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

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

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.

um.... you have seemed to have forgotten new wests lack of involvement in the progression of the Pattulo Bridge. I mean you did emphasize 10 years after all.

[Henbo]

I'm still betting they'll postpone the project and put in under review with more consultation.

Once they're finished they'll build a 6 lane bridge (2+2+HOV), with enough room to widen it to 8 lanes in the future.

It would be up to modern seismic and safety standards, Lois Jackson would get a new bridge, it would follow Metro 2040 keeping the other mayors (and therefore John Horgan) happy, wouldn't push the bottleneck to Oak St bridge, would allow dangerous goods to pass through it, and has room to grow with the region.

Having rapid bus, regional congestion tolling, and short sea shipping might be able ease some of the current bottleneck.

If they twinned the tunnels, and renovated the current one, they still wouldn't be able to get that much more life out of it, and it would still have some notable drawbacks (e.g dangerous goods, cycling). Plus I think modern environmental standards would push the cost for a new tunnel much higher than people realize

[p78hub]

People keep bringing up the Oak Street Bridge bottleneck and how a massive Massey replacement will just make problems worse at Oak, but really, the majority of traffic that goes over the Oak Street Bridge originates in Richmond. Massey Tunnel traffic disperses at Steveston and Westminster, and traffic that does continue into Vancouver splits at the 91.

This NDP government will likely be remembered for the fate of this replacement. I guess this was Christy's parting gift to the NDP, because no matter what choice is made, the NDP is going to be criticized for years that they made the wrong one.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by Henbo

Once they're finished they'll build a 6 lane bridge (2+2+HOV), with enough room to widen it to 8 lanes in the future.

Make it 3+3 + HOV
2+2+HOV is equivalent to what we have now

British Columbians really need to get over the road infrastructure problem. Its that kind of thinkng that led to the intersections at SFPeimeter Road, 72nd ave, trans canada 4 laning to the alberta border.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Make it 3+3 + HOV
2+2+HOV is equivalent to what we have now

Incorrect. It's 3 + 1 reversible lane configuration during rush hours. And, these days, that reversible lane stays open/in place longer and longer due to increased traffic.

Make it 3 + 3 + HOV. Why? We already have 3-lanes, for sometimes up to 4 hours in one direction, during rush hour. Even then SB traffic during afternoon rush hour can back-up all the way to the Oak Street Bridge. That's just today.

What's the point in building a new bridge with same capacity with just an additional HOV lane? Over the past decade major population growth in White Rock/South Surrey area has seen major traffic growth along Hwy 99 south of Hwy 17.

Major traffic speed variations have also increased accidents rates just there.

Further major node growth is population growth in North Delta/mid-Surrey with increasing traffic continues unabated heading to the Ladner Trunk Road, Hwy 17, and River Road on-ramps to the 99 Fwy.

And a new container terminal will be built at Roberts Bank Superport.

A 3 + 3 + HOV new bridge would be at capacity upon completion in perhaps 7 years time. Would require an additional twinned structure forthwith after the fact. Ergo, basically doubling the CAPEX of the current 10-lane proposal.

What's the point of that?

Politicians don't design infrastructure. MoTI civil engineers do with all detailed information at hand - in conjunction with outside highway design engineering consulting firms.

Just leave the GMT as is. For now. Not in the public interest to cause a mess and fix it later on at huge taxpayer expense.

BTW, for all intent and purposes, the current proposed GMB is dead. The new MoTI minister's mandate letter does not mention same. Only mentions the Pattullo Bridge replacement, which requires fed funding when they will be battling feds on KM.

Moreover, the removal of tolls on Translink's GEB will deprive them of $50 million/annum in revenue and Translink's Pattullo Bridge CAPEX portion/business case is predicated on toll revenue.

Translink's likely road-pricing replacement scenario will likely be a huge political boondoggle. IOW, the current MoTI minister will have her hands full just dealing with the Pattullo Bridge replacement. Any GMT replacement just won't be on her radar.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

um.... you have seemed to have forgotten new wests lack of involvement in the progression of the Pattulo Bridge. I mean you did emphasize 10 years after all.

My point is that the delay in dealing with the Patullo bridge is proof that you can't necessarily count on any kind of expedited plan to replace a crossing that's at risk in an earthquake and in danger of collapse. And the Massey Tunnel is in a better shape than the Patullo is.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Incorrect. It's 3 + 1 reversible lane configuration during rush hours. And, these days, that reversible lane stays open/in place longer and longer due to increased traffic.

Make it 3 + 3 + HOV. Why? We already have 3-lanes, for sometimes up to 4 hours in one direction, during rush hour. Even then SB traffic during afternoon rush hour can back-up all the way to the Oak Street Bridge. That's just today.

What's the point in building a new bridge with same capacity with just an additional HOV lane? Over the past decade major population growth in White Rock/South Surrey area has seen major traffic growth along Hwy 99 south of Hwy 17.

Major traffic speed variations have also increased accidents rates just there.

Further major node growth is population growth in North Delta/mid-Surrey with increasing traffic continues unabated heading to the Ladner Trunk Road, Hwy 17, and River Road on-ramps to the 99 Fwy.

And a new container terminal will be built at Roberts Bank Superport.

A 3 + 3 + HOV new bridge would be at capacity upon completion in perhaps 7 years time. Would require an additional twinned structure forthwith after the fact. Ergo, basically doubling the CAPEX of the current 10-lane proposal.

What's the point of that?

Politicians don't design infrastructure. MoTI civil engineers do with all detailed information at hand - in conjunction with outside highway design engineering consulting firms.

Just leave the GMT as is. For now. Not in the public interest to cause a mess and fix it later on at huge taxpayer expense.

BTW, for all intent and purposes, the current proposed GMB is dead. The new MoTI minister's mandate letter does not mention same. Only mentions the Pattullo Bridge replacement, which requires fed funding when they will be battling feds on KM.

Moreover, the removal of tolls on Translink's GEB will deprive them of $50 million/annum in revenue and Translink's Pattullo Bridge CAPEX portion/business case is predicated on toll revenue.

Translink's likely road-pricing replacement scenario will likely be a huge political boondoggle. IOW, the current MoTI minister will have her hands full just dealing with the Pattullo Bridge replacement. Any GMT replacement just won't be on her radar.

I agree with you 110%
I think something like this needs to be forwarded to Delta so they can get the facts presented correctly

I honestly think the region is terrified of a massive superhighway like this.
They know the benefits but are afraid of the visuals presented to John Q Public. You can pay all the experts and consultants but it will bear little weight.

The appearance of traffic lights, narrow lanes, limited infrastructure, poor visual aids gives the granola crowd a security blanket. They are put in place to calm the public. Brodie has even acknowledged he wants stoplights at Steveston Highway. To him that will calm traffic, it will likely make traffic worse but what does he care. He knows what his constituents want.

I want to also acknowledge the masses of people whose entire lives are based on Skytrain. Build the Skytrain to the Tsawassen mall, extend to Ladner, White Rock etc. They deny that tunnel waits extend into hours, They know the SOF Canada Line ridership levels are low, they know the population base doesn't support it. They know City of Richmond screwed the pooch when they single tracked the Canada Line on its the final leg. They are under the mentality that single car usage is a dead cause, Skytrain will solve all transportation problems, and everyone should change their habits to suit their needs. Its not even debatable.

Good thing a majority of people support this project.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

My point is that the delay in dealing with the Patullo bridge is proof that you can't necessarily count on any kind of expedited plan to replace a crossing that's at risk in an earthquake and in danger of collapse. And the Massey Tunnel is in a better shape than the Patullo is.

I hear you
Yes your are correct.....But truth be told you dont want to be in either in case of an earthquake. Any earthquake that strikes that area will be devastating to both structures. You are not any safer in either.
While the tunnel appears to be in good shape, the way it was built didnt account for any eartquakes happening.
The soils/rock that encase the trenched Tunnel will liquefy in an earthquake, losing any structural support. Even if they build a new tunnel which will also be trenched, there is no way to guarantee the tunnel structure will stay in place.
If they do decide on a tunnel, it has to be a different design that the current structure. A trenched tunnel will not work. I would think they would need to dig deeper and begin exit / entrance points way past whats shown now. And if you were to incorporate some sort of LRT than you would need to do a gradual slope.

But in any event one structure is not going to be safer than the others (Pattulo vs GMT).

[libtard]

My question is, what incentive does Horgan have for green lighting this project. During his campaign he said he wanted to cancel/re-evaluate the bridge and he won. He's under no obligation to make this project happen, in fact from a political stand point it's easier for him to stop it

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

I agree with you 110%
I think something like this needs to be forwarded to Delta so they can get the facts presented correctly

I honestly think the region is terrified of a massive superhighway like this.
They know the benefits but are afraid of the visuals presented to John Q Public. You can pay all the experts and consultants but it will bear little weight.

The appearance of traffic lights, narrow lanes, limited infrastructure, poor visual aids gives the granola crowd a security blanket. They are put in place to calm the public. Brodie has even acknowledged he wants stoplights at Steveston Highway. To him that will calm traffic, it will likely make traffic worse but what does he care. He knows what his constituents want.

I want to also acknowledge the masses of people whose entire lives are based on Skytrain. Build the Skytrain to the Tsawassen mall, extend to Ladner, White Rock etc. They deny that tunnel waits extend into hours, They know the SOF Canada Line ridership levels are low, they know the population base doesn't support it. They know City of Richmond screwed the pooch when they single tracked the Canada Line on its the final leg. They are under the mentality that single car usage is a dead cause, Skytrain will solve all transportation problems, and everyone should change their habits to suit their needs. Its not even debatable.

Good thing a majority of people support this project.

How is it going to be a super highway? If this thing gets approved they're essentially going to be only adding an HOV lane from only Highway 91 to the Oak Street Bridge coupled with the new George Massey Bridge and a couple of new interchanges. So it's essentially just a six lane freeway through Delta and Richmond and still a puny pathetic 4 lane freeway through Surrey. Doesn't scream super highway to me. Highway 1 through Burnaby and Coquitlam is a super highway in my eyes.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by flipper316

How is it going to be a super highway? If this thing gets approved they're essentially going to be only adding an HOV lane from only Highway 91 to the Oak Street Bridge coupled with the new George Massey Bridge and a couple of new interchanges. So it's essentially just a six lane freeway through Delta and Richmond and still a puny pathetic 4 lane freeway through Surrey. Doesn't scream super highway to me. Highway 1 through Burnaby and Coquitlam is a super highway in my eyes.

City of Richmond Malcolm Brodie has been quoted in the media as saying the Steveston Interchange is far worse than anything they have in Los Angeles, he has been down there, he knows hes seen it firsthand. He is a self proclaimed expert on the subject. He noted that Steveston Highway cannot be freeflowing, something has to stop the traffic from pouring into richmond.

But to directly answer your question, in the minds of all these protestors, anything more than four lanes, with raised pavement markers, jersey barriers, and overhead signage gantry is classified as a superhighway in BC.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

City of Richmond Malcolm Brodie has been quoted in the media as saying the Steveston Interchange is far worse than anything they have in Los Angeles, he has been down there, he knows hes seen it firsthand. He is a self proclaimed expert on the subject.

To be fair, it is a pretty massive interchange. At one point, including the ramps and bus lanes, there's a 17 lane cross section. That may be the largest cross-sectional lane count anywhere in BC, unless the Cape Horn exceeds it somewhere in all that spaghetti. Sure, it may not be up to Los Angeles standards, but it would surely count as a "superhighway" in BC terms.

[connect2source]

By lane count, yes but the footprint really isn't much larger than today's interchange, actually quite compact, mostly a vertical increase.

[Metro-One]

That new interchanges footprint would have been actually less than the current one...

If you want to see massive sprawling interchanges come to Calgary (there yesterday)

This project was so well designed. Modern high capacity design including a major transit interchange on a very compact site.

Sigh...

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

That new interchanges footprint would have been actually less than the current one...

If you want to see massive sprawling interchanges come to Calgary (there yesterday)

This project was so well designed. Modern high capacity design including a major transit interchange on a very compact site.

Sigh...

2 transit interchanges! Hwy 17A would have had one along with Steveston...

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

I want to also acknowledge the masses of people whose entire lives are based on Skytrain. Build the Skytrain to the Tsawassen mall, extend to Ladner, White Rock etc. They deny that tunnel waits extend into hours, They know the SOF Canada Line ridership levels are low, they know the population base doesn't support it. They know City of Richmond screwed the pooch when they single tracked the Canada Line on its the final leg. They are under the mentality that single car usage is a dead cause, Skytrain will solve all transportation problems, and everyone should change their habits to suit their needs. Its not even debatable.

I mean, the bridge will have bus lanes in it and will support a rapid bus. There are plans in the SWATP to turn the 601 into FTN, which will strengthen the 601 as an important regional connection for a fast growing part of the region. To guarantee service at FTN levels for the 601, upgraded infrastructure is needed. I know that more bus service isn't gonna make more people randomly think "I'm gonna sell my car and take transit to work" because it either won't get anywhere near their mind due to habit and convenience of can or because they work in a job where transit just ain't feasible like, say, construction or trucking or what have you.

Ok I should seriously finish my replies before I go to bed because I forgot what I was gonna finish it with.

[moosejaw]

I found this article this morning whilst in my search for more nimby comments about the GMB. Such a good article and on point too. It sums up most of our ideas posted in this thread. I only wish i can send this article to Brodie and his urban planning team

http://theprovince.com/opinion/op-ed/geo...ther-sad-chapter-in-our-do-nothing-novel

[makr3trkr]

• Video Link

might be a good alternate for the Steveston interchange

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

• Video Link

might be a good alternate for the Steveston interchange

Agreed.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

My point is that the delay in dealing with the Patullo bridge is proof that you can't necessarily count on any kind of expedited plan to replace a crossing that's at risk in an earthquake and in danger of collapse. And the Massey Tunnel is in a better shape than the Patullo is.

I would agree. The patullo may not be able to withstand a strong windstorm.