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

[SFUVancouver]

I still find it fascinating that 26% of people who travel through the tunnel do so on transit, which only accounts for 1% of vehicle trips (source, page 5). This is the maddening disconnect with how the Ministry of Transportation operates: a substantial increase in transit service, coupled with a right-sized new 6 lane Alex Fraser-style bridge, could easily relieve congestion, move people and goods efficiently, and require significantly less capital and engineering complexity than an oversized 10 lane bridge.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

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.

There's significant difference between "saturation point" and "traffic levels are dropping".

[Metro-One]

Well, I use to drive the tunnel after these levels had "dropped" and it was far over saturation point Waiting for 45 minutes to an hour to enter the tunnel idling over a 2 km stretch is not "below saturation" IMO.

And yes, levels can go ever saturation, and then fluctuate to a little less over saturation.

For the new bridge to work properly 8 lanes is needed, again this is not the Patullo or the GEB, this is the primary N/S route over the most important crossing.

To be designed properly, the centre lane needs to be HOV / Rapid Bus. Then you have 2 general purpose through lanes, then you have an add / drop shoulder lane for the major interchanges on either side.

[GlassCity]

I live in Ladner and travel through the tunnel (by bus) almost every day. While traffic levels have noticeably dropped since the SFPR opened, it's still not an easy crossing by any stretch. I do think 3 lanes+HOV would be enough though (I've changed my mind a thousand times on this), as that's what the highway looks like before it converges into the tunnel. Unless they're planning on widening the 99, which they shouldn't, it doesn't make sense to have more lanes on the bridge than the roads it links.

I wonder what they'll do in terms of HOV and bus lanes. The northbound lanes have a bus lane north of the tunnel, while the southbound lanes have an HOV lane north of it. I guess an HOV lane would be enough for buses going north, but it would be nice for that bus lane to start earlier too. I'm much more interested in bike lanes too. Since it's a new structure, there is no excuse not to have them. It would be so nice to finally be able to cross it on foot/bike, I think it would do a lot in bringing awareness to South Delta and maybe get it out of its bubble a little bit.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I'm much more interested in bike lanes too. Since it's a new structure, there is no excuse not to have them. It would be so nice to finally be able to cross it on foot/bike, I think it would do a lot in bringing awareness to South Delta and maybe get it out of its bubble a little bit.

Agree 100%. The current bus shuttle is pretty poor service compared to a dedicated bike lane.

[officedweller]

http://www.richmondreview.com/news/port-...idge-to-accomodate-lng-tankers-1.1942899

Port wants tall Massey Bridge to accomodate LNG tankers
Taller bridge would mean higher costs, a more challenging design and a steeper grade. -
Jeff Nagel / Black Press
May 21, 2015 11:23 AM

...

As of mid-2014, port officials were proposing the Massey Bridge be designed with an "air draft" – the clearance for a ship between the water line and the bottom of the bridge deck – of about 65 metres. That's significantly more than the 57 metres initially outlined by the province.
...
A month later, in a July email to his staff, Port Metro Vancouver CEO Robin Silvester asked: "What is the air draft of the largest length LNG vessel that we could imagine in the river?"

Port marine operations director Chris Wellstood responded a 63-metre air draft would be enough for "the larger part of the world's LNG fleet" – tankers up to 320 metres long – to pass under the new bridge and head up the Fraser.

The largest LNG tankers, carrying 267,000 cubic meters of liquefied natural gas, require 64.4 metres of air draft, while the average LNG tanker with 142,000 cubic metre capacity needs about 50 metres overhead clearance, according to a chart Wellstood included.

Port Metro Vancouver planning and operations vice-president Peter Xotta said discussions about the bridge height are "ongoing" with the province, adding he expects the final decision will be close to 60 metres, but less than the port's preferred 65 metres.
...

http://www.richmondreview.com/news/port-...idge-to-accomodate-lng-tankers-1.1942899

More:

...
The port has made no secret it wants the Massey Tunnel removed so ships that sit deeper in the water can pass upstream, but it had not publicly indicated before now that the height of the replacement bridge is also a concern.

The Alex Fraser Bridge height is 57 metres above the river, so a taller Massey Bridge could only be of use to ships of above-average height heading to Delta river terminals such as Tilbury Island, not further upriver to Fraser Surrey Docks.

"The industrial properties that the port would be interested in serving are not beyond the Alex Fraser," Xotta said. "So conceivably you could have a higher bridge at George Massey to facilitate trade and the height of the Alex Fraser wouldn't have a direct bearing on that."
...

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/304572631.html

[Jebby]

Maybe they should just build a new tunnel? Just have it further below the riverbed than the existing one and you solve the ship problem.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Maybe they should just build a new tunnel? Just have it further below the riverbed than the existing one and you solve the ship problem.

personally i would have preferred a new tunnel over a bridge. and i was also wondering the same thing, why not just make it deeper? we have new technology compared to what we had in the 1950's.

[SOSS]

Maybe the Liberals just like phallic structures... The choice is because (allegedly) the truckers association wants to use the route as a hazardous materials route which is prevented for tunnels. A tunnel would make more sense with the airport too.

[GlassCity]

I live right beside the tunnel and was hoping that a bridge would allow me access the bridge directly from my house, but with the height that they're proposing I don't think that will be possible. It'll probably just bypass my neighbourhood and I'll have to go all the way to Ladner Trunk Road and head back up north like I do now when I drive. It's understandable, but it's still a shame.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

personally i would have preferred a new tunnel over a bridge. and i was also wondering the same thing, why not just make it deeper? we have new technology compared to what we had in the 1950's.

Sort of, it seems like every tunnel project is fraught with issues so it's not quite as easy as it might appear.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Maybe they should just build a new tunnel? Just have it further below the riverbed than the existing one and you solve the ship problem.

I think the point is that bridge design is much better at withstanding earthquakes today than in the past, while a submerged tunnel will always be a liability in an earthquake.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Zassk

I think the point is that bridge design is much better at withstanding earthquakes today than in the past, while a submerged tunnel will always be a liability in an earthquake.

I was thinking of a bored tunnel below the riverbed instead of submerged one on top of the riverbed. But it appears that the entire underground area is silt, so it would probably face the same earthquake issues as the current tunnel. The bedrock is about 500m below the silt.

[Metro-One]

Tunnels tend to come with a lot more risk, especially given the lack of bedrock and earthquake risk in Richmond / Delta.

That being said, if the Port of Vancouver is demanding such a high bridge, maybe they should help fund the difference in cost?

[WarrenC12]

I wonder what the cost difference is for the taller bridge.

The solution is easy though... just toll the ships.

[Metro-One]

i am suspecting the cost difference may be pretty large since it would require longer approaches (viaducts) on both ends of the structure.

That or they simply do a crazy grade up and down to the peak, but then that would not be so great for trucks.

Haha, a ship toll doesn't sound so crazy....

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Haha, a ship toll doesn't sound so crazy....

i remember reading awhile back that the Province talked about how to pay for the bridge and it was mentioned a toll for every ship going under would be charged a toll.

[Metro-One]

The more I think about it, the better it sounds, especially if it has to be tailer made to such a high clearance.

[SOSS]

Its a bit dark, and I guess I have watched too much crap out of Hollywood but I tend to think of worst case scenarios. With a tunnel, a likely worst case scenario is a semi-trailer carrying flammable liquids jackknifing closing the entire tunnel, killing everyone inside with a raging fire that might even cause massive structural integrity issues that lead to a collapse. With a bridge under the same scenario would lead to loss of life in the immediate vicinity, but unlikely to take down a bridge even with an explosion.

Like I said, a bit dark.

[Pinion]

It's a real possibility, that's why they don't allow the really dangerous stuff to go in there.