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

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

Sounds like the Millennium line when it first opened.

Ron.

But again, it's the whole "build it and they will come argument". Millennium Line actually had some kind of prospects of development improving their ridership numbers..

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

So we should stop putting in wheelchair ramps because it's only such a small fraction of people who need them? Or stop putting Braille on the elevators and chirpers at the intersections?

And how much does it really cost? We're primarily talking about the cost to construct the tunnel modules, the actual installation is not going to be that much different. Is it really going to cost that much more? And spread over 60 years, is the annual cost really going to be all that prohibitive?

Like it or not, providing access for pedestrians and cyclists is now a basic infrastructure design standard, just like providing for the deaf and mobility-impaired. I'm glad to live in a Canada where "no man gets left behind" rather than deal with the all-too-common "every man for himself" mentality in a certain neighboring country.

You forgot to mention peacekeepers and public healthcare.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Especially given the rise in popularity of e-bikes, which make cycling long distances easier. Fixing gaps in cycling infrastructure with projects like this is a great way to give more people more options, and given the low cost it's a no-brainer, really.

We need to give more people more options that allow them to not use a single occupancy vehicle to get around, and this is one good option.

I mean when you cite low cost how much would that be? I mean buying everyone a free bicycle seems more plausible to encourage cycling.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I mean when you cite low cost how much would that be? I mean buying everyone a free bicycle seems more plausible to encourage cycling.

There is no information on the separate cost of the MUP tunnel: https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sit...wi_Estimated_Costs_Rev0A_20-Nov-2019.pdf

However, one could reasonably expect that a fraction of the overall crossing costs (estimated between $1.4 and $1.8 billion) will go towards one 5 meter MUP pathway tube compared to the two 174 meter traffic tubes.

The cost isn't nothing, but from the very beginning every short-list alternative included a MUP (pages 12 and 13 of this document): https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sit...nal_report_Rev0E_19-Dec-2019-w-cover.pdf

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

There is no information on the separate cost of the MUP tunnel: https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sit...wi_Estimated_Costs_Rev0A_20-Nov-2019.pdf

However, one could reasonably expect that a fraction of the overall crossing costs (estimated between $1.4 and $1.8 billion) will go towards one 5 meter MUP pathway tube compared to the two 174 meter traffic tubes.

The cost isn't nothing, but from the very beginning every short-list alternative included a MUP (pages 12 and 13 of this document): https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sit...nal_report_Rev0E_19-Dec-2019-w-cover.pdf

One traffic lane is 3.7m and the MUP was 3.5m. So maybe it would be roughly 15-20% of the $1.4-1.8 billion dollar figure.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

One traffic lane is 3.7m and the MUP was 3.5m. So maybe it would be roughly 15-20% of the $1.4-1.8 billion dollar figure.

I mistyped in my original post. From the ITT technical study, each traffic tube needs 17.4m. The MUP has been updated from that study when two 3.5m tubes were proposed. Per the media release, one 5m bi-directional MUP is the plan. So that is 5 / (17.4 + 17.4 + 5) = 12.5% of the total width.

However, I highly doubt the MUP tube will cost similar to the traffic tubes on a per-meter basis (we would have known this if the business case was released to the public... sigh). Obviously the MUP wouldn't need as rigorous a ventilation system (no emissions to move out). The MUP tunnel will also have a smaller diameter, and the technical document (pg. 33) seems to indicate moving from six to eight lanes presents some additional engineering challenges are require different (more expensive?!?) materials:

Early in the project, it was determined that the three traffic lanes plus shoulders of the 6 lane option could be accommodated in one tube of the ITT using a standard reinforced concrete structural system. However, in order to accommodate four traffic lanes plus shoulders of the 8 lane option in one tube, either a post-tensioned concrete cross section or a steel-concrete-steel sandwich plate section is required to maintain water tightness. These latter two structural systems are not very common in ITT construction,
but they are used, and are both feasible.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I mistyped in my original post. From the ITT technical study, each traffic tube needs 17.4m. The MUP has been updated from that study when two 3.5m tubes were proposed. Per the media release, one 5m bi-directional MUP is the plan. So that is 5 / (17.4 + 17.4 + 5) = 12.5% of the total width.

However, I highly doubt the MUP tube will cost similar to the traffic tubes on a per-meter basis (we would have known this if the business case was released to the public... sigh). Obviously the MUP wouldn't need as rigorous a ventilation system (no emissions to move out). The MUP tunnel will also have a smaller diameter, and the technical document (pg. 33) seems to indicate moving from six to eight lanes presents some additional engineering challenges are require different (more expensive?!?) materials:

Pretty sure they would have a similar ventilation system. Wouldn't the MUP tunnel be an evacuation route if there was a fire in the main tunnel? They would probably need ventilation so smoke doesn't flood into the escape tunnel.

If there were any design changes as a result of a MUP would probably be a "cost". Again that figure could be trivial or have little impact on the design of the main tunnel.

And the diagram I saw of the tunnel cross-section showed an identical diameter tunnel.

Also from a CTV News article:

"Fleming said future traffic modelling was taken into account and there will be details in the business case, which is supposed to be made public at some point."

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/eight-lane-tunnel-...30-b-c-transportation-ministry-1.5551732

[FarmerHaight]

From Appendix J of the Technical Services Report:

Following the meeting with the Task Force on October 2, 2019, the Ministry requested that CST develop detailed project cost estimates for the eight-lane ITT option and the eight-lane Bridge option. During October and November 2019, CST began developing these estimates, and at the time of writing this memo, these are being finalized.

Once complete, it is anticipated that a septate memo will be issued.

It was completed last December, so we're waiting...

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Pretty sure they would have a similar ventilation system.

And the diagram I saw of the tunnel cross-section showed an identical diameter tunnel.

Of course there will be a ventilation system, but do you really expect it to be that similar? At a minimum the MUP tube will not need the large jet fans.

The tunnel may be the same width regardless, but the tubes will not be. It isn't difficult to grasp that a tube to accommodate four lanes of traffic will be much larger and cost much more than the tube for a 5-metre wide bike path.

I also noticed this on page four of the ITT report:

CST has assumed a design life for non-replaceable components of structures and foundations of 120 years. Design life for replaceable components such as M&E equipment, road wearing surface and finishing works will be determined at a
later date based on a life-cycle cost assessment.

If the lifespan is 120 years I am very surprised rapid transit was not built into the plan. How can TransLink/the federal and provincial governments/the local mayors project that far in the future and know Skytrain or other rapid transit won't be required? Another Fraser crossing constructed in 2090 just to accommodate rail seems like a waste when a bridge crossing could have been rail-ready (and at not that much cost??? Can someone confirm?).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Wouldn't the MUP tunnel be an evacuation route if there was a fire in the main tunnel? They would probably need ventilation so smoke doesn't flood into the escape tunnel.

I wonder if current design standards would require a separate escape tunnel (apart from the opposite direction lanes) anyway? If so, the cost might be pretty close to a wash.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Pretty sure they would have a similar ventilation system. Wouldn't the MUP tunnel be an evacuation route if there was a fire in the main tunnel? They would probably need ventilation so smoke doesn't flood into the escape tunnel.

If there were any design changes as a result of a MUP would probably be a "cost". Again that figure could be trivial or have little impact on the design of the main tunnel.
[/url]

The MUP does double as the emergency evacuation route in this design. There's an incremental cost I'm sure, but no idea what it is.

The current van & trailer shuttle also has an ongoing cost of course.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

From Appendix J of the Technical Services Report:

It was completed last December, so we're waiting...

Of course there will be a ventilation system, but do you really expect it to be that similar? At a minimum the MUP tube will not need the large jet fans.

The tunnel may be the same width regardless, but the tubes will not be. It isn't difficult to grasp that a tube to accommodate four lanes of traffic will be much larger and cost much more than the tube for a 5-metre wide bike path.

The cross section diagram had a single jet fan for the MUP but I'm not sure how many actual fans they would include versus the vehicle section. Also:

As part of the FLS strategy, to pressurize the MUPs airtight gates shall be provide at each end of the MUPs. The gates will close in case of a fire alarm and will be provided with a self-closing door, enabling MUP users and evacuees to exit the MUP.

Some of the earlier documents had a smaller tube but then recent cross section diagrams showed zero difference except it was half the width of the vehicle tunnel.

I guess rail to that area is such far off that it's not even on their radar.

[WarrenC12]

I think the rail thing is a bit of a red herring. What's required to make it "rail ready"? What is the cost in today's dollars for something with unknown specs in the future? I guess we could make it suitable for Rotem/Canada Line. Or Skytrain. Or Both?

What about the route? What if that crossing doesn't make sense for the future line?

Then circling back to cost, how much more to actually build a separate rail crossing in the possible future?

[craner]

A tunnel comes with all these added issues vs a bridge. Just curious why a tunnel was chosen over a bridge ?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by craner

A tunnel comes with all these added issues vs a bridge. Just curious why a tunnel was chosen over a bridge ?

bridges are "imposing" people didnt like how it looked.

also, politics. NDP cant admit the previous government has a good plan. that would go against their mantra.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

bridges are "imposing" people didnt like how it looked.

also, politics. NDP cant admit the previous government has a good plan. that would go against their mantra.

The “bridges are imposing” argument always makes me laugh.

They are imposing until they are built and then they become iconic symbols of the surrounding city.

I bet the Lions Gate Bridge was once imposing, now it is the image of Vancouver. The Iron Workers’ Memorial, Granville Street Bridge, Burrard, Alex Fraser, etc… are all now major landmarks that are synonymous with their communities.

Before the Golden Ears Bridge was built I remember hearing that argument, now the cities of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows pimp out its image for every possible piece of marketing and imagery possible.

The same would have happened to Richmond with this now lost bridge. After it’s completion it would have been a point of pride and a defining landmark of Richmond and Delta.

Instead we will have a tunnel that will have no landmark status but will cause even more direct disruption due to the at grade causeway.

Good play!

[WarrenC12]

It's a river delta without any bedrock. There are good arguments on both sides, but there's a reason it was a tunnel crossing to begin with.

The justification for a bridge was to allow bigger (deeper) ships up and down that section of the Fraser.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

bridges are "imposing" people didnt like how it looked.

It was imposing to one guy

that guy was named Malcolm Brodie the NYC attorney who is/was the mayour of Richmond. Of course im sure other mayors (Van/Burnaby) don't want innovation and would prefer traffic lights on freeways just like the old days

[libtard]

It would have been a monolithic eye sore for the people of Richmond. Richmond is completely flat and this would definitely have been imposing and tower over everything. That’s why the original tunnel was built…

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by libtard

It would have been a monolithic eye sore for the people of Richmond. Richmond is completely flat and this would definitely have been imposing and tower over everything. That’s why the original tunnel was built…

Yeah they're building a giant bridge down No 3 road towering over all the Richmond residents.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It's a river delta without any bedrock. There are good arguments on both sides, but there's a reason it was a tunnel crossing to begin with.

The justification for a bridge was to allow bigger (deeper) ships up and down that section of the Fraser.

There's bedrock... down 600m

Wasn't the justification for a tunnel (versus a really low bridge that they would have probably built in the 40-50s) was that it was better for maritime traffic?