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

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Pre-loading contracts just went out for tender I believe.

Honestly this project feels like it may be going through pretty quick from its initial introduction.

It will be interesting to see what stage those contracts are in prior to Election Day 2017. The NDP has been largely silent on what they would do with this. They've come out against Site C, but that's virtually impossible to stop now, with Billions committed.

[WarrenC12]

Since we are on the topic of crossing volumes, here are a couple of graphs that speak wonders IMO.

PMB Volumes from 2013-2016, including straight lines of predicted volumes from 2013, 2017 (breakeven on tolling) and 2023.

2016 saw a big boost mid-year due to the Patullo construction. Looking at fall 2016, it appears that some of that volume has "stuck" as people realize the PMB is a better option. What is more concerning to me is the breakeven line. IMO we are at least 20 years away from hitting that volume at current rates. Big impacts will be new Patullo (also tolled), and potentially Skytrain to Langley (giving more people another cheaper option).




For reference, current volumes on the GMT are around ~80k/day and AFB are around ~110-120k/day.

If we picture some future where we have a new GMT/Bridge, a new Patullo, and a tolled AFB, where will the traffic come from to justify or pay for these pieces of infrastructure?

You can argue that they shouldn't be funded by tolls, but that is the way they are being sold to the taxpayer. Every dollar that is sunk into these projects is a dollar that can't be spent on a hospital, a transit line, a new school, or even a tax cut.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by fredinno

ok, but it still raises the question why George Massey is so big. The Port Mann and Golden Ears might need "future proofing" due to the amount of empty non-ALR and semi-suburban ALR land, but there is very little on the South Delta side to develop. Richmond is expected to expand dramatically, but its traffic is also split onto the Alex Fraser.

Somewhere along the line they probably did a cost trade-off analysis to figure out the optimal size. Incremental costs of wider bridges aren't that much higher than narrower ones. You might need to build things a bit beefier, but the labour required per bridge lane is less.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Honestly this project feels like it may be going through pretty quick from its initial introduction.

My thoughts too, I was surprised to hear it was going ahead so quickly, especially compared to the Hwy 1 consultation and design period.

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Somewhere along the line they probably did a cost trade-off analysis to figure out the optimal size. Incremental costs of wider bridges aren't that much higher than narrower ones. You might need to build things a bit beefier, but the labour required per bridge lane is less.

Exactly. Remove two lanes of the GMB and you're still not hitting your revenue projections and the bridge is just that much more likely to be a bottleneck in 30 years.

[fredinno]

Now we wait for all major bridges to be tolled...

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

First of all, the point of roads and bridges is not to make money. The idea of paying for capitol expenses for such mega projects through tolls is terrible. Tolls IMO should just be seen as a source for some extra revenue and to control traffic volumes.

This is no different than expecting fare revenue to completely (or largely) pay for the capitol costs of the Evergreen Line (or nearly any transit line). Not going to happen.

I also always love the dammed if you do or don't approach from those against highways.

If the highway does not meet projected traffic volumes = failure for being underutilized.

If the highway exceeds projected traffic volumes = failure for "inducing" demand.

Can't have it both ways. It is a future proof built structure, and calling it half empty today is also quite a stretch....

Agreed!

People never used to ask - will this infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, hydro, transit) project pay for itself.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Agreed!

People never used to ask - will this infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, hydro, transit) project pay for itself.

I have to disagree with the breadth of this assertion. A great deal of infrastructure was originally built and operated by private companies, and they needed to have infrastructure pay for itself to remain in business.

Transit was once exclusively private, whether it was horse-drawn omnibuses and later internal combustion buses, horse-drawn streetcars and later electric streetcars, commuter train steam railways and later diesel and electric commuter railways, interurban electric railways, or urban subways and elevated railways.

Locally, several electric streetcar companies built and operated streetcars networks in Metro Vancouver and inter-city interurban service before consolidation resulted in the BC Electric Railway operating a unified system of streetcars and interurbans. The BC Electric Railway was a division of the BC Electric Company, which meant that its "fuel" (electricity) was free and it could share delivery infrastructure (utility poles and substations) with its commercial electricity business and realize considerable economies of scale and efficiencies. Land developers would also generally contribute to the cost of extending service down new streets or past former termini to enable their projects to develop. The streetcar companies expected that their capital investment and operating costs would be covered through the farebox (and ads and real estate). The BC Electric Railway and BC Electric Company were later nationalized and rolled into the then-newly created BC Hydro utility, which decided to remove the streetcar tracks and end rail-based service but continue transit service using electric buses.

It was also once the norm across North America to toll major bridges in order to recover their capital cost and cover maintenance. Most of our bridges in Metro Vancouver were once tolled: the Port Mann Bridge, Iron Workers Memorial, Lion's Gate Bridge, Queensborough Bridge, Oak Street Bridge, and the Massey Tunnel were all once tolled. The departure from tolling came in the 1960s when unprecedented economic growth filled government coffers to a sufficient enough degree that the populist policy of removing tolls could be implemented with great fanfare.

[Stingray2004]

Well that's was much quicker than I would have thought:

Environmental Assessment Certificate issued for Massey Tunnel replacement

News Talk 980 CKNW

Posted: February 09, 2017 02:22 pm

It’s considered another key step towards the George Massey Tunnel replacement project.

The B.C. government says it’s issued an environmental assessment certificate for the project, which includes the construction of a new 10-lane tolled bridge, upgrades to Westminster Highway, Steveston Highway, and Highway 17A interchanges, and decommissioning the George Massey Tunnel.

That certificate comes with 33 legally binding conditions, including minimizing impacts on fish and fish habitats and that it would follow through on an earlier analysis indicating the replacement will eliminate traffic congestion in the area.

http://www.cknw.com/2017/02/09/environme...te-issued-for-massey-tunnel-replacement/

[officedweller]

Here's the link to the documents at the EAO website:

https://projects.eao.gov.bc.ca/p/george-massey-tunnel-replacement/docs?folder=89

Note the Schedule A Certified Project Description and the Schedule B Table of Conditions.

[WarrenC12]

I'm just going to leave this here... from the EAO report:

[Metro-One]

Seeing how region wide bridge tolling is being seriously discussed now, and may be implemented with the opening of things Bridge and the Pattullo, I wonder how that will change such estimates.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Seeing how region wide bridge tolling is being seriously discussed now, and may be implemented with the opening of things Bridge and the Pattullo, I wonder how that will change such estimates.

What's missing is the totals.

Current traffic: 436k
2045 W/O Bridge: 491k
2045 With Bridge: 481k

Doing the math they are predicting either a 12.6% or 10.3% increase in traffic over the next 30 years. That's really low growth.

Their model predicts less traffic based on tolls, so if the AFB is tolled, logic would dictate overall traffic would be even less than 481k crossings.

Many factors could impact this, including transit lines, autonomous shared vehicles, some other method of distance based tolling, and so on.

I think more capacity over the Fraser is needed, but this proposed crossing is far too expensive, and telling us tolling will pay for it is an outright lie.

[libtard]

Thank god I live in Richmond and rarely go south of the Fraser so regional bridge tolling will never effect me. Arthur Lang will never be tolled because it's owned by the airport

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by libtard

Arthur Lang will never be tolled because it's owned by the airport

well...

Airport Looks at Bridge Tolls, Restrictions

they have been looking at this idea of tolling it for non-airport users since 2006. even in their YVR 2037 plan, they talk about it as well.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

well...

Airport Looks at Bridge Tolls, Restrictions

they have been looking at this idea of tolling it for non-airport users since 2006. even in their YVR 2037 plan, they talk about it as well.

Oh, isn't that progressive.....

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm just going to leave this here... from the EAO report:

Am I the only one who sees that according to their own report tolling alone would reduce the congestion problem? Why build a bridge at all?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Am I the only one who sees that according to their own report tolling alone would reduce the congestion problem? Why build a bridge at all?

Earthquakes(!!!)

I agree that tolling would solve the problem, but I also agree that the structure is aging and needs to be replaced (like the Patullo).

I bet we could build a $1B solution to the GMT bottleneck, charge $2/crossing for it and the AFB, and have volumes be appropriate to have good traffic flow and revenue generation in line with costs.

[officedweller]

and remember that tolling is a form of "demand side management" that is intended to reduce usage - so that the [new] infrastructure has a longer lifespan before it becomes congested (in the case of the Port Mann Bridge - 35 years (I think) before it gets congested again).

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Am I the only one who sees that according to their own report tolling alone would reduce the congestion problem? Why build a bridge at all?

THE GOAL ISN'T TO REDUCE MOVEMENT. How many times do we have to go over this in infrastructure discussions?

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by Pinion

THE GOAL ISN'T TO REDUCE MOVEMENT. How many times do we have to go over this in infrastructure discussions?

In terms of people travelling in private automobiles, uh, yes it is.

In terms of net movement of people, no.