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

[officedweller]

I suppose the corresponding question would then be -
Why can't Panamax and Post-Panamax ships just use an expanded DeltaPort rather than the Faser Port? I suppose that's a necessary implcation of the options that retain the existing tunnel.

Agreed with the comment regarding pedestrians and cyclists - Option 5 does not serve them well.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I suppose the corresponding question would then be -
Why can't Panamax and Post-Panamax ships just use an expanded DeltaPort rather than the Faser Port? I suppose that's a necessary implcation of the options that retain the existing tunnel.

Agreed with the comment regarding pedestrians and cyclists - Option 5 does not serve them well.

Pedestrians and cyclists are not important for this project because I would venture to guess demand is going to be virtually zero. Anything that gets built will have a sidewalk for bikes and pedestrians and you will probably be able to count the daily number of pedestrian and bike crossing on one hand, maybe two.

I don't think this should even be part of the discussion as it only detracts from the goal's of this project. imo

Option 5 is the best because it connects the industrial zones south of the Fraser with the ones north of the Fraser and serves the large number of trips between them and will imo have by far the greatest economic impact. Later a connection to Boundary rd is a no brainer (and should be a no brainer even without a tilbury bridge).

[Stingray2004]

While a decision still likely won't be made until circa 2020, I still think the final decision will be a twin of the new PMB with a collector/express set-up - 3 express lanes in each direction with 2 collector/distributor lanes commencing at the new Hwy 17 interchange in the south to a realigned Steveston Hwy in the north.

Interesting that the scope here is only up to the Bridgeport Rd. interchange at the Oak Street Bridge bridgehead. I also suspect that a new OSB will also ultimately form part of the project scope as part of a "systems-wide" approach. It likely wasn't included in this project scope version in order to prevent ruffling political feathers in Van City at the present time.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Pedestrians and cyclists are not important for this project because I would venture to guess demand is going to be virtually zero. Anything that gets built will have a sidewalk for bikes and pedestrians and you will probably be able to count the daily number of pedestrian and bike crossing on one hand, maybe two.

I don't think this should even be part of the discussion as it only detracts from the goal's of this project. imo

Option 5 is the best because it connects the industrial zones south of the Fraser with the ones north of the Fraser and serves the large number of trips between them and will imo have by far the greatest economic impact. Later a connection to Boundary rd is a no brainer (and should be a no brainer even without a tilbury bridge).

I remember a few years ago traffic was horrid trying to get through the tunnel in the morning. Turns out someone was *WALKING* down one of the lanes! Even if only 10 people cross a day, at least we won't have to worry about s*** like that anymore.

People who are opposed to upgrading the tunnel don't seem to grasp that one tiny event like that can paralyze the whole region - hundreds of thousands of working hours wasted in a day - over something as trivial as one person out for a stroll.

[officedweller]

With the Port acquiring lands on the north side of the river, I suppose that interaction between the two sides will increase over time (and the roundabout connection at Alex Fraser isn't very efficient). Richmond will continue to complain of the added pressure on adjacent farmland as a result of a new No. 8 crossing.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Pedestrians and cyclists are not important for this project because I would venture to guess demand is going to be virtually zero. Anything that gets built will have a sidewalk for bikes and pedestrians and you will probably be able to count the daily number of pedestrian and bike crossing on one hand, maybe two. The other option is to pay for a 2 zone bus pass that might not even drop you off where you want to get off.

I don't think this should even be part of the discussion as it only detracts from the goal's of this project. imo

While you are free to have an opinion you are wrong. Cycling and pedestrians should be part of the discussion. Right now there is a crappy shuttle that is provided with service every hour. In addition to commuters which there are few because of the limitation of the tunnel. Any project should vastly improve cycling.

The tunnel is in-between Ladner and Richmond which are two communities that are well suited to cycling growth due to their flat terrain.

In addition to commuter cycling, tourism is also important with cycle touring from Vancouver to Tsawassen Ferry with popular destinations of the Gulf Islands and The Galloping Goose trail to Victoria along with touring to the US. I met 2 couples on their way to the US last summer near the Alex Fraser. Richmond also has the dyke trail. The farm roads of Ladner make for great cycling as well.

Turn on the Cycling Layer in Google Maps and you can see the possibilities: https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=49.138821,-123.068848&spn=0.179464,0.308647&t=h&z=12&lci=bike

Yes cycling is important and quality cycling should be provided in this project. It is a no brainer.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

While you are free to have an opinion you are wrong. Cycling and pedestrians should be part of the discussion. Right now there is a crappy shuttle that is provided with service every hour. In addition to commuters which there are few because of the limitation of the tunnel. Any project should vastly improve cycling.

The tunnel is in-between Ladner and Richmond which are two communities that are well suited to cycling growth due to their flat terrain.

In addition to commuter cycling, tourism is also important with cycle touring from Vancouver to Tsawassen Ferry with popular destinations of the Gulf Islands and The Galloping Goose trail to Victoria along with touring to the US. I met 2 couples on their way to the US last summer near the Alex Fraser. Richmond also has the dyke trail. The farm roads of Ladner make for great cycling as well.

Turn on the Cycling Layer in Google Maps and you can see the possibilities: https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=49.138821,-123.068848&spn=0.179464,0.308647&t=h&z=12&lci=bike

Yes cycling is important and quality cycling should be provided in this project. It is a no brainer.

Absolutely, any crossing over the Fraser River, or any new project should have an off-street cycling/pedestrian component, especially of this scale.

With a bridge, that should be easily feasible, a tunnel would involve more work to separate the different modes (ie, vehicle vs. bikes/peds) but still needs to be absolutely considered.

I'd also advocate for separate areas for both peds and cyclists, and to ensure there is uni-directional pathways or separation between the northbound and southbound directions.

[officedweller]

I think that the George Massey Tunnel is important for pedestrian and bike connections (moreso bike than pedestrian) because it leads to the ferry terminal. Also, parts of Steveston and Ladner are potentially walkable from each other, so it not really in the middle of nowhere. But that's just one of many factors, not a primary factor.

[SFUVancouver]

I think by this point in history, excluding pedestrians and cyclists from the design of new crossings and transportation infrastructure is unacceptable. Bridges and tunnels have lifespans measured in decades and centuries and we cannot know what the future holds. We have a responsibility to ensure that we do not close off mobility options when building new water crossings, especially when the marginal cost of adding pedestrian and bike capacity is so minor in respect to the overall project budget. For the new Port Mann bridge/ Hwy 1 project, a $50 million out of an initial project budget of $2.5+ billion was allocated to walking and cycling; at most 2% of the total cost. What would be the marginal cost to retrofit this infrastructure to accommodate walking and cycling at a later date had it not been a design requirement?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I think by this point in history, excluding pedestrians and cyclists from the design of new crossings and transportation infrastructure is unacceptable.

Hear, hear!

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I think by this point in history, excluding pedestrians and cyclists from the design of new crossings and transportation infrastructure is unacceptable.

In this particular case, it's not really a question of excluding them from a "new" build - but a question of whether an option that (in whole or in part) retains the existing tunnel conditions should be adopted despite their failure to address them at the existing tunnel.

[Metro-One]

I also agree, pedestrian and cycling facilities are a must on a GMT replacement. I would love to ride my bike to the ferries one day, and having such a crossing would definitely help.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

While you are free to have an opinion you are wrong. Cycling and pedestrians should be part of the discussion. Right now there is a crappy shuttle that is provided with service every hour. In addition to commuters which there are few because of the limitation of the tunnel. Any project should vastly improve cycling.

The tunnel is in-between Ladner and Richmond which are two communities that are well suited to cycling growth due to their flat terrain.

In addition to commuter cycling, tourism is also important with cycle touring from Vancouver to Tsawassen Ferry with popular destinations of the Gulf Islands and The Galloping Goose trail to Victoria along with touring to the US. I met 2 couples on their way to the US last summer near the Alex Fraser. Richmond also has the dyke trail. The farm roads of Ladner make for great cycling as well.

Yes cycling is important and quality cycling should be provided in this project. It is a no brainer.

I hope when they build this bridge, they will have the foresight to include a commuter rail option.

While accommodating cyclists is important, the first priority should be given to rail. A rail line would take up the same space as 2 lanes of freeway, while providing the capacity of a 20 lane freeway.

[Metro-One]

The wisest way to do that would be to have rapid bus lanes built with the project that can be converted to light rail in the future.

[Spork]

While we think about the future with this replacement, I couldn't help to wonder on my commute home today whether or not building additional lanes at the existing crossing would do much for the long term.

I believe that it would be prudent to get agreement from the CoV to expand the Oak Street bridge with an additional lane in each direction (or two?) before embarking on an expansion at the GMT. With option #5, additional lanes could be added to both the South Arm and North Arm with a future bridge at Boundary. Such a bridge would only have lanes out of Vancouver because of the southbound side of that round being Vancouver, and the northbound side being Burnaby.

With additional lanes, I can't help to wonder if the bottleneck will just move North to the OSB.

[officedweller]

I doubt that rail will be included in any options.
i.e. I don't think that a heavy rail train would be able to climb the approaches of the Alex Fraser Bridge. Not sure if an LRT or RRT train would be able to either.

Creating a shallow enough grade for them would increase the length and impact of the bridge approach ramps.

[logan5]

Siemens S70 can do 7% grade with max operating speed of 106 km/h. Perfect for commuter service. Commuter rail doesn't have to be locomotive like the WCE.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Spork

While we think about the future with this replacement, I couldn't help to wonder on my commute home today whether or not building additional lanes at the existing crossing would do much for the long term.

I believe that it would be prudent to get agreement from the CoV to expand the Oak Street bridge with an additional lane in each direction (or two?) before embarking on an expansion at the GMT. With option #5, additional lanes could be added to both the South Arm and North Arm with a future bridge at Boundary. Such a bridge would only have lanes out of Vancouver because of the southbound side of that round being Vancouver, and the northbound side being Burnaby.

With additional lanes, I can't help to wonder if the bottleneck will just move North to the OSB.

I can pretty much tell you with absolute certainty that there will be no additional lanes on the oak street bridge or even the knight street bridge. Not until those bridges are old and falling down and will need to be replaced.

While I don't drive over the oak street bridge all that often. Based on my own observation. The knight street bridge could do with an added lane or two before the oak street bridge. But I also know that won't happen. The knight street bridge is a cluster frack with the marine drive ramps. The NB knight to EB marine backs up onto the bridge which tells me way to may vehicles are wanting to go down that ramp that can be handled.

You are right though the bottle neck would just move forward. Which I don't mind. At least it wouldn't be just one bottle neck but multiple bottlenecks.


Anyhow this is getting side tracked from the GMT replacement.

[libtard]

Hoping for any type of light rail provisions on this project is wishful thinking at best

[tybuilding]

Since the project is looking at corridor upgrades I think that the corridor can be upgraded for cycling walking as well, which is what is happening for the Port Mann. $50 million is being provided for gateway cycling including infrastructure of the bridge and the SFPR. With that a new local street route is being built in Surrey from Gateway to Fraser Heights using the new overpass. On the north side the money will be used for cycling on United Boulevard.

On the 99 corridor Surrey is proposing a greenway plan:

If this project is Gateway 2 the project should pony up the funds to build the greenways in the is corridor:

Colebrook Road, King George, Adjacent to the 99

In addition it should provide a connection to Shell Road, Williams and the south dyke and provide funding for the greenway continuation of Shell Road north to Dyke Road and possibly Riverport

In Delta Improvements are required on Hornby Drive and Hwy 10 such as shoulders and repairs as well and various upgrades of cycling infrastructure in Ladner including replacement of the south of Ladner Trunk Road overpass.