HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 1:34 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by tybuilding View Post
So traffic volumes are dropping and we want to replace and expand?

From the 2008 Regional Screenline Survey (measuring traffic volumes in the Lower Mainland):

decreases were at the Deas Tunnel (-7.5%)
Not really. Static in some spots - expanding in others.

Just reviewing some BC MoT AADT locales along Hwy 99:

1. North of 32nd Ave.:

2002: 39,273
2008: 45,050
2011: 50,458

2. North of Hwy 10:

2002: 44,137
2008: 45,766
2011: 51,205

1. South End of Oak Street Bridge:

2006 AADT: 62,662
2008 AADT: 67,863
2011 AADT: 68,740
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 2:19 AM
CrazyCommute CrazyCommute is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but I've read that George Massey's original vision for the tunnel was six lanes, plus bicycle and pedestrian access, and the BC government decided that the population south of the Fraser would never be large enough to warrant six lanes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 4:45 AM
chico chico is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 23
So does anyone have any idea on how they will decommission the tunnel?(well other than an earthquake and news worthy carnage).

Would it be explosives on the ceiling and upper walls?.
Or.
Would it be filling it with dredged and piped river sand?(providing they never need to dredge the river past tunnel roof depth).
Or.
The cheap way by flooding it and a concrete wall across both ends?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 6:46 AM
xsoccerplayer18x xsoccerplayer18x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by chico View Post
So does anyone have any idea on how they will decommission the tunnel?(well other than an earthquake and news worthy carnage).

Would it be explosives on the ceiling and upper walls?.
Or.
Would it be filling it with dredged and piped river sand?(providing they never need to dredge the river past tunnel roof depth).
Or.
The cheap way by flooding it and a concrete wall across both ends?
I figured that they'd just remove the 1500lb rock and fill that's placed above the tunnel, cut the seismic joints, cap each section and allow them to float up. That is of course, if the tunnel could even withstand being moved anymore?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 6:31 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
The 351 coach bus/rapid bus from WR/SS would be much more comfortable than a Skytrain car in any event. In addition, they travel the fwy at 100 km/hr+ - much faster than Skytrain.

Coach Buses/Rapid Buses are certainly a superior transit option IMHO.
It doesn't make sense to replace the tunnel because of the growing population of South Surrey and not provide rapid transit to South Surrey.

They travel the highway at 100km/hr? Why are we replacing the tunnel then? I thought it was backed up and clogged up to the King George interchange. How much does the tunnel actually slow down the buses anyways with the HOV and Que jumper lanes?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 6:50 PM
chico chico is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 23
Pic of 2 slightly used rapid bus on the 99 coming from the tunnel. Double the height for less road length. The left hand entry platform will give the riders some exercise too as they dodge cars to get in.
Link: http://wcs.pbaeng.com/httphandlers/q...9240&mode=prev



Link: http://wcs.pbaeng.com/projects/SFPR
oct 3 11:15:41 am
72nd street at hwy 99 northbound

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 6:57 PM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
Exactly.

Hell, I have even stated that if this tunnel were to be replaced with an 8 lane structure, I would be more than happy if it were done to include 2 commercial / truck only lanes + 2 Bus / HOV only lanes (allowing a rapid bus) and therefore still only having 4 general purpose lanes (which exist today).

Along with bike / pedestrian infrastructure. I am not demanding an increase in SOV capacity, but a structure that properly encourages car pooling, allows for a rapid Bus system, and streamlines the flow of goods.
I actually think that would work fine. You'd also need to make sure the Highway 17 and Steveston Highway interchages accomodated a truck only option. And/or have truck only interchange.

The 2 things that cause most of the traffic are 1) Truck traffic and 2) needing to go down to 1 lane.

If you allow a constant flow of 2 lanes for cars either direction, you push trucks to 1 specific lane only, and you have a dedicated HOV that doesn't merge into regular traffic, AND GET THAT HOV TO THE LEFT!!!! not the right hand side, then I think 8 lanes is sufficient.

Vancouver isn't adding new lanes into the city and quite frankly I think most of the South of Fraser development should focus on getting people not going to Vancouver but to Surrey Central anyway. We should at most do an 8 lane crossing and then focus on transit expansion.

Rapid bus would be the transit component to this though I'd argue the bus service from Bridgeport to Ladner Loop and the Ferries is actually quite outstanding. Even to South Surrey it is pretty good.

Basically my vision for the project would be:

Northbound:

1) Make BUS lane between KGB and HWY91 an actual HOV lane
2) Move the new HOV lane to the center rather than the right side
3) Extend the new HOV lane from HWY91 to where it starts now just at the dump curve
4) Move the existing HOV to the left from the right
5) Have a truck only lane from the new SFPR interchange over the river exitting at Steveston
6) 2 general lanes over the new crossing
7) Extend HOV on the left through to Bridgeport
8) Final crossing = 1 HOV, 2 General, 1 Trucks Only

Southbound:

1) Convert Bus only to HOV lane from Bridgeport
2) Move to left from right side
3) Add new truck only exit from Steveston over new crossing
4) Same southbound crossing config as northbound
5) Regular exits at Hwy 17 and SFPR
6) Add new HOV lane (1 HOV + 2 General) to HWY 91 interchange
7) Add new general lane from HWY 91 to KGB (1 HOV + 3 General)
8) HOV and 1 general end at KGB (2 general beyond, no changes)

So really in the above what you're doing is constructing a new 8 lane crossing, doing some lane reconfigurations from HWY 91 to Bridgeport, adding 1 lane from HWY 91 to dump curve Northbound, tweaking or reconstructing the interchange at Steveston, slight reconfiguration of the interchange at HWY 17, minor tweaking at SFPR interchange, and the addition of 2 lanes from HWY 91 to KGB southbound.

The project to add the new bus lane from KGB to HWY91 was something like $5 million so if you make that $15 million or so because you're adding 2 lanes (HOV + 1 general) that isn't much. Most of the cost would be the new crossing and a bit of tweaking.

You're also not technically increasing traffic through to Vancouver, you're enhancing the HOV/BUS service, and you're accomodating the Truck Traffic = goods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 7:37 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,406
And then have elevators/stairs down from Steveson overpass, Highway 17, for vehicles to transfer to/from transit (351) that would run on Highway 99.

The Highway 17 NB off-ramp transit/HOV laning arrangment is one of the cheapest and most poorly designed highway infrastructure I've ever come across.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 8:26 PM
whiteshadow whiteshadow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 View Post
The Highway 17 NB off-ramp transit/HOV laning arrangment is one of the cheapest and most poorly designed highway infrastructure I've ever come across.
I think that is the motto of the BC MOT (cheapest and most poorly designed)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 9:43 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,341
Article in the Delta Optimist:

http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/C...471/story.html

Quote:
Massey, a longtime community activist and former Delta councillor, said a lack of foresight by the Social Credit government in the 1950s played a big role in the bottleneck of today.

He said the engineering firm behind the tunnel project, Christiani and Nielsen, originally recommended the crossing have three lanes in each direction, as well as pedestrian and bike lanes, but the government decided two lanes in each direction were enough.

Noting another tunnel can't be constructed too close to the existing one because that could cause serious damage, Massey wonders where another tunnel or bridge would be constructed. A bridge, especially, could prove a challenge because a lot of land would be required on either side for the approaches, he said.

"The only thing I can see if they put in another crossing is that it'd have to be east of the tunnel. That would direct itself straight toward the bog.

"I don't know how this is going to solve any problems when you get into Vancouver. where you don't have a highway. The Oak Street Bridge was also built too small, but if you built that bridge wider you still wouldn't have any streets in Vancouver that are wide enough to take that additional traffic," he said.

In 2008, a pro-Gateway Program group called Get Moving B.C. released a report recommending the replacement of the tunnel with an eight-lane bridge.

Read more: http://www.delta-optimist.com/Crossi...#ixzz28H6YzBaB
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 10:21 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,303
I don't see the problem at the north end. First of all, a serious portion of the tunnel traffic never goes to Vancouver. Second, the City of Vancouver has numerous 6-lane arteries that could be connected to bridges in the vicinity of the Hwy 99 beachhead. To me, a tunnel project is appropriate even if the north bridges are left as-is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 10:24 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 View Post
And then have elevators/stairs down from Steveson overpass, Highway 17, for vehicles to transfer to/from transit (351) that would run on Highway 99.

The Highway 17 NB off-ramp transit/HOV laning arrangment is one of the cheapest and most poorly designed highway infrastructure I've ever come across.
I know, its embarrassing.

PS awesome pic of the double deckers!
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 11:53 PM
CrazyCommute CrazyCommute is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
That's what I was thinking of with my comment above. But I know I read somewhere that the government of the day specifically said that population south of the Fraser would never be large enough to warrant six lanes. Talk about short-sightedness. Yeah, no one else will ever want to move there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2012, 12:43 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by tybuilding View Post
They travel the highway at 100km/hr? Why are we replacing the tunnel then? I thought it was backed up and clogged up to the King George interchange.
Perhaps I should expand upon what I stated with further detail.

Heading SB on Hwy 99, south of Hwy 17, when traffic is light during the day, the 351 coach bus/rapid bus travels between 100 km/hr up to 120 km/hr when I drive alongside same.

Now when a new 2+3+3+2 GMT is constructed, plus upgrades of the entire corridor in terms of interchanges, additional lanes, auxiliary lanes, HOV lanes etc. that will permit the 351 to travel at at least 90 - 100 km/hr along the corridor throughout the entire day.

That said, here is how Hwy 99 functions during the morning from the south heading NB:

1. Major dump of traffic onto Hwy 99 from 32nd Ave.

2. Considerable traffic exits at KGH;

3. Another major dump onto Hwy 99 from the KGH;

4. Considerable traffic exits at Hwy 91;

5. Another major dump onto Hwy 99 at Hwy 10 from Nordel;

6. Some traffic exits at Hwy 17;

7. Another major dump of traffic from Hwy 17 in the west and River Road in the east;

8. Considerable traffic exits at Steveston Hwy;

9. Considerable traffic exits at Westminster Hwy;

10. Considerable traffic exits at Hwy 91/Knight Fwy;

11. Another dump of traffic from Hwy 91;

12. Another dump of traffic from Bridgeport Road;

13. Traffic over OSB exits at Marine Dr. to Cambie, at SW Marine Drive to Granville and also continues along Oak St.

So I don't understand how a 80 km/hr, $5 billion+ Skytrain to South Surrey would affect anything when a much superior transit exists with the 351, which is more comfortable, quicker and cost-effective.

Furthermore, traffic from South Surrey disperses everwhere along the Hwy 99 corridor as I have shown above.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2012, 4:08 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,145
Another reason that I suspect that the GMT will eventually be replaced by a bridge structure:

Quote:
Port Metro Vancouver has been encouraging the B.C. government to take action to address the long-standing concern the tunnel presents as a barrier to continued growth for Fraser River terminals, in particular for Fraser Surrey Docks.

The port authority says the single biggest challenge the current crossing represents to ocean-going vessels is related to ship draft, which is the depth of water required in order for those vessels to transit the Fraser River.

"A modernized crossing will further expand trade opportunities for the Fraser River terminals, like Fraser Surrey Docks, well into the future, which in turn supports a strong economy and good local jobs for many years to come," Silvester said.

http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/C...#ixzz28IexrW00
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2012, 4:41 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,832
I myself would like to see a bridge, because chances are it would become the longest in Metro Vancouver. Or at least I would hope they would build it with long approaches akin to the GEB.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2012, 6:34 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by tybuilding View Post
So traffic volumes are dropping and we want to replace and expand?

From the 2008 Regional Screenline Survey (measuring traffic volumes in the Lower Mainland):
.
The total number of vehicles per day in 2008 was 390,972, which reflects a minor decrease of 2.6% from 401,227 vehicles in 2004; the greatest decreases were at the Deas Tunnel (-7.5%) and the Pattullo Bridge (-5.8%) …


Shouldn't we require the MOTI to find "inefficiencies" to fund this project?

http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2012/...unconstrained/
I have a feeling picking these two particular years was not a coincidence...how ever I dont have the time to dig much further. BUt it would be great to see the numbers for every year 2000 to 2012...



edit: so I had a look at this Gordon Price fella who they call a expert and im curious what sort of education does he have or life experience beyond politics? Cant seem to find anything that would qualify him as any sort of expert...but I apologize if im way of base.

Last edited by cornholio; Oct 4, 2012 at 6:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2012, 7:05 AM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 6,061
Im wondering why they would use 2008 figures, what are the traffic numbers for the past years since
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2012, 2:17 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
I have a feeling picking these two particular years was not a coincidence...how ever I dont have the time to dig much further. BUt it would be great to see the numbers for every year 2000 to 2012...



edit: so I had a look at this Gordon Price fella who they call a expert and im curious what sort of education does he have or life experience beyond politics? Cant seem to find anything that would qualify him as any sort of expert...but I apologize if im way of base.
... he runs the SFU city program.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2012, 3:33 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post
... he runs the SFU city program.
I know that and I have nothing against him...he might be qualified...I just dont see how though. I was thinking he would have some sort of education, any education even if its not really related and some broad experience, and atleast something in the private sector. But all I see is years being on council, that to me shows he can sell him self very well which actually makes me question his qualifications even more. I have seen his name mentioned here and there but when I saw him being touted as a expert I had a quick look at his background and to my surprise didnt see anything that would qualify him as such. I mean I suppose Kevin Falcon is now a expert as well in transportation, and healthcare, might as well call him a doctor, and accounting and finance, and who knows what else... I have no problem with a political career being used to strengthen ones credentials but without some education and real work expereince in the private sector somewhere along the line I think it actually acts a big question mark rather then anything positive.

It actually really bugs me though how a journalist can just throw the expert word around like this, 99% of the people dont have the time to dig a bit deeper.

But like I said I might be way off base...
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:00 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.