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

[p78hub]

A deeper tunnel/higher bridge is almost 100% because of economic reasons.

I can't figure out how a tunnel would be cheaper than a bridge. Aren't underwater tunnels vastly more complicated to build than bridges?

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by moosejaw View Post
If you didnt read his statement. let me make it bigger for you

Remember the tunnel will also have to go deep to get under the river

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Says who? Some internet guy? Citation needed.

Ok, let me try to explain further for you. The image below is taken from the following link.

https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sit...nnel-Decommisioning-Options-Feb-2017.pdf

I guarantee you that to meet the modern seismic requirements, any new tunnel MUST be deeper than the liquifaction zone underneath the river. As you can see, that puts it significantly deeper than the existing tunnel.

Any new tunnel is going to be bored. They will not be allowed to dredge and submerge a tunnel similar to the original, and even if they could, it would not be seismically stable in liquifiable soils.

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Why would the tunnel need to be any deeper than the current one?

Bottom line is the BC Libs never gave us the costed options, and that's most of the reason we're in this mess.

https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sit...iew-of-Replacement-Options-July-2016.pdf

[libtard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

But there's also plenty of clearance with the current tunnel.

[b]If bigger ships are the reason, perhaps those bigger ships and their beneficiaries should help pay the additional cost.[\b]

We are trying to make the port up river more attractive for bigger ships by making more clearance for them. Those bigger ships can go elsewhere. They’re not going to help pay for the crossing. What a ridiculous statement.

[ronthecivil]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

But there's also plenty of clearance with the current tunnel.

If bigger ships are the reason, perhaps those bigger ships and their beneficiaries should help pay the additional cost.

Nope. The new environmental regulations require that when crossing a navigable river you have to account for anything that could reasonably be expected to navigate the river. That's the law!

[officedweller]

London Drugs considers leaving Richmond without Massey resolution
https://www.citynews1130.com/2018/12/19/...ving-richmond-without-massey-resolution/

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by M00dy

Any new tunnel is going to be bored. They will not be allowed to dredge and submerge a tunnel similar to the original, and even if they could, it would not be seismically stable in liquifiable soils.

The Report says they are still examining an immersed tub tunnel (ITT) for a new supplemental tunnel.
They convened a panel to examine the issues.



Regarding a bored tunnel, they said it would be the most expensive option and may not have feasible grades
with the depth to get below liquefiable soils between the 17A and Stevston interchanges (and moreso for stacked lanes inside the tubes)





New 6 lane tunnel and retrofitted existing tunnel
- could be 10 lanes total, but they'd probably make one lane a bike path.

… and the Report rejects further consideration of a bored tunnel:


https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sit...g_Independent-Technical-Review_FINAL.pdf

[Metro-One]

Wow, it is almost as if a bridge may be the best cost / benefit ratio of the bunch when considering price, traffic flow, accessibility, safety, shipping, etc...

Who would have thought.

But you know, better re do everything that has already been done with more studies for the next few years.

I shudder to think what bizarre road alignments and lane work would be done to accommodate the scenario with a new 6 lane tunnel and retaining the existing tunnel...

[officedweller]

Well, it could end up being rehabilitation of the existing 4 lane tunnel (presumably 3 + 2-way bike or 4 lanes southbound)
and a new 6 lane bridge (4 lanes northbound and 1 lane each way for bus/HOV) adjacent to it.

Like you mentioned, the trade-offs are piers in the river and taking up more ALR land.

I can't see bike facilities being on a new bridge if the tunnel is kept, as the report even mentions the advantage of a tunnel for cyclists
- going downhill to build speed for the way up and out of the tunnel.

[Metro-One]

Call me crazy, but I prefer riding over bridges than in tunnels. The views / photography opportunities go without saying. (Not to mention the far better air quality outside vs. a tunnel).

And it is not as if the weather protection element really matters since the tunnel would only be a short segment of your overall ride outside anyways.

Again, this report is starting to feel a little dubious at times (or for cycling only looked at mechanics and not experience).

I say this as someone who often cycled over the Canada Line North Arm Bridge, the Cambie Street Bridge, the Granville Street Bridge, The Burrard Street Bridge, The Lion’s Gate Bridge, and the Golden Ears Bridge regularly when living in Metro Van.

[vango]

Just wondering how this crossing compares to the Champlain Bridge in Montreal, soon to be replaced with a new 10 lane bridge? Is the traffic volume significantly higher in Montreal? Don't recall the Quebec government objecting to 10 lanes. Is the federal government covering all of the $4.2B cost and no tolls for drivers?

[Bobert]

Good argument against the bored tunnel, officedweller. The grade onto Stevston interchange will be a challenge.

I think the bridge would be the best option but it would have to run a collector system similar to the Port Mann. Split the bridge into "Stevston lanes" similar to the Coquitlam lanes on the Port Mann, and have the lanes transition into the interchange. You can see this transition on the Port Mann, where the Burnaby/Coquitlam lanes are a bit elevated compared to the Vancouver lanes on the north side.

[officedweller]

But did you see what the report says is sufficient for the Steveston Hwy interchange?

Originally Posted by officedweller

Here are the interesting bits regarding bridge design and Steveston Hwy & Hwy 17A interchanges from the Report:


https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sit...g_Independent-Technical-Review_FINAL.pdf

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

So essentially the majority of the savings / shortcuts identified in the document are value engineering, increasing environmental impacts, taking land out of the ALR, and reducing the scope of transit...

The idea of putting the towers within the river, while they have a higher environmental risk, is the only cost reduction listed (along with reducing the lanes from 10 to 8) that I can support.

Building the rout on a new alignment? Nope. That will create unnecessary curves in the highway and will require the destruction of a decent chunk of ALR.

Severely reducing the interchange designs and adding to the current hodgepodge of a highway? (It literally states the idea of retaining some of these old under-built overpasses) Nope. The entire highway given its age is in need of an entire overhaul as originally proposed.

Using the shoulders for bus lanes? Oh God No! Essentially it states retaining the status quo for the bus transit system. Here the report feels as if some underhanded work is at play. All of the major bus transit systems I have seen that are beyond tacked on panted lines or random queue jumpers travel along dedicated lanes with dedicated stations, and on a freeway this requires to be on the median in a FULL lane. Not a shoulder shared with broken down vehicles and cutting across on and off ramps.

These are all very poor value engineering ideas. I don't even need to mention the option of retaining the tunnel.

Build it once, build it right. No more gluing shit on the side and patching with duct-tape for this highway and crossing.

TBH, how much are a couple of acres of ALR land worth? The report stated that moving a pier into the Fraser and building on a new alignment could save over $500 Million.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

But there's also plenty of clearance with the current tunnel.

If bigger ships are the reason, perhaps those bigger ships and their beneficiaries should help pay the additional cost.

As far as I know, the Port of Metro Vancouver expects the Fraser Surrey Docks to eventually be retired due to the Fraser River eventually not being wide enough to host commercial container cargo traffic.

Which is noted by the report, which states the Port has no further plans to deepen the Fraser River.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by fredinno

TBH, how much are a couple of acres of ALR land worth? The report stated that moving a pier into the Fraser and building on a new alignment could save over $500 Million.

Read the Report:
- the shorter span has consequential design changes and savings.
- building over an active highway and tunnel would have had severe impacts on construction staging, but build it off to the side and you can work more easily.

[connect2source]

*deleted, double post.

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Read the Report:
- the shorter span has consequential design changes and savings.
- building over an active highway and tunnel would have had severe impacts on construction staging, but build it off to the side and you can work more easily.

Also added risk to build over the existing. The reference concept for the 2017 bid had the towers straddling the tunnel, which created significant risk during piling from what I had heard.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by ronthecivil

Nope. The new environmental regulations require that when crossing a navigable river you have to account for anything that could reasonably be expected to navigate the river. That's the law!

LOL what does that even mean?

"Reasonably expected" would be the same boats that currently travel the river.

[makr3trkr]

We do, in fact, have "truck lanes" on some bridges in North America, including, no less, in Metro Vancouver - the 7th lane over the Pitt River:

https://www.partnershipsbc.ca/pdf/prb-factsheet-22-feb-06.pdf
"The new Pitt River Bridge will have six through lanes, and an auxiliary truck lane in the eastbound direction"

https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2007/sp/trans/default.aspx?hash=8
"Construct a new high level six-lane bridge with an auxiliary eastbound truck lane"

Not weighing in as to whether that's necessary or not, just that it is an actual thing. I think some confusion comes about when it's ambiguous if they are for the exclusive use of heavy vehicles or not, which they usually aren't.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

We do, in fact, have "truck lanes" on some bridges in North America, including, no less, in Metro Vancouver - the 7th lane over the Pitt River:

https://www.partnershipsbc.ca/pdf/prb-factsheet-22-feb-06.pdf
"The new Pitt River Bridge will have six through lanes, and an auxiliary truck lane in the eastbound direction"

https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2007/sp/trans/default.aspx?hash=8
"Construct a new high level six-lane bridge with an auxiliary eastbound truck lane"

Not weighing in as to whether that's necessary or not, just that it is an actual thing. I think some confusion comes about when it's ambiguous if they are for the exclusive use of heavy vehicles or not, which they usually aren't.

No one said we don’t have “climbing lanes” or whatever you want to call them. The fact of the matter is they are general purpose lanes that are open to everyone and not solely dedicated to trucks.