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

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cornholio

This is a infringement on privacy. Will never happen. Should never happen. Wishful thinking by lower levels of government.

Distance based tolling doesn't make economic or social sense imo. Mobility should be encouraged and people should be free to decide their mode without government interference. Mobility pricing imo is interference.

????

The government interferes every time they decide to do something, whether it be building a piece of infrastructure, or setting a price for it's use.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Not completely true. A good portion of Translink's budget goes to debt servicing, which means fares are paying a portion of the capital cost, though I do admit it doesn't come close to covering the full cost.

The fact is drivers don't pay for the capital costs of their transportation either and over the last 50 years, the amount spent on road infrastructure has dwarfed public transportation infrastructure. I think a lot of the investment in public transportation is really to make up for decades of neglect.

The road network is needed for movement of goods and for public transit. Imagine the cost to those two modes if there were no motorists to spread the cost out over. Especially since it is the heavier vehicles that cause the most damage to the road surface. Furthermore the COV does pretty minimal road improvements. Usually a road is only resurfaced after they've let developers run rampant cutting patches for sewer, water etc.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

????

The government interferes every time they decide to do something, whether it be building a piece of infrastructure, or setting a price for it's use.

Sure, but why not road pricing or congestion pricing? Government-bugged GPS trackers are a whole lot harder to implement, not to mention somewhat invasive.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sure, but why not road pricing or congestion pricing? Government-bugged GPS trackers are a whole lot harder to implement, not to mention somewhat invasive.

I agree. My preference is for bridge tolls since they are expensive pieces of infrastructure, and natural choke points. The investment to enable tolling at those spaces is cheaper than other options.

The statement I quoted (in bold) doesn't really make sense.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I agree. My preference is for bridge tolls since they are expensive pieces of infrastructure, and natural choke points. The investment to enable tolling at those spaces is cheaper than other options.

The statement I quoted (in bold) doesn't really make sense.

Agreed, and agreed.

[SOSS]

I like looking at other jurisdictions that have successfully implemented different pricing models. Many places have distance based tolls. This could be implemented relatively easily along limited access routes such as Hwy 1, Hwy 91, Hwy 99, and Hwy 17. Gas tax is not equivalent because of fuel efficiency, electric/hybrid vehicles, and out-of-area fuel purchases. Does anyone think a long-haul driver pays towards local taxes? Heck no, the fill up in the valley.

Charging a driver traveling from Abbotsford to Whistler or YVR should not pay the same as a driver traveling from Surrey to Coquitlam. Charge 4, 5 or 6 cents a kilometer via electronic stations like the gantry found at the toll bridges makes the most sense. It would also deter avoiders who clog up other routes because of the low fee.

[red-paladin]

Too bad we can't charge a fee at the border for all non-electric vehicles entering from the USA for the use of our roads and the emissions they generate, and use that money for infrastructure / transit.

[officedweller]

Aircraft generate far more emissions...

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Steveston Hwy interchange:



17A interchange:

That is one beautiful interchange. Hope to see her built. I love freeways like that. I'm probably one of the very few posters on here that prefers freeways to mass transit and I'm only 22 as well.

[SOSS]

Yikes. At one cross section I count 20 lanes between median, on/off ramps and through lanes. Makes me think of a song... "paved over..."

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

I'm probably one of the very few posters on here that prefers freeways to mass transit and I'm only 22 as well.

There are lots of us, we're just not trying so hard to discredit types of transportation that we don't personally use.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by SOSS

Makes me think of a song... "paved over..."

except if you actually read the report, you would have found out there is no decrease to usable land at all; in-fact the freeway will be giving back some land. this whole project has a net decrease, not increase, in land use.

[grid_master]

Shortlist for the contract has been announced: https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2016TRAN0291-001881

ACS-Aecon-Dragados-Flatiron
Kiewit-Vinci
Fluor-American Bridge-SNC-Lavalin

Along with the RFP: http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2016/10/Request-for-Proposals-Oct-2016.pdf

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

except if you actually read the report, you would have found out there is no decrease to usable land at all; in-fact the freeway will be giving back some land. this whole project has a net decrease, not increase, in land use.

I have heard that, but would love to see before/after comparisons and drawings to show the impact.

Having driven the 99 many times, I don't see much "wasted" space with the current infrastructure, and we are talking about a 100-150% increase in the number of lanes across the whole project area.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I have heard that, but would love to see before/after comparisons and drawings to show the impact.

Having driven the 99 many times, I don't see much "wasted" space with the current infrastructure, and we are talking about a 100-150% increase in the number of lanes across the whole project area.

The replacement of cloverleaf junctions with flyovers is probably the single biggest gain. They're much more space efficient. That's why you almost never see cloverleaf designs in dense areas.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I have heard that, but would love to see before/after comparisons and drawings to show the impact.

Previously posted June 25, 2016.

Blue is newly acquired lands.
Pink is RoW lands available for agriculture
(probably a combination existingly available and newly available - you can see the former cloverleafs under some of the pink areas).

These are from a submission to the Agricultural Land Commission.
See link in quoted post.

Originally Posted by officedweller

These maps show the lands to be acquired for the right-of-way - shown in blue.
The pink lands are existng right-of-way lands used for agriculture.

All from this report:
https://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2016/06/ALC-Application-Sections-1-3.pdf

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7485730&postcount=1711

[deasine]

I think the Steveston/99 Junction would be a terrible environment for alighting passengers. As much as having stops in the centre of the highway are best for operations, the "journey" to the actual platform/bus bays are neglected and per the plan, it doesn't seem like a good environment with concrete flyovers and flyunders all around you (and Metro, I know you love it but us forumers are generally an exception...).

[ryanmaccdn]

Originally Posted by deasine

I think the Steveston/99 Junction would be a terrible environment for alighting passengers. As much as having stops in the centre of the highway are best for operations, the "journey" to the actual platform/bus bays are neglected and per the plan, it doesn't seem like a good environment with concrete flyovers and flyunders all around you (and Metro, I know you love it but us forumers are generally an exception...).

Not pretty... but functional as hell! No busy on and off ramp BS the bus has to go thru.

Also these sorta bus islands are the norm down in the states, glad to see us finally catch up.

If only we can get some more stop lights on our on-ramps to control flow.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I have heard that, but would love to see before/after comparisons and drawings to show the impact.

Having driven the 99 many times, I don't see much "wasted" space with the current infrastructure, and we are talking about a 100-150% increase in the number of lanes across the whole project area.

What you dont see while driving 99 many times is the ROW already allocated to the highway which is typical in any highway design for planning for the future.
So when you hear the statistic that there is no net loss of land. Its includes the ROW

[Metro-One]

It is a mix of both comments above.

The new interchanges will be tighter and will actually return some land from the ROW (such as the land within the old style clover leaf style ramps)

Also some land will be returned since the bridge is 3KM long so a good section of surface level highway will be removed. The bridge will also be high enough that the land under the bridge for a good portion of it will be able to be used for other activities.

And then there is the fact that the MOT has long had land reserved on the sides (and middle) of the existing highway for future expansion, so essentially nearly 0 ALR / private land will be needed for the project.