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

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

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

Exactly. Apparently, 2 of the 10 lanes will be bus/HOV only, so it's basically 8 anyway. Would you rather have 6 for SOV and 2 for HOV?

[Chikinlittle]

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).

These are all very sound and logical points. Do you have any thoughts or ideas on what should be done to address these issues and build 'something' without encouraging additional unsustainable low-density sprawl on the south side of the river, and the added pressure on the ALR that will also likely result? What can be done, different than a 10 lane bridge as proposed (which arguably fails to mitigate those sprawl concerns above), that might be a responsible middle ground on the issue?

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

These are all very sound and logical points. Do you have any thoughts or ideas on what should be done to address these issues and build 'something' without encouraging additional unsustainable low-density sprawl on the south side of the river, and the added pressure on the ALR that will also likely result? What can be done, different than a 10 lane bridge as proposed (which arguably fails to mitigate those sprawl concerns above), that might be a responsible middle ground on the issue?

Look at the Golden Ears and Port Mann. Crazy sprawl in Maple Ridge, Mission, Abby, Surrey etc. It'll only get worse. What makes the new George Massey any different .

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Look at the Golden Ears and Port Mann. Crazy sprawl in Maple Ridge, Mission, Abby, Surrey etc. It'll only get worse. What makes the new George Massey any different .

The sprawl is not thanks to the bridges, but our housing prices which are driven by completely other factors. People don't move to the distant sprawling suburbs because they want, but because they have to. The bridges only make daily life possible for these people.

[GreaterMontréal]

$3.5B is a lot of money for a bridge of this length. and not technically complicated

the project is good, but the price is not.

[Klazu]

I would think at least people on this forum are more informed than the clueless mainstream media about the fact that the bridge itself will not cost $3.5B. That is the price tag for the entire 35-kilometer stretch of widened highway, brand new intersections and demolishing the old tunnel. Even the bridge structure of Port Mann Bridge cost only $820M to build and most of the cost was spent on widening the highway (which is of course also necessary).

Similarly, the George Massey Bridge itself would also cost less than a billion to build and the difference between 8 and 10 lanes would be ~100M. It's total peanuts in the grand scheme of the project, but for some reason idiot media and also lots of the discussion in here has all revolved around the "outrageous" 10 lanes as if that would be any kind of deal-breaker in here.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

These are all very sound and logical points. Do you have any thoughts or ideas on what should be done to address these issues and build 'something' without encouraging additional unsustainable low-density sprawl on the south side of the river, and the added pressure on the ALR that will also likely result? What can be done, different than a 10 lane bridge as proposed (which arguably fails to mitigate those sprawl concerns above), that might be a responsible middle ground on the issue?

The issue of sprawl itself is the responsibility of the cities.

Upgrading the highway and adding the new bridge also wont put new pressure on the ALR. (all the highway improvements were going to take place within land already reserved for the highway corridor).

The ALR concern was also used by people who were against the SFPR project believing it would lead to major areas of ALR land being developed after it opened, so far that hasn't happened.

In fact the only major loss to the ALRin recent memory has actually (ironically) been due to the Tsawwassen First Nations, and this was completely separate to any highway project.

Also ironically the location with the next highest development pressure is within Richmond itself.

The bridge and upgrading the highway would not lead to the destruction of the ALR.

As for the GEB being blamed for sprawl in Maple Ridge, that is laughable. I grew up in Maple Ridge and its development pattern has been detached housing sprawl for over 40 years, long before the bridge existed.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I would think at least people on this forum are more informed than the clueless mainstream media about the fact that the bridge itself will not cost $3.5B. That is the price tag for the entire 35-kilometer stretch of widened highway, brand new intersections and demolishing the old tunnel. Even the bridge structure of Port Mann Bridge cost only $820M to build and most of the cost was spent on widening the highway (which is of course also necessary).

Similarly, the George Massey Bridge itself would also cost less than a billion to build and the difference between 8 and 10 lanes would be ~100M. It's total peanuts in the grand scheme of the project, but for some reason idiot media and also lots of the discussion in here has all revolved around the "outrageous" 10 lanes as if that would be any kind of deal-breaker in here.

thanks for the info, I thought the $3.5B would be for the bridge and maybe 3km of widened highway on both side and 1 interchange, like they show in the video. but 35km ...shouldn't even be part of the same project.

So all in all, if the new bridge isn't built, the 35km project is dead ? if so, that's a major mistake.

[Metro-One]

Yep, along with a rapid bus system that had bus only ramps connecting the north end of the project directly to the Bridgeport Skytrain Station (bus hub) and two in situ bus exchanges located on both ends of the bridge.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

thanks for the info, I thought the $3.5B would be for the bridge and maybe 3km of widened highway on both side and 1 interchange, like they show in the video. but 35km ...shouldn't even be part of the same project.

So all in all, if the new bridge isn't built, the 35km project is dead ? if so, that's a major mistake.

Why would you massively upgrade a highway if the choke point that it serves isn't upgraded?

Also, this bridge is technically complicated. The foundations are going to be a pain. The reason why they went with a tunnel the first time is because it was easier to build. Immersed tube tunnels however are harder to secure against seismic events, and the building standards now favour a bridge.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

$3.5B is a lot of money for a bridge of this length. and not technically complicated

the project is good, but the price is not.

It's for the bridge and Highway upgrades.

[ssiguy]

Highway #99 actually flows fairly well except for the tunnel. The reason for this is because there is so much traffic getting on/off at Steveston Road often just to get off the highway right after the tunnel and head to Twass/Ladner.

The twin tunnels should be left as-is but build 2 new tunnels {with bike lanes} that serve strictly people going from/to Steveston Rd............2 lanes to Vancouver, 2 lanes to Richmond and vise-versa. A far cheaper alternative to a 10 lane bridge and the destruction of 2 functioning tunnels.

Vancouver has an incredibly horrid highway network that is over-capacity, poorly maintained, terribly connected, and downright dangerous due to transports having to go by schools & residential neighbourhoods, tractors and farm equipment using the same damn roads {ie Hyw#15}, very poor interchange designs, and short ramps.

Anyone who has ever driven in Ontario and then comes back realizes just how bad our highways are. Take those saved funds and put them into building overpasses/bridges to bring SFPR, HWY#15, and the Mary Hill Bypass up to freeway standards.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Highway #99 actually flows fairly well except for the tunnel. The reason for this is because there is so much traffic getting on/off at Steveston Road often just to get off the highway right after the tunnel and head to Twass/Ladner.

not really that simple at all.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The twin tunnels should be left as-is but build 2 new tunnels {with bike lanes} that serve strictly people going from/to Steveston Rd............2 lanes to Vancouver, 2 lanes to Richmond and vise-versa. A far cheaper alternative to a 10 lane bridge and the destruction of 2 functioning tunnels.

IT IS 1 TUNNEL, NOT 2. there are 4 sections inside the tunnel:
- 2 for vehicles
- 2 for ventilation, cables, etc.
if you cant get that right; you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

terrible idea. the amount of work and money that would go in to make a tunnel seismically safe would be crazy in that area. not to mention the HUGE LOSS of ALR land and nature habit on Deas Island. then the HUGE COST of building overly complicated, convoluted, confusing interchanges and signage for people to be like "shit i went in the wrong tunnel to go where i want to and now i need to backtrack 5km." and a bike lane in a 1km long tunnel, really? talk about making a place for homeless camps, dark corners/areas for people to be easily cornered/mugged/attacked/etc.




and no THE BRIDGE IS NOT 3.5 BILLION DOLLARS!!! THE PROJECT IS 3.5 BILLION DOLLARS AND INCLUDES ~35 KM OF UPGRADED FREEWAY. this includes multiple new overpasses over the freeway, major widening, new interchanges, dedicated bus on-ramps and off-ramps, dedicated bus stops in the centre median, ~35km of HOV/Bus-lane, seismically safe bridge, built to a ~125 year life span, and A NET GAIN IN USABLE ALR LAND.


you people want to twin the tunnel? the NDP and Greens want to twin the tunnel? WTF are people smoking to think that is BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT WHEN IT WILL USE UP MORE ALR VS GIVE BACK ALR. and for what? a decrese in 2 lanes because "2 extra lanes will spur more sprawl not 10 lanes." seriously, wtf are people smoking? where the hell is common sense and critical thinking gone?

[cornholio]

These are the facts here. Cancelling this project will make life more difficult in this region. It will make life more expensive in this region. It will costs hundreds of millions in lost economic output. It already is costing us many millions that were sunk in to get this project off the ground. Anyone who opposes this project in my eyes is a moron. Unfortunately there are far too many of them in the region and some with decision making positions. The mayors should be democratically elected to the board and they should have the balls to campaign on their ridiculous platforms. The mayors should be in the business of making life easier for residents, nothing else. As for translink and the province it should be in the business of building up transportation infrastructure and giving people options, thats it. ps this region is fucked. This is just another hit of many to its livability.

[cganuelas1995]

WRT a tunnel with bike lanes, how much usage do you see that actually getting? I think a BRT system with buses that have bike racks on the front and space for a bike inside would suffice.

Besides, what kinda cycling enthusiast addict/masochist would regularly commute between Ladner/Tsawwassen to Richmond or even Vancouver solely by bike?

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Klazu

The sprawl is not thanks to the bridges, but our housing prices which are driven by completely other factors. People don't move to the distant sprawling suburbs because they want, but because they have to. The bridges only make daily life possible for these people.

While I agree that housing cost is the primary factor behind growth South of the Fraser, there are a lot of people who want nothing to do with the more built up parts of the region and prefer an automobile-oriented suburban lifestyle. Living South of the Fraser provides that, with the corollary that an ever-increasing amount of vehicle infrastructure is necessary to keep up. The Hwy 1 upgrades, new Port Mann Bridge, Hwy17/SFPR, and GMTR are all part and parcel of that.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

[...]
In fact the only major loss to the ALRin recent memory has actually (ironically) been due to the Tsawwassen First Nations, and this was completely separate to any highway project.
[...]

The SFPR made Tswwassen Mills/Tswwassen Commons commercially viable. That's the primary reason those projects came to fruition.

[WarrenC12]

Some heavy duty ranting on this thread. Why not focus on the upcoming study? This project is dead, dead, dead. Get used to it. At least maybe now we'll see some real options instead of a pre-decided outcome.

[nickbeaulieu]

downsize the whole project. Instead of 3.5B for bridge, widening of the roads, removal of the old tunnel etc etc, reduce it so the project isn't as huge... maybe they can get a new bridge in place that will still serve the needs of the region for a long time and have money left to put towards projects like the langley skytrain, the broadway subway or replacing the Pattullo, which is WAAAAY overdue.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by nickbeaulieu

downsize the whole project. Instead of 3.5B for bridge, widening of the roads, removal of the old tunnel etc etc, reduce it so the project isn't as huge... maybe they can get a new bridge in place that will still serve the needs of the region for a long time and have money left to put towards projects like the langley skytrain, the broadway subway or replacing the Pattullo, which is WAAAAY overdue.

Except that an eight-lane bridge (as opposed to a ten-lane) will only save you $100M out of $700-900M. And a bigger bridge without bigger roads only pushes the bottleneck further down the highway, so widening is non-negotiable.

At best, you're saving a few hundred million by "downsizing"... and the SkyTrain extensions and the Patullo replacement are going to cost billions - no way cheaping out is going to pay for any of them. Might as well spend the extra hundred mil and build the GMB right.

[nickbeaulieu]

But they're already pushing the bottleneck further down the highway by not doing anything about the oak st. bridge.

Also, I'm not saying the cost savings would cover 100% of the cost of those other projects, but weren't they shy a few hundred million in order to get them going?

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Except that an eight-lane bridge (as opposed to a ten-lane) will only save you $100M out of $700-900M. And a bigger bridge without bigger roads only pushes the bottleneck further down the highway, so widening is non-negotiable.

At best, you're saving a few hundred million by "downsizing"... and the SkyTrain extensions and the Patullo replacement are going to cost billions - no way cheaping out is going to pay for any of them. Might as well spend the extra hundred mil and build the GMB right.