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

[GeeCee]

They haven't exactly been forthcoming with details as of yet.

[Millennium2002]

Well... I wasn't expecting the Alex Fraser Bridge to be congested like that, although it makes sense as it's now treated as the alternate route for the 99 at that section.

In that case.... Let's just copy the new Port Mann Bridge layout. lol.

[jlenko]

Why does this Province insist on replacing bridges when the solution really should be adding ADDITIONAL bridges?

Toll the new ones.. leave the old ones alone. Oh, and ban big trucks on the Patullo. (yes, I'm gonna beat that drum every chance I get)

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by jlenko

Why does this Province insist on replacing bridges when the solution really should be adding ADDITIONAL bridges?

Toll the new ones.. leave the old ones alone. Oh, and ban big trucks on the Patullo. (yes, I'm gonna beat that drum every chance I get)

Well, the seismic issue is probably the main reason why replacement is being done as opposed to building new bridges. With the forecasts of a mega earthquake to hit the Pacific coast in the next few decades, replacing outdated infrastructure is probably more prudent than adding fewer lanes on new spans and continuing to rely upon bridges that are 50+ years old.

[jlenko]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

Well, the seismic issue is probably the main reason why replacement is being done as opposed to building new bridges. With the forecasts of a mega earthquake to hit the Pacific coast in the next few decades, replacing outdated infrastructure is probably more prudent than adding fewer lanes on new spans and continuing to rely upon bridges that are 50+ years old.

We've been running scared under the "mega earthquake" paranoia for decades already. Sure it's going to happen.. but it could very well be after we have to replace the 'new' George Massey Bridge 80 years from now. Or it could be tomorrow, who knows and frankly who cares anymore.

I understand the costs and so on with upgrading for seismic... but you can only protect people so much. I still think getting rid of the Massey Tunnel is a waste of time (at this point). If it's for the Ports and bigger ships, then let the Ports pay for the replacement. Period.

Other than the Golden Ears (which technically replaced the ferry..but not really..), we haven't added any new bridges since the Alex Fraser. Now we have the new Hwy 17, long overdue, but it has much more potential to connect to new bridges that don't seem to be being built.

I wish they'd alleviate the problems with the Massey being jammed up, with another route. Leave the damn thing alone for now.

[Zassk]

The Massey Tunnel is only 20 years younger than the Patullo, and is older than the Port Mann which was too expensive to maintain, and has some similar stability issues. A tunnel is not like a cable stayed bridge (e.g. Lions Gate) where you can essentially replace every part of the bridge in-place, piece by piece, to extend its lifespan. If you want longer lifespan for our crossings, then you should strongly favour the systematic transition to cable stayed bridges.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by jlenko

We've been running scared under the "mega earthquake" paranoia for decades already. Sure it's going to happen.. but it could very well be after we have to replace the 'new' George Massey Bridge 80 years from now. Or it could be tomorrow, who knows and frankly who cares anymore.

I understand the costs and so on with upgrading for seismic... but you can only protect people so much. I still think getting rid of the Massey Tunnel is a waste of time (at this point). If it's for the Ports and bigger ships, then let the Ports pay for the replacement. Period.

Other than the Golden Ears (which technically replaced the ferry..but not really..), we haven't added any new bridges since the Alex Fraser. Now we have the new Hwy 17, long overdue, but it has much more potential to connect to new bridges that don't seem to be being built.

I wish they'd alleviate the problems with the Massey being jammed up, with another route. Leave the damn thing alone for now.

So adding 5 lanes to the Port Mann and 2 lanes to the Pitt River bridge doesn't count for anything?

[ClaytonA]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

Well, the seismic issue is probably the main reason why replacement is being done as opposed to building new bridges. With the forecasts of a mega earthquake to hit the Pacific coast in the next few decades, replacing outdated infrastructure is probably more prudent than adding fewer lanes on new spans and continuing to rely upon bridges that are 50+ years old.

And yet this is exactly what we would still be doing, only not 50 year old bridges or tunnels, but a 110 year old one called the Fraser River Rail Bridge. Please google it. It has a maximum speed of 10 mph, so that trains that regularly do 79mph... Imagine you had to slow down from 100kmh if the speed limit for the tunnel was 12.5km/h. Now imagine the tunnel is the only vehicular crossing of the Fraser to Vancouver. Now imagine the times you can use the tunnel are limited as the tunnel and approaches are only open certain blocks of hours during the day due to concerns about traffic noise. Now imagine even more types of vehicles are not allowed to use the tunnel or the approaches due concerns about traffic.

The Fraser River Rail Bridge was as high or a higher priority than the George Massey Tunnel on the Gateway planning documents. There were 5-7 high priority components IIRC. It’s too bad the http://www.gatewayprogram.bc.ca/ no longer exists, or I’d provide a link. I cannot find it elsewhere on the internet anymore either. Anyone heard of any planning for this bridge such as is going on for the George Massey or Patullo? Maybe it’s an outcome of the dichotomy between privately owned railways and private users of publically owned roads when both are transportation systems. Yes building codes change, but probably anything to Part 4 of the NBCC built previous to 1995 has seismic deficiencies. Mechanical and electric upgrades would be standard planned operating or maintenance expenses. This project is about the Port wanting deeper draft for shipping and ALR land speculation in Delta, White Rock, and probably at the margin in South Surrey (ie traffic commuting or light industrial warehouses).

Seismic seems like a straw man argument for prioritizing the tunnel replacement. Other critical infrastructure is seismically deficient. Seismic is not the main reason for tunnel replacement; it is an adjunct premise to the congestion premise. Doesn’t seismic concerns get somewhat insulting as the main argument when it gets trotted out for any pet project the latest politician wants to do without the context of how and to what degree said project is seismically deficient? It is rarely the main reason, but a widespread issue that bolsters arguments to spend.

It does need to be upgraded or replaced; there’s little controversy with that argument. The poll question was a poor one. There is controversy about allocation of resources given a timeframe or prioritization. A more illuminating question would be which transportation project (not just highway projects although there are several) would you prefer given a list? Or do you think the GMT should be done first before x, y, or z?

[theKB]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

It’s too bad the http://www.gatewayprogram.bc.ca/ no longer exists, or I’d provide a link.

Feel free to have a poke around here... archives the site all the way back to 2004!

http://web.archive.org/web/query?type=ur...wayprogram.bc.ca%2F&Submit=Go+Wayback%21

[tybuilding]

So do we really need to replace the tunnel and expand it?

The average weekday daily traffic volume on Highway 99 in 2012 was 84,500. This is down from the peak of 90,600, down 6.7% off the peak.


Highway 91 traffic has gone up recently, possibly due to more people diverting from the Port Mann due to the tolls, up 10% since 2008:


Though the Highway 91 Ramps at Nordel Way have dropped slightly ~ 5% from the 2003-2007 average:






The Port Mann has data available to 2011, traffic is down 10% from its 2003-2007 average. Traffic will also have been diverting to the Golden Ears bridge which opened in June 2009:



Here is a site that shows the downward trend on the tunnel traffic:



There are other ways to alleviate traffic as well:

Is it some other solutions?

At least two avenues deserve to be explored: better transit and road pricing, both working better hand in hand

Better transit

Currently, the transit modal share in the tunnel is nothing to cheer about:

Transit modal share Lions gate Bridge George Massey Tunnel
overall (all day all direction) > 20%[6] ~ 11%[7]
AM peak hr To Vancouver direction > 26%[6] ~ 19%[8]
PM peak hr leaving Vancouver direction > 28%[6] ~ 18%[8]

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

So do we really need to replace the tunnel and expand it?

Are you suggesting that the tunnel is adequate for current traffic levels? I think you would be hard pressed to make a convincing case of that.

Anyway, the tunnel does not exist in isolation. It is paired with the AFB by the freeway network, which has had a steady rise in traffic for nearly 30 years, and has recently hit its effective capacity. A new crossing in this area needs to account for both of these existing crossings. Taken together, the traffic crossing the South Arm of the Fraser has grown greatly since the construction of Hwy 91, and will continue to grow.

Basically, a new 10 lane bridge represents a widening of each crossing by two lanes, plus one set of HOV lanes.

[sacrifice333]

The proposal as is likely overkill.

But there is no doubt the a) the current tunnel needs replacement and b) some expansion would be beneficial.

Currently during the evening rush for example, when 3 of 4 tunnel lanes are designated for Southbound traffic, there are 2 HWY 99 North Lanes, 1 HWY 99 North HOV/Bus lane, 1 HWY 17 WB HWY 99 On-ramp lane, and 2 HWY 17 EB HWY 99 on-ramp lanes all merging into 1 open HWY 99 North Bound George Massey Tunnel lane. Aka 6:1.

[WarrenC12]

I agree the tunnel is insufficient today, however this part doesn't square for me:

One of the options was to rehab and expand the current tunnel. We could add 2 lanes, or 2 lanes plus HOV or rail lanes.

It has been stated that the tunnel can't be removed due to environmental reasons. So why exactly is a bridge being proposed? I understand that more traffic could flow through that part of the Fraser, but this seems to ignore the fact that the tunnel "can't be removed".

[moosejaw]

Well if tunnel cant be removed? How are the Panamax ships going to go up the Fraser?
Or am i mistaken?

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Well if tunnel cant be removed? How are the Panamax ships going to go up the Fraser?
Or am i mistaken?

Are we really going to dredge the Fraser much deeper for the entire length from the mouth to the docks?

http://voony.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/the-george-massey-tunnel-saga/

"some rumors suggest that the presence of the tunnel is limiting the possible amount of marine traffic, due to draft restriction. The Nautical chart of the Fraser river tell another story. In fact the depth along the channel is around 11 meters, 12 meters above the Tunnel.


The nautical chart doesn’t show the tunnel location as being the shallower point of the channel, in fact opening the channel to greater draft ship could require considerable dredging of the whole channel.
Allowing ships with greater draft than allowed now could require considerable dredging of the Fraser channel, from the Stevenson jetty far end to East of the tunnel, as well as significant on going maintenance, due to constant build up of sandspit. That certainly has a non negligible ecological cost as well. The economic rational of this is pretty unclear, and we notice that around the world, ports don’t seem to develop operation inland…beside barging (option here restrained by the railway bridge at New West)… since not all ports can count on a government building road for free to them."

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Are we really going to dredge the Fraser much deeper for the entire length from the mouth to the docks?

http://voony.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/the-george-massey-tunnel-saga/

"some rumors suggest that the presence of the tunnel is limiting the possible amount of marine traffic, due to draft restriction. The Nautical chart of the Fraser river tell another story. In fact the depth along the channel is around 11 meters, 12 meters above the Tunnel.


The nautical chart doesn’t show the tunnel location as being the shallower point of the channel, in fact opening the channel to greater draft ship could require considerable dredging of the whole channel.
Allowing ships with greater draft than allowed now could require considerable dredging of the Fraser channel, from the Stevenson jetty far end to East of the tunnel, as well as significant on going maintenance, due to constant build up of sandspit. That certainly has a non negligible ecological cost as well. The economic rational of this is pretty unclear, and we notice that around the world, ports don’t seem to develop operation inland…beside barging (option here restrained by the railway bridge at New West)… since not all ports can count on a government building road for free to them."

The Fraser river is dredged already, every year. All that would be needed is to dredge deeper within the current channel, after that it would be back to dredging virtually the same volume of sediment through the same channel, every year. So no, there should be no real environmental impact nor increase in ongoing maintenance costs.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

So do we really need to replace the tunnel and expand it?

The average weekday daily traffic volume on Highway 99 in 2012 was 84,500. This is down from the peak of 90,600, down 6.7% off the peak.


Highway 91 traffic has gone up recently, possibly due to more people diverting from the Port Mann due to the tolls, up 10% since 2008:

Though the Highway 91 Ramps at Nordel Way have dropped slightly ~ 5% from the 2003-2007 average:






The Port Mann has data available to 2011, traffic is down 10% from its 2003-2007 average. Traffic will also have been diverting to the Golden Ears bridge which opened in June 2009:



Here is a site that shows the downward trend on the tunnel traffic:



There are other ways to alleviate traffic as well:

Is it some other solutions?

At least two avenues deserve to be explored: better transit and road pricing, both working better hand in hand

Better transit

Currently, the transit modal share in the tunnel is nothing to cheer about:

Transit modal share Lions gate Bridge George Massey Tunnel
overall (all day all direction) > 20%[6] ~ 11%[7]
AM peak hr To Vancouver direction > 26%[6] ~ 19%[8]
PM peak hr leaving Vancouver direction > 28%[6] ~ 18%[8]

One could argue that if the tunnel is at capacity and truck traffic through it continues to increase mostly due to the Roberts Bank terminal that the result must be a reduction in daily volume due to the simple fact that trucks are A) some 6 times longer than a average car B) have slower acceleration and deceleration causing larger gaps in traffic flow.

So lets assume that this is the explanation for why traffic volumes are lower in the at capacity tunnel, and I think that is a pretty good assumption. AND lets also take into account the fact that 35% of all truck/employee/visitor traffic leaving Roberts Bank uses the Massey tunnel AND lets also take into account the fact that the number of trucks/containers to and from Roberts Bank is supposed to more than triple in the not to distant future AND the number of employees AND visitors more than double. With these facts and assumptions how can anyone argue against the tunnels replacement, how??? Especially when we are spending billions and billions on the ports expansion, and there will be many supporting services as well, continues growth in Surrey, the development of Tsawwassen lands. 10 lane bridge sounds perfectly reasonable to support one of, if not the most nationally important tracts of land in BC, if not Canada. This is Canada's western Gateway, Burrard inlet is hemmed in by urban growth, Prince Rupert can only help and thats it as it has little supporting population and even less available land, and after that there are no other options. Delta is it.

One should read this before judging the need of replacing and expanding the tunnel.
http://portmetrovancouver.com/docs/defau...traffic-distribution-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cornholio

One could argue that if the tunnel is at capacity and truck traffic through it continues to increase mostly due to the Roberts Bank terminal that the result must be a reduction in daily volume due to the simple fact that trucks are A) some 6 times longer than a average car B) have slower acceleration and deceleration causing larger gaps in traffic flow.

Sure, let's assume that instead of acknowledging that traffic is dropping everywhere, and has been doing so since before the start of the "great recession"...

[Tfreder]

To be honest, I wouldn't consider the tunnel to be at capacity. At rush hour, it's definitely at/over capacity. But besides that i've yet to see any major gridlock near the tunnel unless there's a major accident.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Tfreder

To be honest, I wouldn't consider the tunnel to be at capacity. At rush hour, it's definitely at/over capacity. But besides that i've yet to see any major gridlock near the tunnel unless there's a major accident.

By that logic neither is the Lion's Gate, or Second Narrows since both are lined up only really during rush hour to extreme levels.



Truth is, people can look at numbers all they want, I've worked in and around the Tunnel area for the better part of 12 years now and it is far more busy. Also the "rush hour" has extended from a decade ago, and less vehicles move through the tunnel which can skew the numbers.

If everyone is jammed up doing 1kph, less vehicles get through the tunnel than if everyone was doing say 5kph. So that leads to more people being frustrated and diverting to other routes. Also rush hour has to be taken into account.

On every route rush hour can't be ignored. It's like when the Mayor or Washington DC said "If you ignore the Murders, our crime rate isn't that bad!" errr.... murder is a crime just like rush hour is included in "capacity."

I can understand if it is an odd situation where say you've had a few accidents or such, but the tunnel is lined up 95% of the time between 6am and 9am now in the morning, and 3pm and 6:30pm in the evening. Pretty much every day, accident or not. I don't quite frankly care if people can drive through without incident at 1am or noon.