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

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by libtard

I find it funny that every riding in Richmond went to a Liberal and this is a major project proposed by the Liberals. Richmond residents understand how crucial this link is. What a joke that it's not being built. The bridge has the potential to be a game changer. I can see it actually generating a decent amount of money and not running at a huge deficit. Ask all the drivers stuck on 99 southbound waiting to get through the tunnel every day after work. Ask all the drivers stuck on Steveston highway trying to get onto 99 ANY direction. The whole corridor needs a rework and it HAS the ROW already in place. People will pay a premium for an unobstructed route home to Delta, South Surrey, etc. The fact that the highway has already been dug up and site prep starting and now it's going to be cancelled only because of politics is pathetic.

Is there word of the bridge getting cancelled?
edit.....I read about the recent election...i guess so

[Mininari]

Guys, I think the 10-lane bridge is as good as dead following some comments from Andrew Weaver on the matter. Best one can hope for now is a twinned tunnel with commensurate interchange improvements.

But my guess is the project, in its present scope, will be halted under an NDP-Green government... unless there is something I am missing.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Guys, I think the 10-lane bridge is as good as dead following some comments from Andrew Weaver on the matter. Best one can hope for now is a twinned tunnel with commensurate interchange improvements.

But my guess is the project, in its present scope, will be halted under an NDP-Green government... unless there is something I am missing.

Yeah your not missing anything unless I am also missing something. They both mentioned it Weaver and Horgan. They did not say it is dead but they said they will stop the project, re analyze it and work with the mayors. Which pretty much means no new infrastructure and more congestion. (you wont even see a twinned tunnel I think or anything at all imo, it will all be ground to a halt by the incompetence of the mayors council and the NDP/Greens will just let it happen and take credit if things go well, and deny its their fault if they dont)

Though there is still a chance it continues but they mentioned it, both of them, in a way where this is going to be one of those things that define their government and I think that means ultimately it will be dead even if a new study recommends it gets built.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by p78hub

No no, clearly the solution is no more trucks, and also a time machine to take us back to 1957.

If it's that big a deal, make Alex Fraser the only truck route.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by libtard

I find it funny that every riding in Richmond went to a Liberal and this is a major project proposed by the Liberals. Richmond residents understand how crucial this link is. What a joke that it's not being built. The bridge has the potential to be a game changer. I can see it actually generating a decent amount of money and not running at a huge deficit. Ask all the drivers stuck on 99 southbound waiting to get through the tunnel every day after work. Ask all the drivers stuck on Steveston highway trying to get onto 99 ANY direction. The whole corridor needs a rework and it HAS the ROW already in place. People will pay a premium for an unobstructed route home to Delta, South Surrey, etc. The fact that the highway has already been dug up and site prep starting and now it's going to be cancelled only because of politics is pathetic.

Gee, how strange is it then that Richmond's Mayor and Council were vigorous opponents of the Massey Bridge?

[moosejaw]

SO if the bridge is cancelled and they twin the tunnel, you still have the issue of not being able to transport hazardous material through the tunnel to the port. Twinning the tunnel still leaves one tunnel exposed to structural integrity issues during an earthquake?

However i was surprised to learn the tunnel only sees 80k trips a day compared to over 100k for the alex fraser and pmb. Its really hard to justify a 10 lane bridge when your average traffic counts have been stagnant for the better part of a decade. Combined with the relevation that the port is not intersted in dredging the fraser, there is really no justifciation for a infrastructure project like this.

Its really sad to to see this but in the long run i dont think the bridge will be needed or if so will be probably be drastically reduced in scope. I think 8 lanes max is fine and perhaps stretching it create a new 4+2hov lane pair of tunnels for general traffic while bus and truck traffic use the old one. The Steveston and ladner interchanges are well over designed. I think a Diverging Diamonf Interchange type would better. I hear steveston is bad but it cant that bad to warrant the first type of its interchange ever.

Save those fancy things for across the border. BC can get by with traffic lights and painted lines for the time being to suit the granola skytrain crowd.

[libtard]

Everything was already designed perfectly. 3 through lanes, 1 hov bus lane, and one lane for cars entering from Steveston on-ramp. A diverging diamond interchange would be cool but there is zero chance they would put on at Steveston. Imo the interchange that was designed addressed everything. We need flyovers. Every single day traffic backs up to silver city Riverport on Steveston highway westbound trying to get into 99. Eastbound is the same it backs up to 4 road trying to get on 99 south. I'm not opposed to a tunnel. The number of trucks transporting hazardous material is a small fraction. The tunnel already gets a ton of truck traffic. Plus the grade/climb of a tunnel is much smaller then a bridge which is good. I just can't see them going the tunnel route.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Yeah your not missing anything unless I am also missing something. They both mentioned it Weaver and Horgan. They did not say it is dead but they said they will stop the project, re analyze it and work with the mayors.

If the Liberals had done this kind of open and honest evaluation and design process in the first place than they might have been able to come up with a consensus approach that could have withstood the change in government. The opposition to their bridge had a lot to do with their habit of ramming highway projects down the throats of the municipalities whether they liked them or not.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

If the Liberals had done this kind of open and honest evaluation and design process in the first place than they might have been able to come up with a consensus approach that could have withstood the change in government. The opposition to their bridge had a lot to do with their habit of ramming highway projects down the throats of the municipalities whether they liked them or not.

Well I am not a fan of ramming a project through despite what so-called local leaders want, sometimes it has to be done. Consider the Canada Line project that was rejected. The government went ahead anyway... good thing they did. Also, the PMB was a smart choice. The old PMB was costing a lot just to maintain the bridge.

These choices worked in these 2 examples but who knows about the GMT. Maybe doing nothing right now is what happens with this new government.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Also, the PMB was a smart choice. The old PMB was costing a lot just to maintain the bridge.

From this article it looks like they'd pegged the maintenance and rehab costs of the old Port Mann to be $180m (that's probably total, not ongoing). From this article the operating losses on the new Port Mann have been $407m over the first five years and continue to grow.

Losing $407m to save $180m is not a "smart choice". Say what you will about reducing congestion, from a financial standpoint the PMB definitely wasn't a "smart choice".

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Losing $407m to save $180m is not a "smart choice". Say what you will about reducing congestion, from a financial standpoint the PMB definitely wasn't a "smart choice".

We could save a lot more money by simply not building any bridges at all, but that doesn't necessarily make it the "smart choice". You have to include the benefits you get from the money you spent, not just the costs.

I'm not claiming that the Port Mann as built was a "smart choice" - just that it's more complex than your statement suggests.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

From this article it looks like they'd pegged the maintenance and rehab costs of the old Port Mann to be $180m (that's probably total, not ongoing). From this article the operating losses on the new Port Mann have been $407m over the first five years and continue to grow.

Losing $407m to save $180m is not a "smart choice". Say what you will about reducing congestion, from a financial standpoint the PMB definitely wasn't a "smart choice".

Well, traffic used to be backed up to 176th regularly and sometimes all the way to 200th. The economic costs in lost time and productivity were one of the driving factors for replacing the aging bridge. I do agree that smart choice depends on how you look at it. Time is money as they say....

[Zassk]

Three of the last five weekdays have seen the GMT have legendary congestion like the PMB of old. On Tuesday, Google Maps had the afternoon delay through the tunnel at 1 hour 4 minutes! And it stayed that way for 4 hours.

It is frustrating when people totally disconnected with it write things like:

However i was surprised to learn the tunnel only sees 80k trips a day compared to over 100k for the alex fraser and pmb.

Of course it has less trips per day; none more will fit, and as the truck traffic goes up, the net capacity goes odwn. The GMT has less lanes than either of those other crossings had, and the GMT has even older and more crippling interchanges at both ends (vintage 1959).

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Three of the last five weekdays have seen the GMT have legendary congestion like the PMB of old. On Tuesday, Google Maps had the afternoon delay through the tunnel at 1 hour 4 minutes! And it stayed that way for 4 hours.

It is frustrating when people totally disconnected with it write things like:

Of course it has less trips per day; none more will fit, and as the truck traffic goes up, the net capacity goes odwn. The GMT has less lanes than either of those other crossings had, and the GMT has even older and more crippling interchanges at both ends (vintage 1959).

So based on your comments, we'd expect to see a massive surge in volume on the PMB after the new bridge was built as compared to the "legendary congestion" prior to the project.

However the reality is, that just hasn't happened.

I agree the GMT itself and surrounding infrastructure needs improvements, I just don't think a 10 lane bridge is justified.

[ryanmaccdn]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So based on your comments, we'd expect to see a massive surge in volume on the PMB after the new bridge was built as compared to the "legendary congestion" prior to the project.

However the reality is, that just hasn't happened.

I agree the GMT itself and surrounding infrastructure needs improvements, I just don't think a 10 lane bridge is justified.

How is it not???? That's 5 lanes each direction, minus 1 lane for Bus/Transit... also minus 1 more lane due to truck climbing requirements. That leaves 3 free flow lanes. 3!

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by ryanmaccdn

How is it not???? That's 5 lanes each direction, minus 1 lane for Bus/Transit... also minus 1 more lane due to truck climbing requirements. That leaves 3 free flow lanes. 3!

Yes but traffic is 80k daily going through the tunnel right now as we speak.
Let me ask you this does the AFB need a truck climbing lane?
10 lanes on bridge that will initially see 80k of daily traffic is a waste. If you can tell me that the bridge will see a 100k daily projection in the first two years then maybe I will buy your argument. But i think the area and the commuters qtys coming from south delta white rock wont justify the expense.

For a bridge like this the priority should be moving traffic efficiently. If i were a politician it would be hard to convince me this crossing needs 10 lanes esp when there is backlash against SOV from local leaders. A project like this needs to reduce SOV usage

Now if this were a true C/D design then i can support 10 lanes with a 3 lane for vancouver and two for Richmond. But I think this will fly with the general public if it were reduced in scope and remove the US style interchanges. Because my feeling is the public (well the ones in vancouver proper) is dead set against this project.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by ryanmaccdn

How is it not???? That's 5 lanes each direction, minus 1 lane for Bus/Transit... also minus 1 more lane due to truck climbing requirements. That leaves 3 free flow lanes. 3!

LOL nice math.

By your logic:

Old PMB had 3 lanes going north/west, now it has 5, but with 2 for direct access to Coquitlam, 1 HOV lane, 1 climbing lane, that leave ONE free flow lane. ONE!!! How is it not backed up 24/7?!?!?!

[Trainguy]

The AFB was just built with just 6 lanes and on opening day 4 lanes in use. That didn't last long. I bet they wish they had built a 10 lane bridge. Bridges are built to last a long time meeting demands not only for today, but for future traffic as well. A 10 lane GMB would reduce some congestion on the AFB, especially with no tolls.

People who are not stuck in traffic on their commute don't really have a right to comment on whether a bridge is needed on not. I could easily say that people in some other part of the province don't need this bridge or that bridge. I spent years stuck on the old PMB. Thank goodness those days are over.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

The AFB was just built with just 6 lanes and on opening day 4 lanes in use. That didn't last long. I bet they wish they had built a 10 lane bridge. Bridges are built to last a long time meeting demands not only for today, but for future traffic as well. A 10 lane GMB would reduce some congestion on the AFB, especially with no tolls.

People who are not stuck in traffic on their commute don't really have a right to comment on whether a bridge is needed on not. I could easily say that people in some other part of the province don't need this bridge or that bridge. I spent years stuck on the old PMB. Thank goodness those days are over.

It's everybody's taxpayer dollars. If you are going to finance something with 100% or near 100% user-pay, go nuts. That was the idea behind the PMB and the GMT replacement proposal. The PMB has fallen far short of those expectations, so everybody has a right to be questioning the GMT numbers.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

these arguments sound similar to the countless times before them. the points about climbing lanes. the points about its only 80k right now. blah blah blah. this is pretty boring i have to say guys. cant you come up with anything new to argue about without spewing the same stuff over and over? no one is going to win because it is impossible to win. and no one will be changing their minds.

when you come up with something new then you guys should argue that. but this is annoying now.