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

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Remember that the reason the Lions Gate isn't tolled and wasn't replaced with some 10-lane world's widest long-span bridge in 2000 is because those on the north shore didn't want to pay a toll, those in Vancouver didn't want more traffic and Stanley Park impacts; therefore people sucked it up and still have congestion. Given the record of people rationally voting against fees and taxes on themselves...


cf; http://fraseropolis.com/2012/11/12/knocking-down-the-lions-gate-bridge/

That's some fine revisionist history. Which neighbourhood wants to pay a toll, given an option? A tolled bridge was unprecedented at the time, with the exception of both north shore bridges being tolled before. In 2000 it didn't even get to the option phase - we got what we didn't want. Vancouver proper won. The decision to go status quo had nothing to do with tolls.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I find it telling that the government's campaign promise of "no new taxes" that it says justified the transit referendum doesn't seem to apply to tolls, despite the fact that tolls have a much higher impact on those who have to pay them than the proposed half-percent tax increase would have. A $3.00 toll paid both ways over a year with about 200 working days is getting close to $2000, compared to the $200 or so the transit tax would have cost the average person.

Huh? Fer chrise sakes man. All transit services in BC were previously under the BC Transit provincial umbrella until the 1990's BC NDP brought in Translink for Metro Vancouver and downloaded transit upon Metro Vancouver along with the Pattullo Bridge, the Knight Street Bridge, etc. from then MoTH.

And the then BC NDP gov't also wanted to implement a "parking tax" to pay for same. And then major public opposition nixed that idea. And after all these years, the same friggin' problems persist.

That Translink referendum dealt specifically with future operational issues essentially providing additional funds for increased bus routes, increased bus frequency, additional Skytrain cars, etc.

Absolutely nuthin' to do with BC MOTI, which is responsible for provincial highway system and has had a policy of tolling new highway projects for well over a decade.

So ya are sayin' that I should pay the 1% increase in PST for Translink, and pay Translink gas taxes, and pay the toll? Good grief.

Hell, I have sit waiting 45 minutes in traffic (parking lot scenario) at times in order to get from one end of the GMT to the other. What do ya think that cost me in gas while sittin' idling?

Man, ya obviously live in inner Van City and have NO IDEA about the "real world" in the metro.

PS. Translink buses/passengers have to sit through the same idling crap that I do at the GMT. After completion of the new GMB, they will then be able to zip along the 99 Fwy at continuous speeds of 100 - 110 km/hr with an immense savings in travel time. What's not to like?!

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Hell, I have sit waiting 45 minutes in traffic (parking lot scenario) at times in order to get from one end of the GMT to the other. What do ya think that cost me in gas while sittin' idling?

So (assuming you're a regular commuter) you're perfectly happy to pay nearly $2000 a year more than you do today without any say in the matter?

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Pinion

That's some fine revisionist history. Which neighbourhood wants to pay a toll, given an option? A tolled bridge was unprecedented at the time, with the exception of both north shore bridges being tolled before. In 2000 it didn't even get to the option phase - we got what we didn't want. Vancouver proper won. The decision to go status quo had nothing to do with tolls.

It had literally everything to do with the then 1990's BC NDP gov't. Will never forget that crowd who bowed to the demands of every special interest group imaginable (folks with the loudest mouths v. the silent majority.) That's their M.O.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

So (assuming you're a regular commuter) you're perfectly happy to pay nearly $2000 a year more than you do today without any say in the matter?

Huh? Like the Port Mann Bridge toll? IIRC, ya have previously posted that tolls on bridges, etc. should be mandatory for transportation demand management in order to get folk off private vehicles and into transit. Your foregoing statement is quite the switch.

Tell ya what. Move to an area south of the Fraser, which will require that ya require utilize the GMT every day. Back and forth. Then tell me how ya feel. Livin' in inner Van City,as ya do, makin' your kind of statements reminds me of the ivory tower crowd - think they know better than anyone else... yet have no clue what they are talkin' about.

[ssiguy]

I think this is why so many people in the Valley voted against the transit tax...........they knew they were already going to get hammered on a newly tolled GMT and Pattula and decided they could afford anything more.

The Vancouverites don't seem to understand that for people in the Valley, it's not that they didn't want to pay a small tax but rather, they actually wanted to pay more. The transit tax didn't fail because it asked too much but rather that it asked too little.

If they would have changed the tax from 0.5% for the stated improvements to a full 1% tax that would have included the building of the GMT and Pat Bridge it probably would have past. They would have seen it as a way to share the pain of a tunnel and bridge that all people will benefit from but primarily people in the valley have to pay for.

My sister, brother, and I all said we would rather pay more of a tax and not have new GMT tolls. It's a great example of "go big or go home".

[ClaytonA]

Originally Posted by Pinion

That's some fine revisionist history. Which neighbourhood wants to pay a toll, given an option? A tolled bridge was unprecedented at the time, with the exception of both north shore bridges being tolled before. In 2000 it didn't even get to the option phase - we got what we didn't want. Vancouver proper won. The decision to go status quo had nothing to do with tolls.

I disagree-the North Shore mayors were on the evening news over and over, as you say, repeating that "a tolled bridge was unprecedented." Both District of NVan and City of NVan. The current plan's to cut trees down in Green Timbers...it would have got built in Stanley Park. Hardly that one-sided, respectfully the North Shore got what they most wanted, no tolls. Please read attached (summary pg 77 or 87 of 135 in pdf) http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/tape15/PQDD_0019/MQ37484.pdf

We probably both agree it was a weak provincial government and due to widespread unpopularity couldn't get social license for anything towards the end of their term, let alone a tolled Lions Gate.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

We probably both agree it was a weak provincial government and due to widespread unpopularity couldn't get social license for anything towards the end of their term, let alone a tolled Lions Gate.

Nope, it was about environmentalists, the north shore being a safe BC Liberal vote, and Vancouver proper having more sway. The viaducts situation today is similar - Vancouver proper shoving their anti-car, anti-infrastructure philosophy down everyone's throats, which pleases their non-driving base, but makes life more miserable for people that can't vote them out.

It didn't get to the point of being about tolls, although no doubt people would moan about that too.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Congrats! Dumbest comment in this thread. You've overdone yourself here. Ya spiel out stupid... I will always call ya on it.

Do you have a rebuttal or are you just making ad hominem attacks?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Absolutely nuthin' to do with BC MOTI, which is responsible for provincial highway system and has had a policy of tolling new highway projects for well over a decade.

Wut er you talkin' bout man? Da BC MOTI hasn't tolled one durn highway project yet. Only one new bridge has been a part a tha new tollin' system, and dats the PMB. The GEB was a Translink project, don't cha know?

You muss have not bin aroun' the last ten years when folks' of all areas was bitchin' about no tolls on tha Sea to Sky upgrades and tha new SFPR.

[makr3trkr]

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2015/12/GMT-Project-Definition-Report-Dec-2015.pdf


Google Streetview


Why would they replace the Highway 91 to 99 flyover and leave the Highway 91 overpass?

Both are the same age, have the same clearance over the roadway, and the same distance between the columns.

[makr3trkr]

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2015/12/GMT-Project-Definition-Report-Dec-2015.pdf

I'm curious what the ramp to Highway 17 will look like. It's more complex than it seems - it is a tight space with multiple ramps, access roads, and bike paths, all at differing heights and grades.

[makr3trkr]

The technical briefing states there will be 200km of roadway. That would seem to imply 3 general purpose lanes throughout:

GP | GP | GP | HOV | HOV | GP | GP | GP

MOT should restrict trucks to the right two lanes, as on 3 lane highways in Washington, but I'm not holding my breath.

http://patch.com/washington/enumclaw/ask...s-are-semi-trucks-allowed-to-u13a94dca48
"On the freeway, commercial vehicles cannot travel in the left lane when there are three or more lanes.
They are not required to be in the far right lane and can legally use the right two lanes.
Troopers do see semi trucks traveling in the left lane and we do pull them over."

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2015/12/GMT-Project-Definition-Report-Dec-2015.pdf

I'm curious what the ramp to Highway 17 will look like. It's more complex than it seems - it is a tight space with multiple ramps, access roads, and bike paths, all at differing heights and grades.

?

Just adding a single lane to the ramp at 17. The interchange is already in place at SFPR and HWY99. Right now though if you are headed southbound on HWY99 and take the exit you have only 2 choices, continue East to HWY17A (Ladner/River Road) or circle around and head South towards Tsawwassen.

All they are adding is a fork so instead of only being able to go South on SFPR to Tsawwassen you can actually fork right and head North on SFPR to Tilbury/back toward AFB & Surrey. The purpose is really for truck traffic southbound on HWY99 from the US border. Right now they have to exit onto HWY91 and head north through the lights at 72nd then get off at Nordel and circle back to get to Tilbury. This will help reduce traffic until they can replace the lights @ 72nd by giving trucks a quicker/straight route to Tilbury from the border.

Unfortunately there is still 1 missing direction and that's Southbound on SFPR to Northbound on HWY99. To do that you need to exit off SFPR south towards HWY17A interchange, then circle around it and head North again on HWY99. It is a bit of a dipsy-doodle.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It's all optics. There's one taxpayer and we pay for everything from the new bridge to bombing ISIS. This road expansion will squeeze other services, but we'll get hit with MSP increases instead of additional PST.

They talk about safety and seismic issues for the GMT, but haven't upgraded the vast majority of the schools in the province. The priorities are clear.

It's true. At the end they want construction to start because if the Liberals are out next election, if this thing is under construction it won't/can't be stopped due to contracts in place. Well not without the other government looking so bad and costing taxpayers even more money in legal fees and penalties.

Schools will get done, one day, eventually, maybe. But there will never be a new government (NDP/Conservative/Beer-party) that would say "Oh no we aren't going to upgrade brick schools" so no need to rush that.

While I disagree that it is ALL about optics, I agree optics play a large part in this project and why it is being fast-tracked. Let's face it, while it will definitely benefit the region and I don't think that can be argued, the Liberals will have an election to run in a few years and they want to stay in office.

[makr3trkr]

There is the Highway 17 offramp to the landfill, which is higher than the Burns Drive underpass from the landfill.

There is also the bike path, access road, existing intersection, and possible environmental issues.

If they decide they want to add a secondary access to the landfill from 99 NB, it gets even more interesting.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's more complex than it seems at first glance.

[idunno]

What confuses me somewhat is how we have a C/D system northbound heading towards the bridge, but renderings of a bridge without a C/D system.

I would hope that the new bridge is indeed a C/D system, especially with that '60% of cars heading northbound go to Richmond' statistic they keep throwing around.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

There is the Highway 17 offramp to the landfill, which is higher than the Burns Drive underpass from the landfill.

There is also the bike path, access road, existing intersection, and possible environmental issues.

If they decide they want to add a secondary access to the landfill from 99 NB, it gets even more interesting.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's more complex than it seems at first glance.

Correct. Without seeing plans I'd imagine the new ramp will need to be elevated.

[Bcasey25raptor]

How would a bridge of this scope impact BC's climate change targets? I thought the goal was to encourage transit use and not more Car trips. What exactly is the purpose of building a 10 lane bridge here?

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Congrats! Dumbest comment in this thread. You've overdone yourself here. Ya spiel out stupid... I will always call ya on it.

Can we get a suspension or a ban for this guy? He bays negativity and personal attacks.