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

[YYCguys]

Hello Everyone. I’ve been actively interested in infrastructure and development and like to peruse other cities’ forum pages. I have been reading a few pages of this particular thread and can’t seem to determine if the GMT is going to be replaced with another tunnel or a bridge. Has there been a progress update with the planning?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

Hello Everyone. I’ve been actively interested in infrastructure and development and like to peruse other cities’ forum pages. I have been reading a few pages of this particular thread and can’t seem to determine if the GMT is going to be replaced with another tunnel or a bridge. Has there been a progress update with the planning?

tunnel is what the NDP want. 84 lanes each way, 3 general + HOV. that means in at rush hour times there will be no expanded capacity as with the counter-flow lane that makes the rush-direction 3 general purpose lanes.

because the NDP changed the plan after previous bridge construction started, they have to 100% redesign and get new environmental approvals. this will probably be a challenge with the Fraser River since dredging across a river is much more impactful than 2 towers for a bridge. this tunnel design also removes more farming land than existing, where as the bridge gave back farming land to be used as a net-gain in farming land.

the BC Liberals have said they would restart the bridge plan if they get in. this previous bridge option is estimated to be approx. 1 billion cheaper, and would have been done in 2022 if on time. it also included about 30km of freeway upgrades with dedicated centre bus lanes & bus stops at key locations such as steveston hwy. the new tunnel plan does not include these things; instead going with shoulder bus lanes.

overall, the new tunnel plan is more expensive, will take 10+yrs longer, smaller, has less transit improvements, and has a negative impact on farm land.

the anti-highway crowd sees it as a victory, though i am not sure why. sure its 2 less lanes, but with all the downgrades in transit, farmland, the costs, the timeline, and probably ecological impacts, i really don't see how it is a "victory." but if you hate highways, i guess you can say "less lanes!. yay!"

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

Hello Everyone. I’ve been actively interested in infrastructure and development and like to peruse other cities’ forum pages. I have been reading a few pages of this particular thread and can’t seem to determine if the GMT is going to be replaced with another tunnel or a bridge. Has there been a progress update with the planning?

The current plan is for a tunnel, with completion projected for 2030:

https://www.highway99tunnel.ca/

Metro Vancouver mayors recommend 8-lane tunnel for new Massey crossing

Metro Vancouver mayors select new 8-lane immersed tube for Massey Tunnel replacement

B.C. Liberals slam NDP and Metro mayors' tunnel choice for Massey crossing

As you can see from this discussion thread, the replacement process has made for some interesting discussions.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

...4 lanes each way, 3 general + HOV. that means in at rush hour times there will be no expanded capacity as with the counter-flow lane that makes the rush-direction 3 general purpose lanes...

That's not an accurate comparison; you have to compare apples to apples. The current tunnel was built with two general-purpose lanes in each direction; the third lane comes from the counter-flow lane, which reduces the opposite direction to only one lane. With the new build, the highway will have three general-purpose lanes in both directions at all times, plus a dedicated transit lane which will draw bus traffic out of the general-purpose lanes. That alone will improve traffic flow, and it is entirely possible that - if needed - a counterflow system could be implemented in the new tunnel.



EDIT: as indicated in a reply, the current plan is for a transit-only lane (removed HOV)

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

That's not an accurate comparison; you have to compare apples to apples. The current tunnel was built with two general-purpose lanes in each direction; the third lane comes from the counter-flow lane, which reduces the opposite direction to only one lane. With the new build, the highway will have three general-purpose lanes in both directions at all times, plus an HOV lane which will draw transit plus additional traffic out of the general-purpose lanes. That alone will improve traffic flow, and it is entirely possible that - if needed - a counterflow system could be implemented in the new tunnel.

In addition, the grades for the tunnel are less steep than for the bridge, so it won't need a truck crawler lane (needed in the bridge design).

We don't know what the bridge would have cost - the only contracts were for the design and some preliminary pre-loading of the boggy land that the bridge would have been built on. And of course, the bridge was planned as a toll bridge; for better or worse, those were dropped by the new NDP government.

Corridor junction improvements on Highway 99 are already underway.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

The current plan is for a tunnel, with completion projected for 2030:

https://www.highway99tunnel.ca/

Metro Vancouver mayors recommend 8-lane tunnel for new Massey crossing

Metro Vancouver mayors select new 8-lane immersed tube for Massey Tunnel replacement

B.C. Liberals slam NDP and Metro mayors' tunnel choice for Massey crossing

As you can see from this discussion thread, the replacement process has made for some interesting discussions.



That's not an accurate comparison; you have to compare apples to apples. The current tunnel was built with two general-purpose lanes in each direction; the third lane comes from the counter-flow lane, which reduces the opposite direction to only one lane. With the new build, the highway will have three general-purpose lanes in both directions at all times, plus an HOV lane which will draw transit plus additional traffic out of the general-purpose lanes. That alone will improve traffic flow, and it is entirely possible that - if needed - a counterflow system could be implemented in the new tunnel.

What we’re trying to move away from is the counter flow configuration. Having oncoming lanes in the same tube only divided by a yellow line is unacceptable.

My question is, are you sure the 4th lane will be HOV? I was under the impression it was bus only

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by libtard

What we’re trying to move away from is the counter flow configuration. Having oncoming lanes in the same tube only divided by a yellow line is unacceptable.

My question is, are you sure the 4th lane will be HOV? I was under the impression it was bus only

You're correct, I checked the project page again and it is currently planned as transit-only. Thanks for catching that. As for a counterflow lane, it is not ideal but it is still doable. I would imagine they could implement something similar to the movable barrier on the Alex Fraser Bridge.

[Vantage]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

tunnel is what the NDP want. 84 lanes each way, 3 general + HOV. that means in at rush hour times there will be no expanded capacity as with the counter-flow lane that makes the rush-direction 3 general purpose lanes.

because the NDP changed the plan after previous bridge construction started, they have to 100% redesign and get new environmental approvals. this will probably be a challenge with the Fraser River since dredging across a river is much more impactful than 2 towers for a bridge. this tunnel design also removes more farming land than existing, where as the bridge gave back farming land to be used as a net-gain in farming land.

the BC Liberals have said they would restart the bridge plan if they get in. this previous bridge option is estimated to be approx. 1 billion cheaper, and would have been done in 2022 if on time. it also included about 30km of freeway upgrades with dedicated centre bus lanes & bus stops at key locations such as steveston hwy. the new tunnel plan does not include these things; instead going with shoulder bus lanes.

overall, the new tunnel plan is more expensive, will take 10+yrs longer, smaller, has less transit improvements, and has a negative impact on farm land.

the anti-highway crowd sees it as a victory, though i am not sure why. sure its 2 less lanes, but with all the downgrades in transit, farmland, the costs, the timeline, and probably ecological impacts, i really don't see how it is a "victory." but if you hate highways, i guess you can say "less lanes!. yay!"

Least biased comment.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

You're correct, I checked the project page again and it is currently planned as transit-only. Thanks for catching that. As for a counterflow lane, it is not ideal but it is still doable. I would imagine they could implement something similar to the movable barrier on the Alex Fraser Bridge.

How in the world would that work? You realize there will be 2 tubes for opposing directions do traffic right? I mean where would the barrier be when it’s not in counter-flow configuration?

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by libtard

How in the world would that work? You realize there will be 2 tubes for opposing directions do traffic right? I mean where would the barrier be when it’s not in counter-flow configuration?

Looking at the Alex Fraser design, the "zipper" barrier is quite narrow as it has to sit in between existing lanes without reducing lane width significantly. I'm not an engineer, but I would guess that it should be possible to position the barrier against the wall of the tunnel when it is not in use. After all, looking at the "zipper truck" vehicle in the Daily Hive article, that system appears to have safe clearance so that the truck can manipulate the lane barrier while vehicles still use the lanes immediately adjacent to it.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/alex-fraser-bridge-counterflow-lane-opening

[mcj]

Originally Posted by libtard

How in the world would that work? You realize there will be 2 tubes for opposing directions do traffic right? I mean where would the barrier be when it’s not in counter-flow configuration?

The exact same way the current counter-flow works, really shouldn't be that hard to explain to anyone who has used the GM tunnel before.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by mcj

The exact same way the current counter-flow works, really shouldn't be that hard to explain to anyone who has used the GM tunnel before.

He's talking about the possibility of using the movable centre line barriers as is done on the Alex Fraser bridge. On the bridge they always stay between opposing lanes, but there would be two separate tunnels for the opposing lanes under the Fraser- therefore when there is no counterflow in effect you'd have to store the barriers at one side of the tunnel, as Tvisforme suggested.

But that would mean two sets of barriers, one for each tunnel (assuming you want morning and evening counterflow), and two barrier crawler vehicles to reconfigure them.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

He's talking about the possibility of using the movable centre line barriers as is done on the Alex Fraser bridge. On the bridge they always stay between opposing lanes, but there would be two separate tunnels for the opposing lanes under the Fraser- therefore when there is no counterflow in effect you'd have to store the barriers at one side of the tunnel, as Tvisforme suggested.

But that would mean two sets of barriers, one for each tunnel (assuming you want morning and evening counterflow), and two barrier crawler vehicles to reconfigure them.

Missed that. There's no provisions for a barrier at all, making one small enough to squeeze in would be a challenge. Doubtful that it will happen though, 4 lanes running in both directions will move the bottleneck from the tunnel upstream to the Oak Street Bridge, that would probably be the candidate for a moveable barrier (which is also doubtful).

[libtard]

Originally Posted by mcj

The exact same way the current counter-flow works, really shouldn't be that hard to explain to anyone who has used the GM tunnel before.

Are you retarded?

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by mcj

Missed that. There's no provisions for a barrier at all, making one small enough to squeeze in would be a challenge. Doubtful that it will happen though, 4 lanes running in both directions will move the bottleneck from the tunnel upstream to the Oak Street Bridge, that would probably be the candidate for a moveable barrier (which is also doubtful).

The Oak Street Bridge could be an issue, but as for the barriers, it shouldn't really present a problem space-wise. Keep in mind that with the Alex Fraser setup, the barrier is only 60cm wide; I'd be very surprised if they built the new tunnels so narrow as to have an issue with that width. As for the vehicles, having multiple trucks is likely not too significant an expense given the the Alex Fraser setup has two (one being a spare).



Another advantage to the system is that it gives added flexibility in the event there's an incident in one of the tunnels that requires a closure. Anyway, we won't know for sure until the designs are complete. Obviously the goal would be to address traffic flow with conventional tunnels layouts, but given that the counterflow has already been proven to be workable in the existing tunnel and now on the Alex Fraser, I'd be very surprised if the Ministry did not have that under consideration as a potential relief option.

[xsoccerplayer18x]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

The Oak Street Bridge could be an issue, but as for the barriers, it shouldn't really present a problem space-wise. Keep in mind that with the Alex Fraser setup, the barrier is only 60cm wide; I'd be very surprised if they built the new tunnels so narrow as to have an issue with that width. As for the vehicles, having multiple trucks is likely not too significant an expense given the the Alex Fraser setup has two (one being a spare).



Another advantage to the system is that it gives added flexibility in the event there's an incident in one of the tunnels that requires a closure. Anyway, we won't know for sure until the designs are complete. Obviously the goal would be to address traffic flow with conventional tunnels layouts, but given that the counterflow has already been proven to be workable in the existing tunnel and now on the Alex Fraser, I'd be very surprised if the Ministry did not have that under consideration as a potential relief option.

From the Independent Technical Review in 2018 by Westmar Advisors: "the counterflow operation which exists today, was deemed to be unacceptable for a new crossing from an operational and safety perspective". That was cited as part of the original 10 lane bridge configuration, but my guess is that because traffic volumes are only predicted (and therefore designed) until 2045, that the assumption was carried forward because after that, it's anyone's guess...

Even with the zipper concept after 2045, you'd have a single lane of traffic confined between the tunnel wall and the moveable barrier, which probably wouldn't work from a safety perspective as an accident would confine all vehicles in that lane, unless the shoulders were extra wide to allow them to move around a problem. However, the problem with wider shoulders becomes the width of the tunnel cells or tubes. The Rapid Transit Review report from 2020 prepared by Urban Systems states that to have had rapid transit, you wouldn't be able to have 4 lanes of traffic (3 + 1 HOV) in a cell/tube PLUS rapid transit. You would have needed 3 lanes of traffic in a cell/tube and then a separate two lane cell/tube that could be converted to rapid transit in the future. With wider shoulders to make a single lane zipper feasible, it may end up that they cannot physically squeeze them in without building another tunnel cell/tube, which would add huge costs for just a counterflow lane. We'll see what 2045 holds if I'm still around then!

[Klazu]

Dedicating one quarter of the lanes to an infrequent bus only usage is madness. It must become a HOV lane.

On that note, we really need to start banning EVs and hybrids on HOV lanes. Those lanes are meant to encourage less cars on the road, not the energy type they run on. I think we are past the point that EVs should get to enjoy this perk.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Klazu

...we really need to start banning EVs and hybrids on HOV lanes. Those lanes are meant to encourage less cars on the road, not the energy type they run on. I think we are past the point that EVs should get to enjoy this perk.

If we get to the point where the HOV lanes are saturated then I can agree with that. Until then, why not kill two birds with one stone? The whole point of the "EV-OK" program was to give people more motivation to buy EVs at almost zero cost.

In the meantime, I see more single-occupancy vehicles using the HOV lanes than I see EVs.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by xsoccerplayer18x

Even with the zipper concept after 2045, you'd have a single lane of traffic confined between the tunnel wall and the moveable barrier, which probably wouldn't work from a safety perspective as an accident would confine all vehicles in that lane, unless the shoulders were extra wide to allow them to move around a problem. However, the problem with wider shoulders becomes the width of the tunnel cells or tubes. The Rapid Transit Review report from 2020 prepared by Urban Systems states that to have had rapid transit, you wouldn't be able to have 4 lanes of traffic (3 + 1 HOV) in a cell/tube PLUS rapid transit. You would have needed 3 lanes of traffic in a cell/tube and then a separate two lane cell/tube that could be converted to rapid transit in the future. With wider shoulders to make a single lane zipper feasible, it may end up that they cannot physically squeeze them in without building another tunnel cell/tube, which would add huge costs for just a counterflow lane. We'll see what 2045 holds if I'm still around then!

One of the advantages of the system in use on the Alex Fraser Bridge is that individual sections can easily be removed/replaced simply by disconnecting the interlocking pins. That would allow traffic to get out of the lane if needed. Again, the ideal scenario is obviously to use the existing lanes without counterflow. However, I still haven't seen an argument that rules out counterflow if the need arises. The width isn't an issue; it's only an additional 60 cm and the Alex Fraser Bridge was retrofitted to accommodate counterflow even though it was never designed for it. I'd wager that there was some uncertainty about the viability of the AFB solution - and even the original Massey counterflow - until they were actually implemented. Moot point, though, as it will probably be many years before such a scenario becomes a necessity, and by that time we may well have other transportation options in progress.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Dedicating one quarter of the lanes to an infrequent bus only usage is madness. It must become a HOV lane.

On that note, we really need to start banning EVs and hybrids on HOV lanes. Those lanes are meant to encourage less cars on the road, not the energy type they run on. I think we are past the point that EVs should get to enjoy this perk.

LOL let me guess, you like to drive around in your gas car with a passenger and think the rules should be adjusted to suit your needs. Hilarious.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

LOL let me guess, you like to drive around in your gas car with a passenger and think the rules should be adjusted to suit your needs. Hilarious.

That wasn't necessary; I would guess that they meant the EV exemption from the multi-passenger HOV rules, not banning them altogether. I don't know if we're at that point yet, but eventually as the number of EVs increases, the efficiency of the HOV lane will diminish if EVs are still allowed to use them with only one occupant.