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

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks! I appreciate your heartfelt addition to the thread!

[Klazu]

People saying "GMT only sees 80k cars/day" don't realize that it's pretty much maximum that a 2+2 lane highway can do. Of course AFB sees more traffic with 3+3 lanes and as the closest option for large residential area.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by Klazu

People saying "GMT only sees 80k cars/day" don't realize that it's pretty much maximum that a 2+2 lane highway can do. Of course AFB sees more traffic with 3+3 lanes and as the closest option for large residential area.

That I understand.
You dont have to convince me but you do have to convince John Q Public which may not like it or understand it esp when they are convinced that the money earmarked can be better suited to transit.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

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?!?!?!

As a side note - the old PMB had 2 lanes westbound and 3 lanes eastbound.
The 5th eastbound lane was added in the late 1990s/2000 to provided additional space because of climbing trucks leaving Pacific Reach Business Park and climbing the bridge. The new lane, however, was marked as an HOV lane rather than a general lane.

http://www.kwhconstructors.com/project-gallery/port-mann-bridge/

[libtard]

It really is a perfectly designed bridge and interchanges that address current and future congestion.

I stopped by the Massey bridge project office at Ironwood mall in Richmond today. I asked them about the future of this project now that the new government is in power. They assured me everything is on schedule and that plans for awarding the contract in late summer are still going ahead in spite of the new government.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by libtard

They assured me everything is on schedule and that plans for awarding the contract in late summer are still going ahead in spite of the new government.

They're going ahead until they aren't.

[retro_orange]

Snap.

[Metro-One]

So from what I have read this weekend it sounds like the NDP / Green coalition are adiment on cancelling this project outright (not even compromising or studying any real alternatives that would include upgrading the freeway to modern standards).

After so much research, design, and preconstruction that has taken place, this really is an annoying yet predictable turn of events.

It seems the only thing they wish to do is add more buses on the 99... which seriously wont help much, since even if your only desire was to have a strong, modern rapid bus type system, it would still require a complete re-build of the highway and most structures.

The 99 in its current form is incredibly outdated regarding many of its key interchanges (especially those on either side of the tunnel) and has so many minor additions glued onto it (horrid 3 to 1 lane counter flows, laughable bus lanes that literally are only shoulders, odd splits and re-merges due to counter flows and building around existing overpass supports, etc...) that a complete overhaul is warranted, and this will cost billions no matter what ideology a government has.

People tend to forget that the proposed 99 re-build actually had a real rapid bus system connecting it directly with skytrain in Richmond as a major component. If you want to argue whether or not the stations themselves should be re-designed, that is a fair complaint and could use some tweaks.

Also, an idea of twinning the tunnel is terrible because it would still cost billions, would still have us using infrastructure nearing the end of its life far sooner than the viaducts in Van (therefore would require being re-built twice in the long run), would create more awkward lane splitting, and of course not address the shipping or earthquake issues.

I had to laugh at some of the comments by NDP / Green followers saying how they should just build LRT to White Rock, the ferries, and another spur out to Surrey, and actually expect this to be a cheaper alternative than the GMB, which unlike the LRT idea, is able to carry personal vehicles, transports, emergency vehicles, and rapid transit via the far more flexible and sane choice for the area that would be served, Rapid Bus. Also, isn't Surrey's little LRT pet project over 2 billion now? And that is nearly completely at grade, is a single stretch instead of 2 or 3 spurs, and does not involve any massive river crossings...

Seriously, what a joke.

I would have been fine with a compromise, say 8 lanes instead of 10, and maybe polishing up the rapid bus part (would love to have seen that element extended all the way to King George or 252nd street), but nope, the NDP are now anti-highway (despite being the party that actually built them in the past).

I guess in the end this is only the 2nd worse outcome though, we don't need anymore band-aid / lipstick on a pig fix ups on the 99 wasting money. Better that they just do nothing and maybe this project gets resurrected again in the future by another party.

I am curious though, what did people really think they were going to win with the NDP and Greens infrastructure wise over the next 4 years? The Liberals finally committed the 40% for the Broadway and Surrey trains, and they were fully committed and signed for the entire phase one of the 10 year plan, and they were going to build this much needed projects. The NDP / Green coalition look to be building the exact same transit projects, just no highway projects (maybe the Pattullo since that was one of their promises, which then also kind of goes against there no roads agenda, same with the no tolls idea...).

Seriously, if the NDP were not so dead set against this project (because it was a Liberal brainchild no doubt) I would have maybe voted for them.

I just wish BC could be more like Ontario and Quebec where a left leaning political party can actually support and build major freeway and transit projects at the same time.

[logicbomb]

Really regretting my Green vote. The GreenDP will likely not do anything impactful over the next few years. They seem to talk-the-talk and are wasting time protesting the whole KM project. These guys are job killers...

Another compromise would have been to build another link off the SFPR near Tilbury which could have connected to Boundary (South Burnaby) via Central Richmond.

Better transit is good but we also need to upgrade the Highway infrastructure to provide better service. Can you imagine the 555 without the new PMB?

[Cypherus]

The Greens and NDP won't be happy until everyone in the region is on their bikes.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

They seem to talk-the-talk and are wasting time protesting the whole KM project.

Well, IF the Lieutenant-Governor does call upon the NDP/Green combo to form gov't (alot of water still to flow under the bridge regarding that matter), they have already signaled that they will go to war with PM JT/Ottawa over KM, which will undoubtedly sour relations. BTW, the most recent opinion poll had majority BC support for KM.

In that event, don't expect the feds to step up to the plate regarding federal funding of their 40% capex share on BC infrastructure projects. Feds will just drag their feet. Same thing happened when BC NDP gov't went to war with Ottawa in 1990's.

With a 43 - 43 + 1 Speaker most constitutional/poli sci opinion gives the NDP/Greens a shelf life of 12 - 18 months in any event.

[logicbomb]

I agree. The LG could even see the potential divide between BC and Canada and determine this isn't the way to go.

How stupid are Horgan and Weaver to sour relations with AB and Trudeau over a pipeline. Outright rejection without any compromise. They would have garnered more support if they attempted to add conditions...(ie. we will allow the project if BCers can refine here).

[GlassCity]

I don't know what the stats are, but anecdotally just about everyone seems to be against the pipeline. If that's the case, rejecting it is actually a smart move politically.

As far as this project goes, we'll see what happens. They may halt current progress, but Horgan's said he'd "defer to the mayors" while Weaver likes the idea of a twin tunnel. What any of that will mean none of us know. They may push it back, but I personally would be surprised if a tunnel replacement was just completely abandoned.

Either way, the Liberals committing to 40% of the rapid transit projects doesn't mean anything when they still want to hold a referendum on any local funding mechanism to make up the last 20%. Implying they'd do just as much for transit as the NDP/Greens is laughable. I'm fully glad I didn't vote for a bunch of crooks over a bridge.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Another compromise would have been to build another link off the SFPR near Tilbury which could have connected to Boundary (South Burnaby) via Central Richmond.

This was looked at as part of the GMB consultation phase. Both the mayors and the public were opposed to the Tilbury crossing, or any combination involving that location plus a smaller tunnel expansion. The GMB as it has been designed was opposed by the mayors, but had the highest level of support from the public out of all of the options.

Ideally, to meet the needs of the region, we would have 8 lanes at AFB and 8 lanes at GMB. I see the 9th and 10th lanes on this bridge as just compensating for the AFB being unable to expand.

(I don't see what the AFB counterflow will accomplish.. 7 lanes at 70 kmh doesn't transport any more traffic than 6 lanes at 90 kmh. I would have rather seen a 2+2+2 counterflow on the AFB with fixed barriers.)

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

hopefully the lieutenant governor doesn't give them government since they are a bunch of idiots. "lets war with everyone, disregard transportation, and fuck BC over just like we did in the 90's!!! YAY!!!" Horgan is being so fucking arrogant to with the last bit. at least Weaver isn't brain dead.

but for being all Mr. Green and environmentally friendly you'd think he would realise 2 tunnels would require removing a lot more green-space/land and paving it whereas the bridge actually gave land back.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Zassk

(I don't see what the AFB counterflow will accomplish.. 7 lanes at 70 kmh doesn't transport any more traffic than 6 lanes at 90 kmh.

Actually, they do. You get some improvement in vehicles/hour from the extra lane, and you also get some from the slower speed. At higher speeds cars have to maintain a larger distance and that reduces lane capacity.

[connect2source]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

So from what I have read this weekend it sounds like the NDP / Green coalition are adiment on cancelling this project outright (not even compromising or studying any real alternatives that would include upgrading the freeway to modern standards).

After so much research, design, and preconstruction that has taken place, this really is an annoying yet predictable turn of events.

Could not agree more! Brilliant post and thanks!!

Having just returned from Spain, driving a manual transmission VW Polo all over Andalusia and the Canaries, I got a first hand look at Spain's incredible road infrastructure, much of which is tolled. This is a country heavily committed to all forms of transportation, highways compliment high-speed rail and local transport networks in most cities are highly evolved and very efficient.

Their Autopistas ( Freeways ) are magnificent, in mountainous areas they are straightaways thanks to extensive tunnelling wherever there's a barrier, road signs are large and visible, lane markings are beautifully maintained, painted and highly visible. I could go on and on... but they obviously believe that decent highways are essential to more than single occupancy vehicles, hence their attitudes are far more evolved. These road networks transport people, goods, transit and often bikes, they are essential to local economies and aren't frowned upon.

Driving through the Massey Tunnel, upon returning last week, gave me new perspective on this crumbling third-world embarrassment. Even in the farthest reaches of the Canary Islands, I never once witnessed anything this deplorable or downright dangerous.

I don't know where to begin on this piece-of-crap which is obviously close to the end of it's life. For starters the idea of oncoming traffic during the counterflow hours, in a tube with no shoulders or pull-outs of any kind, is a death-trap plain and simple, I've actually never seen anything like it in my travels. It should be made illegal tomorrow as it's a disaster waiting to happen.

The tunnel itself, even during non-counterflow periods is narrow, poorly lit, bumpy and not even close to today's safety standards.

It's also seismically un-sound, likely close to that of the disaster-prone Pattullo bridge. These pre-case concrete sections will likely break-apart in a moderate earthquake killing many and rendering an essential part of road infrastructure inoperable for years. Who then will take responsibility for cancelling this project?

The notion that the replacement is not essential is reckless, for all those opposed to the 10 lane mega-project, we need replacement of some sort immediately be it a paired-down version of the proposal.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't know what the stats are, but anecdotally just about everyone seems to be against the pipeline. If that's the case, rejecting it is actually a smart move politically.

As far as this project goes, we'll see what happens. They may halt current progress, but Horgan's said he'd "defer to the mayors" while Weaver likes the idea of a twin tunnel. What any of that will mean none of us know. They may push it back, but I personally would be surprised if a tunnel replacement was just completely abandoned.

Either way, the Liberals committing to 40% of the rapid transit projects doesn't mean anything when they still want to hold a referendum on any local funding mechanism to make up the last 20%. Implying they'd do just as much for transit as the NDP/Greens is laughable. I'm fully glad I didn't vote for a bunch of crooks over a bridge.

Defer to the mayors essentially means it will never happen.

It is also a terrible way to do things in Metro-Van.

If we "deferred to the mayors" for transit the Evergreen Line and the Canada Line would have been at grade LRT, and not skytrain.

Sometimes the point of a good provincial government is to make the hard choices that the region needs that the local governments might not exactly agree with.

I already explained why the twinned tunnel is a non-starter (will still have a high cost, the existing tubes will still need to be replaced in a couple decades, would create even more unneeded splits in the road way, does not address the shipping or seismic concerns, and would likely involved some pretty poorly designed interchanges.

I can understand why people would vote for the NDP / Greens given other priorities, but it is okay to admit that involving this specific project they are dropping the ball.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Defer to the mayors essentially means it will never happen.

It is also a terrible way to do things in Metro-Van.

If we "deferred to the mayors" for transit the Evergreen Line and the Canada Line would have been at grade LRT, and not skytrain.

Sometimes the point of a good provincial government is to make the hard choices that the region needs that the local governments might not exactly agree with.

I already explained why the twinned tunnel is a non-starter (will still have a high cost, the existing tubes will still need to be replaced in a couple decades, would create even more unneeded splits in the road way, does not address the shipping or seismic concerns, and would likely involved some pretty poorly designed interchanges.

I can understand why people would vote for the NDP / Greens given other priorities, but it is okay to admit that involving this specific project they are dropping the ball.

Fighting the Fed Libs over their approved pipeline expansion means you can just about kiss goodbye the 40% funding they said they would support. The old adage says... Don't bite the hand that feeds you!! The NDP tried this approach in the 90's and it didn't work then and won't work now.

New governments have a way of killing another governments projects just to stick it to them regardless of whether it is a good project or not. History just may repeat itself again in BC.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Fighting the Fed Libs over their approved pipeline expansion means you can just about kiss goodbye the 40% funding they said they would support. The old adage says... Don't bite the hand that feeds you!! The NDP tried this approach in the 90's and it didn't work then and won't work now.

New governments have a way of killing another governments projects just to stick it to them regardless of whether it is a good project or not. History just may repeat itself again in BC.

What 40% funding did the Federal government say they would support? The last piece I read on the subject earlier this year said there wasn't any Federal funding for this project.