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

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by lightrail

It frustrates me that this government is so pro-freeway building to the point of not blinking an eye at the cost....This government will never learn - welcome back to to the 1950s.

The 1950s was the last time this "pro freeway building" government philosophy was exercised on a practical scale via a multi-lane (4) highway system in BC. That was over 60 years ago - hardly what I'd call pro freeway building with no blinking at costs...

[logan5]

Originally Posted by 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.

Not that I'm a huge fan of freeways and massive new bridges, but don't these projects end up being a lot cheaper than rapid transit lines? Once the project is finished, tolls will recuperate most if not all of the cost of construction. With rapid transit we're lucky if we break even with just the operating costs, let alone recoup the construction costs.

[Pinion]

Just like the Port Mann bridge/Gateway this is all about ports, trucks and industry. Skytrain doesn't help them.

I love that bridges will no longer always be the traffic bottleneck. 10 lanes for everyone! New West, you get 10 lanes! North Shore, you get 10 lanes! Horseshoe Bay to Gibsons? 10 lanes!

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by 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.

Very true given the fact that in 10 years there will be little to no industry left in Vancouver itself. They just keep forcing it out with higher real estate costs. There will come a day where industry is completely outside Vancouver and in cities like Richmond, Delta, Surrey, Burnaby, and Langley.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by logan5

Not that I'm a huge fan of freeways and massive new bridges, but don't these projects end up being a lot cheaper than rapid transit lines? Once the project is finished, tolls will recuperate most if not all of the cost of construction. With rapid transit we're lucky if we break even with just the operating costs, let alone recoup the construction costs.

Exactly though those that are stuck on the notion of "transit or NOTHING" will argue that making roads better will encourage people to drive not jump on transit.

Truth is, if they wanted to build transit in the place of roads infrastructure for all these projects, we'd be looking at around $55 billion give or take. We can barely find 1/10th that to build the Broadway stretch.

And you hit it square on the nail. They build a bridge and toll it, then it pays for itself. You build transit and it just loses us money in the long run and we never really ever pay it off just get taxed more and more to cover the increasing costs. I'm all for transit but I don't know why it always has to be "road vs transit."

WE NEED BOTH.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by libtard

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

I guess the rest of this world isn't practical then.

Lima: Bus-Only Lanes along the Av Paseo de la República (Expressway)

Source: Falubaz of SSC

Seoul: Bus-Only Lanes along the Gueongbu Expressway

Source: Xxchangwoo0120xx via Wikipedia

New Jersey: Dual-dual Travel/Commercial (though not necessarily exclusive, however few non-commercial traffic in the commercial sections) along the New Jersey Turnpike

Source: US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

I can go on. There are countless of Bus-Only lanes and shoulder Bus-Only lanes (including existing portions of the Rte 99) throughout North America and around the world. Heck I guess Montreal's project proposal of adding exclusive Bus Lanes along Rte 20 is not practical either.


Source: Montreal Gazette

Originally Posted by logan5

Not that I'm a huge fan of freeways and massive new bridges, but don't these projects end up being a lot cheaper than rapid transit lines? Once the project is finished, tolls will recuperate most if not all of the cost of construction. With rapid transit we're lucky if we break even with just the operating costs, let alone recoup the construction costs.

(Emphasis mine)

Well using an argument in defence of public transit then, wouldn't fares recuperate the cost of construction for a rapid transit project? Surely the SkyTrain as a while has more than enough ridership beyond the break-even point. The recent-most expansion of the Canada Line follows this, and in fact, does this years ahead of schedule.

---

I don't deny there needs to be a new crossing for the 99. Sole investments in either mode of transport leads to deteriorating infrastructure of the other: this is something that is happening throughout many of the Interstates in the United States right now. Investments need to occur for the 99, just as investments are needed for the Broadway and Surrey SkyTrain lines. I think the problem many have is the process of these projects, and why there is so much studies needed decades after decades to prove the justification for rapid transit while there seems to be comparably less time needed for projects such as the Gateway and George Massey Tunnel. If things should happen so quickly for road infrastructure projects, shouldn't it be just as easy for rapid transit investments then?

Personally, I fathom see the need for 10 lanes. Even a 2-3-3-2 C/D system doesn't seem to make sense in my eyes if it's just for a bridge. There needs to be an investment in the entire road network as a whole, or else this bridge would be like Granville Street today, a bridge built for an expected larger network of traffic. 8 Lanes seem more than adequate, and if this is about port traffic as mentioned, then what is wrong with giving truck-only lanes? A 2-2-2-2 configuration, whereby the centre 4 lanes are HOT/Truck lanes and remaining outer 4 lanes for general traffic still represents added capacity to the existing system.

[ChrisK]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Very true given the fact that in 10 years there will be little to no industry left in Vancouver itself. They just keep forcing it out with higher real estate costs. There will come a day where industry is completely outside Vancouver and in cities like Richmond, Delta, Surrey, Burnaby, and Langley.

It's totally true that manufacturing and industry is leaving Vancouver and has been for a long time. It's also true that jobs in BC are not just manufacturing and industry, and that the share of jobs provided by these sectors has been declining in the Province. At the same time, jobs in technology and services have been increasing. Investing in transit is not just about moving people to the same jobs. It's about building infrastructure for a different and more diverse regional economy. The current government doesn't seem to recognize this, or seem to grant that it can be built in parallel with more traditional transport infrastructure.

[troublemaker]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

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.

Even with three cars, the trains would be among the shortest in the world. In any case, improved transit is no substitute for replacement of an outdated, hopelessly inadequate, potentially dangerous structure on one of the region's most important highways.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by troublemaker

In any case, improved transit is no substitute for replacement of an outdated, hopelessly inadequate, potentially dangerous structure on one of the region's most important highways.

Remember that the new crossing will not only provide smoother traffic flow but also an HOV lane. And that HOV lane will be utilized by Rapid Buses, which, IMHO, are a much more comfortable ride than lrt. And they will also be able to travel at 100 - 110 km/hr along the upgraded Hwy 99 corridor - also much quicker than lrt. These attributes would win over more suburban transit riders than a separate and much more expensive lrt line in that area IMHO. So a win-win for all transportation modes.

And yes, the GMT is def substandard in terms of lane width, etc. and is very seismically challenged. If Metro Vancouver ever experiences a major quake - you don't want to be in the GMT or on the Pattullo Bridge. Both will experience major structural failure, unlike even the Alex Fraser Bridge, which is designed to withstand structural damage in a quake of 8.5 magnitude.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by jhausner

And you hit it square on the nail. They build a bridge and toll it, then it pays for itself. You build transit and it just loses us money in the long run and we never really ever pay it off just get taxed more and more to cover the increasing costs.

Transit loses money?

I mean, sure, this is not HK or Japan, but that's a very poor generalization of the whole situation.

In fact, I'm pretty sure beating the heck out of all the poor buses that run on the 99 B-Line and other congested routes costs way more in the long run to maintain and repair. And surprise! TransLink's own documents on rapid transit expansions to Surrey and Broadway substantiate this to a large degree.

Please get the facts at least partially straight before such points are made...

(NOTE: My position on the matter has always been that I CONCUR with the rationale and need for a George Massey Tunnel replacement, but not the priority or design specification that has been given for it.)

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Remember that the new crossing will not only provide smoother traffic flow but also an HOV lane. And that HOV lane will be utilized by Rapid Buses, which, IMHO, are a much more comfortable ride than lrt. And they will also be able to travel at 100 - 110 km/hr along the upgraded Hwy 99 corridor - also much quicker than lrt. These attributes would win over more suburban transit riders than a separate and much more expensive lrt line in that area IMHO. So a win-win for all transportation modes.

Just to note that the province recently completed building a bus-only lane along most of Hwy 99 exactly for that reason. The buses also have a queue jumping lane to skip most of the tunnel traffic. In fact, according to the government's own consultation documents, existing bus routes are only 1% of vehicle traffic but move 25% of the people through the corridor.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Just to note that the province recently completed building a bus-only lane along most of Hwy 99 exactly for that reason. The buses also have a queue jumping lane to skip most of the tunnel traffic. In fact, according to the government's own consultation documents, existing bus routes are only 1% of vehicle traffic but move 25% of the people through the corridor.

The NB Rapid Bus lane leaves Hwy 99 at the Hwy 91 exit and the lane also acts as a de facto emergency stopping lane. And then the NB Rapid Bus lane starts again before the GMT, which then becomes the Hwy 17 exit lane - but after 3 pm that Hwy 17 exit can become a 1 km+ long parking lot.

During counter-flow hours, Rapid Bus must also queue into the 1 lane GMT along with everyone else.

Again no bus lane SB of the GMT, with traffic coming to a halt just south of Hwy 17 weekday afternoons as 4 lanes merge into 2 and traffic can also come to a halt SB at the Hwy 91 to Hwy 99 on-ramp - lots of dangerous situations there with traffic moving at 100 km/hr sometimes grinding to an immediate halt.

IOW, the current Rapid Bus lane set-up is a segmental mish-mash and also acts as the emergency stopping lane - Unlike the proposed Hwy 99 corridor improvements with it's own dedicated HOV lane. In that situ with greater capacity, Rapid Buses will be able to consistently move at 100 km/hr - 120 km/hr. Big difference.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by deasine

I guess the rest of this world isn't practical then.

He suggested 2 Truck only lanes, and 2 bus only lanes, and only 2 general purpose lanes. Give me a break

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by 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.

This was now 5 years ago: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=162194

Announcement on extension of Expo-Line could come Thursday

Wednesday, December 10 - 03:09:26 PM Lyle Fisher

SURREY (NEWS1130) - Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon and TransLink CEO Tom Prendergast will be making a major announcement Thursday morning at Surrey's Gateway SkyTrain station. There's speculation it could be about the proposed expansion of the Expo-Line into Surrey.

Back in January Premier Gordon Campbell unveiled his $14 billion transportation plan for the region, and said a 6 kilometre extension of the Expo Line to Guildford would be completed by the year 2020. Falcon said an expanded line would likely continue along 104th Avenue, down 152nd Street to the Fraser Highway and end at 168th Street.

Anita Huberman with the Surrey Board of Trade says she's hopeful the expansion gets fast-tracked by the province. "There also needs to be a 'light rail' option for Surrey. Surrey is a huge city, and we have different areas where transit is inaccessable, so we're hoping (for) a combination of light rail and rapid transit. We need options to get around the city. We have 1,500 people a month moving into Surrey."


Sigh, no magic political wand for transit South of the Fraser, just more and more freeways. The government says, hmm we should build a bridge, presto, 1 year later, some quasi study is done and boom, the premier announces a start date. No environmental assessment, hardly any studies done, no business case, no financial numbers at all.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by logan5

Not that I'm a huge fan of freeways and massive new bridges, but don't these projects end up being a lot cheaper than rapid transit lines? Once the project is finished, tolls will recuperate most if not all of the cost of construction. With rapid transit we're lucky if we break even with just the operating costs, let alone recoup the construction costs.

No. On the contrary they end up costing more; however, current accounting does not seem to cover the real cost of building and maintening highways. Then there are the social costs. The problem as I see it is that adding general purpose lanes does nothing to reduce congestion, but it does encourage more single occupant vehicles. It's a fact. The USA has some of the biggest freeways in the world and their cities have the worst traffic congestion too.

We're delusional if we think building a new bridge will fix anything. It won't. In 5 years traffic will be higher than ever and within 10 years the bridge will be just as choked up as the tunnel currently is.

In North America, we're stuck in a 1950s mentality that building bigger infrastructure to move cars is the way to go. It isn't.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Just like the Port Mann bridge/Gateway this is all about ports, trucks and industry. Skytrain doesn't help them.

I love that bridges will no longer always be the traffic bottleneck. 10 lanes for everyone! New West, you get 10 lanes! North Shore, you get 10 lanes! Horseshoe Bay to Gibsons? 10 lanes!

I'd refine your comment that bridges will no longer be bottlenecks for the next few years after the bridge opens. It will be a bottleneck again.

Further, any chance of improving transit south of the Fraser goes out the window with new bridges and increased general purpose lanes - the result will be easier to drive, so less use of transit, so less money to support rapid transit options.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by whatnext

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

Or try to imagine a world where the car is not king for change. It can be done. We cannot continue to build for the car. We just do not have the resources. I am amazed at the short-sightedness with some comments on this board.

I'm not against the bridge. I just pointed out that it frustrates me that the Province will just build a bridge using taxpayers money without any real thought to the consequences, or looking at real alternatives, while to get a rapid transit line is usually blocked or conditional on matching grants.

I'm also pointing out the building more capacity is not the answer to congestion. It'll make it easier to drive for sure, then more people will drive and congestion will happen all over again; but this time, it will be with twice the number of vehicles. So then what, build a bigger bridge? Now we need a 20 lane bridge?

The Province is living in the past if it thinks this is the way forward.

And to the person who asked what continent I'm living on - it is not a wet dream; I'm simply saying we need to think differently.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by lightrail

... 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).

I like this... although some people don't.

Originally Posted by libtard

He suggested 2 truck only lanes, and 2 bus only lanes, and only 2 general purpose lanes. Give me a break!

For better clarity:

SOUTHBOUND
TRUCK GENERAL GENERAL BUS | BUS GENERAL GENERAL TRUCK
                                                                  NORTHBOUND

That really doesn't sound like only two lanes total for general traffic.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by lightrail

Or try to imagine a world where the car is not king for change. It can be done. We cannot continue to build for the car. We just do not have the resources. I am amazed at the short-sightedness with some comments on this board.

Or you could try to tone down the hyperbole for just a moment. It's possible to build both - transit and conventional roadways. Population is going to increase regardless of what we build, so throwing out the ridiculous suggestion that we should not build new roads because they'll just fill up anyways is not going to convince anyone. Along those lines, why bother building new transit or bike lines? They'll just fill up eventually!

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Just to note that the province recently completed building a bus-only lane along most of Hwy 99 exactly for that reason. The buses also have a queue jumping lane to skip most of the tunnel traffic. In fact, according to the government's own consultation documents, existing bus routes are only 1% of vehicle traffic but move 25% of the people through the corridor.

Imagine this, people are widgets. So the buses move 25% of the flesh and bone type widgets using only 1% of the transport vehicles. Now imagine each box of goods, each bag of groceries and each box of tools is technically also a widget. Now add all the widgets up and see what moves the most widgets across the bridge per hour?