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

[deasine]

^I wonder why...

[go_leafs_go02]

I'm a little concerned that he actually thinks they'll have to block the tunnel 2 years in advance of the bridge being completed in order to open the bridge span.

They may need to do some temporary approaches to the bridge on either end, but the bridge will open very soon after the tunnel closes (likely within hours)

[Denscity]

I don't think you can keep the tunnel as its in the way of larger cargo ships that cant get upstream to the river ports.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

I'm a little concerned that he actually thinks they'll have to block the tunnel 2 years in advance of the bridge being completed in order to open the bridge span.

They may need to do some temporary approaches to the bridge on either end, but the bridge will open very soon after the tunnel closes (likely within hours)

I think he thinks (erroneously?) that the bridge piers / towers cannot be built around the existing tunnel.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by officedweller

From News1130.

I got to thinking - and I think the reason the bridge is depicted so wide is so that bridge tower footings can straddle the existing tunnel without decommissioning the tunnel during construction (are there any other bridges out there with "H" shaped towers where each footing of the "H" is separate from the other)? Or could they build separate footings, open the bridge, demolish the tunnel and then join/brace the footings against each other in a super footing/pier (or would traffic vibrations prevent that (think Second Narrows roadbed)?


http://www.news1130.com/2013/10/07/slow-start-to-george-masseys-sons-petition-to-save-tunnel/

On your quote on the save the tunnel petition, he is only doing that petition because his dad's name is on it. I can't see why they wouldn't call the new bridge the George Massey Bridge in honor of his father.

At the end of the day it is just a tunnel. It is old, it smells, it can't accommodate today's traffic, it isn't deep enough to fully utilize Surrey Fraser Docks, and you can't ship dangerous goods through it. As our main link to the US (outside of 176th), I think a bridge is a good step.

You're right that they are probably making the H sections that wide to accommodate the tunnel under. I still am unsure how they would accomplish building the project with the tunnel still open though seeing as the bridge itself isn't the problem, it is the approaches on either side as evident by the new Port Mann Bridge.

They would need to swing the bridge approaches way over to 1 or the other side on either end and handling Steveston off ramp would be a nightmare if you have a 4 lane tunnel and 10 lane bridge you're trying to accommodate for.

I'd imagine that when they start doing engineering work, you'll find that the bridge will be located up or down stream ending up beside the current tunnel just to make construction easier and more cost effective.

[officedweller]

Thanks - I guess it's wait and see.

I would think that the Steveston Hwy interchange could sit under the north bridge approach since it's pretty close to the river - but that would complicate the interchange. (I could see a roundabout under the bridge approach with some ramps leaving the main bridge deck at the north anchorage)

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by jhausner

On your quote on the save the tunnel petition, he is only doing that petition because his dad's name is on it. I can't see why they wouldn't call the new bridge the George Massey Bridge in honor of his father.

At the end of the day it is just a tunnel. It is old, it smells, it can't accommodate today's traffic, it isn't deep enough to fully utilize Surrey Fraser Docks, and you can't ship dangerous goods through it. As our main link to the US (outside of 176th), I think a bridge is a good step.

You're right that they are probably making the H sections that wide to accommodate the tunnel under. I still am unsure how they would accomplish building the project with the tunnel still open though seeing as the bridge itself isn't the problem, it is the approaches on either side as evident by the new Port Mann Bridge.

They would need to swing the bridge approaches way over to 1 or the other side on either end and handling Steveston off ramp would be a nightmare if you have a 4 lane tunnel and 10 lane bridge you're trying to accommodate for.

I'd imagine that when they start doing engineering work, you'll find that the bridge will be located up or down stream ending up beside the current tunnel just to make construction easier and more cost effective.

Unlike the Portman bridge there is plenty of easy to buy/expropriate land on both ends of the proposed bridge to re route the current highway around the construction zone. The only thing that could cause a minor issue is the ALR designation, although ultimately it should not prevent the land from being used for construction on a temporary bases.

[tybuilding]

The mayors call on the province to review the GMT bridge more: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/BC/ID/2411425733/

[st7860]

This is what they should do instead of another 3 years of talking about it.

- environmental approvals
- design a bridge
- issue contracts/bids
- and then toll it.

[s211]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Yep. Has anyone ever complained that the Granville St. Bridge is too wide?

A smart person would realize that the Granville Street Bridge is the combined traffic of three roads at each end, and not one.

But don't let that dirty little secret get in the way of a little creative license.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by s211

A smart person would realize that the Granville Street Bridge is the combined traffic of three roads at each end, and not one.

But don't let that dirty little secret get in the way of a little creative license.

That doesn't mean that its overbuilt. Maybe all 3 roads leading to the bridge are overbuilt as well. Maybe they can use a trim of the fat.

If a 4 lane road can easily handle up to 40,000 vehicles per day and a 2 lane road can easily handle 20,000 vehicles per day but this 4 lane road only handles less than say 15,000 wouldn't that road be considered overbuilt? If that same road is not built as a complete street, wouldn't it be better to make it so? Who cares if a bridge is actually 3 roads down into one, over built is over built. Excess capacity is really a waste of space is it not? Why not build better pedestrian/cycling facilities then.

If a regular 2 lane road (with turn lanes at major intersections) is carrying over 20,000 vehicles per day it is a candidate for rebuilding for 4 lanes in the City of Surrey.

By building a 10 lane bridge we would expect at least 182,000 vehicles per day, nearly 100,000 more per day than what there is now.

We are building this bridge at a time when North America wide vehicle miles is actually dropping. There is a clear trend in many projects that these mega projects are failing to attract the numbers they were supposed to, Golden Ears bridge is one of them.

Yet we are so gung-ho on building a 10 lane bridge? Why?

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by s211

A smart person would realize that the Granville Street Bridge is the combined traffic of three roads at each end, and not one.

It's actually pretty clever setup, when you think about it. And yet the bridge has plenty of excess capacity at any time of the day. I have never experience a traffic jam on Granville Bridge, which I guess has to do with there being traffic lights on each and every street connecting to it. The lights don't let cars on the bridge fast enough, although it would be a better place to have the cars lining up than on the street network under people's windows.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

That doesn't mean that its overbuilt. Maybe all 3 roads leading to the bridge are overbuilt as well. Maybe they can use a trim of the fat.

If a 4 lane road can easily handle up to 40,000 vehicles per day and a 2 lane road can easily handle 20,000 vehicles per day but this 4 lane road only handles less than say 15,000 wouldn't that road be considered overbuilt? If that same road is not built as a complete street, wouldn't it be better to make it so? Who cares if a bridge is actually 3 roads down into one, over built is over built. Excess capacity is really a waste of space is it not? Why not build better pedestrian/cycling facilities then.

If a regular 2 lane road (with turn lanes at major intersections) is carrying over 20,000 vehicles per day it is a candidate for rebuilding for 4 lanes in the City of Surrey.

By building a 10 lane bridge we would expect at least 182,000 vehicles per day, nearly 100,000 more per day than what there is now.

We are building this bridge at a time when North America wide vehicle miles is actually dropping. There is a clear trend in many projects that these mega projects are failing to attract the numbers they were supposed to, Golden Ears bridge is one of them.

Yet we are so gung-ho on building a 10 lane bridge? Why?

I'd rather something be overbuilt than underbuilt, to a degree. Imagine if they built a six lane bridge to replace the GMT that reached capacity in just a few years. If the Granville Street bridge is indeed overbuilt, then so be it, no need to reduce throughput, especially considering that it already has generous sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. If additional facilities for pedestrians and bicycles is desired, it is possible to build new infrastructure which is something that the CoV seems to have forgotten considering that they seem hell bent on reducing well utilized road corridors for the sake of greenwashing.

BTW, from your last linked article..

Fewer people at work, fewer people driving. It's a simple equation and one that a lot of experts pointed to as explanation for the notable drop in the total miles U.S. motorists clocked during the depths of the recession.

You can't base transportation planning off of a few years of anomalous data owing to a global recession. Also, this makes no mention of Canada or Mexico for that matter. I was unable to find numbers of mileage in Canada for the last few years, but the litres of fuel sold year over year in Canada has continued to climb despite the recession: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/trade37a-eng.htm

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

I'd rather something be overbuilt than underbuilt, to a degree. Imagine if they built a six lane bridge to replace the GMT that reached capacity in just a few years. If the Granville Street bridge is indeed overbuilt, then so be it, no need to reduce throughput, especially considering that it already has generous sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. If additional facilities for pedestrians and bicycles is desired, it is possible to build new infrastructure which is something that the CoV seems to have forgotten considering that they seem hell bent on reducing well utilized road corridors for the sake of greenwashing.

BTW, from your last linked article..

You can't base transportation planning off of a few years of anomalous data owing to a global recession. Also, this makes no mention of Canada or Mexico for that matter. I was unable to find numbers of mileage in Canada for the last few years, but the litres of fuel sold year over year in Canada has continued to climb despite the recession: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/trade37a-eng.htm

And the number of vehices registered in the City of Vancouver (let alone Metro) continues to climb, which is a dirty little secret the Gordon Prices of the world don't mention when they crow about the supposed drop in vehicle traffic downtown.

[Zassk]

The next baby boom is currently 5 years old (and less). In 15 years they will all be driving on the crossings that we build today and in the next few years. We know this is coming, there is no guess work to it. The number if drivers will go up again, significantly, right while this infrastructure is in its prime.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by Zassk

The next baby boom is currently 5 years old (and less).

I'm not sure where you're sourcing that from, because Statistics Canada does not agree (you'll need to change the geographic regions and dates in that table). The number of births in Greater Vancouver has been more or less constant around 22000-23000/year since 1996.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by s211

A smart person would realize that the Granville Street Bridge is the combined traffic of three roads at each end, and not one. But don't let that dirty little secret get in the way of a little creative license

I guess you're talking about the southbound lanes, 'cause I count only two roads with a grand total of 5 lanes joining the bridge northbound. But because of the roughly 50% duty cycle of the traffic lights on the connecting streets those 5 lanes only account for an equivalent of 2.5 lanes of continuous traffic being fed onto the bridge. Same basic story at the other end, too.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

You can't base transportation planning off of a few years of anomalous data owing to a global recession. Also, this makes no mention of Canada or Mexico for that matter. I was unable to find numbers of mileage in Canada for the last few years, but the litres of fuel sold year over year in Canada has continued to climb despite the recession: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/trade37a-eng.htm

While I agree with you, this also has to deal with an aging population. A lower portion of the population will be working due to the wave of boomers retiring.

I think a bigger factor that people aren't counting on is that EVs will lower the cost of driving, vastly reduce noise and eliminate most point sources of emissions. In an analysis I've done recently, an EV is already much cheaper than it's gas counterpart, as such I will be picking one up in the near future.

People always complain basically are noise, fumes and that it's bloody expensive to own a car in Vancouver. All 3 of those pretty much go out the window with decent EVs, that are coming down in price and will continue to do so.

The big issues that are left to address after that are the costs of parking, infrastructure and making sure that people get enough exercise as not to be a burden on the medical system.

[WarrenC12]

I don't have a problem with a big GMT replacement (8+ lanes), but there is zero emphasis on transit for this bridge. Remember the early PMB concept with rail transit?

The frustration here is that the BC government is completely ignoring transit.

Golden Ears Bridge - under projections
PMB - under projections

Canada Line - way over projection
99 B line - continues to be a huge pain point

More bridges? Sure, no problem. Announced with no transit, and no toll mentioned
More transit? Requires a referendum, question to be something like "Do you want to pay more tax?" Good luck.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I don't have a problem with a big GMT replacement (8+ lanes), but there is zero emphasis on transit for this bridge. Remember the early PMB concept with rail transit?

The frustration here is that the BC government is completely ignoring transit.

Golden Ears Bridge - under projections
PMB - under projections

Canada Line - way over projection
99 B line - continues to be a huge pain point

More bridges? Sure, no problem. Announced with no transit, and no toll mentioned
More transit? Requires a referendum, question to be something like "Do you want to pay more tax?" Good luck.

I'm totally for more transit across the city, no question, but to all advocating more transit on this bridge, what exactly do you want?

The bridge links farmland to farmland. The most sensible thing to do would be run express busses that link up to the Canada line, which is clearly feasible with the HOV lane shown in the rendering.

No way skytrain makes sense, and any commuter rail will need much more planning than just a bridge.