Hwy 99 Fraser River Tunnel (George Massey Replacement) | Proposed - Page 130

Dave2 · #**2581** Posted **Jul 27, 2017, 8:06 PM**

Throwback Thursday
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=3DOefFFSZ7MC&dat=19590523&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

dandor31 · #**2582** Posted **Jul 27, 2017, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave2

Throwback Thursday
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=3DOefFFSZ7MC&dat=19590523&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

I find it interesting that the original $0.50 toll in 1959 is the same as $4.32 today. Makes the Port Mann and Golden Ears tolls seem surprisingly in line with this.

cganuelas1995 · #**2583** Posted **Jul 27, 2017, 8:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Lois Jackson has some crazy ideas sometimes (like pulling Delta out of TransLink and running their own transit system) but this one is about the craziest I've seen from her.

I'm really curious about that idea. Do you have any sources or documentations about it?

Dave2 · #**2584** Posted **Jul 27, 2017, 9:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dandor31

I find it interesting that the original $0.50 toll in 1959 is the same as $4.32 today. Makes the Port Mann and Golden Ears tolls seem surprisingly in line with this.

Oak Street was $0.25
60 cents for both
http://digital.lib.sfu.ca/edcartoons-422...lack-hours-experiment-knowing-mr-bennett

CanSpice · #**2585** Posted **Jul 27, 2017, 10:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

I'm really curious about that idea. Do you have any sources or documentations about it?

Sure, there's this news story and this rebuttal from 2011 and 2012, respectively.

officedweller · #**2586** Posted **Jul 28, 2017, 12:35 AM**

Proposal to study trains on Massey replacement bridge rejected
http://www.news1130.com/2017/07/27/proposal-study-trains-massey-replacement-bridge-rejected/

aberdeen5698 · #**2587** Posted **Jul 28, 2017, 5:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Proposal to study trains on Massey replacement bridge rejected
http://www.news1130.com/2017/07/27/proposal-study-trains-massey-replacement-bridge-rejected/

At least the other mayors have some sanity. I can think of only one reason to want to run trains across the bridge and that's to try to get buy-in for the project from transit advocates. Fortunately those advocates actually understand transit issues and realize that there's no sane reason to do that.

retro_orange · #**2588** Posted **Jul 28, 2017, 6:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Proposal to study trains on Massey replacement bridge rejected
http://www.news1130.com/2017/07/27/proposal-study-trains-massey-replacement-bridge-rejected/

If anything it should be a freight/container train line going across.

Metro-One · #**2589** Posted **Jul 28, 2017, 6:49 AM**

Rapid bus (which would have been built with this project) is the appropriate choice of transit for this corridor.

moosejaw · #**2590** Posted **Jul 28, 2017, 1:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Rapid bus (which would have been built with this project) is the appropriate choice of transit for this corridor.

i would agree but if you look at the case of the PMB where you have rapidbus filling to capacity leaving every 15 minutes during peak hours and no one would have assumed that.

Some sort of provision for rapid transit should be provided for in the future. Whether it could sustain ridership levels of 80k a day i don't know. I just saw a report where the Richmond stations account for 11% of ridership on the Canada Line. So I would agree BRT is the way to go. The ones championing Skytrain on the Massey Crossing are those who feel some sort of entitlement or have an axe to grind against SOV crowd.

LeftCoaster · #**2591** Posted **Jul 28, 2017, 10:49 PM**

Got word from a friend with some contacts that this thing is as good as dead.

Will wait to see if he's right but I'd be surprised if his info was wrong.

elevtechlift · #**2592** Posted **Jul 29, 2017, 5:06 AM**

If the tunnel is to be replaced with a bridge, it should be triple deck. Top deck for highway traffic, middle deck for transit (SkyTrain and buses; bus lanes must be limited to 60 km/h and have provisions for overhead trolley wires despite being unlikely that trolleybuses would ever be expanded to Richmond via Westminster Hwy), and bottom deck for freight railroads (with provisions for overhead catenary electric wires). If triple deck is not possible, at least it should be double deck similar to the Ship Canal bridge in Seattle supporting I-5 traffic and the Tsing Ma bridge in Hong Kong supporting highway traffic and MTR lines. Top deck for highway traffic while bottom deck for transit and freight railroads (bus lanes in the center while rail lines on the side).

aberdeen5698 · #**2593** Posted **Jul 29, 2017, 6:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by elevtechlift

If the tunnel is to be replaced with a bridge, it should be triple deck. Top deck for highway traffic, middle deck for transit (SkyTrain and buses; bus lanes must be limited to 60 km/h and have provisions for overhead trolley wires despite being unlikely that trolleybuses would ever be expanded to Richmond via Westminster Hwy), and bottom deck for freight railroads (with provisions for overhead catenary electric wires).

This belongs in the transit fantasy thread.

I mean, seriously - it's one thing to build these things in Sim City and quite another to do them in the real world where there are serious constraints on budgets and a lot better things to do with the money.

Migrant_Coconut · #**2594** Posted **Jul 29, 2017, 6:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

This belongs in the transit fantasy thread.

I mean, seriously - it's one thing to build these things in Sim City and quite another to do them in the real world where there are serious constraints on budgets and a lot better things to do with the money.

Pretty much. Though elevated's on to something; an eight-lane bridge - with capacity for a future bus-only underdeck - does end a lot of the controversy around this thing.

Pinion · #**2595** Posted **Jul 29, 2017, 3:42 PM**

No bridge is happening so no point in fantasizing, but the trolley bus component is strange considering the inevitable transition to electric battery buses. They're already being tested.

libtard · #**2596** Posted **Jul 29, 2017, 7:39 PM**

How would a train be able to make it up the incline of this bridge??? It's supposed to be pretty high.

Anyway work still continues for site prep. They've moved cranes into position along the Ladner side of 99 southbound after the river road overpass. Gonna start moving the power lines

moosejaw · #**2597** Posted **Jul 29, 2017, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by libtard

How would a train be able to make it up the incline of this bridge??? It's supposed to be pretty high.

Exactly

Metro-One · #**2598** Posted **Jul 30, 2017, 12:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Got word from a friend with some contacts that this thing is as good as dead.

Will wait to see if he's right but I'd be surprised if his info was wrong.

This is going to be one of the biggest mistakes in our region's history regarding infrastructure.

If cancelled (and not resurrected if the Liberals don't come back to power again shortly) I can only see two outcomes:

Worst case, just out of political spite they go with the twin tunnel option. Given the nature of the site and how tunnel projects often balloon in cost more so than bridges the project will end up being similar in cost to the current proposal, will occupy more land, will offer inferior improvement to drivers, transit, and cyclists, and will have to go through another major project again when the existing tunnels meet their end of life only a couple decades after this project is complete.

Other scenario is simpler in that nothing is done for another decade or so, bickering between mayors keeps it delayed, a new study is finally done, we essentially come to the same conclusion again for a bridge but now it is 15 years later and the cost is much higher for either the same thing or a bridge project of slightly lower quality.

Waders · #**2599** Posted **Jul 30, 2017, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Other scenario is simpler in that nothing is done for another decade or so, bickering between mayors keeps it delayed, a new study is finally done, we essentially come to the same conclusion again for a bridge but now it is 15 years later and the cost is much higher for either the same thing or a bridge project of slightly lower quality.

Can the government choose to do nothing for another decade or so? What is the impact if the existing tunnel needs to be permanently closed because it is deemed unsafe?

aberdeen5698 · #**2600** Posted **Jul 30, 2017, 6:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waders

Can the government choose to do nothing for another decade or so? What is the impact if the existing tunnel needs to be permanently closed because it is deemed unsafe?

That's the question that's been facing the Patullo Bridge for over a decade and the provincial government never saw fit to provide funding to replace it. Sure, it's notionally under the jurisdiction of Translink, but the Province has been stonewalling funding for Translink for all that time.