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

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

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

Originally Posted by nickbeaulieu

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

The GMB studies already showed that the Oak St Bridge is not the destination for most tunnel traffic.

60% of the tunnel traffic goes to/from Richmond.

30% of the tunnel traffic goes to/from the Steveston part of Richmond specifically.

A minority of Hwy 99 traffic goes to the Oak St Bridge.

The freeway system already distributes Hwy 99 traffic effectively between Oak St, Knight St, and other North-Arm bridges, so it is false to say that there is a 2-lane choke point to the north.

This corridor does not hinge on the Oak St. Bridge, and continually bringing it up just shows that you need to educate yourself on this.

What this corridor needs is more access into Richmond and ideally the GMB project would have added a brand new additional interchange around Blundell Rd. to help with this.

[nickbeaulieu]

Drive the 99 to and from vancouver and tell me the oak st bridge isn't a choke point.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by nickbeaulieu

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?

Shy about eleven hundred million, to be precise. The Broadway and Surrey projects combined are estimated to cost $5.5 billion; under the new 40-40-20 funding system, the feds and province will each put $2.2 billion towards them... leaving us to find the remaining $1.1 billion. I could argue that cancelling a few bike lanes could cover that gap, but I won't because it shouldn't be a contest - all of these infrastructure projects need to get built, and properly.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by nickbeaulieu

Drive the 99 to and from vancouver and tell me the oak st bridge isn't a choke point.

I think the lights at 70th are the choke point, not the bridge per say. And those aren't (and shouldn't) go anywhere.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I think the lights at 70th are the choke point, not the bridge per say. And those aren't (and shouldn't) go anywhere.

And they won't go away unless they decide to grade separate the highway.

[ssiguy]

2 new tunnels would NOT be a logistical nightmare but far easier than the huge interchanges need by the new bridge. All traffic from Steveston goes into a new tunnel on one side and vice-versa on the other. Part of the problem especially heading south is that a lot of traffic merges on right before the tunnel and hence backs up the roadway. Closing the current on-ramp from Steveston gets rid of that problem. Also new twin tunnels have the added benefit of there being an accident does not slow down the whole roadway unlike one wider bridge. It also allows for periodic maintenance without closing down the bridge.

I don't have a problem with the bridge per-se but it is too expensive and Vancouver has decades of improvements needed before it even gets to the level it should be at right now. Take those saved hundred of millions and put them towards 20 new overpasses thru out the region. Having a free flowing GMT doesn't do much good if the exits are clogged with traffic from the backed up exit roads.

As an example BC's "fast route" from the border to HWY#! is HWY#15 and from the border to TCH there are 13 lights, a farm tractor crossing, and it's goes thru the heart of congested Cloverdale.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I think the lights at 70th are the choke point, not the bridge per say. And those aren't (and shouldn't) go anywhere.

Congestion is an issue due to the 2 merge points (HWY 91 onto HWY 99 and Bridgeport Rd onto HWY 99) and all traffic converging onto 2 lane NB.

That said, one would have hoped we could have seen a new crossing @ Boundary Rd in Richmond and a second bridge near Tilbury.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by nickbeaulieu

Drive the 99 to and from vancouver and tell me the oak st bridge isn't a choke point.

When I take 99 north to Vancouver I always use the Knight St bridge connection. Yes, I know that bridge is a choke point as well, but the point is, Hwy 99 northbound effectively has 4 bridge lanes available into Vancouver. Not 2. The gridlock could just as easily be improved by widening Knight Street Bridge instead of Oak St Bridge.

[GreaterMontréal]

If you have a 10 lanes bridge in Richmond, the trafic on the Oak St bridge would be epic, no ?
you have to cross 2 bridges to reach Vancouver.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

If you have a 10 lanes bridge in Richmond, the trafic on the Oak St bridge would be epic, no ?
you have to cross 2 bridges to reach Vancouver.

No, because not every vehicle that crosses the George Massey goes over the Oak Street Bridge. I'm pretty sure numerous people have pointed this out in the last page.

[Chikinlittle]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

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.

This is true in South Delta and Surrey as well - as you grew up in Maple Ridge, I grew up in Ladner.

But it certainly is less attractive to a prospective home owner, and therefore real estate values, and therefore development pressures, if there is a choke point there. Building this bridge will further enable developers to sell suburban sprawl.

That's why I'm looking for ideas on checks and balances - how do we build something that alleviates safety concerns, allows for transit priority and improved bus service/frequency, but doesn't encourage further growth of vehicular traffic and suburban sprawl?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

This is true in South Delta and Surrey as well - as you grew up in Maple Ridge, I grew up in Ladner.

But it certainly is less attractive to a prospective home owner, and therefore real estate values, and therefore development pressures, if there is a choke point there. Building this bridge will further enable developers to sell suburban sprawl.

That's why I'm looking for ideas on checks and balances - how do we build something that alleviates safety concerns, allows for transit priority and improved bus service/frequency, but doesn't encourage further growth of vehicular traffic and suburban sprawl?

To be honest that is up to the municipalities to enforce better zoning.

The ALR is a huge help as well (and I do not fear for its dismantling as much as others on here do, since that would essentially be political suicide).

Also, despite all the worry about sprawl the amount of greenfield sites in Delta / South Surrey / White Rock that are available for the traditional sense of "sprawl" is quite limited as is, and many core areas are already starting to become more dense and urban in form.

This project is not so much about building for future demand than it is for the demand that already exists (and to update the route to modern safety standards and highway designs), to provide suitable transit services to the region, and to accommodate the ports / shipping industry that is pivotal for our region's economy. (Also note that I support distance tolls on our freeways).

Similar is true for Maple Ridge, and given our region's insane housing costs it was going to develop with or without the GEB. Maple Ridge sprawled like mad for decades with only two unreliable swing bridges and a small ferry connecting the community to the rest of the region. Of course it is difficult to measure but up to this point the new GEB and Pitt River Bridge did not hasten this process by much (although the idiotic decision to remove the tolls may add to this).

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

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.



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

So you really believe that the Tswwassen Native Band would have kept all that land that they were given as farms had it not been for the SFPR? Come on now, your smarter than that!

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Zassk

The GMB studies already showed that the Oak St Bridge is not the destination for most tunnel traffic.

60% of the tunnel traffic goes to/from Richmond. 30% of the tunnel traffic goes to/from the Steveston part of Richmond specifically.

...which is why I haven't understood why the City of Richmond is so against the project? It will benefit them the most. Their city planning is very dependent on cars outside of their small city center. A lot of the jobs in Richmond are in the business parks east of the highway which are car-oriented developments.

Highway 99 is also in a corridor that has plenty of room for expansion. Widening it won't impede any of their land development plans, but would improve intra-city travel in north-south direction. It would also take more cars away from the city's street network. All benefits in my books.

[Metro-One]

Richmond makes no sense, they are against it yet they have recently allowed a massive new industrial park project go forward. More trucks for the Alex Fraser...

[Klazu]

With the bridge project possibly dead, wouldn't a new crossing make more financial sense than twinning the tunnel? Have there ever been studies of how much traffic would use a new 4-lane bridge over both arms of Fraser River, connecting Highway 99 and SFPR with Boundary Road?

If they cannot get over the "monstrous" 10-lane bridge, perhaps they could consider a twinned 6 or 8-lane tunnel and a new 4-lane bridge. This would also reduce the need to widen Highway 99 and could be less cost overall with more benefits...

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

not really that simple at all.



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?

Amen to that.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Klazu

With the bridge project possibly dead, wouldn't a new crossing make more financial sense than twinning the tunnel? Have there ever been studies of how much traffic would use a new 4-lane bridge over both arms of Fraser River, connecting Highway 99 and SFPR with Boundary Road?

If they cannot get over the "monstrous" 10-lane bridge, perhaps they could consider a twinned 6 or 8-lane tunnel and a new 4-lane bridge. This would also reduce the need to widen Highway 99 and could be less cost overall with more benefits...

They actually did study this, and let me just say if you are worried about the GMB plan potentially threatening the ALR, then the entirely new route approach would completely destroy it. All potential routes had it going right through the ALR, removing far more ALR than the SFPR did (the SFPR ran along an existing rail ROW and the fringe of Burn's Bog for much of its length in Delta, considerably reducing the amount of ALR it needed to removed). Then there would be countless other properties that would need to be expropriated, and you would still need to build a bridge on the same soil and port conditions, and you would still need to seismically upgrade and eventually replace the George Massey tunnels anyway in the future. In the end it would cost far more than the GMB approach, and would involve a lot more destroyed land.

[p78hub]

For those who still think the OSB is a determining factor, if you look at traffic flow in the morning, most of the traffic on the bridge originates from Richmond, coming from Steveston Hwy, Alderbridge/Shell, and Bridgeport, with a handful merging from the 91 and another handful making the commute from south of the Massey. In the afternoon it's the same story, mostly people who live in Vancouver and work in Richmond.

It's little disingenuous to keep pushing that the majority of tunnel traffic ends up in Vancouver, because that ignores the fact that the office/industrial complex on No. 6 between Westminster and Bridgeport and the industrial park off Steveston and No. 5 are huge employers for the region, and of course, that's where a lot of traffic ends up.

No doubt that the OSB needs to be upgraded (50s design, narrow), but that's another thread for another day, and for all intents and purposes, mostly irrelevant to the Massey Tunnel.

[ssiguy]

Of course none of this is helped by the fact that transit is not a long term solution.

All the buses from Delta/WR/SS now connect at the overcapacity Canada Line. Vancouver not only doesn't build roads to meet capacity but this is made worse by the fact that the transit they want everyone to take is not built to high capacity levels either.