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

[cornholio]

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).

That is a poor comparison. Building more capacity is building more capacity i.e. "The ability to receive, hold, or absorb.". When and if a 10 lane bridge reaches its capacity, then it will still be moving 150% more vehicles then a 4 lane bridge that has reached its capacity.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

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.)

Are you saying that the 99b line and skytrain would make money if there were no money losing routes feeding them? The system functions as one unit, you can't simply pick and choose transit routes that make money and ignore those that don't. Transit does not pay for it's self.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Are you saying that the 99b line and skytrain would make money if there were no money losing routes feeding them? The system functions as one unit, you can't simply pick and choose transit routes that make money and ignore those that don't. Transit does not pay for it's self.

You may also want to note that even the Skytrain doesn't pay for it's own capital expenditures, only the operating costs plus a fraction of the financing costs.

Buses seldom cover the cost of buying the bus itself and similarly don't cover the costs of road wear and tear which is admittedly high because they're heavy.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by lightrail

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.

If we had unlimited space like Toronto or other cities I'd agree, but there's only so much that can be built between GMT and the US border, especially with ALR. Same with the north shore and the eventual replacement of those bridges. We're one of the few cities that doesn't have to worry about endless sprawl.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by cornholio

That is a poor comparison. Building more capacity is building more capacity i.e. "The ability to receive, hold, or absorb.". When and if a 10 lane bridge reaches its capacity, then it will still be moving 150% more vehicles then a 4 lane bridge that has reached its capacity.

Why is that a poor comparison? Once the person reaches the limits of his or her new pants, he will be twice a large. So you're saying it is a goof thing to move more vehicles? I don't think it is.

It is a good thing to move more people and more goods. And that means moving more people and more good in the same number of vehicles or less. Which means trucks and buses or rail transport.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

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!

Your thinking is classic. And it is why we have very little investment in infrastructure that can move volumes of people and good efficiently.

You can build bridges up and down the river and they will fill up and be congested.

My point is that building the new capacity will do nothing to relieve congestion.

There is a study done in the 1990s that said to maintain the current congestion level experienced today, you would need to build 44 new lanes across the Fraser in addition to what is there now over the next 30 years (not sure of the timeline). Or, alternatively, you build rapid transit lines that can candle the equivalent, get people out of their cars and reallocate the road space for trucks and transit and high occupancy vehicles.

We have limited funds and spending them on new roads is not the best use of them.

But my original frustration was simply with the decision making process - it's a bridge, so the government will build it - on question and cost and funding and whether it is really needed are all ignore. But with rapid transit, look at the games the governments play - must be P3, must have matching grants, must have studies after studies on technology, etc.

I'm not against building new capacity; I'm questioning the logic and drivers behind the decisions.

[s211]

For threads like these, my new best friend is the ignore list option. I'm a much happier person now that I don't have to read polarized opinions from social engineers. For them, middle ground might as well be Middle Earth: mythical.

[Zassk]

After 28 years of steady growth, Alex Fraser has recently reached its effective capacity. I see this new crossing as being an expansion for both 99 and 91. Basically expanding 5+5 lanes to 7+7+HOV.

As for the north arm, I still say we have enough capacity there for now. After this project, there will be 16 lanes across the south arm and 16 lanes across the north arm, plus the Canada Line leading in 2 directions off Lulu Island.

Given that Richmond is a net destination for commuting, I think it is wrong to say that all of the bridge traffic will end up jammed at OSB. The traffic will be distributed among all of the north arm crossings (which are already well connected), with a large chunk of the traffic dispersing into Richmond itself.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by lightrail

...

My point is that building the new capacity will do nothing to relieve congestion.

...

Yeah, but solving "congestion" is a red herring meant to frame the issue in a way for the masses to understand - i.e. time-savings.
People are incredibly impatient these days and it's politically advantageous to tell people that XYZ project will save them time (that appeals to the "me. me, me" generation).

The real advantage of the bridge is the capacity itself. i.e. that more cars will be able to get over the river - whether or not it jams up again in the future.

The broader question is where you place a limit on the capacity and how that is managed (i.e. the present 4 lanes is insufficient, but you can't expand capacity forever).

[Zassk]

You can't build your way out of congestion, but I think replacing vital infrastructure once per 60 years is pretty reasonable.

And it would make no sense to build the replacement at 1950's capacity.

[whatnext]

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.

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.

We have the resources. Both are expensive. But as mentioned above the roads can be paid off through tolls and then the province is off the hook except for maintenance. With transit they will always be on the hook for operators salaries, rolling stock and maintenance. One thing frequently not mentioned is that building road infrasturucture puts the burden of acquiring and maintaining "rolling stock" and operator costs onto the individual consumer, rather than the gov't

With the ALR in place it is doubtfull transit south of the Fraser in Delta will ever have the density to be viable. Add to that, if anyone has ridden the Canada Line from Brighouse to Downtown recently knows it is already crowded. How much slack capcity is there?

As to the capacity of the road network, it's easy to point to scores of easy ways to increase traffic capacity in the CoV arterials, but recent gov'ts have taken an idealogical stand against that.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by whatnext

With the ALR in place it is doubtfull transit south of the Fraser in Delta will ever have the density to be viable. Add to that, if anyone has ridden the Canada Line from Brighouse to Downtown recently knows it is already crowded. How much slack capacity is there?

Almost 200% capacity could be added to the Canada Line very easily. More to Richmond if trains didn't increase to the airport significantly. So, with that contingency about 300% more.

A three car train every 90 seconds, with 3/4 of all trains headed to Brighouse. The single track section in Richmond would need replacement for this frequency and any additional extensions to the South.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by Zassk

You can't build your way out of congestion, but I think replacing vital infrastructure once per 60 years is pretty reasonable.

And it would make no sense to build the replacement at 1950's capacity.

In some strange vancouver sort of way i'm sure that people think that way.

I do see Richmonds concerns with this project as it will ultimately push congestion up the line, maybe not horribly different than it is now but the potential is there. Then the question comes up of when it will be time to discuss replacing the spans crossing the fraser into Vancouver. Oak Street primarily. The question is as the region continues to grown and outlying areas arguably get more cosmopolitan will we start to see more and more jobs/offices move to what up til now has been considered the suburbs.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Almost 200% capacity could be added to the Canada Line very easily. More to Richmond if trains didn't increase to the airport significantly. So, with that contingency about 300% more.

A three car train every 90 seconds, with 3/4 of all trains headed to Brighouse. The single track section in Richmond would need replacement for this frequency and any additional extensions to the South.

You might be able to increase capacity by adding more trains and doing the small 10-metre train car and platform extension, but then you'd also have to consider the question of whether the Canada Line stations themselves will be able to handle a 200-300% increase in passenger flows?

The small stations severely lack circulation space. That's people in the ticketing hall, concourses, up the staircases/escalators, and getting on and off on the platform level. Brighouse is a gong show with its single platform, Brighouse will certainly see major issues, YVR-Airport can get crowded at times, there could be major growth at Oakridge and 49th, Broadway-City Hall will be even more crowded when the Millennium Line is extended there... Waterfront, City Centre and Yaletown are self-explanatory.

At City Centre Station for instance, you already have a lot of congestion on the platform level as the escalator/staircases were poorly positioned on the platform. And that's with today's ridership.

In other words, the Canada Line does not have the capacity for this.



But is the solution to not replace the Massey tunnel? It's not the place to be during an earthquake, and it was built in 1958 when the population was so much smaller. It makes all the sense to build a larger crossing, although I was personally expecting something like a 8 lane bridge max. instead of a Port Mann-like 10 lane bridge.

That said, it is quite unfair that transit projects need referendums and come with red tape hurdles while the process to build bridges and roads are relatively seamless.

[jlousa]

Instead of replacing the Oak build a new small 4 lanebridge at Cambie with connections to the exisiting highway, that way it leads straight into d/t w/o needing to divert along the way.

The circulation problem is partly dealth with with increased frequency as well, if you don't have people loitering around the station as long waiting the same space becomes more efficiently used. Yes it'll still be busy, but I have no doubt that the stations as are could deal with 3x the traffic. The Olympics showed us they could handle almost 2x the traffic.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Instead of replacing the Oak build a new small 4 lanebridge at Cambie with connections to the exisiting highway, that way it leads straight into d/t w/o needing to divert along the way.

The circulation problem is partly dealth with with increased frequency as well, if you don't have people loitering around the station as long waiting the same space becomes more efficiently used. Yes it'll still be busy, but I have no doubt that the stations as are could deal with 3x the traffic. The Olympics showed us they could handle almost 2x the traffic.

A bridge aligned with Granville St would do the same thing.
And the Granville St Bridge over False Creek already has the capacity to handle the extra traffic.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Are you saying that the 99b line and skytrain would make money if there were no money losing routes feeding them? The system functions as one unit, you can't simply pick and choose transit routes that make money and ignore those that don't. Transit does not pay for it's self.

Alright using that frame of argument then, so if there isn't a supporting road network for the Massey Tunnel Crossing, would there be the same amount of cars?

At the end of the day, no matter what mode of transport, each mode is being subsidised and paid-for: even if we had road pricing options, the revenue gained (at a cost in which it is politically feasible) from it would not cover the ongoing maintenance/re-paving/upgrades that are needed. Similar case for public transit, it is all dependent on the clever accounting work behind it.

Originally Posted by jlousa

Instead of replacing the Oak build a new small 4 lanebridge at Cambie with connections to the exisiting highway, that way it leads straight into d/t w/o needing to divert along the way.

I think the one problem Metro Vancouver has as a whole is the lack of crossings. While rivers are barriers, they don't prohibit crossings and with the few crossings we have in Vancouver, there will be natural bottle necks. New crossings don't have to be Port Mann structures, they can be built in a lower-speed more local form like Cambie and Brurrard.

Originally Posted by jlousa

The circulation problem is partly dealth with with increased frequency as well, if you don't have people loitering around the station as long waiting the same space becomes more efficiently used. Yes it'll still be busy, but I have no doubt that the stations as are could deal with 3x the traffic. The Olympics showed us they could handle almost 2x the traffic.

Much agreed. It's surprising how fixated many are still are about the short platform lengths. And the Canada Line is not crowded in comparison to the Underground and the MTR: at the very least, there is no need to hire station ushers yet.

[Zassk]

Oak Street Bridge and Queensborough are nearly 60 years old as well. They will need to be replaced in the near future as well, purely due to their age and safety. These two bridges will not last as long as the Patullo or Lions Gate (which are themselves only 20 years older).

Do you think those replacements will be built with no extra lanes? I suspect the opposite - the replacement bridges will be much wider, and will feed into a whole lot more lanes of the existing road network on the north side of the Fraser.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Oak Street Bridge and Queensborough are nearly 60 years old as well. They will need to be replaced in the near future as well, purely due to their age and safety. These two bridges will not last as long as the Patullo or Lions Gate (which are themselves only 20 years older).

Do you think those replacements will be built with no extra lanes? I suspect the opposite - the replacement bridges will be much wider, and will feed into a whole lot more lanes of the existing road network on the north side of the Fraser.

Could I ask you what can be extrapolated from that fact? Will this mean a lot more congestion on the N. side of the Fraser, and if so, the necessity to upgrade the road system there (in whichever locations that may be)? Or does it have other implications? I'm really interested to know what they might be. Thanks. If you have the time to elaborate. This sounds like the potential of a can of worms in the making.

[Denscity]

I don't see mentioned often on here the benefit of shipping up and down the river which isn't possible with the current tunnel in the way. Wont the increase in shipping and larger ships benefit the entire country not just Metro Vancouver??