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

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Wouldn't call it a carrot. And while you are at it, the Alex Fraser Bridge was also "designed" for LRT as it's "3rd lane" in each direction back in the early '80's. Yep!!!

I attended the opening day of that bridge, and I've still got the "I walked the Fraser over the Fraser" sticker they gave out to mark the occasion. The extra shoulder lane was never promoted as being for rapid transit - it was always designated for future expansion.

If people are going to try to justify 10 lanes for the GMT replacement, they shouldn't be making the false claim that they're needed for rapid transit, because obviously they'll never be used for that purpose. Having to resort to lies to justify your position is a sign of a weak argument.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Easy to say when you don't have to drive that stretch every single day. I know it is impossible but I'd challenge you to every day drive out to South Surrey during rush hour either morning of evening for just a week to see how hellish it is along Hwy99. When you're on your way back through the tunnel towards Vancouver at 5pm and it takes you (and I am not kidding here) 45 minutes to drive 2km, then we'll see how "worth looking into" maintaining it for 20 years really is.

Ya I've driven it, it's busy, I get it.

What would the new bridge cost? Toll? Expected crossings?

I bet if you slapped the future toll on the tunnel today, the traffic would be significantly reduced.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The extra shoulder lane was never promoted as being for rapid transit - it was always designated for future expansion.

Was a kid back then but I also followed the Alex Fraser Bridge development quite closely - starting with the controversy over the "W-1 alignment". I stand by what I previously stated.

In fact, a Richmond Review article also corroborates same:

... the Alex Fraser, a bridge built with capacity for six lanes of vehicle traffic or four lanes plus two tracks for light rail transit.

http://www.richmondreview.com/news/121808769.html?mobile=true

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Was a kid back then but I also followed the Alex Fraser Bridge development quite closely - starting with the controversy over the "W-1 alignment". I stand by what I previously stated.

In fact, a Richmond Review article also corroborates same...

That article was written in 2011 and is, quite frankly, wrong.

At any rate, it just reinforces my point that trying to justify 10 lanes for the GMT replacement by claiming some of that capacity will be used for rapid transit is disingenuous.

[makr3trkr]

In the early 80's, a replacement for the Pattullo was envisioned which would have been a combined LRT+road bridge.

However, the Socred government only had a slim majority, and the MLA for North Delta threatened to give up his seat if the new combo bridge was not built in Delta, instead of New Westminster.

The transport minister of the day decided the idea of light rail on a highway bridge was ludicrous and torpedoed the idea after the Alex Fraser was complete.

So the Alex Fraser was built with and does have the capability for light rail (similar to the Pitt River Bridge) but it may not have been specifically marketed that way to the public.

Certainly, the engineers who designed the bridge only ever envisioned 6 lanes of car traffic. The allowance for light rail was pure politics.

That doesn't equate to there being some conspiracy to fool the general public just because Geoff Freer (project director) wants the Massey replacement to have the capability for light rail. It would be foolish not to allow for that possibility, which is I think all most people would expect at this time.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

In the early 80's, a replacement for the Pattullo was envisioned which would have been a combined LRT+road bridge.

I still have a lot of trouble believing this because if it was true then there would have been some provision to have the Expo line, constructed at the same time, be extendable to the bridge.

The allowance for light rail was pure politics.

Well, there you have it. Even if there ever was some mention of light rail for the AFB it was never really intended to come to fruition.

That doesn't equate to there being some conspiracy to fool the general public just because Geoff Freer (project director) wants the Massey replacement to have the capability for light rail. It would be foolish not to allow for that possibility, which is I think all most people would expect at this time.

It's only been a couple of years since we went through this exact same scenario with the Port Mann. Anyone who seriously believes that there's a snowball's chance of rapid transit ever going over this new bridge takes gullibility to a whole new level.

So I'll continue to call out anyone who claims that we need 10 lanes in order to allow for rapid transit over the GMT replacement.

[makr3trkr]

http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/delta-open-for-business-1.985101

"[Project Director] Freer provided an update on the bridge that is to replace the George Massey Tunnel, a span that is expected to be complete by 2022.

Noting construction is to begin in three years, Freer couldn't say if the new bridge will be tolled, but [Mayor] Jackson said out of fairness she's in favour of having all crossings in the region tolled as long as the rates are reasonable.

Saying the bridge would be a cable span, in the range of eight to 10 lanes, Freer said it would also likely accommodate future light rapid transit.

He dismissed claims the existing tunnel has another 50 years of useful life, saying in the next 15 years major seismic and other upgrades would be needed.

Freer also said a new Highway 17A interchange would be examined, but they're still at the stage of figuring out what the new span should look like. An environmental review will take place over the next year.

Freer described the current tunnel, which sees some 80,000 vehicles travel through it daily, as a "mess." He said it needs to be replaced with a more reliable crossing that will look similar to the Alex Fraser Bridge."

======================================

No one is claiming 10 lanes is a -prerequisite- for light rail capability, least of all the project director.

This is basic CYA (cover your ass).

The bridge could be any width and allowances would still be made for light rail, otherwise you would have opposition members bleating about how idiotic it was to build a bridge to last 100 years without that foresight (and they would be correct).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

The bridge could be any width and allowances would still be made for light rail, otherwise you would have opposition members bleating about how idiotic it was to build a bridge to last 100 years without that foresight (and they would be correct).

The mention of light rail in conjunction with this bridge is, just as it has been for all the other bridges, an attempt to mollify those who point out that a disproportionate amount of money is being spent on roads when there are also pressing transit issues that need attention. No highway bridge in this region has ever been used for rapid transit or has any serious potential to be used for such in the future. Even the promised rapid bus service over the Port Mann bridge was completely ignored by the Provincial Government until their bluff was called, at which time they ordered Translink to cut other services in order to free up enough service hours to provide for it.

They can talk about rapid transit on this bridge as much as they want, but I will continue to point out that it is sleight of hand, illusion, misdirection. There is no serious possibility of it actually happening, and anyone who is taken in by such talk is being manipulated.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The mention of light rail in conjunction with this bridge is, just as it has been for all the other bridges, an attempt to mollify those who point out that a disproportionate amount of money is being spent on roads when there are also pressing transit issues that need attention. No highway bridge in this region has ever been used for rapid transit or has any serious potential to be used for such in the future. Even the promised rapid bus service over the Port Mann bridge was completely ignored by the Provincial Government until their bluff was called, at which time they ordered Translink to cut other services in order to free up enough service hours to provide for it.

They can talk about rapid transit on this bridge as much as they want, but I will continue to point out that it is sleight of hand, illusion, misdirection. There is no serious possibility of it actually happening, and anyone who is taken in by such talk is being manipulated.

It is not worth being frustrated to the point of being emotional. Failed promises by the province that new bridges would accommodate LRT do not affirm new promises to be false. We will have to wait and see as the GMT replacement plan is finalized. As well, LRT does not necessarily have any more beneficial effect than BRT. Considering the successful example of BRT for the PMB corridor it would be reasonably assured that BRT would be just as successful for the GMT corridor.

[Genauso]

If they are not going to open until 2022, the project staff ought to use their time to recommend a Robotic Pilot lane. Really; whether the government wants to attract voters, attract investors, or improve intercity transportation accessibility/congestion/cost. Smarter than advertising bus/LRT/HOV at this point, and they could coexist so bus and taxi drivers won't revolt.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

It is not worth being frustrated to the point of being emotional. Failed promises by the province that new bridges would accommodate LRT do not affirm new promises to be false.

How many broken promises does it take, then?

And even if you were foolish enough to believe them, wouldn't you question the need to run rapid transit to Ladner? Does anyone seriously think that there's going to be enough demand south of the GMT to justify rapid transit in the foreseeable future? Especially when there are so many other areas that are in much more obvious need? And when transit funding is so hard to come by? In what world do you think that we're going to build so many rapid transit lines that one of them will end up going over this bridge?

Really, holding out the possibility of rapid transit as some sort of benefit of a tunnel replacement is ludicrous. I can't believe you guys are salivating over this bridge so much that you can't see this.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

So the Alex Fraser was built with and does have the capability for light rail (similar to the Pitt River Bridge) but it may not have been specifically marketed that way to the public.

Yep. Both the Alex Fraser Bridge as well as the new Pitt River Bridge were marketed as "LRT" capable prior to their construction. All the info thereto is in the public domain albeit whether that LRT concept is realistic is another matter altogether.

On top of that, rapid bus/fast bus is a much more superior alternative to LRT along these same freeway corridors. Seriously. Rapid bus/fast bus has much more comfortable coach seats and traverses the same corridors at 110/km hr.

Again, much more comfortable than LRT and much quicker than LRT. Key inducements.

Ergo, common sense dictates that rapid bus/fast bus is the appropriate and more desirable form of transit for those who desire same. And an HOV lane provides that opportunity.

Still gotta laff at those here who continue to complain about 10-lanes for the new GMB crossing (1 HOV + 3 GP + 1 auxiliary in each direction).

Back in the day, in the mid-1950's, the original design for the GMT was 6-lanes when anything south of 41st Ave. in Van City alone was in the proverbial "boondocks". Too bad the then BC DoT did not have the foresight. Would have helped out Metro Vancouver today.

Again, when the "4-lane" Alex Fraser Bridge was announced in the early 1980's, then Van City mayor Mike Harcourt stuck his neck out into the matter, on the 6 pm BCTV NewsHour, stating that the Alex Fraser Bridge was not needed nor was Hwy 91. Yep!

And I read the same statements/sentiments from waaaaaayyyyy back then being posted in this same thread here today. Bizarre frankly.

And another 1 million folk are projected to reside in Metro Vancouver by 2030 according to forecasts. Just need to have some common sense about transportation and logistics folks. Just common sense.

BTW, the new PMB should have been constructed as a 12 - 14 lane facility. Not 10-lanes. Looks like additional Fraser River crossings will be needed within the next 30 - 40 years as a result. History will eventually repeat itself.

PS. I am pro-transit in terms of constructing Skytrain lines, LRT, rapid bus, etc... but hell if I can think of a single individual in my entire life who even utilizes same. It's all still car-culture out there and will be same unless those who are lower-income and cannot afford same.

[Metro-One]

It is annoying how polarizing road / bridge threads are in metro-Vancouver.

It is refreshing reading the Montreal section (for example) where most people seem to be happy to have new bridges being built / replaced and therefore increasing connectivity throughout their region. For an area as dissected by rivers and inlets as Vancouver it always amazes me how many people are against new bridges...

The being said, some on the pro-highway side also go way to far / overboard and only feed into the pro-highway crowd stereotypes.

Seeing how I feel I am neither (super go go American 120kmh 20 lane highway crazy or fantasy unicorn everyone should live in tree-houses no enbridge green hippie) I probably wont win many friends with my preferred option on here.

Do I think that the tunnel needs to be replaced? Yes! Soon? Yes.

Do I think that 10 lanes is a little overkill, Yes.

Do I think that transit should be part of this project? Yes.

Do I think that the overall capacity should be expanded? Yes.

Do I think that running LRT on this crossing is a ridiculous idea given the relatively remote location of this project? Yes.

So what would be my preferred plan?

Simple, a new 8 lanes crossing, 4X4. 3 general purpose lanes in each direction and 1 HOV / Rapid Bus lane in each direction. To me that is more than enough to handle reasonable future demand on this crossing. Obviously the interchanges bookending this tunnel will also have to be completely rebuilt due to their current old substandard designs.

Having bus lanes on this crossing (and hopefully along the entire stretch of the 99) is more than enough to handle the public transit needs along this corridor (rapid buses to White Rock / Delta and to the Ferries). The wide spacing between communities due to ALR farmland makes LRT a no go for me here. One day if the bus lane becomes jammed because the rapid bus system is so popular, then a proper commuter rail would likely be justified to be built, which would likely be akin to the WCE.

[WarrenC12]

^^^^ Good solution. I think 3+1 is the way to go for this bridge.

I also think planning for LRT at this stage isn't realistic. If and when rail transit makes it's way down there, the requirements will surely have changed and it can get it's own crossing, just like the Expo and Canada Lines.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Having bus lanes on this crossing (and hopefully along the entire stretch of the 99) is more than enough to handle the public transit needs along this corridor (rapid buses to White Rock / Delta and to the Ferries). The wide spacing between communities due to ALR farmland makes LRT a no go for me here. One day if the bus lane becomes jammed because the rapid bus system is so popular, then a proper commuter rail would likely be justified to be built, which would likely be akin to the WCE.

Thank you, this is exactly why I've been saying that holding LRT up as a benefit is ridiculous. I totally agree that RapidBus is the right solution. But this was promised for the Port Mann too, and in the end we only got it after the Provincial Government forced Translink to cut other services in order to come up with the money to pay for it. So I'm afraid I'm pretty skeptical about even this level of transit "benefit" to the bridge.

In the end, this bridge is being built to satisfy the single-occupancy vehicle commuters who make up the vast majority of traffic. Yes, it will help goods movement, but so would building a smaller bridge with a toll that's high enough and funding for transit that's frequent and convenient enough to discourage some of that SOV traffic. Funny how "goods movement" proponents never talk about THAT solution.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

isn't there all ready BRT through the tunnel? they have those bus/HOV lanes all the way down the 99, at least north of the tunnel, now. that seems like it would be a given over the new bridge. I'm also curious if those bus lanes would remain on the outsides of the highway, or if they would be moved to the centre lane. i also hope they fix up Steveston highway. that is a mess all the time.

it will be interesting to see what the area looks like, though, in 40-60 years. i wounder how much of the ALR will be around then. i know it is safe for now but it will be interesting to see what it is like in the future. so much is changing it will be quite interesting.

as to if the bridge is 8 or 10 lanes, there is almost no difference in it since everyone seems to be saying the same thing with how many bus/through lanes there will be.
- 1 bus lane + 3 through lanes + 1 feeder lane.
- 1 bus lane + 3 through lanes
either way 8 or 10 will work just fine really, for the foreseeable future anyways.

having a smaller, higher tolled bridge that funds transit isn't really an "option." an option shouldn't be something that doesn't allow another reasonable choice. building a smaller bridge, with higher toll will just make people take the 91 and cause more congestion there, i doubt it would help get people out their cars.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

It is annoying how polarizing road / bridge threads are in metro-Vancouver.

It is refreshing reading the Montreal section (for example) where most people seem to be happy to have new bridges being built / replaced and therefore increasing connectivity throughout their region. For an area as dissected by rivers and inlets as Vancouver it always amazes me how many people are against new bridges...

It's unfortunate I agree. Truth is if you look at everyone that posts that major bridges or crossings shouldn't be built unless it is 50% light rail transit or "Broadway gets built first lawlz" their location will read "Vancouver/Burnaby."

It's always been that mentality and that's why the region is so polarized unfortunately. People in Montreal don't complain because Montreal is on both sides just like if they decided to build another bridge from Kits to Downtown Vancouver for example you wouldn't hear a single complaint or if Vancouver city actually spanned both sides of the Fraser again you'd have 0 complaints.

The being said, some on the pro-highway side also go way to far / overboard and only feed into the pro-highway crowd stereotypes.

Seeing how I feel I am neither (super go go American 120kmh 20 lane highway crazy or fantasy unicorn everyone should live in tree-houses no enbridge green hippie) I probably wont win many friends with my preferred option on here.

Don't disagree. Truth is though you get a whole lot more for your dollar when it comes to highways. SFPR a new 4 lane highway spanning 40+km, $1.26 billion. Rapid Transit down Broadway a whopping 13km? $3 billion. Transit is very very expensive and exclusively building transit will, like I keep saying, just bankrupt the city because unlike Japan, we have to subsidize 50% of our public transit and 0% of our roads.

Do I think that the tunnel needs to be replaced? Yes! Soon? Yes.

Do I think that 10 lanes is a little overkill, Yes.

Do I think that transit should be part of this project? Yes.

Do I think that the overall capacity should be expanded? Yes.

Do I think that running LRT on this crossing is a ridiculous idea given the relatively remote location of this project? Yes.

So what would be my preferred plan?

Simple, a new 8 lanes crossing, 4X4. 3 general purpose lanes in each direction and 1 HOV / Rapid Bus lane in each direction. To me that is more than enough to handle reasonable future demand on this crossing. Obviously the interchanges bookending this tunnel will also have to be completely rebuilt due to their current old substandard designs.

Yah I don't actually care 8 lanes versus 10 lanes. I think the cost between the two would be negligible at best in all actuality. I think 8 lanes could work but it would require some major rejigging of the Steveston end.

The only caution I have for people not familiar with that stretch (which is unfortunately most people that seem to comment on this project), is that today in rush hour it already is in essence 4 lanes going North in the morning. It is 3 + HOV until you hit the tunnel then is 3 through the tunnel.

The problem is though that you have so many trucks (hundreds) that cross through the tunnel then exit at Steveston and because of that interchange even with the updates, they line up onto the highway and more than halfway through the tunnel. That means you really only effectively have 2 lanes going Northbound.

If you build an 8 lane bridge you would basically have the same thing unless Steveston is completely redesigned which I would hope is a given. Then it could work. I would rather make judgement though when costs are known. I mean if an 8 lane bridge is $1.8 billion and a 10 lane is $1.9 billion then I'd say it is stupid not to just do 10 lanes. But if it is like $1.8 billion to $2.5 billion then I'd be ok with it just being 8 lanes.

You're right htough the interchanges need to definitely be rebuilt and I think the project itself requires a whole rejigging of the highway from Oak Street to King George Boulevard at least if not further.

HOV should be moved to center not on the outside which is stupid, and it should be 3 lanes all the way to Surrey.

Having bus lanes on this crossing (and hopefully along the entire stretch of the 99) is more than enough to handle the public transit needs along this corridor (rapid buses to White Rock / Delta and to the Ferries). The wide spacing between communities due to ALR farmland makes LRT a no go for me here. One day if the bus lane becomes jammed because the rapid bus system is so popular, then a proper commuter rail would likely be justified to be built, which would likely be akin to the WCE.

Absolutely agree and I think any discussion of LRT through that stretch is quite frankly laughable. The fact people seem to be deadest against rapid transit out to Langley from Surrey Central even though it only passes through 2km of ALR yet it seems to be the "MUST HAVE" on this bridge, a stretch that would pass through 40km of ALR further emphasizes my stance that some people are just completely unrealistic.

I still take the stance that we should be encouraging people to commute the other direction from South Surrey towards Surrey Central and SkyTrain/Burnaby/Vancouver that way rather than continuing the long standing regional "everyone goes to Vancouver" design of our transit system.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

How many broken promises does it take, then?

And even if you were foolish enough to believe them, wouldn't you question the need to run rapid transit to Ladner? Does anyone seriously think that there's going to be enough demand south of the GMT to justify rapid transit in the foreseeable future? Especially when there are so many other areas that are in much more obvious need? And when transit funding is so hard to come by? In what world do you think that we're going to build so many rapid transit lines that one of them will end up going over this bridge?

Really, holding out the possibility of rapid transit as some sort of benefit of a tunnel replacement is ludicrous. I can't believe you guys are salivating over this bridge so much that you can't see this.

Who is holding out the possibility of rapid transit as a benefit to tunnel replacement? I think everyone that actually uses the tunnel on a near regular basis such as me, has clearly said rapid transit is a stilly notion. The only reason that the Province announced "capable of LRT" on any bridge is to shut people up who chronically complain against any infrastructure built outside their city limits.

It's like the LEED tick box when it comes to building design today. Oh if we tick off "LEED gold" then all the "Environmentals" will shut up.

I swear if they said that the Northern Gateway Pipeline would accommodate future LRT and is LEED Platinum rated, it would pass with 100% citizen support that's who stupid some people are these days.

That said, I don't know what you're talking about broken promises. I have yet to see a press release by the Province state that they "would build LRT" on any of the bridges. Saying they WOULD build it then not building is is a broken promise. But they never said that. They simply said the bridge could support future LRT if the need arises.

Please prove me wrong though and show me the press release where the Province actually broke a promise other than BRT along HWY1 stopping in Surrey.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Who is holding out the possibility of rapid transit as a benefit to tunnel replacement?

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

the tunnel is just not worth keeping around for much longer, it has out lived out its usefulness. an added bonus is that the new crossing will have light-rail capabilities, something which the tunnel will never have.

That's what started this discussion.

[Metro-One]

There are no bus lanes currently through the tunnels because it is impossible to do so because the tunnels are only 4 lanes and go to 3 by 1 configurations during the rush hour counter flows. This amazes me as well, I do not know of any other major freeway that is reduced to a single lane in one direction daily.

So buses also get stuck in the tunnel traffic and spend an undesirable amount of time getting though.

The current shoulder bus lanes are also band aid solutions IMO. I am really hopping that if much of the 99 is to be re-built alongside the replacement of the tunnel that a proper centre lane bus system is built.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Thank you, this is exactly why I've been saying that holding LRT up as a benefit is ridiculous. I totally agree that RapidBus is the right solution. But this was promised for the Port Mann too, and in the end we only got it after the Provincial Government forced Translink to cut other services in order to come up with the money to pay for it. So I'm afraid I'm pretty skeptical about even this level of transit "benefit" to the bridge.

In the end, this bridge is being built to satisfy the single-occupancy vehicle commuters who make up the vast majority of traffic. Yes, it will help goods movement, but so would building a smaller bridge with a toll that's high enough and funding for transit that's frequent and convenient enough to discourage some of that SOV traffic. Funny how "goods movement" proponents never talk about THAT solution.

While I agree with this that operating funding should have been put in place, at the very least the highway 1 transit components were built (the park and ride, the bus only on and off ramps) so it was not a complete bait and switch. It was a far more real commitment than the built for LRT catchphrase.

I do believe that the new Massey crossing will be beneficial for transit simply because buses will be able to move much more freely across such a new link and likely there will be at least a Port Mann / Hwy 1 level of transit commitment (which again IMO was the right direction, towards rapid buses, instead of LRT).

Also of note is this new link will also have pedestrian and bike capabilities, something the current crossing also does not have.