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

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Jebby

They should build an additional bridge linking No 5 Road with Fraser with no on/off ramps to Mitchell Island. It can't be that expensive if they build a simple 4-lane box girder bridge like the Canada Line bridge. Put a $1 per crossing toll on it along with the Oak Street Bridge.

Don't forget Knight St.

I'm all for tolling all Fraser River and Burrard Inlet bridges at $1 each for existing, and some set rate (say 2x or 2.5x) for new construction over the same areas.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Don't forget Knight St.

I'm all for tolling all Fraser River and Burrard Inlet bridges at $1 each for existing, and some set rate (say 2x or 2.5x) for new construction over the same areas.

Yeah Knight St as well.

A system with a $1 base toll and then some sort of "surge change" mechanism similar to Uber would be interesting. Charge extra during rush hour depending on how much demand there is for a particular crossing, with the aim of evening out the amount of traffic on each bridge.

We're probably another 10 or so years out from this being feasible, but it would be an interesting concept. In 10 years pretty much every car will have internet connectivity and that information could be fed to the driver through their navigation app. Drivers could set a maximum they'll pay to cross a toll bridge (or no maximum at all) and their navigation system would route them to the correct bridge.

It could be something like this for someone in Richmond wanting to go into Vancouver:

1) Arthur Laing Bridge -> Light traffic -> $1
2) Oak Street Bridge -> Heavy traffic -> $3
3) No 5/Fraser Street Bridge -> Moderate Traffic -> $2
4) Knight Street Bridge -> Heavy traffic -> $2.75

And the driver can choose which bridge they want to take, taking into account the cost and the time each route will take. The car would probably also be able to calculate the expense taking into account gas mileage and give the driver an actual cost for each route.

Would be very interesting to see something like that. Vancouver seems to consider itself some sort of tech hub, why not lead the world in smart toll technology?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Yeah Knight St as well.

A system with a $1 base toll and then some sort of "surge change" mechanism similar to Uber would be interesting. Charge extra during rush hour depending on how much demand there is for a particular crossing, with the aim of evening out the amount of traffic on each bridge.

We're probably another 10 or so years out from this being feasible, but it would be an interesting concept. In 10 years pretty much every car will have internet connectivity and that information could be fed to the driver through their navigation app. Drivers could set a maximum they'll pay to cross a toll bridge (or no maximum at all) and their navigation system would route them to the correct bridge.

It could be something like this for someone in Richmond wanting to go into Vancouver:

1) Arthur Laing Bridge -> Light traffic -> $1
2) Oak Street Bridge -> Heavy traffic -> $3
3) No 5/Fraser Street Bridge -> Moderate Traffic -> $2
4) Knight Street Bridge -> Heavy traffic -> $2.75

And the driver can choose which bridge they want to take, taking into account the cost and the time each route will take. The car would probably also be able to calculate the expense taking into account gas mileage and give the driver an actual cost for each route.

Would be very interesting to see something like that. Vancouver seems to consider itself some sort of tech hub, why not lead the world in smart toll technology?

Technologically it's doable, but politically it's not. There's no way you're going to get all of the entities together (for the three existing bridges you listed there are three owners - Province of BC, Vancouver Airport Authority, and TransLink) to get this sort of scheme together.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Technologically it's doable, but politically it's not. There's no way you're going to get all of the entities together (for the three existing bridges you listed there are three owners - Province of BC, Vancouver Airport Authority, and TransLink) to get this sort of scheme together.

That is true, although the bridges owned by TransLink and the Province could be consolidated into a new agency under the provincial MoT.

The problem there would be the bridge under YVR ownership, and they might not want to toll.

[proudcanuck]

Looking over the Draft Concept plan and travelling through the tunnel everyday... I struggle to figure out how they can possibly construct the bridge directly overtop of an active highway.

Has this been done elsewhere in the world? I hope someone can enlighten me.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by proudcanuck

Looking over the Draft Concept plan and travelling through the tunnel everyday... I struggle to figure out how they can possibly construct the bridge directly overtop of an active highway.

Has this been done elsewhere in the world? I hope someone can enlighten me.

The same way they built a new Port Mann Bridge...You do it slightly to the right, or slightly to the left of the existing tunnel...

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by proudcanuck

I struggle to figure out how they can possibly construct the bridge directly overtop of an active highway.

The new bridge is going to require fairly long elevated approaches in order to gain the required elevation over the river. So one option would be to move the existing approaches slightly east or west to allow room to build the new ones on the current alignment.

But I suspect that the new bridge will actually be adjacent to the tunnel, not directly over it. Otherwise it seems to me that there would be issues with the pier footings.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The new bridge is going to require fairly long elevated approaches in order to gain the required elevation over the river. So one option would be to move the existing approaches slightly east or west to allow room to build the new ones on the current alignment.

But I suspect that the new bridge will actually be adjacent to the tunnel, not directly over it. Otherwise it seems to me that there would be issues with the pier footings.

If you look at the alignment plans, posted a few pages back. It seems to show the new bridge and approaches, being directly centered over the current route. I believe it was officedweller who suggested some time ago, that they could possible build the new bridge so the footings straddle the tunnel.

Looking at the alignment plans, I would be inclined to agree with him. Remember the new bridge is going to be much, much wider then the tunnel.

I agree with your idea of them moving the existing lanes to the right or left while they build the approaches. I cant see how else they would do it really.

[officedweller]

The GMT materials specifically say it is on the same alignment as the tunnel to preserve farmland.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I think the Bridgeport overpass is cheap because they know they'll be replacing the Oak St. bridge fairly soon.

The crossover bus stations are used in LA on the Metro Silver line. They keep the station from being too wide, requiring two platforms. It also means that any bus can be a rapid bus, not just a dedicated fleet.

I'm most concerned about the lack of connection from 17A to the bus lanes. This should be built at the same time a other rapid bus service is established to Tsawassen and Ladner. There shouldn't be a forced transfer for the major traffic flow direction. The routes should be interlined.

Technically South Delta riders can still access the transit stop by taking the 640 which continues along River Road, but its frequency is lower and it terminates at Ladner Exchange. Definitely not ideal.

[makr3trkr]

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900608
R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 608: RESTRICTED USE OF LEFT LANES BY COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES

"no person shall operate a commercial motor vehicle or any combination of a commercial motor vehicle and a towed vehicle that exceeds 6.5 metres in length, except a bus, an ambulance or a fire apparatus, in the left lane or, where the left lane has been designated as a high occupancy vehicle lane, or in the lane adjacent to the high occupancy vehicle lane"



Hopefully trucks will be restricted from the two left lanes on the bridge (ideally the entire length of the new highway as in Ontario).

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Technically South Delta riders can still access the transit stop by taking the 640 which continues along River Road, but its frequency is lower and it terminates at Ladner Exchange. Definitely not ideal.

Or you could ride across the bridge and cross platform transfer at Steveston.

But I would bet the 640 service gets increased, or at least add a frequent community shuttle service from Ladner to Tilbury. With a proper fast safe transfer available at 99/17A, taking the bus to Tilbury might actually become easy.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Or you could ride across the bridge and cross platform transfer at Steveston.

But I would bet the 640 service gets increased, or at least add a frequent community shuttle service from Ladner to Tilbury. With a proper fast safe transfer available at 99/17A, taking the bus to Tilbury might actually become easy.

Steveston Highway might be better than Bridgeport, but it's still not great. I often do that if I'm trying to get to White Rock (I live in Ladner) and it adds a lot of unneeded time. If they're rebuilding the interchange, it should be possible to transfer from any bus if it passes through it. A full on bus loop as in Phibbs Exchange would have been ideal.

[cornholio]

One of the more despicable things I have seen in the last little while. The Metro board of directors are trying to by pass the province and ask the federal government to interfere in this project. I mean I know the latest crop of mayors and so called planners in this region are increasingly out of touch with reality but this is pretty bad trying to shut down the construction of actual infrastructure in our region.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/m...s+federal+government/11789440/story.html

Hopefully regular folks can catch on and this batch of municipal officials and their social engineers can begin to be purged from local governments over the next decade or two.

[Millennium2002]

I personally see no problem with the region forcing a federal review.

Fact of the matter is, no matter how necessary the project is, it's now a pet project of the province. And everyone else is getting steamrolled out of the way.

Demands for a Broadway SkyTrain? Nope, regional issue.
Demands for a Surrey SkyTrain? Nope, regional issue.
Demands for replacing the equally unsafe Pattullo Bridge? Nope, regional issue.
Demands for immediately seismically retrofitting all Metro Vancouver schools? Nope, school district issue.

Why is it that the provincial government have to treat certain projects as above all others despite the insistence of local politicians? Surely it has all the silly legal rights to do whatever it wants, but what greater moral authority does it have vs the federal government or the local government?

With all the politicking from both the region and the province, I feel it's better to postpone the project and wait until after the provincial election in 2017. That way we can guarantee that the project has solid backing by all provincial MLAs in this region. If there is no such guarantee, the project shouldn't go ahead. Plain and simple.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cornholio

One of the more despicable things I have seen in the last little while. The Metro board of directors are trying to by pass the province and ask the federal government to interfere in this project. I mean I know the latest crop of mayors and so called planners in this region are increasingly out of touch with reality but this is pretty bad trying to shut down the construction of actual infrastructure in our region.

Sorry which government forced a destined-to-fail vote for $7.5B of regional transportation infrastructure?

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by cornholio

One of the more despicable things I have seen in the last little while. The Metro board of directors are trying to by pass the province and ask the federal government to interfere in this project. I mean I know the latest crop of mayors and so called planners in this region are increasingly out of touch with reality but this is pretty bad trying to shut down the construction of actual infrastructure in our region.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/m...s+federal+government/11789440/story.html

Hopefully regular folks can catch on and this batch of municipal officials and their social engineers can begin to be purged from local governments over the next decade or two.

Firstly, all capex transportation projects in BC (bridges, highway/rapid transit) that meet the required theshold as set out by the BCEAO are required to hold an environment assessment with the BCEAO. For example, the Port Mann Bridge and Golden Ears Bridge also required enviro assessments at the BCEAO.

ALL supporting documentation by the proponent is posted thereto over the relevant assessment period. And I mean ALL DOCUMENTATION. A very detailed endeavour.

And these BC enviro assessments include ALL stakeholders - federal agencies, FNs,... etc., etc., etc. You name it. Plus public input periods.

The federal CEAA has ABSOLUTELY ZERO jurisdiction on enviro assessments concerning bridges, highway, and rapid transit projects here in BC... and in every other province in Canada (with extreme exceptions). It's all written within the applicable legislation/regulations governing both the fed CEAA and prov. BCEAO.

So what the hell is going on here? Pure politics. We have Richmond mayor Brodie (whom I have always considered an oddball) and, of course, Burnaby mayor Corrigan (who opposed both the Port Mann Bridge/Hwy 1 upgrades as well as the Canada Line).

IOW... the usual suspects. OTOH, the mayors of Surrey, Delta, et al support the new GMB crossing and highway improvements.

In that vein, 6 weeks ago pollster Insights West (opt-in online panel poll) conducted an opinion poll on the proposed GMB... and I always look at the "strongly opposed" percent in these matters in order to ascertain deeper opinion analysis... and in this case 14% of Metro Vancouverites "strongly oppose" the GMT/related highway improvements.

Ya can undoubtedly count both Brodie and Corrigan in that same 14% crowd... even some here on SSP as well.



One thing that I have learnt about BC, historically speaking, is that a vocal minority is quite loud out here... but the silent majority always prevails.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

I personally see no problem with the region forcing a federal review.

Fact of the matter is, no matter how necessary the project is, it's now a pet project of the province. And everyone else is getting steamrolled out of the way.

Demands for a Broadway SkyTrain? Nope, regional issue.
Demands for a Surrey SkyTrain? Nope, regional issue.
Demands for replacing the equally unsafe Pattullo Bridge? Nope, regional issue.
Demands for immediately seismically retrofitting all Metro Vancouver schools? Nope, school district issue.

Why is it that the provincial government have to treat certain projects as above all others despite the insistence of local politicians? Surely it has all the silly legal rights to do whatever it wants, but what greater moral authority does it have vs the federal government or the local government?

With all the politicking from both the region and the province, I feel it's better to postpone the project and wait until after the provincial election in 2017. That way we can guarantee that the project has solid backing by all provincial MLAs in this region. If there is no such guarantee, the project shouldn't go ahead. Plain and simple.

Haha. Déjà vu!

Back circa 1984... we heard almost the exact same spiel regarding the then proposed Alex Fraser Bridge. In fact, then Vancouver Mayor Mike Harcourt was all over the media denouncing the proposed Alex Fraser Bridge/Annacis Highway as a useless bridge and freeway that the region did not need. Rapid transit was what was required Harcourt then stated.

Over 20 years later... circa 2007... Harcourt came out of his then Vancouver City-centric mode and supported the new PMB and related freeway upgrades. "The horses have already left the barn" Harcourt exclaimed. It takes time... but folk do eventually mature and realize that the Metro Vancouver region "as a whole" matters... not Van City proper in this instance. Sigh.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

I personally see no problem with the region forcing a federal review.

Fact of the matter is, no matter how necessary the project is, it's now a pet project of the province. And everyone else is getting steamrolled out of the way.

Demands for a Broadway SkyTrain? Nope, regional issue.
Demands for a Surrey SkyTrain? Nope, regional issue.
Demands for replacing the equally unsafe Pattullo Bridge? Nope, regional issue.
Demands for immediately seismically retrofitting all Metro Vancouver schools? Nope, school district issue.

Why is it that the provincial government have to treat certain projects as above all others despite the insistence of local politicians? Surely it has all the silly legal rights to do whatever it wants, but what greater moral authority does it have vs the federal government or the local government?

With all the politicking from both the region and the province, I feel it's better to postpone the project and wait until after the provincial election in 2017. That way we can guarantee that the project has solid backing by all provincial MLAs in this region. If there is no such guarantee, the project shouldn't go ahead. Plain and simple.

Actually, the bridge was part of the Liberal platform. It might not have been an announced 10 lane bridge, but the plan to replace the bridge was announced at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention the year before the election. And public consultations began in November 2012, well before the May 2013 election. So I would say replacing the tunnel is part of their current mandate.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-co...ent-public-consultation-begins-1.1261333

The other projects you mentioned are important too, but I don't think we should go down the rabbit hole of petty politics and stonewalling and block projects because other projects were blocked. This isn't America; I want to see at least some things get done.

Asking the Federal government to step in and do an environmental review, where they have no authority to do so, is just a revenge tactic. I don't want to go there.

And why an environmental review? "We don't know what the tolls are going to be, so..... the environment?"

The tunnel is nearing the end of it's existing design life. It needs significant rehabilitation within 10 years. It is better to replace it now, than spend the money to keep it as is, then replace it anyway.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The tunnel is nearing the end of it's existing design life. It needs significant rehabilitation within 10 years. It is better to replace it now, than spend the money to keep it as is, then replace it anyway.

If this is the criteria we're using then the Pattullo Bridge should have been replaced 30 years ago. Instead the province kicked that can down the road, handed the reins over to TransLink, and there's still no replacement in place for a bridge that should have been torn down 30 years ago. In the meantime a tunnel that shows traffic volumes decreasing year-over-year and isn't at the end of its life gets a huge replacement.

This isn't "petty politics", this is the reality of how the Liberal government has shown a complete lack of vision for the region and how they've ignored the actual concerns of the entire region.