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

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Yes, I agree, and I did say that after spending the similar amount of money on the Port Mann we have an asset, unlike the fast ferries where the money just vanished. But I found it interesting that the bridge losses have now surpassed the amount that caused such a huge public outrage that it toppled the NDP government so badly that they've never recovered. And especially that the government keeps sticking to its "nothing to see here folks, move along" attitude. I think there needs to be more accountability on this issue, particularly in light of the plans for another massive river crossing.

People are less pissed because the Port Mann was actually useful. They still spent way too much on it.

Imagine if in a government project, a cost overrun took a small chunk of money out of the manager's pocket. We would never have this issue, ever.

Originally Posted by Genauso

I expect the greenhouses on ALR land in Delta will one day soon enough be actual houses for people, but I think it probably should match the highway's size and do 4x4 with one lane in each direction for bus/HOV. If substantial growth/interconnection develops, the response should be building a bridge further upstream: the benefits are also disaster or traffic jam resilience.



You are absolutely correct, it's a viral message that should carry far. The difference is the BC Liberals are perhaps the biggest advertiser in the province right now, and most of Christy's personal appointments have been friends from her days in the media.

The media amplifies the trivial or absurd, and what they CHOOSE to focus on makes a lot of difference.

If you go to /r/vancouver there are literally armies of shills that turn up to endorse local and provincial governments making bad deals for the public. I can't tell how effective they are, they do get their message to cover a lot of space but in my experience it's the underdog's story people are usually interested in -- not some major developer or taxicab company. Some of them are paid, but I think a lot are just misled by the media who essentially recruit and coach them to push an incorrect narrative.

It's honestly a bit sad when companies try to PR on Social media. When they have to do that, everyone takes you a little less seriously.

And it would be a shame if that ALR land became houses. You have prime port and industrial land, and you make it residential?. And that's assuming it is removed- which depends on demand and resistance.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Most of Delta is as sea level right? Is it worth having yet another significantly developed area in need of protection when sea levels rise? Imo its better to further density Surrey and Langley than cut into ALR and build in areas that will require serious flood prevention measures in the not too distant future.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

As was mentioned our region has lots of room outside of the ALR to develop...

http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/sea-level-rise-poses-flood-risk-for-delta-1.453564

If Delta floods from Global warming or an Earthquake, Richmond, Deltaport, and Sea Island will also be flooded. We'll have a lot more problems then.

If we're that worried about flooding, we would have to move all our Richmond-ites to higher ground, probably in Maple Ridge or Mission.

Also, most of the higher land in Surrey and Langley is either non-ALR, or already developed. When you take into account future development, and the fact that a large part of the available land (especially flat land at sea level) will, and should be reserved for industrial production, we don't have much land for future development.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Genauso]

Yes, earthquakes/liquefaction are a concern. Yes, flooding from storm surges (and not the Fraser river) are a concern. No, they do not prevent safe construction. The ALR in Richmond and Delta is in the middle of the region and that has major consequences for minimizing the cost of infrastructure, because just like railways over a century ago frequent local traffic is the key to sustainable infrastructure. Being able to connect in 2 dimensions is exponentially cheaper to serve than a population spread in a thin line.

I am less advocating that the land be unlocked, than I am recognizing what has already happened. From Milan Ilich's 1989 Ivy Manor to yesterday (Super-sized Richmond farmhouses have 'gotten out of hand': councillor ), it has already happened. If Toigo can get the province to refund the Feds $1.6 billion for the PST over HST, I don't think a magnitude more political influence will stop what's already happened from being extended and formalized. Their advantage isn't in marketing or construction cost, their excellence is in acquiring cheap land and financing.

What you may not understand is that the price of ALR farmland and the taxes on it are lower, ostensibly to support local agriculture but in practice subsidizing mansions. Furthermore, even when it's rented for agricultural purposes it can be indoor hothouse growing -- that makes no sense, you can locate them on any ground.

There's lots of angles to the local real estate game. You will find some of the biggest developers are actually the biggest owners of farmland as well.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Nobody disagrees we need a new bridge

There are countless comments that prove the contrary in this very thread.

[spaceprobe]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I see that the Port Mann has now lost more money than the Fast Ferry scandal that turfed Glen Clark out of the premiership. They keep punting the "break-even" point for the operating budget down the road several years and at the same time expressing "complete confidence" in the predictions with a straight face. Politicians.

When the bridge opened in 2012 the prediction was that it would take about 6 years for revenues to pay for its operating and debt servicing costs. Now in 2017 they predict it will take about 7 years before that point is reached. Does anyone see a trend?

At least with the Port Mann we have an asset to use, but it's interesting that the sheer size of the cost overruns isn't getting more press. Particularly when the credibility of their ability to predict traffic volumes and estimate revenues is so relevant to the Massey Tunnel replacement.

My question is, if the project was built and funded completely by the province (ie, not P3), how much would the province be "losing" when accounting for all costs (ie debt and interest payments)? Will it be higher or lower than with P3? In my opinion, the question isn't whether the bridge needed to be replaced, but rather, whether P3 was the appropriate option. This is something we (the province) can learn from before deciding on the next bridge to build.

[Metro-One]

Personally myself I think an 8 lane structure is the best solution (with the same general interchanges and rapid bus being proposed) but in the end how much money would reducing the bridge by 2 lanes really save?

Let's just say I am 1000 times more satisfied with an over built structure than an underbuilt one (or none at all, which in BC is sadly always a real option for projects unless they are hammered through...)

[GMasterAres]

I don't think reducing from 10 to 8 would have a major cost impact. Not enough to worry about it so that's why they are going 10 and getting the benefit of a near-dedicated climbing lane and HOV lane while increasing general traffic lanes. This bridge's climb will be greater than the Alex Fraser bridge and a large contributor to AFB's heavy traffic every day now is truck traffic and the lack of a dedicated climbing lane.

Anyway the issues presented int he last several pages are solved quite easily by government (municipal and provincial) having the balls to start governing and just:

1. Tolling all the SoF to NoF major crossings so no crossing is untolled
2. Making the toll THE SAME on all crossings

That would solve a lot of issues because the region would then switch from picking the cheapest route to picking the fastest route and it would re-distribute commute patterns more evenly. Not only that but I'm fairly certain doing this would see the Port Mann and GEB start to inch closer to the black a lot sooner. Government does one thing REALLY well and that's underestimating the average citizen's drive and determination to avoid tolls even if it costs them a lot more actual money and time to do so.

Vast majority of my friends still avoid the Port Mann even if going to Coquitlam and i guarantee they are wasting far more time and more money in gas and wear-and-tear on their cars not to mention stress by being bone-headed and taking the Pattullo instead of the faster PMB.

*sigh*

[cornholio]

The bridge is needed. 10 lames is appropriate given the grade, area. As mentioned under-building it offers no meaningful cost savings. Compromise for the sake of compromise as in reducing the lane count from 10 is simply not a logical course of action. Get it built. Not a fan of the Liberals but investment in infrastructure like this is nice. One of the reasons I cant vote for the NDP is because they said they would cancel the project. They are idiots. As for the mayors council, given municipal voter turnout I don't they they really have much of a mandate and their opinions should be dialed back on provincially critical infrastructure.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i find it odd for people to think 8 lanes is enough. that means 3 lane in each direction. have you seen the traffic issues when there are 3 lanes in the rush hour direction? remember 8 = 6 through lanes + 2 bus lanes. a 10 lane bridge only adds 1 lane in each direction at rush hour. that really isn't that much of a capacity increase.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i find it odd for people to think 8 lanes is enough. that means 3 lane in each direction. have you seen the traffic issues when there are 3 lanes in the rush hour direction? remember 8 = 6 through lanes + 2 bus lanes. a 10 lane bridge only adds 1 lane in each direction at rush hour. that really isn't that much of a capacity increase.

Even with that, think of squishing all that traffic onto Oak and Granvile Streets in Vancouver. It'll be a gridlock nightmare commuting North-South.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[milomilo]

Yes it reasonable to question, which is why it has been questioned multiple times and the answer is the same.

Building the bridge for 8 lanes vs 10 would at best be 80% of the cost of building a 10 lane bridge, and likely not even that much of a saving. And that's only the bridge portion of this massive project, so it's obvious the cost savings would be minimal, whereas the impact on the number of general traffic lanes would be large - 3 lanes vs 2 once you subtract the climbing lanes and HOV lane.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i find it odd for people to think 8 lanes is enough. that means 3 lane in each direction. have you seen the traffic issues when there are 3 lanes in the rush hour direction? remember 8 = 6 through lanes + 2 bus lanes. a 10 lane bridge only adds 1 lane in each direction at rush hour. that really isn't that much of a capacity increase.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The current tunnel is a massive bottleneck and very old, it's clear we need more capacity. I think it's simply reasonable to question whether we need more than double the capacity. Would a full redesign with only the structure required for 8 lanes really not be that much cheaper? Probably, if anything the cost is the best reason to build 10 lanes I suppose.

The 99 would actually lose traffic over the George Massey if tolled...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yes it reasonable to question, which is why it has been questioned multiple times and the answer is the same.

Building the bridge for 8 lanes vs 10 would at best be 80% of the cost of building a 10 lane bridge, and likely not even that much of a saving. And that's only the bridge portion of this massive project, so it's obvious the cost savings would be minimal, whereas the impact on the number of general traffic lanes would be large - 3 lanes vs 2 once you subtract the climbing lanes and HOV lane.

Well, first of all, 20% of $3.5B is $700M, that could go a long ways towards other capital projects in the province.

Second, why was a new tunnel never considered? Where's the cost estimate to build a new 8 lane tunnel? Everybody talks about the grade required, the soil, etc. That's the whole reason they built a tunnel for this crossing in the first place.

Maybe they could even build 4-6 new tunnel lanes, then when that is operational, remove the current tunnel and rebuild more lanes there.

The fact is, there are many options here, and instead the government says "nope, 10 lane bridge like the Port Mann, will cost as much or more, best option, period, all financial info redacted from publicly released documents".

Compare this to the consultation and options Translink has presented for the Patullo, or other projects like Broadway RRT vs LRT, etc. It's a joke.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Well, first of all, 20% of $3.5B is $700M, that could go a long ways towards other capital projects in the province.

Second, why was a new tunnel never considered? Where's the cost estimate to build a new 8 lane tunnel? Everybody talks about the grade required, the soil, etc. That's the whole reason they built a tunnel for this crossing in the first place.

Maybe they could even build 4-6 new tunnel lanes, then when that is operational, remove the current tunnel and rebuild more lanes there.

The fact is, there are many options here, and instead the government says "nope, 10 lane bridge like the Port Mann, will cost as much or more, best option, period, all financial info redacted from publicly released documents".

Compare this to the consultation and options Translink has presented for the Patullo, or other projects like Broadway RRT vs LRT, etc. It's a joke.

Probably because you cant transport hazardous goods through a tunnel. this bridge does serve port traffic
As it stands right now hazardous traffic cannot pass through GMT.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Well, first of all, 20% of $3.5B is $700M, that could go a long ways towards other capital projects in the province.

Second, why was a new tunnel never considered? Where's the cost estimate to build a new 8 lane tunnel? Everybody talks about the grade required, the soil, etc. That's the whole reason they built a tunnel for this crossing in the first place.

Maybe they could even build 4-6 new tunnel lanes, then when that is operational, remove the current tunnel and rebuild more lanes there.

The fact is, there are many options here, and instead the government says "nope, 10 lane bridge like the Port Mann, will cost as much or more, best option, period, all financial info redacted from publicly released documents".

Compare this to the consultation and options Translink has presented for the Patullo, or other projects like Broadway RRT vs LRT, etc. It's a joke.

$3.5 billion is for the whole project - the bridge portion is smaller. And 80% of the cost is best case, the likely savings will be less still, there will be large portions of the cost that will change very little whether you are building 8 or 10 lanes.

How do you know a tunnel wasn't considered? I admit I haven't looked through all the documents on this, so don't know, but I would be very surprised if they didn't consider multiple options in the beginning before deciding on the bridge option.

I agree though that road projects do get less public scrutiny, but I see this as problem with over scrutiny of transit projects rather than under scrutiny of road projects. We have the same thing in Calgary - the ring road was basically designed and built by the province and we took what was given, but the Green Line has had to go through endless community engagement sessions, which IMO are worthless as transit planners should be the ones making the decisions, not local busybodies and NIMBYs.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by milomilo

$3.5 billion is for the whole project - the bridge portion is smaller. And 80% of the cost is best case, the likely savings will be less still, there will be large portions of the cost that will change very little whether you are building 8 or 10 lanes.

How do you know a tunnel wasn't considered? I admit I haven't looked through all the documents on this, so don't know, but I would be very surprised if they didn't consider multiple options in the beginning before deciding on the bridge option.

The PMB project was similarly ~3.5 billion ... of that, the bridge was less than 800 million (see comments from Todd Stone)

going from 8 to 10 lanes is 10-15% (see Patullo Bridge numbers)

so approximately 80-120 million

given the grade is steeper as others have pointed out, that's approximately the cost of an interchange

doesn't seem unreasonable

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Probably because you cant transport hazardous goods through a tunnel. this bridge does serve port traffic
As it stands right now hazardous traffic cannot pass through GMT.

Good point on hazmat.

Yes, the port is going to benefit significantly from the bridge. Wish there was a cost-sharing agreement...