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

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

I'm always for a bridge but I think a Tunnel may suffice. The image below from long ago shows such a wide span of the cable stayed bridge exceeding beyond Port Mann bridge length and tower height, along with deep pilings due to soft soil issue in the area, that it did originally look like a lofty mega project.

Image removed as it does not comply with forum citation requirements

Given the counter flow lanes on Alex Fraser currently under construction, I am conceded that a 6-8 lane tunnel for the 99 would be plenty good enough, given proper attention to seismic tolerances as well.

A far better solution would have been to cancel the Alex Fraser counter lane project (since it will result in narrower lanes and a reduced speed limit) and to have continued with the bridge at 8 lanes.

No matter what 6 lanes is not wide enough given the fact the the rush hour counter flow already consists of 3 lanes in a single direction. 8 lanes is appropriate as it retains the current rush hour lane count and allows for two transit / HOV lanes.

Ironically if they go with a tunnel the project will end up being far more expensive than the original bridge concept.

Once again the final bids were actually well under the estimated 3.5 billion for the entire project.

We were so close to actually having an impressive modern structure welcoming people in Metro-Vancouver.

[twoNeurons]

The real (unsaid) reason for a bridge instead of a tunnel is to allow deeper cargo ships down the river to an expanded port. That's why they didn't think about keeping the GMT in one direction and a bridge on the other.

No politician wants to talk about that reality, though.

I'm neither for nor against either one, really... but is it too much to ask for a little political honesty? LOL

[Migrant_Coconut]

They do have to take down the GMT in the near future, though. Having the almost-retired infrastructure be part of the long term plan sounds like a Very Bad Idea.

[officedweller]

I would say the Port has to leave its options open (for port expansion upriver) given the possible rejection of the Deltaport Expansion:

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...s-2b-container-expansion-at-roberts-bank

Originally Posted by Metro-One

We were so close to actually having an impressive modern structure welcoming people in Metro-Vancouver.

Well, we do from the east!

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

The real (unsaid) reason for a bridge instead of a tunnel is to allow deeper cargo ships down the river to an expanded port. That's why they didn't think about keeping the GMT in one direction and a bridge on the other.

No politician wants to talk about that reality, though.

I'm neither for nor against either one, really... but is it too much to ask for a little political honesty? LOL

jeez not this again.

this has been debunked as the constricting factor is NOT the tunnel itself, but the Metro Vancouver main that is shallower and runs parallel to the tunnel.

that is just something anti highway people kept harping about.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I would say the Port has to leave its options open (for port expansion upriver) given the possible rejection of the Deltaport Expansion:

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...s-2b-container-expansion-at-roberts-bank

Wait, so if Deltaport Terminal 2 is dead, they're still going to want to expand the port- perhaps the old Flawvelle Mill site in Port Moody into a container terminal to help mitigate the lost future capacity?

The only site on the Fraser River downstream of North Surrey that's not developed is South Richmond/Finn Slough. There's also Barnston Island in North Surrey, sort of.

There was some speculation though, that the Fraser River might become too narrow for bulk shipping, and thus, the Fraser River docks would have to be closed. Think of that what you will.

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Wait, so if Deltaport Terminal 2 is dead, they're still going to want to expand the port- perhaps the old Flawvelle Mill site in Port Moody into a container terminal to help mitigate the lost future capacity?

The only site on the Fraser River downstream of North Surrey that's not developed is South Richmond/Finn Slough. There's also Barnston Island in North Surrey, sort of.

There was some speculation though, that the Fraser River might become too narrow for bulk shipping, and thus, the Fraser River docks would have to be closed. Think of that what you will.

Isn't it being developed?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by M00dy

Isn't it being developed?

Yes, but it's still empty, and it's probably easier/cheaper to take it off the developer's hands, if they're willing, than to try to get an ALR exclusion to get enough space to fit another port. Lack of a rail spur is a problem, but it's not that hard to build one- it's right next to the mainline, and the only barrier is Columbia St.

Plus, the site is disconnected from the rest of the city and Skytrain by the rail mainline, reducing its usefulness for residential purposes.

[officedweller]

Makes sense, but I think there was a big redevelopment master plan for that site already.

[flipper316]

https://www.peacearchnews.com/news/counc...ct-to-include-south-surrey-interchanges/

[interrobang]

The mayors have finally released/sent the letter to the Premier concerning their discussions on the tunnel replacement.
They are asking for 6 lanes for regular traffic, and 2 lanes for rapid transit bus.
They also ask that only tunnel options be considered

Letter to Premier

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by interrobang

The mayors have finally released/sent the letter to the Premier concerning their discussions on the tunnel replacement.
They are asking for 6 lanes for regular traffic, and 2 lanes for rapid transit bus.
They also ask that only tunnel options be considered

Letter to Premier

Their wish list has no relation at all to reality.

The project should address First Nation concerns regarding in river works and fisheries impacts.

and

The project should not create additional potentially costly, length or prohibitive environmental challenges or reviews.

Directly contradict building it as a submerged tunnel. In river works would be required unless it's bored.

Any solution must address the matter in a timely manner, hopefully with construction completed by 2025-2026.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yeah, the tribes that signed this are shooting themselves in the foot here.

[flipper316]

So now the Richmond mayor is for this? Why the flip-flopping. What a prick Brodie is. Fat chance this thing will even be approved by Trevana and the NDP. Let's say miraculously it does. Guarantee there's not going to be any highway upgrades from Oak to at least 32nd ave and only a new bridge and that's it just like the new Pattullo. Typical BC value engineering.

[stump]

Originally Posted by flipper316

So now the Richmond mayor is for this? Why the flip-flopping. What a prick Brodie is. Fat chance this thing will even be approved by Trevana and the NDP. Let's say miraculously it does. Guarantee there's not going to be any highway upgrades from Oak to at least 32nd ave and only a new bridge and that's it just like the new Pattullo. Typical BC value engineering.

He just doesn't want a big scary bridge. Maybe he's afraid of heights.

Trevana will probably take at least 6 months to read this 2 page letter and then another 6 months come up with a memo to ask for another business plan. Not holding my breath.

[p78hub]

They want a tunnel because probably a bridge, no matter the scale, will make them look like they support car infrastructure. Better to keep that hidden underwater than risk the optics. It's how guys like Brodie stay in office for so long. They pander to the conservative group that is afraid of big, bad "LA-style" highway projects.

[Mininari]

NDP = No Decision Pending.

[s211]

Originally Posted by flipper316

What a prick Brodie is.

Well, at least he's consistent. That's something in his favour: you'll always know what you're getting.

[Metro-One]

What an amazing pretzel this has become.

Stop the project (sighting costs and environmental impacts, we must ask the mayors and do our own study).

Study comes out, main cost saving measures are to greatly reduce transit aspect (centre lane bus system) and build new structure next to existing tunnel instead of over (causing los of ALR).

Mayors come back with their wish list:

Surrey, make the project bigger out to King George / 152 interchanges (definitely increasing costs).

Richmond, build 8 lane tunnel instead of bridge. Again, loss of ALR and higher cost.

All this with the extra cost of years of delay.

Wow, just wow.

My plan was to simply reduce the bridge by two lanes and continue with the project as is.

Seems like my idea didn’t seem so bad now eh?

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by p78hub

They want a tunnel because probably a bridge, no matter the scale, will make them look like they support car infrastructure.

But they do support car traffic, why else would have they removed all tolls?

The amount of indecisiveness in this province is not funny anymore. Just build a damn thing. Anything! Without a 10-lane bridge, I am actually for a 8-lane tunnel, just because it is a much more urban element than a bridge, which there are already so many.

With a tunnel, I suppose they will be replacing the old tunnel, as the lane split would make no sense and it is at the end of its life cycle.

More than a new crossing, I want to see highways on both side getting and extra lane (or two, but that'snot happening).