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

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

what i am most curious about... is safety in that pedestrian tunnel. that is a long way to run away from either an attacker/stalker/drug addict/crazy person.

what about a tent city? would this not be a place to camp out? we cant even remove tents from city park. what about a tunnel many km away from people?

i dont see it being safe or practical.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Of course - instead it has a causeway that blocks half the Fraser and wrecks Deas Island Park. The NDP's own studies said the bridge had the smaller footprint.

Yeah, the at grade causeway is far more destructive and intrusive to the park and surrounding area than the elevated bridge approach…

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It'll allow them to stop paying to provide the free shuttle service that's now required to get cyclists through the tunnel. I know at least some cyclists have avoided the route specifically because of the low frequency and sometimes unreliable availability of the shuttle, so I imagine there will be at least a modest increase in use.

You have to remember that there's been a large increase in the use of electric bikes, so there are a fair number of cyclists who aren't put off by the relatively long distances that this route entails.

Why do a free shuttle when there are buses with two racks smack on the front?

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The interchanges will be remaining essentially unchanged.

I think only the Steveston overpass is being replaced with a new single overpass structure.

There may be a few other minor readjustments but no major redesigns or structures.

Essentially this project is just the tunnel between the 17A and Steveston interchanges.

Funny how I have been BC saying all of this for years yet the same people continued to ignore me.

Sometimes I hate being right.

Instead of a 35km project including 10 lanes of bridge, 2 interchanges, and some other upgrades, we get a 4 billion dollar bridge?

Let's just bring back the ferry.

[CanSpice]

I think this proposed tunnel is actually a success because it pisses everybody off.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I think this proposed tunnel is actually a success because it pisses everybody off.

So they're just trolling?

[MIPS]

I think 8 lanes is sufficient. Even if we consider the bus lane being a combination bus + HOV that's plenty.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

what i am most curious about... is safety in that pedestrian tunnel. that is a long way to run away from either an attacker/stalker/drug addict/crazy person.
what about a tent city? would this not be a place to camp out? we cant even remove tents from city park. what about a tunnel many km away from people?
I dont see it being safe or practical.

The I90 Mt Baker Ridge pedestrian tunnel is incredibly long (440 meters) but while it's completely painted in graffitti it was mostly empty....plus you could see someone coming at you for....pretty much half a kilometer away.
That's also in the middle of Seattle. I doubt you're going to see a lot of crazies hanging around Deas island.

Your other option is that since Richmond already has a single-tracked Canada Line, why not single track it under the river in the future as well?

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

what i am most curious about... is safety in that pedestrian tunnel. that is a long way to run away from either an attacker/stalker/drug addict/crazy person.

what about a tent city? would this not be a place to camp out? we cant even remove tents from city park. what about a tunnel many km away from people?

i dont see it being safe or practical.

That tunnel is gonna be smelling of urine and feces and other human waste byproducts and is gonna probably be vandalized. Great place for urban wildlife to pass through, like skunks, rats, and raccoons.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Why do a free shuttle when there are buses with two racks smack on the front?

To the best of my knowledge the free shuttle dates way back, far before bike racks on buses, and is there specifically because cyclists are prohibited in the tunnel and no reasonable alternative route is available. It's the lower mainland's equivalent to the inland ferries, which provide free vehicle and passenger passage across lakes and rivers in order to connect what would otherwise be gaps in the highway system.

I suppose the service could be replaced through an arrangement with Translink to transport cyclists for free through the tunnel, but to my knowledge nobody's ever considered doing that. There may a capacity issue, since the shuttle uses a trailer that can carry a lot more bikes than a bus can.

[zahav]

The cycling lanes will certainly be used, I work in Ladner and used to live in Richmond (now in Vancouver) and there is demand there. I think the bike tunnel is essential. It obviously isn't as good as the bridge, we all know that, but the only way we will see the bridge come back is if the NDP loses the next election, and even then it isn't guaranteed to make a comeback. I feel like this is the best we are going to get, as far from perfect as it is. And they can still make infrastructure upgrades to the road network down the line, this doesn't prevent that.

3 years of environmental though? On top of the time on the bridge before it was cancelled? That's really brutal, that should be a year at most

[Migrant_Coconut]

What're the odds the eco-study fails the tunnel, or the Tsawwassen Nation throws enough of a fit to force the bridge option? Curiosity - not denial.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

What're the odds the eco-study fails the tunnel, or the Tsawwassen Nation throws enough of a fit to force the bridge option? Curiosity - not denial.

Yeah like what was said above, the 8 lane tunnel has a bigger footprint than some bridge pilings. Besides, wasn't the point of the bridge to allow the Fraser to be dredged deeper?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Yeah like what was said above, the 8 lane tunnel has a bigger footprint than some bridge pilings. Besides, wasn't the point of the bridge to allow the Fraser to be dredged deeper?

That was a one of the reasons just incase that channel became a more utilized shipping channel, it was also to allow dangerous goods to be able to use the crossing.

Also, call me crazy, but when I cycle I mix BC prefer riding my bike high over a river with breathtaking views of surrounding scenery than riding through a submerged tunnel…

Also the weather protection argument of the tunnel doesn’t work here because on either side of it you are riding in the elements for long distances anyways.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

What, an adult isn't allowed to do this?

Of course they are

I was pointing out that while it may be a strange choice to use the tunnel as a pedestrian or to commute via bike from Delta to Vancouver, there are two communities that are less than 4 KMs apart yet the closest connection for non-vehicular traffic is the Alex Fraser Bridge which makes it a 30+ KM journey by bike or foot. The third tunnel (or sidewalks on a bridge if that had been the choice) will be a valuable link for those who are "dumb" and decide to walk or bike.

[Lexus]

Used free shuttle bus last Monday. Trailer can take 8 bikes. It's a lot better to take Translink bus, for many reasons. My photos:

Untitled by Lexus LX570, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus LX570, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus LX570, on Flickr

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I was just referring to the pedestrians that Warren mentioned, though I am curious on their cyclist traffic projections either way.

I don't think it would politically palatable to build another crossing without accommodating bikes and pedestrians. Being that they went with a tunnel, the safety requirement for a 3rd tube is drawing some attention.

If this was a bridge it would obviously have nice wide sidewalks and nobody would care.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

What're the odds the eco-study fails the tunnel, or the Tsawwassen Nation throws enough of a fit to force the bridge option? Curiosity - not denial.

The Tsawwassen Nation chief was at the press conference and it sounds like they're entirely on board with the tunnel.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

what i am most curious about... is safety in that pedestrian tunnel. that is a long way to run away from either an attacker/stalker/drug addict/crazy person.

what about a tent city? would this not be a place to camp out? we cant even remove tents from city park. what about a tunnel many km away from people?

i dont see it being safe or practical.

LOL, yes of course, that explains all those tent cities on Hwy 1.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Lexus

Used free shuttle bus last Monday. Trailer can take 5 bikes.

I think you've miscounted - according to the web site it can take 7 but I actually see 8 racks on the trailer. There may not be 8 seats in the van, though...

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I was pointing out that while it may be a strange choice to use the tunnel as a pedestrian or to commute via bike from Delta to Vancouver, there are two communities that are less than 4 KMs apart yet the closest connection for non-vehicular traffic is the Alex Fraser Bridge which makes it a 30+ KM journey by bike or foot.

Yeah, I think that's exactly why the MOT provides the shuttle service

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

The third tunnel (or sidewalks on a bridge if that had been the choice) will be a valuable link for those who ... decide to walk or bike.

One of the advantages of a tunnel over a bridge for cyclists is that there's substantially less elevation change to deal with. Although I agree that on the whole I'd rather cycle over a bridge than through a tunnel.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The Tsawwassen Nation chief was at the press conference and it sounds like they're entirely on board with the tunnel.

I doubt that the Tsawwassen Indigenous People are unanimous on a tunnel versus a bridge. I recall them previously saying they would not support a project that "touched" the river (which the 10-lane bridge proposal would not have). Is this going to turn into another case of "Elected" versus "Hereditary" leadership opinions?

I'd rather walk/cycle a crossing with a spectacular view as well -- how much is this third tunnel going to cost in addition to the twin vehicle tunnels?

Getting value for money spent is another bugbear here. I guess that bus lane could be converted to HOV in the future -- while its important for buses to have their own free lane, it is a shameful waste of extremely expensive crossing capacity to restrict it to only buses. I'd propose 3+HOV for the entire corridor?