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

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

The alternative to this project is not nothing. There are other ways to build a new crossing.

If the politicians were actually focused on moving people and not cars, then you'd see a different, more efficient and cost effective solution.

You guys seem to forget that trucks and buses need proper highways to move people and goods around. An economy cannot function on just trains or buses alone. A cursory observation of our current highways indicates a high volume of trucks sitting in gridlock, including our buses, because of insufficient capacity that is being driven by our economy and population growth.

[ryanmaccdn]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

The alternative to this project is not nothing. There are other ways to build a new crossing.

If the politicians were actually focused on moving people and not cars, then you'd see a different, more efficient and cost effective solution.

This sort of car oriented solution has been discredited among planning professionals because it simply doesn't work in the long term. This is why the Metro Region is opposed to this project.

Yes, in an ideal world where this is Europe and we have alternative infrastructure (trains,bikes,buses, ect) to support various mode of transport your ideology would somewhat make sense.

But we live in North America where car and road transport is king so that ain't gonna work sister.

It's being built for future capacity, has large transit (bus) infrastructure something we never get in BC.

And can I say for GOD DAMN once I won't feel ashamed having US friends drive to Vancouver and having to enter via a one lane crossing into one of Canada's largest cities. Fuck...

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ryanmaccdn

Yes, in an ideal world where this is Europe and we have alternative infrastructure (trains,bikes,buses, ect) to support various mode of transport your ideology would somewhat make sense.

But we live in North America where car and road transport is king so that ain't gonna work sister.

The reason that car and road transport is king is because we keep building road infrastructure that encourages car usage. If we spent the money on transit instead, or even if we at least spent as much money on transit as we do on roads, then we could move more people at less cost and have far fewer negative outcomes such as gridlock, accidents, pollution, greenhouse gases, etc.

While I'm not particularly in favour of 10 lanes and I'm not convinced that the proposed project is the most cost-effect way to reduce the gridlock, I recognize that something needs to be done. But my real gripe is all the money that rains down from the sky on road projects while transit suffers from a government that seems hell-bent on nickel and diming it to death.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

This is why the Metro Region is opposed to this project.

No, the Metro Region is opposed to the project because of our Premier's pettiness. She and her administration are perfectly willing to spend billions on highway projects (included some we definitely don't need), yet continue to withhold the same funding for Vancouver's transit infrastructure because she's still sore about being voted out of her own riding; "Chris Christie Clark" seems to be an appropriate insult.

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

This sort of car oriented solution has been discredited among planning professionals because it simply doesn't work in the long term.

Yes, more roadspace means more traffic... and yet less road space doesn't mean less traffic. Before anybody forgets, Highway 99 is the main connection between Vancouver Island, mainland BC and the States. As it is, the cars are jammed, the trucks are jammed, the buses are jammed, the bikes are jammed - reducing the already limited roadspace would only make things worse.

That's bad for commuters AND the economy. A follow-up commuter rail or Skytrain line to Delta is a good idea too, but a highway upgrade - and a big one - is in everybody's best interest.

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

The alternative to this project is not nothing. There are other ways to build a new crossing.

If the politicians were actually focused on moving people and not cars, then you'd see a different, more efficient and cost effective solution.

Solutions... such as? Again, the GMT (and replacement) is the main connection for not only Delta, but also Vancouver Island and the States, to Vancouver proper and beyond. That's not just commuters, but also buses, freight rigs, police cars, firetrucks and ambulances. Surely you're not suggesting that they all bike to and from Tsawwassen terminal or Seattle?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

6 Billion my ass, outside of the bridge and these two interchanges the rest of the project is pretty light and is only about half the length of the 3.5 billion Highway 1 project.

Either build it as shown, or not at all, no half done jobs.

I feel about this highway project the same I do for rail projects (skytrain along Broadway and to Langley, no half baked LRT).

This project will never get built as shown. Look at the SFPR. If you think the end result will look like that interchange, I have some land in Florida you might be interested in.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

This project will never get built as shown. Look at the SFPR. If you think the end result will look like that interchange, I have some land in Florida you might be interested in.

I think this has a better chance of coming to fruition because of the toll factor of the bridge

Cape Horn turned out exactly how the first showed it

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

But my real gripe is all the money that rains down from the sky on road projects while transit suffers from a government that seems hell-bent on nickel and diming it to death.

[Metro-One]

For once I agree with libtard. Yes, this project is far more similar to the #1 Gateway than the SFPR in many aspects. Therefore the main features being shown (the bridge, and these two interchanges, similar to the PMB and book ending interchanges) have a decent chance of being built as shown. Even the main interchange of the SFPR project (where it meets the 99) was built exactly as promised.

I want to see more detail / models on the bus ramps at the north end of the project too (that go to Bridgeport Station).

I do agree with aberdeen5698 that it would be nice to see this type of forward movement in our transit projects as well. That being said, I do not want to see this project cancelled either.

And honestly, even in the most transit friendly green Europen city of 2.6 million, havingsuch a main free flow highway reduced to a single lane this far out of the urban core several hours every day at its most important chokepoint would also be an embarassment that I am sure would be expanded without any debate.

When ever i drove my Japanese or other out of town friends / family to White Rock I would always use the 91. At least the AFB is an impressive structure and overshadows the goofy traffic light. If i had to use the tunnel (such as going to the ferry) i would make sure it was not during counter flow, because honestly, it is super embarrassing.

[libtard]

I guarantee the people in this thread condemning this project are the same people in favor of a broadway skytrain. A bunch of broke students that want to be whisked down broadway in their fancy white elephant, but they want EVERYONE ELSE to pay for it.

[Metro-One]

And that I dont agree with libtatd. Don`t worry, not everyone who is pro-highway (such as myself) is against transit I would love to have both!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

And that I dont agree with libtatd. Don`t worry, not everyone who is pro-highway (such as myself) is against transit I would love to have both!

Careful sir/ma'am, you and I are part of a critically endangered species.

Originally Posted by libtard

I guarantee the people in this thread condemning this project are the same people in favor of a broadway skytrain. A bunch of broke students that want to be whisked down broadway in their fancy white elephant, but they want EVERYONE ELSE to pay for it.

And I guarantee that everybody that supports it is a semi-retired WASPie living in West Van who has nothing better to do than complain to City Hall about having to share a commute with the "poors" and the "ethnics" that took all his friends' jobs. Okay, now that your straw man is fighting my straw man, would you like to contribute something meaningful to this discussion?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Careful sir/ma'am, you and I are part of a critically endangered species.

don't worry there is another one here haha. this is needed, badly, especially the Steveston Highway Interchange. i just hope Richmond makes East of the freeway 4 lanes. it ends up 2 lanes for about 1km then opens up into 4 lanes. it is a problem with traffic. on another note, last week i notced them drilling around the Oak Street Bridge when i drove past. just in the little on-ramp area where that salt-shed is. looks to be about the spot where the HOV/Bus overpass would go.

question though, maybe i missed it, how to buses coming from the ferries get onto the freeway? i see the ramp to get off, but not the one to get on.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

This proposal is insane. It looks like were going back to 1950s thinking with this. What a colossal waste of resources.

Well, the existing tunnel was built in the 1950's and it was 4 lanes, so........

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The reason that car and road transport is king is because we keep building road infrastructure that encourages car usage. If we spent the money on transit instead, or even if we at least spent as much money on transit as we do on roads, then we could move more people at less cost and have far fewer negative outcomes such as gridlock, accidents, pollution, greenhouse gases, etc.

While I'm not particularly in favour of 10 lanes and I'm not convinced that the proposed project is the most cost-effect way to reduce the gridlock, I recognize that something needs to be done. But my real gripe is all the money that rains down from the sky on road projects while transit suffers from a government that seems hell-bent on nickel and diming it to death.

But we DO spend money on Transit. I think we should spend more, but just to put it into perspective: Every year we spend around $1.4 billion on Translink (not counting provincial and federal contributions to capital projects); that's building one of these 10 lane bridges, EVERY YEAR (on transit, something that less than 20% of people regionally use).

And I don't know if you can say "raining down". So much is lacking in terms of road infrastructure, like Pattullo is at least 10 years behind, we finally have a NFPR, but no SFPR. Golden Ears was needed 25 years ago, Even though travel between Richmond and Vancouver has grown (in reality, it is like one city), there are still 3 brides linking them (since 1975, how much has the region changed since then and we still have the same number of lanes crossing the North arm of the Fraser as when we had 1 million fewer people), North Shore crossings are past due, a Surrey throughway has been proposed for decades... and on and on, and that's forgetting that most of the rest of our province is connected only by some of the world's most dangerous roads.

There was an interesting new stat in the Translink performance review: average speed. On many routes, the average speed is decreasing. This can have a negative impact on the desire of people to ride transit. And in many places this is caused by buses stuck in congestion. A lack of road infrastructure can have a huge negative impact on transit and transit ridership.

Look at the 555. Not only did it not exist, but it was pretty much impossible with the old bridge; now almost every bus leaves completely full.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

don't worry there is another one here haha. this is needed, badly, especially the Steveston Highway Interchange. i just hope Richmond makes East of the freeway 4 lanes. it ends up 2 lanes for about 1km then opens up into 4 lanes. it is a problem with traffic. on another note, last week i notced them drilling around the Oak Street Bridge when i drove past. just in the little on-ramp area where that salt-shed is. looks to be about the spot where the HOV/Bus overpass would go.

question though, maybe i missed it, how to buses coming from the ferries get onto the freeway? i see the ramp to get off, but not the one to get on.

Nice to know I am not alone here in the middle

The interchange shown is the old highway 17 to South Delta.

Buses to the ferries will use the new SFPR interchange further down the highway I would think.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

question though, maybe i missed it, how to buses coming from the ferries get onto the freeway? i see the ramp to get off, but not the one to get on.

I figure they'll use the flyover ramp.
When the ramp touches down, it'll be adjacent to the HOV lanes, so there'll likely be an entry point to the HOV there.
The ramp could even be signed for 1 HOV, 1 general purpose lane.
Note that neither bus route would access the 17A median station.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Well, the existing tunnel was built in the 1950's and it was 4 lanes, so........


But we DO spend money on Transit. I think we should spend more, but just to put it into perspective: Every year we spend around $1.4 billion on Translink (not counting provincial and federal contributions to capital projects); that's building one of these 10 lane bridges, EVERY YEAR (on transit, something that less than 20% of people regionally use).

That's not a fair comparison. A lot of that $1.4 billion is operational expenditures, which is covered by fare revenue. Also, some of that $1.4 Billion goes to Major Road Network infrastructure repair.

A more fair comparison would be with how much is spent annually on road infrastructure in the region. In my thesis, I estimated this to be around $550 M per year (this does not include provincial highways). This also doesn't include the many externalities (pollution, noise, congestion) that motor vehicles impose on other users.

[Metro-One]

This is a really hard argument that will have no end. Simply because you can nickel and dime together endless amounts of road and transit projects, and then there is the fact that roads also service a wider variety of transportation modes (general car traffic, deliveries, industrial, emergency, buses, cyclists and even pedestrians). So no one is going to win this argument... hurray!

[gordoninvancouver]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

That's not a fair comparison. A lot of that $1.4 billion is operational expenditures, which is covered by fare revenue. Also, some of that $1.4 Billion goes to Major Road Network infrastructure repair.

A more fair comparison would be with how much is spent annually on road infrastructure in the region. In my thesis, I estimated this to be around $550 M per year (this does not include provincial highways). This also doesn't include the many externalities (pollution, noise, congestion) that motor vehicles impose on other users.

Sorry, but the operating costs are real dollars, recurring annually, and do not create long lasting items like a skytrain line or a vehicle bridge. So I don't agree with dismissing those costs when arguing that BC only supports car transportation and not transit.

It is worthwhile to remember that even without the growing use of tolls car transportation pays more to our government than the maintenance of roads. You can't say the same about mass transit.

We are just finishing a transit line and funding was announced weeks ago for more busses and trains and advance work for new rail systems. Canada Line is still new. Absolutely I would like to see more funding for Translink, I do agree with you there. But we currently spend a lot on capital and on operations.

And yes, I do understand that there are other costs to our car centric culture beyond the costs of road maintenance, as I have said I favour more funding for Translink and, for example, I would not complain if my property tax to Translink goes up by $75 per year.

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

Ok I'll bite. What would you do instead?

Originally Posted by Cypherus

You guys seem to forget that trucks and buses need proper highways to move people and goods around. An economy cannot function on just trains or buses alone. A cursory observation of our current highways indicates a high volume of trucks sitting in gridlock, including our buses, because of insufficient capacity that is being driven by our economy and population growth.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Solutions... such as? Again, the GMT (and replacement) is the main connection for not only Delta, but also Vancouver Island and the States, to Vancouver proper and beyond. That's not just commuters, but also buses, freight rigs, police cars, firetrucks and ambulances. Surely you're not suggesting that they all bike to and from Tsawwassen terminal or Seattle?

My big crazy solution is...... wait for it it's totally nuts......

...

You build a new bridge that's larger than the current Massey Tunnel but that isn't 10 lanes wide and the largest bridge in BC.

I'd prefer 6 lanes with 2 transit only lanes for BRT that could potentially be shifted to rapid transit down the road. (I'd actually be quite happy with 4 lanes and 2 transit only but I don't think that's politically viable)

The problem here is that tolling and improved public transit change behaviour and this bridge is clearly not compensating in any way for that fact. It assumes traffic volumes will be massive and so it is accordingly massive.

We saw that with the introduction of the Canada Line Oak St bridge volumes dropped. We saw that traffic shifted from the Port Mann due to tolls.

What will happen when this bridge is tolled? The designers of this bridge seem to be assuming that nothing will change. With better transit connections and road pricing you'd see less demand from cars, and so a bridge so large is not necessary.

This is the solution to the port traffic problem as well. Getting basic every day commuters into transit alternatives (or if they decide to live closer to work) frees up road space for commercial activities that require road space.

The problem with the additional lane of traffic and of "future proofing" the bridge is that it incentivizes driving a car. This is the foundation of Induced Demand. Suddenly there's all this room and it's quick and easy to drive. Now driving is even easier that public transit. More people decide to live further away and decide to drive and more traffic is created. A decade or so down the road the bridge is filling up and now the roads have to be expanded again! The cycle continues and continues.

Spending less money on the bridge and diverting that money to public transit alternatives is the only way to break that cycle of car reliance.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

My big crazy solution is...... wait for it it's totally nuts......

...

You build a new bridge that's larger than the current Massey Tunnel but that isn't 10 lanes wide and the largest bridge in BC.

I'd prefer 6 lanes with 2 transit only lanes for BRT that could potentially be shifted to rapid transit down the road. (I'd actually be quite happy with 4 lanes and 2 transit only but I don't think that's politically viable)

Yeah, that's my view as well. I'm not against replacing the Massey Tunnel. I'm against dropping four billion dollars on a giant project that, for all that the stats are showing, doesn't need to be that big. It's being built for traffic volumes twice or three times higher than are seen through the tunnel currently. Is that a realistic aim? Surely the bridge and interchanges can be pared down in size, saving the province some money that could be thrown into other projects that would have a better impact on a wider area.