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

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by 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?

Less congestion = less emissions

Also, this route is for moving goods as much as (or more) than it is for moving people in private vehicles.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Less congestion = less emissions

Also, this route is for moving goods as much as (or more) than it is for moving people in private vehicles.

Yeah, less congestion, until you hit another bottleneck, like say...Knight St or Oak St. A lot of these projections seem way off, most traffic I see does indeed head into Vancouver.

Plus we are once again tolling a new structure without doing anything to reduce traffic on the other "free alternative." I hear the rhetoric about how this will greatly help those that value time over money but come on...The Port Mann continues to be open and free and while you see bottlenecking along the approaches to the Patullo. There's been a significant increase in congestion along Cariboo Rd/Canada Way too.

I imagine a lot of folks headed to Richmond/South Van from South Surrey and Delta will opt take take HWY 91 despite the probable increase in traffic. Ditto for those heading to Burnaby/New West/Coquitlam from Ladner/Tsawwassen via the SFPR.

I'm totally for this bridge, make no mistake, but this government continues to overestimate projection and demand. There is the demand, but would this demand still be same if the current structure was tolled? Can we introduce flex tolling for this crossing? Something that should have been done with the PMB to offer an incentive to take that crossing during off-peak periods. Can we poll commuters to see if they would take this crossing at $4 per trip (estimate) or consider an alternative route which would add 20-30 min to their commute?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by 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?

It depends how they plan to implement the targets. New infrastructure like this should mandate some form of emission-free transportation, like electric rail, or at a minimum trolley bus infrastructure (although I have no idea if that can operate at highway speeds).

At the end of the day we'll always need bridges and roads for cars, and they will eventually have electric drivetrains, whether from battery or hydrogen in the long term.

Originally Posted by logicbomb

I'm totally for this bridge, make no mistake, but this government continues to overestimate projection and demand. There is the demand, but would this demand still be same if the current structure was tolled? Can we introduce flex tolling for this crossing? Something that should have been done with the PMB to offer an incentive to take that crossing during off-peak periods. Can we poll commuters to see if they would take this crossing at $4 per trip (estimate) or consider an alternative route which would add 20-30 min to their commute?

Yes, to me the main problem here is huge investments in traditional car infrastructure, and nothing for public transit.

[GMasterAres]

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?

He'll save that in gas, maintenance, and time easy. And it is actually $1500. The majority of people with 2 weeks vacation a year work 250 days a year. That works out to +$125 per month for people.

Trust me, the time savings and gas savings alone will offset that $125 a month. The people most effected are those that, as has been pointed out, simply go from Ladner to say Richmond. It's the same for people taking transit from Bridgeport to Vancouver. They need to pay 1 full extra zone each way on SkyTrain just to go 1 more station. Unfortunately some people will lose. But overall, the toll will not actually hit people in the pocket book as much as they make it out to be.

It's the same deal as the PMB. For commuters in regular cars the toll is more than worth the time, gas, and maintenance savings. It hits the pocket book of commercial drivers more than any of us.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jhausner

He'll save that in gas, maintenance, and time easy. And it is actually $1500. The majority of people with 2 weeks vacation a year work 250 days a year. That works out to +$125 per month for people.

All of the tolls we have today make sense from a logical financial perspective, but many people don't seem to operate on that type of logic.

Same goes for cross-border gas shopping. I've spoken to many people who go to Blaine for gas and live North of the Fraser. No way that makes economic sense.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It depends how they plan to implement the targets. New infrastructure like this should mandate some form of emission-free transportation, like electric rail, or at a minimum trolley bus infrastructure (although I have no idea if that can operate at highway speeds).

At the end of the day we'll always need bridges and roads for cars, and they will eventually have electric drivetrains, whether from battery or hydrogen in the long term.

That and simply removing idling cars goes a long way toward reducing emissions. If you shave 30 minutes per day worth of cars driving on the road every day, it has an impact.

Cars and trucks sitting in traffic get 0 mpg and right now in rush hour often a 5 minute drive through the tunnel (with no traffic) becomes 20-30 minutes most nights.

That said, targets are just that, targets. If they miss them I'm sure the government would just say "woops sorry" anyway.

Yes, to me the main problem here is huge investments in traditional car infrastructure, and nothing for public transit.

HOV and Bus Lanes. They can run rapid bus after this is complete from Bridgeport to South Surrey which would make it a more viable commuting option for many. I think we're a ways away from LRT of any kind down HWY99 but it does have transit impact.

The exit ramp with direct access at Bridgeport to the station alone will drop 15 minutes from every bus journey. Right now buses get off at Bridge Port and get stuck in general traffic trying to head down towards Costco. If anyone has driven that enough they know the road is terrible and sometimes it can take 25 minutes just to go 4 blocks. The new exits will connect the highway for buses directly to Skytrain (1) removing buses from general traffic and (2) guaranteeing access.

So there is actually transit investment here.

People need to remember HWY99 is the region's major connection to our largest Ferry terminal and the Canada/US border. You'll never get rid of it and you can't ignore it or just add trains down it. Someone coming from California ain't getting on a bus nor are most people on a BC ferry coming over from Victoria.

Nor can you put containers on a bus. Again we always seem to get into this circular argument of it should be either roads or transit. The two aren't mutually exclusive and I only hear people from the "big city" ever make that argument.

Like you can only have 1 but not the other. $3.5 billion for a massive bridge and highway improvements/new interchanges. $6 billion for improved transit in the form of Broadway subway, Surrey extension, and rapid buses. Seems like we're investing in transit plenty fine.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

All of the tolls we have today make sense from a logical financial perspective, but many people don't seem to operate on that type of logic.

Same goes for cross-border gas shopping. I've spoken to many people who go to Blaine for gas and live North of the Fraser. No way that makes economic sense.

Lol. Knew one person that drove all the way from West Vancouver to Blaine to fill up every week. I was like

Even if they ultimately saved $10 a month, the time alone wasted... Unfortunately people don't seem to put a price tag on their time. Everyone is all on about "OMG SO BUSY NO TIME TO DO ANYTHING" so they harp about it every day pointing out how busy they are all the time, yet you see people do things like this and I go "Well no wonder you're always busy, you waste a lot of time."

I'd gladly pay $6 a day to have 30 more minutes every day with my wife and daughter. Gladly. Would pay $10.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Like you can only have 1 but not the other. $3.5 billion for a massive bridge and highway improvements/new interchanges. $6 billion for improved transit in the form of Broadway subway, Surrey extension, and rapid buses. Seems like we're investing in transit plenty fine.

If that was a $9.5B funding announcement yesterday I'd agree with you. As it stands, we're getting a bridge, with HOV lanes that aren't even necessary, since it's 10 lanes wide and won't be full in this century.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by jhausner

$6 billion for improved transit in the form of Broadway subway, Surrey extension, and rapid buses. Seems like we're investing in transit plenty fine.

This has not been announced, so you can't compare it to a project that has and said that transit is being funded.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If that was a $9.5B funding announcement yesterday I'd agree with you. As it stands, we're getting a bridge, with HOV lanes that aren't even necessary, since it's 10 lanes wide and won't be full in this century.

I dunno, I don't buy the isn't necessary. People point to the 80,000 car cap at the tunnel as if that is the maximum capacity so there aren't more cars/trucks. The truth is the 80,000 is the maximum capacity of the Tunnel per day given commuting habits. It can't have more. So it peaked a long time ago but I'm pretty sure the demand is higher than that. You'll likely see after the bridge is complete the numbers jump up.

Quickly? No will be like the PMB when every toll-bypassing idiot goes and parks on the Alex Fraser Bridge for 2 hours a day just to avoid $3. But after 3-5 years I'd but money down you'll see crossing numbers jump up above 100,000 easy.

As for the 5 lanes, we're all entitled to our opinions. They did investigate an 8 lane option and as stated in the review, felt that the cost-benefit-analysis resulted in 10 lanes being more economical. You have to weight future proofing a bridge since you can't just magically widen it like a highway.

Bridges are bottle necks. Eventually HWY99 SoF will likely need to be widened to the same width as HWY 1 (3 general traffic + 1 HOV). An 8 lane bridge would then become a bottle neck again, so they are going 10. Without seeing the costs I doubt it was a huge amount more. $250 million maybe if that? That's peanuts.

Even an 8 lane bridge would be north of $3 billion because it has to be so high and so long given the Fraser River's width at shipping requirements. The Fraser at the point of the tunnel is nearly double the width of the Fraser at the AFB.

Finally think about the logistics of 10 lanes and to me it just makes absolute sense.

1 x HOV lane - This is definitely needed as it serves as a Bus lane. Encourages HOV traffic to reduce cars overall and allows transit (BUS/LRT/Whatever) to be predictable and more attractive for riders.

No brainer.

3 x general traffic lanes. So here I think we can agree because the options were 8 lane bridge or 10 lane bridge.

No brainer.

So the debate is that last lane and is it justified. I think it is. Why?

1) Right now through the tunnel in rush hour we have 3 lanes of general traffic. Yet it backs up for 2-3 KM+ every day. Why is that?

2) That is because this is a major transportation corridor and you have a lot of trucks. The tunnel is a reverse bridge meaning it goes down then up vs up then down from a truck-climbing perspective.

3) So with 3 general lanes you in effect lose 1 lane to trucks lined up crawling up the incline.

Therefor, other than the HOV, a $3 billion 8-lane bridge would not really improve HWY99 at all.

Instead with a 4th "climbing" lane for trucks, you get 3 full flowing general traffic lanes and the trucks climbing up slowly are in the 4th lane not impeding anyone.

Just makes sense to me.

But anyway you and others are entitled to your opinions and thoughts. I just happen to think for me it makes perfect sense and is a no-brainer.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

This has not been announced, so you can't compare it to a project that has and said that transit is being funded.

I can't so I don't. But you guys do.

You're making my point that you seem to tie the two hand and hand.

1) Road infrastructure gets announced but no specific transit (Tunnel replacement)...
"WAHHH WHY NO TRANSIT BOOO!!!?!?!"

2) Road infrastructure gets announced and transit (Gateway)
"WAHHH TOO MUCH ON ROADS MORE MONEY SHOULD GO TO TRANSIT!!!"

3) Transit infrastructure gets announced but no road infrastructure (Evergreen)...
<silence>

It's just always predictable. Some people regardless of what they say want 100% of all tax money to go only to transit because that's what they use. Quite frankly you hear the same arguments when it comes to our Medical System and Education Systems. You announce any non-transit/medical/education funding and there are a slew of people saying "WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS? SICK PEOPLE? ENVIRONMENT?" People don't realize there's other crap we need to pay for outside of healthcare, education, and transit.

I just happen to look at this project as it is exclusively with respect to its benefits to the regions. I'm sure we'll get transit investment, we've had far more transit investment in the region in the last 20 years than road investment.

Far more. Add it all up trust me transit $$$s > road $$$s.

So I don't need an "official" announcement to know fairly certainly Broadway will get its funding and be built, and SkyTrain will be extended out to Langley and get its funding, in addition to other options. Will it be next year? Probably not, but it will happen.

If you do though, well good on you, continue to be upset I guess.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I can't so I don't. But you guys do.

Wait, what? You said:

$6 billion for improved transit in the form of Broadway subway, Surrey extension, and rapid buses. Seems like we're investing in transit plenty fine.

Except there is no $6 billion for the Broadway subway, Surrey extension, and rapid buses. So I don't understand how you can pull a number out of thin air and say that "we're investing in transit plenty fine".

It's the same as me saying "$1.5 billion for a new Pattullo Bridge. Seems like we're investing in roads plenty fine."

Also, I'd love to see your stats supporting this:

I'm sure we'll get transit investment, we've had far more transit investment in the region in the last 20 years than road investment.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

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

...

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.

The only reason I can think of is to make the flyover 2 lanes wide in anticipation of more traffic diverting away from Alex Fraser Bridge and to George Massey Bridge.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by jhausner

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.

I actually will be surprised if much construction, if any, has commenced by the May, 2017 BC election. Remember that the entire project requires environment assessment under the BCEAO and that will take well over one to 1 1/2 years based upon the PMB environment assessment period.

That said, the project mainly encompasses ridings with essentially centre-right demographics (4 in Richmond, Delta South, and 3 in South Surrey/WR, which are safe Liberal seats. (aside from Delta South, which will def re-elect Vicki Huntington who is basically a red tory). Not many votes for the BC Libs to mop up thereto with this project, politically speaking.

Same could be said of the PMB project - essentially the same riding outcomes along the corridor in 2013 as in 2009. A caveat however. If the official opposition decides that it will cancel the project if elected in May, 2017... then that issue would turn into a much broader provincial political narrative during the campaign itself.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

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

Haha! UN-REAL. Now THAT is definitely the dumbest comment that I have ever read in my entire 12 years on this site. Flakes supporting flakes. Not ad hominem - just reality.

We have an identifiable group on this site that resides in inner City Vancouver proper who are both pro-transit/anti-highway upgrades religious zealots. And that def includes yourself.

The same group of individuals that always either "trolls" highway projects, such as the PMB/GMB, or "concern trolls" in order to disrupt same. Many other posters here, over the years, have also commented about the same religious zealots akin to yourself disrupting threads.

Go post your same stuff on the BC Highway thread, or the Calgary Stoney Trail thread, or the Canada Highways thread, etc. etc.. You will receive the same response by others.

Again, if ya are gonna continue to troll this thread (or concern troll) I will always call ya out on same. Period.

I'm here to discuss the technical and design aspects as well as the economic aspects of the GMB project. Unlike yourself.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Eventually HWY99 SoF will likely need to be widened to the same width as HWY 1 (3 general traffic + 1 HOV).

That is what is happening as far as I can tell.

The technical briefing states 200km of roadway.

~24km project length x 8 lanes = ~200km.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

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.

My beef is with the one-sided priorities and double standards being practiced by the provincial government. One one hand you have several massive highways projects being parachuted from on high with no public consultation and significant new user costs, and on the other hand we can't get any funding for transit without subjecting it to a referendum because, heaven forbid, we wouldn't want to impose new costs on people.

And now the Provincial government has said that the Massey Tunnel replacement is their top priority for Federal infrastructure funding. Where the heck did that come from? They were perfectly fine announcing and planning the project before the Feds came along, so presumably they had a plan for funding it. Meanwhile transit on the Broadway corridor, which serves more people per day than the tunnel, is just as congested and is completely stalled for lack of funding.

You can't solve congestion just by building roads. You'll just end up with even more car-oriented development which increases the number of car-dependent families which then inevitably creates more congestion. You need a balanced approach which includes user fees for road usage and reasonable transit alternatives for those who don't want to or can't pay those fees.

[SOSS]

^ those are my sentiments. I think the critics have it right.

Massey Tunnel replacement bridge to encourage urban sprawl, say critics

Critics of the province's plan to replace the Massey Tunnel with a 10-lane bridge say it goes against the region's half century-old fight against urban sprawl.

Politicians in the Lower Mainland have voiced their concerns about the $3.5 billion bridge, after the B.C. government announced the project Wednesday, citing tolls and traffic congestion.Urban planners are now joining the chorus of criticism.

"Ever since we turned our back to freeways in the late 1960s, we're not trying to build our way out of congestion," said Ken Cameron, former manager of policy and planning at Metro Vancouver.

"Putting in a big new facility like this runs directly counter to all of those objectives [of] the city of Vancouver, the city of Richmond and the other municipalities."

'Sooner or later you're right back where you started from'

Transportation minister Todd Stone said Wednesday the new bridge will cut more than one million hours of idling time from vehicles. But Cameron says projects that encourage car-use, like the Massey Tunnel replacement bridge, don't help congestion in the long-run.

"Inevitably, history tells us, over time … new roads go up , with new traffic, and more congestion, and sooner or later you're right back where you started from."

Looking at the region's transportation system as a whole is key to reducing congestion, said Cameron. That means investing in public transportation as well as road infrastructure.

"It really is something that needs to be look at in its totality. The whole road system in the region and its transit system need to be looked at and planned for together rather than looking at particular facilities and improving one at a time."

Medieval technology

Cameron has one more criticism of the province's bridge plan:

"Tolling is literally a medieval technology," he said.

Toll prices have not been set but the final price will depend on a number of factors, including funding from the federal government, Port Metro Vancouver, and the final construction contracts, all of which have yet to be negotiated.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

My beef is with the one-sided priorities and double standards being practiced by the provincial government. One one hand you have several massive highways projects being parachuted from on high with no public consultation and significant new user costs, and on the other hand we can't get any funding for transit without subjecting it to a referendum because, heaven forbid, we wouldn't want to impose new costs on people.

And now the Provincial government has said that the Massey Tunnel replacement is their top priority for Federal infrastructure funding. Where the heck did that come from? They were perfectly fine announcing and planning the project before the Feds came along, so presumably they had a plan for funding it. Meanwhile transit on the Broadway corridor, which serves more people per day than the tunnel, is just as congested and is completely stalled for lack of funding.

You can't solve congestion just by building roads. You'll just end up with even more car-oriented development which increases the number of car-dependent families which then inevitably creates more congestion. You need a balanced approach which includes user fees for road usage and reasonable transit alternatives for those who don't want to or can't pay those fees.

See, I agree with this.

100% I wish the liberals would also be more pro-active towards Transit in the province, but I also support these highway expansions as well (especially since they will be coming with decent transit facilities as well, especially if the two transit stations are true I-5 median bus facilities).

So just because they are lackluster in regards to skytrain expansion, I don't want them to also do nothing with our roads and bridges as well.

I am thinking of writing a letter to the BC liberals soon urging them to do more for the Broadway Line and Expo extension to Langley (Surrey LRT can fend for itself), but also displaying my satisfaction towards this project.

That being said, I can see how things under Translink's jurisdiction does become tricky, and maybe a nice compromise should be made (how about 40% federal, 40% provincial, and only 20% local / Translink? Instead of our current 1/3 approach). As others have pointed out Transits deadlock is not only the fault of the province, but also the cities, seeing how many have proposed good case arguments to use property taxes.

If the province just liked building roads just for he sake of building roads then they would have also taken over the new Patullo project, but the road / bridge is part of Translink, hence it too is still in a stalemate.

And honestly, given how much of the land south of the Fraser is in ALR reserves and the region the 99 serves, there really wont be too much sprawl spawned from this project. Very little greenfields will be lost. So that argument is a little lazy.

Also I love how the anti-highway people will claim both ways as a road failure. Not meeting predictions (GEB / PMB) "See, we don't need new roads!" Goes over predictions, "See, new roads will just be filled up with more cars!"

Thing is, the demand for this expansion has already been there for decades, urban areas throughout the world do build new highways, even in the greenest most bike friendly cities.

This is why I have never cared to listen to highway critics in Vancouver, because unlike other regions where critics in general have valid points (and are not against all forms of highway / bridge expansion) the people in Vancouver are 100% against any highway without compromise. So they lose all credibility with me.

[Stingray2004]

A long-time professional engineer with Washington State DOT, with whom I have had discourse with over the years, has had specialization and particular interests involving challenging interchange design to optimize efficiency and safety.

His take on the proposed Steveston Hwy interchange design:

Wow! If I understand correctly, Steveston interchange is a diverging diamond with grade-separated crossovers? Very innovative!

Thought that was an interesting take!