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

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Metro Vancouver is trying to say "wait a second let's be smart about this and look at the bigger picture" when the province is just coming along and doing it without looking at Metro Vancouver's bigger picture plans.

Or is it that transportation is actually a provincial matter and not a regional one so what's the point in having Metro Vancouver (or hell, TransLink) have any jurisdiction over transportation at all?

Same kind of reasoning behind the Sunshine Coast bridge. "Christy Clark Still Trying To Cockblock Metro Vancouver" isn't exactly breaking news.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Metro Vancouver had a press conference today where they came out against the Massey Bridge saying they're "unable to support the scope and size" of the replacement. The chair of the Metro Vancouver utilities committee said that it could cost between $500m and $1b to relocate the utilities. Greg Moore is opposed because of the lack of consultation on 10 lanes, it doesn't fit the regional planning, and it has ecological impact.

If anyone remembers their political history, back in the early 1980's then mayor Mike Harcourt led some Metro Van mayors to strongly oppose the then proposed Alex Fraser Bridge/91 Fwy.

And when the new Port Mann Bridge/1 Fwy upgrades were opposed, another contingent of mayors came out strongly against same.

And now a group of Metro Vancouver mayors oppose the new GMB/99 Fwy upgrades.

Looking at the political leanings of the foregoing cast of characters... they all have one thing in common - they mostly support the NDP/have NDP links. History has proven that "nothing ever gets done" with this crowd. Ever... as they are mostly aligned with the NIMBY/BANANA crowd. And they always seem to defy logic.

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Has there been region-wide polling about the GMB project?

Yep. Posted earlier in this thread from Insights West (albeit it's an opt-in online panel poll, which panels have inherent recruiting problems in BC. Ergo I postulate that an expensive/accurate CATI opinion poll would likely show stronger GMB support):

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Perhaps a referendum?

Actually there already was... the proposed 10-lane GMB/99 Fwy upgrades were part of the 2013 BC Lib provincial election platform.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The challenge here is that we do have a regional body that's trying to do what's best for the region, and they have regional transportation plans, and then the Province comes along and announces a project that's at odds with those regional transportation plans. What's the point in having Metro Vancouver come up with a transportation plan that works for the entire region when the province is just going to do their own thing?

Metro Vancouver is trying to say "wait a second let's be smart about this and look at the bigger picture" when the province is just coming along and doing it without looking at Metro Vancouver's bigger picture plans.

Or is it that transportation is actually a provincial matter and not a regional one so what's the point in having Metro Vancouver (or hell, TransLink) have any jurisdiction over transportation at all?

The regional body is not elected. Yes it consists of elected mayors but these mayors don't run on a regional platform and are not democratically elected to the body. I do believe the metro Vancouver body much like the real estate board is losing relevance and needs to be scraped and reworked by the province. I think it no longer matters what comes out of the Metro Vancouver board, they don't have a real mandate and they have become increasingly ineffective. It was always a bad idea to make it a undemocratic assembly of small vision municipal mayors who don't run on regional platforms. The province has some work to do, and I do believe they will get to it sooner then later.

[Metro-One]

Didn't nearly the exact same thing happen just before the gateway program began construction? The cities of Vancouver / Burnaby / New West were all against it claiming that it would destroy their communities etc...

Well, it happened, the apocalypse never came.

I always feel people in metro van (both for or against road expansion) deal everything in hyperbole. This is why I am happy that the provincial / federal level of governments exits. If not for them, everything in metro-Van would be third world roads and shit transit consisting entirely of at grade rail.

All the best decisions (gateway, M-Line as skytrain, Canada Line as grade separated, Evergreen Line as grade separated, etc...) have come from the province / feds against the wishes of the local mayors (all three of those lines were desired as at grade LRT from the local city governments, don't forget this crap).

Seriously, if everything were up to the cities themselves things would far worse than they are now. Metro-Van survives in spite of itself.

I agree that the bridge could be downsized to 8 lanes, but the general design is fantastic i really hope that the interchanges are not downsized.

The cities bitch and moan now, but just like Gateway, after it opens 99% of that noise will disappear.

Also I do agree that the transit funding should have never been a referendum.

[idunno]

I think the interchanges look great - very efficient in space allocation, and so much free flowing traffic!

Could anyone shed some light on why the bridge isn't split 2 + 3 + 3 + 2 like the new PMB? I for one have some doubts as to whether BC drivers can handle a 5 lane width :/

[CanSpice]

I would argue that the Port Mann Bridge (and hell, the Golden Ears Bridge too) is an excellent example of why we don't need another 10-lane $4b tolled bridge. The traffic volumes on the PMB are nowhere near what they were predicting. It continues to bleed money. It was built for largely the same reasons that they're using to justify a 10-lane GMT replacement, and look how it's turning out. Do we need another bridge to lose $100m a year (or even more, because the traffic levels won't be as high as the PMB's levels) or should we actually learn from our mistakes and not go as crazy as we did for the PMB?

What makes the GMT replacement any different from the PMB?

[s211]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I would argue that the Port Mann Bridge (and hell, the Golden Ears Bridge too) is an excellent example of why we don't need another 10-lane $4b tolled bridge. The traffic volumes on the PMB are nowhere near what they were predicting. It continues to bleed money. It was built for largely the same reasons that they're using to justify a 10-lane GMT replacement, and look how it's turning out. Do we need another bridge to lose $100m a year (or even more, because the traffic levels won't be as high as the PMB's levels) or should we actually learn from our mistakes and not go as crazy as we did for the PMB?

What makes the GMT replacement any different from the PMB?

Are you honestly asking those questions? Seriously.....

[gordoninvancouver]

We do see conflicting reasoning for why to oppose the new bridge. Several people argue you can't build your way out of congestion, that whatever new capacity is installed will quickly fill. Others argue the structure will sit empty. Both groups of opponents can't be right...luckily the people on this site tend to pick express one view or the other, not both at the same time, unlike the mayors who owe no allegiance to logic.

In the mid 1970s my family lived in North Delta and we would use the tunnel a few times a year. It was congested then, at 4 lanes, and soon it needed a counter-flow system. My point is the system was under built from the start and we have all paid a price over the life of the asset. We should not repeat the mistake. This does not mean that 16 lanes is better than 10, but let's think ahead for 50 years.

[WarrenC12]

A new crossing is needed, but several things bother me about this plan:

1. No other options considered (publicly) - compare this to the Patullo process for example
2. No financial details
3. Transit was forced into a no-win referendum while this is just approved

I don't see a need for 10 lanes. 6 tolled lanes would actually be plenty for the near future IMO, especially when the other road improvements are included to help free-flowing traffic.

I think a 6-lane, expandable to 8 lane crossing would be reasonable. I also think a new tunnel would probably be cheaper. But of course we need a super-high bridge to appease the Port, who isn't paying a dime for it.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

A new crossing is needed, but several things bother me about this plan:

1. No other options considered (publicly) - compare this to the Patullo process for example
2. No financial details
3. Transit was forced into a no-win referendum while this is just approved

I don't see a need for 10 lanes. 6 tolled lanes would actually be plenty for the near future IMO, especially when the other road improvements are included to help free-flowing traffic.

I think a 6-lane, expandable to 8 lane crossing would be reasonable. I also think a new tunnel would probably be cheaper. But of course we need a super-high bridge to appease the Port, who isn't paying a dime for it.

Is this proposed bridge a part of the international road route to the U.S.? If so, should any given infrastructure development be viewed also on an international level than strictly a local one?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by s211

Are you honestly asking those questions? Seriously.....

I am absolutely serious. What makes a 10-lane GMT replacement any different from the 10-lane PMB? Why won't the GMT replacement lose $100m a year like the PMB does?

[connect2source]

I'm hearing lots of opposition here but can anyone perhaps suggest some cheaper yet effective alternatives. Would a bridge with 8 vs. 10 lanes really save money and would the cost-savings be worth not future-proofing?

What would be the cost-saving with a tunnel?.., seeing that the existing one would need removal due to seismic issues, age and safety issues. Would it be possible to construct a deeper tunnel to meet the needs of Port Metro?

I also don't see forfeiting Hwy 99 upgrades as a possibility given that interchanges like Steveston Hwy are grossly inadequate and crumbling and that approaches to the north and south would need a complete overhaul regardless of bridge width or bridge vs. tunnel.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Is this proposed bridge a part of the international road route to the U.S.? If so, should any given infrastructure development be viewed also on an international level than strictly a local one?

What do you even mean? Do you think the US gives a crap about the I5 north of Bellingham? If you've ever driven it, the clear answer is NO.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by connect2source

I'm hearing lots of opposition here but can anyone perhaps suggest some cheaper yet effective alternatives. Would a bridge with 8 vs 10 lanes really save money and would the cost-savings be worth not future-proofing?

What would be the cost-saving with a tunnel?.., seeing that the existing one would need removal due to seismic issues, age and safety issues. Would it be possible to construct a deeper tunnel to meet the needs of Port Metro?

I also don't see forfeiting Hwy 99 upgrades as a possibility given that interchanges like Steveston Hwy are grossly inadequate and crumbling and that approaches to the north and south would need a complete overhaul regardless of bridge width or bridge vs. tunnel.

All great questions. The problem is this has been shrouded in so much secrecy and lack of details, we have no idea.

Again I point to the Patullo bridge replacement estimates, options and public consultation as a far better process than the GMT replacement.

The more money that is being spent, the more we should see options and open discussion on the table.

[s211]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I am absolutely serious. What makes a 10-lane GMT replacement any different from the 10-lane PMB? Why won't the GMT replacement lose $100m a year like the PMB does?

PMB loses $100m a year? This conversation is over.

[connect2source]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

All great questions. The problem is this has been shrouded in so much secrecy and lack of details, we have no idea.

Again I point to the Patullo bridge replacement estimates, options and public consultation as a far better process than the GMT replacement.

The more money that is being spent, the more we should see options and open discussion on the table.

Agreed, I just wonder what alternatives there could be as the tunnel option, due to depth requirements, is not on the table.

This leaves the bridge, and alternatives, I guess, would involves the various width options.

I do think 'future-proofing' takes on a whole new meaning these days as bridge-width involves lanes dedicated to transit, HOV, bikes/pedestrians and likely HOT lanes in the coming years. All these new requirements mean added width to accommodate all these great transportation options. I'd be all for the 10 lanes if dedications to alternatives are spelled out from the start.

[Pinion]

I had to use the PMB for two weeks recently and was surprised at how well used it was. It's not a "true" 10 lanes either, with the collector lanes and HOV lanes it's only four regular lanes east/west - not overbuilt at all. I have to imagine anyone who thinks it was a bad idea either does not drive or at least does not drive in that direction.

Same goes for GMT. The current crossing is a disaster, might as well replace it with something future proof.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What do you even mean? Do you think the US gives a crap about the I5 north of Bellingham? If you've ever driven it, the clear answer is NO.

It's a heavily used route and major shipping artery.

[connect2source]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I had to use the PMB for two weeks recently and was surprised at how well used it was. It's not a "true" 10 lanes either, with the collector lanes and HOV lanes it's only four regular lanes east/west - not overbuilt at all. I have to imagine anyone who thinks it was a bad idea either does not drive or at least does not drive in that direction.

Same goes for GMT. The current crossing is a disaster, might as well replace it with something future proof.

Totally agree, what was the PMB alternative? Leaving the dangerously narrow and congested bridge in place with no transit lanes or bike pedestrian access.

Same with the GMT. The structure is toast, it's ancient, super-dangerous, especially with oncoming traffic in the same tube with no pull-outs!! Its seismically unsafe and basically a disaster waiting to happen, it also contributes to gridlock, lost productivity and excessive idling.

Hence, it needs to go, any replacement is a huge undertaking and is going to cost a ton of money but it has to be done and when complete will serve the needs not only of the evil-car but also of transit, car-pools, bikes and pedestrians, none of which the current GMT does effectively if at all.

[logicbomb]

Too far to tell how expensive the tolls will be, but how do we....encourage people in South Surrey, Cloverdale and South Delta to use the bridge over the free alternative?

Yes, transit, yes, HOV discounts but good christ, we saw how bad it got after the PMB tolls went from $1.50 to $3. People in this region detest tolls and are willing to add 45min-1hr and $$$ in gas to save a measly $6 a day.

Ideally, we'd

1) Replace the GMT with a new 10 lane Bridge.

2) Coerce Vancouver to completely restrict parking along Oak and Granville throughout the entire day. Also say **** you to NIMBY's, add jersey barriers and limit the number of intersections down Oak.

3) Replace the Oak St Bridge with an 8 lane bridge. Toll it. New on-ramps and off-ramps at Bridgeport.

4) Improve interchanges at Knight. Toll it.

Without this, traffic will be a clusterfuck on Hwy 91 and the Bridgeport Rd will still be a god damn mess.

[cornholio]

PMB is a huge success for anyone who has ever used it. Its worth the $3 every time. It will pay for its self and its a great asset to the region. It was most definitely not over built.

GE bridge is also a huge success and continues to create new economic connections. It will also pay for its self and is a great asset to our region. It was also not over built at 6 lanes feeding the Maple Ridge / Pitt Meadows area with its 80k people and no port and international connections. The only problem is that its approaches were under built, and that is the fault of Translink.

Pattullo process is embarrassing. It is exactly how not to do things. What is proposed right now is inadequate and inefficient. It needs to be 6 lanes from the get go and the province should step in, though it wont this time. Again the fault of Translink and the regional board.

MT needs to be replaces, 10 lanes is absolutely reasonable. Only people who have never used can suggest 6 lanes. It will connect the regions ports, the airport, and its main industrial areas, none of which are really in Vancouver anymore. Richmond / Delta / South of Fraser is the key.

Time to scrap metro Vancouver board and make it a fully democratic on a regional scale and electable. Those on it will run on a regional platform and work with the province.