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

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I think both Golden Ears Bridge and Port Mann Bridge would be much more popular if there wouldn't be tolls (like there one day won't be). People are just so cheap and I have to admit that I also don't take GEB because of the tolls and as a result Pitt River Bridge is always very busy.

I don't think GEB is going to feel overbuilt in the future when Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge grow past 100k and Surrey becomes the de facto second center in region. Latter may still take 20 years to happen, but it eventually will, driving more traffic on GEB.

Alex Fraser Bridge has enough lanes but the problems is the approaches and the fact that the bridge is very steep climb for trucks, slowing the rightmost lanes down to crawling speed. A new wide George Massey Bridge will definitely help, but the traffic won't balance between these two crossings when one of them is going to be tolled. They both should be tolled once the new bridge opens.

Yah I say it all the time. Like the Alex Fraser Bridge, in 15-20 years people will look back and go "how did we ever live without that thing?"

Back when the AFB was built people called it the bridge to nowhere and the giant white elephant that will go down in history as a government blunder. Do some digging and there are plenty of news articles and I'm sure many people who held that opinion.

I ask people today though and those on these forums, could you imagine Metro Vancouver without the Alex Fraser bridge and subsequently the East-West connector as those two go hand-in-hand.

Could you? Will be the same thing with the GEB and the "over engineered" Port Mann, Tunnel Replacement, and Pattullo. In 15-20 years when Metro-Vancouver is > 3 million people, we'll scratch our heads wondering why we were so short-sighted back in 2015.

[Klazu]

Right on, jhauser.

I was thinking the steep climb aspect more and was wondering if that is the reason why there are so many stalled trucks causing traffic congestion everysecond morning? I have never drive a truck so I don't know how easily they stall on even ground or when in stop-and-go traffic over a bridge.

Perhaps the best point here is after all those two climbing lanes that (the evil two extra lanes many are talking about).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Yah I say it all the time. Like the Alex Fraser Bridge, in 15-20 years people will look back and go "how did we ever live without that thing?"

I don't hear many people in Vancouver complaining that the downtown freeway was never built.

People get used to what they have and it doesn't take long before they can't imagine having to give it up. But if they never had it in the first place it can be surprising how well life goes on without it.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I don't hear many people in Vancouver complaining that the downtown freeway was never built.

People get used to what they have and it doesn't take long before they can't imagine having to give it up. But if they never had it in the first place it can be surprising how well life goes on without it.

...except for the Broadway subway?

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I don't hear many people in Vancouver complaining that the downtown freeway was never built.

Every time I drive to Richmond I complain about this, which isn't often because it's so miserable. Vancouver proper is a shitshow.

I-5 through Seattle is pretty bad but 405 through Portland is barely noticeable, with at-grade overpasses on each block and the highway in a trench. I wish we had something similar to that going north-south.

e.g.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Every time I drive to Richmond I complain about this, which isn't often because it's so miserable.

You could take the Canada Line instead. I live in Vancouver when I need to go downtown I take transit for the same reason. But I still don't complain about the lack of freeways in the city, and neither do my neighbors.

[Klazu]

This is offtopic, but has there ever been considerations to cover I-5 in Seattle? It is an eyesore.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by Klazu

This is offtopic, but has there ever been considerations to cover I-5 in Seattle? It is an eyesore.

http://www.lidi5.com/

https://northwesturbanist.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/lets-bury-i-5-redux/

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

You could take the Canada Line instead. I live in Vancouver when I need to go downtown I take transit for the same reason. But I still don't complain about the lack of freeways in the city, and neither do my neighbors.

Oh you, always with the jokes

[East Van]

The AFB, IW & PMB all have very steep sections for loaded trucks which struggle to maintain 50-60km/hr uphill. There is an increasing number of trucks on the road. A new major bridge like this should have 10 lanes just to keep trucks in their own lane. AFB really needed to extend that climbing lane over the top bit we're stuck with 6. In the 80's it was a big deal that it was over built, the idiots in charge even installed a red light at the bottom that didn't last long. It's located damn near in the center of the metro area, how could people think that it wouldn't catch on.

On the Surrey side eastbound up Johnson hill some trucks struggle to stay above 60km/hr. With 2 general purpose lanes, a 40km/hr difference between the two lanes gets dangerous quick. What were they thinking ?

Fingers crossed for 10 lanes.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Of course, as populations have increased the traffic has decreased, from a peak of 85284 per day in 2005 to 79105 per day in 2014 [source]

The Golden Ears Bridge was drastically overbuilt. The Port Mann Bridge was drastically overbuilt. And now we're going to drastically overbuild the Massey Bridge? Meanwhile people will be pissed off at paying tolls to cross it, and those tolls will have to last longer than anticipated because traffic volumes won't hit projected targets (just like the GEB and PMB).

They should do the same thing they're planning with the Pattullo Bridge: don't build the biggest possible bridge from the start, but build a smaller bridge that can be easily expanded if the traffic volumes require it.

But I guess the difference is that this is a provincial bridge, and nobody really gives a shit about how much money they blow on over-building bridges, whereas TransLink is corrupt and wasteful and can't budget worth shit, right?

I think what they mean by the Pattullo bridge being expandable to 6 lanes is the same when they built the AFB with 4 lanes expandable to 6, or the Cassiar connector with 4 lanes expandable to 6. They built them full width, and just painted the lines for fewer lanes with really wide shoulders.

Because, really, the change in cost of a bridge isn't directly related to it's size. If you build a bridge with 50% fewer lanes, it doesn't cost 50% less.

Lets just say, building the GMT bridge with 10 lanes costs $1 billion (slightly more than the PMB because the approaches will be longer). If you were to change it 6 lanes, it won't cost $600 million. Is it really worth it to shrink the scale of the project for a rather small savings?

An you can't make conclusions just based on that data. During the same time span we have been pretty hard hit to our economy, and a major decrease to tourism. There are also strange decreases and increases in the data, which leads me to think there is a margin of error, and 2.5% change is a pretty typical error rate.

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

The part I bolded is giving me some problems. Does this mean the only upgrade to the rest of the highway, is going to be extended hov lanes? While this is great, I would feel more then a little disappointed if they didnt add at least one general purpose lane in each direction as well. If they dont I fear it will be another 60 years before they do so.

Hopefully I am just misunderstanding what I read.

To be honest, the highway flows pretty well away from the tunnel. It is all the lanes from the various ramps that cause problems currently. A 2 lane + HOV lane is 1 lane less than highway 1 has, and highway 1 through Burnaby is much busier than the 99 south of the Fraser. If buses can get through there better, that's all that's really needed. But I imagine it will come with some interchange rebuilding (as they are about the same age as the crappy ones on highway 1 they replaced), and move the bus lane to the middle with dedicated bus lane exits and bus stops (like on the I-5).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Because, really, the change in cost of a bridge isn't directly related to it's size. If you build a bridge with 50% fewer lanes, it doesn't cost 50% less.

But I wouldn't expect it to be just 10% less, either. If the bridge has 50% fewer lanes then it would only need to support about half the load, which means savings in terms of material for the piers, towers, cables, etc. etc. That means savings in buying and hauling all the material, construction man-hours etc. etc. It could also mean a simpler structure (for example the difference between the tower and cable configuration of the Alex Fraser bridge vs. the Port Mann bridge) which could lead further, possibly significant savings.

It would be interesting to know the actual costs for a 6-lane vs. a 10-lane bridge. I'd expect the 10-lane variant to at least 50% more expensive.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Because, really, the change in cost of a bridge isn't directly related to it's size. If you build a bridge with 50% fewer lanes, it doesn't cost 50% less.

Lets just say, building the GMT bridge with 10 lanes costs $1 billion (slightly more than the PMB because the approaches will be longer). If you were to change it 6 lanes, it won't cost $600 million. Is it really worth it to shrink the scale of the project for a rather small savings?

https://www.placespeak.com/uploads/assets/Appendix-1-Discussion-Guide-and-Feedback-Form_1_1.pdf
Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation
June 2013

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

https://www.placespeak.com/uploads/assets/Appendix-1-Discussion-Guide-and-Feedback-Form_1_1.pdf
Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation
June 2013

I'm surprised that the figures are so close and more than a little suspicious that they may be fudged in order to favour the larger bridge. Of course these are the all-in costs which include approaches, interchanges and demolition of the old bridge, so therefore the cost differential of just the bridge itself must be larger.

[Klazu]

Or then a larger bridge is not such a boogeyman and a money drain as some people make it sound...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Or then a larger bridge is not such a boogeyman and a money drain as some people make it sound...

Not a boogeyman that way, but more around what it represents and encourages... which is suburban sprawl, more highways and interchanges required to support it, etc.

The PMB is a good example. The bridge itself was only around $1.2B, but would have been useless without the rest of the $3.6B Gateway project (expanding Highway 1, etc).

Also remember, anything new should and will be tolled. Don't underestimate the impact of tolls on the cheap-ass drivers of Vancouver.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I don't hear many people in Vancouver complaining that the downtown freeway was never built.

People get used to what they have and it doesn't take long before they can't imagine having to give it up. But if they never had it in the first place it can be surprising how well life goes on without it.

Sure you do. The lack of road infrastructure is a large contributor to why Vancouver has gone from having 85% of all the regional jobs to 40% and why the region has quickly shifted away from being Vancouver centric. That said a freeway would likely have also contributed to urban sprawl but it not being built has also contributed.

When I was younger as an example, there was a large industrial complex around Main and Terminal towards Commercial Drive. Trucking companies, industry, trains, you name it. Where are they now? Most are out in Surrey, Burnaby, and Delta and have been since replaced by Home Depot, and car dealerships. Those companies relocated partly because of land values going up but also because (1) the city of Vancouver wanted them to leave and (2) the road and industrial infrastructure just made it difficult for them to deliver services to the region as a whole.

So industry moves and I guarantee you the industry that has left took more jobs than has been gained by what is there now.

Vancouver has shifted its focus to office oriented business and white collar jobs, but the net gain of overall jobs has occurred outside. Is the not building the freeway the cause? Not entirely, but it is a direct and indirect contributor through goods movement and overall vehicle movement being poor in Vancouver proper (direct) to the overall attitude of development and council in that same span that contributed to the freeway not being built (indirect) also pushing some industry and jobs out.

So I'd venture a challenge that many people that complain about quite a few regional and Vancouver specific issues today are a direct/indirect result of decisions made 15-20 (or more) years ago, the freeway being one of them. I'd argue the North Shore would be much different and you'd have far less complaints about traffic and the paltry bridge infrastructure today had that project gone through.

Sure Vancouver would be much different and you're correct that people get used to things, but we're a region that is slated in 25 years to top 3.5 million people (or more). The region is cut squarely in half by the giant working Fraser River. It seems ridiculous to think we can gain 1 million more people on either side and not up the lane and infrastructure count crossing our major river.

The Fraser isn't going anywhere and the region is quickly shifting away from being Vancouver centric, so we need to cross the river more efficiently moving forward it's that simple.

[Pinion]

^Well said

lol "I bet wider bridges are at least 50% more expensive"

*Gets evidence showing minimal difference, as any rational person would expect*

"That must be fudged!"

aberdeen, your desire to kill auto usage (and any local industry/economy along with it) is not secret, just be honest about it.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Right on, jhauser.

I was thinking the steep climb aspect more and was wondering if that is the reason why there are so many stalled trucks causing traffic congestion everysecond morning? I have never drive a truck so I don't know how easily they stall on even ground or when in stop-and-go traffic over a bridge.

Perhaps the best point here is after all those two climbing lanes that (the evil two extra lanes many are talking about).

Yah the purpose of the two dedicated truck lanes (the extra lanes to make it 10 wide) is that there is a _LOT_ and I mean a _LOT_ of truck traffic between South of Fraser through the tunnel to the Richmond side. Most trucks don't go anywhere near Vancouver, the majority get off either at Steveston or are heading to the Knight Street bridge Richmond side of things.

Another reason for the lanes is because with a new bridge, dangerous goods will now be able to use the 99 through to Richmond. Right now all dangerous goods shipping has to go across the other bridges as it is prohibited from the tunnel. So you'll have quite a few trucks diverting from the Alex Fraser/East-West connector over to the new bridge so there is likely to be a net increase in truck traffic.

Now I say that without knowing the toll answer because putting a toll on the new bridge could have the opposite with respect to the Alex Fraser bridge, but toll aside just looking at infrastructure, the above is why it is being engineered that way.

Industry has pretty much left Vancouver. The bulk is in the suburbs and much of it flanking the Fraser River, so we need to simply improve goods movement across the river wherever we can. Unfortunately people tend to always focus on cars and transit and forget that containers and goods that are delivered to your local Safeway or Whole Foods don't get there on bicycles or SkyTrain and never will.

With an additional 1 million people comes 1 million people's worth of additional goods that need to get from our ports of entry to your local retail location. It's just that simple.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jhausner

The Fraser isn't going anywhere and the region is quickly shifting away from being Vancouver centric, so we need to cross the river more efficiently moving forward it's that simple.

If the region is less Vancouver-centric, that would imply less bridge crossings, since you've got "everything you need" SOF. I realize that's simplistic, but you can't argue both ways = more traffic.

Slap a $3 toll ($9 for trucks or whatever) on the GMT and we'll see it's got enough capacity at 4 lanes.