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

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by whatnext

You don't need the bridge to improve transit, you could a two lane tunnel reserved solely for busses (or trucks and busses). The HOV lanes already exist on either side of the tunnel, there's absolutely no reason transit needs a 10 lane bridge.

And let's say an accident happens in the tunnel that is reserved for busses or trucks and busses. Instant blockage and a logistical nightmare of doing a detour.

Now imagine that happening during rush hour.

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by whatnext

OK Mr. Soil Expert, you got me. Since you turned up here just in time for this thread, you're undoubtedly the expert. Might want to look for another gig though.

I've been watching this thread for a long time actually. Posting in it too.

All I did was challenge 1 part of your argument that I know is BS, and in 3 posts you can't reply to the content of my post itself. Ad hominem again and again.

Don't worry about me. I'll have no issue keeping a gig! Not going to be much construction work in BC for a while though it seems like.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I think everybody's missing a major point in this quote:

If South Surrey is going to "blow up", then they should do so in such a fashion that South Surrey becomes more of a complete community where people can live, shop, and work without having to drive to Richmond or Vancouver. It doesn't have to do with increasing transit across the river, it has everything to do with decreasing the number of trips made across the river per person.

If you can shift 5% of the trips across the river to stay south of the river then you've won. Don't change how the trips are made, eliminate them entirely.

South Surrey could be capitalizing on its location right next to the border somehow, but they seem to just want to become another bedroom community where people have to drive to Vancouver or Burnaby to work.

Fair point about creating jobs in your own area, rather than becoming a vehicle-dependent satellite of somebody else's.

Alas, the full quote is a false dichotomy between "bridge = cars = bad" and "no bridge = no cars = transit = good." Neither Ladner nor Tsawwassen nor South Surrey will become job centres and/or SkyTrain stops anytime soon... therefore, build the damn bridge.

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

And let's say an accident happens in the tunnel that is reserved for busses or trucks and busses. Instant blockage and a logistical nightmare of doing a detour.

Pretty much. Earthquake hits the bridge, it's anchored to bedrock; earthquake hits the tunnel, it's anchored to floodplain mud. A second tunnel is basically throwing good money after bad.

Given that, the mayors' logic with the GMB seems a bit fuzzy. Earthquake = Viaducts unstable = demo the Viaducts... but Earthquake = GMT unstable = twin the GMT?

[ronthecivil]

Originally Posted by whatnext

You don't need the bridge to improve transit, you could a two lane tunnel reserved solely for busses (or trucks and busses). The HOV lanes already exist on either side of the tunnel, there's absolutely no reason transit needs a 10 lane bridge.

3 through + one HOV + Steveston onramp = 5 lanes each way

God forbid we actually have lane continuity for once.

God forbid we don't build something that's at capacity the day after it opens....

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by ronthecivil

3 through + one HOV + Steveston onramp = 5 lanes each way

God forbid we actually have lane continuity for once.

God forbid we don't build something that's at capacity the day after it opens....

yeah i know, wouldn't that 3rd general-lane help get rid of traffic so much on that corridor?

oh wait, it is already 3 lanes wide at rush-hour and there is still ridiculous amounts of back up in the 3-lane direction.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Media says $70M has been spent so far. That's chump change. Site C is spending that every week.

What annoys me isn't the 70 mill although that is a huge waste. The problem is the useless infrastructure and cleared land that clutters this corridor now.

[Chikinlittle]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Transit-oriented development requires, well, transit - and given the low population and long distance, a Canada Line south of the Fraser is a very long-term project (2070 or later).

In the short-term, all we've got are buses... and they're stuck in the tunnel too. So the best way to improve transit for Delta is to increase roadspace.

My reply was in response to comments about development in South Surrey, not about building rail transit across a bridge. There have been proposals that include B-line service --> rail-based transit connecting South Surrey to the rest of the Skytrain network. We shouldn't continue to build sprawling single family housing, and not in areas like this which continue to force reliance solely on cars for transportation. By building the bridge, we are only fuelling that type of unsustainable growth.

Upgrade the existing tunnel to alleviate any safety concerns, and if anything, add a tube for increased frequency of bus service, for both Ladner/Tsawwassen, as well as South Surrey. Spend the rest of the remaining dollars on Skytrain from King George down to South Surrey instead of pandering to Surrey Council's with for toy LRT that brings little ROI.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by M00dy

Bridges all over the world are built on soft soils through the magic of friction piles. The engineering is sound - just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not possible.

Of course & correct. As a matter of fact, the following bridges have been constructed with deep foundation piles (friction piles end bearing piles) within Metro Vancouver:

Alex Fraser Bridge - friction piles on the north side with end bearing piles on the south side.
Port Mann Bridge - end bearing piles along bridge length into till.
Pitt River Bridge - end bearing piles into till along length.
Golden Ears Bridge - friction piles into underlying silts sands and clays.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

My reply was in response to comments about development in South Surrey, not about building rail transit across a bridge. There have been proposals that include B-line service --> rail-based transit connecting South Surrey to the rest of the Skytrain network.

We shouldn't continue to build sprawling single family housing, and not in areas like this which continue to force reliance solely on cars for transportation. By building the bridge, we are only fuelling that type of unsustainable growth.

SFHs are a symptom of zoning, not cars. Cancelling a bridge =/= townhouses.

South Surrey and Delta definitely need some kind of rapid transit. Buses (even B-Lines) aren't very effective in spurring density - hence talk of SkyTrain and light rail. And again, there is no RRT or LRT for either community in the foreseeable future.

So no added transit and no added roadspace means that instead of unsustainable growth, you get no growth instead. Not good.

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

Upgrade the existing tunnel to alleviate any safety concerns, and if anything, add a tube for increased frequency of bus service, for both Ladner/Tsawwassen, as well as South Surrey. Spend the rest of the remaining dollars on Skytrain from King George down to South Surrey instead of pandering to Surrey Council's with for toy LRT that brings little ROI.

If you've got a beef with Surrey's light rail - and don't we all - post it in the appropriate thread. The GMB has nothing to do with it.

As mentioned above, no amount of upgrades is going to change the fact that the GMT is sixty years old, overcapacity and should be retired. Or that building a new tunnel is just a halfway measure that takes up more money and land than a bridge, and would leave the crossing with the exact same amount of idling car/truck/bus engines spitting fumes into the air for the next fifty years until the SkyTrain comes along.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

yeah i know, wouldn't that 3rd general-lane help get rid of traffic so much on that corridor?

oh wait, it is already 3 lanes wide at rush-hour and there is still ridiculous amounts of back up in the 3-lane direction.

The problem is that the GMT causes people to slow down while they drive through it. It affects the way people drive. So yes there are 3 lanes but the lanes aren't normal. 1 lane is a counter flow lane which tends to cause people to drive slower. Also the other two lanes with the walls causes people to slow down. The average speed in the tunnel is far less than it should be.

[Stingray2004]

I guess it's time to look at future traffic growth nodes, again, south of the GMT:

1. Peace Arch Border crossing - 3rd busiest passenger vehicle border crossing in Canada;

2. Pacific Border crossing - 3rd busiest commercial border crossing in Canada;

3. Combined, both nearby/connected border crossings represent the 2nd largest border crossing in Canada and are witnessing growing traffic levels;

4. South Surrey - booming residential development for years and continues unabated. City of Surrey projects another ~150,000 population growth (IIRC) in South Surrey (roughly east of Hwy 99 between 32nd Ave. and 16th Ave);

5. Campbell Heights Industrial Park - ~1,900 acres near the vicinity of 192nd Ave. & 24th Ave. with employment expected to increase to ~20,000 over next 30 years;

6. Boundary Bay Airport - 5th busiest airport by total aircraft movements and Canada's busiest general aviation airport with growing aviation-linked light industrial development/employment;

7. Mid-Surrey - south of 64th Ave. to just south of Hwy 10 (Panorama Ridge area) also witnessing booming residential growth and will likely see another 100,000+ population growth according to City of Surrey forecasts;

8. Considerable traffic from mid-Surrey/North Delta utilizes the Hwy 99 corridor as witnessed by major on-ramp traffic flows during morning rush-hour at Hwy 91 interchange south, Ladner Trunk Road (Hwy 10), Hwy 17, and River Road;

9. Tsawwassen First Nation residential lands will eventually see another ~5,000 residents once fully built out. Moreover, TFN is also the locale of 1.8 million square feet of retail space;

10. BC Ferries - during the 1st quarter of 2017, they witnessed their highest ever vehicle traffic levels. These hourly "ferry dumps" add considerable congestion to the GMT;

11. Roberts Bank Superport/Westshore Terminals - looking at a 2nd container terminal (upto $10 billion in future development) increasing container truck traffic;

12. Sometimes for up to a 4-hour period between 3 pm and 7 pm, the 3 + 1 lane configuration is extant for the GMT. Electronic message signs inform NB drivers to divert to Hwy 91 as the NB waits can be up to an hour with 5 or 6 lanes merging into one;

13. Both the AFB as well as the GMT are at over-capacity, outside peak periods, on many occasions;

14. Dangerous Goods commercial vehicles on Hwy 99 NB cannot use the GMT and must divert to AFB. For example, the jet fuel tanker trucks that traverse Hwy 99 all day long from the Cherry Point refinery divert to the AFB;

The foregoing represent future traffic growth nodes for the GMT/GMB and I'm sure that I've missed others. A key future traffic growth node has not been mentioned here but was mentioned in a longer-term plan dubbed "H-99 Project" by transportation consultant Steer Davies Gleave.

To preface, Hwy 1 through the Fraser Valley to Hwy 11, for example, has witnessed explosive traffic growth over the past 15 years. Should have been 6-laned to at least Hwy 11 by now. Even then, perhaps 20 years down the road, Hwy 1, even with 6 GP lanes to Hwy 11, will witness increased congestion due to population growth, which will impact traffic volumes, down the line, at the PMB.

As a result, 16th Ave., between South Surrey and Hwy 1 at Abbotsford International Airport, has also witnessed explosive regional traffic growth in terms of both vehicular and commercial traffic. I utilize this "country road" route oft and it is even very busy at 6 am in the morn.

Just this summer alone, I have heard radio traffic reports state, at least 4 times, that 16th Ave. was closed due to a traffic accident. As a matter of fact, I witnessed a major traffic accident at 16th Ave. and 240th St. about 3 weeks ago - local cross traffic obviously finding it very difficult to cross same these days.

With that as a background, MoTI has a future freeway corridor study known as the "Southern Freeway Corridor", which would connect Hwy 99 (near the King George Hwy interchange) to Hwy 1 (near Abbotsford International Airport) and route just north of 16th Ave.

With increasing traffic congestion along Hwy 1 in the Fraser Valley as well as along 16th Ave., I can foresee, perhaps within 20 - 30 years or so, the Southern Freeway Corridor constructed as a regional "relief valve" for Hwy 1 with regional traffic moving over to Hwy 99/new GMB - it's all "zero sum".

[ssiguy]

^^^ I agree with everything you just said. The situation SoF is absolutely horrid and getting worse quite literally by the year. Vancouver's highway system is the worst on the continent by a very long shot.

This, however, is why I NEVER supported the GM Bridge. There are at least 20 interchanges and overpasses that need to get built to stop traffic from coming to a screeching halt. By spending all the money on one project that means nothing else gets built. I now live in Cloverdale and the traffic is bizarre. You have endless transport traffic barrelling down side roads by schools and residential areas in a desperate bid get from A to B.

Of course the GMT is overcapacity and something has to get done but an expensive bridge was the worst option.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Pinion

And I'm not leaving you, you don't live in Vancouver.

Snap.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by whatnext

You don't need the bridge to improve transit, you could a two lane tunnel reserved solely for busses (or trucks and busses). The HOV lanes already exist on either side of the tunnel, there's absolutely no reason transit needs a 10 lane bridge.

Hazardous materials cannot travel through a tunnel, limiting many trucks that would otherwise utilize this crossing, bogging down other bridges with trucks.

We do need a bridge. Just one that's scaled down.

Now there will likely be a public inquiry because the Liberals used tax dollars to speed up the Port Mann bridge completion to bolster their own agenda to get reelected last election cycle. BAD track record.

CBC Investigates B.C. Greens call for public inquiry into Port Mann project


B.C. Liberals deny project was accelerated in advance of 2013 election

By Natalie Clancy, Manjula Dufresne, CBC News Posted: Sep 07, 2017 11:58 AM PT

Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver is calling for a provincial inquiry into the Port Mann Bridge project after a year long CBC News investigation raised questions about the project's oversight.
"I was profoundly troubled ... we are not talking about a few tens of thousands of dollars, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars ... accounted for in ways that seem very odd," said Weaver.
Documents leaked to CBC and six sources close to the project say the B.C. government overpaid millions to speed up work on the Port Mann Bridge project in 2012.

• READ: CBC'S Port Mann investigation
• READ: Key dates and developments in the construction of the Port Mann project

Weaver is calling on the NDP government to launch an inquiry that would review the entire project, including why the province spent millions extra to speed up the work.
"We need to ask very difficult questions as to why was this project apparently accelerated to complete prior to the provincial election," said Weaver.
Six consultants on the project told CBC they believe weak oversight lead to $300 million spent on acceleration but TI Corp, the crown corporation created to build the bridge and widen the highway, says in the end they got $200 million back after negotiations with the contractor.
NDP not ruling out inquiry

The new B.C. NDP government say it is reviewing the information uncovered by CBC's investigation before making a decision on a public inquiry.
"We need to take a look and make sure this never happens again," said Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Selina Robinsion.
She said her government is concerned taxpayers' money may have been used to help get the B.C liberals elected in 2013.

'Very concerning if tax dollars were used for the sake of the BC Liberals partisan interests,' said Municipal Affairs Minister Selina Robinson.

"I'm outraged on behalf of all British Columbians that tax dollars would be used to potentially speed up a project in order to advance a B.C. Liberal agenda for an election."
She said if millions of taxpayers money was wasted to speed up work on the project, serious questions must be answered.
"Everything about this is concerning. All the pieces for me make my stomach hurt with outrage because the alleged misuse of tax dollars when we had cuts to education, when we had cuts to senior care, makes me want to scream," said Robinson

B.C. Premier Christy Clark opened the Port Mann Bridge on Dec. 1, 2012 saying the project was 'on budget' but it was actually $572 million over the original fixed price of $2.39 billion. (The Canadian Press)

Former Premier Christy Clark opened the bridge on schedule in December of 2012. Standing on a podium on the old bridge with the new span in the background, she boasted the new Port Mann would shave an hour from drivers' daily commutes.
Documents leaked to CBC suggest part of the project, the Fraser Heights connector, finished early. TI Corp said the Crown corporation did not pay extra to accelerate that work.
Weaver says an inquiry would also uncover why TI Corp was allowed to spend billions without establishing an audit committee until 2013, which is required for all B.C. Crown corporations.
"This is not good fiscal management. It's actually fundamentally irresponsible, and we need to get to the bottom of this with an independent public inquiry," said Weaver who had not yet discussed the matter with Premier John Horgan.
Weaver also questioned why the former B.C. Liberal government only released documents requested by CBC two weeks after the May election, which was seven months after they were requested by CBC
Watchdog questions timing before election

A watchdog group is also concerned politics may have motivated the acceleration of the project, which allowed as many as 100,000 potential voters a day to shave time off their daily commute before the 2013 election.

'An independent forensic audit will tell you if you need a public inquiry,' said Dermod Travis, executive director of the watchdog group Integrity B.C. (CBC) (Daniel Beauparlant/CBC)

"It doesn't make sense economically, it only makes sense politically and that is too high a price for all taxpayers to pay for the benefit of the B.C. Liberals," said Integrity B.C.'s Dermod Travis, who has been monitoring B.C.'s megaprojects for years.
The former B.C. Liberal government claimed the whole project came in within its $3.3 billion capital budget, but the project's debt is now projected to hit $4.2 billion this fiscal year, and the bridge is losing $100 milllion a year.
B.C. Liberals deny acceleration

The former transportation minister rejects any criticism that his party rushed work on the bridge for political gain, though he acknowledges the project was built before he was elected.
Todd Stone also said no part of the project was speeded up.
"I have had the understanding all along right to this day that there was no acceleration of this project, that in fact the original completion date for the entire project was to have the project finished by the end of 2012, and that is indeed what happened," said Stone.

B.C Transportation Minister Todd Stone slapped a 'completed' sticker on the project September 17, 2015 at a ceremony with Port Mann Bridge workers and engineers. (CBC)

But the contract schedule said the final stretch of highway, called the Fraser Heights connector, wasn't required to be finished until the end of 2013.
Documents leaked to CBC said that work finished early.
TI Corp confirmed to CBC that it negotiated $300 million in invoices down to just $100 million.
Those same invoices refer to 'acceleration' more than 100 times.
TI Corp also told CBC extra money and resources were applied to ensure the Cape Horn interchange was ready when the bridge opened, but the Crown corporation denied any other work was accelerated.
"There were no concerns expressed to me by ministry staff or TI Corp staff that anything untoward was done here," said Stone.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-co...inquiry-into-port-mann-project-1.4184391

[ssiguy]

It's you Stingray2004 that is trolling. Every time something critical comes up that hurts you conservative sensibilities you hit everyone with your anti-NDP, pro-Clark rants.

If there was mismanagement of funds, I don't care which party was responsible, the facts should be known and people/party responsible for it should be held to account.

[Metro-One]

Bandaid solutions are not a perminent solution for this corridor.

Yes, buses do have que jumper lanes near the tunnel but they are still slow and often delayed. The patch worked bus system along the 99 is atrocious and if you are happy with this status quo then I don't believe that you take transit along this corridor seriously.

Rail / Skytrain for this region is overkill (and won't match the passenger flow patterns as discussed before). This is a perfect corridor for a real rapid bus system.

A real rapid bus system cannot be created without a compete re-build of the highway corridor.

The tunnels are already nearing 60 years old, they are too narrow, do not allow hazardous materials to enter, do not allow cycling, and are a potential hazard regarding earthquakes.

If another tunnel is added you have only kicked the can a little further down the road since the original tunnels themselves will still need to be replaced in 20 years time. Why the fuck do this project twice? Not to mention that even if refurbished (adding new tunnels and fixing up the old ones for an inferior outcome will be a lot more expensive than many on here seem to think) many of the current issues related to the tunnels will still remain.

The new bridge and highway rebuild solved all these problems. A new highway and bridge built to modern design and safety standards / the ability for hazardous materials to cross / a solid streamlined rapid bus system offering the most sensible transit solution for this corridor / the ability to cycle across / resolves any potential shipping issues and earthquake hazards / a fresh start where we don't need to worry about replacing any superstructures again in our lifetimes.

Seriously, I here the same nonsensical arguments coming up, yet many of the other "solutions" people are bringing up will likely cost nearly the same and offer far less benefits. That is unless it is the worst solution of all posted on here, the "do nothing" approach (although I myself would rather so nothing done than hundreds of millions or billions of dollars pissed away on some short term marginal improvement).

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Both the GMT & Pattullo Bridge would likely face catastrophic collapse with a localized ~7 quake. Ergo, these two Metro Van crossings I attempt to avoid like the plague - albeit I am required to take GMT, at times, over the AFB.

Regarding the proposed Pattullo Bridge, too much intra-regional political turmoil between New West and Surrey over size and scope over the years. Another example why regional highway/road infrastructure should be within MoTI's jurisdiction - not Translink's.

BTW, I understand that the province has always had their CAPEX portion financially "committed" to the Pattullo Bridge replacement. Not so with either the feds or Translink AFIAK.

That doesn't put much faith in the millions spent by Gordon Campbell and Kevin Falcon to seismically upgrade the tunnel a decade ago. You remember that, when they said it would last as long as their planned twinned addition to it?

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Bandaid solutions are not a perminent solution for this corridor.

Yes, buses do have que jumper lanes near the tunnel but they are still slow and often delayed. The patch worked bus system along the 99 is atrocious and if you are happy with this status quo then I don't believe that you take transit along this corridor seriously.

Rail / Skytrain for this region is overkill (and won't match the passenger flow patterns as discussed before). This is a perfect corridor for a real rapid bus system.

A real rapid bus system cannot be created without a compete re-build of the highway corridor.

The tunnels are already nearing 60 years old, they are too narrow, do not allow hazardous materials to enter, do not allow cycling, and are a potential hazard regarding earthquakes.

If another tunnel is added you have only kicked the can a little further down the road since the original tunnels themselves will still need to be replaced in 20 years time. Why the fuck do this project twice? Not to mention that even if refurbished (adding new tunnels and fixing up the old ones for an inferior outcome will be a lot more expensive than many on here seem to think) many of the current issues related to the tunnels will still remain.

The new bridge and highway rebuild solved all these problems. A new highway and bridge built to modern design and safety standards / the ability for hazardous materials to cross / a solid streamlined rapid bus system offering the most sensible transit solution for this corridor / the ability to cycle across / resolves any potential shipping issues and earthquake hazards / a fresh start where we don't need to worry about replacing any superstructures again in our lifetimes.

Seriously, I here the same nonsensical arguments coming up, yet many of the other "solutions" people are bringing up will likely cost nearly the same and offer far less benefits. That is unless it is the worst solution of all posted on here, the "do nothing" approach (although I myself would rather so nothing done than hundreds of millions or billions of dollars pissed away on some short term marginal improvement).

You're one of the few posters on here that make sense everytime you post something. The people against this i seriously wonder if they have ever taken the GMT outside of the middle of the night regularly just to see how bad it is.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by flipper316

You're one of the few posters on here that make sense everytime you post something. The people against this i seriously wonder if they have ever taken the GMT outside of the middle of the night regularly just to see how bad it is.

I've been taking the tunnel likely since before you were born. Does it need improving, absolutely. It does not need a massively overbuilt 10 lane bridge. It has been shown that the BC Libs were quite happy with twinning the tunnel until Port Metro began making noises about larger tankers in the river. Like many, the more I learned about the bridge, the less I was in favour. Governing is about priorities, money that was going to be blown on this would be better spent in other places. The Patullo would be a good start, it is genuinely dangerous and decrepit. The NDP would be smart to fast track that bridge's replacement.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It does not need a massively overbuilt 10 lane bridge.

As opposed to a 8 lane bridge, how is it massively overbuilt?

Originally Posted by whatnext

It has been shown that the BC Libs were quite happy with twinning the tunnel until Port Metro began making noises about larger tankers in the river.

WOuld you be okay with extedning the lifespan of the tunnel given its design deficiencies even after they made improvements? Are life safety issues not important? The fact is has a high accident rate doesnt bother you? Containers not being able to ship hazardous goods through the tunnel not a concern?