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

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Maybe we need look at the idea of adding more crossings but not have them to be has big. So instead of 8-10 lane new Massey Bridge. Maybe a 6 lane new massey bridge plus a new 6 lane bridge across from Tilbury over to richmond and then another bridge from Richmond over to boundary road. And maybe not all those bridges would be built at once but that would be the long term goal. And over time the Oak, Knight, and Queensborugh bridges would be replaced with 6 lane bridges each.

if you cant get people to replace current infrastructure, you aren't going to get them to agree to place in more, through ALR farmland. it is always good to have "backup" crossings, but it wont be done since youll never get people onside with paving over farmland when they don't want to pave over pavement and replace some pavement with more farmland...

[Migrant_Coconut]

Right. Nice as it would be, a proposal three six-lane bridges would get shot down faster than the NIMBYs can sing "Don't it always seem to go..."

Hence the ten-laner.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

if you cant get people to replace current infrastructure, you aren't going to get them to agree to place in more, through ALR farmland. it is always good to have "backup" crossings, but it wont be done since youll never get people onside with paving over farmland when they don't want to pave over pavement and replace some pavement with more farmland...

I agree the chances of it getting built are zero. But if there was no opposition and money was not a problem. I feel smaller but more frequent crossings are far better than fewer but larger crossings.

So for now I'd say lets just replace the massey tunnel with a 6 lane bridge and let things settle down.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

if you cant get people to replace current infrastructure, you aren't going to get them to agree to place in more, through ALR farmland. it is always good to have "backup" crossings, but it wont be done since youll never get people onside with paving over farmland when they don't want to pave over pavement and replace some pavement with more farmland...

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Right. Nice as it would be, a proposal three six-lane bridges would get shot down faster than the NIMBYs can sing "Don't it always seem to go..."

Hence the ten-laner.

A NIMBY will have a heart attack if you even attempt bringing up widening Hwy 99 using Ontario’s highway model.

[libtard]

Oh god here comes the 3rd crossing idea again. It always rears it’s ugly head every 6 months or so. If you’re saying that development will spike then plateau that’s perfect. Build the Massey bridge to handle current congestion plus a slight rise in future traffic (10 lanes)

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by dharper

With all of that development in South Surrey, I wonder when 152nd street is ever going to be widened to four lanes, North to Highway 10.

Probably not in our lifetime. They had an excellent opportunity to just do a simple four lane overpass when they were fixing it when that truck hit it. But of course they blew it and chose not to do it.

Here's another article. Again this will never happen in our lifetimes.
https://www.peacearchnews.com/news/surre...ion-relief-strategy-to-speed-up-traffic/

[Metro-One]

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/george-massey-bridge-tunnel-replacement-metro-vancouver

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Those houses will introduce thousands of new residents and thousands of new cars to the area ... Highway 99 MUST be upgraded and with it the whole bridge. There is no demand to induce - it is already coming!!

I would just like to point out that some of that demand can be met through improved transit - so let's not forget to spend some money on that as well.

[flipper316]

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/george-massey-bridge-tunnel-replacement-metro-vancouver

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I would just like to point out that some of that demand can be met through improved transit - so let's not forget to spend some money on that as well.

Problem is that Delta is two suburbs separated by farmland with a combined population of around 40k, and it doesn't help that nobody's interested in TOD. Even Maple Ridge is more economical to serve.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I would just like to point out that some of that demand can be met through improved transit - so let's not forget to spend some money on that as well.

Seriously dude? This comment should be posted in the transit discussion thread

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I would just like to point out that some of that demand can be met through improved transit - so let's not forget to spend some money on that as well.

Seeing as the bridge contained dedicated transit lanes as well as a proper transit corridor, then transit was not being forgotten about at all. In fact, to get good transit you must build a new crossing and being anti bridge is anti transit.

[s211]

Originally Posted by libtard

Seriously dude? This comment should be posted in the transit discussion thread

Or the transit fantasy thread. Seriously.... transit meets a very small minority of transportation needs. To suggest it's the solution to everything.... well, it's just :kook:

(And this is written by a person who rides his bike and takes transit more than he drives.)

[makr3trkr]

I don't think anyone here seriously believes induced demand isn't a thing that exists. More like it's problematic when it's suggested that induced demand is *always* going to result in vastly more traffic, every time, in every circumstance. There's lots of examples of new (and old) bridges and freeways that are under capacity or never met projected capacity, or took far longer than expected to reach capacity... So, sure, induced demand does happen, but it's not as simple as new road/structure + induced demand = congestion in every instance, no matter what.

[misher]

Originally Posted by cabotp

I fully agree the massey tunnel does need to be replaced with something that can handle far more traffic. But at the same time I don't think we need something like a 2nd Port Mann bridge.

There is no doubt that South Surrey has a lot of housing developement. But how much land is there that can be developed. I feel like south surrey is an area that will rapidly develop for a short time. And then it will stall because there will be no more land to develop. So you would end up with an increase of traffic on the 99, but that increase would eventually plateau.

Maybe we need look at the idea of adding more crossings but not have them to be has big. So instead of 8-10 lane new Massey Bridge. Maybe a 6 lane new massey bridge plus a new 6 lane bridge across from Tilbury over to richmond and then another bridge from Richmond over to boundary road. And maybe not all those bridges would be built at once but that would be the long term goal. And over time the Oak, Knight, and Queensborugh bridges would be replaced with 6 lane bridges each.

But but what about the bike lanes? (says government officials in abject horror)

[WarrenC12]

The BC Liberals shot themselves in the foot with the botched HST implementation, leading to a painful process of unwinding a very efficient taxation scheme.

Now the BC NDP have shot themselves in the foot by eliminating tolls on the bridges. The policy of "tolling all new crossings" was not ideal, but it's better than what we have now.

"Congestion pricing" or whatever scheme that group came up with will never fly. I'm not even sure any political party would run on the promise of a new GMB in the next election, it's not worth the cost for the number of votes it would buy.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The BC Liberals shot themselves in the foot with the botched HST implementation, leading to a painful process of unwinding a very efficient taxation scheme.

Now the BC NDP have shot themselves in the foot by eliminating tolls on the bridges. The policy of "tolling all new crossings" was not ideal, but it's better than what we have now.

"Congestion pricing" or whatever scheme that group came up with will never fly. I'm not even sure any political party would run on the promise of a new GMB in the next election, it's not worth the cost for the number of votes it would buy.

Completely agree. Eliminating tolling of all new crossings was a much better idea then mobility pricing. Eliminating tolling has made the new GMB less appealing

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I would just like to point out that some of that demand can be met through improved transit - so let's not forget to spend some money on that as well.

This is very true. Currently buses make up 1% of the vehicles going through the tunnel during peak hours but actually carry 16% of the people going through the tunnel. Improving transit and making it more convenient for more people can help ensure that more single-occupant vehicles aren't going through the tunnel.

[Klazu]

Yeah, I will vote against congestion or road pricing, but I would be happy to resume paying toll on any crossing that has been constructed in the last 10 years or will be built in the future. I would even be fine if our few HOV lanes would be converted to separated HOT lanes to gather some money for future improvements.

On that note, did they not just shut down the toll cameras on port Mann Bridge, but did they also remove all the cameras and the whole system? I drove across last weekend and it looked to me like they have removed everything, making it a costly exercise to re-introduce tolls in the future.

[Firebrand]

With how the BC gov’t is currently run for the past few years, it’s not gonna happen. Any party, whether it’s the BC PCs Liberals or NDP, tolling the tunnel and bridges would cost them losing voters who drive gas-guzzling F-350s to their while-collar jobs, because they’ll respond:

“I don’t want to pay for (transit) infrastructure that I’m never gonna use.”
-Said by a redneck suburbanite.

People in this province are very selfish of their own needs. I agree on bringing back the tolls, but the vast majority of drivers will scorn you for it, because they want to spend their money on material objects and not on infrastructure, whether it’s road or transit. But they never think how said objects get to the stores. How do you think a Rolex watch got from Switzerland to Twsawwasen Mills? They come from trucks, which they came from either the Port or a railyard, and they travel through the tunnel and bridges to get there. If these structures fall to disrepair, then tough luck on getting your precious Rolex. But they’ll never care about that as long as their fulfill their short-term gains.