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

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

It's not that I don't trust statistics, it's just that statistics can't be trusted. =)

Seriously, although I too would find it interesting to find out the stats, I suspect getting "similar" metrics would be extremely difficult. Adding culture in to the mix (which is an important consideration ) adds more complexity as well.

I find statistics are used often as a weapon to incapacitate common sense.

And thus why you contradicted yourself. It isn't statistics that can't be trusted, it is those using statistics that can't. Numbers rarely lie. It's people that lie.

For example:

Canada, 9.2 road deaths per 100,000 people per year
Germany, 4.5 road deaths per 100,000 people per year
United Kingdom, 3.59 road deaths per 100,000 people per year
Sweden, 2.9 road deaths per 100,000 people per year

Now look at countries we "know" are probably high and the stats tell us:

Egypt, 42.0 road deaths per 100,000 people per year
Mexico, 20.7 road deaths per 100,000 people per year
India, 11.1 road deaths per 100,000 people per year

Surprisingly, India is not far off Canada, but people would have an assumption that it should be crazy. Remember the stats don't lie, but someone interpreting them may say "See people in Canada drive terribly!! Look how close we compare to India!" not taking into fact the stats are strict stats and don't take into account 2 major facts:

1) population difference
2) how many people actually have cars

So that is an illustration of how stats don't lie but someone could use the above to prove "we drive really bad in Canada" when if you use a different stat:

Road Fatalities per 100,000 MOTOR VEHICLES you get

India, 315 deaths per 100,000 vehicles
Canada, 13 deaths per 100,000 vehicles
Germany, 7.2 deaths per 100,000 vehicles
UK, 7.0 deaths per 100,000 vehicles
Sweden, 7.0 deaths per 100,000 vehicles

Canada is not the best but it is by far not the worst...

[moosejaw]

Interesting stat above
I looked up Florida and it's 13 deaths per 100,000 vehicles
Do you have the stats for BC?

[GMasterAres]

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/shareddocs/MV-Fatal-Victims2007-2011.pdf
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/Files/627f5833-0a54-42eb-9758-05d72c53818f/LicensedMotorVehicles.pdf
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/Files/77762...7dea32a1/BCannualpopulationestimates.xls

Sources

Stats for BC. If you include all as a road death, 2011 in BC would be 6.3ish per 100000 people and 13.9 per 100000 registered vehicles so just above Canada average. Not surprising given our geography, roads, and population.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by officedweller

In my view, I suspect that the TDG issue is why tunnels were not seriously considered for the Upper Levels Highway or SFPR - when residents clamoured for tunnels.

Where on the Upper Levels Highway there would be a place to put a tunnel?

[officedweller]

On Eagle Ridge - the locals wanted a tunnel so they wouldn't blast a "cut" through it.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I did work in the freight forwarding industry awhile back out here and one pallet of fire extinguishers or what not that weights about 2000lbs (forget the limits) classifies the whole load as carrying dangerous goods, and the truck then can't use the Massey tunnel.

The whole dangerous goods thing is a real issue and more so in todays world then when the Massey tunnel was built. The transportation of goods is so much more dynamic and having a tunnel there and needing to go all the way to the Alex Fraser to cross the river is a real pain. People also waste time trying to plan the loads to make them not classified as carrying dangerous goods and people also lie about the weights which is a safety issue. Especially with the popular trend of going owner operator where freight shippers offload costs and risks on to their drivers and drivers have to take risks just to break even in many cases.

My point is that it is a significant enough issue that should be considered when making the decision to build a tunnel or bridge. (especially when this tunnel is next to a major west coast port)

But of course there are other arguments to counter this.

One of the main differences between a tunnel and a bridge is the elevation change of the roadway. The AFB raises a lot more than the GMT lowers. So, how does the cost incured by companies ensuring that their loads are free from hazardous goods compare to the fuel costs incurred by everyone who has to drive up the steep approaches to the bridge?

Or what about the cost on brake maintenance? There are probably far more fatalities in the lower mainland due to poor truck brakes than hazardous material accidents. So it would make sense to lower the number of steep climbs/descents as much as possible to cut down on a rather frequent accident.

And why is it bad to make companies be responsible about the goods they carry? Yes there is a business cost for doing it, but if companies didn't need to be conscious about the composition of loads, then more loads in the lower mainland might have a small portion of hazardous goods. With more loads containing hazardous good, it is reasonable to deduce that their will be more accidents involving trucks carrying them. Yes, they won't be in a tunnel, but by not caring about it as much might result in more accidents that damage the environment or cause more harm to accident victims or first responders (who do not know what kind of load they are dealing with).

The Mont Blanc tunnel fire was fueled by a load of margarine, so the rules governing hazardous goods can be pretty strict. But I think it is better to force companies to at least think about what they are carrying instead of just being able to load up all kinds of cargo and drive them all over the city.

Yes we are all worried about fires in a tunnel, but the accidents involving spilling chemicals in an environmentally sensitive area that the fear of fires in a tunnel has caused to not happen, is immeasurable. It is nice to have one roadway through a sensitive area free from such dangers. If the cost of that is some companies have to cover the cost of being careful, then that's fine by me. It's better than paying for a cleanup.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by officedweller

On Eagle Ridge - the locals wanted a tunnel so they wouldn't blast a "cut" through it.

Thanks, didn't know about such plans back in the day. Having lived here only since the new road was completed, I find it hard to imagine it any other way.

Would be nice to find some old photos or maps of the Sea to Sky Highway before the improvements. I keep hearing from locals how it used to be a dangerous road to drive, especially in winter, but the new road feels like picnic. There is never any drama when driving on it.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Would be nice to find some old photos or maps of the Sea to Sky Highway before the improvements. I keep hearing from locals how it used to be a dangerous road to drive, especially in winter, but the new road feels like picnic. There is never any drama when driving on it.

There's a stretch of the old road 2-lane just north of Horseshoe Bay that you can try out if you want...

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Would be nice to find some old photos or maps of the Sea to Sky Highway before the improvements. I keep hearing from locals how it used to be a dangerous road to drive, especially in winter, but the new road feels like picnic. There is never any drama when driving on it.

I almost didn't make it to puberty thanks to that road. My grandma was driving in a horrible monsoon but - being a grandma - zero visibility didn't phase her. We drifted into oncoming traffic, almost got creamed by an 18-wheeler, then over-corrected over the cliff. I managed to scramble up the side but my grandma and her friend were stuck for hours.

Here's a pic from 1966 courtesy of CBC.ca

[whatnext]

I guess this is now a go.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I guess this is now a go.

I was thinking the opposite. An independent won in Delta south.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I was thinking the opposite. An independent won in Delta south.

I'm thinking the whole public consultation thing was to get the idea of a replacement project out there in the public realm to drum up support for the Liberals pre-election... but as you pointed out, an independent won Delta. Maybe now they'll select an option but stall at the funding stage?

Maybe not -- I'm optimistic...

[GMasterAres]

I don't see why they would cancel it. Vicki is absolutely for the tunnel expansion as with the Mayor's south of fraser. The Liberals also, in my opinion, stole Delta North which is AS affected by the tunnel, not to mention Surrey Panorama which is directly affected.

The truth is, Surrey central elected 3 NDP but other than that, South of Fraser is Liberal with the exception of Delta South. It's in their best interest to not forget South of Fraser for next election so I can't see them actually stalling this too long. And it is almost a no brainer to deal with that tunnel given the shifting regional traffic patterns and the fact South Surrey is growing so much. To me this is still a lower priority than other things like transit expansion for one, but it is still needed especially if they want to start moving port traffic out of Vancouver and towards Roberts Bank, Tilbury, Annacis, and Surrey Fraser.

But I have been surprised before and wrong also. I think it will still happen.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I don't see why they would cancel it. Vicki is absolutely for the tunnel expansion as with the Mayor's south of fraser. The Liberals also, in my opinion, stole Delta North which is AS affected by the tunnel, not to mention Surrey Panorama which is directly affected.

The truth is, Surrey central elected 3 NDP but other than that, South of Fraser is Liberal with the exception of Delta South. It's in their best interest to not forget South of Fraser for next election so I can't see them actually stalling this too long.

But I have been surprised before and wrong also. I think it will still happen.

You're probably right -- this project is going to cost A LOT, and will be almost certainly need to be tolled. This could set up the ugly situation where the AFB is the ONLY toll-free alternative to cross the Fraser. Perhaps if the Liquified Natural Gas bonanza promise pans out they'll have the money to move this forward in a confident fashion, but I'm thinking we won't see a new GMT crossing in service until at LEAST 2021. I could be wrong.

[makr3trkr]

Not sure if anyone posted this, but the original study from the early 90's is located here:

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/fil...Massey-Tunnel-Expansion-Plan-Study-1.pdf

of particular interest from a historical perspective:

Alternative A: Do Nothing
includes: upgrading of the River Road/River Way/North Perimeter Road route to a four lane arterial standard;
widening of the Knight Street Bridge to six lanes (currently scheduled by the Ministry for 1998)

Alternative B: Third Tube in the Tunnel
The laning concept within the expanded tunnel was assumed to be four lanes northbound and two lanes southbound during the morning peak period, and the reverse during the afternoon

Alternative C: Third and Fourth Tubes in the Tunnel
The key improvements in this alternative are similar to those described for the Third Tube alternative, except that there are two and not just one additional two-lane tubes. This results in one more lane in each direction within the tunnel in each time period, i.e. five lanes northbound and three lanes southbound during the morning peak period, with the reverse during the afternoon

Alternative D: No. 5 Road Bridge
the construction of a four-lane bridge or tunnel west of the George Massey Tunnel connecting No. 5 Road in Richmond with Highway 17 in Delta - an analysis of the geometrics of both options indicates that either could be constructed and brought back to grade well before the terminal points at Highway 17 in the south and Steveston Highway in the north.

Alternative E: 72nd Street - No. 8 Road Freeway
the construction of a four-lane freeway from Highway 17 in the vicinity of its existing intersection with 56th Street at the north end of Tsawwassen to the intersection of Boundary Road and Marine Way in Vancouver
(including a new arterial road in Ladner parallel to Trunk Road)

Impact of Blundell Interchange on Steveston Interchange
traffic volumes that were redirected from the Steveston Highway interchange to the new Blundell Road interchange under a number of different conditions

Proposed Highway 17 - Highway 99 Connector

[libtard]

How much does it cost to erect all these signs declaring "NEW MASSEY TUNNEL PROJECT MOVING BC FORWARD"

What a boondoggle

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by libtard

How much does it cost to erect all these signs declaring "NEW MASSEY TUNNEL PROJECT MOVING BC FORWARD"

What a boondoggle

Money well spent for an election victory...

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by libtard

How much does it cost to erect all these signs declaring "NEW MASSEY TUNNEL PROJECT MOVING BC FORWARD"

What a boondoggle

The sad thing is that all of the government advertising, etc. is necessary because of all the negativity out there. If, as in the past, government went about quietly doing its job, you'd have hordes of social media types screaming that nothing is being done on XYZ.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Not sure if anyone posted this, but the original study from the early 90's is located here:

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/fil...Massey-Tunnel-Expansion-Plan-Study-1.pdf

I actually have a point outside this thread to make and I know this should probably be posted elsewhere, but in another thread people were going back and fourth about Broadway vs Surrey extension due to projected riderships in 2041, basically 28 years in the future.

If any of you read those posts or happen to hold views based on those projections, take a close close look at the above study.

The study was done in 1991. Their population growth projection for 2001 (10 years, not 28 years, almost 3 times as much) was 1,787,000 people roughly. A growth projection of +500,000 people.

According to census numbers, in 2001 the population was actually 1,990,000. That's +700,000 people or a mistake of 200,000 people total. Again this is projections 10 years into the future, not roughly 30 years into the future like the projections in the transit studies.

Moral of the story, like election polls, don't take population and ridership projections as being 100% reason for doing something or not doing something. Could you imagine putting in a report "we expect the population to grow by 500,000 people, + or - 200,000 people." That's like saying "Here is our projection +- 40%." My response to that would be "Sounds good. So I guess I can believe the rest of your report +- 40% as being accurate and truthfull?"

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by libtard

How much does it cost to erect all these signs declaring "NEW MASSEY TUNNEL PROJECT MOVING BC FORWARD"

What a boondoggle

About $100 to $150 per sign. Major boondoggle.