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

[WarrenC12]

Back to the tunnel, it looks like this could be an interesting election issue, the NDP are against it:

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/artic...nnel-not-an-urgent-priority-ndp#Comments

"Looking at how to replace the Pattullo Bridge, which is very old and very dangerous; have more buses on the roads; expansion into the south of Fraser; the Broadway corridor... all those areas need to be looked at... along with the Massey Tunnel, which could be a longer-term."

I support all of those projects, but the tunnel is the biggest bottleneck in the region, hands down.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Pinion

They were sold for $19.4 million, which is sad, but it's logical to believe the Liberal government didn't try very hard to find the best price. Especially since they made sure to dock them in a high visibility location on Burrard inlet for years so that everyone who went downtown could be reminded of them.

This, is something people need to realize as well...When the liberals came in power they were the one's getting rid of the ferries and they were offered considerably more for them, I remember even something around 60 or 70 million at one point. They ended up selling them for less then scrap value. This I would say is even worse then the NDP screw up of building them, which was bad, but was at least well intention-ed, but what the liberals did was not, it was the opposite of what a government should be doing.

Other then that, yes, building those ferries was a big mistake. But how the liberals disposed of them was criminal imo.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Also Seaspan just scored a $35 billion shipbuilding contract and are about to hire 4,000 people, so the industry's far from dead here.

Are you referring to the Navy non-combat vessel contract? That accounts for eight or nine billion. What makes up the twenty-six billion?

As for the Massey Tunnel and the Patello Bridge, I do think that planning to replace these aging pieces of infrastructure makes sense, especially if their useful lives are coming to an end in the relatively near future. What is frustrating is that the decision seems to have already been made to replace them; just like that. The Ministry of Transportation requires that rapid transit projects secure funding from the Federal Government and that local government shoulders 1/3 of the cost, so why is the same rule not applied to highways and bridges? I am not against them on-spec, far from it, but it's an egregious double standard.

[twoNeurons]

Wasn't it the Liberals who put a hold on Phase II of the M-Line as well? I remember being extremely disappointed.

Low-hanging fruit or not. It's hard to argue its success. The Evergreen is also low-hanging fruit, but it took forever for the Province to provide funding for that.

There was a lot of politics involved in the Fast Ferries fiasco on BOTH sides of the water.

All the calls for Translink to trim its belt were annoying as well, considering that by most accounts, every audit showed that it's run fairly efficiently. I don't care what government is in power, as long as they either give Translink access to proper funding or give them the power to do so. I suspect the province doesn't do this because it would give the cities too much power and control.

[Millennium2002]

A lot of people on News1130 complaining badly about the NDP's priorities on this one, and I can't blame them really. The tunnel does need an upgrade sooner or later.

In addition, I find it rather disappointing that the NDP injects the excuse of "funding public transit" to this... They've basically turned it into a TransLink/rapid transit vs George Massey Tunnel issue now... and that's not something that any of us want.

Roads and transit (especially buses) go hand in hand... congestion on the roads impacts the buses, and they're the key to feeding ridership to everything else.

Anyway, I hope they realize their errors very soon, or otherwise we'll have a rather silly case for spending millions on turfing/reforming TransLink once again.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

All the calls for Translink to trim its belt were annoying as well, considering that by most accounts, every audit showed that it's run fairly efficiently.

Which is why the "efficiencies" the Province-mandated audit found to run the 555 bus were essentially dipping into contingency funds and cutting other services. Translink doesn't really have any fat on its bones.

In other words, the Province promised a bus service over the bridge, didn't provide any funds for it out of all the billions spent on the project, and took service away from other people to fulfill their "promise".

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

^this.

we have no infrastructure to show for the fast ferry efforts.

i am not sure if we were able to kick start an aluminum shipbuilding industry, and i am unsure about what happened to all the workers trained to work with aluminum. correct me if i'm wrong, but i'd imagine they would have left BC to viable industrial centres.

^^^
Do you think that the concept of developing a larger shipbuilding industry in the Vancouver area is a possibilty? It might not only add $$$, but perhaps stimulate diversification in other sectors, and make the city more 'industrially viable.' (This would raise a lot of opposition, of course)Economic diversification is one thing this city needs.

Off thread topic for a moment; back to the tunnel replacement discussion. Please excuse me, panel.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

This tells me that the structure could take up to 2018 to complete, depending on when the "decision to proceed" takes place.

The existing tunnel has 10 to 15 years of useful life remaining before major components will need to be completely replaced. Because it realistically takes 10 years to plan and construct a project of this magnitude, it’s important to start the planning process now to ensure a solution will be in place when needed.

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2012TRAN0109-001828.htm

I've always been of the belief that 2025 would be the earliest time frame for the H-99 project due to the major capital cost/extensive corridor rebuild involved.

Also of note is the fact that 10 - 15 years of useful tunnel life remains before "major components" need to be replaced. More extensive/expensive tunnel seismic upgrades were also previously halted due to a "value engineering" study confirming its future replacement.

What I don't get is this fairly quick consultation process. One would think that numerous studies have been done over the years (like Hwy 1 from Vancouver to Hope) and that these would be released as part of systems-wide H-99 upgrades.

With the Port Mann Bridge/Hwy 1 upgrades - a Project Definition Report was first released prior to public consultations. But I guess that at this time, it's all preliminary and very early anyway.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2012TRAN0109-001828.htm

I've always been of the belief that 2025 would be the earliest time frame for the H-99 project due to the major capital cost/extensive corridor rebuild involved.

Also of note is the fact that 10 - 15 years of useful tunnel life remains before "major components" need to be replaced. More extensive/expensive tunnel seismic upgrades were also previously halted due to a "value engineering" study confirming its future replacement.

What I don't get is this fairly quick consultation process. One would think that numerous studies have been done over the years (like Hwy 1 from Vancouver to Hope) and that these would be released as part of systems-wide H-99 upgrades.

With the Port Mann Bridge/Hwy 1 upgrades - a Project Definition Report was first released prior to public consultations. But I guess that at this time, it's all preliminary and very early anyway.

Maybe the liberals feel they will lose the election and want to "give" something to the NDP to cancel. ie set them up so they can piss some people off...throw out a few land mines. Just a idea..

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

What I don't get is this fairly quick consultation process. One would think that numerous studies have been done over the years (like Hwy 1 from Vancouver to Hope) and that these would be released as part of systems-wide H-99 upgrades.

With the Port Mann Bridge/Hwy 1 upgrades - a Project Definition Report was first released prior to public consultations. But I guess that at this time, it's all preliminary and very early anyway.

I don't want to make this thread into a political discussion, but I just can't help it for this particular public consultation. Given there was so little notice of an event, I wouldn't be surprised if this was made a larger event driven largely by political reasons.

The BC Liberals won Delta-South by a very slim margin last time, and something like this could possibly better secure their seat.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/bcvotes2009/map/2009/?#20

//End Politics.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by deasine

The BC Liberals won Delta-South by a very slim margin last time, and something like this could possibly better secure their seat.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/bcvotes2009/map/2009/?#20

Interesting thought. Just one little caveat. That CBC result was on election night 2009. A day later, with all polls in riding counted, Delta South was won by Ind. Vicki Huntington (a red tory) by the narrowest of margins. Kinda well known in political circles that she has a lock on that seat in May, 2013.

But you are correct on the political aspect, generally speaking, in terms of the wider region.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Interesting thought. Just one little caveat. That CBC result was on election night 2009. A day later, with all polls in riding counted, Delta South was won by Ind. Vicki Huntington (a red tory) by the narrowest of margins. Kinda well known in political circles that she has a lock on that seat in May, 2013.

I stand corrected.

[GMasterAres]

I'm torn on the tunnel. I do think it needs to be replaced but it is an odd duck regionally. The issue is capacity through the tunnel can be increased but to where?

If you increase tunnel through-put you're simply going to build up longer bottle necks at 70th via Oak Street and Knight Street since Vancouver will not increase any lane capacity into the city. The only reason I would like the tunnel replaced is the odd time I have to go through it against rush hour to go downtown.

I drive to Bridgeport though, park for $2.50, then hop the Canada Line to downtown so trimming that 20 minutes I'm stuck trying to get through the 1 lane Tunnel would benefit me, but again on the surface it seems to make sense but I don't see it as high a priority as others maybe.

If I had to pick and choose (which seems to be what we do with transportation in the region) I'd have it ranked about 4th on my list.

I still think regionally we should focus on first expansion of both Expo out to Langley and the Broadway line, then replacement of the Patullo, then maybe the Tunnel. Heck probably replacing the 72nd intersection on 91 and replacing those new intersections on the SFPR with interchanges would have more impact on traffic.

I also think we need to stop focussing our transport on getting people to and from Vancouver. Highway 1 and the new Port Mann is an example where capacity through to Vancouver hasn't really been increased hugely but the MAIN upgrade is that we have a near direct dedicated connection now between Surrey/Langley and Coquitlam encouraging growth out here. Same as the Golden Ears. I know some people don't like the GEB and think it is over built but it gives a direct link to Surrey/Langley and Maple Ridge/Coquitlam. In 10 years I'd put money down these connections will have a greater impact on overall regional growth and traffic patterns just through reducing trips to and from the Vancouver/Burnaby area.

Highway 99 though _IS_ our main link to the US so it should be on the map for improvements. I think I'd rather the region focus on initiatives that help our 2 major centers being Vancouver and Surrey, and for that focus also to help get the south region making more trips into Surrey than towards Vancouver. We need more commercial and business in central Surrey.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I'm torn on the tunnel. I do think it needs to be replaced but it is an odd duck regionally. The issue is capacity through the tunnel can be increased but to where?

If there were four lanes in each direction, one lane could exit at Steveston, and another lane exit at Westminster/East-West Connector. There would be no need to change the current set up of only two general purpose lanes north of Westminster, plus the bus shoulder. Once the SFPR opens, along with a tolled Port Mann and the attendant pressure it will place on the crossing, it will be difficult to deny the need for a replacement.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I'm torn on the tunnel. I do think it needs to be replaced but it is an odd duck regionally. The issue is capacity through the tunnel can be increased but to where?

I think it is pretty obvious that there is plenty of north-south capacity in Vancouver that could be fed by bridge lanes. It is not all about Oak Street. The Hwy 99 crossing effectively distributes traffic onto Granville (shared with Arthur Laing), Oak, Cambie, and Marine both ways.

Even with Arthur Laing in the accounting, there is far more street capacity on the Vancouver side than bridge capacity.

Knight Street itself has had effectively 1 lane of capacity added in each direction in the last 5 years, due to the intersection improvements. So we could say that Knight St. has unused capacity that is not being filled by that bridge as well. And there again, some of the traffic diverts onto SE Marine as well.

There is plenty of street capacity in Vancouver to absorb additional bridge lanes across the North Arm of the Fraser.

[Spork]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

If there were four lanes in each direction, one lane could exit at Steveston, and another lane exit at Westminster/East-West Connector. There would be no need to change the current set up of only two general purpose lanes north of Westminster, plus the bus shoulder. Once the SFPR opens, along with a tolled Port Mann and the attendant pressure it will place on the crossing, it will be difficult to deny the need for a replacement.

Exactly this, but perhaps with one of these additional lanes as an HOV lane for busses and 2+ occupancy vehicles. I haven't travelled through that section during rush hour for quite some time, but I would bet that the transit time on the busses that go through there could be dramatically improved by cracking that bottleneck.

[go_leafs_go02]

With regard to the tunnel, there is a LOT of traffic that gets on/off at River Road in Delta, and on/off at Stevenson in Richmond.

[tybuilding]

I was promised a focus on transit and sustainable transportation projects after the Gateway and South Fraser Perimeter Road were finished by the MOTI at the Surrey Transportation Lecture Series. "Back in 2010 John Schnablegger, a planner at the MoTI, told me that the between 2014 and 2021 the MoTI would be out of the road building business in Metro Vancouver and would be focusing on delivering sustainable transportation improvements in the region. I guess that is no longer the case."

The Government is hell bent on 1950's highway expansion dreams. Before these expansion projects are even opened another road building frenzy has started with Highway 99 plans. I do not agree with expanding Highway 99. It will not help us South of the Fraser. All it will do is further entrench auto culture. We need the expansion of rapid transit in Surrey, White Rock and Langley prior to needing further road expansion. We were promised transit expansion first. Lets get on with it! If the government has so much money waiting to be spent build transit first along with cycling infrastructure. Our cycling and transit infrastructure is a joke compared to cities in Europe. Our cycling funding is substantially underfunded. Cycling funding should equal $40 per person in BC.

Expanding Highway 99 capacity while not expanding transit in Surrey will just lead to more sprawl without transit and increased demand on other roads in Surrey. With each major project there is a domino effect on other roads in Surrey as more vehicles enter those roads leading to and from Highway 99.

Please read this well well written post:


http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/11/23/the-provinces-obsession-with-highway-building-and-how-it-wont-help-surrey/

"It seems that transportation planning at the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) has entered back into a 1950’s-style freeway building frenzy. Not even waiting for the final asphalt to be poured on the $3 billion Port Mann/Highway 1 project, the Province is already looking to replace the Massey Tunnel. The irony of this is not lost on me as the MoTI has spent the last several years building bus-only lanes and other priority traffic measures along the Highway 99 corridor based on a 2009 report.

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. Given that there are no current plans to expand the capacity of the Highway it is unlikely that such growth could occur without a major shift to the transit mode.

It is interesting to note that although the numbers of buses on the corridor represent less than 1% of the vehicular demand, the person demand accommodated by buses on the highway ranges from 17% to 26%.

Up until this year, the MoTI and TransLink were successfully working towards prioritizing transit on the Highway 99 corridor. In fact, I was at a recent consultation with Port Metro Vancouver and they admitted to me that the Massey Tunnel replacement would do little to improve logistics for the Port."

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

I do not agree with expanding Highway 99.

There is more to it than that. Our 1950's infrastructure is reaching end-of-life. It is a fact that we must either replace it or else decommission it.

Whether we replace it at the same size or with expansion (even though the city has quadrupled in population during that timeframe) is an open question.

But every ~60 years we simply must rebuild bridges and tunnels, whether we want to worship the automobile or not.

Decommissioning Massey Tunnel in order to build an LRT line in Whalley is simply not an option.

New infrastructure has to be built simultaneously with the rebuild schedule of old infrastructure.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Zassk

But every ~60 years we simply must rebuild bridges and tunnels, whether we want to worship the automobile or not.

I totally agree with this, and AFAIK the best part about the PMH1 project isn't the increased capacity, it's that we're replacing most of its aging infrastructure. Heaven forbid we should end up like Quebec.

But we have to ask ourselves whether we really want to dramatically increase single-occupancy vehicle capacity and therefore strongly encourage auto use, or whether we should be allocating a reasonable portion of money to transit and strongly encouraging transit use. Society as a whole would be a lot better off if we did the latter.