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

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by flipper316

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2023MOTI0161-001607

Massey Tunnel replacement procurement moves to next step

Following a request for qualifications, three bid teams have been invited to participate in the next phase of procurement for the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel with a new toll-free, eight-lane tunnel, which will improve travel for people along Highway 99 between Richmond and Delta.

...

Following the evaluation of submissions to the request for proposals, the Province will choose the project’s design-build team. It is anticipated the team will be on board in spring 2024.

Concurrent with procurement, the Fraser River Tunnel Project continues through the Province’s environmental assessment process. The project received its readiness decision in September 2023.

...

[Jimbo604]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Massey Tunnel replacement procurement moves to next step

Hmm election coming up next year, maybe new gov will bin all tunnel stuff and switch back to bridge.

[madog222]

What new government? Be realistic, as it stands now anything other than an NDP majority next election has very low probability.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

Hmm election coming up next year, maybe new gov will bin all tunnel stuff and switch back to bridge.

that would be great. this tunnel plan is terrible. doesnt even add any extra lanes at rush hour.

HOV doesnt count.

9 figures more, min. 10yrs later, less capacity, wont allow for dangerous goods, takes up more farm land, lack of freeway improvements, lack of interchange improvements.

NDP; useless at the federal level, useless at the provincial level, useless at the municipal level.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

that would be great. this tunnel plan is terrible. doesnt even add any extra lanes at rush hour.

HOV doesnt count.

9 figures more, min. 10yrs later, less capacity, wont allow for dangerous goods, takes up more farm land, lack of freeway improvements, lack of interchange improvements.

It's not quite that bad. The current tunnel has 4 lanes (2 each way or 3 + 1 with the counterflow lane). From the link:

The new crossing will be an eight-lane immersed tube tunnel with three general-purpose travel lanes and a dedicated transit lane in each direction. The new tunnel will also feature a separate multi-use path to support pedestrians, cyclists and other active transportation options.

The project also includes replacing the existing Deas Slough Bridge and the addition of a southbound general-purpose lane on Highway 99 between Westminster Highway and Steveston Highway in Richmond.

...

Construction of a new five-lane Steveston Interchange is underway and on track for completion in 2025. Cycling and transit improvements along the corridor, including an extension of bus-on-shoulder lanes south of the existing tunnel, are nearing completion.

[Metro-One]

Its pretty bad.

An transit equivalent would have been cancelling the Broadway Subway just before announcing the winning bid and prep work had already been done.

Then resurrecting the project a decade later as an at grade LRT for double the price.

[WarrenC12]

It will be fine. If the BC Libs wanted to build a bridge so badly they could have done it. Clark campaigning in 2013 promising a 2017 START of the project was stupid and she was rewarded for her stupidity.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

....Then resurrecting the project a decade later as an at grade LRT for double the price.

No, that's not an accurate comparison as an at-grade LRT would be much slower than the SkyTrain line in addition to reduced capacity. Three general-purpose lanes each way instead of four reduces overall capacity, but should not significantly impact lane speed. More accurate might be building the Broadway line with shorter stations that can only handle four-car trains instead of five.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Three general-purpose lanes each way instead of four reduces overall capacity, but should not significantly impact lane speed.

youre right about that. itll keep it as slow as it is now since there are ALREADY 3 GP lanes in the rush hour direction and it still crawls. you also ignored the fact itll take at least 10yrs longer, and cost 🞵🞵🞵🞵 loads more, and have a lot less than the original project.

also, those multi-use paths will be dangerous and disgusting since theyll be used as toilets, have bad sight-lines, and will never get rain on them to wash away the toilet uses.

the bridge would have had much better paths with better sight-lines and safety.

as for should the bridge have started sooner? 100% it should have. the NDP are idiots, always have been, always will be; and no one should have thought they wouldnt pull this 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

the NDP legacy includes the Fast-Cats & ICBC.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

youre right about that. itll keep it as slow as it is now since there are ALREADY 3 GP lanes in the rush hour direction and it still crawls. you also ignored the fact itll take at least 10yrs longer, and cost 🞵🞵🞵🞵 loads more, and have a lot less than the original project.

also, those multi-use paths will be dangerous and disgusting since theyll be used as toilets, have bad sight-lines, and will never get rain on them to wash away the toilet uses.

the bridge would have had much better paths with better sight-lines and safety.

as for should the bridge have started sooner? 100% it should have. the NDP are idiots, always have been, always will be; and no one should have thought they wouldnt pull this 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

the NDP legacy includes the Fast-Cats & ICBC.

For clarity, I'm not saying (nor did I ever say) that a ten-lane bridge and an eight-lane tunnel are identical. Nor did I ignore any of what you claimed; I simply called out an erroneous comparison.

As for traffic speed, I think you know full well that the new tunnel will lead to improved traffic flow, even if it doesn't fit with an anti-NDP narrative. The simple fact that we'll have three wider, dedicated lanes, better transit flow, fewer merge points, no crossover, and no dangerous counterflow lane will markedly improve the overall throughput. As much as a larger bridge? No, of course not, but to suggest that it will be the same as the present setup is clearly nonsensical. Even the venerable Lions Gate Bridge, still only three lanes total, saw an improvement in traffic flow after the deck replacement project by virtue of having a wider, more modern roadway.

I'm not even going to bother with your rant against the multi-use tunnel, it's already been discussed elsewhere in this thread.

[chowhou]

It does not affect me much, but I still personally do not understand why the bridge was canned in favour of a tunnel replacement. All the pro-tunnel argumentation here is that it's "not that bad and an improvement over the existing tunnel", but it's still worse than a bridge replacement, right? This is speaking as a driver, as a cyclist, as a pedestrian, and as a transit user.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by chowhou

....All the pro-tunnel argumentation here is that it's "not that bad and an improvement over the existing tunnel", but it's still worse than a bridge replacement, right? This is speaking as a driver, as a cyclist, as a pedestrian, and as a transit user....

The issue isn't so much the objective comparisons between the two as it is with using a discussion about the tunnel replacement as an excuse to rail against a government they don't like. If we could focus on the infrastructure itself - capacity at the crossing, cost, timeframe, is it a plus/minus given the existing networks that it feeds from and to - that would be better.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Its pretty bad.

An transit equivalent would have been cancelling the Broadway Subway just before announcing the winning bid and prep work had already been done.

Then resurrecting the project a decade later as an at grade LRT for double the price.

It was no where close to being tendered was just early works and a rush job at that because it was made to be another big election spend. only work was done was pre load that was needed regardless and a test pile as there was no plan to build a bridge there prior to the big press release. And as inflation brings costs up the number of drivers on the road does decrease.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

If we could focus on the infrastructure itself - capacity at the crossing, cost, timeframe, is it a plus/minus given the existing networks that it feeds from and to - that would be better.

Is it not strictly worse in all of these categories?

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

youre right about that. itll keep it as slow as it is now since there are ALREADY 3 GP lanes in the rush hour direction and it still crawls. you also ignored the fact itll take at least 10yrs longer, and cost 🞵🞵🞵🞵 loads more, and have a lot less than the original project.

also, those multi-use paths will be dangerous and disgusting since theyll be used as toilets, have bad sight-lines, and will never get rain on them to wash away the toilet uses.

the bridge would have had much better paths with better sight-lines and safety.

as for should the bridge have started sooner? 100% it should have. the NDP are idiots, always have been, always will be; and no one should have thought they wouldnt pull this 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

the NDP legacy includes the Fast-Cats & ICBC.

ICBC that the liberals used to pay back BC residence before an election. And i guess the NDP dont throw failures around when it comes to ferries as the Polish built ferry that was built on the cheap has 1 in dry dock for what 6 months.

And if you have ever worked in Vancouver doing infrastructure you will know that there is lots of crazy drawings and plans and studies. The Massey tunnel was not planned to be a bridge and it came as a shock to many as the geotechnical data is not good. The Port Mann bridge is had settling issues on the North side and it would be worse with the Massey bridge considering the size of it.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It does not affect me much, but I still personally do not understand why the bridge was canned in favour of a tunnel replacement. All the pro-tunnel argumentation here is that it's "not that bad and an improvement over the existing tunnel", but it's still worse than a bridge replacement, right? This is speaking as a driver, as a cyclist, as a pedestrian, and as a transit user.

The bridge was just a concept picture and was not priced or engineered. 60 years plus of infrastructure building in the city was thrown away and there was a fancy bridge. I was part of some of the upgrades on 99 during the olympics and after. Had a meeting with MOT field engineers shortly after the press release and they were shocked as there are a lot of geotechnical issues that are a concern. This is also the same government that offloaded the Patello bridge onto translink and told them its your rotten bridge instead of putting in a plan to replace it.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

The bridge was just a concept picture and was not priced or engineered. 60 years plus of infrastructure building in the city was thrown away and there was a fancy bridge. I was part of some of the upgrades on 99 during the olympics and after. Had a meeting with MOT field engineers shortly after the press release and they were shocked as there are a lot of geotechnical issues that are a concern.

i have heard this said before, but never once seen any evidence of that. the thing had started pre-works, the main bridge had also gone out to tender and they were going to be picking the winner. costs had been accounted for and things. thats one hell of a fake out if it was just a "concept picture."

in every metric it is arguably worse:

• timeline: it will take at a minimum of a decade longer
• cost: based on the cost estimates, it will be at least 1 billion more than the bridge would have been
• dangerous goods: the bridge would have been an alternative route for dangerous goods which are banned from tunnels in BC
• capacity: the bridge had 4+4 GP lanes, the proposed tunnel has 3+3. this means it has the same amount of GP lanes as the existing tunnel at rush hour
• pedestrian/bike facilities: the bridge was open air, had better sight-lines, and is inherently safer since there is an ability for people driving by to see pedestrians should they be in trouble. either crime, or medical emergency
• safety: tunnels are unsafe for pedestrians. this is a fact. tunnels have bad sight-lines, and create an enclosed environment. they closed the Stadium Station tunnel due to safety. it was way shorter than this one and help was much closer than it will be here.
• cleanliness: this tunnel also is more likely to be used as a homeless camp, public toilet, etc than an open air bridge walkway would be. will it turn into that? i hope not, but it is much more likely than with a bridge. there will also be no ability for rain to wash away the stench should it get dirty.
• emergency access: i assume there will be emergency exits, but what about if you have a heart attack and need 9-1-1-1? do they need to run from either side of the portal which is ~1km away? now they also need to get you out. will the emergency exits open into traffic? that's dangerous. with a bridge you can jump into traffic but you get a much much better view of any that is on-coming vs going through a doorway.
• other upgrades: the bridge plan included ~30km of freeway upgrades. better designed interchanges, on-ramps, etc. this tunnel plan does not and just makes minor changes to the existing, outdated interchanges.
• transit: the bridge plan had dedicated, median bus stops. the bus/HOV lane was in the centre of the RoW. this is much safer than the tunnel plan, which has NO bus stops, and is on the shoulder. it creates weaving and points of conflict at every on-ramp & off-ramp. the bridge plan did not.
• land use: the bridge plan had a net increase in farm land due to better design. so it literally created more farm land than before. the tunnel plan creates less farm land than the bridge plan did.

all of those downgrades. for MORE money. that is a TERRIBLE value. if there were cost savings i at least could understand why they would value engineer it. but FFS, this is more 🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵🞵🞵 expensive.

i cant think of one metric where its better, unless you talk about "its invisible!"

i also am highly doubtful this will pass federal environmental review. literally it requires trenching, dredging across the Fraser River which is supposedly some kind of sensitive area. its one thing to build 2 piers, its a whole other thing to literally trench the whole river.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i also am highly doubtful this will pass federal environmental review. literally it requires trenching, dredging across the Fraser River which is supposedly some kind of sensitive area. its one thing to build 2 piers, its a whole other thing to literally trench the whole river.

FYI, the Port of Vancouver already dredges the south arm of the Fraser to maintain a deep-sea channel to the Fraser River port facilities.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by madog222

What new government? Be realistic, as it stands now anything other than an NDP majority next election has very low probability.

How do you figure? Not trying to turn this into a political convo but what the hell has the NDP done for BC that is guaranteed a win? I think we've never been in a worse position, affordability is at an all time low and wasn't that their big promise?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by chowhou

FYI, the Port of Vancouver already dredges the south arm of the Fraser to maintain a deep-sea channel to the Fraser River port facilities.

i am aware. but that isnt the same thing as trenching across the entire width of the river. or building through the Deas Island Regional park.

none of that would have happened with the bridge. would have avoided much disturbance to the river, and would have just gone over the regional park vs through it.