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

[chowhou]

Can someone give me a quick rundown of the arguments pro-tunnel vs pro-bridge? # of lanes/induced demand/car usage would seemingly be equal between the two, and the only "pro-tunnel" arguments I've heard feel more like strawman points than actual arguments (A tunnel will block large low sitting ships from entering the Fraser, and a bridge is an "eyesore").

Meanwhile a bridge would be cheaper, easier to maintain, safer, and to all the cyclists out there it would be a much nicer experience with fresh air and open space no?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

As for the safety issues, you can make the exact same points with a traffic tunnel

not at all. you cant get cornered/mugged/stabbed/walk into a vagrant camp in the middle of a freeway in a locked car. if push comes to shove you can use the car to protect yourself from an assailant.

you can do that while walking as a pedestrian through a place with no sight lines, safety routes, witnesses which is like 3km long with only 2 ways out. unless you want to jump into traffic i guess...

of course there should be pedestrian/bike connections. but people cant sit there and say this is a safe or reasonable way to do it compared to the bridge.

when have underpasses ever been considered good? let alone one 3km long.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I find it interesting that people on this form complain ad nauseum about highways not being built to some arbitrary standard, and yet failing to realize that in this day and age these kinds of infrastructure projects are expected to provide for pedestrian and cyclist use.

When you design this into the project at the outset the costs are not that high. For example, since the new tunnel will require an emergency egress route, it seems obvious to me that this be designed to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists. It really should be a no brainer.

I never said it shouldn’t. Sure, put a bike lane. Put a pedestrian lane. But there is already 2 dedicated bus lanes, taking away a very valuable lane for truck and commuter traffic. This is an extremely busy trucking route. Extremely busy. And did we not learn anything from the floods this fall? We need more escape routes. What if a major earthquake struck and damaged the tunnel, or the bridge and flooded Richmond which is BELOW sea level. How will people evacuate?

I’ve been thinking about this recently with Kelowna too. One bridge to get across the okanagan. In the event of a major disaster, that one bridge is the lifeline for hundreds of thousands of people. It really bothers me how the infrastructure in BC is so poorly designed and there are no plans to correct it after our crazy fire season last summer and storm season last fall.

It also really bothers me that people will argue highway infrastructure isn’t necessary. Take a look at New Westminster and tell me that a lack of connection from highway 1 to highway 91 isn’t hurting that city deeply. Truck traffic on residential streets, one one 4 lane bridge connecting Burnaby and New Westminster/Coquitlam to Richmond/Delta creating a huge congestion point in queensborough which is also a hazard in case of emergency. Really pathetic and it doesn’t make our cities greener, at all. In fact, it makes them more polluted.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

It also really bothers me that people will argue highway infrastructure isn’t necessary. Take a look at New Westminster and tell me that a lack of connection from highway 1 to highway 91 isn’t hurting that city deeply. Truck traffic on residential streets, one one 4 lane bridge connecting Burnaby and New Westminster/Coquitlam to Richmond/Delta creating a huge congestion point in queensborough which is also a hazard in case of emergency. Really pathetic and it doesn’t make our cities greener, at all. In fact, it makes them more polluted.

Question being, of course, whether a parallel bridge near the Alex Fraser would make the trucks leave the side streets, or we'd end up with trucks on bridge #2 AND the side streets; most evidence points toward the latter.

Redundancy is somewhat important, but with a limited budget, it's not important enough to be spending billions on every crossing in the Lower Mainland. We already lack the money/political will for the GMB... now we want a seventh bridge over the Fraser?

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

I’ve been thinking about this recently with Kelowna too. One bridge to get across the okanagan. In the event of a major disaster, that one bridge is the lifeline for hundreds of thousands of people. It really bothers me how the infrastructure in BC is so poorly designed and there are no plans to correct it after our crazy fire season last summer and storm season last fall.

Just a reminder that you can't build conventional bridges over Okanagan Lake because of its extreme depth. Likewise one side is at lake level while the other side immediately goes up a steep embankment.
Between that, NIMBY multi-million dollar waterfront estates ringing the lake and the Tsinstikeptum reserve it's really hard to build bridges there.

Also, hundreds of thousands?
Kelowna is something like 150000 people.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

not at all. you cant get cornered/mugged/stabbed/walk into a vagrant camp in the middle of a freeway in a locked car. if push comes to shove you can use the car to protect yourself from an assailant.

you can do that while walking as a pedestrian through a place with no sight lines, safety routes, witnesses which is like 3km long with only 2 ways out. unless you want to jump into traffic i guess...

of course there should be pedestrian/bike connections. but people cant sit there and say this is a safe or reasonable way to do it compared to the bridge.

when have underpasses ever been considered good? let alone one 3km long.

A bridge has most of the same problems. You can't see over the crest, and there's no way out. I suppose you could jump into freeway traffic And it's not like drivers are going to notice what's happening on the sidewalk as they whiz by at 100km/h so the traffic doesn't really contribute to safety. The canada line bridge cycling / pedestrian path has all these same issues, including being unobservable by road traffic and inaccessible to police vehicles and I don't hear many complaints about it.

Someone needs to figure out how to make a ventillation shaft double as a cycling tunnel so that the ventillation air pushes you along as you ride.

[ilikeredheads]

I'm just going to say it. A 3km tunnel for pedestrian and cyclists is a complete waste of money. This is different from a bridge where you can just attach a deck to the side like the Canada Line skybridge. With a tunnel, there's additional systems to install, such as lighting, ventilation, fire suppression, security cameras, emergency refuge areas, etc. High cost and high maintenance, and for what, the literal dozen of people that will use it?

Saying this needs a pedestrian/cycling tunnel is losing sight of purpose of the tunnel. This is a freeing crossing, an important truck route linking deltaport and border crossing to Vancouver. It doesn't need pedestrian and bike lanes. For comparison, the SR99 tunnel in Seattle, which has similar length is vehicles only.

[Marshal]

As a committed cyclist, I agree. Use the space for more lanes. Get a tourist ferry up and running: Steveston to Ladner?

[Lexus]

We need bike lanes there. This is a 100 year project. With all e-bikes ramping up it will male more sense.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Now, now. There is a whole handful of people that will be commuting daily from Delta to Vancouver on bike. Rain or shine. #wortheverypenny

[scottN]

Where does the 3km length come from? Because I just measured on google earth and 3km is the total distance from Steveston Highway in Richmond to River Road in Delta. That must be the length of the entire project, including approach ramps, etc. What the length of the actual tunnel? The underground portion of the existing tunnel is 650m long in google earth.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I find it interesting that people on this form complain ad nauseum about highways not being built to some arbitrary standard, and yet failing to realize that in this day and age these kinds of infrastructure projects are expected to provide for pedestrian and cyclist use.

When you design this into the project at the outset the costs are not that high. For example, since the new tunnel will require an emergency egress route, it seems obvious to me that this be designed to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists. It really should be a no brainer.

Let's be honest, nobody is going to cycle commute through the tunnel. So if we want to blow a few million on bike lanes let's acknowledge it is for the weekend leisure-cycling lycrabros to play Tour de France south of the Fraser.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

A 3km tunnel for pedestrian and cyclists is a complete waste of money. This is different from a bridge where you can just attach a deck to the side like the Canada Line skybridge. With a tunnel, there's additional systems to install, such as lighting, ventilation, fire suppression, security cameras, emergency refuge areas, etc.

All that stuff is required for an emergency egress tunnel anyway.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

All that stuff is required for an emergency egress tunnel anyway.

Yeah, this was pointed out before and won me over, as much as I like to dis cyclists in here.

I do still hate how every infrastructure project plan overly focuses on improving cycling which, let's face it, impacts only dozens of people vs. 100,000 drivers. We live in a dictatorship of fringe minorities with every single thing being discussed which is sad.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I do still hate how every infrastructure project plan overly focuses on improving cycling which, let's face it, impacts only dozens of people vs. 100,000 drivers.

Would you say the same about wheelchair ramps on curbs?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Would you say the same about wheelchair ramps on curbs?

Being too poor to drive a car is a choice though /s

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by MIPS

Just a reminder that you can't build conventional bridges over Okanagan Lake because of its extreme depth. Likewise one side is at lake level while the other side immediately goes up a steep embankment.
Between that, NIMBY multi-million dollar waterfront estates ringing the lake and the Tsinstikeptum reserve it's really hard to build bridges there.

Also, hundreds of thousands?
Kelowna is something like 150000 people.

150,000? Sure, maybe 15 years ago lol. Metro Kelowna had what, 230,000 last census? So yeah, hundreds of thousands.
And it can be done. Hell, they built a bridge to PEI, AND they built the first bridge across the Okanagan. Surely it isn’t impossible.

I don’t understand why anyone would even argue that Kelowna doesn’t need a second crossing. It’s only going to continue to grow and 2 lanes east bound into Kelowna and 3 lanes westbound out of the city aren’t enough. It’s not even a legitimate freeway. It feeds onto an avenue in Kelowna city centre. Our infrastructure is crap and I pray the day never comes when we rely on it for our safety. Because it will fail.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Question being, of course, whether a parallel bridge near the Alex Fraser would make the trucks leave the side streets, or we'd end up with trucks on bridge #2 AND the side streets; most evidence points toward the latter.

Redundancy is somewhat important, but with a limited budget, it's not important enough to be spending billions on every crossing in the Lower Mainland. We already lack the money/political will for the GMB... now we want a seventh bridge over the Fraser?

I’m not talking about that because that only helps the issue from South of Fraser to Richmond. I’m talking North of Fraser to Richmond/delta. Maybe if we had a bridge at the bottom of boundary to Richmond that linked up with no. 8 road and highway 91, it would alleviate some of the stress off of queensborough and Royal Ave/Stewardson in New Westminster. I’ve had to commute across the Queensborough bridge for years and it is an absolute nightmare and I feel bad for anyone that lives in Queensborough because that neighborhood comes to a complete standstill from 2 to 7 every day. I’ve witnessed ambulances stuck in gridlock with their sirens on for a good 5 minutes before they were able to wedge thru the congestion to get across the bridge. It’s a disaster. This whole provinces highway infrastructure is a disaster and yes, I feel very strongly about it because I have been around North America and I can say, for what BC claims to be, for the taxes we pay, and the “progressive” attitude we claim to have, we are the farthest behind in highway infrastructure on the continent for our population

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by Lexus

We need bike lanes there. This is a 100 year project. With all e-bikes ramping up it will male more sense.

And? Electric cars are a thing now too. E bikes will over take regular bikes maybe, but I doubt there’ll be less cars on the roads thanks to electric vehicles. Let’s also not forget 7 months out of the year vancouvers weather isn’t cyclist friendly

[Klazu]

The entire Thompson-Okanagan region is over 600,000 people these days, so the road infrastructure there is seeing a lot of use. While a new crossing north of the existing one is likely the most ideal, I have always wondered if a better bypass would be a bridge across the lake nearby where Okanagan Connector terminates? It's a bit wider body of water and I am not sure how deep it is there, but the eastern side of the lake is mostly undeveloped and the new highway would serve South Kelowna residents.