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

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yeah, I know that, but it still doesn't make it right or fare that the federal government is footing the entire bill with no tolls in the end (tolls were proposed at first but the people n Montreal then had a fit by the idea).

Just a kick in the teeth that none of our major crossings get such a sweet deal.

maybe we need to threaten to join the USA again, that worked the last time we got something, back in 1886.

[Mininari]

So who's had a reversal of opinion on this project... I was pretty strongly for it it when it was first announced, but now that we are watching the resource economy tank, and the business case for this bridge / tunnel removal concept getting crushed... as well as all the other controversy surrounding it (tolls, port expansion, deleted emails, expected traffic armageddon at the Vancouver-Richmond Bridges)... is it really a good idea to spend $3.5Billion(!) on this bridge, some widening (that won't help northbound) and a few interchanges? Seems the original plan to add 2 additional tunnel lanes, and rebuild interchanges would be considerably cheaper and effective in conjunction with the supporting highway network.

The Province is also exploring linking the Sunshine Coast to the GVRD via a highway or bridge. If said bridge were to include a rail link, then new deepwater industrial facilities could be developed at Port Melon (another environmental powderkeg, I know), but it would help alleviate the looming battle between Metro Port Vancouver and the ALR. Its no secret there is a shortage of land in the Lower Mainland, so creating new deepwater port opportunities for the future might be more forward thinking than a massive, expensive bridge that permits some port development in the Fraser (with expensive dredging to maintain).

As much as I'd *love* to drive over a 10-lane GMB, I don't think I can support the business case for it anymore, mainly because I think most of it has evaporated. I do like the idea of linking the Sunshine Coast (sorry cottagers) since it opens a wide expanse of something the whole region is thirsty for... developable land.

[Metro-One]

The link to the sunshine coast will never. never, never happen in any decent way.

The only way that may happen in the future is a crappy 2 lane "highway" along the north shore of Howe Sound from Squamish.

You seem to be ignoring the seismic problem of the existing tunnels, the lack of space for pedestrians and bikes, the narrowness of the lanes, the entire rapid bus portion of this project, etc...

I am also willing to bet (like any project it seems involving tunnels) the price of simply adding another2 lanes via a new tunnel between the existing will skyrocket with unforeseen technical / engineering problems (far more likely than a new bridge).

I would honestly argue for an 8 lane bridge rather than 10 lanes, but the proposed interchange designs are fantastic (just a little tweaking needed) and the project is essentially neutral for ALR loss (a little is taken, but some is also returned by decreasing the interchange footprints).

[WarrenC12]

I think several things are important and inter-related:

1. Regional tolling across the Fraser and Burrard Inlet needs to happen ASAP. That will shape demand into reasonable levels to predict future needs.

2. A new crossing is required to replace the GMT (and Patullo). I don't know which one should be a higher priority TBH.

3. New bridges without nearby commuter or Skytrain rail service should have it built in to the plan, this would apply to the GMT.

I don't see anything larger than 8 lanes being required for the GMT replacement, and I think that 6 would do if rail transit was available on Day 1 of the new bridge or shortly after. Something that links to the Canada line and/or uses the same technology.

This bridge as it looks on paper will be a ridiculous boat anchor of debt. The costs will easily exceed $4B when all is said and done.

Whether it needs to be a bridge or a tunnel is up for debate. I'm no engineer, but if a bridge is significantly more expensive to build, then the Port should be helping to pay for that. If there can be tolls for cars going over it, why not for ships going under?

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Mininari

So who's had a reversal of opinion on this project... I was pretty strongly for it it when it was first announced, but now that we are watching the resource economy tank, and the business case for this bridge / tunnel removal concept getting crushed... as well as all the other controversy surrounding it (tolls, port expansion, deleted emails, expected traffic armageddon at the Vancouver-Richmond Bridges)... is it really a good idea to spend $3.5Billion(!) on this bridge, some widening (that won't help northbound) and a few interchanges? Seems the original plan to add 2 additional tunnel lanes, and rebuild interchanges would be considerably cheaper and effective in conjunction with the supporting highway network.

The Province is also exploring linking the Sunshine Coast to the GVRD via a highway or bridge. If said bridge were to include a rail link, then new deepwater industrial facilities could be developed at Port Melon (another environmental powderkeg, I know), but it would help alleviate the looming battle between Metro Port Vancouver and the ALR. Its no secret there is a shortage of land in the Lower Mainland, so creating new deepwater port opportunities for the future might be more forward thinking than a massive, expensive bridge that permits some port development in the Fraser (with expensive dredging to maintain).

As much as I'd *love* to drive over a 10-lane GMB, I don't think I can support the business case for it anymore, mainly because I think most of it has evaporated. I do like the idea of linking the Sunshine Coast (sorry cottagers) since it opens a wide expanse of something the whole region is thirsty for... developable land.

There will be no port on the Sunshine coast. The extra sailing time for ships is just not worth it when they can just build more berths at Deltaport. I mean, there IS a port in Squamish with rail and highway access, and it has never attracted interest from the shipping industry. Then logistically the trucking industry would have to deal with the Second Narrows to get anywhere.

So now you are trying to talk your way out of one bridge over the Fraser and are now talking yourself into an even more expensive bridge over Howe Sound AND replacing the second narrows (and widening all of the Upper levels through to past the Cassiar).

And besides, the business case of the GMB doesn't rely directly on the shipping (boats) industry. Its main functions are transporting commuters, bus lines, tourists, and vehicle freight. All those priorities don't hinge on ships going up the Fraser and aren't going to vanish just because the cyclical resource market is at a low point.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I think several things are important and inter-related:

1. Regional tolling across the Fraser and Burrard Inlet needs to happen ASAP. That will shape demand into reasonable levels to predict future needs.

2. A new crossing is required to replace the GMT (and Patullo). I don't know which one should be a higher priority TBH.

3. New bridges without nearby commuter or Skytrain rail service should have it built in to the plan, this would apply to the GMT.

I don't see anything larger than 8 lanes being required for the GMT replacement, and I think that 6 would do if rail transit was available on Day 1 of the new bridge or shortly after. Something that links to the Canada line and/or uses the same technology.

This bridge as it looks on paper will be a ridiculous boat anchor of debt. The costs will easily exceed $4B when all is said and done.

Whether it needs to be a bridge or a tunnel is up for debate. I'm no engineer, but if a bridge is significantly more expensive to build, then the Port should be helping to pay for that. If there can be tolls for cars going over it, why not for ships going under?

1. This bridge and the Pattullo will basically result in a regional tolling strategy. The minister has basically hinted at as much: "no regional bridge plan until after these projects" = yeah, probablly after these projects. Even if they don't implement an intentional regional strategy, it will be a defacto strategy: all but one crossing will be tolled.

But I think they will HAVE to put tolling on the AFB after GMB is built. People already skirt the toll on the PMB by using the Pattullo, and on a good day that adds a lot of time to one's travel. Using the AFB or GMT between 99/91 and Oak street have the exact same travel times outside of peak times. If the AFB were clear of traffic (like it is after 7pm), not a single soul would use the GMT that isn't going to Tsawwassen. Having this bridge pretty much forces the region to adopt regional tolling.

2. They'll both get done around the same time. But IMO the traffic in the GMT is worse today than traffic on the Pattullo. The Pattullo might be in rougher shape physically, but the AFB & GMT combo are at the breaking point in terms of capacity.

And it isn't fair for traffic coming from/going to the ferries or unwitting tourists from the border to have to deal with just a single lane of access in the opposite direction during peak times (the counter-flow is a disaster for those NOT travelling in peak direction).

3. I don't know about rail transit over the bridge. With 10 lanes and center HOV lanes (not shoulder running lanes that get interference from mergers/exiters) buses can travel at over 100km/h. The Canada Line would have to make stops through Richmond, resulting in an average speed of half what the bus would do on the freeway. I'm pretty sure commuters on the buses today would hate to see their commute times actually increase because of a new bridge.

The other problem is, where would the line go? None of the existing bus lines have ridership warranting Skytrain. The 3 buses to White Rock don't combine for 6000 boardings/weekday. Another 6000 travel through Ladner. I don't know if a $2 billion Skytrain with less than 20,000 travelers on day one (who end up with much longer trips) is worth it. And that's if you can figure out 1 route to satisfy all these people who are using routes that have different origins.

If you can cheaply build light rail tracks next to the freeway and buy trains with a high top speed, then we might be onto something. Like the new Alstom Coradia LINT trains they have in Ottawa now; they can hit 140km/h.

But at least if you build a 10 lane bridge now, you can take 2 of those lanes in the future if transit demand does increase (thus decreasing SOV on the bridge). If you only started with fewer lanes, then we are just spending money to basically recreate the problems we have now, without saving that much money. As is, the tunnel is 3 lanes peak direction, and doesn't work.

But right now the origins and destinations of people travelling through the tunnel are so diverse that I don't know if a single line could be everyone's salvation.

If you wanted to tie in South Surrey to the Skytrain network, you could just extend the Expo line down King George at less cost AND send the line past more density and connect riders to more destinations.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The other problem is, where would the line go? None of the existing bus lines have ridership warranting Skytrain. The 3 buses to White Rock don't combine for 6000 boardings/weekday. Another 6000 travel through Ladner. I don't know if a $2 billion Skytrain with less than 20,000 travelers on day one (who end up with much longer trips) is worth it. And that's if you can figure out 1 route to satisfy all these people who are using routes that have different origins.

This kind of hits the nail on the head for me in terms of the GMT being a 10-lane, $3.5B+ bridge. We can't seem to figure out where transit traffic might come from to justify a rail line, but we're willing to spend multi-billions on a vehicle-only solution, assuming traffic will be there to pay for it via tolling.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The other problem is, where would the line go? None of the existing bus lines have ridership warranting Skytrain. The 3 buses to White Rock don't combine for 6000 boardings/weekday. Another 6000 travel through Ladner. I don't know if a $2 billion Skytrain with less than 20,000 travelers on day one (who end up with much longer trips) is worth it. And that's if you can figure out 1 route to satisfy all these people who are using routes that have different origins.

But... but... Tsawwassen Mills is opening up soon! And the ferry! Business case!

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

This kind of hits the nail on the head for me in terms of the GMT being a 10-lane, $3.5B+ bridge. We can't seem to figure out where transit traffic might come from to justify a rail line, but we're willing to spend multi-billions on a vehicle-only solution, assuming traffic will be there to pay for it via tolling.

That's how highways work. They are like rivers that collect from dozens (if not hundreds) of tributaries. Each creek can be pretty dry, but all those creeks added up equals a fast flowing river. That spending on upgrading a freeway impacts people from all over the region.

An extension of the Canada Line to only the South Surrey park n ride is 30km. At $100 million/km that's a $3 billion rail only project for what is today at most 6000 boardings/day. The distance from the tunnel to the ferries is 13km.

To put that in perspective, if Surrey rapid transit were fully built out as Skytrain to Guilford, Langley, and White Rock, it's 40km of track.

Lets look at the busiest month: August. If we look at the Duke point run, and assume there are almost no foot passengers (like seriously, there are about 10-20 per sailing) and divide the number of passengers by vehicles, then you get an average number of people per vehicle: 2.6 (lets round down to 2.5 for sake of unaccounted foot passengers).Lets assume that is constant across the V-I runs. So over on Swartz bay run they saw 800,000 passenger in the month, and 225,000 vehicles. So at 2.5 people per vehicle average you are left with about 237,000 foot passengers in August. Which averages to 7645 per day, which is about 475 passengers per incoming and outgoing vessel, which is comparable to my experiences in August and close to the maximum capacity of the ferries as they are.

So you want to build a spur of the Canada line that is longer than the Evergreen line for at most 8000 boardings/day in one month of the year? On Sundays and Holidays (the busiest single day of the week usually for ferries) the 620 bus averages 2550 boardings. So 8000 max daily boardings in the peak month of the year is probably pretty accurate to the ferry.

The population of South Delta is about 44,000 people. Maybe at most half the population commute. If you could get 25% of commuters to take transit, that would be a miracle. That's 5500 residents taking transit, or about 10,000 boardings. So you want to built rapid transit to Tsawwassen for at most 20,000 daily boardings?

A light rail line directly from Bridgeport to the ferries over the new bridge would be about 25km long. Assuming you could somehow get LRT construction down to the cost of about the $50 million/km it cost to build the Green line in Portland, just out to the ferries is gong to cost $1.25 billion. And I think for the unsolid terrain and accessing the bridge, that is a total low ball price. And that is in addition to the cost of building the bridge and upgrading the highways. So, if you build a 10 lane bridge with 2 of those lanes for rail transit (leaving 1 HOV and 3 general lanes each way), that project is still $3.5 billion, plus the minimum $1.25 billion for rail, and now you are getting close to a $5 billion project. Putting more tracks to South Surrey park and ride (19km spur from the bridge), and this project is exceeding $6 billion!!!!! For light rail, not Skytrain!!!!!!!!

King George station to South Surrey park and ride is 13km.

An extension of the Expo line to Langley is just under 16km, and people are flipping their shit about that and just RRT1 with no bus improvements at all would generate 115,000 boardings/day.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

This kind of hits the nail on the head for me in terms of the GMT being a 10-lane, $3.5B+ bridge. We can't seem to figure out where transit traffic might come from to justify a rail line, but we're willing to spend multi-billions on a vehicle-only solution, assuming traffic will be there to pay for it via tolling.

This is the thing, the rapid bus component of this project essentially is the same as building a rail line alongside the highway bridge, simply because the destinations these buses will link to are serviced via the highway, therefore the buses will travel faster than skytrain and they can also serve the ferry traffic's high peaks and valleys of demand far better than any form of rail (outside of a full fledged heavy rail system).

Again, I agree 10 lanes is too much, it should be 8 lanes. 6 general purpose and the 2 HOV / Bus lanes.

Out of every bridge / route in our area, this is the least likely one to ever be a candidate for rail due to the geography, the destinations being served, and the perfect case for rapid buses (the 99 is essentially a prime candidate for rapid bus style mass transit).

Also I agree that the port should help pay some of the bill since it is also being tailored around their needs.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

That's how highways work. They are like rivers that collect from dozens (if not hundreds) of tributaries. Each creek can be pretty dry, but all those creeks added up equals a fast flowing river. That spending on upgrading a freeway impacts people from all over the region.

You can't argue "more cars" on one side and "not enough people for transit" on the other. They all share the limited amount of crossings on the Fraser, unless we are building purpose built rail bridges.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

This is the thing, the rapid bus component of this project essentially is the same as building a rail line alongside the highway bridge, simply because the destinations these buses will link to are serviced via the highway, therefore the buses will travel faster than skytrain and they can also serve the ferry traffic's high peaks and valleys of demand far better than any form of rail (outside of a full fledged heavy rail system).

Again, I agree 10 lanes is too much, it should be 8 lanes. 6 general purpose and the 2 HOV / Bus lanes.

Out of every bridge / route in our area, this is the least likely one to ever be a candidate for rail due to the geography, the destinations being served, and the perfect case for rapid buses (the 99 is essentially a prime candidate for rapid bus style mass transit).

Also I agree that the port should help pay some of the bill since it is also being tailored around their needs.

Is there a point to only building it 8 lanes though? The project would still cost over $3 billion. In the peak direction at peak time all that money would be doing is adding a bus/hov lane. You are just going to end up with many of the same problems as today while only saving maybe $100 million, 200 tops. Is it really worth a 5% savings to just end up with the same traffic jam?

It already is 3 lanes peak direction and doesn't work. I cannot stress that enough. The AFB is also over packed. A significant increase in capacity over the Fraser could solve 2 bridge's problems.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You can't argue "more cars" on one side and "not enough people for transit" on the other. They all share the limited amount of crossings on the Fraser, unless we are building purpose built rail bridges.

Once you get outside a reasonable range of rapid transit stations, its benefits drop. It attracts fewer riders. And if it's speed is slower than taking a bus currently is, how would it attract people who don't even want to take the bus?

Most of Ladner is more than 1km away from the Ladner exchange. There are almost zero homes within 800m of the highway 17 ROW in Tsawwassen. The line doesn't have the benefits that a line passing through an urban town center would have.

The population is more dispersed and more spread out. Driving has a significant advantage over taking transit from Ladner. Especially if you are one of the 60% or so of people not going over the Oak Street bridge, Rapid transit to the Canada line does zilch for you.

Compare that to a line down Fraser highway: Driving from Fleetwood or Cloverdale or Langley requires you to drive through congested urban-ish areas or down rural highways, with plenty of traffic lights. Skytrain travel times are comparable to that slog because you can catch right in the middle of the built up areas. In Ladner, Tsawwassen, SS, you need to travel through the same extent of the city to get to the rapid transit line as if you drove.

Rapid bus is a cost effective way of bringing transit to Ladner and South Surrey that actually has benefits over light rail in this case.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

An extension of the Canada Line to only the South Surrey park n ride is 30km. At $100 million/km that's a $3 billion rail only project for what is today at most 6000 boardings/day.

One matter that ya must also take into account - the existing 351 rapid bus with high-bucket seats and 110 km/hr travel speeds down the 99 Fwy is a much more superior transit service, both in terms of comfort and speed, than the Canada Line (or extension) would ever be.

The fwy rapid bus is the highest quality transit service in Metro Vancouver. I have absolutely no doubt about that.

Interesting that ya mention the South Surrey Park N Ride for the 351 to the Canada Line though. For years it has always been full. Even today. So much so that several years back the BC gov't funded a doubling of its size with a new lot on the NW quadrant of the KGH interchange.

Yet, when it opened up back in early, 2014 it initially sat empty:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-co...surrey-park-and-ride-lot-empty-1.2497799

And, to date, considerable residential development has occurred since then in this neck of the woods. Yet, over 2 years later the new lot still remains wholly empty (literally - not a single car on any given day). Frankly, I don't understand that and can't figure out same.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Is there a point to only building it 8 lanes though? The project would still cost over $3 billion. In the peak direction at peak time all that money would be doing is adding a bus/hov lane. You are just going to end up with many of the same problems as today while only saving maybe $100 million, 200 tops. Is it really worth a 5% savings to just end up with the same traffic jam?

It already is 3 lanes peak direction and doesn't work. I cannot stress that enough. The AFB is also over packed. A significant increase in capacity over the Fraser could solve 2 bridge's problems.

The AFB has 6-lanes with a 4-lane Hwy 91 connection on either side. Ya can never increase Hwy 91 to 6-lanes to match up with the bridgehead cross-section. Why? Just heading NB on the 91, Nordel Way has a continuous stream of traffic funneling onto the AFB bridge-deck that utilizes the entire 3rd lane.

One would need an 8-lane AFB in order to accommodate a 6-lane Hwy 91 approach. Then throw in an HOV lane in each direction.... and ya instantly have a 10-lane AFB. Should have been done in the beginning there as well.

And don't forget about those commercial rigs heading NB on the AFB off Nordel Way in either the centre or right lane with their emergency signals flashing as they struggle to hit 30 - 40 km/hr heading upward toward centre deck - blocking and clogging up traffic behind same.

Point is that any bridge engineer will obviously confirm that a bridge crossing requires considerably more lanes (as well as redundancy) than the feeding highway as each bridge crossing has numerous major additional traffic flows at the bridgeheads... the existing GMT, OSB, KSB, QB, AFB, etc. all suffer from these same major problems impacting traffic speeds/flows/weaving.

At the end of the day... it's called "foresight".

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The link to the sunshine coast will never. never, never happen in any decent way.

The only way that may happen in the future is a crappy 2 lane "highway" along the north shore of Howe Sound from Squamish.

You seem to be ignoring the seismic problem of the existing tunnels, the lack of space for pedestrians and bikes, the narrowness of the lanes, the entire rapid bus portion of this project, etc...

I am also willing to bet (like any project it seems involving tunnels) the price of simply adding another2 lanes via a new tunnel between the existing will skyrocket with unforeseen technical / engineering problems (far more likely than a new bridge).

I would honestly argue for an 8 lane bridge rather than 10 lanes, but the proposed interchange designs are fantastic (just a little tweaking needed) and the project is essentially neutral for ALR loss (a little is taken, but some is also returned by decreasing the interchange footprints).

Ok. First off, I fully agree it is extremely likely that the Sunshine Coast Connector study is going to come back and say that ANY crossing options will cost a fortune. Just measuring the distance over water that would have to be crossed can mostly confirm that (I'd be curious to know the cost estimate for the Portage Cove Option though). The 'crappy' 2-lane highway will likely be what gets built (one day), and will probably only go to the Woodfibre LNG plant at first (if and when THAT gets built).

It is true there are a number of outstanding issues regarding dangerous goods movement, pedestrians, cycling facilities, transit, etc. that would be better-served by a bridge. I don't dispute that; but what got me wondering about was the confusion of Richmond City Council which was told back in 2006 that the GMT was 'good for 50 years' and now its 'gotta go'

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/b-c/ma...-shock-to-richmond-politicians-1.2194790

Originally Posted by BCPhil

There will be no port on the Sunshine coast. The extra sailing time for ships is just not worth it when they can just build more berths at Deltaport. I mean, there IS a port in Squamish with rail and highway access, and it has never attracted interest from the shipping industry. Then logistically the trucking industry would have to deal with the Second Narrows to get anywhere.

So now you are trying to talk your way out of one bridge over the Fraser and are now talking yourself into an even more expensive bridge over Howe Sound AND replacing the second narrows (and widening all of the Upper levels through to past the Cassiar).

And besides, the business case of the GMB doesn't rely directly on the shipping (boats) industry. Its main functions are transporting commuters, bus lines, tourists, and vehicle freight. All those priorities don't hinge on ships going up the Fraser and aren't going to vanish just because the cyclical resource market is at a low point.

Who's to say this won't happen one day? Maybe not in the next 30 years, but this matter of 'we're not making any more land' in the GVRD combined with the alure of converting waterfront industrial land into condos is already putting serious pressure on future industrial land needs of the region. One cannot assume that Deltaport can just grow forever either; sea level rise and environmental concerns could make that challenging. I am looking decades ahead; and it seems like the government is trying to do that too.

You are correct. A Howe Sound Bridge would require a huge amount of investment, as would upgrades to the Second Narrows and Highway 1 through North Van... but again, the concept is the investment could pay off in development opportunity by making the link. I admit its probably a pipedream, but that is the purpose of the study, right? Besides the Second Narrows is now 56 years old and its going to reach the end of its service life sooner or later, and require a replacement... and we'll be having the same debate again about number of lanes, tolls, etc.

All the other reasons you cite for the bridge are valid, and again thinking long-term, the resource cycle will swing back into 'go mode' again one day too.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Is there a point to only building it 8 lanes though? The project would still cost over $3 billion. In the peak direction at peak time all that money would be doing is adding a bus/hov lane. You are just going to end up with many of the same problems as today while only saving maybe $100 million, 200 tops. Is it really worth a 5% savings to just end up with the same traffic jam?

It already is 3 lanes peak direction and doesn't work. I cannot stress that enough. The AFB is also over packed. A significant increase in capacity over the Fraser could solve 2 bridge's problems.

I think tolling will be a far greater reducer than people imagine that I think an eight lane bridge will be more than enough. Especially if tolls vary depending on time of day.

When I was doing my thesis I looked at central Stockholm. They put tolls in place and congestion disappeared.

• Traffic was only reduced by 20% to eliminate congestion
• Of that 20% - half was explained by a shift to transit
• Cycling did not increase
• Traffic on other routes did not increase

So what happened to other 50% of traffic that disappeared? People consolidated or stopped taking trips. E.g. instead of doing 4 shopping trips a week they did 2 larger ones.

Transportation is way more elastic than anybody thinks it is. Honestly, I think a tolled bridge with six lanes (with 2 reversible ones) will be easily enough. I don't know what the savings would be, but I think it would be more than just a few hundred million.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Mininari

.. but what got me wondering about was the confusion of Richmond City Council which was told back in 2006 that the GMT was 'good for 50 years' and now its 'gotta go'

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/b-c/ma...-shock-to-richmond-politicians-1.2194790

Have followed that stuff and everything else to boot. Always roll my eyes. BTW, the article that ya are referencing only makes an attribute to Richmond councillor Harold Steeves. He seems to be in the forefront of the anti-GMB crowd.

Do ya know Steeve's background? As hard-core enviro as one gets and always considered to be an oddball... as well as former one-term Richmond NDP MLA (back in 1972 Barrett gov't).

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

One matter that ya must also take into account - the existing 351 rapid bus with high-bucket seats and 110 km/hr travel speeds down the 99 Fwy is a much more superior transit service, both in terms of comfort and speed, than the Canada Line (or extension) would ever be.

The fwy rapid bus is the highest quality transit service in Metro Vancouver. I have absolutely no doubt about that.

Interesting that ya mention the South Surrey Park N Ride for the 351 to the Canada Line though. For years it has always been full. Even today. So much so that several years back the BC gov't funded a doubling of its size with a new lot on the NW quadrant of the KGH interchange.

Yet, when it opened up back in early, 2014 it initially sat empty:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-co...surrey-park-and-ride-lot-empty-1.2497799

And, to date, considerable residential development has occurred since then in this neck of the woods. Yet, over 2 years later the new lot still remains wholly empty (literally - not a single car on any given day). Frankly, I don't understand that and can't figure out same.

I did say in one of my other posts that the only way rail would work is if you bought some nice intercity/commuter style trains like the ones they bought for the Trillium line (O-Train) in Ottawa last year. They can hit speeds of 140km/h, on diesel engines too so you can even save money by not electrifying.

The only way rail to the ferries would be affordable and an attractive service is if you built heavy rail style using the Shell road ROW, and single track as much as possible with at most 1 stop in Richmond and used fast trains. Basically run an O-Train style service. 2 trains running back and forth could give you half hourly service.

But the only way any of that makes sense is if you also build light rail in Victoria to the ferries and/or ate up even more ALR land in Ladner for TOD. But that would be decades away; a replacement for the tunnel is needed urgently.

WRT the park and ride, I guess $2 makes a difference. Either people are saving the $2 by leaving the car at home and taking a longer ride on the 351 or just driving all the way to work or the River Rock and paying $3.

When I lived in White Rock, people would park all over the grass around Nicomekl Road because it was so busy. I imagine demand for parking there will go up once tolls go on the new bridge and the bus because faster/more reliable.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I think tolling will be a far greater reducer than people imagine that I think an eight lane bridge will be more than enough. Especially if tolls vary depending on time of day.

When I was doing my thesis I looked at central Stockholm. They put tolls in place and congestion disappeared.

• Traffic was only reduced by 20% to eliminate congestion
• Of that 20% - half was explained by a shift to transit
• Cycling did not increase
• Traffic on other routes did not increase

So what happened to other 50% of traffic that disappeared? People consolidated or stopped taking trips. E.g. instead of doing 4 shopping trips a week they did 2 larger ones.

Transportation is way more elastic than anybody thinks it is. Honestly, I think a tolled bridge with six lanes (with 2 reversible ones) will be easily enough. I don't know what the savings would be, but I think it would be more than just a few hundred million.

Your problem starts and ends when you say you were looking at central Stockholm. I hope this is not what our urban planners are trying to compare Metro Vancouver to or trying to replicate.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I think tolling will be a far greater reducer than people imagine that I think an eight lane bridge will be more than enough. Especially if tolls vary depending on time of day.

When I was doing my thesis I looked at central Stockholm. They put tolls in place and congestion disappeared.

• Traffic was only reduced by 20% to eliminate congestion
• Of that 20% - half was explained by a shift to transit
• Cycling did not increase
• Traffic on other routes did not increase

So what happened to other 50% of traffic that disappeared? People consolidated or stopped taking trips. E.g. instead of doing 4 shopping trips a week they did 2 larger ones.

Transportation is way more elastic than anybody thinks it is. Honestly, I think a tolled bridge with six lanes (with 2 reversible ones) will be easily enough. I don't know what the savings would be, but I think it would be more than just a few hundred million.

I think you're right, tolling could reduce the total amount of traffic, but not necessarily at rush hour where the tunnel is beyond its breaking point.

Tolls on the Port Mann have resulted in decreased traffic overall (for now but it is increasing), but during the peak hours, it is actually up significantly with very little actual congestion on the bridge itself.

If we had just put tolls on the Port Mann, it would not have solved the over capacity problem during peak hours.

I don't think the AM rush has a significant amount of people going shopping. You also don't need to cross a bridge to go shopping. Almost anything that is in Richmond is somewhere in Surrey. So it is debatable as to how many people are actually making completely leisurely trips over bridges on the Fraser. Mid day trips over the bridge/tunnel are probably necessary and won't be discouraged much. If you live in Ladner and your doctor is in Richmond, I don't think you'll stop going (nor should you).

I'm also not convinced that discouraging people from being mobile is completely beneficial to our economy.

Like you suggest, if people make half the number of trips shopping in a week/month, that can impact the economy and especially small business. Businesses depend on people being able to visit and patron them.

If I'm spending less time visiting less stores, I'm probably going to focus my efforts on hitting big box places; no more trips to the deli or fresh produce stores for example. I also might end up buying the same in goods for at home from Walmart, but by being out less I'm probably spending less on frivolous things like snacks, coffee, ice cream, dinners out, whatever. Service and support jobs suffer. People making minimum wage at the low end of the social spectrum, those already suffering the most, suffer more. Instead I'm at home buying on Amazon while Ma's Cafe closes down.

User fees are needed to help pay for large projects, and manage access to critical resources so those who need it can have access to it with little waste, but they shouldn't be used to control people or discourage their activities in the economy.