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

[libtard]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I agree that local representation is the most important, and I'll say for the record that I support the bridge and I oppose Surrey LRT - both positions going against the mayors. I have no issue with the province stepping in and sorting squabbles out.

But just logically, of course local representation needs to have a say. Them not having a say is how interstates were driven through the downtowns of just about all American cities.

We’re not talking about an interstate going through a downtown though. What’s the point of even bringing that up? The ROW is already in place and the new interchanges on either sides actually have smaller footprints than what is there now. What was Richmond’s mayors reason for opposing the bridge? “It looked like LA style freeway”. Gtfo. The current interchange at steveston highway looks like it’s 3rd world. Are you all forgetting the sand piles that are still adorning the side of Hwy 99? The pre loading has been done, the design is good. Let’s get this project done because what we have now is an embarrassment

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by libtard

We’re not talking about an interstate going through a downtown though. What’s the point of even bringing that up? The ROW is already in place and the new interchanges on either sides actually have smaller footprints than what is there now. What was Richmond’s mayors reason for opposing the bridge? “It looked like LA style freeway”. Gtfo. The current interchange at steveston highway looks like it’s 3rd world. Are you all forgetting the sand piles that are still adorning the side of Hwy 99? The pre loading has been done, the design is good. Let’s get this project done because what we have now is an embarrassment

You're preaching to the choir, and my point totally went over my head. I brought up interstates going through downtowns because they happened because federal engineers ignore local concerns.

And to be fair, the Steveston Highway interchange does look like something out of the states. Whether that's a bad thing or not is a different matter, but it does look like that. In a city where stack interchanges are an unfamiliar sight, it's not particularly surprising that people would look at it and be a little shocked.

[p78hub]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

In a city where stack interchanges are an unfamiliar sight, it's not particularly surprising that people would look at it and be a little shocked.

It's ironic and a little sad that the region's mayors see a stack interchange as something that's bad since it's actually the most efficient type of intersection (both in terms of usage of space and vehicle throughput). I feel like the thought process with things like this usually go something like, "freeways and huge interchanges = LA = congestion = bad!" But LA is bad because it's a metropolitan area of nearly 20 million people and they don't have as robust a transit system as cities of similar size.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

In a city where stack interchanges are an unfamiliar sight, it's not particularly surprising that people would look at it and be a little shocked.

The only stacked interchange I've seen that is closest to a typical American freeway interchange in Metro Van is the Hwy 1-Lougheed-Mary Hill interchange. Every other ones are either controlled diamond interchanges or parclos. BC has a NIMBYist view on stacked interchanges for some reason.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

The only stacked interchange I've seen that is closest to a typical American freeway interchange in Metro Van is the Hwy 1-Lougheed-Mary Hill interchange. Every other ones are either controlled diamond interchanges or parclos. BC has a NIMBYist view on stacked interchanges for some reason.

Vancouver's basically trying to be the anti-Houston. Whereas they feel the need for 26-lane freeways and seven five-level interchanges, here anything wider than six lanes is considered "paving paradise."

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Vancouver's basically trying to be the anti-Houston. Whereas they feel the need for 26-lane freeways and seven five-level interchanges, here anything wider than six lanes is considered "paving paradise."

Obviously I'm not asking for Hwy 99 to be like this:


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Highway_401.png

All that I'm asking is not having a half-assed diamond interchange that clogs traffic like the Hwy 1-200th Street interchange.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Vancouver's basically trying to be the anti-Houston. Whereas they feel the need for 26-lane freeways and seven five-level interchanges, here anything wider than six lanes is considered "paving paradise."

anything wider than 6 lanes?!?! correction, 4 lanes. hell, people want there to be even less than 4 lanes, or there should be 4 lanes but not a freeway if the mayors had their way...

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Obviously I'm not asking for Hwy 99 to be like this:


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Highway_401.png

All that I'm asking is not having a half-assed diamond interchange that clogs traffic like the Hwy 1-200th Street interchange.

if there is a free-flowing interchange, there will be lots of protests. that is how BC works.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

if there is a free-flowing interchange, there will be lots of protests. that is how BC works.

A look at BC's four-way full access freeflow interchange count...or lack therefore

[SgtNeonPanda]

Originally Posted by misher

it should take a really good reason to halt it. Just because it was started by the last government is not a good reason. When you takeover for an employee in a company you don't halt/cancel their ongoing projects (which would usually make your boss fire you), you continue through with them.

There is a very good reason to halt it -- the fiscal capacity of the province. At nearly $4b, this would be one of the largest capital projects in BC's history. Going ahead with this and Site C means there is no money left for anything else, lest the government decide to raise taxes or allow the province's credit rating to be downgraded.

Given the significant risk of Site C going over budget, potential ICBC bailout, uncertainty surrounding tolls and mobility pricing, increasing interest rates, significant risk of economic downturn due to tariffs and rising fuel prices, potential negative impacts on government revenues stemming from a slowing residential real estate sector, and the unwillingness of the feds to contribute a dime to the project, I'd say that the current government is being fiscally prudent.

Just because the government has (likely) cancelled the project doesn't mean they don't like it, for all the reasons listed by other forumers. It simply means they have to manage a lot of other priorities, as well. Perhaps a twinning of the tunnel isn't ideal, but governments have to make compromises as the fiscal tap isn't unlimited. Prudent governments don't pull $4b projects out of thin air. This project has never been on the radar of any regional or provincial plans.

Re-evaluating the project in light of the above concerns doesn't seem unreasonable, even if it was a sexy project.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Obviously I'm not asking for Hwy 99 to be like this:


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Highway_401.png

For what it's worth, a straw man argument that "drivers just want highways everywhere" is just as preposterous and disingenuous as the "cyclists just want everyone to ride bikes" straw man argument.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by SgtNeonPanda

There is a very good reason to halt it -- the fiscal capacity of the province...

Very well said. We can only build so much at a time, patience is a virtue!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by SgtNeonPanda

Just because the government has (likely) cancelled the project doesn't mean they don't like it, for all the reasons listed by other forumers. It simply means they have to manage a lot of other priorities, as well. Perhaps a twinning of the tunnel isn't ideal, but governments have to make compromises as the fiscal tap isn't unlimited. Prudent governments don't pull $4b projects out of thin air. This project has never been on the radar of any regional or provincial plans.

Re-evaluating the project in light of the above concerns doesn't seem unreasonable, even if it was a sexy project.

Not disagreeing about the pricetag, but most of that $4B is going to Highway 99 upgrades to supplement the GMB- the actual bridge is $1B or less. A second GMT isn't going to benefit anybody except the accountants (even then, not by much).

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not disagreeing about the pricetag, but most of that $4B is going to Highway 99 upgrades to supplement the GMB- the actual bridge is $1B or less. A second GMT isn't going to benefit anybody except the accountants (even then, not by much).

yep, e.g. the ministry confirmed the PMB + approaches was only 750-850m

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

yep, e.g. the ministry confirmed the PMB + approaches was only 750-850m

No point in building one without the other, so it's irrelevant.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No point in building one without the other, so it's irrelevant.

it is relevant, because people site the cost as why this should be a "twinned tunnel" instead. it would cost either the same, or more since you still need the highway upgrades.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

it is relevant, because people site the cost as why this should be a "twinned tunnel" instead. it would cost either the same, or more since you still need the highway upgrades.

Only if they build 10 lanes worth of "twinned tunnel". It's not the bridge, it's the size (and overall cost).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Only if they build 10 lanes worth of "twinned tunnel". It's not the bridge, it's the size (and overall cost).

The proposal calls for six lanes of new tunnel plus three from the old one. Ten minus nine gives one less lane... whose savings are probably going to be used up on replacing the old tunnel within a decade anyway.

[stump]

Originally Posted by waves

The reply doesn't actually say that they will release the report to the public in the fall, just that the ministry will discuss with the mayors council in the fall. Maybe you could send her a second email and an email to Lisa asking if you can see the report/asking when it will be released for the public to view in its entirety.

Got a reply back asking for that information:

Thank you for your inquiry. As outlined below, the Ministry is still reviewing the report for possible next steps so a final release date has not yet been identified. Please feel free to contact me by telephone at 250-356-0514 if you have further questions.

Thank you,

Lisa Gow
Executive Director
Major Projects and Alternate Procurement
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

I googled her name for curiosity sake and found this 2009 article with her.

https://www.trucknews.com/features/poised-for-growth/

"Canada’s Pacific Gateway offers Asian shippers the most direct route between Asia and North America, thanks to B. C.’s “integrated, secure, reliable transportation network” consisting of world class airports, seaports, railways, roadways and border crossings."

[misher]

Originally Posted by stump

Got a reply back asking for that information:

Thank you for your inquiry. As outlined below, the Ministry is still reviewing the report for possible next steps so a final release date has not yet been identified. Please feel free to contact me by telephone at 250-356-0514 if you have further questions.

Thank you,

Lisa Gow
Executive Director
Major Projects and Alternate Procurement
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

I googled her name for curiosity sake and found this 2009 article with her.

https://www.trucknews.com/features/poised-for-growth/

"Canada’s Pacific Gateway offers Asian shippers the most direct route between Asia and North America, thanks to B. C.’s “integrated, secure, reliable transportation network” consisting of world class airports, seaports, railways, roadways and border crossings."

Canada's roads are kind of an embarrassment when you go down to the States. When travelling across Canada I prefer to drive down to the states and then go back up into Canada.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

haha our roadways are crap for the most part. though BC Rail did do a good job, so does the Port of Vancouver and YVR.

our roadways were once great, back when WAC was in charge. just like how BC Rail was great, same reason. and then YVR as well.