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

[ssiguy]

I've had the distinct displeasure of meeting Gordon Price and he is a downtown elitist of the first order. He thinks everyone should live downtown and those that don't are people who support sprawl.

He knows nothing about transportation because he only views transportation as transit and bike paths. He would get a nose bleed if he went south of King Edward. Except for going to Victoria to do a paid political speech or meet his gay friends in Seattle, he has probably never even take the George Massey. He is more a laughing stock than anything else. He is the type who would insist upon everyone living 2 blocks from work but not even consider the fact that almost no one in Vancouver can afford such a luxury. He is a professional politician turn academic and is use to living VERY well off the public purse and has absolutely no concept of what real people in Vancouver face in terms of transportation or housing.

The George Massey must be expanded although I'm not sure why it has to be a new 10 lane bridge. could they not just widen the current tunnel or add another one beside it? I would guess nearly 40% of the traffic on the tunnel is merging off Northbound at Steveston Road.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Look at the population that the other 10-lane bridge serves. Does the area south of the Massey tunnel look anything like that?

The Massey tunnel serves the same population! Half of the traffic in the tunnel is from Surrey these days. Surrey's not going to stop growing, and neither is that traffic, regardless of what rapid transit projects go ahead in future.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I've had the distinct displeasure of meeting Gordon Price and he is a downtown elitist of the first order. He thinks everyone should live downtown and those that don't are people who support sprawl.

He knows nothing about transportation because he only views transportation as transit and bike paths. He would get a nose bleed if he went south of King Edward. Except for going to Victoria to do a paid political speech or meet his gay friends in Seattle, he has probably never even take the George Massey. He is more a laughing stock than anything else. He is the type who would insist upon everyone living 2 blocks from work but not even consider the fact that almost no one in Vancouver can afford such a luxury. He is a professional politician turn academic and is use to living VERY well off the public purse and has absolutely no concept of what real people in Vancouver face in terms of transportation or housing.

The George Massey must be expanded although I'm not sure why it has to be a new 10 lane bridge. could they not just widen the current tunnel or add another one beside it? I would guess nearly 40% of the traffic on the tunnel is merging off Northbound at Steveston Road.

I think that ad hominem posts do a disservice to the forum and the poster.

I think I can distill down Price's recent line of argument to this: compared to its investments in public transit, the Province is committing a disproportionate share of its resources to expanding highway capacity. This has well-established land-use and mode-share implications that will undermine the long-standing Metro Vancouver transportation and land-use priorities of building a compact urban region and preserving the green zones.

You may disagree with the Regional Growth Strategy and its predecessor, the Livable Region Strategic Plan, but those are the guiding documents for Metro Vancouver and they were created and enacted through consensus among the region's 21 municipalities and districts. The Province is making transportation investment decisions that undermine Metro Vancouver's plans while stymieing the ability of Translink to execute the transportation portion of the region's plans and Price and others, myself included, think that this is the wrong way to go for the future of the region.

[DKaz]

Hey look, ssiguy's back!

[deasine]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I think that ad hominem posts do a disservice to the forum...

To be honest, there's been a lot of discussions and points recently made by some that can fall under this. If posts are continuously made with no substance made, the discussion level will continue to fall.

[officedweller]

Article from Jeff Nagel Surrey Leader:

Fraser River shipping could bloom without Massey Tunnel


Fraser Surrey Docks is located on the east bank of the Fraser River in North Delta, between the Alex Fraser and Pattullo Bridges.
Port Metro Vancouver

By Jeff Nagel - Surrey North Delta Leader
Published: October 02, 2013 12:00 PM
Updated: October 02, 2013 12:39 PM

Eliminating the Massey Tunnel would open up the Fraser River to expanded shipping that could in some cases help take truck traffic off the roads.

Fraser Surrey Docks CEO Jeff Scott lists that as one of the benefits that would come with a new Deas Island bridge promised by the province, provided the tunnel is removed and the channel is dredged.

"I think it creates opportunities for growth and expansion up and down the Fraser River that could result in thousands of jobs and significant economic benefit," Scott said.

Ships carrying more containers are among those that could sail upstream if the channel is deepened to allow vessels loaded to a draft of 13.5 metres, instead of the limit of 11.5 metres now.

That wouldn't necessarily mean larger ships sailing on the river.

Scott said Panamax-size vessels – the same size as the oil tankers that load at Kinder Morgan's terminal on Burrard Inlet – already sail up to Fraser Surrey Docks, but they can't be fully loaded because of the channel depth at the tunnel.

"You'll see the same ships, we could just load larger volume on them," he predicted.

That's significant because it's uneconomic right now for shippers to essentially pay twice to use two ships, along with the cost of loading them, when they could instead send out one fully loaded from a different terminal.

"It's economies of scale," Scott said. "If they have to pay twice they go somewhere else where they only have to pay once to load a vessel up."

Scott uses the example of the Interfor sawmill that's adjacent to Fraser Surrey Docks.

It can't fully load lumber on a ship at Fraser Surrey Docks so it instead trucks all that lumber across town to Burrard Inlet, where a large ship can be filled to capacity with Interfor lumber, the same as the forest company's competitors do.

"You have all that impact on the community and roads of trucking that to Vancouver, just to accommodate a deeper draft vessel," he said.

Scott said there might actually be fewer ships moving on the river, but more fully loaded.

The terminal also hopes to drum up more shipping business with more efficient, heavily laden vessels.

Scott lists wheat, grains and specialty crops, as well as potash and forest products, as the likeliest cargo types Fraser Surrey Docks might attract.

The terminal is also in the midst of a contentious proposal to open a new coal-handling facility that would transfer coal from trains onto barges and send it to Texada Island for reloading to larger ships.

Asked if Fraser Surrey Docks could load ocean-going coal ships after the tunnel is gone, rather than barging first to Texada, Scott said he's focused on proceeding with the coal terminal as it's now proposed.

Asked if an alternate oil export terminal on the river for Kinder Morgan's pipeline might be another possibility, Scott said he's heard no talk of that.

http://www.richmondreview.com/news/226185481.html

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I think that ad hominem posts do a disservice to the forum and the poster.

I think I can distill down Price's recent line of argument to this: compared to its investments in public transit, the Province is committing a disproportionate share of its resources to expanding highway capacity. This has well-established land-use and mode-share implications that will undermine the long-standing Metro Vancouver transportation and land-use priorities of building a compact urban region and preserving the green zones.

You may disagree with the Regional Growth Strategy and its predecessor, the Livable Region Strategic Plan, but those are the guiding documents for Metro Vancouver and they were created and enacted through consensus among the region's 21 municipalities and districts. The Province is making transportation investment decisions that undermine Metro Vancouver's plans while stymieing the ability of Translink to execute the transportation portion of the region's plans and Price and others, myself included, think that this is the wrong way to go for the future of the region.

Ad hominem? Perhaps with a kernel of truth, you will note the poster had met the subject personally. There is unfortunately a subset of people with a mindset of: "Hey I'm single and live downtown happily in 600 sq ft, so everyone should".

The need for a GMT replacement is result of the marketplace speaking. And it is saying a large part of the population aspires to a single family home and is willing to trade a commute to get it. By that standard the Livable Region Strategy is nothing but a government attempt to thwart the free market, force people into a product they don't want.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by whatnext

There is unfortunately a subset of people with a mindset of: "Hey I'm single and live downtown happily in 600 sq ft, so everyone should".

The need for a GMT replacement is result of the marketplace speaking. And it is saying a large part of the population aspires to a single family home and is willing to trade a commute to get it. By that standard the Livable Region Strategy is nothing but a government attempt to thwart the free market, force people into a product they don't want.

Ya know. You hit the proverbial nail on the head! To preface, back in the early 1980`s, then Vancouver mayor Mike Harcourt also stepped outside his political bailiwick and severely criticized the then proposal for the new Alex Fraser Bridge and the Hwy 91 Fwy. I will never forget that. Freeways are obsolete he then stated. I like Mike and at least he has now come around and supported the new PMB and Hwy 1 upgrades with his `the horse has left the barn` quip.

Yet here we go again, with many posting on here with their `social engineering` concepts - some outlandish to be frank. Sorry to say, but all JUST `City of` Vancouverites that I know fully support the new GMT replacement.

And those that say that 10 lanes is too much - without thinking about the future - we can always eliminate the 2 HOV lanes as enough short-term capacity will eliminate the need for same. But guaranteed - 30 - 40 years down the road a new south Fraser crossing at Tilbury will be required at a MUCH earlier date than if the GMT replacement was either 10 or 12 lanes. Just the result of another 1 million population increase in Metro Vancouver, etc. etc.

And yep. Most Metro Vancouverites do not want to live in a `socially-engineered` 600 sq. ft. condo 20 storeys up in the sky riding transit. That lifestyle is only due to financial circumstances, for the most part. Unfortunately. Welcome to the real world folks.

And that doesn`t mean that I don`t support density development and transit - which I do!!

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Steveston

Hang on, hang on...

Everyone knows Tsawwassen Mills is a special case because of the treaty handing the land over to the TFN, unencumbered by the ALR designation. Unless there are a swarm of additional FN treaties negotiated on farmlands south of the Fraser, the T Mills case is not a precedent which will be repeated in East Delta

Much more concerning, however, are the plans of Port Metro Vancouver and their Terminal 3 expansion plans for Deltaport.

Expansions of Deltaport > Tsawwassen Mills. If they're going to pave over farmland, it better be something that really generates a huge economic benefit. A mall does not fall under that category.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Ad hominem? Perhaps with a kernel of truth, you will note the poster had met the subject personally. There is unfortunately a subset of people with a mindset of: "Hey I'm single and live downtown happily in 600 sq ft, so everyone should".

The need for a GMT replacement is result of the marketplace speaking. And it is saying a large part of the population aspires to a single family home and is willing to trade a commute to get it. By that standard the Livable Region Strategy is nothing but a government attempt to thwart the free market, force people into a product they don't want.

Very well said and completely accurate. The "livable region strategy" has gaping holes in in its fundamentals as it was constructed by dewy-eyed civic officials who all seem to lead particular lifestyles, and try to impose them on the rest of the population. They have fallen woefully short in acknowledging that our population is diverse, and economic and working factors people deal with are equally diverse, that call for more than a one size fits all solution.

What is the point of preserving an idea that was/is flawed in its very concept? The plain fact is that Mr Price is a career politician who hasn't run anything other than possibly a lemonade stand in his life, thus leaving him painfully short on expertise on how to provide infrastructure needed to keep the region competitive.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Ad hominem? Perhaps with a kernel of truth, you will note the poster had met the subject personally.

So what? I have also met Price and share a different sentiment. jlousa also knows Price and would arguably not share these observations. These links and conjectures are unvalidated. I do not know where Price has explicitly said of the so-called mindset you bring up and do not believe that this is representative of Price. For the record, I do not share all of his views and beliefs. But for those that criticise his accreditations as per mentioned above, I don't think there should be any questions having achieved multiple awards in the field of planning and a notable scholar of SFU and a regular lecturer at other Universities.

Let's get back on topic.

[tybuilding]

Yes I have met Gordon Price as well, at the City of Surrey/ SFU transportation lecture series at SFU Surrey. The lecture series probably just started but there probably be another one next fall. I encourage everyone to attend who is interested in transportation. At the same lecture series we had a guest speaker from the Ministry of transportation and infrastructure tell us that after the Gateway project was done they would focus on transit expansions. 1 year later the study on the George Massey Tunnel is announced.

It is pretty obvious that the highway expansion and the corridor improvements will be pretty much like the Gateway project. When asked how much the project would cost the premier said the Port Mann would cost $830 million and the rest a couple of billion. So it is a pretty major expansion the province is eyeing up, not just a crossing replacement. To pay for that investment would be partly real estate taxes from sprawl and I bet the ALR is under review and they would love to pave paradise, why else would they want a review?

[GeeCee]

It's funny how the anti-car Mujahideen always hijacks conversation in threads about roads/highways, and yet we don't see the same thing in transit-oriented threads.

[Stingray2004]

Look... Gordon Price, once upon a time, was a Vancouver city councillor with the centre-right NPA, from the West End, who has always been inner-city centric and an advocate of both cycling and transit. `Nuff said. The BS otherwise, in this thread and in that regard, wants me to gag, quite frankly.

Originally Posted by tybuilding

So it is a pretty major expansion the province is eyeing up, not just a crossing replacement. To pay for that investment would be partly real estate taxes from sprawl and I bet the ALR is under review and they would love to pave paradise, why else would they want a review?

Fer chrise sakes. Just complete and utter left-wing NDP partisan and conspiracy theory bullshit!!! Get a life man! Your only purpose, among a few others in this thread, is an attempt to derail same. Pathetic!

What I like about the Calgary and Edmonton threads is that the common sense and logical posters therein both support their transit as well as highway threads - supporting a balanced transportation system. Here in Metro Vancouver, OTOH, we have waaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too many nutters. Sorry, just hadda say it - and I am never one to mince words.

Sorry Mods, but after almost 11 years of posting here... I have never had to resort to this calibre of speak... but it is what it is!

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

It's funny how the anti-car Mujahideen always hijacks conversation in threads about roads/highways, and yet we don't see the same thing in transit-oriented threads.

That might have something to do with the fact that transit is chronically underfunded and subject to countless "audits" and referrenda while money for roads and bridges seems to magically rain down from heaven with seemingly no scrutiny whatsoever. And part of the justification for the bridges is improving transit, although no money is forthcoming to fulfill those promises.

I don't have a problem with replacing aging infrastructure like the Patullo bridge or Massey tunnel, but really, 10 lanes? Where's the balance in our transportation planning?

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I don't have a problem with replacing aging infrastructure like the Patullo bridge or Massey tunnel, but really, 10 lanes? Where's the balance in our transportation planning?

Like I said. So you don`t like 10 lanes... without looking 30 years down the road??

Then I suppose that you support the elimination of the 2 HOV lanes to bring it down to 8 lanes as they are not required for the foreseeable future??

And then, you do realize, that another south arm crossing of the Fraser River will be required much sooner to service another 1 million population increase in the Metro Vancouver region as a result of a lower capacity replacement of the GMT?? (think Alex Fraser Bridge)

And you do realize that BC MoTI and Translink are completely separate entities?

And that the then BC MoTI, during the late 1990`s, under the then NDP gov`t downloaded various highway assets including the Pattullo Bridge, etc. to Translink?

And that only about 15% of transportation trips in Metro Vancouver are by transit?

And that all-day commercial trips (whether by truck or vehicle) are undertaken by countless small businesses?

And that even `soccer moms` bringing their kids to school or sports require these same roads and highways?

I can go on and on... but hopefully you get my point by now!!!

[logan5]

With tolls and the low operating costs compared to transit, it's easy to see why roads and highways are easier to implement. If there was some way to guarantee that 2 lanes would be used exclusively for transit, I would be alright with a massey tunnel replacement. A light rail line going across the bridge eventually would represent the same capacity as a 20 lane freeway, so we shouldn't need an upgrade for a very long time.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by logan5

A light rail line going across the bridge eventually would represent the same capacity as a 20 lane freeway, so we shouldn't need an upgrade for a very long time.

While this is true, not everyone is able to or willing to take transit, so you can't bank on the maximum capacity of a transit line like that in a straight comparison with a roadway. There are a lot of trucks travelling through that corridor, for instance, and they can't use light rail.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

While this is true, not everyone is able to or willing to take transit, so you can't bank on the maximum capacity of a transit line like that in a straight comparison with a roadway. There are a lot of trucks travelling through that corridor, for instance, and they can't use light rail.

I've always found that comparison to be a bit ridiculous. Only individuals can take light rail, and even then it's not exactly ideal for many types of trips: going to the supermarket, going to Ikea, going to visit friends who live in a single family home outside of transit-served areas, etc.

Not to mention, as you point out, that trucks and other commercial vehicles don't take transit. You don't have delivery trucks, construction materials, dump trucks, containers, tradesmen, etc travelling by light rail and those trips account for a large portion of traffic over the bridge.

[logan5]

4 lanes for vehicles and 1 lane for transit seems fair. It would be foolish to not accommodate rail transit and instead just keep on building more vehicle lanes. During rush hour, most people are going to work in a private vehicle. This is where rapid transit, be it light rail or whatever, can be very useful. Skytrain exemplifies that.