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

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

sigh.

we are such a short sighted people... we will build the status-quo of 3 lanes of general purpose traffic. sigh.

such a waste of fucking money.

I agree with you totally on your point. IMO, there are several factors that bring this about, project after project, time and time again.
First, there is a mantra in Vancouver that goes "transit is good, cars are bad; transit is good, cars are bad......" It is deep-rooted, and while true in many instances, blocks vital projects.
Then, there is the fact that Vancouver having grown so quickly from a relatively small town, just cannot conceive of itself as a large metro area, where capacious roads are vital.
Finally, there is the small-town governance contingent that either comes from small centres and / or wants Vancouver to remain one and refuses to think in contemporary terms.
Combine all this, and you end up with an impressive Alex Fraser Bridge, already nearing capacity, inadequate North Shore crossings, a joke Richmond Freeway 4-lanes wide .......
The list goes on; you name it, but with perhaps the exception of the new Port Mann Bridge and Cape Horn interchange, our road system is sadly underbuilt and out-of-date.
It will not change until the mentality changes, and until then, it means gridlock, slow feed, and arterial roads that cut through areas that should not be cut through.
The resultant symptoms, are, perhaps at their worst, residential streets being used as shortcuts and bypasses, endangering the lives of residents or kids playing in their streets.
One can only hope that a paradigm shift is on the way, because, despite the best intentions of the transit promoters, cars are here to stay until world petroleum runs dry.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Whenever I hear them speak of 2030, or "if this project touches the river, it will kick off a multi-year federal environmental assessment process" I think of this little moment back in 2017:

https://theprovince.com/opinion/columnists/mike-smyth-massey-tunnel-fight-heats-up-on-the-ground

So, basically cancel the 10-lane bridge project, delay for 5-10 years, and then proceed with an 8-lane bridge project, with inflated labour costs due to the community benefits agreement (a.k.a. 100% Union labour), not to mention inflation and materials cost increases. Plus, if an 8-lane bridge with rail capabilities is likely.... gee, that's starting to sound like a 10-lane bridge, with 2 lanes repurposed for rail.

"The new 8-lane replacement bridge will be complete by 2030, at an estimated cost of $10.0B. Existing interchanges will be spackled and painted, a la BC "Value Engineering" techniques.

Being Union or not has very little difference in the overall price. Under the Liberals Canada line Port mann were all done Union. And most of the proponents are organized to a degree.

CBA if done the same way as the HCL agreement that was in force last time will make the the government the payroll company. SO the mark up on labour is controlled. Also the actual cost per hour union non union in the trades that are doing this work are negligible.

When the HCL agreement was in effect Union workers were paid about $5 bucks less an hour as it was a special agreement. And the nonunion workers made about 3 bucks more under the agreement.

Actual companies doing the work are not union just the labor on the project will be union and paid according to the CBA agreement.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

First, there is a mantra in Vancouver that goes "transit is good, cars are bad; transit is good, cars are bad......" It is deep-rooted, and while true in many instances, blocks vital projects.

To be fair, it's a very valid mantra. You can move more people with less investment and far less impact on the city via rapid transit than you can with cars. We should be prioritizing transit. I think much, if not most of the backlash against the Massey tunnel replacement was that it was first being pushed at a time when the Liberal government was starving transit of funds in favour of a lot of big road projects.

Transit is finally getting the kind of funding it deserves, and we're seeing ridership increase dramatically because of it. So the time is about right for the pendulum to start swinging the other way.

[officedweller]

Remember that the original Massey Bridge project included extensive HOV Bus Rapid Transit, including stations.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Remember that the original Massey Bridge project included extensive HOV Bus Rapid Transit, including stations.

Yeah, and the Port Mann bridge included a bus route that TransLink was unable to operate for quite some time because the government didn't provide any funding for it. One gets the idea that these kinds of things are largely lip service to keep transit advocates quiet.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that the Massey tunnel needs to be replaced and that transit access needs to be part of it. But the discussion was around why we are here years later with no progress, and I believe that unbalanced spending on roads at the expense of transit was a huge reason why the original Massey replacement project faced so much pushback. You just have to compare the gold plated Massey Bridge and Port Mann bridge designs with the shoebox sized stations on the Canada Line to see where the problem was.

I just hope we're able to take a more holistic approach this time around and realize that both roads and transit need to be funded and built with a view to them being useful over the long term.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Yeah, and the Port Mann bridge included a bus route that TransLink was unable to operate for quite some time because the government didn't provide any funding for it. One gets the idea that these kinds of things are largely lip service to keep transit advocates quiet.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that the Massey tunnel needs to be replaced and that transit access needs to be part of it. But the discussion was around why we are here years later with no progress, and I believe that unbalanced spending on roads at the expense of transit was a huge reason why the original Massey replacement project faced so much pushback. You just have to compare the gold plated Massey Bridge and Port Mann bridge designs with the shoebox sized stations on the Canada Line to see where the problem was.

I just hope we're able to take a more holistic approach this time around and realize that both roads and transit need to be funded and built with a view to them being useful over the long term.

I don't think anybody doubts that - the argument is about whether we're getting said approach right now, or if the pendulum's swung the other way and the anti-car zealots have replaced the pro-car ones.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Yeah, and the Port Mann bridge included a bus route that TransLink was unable to operate for quite some time because the government didn't provide any funding for it. One gets the idea that these kinds of things are largely lip service to keep transit advocates quiet.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that the Massey tunnel needs to be replaced and that transit access needs to be part of it. But the discussion was around why we are here years later with no progress, and I believe that unbalanced spending on roads at the expense of transit was a huge reason why the original Massey replacement project faced so much pushback. You just have to compare the gold plated Massey Bridge and Port Mann bridge designs with the shoebox sized stations on the Canada Line to see where the problem was.

I just hope we're able to take a more holistic approach this time around and realize that both roads and transit need to be funded and built with a view to them being useful over the long term.

Very few would argue that we should build both, but I do feel you have skirted the issue a little.

First point, there are no gold plated highways in Vancouver. The best we have are adequate. The Port Mann and Highway 1 expansion brought that stretch to adequate standards for a major highway in a urban area approaching 3 million post 2000. If the Port Mann is gold plated, then so is the Evergreen Line.

Yes, the Canada Line was under-built (this was also partly due to the cities as well, Vancouver pushing for single entrances and Richmond wanting at grade LRT and compromising with a single track section). But then so was the SFPR with its at grade traffic lights and other issues.

Fact is BC tends to under-build both.

I agree that the Liberals should have allocated money for the 555 from the get go, but the fact is that they DID build the necessary physical infrastructure for the bus system (direct ramps, park and ride) If those had been cut your argument for this aspect would have more to stand on. The proposed transit infrastructure for the highway 99 upgrade was going to be even more substantial (essentially full rapid bus).

The winning bid was coming in at around under 1 billion the originally estimated cost. Pre work for the project had already begun.

The easy solution was to continue with the project as is with a reduced lane count of 8 lanes from 10.

But they did their report (which hilariously highlighted removing / highly reducing the transit component to simplify the project and reduce costs) and other severe value engineering options (such as keeping the old tunnel and existing interchanges). These for many reasons stated before are no goes and most of the municipalities have stated as much. In fact Surrey wants an expansion of the project from the original scope now.

So here we are, gone full circle. We have wasted years (lost economic revenue) and it looks as if to be done right the project will essentially need to be the same as proposed before to satisfy both the highway and transit needs.

So what has been gained besides a higher price on a delayed time frame for a potentially less satisfactory project if they do decide to reduce the transit scale, retain existing interchanges and tunnel?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

So what has been gained besides a higher price on a delayed time frame for a potentially less satisfactory project if they do decide to reduce the transit scale, retain existing interchanges and tunnel?

politicians being able to pander with partisan politics while screwing up the future and not giving a crap.

tell me something else that's new.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

politicians being able to pander with partisan politics while screwing up the future and not giving a crap.

tell me something else that's new.

Indeed! What politician do you see regularly using transit? Maybe Green Party members, but does Horgan use it? Likely not! He and his government could care less how underbuilt or inadequate the transit system is because they don’t have to/want to use it!

[Klazu]

The only time you see a politician using public transportation is for a photo shoot. This one still cracks me up.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Klazu

The only time you see a politician using public transportation is for a photo shoot. This one still cracks me up.

Politicians do all kinds of shit on camera to get elected. But actions speak louder than words as the saying goes. The Liberals have been pretty friendly to public transit.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Klazu

The only time you see a politician using public transportation is for a photo shoot. This one still cracks me up.

Hollywood's Train to Busan remake keeps looking worse and worse...

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Politicians do all kinds of shit on camera to get elected. But actions speak louder than words as the saying goes. The Liberals have been pretty friendly to public transit.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/andrew-scheer-massey-tunnel-replacement-1.5301273

[Klazu]

CBC is trying their very best being partisan against Conservatives but I am glad someone is actually ready to get this finally going.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by flipper316

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/andrew-scheer-massey-tunnel-replacement-1.5301273

Is that meant as a rebuttal? Scheer wants to widen highways to "alleviate congestion and reduce carbon emissions" too, which is a ridiculous premise.

The bridge support linked above doesn't have any details on how he's going to to that. The bridge is next after the Patullo, that Delta councilor already leaked the plan (8 lane bridge, etc.).

I'm sure the NDP run MOTI would fast track the bridge if some federal $$ were put on the table to do so.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Is that meant as a rebuttal? Scheer wants to widen highways to "alleviate congestion and reduce carbon emissions" too, which is a ridiculous premise.

Why squander your opportunity to make a convincing conclusion? The real claim you are making is that expanded capacity will induce more driving, which we are seeing to be the case with the Port Mann bridge since the tolls were removed.

On the other hand, trucks idling 2 minutes in traffic exhausts as much CO2 as driving 1.60 kms, so this is no good either. Expanded capacity will reduce such emissions at the potential cost of promoting more driving. You need to balance capacity to alleviate congestion for existing goods movers while not inducing further demand for cars (unless of course they are electric so who cares).

[Migrant_Coconut]

But which highways, where? Somehow, I don't think Scheer's talking about Western Canada when he says that... more like upgrading the GTA's 401 stretch to L.A./Houston standards.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

Why squander your opportunity to make a convincing conclusion? The real claim you are making is that expanded capacity will induce more driving, which we are seeing to be the case with the Port Mann bridge since the tolls were removed.

On the other hand, trucks idling 2 minutes in traffic exhausts as much CO2 as driving 1.60 kms, so this is no good either. Expanded capacity will reduce such emissions at the potential cost of promoting more driving. You need to balance capacity to alleviate congestion for existing goods movers while not inducing further demand for cars (unless of course they are electric so who cares).

I thought the plan to "increase roads to reduce carbon emissions" didn't require explanation to laugh at.

Our existing roads (some exceptions) have plenty of capacity for vehicle traffic if single occupancy traffic is reduced even moderately. The way to do that would be boosts to public transit, not ambiguous "road widening".

More roads and bridges are extremely expensive, and apart from induced demand, you risk simply moving the bottleneck somewhere else, and overall "idling" remains the same.

[Marshal]

And, significant population growth?

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by flipper316

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/andrew-scheer-massey-tunnel-replacement-1.5301273

Originally Posted by Klazu

CBC is trying their very best being partisan against Conservatives but I am glad someone is actually ready to get this finally going.

Well, the Liberals did announce that they were prepared to contribute funding to the GM replacement project three days prior to Sheer's announcement: "We will respect the province and the municipalities in their decisions, but the money is there.”