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

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Correct me if I am wrong but I understand they will spend more then the bridge and highway upgrades costs combined... to build only a tunnel with reduced capacity and leave the rest of the highway crumbling. This looks like a bad deal and wasting billions of tax payer dollars because of political squabbles and stubbornness at best, corruption at worst.

Don't forget the tunnel will prevent many larger cargo ships getting into Fraser Docks, and go against the whole point of expanding Delta port to move goods across the Fraser with ease.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

Don't forget the tunnel will prevent many larger cargo ships getting into Fraser Docks, and go against the whole point of expanding Delta port to move goods across the Fraser with ease.

I believe and tunnel and bridge will be similar in cost, but with the increased environmental review the tunnel will likely end up costing more.

Personally I'm not sure why a tunnel was chosen.

[Metro-One]

The tunnel was chosen for two reasons:

1. To make it look as if there was a point to the delay and doing another study / review (even though these options were already reviewed for over 3 years starting in 2012)

2. Richmond hates elevated structures it seems. I laughed when they called a bridge an eyesore... Yet all the bridges we have are among the most celebrated structures we have...
people should keep in mind that Richmond was also against elevated Skytrain and as a compromise we got the single tracked section... which they are now asking to have expanded. Looks like this will be another repeat of their same mistake. A more costly tunnel (when factoring in delays) and under-built interchanges because ramps are sooooooo scary...

[Mininari]

I realize they didn't choose the bored tunnel, which would be even LONGER of a delay to completion, but they did choose the immersed tunnel option, which will trigger the federal environmental certification process... which WILL take years.

It is just me, or did they intentionally do this to delay the construction (AND FINANCING) of this project to a future government mandate on purpose to APPEAR they are moving forward, when all they are doing is passing the buck?

If the 10-lane bridge solution had just been let to continue construction, it would be half-way done by now. But not under the community benefits agreement, and it certainly would be a "liberal-branded" project to the end. Can't have that, can we?

Either way, I don't care. I live in Victoria... but I *DO* care, because I like to think I have some pride in this crossing being the 'Gateway to British Columbia' for visiting Americans.

Or maybe that doesn't matter either and the Alex Fraser Bridge should be designated the "Main" entrance to the GVRD for visitors from the south.

See you all at the ribbon cutting in... 2025? nah... how does 2030 sound?

(p.s. build the damn interchanges to 21st century standards please)

[p78hub]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The tunnel was chosen for two reasons:

2. Richmond hates elevated structures it seems. I laughed when they called a bridge an eyesore... Yet all the bridges we have are among the most celebrated structures we have...
people should keep in mind that Richmond was also against elevated Skytrain and as a compromise we got the single tracked section... which they are now asking to have expanded. Looks like this will be another repeat of their same mistake. A more costly tunnel (when factoring in delays) and under-built interchanges because ramps are sooooooo scary...

It's too bad there has never really been anyone to challenge Brodie in Richmond, but at the same time I can't see a new mayor being any different. We need a regional government with some teeth to pass decisions that benefit the region as a whole, because it seems like none of the mayors really want to help each other and it hurts everyone.

[s211]

Originally Posted by p78hub

It's too bad there has never really been anyone to challenge Brodie in Richmond, but at the same time I can't see a new mayor being any different. We need a regional government with some teeth to pass decisions that benefit the region as a whole, because it seems like none of the mayors really want to help each other and it hurts everyone.

From people I know that have had to deal with the Metro on items that the Metro would vote on, the general model is to follow what the City of Vancouver wants.

So, in short, we're pooched.

[officedweller]

As an aside - a tunnel also means that dangerous goods will continue to be prohibited from the Hwy 99 route.

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/14_275_2006

[misher]

Originally Posted by p78hub

It's too bad there has never really been anyone to challenge Brodie in Richmond, but at the same time I can't see a new mayor being any different. We need a regional government with some teeth to pass decisions that benefit the region as a whole, because it seems like none of the mayors really want to help each other and it hurts everyone.

I see this as a smart policy of benefit to Richmond. More traffic to Delta=more people living or setting up their businesses in Richmond as the alternative=more development for Queensborough and Steveston & No5.

I don't see how Richmond would benefit from a bridge, but I do see how they'd lose.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by officedweller

As an aside - a tunnel also means that dangerous goods will continue to be prohibited from the Hwy 99 route.

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/14_275_2006

From what I understand, the percent of trucks surveyed in 2014 transporting dangerous goods was only 1.9%. So we are only excluding a small aspect of goods movers that cannot actually enter GMT.


Source: Translink and 2014 Dangerous Goods Report

There was a finding in that report that light trucks with dangerous goods represent 25% of that 1.9% statistic compared to 6% of heavy trucks. Light trucks would have no problem redirecting to AFB.

[flipper316]

https://www.richmond-news.com/news/richm...ver-massey-tunnel-replacement-1.23967583

[Tysonbrown]

The only reason a Bridge was ever proposed by the previous gov't was to allow for coal freighters up the Fraser to Surrey Port's new Coal Terminal right in the heart of New West and Surrey. The only mayor in the entire lower mainland in favour of that eyesore was Lois Neddleton "former" mayor of Delta. Coal is over and the bridge was a ridiculous notion.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by Tysonbrown

The only reason a Bridge was ever proposed by the previous gov't was to allow for coal freighters up the Fraser to Surrey Port's new Coal Terminal right in the heart of New West and Surrey. The only mayor in the entire lower mainland in favour of that eyesore was Lois Neddleton "former" mayor of Delta. Coal is over and the bridge was a ridiculous notion.

Your claim sounds a little like "Coal Exports Bad" with a dash of virtue signalling. And as I live in a Surrey hi-rise, some coal dust from Fraser Docks has landed on my balcony which I have to clean each year. However, it has already been a done deal with the existing GMT that both Liberals and NDP have allowed to happen (i.e. coal shipments to Fraser Docks). I am not one to make accusations against the economy and local jobs, or even a specific government, regarding this reality. I would actually be in favour of the expansion of GMT since the coal issue already exists and I rather see goods movers reduce their emissions by not being impeded by traffic jams and stalls....

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by flipper316

https://www.richmond-news.com/news/richm...ver-massey-tunnel-replacement-1.23967583

Cool link in the story to this power point presentation:

http://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/GeorgeMasseyCrossingTaskForce/GMA_2019-Oct-2_PPT.pdf

It includes these diagrams for deep bore tunnel interchanges:


http://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/GeorgeMasseyCrossingTaskForce/GMA_2019-Oct-2_PPT.pdf

It also suggests an Immersed Tube Tunnel would be east of the existing tunnel (with a crappy interchange at Stevston Hwy):


http://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/GeorgeMasseyCrossingTaskForce/GMA_2019-Oct-2_PPT.pdf

[Metro-One]

So, from the images provided so far, with the buses on the outermost lanes instead of the centre and the Steveston interchange essentially being unchanged for the same price as the previous project, which included the bridge, a true rapid bus system with direct ramps and real stations, and a complete rebuild of interchanges along the 99 we are just getting the tunnel with minor lipstick improvements elsewhere.

Once again, they should have just continued with the project with a reduced lane count of 8 instead of 10.

Who is winning here now?

We have to do a 3 year environmental certificate now. There will be more disturbance to the river, we will lose more ALR, we will have the same old outdated interchanges with only minor improvements and we will have a reduced transit component. Not to mention a less versatile crossing for shipping.

How can anyone support this cluster fuck?

[GreaterMontréal]

The L.H. Lafontaine tunnel in Montréal is an immersed tube tunnel. The MTQ will redo the tunnel completely between 2019-2023.

[osirisboy]

Next year the liberals will win and it'll just revert back to the original bridge

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Next year the liberals will win and it'll just revert back to the original bridge

Yea I would rather that all road projects be put on hold until BC liberals return (after thoroughly reflecting on their mistakes). Transit projects can proceed.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

So, from the images provided so far, with the buses on the outermost lanes instead of the centre and the Steveston interchange essentially being unchanged for the same price as the previous project, which included the bridge, a true rapid bus system with direct ramps and real stations, and a complete rebuild of interchanges along the 99 we are just getting the tunnel with minor lipstick improvements elsewhere.

Once again, they should have just continued with the project with a reduced lane count of 8 instead of 10.

Who is winning here now?

We have to do a 3 year environmental certificate now. There will be more disturbance to the river, we will lose more ALR, we will have the same old outdated interchanges with only minor improvements and we will have a reduced transit component. Not to mention a less versatile crossing for shipping.

How can anyone support this cluster fuck?

Given that the cost between 10 and 8 isn’t huge and the discussions about connecting the west coast 10 lanes may make sense. Perhaps install the infrastructure needed so we can convert two lanes to rail when the Vancouver to Seattle line is completed decades from now? Basically overbuilding for the future which Vancouver has largely failed to do in the past.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Who is winning here now? Vancouver.

How can anyone support this cluster fuck? Because, Vancouver.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i always find it odd, here we are trying to build something to last 100+ years, and once again we are being shortsighted.

and why? because of politics and pandering. we actually had something designed and created by professionals that would have last 125yrs. both with great transit options, and capacity for the future.

so because these anti-highway people whined, and because politicians decided it was more important to prevent another parties project from turning out well, what happens? well the transit portion gets chopped off, and we spend the same amount of money, (most likely more), for a project with 1/2 the scope delivered 10yrs later.

in this situation, no one wins because the short term perceived "victory" ends up being out shined by the long term loss, and eventual rebuilding required in a few decades.

wonderful...

the only good thing is that when the GreeNDP sre out, the previous project will be in because this new one will take a decade for approvals.