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

[GlassCity]

All this talk of rapid transit is moot. I can guarantee this to you—South Delta residents will fight and oppose and do anything in their power to prevent rail transit being built down here. In the neighbourhood I live in, people are furious over a townhouse complex replacing fenced off land because it will increase population. Hell, I've heard many people say they oppose the new bridge because it will relieve congestion meaning more people will want to move here.

"Density" and "growth" are the two worst words you could possibly say here, and people will not let you build anything that they will perceive as growth-creating. You might be able to get away with a BRT line, but rail transit will never, ever be supported here.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by 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??

Preventing deeper ships from crossing.

[whatnext]

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.

That is very sensible. However, the city and/or province kind of buggered up Cambie between Marine and Kent when the Canada Line went in, could they now get adequate road width there?

The city also has made Cambie between King Ed and 6th a nightmare of lights. Cambie should have been flagged as the preeminent vehicle route a decades ago. Oak goes nowehere and Granville has too many chokepoints.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That is very sensible. However, the city and/or province kind of buggered up Cambie between Marine and Kent when the Canada Line went in, could they now get adequate road width there?

The city also has made Cambie between King Ed and 6th a nightmare of lights. Cambie should have been flagged as the preeminent vehicle route a decades ago. Oak goes nowehere and Granville has too many chokepoints.

Once you hit king ed and north any sort of flow is completely gone because the synchronization of lights is completely out of whack.

The other thing to be noted is that the city has floated the idea of a separated lane up one of the major routes and is still throwing around the idea of removing capacity on granville and/or cambie bridges so it this really could be interesting to see how this all works out.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

All this talk of rapid transit is moot. I can guarantee this to you—South Delta residents will fight and oppose and do anything in their power to prevent rail transit being built down here.

Are they opposed to a 10-lane bridge, then? Because if it's built, land prices down there will rise and the developers will move in.

[troublemaker]

Originally Posted by deasine

It's surprising how fixated many are still are about the short platform lengths.

Short platforms? They're too long as it is. You only need a platform long enough to accommodate one car. The other car could be in the tunnel.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by deasine

Preventing deeper ships from crossing.

And now we've got the expert telling us its too expensive to remove. Well, if one of the key motivators for replacing the GMT with a bridge is to move larger ships through the Fraser River, you can bet all hell that tunnel is going to be removed, or partially removed NO MATTER WHAT THE COST MAY BE.

Shipping. Energy export. Resource Export. Container Ships. Economy. Growth. Money.

These jive with the national economic priorities, no?
On that note, I wonder how much money the feds will be willing to throw at this project, given that it directly benefits the Asia Pacific Gateway and the National economy.

Options on replacing Massey Tunnel being considered
One expert says removing the tunnel completely is unlikely

Simon Druker September 23, 2013 8:37 pm

http://www.news1130.com/2013/09/23/options-on-replacing-massey-tunnel-being-considered/

...
Actually removing it from below the riverbed would be extremely long and expensive and would also come with the most environmental concerns.

UBC engineer Dr. Carlos Ventura says that option is unlikely. “I think it’s possible but that would not be the best solution. It will be extremely expensive.”
...

...
He says a portion of the tunnel could also be removed to allow for a deeper channel and consequently, larger boats. But that option is also cost-prohibitive.
...

[jlousa]

Wonder why they can't just destroy the tunnel, you'd only have to destroy the centre part where ships would pass, there is already enough clearance at high tide for the large ships, so by gaining 3m in depth that would be enough for them to pass at low tide as well.

[WarrenC12]

From an environmental standpoint, I can't see it being an acceptable plan to just leave it to nature...

[theKB]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

From an environmental standpoint, I can't see it being an acceptable plan to just leave it to nature...

I agree with you there.

Wikipedia actually has a link to a 1959 popular mechanics article about the tunnel that is archived by google. Apparently it was the first prefabbed and then sunk tunnel ever constructed.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vtsDAAA...num=3&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=true

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Are they opposed to a 10-lane bridge, then? Because if it's built, land prices down there will rise and the developers will move in.

I mentioned it in the rest of my post I think. But as a matter of fact, yes, I honestly have heard people say that they don't want the bridge because it will enable growth.

[GMasterAres]

Building the new bridge to replace the tunnel has little to do with South Delta residents.

The tunnel has to be replaced for 3 important reasons:

1. Goods movement between Richmond and Tilbury/Surrey due to the new SFPR and allowances to increase usage of Surrey Fraser docks to further reduce the need for shipping through the port in Burrard Inlet.

2. Ferry traffic.

3. Residents of SURREY moving into South Surrey in droves.

I think any transit discussion should focus on getting people to South Surrey not to Delta. South Delta has very good transit already given its population. You can hop almost any of 5 busses from Bridgeport to take you to Ladner that run very high frequencies given the population.

And they've already enhanced highway service with bus lanes on the North side of the tunnel.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Building the new bridge to replace the tunnel has little to do with South Delta residents.

The tunnel has to be replaced for 3 important reasons:

1. Goods movement between Richmond and Tilbury/Surrey due to the new SFPR and allowances to increase usage of Surrey Fraser docks to further reduce the need for shipping through the port in Burrard Inlet.

2. Ferry traffic.

3. Residents of SURREY moving into South Surrey in droves.

I think any transit discussion should focus on getting people to South Surrey not to Delta. South Delta has very good transit already given its population. You can hop almost any of 5 busses from Bridgeport to take you to Ladner that run very high frequencies given the population.

And they've already enhanced highway service with bus lanes on the North side of the tunnel.

Agreed. Also, maybe the province can work out an agreement or two with the developers of that massive mall in Tsawassen to build an interchange or two to remove those lights and make it free-flow to the terminal. That light at 56th street gets me every time.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by theKB

I agree with you there.

Wikipedia actually has a link to a 1959 popular mechanics article about the tunnel that is archived by google. Apparently it was the first prefabbed and then sunk tunnel ever constructed.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vtsDAAA...num=3&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=true

wow. that was an interesting read! And it brings up couple potential problems of the new bridge (airport, earthquakes and unstable ground)

[djmk]

Originally Posted by theKB

I agree with you there.

Wikipedia actually has a link to a 1959 popular mechanics article about the tunnel that is archived by google. Apparently it was the first prefabbed and then sunk tunnel ever constructed.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vtsDAAA...num=3&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=true

wow. that was an interesting read! And it brings up couple potential problems of the new bridge (airport, earthquakes and unstable ground)

and it only cost $16,600,000!

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Building the new bridge to replace the tunnel has little to do with South Delta residents.

The tunnel has to be replaced for 3 important reasons:

1. Goods movement between Richmond and Tilbury/Surrey due to the new SFPR and allowances to increase usage of Surrey Fraser docks to further reduce the need for shipping through the port in Burrard Inlet.

2. Ferry traffic.

3. Residents of SURREY moving into South Surrey in droves.

I think any transit discussion should focus on getting people to South Surrey not to Delta. South Delta has very good transit already given its population. You can hop almost any of 5 busses from Bridgeport to take you to Ladner that run very high frequencies given the population.

And they've already enhanced highway service with bus lanes on the North side of the tunnel.

We probably do not need 10 lanes though. Right now 25% of people moving through the tunnel are on 1% on the vehicles, buses. Why not get that figure higher?

I agree it would be great to get bigger ships in.

I agree it would be nice to be able to cross as a cyclist. Right now the shuttle is hourly, this is pretty crappy service and easily improved.

Residents of south surrey are moving into condos and townhomes primarily. The type of residences that benefit most by increased transit service. Right now there is only 1 bus route east of Highway 99 and that only came in this year.

[WarrenC12]

If you take the tunnel today, it's fine most of the time, but a mess at rush hour. However it isn't the rush direction that's a problem, it's the single lane the other way that causes an issue. When you are going with the rush, there is very little if any delay when you are part of 3 lanes of traffic.

With that said, a 6 lane crossing would be perfect for "today". I'd advocate for that plus 2 lanes of either bus only, or ideally rail crossing. So 8 lanes total.

10 lanes really is overkill.

[Zassk]

I see the extra 2 lanes as being relief for AFB.

Really, how much more can it cost to make 10 lanes vs. 8?

[s211]

I can only laugh outside (and cry inside) every time a social engineer says we need to put our roads on a diet. For a metro area with a road network that's presently anorexic, telling the metro to go on a diet is like telling a person with anorexia to starve itself to death.

[stump]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If you take the tunnel today, it's fine most of the time, but a mess at rush hour. However it isn't the rush direction that's a problem, it's the single lane the other way that causes an issue. When you are going with the rush, there is very little if any delay when you are part of 3 lanes of traffic.

With that said, a 6 lane crossing would be perfect for "today". I'd advocate for that plus 2 lanes of either bus only, or ideally rail crossing. So 8 lanes total.

10 lanes really is overkill.

I don't take it a lot anymore (once a week to Point Roberts) but it can get pretty bad on weekends as well when traffic turning off to Steveston Hwy backs right up into the tunnel pretty much turning it into 1 lane northbound. This has happened to me last weekend and the weekend before on both Sunday and Saturday.