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

[moosejaw]

Ive looked at the mall in question. I would not say its going to be close to anywhere near to disneyland. The rendering and floor plans seem to indicate that the mega mall is a "Mills" type (racetrack layout) mall which would be similar to the CrossIron Mills mall in Calgary. This type of mall is an outlet type mall which caters to the suburban crowd. I dont see this mall being similar or competing with Metrotown.

The second mall adjacent is an exterior big box retail project similar to the mall by the Queensborough Bridge. I think this may be the beginning of projects in this area. First comes the mall, the housing, the office space serving the port, the movie theatres etc.

If this is the case, i think they should keep highway 17A at four lanes. I imagine this mall would serve the Point Roberts as well as Delta/South Surrey folks. I dont see Metrotown shoppers being diverted here or anyone from Vancouver/Burnaby.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by s211

Is that a mistake? Only 700 cars a day? That's it? That's a rounding error when you take into account the daily traffic count through the tunnel.

I think you must be right. It probably should be 7000 cars per day by 2031 (20 years from now, that doesn't seem unrealistic).

That's only a few hundred extra cars per hour, and I'm sure that assumes an upgraded crossing and the whole area being fully built out.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

It's better because you cut down on trip km for people. Trips towards Boundary and Tilbury would be way more direct. The 2 bridge option wouldn't be much more expensive.

In 1991 MoTH commissioned a study on this and showed the following prices:

The 2 Bridges + Freeway to SFPR was estimated at $330.5M.
The 6-lane Massey was estimated at $174.5M.
The 8-lane Massey was estimated at $319.5M.

Keep in mind this would put both Oak St. and Knight St. way over capacity. It recommended the 2 bridge option as the best value.

Makes sense. I agree with the Oak St. and Knight St. bridges being over capacity. I actually think they are over capacity today. Well in Oak Street's case it is 70th that is stupid and causes most of the back up heading into Vancouver. But yes this would make it 10 times worst.

Really I think we could use another few bridges across the Fraser to have better traffic patterns overall. So yah makes sense. This is also why I think any talk by New Westminster of removing the Patullo Bridge entirely and not replacing it is just ridiculous and selfish.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Good grief. They've got to be crazy if they think a mall stuck way over in one rural corner of the region can attract as many customers as Metrotown, which is smack dab in the middle of everything with it's own Skytrain station.

Keep in mind you have thousands of people that drive to Seattle and Bellingham to shop. Add up all the traffic from Ferry crossings and the mall is going to be busy I would put money on it.

You have everyone in Delta, Surrey, and Richmond who aren't that far away. Then you have all Ferry traffic going right by it and eventually all the new residences being built on the TFN. It is going to be plenty busy.

Don't under estimate the power of the car to move people. I mean it takes about 40 minutes to drive from Surrey Central to the Ferries. By Skytrain you're talking about 20 minutes to Metrotown. So while that is a 20 minute difference, I can only carry so many things in my hands on SkyTrain. If I drive to a mall, I can get a lot more stuff and am more likely to buy more.

That's just how it works. SkyTrain gets more people to malls but cars get more things purchased at malls.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Ive looked at the mall in question. I would not say its going to be close to anywhere near to disneyland. The rendering and floor plans seem to indicate that the mega mall is a "Mills" type (racetrack layout) mall which would be similar to the CrossIron Mills mall in Calgary. This type of mall is an outlet type mall which caters to the suburban crowd. I dont see this mall being similar or competing with Metrotown.

The second mall adjacent is an exterior big box retail project similar to the mall by the Queensborough Bridge. I think this may be the beginning of projects in this area. First comes the mall, the housing, the office space serving the port, the movie theatres etc.

If this is the case, i think they should keep highway 17A at four lanes. I imagine this mall would serve the Point Roberts as well as Delta/South Surrey folks. I dont see Metrotown shoppers being diverted here or anyone from Vancouver/Burnaby.

I'd agree with that. The mall is most likely targeting Surrey/Delta/Ferry shoppers more than anywhere else. Follow that up by some in Richmond. Beyond that, there are more malls closer to downtown Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby, etc. And for people in some parts of Surrey/Langley same thing, you are closer to places like Guildford, Willowbrook, and even Abbotsford in the case of Langley.

So yah it isn't going to compete with Metrotown. But it will be busy I would put money on it.

[moosejaw]

I want to point out that the mall will be a big draw but at 1.2 million sq ft, it falls short of the 1.8 million sq ft that metrotown has.

The sqft # is just right for this type of mall which will prob have two or three anchors, a movie theatre and restaurant outparcels.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Makes sense. I agree with the Oak St. and Knight St. bridges being over capacity. I actually think they are over capacity today. Well in Oak Street's case it is 70th that is stupid and causes most of the back up heading into Vancouver. But yes this would make it 10 times worst.

Really I think we could use another few bridges across the Fraser to have better traffic patterns overall. So yah makes sense. This is also why I think any talk by New Westminster of removing the Patullo Bridge entirely and not replacing it is just ridiculous and selfish.

Just the fact that New Westminster is opposed to a six lane replacement (or connecting the bridge to the SFPR) shows how myopic they are (not to mention the timing of lights on McBride). We had a four lane bridge almost 100 years ago. You have to allow spare capacity for accidents or problems elsewhere in the network.

I absolutely think they should tear the Pattullo down and just be done with it, New West will *never* stop throwing tantrums. With the proviso that a new bridge to Coquitlam or Burnaby (or an upgraded Queensborough) is built.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Just the fact that New Westminster is opposed to a six lane replacement (or connecting the bridge to the SFPR) shows how myopic they are (not to mention the timing of lights on McBride). We had a four lane bridge almost 100 years ago. You have to allow spare capacity for accidents or problems elsewhere in the network.

I absolutely think they should tear the Pattullo down and just be done with it, New West will *never* stop throwing tantrums. With the proviso that a new bridge to Coquitlam or Burnaby (or an upgraded Queensborough) is built.

Would back that 100%. Then as Coquitlam builds up and businesses move there, Burnaby continues to build up at the base of Bounday and Marine and business moves there, then New West sees empty streets and retail outlets because they cut themselves off from the fastest growing part of Metro Van and second largest city, we can all laugh a little at them and point.

They will have their quiet streets though. Unfortunately it will be because nobody will be there anymore as all the industry starts to migrate to Surrey, Burnaby, and Delta.

Quiet streets though...

[GeeCee]

We should just build a brick wall around New West. If they want to live in a bubble, then so be it.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

We should just build a brick wall around New West. If they want to live in a bubble, then so be it.

I was thinking we could give everyone in New West who doesn't like traffic a free one way ticket to Prince Rupert.

[go_leafs_go02]

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2012/11/GMT-Phase-2-Display-Boards.pdf

Hot off the presses. 5 alternatives.

1 - Do Nothing
2 - New Bridge (Remove Existing Tunnel)
3 - New Tunnel (Remove Existing Tunnel)
4 - New Bridge/New Tunnel (Keep Existing Tunnel)
5 - New Connection @ 8 Road in Richmond connecting to Tilbury.

[WarrenC12]

Thanks for posting. Without any cost information or (gasp!) tolling, I'd say #5 looks like the best solution. More options/crossings are always good.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2012/11/GMT-Phase-2-Display-Boards.pdf

Hot off the presses. 5 alternatives.

1 - Do Nothing
2 - New Bridge (Remove Existing Tunnel)
3 - New Tunnel (Remove Existing Tunnel)
4 - New Bridge/New Tunnel (Keep Existing Tunnel)
5 - New Connection @ 8 Road in Richmond connecting to Tilbury.

We should do some sort of a vote here for this! Can the OP poster initiate that?

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2012/11/GMT-Phase-2-Display-Boards.pdf

Hot off the presses. 5 alternatives.

1 - Do Nothing
2 - New Bridge (Remove Existing Tunnel)
3 - New Tunnel (Remove Existing Tunnel)
4 - New Bridge/New Tunnel (Keep Existing Tunnel)
5 - New Connection @ 8 Road in Richmond connecting to Tilbury.

"In addition to potentially replacing the George Massey Tunnel, the project also considers all interchanges within the Highway 99 corridor from Bridgeport Road in Richmond to the Canada/ U.S. border in Surrey, as well as connections to other provincial highways, and regional and local routes."

Gateway Part 2!

I love that they presented #5 as an option, but it is not likely to happen (not least because it doesn't solve the problem of the aging tunnel).
#2 is probably the most likely and is (I think) already pre-ordained by the powers that be.

Ideally there would be an option #6 which would be options 2+5 combined (new massey bridge + new 8 road bridge - diverting funds from the Pattullo replacement - just tear it down already)

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

"In addition to potentially replacing the George Massey Tunnel, the project also considers all interchanges within the Highway 99 corridor from Bridgeport Road in Richmond to the Canada/ U.S. border in Surrey, as well as connections to other provincial highways, and regional and local routes."

Gateway Part 2!

I love that they presented #5 as an option, but it is not likely to happen (not least because it doesn't solve the problem of the aging tunnel).
#2 is probably the most likely and is (I think) already pre-ordained by the powers that be.

Ideally there would be an option #6 which would be options 2+5 combined (new massey bridge + new 8 road bridge - diverting funds from the Pattullo replacement - just tear it down already)

I would assume #5 includes #1, which is doing a lot of work on the tunnel and the deas island bridge for seismic and electric upgrades.

Without any $$ this is all pie in the sky anyway.

[officedweller]

Interesting that for Option #5 they have selected Tilbury as the interchange (rather than a stright shot north to No. 8 Rd. from 72nd Street)
- that seems to help serve a Richmond/Vancouver to North Delta / Surrey (and Hwy 1 via SFPR) routing rather than a Vancouver to US Border routing (due to added distance)
i.e. it seems to be creating a new cross-regional route, rather than alleviating the existing GMT route.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

We should do some sort of a vote here for this! Can the OP poster initiate that?

I will do my best

EDIT - no can do on that. Some forums let you add polls afterwards, this one doesn't. A mod can do it though.

I don't see #5 being feasible, so I'm going to throw my hat into the ring supporting the replacement tunnel.

I think for a gateway/security basis, a tunnel is more strategic than a bridge as an entry to the Fraser River. I'd be worried about the amount of preload necessary for a bridge here, as well as the length of approach necessary (ala Alex Fraser Bridge)

I don't think upgrading the existing tunnel is a good idea, it's substandard, lane widths aren't that great, no shoulder space for emergency stopping..

News1130 now has a poll: http://www.news1130.com/2013/03/11/province-unveils-options-for-massey-tunnel-replacement/

[tybuilding]

Shouldn't we have a service optimization and audit first before we do anything?

MOTHI is building and spending money left right and centre on highways and there may be excess capacity on new infrastructure.

#5 does almost nothing for cycling. It serves an area with low residential population. It is indirect for commuters without an additional bridge to Vancouver.

[tovan]

Option 4 is the best in my opinion.

My understanding is that the existing tunnel is a single tube with a partition down the middle. MOTI should build a new bridge for traffic going in 1 direction, retrofit the tunnel by removing the partition and opening it up to 3 lanes in the other direction. This makes use of existing infrastructure and allows for capacity to be increased to 3-4 lanes each way.

[jsbertram]

My guess is the current tunnel will be removed and replaced with a bridge or another deeper tunnel.

I've heard that one of the problems with the Massey Tunnel is there is barely clearance for some of the Panamax ships (a ship with maximum dimensions such that it can traverse the Panama Canal) to get up the Fraser, even though the Fraser is dredged for them. Apparently these Panamax ships can only pass over the Massey Tunnel during high-tide and even then, there is barely 3 feet of clearance between the top of the tunnel box and the ship keel.

With the larger "new Panamax" ships being built to use the larger Panama Canal locks currently under construction, there will be no way for these larger ships to get over the Massey Tunnel and up the Fraser.

Then there the "Post-Panamax" ships built that were never intended to use the Panama Canal, but might still be able to dock on the Fraser River terminals if the Massey Tunnel were replaced with either a deeper tunnel or replaced entirely with a new bridge.

However, any new bridge will have to be tall enough to allow these 'super ships' to pass under it. I believe the minimum height of any new bridge deck will be comparable to the new Port Mann.