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

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by libtard

Expanding the highway comes with the new bridge/interchange/etc. When that contract gets awarded. Right now they're just prepping the ground and making everything more accessible.

There is interchange work underway at Westminster Hwy / 5 Road. There is a whole work site there with signs, notices, multiple truck entrances, and lots of earth having been moved around.

And there are two very large mobile cranes on Deas Island, which look to me like they are for the BC Hydro tower construction.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Zassk

There is interchange work underway at Westminster Hwy / 5 Road. There is a whole work site there with signs, notices, multiple truck entrances, and lots of earth having been moved around.

And there are two very large mobile cranes on Deas Island, which look to me like they are for the BC Hydro tower construction.

Yea the large cranes on the south side of the tunnel are there for re-routing the hydro lines spanning the Fraser. That work is being contracted out by hydro.

As for the interchange work at the Westminster interchange I believe it's just site prep.

[libtard]

99 looking northbound in Richmond

[Stingray2004]

Thanks for the shots. Obviously taken from the Blundell Rd. overpass looking north toward the Westminster Hwy interchange in the distance. That area is quite bog-like and obviously requires considerable pre-loading for compression.

[flipper316]

Can someone explain why some of these negative Nancy's are so opposed to a new bridge. Or they think twinning the tunnel is going to be any cheaper? Do these idiots just don't like bridge designs or their beauty in general? Why wasn't the Port Mann protested to be built as a tunnel then?

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Thanks for the shots. Obviously taken from the Blundell Rd. overpass looking north toward the Westminster Hwy interchange in the distance. That area is quite bog-like and obviously requires considerable pre-loading for compression.

Yes, although the bridge structures will not require preloading: all that 'bog-like' material will be penetrated with piles, either deep enough to contact solid bearing or to generate enough friction to carry the load. (I can't remember which).

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Can someone explain why some of these negative Nancy's are so opposed to a new bridge. Or they think twinning the tunnel is going to be any cheaper? Do these idiots just don't like bridge designs or their beauty in general? Why wasn't the Port Mann protested to be built as a tunnel then?

Some people want to force everyone into public transit, even south of GMT where public transit is awful and they'll never have the population to support good transit.

Also they don't care about the Port of Vancouver and the economic benefits from that, which is what this bridge is really about.

[GeeCee]

I think that the proposed project is too large for the corridor and too expensive. Do I think that the GMT should be replaced with a bridge (not twin the existing tunnel)? Yes. Just not on the scale that is being proposed.

The PMB was a different story and the chronic congestion for most of the day along Highway 1 was untenable. We got upgrades throughout the corridor that do wonders in improving the flow of traffic. The promised future provision for rapid transit along the bridge was a factor in my support for the project but that unfortunately

I also think that the Pattullo should be a priority over the GMT, but I'm biased in that I live closer to the Patullo than the GMT. Alternatively, put the money towards SkyTrain for Surrey rather than LRT.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

I think that the proposed project is too large for the corridor and too expensive. Do I think that the GMT should be replaced with a bridge (not twin the existing tunnel)? Yes. Just not on the scale that is being proposed.

IOW, let's go to an 8-lane bridge and eliminate the HOV lane - rarely anyone utilizes current HOV lane in any event. And then let's start planning for a new crossing from Boundary Road, much earlier than required.

The so called "Dumb and Dumber" transportation model. Yep.

[GeeCee]

Is that your go to personal insult? You just used it in the politics thread.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

Is that your go to personal insult? You just used it in the politics thread.

Another trolling idiot polluting this thread.

[GeeCee]

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

I think that the proposed project is too large for the corridor and too expensive. Do I think that the GMT should be replaced with a bridge (not twin the existing tunnel)? Yes. Just not on the scale that is being proposed.

The PMB was a different story and the chronic congestion for most of the day along Highway 1 was untenable. We got upgrades throughout the corridor that do wonders in improving the flow of traffic. The promised future provision for rapid transit along the bridge was a factor in my support for the project but that unfortunately

I also think that the Pattullo should be a priority over the GMT, but I'm biased in that I live closer to the Patullo than the GMT. Alternatively, put the money towards SkyTrain for Surrey rather than LRT.

Patullo is Translink's bridge, GMT is the province, so they aren't making a choice there. And traffic at the GMT is like how it used to be with the old Port Mann.

I don't use any of these crossings very often but I'm still in support of good infrastructure upgrades.

[Marshal]

There is a fascinating subject matter that is always in the background: how we all treat each other in the context of a forum.

Why don't people understand that each member is not a real person, but a crafted (some not) expression without a complete or coordinated identity?

Are people who, of their own accord, decide someone is a troll, and then put effort into attacking them, trolls themselves?

Are trolls all that common, or is there mostly just trolling behaviour?

Why can't people have their own opinions? (Falsehoods are different.)

Why are opinions attacked, not on their merits, but based on their being different from the attacker's?

Don't answer. It's all rhetorical.


As for the topic in the foreground:
George Massey Bridge - yes, 8 lanes is enough.
Patullo Bridge - sooner than later, 6 lanes from the start.
A bridge at Boundary - not a bad location regionally - is the only possible end run around the City of Vancouver.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

I think that the proposed project is too large for the corridor and too expensive. Do I think that the GMT should be replaced with a bridge (not twin the existing tunnel)? Yes. Just not on the scale that is being proposed.

The PMB was a different story and the chronic congestion for most of the day along Highway 1 was untenable. We got upgrades throughout the corridor that do wonders in improving the flow of traffic. The promised future provision for rapid transit along the bridge was a factor in my support for the project but that unfortunately

I also think that the Pattullo should be a priority over the GMT, but I'm biased in that I live closer to the Patullo than the GMT. Alternatively, put the money towards SkyTrain for Surrey rather than LRT.

I still believe that a good compromise would be to continue with the project generally as is, just reduce the bridge to 8 lanes from the current planned 10 (and maybe beef up the rapid bus, having it go to White Rock).

The thing is, the tunnel is chronically jammed, I used it often when I lived in Metro-Van. The fact that arguably our second most important road in the entire Lower Mainland is reduced to a single south bound in the morning and a single northbound lane in the evening every week day is beyond ridiculous.

The entire highway is an extremely antiquated late 1950's design standard, so the entire corridor does need a major re-build, which will involve modernizing nearly all the interchanges.

Then, no matter the form any proposed bridge will need to be high enough for the port's requirements, this means that it will always be around 3 kilometers long.

Also in any iteration of this project the tunnel will need to decommission in an environmentally friendly way.

Throw in an equivalent to the currently proposed rapid bus (with its direct bus only ramps from the highway to Richmond Bridgeport station and two major on highway bus transfer stations) and the project will always be in the multi billions of dollars.

There is no other way to cut it.

Any highly cheaper alternatives will be sub-par and not worth doing in the first place. (akin to the Surrey LRT).

[GeeCee]

Oh yeah, I'd be fine with eight lanes (with one lane in either direction being HOV). I think a lot of the capacity issues would be helped by simply having modern freeway standards as well. It's super irritating when everyone has to wait while one truck blocks both lanes on the one side of the tunnel in order to have enough room to get by.

But no freakin' regressive taxes in the way of tolls!

[moosejaw]

i just read an article written by RIchmond Mayor Malcom Brodie where he was deadset against the Steveston Highway interchange. He doesnt want a LA style freeway in his backyard.

He doesn't acknowledge that not of all the traffic using the tunnel is Oak Street Bridge bound.
Here is his article
http://www.richmond-news.com/opinion/letters/letter-mega-bridge-won-t-clear-massey-tunnel-congestion-1.20587782

I also saw another article where the author was critical of the bridge and even acknowledged the facts that not all tunnel traffic uses oak st bridge and that at least 40% find another route into Vancouver city limits (whether that would be knight or arthur lang bridge).... But went to say that if they went ahead with the new bridge, it would encourage massive sprawl that would ultimately choke oak street bridge. The guys solution was to make the tunnel 6 lanes and add another get this add another 4 lane bridge into the city of Vancouver. The money saved can be earmarked for skytrain into Delta. I mean come on? Where do people come up with this stuff

[s211]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

i just read an article written by RIchmond Mayor Malcom Brodie where he was deadset against the Steveston Highway interchange. He doesnt want a LA style freeway in his backyard.

He doesn't acknowledge that not of all the traffic using the tunnel is Oak Street Bridge bound.
Here is his article
http://www.richmond-news.com/opinion/letters/letter-mega-bridge-won-t-clear-massey-tunnel-congestion-1.20587782

I also saw another article where the author was critical of the bridge and even acknowledged the facts that not all tunnel traffic uses oak st bridge and that at least 40% find another route into Vancouver city limits (whether that would be knight or arthur lang bridge).... But went to say that if they went ahead with the new bridge, it would encourage massive sprawl that would ultimately choke oak street bridge. The guys solution was to make the tunnel 6 lanes and add another get this add another 4 lane bridge into the city of Vancouver. The money saved can be earmarked for skytrain into Delta. I mean come on? Where do people come up with this stuff

Brodie and Richmond council are dolts. They permitted that retail / multi-res project on the old Gardens site right up against the interchange, fully expecting that the interchange and growth requirements could remain as-is for the long term. Now they're blaming the Province for the kerfuffle and hence Brodie's position.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

i just read an article written by RIchmond Mayor Malcom Brodie where he was deadset against the Steveston Highway interchange. He doesnt want a LA style freeway in his backyard.

He doesn't acknowledge that not of all the traffic using the tunnel is Oak Street Bridge bound.
Here is his article
http://www.richmond-news.com/opinion/letters/letter-mega-bridge-won-t-clear-massey-tunnel-congestion-1.20587782

I also saw another article where the author was critical of the bridge and even acknowledged the facts that not all tunnel traffic uses oak st bridge and that at least 40% find another route into Vancouver city limits (whether that would be knight or arthur lang bridge).... But went to say that if they went ahead with the new bridge, it would encourage massive sprawl that would ultimately choke oak street bridge. The guys solution was to make the tunnel 6 lanes and add another get this add another 4 lane bridge into the city of Vancouver. The money saved can be earmarked for skytrain into Delta. I mean come on? Where do people come up with this stuff

These are the same morons who will jump for joy if this whole project gets cancelled by the new government.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I still believe that a good compromise would be to continue with the project generally as is, just reduce the bridge to 8 lanes from the current planned 10 (and maybe beef up the rapid bus, having it go to White Rock).

The thing is, the tunnel is chronically jammed, I used it often when I lived in Metro-Van. The fact that arguably our second most important road in the entire Lower Mainland is reduced to a single south bound in the morning and a single northbound lane in the evening every week day is beyond ridiculous.

The entire highway is an extremely antiquated late 1950's design standard, so the entire corridor does need a major re-build, which will involve modernizing nearly all the interchanges.

Then, no matter the form any proposed bridge will need to be high enough for the port's requirements, this means that it will always be around 3 kilometers long.

Also in any iteration of this project the tunnel will need to decommission in an environmentally friendly way.

Throw in an equivalent to the currently proposed rapid bus (with its direct bus only ramps from the highway to Richmond Bridgeport station and two major on highway bus transfer stations) and the project will always be in the multi billions of dollars.

There is no other way to cut it.

Any highly cheaper alternatives will be sub-par and not worth doing in the first place. (akin to the Surrey LRT).

Not to be critical but why do we need rapid bus? What's wrong with the current 601/351 combo. They're comfy A/C equipped Orion highway buses. Rapid bus ain't gonna go any faster than these on the highway and if you can you can utilize some of the 351 to be express so they miss the secondary stops to save a little time in South Surrey/White Rock. You can also add a few more of these buses during peak time instead of building rapid bus infrastructure from scratch. Way cheaper. Also outside of peak time especially during the evening I see these buses on the highway going north sometimes with only a few people in them. So again it'd be a waste going with all new rapid bus infrastructure when the current system is fine barring a few tweaks here and there.