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

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i dont see people complaining about how SkyTrain will push development SoF.

*cough*Condon*cough*

It's worth noting that freeway/highway adjacency lowers land value, but rapid transit adjacency raises it.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

so is the answer to do nothing? keep a dangerous tunnel that is both seismically unsafe and has a high potential of head on collisions, no pedestrian or bike connections and no way to allow transit to more easily pass?

or is it to spend more money on a worse replacement that will still have no bike/pedestrian connections and includes no highway upgrades with centre transit lanes and dedicated bus stops?

what am i missing here? you people cant seriously be advocating for keeping a tunnel that cannot be made safe, allow for transit, allow for bikes, allow for pedestrians.

or are you advocating for a worse replacement for more money? i mean i don't really get it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Personally, I say it's necessary - RapidBus doesn't have the capacity, Delta's not ready for a SkyTrain, and a tunnel ruins Deas Island. Just pointing out that highways tend to favour low-density sprawl much more than trains do.

[Henbo]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

so is the answer to do nothing? keep a dangerous tunnel that is both seismically unsafe and has a high potential of head on collisions, no pedestrian or bike connections and no way to allow transit to more easily pass?

or is it to spend more money on a worse replacement that will still have no bike/pedestrian connections and includes no highway upgrades with centre transit lanes and dedicated bus stops?

what am i missing here? you people cant seriously be advocating for keeping a tunnel that cannot be made safe, allow for transit, allow for bikes, allow for pedestrians.

or are you advocating for a worse replacement for more money? i mean i don't really get it.

100% something needs to be done with this crossing, for the reasons you mention

But there also needs to be a wider recognition of the type of communities we want to create, and how this crossing can contribute to that, both in the short-term and long-term.

For instance over the long-term, a 10-lane un-tolled bridge may incentivize growth/development SoF relative to NoF (reducing density), incentivize driving relative to other modes (even with HOV lanes), and incentivize an increase in vehicle kilometres travelled per person (as origins and destinations become further spaced apart)

An 8-lane tolled bridge may disincentivize growth/development SoF relative to NoF (increase density), disincentive driving relative to other modes, and disincentivize an increase in vehicle kilometres travelled per person (as origins and destinations become closer together)

[waves]

Vancouver sees peak direction traffic and an 8 lane GMB could easily be configured to handle the equivalent of a 10 bridge if it is built with 2 express lanes that alternate direction for peak hours.

It is almost surprising it hasn't been mentioned or contemplated considering that there are three crossings that now use them and one of them is even the GMT.

Most disappointing to me however, is that the bridge/tunnel will not be built with the ability to run RRT. It would be curious however if it would be cheaper to complete a seismic retrofit of the old tunnel for RRT once there is no traffic through it.

[WarrenC12]

I think the old tunnel is toast.

I do share the concerns about shaping the SoF, particularly land use. That area is PRIME agricultural land and should stay that way for numerous reasons.

The NDP really shot themselves in the foot with the elimination of bridge tolls. A tolled PMB and soon tolled Patullo would give us financially responsible planning for a tolled Massey crossing. Including RRT seems sensible, but again with all the ALR, what would it be servicing? I'd rather leave it off, leave plenty of room for buses, and re-visit when the actual plan is clear. Maybe the crossing will be part of HSR to the USA in 30-40 years, too hard to predict.

[zahav]

All of that ALR land could be way better utilized by agriculture, and we wouldn't need to restrict so much from development. Look at Netherlands, they are insane with how productive their agriculture is, to the point they are the 2nd largest agricultural exporter on earth (not per capita, in real terms! 2nd only to America!!). We have way too much land in prime areas (Richmond, Delta, Surrey) that is being used as low intensity farming and is restricting land supply. Farm smarter with better technology, then we can actually start having more urbanism without massive farms in populated areas

[Metro-One]

What the fuck, so many comments that are neither here nor there regarding the issue.

Going to spell this out one last time.

First, as for regions the corridor services. Directly south of the tunnel is ALR which I support preserving, but that is not what this crossing and corridor serves. South of that is White Rock and South Surrey which are undergoing large amounts of growth. It is also the direct mainline to the US connecting with the I5 and the ferries to Vancouver Island. Both very important routes. And now there is also the development happening on the First Nations land (they have actually been one of the loudest supporters of the bridge / highway upgrade). So saying it only serves ALR is an argument that tells me you don’t know what your talking about. Also the bridge wouldn’t have just been for future capacity, but for demand that has existed already for decades. The tunnel has long since reached saturation.

Now, read carefully, here is the situation:

Original bridge plan:

- included new bridge plus 30km of highway upgrade
- new rebuilt modern interchanges.
- increased ALR (that's right, excess land from smaller interchange footprints would have increased ALR)
- Full median lane rapid bus system with stations and direct flyover between highway 99 and Bridgeport Station. Future proof for rail conversation.
- Price Tag of 2.5 to 3 billion with winning bid.

Current NDP tunnel plan:

- only involves the tunnel crossing itself.
- minimal improvements to interchanges (will actually keep existing 60 year old overpasses...)
- should bus lane with shoulder bus stops (AKA cheap as fuck bus system that will conflict with merge points, broken down vehicles, and will not be able to easily convert to rail).
- loss of ALR (yes, ALR is needed to be taken out for this plan).
- Price tag of 4 billion dollars
- At least 10 years later than the cancelled bridge...

That’s the real life issue happening.

Which project sounds like the smarter better deal???????????

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by zahav

All of that ALR land could be way better utilized by agriculture, and we wouldn't need to restrict so much from development. Look at Netherlands, they are insane with how productive their agriculture is, to the point they are the 2nd largest agricultural exporter on earth (not per capita, in real terms! 2nd only to America!!). We have way too much land in prime areas (Richmond, Delta, Surrey) that is being used as low intensity farming and is restricting land supply. Farm smarter with better technology, then we can actually start having more urbanism without massive farms in populated areas

Some of the land isn't great for farming. The big thing is that a lot of it is on a floodplain and is part of stormwater management. If we didn't have it there to collect water when it rains a lot (in other words about half of the year) then we'd have a lot more flooding problems across the region.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

What the fuck, so many comments that are neither here nor there regarding the issue.

Going to spell this out one last time.

First, as for regions the corridor services. Directly south of the tunnel is ALR which I support preserving, but that is not what this crossing and corridor serves. South of that is White Rock and South Surrey which are undergoing large amounts of growth. It is also the direct mainline to the US connecting with the I5 and the ferries to Vancouver Island. Both very important routes. And now there is also the development happening on the First Nations land (they have actually been one of the loudest supporters of the bridge / highway upgrade). So saying it only serves ALR is an argument that tells me you don’t know what your talking about. Also the bridge wouldn’t have just been for future capacity, but for demand that has existed already for decades. The tunnel has long since reached saturation.

Now, read carefully, here is the situation:

Original bridge plan:

- included new bridge plus 30km of highway upgrade
- new rebuilt modern interchanges.
- increased ALR (that's right, excess land from smaller interchange footprints would have increased ALR)
- Full median lane rapid bus system with stations and direct flyover between highway 99 and Bridgeport Station. Future proof for rail conversation.
- Price Tag of 2.5 to 3 billion with winning bid.

Current NDP tunnel plan:

- only involves the tunnel crossing itself.
- minimal improvements to interchanges (will actually keep existing 60 year old overpasses...)
- should bus lane with shoulder bus stops (AKA cheap as fuck bus system that will conflict with merge points, broken down vehicles, and will not be able to easily convert to rail).
- loss of ALR (yes, ALR is needed to be taken out for this plan).
- Price tag of 4 billion dollars
- At least 10 years later than the cancelled bridge...

That’s the real life issue happening.

Which project sounds like the smarter better deal???????????

[ssiguy]

You guys who are the biggest supporters of Christy's plan are forgetting why the NDP cancelled it in the first place.

The cancellation had nothing to do with the NDP not wanting the political points or infrastructure jobs but rather that the bridge would be toll-free. Christy's plan would have resulted in a minimum of $4 each way. The NDP {thankfully} got rid of the Golden Ears and Port Mann tolls as it was yet another added expense to already overburdened SoF residents.

It's all very well for inner city Vancouverites to make the case for tolls but start sticking them on Granville, Cambie, Burrard, Lion's Gate, Oak, Arthur Lang, Clarke, and Ironworkers and wait to see how fast they change their minds. You can't tell everyone else to be happy with tolls that you yourself are not willing to pay. People SoF would far rather have 4 extra lanes free of charge than 6 extra lanes that you have to pay thru the teeth for.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

You guys who are the biggest supporters of Christy's plan are forgetting why the NDP cancelled it in the first place.

The cancellation had nothing to do with the NDP not wanting the political points or infrastructure jobs but rather that the bridge would be toll-free.

see, how does that make sense when the NDP are proposing a tunnel that would cost 1 billion MORE and deliver LESS? how does that make sense.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

see, how does that make sense when the NDP are proposing a tunnel that would cost 1 billion MORE and deliver LESS? how does that make sense.

B-but you don't have to pay a toll.

[invisibleairwaves]

If you think the Liberals' bridge plan was realistically going to cost $2.5-3b...then I have a $3b bridge to sell you. And yeah, we lost a decade on the project because the NDP had to shift priorities to the Pattullo (before it falls into the Fraser) and transit (because it's the 21st century). I'm not really sure that's much of a knock on the NDP.

Even with the First Nations developments the corridor just doesn't have the same growth potential as the Port Mann, so why a Port Mann-scale bridge would be warranted is beyond me. I'd like to see a better solution for transit to South Delta/South Surrey/White Rock in the new plan, but throwing money at more and more car lanes....yeah, no.

[libtard]

I’m not sure why we’re even debating which is better. The bridge isn’t happening. Let’s focus on the tunnel option

[ssiguy]

The Massey desperately needs more lanes. It is the same highway as it was when it was built in the 1960s which is nothing short of scandalous.

What I think is needed is a minimum 6 lane {preferably 8} from the tunnel to WR but the tunnel needs just an extra 4 lanes between Steveston & Ladner Trunk/SFPR where much of the traffic gets on and off.

[cganuelas1995]

IDK about any of you, but part of me wants it to start leaking or collapsing or get closed for safety reasons so more people will get angry that it's not being replaced and that politicians are still debating on what it should be.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The Massey desperately needs more lanes. It is the same highway as it was when it was built in the 1960s which is nothing short of scandalous.

To be fair, almost all of the growth since the tunnel was built has been pretty far east of it, and projects such as the Alex Fraser bridge and Highway 91 were in large part justified as a way to relieve tunnel traffic. So it's not as if nothing at all has been done in the intervening years.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

To be fair, almost all of the growth since the tunnel was built has been pretty far east of it, and projects such as the Alex Fraser bridge and Highway 91 were in large part justified as a way to relieve tunnel traffic. So it's not as if nothing at all has been done in the intervening years.

Agree. If you look at any Google Maps traffic along the tunnel during rush hour, the traffic flows are not as bad. Traffic has balanced evenly with the AFB especially with its counter-flow lane during rush hour and the installation of the 72nd Ave overpass. A simple 8 lane submerged tunnel option would suffice for the region.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

To be fair, almost all of the growth since the tunnel was built has been pretty far east of it, and projects such as the Alex Fraser bridge and Highway 91 were in large part justified as a way to relieve tunnel traffic. So it's not as if nothing at all has been done in the intervening years.

This.

And, the 91 corridor just got an extra reversible lane on the AFB (which has proven to be extremely effective), a new interchange at 72 Ave, and an upcoming freeway upgrade for the link road to the relatively recently-built SFPR. These were all major improvements to the overall corridor/context that the Massey Tunnel belongs to. Meanwhile, there hasn't been a new rail rapid transit station in Surrey for over 25 years. And we were about to let long-held ambitions of extending SkyTrain to Langley city languish in favour of a network of surface LRTs with a significantly inferior design.

I ought to have said more about this before but the Massey Tunnel is definitely not the 'next in line'. I don't like to be the guy that puts down infrastructure projects we need and I'd like to see new Massey corridor capacity get off the ground within the next 4 years. But make no mistake, if we had come out of this last election with a B.C. Liberal government, they would have put the 10-lane Massey Bridge (on a corridor that IMHO will not need 10 lanes for the next 50+ years) ahead of the completed SkyTrain extension from Fleetwood to Langley.