HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 8:40 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,325
What a dumb response from Dix... seems like a kneejerk reaction.

Even if he didn't want to agree with Clark he could have said something along the lines of needing more transit up and down the 99 (bus, rail or otherwise).

You can't pretend the 4 lane tunnel is anything but a traffic nightmare right now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2012, 1:53 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 2,926
Some further info tidbits from the Highway 99 Corridor Assessment of Sept., 2009:

Quote:
*Only structures built since 1986 (Highway 91 interchanges) meet current seismic design standards.

*The South of Fraser municipalities have experienced the greatest rate of growth within the GVRD over the past 10 years. The communities that Highway 99 runs through have experienced the highest rate of growth in the South of Fraser Area.

*Semihamoo Peninsula (South Surrey/White Rock) 2001 population - 76,960; 2031 population - 218,000;

*Highway 99 Total 2008 AADT’s and 2008 SADT’s

North of US Border 8,800 - 11,900
North of 32 Ave 51,000 - 54,000
North of Highway 91 48,400 - 51,200
George Massey Tunnel 94,600 - 99,700
Bridgeport Road 44,000 - 46,500

*The northbound speed variation during the AM peak period, between the King George Highway Highway 91 is caused by peak demands which result in vehicle densities that can drop speeds to 30 km/h;

*With the addition of southbound demand from Highways 91, 10, and 17 the peak period demand significantly exceeds the available tunnel capacity. This results in speeds dropping to 10 km/h at the tunnel approaches. These effects rebound as far back as 80th St.

*The congested peak period conditions on the Oak St. Bridge and Massey Tunnel approaches and the resultant safety performance pose the most significant service quality and safety issues along the corridor.

*Based on projected land use changes it is expected that travel demand on the Highway 99 corridor will increase 36% by 2021 and another 50% from 2021 to 2031.
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayproje...Assessment.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2012, 5:52 AM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,055
Arrow A suggestion .......

With the Massey Tunnel Replacement currently being a "hot" ticket on the forum (and rightly so), should there / could there be a Fantasy Page dedicated to this, either in the Roads Fantasy thread or in a new Massey Tunnel Replacement fantasy thread?

I simply say this because there are so many divergent views as to go about the tunnel replacement / addition. I'm not going to start a fantasy thread for this, for obvious reasons, but I thought it might be timely that someone did. Thank you all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2012, 6:03 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 10,931
Yeah, a fantasy thread would be cool. Would like to make some simple drawings of my own
__________________
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
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2012, 5:25 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,266
Not all of the tunnel traffic goes over the Oak Street Bridge. Look at the traffic numbers posted earlier in the weekend - half of the traffic from the tunnel leaves H99 within Richmond.

You could build an 8-lane crossing at the GMT and half of those lanes might represent traffic that never reaches Vancouver. Of course, you can also distribute the traffic from the tunnel to Vancouver between OSB and Knight St. Bridge, which together have 8 lanes already.

There are more than enough lanes on the City of Vancouver side of these two bridge heads. H99 already has enough infrastructure in place to distribute its traffic on the following routes:

3 lanes northbound on Oak St
1 lane northbound on Granville St
1 lane eastbound on Marine
1 lane northbound on Knight St

You can build a much larger crossing at GMT, and you'd still be unlikely to run out of lanes in the City of Vancouver (keeping in mind that half of the traffic will still terminate in Richmond instead of Vancouver).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2012, 10:20 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
I think a bridge would be next to impossible. The ramps on the North side would be insane to get them to meet up with Steveston Highway. One of the biggest problems with the AFB is the climb up from Nordel. A bridge at Deas Island would be even worse climbing up from Steveston.
I beat a dump truck up the bridge today with my Electric assist bicycle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2012, 4:16 PM
Dylan Leblanc's Avatar
Dylan Leblanc Dylan Leblanc is offline
Website Manager
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,321
Here's a Popular Mechanics article from 1959 about construction of the tunnel - http://books.google.ca/books?id=vtsD...marine&f=false

Good read
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2012, 4:25 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan Leblanc View Post
Here's a Popular Mechanics article from 1959 about construction of the tunnel
Nice find, thanks for posting!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2012, 10:40 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan Leblanc View Post
Here's a Popular Mechanics article from 1959 about construction of the tunnel - http://books.google.ca/books?id=vtsD...marine&f=false

Good read
Very cool!
By the numbers:
$16,600,000 original cost (1957)
$2,000,000 in equipment used
100,000 cubic yards of concrete
12,000 tons of steel
2,500,000 cubic yards of excavated material
800 men employed at one time
400-500 men employed on average
8000' length (including approaches)
2100' length in tunnel
60' below the water surface at lowest point

Anyone want to do an estimate how much this would cost today?

Interesting note is that the 2nd Narrows bridge costed the same amount to build.

Also funny that it ends the article with the statement: "It's more than possible that the success of the tunnel will eventually lead to a similar but much more ambitious project --- an underwater passage linking Vancouver Island to the mainland"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2012, 10:52 PM
cairnstone cairnstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 372
great read. After readin the article I think we are going to get a tunnel again. I heard from a MOT inspector a few years ago that a bridge was not feasble do to varous issues one was the length of the south approach and also the poor soil conditions. I think also the overal hieght could be an issue also do YZR and Boundry airports being close by.

Does anyone know who the orginal contractor was for the tunnel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2012, 11:38 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by twoNeurons View Post
Very cool!
Also funny that it ends the article with the statement: "It's more than possible that the success of the tunnel will eventually lead to a similar but much more ambitious project --- an underwater passage linking Vancouver Island to the mainland"
One of the old proposals for a Vancouver Island Bridge had a tunnel to a new island (with a toll plaza, I think) then floating bridge the rest of the way. The tunnel section allowed the passage of ships overhead, whereas the rest of the floating bridge did not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2012, 11:40 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 884
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/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2012, 11:50 PM
red-paladin's Avatar
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,248
I think the bridge to VI will arrive with the rest of the predictions from 1959: Fusion reactors, Von Braun wheel space stations, and talking robot servants.

I do think a new tunnel makes the most sense, as a bridge would have to be taller, with higher clearance than the new Port Mann.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2012, 11:55 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 3,507
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%)
Yeah I like those screenline survey's.

I wonder if we would be better off spending the money on Skytrain to White Rock?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 12:04 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 10,931
Given the vast distance of ALR such a sky train line would have to traverse and the relatively small population it would serve, along with the fact that a direct connection to the ferries would still require a rather long spur, that is a terrible idea.

It would take at least 35km of guideway to reach White Rock from Brighouse. A further 10km or more would have to be built to reach the ferries if you wish to add that as part of the deal, which would be a major waste of money given all the other corridors skytrain money could be spent on.

A good idea is to replace this 50+ year old seismically unsatisfactory tunnel with a new road structure that would incorporate a rapid Bus system to White Rock / South Surrey.

Even if traffic volumes are decreasing slightly, there is still an asinine bottle neck coming northbound when it funnels into a single lane. I have to do it occasionally and each time it literally takes over an hour to travel about 3km distance as 5 lanes funnel into a single one. No excuse for that.

At the very least a replacement should be 6 lanes wide with bus / HOV lanes. My preferred replacement would be akin to the new Port Mann, with a 2X3X3X2 C/D system and rapid bus system.
__________________
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
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 12:11 AM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,345
I'd be for an 8 lane structure (3+1 HOV/BUS) that wouldn't add any SOV capacity in the rush-hour direction, but gives dedicated bus/HOV lane only lanes through the structure.

Also advocate for a tunnel in this case...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 12:50 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 3,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
Given the vast distance of ALR such a sky train line would have to traverse and the relatively small population it would serve, along with the fact that a direct connection to the ferries would still require a rather long spur, that is a terrible idea.
I was thinking Expo Line. There is so little population south of Richmond, all that traffic must be coming from South Surrey. Skytrain is going down KG anyways, if you go all the way to White Rock that would probably relieve a lot of traffic from the Massey Tunnel. Then you could spend way less money on the tunnel to slap on some seismic upgrades so nobody drowns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 12:59 AM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
I was thinking Expo Line. There is so little population south of Richmond, all that traffic must be coming from South Surrey. Skytrain is going down KG anyways, if you go all the way to White Rock that would probably relieve a lot of traffic from the Massey Tunnel. Then you could spend way less money on the tunnel to slap on some seismic upgrades so nobody drowns.
You're making the assumption that everyone who lives in White Rock or South Surrey works in Vancouver.

Fact is, Richmond is a large employment centre for many. Expo Line extension won't help those commuters.

There's a reason why the 351 runs every 7-8 minutes in the peak period.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 1:09 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
A good idea is to replace this 50+ year old seismically unsatisfactory tunnel with a new road structure that would incorporate a rapid Bus system to White Rock / South Surrey.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 1:13 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 10,931
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.
__________________
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
     
     
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:29 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.