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

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by Dave2

Iona to Gabriola was the NDP plan in the mid 70s, the original three C class ferries were built with that route in mind.

got a link for this? would love to see more info ..... there must have been a bridge planned from Gabriola to Nanaimo proper?

[officedweller]

Pat McGeer just died - he touted a bridge to Vancouver Island (Iona to Gabriola).

https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/les-leyne-fixed-link-is-a-dream-that-never-dies-4631578


https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/trans...orts-studies/vancouver-island/fixed-link

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by bloomtronzero

As fucky as the process has been, I was still happy voting for them. It was nice to see a freeway expansion get dicked around and SkyTrain expansion greenlit rather than the other way around like in the last administration, where we had all the money in the world to replace every single bridge but if we wanted so much as a bus, well that was reckless government spending! We need a new crossing, but we needed a Broadway train too.

That said, I really can't wait for the new crossing. Fuck the Massey tunnel.

The old design, I was concerned about where all the traffic would end up going without needing to massively redesign how 99 runs through Richmond and into Vancouver. And the "well two lanes are for dedicated bus service, it isn't really all car traffic" is a line I remember them saying about the new Port Mann, and those bus lanes became car lanes and the bus exits into car exits. I imagine it'd be the same story here, too.

The massive original bridge design would make sense with a rework, though. I remember the last government toying with the idea of a Sea island ferry terminal at one point, and having 99 partially funnel into that rather than just jamming the Oak Street Bridge could make the extra lanes justifiable. It was a nice looking bridge, but it was for sure opening the door to *needing* to start a tonne of other freeway projects after it, and we'd face another 2 decades of those taking priority over Broadway and Fraser trains.

The only thing that bothers me is that, this route is a major trucking route. It’s not JUST cars and buses. I’d say for every 4 cars, there’s 1 transport truck or dump truck. Yes, the ratio is that drastic. 3 lanes only in each direction dedicated to cars AND trucks isn’t going to solve the problem. One lane will basically be empty save for the one bud every 5 minutes that crosses. If that. Such a waste.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

The only thing that bothers me is that, this route is a major trucking route. It’s not JUST cars and buses. I’d say for every 4 cars, there’s 1 transport truck or dump truck. Yes, the ratio is that drastic. 3 lanes only in each direction dedicated to cars AND trucks isn’t going to solve the problem. One lane will basically be empty save for the one bud every 5 minutes that crosses. If that. Such a waste.

people seem to not realize... the tunnel is ALREADY 3 lanes in 1 direction at rush hour, and its a gong show. do you people really think maintaining the same amount of general purpose lanes is a good use of $4 billion??? like really??? let alone the fact any trucks with "dangerous goods" STILL wont be able to use this crossing. that includes things like lithium ion batteries now... which means like all electronics these days.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Honest question: is there anything stopping the operators from adding and removing counterflow lanes (e.g. 5+3) as necessary?

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

that includes things like lithium ion batteries now... which means like all electronics these days.

For now. The new GMT's scheduled to open in 2030; there may very well be a non-combustible replacement for Li-ions by then.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

let alone the fact any trucks with "dangerous goods" STILL wont be able to use this crossing. that includes things like lithium ion batteries now... which means like all electronics these days.

It doesn't seem like there would be many trucks carrying any dangerous goods on a new bridge, if one had been built. Most trucks are using Highway 1, it appears in this study of movement in the Lower Mainland. (The tankers carrying jet fuel to the airport are being replaced with a pipeline, and barge operation, so there will be even fewer dangerous goods moving by road on the western side of Metro Vancouver in future).

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

people seem to not realize... the tunnel is ALREADY 3 lanes in 1 direction at rush hour, and its a gong show. do you people really think maintaining the same amount of general purpose lanes is a good use of $4 billion??? like really??? let alone the fact any trucks with "dangerous goods" STILL wont be able to use this crossing. that includes things like lithium ion batteries now... which means like all electronics these days.

Don’t even get me started on the bullshit the NDP thinks up. They’re replacing the 4 lane patullo with another 4 lane bridge. They claim it’s because McBride is only 4 lanes. But why didn’t they think about an exit lane to Royal, and Columbia? That would have solved the problem.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

Don’t even get me started on the bullshit the NDP thinks up. They’re replacing the 4 lane patullo with another 4 lane bridge. They claim it’s because McBride is only 4 lanes. But why didn’t they think about an exit lane to Royal, and Columbia? That would have solved the problem.

The Provincial Government are building what the Mayors Council from TransLink asked to be built. The NDP weren't in government when the 4 lane option was identified. It was New Westminster that didn't (and doesn't) want 6 lanes. Coquitlam and Surrey were OK with six lanes, and the mayor of New Westminster at the time said, 'fine, build it between Surrey and Coquitlam then'.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

people seem to not realize... the tunnel is ALREADY 3 lanes in 1 direction at rush hour, and its a gong show. do you people really think maintaining the same amount of general purpose lanes is a good use of $4 billion??? like really??? let alone the fact any trucks with "dangerous goods" STILL wont be able to use this crossing. that includes things like lithium ion batteries now... which means like all electronics these days.

Originally Posted by Repthe250

Don’t even get me started on the bullshit the NDP thinks up. They’re replacing the 4 lane patullo with another 4 lane bridge. They claim it’s because McBride is only 4 lanes. But why didn’t they think about an exit lane to Royal, and Columbia? That would have solved the problem.

Well said, both of you. It is maddening how much money is being wasted to improve next to nothing. Dedicating a full tunnel lane just for busses makes zero sense. Just think if they would have that with Highway 1. Just make it a HOV lane already.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It was New Westminster that didn't (and doesn't) want 6 lanes.

Burnaby doesn't want the six lanes either. Royal and Columbia don't have capacity for more vehicles and the McBride tunnel isn't being built, so why would New West or Burnaby want even more vehicles than they can currently handle?

Originally Posted by Klazu

Dedicating a full tunnel lane just for busses makes zero sense. Just think if they would have that with Highway 1.

I can't imagine that because no busses that I'm aware of use the TCH. Unless you're talking about the IWM bridge. And if that's the case replacing the current bridge with 3+1 in each direction would be a dream.

And the new crossing will improve a lot more than "next to nothing". For one, it will be up to snuff seismically. That's a pretty big improvement that justifies a new crossing all on its own. Also, the new crossing will obviously improve the lives of transit users (who get snarled in regular traffic through the tunnel) and pedestrians and cyclists (who currently have to detour 25 KM upstream to the miserable Alex Fraser experience, or wait for a shuttle with 1 hour frequencies that only operate from 6am to 6pm if they want to cross the Fraser).

But of course you don't want to hear about silly things like seismic improvements or transit or pedestrians, because all you care about is fast-moving private vehicles. And you don't want to hear about how adding a fifth lane would be too much for the 99 through Richmond to handle so the Fraser-Delta Thruway would need to be widened, perhaps at a cost approaching or exceeding $30 million per kilometre. And maybe the East-West connector and Knight street too. And how eventually all that freeway traffic will hit Granville or Oak or Cambie or Knight in Vancouver, all residential streets with capacity constraints which can't handle additional rush hour traffic.

The problem with increasing the capacity of a single piece of infrastructure is that it exacerbates or creates other capacity constraints. So you build and build and spend and spend, and eventually you end up with the same crawling traffic but with more homes demolished to widen the ROW, or a larger government deficit, or more vehicles on the road increasing emissions, etc.

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

got a link for this? would love to see more info ..... there must have been a bridge planned from Gabriola to Nanaimo proper?

This 1973 Vancouver Sun page is the best summary I could find. Two bridges would have been built, from Gabriola Island to Mudge Island, the to Vancouver Island.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Ideology aside (that means everybody), the Patullo was intentionally designed to be expanded to six lanes if the region needs it to be.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Ideology aside (that means everybody), the Patullo was intentionally designed to be expanded to six lanes if the region needs it to be.

The next BC Liberal government will do it, if nobody else does in the mean time.

[chowhou]

There are at least 5 different ways the Pattulo replacement is an upgrade

• Widened lanes - The old Pattulo lanes are a death trap
• Separated oncoming traffic - Not only are the lanes narrow on the old Pattulo, but oncoming traffic is right there
• Separated and widened pedestrian + cycling space - The current "sidewalk" is also a deathtrap
• Seismic upgrades - The old Pattulo is 80 years old, past its design lifetime, and not built to modern standards.
• Upgradablility - As mentioned above, the new bridge is designed with the potential for future expansion.

As for the Massey Tunnel

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Honest question: is there anything stopping the operators from adding and removing counterflow lanes (e.g. 5+3) as necessary?

The older renders show the cyclist/pedestrians in the centre which would probably preclude counterflow, but the newer renders show them on the north side which probably means it's theoretically possible. The design shouldn't be any different from the current tunnel so even with two fully separated routes I don't see why it wouldn't be possible.

For now. The new GMT's scheduled to open in 2030; there may very well be a non-combustible replacement for Lipo by then.

The only reason why Li-ions will be replaced is if we invent a battery technology with an even higher energy density. Higher energy density = more boom potential. Exactly how many Li-ions do we expect to be shipped from RBT to Richmond/Vancouver though? It's not as though Vancouver is a major electronics manufacturing centre. I'm not fully versed in what constitutes hazardous goods and what doesn't, but worst case scenario the monthly shipment of iPhones for the Richmond Apple Store has to go through Annacis Island instead of the GMT. Probably not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

The only reason why Li-ions will be replaced is if we invent a battery technology with an even higher energy density. Higher energy density = more boom potential.

Off-topic, but AFAIK Li-air has more density, and Na-ion's both safer and cheaper to make.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Off-topic, but AFAIK Li-air has more density, and Na-ion's both safer and cheaper to make.

Na-ions will probably never be used for consumer electronics, they're quite a bit worse than Li-ion batteries. The only advantage is avoiding lithium, which might make them cost effective for stationary batteries where energy density isn't a major consideration, but all our handheld devices are already barely scraping by with the energy density of Li-ions. Those sorts of batteries wouldn't be heading from RBT to Richmond.

Li-air is an unproven technology but given the theoretically higher energy density, I can only expect bigger boom potential. Lithium is still lithium after all.

[bloomtronzero]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Heh, pretty sure we'd still be studying a bridge to Gibsons instead of the SkyTrains if the Libs'd won 2017.



Where the hell would they put that? Pretty much everywhere in the area is either future YVR infill or waste treatment and nature preserves; it'd have to be somewhere up the Fraser with all the associated brutal environmental reviews.

Hey I didn't say it was a good idea. It clearly never got off the ground. I like the idea of a SkyTrain accessible terminal, but the plan also called for it to have ferries go to a proposed Gabriola terminal, which, if you're taking transit and walking on only to be dumped insanely far from Nanaimo, what's the point? It was a dumb idea and I'm glad it didn't find any support. I think it was something that justified the massive lane increase of the old bridge design, though. It can't all go into the Oak Street bridge, right?

[bloomtronzero]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Mayors of cities like Burnaby and North Vancouver (as an example) should really have no say in a bridge construction in Delta/Richmond. Unfortunately the mayor of Richmond was against the biggest investment in history to his city, which is mindboggling.

Where's this energy when the other munis are rallying against a SkyTrain line?

They should definitely have a say, we're all just pieces of Vancouver really and should act accordingly, it affects all of us, though I do wish their say was more weighted by population.

[bloomtronzero]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

The only thing that bothers me is that, this route is a major trucking route. It’s not JUST cars and buses. I’d say for every 4 cars, there’s 1 transport truck or dump truck. Yes, the ratio is that drastic. 3 lanes only in each direction dedicated to cars AND trucks isn’t going to solve the problem. One lane will basically be empty save for the one bud every 5 minutes that crosses. If that. Such a waste.

Oh I know. We need something. I'm with you, even if I am holding onto the bitterness from the transit plebiscite still. I'm a valley kid, I've been a parts driver in construction, I know the hellscape that is relying on the Massey. If the government changes hands again and the plan is switched yet again we should riot.

Richmond needs more crossings, generally, too. Spread the traffic out. Our commitment to single, overworked points of possible failure is astounding.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The next BC Liberal government will do it, if nobody else does in the mean time.

That was always the plan, yea. It was "fine, 4 lanes, with 2 more for transit" like the Port Mann. The transit lanes are just to quell complaints before construction, and immediately turned into car lanes once it opens. I mean, what would the point of transit lanes on the Patullo be anyways? The SkyTrain is right there.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by bloomtronzero

That was always the plan, yea. It was "fine, 4 lanes, with 2 more for transit" like the Port Mann. The transit lanes are just to quell complaints before construction, and immediately turned into car lanes once it opens. I mean, what would the point of transit lanes on the Patullo be anyways? The SkyTrain is right there.

Am I missing something? There are no plans for transit lanes on the Patullo AFAIK which makes sense since only one bus operates on the bridge (321 from New West to Whiterock).

That's completely different from the GMT which carries currently carries 30 buses per hour, while the new tunnel will have capacity for 80 per hour. With population growth SoF and Translink's plan to establish express bus service from Vancouver to Tsawwassen those transit lanes will be well utilized, unlike on the Port Mann or Patullo where one bus runs on each.