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

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by bloomtronzero

That was always the plan, yea. It was "fine, 4 lanes, with 2 more for transit" like the Port Mann. The transit lanes are just to quell complaints before construction, and immediately turned into car lanes once it opens. I mean, what would the point of transit lanes on the Patullo be anyways? The SkyTrain is right there.

There are 4 lanes, with none for transit. There are also pedestrian and bike lanes, separated from motorized traffic by a fixed barrier. The structure is designed to potentially take the weight of additional out-rigger pedestrian and bike lanes that in turn could see the existing lanes repurposed for vehicles, but there are no plans for that to happen.

It would not be a cheap, or quick operation, and there's a provincial commitment that "Expansion to six lanes would be put into place only after consultation among the Province, Indigenous groups, the cities of New Westminster and Surrey and the Mayors’ Council."

Two of the project objectives are:
• Minimize single-occupancy vehicle use and vehicle kilometers travelled.
• Move toward the regional goal that, by 2040, half of all trips will be by walking, cycling or transit.

Building additional capacity for more cars wouldn't help meet those. [source document here]

[whatnext]

Surprised nobody mentioned Kevin Falcon's cringeworthy "imaginary ribbon cutting" stunt for the Bridge they wanted as a tunnel replacement yesterday. All he needed was a loud plaid sportscoat and it would have been the 1970s all over again.

[libtard]

So because this new tunnel will be up to modern standards does that mean it will have wide shoulders on either side? Currently there are no shoulders in the existing tunnel

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by libtard

So because this new tunnel will be up to modern standards does that mean it will have wide shoulders on either side? Currently there are no shoulders in the existing tunnel

why would there be? when have we ever had shoulders on any of our bridges/tunnels/etc? even the new ones.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

why would there be? when have we ever had shoulders on any of our bridges/tunnels/etc? even the new ones.

How can they claim it will be up to modern standards then? So the new tunnel will have no shoulders just like the current tunnel?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by libtard

How can they claim it will be up to modern standards then? So the new tunnel will have no shoulders just like the current tunnel?

What modern standard are you talking about? The Port Mann doesnt have shoulders.

[Lexus]

Originally Posted by chowhou

What modern standard are you talking about? The Port Mann doesnt have shoulders.

Wow. I even went on Google Street View to see myself. Indeed it doesn’t. I’m really surprised about this fact.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Lexus

Wow. I even went on Google Street View to see myself. Indeed it doesn’t. I’m really surprised about this fact.

I agree it’s shameful how there weren’t any shoulders built on that bridge. Especially when compared to other large bridges built around the same time period.

New Oakland Bay Bridge


Picture found at AmericanBridge.net
https://www.americanbridge.net/featured-...kland-bay-self-anchored-suspension-span/


New Governor Mario Cuomo Bridge

Picture found at https://www.hdrinc.com/portfolio/governor-mario-m-cuomo-bridge-tappan-zee-bridge-replacement

It’s a shame we skimp on modern standards with our infrastructure. Hell we still have porta-johns sitting on the Port Mann

Hopefully we can get at least ONE project right. The new Patullo should have 1 shoulder on it. Better than the norm


Picture found at DailyHive https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/pattullo-bridge-construction-tower-foundation

Ideally for the new Massey Tunnel we see something like what was built in Seattle with the new Alaskan Way Tunnel. It was built with quite a large shoulder


Picture found at HistoryLink.org https://www.historylink.org/File/20945

Knowing the way we value engineer our infrastructure though, I’m not holding my breath

[CivicBlues]

Port Mann doesn't have shoulders because they'd have to build two sets. One for the thru lanes and one for the local lanes.

Which raises another question, why can't we have a bridge that's just 5 general purpose lanes wide? I realize their rationale was to prevent traffic weaving but the Bay Bridge is like that, and it appears that one in NY is the same as well. Is it not an issue there? Are BC drivers just idiots? (don't answer that) You'd think if there was an accident on one side it wouldn't completely mess up the bridge but why do we need barriers in order to lock us into an exit decision almost a km back?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by libtard

Ideally for the new Massey Tunnel we see something like what was built in Seattle with the new Alaskan Way Tunnel. It was built with quite a large shoulder

That looks exactly like the original configuration of the Cassiar Tunnel, which was designed and built to accommodate 3 lanes but opened with 2 lanes and a shoulder. Just wait - that shoulder in the Alaskan Way tunnel will be turned into an additional traffic lane sooner or later.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That looks exactly like the original configuration of the Cassiar Tunnel, which was designed and built to accommodate 3 lanes but opened with 2 lanes and a shoulder. Just wait - that shoulder in the Alaskan Way tunnel will be turned into an additional traffic lane sooner or later.

Negative. The whole project was about reducing traffic in the area by demolishing the old Alaskan way viaduct and turning it into a surface boulevard. They arent worried about increasing lane count. Cassiar tunnel is different because it expanded the lanes on highway 1. Highway reduction vs. Highway expansion

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by libtard

Negative. The whole project was about reducing traffic in the area by demolishing the old Alaskan way viaduct and turning it into a surface boulevard. They arent worried about increasing lane count. Cassiar tunnel is different because it expanded the lanes on highway 1. Highway reduction vs. Highway expansion

The whole project had nothing to do with reducing traffic. "In February 2001, a 6.8 magnitude earthquake struck near Seattle, causing several foundations of the Alaskan Way Viaduct to shift as much as five inches. Engineers believe the viaduct would have collapsed had the earthquake lasted a few moments longer. During the next decade, state and local agencies studied more than 90 alternatives to replace the aging viaduct, which carried SR 99 through Seattle. In 2009, a deep-bored tunnel was chosen. One of the advantages of this option was that it allowed the viaduct, which remained safe for daily use, to remain open during most of tunnel construction." [WSDOT]. As well as the tolled tunnel there's also a new street, with two lanes of traffic in either direction for the majority of the street.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The whole project had nothing to do with reducing traffic. "In February 2001, a 6.8 magnitude earthquake struck near Seattle, causing several foundations of the Alaskan Way Viaduct to shift as much as five inches. Engineers believe the viaduct would have collapsed had the earthquake lasted a few moments longer. During the next decade, state and local agencies studied more than 90 alternatives to replace the aging viaduct, which carried SR 99 through Seattle. In 2009, a deep-bored tunnel was chosen. One of the advantages of this option was that it allowed the viaduct, which remained safe for daily use, to remain open during most of tunnel construction." [WSDOT]. As well as the tolled tunnel there's also a new street, with two lanes of traffic in either direction for the majority of the street.

Either way, it did reduce traffic since the viaduct was 3 lanes each direction and the new tunnel is only 2 lanes each direction. The article also states the new street is 2 lanes of traffic in either direction, so the chances of them expanding the tunnel to 3 lanes when the road it feeds is only 2 lanes is 0%. That’s simply not in the plans

[libtard]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

Port Mann doesn't have shoulders because they'd have to build two sets. One for the thru lanes and one for the local lanes.

Interesting. Why couldn’t they just build shoulders on the outsides. This would at least give 1 shoulder to the through lanes (on the inside) and 1 shoulder for the collector lanes (on the outside). The other bridges seemed to be able to construct them no problem

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

politics; it is always politics.

look at the GMT replacement and the PMB replacement. trying to do ANYTHING with roads here is like trying to dig through a stone wall with a spoon. good luck with that. the PMB happened with lots of whining, as expected, but they got it done as minimally as they could while still being a good project. so that means it has the 4 GP lanes, but there wont be any extras to be had. compare that to the GMT. you had the dumbass NDP cancel an economically good project to replace it with a crappy ass project, that'll take a decade longer AT LEAST and cost AT LEAST 1 Billion more dollars, for a lot less on top of it. why win, when we can ALL loose!

now look at the PTB replacement. we have another stupid idea right there. and once again, politics. you have dumbasses making decisions.

so as usual, its politics. the NDP in charge of these latest projects, that have killed them more or less, literally stood up infront of the people and said "oh gas is expensive? lmfao sucks to be you. drive less!"

no sense trying to make sense of any of this. because when it comes to this, there is no sense nor is there any logic. all there is, is...

politics!

[libtard]

One thing we can all agree on about the new tunnel is it will be less steep than the approaches of a new bridge so less gas spent on the ascent / descent

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by libtard

One thing we can all agree on about the new tunnel is it will be less steep than the approaches of a new bridge so less gas spent on the ascent / descent

... and the shallower slope is also the reason that truck climbing lanes are not required, so that dropped one lane each way.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by officedweller

... and the shallower slope is also the reason that truck climbing lanes are not required, so that dropped one lane each way.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

politics; it is always politics.

look at the GMT replacement and the PMB replacement. trying to do ANYTHING with roads here is like trying to dig through a stone wall with a spoon. good luck with that. the PMB happened with lots of whining, as expected, but they got it done as minimally as they could while still being a good project. so that means it has the 4 GP lanes, but there wont be any extras to be had. compare that to the GMT. you had the dumbass NDP cancel an economically good project to replace it with a crappy ass project, that'll take a decade longer AT LEAST and cost AT LEAST 1 Billion more dollars, for a lot less on top of it. why win, when we can ALL loose!

now look at the PTB replacement. we have another stupid idea right there. and once again, politics. you have dumbasses making decisions.

so as usual, its politics. the NDP in charge of these latest projects, that have killed them more or less, literally stood up infront of the people and said "oh gas is expensive? lmfao sucks to be you. drive less!"

no sense trying to make sense of any of this. because when it comes to this, there is no sense nor is there any logic. all there is, is...

politics!

I happened to be in a meeting with metro Van bridge infrastructure managers and they were unaware that there was going to be a new bridge when it came to the tunnel. There has been geotechnical and design studies done up till the original press release saying that a bridge would not be economically viable do to the baring capiacity of the soil. When the NDP were elected the bridge was barely even beyond the preliminary design stage, and had just shortlisted 3P partners. So not a bridge under construction.

THe. Patello bridge under the Liberals was given to translilnk to deal with because the liberals had no money to tackle it because they ended up having to self fiancé the port Mann project when in 2010 Mcquire pulled out of the 3 P project.

If I recall there has been a lot of bitching about the conditions of the roads on marginal lands. As the liberals went with the cheapest option and now you see complete failure of 10 year old infrastructure. Currently rebuilding Nordel interchange and highway 17. Kensington is failure.

I guess the NDP are the bad guys for listening to the managers of the infrastructure instead of the corporations that are donating big bucks to campaigns.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

'officially'