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

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by fredinno

1. Roads require far more lanes than trains per pphpd.

That's kind of the point. You get a hulluva lot better bang for every one of your bucks spent building transit than you do building roads. It's why investment in a new bridge was seen by many as lopsided spending by the provincial Liberals, given that they had crippled Translink's attempts to acquire funding for transit expansion.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That's kind of the point. You get a hulluva lot better bang for every one of your bucks spent building transit than you do building roads. It's why investment in a new bridge was seen by many as lopsided spending by the provincial Liberals, given that they had crippled Translink's attempts to acquire funding for transit expansion.

Amen to that.... except that Delta's not getting rail anytime soon, so at the moment, transit needs roadspace.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That's kind of the point. You get a hulluva lot better bang for every one of your bucks spent building transit than you do building roads. It's why investment in a new bridge was seen by many as lopsided spending by the provincial Liberals, given that they had crippled Translink's attempts to acquire funding for transit expansion.

So then how do you describe the new plan which will cost the exact same for an inferior project (buses are now shown on the shoulder lanes meaning no true rapid bus system, and no major upgrades to the interchanges are shown either. Not to mention the loss of more ALR and massive river disturbance during construction).

In fact the rapid bus system that was to be a part of the original concept has been cited recently as a solid / ideal transit component.

Maybe it is time to admit that the sensible way forward would have been to continue with the bridge project as was with just a few minor reductions, such as lowering the lane count from 10 to 8????

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

So then how do you describe the new plan which will cost the exact same for an inferior project...

I think that's being generous. By the time this puppy "sails" through the multi-year federal environmental assessment, Its going to be far more expensive, especially when the 100% union labour, ever-increasing materials, potential new carbon offset costs for construction, and other increases are factored in.

Where exactly is rail rapid transit supposed to go on the south end of this crossing exactly? To Ladner and Twassessen? I'm not sure these are designated high-density growth areas requiring rapid transit service? As much as I'd love to see train service all the way to the ferry, I can't see that being cost effective.

Besides, someone has to pay for Mayor Adam West's Skytrain system in Surrey.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That's kind of the point. You get a hulluva lot better bang for every one of your bucks spent building transit than you do building roads. It's why investment in a new bridge was seen by many as lopsided spending by the provincial Liberals, given that they had crippled Translink's attempts to acquire funding for transit expansion.

Except I meant 6 as in absolute maximum. Realistically, if we moved up the say, next 6 transit projects up and magically completed them (Skytrain to UBC, Langley, Tunnel under Vancouver Harbour, L-Line Skytrain, Marine Drive Skytrain, Hastings Skytrain), you'd probably get a cost over 10 Billion overall- with 0 new Bridges or Lanes for Transit.

Literally building ANY new roads across the river makes Transit seem small compared to Roads.

The 2 other bridges over the Fraser are Skytrain Langley-Maple Ridge and Skytrain S.Delta-Richmond, neither of which are likely within the next few decades.

Originally Posted by Mininari

Where exactly is rail rapid transit supposed to go on the south end of this crossing exactly? To Ladner and Twassessen? I'm not sure these are designated high-density growth areas requiring rapid transit service? As much as I'd love to see train service all the way to the ferry, I can't see that being cost effective.

Besides, someone has to pay for Mayor Adam West's Skytrain system in Surrey.

Ladner is technically considered a municipal town center- that's surrounded by an ocean of ALR and has the population of Walnut Grove. Tswwaseen isn't much better.

Every time someone posts a new Skytrain map on the Transit Fantasies Thread though, there it is- a Skytrain across to South Delta.

This is one place where BRT/LRT is probably the only thing that's ever going to happen.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by idunno

^^ In terms of the new tunnel being better for alternative modes of transportation, the arguments are related to the grade of the proposed bridge vs the tunnel:

For walking/biking, there will be an extra tube, and it will have a more shallow grade. This arguably is more important for biking than walking.

For transit, the grades on the 10-lane bridge design were too steep for LRT. The tunnel's grades are far less, which means rail could actually be built in the tunnel at a later date.

Based on the diagrams given in the presentation
The grades on the Bridge are a bit less than 4% (3.9%, precisely), which is within the feasible grade for LRT, which goes up to at least 4-6% grades, depending on who you ask.

Skytrain is also feasible, as it has a similar maximum grade (4%)

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

there is a reason the underpasses like by the Granville Street Bridge are almost never built anymore.

?

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Is there anyway to make sure the project doesn’t proceed? Like, seriously, we need to hold out until the liberals come back. That’s for every single road project, including Patullo.

Yes. Wait, and don't vote NDP.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Mininari

I think that's being generous. By the time this puppy "sails" through the multi-year federal environmental assessment, Its going to be far more expensive, especially when the 100% union labour, ever-increasing materials, potential new carbon offset costs for construction, and other increases are factored in.

Where exactly is rail rapid transit supposed to go on the south end of this crossing exactly? To Ladner and Twassessen? I'm not sure these are designated high-density growth areas requiring rapid transit service? As much as I'd love to see train service all the way to the ferry, I can't see that being cost effective.

Besides, someone has to pay for Mayor Adam West's Skytrain system in Surrey.

I believe the point is to connect it to the proposed west coast line.

[Sheba]

I'm wondering if everyone here is suffering from mass amnesia. The BC Liberals under Christy Clark were terrible for transportation in Metro Van. She was pissed about not getting votes here and went out of her way to stop much needed transit expansion. The 10 lane Massey Bridge was pushed in over the objections of the Mayors Council and then very little happened. The Pattullo Bridge was stalled. Why do you want them back, with Andrew Wilkinson in charge this time?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Skytrain is also feasible, as it has a similar maximum grade (4%)

They limit Skytrain to 6% - in theory it can go a little higher but they don't make a habit of pushing it. We've talked about it a lot when people have had the fantasy of putting Skytrain up Burnaby Mountain to SFU (the grades are way too high).

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by fredinno

?

i assumed most people knew that under pass existed. these things aren't exactly considered the safest things. i assume the VPD monitors the Granville St Bridge one on a regular basis when it gets dark. i cant imagine walking through that ~2km long tunnel will be good.

• Video Link

well it didnt work when i tested it. here is the direct link.

a bridge has sight lines, and you can see if people are camping out on it. by design it natural prevents people from hiding. where as a tunnel with no sight lines means you can't see whats coming.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

So then how do you describe the new plan which will cost the exact same for an inferior project (buses are now shown on the shoulder lanes meaning no true rapid bus system, and no major upgrades to the interchanges are shown either. Not to mention the loss of more ALR and massive river disturbance during construction).

I'm not saying that the original bridge was necessarily a bad idea, nor that the current one isn't inferior. What I'm saying is that the Liberal's refusal to properly fund transit is a big reason why there was so much opposition to the original proposal.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That's kind of the point. You get a hulluva lot better bang for every one of your bucks spent building transit than you do building roads. It's why investment in a new bridge was seen by many as lopsided spending by the provincial Liberals, given that they had crippled Translink's attempts to acquire funding for transit expansion.

Generally speaking universally you get the biggest bang for the buck with road and highway infrastructure. That is universally the case. Transit has its place and is required in dense urban regions but it is not the biggest bang for the buck and certainly wouldn't be at this crossing.

Regardless though I do not know why it is a topic, the previous project had true BRT lanes and stations. It had true rapid transit. It saved ALR land. It provided capacity for the crossing and met all industrial/port needs with a high bridge that can handle all goods and allow large ships through.

The current project is flushing huge amounts of tax payer dollars down the toilet for a inadequate substandard project. All for political goals. This is equivalent to state corruption in my eyes, the end results are the same.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Sheba

They limit Skytrain to 6% - in theory it can go a little higher but they don't make a habit of pushing it. We've talked about it a lot when people have had the fantasy of putting Skytrain up Burnaby Mountain to SFU (the grades are way too high).

Yeah, I forgot the exact numbers. People usually propose extending the Canada Line to Ladner, which maxes out at 3.5% grade, (though honestly the idea doesn't hold up well). Either way, the presentation is still bad for pretending that transit somehow can't work well on the Bridge option.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I'm not saying that the original bridge was necessarily a bad idea, nor that the current one isn't inferior. What I'm saying is that the Liberal's refusal to properly fund transit is a big reason why there was so much opposition to the original proposal.

No one mentioned the disaster with the 555 when they were going against the original plan. Everyone was complaining that it was too big, a bridge, or damaged sight lines. The 555 fiasco seems to have been entirely forgotten.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Generally speaking universally you get the biggest bang for the buck with road and highway infrastructure.

Not in terms of moving commuters, and that's what forms most of the peak traffic load that's requiring us to expand all our road capacity in the first place. Of course we need the roads, but when they fill up at rush hour it's always the case that you can move the next tranch of commuters more cheaply by adding more transit capacity than by adding road capacity.

The only issue with that is that there are, in my humble opinion, too many people who consider transit to be beneath them and who wouldn't even consider using it no matter how convenient it is. I get that it's not practical for everyone, but it's practical for enough people that if they would deign to use it we could avoid an awful lot of road construction.

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Yeah, I forgot the exact numbers. People usually propose extending the Canada Line to Ladner, which maxes out at 3.5% grade, (though honestly the idea doesn't hold up well). Either way, the presentation is still bad for pretending that transit somehow can't work well on the Bridge option.



No one mentioned the disaster with the 555 when they were going against the original plan. Everyone was complaining that it was too big, a bridge, or damaged sight lines. The 555 fiasco seems to have been entirely forgotten.

The Canada Line is driven wheel, so it definitely has a lower maximum grade than Skytrain - I'm not sure exactly what the max is though.

Skytrain max of 6% is correct.

[officedweller]

Canada Line's North Arm Bridge has a max grade of 4.5%,
and that presents problems in snow.


https://www.bytownrailwaysociety.ca/phocadownload/branchline/2009/2009-12.pdf

[flipper316]

https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/10/17/eight-lane-massey-commute-richmond/

On a side note, they really need to get rid of the preload on the southbound right shoulders so we can have our shoulder again. It's a safety issue. Seeing as now this bridge won't get built anytime soon we need our shoulder back.

[tovan]

Originally Posted by tovan

Build an 8 lane bridge divided into 3 barrier separated sections, with pedestrian/cycling facilities on each side.
- 3 NB lanes
- 2 counterflow (2NB in AM; 2SB in PM)
- 3 SB lanes
Total 5NB/3SB lanes in AM, 3NB/5SB in PM = same lane capacity (5) as the proposed GMB in main direction of travel and 3x current counterflow capacity in the opposite direction during peak times.

When transit demand is there and vehicle trips decline or plateaus in the future, the lanes could be reconfigured to allow for rapid bus/transit:
- 3 NB
- 2 rapid bus/transit
- 3 SB

This should be the configuration. Just replace bridge with tunnel.

[Sheba]

Metro Vancouver board greenlights eight-lane Massey Tunnel replacement

Plans to replace the aging and congested George Massey Tunnel took another step forward Friday.

Metro Vancouver’s board of directors has voted to endorse an eight-lane immersed-tube tunnel as its replacement, following the recommendation by a task force last month.

Board members voted for the project subject to nine conditions to the provincial government.

Those include addressing First Nations and environmental concerns, addressing Vancouver, Richmond and Delta’s traffic and land-use concerns, and a timeline of completion by 2026-2027.

...

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Canada Line's North Arm Bridge has a max grade of 4.5%,
and that presents problems in snow.

Don't the LIMs provide all the propulsion and braking, so there is basically no need for the wheels aside from keeping the train on the tracks and thus no problems in the snow?