale areas are expected to have another 105,000 in population growth over the next 30 years;
5. Hwy 10 is a major feeder onto Hwy 99;
6. The SFPR, once completed, will become a major feeder route from Hwy 1 (and points in-between) onto Hwy 99;
7. At it's northern end, Hwy 91 and Bridgeport feed into Hwy 99 toward the OSB and that traffic also continues to grow;
8. The future Southern Fwy corridor will also divert Hwy 1 traffic onto Hwy 99;

Take all of these matters into account and circa 2025 - 2030 the H-99 project rebuild requirement becomes more apparent. BTW, both Richmond and Delta councils have been clamouring for years for capacity upgrades at the GMT.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by ClearDop

More options is good, but a connection to HWY 91 from Boundary would be pointless. If there was any type of demand for it, it would have been done already. But we already have crossings at the Knight Street Bridge and Queensborough which are more than sufficient. I know I wouldn't use the Boundary crossing and I travel HWY99/91 every day.

"More than sufficient" is simply false because these bridges are heavily congested, and in the case of Knight St, is congested in both directions simultaneously.

The issue is that none of those existing crossings are good candidates for expansion. Where is the best location for a high-capacity north-south corridor? Boundary is more suitable than any of the existing crossings.

To say "it would have been done already" is a little silly. Boundary Road (in its current incarnation) is much younger than all of these bridges. Same with Marine Way. Neither road existed when the last crossing was built.

Also consider the ages of the crossings:

Oak St. 1957
George Massey 1959
Queensborough 1960

All of these will hit end-of-life sometime in the next 10-20 years without extensive rehabilitation or replacement. They are all from the decade before Port Mann.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by awvan

Does everyone here forget that the Oak Street Bridge cannot be expanded? The CoV will not let anyone (province included) build more lanes into the city.

Grandview Hwy east of Boundary Rd. is currently 4 lanes and will be expanded into 6 lanes feeding into Vancouver's 6 lanes of Grandview Hwy on the other side of Boundary as part of the Hwy 1 expansion. That is, more lanes being built into the CoV.

Same concept would apply with the OSB. Expand to 8 lanes, have a drop-off lane at Marine Dr. and the remaining 2 lanes would increase to 3, which coincides with the 3 lanes on Oak St.

I doubt that the CoV would be able to call the shots when the province (which supercedes the CoV in terms of jurisdiction) would be stick-handling the matter and the OSB expansion is for regional purposes.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Twenty plus years ago, River Road was a barely utilized corridor that fed into Hwy 99 south of the GMT. Today, it's heavily used as both a commuter and commercial route feeding into Hwy 99 from North Delta/Surrey.

Twenty years ago, one could drive through the GMT at 100 km+. Today one is lucky to achieve 60km/hr - 70 km/hr and that's in the left lane indicating that the LOS is decreasing over time.

Future traffic growth areas/considerations:

1. Van Isle ferry traffic;
2. Roberts Bank Superport expansion - Container truck traffic (which either heads EB on River Road or NB on Hwy 99)
3. Tsawwassen - another 442 sf/townhouse units at Tsawwassen Golf Course; another 1,100 sf/townhouse units on FN lands;
4. The South Surrey/Cloverdale areas are expected to have another 105,000 in population growth over the next 30 years;
5. Hwy 10 is a major feeder onto Hwy 99;
6. The SFPR, once completed, will become a major feeder route from Hwy 1 (and points in-between) onto Hwy 99;
7. At it's northern end, Hwy 91 and Bridgeport feed into Hwy 99 toward the OSB and that traffic also continues to grow;
8. The future Southern Fwy corridor will also divert Hwy 1 traffic onto Hwy 99;

[B]Take all of these matters into account and circa 2025 - 2030 the H-99 project rebuild requirement becomes more apparent. BTW, both Richmond and Delta councils have been clamouring for years for capacity upgrades at the GMT.

Tell Delta you'll build the tunnel/bridge if they allow 72 Avenue to become a proper interchange. I think the GMT would actually improve slightly NB if 72 Avenue wasn't such a deterrent to take Highway 91 travelling North.

[clooless]

Originally Posted by awvan

Does everyone here forget that the Oak Street Bridge cannot be expanded? The CoV will not let anyone (province included) build more lanes into the city. That is going to be a major impediment to any H99 upgrade, at least from the 91 interchange northbound. I suppose technically they could add more lanes exiting the city but I doubt that would be very cost efficient. That being said the infrastructure south of the 91 interchange definitely needs improvements, but I don't see them happening until after the Pattullo bridge replacement.

Provincial law supersedes municipal law as all municipal authority is derived from provincial statute. Skytrain was built over the objections of Vancouver city council, if memory serves. That said, while the province has ultimate authority over municipal matters they typically play nice with local governments.

[ClearDop]

Originally Posted by Zassk

"More than sufficient" is simply false because these bridges are heavily congested, and in the case of Knight St, is congested in both directions simultaneously.

The issue is that none of those existing crossings are good candidates for expansion. Where is the best location for a high-capacity north-south corridor? Boundary is more suitable than any of the existing crossings.

To say "it would have been done already" is a little silly. Boundary Road (in its current incarnation) is much younger than all of these bridges. Same with Marine Way. Neither road existed when the last crossing was built.

Also consider the ages of the crossings:

Oak St. 1957
George Massey 1959
Queensborough 1960

All of these will hit end-of-life sometime in the next 10-20 years without extensive rehabilitation or replacement. They are all from the decade before Port Mann.

I'd hope they built a new Oak Street Bridge before building a crossing at Boundary. The majority of vehicles that stay on HWY 99 northbound passed the Westminster overpass are going to Vancouver, not Burnaby.

[SpongeG]

lol a full heavy rail running down arbutus? the creme de la creme will cause heads to roll if that happens

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Grandview Hwy east of Boundary Rd. is currently 4 lanes and will be expanded into 6 lanes feeding into Vancouver's 6 lanes of Grandview Hwy on the other side of Boundary as part of the Hwy 1 expansion. That is, more lanes being built into the CoV.

Technically the additional lanes are on the Burnaby side of the border to which Vancouver has no say. But the province could've pitched the "these are environmentally friendly HOV lanes" speech to CoV.

I have an idea for the Oak St. Bridge..

Build an eight lane bridge to replace the Oak St. Bridge. Designate one lane each way as HOV lane which CoV can't complain about, then terminate/start the two right lanes in the middle of the bridge at Richmond/Vancouver border with jersey barriers. When people ask why this was done, the Province of BC can truthfully answer that the CoV won't allow additional lanes into the city. When CoV finally gets a city council that lifts the moratorium on adding lanes into the city, remove the jersey barriers and have the 3+1 lanes each way.

[Zassk]

^ If we're building anything new over the North Arm, we have to ask ourselves, is Oak St. the right place for this traffic? It seems poorly suited to me (given that Oak St. does not go into downtown).

I would expect to see a study conducted by MoT on this question before any new project is announced.

[p78hub]

Oak St. would probably be the only choice as it is a major artery up to around Broadway.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Zassk

If we're building anything new over the North Arm, we have to ask ourselves, is Oak St. the right place for this traffic? It seems poorly suited to me (given that Oak St. does not go into downtown)

Actually, Oak St. is the quickest corridor into the downtown peninsula in my experience. Oak St. -> ~16th Ave.-> Hemlock -> GSB.

Neighbouring Granville St. and Cambie Streets also provide similar traffic dispersion routes into the downtown peninsula from the OSB. Roughly 9 lanes in each direction combined.

As for the CoV's policy, it comes across as ambiguous:

The City supports maintaining peak road capacity from the region at no more than the present level. In this regard, City Council’s adopted policy is for no further significant investment to expand motor vehicle capacity into Vancouver in terms of adding additional capacity.

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transpor...report/3-3.htm

MoT would be contributing the "significant investment" and the "additional capacity" would match the existing 6 lanes of Oak St. with 6 lanes (2 + 1 HOV) on an expanded OSB (with a drop-off lane at Marine).

Again, the CoV's policy is ambiguous IMHO and MoT has jurisdiction to about 71st Ave.

One must also keep in mind that during afternoon rush hour the Knight St. and OS bridges can be considerably backed up heading into the CoV. IOW, Vancouver residents are suffering the consequences of the current LOS in terms of bridge capacity.

[Zassk]

It just seems to me that any new bridge should be aligned with one of the False Creek bridges, rather than one of the arteries that end at Broadway. I know there is existing infrastructure at the south end that gets in the way of some routes, but it just seems like a mistake to stay with a route decision made in the early 1950's without doing some analysis on the alternatives.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by Zassk

It just seems to me that any new bridge should be aligned with one of the False Creek bridges, rather than one of the arteries that end at Broadway. I know there is existing infrastructure at the south end that gets in the way of some routes, but it just seems like a mistake to stay with a route decision made in the early 1950's without doing some analysis on the alternatives.

Also can you extend the life of an existing bridge if you leave in place, build a new/better route, and ban trucks/heavy vehicles on the existing? Ie. Leave Oak Street up for local/HOV/buses and have a new bridge for trucks, Hwy 99 bound, etc.

[Political_R]

I do agree Highway 99 needs to be expanded. I am not sure which would be best since you would have to have very long approaches to a cable stay bridges that would create blight. However, the cost for 8 lanes in a submerged tunnel is not worth it. What I was thinking is extending Knight Street to 99 and grade separate New Westminister Highway @ Knight St.

Perhaps it would be best to connect 99 to another arterial like Cambie since Oak St won't be able to handle 8 lanes.

I also think that having a new Fraser corridor from Boundary Rd. to SFPR would be extremely beneficial in releving congestion by providing another option.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by DKaz

I'd much rather see White Rock and South Surrey linked to Vancouver with commuter rail (with a station in Ladner, Steveston, and somewhere in central Richmond). That'll be a busy line right there.

I like that idea, but have to ask: is there enough population density to warrant a decent train frequency? That's what seems to attract people from their cars: frequency of service.

Originally Posted by Zassk

^ Commuter rail is a neat idea, but the places you mentioned are not laid out linearly. 1) There is no existing rail crossing of the South Arm to serve Ladner or to loop past Steveston, 2) it is a massive detour to send Surrey/White Rock people over to Ladner when their trains could go straight north to New West instead.

The best hope for Ladner is probably to shoehorn an ALRT line into one of the tubes of the George Massey Tunnel after a replacement bridge is built for car traffic.

Another good idea of putting ALRT into a GM Tunnel tube if/when it gets twinned or expanded. Here, my question is:
1: What routing would it take?
2: What type of technology? Rotem, to link to the Canada Line, or another (e.g. Bombardier...) if it takes another route?

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I like that idea, but have to ask: is there enough population density to warrant a decent train frequency? That's what seems to attract people from their cars: frequency of service.

West Coast Express has 5 trains each way a day spaced 30 minutes apart, no problems attracting 10,000 riders a day to that service. A single 9 car train with a seating capacity of just over 1500 is standing room only between Port Moody and Waterfront.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by DKaz

West Coast Express has 5 trains each way a day spaced 30 minutes apart, no problems attracting 10,000 riders a day to that service. A single 9 car train with a seating capacity of just over 1500 is standing room only between Port Moody and Waterfront.

Yeah, if something run SoF from Chilliwack/Abbotsford through to Surrey, I would easily get out of my car and take a West Coast Express, provided I had an easy connection from a station to get to my work. That means frequent direct bus service to that location. However, seems like that won't ever happen - that rail for the valley group doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I would be first in line to try a tram from Chilliwack to Scott Road if it existed, even for a day trip.

[ClearDop]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Also can you extend the life of an existing bridge if you leave in place, build a new/better route, and ban trucks/heavy vehicles on the existing? Ie. Leave Oak Street up for local/HOV/buses and have a new bridge for trucks, Hwy 99 bound, etc.

Seeing that you're from Chilliwack I'll let it slide but for people that travel HWY99/91 daily, its common knowledge that trucks take the Knight Street bridge into Vancouver. Oak street is basically a car-only bridge. Rarely do I see semi trucks use it.

[twoNeurons]

I think one major improvement would be a 4-lane bridge from Richmond to Ladner (expandable to 5)

Northbound traffic takes the tunnel.
Southbound traffic takes the bridge.

2 lanes of the bridge are a #17-Steveston Hwy connector.

3-lines are express.

It could be a configuration similar to the new Port Mann Bridge.

Similarly, 2-tunnel lanes are express, 2 serve as a Steveston-#17 connector

[Mininari]

Given that the tunnels require significant upgrade work, and are substandard to today's highway design standards, AND the precedent set for the "Port Mann Twinning" that was not to be, I expect any H-99 project to include a fully rebuilt 8-lane (expandable to 10) crossing.

A newly rebuilt interchange at Stevenston Highway, will have dedicated lanes to go over the bridge (like Surrey-Coquitlam). The existing Hwy 17 interchange will be scrapped, in favour of the new SFPR - 99 interchange, which will be the start of northbound dedicated "local lanes"

So, you'd have a 2-3-3-2 configuration from the SFPR to Steveston.
6-laning along the 99 to both ends of the 91.

I like the idea of a crossing at Boundary for many reasons, including direct access to the business park in South Burnaby, pressure-relief on the Queensborough bridge, and potential routing north along Boundary Road.
I'm sure Vancouver and Burnaby would stir up a real $@#@ fest over that one, but it makes sense from a planning point of view.

Since we're looking at a 2030 opening day, the toll will be $20.00 per car.