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

[s211]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

This.

And, the 91 corridor just got an extra reversible lane on the AFB (which has proven to be extremely effective), a new interchange at 72 Ave, and an upcoming freeway upgrade for the link road to the relatively recently-built SFPR. These were all major improvements to the overall corridor/context that the Massey Tunnel belongs to. Meanwhile, there hasn't been a new rail rapid transit station in Surrey for over 25 years. And we were about to let long-held ambitions of extending SkyTrain to Langley city languish in favour of a network of surface LRTs with a significantly inferior design.

I ought to have said more about this before but the Massey Tunnel is definitely not the 'next in line'. I don't like to be the guy that puts down infrastructure projects we need and I'd like to see new Massey corridor capacity get off the ground within the next 4 years. But make no mistake, if we had come out of this last election with a B.C. Liberal government, they would have put the 10-lane Massey Bridge (on a corridor that IMHO will not need 10 lanes for the next 50+ years) ahead of the completed SkyTrain extension from Fleetwood to Langley.

I'll go out on a limb and put forth that a skytrain extension to Langley will have, at best, one iota of an impact on a Massey crossing.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by s211

I'll go out on a limb and put forth that a skytrain extension to Langley will have, at best, one iota of an impact on a Massey crossing.

I'm not sure how much people going between Langley and NoF via GMT, but a new Pattullo would suffice.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by s211

I'll go out on a limb and put forth that a skytrain extension to Langley will have, at best, one iota of an impact on a Massey crossing.

In the short term? Yeah, Langley Skytrain probably isn't taking many people away from the tunnel. But in the long term it's encouraging transit-oriented growth along the Fraser Highway corridor versus encouraging car-oriented growth along the 99 corridor so over the course of 10 or 20 years it would indeed have an impact.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

In the short term? Yeah, Langley Skytrain probably isn't taking many people away from the tunnel. But in the long term it's encouraging transit-oriented growth along the Fraser Highway corridor versus encouraging car-oriented growth along the 99 corridor so over the course of 10 or 20 years it would indeed have an impact.

Yes, and if people are moving to the suburbs, they should go that direction, not encroach on good ALR land.

[ssiguy]

That's a very touchy-feely sentiment but doesn't get at the root of the problem and why S.oF is growing so fast...............housing prices. It's not like people in Surrey or Langley love the idea of spending endless hours in traffic but most really don't have any choice.

Also SkyTrain brings with it massive amounts of real estate flipping and development ....the renters along the route will be the last to benefit from it. The politicians will tell them they are getting better transit but the current renters know that it inevitably comes with a caveat called an eviction notice.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Also SkyTrain brings with it massive amounts of real estate flipping and development ....the renters along the route will be the last to benefit from it. The politicians will tell them they are getting better transit but the current renters know that it inevitably comes with a caveat called an eviction notice.

If so, that will be the fault of Surrey/Langley City Hall for approving unaffordable condos when they could've approved rentals and walkups.

As it stands, the sitting councils are intent on preserving affordability around the stations.

[invisibleairwaves]

Also there isn't really that much rental stock currently along the Fraser Highway corridor. You aren't going to see a Metrotown-style wave of large-scale demovictions because the existing buildings just aren't there. Instead, it's an opportunity to convert SFH sprawl into something more dense, sustainable, and affordable, as opposed to creating more sprawl in places like Grandview Corners which- to bring this somewhat back on topic- would be fuelled considerably by a new Massey crossing.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

Also there isn't really that much rental stock currently along the Fraser Highway corridor. You aren't going to see a Metrotown-style wave of large-scale demovictions because the existing buildings just aren't there. Instead, it's an opportunity to convert SFH sprawl into something more dense, sustainable, and affordable, as opposed to creating more sprawl in places like Grandview Corners which- to bring this somewhat back on topic- would be fuelled considerably by a new Massey crossing.

They (municipal govs of Langley & Surrey) just have to allow for density and height allowances like that include rental requirements like Burnaby and they will be ok as more density comes. More height relaxations help too! No crazy view cones south of the Fraser!

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

more dense, sustainable, and affordable

i always find it weird when people call the increase in density more affordable; because it isnt. not even in the slightest. what happens is that you used to be able to buy a house for 100/sqft and now youre buying a condo that is 1/3 the size for 200/sqft.

now who wins in this situation? the developers, and the government in the form of taxes. who loses? the average citizen who is now paying 2x as much /sqft.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i always find it weird when people call the increase in density more affordable; because it isnt. not even in the slightest. what happens is that you used to be able to buy a house for 100/sqft and now youre buying a condo that is 1/3 the size for 200/sqft.

now who wins in this situation? the developers, and the government in the form of taxes. who loses? the average citizen who is now paying 2x as much /sqft.

You're taking a real simple view of what's expensive and why it's expensive.

The land is the expensive part of building around here. You think it would be cheaper if only small buildings were available? The competition for useful land would be that much harder, and the utility would be that much worse.

Density takes the land cost and subdivides it up to many users. The problem is that there's really high demand for developable lots and that cost is grossly inflated.

Small apartments (which are most related to zoning by FSR) also drive up average costs. The expensive parts of a condo aren't the floor area. A bigger condo with the same floor area isn't much harder/more expensive to build than a tiny studio. There's all the fixtures for the kitchen, bath and laundry to install, just less floor. The unit cost of the floor area drops as the expensive fixed costs of a housing unit are spread across more area.

It's also way cheaper to service denser areas than low density ones. The government and utilities can spread the costs of service installs across many many more users somewhere like downtown, compared to rural Langley.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i always find it weird when people call the increase in density more affordable; because it isnt. not even in the slightest. what happens is that you used to be able to buy a house for 100/sqft and now youre buying a condo that is 1/3 the size for 200/sqft.

now who wins in this situation? the developers, and the government in the form of taxes. who loses? the average citizen who is now paying 2x as much /sqft.

As long as there is population growth, the developers will make money whether land prices are low or high.

The big winner is the person who bought a big house 50 years ago and now owns the privilege of using prime real estate to support their gardening hobby.

IMO we ought to raise property taxes, lower income taxes and replace CACs with something more efficient like a capital gains tax on land.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by scottN

.IMO we ought to raise property taxes, lower income taxes and replace CACs with something more efficient like a capital gains tax on land.

Haven't property taxes been increasing significantly in the past few years? It all bleeds over into rents as well.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Haven't property taxes been increasing significantly in the past few years? It all bleeds over into rents as well.

Rents aren't influenced by property taxes. Supply and Demand, like everything else.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Rents aren't influenced by property taxes. Supply and Demand, like everything else.

Last I checked property owners renting out to tenants are still paying property taxes... unless I am mistaken?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Rents aren't influenced by property taxes. Supply and Demand, like everything else.

So you think the landlord pays the tax out of his own pocket? Where do you think the money in his pocket came from?

[WarrenC12]

Guys... landlords rent out units at whatever renters will pay. You can't just rent at whatever price you want, it's a free market that way.

If the supply of renters and their ability to pay is constant, and increase in property taxes just hits the landlords' profit.

Case in point currently: property taxes are on the rise, and so are vacancies as the rental market softens. Costs are gong up, rents are going down.

Long term of course, landlords will exit the market and tighten the supply.

[WestCoastEcho]

Well, northbound Massey Tunnel is completely shut down, and southbound is down to one lane due to a water leak:

https://globalnews.ca/news/7448071/massey-tunnel-closed-northbound/

Drive BC is saying a oversized truck hit a sprinkler head and broke it...

[scottN]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Guys... landlords rent out units at whatever renters will pay. You can't just rent at whatever price you want, it's a free market that way.

If the supply of renters and their ability to pay is constant, and increase in property taxes just hits the landlords' profit.

Case in point currently: property taxes are on the rise, and so are vacancies as the rental market softens. Costs are gong up, rents are going down.

Long term of course, landlords will exit the market and tighten the supply.

And if the cost of capital remains constant and profits are reduced by property taxes, then the impact on landlords (and homebuyers) will push land prices down.

The supply of land is fixed, so the price is set by how much renters and buyers are willing to pay. In the long run it doesn't matter to the renter/buyer whether their payment goes towards taxes or into the landlord's / seller's pocket.

[Mininari]

Nice little quiet release on this, right before the Holidays.
Should be nice to have whatever they select in service by...
2030

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2020TRAN0177-002095

...
The business case for a proposed replacement of the George Massey Tunnel on Highway 99 has been received by B.C.’s Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

The next step is for government to review the submission, consult with partners and stakeholders, and make a final decision regarding the crossing.

Detailed in the business case are the two shortlisted options presented to the public in February and March 2020: an eight-lane bridge and an eight-lane immersed tube tunnel. Once a thorough review of the business case has been completed, government will decide on an option. The business case will be made public following that decision.

As a result of the Independent Technical Review released in December 2018, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure established a three-phase planning and engagement process to identify a crossing solution that better aligns with regional interests.
...

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

wonderful.

8yrs later, 1 billion more, and about 1/10 of the scope of the original.

great job NDP!!!