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

[spm2013]

Politics and I guess it will be dependent on the economy and how much money they have floating around.

[csbvan]

While the rest of North America is trying to change their transportation policies in one direction, BC is running backward as fast as possible. Why did I ever vote BC Liberal? This party is a mess..

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by csbvan

While the rest of North America is trying to change their transportation policies in one direction, BC is running backward as fast as possible. Why did I ever vote BC Liberal? This party is a mess..

Well... ummmmmmm... the GMT replacement was basically... ummmmmm... on the provincial radar screen prior to the May provincial election. Even had a website. Fully disclosed. And numerous highly-publicized public and stakeholder consultations. Dang.

But... ummmmmm... I gotta agree... the mess-free BC NDP... will lead ya to the true north, strong, and free! [Man, didn't know that I could provide such rhythm prose. ]

PS. The BC NDP transportation critic is Claire Travena. For the first time ever... and I mean EVER on any major BC transportation issue over the last decade... I have not heard one PEEP out of the BC NDP transportation critic in ANY media about the GMT rebuild. That's def a first! Funny that!

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by csbvan

While the rest of North America is trying to change their transportation policies in one direction, BC is running backward as fast as possible. Why did I ever vote BC Liberal? This party is a mess..

What are you talking about? The tunnel is 50 years old, outdated, overcapacity and probably unsafe in the event of an earthquake. Believe it or not, but you can't replace a major highway which carried not only thousands of commuters a day but also thousands of commercial trucks. Buses and SkyTrain aren't very effective at replacing trucks...

[twoNeurons]

Agreed that the GMT needs replacing and transit out there isn't feasible at all, however it's a bit of a shame the provincial government is so reluctant to even talk about public transportation and shifts blame back to the regional authority as much as it can.

[cornholio]

I don't think this is meant for Vancouver and the provincial government probably does not care about the Oak street bridge. This will increase the demand for office and industrial space in Delta, Richmond and Surrey. It will also allow the construction of the new port in Richmond which has been held up by the issues with the tunnel blocking many ships and it will also of course increase the competitiveness of the Surrey docks. Pretty sure the province will prefer Vancouver to choke a bit and force it back to reality, a bit of hard love. This is just a taste of things to come for Vancouver and its recent policies. More jobs moving away, the ports in Vancouver becoming less efficient and industry becoming increasingly uncompetitive. Now Delta, Richmond and Surrey on the other hand...

This bridge is a incredibly important improvement and it can't come soon enough.

[Millennium2002]

And Vancouver is responsible for all of that?

The reason for the port and industry being less efficient in Vancouver has little to do with the city itself, and more regarding geography.

The idea that Burrard Inlet is now a resident's paradise is a myth; the inlet is still very industrialized and it continues to be a terribly congested place for boats at times. That in itself is a pretty limiting factor to the efficiency of the inner docks. On the other hand, we have Deltaport, whose expansion potential is only limited by the amount of soil that can be dredged, and we also have the lesser used Fraser Surrey Docks.

As for policy, there's not much that Vancouver can do if industry cannot even clean up after itself. Most of the old industrial lands that used to exist were redeveloped into housing, shops and offices after many years of both idle activity and cleanup of contaminated soils. If anything, industry has only itself to blame for this. And still, it and the port that represents it seem to want to pick an easier fight at times (vs the ALR and farmland in particular).

In fact, I still believe Vancouver retains an industrial land reserve of sorts and retains many unused small to medium sized industrial plots that have gone unused or lie vacant for years. If no one chooses to move in after a decade or more, what do you suggest the city doing? Let it sit there?

And finally, I know that there is a transport problem in Vancouver with the constrained and restricted road capacity that we have. However, if the province is seriously concerned about this, then why does it not want to either publicly rebuke the city, promote more mode shifts onto transit (e.g. via Broadway subway) or build, declare, or maintain critical trade routes unilaterally within the city itself within the context of the economy?

---

Besides that point, I do not see Richmond benefiting a lot from the tunnel. For example, it has already opposed the port and associated industry encroaching on the ALR or otherwise unprotected farmland. The only thing that may be a benefit is reduced congestion north of the tunnel.

As for Delta, White Rock, and Tsawwassen FN, the tunnel's benefits will be clearer, given that those areas are still expanding low-density style. But I agree with cbsvan that letting such areas expand may be one step backwards still in the context of the movement towards more sustainable growth strategies.

By the way, I'm not disagreeing with the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel in principle, but I'm seriously frustrated at what appears to be misplaced priorities by the government carrying out the project.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Jebby

old, outdated, overcapacity and probably unsafe in the event of an earthquake. Believe it or not, but you can't replace a major highway which carried not only thousands of commuters a day but also thousands of commercial trucks. Buses and SkyTrain aren't very effective at replacing trucks...

Sure, but trucks aren't the reason the bridge needs 10 lanes. The Canada Line bridge has the same passenger capacity as a 10-lane highway and was a helluva lot cheaper to build.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Sure, but trucks aren't the reason the bridge needs 10 lanes. The Canada Line bridge has the same passenger capacity as a 10-lane highway and was a helluva lot cheaper to build.

Ya I would have loved to see some talk of a Canada Line extension into Delta.

Or at least a bridge rendering with a train crossing it... didn't we get that for the original PMB renders?

[troublemaker]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Ya I would have loved to see some talk of a Canada Line extension into Delta.

Since the Canada Line is limited to two-car trains, it may not have the capacity to support significant extensions.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by troublemaker

Since the Canada Line is limited to two-car trains, it may not have the capacity to support significant extensions.

IMO the Canada Line exension to Delta is a great idea, but as you say, there's a capacity problem. However, if Canada Line trains on a hypothetical Delta extension stop at Bridgeport, and passengers change there to Bridgeport-Vancouver trains, and with Bridgeport-Waterfront frequencies increased a little (if this is possible), the Delta-Bridgeport trains would not be necessarily be overcrowdeded and the rest of the sytem could run as per ususal with a possible frequency increase - desirable, as three-car trains seem precluded for financial and engineering reasons.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Is it my eyes, or is there not a proper interchange at Steveston Hwy with this new proposal?

I think the only thing they're really 'showcasing' here is a 10-lane replacement bridge that would mirror the Alex Fraser in Design (agreed, no ice bombs!).

The interchanges at the south and north end of the Bridge would definitely get revamped, esepcially Steveston Hwy -- they just have barely begun to think this through. Think how long it took them to get those 'detailed designs' together for the PMH1 Project. If anything, expect a 2-3-3-2 system, just list the Port Mann. The 3-3 part would connect northward to the Oak Street Bridge ... which will most-likely remain a 4-lane crossing.

Lulu island is going to sink with all the extra traffic this would bring... there must be a complimentary North Arm crossing expansion to go with this somewhere.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Ya I would have loved to see some talk of a Canada Line extension into Delta.

Or at least a bridge rendering with a train crossing it... didn't we get that for the original PMB renders?

Original rendering also wasn't for a 2-3-3-2. This is just eye-candy to put a visual on their decision. Lots of planning to do here... toll gantries will definitely be a part of this.

[tybuilding]

Speaking of transit on the Port Mann it could go inside the bridge correct? It couldn't in a conventional Alex Fraser type bridge design for the GMB?

[lightrail]

It frustrates me that this government is so pro-freeway building to the point of not blinking an eye at the cost. Yet, try to get funding for a much needed rapid transit line, and all you get is stonewalling, and matching grant requirements and funding sharing and P3 etc.

Now they've announced a bridge, with no funding provided, no environmental assessment, etc.

It is disgusting. Yes, the tunnel needs to be replaced, but there was no consideraiton of looking at serious alternatives, just that it had to be done. There is no referendum on how to fun it and the roads it will bring, unlike transit which is now completely stalled due to a ridiculous referendum requirement in November 2014.

Obviously, the government only cares about LNG and resource exports.

Oh well, the congestion will just move north to Knight St and Oak Street bridges. This government will never learn - welcome back to to the 1950s.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

Wow, 3 lanes merging into at the northbound BC-99 entry from Hwy 17??? A major recipe for disaster! I better hope that the lane configurations shown in this video is just a draft version of it. One of the biggest freeway design blunders in Metro Vancouver is the endless creation of bottlenecks on bridges (created through the merging of more than 2 lanes into 1 lane from an interchange entering a bridge or tunnel) and I think it's one of the biggest contributor to massive jams.

One of the things I'm most impressed about the TCH-1 widening and the new PMB is that the engineers worked very hard to eliminate bottlenecks at the bridge and at various points on the TCH-1, by preventing the merging of multiple lanes into one.

Terrible render. Only cars and tourist buses in the HOV - it surely couldn't hurt to show translink buses using them? And what day in fantasyland would they expect traffic that light on the bridge? The render should show the bridge 10 years after opening, when it will be congested and lined up (don't believe me? The Alex Fraser looked like this when it opened in 1986, now look at it in rush-hour). The Port Mann will be the same.

Building more capacity to relieve congestion is like buying a larger pair of pants to fight obesity.

The bridge is a waste of money. A better solution, two truck lanes, two HOV lanes for buses ONLY and four general use lanes. Let's move the trucks and buses first (goods and high capacity people movers).

[libtard]

Originally Posted by lightrail

Terrible render. Only cars and tourist buses in the HOV - it surely couldn't hurt to show translink buses using them? And what day in fantasyland would they expect traffic that light on the bridge? The render should show the bridge 10 years after opening, when it will be congested and lined up (don't believe me? The Alex Fraser looked like this when it opened in 1986, now look at it in rush-hour). The Port Mann will be the same.

Building more capacity to relieve congestion is like buying a larger pair of pants to fight obesity.

The bridge is a waste of money. A better solution, two truck lanes, two HOV lanes for buses ONLY and four general use lanes. Let's move the trucks and buses first (goods and high capacity people movers).

Truck lanes and bus lanes??? What continent do you live on buddy???

At least try and be practical. This is the real world, not your public transit fantasy wet dream

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Speaking of transit on the Port Mann it could go inside the bridge correct? It couldn't in a conventional Alex Fraser type bridge design for the GMB?

What do you mean by the "inside"?

Are you talking about the gap between the eastbound and westbound bridge decks? That gap is there because it's where the towers that hold the cables stand. Transit couldn't go through those towers, and even if it could the gap disappears on the approach sections.

Are you talking about inside the box sections used to build the approaches? The bridge deck itself has no such box sections, and in fact the towers have a massive cross beam below the bridge deck to support them, so transit couldn't go through them, either.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by troublemaker

Since the Canada Line is limited to two-car trains, it may not have the capacity to support significant extensions.

It's all a matter of frequency...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by lightrail

Terrible render. Only cars and tourist buses in the HOV - it surely couldn't hurt to show translink buses using them? And what day in fantasyland would they expect traffic that light on the bridge? The render should show the bridge 10 years after opening, when it will be congested and lined up (don't believe me? The Alex Fraser looked like this when it opened in 1986, now look at it in rush-hour). The Port Mann will be the same.

Building more capacity to relieve congestion is like buying a larger pair of pants to fight obesity.. .

If we kept population constant at the natural rate of replacement, it would work like a charm.