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

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by logan5

4 lanes for vehicles and 1 lane for transit seems fair.

And there you have it - 4 GP lanes + 1 HOV lane.

Frankly, light rail will never head south of the Fraser in that area. From a business and logistical analysis, the ALR would need to be removed and continuous low to high density development would be required on and along that corridor.

We all know that ain`t gonna happen. BTW, the spurs of Tsawwassen and Ladner are also basically NIMBY central in Metro Vancouver.

Furthermore, as I stated in a previous post, the high-back seats on the existing Rapid Bus on a continuous Hwy 99 HOV lane are not only much more comfortable for transit users than lrt... but the 100 - 120 km per hour travel speed of the Rapid Bus would also be much quicker than a slower lrt line, which again would not be financially viable along that corridor in terms of capital costs, etc.

The only transit alternative along that corridor would be a Westcoast Express-type line (akin to Metro Toronto`s GO trains) but the capital costs of new rail lines and bridges, etc. would also be cost prohibitive.

BTW, common sense dictates everything.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

And there you have it - 4 GP lanes + 1 HOV lane.

Frankly, light rail will never head south of the Fraser in that area. From a business and logistical analysis, the ALR would need to be removed and continuous low to high density development would be required on and along that corridor.

You could say the same thing about 8 lanes for private vehicles. Obviously something big is being planned behind the scenes that is going to require a high capacity bridge.

but the 100 - 120 km per hour travel speed would also be much quicker than a slower lrt line, which again would not be financially viable along that corridor in terms of capital costs, etc.

Light rail vehicles can travel over 100 km/h, so they are suitable for a medium range commuter service. Building track along 99 would be relatively cheap as these tracks would be at grade and ballasted.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by logan5

You could say the same thing about 8 lanes for private vehicles. Obviously something big is being planned behind the scenes that is going to require a high capacity bridge.

Light rail vehicles can travel over 100 km/h, so they are suitable for a medium range commuter service. Building track along 99 would be relatively cheap as these tracks would be at grade and ballasted.

I totally disagree with your business or financial case of lrt along that corridor. It would be a complete financial albatross to Translink. BTW, `free-flowing`
Skytrain only travels at about 80 km per hour. And you forgot to mention ALL of the cross-streets, roads, highways etc. an lrt would need to cross and slow-down for!!

Now we have inner-city Vancouverites making both mis-informed judgments about Metro Vancouver`s suburbs as well as their transportation solutions. OTOH, from the perspective of soooooo many `Metro` Vancouverites, we definitely do need a free-flow highway connector, in the minimum, from Hwy 1 to the Georgia viaducts - preferably along a Grandview Cut or similar corridor.

Too much time is wasted and greenhouse gases are created idling in traffic along 1st Ave., for instance. BTW, said fwy corridor would also make the residences along 1st Ave., etc. `more livable`!

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

I totally disagree with your business or financial case of lrt along that corridor. It would be a complete financial albatross to Translink.

Just like the Golden Ears Bridge.

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

BTW, `free-flowing Skytrain only travels at about 80 km per hour. And you forgot to mention ALL of the cross-streets, roads, highways etc. an lrt would need to cross and slow-down for!!

If you run track along side the highway there's not a lot of roads in the way. My point mostly was that it would be wise to reserve the HOV lanes exclusively for transit of some sort as the capacity these lanes represent are comparable to a 20 lane highway. If vehicles are eventually using all lanes, it will be hard to take those lanes back for rail transit use if that kind of capacity ever became necessary. In 30 years time a rail link into Richmond and Vancouver (via Arbutus) may be necessary.

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Now we have inner-city Vancouverites making both mis-informed judgments about Metro Vancouver`s suburbs as well as their transportation solutions. OTOH, from the perspective of soooooo many `Metro` Vancouverites, we definitely do need a free-flow highway connector, in the minimum, from Hwy 1 to the Georgia viaducts - preferably along a Grandview Cut or similar corridor.

Off topic, but since I'm inner city and you're suburbs, do you know how much an at least 8 lane freeway from the Georgia Viaduct to #1 would cost? It would have to be underground because there's no way it would fit in the Grandview cut and an elevated structure would be out of the question, so underground at a cost of likely over 3 billion dollars.

[East Van]

A cut & cover tunnel from hwy 1 to Clark down 1st would be awesome. Eliminating some of the stupid traffic calming measures around commercial/victoria/nanaimo would be amazing. It's ridiculous that I can't drive thru my hood without being diverted a direction I want nothing to do with. As a 30+ year resident of the area, why is it taking so long to build a link to hwy 1... Hastings is a mess with Powell being out of commission.

As for GMT I fully support 10 lanes. It is an extension of the I5 & one of the busiest border crossings in the country. Waiting 45 mins to go from Tillbury to Steveston in the evening rush is a joke. A bus lane built on the shoulder of the highway !!! Get this thing over and done with.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by East Van

A cut & cover tunnel from hwy 1 to Clark down 1st...

...is beyond the scope of this thread.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by East Van

A cut & cover tunnel from hwy 1 to Clark down 1st would be awesome...

Originally Posted by red-paladin

...is beyond the scope of this thread.

Could such a subject go under the roads fantasy thread? I think it has pertinence; if not right now then in a decade to come, full well.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by whatnext

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.

Or it's an attempt to limit free-market activity that has significant negative environmental externalities. This is Econ 101 stuff.

Also, it's a bit of a joke to say that demand for suburban housing is entirely a result of the free market when Vancouver zoning regulations significantly limit the amount of housing that can be built. I don't know exactly how many of those suburbanites would live in Vancouver if it was zoned for more housing (nobody does), but the number is definitely above zero.

[xd_1771]

We all know that ain`t gonna happen. BTW, the spurs of Tsawwassen and Ladner are also basically NIMBY central in Metro Vancouver.

Furthermore, as I stated in a previous post, the high-back seats on the existing Rapid Bus on a continuous Hwy 99 HOV lane are not only much more comfortable for transit users than lrt... but the 100 - 120 km per hour travel speed of the Rapid Bus would also be much quicker than a slower lrt line, which again would not be financially viable along that corridor in terms of capital costs, etc.

LRT can do 100-120km/h as easily as a bus, by the way.

The real question is whether doing that would actually be cost-effective: what are we going to get for the cost of investment and operation?

Build LRT there, and... well... it's not going to go everywhere. I can see one line being built along the whole corridor going by exchanges, but not spurs heading into the actual South Delta communities. That means things like transfer requirements... One who could previously get out of their door, get on a bus and then be directly taken to a Canada Line Station would instead have to be taken to an LRT station and wait even more for the next train.

You can justify this in some situations like if you build SkyTrain and it's replacing an urban-arterial 60km/h segment (i.e. that's what the Canada Line did); but not for replacing a highway bus segment that already has exclusive bus lanes. The benefits would be miniscule. Building ballasted track may be cheap, but it's still buidling track. The benefit-cost ratio is unlikely to justify it.

The current setup is actually great during the peak hour; it's now just about finding the money to improve the off-peak service, make sure peak-hour service is expanded as necessary, and provide better service within the community by improving community shuttle frequencies to get residents to centers - and getting more transit-oriented development in at the transit exchanges like maybe Ladner. Building LRT will waste a lot of money that could be reprioritized for better bus service and amortized over the operating years.

LRT could work here, sure, down the road; but, capacity is not an issue for the buses going down there right now. When that is a problem, perhaps it could be worth looking at.

[tybuilding]

Obviously something needs to be done about the tunnel. It could be upgraded but there are benefits of replacing it for a bridge. I just don't think it needs to be 10 lanes wide. Right now there are 3 lanes in rush hour direction. Having a 6 lane bridge with the HOV lane go through would make for transit as a benefit over single occupant driving. 8 lanes is an addition of capacity but seems reasonable to me, 3 lanes plus one lane HOV.

Free flowing highways is a bit of a dream as in the past traffic quickly filled it too no free flow conditions. When you come to think of it though having free flow commutes is unfair to people that take transit. Transit is not free flowing, especially suburb to suburb with transfers to buses that run at 15 to 30 minutes at best and service that turns hourly outside of the rush, even for ones that take the shortest route connecting communities like the 301 (Newton to Richmond) One has to agree that all of the highway building is a slap in the face to transit without further transit expansion.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Obviously something needs to be done about the tunnel. It could be upgraded but there are benefits of replacing it for a bridge. I just don't think it needs to be 10 lanes wide. Right now there are 3 lanes in rush hour direction. Having a 6 lane bridge with the HOV lane go through would make for transit as a benefit over single occupant driving. 8 lanes is an addition of capacity but seems reasonable to me, 3 lanes plus one lane HOV.

Free flowing highways is a bit of a dream as in the past traffic quickly filled it too no free flow conditions. When you come to think of it though having free flow commutes is unfair to people that take transit. Transit is not free flowing, especially suburb to suburb with transfers to buses that run at 15 to 30 minutes at best and service that turns hourly outside of the rush, even for ones that take the shortest route connecting communities like the 301 (Newton to Richmond) One has to agree that all of the highway building is a slap in the face to transit without further transit expansion.

I dont understand why you are okay with 8 lanes but are dead set against 10? I would go over why a bridge with ten lanes is reasonable to me but, it has been already said by various posters in this thread.

As far as highway expansion being a slap in the face to transit, I'm gonna have to strongly disagree. I am of the opinion that vancouvers highways/freeways are almost dead last in the country. Calgary
smaller city, better roads. Ottawa smaller city, better roads. Edmonton smaller city, better roads. Quebec city.....etc so forth. Any improvements are needed and long overdue.

Its not like its a contest but Vancouver has some serious catching up to do, and you act like vancouver is and has done nothing for transit, when in my opinion it has one of if, not the nicest rapid transit systems in the country

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

I just don't think it needs to be 10 lanes wide. Right now there are 3 lanes in rush hour direction. Having a 6 lane bridge with the HOV lane go through would make for transit as a benefit over single occupant driving.

And the CURRENT 3 lanes in each direction during rush hour still results in major back-ups!!! What about the future 1 million population growth projected for the metro region, inclusive of South Surrey, etc.???

And the major projected increase in container truck traffic from an expanded Delta Port?

And future increase in ferry traffic? And U.S. border traffic? And Tsawwassen Mills? etc., etc.

I can go on and on. Again, reminds me of then Vancouver mayor Mike Harcourt opposing the proposed Alex Fraser Bridge and Hwy 91 back in the early 1980's "because it was not needed". Yeah right!

Based upon your analysis, another crossing of the south arm of the Fraser River at Tilbury to connect up with Boundary Road will be needed decades sooner than otherwise required by a new 10 or 12 lane crossing at the GMT.

BTW, Metro Vancouver is light years behind Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, etc. in terms of a properly designed free-flow highway system in terms of number, capacity and reach. And they also all have major transit lines.

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Free flowing highways is a bit of a dream as in the past traffic quickly filled it too no free flow conditions. When you come to think of it though having free flow commutes is unfair to people that take transit. One has to agree that all of the highway building is a slap in the face to transit without further transit expansion.

Since the new GMT replacement deals with future population, congestion, economic issues, etc. and has received relatively wide popular support... while Metro Vancouver transit use at ~15% deals with a small minority of the population, I am now of the mindset, based upon your illogical posts herein, that transit should no longer be a priority in the region, unfortunately. I don't even know anyone who utilizes same quite frankly.

Again, keep your good work derailing this thread! If you are representative of a transit advocate, you have now completely turned me off same and I am now thinking why gov't should even bother funding new transit lines. Really!

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

And the CURRENT 3 lanes in each direction during rush hour still results in major back-ups!!!

It's three lanes in only one direction at a time, the other direction gets only 1 lane.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

And the CURRENT 3 lanes in each direction during rush hour still results in major back-ups!!! What about the future 1 million population growth projected for the metro region, inclusive of South Surrey, etc.???

And the major projected increase in container truck traffic from an expanded Delta Port?

And future increase in ferry traffic? And U.S. border traffic? And Tsawwassen Mills? etc., etc.

I can go on and on. Again, reminds me of then Vancouver mayor Mike Harcourt opposing the proposed Alex Fraser Bridge and Hwy 91 back in the early 1980's "because it was not needed". Yeah right!

Based upon your analysis, another crossing of the south arm of the Fraser River at Tilbury to connect up with Boundary Road will be needed decades sooner than otherwise required by a new 10 or 12 lane crossing at the GMT.

BTW, Metro Vancouver is light years behind Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, etc. in terms of a properly designed free-flow highway system in terms of number, capacity and reach. And they also all have major transit lines.




Since the new GMT replacement deals with future population, congestion, economic issues, etc. and has received relatively wide popular support... while Metro Vancouver transit use at ~15% deals with a small minority of the population, I am now of the mindset, based upon your illogical posts herein, that transit should no longer be a priority in the region, unfortunately. I don't even know anyone who utilizes same quite frankly.

Again, keep your good work derailing this thread! If you are representative of a transit advocate, you have now completely turned me off same and I am now thinking why gov't should even bother funding new transit lines. Really!

Well here is my argument.

The current set up has the 3 lanes in rush hour only has general purpose lanes. Transit and HOV have to merge into slow traffic. The reverse commute is really bad with traffic going into only one lane.

So making a bridge 4 lanes each direction would give the general lanes only a slight increase in traffic while HOV would be open with one lane. The reverse direction would now be normal, no counter flow.

Having a bridge with near current rush hour traffic flow for general purpose would encourage people to take transit. A bit of congestion could have people look at transit and car pooling more closely and choose to take it. Having only 15% of Metro Vancouver take public transit is too low, PS it is actually 19.7% but South of the Fraser it is much lower. O

An 8 lane crossing would be cheaper than a 10 lane crossing. About 10% cheaper for the bridge alone based on the numbers from the Patullo bridge study.

So why a bridge? After no financial analysis it was decided we needed a bridge. No a tunnel wouldn't do. We couldn't upgrade the existing one or twin it. But then again we couldn't do that for the Port Mann either. Apparently highway infrastructure needs to be replaced after 50 years and can't be rehabilitated. It is too expensive to be upgraded, says the powers at be, but the public will never see that cost analysis.

But a bridge does have some uses over a tunnel. Cycling I would think would be better on a bridge, one has a view, but there is more of a hill climb. A tunnel for cycling doesn't seem as good for personal safety though it can be done, . Something is needed because apparently the shuttle service can't be operated more than once per hour in each direction, apparently it is impossible. Who knew?
For port traffic it is better to have a deeper river so larger boats can export all of the coal out of the US, sorry I mean bring containers into the Port in Surrey which doesn't seem very busy to me most of the time when I look at it crossing over the Alex Fraser on my bike.

Since when are there going to be 2 HOV lanes in each direction? That's not what the video rendering had, nor what was made on the Port Mann. It also would be very difficult to implement it in the future.


It is too bad we couldn't have this level of consultation for the options of the GMT http://www.pattullobridgereview.ca/wp-co...1-Discussion-Guide-and-Feedback-Form.pdf I think this review was really good.

I didn't see that type of benefit/positive/negative and cost review at the GMT sessions, it was really poor.

There doesn't look like there will be a phase 3 consultation. What do you think?

[TransitFreak]

Also, with a bridge, you won't have any restricted goods movement that you would have with a tunnel. So now you've opened up a new route effectively for dangerous cargo movement, cutting down travel time by not having to go through Alex Fraser. Also mentioned was the possible dredging and allowing larger load ships to pass through. I like the idea of building the bridge and having dedicated exit only lanes and segregating traffic movement as much as possible to reduce/eliminate bottlenecks...

[GMasterAres]

My own opinion matches the opinion that LRT is a bit silly at this stage down that stretch and to be honest, I don't see it being viable in the next 15-20 years either at all.

That opinion is based on:

1. My thoughts that regionally we are spreading out in such a way that focusing attention again on getting people from the far corners of the region to specifically Vancouver is a bit silly and counter productive. We keep hearing planners and "urbanists" harping on the fact that people should be able to work, live, and play in their own neighborhoods. If that is true, then having them need to commute 50km 1 way to work is just silly. Or forcing them to go downtown to buy certain things or see a show is also silly.

2. Based mainly on #2, I think South Surrey and even South Delta should focus more on making travel to and from SoF easier. To areas like North Delta, Surrey Central, Guildford, and Langley. And they are doing that with all the building of retail in South Surrey and future plans for transit options along KGB, Fraser Highway, and 104th.

3. That leaves South Delta (Ladner/Tsawwassen) that would cater to going across the bridge to Richmond or even Vancouver. Well if anyone has heard of the "Southlands" proposal in Tsawwassen they would also know that it has been a lot of back and fourth + and - from South Delta residents against the developer for something like 5+ years now I think over a development proposal that in the grand scheme of what is built in the rest of Metro Vancouver, small; minor in size.

So don't expect South Delta to grow a whole lot over the next 20 years unless as another poster mentioned, they do away with the ALR and allow the cities to start building on all that land which in Delta I'm sure would never fly, or at least fly very fast.



At the end of the day then, the capacity is quite honestly for those in South Surrey/South Delta that do go to Vancouver, for the ferry traffic as the ferry terminal isn't moving, and for industry between Richmond and Delta/Surrey. I mean I live in Central Surrey and don't take the tunnel if I need to go to Vancouver. I either take the PMB or Alex Fraser. So it really does just target that group.

2 HOV and 8 general lanes isn't hugely crazy in my opinion.

1 lane for HOV either direction, that handles your HO and Transit needs. No need for LRT imo the busses are fast enough as it is between Bridgeport and South Delta/Ferries, and the highway adjustments will speed up Bridgeport to Surrey to probably as quick or quicker than LRT would do. LRT would have higher capacity, but I simply don't think that is needed and you could solve that in the near term with a B-line anyway. Remember a lot of people that live in South Surrey or South Delta tend to be on the higher income scale so you're simply not going to get them out of their Mercedes SL500 or Audi A5 and onto a bus or transit any time soon. It is beneath them.

3 lanes mainly for vehicles going over the bridge and quite honestly mainly to provide for peak traffic movements aka when you are in rush hour and have 2 ferries dock and release 29183723 cars and trucks, or on long weekends in rush hour, when a ferry docks. Also they will help bi-directional capacity to handle the few larger projects that are being done including the Tsawwassen Mills project. Finally let's face it, while I like to live in a utopian world where everyone in South Surrey goes to Surrey Central, people in South Surrey will still need to go to Vancouver/Richmond/Airport/etc., and it is growing in population so this future proofs the bridge for the next 30 years.

1 lane that is general traffic but most likely will be filled to capacity with large container trucks between the ports and industry on both sides of the tunnel.

So 5 lanes to me is pretty much a no brainer and not too big.

[moosejaw]

Why not leave the tunnel in place say for rapidbus, lrt, transit, cyclists etc? Maybe make it part of collector system and build a bridge say 6 lanes +2 HOV?

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Why not leave the tunnel in place say for rapidbus, lrt, transit, cyclists etc? Maybe make it part of collector system and build a bridge say 6 lanes +2 HOV?

The tunnel will be almost 65 years old by the time the bridge opens - getting progressively more expensive to keep in operation.

If the tunnel could be repurposed in any way, it would make the most sense to send Canada Line trains through it to Ladner/Tsawwassen/ferries... the height inside the tunnel seems to be just enough to accommodate Rotem cars + railbed. From Bridgeport Station down Hwy 99/17A, most of the rail route could be at-grade, and therefore very cheap to build.

[TransitFreak]

Think of it as a bus, it's past the useful life, and costs to keep it in state of good repair is getting more cost prohibitive. Also, it is one major incident away from being written off completely. Also too, it could be uninsurable as well, from a sense that should any major incident happen, liability of having unsafe infrastructure could leave the government vulnerable to potential lawsuits...

As much as there are life cycle issues, there are also liability issues as well

[officedweller]

From News1130.

I got to thinking - and I think the reason the bridge is depicted so wide is so that bridge tower footings can straddle the existing tunnel without decommissioning the tunnel during construction (are there any other bridges out there with "H" shaped towers where each footing of the "H" is separate from the other)? Or could they build separate footings, open the bridge, demolish the tunnel and then join/brace the footings against each other in a super footing/pier (or would traffic vibrations prevent that (think Second Narrows roadbed)?

Slow start to George Massey’s son’s petition to save tunnel

Only has 95 signatures so far

Amanda Wawryk
October 7, 2013 10:33 am

RICHMOND (NEWS1130) – A petition to save the George Massey Tunnel is off to a bit of a slow start.

The petition was launched late last month by Doug Massey, the son of the late George Massey. So far, it only has about 95 signatures.

Massey says his push isn’t just for sentimental reasons. “If they do build a bridge right on top of the tunnel, they would have to decommission the tunnel and leave the people without a crossing, probably for at least two years.”

He says he will continue to try to collect more signatures on his petition so the government recieved the message that the tunnel should stay. “Richmond, who are the main drivers of the tunnel in the first place… [I'm] hoping that the Richmond Council will step forward, too. I’d like to get their support on this issue, too.”

http://www.news1130.com/2013/10/07/slow-start-to-george-masseys-sons-petition-to-save-tunnel/