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

[SFUVancouver]

It is with confidence that I can say that new road capacity spurs real estate development when the economy is growing and municipal support exists for that development to occur. It strikes me that is how development has always occurred, regardless of mode of transportation: improved accessibility increases the value and utility of the land that benefits from the transportation improvement and makes the land more attractive to development. We've seen the result of this with improved road and highway connectivity and level of service in areas like the Yorkson neighbourhood of the Township of Langley, which is absolutely booming in the years since the Port Mann and Highway 1 improvements were announced and compelted, and we see it in the station nodes of our SkyTrain system, as but two examples.

The expanded George Massey bridge capacity and supporting highway widening and interchange improvements will help congestion abate in the near- to mid-term, but that extra capacity and associated time savings will attract people to drive in peak periods who may otherwise have travelled at off-peak times. It will also encourage people to use the upgraded corridor who are otherwise using a less-congested alternative route, and entirely encourage new trips that weren't performed at all as people take jobs and commitments that they would otherwise have not taken due to the congestion and the travel time unpredictability it generates. Furthermore, some trips that were performed in a more road space-efficient fashion, such as car pooling and transit, will transition to less road space-efficient modes, namely single occupant vehicles. The 1% of vehicle trips that transit represents convey (depending on the MOT's changing numbers) between 26% and 17% of people who use the tunnel. If the perception (and reality) is that it is viable to drive, some number of these transit trips may convert to single occupancy vehicles, taking up exponentially greater physical road space. Finally, the perception (and reality) that the new bridge and upgrade highway make it viable and easy to travel along a perviously congested corridor, the value of land in the catchment area of the formerly congested corridor will increase, spur development, and add additional vehicles to the system.

With all that said, while we know that all of these noted steps will occur, we are really bad at modelling those decisions. Both the Golden Ears Bridge and Port Mann Bridge are well below estimates and the break-even number financial models appear to be broken since both bridges are piling on tens of millions of debt per year due to revenue shortfalls without making a dent in the principal. The traffic modelling that underpins the sizing of the facilities and business case versus other alternative configurations is an failure and the fear I have is that the same modelling approach was used for the sizing and business case versus other alternative configurations for the new George Massey Bridge and I expect that we will see revenue shortfalls for that bridge upon completion, further adding to the debt burden of our recent bridge building efforts. Demand may eventually reach the available capacity, but it's foolish to think that the by-then hundreds of millions of accumulated debt incurred by over-building was the best route to go; at the very least we need to adjust the business case methodology to factor in the true cost of over-building.

In light of all of this, I work right beside the George Massey Tunnel and I see daily how absurdly congested it is. It backs up into the business park where I work with people idling trying to get onto Number 5 to get onto Steveston Highway to get onto Highway 99. It's appalling and wasteful and transparently obvious that the current tunnel is inadequate for the transportation demands that now exist. What's frustrating to me is that the Ministry of Transportation has one tool in its tool chest, a hammer, and all problems look like nails as a result. I don't believe that there was any serious consideration for a replacement solution that relied heavily on new transit alongside a new bridge or tunnel, because that is not the MOT's responsibility. Translink is free to add service, but its efforts to plan for this are stymied by the Provincial government, and particularly the MOT. HOV/bus lanes and median bus stops are being included in the plan, which is as expected, but once again, like the Port Mann Bridge, we have a complex regional transportation problem of a congested bottleneck with multiple regional government stakeholders and the MOT is proceeding unilaterally and seemingly without due consideration for regional growth policy and transportation goals and the role of land use and transit in abating congestion. I think that the hugely disproportional investment of transportation dollars South of the Fraser into highway projects is having the effect of locking-in automobile dependency into the fabric of the region, particularly new development areas, and I think that is going to have long-term repercussions for the economic viability and livability of the region.

[WarrenC12]

Well said SFUVancouver. I would add 2 points:

1. Land use around areas of the GMT is constrained by the ALR. The development potential as it exists today will be much less than say, the PMB which wasn't surrounded by the same restrictive land.

2. The Patullo. It will need to be replaced next, and I'd argue it will be in a fairly critical state in 2022 when the new GMT opens. The last thing we need is 4 giant bridge projects all bleeding money.

[grid_master]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

I get it, this is skyscraper page and we're all a bit biased towards the pouring of large amounts of concrete. Mega project engineering is fascinating and all, but you owe it to your arguments to actually grapple with opponents views rather than simply dismiss them as 'nuts'.

The problem is that the vocal minority is BANANAs - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone. They are fed by a tiny little amount of viable criticism which should be part of a discourse, instead of outright rejection of improving our infrastructure networks,

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Here we are where regional planning is talking about reducing the number of cars on the road and implementing road pricing, and the province is wanting to spend ten figure sums contingent on a considerable increase in traffic, when they've never shown any signs of learning from their poor traffic modelling for the Port Mann.

If you just take it as a given that there needs to be more road space for more growth, in the same category that there needs to be more breathing oxygen for people to be alive, then sure, someone asking if we actually need more square meters of road might seem a little nuts.

But are we making the smartest use of our existing resources? The new bridge will be tolled, so is it nuts to ask that the present tunnel be tolled for demand management purposes instead? Even if that turns out to be insufficient, MOTI would have actual, real world data with which to model traffic on for the new bridge rather than the repeated traffic projecting failures of late.

There does need to be a region wide look at road pricing. It is a fair and balanced approach to dealing with costs of infrastructure. The one off tolling solutions aren't working because of the combined impacts it has on traffic modelling. You can't accurately model the impact of a toll on a single crossing, it's simply not possible. Because on one day, I may willingly pay to get home faster, on another, I may be willing to drive across the *shudder* Pattullo.

Anyway, overall, yes, a much needed project. Have they solved all the issues, no. Did they go about this the wrong pay politically, yes. Do they have more work to do to improve regional road networks, yes.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i am curious about the dedicated bus exit to Bridgeport station, how can they achieve this with the current Oak Street Bridge. there is no way that thing can handle that as-is.

but in the end, it is too soon to know the final plans as of now since this is still just the beginning of a long process. it will be interesting when some actual plans come out like for the Port Mann/Highway #1 upgrades.

the GMT needs to be replaced though, no doubt about that. i always preferred a new tunnel option myself, a bigger tunnel, but i can see why they went with a bridge.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i am curious about the dedicated bus exit to Bridgeport station, how can they achieve this with the current Oak Street Bridge. there is no way that thing can handle that as-is.

but in the end, it is too soon to know the final plans as of now since this is still just the beginning of a long process. it will be interesting when some actual plans come out like for the Port Mann/Highway #1 upgrades.

the GMT needs to be replaced though, no doubt about that. i always preferred a new tunnel option myself, a bigger tunnel, but i can see why they went with a bridge.

The ramp to and from Bridgeport station would start right before the Oak street bridge and then travel right underneath the bridge and connect to some at-grade roads that would turn into transit only.

I'm not sure exactly how this would work, but the ramp would be north of Bridgeport Road.

The steveston interchange is impressive - since the bridge starts rising up north of the interchange, they are going to convert it into a 3 layer stack and diverging diamond interchange.

[BCPhil]

I think the new Bridge, as designed today, will be GREAT for transit.

First, all the infrastructure improvements. The new HOV lanes, and dedicated exits, and integrated bus stops will result in wait free, consistent transit trips. There is nothing worse than being on a bus stuck in traffic; it's a hundred times worse than being stuck in your car in traffic. At least in your car you have options. The increased constancy and shorter trip, will attract a lot of drivers.

And why complain about MOT funding of buses? Translink sends a lot of buses through the tunnel. With fewer delays, they can schedule their fleet more optimally and make more trips in a day with the same number of buses and drivers.

Second, a more congested Oak Street bridge is good news for transit. Think of all those people in Richmond, who have great access to rapid transit already, that are driving into Vancouver (over the Oak Street Bridge) where their destinations are well served by transit, who drive.

Many of the people who are driving through the tunnel are doing so because they originate in places poorly served by transit and/or going to places in Richmond poorly served by transit. I would much rather help those people out (and in the process charge them for making their lives better) and help the movement of goods than worry about the people of Richmond who have the Canada Line on their doorstep.

The residents of Richmond can easily switch to rapid transit after the bridge is built, but it is difficult for residents south of the current tunnel to do anything if nothing is done.

An upgraded Oak Street bridge would be great. But as is, the positives far outweigh the negatives of building the bridge. Complaining about increased traffic at the Oak Street Bridge causing trouble for people who live close to the Canada Line seems ridiculous.

[officedweller]

Given the high water table and the need to maintain the existing elevation of the Oak St. Bridge approach, I figure it'll be a flyover (over the onramp).
The question is whether it'll also flyover Bridgeport Road, or introduce a traffic light to cross Bridgeport.
PS - the dashed line in the diagram below indicates a road under the bridge.

Originally Posted by officedweller

The good stuff is in the Technical Presentation.

Go to the Document Library:
http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/documentlibrary/

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/fil...2-16_Technical-Briefing-Presentation.pdf

The following slides are from the Technical Presentation document.

Note Bridgeport transit ramp from HOV to a new(?) road under the Oak St. Bridge
- Like the Government Road ramp (but could be elevated).

[BCPhil]

Here is why the bridge needs 10 lanes:

Today, at peak times, the tunnel is 3 lanes peak direction. And look at the trouble is causes. Adding 1 lane, to make it an 8 lane crossing seems fine, until you realize that the bridge will have an approach similar (or worse) than the AFB. Trucks (and many regular cars) have trouble climbing the AFB. Many barely hit 60km/h by the time they get to the top.

So really, an 8 lane bridge has a lane neutralized by climbing trucks, so we are back to 3 effective lanes peak direction. Why spend the billions for so little of an effective upgrade?

Put on an HOV lane, and now you only have 2 effective lanes for general traffic.

A 10 lane bridge gives you 1 HOV lane, 1 truck climbing lane, and 3 general traffic lanes. A much better situation that can actually reduce peak hour congestion.

You could do a counterflow system on a smaller bridge, but there are problems with counterflow. They are a bit tricky to set up. They need extra infrastructure that costs money and extra maintenence. And I think they are unsafe. How many accidents are caused in the GMT or LGB counterflow situations. It often results in weaker (or no) barriers between oncoming traffic.

The bridge is also subject to surges in use counter to the peak because of the ferry terminal. It would be nice to have as many lanes open as possible when a surge of 300 cars hit the crossing.

[SFUVancouver]

^ Officedweller, that transit bypass beneath the Oak Street Bridge will be a fantastic improvement. I had missed that in my perusing of the documents a while back.

BCPhil, I don't disagree regarding direct benefit to transit. The proposed improvements will be a tremendous enhancement to the corridor and help improve levels of service for existing routes. Your point about the challenge of climbing is well taken, though I wonder what the cost differential would have been between a 8 lane tunnel versus a 10 lane high-level bridge with significant approaches. I freely acknowledge that I'm playing Monday Morning Quarterback, but with the last two bridges being 0/2 for meeting usage and revenue forecasts (and falling well below), I have healthy skepticism that the MOT has chosen a configuration that is appropriate from both a capacity and cost perspective.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

^ Officedweller, that transit bypass beneath the Oak Street Bridge will be a fantastic improvement. I had missed that in my perusing of the documents a while back.

BCPhil, I don't disagree regarding direct benefit to transit. The proposed improvements will be a tremendous enhancement to the corridor and help improve levels of service for existing routes. Your point about the challenge of climbing is well taken, though I wonder what the cost differential would have been between a 8 lane tunnel versus a 10 lane high-level bridge with significant approaches. I freely acknowledge that I'm playing Monday Morning Quarterback, but with the last two bridges being 0/2 for meeting usage and revenue forecasts (and falling well below), I have healthy skepticism that the MOT has chosen a configuration that is appropriate from both a capacity and cost perspective.

It's funny how we live in a world where when we build something and it is not a congested mess from the first day, it's a failure. Oh wait, if it's an overused mess, it's a failure too (like an "underbuilt" Canada Line).

Where exactly is the Goldilocks zone here? What does constitute a success?

Golden Ears is a new crossing where there was no crossing before. The fact that it offers more mobility and travel options than the ferry (and is more used) constitutes a success for me. Would it have been a success if we just built a 2 lane bridge instead? What happens when it does get busier?

The Port Mann Bridge needed replacing. There were already 3 lanes outbound. Would doing all that work to just add 1 lane be worth it? Making it 10 lanes allows it to function as 2 separate bridges in the same location. And it works great. The traffic difference is like night and day.

Is that how we measure success, by building something that comes congested? It's a problem because it is not a problem on day 1.

I think the only thing throwing off projections is an underestimation in how fucking cheap people in BC are and to what extents we will go to dodge a toll. Once tolls are added to the PB and GMT, travel across the Fraser will balance out and projections will be more in line. If we had built out infrastructure smaller with our cheapness in mind, one day we would live to regret that. Our population continues to increase, our economy is one of the best in the country, and people will continue to get used to paying tolls.

Bridge traffic is already increasing.

When the PB was closed on weekends in August 2014, traffic spiked on the PMB. The total traffic difference for a month just from a few days is astonishing. How much of that spike was people using the bridge they should be using? Just wait until the repairs on the PB bridge start. The PMB will be a Godsend.

[GlassCity]

By the way, there will be open houses at the SANDMAN HOTEL IN RICHMOND ON TUESDAY THE 26 and at the DELTA COUNTRY INN (Highway 17A and 99 interchange) ON WEDNESDAY THE 27! in case any of you want to go.

A few thoughts

South Delta may be built out in regards to the ALR, but South Surrey still has A LOT of available land to build on, and it will be developed very quickly once this bridge is finished.

I share SFUVancouver's worry about transit usage. Believe it or not, transit is extremely convenient to take from south of the river. Both South Delta and South Surrey have express buses that travel exclusively by highway immediately after leaving large park-and-rides. Even with a toll, I can see a lot of people going back to driving, as it won't be twice as slow as buses like it is now.

So I go back and forth on 4 vs 5 lanes, and ultimately it doesn't matter since the decision's been made already. But overall I question what's happening with the Port Mann Bridge right now, for example, where we're constantly being reassured that traffic will pick up any day now. Is that really what we want? Why are we actively hoping for increased car usage? I just really don't want to see us lose our disproportionately high transit mode share. That being said, the transit improvements are going to be huge, though I do wish they had exclusive bus lanes for longer.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

with the last two bridges being 0/2 for meeting usage and revenue forecasts (and falling well below), I have healthy skepticism that the MOT has chosen a configuration that is appropriate from both a capacity and cost perspective.

(More thoughts)

Sure, when you look at just the last 2 bridges, we are 0/2... at being 100% correct.

But I don't think you can look at it that binary. 0/2 makes them sound like utter failures and disasters. It's a great way of coloring the situation to match a certain perspective.

I think the outlook changes drastically if you were to give each bridge a grade out of 100 and add them together.

I think x + y / 200 would result in a passing grade.

For example, the PMB was hitting 112,000 vehicles/day this summer. In 2011 it was seeing 110,000 vehicles/day. In that regard it is up (it WAS down for a long time but is seeing a surge recently). Almost every month in 2015 is up over the 2013 pre toll month.

So really, what would you grade it? It's cut traffic, reduced congestion on local roads at either end of the bridge, decreased travel times, introduced reliable (and heavily used) transit. When you look at it at out of 100, what would you give it? But I guess it's just not exactly right. It's either too big, or too soft, or too hot or too cold. So zero?

The GEB has half the traffic they were wanting, but the 10 million annual trips it does have exceeds the 1.5 million trips made on the previous ferries (with zero delays or wait times). Both sides are also connected by reliable transit service too for the first time ever.

Taxpayers are covering the shortfall, but that is an overly dramatic way to look at it. Before these 2 bridges, taxpayers covered 100% of the cost of every bridge. I don't expect transit users to cover 100% the cost of transit infrastructure. If users are actually able to cover 50% of the bridge cost (as is the case on the GEB) then that is a drastic change from how it used to be (at 0%). So again, what grade would you give the GEB.

And this binary way of looking at things gets even more absurd when you look beyond just the last 2 bridge (a rather small window for a city filled with bridges).

Before that we had the Alex Fraser bridge. I guess I would give that a 0/1 too, because it is an utter disaster of being too used.

And what about others? Second Narrows: 0/1; GMT: 0/1; Oak Street: 0/1; Pattullo: 0/1; Knight Street: 0/1; Lions Gate: 0/1.....

And you would probably see the Granville and Cambie bridges as being over built, so more 0/1.

Jeez, can't we do anything right?

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I think the only thing throwing off projections is an underestimation in how fucking cheap people in BC are and to what extents we will go to dodge a toll. Once tolls are added to the PB and GMT, travel across the Fraser will balance out and projections will be more in line. If we had built out infrastructure smaller with our cheapness in mind, one day we would live to regret that. Our population continues to increase, our economy is one of the best in the country, and people will continue to get used to paying tolls.

Bridge traffic is already increasing.

Haha. Bingo! This thread seems to be invaded by the usual suspects every so oft turning it into something political. These guys seem to live on another planet.

[Stingray2004]

As an after thought... the BC Rail overhead (to Roberts Bank) can only permit a 3 + 3 lane configuration between the piers (without much shoulder - if any). Have not heard any mention of a possible replacement - if the 4 + 4 lane configuration is extended all of the way south to Hwy 91 as suggested.

BTW, I notice that the existing piers of the BC Rail overhead are also being reinforced with tubular steel upwards of almost their half their height. Don't know the reasons behind same.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Haha. Bingo! This thread seems to be invaded by the usual suspects every so oft turning it into something political. These guys seem to live on another planet.

What would it take for a government run infrastructure project to not be 'political', prey tell?

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

By the way, there will be open houses at the SANDMAN HOTEL IN RICHMOND ON TUESDAY THE 26 and at the DELTA COUNTRY INN (Highway 17A and 99 interchange) ON WEDNESDAY THE 27! in case any of you want to go.

A few thoughts

South Delta may be built out in regards to the ALR, but South Surrey still has A LOT of available land to build on, and it will be developed very quickly once this bridge is finished.

I share SFUVancouver's worry about transit usage. Believe it or not, transit is extremely convenient to take from south of the river. Both South Delta and South Surrey have express buses that travel exclusively by highway immediately after leaving large park-and-rides. Even with a toll, I can see a lot of people going back to driving, as it won't be twice as slow as buses like it is now.

So I go back and forth on 4 vs 5 lanes, and ultimately it doesn't matter since the decision's been made already. But overall I question what's happening with the Port Mann Bridge right now, for example, where we're constantly being reassured that traffic will pick up any day now. Is that really what we want? Why are we actively hoping for increased car usage? I just really don't want to see us lose our disproportionately high transit mode share. That being said, the transit improvements are going to be huge, though I do wish they had exclusive bus lanes for longer.

I think you are looking at it wrong. Usage is down on the Port Mann bridge, but not because car usage is down. Usage on the PMB will increase as more drivers get accustomed to paying money to save time. They have diverted en mass to the Pattullo and AFB. It's not like people just quit their job because there is a toll and stopped driving. When tolls are put on the Pattullo you'll see PMB volumes get back to where they expect them.

As well, every new resident SoF isn't going to automatically be a transit user. Even if we are optimistic, and say 25% of new residents that move SOF who work NOF take transit, that still means 75% are going to drive across the river. There will be a natural growth of bridge users as the population grows.

And I don't think Transit usage is that simple to break down. The new PMB is tolled and fast to use. Yet, the brand new 555 service is incredibly busy. And I bet you there are people who use the 555 now who used to drive over the slow PMB. Why? Because the service is more reliable and frequent? Easier to use than making transfers in Surrey Central? Because it's cheaper?

I don't think you can just say time is the only reason people chose transit. Even with current traffic, driving downtown from South Surrey takes just as much time as the bus.

For every person you might lose because now driving is that much faster, you will gain more who feel transit is now more affordable and more convenient for them.

And like I said, the new Bridge will help people commuting to the office parks in Richmond (which are horribly served by transit, especially if you are coming in from outside Richmond), but people going all the way to downtown Vancouver will probably face only a slight time savings because of the Oak Street Bridge. So Transit will still be a comparable time saver (if it is already for you).

[GlassCity]

I don't know what will happen to transit, all I said was that I had concerns, and I don't think they're unreasonable. I think it's safe to say most people would still prefer to drive than bus, so if transit doesn't provide them with the time saving they require, there's a change they'll stop taking it. Anything could happen; people's modal choices are very complicated and vary wildly depending on circumstance. But the possibility for decline is there.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

It's funny how we live in a world where when we build something and it is not a congested mess from the first day, it's a failure.

The "failure" isn't because they're not congested, it's because they're not generating enough revenue to cover the interest on the money used to build them. And because the numbers are so far out it casts doubt on the credibility of the projections used for future projects.

I think the only thing throwing off projections is an underestimation in how fucking cheap people in BC are and to what extents we will go to dodge a toll.

There's a litany of similar project results around the globe - introducing new tolls when toll-free alternatives are available drives down traffic volumes. It's not rocket science.

[Metro-One]

Actually some good debating on here this time that hasnt become too polarized.

I must say good points on both sides and there is a true debate to be had between needing 10 lanes (I personally think that 8 lanes is enough).

Also, I feel many people need to look into the transit aspects of this project more before hating on it (As seen on this page one of our own members completely missed one of my favorite aspects, the transit only ramps and path to Bridgeport Station).

Having proper centre HOV lanes, bus only ramps at the northern end, and hopefully true rapid bus centre median bus stations on both sides of the bridge is a hug transit win IMO.

Again, LRT south of downtown Richmond makes no sense for many reasons already stated (massive gaps in population due to ALR being the biggest).

Also, no new greenfield interchanges have been proposed along the route, so I am not worried about a loss of ALR / ALR being taken out and developed as malls. This highway will connect the same important destinations where there are still plenty of brownfield site to build on / densify.

In the end, the tunnel needs to be replaced fro many reasons (age, earthquake threat, port traffic, can add HOV / Rapid Bus, currently no pedestrian / cycling access, etc..). Building an LRT is not a practical solution (and doing so would only address a couple of the many reasons needed for replacement), and I really hope people stop bringing it up.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

And this binary way of looking at things gets even more absurd when you look beyond just the last 2 bridge (a rather small window for a city filled with bridges).

That's probably true if you look at individual bridges. When you look at the system as a whole, they're failures. The Port Mann Bridge was supposed to reduce congestion, and it's done so on the Port Mann Bridge, but it's pushed that congestion out to the Pattullo and Alex Fraser Bridges because of the lack of a system-wide look at how tolling affects the entire system.

The congestion bubble is just going to get pushed towards the middle again when the GMT gets replaced with a tolled bridge. By single-crossing congestion standards it'll be a success, but it'll be a failure for the system as a whole.