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

[ClaytonA]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think this article on the original tunnel was posted a long time ago - but I came across the bookmark, so I thought I'd post.

Go to Page 122.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=vtsDAAAA...20mechanics%20atomic%20submarine&f=false

QUOTE= Zassk
... There are no substantial benefits to a tunnel, and tons of downsides. IMO the existing tunnel was built as a technological statement in the crazy 1950's, not because it was the best choice of infrastructure.

Yes there are trade-offs, have you to a post from earlier in the thread? (worthwhile read);

After decades of deliberation, a bridge has been ruled out, for two reasons: It was almost impossible to find firm foundation [bedrock is 600m beneath silt at high risk of liquefaction] for one lofty enough to provide clearance for the ocean-going freighters...: also, a high bridge would create a hazard to aircraft using Vancouver Airport on nearby Sea Island.

It will be interesting to see what foundation technology they use, and how much of the final price tag it makes up if that info ever becomes available. We can pretty much built anything if we're willing to pay enough for it and these types of conditions have been overcome elsewhere by improving the sub-soil structural capacity IIRC. It will also be interesting to see if the same height concerns come up as the original scuttlebut was that the "MOTI envisioned a bridge height similar to the Alex Fraser" i.e. 154m high. The tunnel location does line up relatively closely with an airport runway.

[ssiguy]

Great work SFU!

My point is that it is unfair to toll some areas because they just happen to be on the wrong side of the bridge.

Also, all of Greater Vancouver benefits from HWy#1 but only the people SoF pay for it. We will pay thru the nose to drive anywhere but then when Vancouver elites to take transit they have no concept of how bad the service is.

Also if you notice with those bridges that were tolled in the past, they were for just short periods not the decades long events that people SoF will have to contend with.

I don't really have too much of a problem for tolls for new infrastructure like the Golden Ears as long as they are reasonable, which the Golden Ears aren't. What I have a problem with is tolls on existing infrastructure and all that is happening is an update or expansion of the road.

Actually that goes for STS as well. All that happened was that it was improved which happens everywhere on the planet on an ongoing basis except BC. It's the inequity of the fact that it was just an updated highway and pay no tolls but HWY#! is the same but has tolls.

This is why I have always thought that gas taxes and car registration fees are the fairest system. It doesn't matter where you live or what you do..............the more your drive, the more you pay, end of story. It encourages smaller more fuel efficient and less polluting vehicles to boot as an added bonus. vehicle registration could be flat fee depending on your cars government of Canada vehicle emission reports......the more your vehicle pollutes, the more you pay.

Of course, there is no such thing as a perfect solution and everyone will bitch no matter what. Gas taxes, for example, can work very well but the more successful they are in getting people onto transit, car pooling, or getting more fuel efficient/less polluting on the road, the less money they produce.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I don't really have too much of a problem for tolls for new infrastructure like the Golden Ears as long as they are reasonable, which the Golden Ears aren't.

Actually the same could be said about the PMB toll. Some here apparently prefer high tolls as a "social engineering" tool to lower vehicle traffic and encourage transit use. Problem is that does not deal with real world realities with most folk - both financially and politically.

A more appropriate tolling model, in my view, would be $1 - $1.50 in each direction, which is corroborated by the following:

VICTORIA — After two years of studying the options for tolling the new tunnel under Seattle, an advisory committee has reached a conclusion of more than passing interest to folks paying $3 tolls in Metro Vancouver.

The $3 rate is self-defeating, the committee concluded, because it prompts too many drivers to choose other routes, increasing congestion and reducing the number of paying customers.

Instead, the committee has pretty much settled on a discount price range of $1 (most times within a 24-hour period) to $1.25 (peak travel times only) as “the best balance between revenue generation and minimizing diversion.”

“Optimizing toll rates resulted in minimizing diversion or keeping more cars in the tunnel,” the committee stated in a presentation delivered late last month. “Tolling more time periods resulted in additional revenue.”

Though not the final recommendation — that will be determined next month — the low-budget scenario was the most promising of seven tolling regimes explored by the committee since it was appointed to study tolling on the Alaskan Way Replacement Project.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Vaughn+Palme...hat+tolls+should+cash/9073794/story.html

[twoNeurons]

If Vancouver had tolls of $1, then what would we have to complain about when we travelled down to USA? It's a Canadian hobby to price-compare the US and tell everyone about how everything is so expensive in Canada.

Well, with the PMB, I think they should calculate how much money it brings in, reduce the toll to $1.50 and then raise fuel taxes enough to cover the shortfall based on existing traffic. Bill it as a way to more equitably spread the costs over the region while still making users pay for the bridge.

A few things will happen:

• The Port Mann will seem more reasonable, meaning more rush hour traffic will use it. By extension they will bring in more money as toll-avoiders will be a LOT less likely to choose the Patullo.
• They [gov't] will look more equitable and fair
• They will set a precedent that all motorists should share the cost of major infrastructure to a certain level, but there still should be a user-pay system.

The reason the bridge is tolled at such a high rate is because, if we remember, there was a lot of opposition to the bridge and it would have been politically damaging to offload ANY of the cost on the region. It's easy, however, to sell a toll to the group SOF who had been starving for improvements to the corridor. It's like offering a starving man a loaf of bread if he pays you in 100 installments of $1. He'll do it without thinking about the full ramifications of his actions.

The Seattle situation is quite a bit different as there are numerous ways to get into Seattle. With Vancouver, the only PRACTICAL way is the #1 if you're coming from SOF or the Fraser Valley.

[Mikemike]

By "his actions" I assume you mean buying a house on the opposite side of the river from his Job. Because what he's agreed to pay for that loaf is what it cost to build divided amongst the users, nothing like your $100 loaf of bread.

What this is like is charging the poor guy 10c a slice for his bread and not charging the guy who doesn't eat any.

[Mikemike]

Oh, and for all these replacement/upgrade plans they should start charging the estimated required toll NOW, before building, just to see if the demand still exists. If the toll knocks demand back by 30% then you can save money and not built as wide a crossing. Maybe even not build one of them.

there's no reason that all the crossings shouldn't be tolled. Whether new or old they are all expensive infrastructure that benefits only the users (yes, including people who use goods the cross, but the trucks would pay tolls too).

It makes sense for the provider to charge for that service, and no, it's not unfair. the river was there before the people were.

[Pinion]

Raising gas tax is not fair. Paying per use is fair. I paid extra money on real estate to not drive my car for hours every day, I go years without crossing the Patullo or Massey or PMB. When they replace local bridges with something better I'll gladly pay my share every time I cross.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by Mikemike

By "his actions" I assume you mean buying a house on the opposite side of the river from his Job. Because what he's agreed to pay for that loaf is what it cost to build divided amongst the users, nothing like your $100 loaf of bread.

What this is like is charging the poor guy 10c a slice for his bread and not charging the guy who doesn't eat any.

Only about 30% of the project was the bridge.

The rest was interchanges, widening and maintenance along the rest of the corridor.

The analogy only holds if McGill --> Lougheed is distance tolled.

The new Massey should be distance tolled from 70th in Vancouver --> King George Boulevard.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Raising gas tax is not fair. Paying per use is fair. I paid extra money on real estate to not drive my car for hours every day, I go years without crossing the Patullo or Massey or PMB. When they replace local bridges with something better I'll gladly pay my share every time I cross.

i couldn't agree more! there is no reason why someone who will never need to cross it, who paid more to live downtown for example, should have to pay for the PMB and all other of these SoF updates. should i need to go over them, though, i will gladly pay the toll without complaint; as i do now for example with the PMB. i have only crossed it once since it opened; with the old bridge, i also only crossed it once in many many years.

[ssiguy]

That's fine but if you think costs should not be more equitably distributed then I'm sure you won't mind your taxes going thru the roof to pay for 100% of the Broadway Millenium Line extension.

I'm also quite confident that you won't mind the Translink taxes that were paid by all areas for the Canada Line and Evergreen Line be reimbursed to people SoF and tax payers in Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, Port Moody, and Coquitlam can cheerily make up the difference.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i have been thinking about this new project which lead me to thinking about how to improve the Steveston Highway interchange. lets face it, that interchange is crap and has been for decades.

this would be the perfect place to try a new interchange design that doesn't take up a whole lot of physical space laterally and allows for very little or even no traffic weaving. it also allows it to be 100% free flowing; ie no stop lights at all. so far there is no interchange in the world like this but i think this is a very well designed interchange! with this, Steveston Highway would also be 4 lanes, 2 each way, all the way to the Riverport Area.


source wikipedia

more information on these site as well; (the 2nd one shows some pedestrian and cyclist paths. page 12)
http://www.dcmiinterchange.com/
http://www.ite.org/Membersonly/techconference/2012/CB12C3201.pdf

should the new bridges come with #99 improvements i think it should be used for the following;
- Steveston Highway
- King George Boulevard

i think this should have also been used at some places along the #1 improvement such as;
- Willingdon Ave
- Brunette Ave
- 176th Street/Highway 17
- 200th Street/Golden Ears Bridge Connector

what do you guys think of this kind of interchange? i quite like it myself and think it is very well designed.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

what do you guys think of this kind of interchange? i quite like it myself and think it is very well designed.

Interesting - this looks like a variation of the double crossover diamond with the crossovers grade separated. In addition to the free-flow aspect, it also has the attribute of "logical" exits - exit left to turn left and exit right to turn right. I think the biggest downside of this is more complex elevated sections which would substantially increase the cost. That would make it unlikely to be chosen for this project.

[Zassk]

The Steveston interchange is indeed a mess. I have to use it for non-freeway-related travel almost every day, and I wish there was a suitable alternative.

What bothers me most is that there's an existing freeway overpass at the mouth of the tunnel, which has been only lightly used for the past 55 years, since the road (Rice Mill Rd) only services an industrial building. It would be possible to leverage that overpass to move some of the traffic movements away from Steveston Hwy and provide traffic relief for 5-10 years until a new crossing is built.

For a few $hundred thousand, MoT could build a southbound offramp to/from Rice Mill Rd, on the abandoned scale land, and thereby eliminate one of the worst traffic lights at the Steveston Interchange. Or the City of Richmond could extend Rice Mill Rd eastward to make it a through road, thus providing an alternate route across the freeway. Any of these things would reduce the amount of traffic clogging the Steveston interchange.

Anyway, I assume that when the new crossing is built, Steveston Hwy will end up with a large interchange similar to Westview and Lonsdale, with traffic lights on either side of the freeway but a large cross-section to keep traffic moving. There isn't enough space to build a parclo or anything else on the west side of the freeway (unless the freeway itself is realigned to the east, which would mean the end of the pumpkin patch!).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Zassk

What bothers me most is that there's an existing freeway overpass at the mouth of the tunnel, which has been only lightly used for the past 55 years, since the road (Rice Mill Rd) only services an industrial building. It would be possible to leverage that overpass to move some of the traffic movements away from Steveston Hwy and provide traffic relief for 5-10 years until a new crossing is built.

If you're traveling eastbound on Steveston Highway then it's already possible to bypass the freeway overpass by diverting to Rice Mill Road and then joining the freeway exit to eastbound Steveston Highway.

No joy for westbound travelers, though.

The real problem driving eastbound is that Steveston is often backed up beyond Shell road, which makes it difficult to access Rice Mill Rd.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i have been thinking about this new project which lead me to thinking about how to improve the Steveston Highway interchange. lets face it, that interchange is crap and has been for decades.

this would be the perfect place to try a new interchange design that doesn't take up a whole lot of physical space laterally and allows for very little or even no traffic weaving. it also allows it to be 100% free flowing; ie no stop lights at all. so far there is no interchange in the world like this but i think this is a very well designed interchange! with this, Steveston Highway would also be 4 lanes, 2 each way, all the way to the Riverport Area.


source wikipedia

more information on these site as well; (the 2nd one shows some pedestrian and cyclist paths. page 12)
http://www.dcmiinterchange.com/
http://www.ite.org/Membersonly/techconference/2012/CB12C3201.pdf

should the new bridges come with #99 improvements i think it should be used for the following;
- Steveston Highway
- King George Boulevard

i think this should have also been used at some places along the #1 improvement such as;
- Willingdon Ave
- Brunette Ave
- 176th Street/Highway 17
- 200th Street/Golden Ears Bridge Connector

what do you guys think of this kind of interchange? i quite like it myself and think it is very well designed.

The biggest issue I see with this is it doesn't allow for pedestrian crossings or through lanes for the buses ( I would like to see a centre bus lane and station at Strevstons instead of the current situation anyway).

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Only about 30% of the project was the bridge.

The rest was interchanges, widening and maintenance along the rest of the corridor.

This is the biggest point people seem to always forget. Everyone that uses HWY1 benefits from Gateway. Coquitlam gets rock solid commute times to the majority of Metro Vancouver now, and Hwy1 is typically a dream now most of the day not to mention all the new overpasses.

But 30% of the total project cost was the bridge yet people crossing the PMB North or South pay 100% of the remaining costs every time they use it and will for 35-40 years. This is the issue with these types of projects and front loading all the ongoing costs on only the crossing itself.

Same will happen with the GMB when it is built. They will no doubt toll the new bridge yet they will be building highway improvements from 70th all the way to KGB. You will have everyone in Richmond that head North at Steveston and beyond benefit from the project, and everyone from South Delta who head South or those that only go from Surrey to South delta benefit with the expanded and improved highway.

Yet, the only people paying ongoing fees for 35-40 years will be those that actually cross the bridge itself either direction.

I have no arguments with pay for use, but that to me means 100% of people that use any portion of the entire project, pay some sort of use. Not just a select group that use 1 small portion while everyone else "rides for free."

Distance based tolling makes the most sense imo.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by jhausner

But 30% of the total project cost was the bridge yet people crossing the PMB North or South pay 100% of the remaining costs every time they use it and will for 35-40 years.

Wait, you're making an assumption or you have some info I haven't heard before.

Is it true that the PMB tolls will recover 100% of the project cost? Or are the tolls only meant to recover the 30% portion that was the bridge?

Same for the Massey Bridge - we don't know whether the tolls will pay for the entire corridor improvements, or just the bridge itself. You're assuming the tolls will pay for everything, but we haven't been told that.

[WarrenC12]

It's also worth noting you can't just build an expanded bridge without significant highway improvements.

What was done with the #1 highway was not entirely required, but some work would have to be done.

[makr3trkr]

http://fraseropolis.com/2012/02/24/port-mann-tolls-will-pay-all-costs-of-3-3-billion-project/

"In the 2012-2013 budget released this week, the Government of British Columbia holds to its position that user tolls from the Port Mann Bridge will pay for all capital and operating costs associated with the 37-kilometre Port Mann/Highway 1 Project.

The assertion that PMH1 will be self-financing is contained both in the main provincial budget document (pages 38 and 41) and in a new service plan from the Transportation Investment Corporation, the agency responsible for financing and building the project."

http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2012/bfp/2012_Budget_Fiscal_Plan.pdf

Seems likely a Massey toll would pay for the whole highway improvement not just the bridge.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It's also worth noting you can't just build an expanded bridge without significant highway improvements.

What was done with the #1 highway was not entirely required, but some work would have to be done.

It's also worth noting that the Van, Burnaby and Coquitlam sections only needed 1 new lane which is not a huge capacity upgrade. Most of the other changes were built to prevent weaving (such as the HOV flyover) or to fix unsafe onramps / offramps.

Overall everything in Burnaby and Vancouver works better mainly because the bridge queue used reduce the overall highway capacity. That was the lynch pin. Everything West of Cape Horn is pretty incremental improvement.

I'd imagine the Cape Horn upgrades also cost quite a lot, and in my opinion should be inseparable from the bridge costs.