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

[Metro-One]

I keep trying to edit my post, but every time I try it logs me out when I click save instead, so here is my edited post:

The reason why the Patullo bridge has far more detailed / concrete plans is because if it were not for New West objecting to it it would be at least half complete in construction currently. I was at those open houses years ago (maybe 4 years ago) and the 6 lane plan had been chossen after many public open houses and the plan was to have the bridge open by 2017 I believe, which is the same date the George massey is suppose to start construction, but then New West threw a wrench into the entire plan after wasting so much time...

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

well there is a project office open to the public. it has been open for a few months in Ironwood in Richmond. i haven't been so i don't know what it is about.

i do remember there were some public open houses awhile back about the replacement but this was back in 2014.

[cornholio]

Looks like they are assembling and razing properties along the route. Its moving along out of the public eye. I expect it to go up quickly once designs are released after all the required properties have been assembled and cleared. They said 2017 and nothing indicates it wont meet a late 2017 deadline.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The reason why the Patullo bridge has far more detailed / concrete plans is because if it were not for New West objecting to it it would be at least half complete in construction currently. I was at those open houses years ago (maybe 4 years ago) and the 6 lane plan had been chossen after many public open houses and the plan was to have the bridge open by 2017 I believe, which is the same date the George massey issuppose to start construction.

I thought funding was the big issue for the Patullo replacement as well. If the tax doesn't pass they'll need their capital portion from some other revenue area.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Looks like they are assembling and razing properties along the route. Its moving along out of the public eye. I expect it to go up quickly once designs are released after all the required properties have been assembled and cleared. They said 2017 and nothing indicates it wont meet a late 2017 deadline.

Thanks. The things going on outside of the media/public eye are what I come to SSP to learn.

[Metro-One]

I think their original plan was to recoup the costs of the bridge via tolls, which honestly IMO is a bad idea. Bridge tolls / transit fares should never be relied upon to recoup capital costs. They should only be used for operating / maintenance costs.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I think their original plan was to recoup the costs of the bridge via tolls, which honestly IMO is a bad idea. Bridge tolls / transit fares should never be relied upon to recoup capital costs. They should only be used for operating / maintenance costs.

I disagree. A properly structured toll should pay operating and capital costs over the first 20-50 years. I have no problem reducing or removing a toll once the initial capital costs are paid (ie: Coquihalla).

But it feels unfair to users (see: PMB), so I think a better solution would be limited tolls on all MOT/Translink crossings (say 50 cents) which would be used to fund the next upgrade or replacement as needs dictate. In this case that would be Patullo 1st, GMT 2nd, then maybe widening Knight St or considering another crossing at Boundary or somewhere in that vicinity.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

My biggest question is. Will they upgrade the rest of the highway?

Yes, this was stated explicitly. The project includes Hwy 99 upgrades from the Oak St bridgehead to the border.

The bridge graphic showed a 4+HOV+4+HOV cross section. Based on the PMB, we can probably assume that the freeway will have one less lane than the bridge. So if it's built as depicted, then I would expect the freeway to be rebuilt as 3+HOV from Oak to the border, perhaps diverting one lane earlier to join Hwy 91.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Yes, this was stated explicitly. The project includes Hwy 99 upgrades from the Oak St bridgehead to the border.

The bridge graphic showed a 4+HOV+4+HOV cross section. Based on the PMB, we can probably assume that the freeway will have one less lane than the bridge. So if it's built as depicted, then I would expect the freeway to be rebuilt as 3+HOV from Oak to the border, perhaps diverting one lane earlier to join Hwy 91.

not that I doubt you, but do you have a link where this was stated? I would really like to view that info.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Yes, this was stated explicitly. The project includes Hwy 99 upgrades from the Oak St bridgehead to the border.

The bridge graphic showed a 4+HOV+4+HOV cross section. Based on the PMB, we can probably assume that the freeway will have one less lane than the bridge. So if it's built as depicted, then I would expect the freeway to be rebuilt as 3+HOV from Oak to the border, perhaps diverting one lane earlier to join Hwy 91.

The bridge is going to be 8 lanes, not 10 as depicted in the graphic.

[ClaytonA]

Do they really need to upgrade the rest of the highway? Is it really busy enough to justify it? Has the SFPR taken some of the traffic previously through Richmond shift towards the Hwy 1 corridor via the Patullo/Port Mann? For the anyone SOF headed to the North Shore, that's faster than traversing downtown and the Lions Gate and it's a shorter distance.

[ClaytonA]

Also this project was an election announcement which means tax dollars are still being spend to do the business case and public consultation of whether to do the project or not.
It jumped the priority queue and probably due to statutory requirements and good project governance they need to go through the motions of deciding what to replace the tunnel with if they decide to. (some sarcasm).

You can read about this all at the project website: http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/information-centre/document-library/

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Do they really need to upgrade the rest of the highway? Is it really busy enough to justify it? Has the SFPR taken some of the traffic previously through Richmond shift towards the Hwy 1 corridor via the Patullo/Port Mann? For the anyone SOF headed to the North Shore, that's faster than traversing downtown and the Lions Gate and it's a shorter distance.

The new bridge being the major choke point should be built as 8 lanes, but south of the bridge (the SFPR highway 17 / 99 interchange) all that needs to be added are two proper HOV / Bus lanes. North of the new bridge 4 lanes per direction would be great (3 all purpose + 1 HOV / Bus) until the 99/91 interchange. North of that the highway should remain 2 general purpose + 1 HOV / Bus per direction (upgraded in design of course) with maybe some Bus / HOV only ramps just before the Oak Street Bridge. A true rapid bus system on the highway would be great.

So given all that, the highway corridor does need a complete upgraded redesign to allow proper HOV / Bus lanes and safer interchanges.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The new bridge being the major choke point should be built as 8 lanes, but south of the bridge (the SFPR highway 17 / 99 interchange) all that needs to be added are two proper HOV / Bus lanes. North of the new bridge 4 lanes per direction would be great (3 all purpose + 1 HOV / Bus) until the 99/91 interchange. North of that the highway should remain 2 general purpose + 1 HOV / Bus per direction (upgraded in design of course) with maybe some Bus / HOV only ramps just before the Oak Street Bridge. A true rapid bus system on the highway would be great.

I wonder if we can get the perspective of someone who actually commutes via this corridor to/from South Surrey on a regular basis.

My impression from coworkers is that the freeway south of the tunnel is very congested on a routine basis, especially south of Hwy 91 (as that section is basically the merging of two freeways each carrying a rush hour load to/from South Surrey). Basically, traffic on this section has grown proportionally with the incredible growth of South Surrey/White Rock.

I don't think the SFPR gives much relief to this corridor. The SFPR is more likely to give relief to Hwy 10 and Nordel.

[makr3trkr]

http://www.peacearchnews.com/news/302785231.html
Jeff Nagel - Surrey North Delta Leader
May 6, 2015 at 9:00 AM

Transportation Minister Todd Stone insists the government remains on track to begin construction in 2017 on the new span between Delta and Richmond, and associated Highway 99 upgrades, and complete it by 2022.

More work is ongoing but Freer said findings so far confirm the project team's intent to build a new 10-lane bridge, with one of the extra lanes in each direction dedicated for HOV/transit.

He expects the Massey project cost will be "in the same ballpark" as the $3.3-billion Port Mann/Highway 1 project, but for a bridge with long graded approaches, much like the Alex Fraser Bridge.

He also said updated traffic estimates confirm that 60 per cent of the traffic through the tunnel is between Surrey, Delta and Richmond and not Vancouver.

[WarrenC12]

That article is worth a read. Jordan Bateman is coming out somewhat negative on it... god what an idiot. WTF does he get his voice heard on this stuff?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That article is worth a read. Jordan Bateman is coming out somewhat negative on it... god what an idiot. WTF does he get his voice heard on this stuff?

Well, he is kind of indirectly correct about the traffic. I'd be surprised if the SFPR or a new Pattullo would have any sort of impact on traffic through the Massey, but traffic levels have been dropping through the Massey in recent years. Is there a business case for an eight-lane bridge, or would a six-lane bridge do? Do we want to have a Port Mann II?

It's probably too late for that discussion though.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I think their original plan was to recoup the costs of the bridge via tolls, which honestly IMO is a bad idea. Bridge tolls / transit fares should never be relied upon to recoup capital costs. They should only be used for operating / maintenance costs.

Totally disagree. Tolls are an excellent way of recouping capital costs and should be used on every new major transit infrastructure project. Once the capital expenses have been paid off, the tolls should be lowed to meet operating and maintenance costs with a small extra to be put into a fund to be used for future capital expenses (upgrading, expanding, etc).

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Well, he is kind of indirectly correct about the traffic. I'd be surprised if the SFPR or a new Pattullo would have any sort of impact on traffic through the Massey, but traffic levels have been dropping through the Massey in recent years. Is there a business case for an eight-lane bridge, or would a six-lane bridge do? Do we want to have a Port Mann II?

It's probably too late for that discussion though.

He was a big supporter of Gateway, whether or not you agree with Gateway, this, or the transit referendum is irrelevant. The fact is he's a self-cenetred hypocrite who's opinion isn't worth the electrons it uses.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Totally disagree. Tolls are an excellent way of recouping capital costs and should be used on every new major transit infrastructure project. Once the capital expenses have been paid off, the tolls should be lowed to meet operating and maintenance costs with a small extra to be put into a fund to be used for future capital expenses (upgrading, expanding, etc).

Oh i agree about having tolls / transit fares, just that they can be risky for using them to pay back capital on projects.

A major reason why traffic levels have dropped (and by dropped it has been only a slight amount) is because the tunnel has hit its saturation point looong ago and therefore traffic volumes can no longer grow. Be careful looking at some of the graphs as well, some of them are presented purposely misleading (I remember seeing one that tried to make it as if there had been a huge drop in traffic levels, but then I realized that it was zoomed in to only show the top 10 percentile).

An 8 lane bridge is the best solution, because then we can have 3X3 general purpose (a very standard width throughout the world for a major artery in a city metro-Vancouver's size) plus 2 HOV / Bus lanes.