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

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

haha.
i am glad i didn't vote NDP with this shit and the taxes from the City and Province all increasing. sadly all those people believed the NDP when they'd get rid of the MSP premiums. with the 5% increase in property tax, i will be paying more on-top of that "school tax" scam.

Wow, you own a place over $3M? Nice.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by libtard

Can you give an example of a crossing (IN NORTH AMERICA) that has dedicated lanes for heavy trucks? What is a dedicated heavy truck lane? I’m legitimately trying to understand what you’re proposing. So if a semi truck crosses the bridge and it isn’t in said lane, it gets fined an amount of money? How does this work?

Go back through this thread and find the posts where people were falling over themselves describing how big trucks need a dedicated lane to go slow in while they climb over the bridge and this was a justification for a ten lane bridge.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Go back through this thread and find the posts where people were falling over themselves describing how big trucks need a dedicated lane to go slow in while they climb over the bridge and this was a justification for a ten lane bridge.

So you basically have no idea what you’re talking about. Got it

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Giving the old can a big boot down the road. Looks like 10 lanes is out, 6-8 lanes in bridge or tunnel form is possible.

I think another tunnel is the most reasonable for the soil conditions in this area.

Next scheduled election is Oct 21, 2021. Assuming the government doesn't fall for other issues. This will definitely be an election issue.

I would seriously like to hear your explanation for why the soil conditions make a tunnel a better choice. I was under the impression one of the main issues was that the existing tunnel sits on liquifyable soils that would fail in an earthquake.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by M00dy

I would seriously like to hear your explanation for why the soil conditions make a tunnel a better choice. I was under the impression one of the main issues was that the existing tunnel sits on liquifyable soils that would fail in an earthquake.

Reasonable from a cost perspective. I'm sure they can be made to modern seismic standards.

Part of the reason the GMB proposal was so massive and expensive is because of how high it needed to go, and how much ground level work needed to be done due to where they were building.

It's also the reason a tunnel was built in 1959.

[officedweller]

Yeah, the 9th and 10th lanes were truck climbing lanes due to the steep slope.
That's also why when the 5th lane was added to the old Port Mann Bridge, it was added on the eastbound side because that where trucks entering the highway slowed to a crawl to climb the bridge slope.

The Cape Horn interchange has a dedicated "Trucks Only" exit to Pacific Reach Business Park:


https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2292665,-...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

The Report says that a shorter span (between towers) would also allow slightly shallower approach ramps. Tweaking the bridge like that could result in a cumulative savings of up to $500M.

[officedweller]

Here are the interesting bits regarding bridge design and Steveston Hwy & Hwy 17A interchanges from the Report:
















https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sit...g_Independent-Technical-Review_FINAL.pdf

[Mininari]

Its clear that they removed the tolls, took over the Patullo project, and now have no money for this. Nothing will happen at this crossing until the NDP have attained their majority government. Everything they've rolled out to date is to make the liberals look really bad, and make the NDP platform make everyone feel really good. The only question left is, when does the present government fall (i.e. when does the NDP feel most confident they'll win?)

Meanwhile... more studies. Yay. Consultants get rich.

[libtard]

2 HOV lanes and 8 general purpose lanes for the new Massey bridge makes sense. Anything less would be short sighted

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by libtard

2 HOV lanes and 8 general purpose lanes for the new Massey bridge makes sense. Anything less would be short sighted

At what cost?

[GlassCity]

Disappointing to see the recommendation against the transit provisions, but this seems like the type of project that'll go through 20 more design iterations, governments and studies before it's built so I'm not gonna put too much stock into any of this.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Meanwhile... more studies. delays. Yay. Consultants get rich.

FTFY.

Originally Posted by libtard

2 HOV lanes and 8 general purpose lanes for the new Massey bridge makes sense. Anything less would be short sighted

This is the NDP we’re talking here. They’ll do anything to half-ass the project. They’ll at best put 6 car lanes and 2 bus lanes, but they’ll most likely put 6 lanes altogether.

Seriously, the NDP are completely oblivious of the transit aspects of the GMB. What has gotten on their thick minds on not getting it built correctly? They’re focusing WAY too much on their ridings.

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Reasonable from a cost perspective. I'm sure they can be made to modern seismic standards.

Part of the reason the GMB proposal was so massive and expensive is because of how high it needed to go, and how much ground level work needed to be done due to where they were building.

It's also the reason a tunnel was built in 1959.

"Reasonable from a cost perspective."
Really? Because from what i've read any tunnel built to the same modern seismic & structural standards would be more expensive than a bridge, not less.

"I'm sure they can be made to modern seismic standards."
I'm not an expert in tunnelling, but remember that the area we're talking about is in fraser river silt/sand that will liquify in a major earthquake. When you build a bridge on friction piled foundations that can be addressed. How do you improve your substrate when tunnelling through weak soil?

"Part of the reason the GMB proposal was so massive and expensive is because of how high it needed to go, and how much ground level work needed to be done due to where they were building."
Remember the tunnel will also have to go deep to get under the river, and long trenched viaducts are required to do so.

I would be shocked if an equivalent tunnel is cheaper than a bridge. Tunneling is also FAR higher risk during construction.

[Metro-One]

So essentially the majority of the savings / shortcuts identified in the document are value engineering, increasing environmental impacts, taking land out of the ALR, and reducing the scope of transit...

The idea of putting the towers within the river, while they have a higher environmental risk, is the only cost reduction listed (along with reducing the lanes from 10 to 8) that I can support.

Building the rout on a new alignment? Nope. That will create unnecessary curves in the highway and will require the destruction of a decent chunk of ALR.

Severely reducing the interchange designs and adding to the current hodgepodge of a highway? (It literally states the idea of retaining some of these old under-built overpasses) Nope. The entire highway given its age is in need of an entire overhaul as originally proposed.

Using the shoulders for bus lanes? Oh God No! Essentially it states retaining the status quo for the bus transit system. Here the report feels as if some underhanded work is at play. All of the major bus transit systems I have seen that are beyond tacked on panted lines or random queue jumpers travel along dedicated lanes with dedicated stations, and on a freeway this requires to be on the median in a FULL lane. Not a shoulder shared with broken down vehicles and cutting across on and off ramps.

These are all very poor value engineering ideas. I don't even need to mention the option of retaining the tunnel.

Build it once, build it right. No more gluing shit on the side and patching with duct-tape for this highway and crossing.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by M00dy

"Reasonable from a cost perspective."
Really? Because from what i've read any tunnel built to the same modern seismic & structural standards would be more expensive than a bridge, not less.

"I'm sure they can be made to modern seismic standards."
I'm not an expert in tunnelling, but remember that the area we're talking about is in fraser river silt/sand that will liquify in a major earthquake. When you build a bridge on friction piled foundations that can be addressed. How do you improve your substrate when tunnelling through weak soil?

"Part of the reason the GMB proposal was so massive and expensive is because of how high it needed to go, and how much ground level work needed to be done due to where they were building."
Remember the tunnel will also have to go deep to get under the river, and long trenched viaducts are required to do so.

I would be shocked if an equivalent tunnel is cheaper than a bridge. Tunneling is also FAR higher risk during construction.

Why would the tunnel need to be any deeper than the current one?

Bottom line is the BC Libs never gave us the costed options, and that's most of the reason we're in this mess.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Why would the tunnel need to be any deeper than the current one?

If you didnt read his statement. let me make it bigger for you

Remember the tunnel will also have to go deep to get under the river

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

If you didnt read his statement. let me make it bigger for you

Remember the tunnel will also have to go deep to get under the river

That's a statement. Why is that statement taken as true? Why can't the new tunnel be at the same depth as the current one?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

If you didnt read his statement. let me make it bigger for you

Remember the tunnel will also have to go deep to get under the river

Says who? Some internet guy? Citation needed.

[misher]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Why would the tunnel need to be any deeper than the current one?

Bottom line is the BC Libs never gave us the costed options, and that's most of the reason we're in this mess.

I remember there were discussions about allowing larger hull ships through.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

I remember there were discussions about allowing larger hull ships through.

But there's also plenty of clearance with the current tunnel.

If bigger ships are the reason, perhaps those bigger ships and their beneficiaries should help pay the additional cost.