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

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by M00dy

Also added risk to build over the existing. The reference concept for the 2017 bid had the towers straddling the tunnel, which created significant risk during piling from what I had heard.

Yeah, and if they retain and retrofit the existing tunnel, the straddling the tunnel option is probably dead in the water because the ground reinforcements for the old tunnel would prevent the straddle piers from being built (certainly for a narrow bridge).

i.e. once you elect to keep the old tunnel - that forces you to move to a parallel alignment (eating up ALR) - whether bridge or tunnel.
I suspect that the NDP will end up removing some land from the ALR to reduce costs.

[Firebrand]

Since BC wants to keep the voting system status quo, the NDP will be absolutely fucked when they don’t get the bridge going.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Since BC wants to keep the voting system status quo, the NDP will be absolutely fucked when they don’t get the bridge going.

I think people in this thread think the tunnel replacement is a bigger deal politically than it actually is.

Especially considering the most affected ridings - all of Richmond, South Delta, South Surrey and White Rock - went Liberal last election anyway.

[waves]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Since BC wants to keep the voting system status quo, the NDP will be absolutely fucked when they don’t get the bridge going.

It's such a shame. If BC had PR, this bridge would be under construction right now.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by officedweller

But did you see what the report says is sufficient for the Steveston Hwy interchange?

What a joke.

I really hope they don’t do anything until the Liberals come back and the highway can receive the full modernization it requires.

At this point it is just another bandaid.

Some can argue that the original Steveston Interchange was going to far (I thought it was perfect) but I nearly everyone on here that this doesn’t go anywhere near far enough (and obviously makes any major transit option impossible).

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I think people in this thread think the tunnel replacement is a bigger deal politically than it actually is.

Especially considering the most affected ridings - all of Richmond, South Delta, South Surrey and White Rock - went Liberal last election anyway.

Yep.. and multi-billion dollar projects paid by the province aren't popular outside of where they are being built. Eliminating tolls was such a mistake...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

What a joke.

I really hope they don’t do anything until the Liberals come back and the highway can receive the full modernization it requires.

At this point it is just another bandaid.

Some can argue that the original Steveston Interchange was going to far (I thought it was perfect) but I nearly everyone on here that this doesn’t go anywhere near far enough (and obviously makes any major transit option impossible).

It will be interesting to see what Wilkinson actually promises for the next election. I don't think it will be a 10 lane bridge.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by waves

It's such a shame. If BC had PR, this bridge would be under construction right now.

How do you figure that?

[waves]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

How do you figure that?

This project is a classic example of policy lurch, something that is typically prevented in PR.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by waves

This project is a classic example of policy lurch, something that is typically prevented in PR.

I'd argue it never would have been proposed under PR. It was shoved down everyone's throat by proclamation, the exact thing that doesn't happen under PR.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd argue it never would have been proposed under PR. It was shoved down everyone's throat by proclamation, the exact thing that doesn't happen under PR.

Was the George Massey Upgrade that unpopular amongst the general public?

[SpongeG]

London Drugs considering move from Richmond, B.C. head office due to George Massey tunnel delays
LAURA SCIARPELLETTI
VANCOUVER
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL

London Drugs says it may move its Richmond head office and distribution centre, which employs almost 900 people, after the NDP government announced further delays for a plan to replace the George Massey Tunnel. The iconic retailer, founded in British Columbia, could even leave for Alberta or Saskatchewan, its president says.

...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/b...ove-from-richmond-bc-head-office-due-to/

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Was the George Massey Upgrade that unpopular amongst the general public?

The general public is about a 50/50 split, could go either way. Amongst the mayors, being the miserable cheapskates they are, most prefer the tunnel (or nothing at all) for the same "reasons" Surrey First preferred light rail.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The general public is about a 50/50 split, could go either way. Amongst the mayors, being the miserable cheapskates they are, most prefer the tunnel (or nothing at all) for the same "reasons" Surrey First preferred light rail.

100% correct on the mayors.

As for public every poll I have ever seen regarding the bridge is in support.

Look at the poll in this article for example, 83% in support

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

[WarrenC12]

Dailyhive as a source? People outside the lower mainland didn't want the province buying it. It had big support among people who use the tunnel all the time, big shocker.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Dailyhive as a source? People outside the lower mainland didn't want the province buying it. It had big support among people who use the tunnel all the time, big shocker.

Wow, what a surprise, people who are most directly affected have the highest support for a major project!

I am willing to bet that people outside of the Lower Mainland are not so red hot about the Broadway Subway / Surrey Skytrain either. In fact just a couple years ago Vancouver's neighbouring city didn't approve of the Broadway Subway... And today many communities seem to be agains Surrey's Skytrain...

Also in reverse those most opposed to site C were on the South Coast.

That is a terrible argument to make and I know that you know better than that.

In the end it will be a "You get what you pay for" situation. Many of the cost cutting measures being considered are terrible and will require another major re-build / upgrade only a decade or two later. In the end this will cost us much more money than if we simply proceeded building it correct this time. A decent compromise would have been to reduce the bridge lane count from 10 to 8 and continue with the rest of the project as was proposed.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Wow, what a surprise, people who are most directly affected have the highest support for a major project!

I am willing to bet that people outside of the Lower Mainland are not so red hot about the Broadway Subway / Surrey Skytrain either. In fact just a couple years ago Vancouver's neighbouring city didn't approve of the Broadway Subway... And today many communities seem to be agains Surrey's Skytrain...

Big difference. Those transit projects were paid by 40% Federal government, 40% provincial government, and 20% local. The bridge proposal was 100% provincial. Site C isn't comparable, it's a provincial asset that will produce a steady stream of revenue for decades. You can argue the ROI of course, but now it appears to be a key part of the CleanBC plan. The population base impacted is much less for the GMB.

Obviously a large proportion of SSP users get a big boner thinking about big infrastructure projects, but there's a limited amount of money available, and this project as proposed by the BC Libs wasn't appropriate.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Big difference. Those transit projects were paid by 40% Federal government, 40% provincial government, and 20% local. The bridge proposal was 100% provincial. Site C isn't comparable, it's a provincial asset that will produce a steady stream of revenue for decades. You can argue the ROI of course, but now it appears to be a key part of the CleanBC plan. The population base impacted is much less for the GMB.

Obviously a large proportion of SSP users get a big boner thinking about big infrastructure projects, but there's a limited amount of money available, and this project as proposed by the BC Libs wasn't appropriate.

There are serious doubts Site C will ever make a profit, considering the expensive development hell it had to go through. By that standard, the project as proposed by the Liberals would also create a steady stream of revenue for decades, via tolls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_C_dam#Cost

Economic estimates in 2016 by Harry Swain, former chair of the Joint Review Panel and former BC deputy minister of Industry, projected that if all the power were sold to the US spot market, as little as $1.8 billion would be returned, and the rest ($7 billion) of the cost would be covered by taxpayers.

Note that the cost has ballooned to $9 Billion.


I'm pretty sure the biggest reason it hasn't been cancelled like the GMB is that it's a primary keystone in BC's energy policy, which would have to be remade without it. IPPs have been shunned because of the projected power from Site C.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by fredinno

There are serious doubts Site C will ever make a profit, considering the expensive development hell it had to go through. By that standard, the project as proposed by the Liberals would also create a steady stream of revenue for decades, via tolls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_C_dam#Cost
Note that the cost has ballooned to $9 Billion.


I'm pretty sure the biggest reason it hasn't been cancelled like the GMB is that it's a primary keystone in BC's energy policy, which would have to be remade without it. IPPs have been shunned because of the projected power from Site C.

Ok, so here's the most important part of that Wikipedia article:

Site C is planned to have 132.5MW of capacity per $billion. In BC Hydro's latest upgrades, the John Hart Dam is planned for 120.2MW of capacity per $billion and the Ruskin Dam is planned for 142.5MW of capacity per $billion

So, it's middle of the pack in terms of power per $$.

That $1.8B estimate is based on selling in the US spot market, ie: fire sale prices. The best part about dams is they are giant batteries. We can store the power when the price is low, and sell (or use) when it's high.

We will need all of Site C and more if the CleanBC plan proceeds and we electrify transportation and heating in this province. It's in a prime spot to sell power to LNG plants so they don't burn NG for their massive energy requirements, and sell clean electricity to Alberta if they ever see the light of climate change.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Ok, so here's the most important part of that Wikipedia article:



So, it's middle of the pack in terms of power per $$.

That $1.8B estimate is based on selling in the US spot market, ie: fire sale prices. The best part about dams is they are giant batteries. We can store the power when the price is low, and sell (or use) when it's high.

We will need all of Site C and more if the CleanBC plan proceeds and we electrify transportation and heating in this province. It's in a prime spot to sell power to LNG plants so they don't burn NG for their massive energy requirements, and sell clean electricity to Alberta if they ever see the light of climate change.

Exactly, the requirement is much more strategic than profit-based. Same as the George Massey.