Hwy 99 Fraser River Tunnel (George Massey Replacement) | Proposed - Page 124

Trainguy · #**2461** Posted **Jul 3, 2017, 10:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Low density as of now...but you better believe there will be mounting pressure to increase density and unlock some of the ALRs in the near future as the amount of developable land shrinks. If the GMB gets built then this will be a reality much like how Langley and Walnut Grove saw a boom once the new PMB saw completion.

I reckon many here feel that LRT or rail via the Port Mann bridge would have been better fit to deal with the increasing demands SOF in Langley and N Surrey. The 555 is nearing max capacity at 6-7min frequencies at rush hour.

Rail will never run across the PMB. Johnson hill is too steep. The 555 issue is easy to solve. Just add more capacity and frequency. Rail is not the answer to solving every congestion issue. Rail works great in certain capacities like down Fraser Hwy to Langley. Rail across the GMB, which may never be built under the NDP, doesn't make sense.

CanSpice · #**2462** Posted **Jul 4, 2017, 4:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Shuts down Braid Bailey Bridge with Coquitlam.

"Shuts down" in this case means "replaced one-lane bridge with two-lane bridge".

Quote:

Refuses Translink's new connector thereto.

Because it would have resulted in numerous New West houses being expropriated and torn down. God forbid New West doesn't want its residents' houses torn down.

Quote:

In conflict with Surrey over proposed new Pattullo Bridge.

"In conflict with" in this case means "reached an agreement for a 6-lane bridge".

But hey, keep going on with your assertions that look good on the screen but fall apart as soon as you actually look at them. Just like all your posts over in the political thread where the Liberals are going to take 60 seats and the LG is going to dissolve the Legislature.

M00dy · #**2463** Posted **Jul 4, 2017, 8:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanSpice

"Shuts down" in this case means "replaced one-lane bridge with two-lane bridge".

Because it would have resulted in numerous New West houses being expropriated and torn down. God forbid New West doesn't want its residents' houses torn down.

"In conflict with" in this case means "reached an agreement for a 6-lane bridge".

But hey, keep going on with your assertions that look good on the screen but fall apart as soon as you actually look at them. Just like all your posts over in the political thread where the Liberals are going to take 60 seats and the LG is going to dissolve the Legislature.

Where did you hear that the new Patullo bridge is going to be 6 lane? I hadn't heard New Westminster bought into that.

My understanding is the only way they could get buy-off from New West is by proposing a 4 lane bridge with multi-user-paths on either side. The new bridge would be expandable in the future by adding a cantilevered section on either side & moving the MUPs onto the cantilever, turning the previous MUP width into new lanes.

New West has been very obstructionist to any major road improvements through their city. Patullo seems to be no different.

M00dy · #**2464** Posted **Jul 4, 2017, 8:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by M00dy

Where did you hear that the new Patullo bridge is going to be 6 lane? I hadn't heard New Westminster bought into that.

My understanding is the only way they could get buy-off from New West is by proposing a 4 lane bridge with multi-user-paths on either side. The new bridge would be expandable in the future by adding a cantilevered section on either side & moving the MUPs onto the cantilever, turning the previous MUP width into new lanes.

New West has been very obstructionist to any major road improvements through their city. Patullo seems to be no different.

https://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and-Pr...-Bridge/Pattullo-Bridge-Replacement.aspx

CanSpice · #**2465** Posted **Jul 4, 2017, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by M00dy

Where did you hear that the new Patullo bridge is going to be 6 lane? I hadn't heard New Westminster bought into that.

Ah shit you're right, I keep having this vision in my mind that a six-lane bridge there would be just fine (peel off lanes towards Braid & Front and you'd have no net new lanes up McBride). Four lanes upgradable to six. My bad.

Cypherus · #**2466** Posted **Jul 5, 2017, 12:41 AM**

If tolls are removed from Port Mann, one has to wonder if there will be a redirection of some traffic from Massey Tunnel? I recall a previous statistic someone posted a while ago about Massey Tunnel usage increasing when tolls were enacted on the Port Mann bridge. I also drove the tunnel the other day on a busier Sunday afternoon during busy Canada Day long weekend and there were no traffic issues at all. Food for thought.

libtard · #**2467** Posted **Jul 5, 2017, 1:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cypherus

If tolls are removed from Port Mann, one has to wonder if there will be a redirection of some traffic from Massey Tunnel? I recall a previous statistic someone posted a while ago about Massey Tunnel usage increasing when tolls were enacted on the Port Mann bridge. I also drove the tunnel the other day on a busier Sunday afternoon during busy Canada Day long weekend and there were no traffic issues at all. Food for thought.

No traffic issues at the tunnel on Sunday afternoon isn't surprising. The fact that it's the day after Canada day makes it even less surprising.

Pinion · #**2468** Posted **Jul 5, 2017, 1:33 AM**

Yeah traffic is always super low during a four day work week in the summer.

Trainguy · #**2469** Posted **Jul 5, 2017, 2:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cypherus

If tolls are removed from Port Mann, one has to wonder if there will be a redirection of some traffic from Massey Tunnel? I recall a previous statistic someone posted a while ago about Massey Tunnel usage increasing when tolls were enacted on the Port Mann bridge. I also drove the tunnel the other day on a busier Sunday afternoon during busy Canada Day long weekend and there were no traffic issues at all. Food for thought.

The NDP have promised no Tolls on any bridges. They had better go through with this election promise!! My wallet is counting on it.

libtard · #**2470** Posted **Jul 5, 2017, 4:20 AM**

They're still going full bore with site prep at night... for what? What is the point of continuing the project?? This is a Liberal envisioned project and they're not even in power anymore.

POCO · #**2471** Posted **Jul 5, 2017, 4:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by libtard

They're still going full bore with site prep at night... for what? What is the point of continuing the project?? This is a Liberal envisioned project and they're not even in power anymore.

Because governments break promises all the time and the new government hasn't actually issued any orders yet.

Stingray2004 · #**2472** Posted **Jul 5, 2017, 4:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Because it would have resulted in numerous New West houses being expropriated and torn down. God forbid New West doesn't want its residents' houses torn down.

When the Cassiar Connector was constructed back in the late 1980's/early 1990's, most, if not all, houses north of Hastings Street on the east side of Cassiar St. were expropriated and demolished.

When the SFPR was constructed, houses in North Delta along the south side of River Road were expropriated and demolished.

What's so special about New Westminster? Nothing!

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanSpice

But hey, keep going on with your assertions that look good on the screen but fall apart as soon as you actually look at them. Just like all your posts over in the political thread where the Liberals are going to take 60 seats and the LG is going to dissolve the Legislature.

As to you final points of deflection - classic "cherry-picking", misrepresentation, and out of context both on a time-line and all else. With all my posts read "in the whole" completely differing conclusions - certainly varying positions based upon the time-line extant and shifting underlying conditions. But whatevs.

M00dy · #**2473** Posted **Jul 5, 2017, 5:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by POCO

Because governments break promises all the time and the new government hasn't actually issued any orders yet.

Exactly. There are early work contracts in place, and until the government gives the contractors notice to stop work, they're bound to the conditions of their signed contracts.

Also, if/when they are ordered to stop work, they'll be entitled to damages (likely their expected profit from the remainder of the work).

Stingray2004 · #**2474** Posted **Jul 5, 2017, 5:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by libtard

They're still going full bore with site prep at night... for what? What is the point of continuing the project?? This is a Liberal envisioned project and they're not even in power anymore.

Libs are still in power & CC is still the preem for ~ another 2 weeks before new swearing in ceremonies.

And the contracts previously let will continue until completed. No doubt about that.

And then an interim standstill period for the GMB.

Pinion · #**2475** Posted **Jul 5, 2017, 7:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by libtard

They're still going full bore with site prep at night... for what? What is the point of continuing the project?? This is a Liberal envisioned project and they're not even in power anymore.

If you were a construction worker paid by the hour, would you walk away from a job you expected to last for years before anyone told you to?

Marshal · #**2476** Posted **Jul 5, 2017, 9:47 AM**

Or, even more-so, if you were a construction company with a contract, would you . . .

Even if you're contract is to be cancelled, you get as much done as you can, and get paid for it, and then accept the penalty money for the cancellation.

paulsparrow · #**2477** Posted **Jul 5, 2017, 3:16 PM**

.

flipper316 · #**2478** Posted **Jul 6, 2017, 5:12 AM**

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-co...lacement-tunnel-richmond-delta-1.4192349

Seriously fuck these guys. They're worse than Robertson and Vision with their anti car mentality. They seriously prefer to have the daily long backups at this tunnel?

Metro-One · #**2479** Posted **Jul 6, 2017, 5:46 AM**

This is why when it comes to infrastructure th Liberals are far better than the NDP.

True leadership builds what is needed and does not pander to the city councils.

I do not need to remind people what our Skytrain system would look like today if that same approach had been taken for rapid transit expansions.

I laughed out loud when one of the councilors said they should simply just ban trucks from the crossing during rush hour and run the ports 24/7 to make up for it... like fucking serisously?

I am not big on Vision style politics but they work well enough at a municipal level... but provincially? No way.

It seems that only Delta has done their homework on this project and supports it.

Also I am sure mayor Corrigan will vote done anything that doesn't directly benefit Burnaby. This is getting stupid now.

Here is a better idea, let's no longer allow politicians to make any decisions regarding transit and roads. Instead all decisions should be made by a mixed group of civil engineers who specialize in roads and transit.

Stingray2004 · #**2480** Posted **Jul 6, 2017, 5:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

This is why when it comes to infrastructure th Liberals are far better than the NDP.

I do not need to remind people what our Skytrain system would look like today if that same approach had been taken for rapid transit expansions.

Back during the 1972 - 1975 BC NDP administration under Barrett, the NDP proposed LRT, with road crossings and even purchased a demonstration vehicle from Siemens. Would not have been any "Skytrain" under their future plans.

BTW, here is a detailed post responding to mine on the foregoing from about 7 years ago and the aftermath of that Siemens demonstration vehicle (basically a glorified street car):

http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4786972&postcount=1550