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

[jlenko]

Let's see if the transit is still there by the time this thing gets built

[libtard]

So construction is set to begin on this beast in 2017?

[Mininari]

http://www.news1130.com/2014/01/21/vancouver-will-shake-longer-and-stronger-in-an-earthquake-study/

Vancouver will shake longer and stronger in an earthquake: study
Researchers think the findings may lead to upgraded building codes
Mike Lloyd

January 21, 2014 8:41 am

...
The southwestern portion of Metro Vancouver — Richmond, Ladner and Delta — are most at risk.

The researchers say the findings may lead to upgraded building codes.
...

Now, as my understand of this is, amplification in basins is not a new discovery, but what this article is saying is that new modeling studies are showing the effect could be much worse than previously thought.

And here we have more convincing evidence to REPLACE the George Massey Tunnel with something built in this century. Same could be said for the Patullo! Of course, this will probably also lead to whatever they build to replace either bridge costing more due to stricter (stronger) building requirements.

[osirisboy]

Are there actually people that still don't think the tunnel needs to be replaced? Lol

I don't think we need any more reasons why this thing needs to be replaced

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Are there actually people that still don't think the tunnel needs to be replaced? Lol

I don't think we need any more reasons why this thing needs to be replaced

There are plenty of people who don't want to see it replaced, or at least replaced with expanded capacity. Nonetheless, you don't replace something that is as congested as the GMT without additional capacity.

Hence, yes, the more reasons to replace it (even if not needed through common sense), the more you justify expanding it at the same time.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by Mininari

There are plenty of people who don't want to see it replaced, or at least replaced with expanded capacity. Nonetheless, you don't replace something that is as congested as the GMT without additional capacity.

Hence, yes, the more reasons to replace it (even if not needed through common sense), the more you justify expanding it at the same time.

My uncle's father was on the engineering team that designed the tunnel and they pushed for 6 lanes at that time.

At present you have 7 northbound lanes all merging into 1 lane at rush hour.

The people who don't see a case for any additional capacity are beyond myopic, especially when you are building out for 75-100 years.

The lineup for the Alex Fraser bridge is frequently 6+ km in the morning (2km on Nordel, 2km on 91, 2km on the SFPR connecting road).

[MolsonExport]

As a former resident of Richmond (1995-1998), I just want to say that I fuk'n hate that goddamned tunnel.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

My uncle's father was on the engineering team that designed the tunnel and they pushed for 6 lanes at that time.

At present you have 7 northbound lanes all merging into 1 lane at rush hour.

The people who don't see a case for any additional capacity are beyond myopic, especially when you are building out for 75-100 years.

The lineup for the Alex Fraser bridge is frequently 6+ km in the morning (2km on Nordel, 2km on 91, 2km on the SFPR connecting road).

Don't get me wrong! I'm with you all the way! I'm just saying, there WILL be opposition to it (or desire to prioritize rapid transit projects over this), and here's a strong piece of evidence to get 'er done right. NOW.

[WarrenC12]

A new crossing is required, no doubt.

I would say a maximum of 6 single occupancy vehicle lanes would be sufficient. Another 2 lanes for bus/carpool would be great. Additional provisions for rail traffic would be fantastic.

And of course, it must be tolled.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Mininari

http://www.news1130.com/2014/01/21/vancouver-will-shake-longer-and-stronger-in-an-earthquake-study/

Vancouver will shake longer and stronger in an earthquake: study
Researchers think the findings may lead to upgraded building codes
Mike Lloyd

January 21, 2014 8:41 am

...
The southwestern portion of Metro Vancouver — Richmond, Ladner and Delta — are most at risk.

The researchers say the findings may lead to upgraded building codes.
...

Now, as my understand of this is, amplification in basins is not a new discovery, but what this article is saying is that new modeling studies are showing the effect could be much worse than previously thought.

And here we have more convincing evidence to REPLACE the George Massey Tunnel with something built in this century. Same could be said for the Patullo! Of course, this will probably also lead to whatever they build to replace either bridge costing more due to stricter (stronger) building requirements.

If you talk to roads engineers, both the tunnel and the patullo, even with the tunnel seismic upgrades, in an expected 9.0 earthquake (what we could very well receive here if history tell us anything), both pieces of infrastructure have a high likelihood of failure.

Given this new report and modeling, I think it pretty much means the tunnel and patullo would collapse in a major earthquake. I attended a regional EOC session earlier in the year and it sounds like most emergency services SoF and in Richmond are already assuming the Patullo and George Massey tunnel in a major earthquake will be untraversable if not completely destroyed so are planning accordingly for recovery efforts.

[gary92]

.

[Smooth]

Originally Posted by jhausner

If you talk to roads engineers, both the tunnel and the patullo, even with the tunnel seismic upgrades, in an expected 9.0 earthquake (what we could very well receive here if history tell us anything), both pieces of infrastructure have a high likelihood of failure.

Given this new report and modeling, I think it pretty much means the tunnel and patullo would collapse in a major earthquake. I attended a regional EOC session earlier in the year and it sounds like most emergency services SoF and in Richmond are already assuming the Patullo and George Massey tunnel in a major earthquake will be untraversable if not completely destroyed so are planning accordingly for recovery efforts.

From what I've heard from the structural engineers I know, the Patullo probably wouldn't even survive a medium to small earthquake. Some that have done structural assessments on it now refuse to use it.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by Smooth

From what I've heard from the structural engineers I know, the Patullo probably wouldn't even survive a medium to small earthquake. Some that have done structural assessments on it now refuse to use it.

If this is indeed the case why is there any waiting going on? IF these structures are a ticking time bomb and dangerous as is wouldn't it be prudent to replace the aging structures immediately? One can only assume that the increased loads being experienced by the patullo particularly is accelerating the wear as well.

[city-dweller]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Are there actually people that still don't think the tunnel needs to be replaced? Lol

I think on all sides of the issue people think it should be replaced. The transit guys complain about the buses getting stuck despite the new HWY99 bus lanes. The bicycle guys call it the biggest gap in the regional network. This is the potentially biggest win-win for multi-modal investment in one project.

Those opposing it are pissed that in the same campaign that announced a new bridge with no funding question, there also was announced a referendum on transit. So, no I am not surprised that people criticizing the project, but that doesn't necessary mean they don't think it is needed.

[Smooth]

Originally Posted by theKB

If this is indeed the case why is there any waiting going on? IF these structures are a ticking time bomb and dangerous as is wouldn't it be prudent to replace the aging structures immediately? One can only assume that the increased loads being experienced by the patullo particularly is accelerating the wear as well.

Don't want to go too off topic about the Patullo in this thread but the easy answer is lack of political will/accountability and lack of money. The fact that Translink is seriously looking at spending $100M on temporary seismic upgrades when everyone knows the bridge needs to be replaced suggests to me that they know it's unsafe.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by city-dweller

I think on all sides of the issue people think it should be replaced.

I don't have a problem with a replacement. The problem I have is adding six more lanes hard on the heels of five new lanes at Port Mann, all while avoiding any kind of commitment for transit expansion. Why if I were the suspicious type I'd almost think that everyone in the Provincial government is a car dealer or owns real estate south of the Fraser.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I don't have a problem with a replacement. The problem I have is adding six more lanes hard on the heels of five new lanes at Port Mann, all while avoiding any kind of commitment for transit expansion. Why if I were the suspicious type I'd almost think that everyone in the Provincial government is a car dealer or owns real estate south of the Fraser.

While I do agree with you that it could be looked as being suspicious to not increase transit into SOF. When more lanes were just added to the Portmann and now they want to add more lanes to the GMT.

We should keep in mind that those drivers who use the PMB would probably never use the GMT and the reverse is true as well. So adding lanes to the PMB will not have much of an impact to traffic at the GMT.

I do feel that it should be at least 3 SOV lanes and 1 HOV each way. This would remove the counterflow lane. Which I feel creates more problems than it really solves.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I don't have a problem with a replacement. The problem I have is adding six more lanes hard on the heels of five new lanes at Port Mann, all while avoiding any kind of commitment for transit expansion. Why if I were the suspicious type I'd almost think that everyone in the Provincial government is a car dealer or owns real estate south of the Fraser.

Or they're just car drivers.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Or they're just car drivers.

...who have probably never been on a bus in the last 10 years and are therefore ignorant on the issue of transit?

[makr3trkr]

What a lot of average car drivers don't seem to understand is that transit infrastructure and highway infrastructure are complimentary -- they don't detract from each other. The more people that use transit, the less stressful your commute is going to be on the highways.

Transit, really, should be subsidized a lot more heavily than it is now. I'd stop short of saying it should be free, but I can't imagine a scenario where (properly managed) free transit (i.e. getting everybody to work) could damage an economy.