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

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

It's a chicken and egg problem, and a bit of a silly point.

The marginal cost of having a bikeway in the tunnel is likely not that large. There likely needs to be a an emergency exit path that's not a roadway. Fire code and exiting requirements and considerably stricter than they used to be when the original tunnel was built.

Ventilation requirements are also likely stricter than previously. There may need to be ventilation openings in the tunnel cross section as well, for things like forced air or exhaust ventilation. If they don't need to be the full height of the box, then there's likely space for a pedestrian/bike sized opening.

For the demand side, if you prohibit a type of user then you have no idea if there was latent demand. Massey is one of the only crossings around that doesn't have a sidewalk, and is in ideal terrain for cyclists. I've on various occasions crossed most of the regional bridges by bike, and I'm hardly a hardcore cyclist. If it was an option to cycle to the ferry without a huge detour I might go for it.

This is like people complaining that there was no demand for a product that hasn't existed previously. Right now, only the dumbest of users would try to cross it on a bike or scooter, but it still has happened. There's probably some demand there.

Sounds like the whole curb-cuts argument.

Curb cuts (for those that don't know) are the parts of the sidewalk curb at an intersection that slope down the street.

They were championed by guerilla advocates in San Francisco decades ago and have been part of every city's planning. People argued that they were a waste of money and only used by a tiny percentage of people and make the "curbs" look ugly, and were only a minor inconvenience anyhow.

They discovered that it was a HUGE benefit not just to those in wheelchairs, but moms with strollers, older ones with mobility issues, kids on tricycles...

Key choke points in infrastructure should cater to people first, and their metal-cased chariots second.

Besides, you never know how these things will be used. Who ever could have foreseen e-bikes opening up medium to long-distance cycling for people who otherwise would not ride? Best to build alternatives for people.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Sounds like the whole curb-cuts argument.

Curb cuts (for those that don't know) are the parts of the sidewalk curb at an intersection that slope down the street.

They were championed by guerilla advocates in San Francisco decades ago and have been part of every city's planning. People argued that they were a waste of money and only used by a tiny percentage of people and make the "curbs" look ugly, and were only a minor inconvenience anyhow.

They discovered that it was a HUGE benefit not just to those in wheelchairs, but moms with strollers, older ones with mobility issues, kids on tricycles...

Key choke points in infrastructure should cater to people first, and their metal-cased chariots second.

Besides, you never know how these things will be used. Who ever could have foreseen e-bikes opening up medium to long-distance cycling for people who otherwise would not ride? Best to build alternatives for people.

This kind of stupid argument always gets me. My favourite one of these arguments have been when people tell me that EV batteries will end up in landfills despite being full of expensive minerals because nobody has recycled them before. There wasn't a market for that service to exist before, so it didn't exist. Now that there is a market for that service, recyclers are doing their thing.

Latent demand is a thing. Once you discover that there's something prohibiting that demand, then it's pretty hard to figure out what will come out of the woodwork.

The people who just want to try the same thing again and again crack me up. Good engineering is far more pragmatic than that. Go with what works, and what should most likely work.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I have to second this. The cost of adding bike / multi use pathways to new infrastructure is pennies on the dollar - trying to add it after the fact costs more. We should be cheering any time they include these new paths alongside roads as it increases 'active transportation' and reduces short trips by car, making it easier for drivers.

Btw CoV still isn't the center of the universe. Other areas of Metro Van should be able to get upgrades without people complaining about it happening outside of the CoV.

Who really thinks there’s a whole legion of people just waiting for bike infrastructure so they can bike from Ladner to Downtown Vancouver (or even Central Richmond)? Yet the live is always pushed by the bike lobby that stuff like this “cuts down on GHG emissions”. It’s not getting any commuter vehicles off the road. Let’s be honest and dispense with that fiction.

[Migrant_Coconut]

So just how much money does anybody think we'd save by shrinking or removing the mixed-use/emergency tunnel?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So just how much money does anybody think we'd save by shrinking or removing the mixed-use/emergency tunnel?

About six whole dollars!

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Who really thinks there’s a whole legion of people just waiting for bike infrastructure so they can bike from Ladner to Downtown Vancouver (or even Central Richmond)? Yet the live is always pushed by the bike lobby that stuff like this “cuts down on GHG emissions”. It’s not getting any commuter vehicles off the road. Let’s be honest and dispense with that fiction.

So your New Year Resolution wasn't to abandon straw man arguments? The bike/pedestrian route through, and around the replacement for the Massey Tunnel is described as 'improved regional cycling infrastructure'. It might serve some commuters - those that live on one side of the tunnel, and work on the other. Most commuters don't go Downtown. Right now there has to be a bicycle shuttle to take bikes and their riders through the tunnel - an additional expense that won't be required in future. And not all cycling has to be commuting, either. I know several people who have used the shuttle to get through the tunnel, then ride to the ferry to travel to the Island. Some even live Downtown.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

It's a chicken and egg problem, and a bit of a silly point.

The marginal cost of having a bikeway in the tunnel is likely not that large. There likely needs to be a an emergency exit path that's not a roadway. Fire code and exiting requirements and considerably stricter than they used to be when the original tunnel was built.

Ventilation requirements are also likely stricter than previously. There may need to be ventilation openings in the tunnel cross section as well, for things like forced air or exhaust ventilation. If they don't need to be the full height of the box, then there's likely space for a pedestrian/bike sized opening.

For the demand side, if you prohibit a type of user then you have no idea if there was latent demand. Massey is one of the only crossings around that doesn't have a sidewalk, and is in ideal terrain for cyclists. I've on various occasions crossed most of the regional bridges by bike, and I'm hardly a hardcore cyclist. If it was an option to cycle to the ferry without a huge detour I might go for it.

This is like people complaining that there was no demand for a product that hasn't existed previously. Right now, only the dumbest of users would try to cross it on a bike or scooter, but it still has happened. There's probably some demand there.

But wasn't the MUP on one side of the crossing as a proposal earlier on in the project discussion? So there was no "requirement" for a central emergency exit. There would just be standard cross-tunnel with walkways in case of emergencies.

It's peanuts in terms of the budget but I wouldn't try to blanket it over as a "reuse" of a required emeregency tunnel. (Sure if you had two gas tanker fires in both tunnels at the same time this option is better).

https://www.highway99tunnel.ca/app/uploa...x-h-crossing-costing-report-redacted.pdf

I just want to know who is going to be stupid enough to walk the tunnel with e-bikes coming by them at 60km/h.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Lexus

Not sure what cyclists did to you, but approximately 95% of all photos posted on this forum I’ve taken while I was riding my road or gravel bike… just saying…

I know, and I’m glad you do. But would you say your the typical commuter cyclist in terms of distance?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

…. I know several people who have used the shuttle to get through the tunnel, then ride to the ferry to travel to the Island. Some even live Downtown.

And your “several people” is what percent of the travelling public? And they make that trip numerous times a year I’m sure.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And your “several people” is what percent of the travelling public? And they make that trip numerous times a year I’m sure.

Just two are two less cars. Every little helps.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

But wasn't the MUP on one side of the crossing as a proposal earlier on in the project discussion? So there was no "requirement" for a central emergency exit. There would just be standard cross-tunnel with walkways in case of emergencies.

It's peanuts in terms of the budget but I wouldn't try to blanket it over as a "reuse" of a required emeregency tunnel. (Sure if you had two gas tanker fires in both tunnels at the same time this option is better).

https://www.highway99tunnel.ca/app/uploa...x-h-crossing-costing-report-redacted.pdf

I just want to know who is going to be stupid enough to walk the tunnel with e-bikes coming by them at 60km/h.

If it can do 60 km/h, then it's probably allowed on the road or illegal in general.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

If it can do 60 km/h, then it's probably allowed on the road or illegal in general.

If it has a motor and can do 30 then it should treated as a motor vehicle and require a license, registration, insurance, and fit roadworthiness standards.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Just two are two less cars. Every little helps.

Not really. They’re not commuters and they could have taken the bus.

[L00per]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Not really. They’re not commuters and they could have taken the bus.

Could they? What if transit doesn't serve, or serve well, the area(s) they are traveling to and from? What if transit's schedule doesn't fit their requirements?

Should they? Why gatekeep? Why can't they ride their bike for fitness, mental health, convenience, or just because they're rather that than a bus?

[WarrenC12]

Bigger picture, anything that encourages physical activity is good. Could be commuters, could be weekend riders, could be MAMILs. Promoting physical activity and health saves us all money and makes people happier. Certain negative Nancy forumers would benefit from getting outside and touching grass.

[Migrant_Coconut]

IMO it's more of a statement about Delta: that very few will put all that effort into going to Ladner or Tsawwassen unless they suddenly become more attractive.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Yeah but a gang of crackheads have set up camp along the pathway

What? Where? I haven't been there since September, but I enjoy riding across there into Richmond. That's a shame.

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

If it has a motor and can do 30 then it should treated as a motor vehicle and require a license, registration, insurance, and fit roadworthiness standards.

We need to differentiate between e-bikes and what are essentially e-motorcycles; the latter should clearly be on the roadway. On the other hand, my Class 1 gravel e-bike with no throttle can only do 32 km/h before the motor cuts out completely. Since I can get it well above 40 under my own power, am I free to throw away your licensing once I hit 33 km/h?

[idunno]

Funny that this comes up again. All new bridges in the region have MUPs and/or sidewalks - why should this be any different?

[Henbo]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Bigger picture, anything that encourages physical activity is good. Could be commuters, could be weekend riders, could be MAMILs. Promoting physical activity and health saves us all money and makes people happier. Certain negative Nancy forumers would benefit from getting outside and touching grass.

Exactly this

If you want to maximize physical activity in the region, and you have, lets say $50m to spend, where would you spend it?

[flipper316]

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/george-massey-bridge-replacement-ian-black-bc-conservatives