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

[makr3trkr]

http://www.delta-optimist.com/opinion/light-gets-bit-brighter-every-day-1.1018365

" ... the project director for the George Massey Tunnel replacement did confirm last week that everything is on schedule to have a new bridge in place by 2022.

[Geoff] Freer admitted it was long thought that a new crossing of the south arm of the river would simply transfer the congestion and result in longer lineups for the Oak Street Bridge, but those close to the situation don't believe that to be the case anymore.

He said less than half the traffic that goes through the tunnel actually ends up in Vancouver, so while a new bridge would serve city-bound commuters, it would also accommodate a considerable volume that stays in the Richmond-Delta-Surrey corridor.

[...] Freer said they're looking at both eight-and 10-lane configurations and it will definitely be built to accommodate light rail."

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

http://www.delta-optimist.com/opinion/light-gets-bit-brighter-every-day-1.1018365

" ... the project director for the George Massey Tunnel replacement did confirm last week that everything is on schedule to have a new bridge in place by 2022.

I am awed by the cost efficiency and speed if the ambition is to complete a bridge in only 8.75 years after spending has begun.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Genauso

I am awed by the cost efficiency and speed if the ambition is to complete a bridge in only 8.75 years after spending has begun.

What "spending" has been done exactly, other than a few road signs and a press conference?

I'm awed by the fact that yet another bridge is being proposed when the last 2 are still under their usage projections.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm awed by the fact that yet another bridge is being proposed when the last 2 are still under their usage projections.

The number of cars crossing other bridges is immaterial. Either the tunnel is at risk and near end-of-life, or it is not. A tunnel is not like the Patullo where we can ignore it and it will still function for an extra 40 years.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Zassk

The number of cars crossing other bridges is immaterial. Either the tunnel is at risk and near end-of-life, or it is not. A tunnel is not like the Patullo where we can ignore it and it will still function for an extra 40 years.

Sure. I suppose I was referring more to the "10 lane" plan. If it could survive another 20 years with maintenance, that's worth looking at too...

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Sure. I suppose I was referring more to the "10 lane" plan. If it could survive another 20 years with maintenance, that's worth looking at too...

my guess it has a lot to do with how much the maintaining it will cost. the older it is, the more money they need to spend. in the long run it is cheaper to build a new bridge now that will be good for 75-100 years with little maintenance costs.

that tunnel isn't looking so good at all though. it really does need to be replaced. the only reason it lasted so long though was because of the 91/AFB. now with the new SFPR i feel that a new bridge would be quite good for trucks as well. since a lot of the GMT traffic is trucks.

[Pinion]

I'll never understand why anyone would be against a bridge that is a little bigger than currently necessary. It will be necessary eventually, and the alternative is an inevitable Lions Gate-like situation where no one is willing to commit political suicide to expand it.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I'll never understand why anyone would be against a bridge that is a little bigger than currently necessary. It will be necessary eventually, and the alternative is an inevitable Lions Gate-like situation where no one is willing to commit political suicide to expand it.

Its because those would rather see available funding diverted to projects like LRT in Surrey or the Broadway Line.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Its because those would rather see available funding diverted to projects like LRT in Surrey or the Broadway Line.

It doesn't really work like that though. It should, but in reality there isn't some fixed amount of funding that we all have to divide up. e.g. My hood needs a widened/new crossing but that won't happen until Massey is done, so I'm in favour of it for that reason. And of course the fact that it's actually needed for local residents and industry.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

my guess it has a lot to do with how much the maintaining it will cost. the older it is, the more money they need to spend. in the long run it is cheaper to build a new bridge now that will be good for 75-100 years with little maintenance costs.

The old maintenance costs argument... same one being used to tear down the Georgia Viaducts.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I think a replacement is needed for the GMT, but not at the level proposed.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I'll never understand why anyone would be against a bridge that is a little bigger than currently necessary. It will be necessary eventually, and the alternative is an inevitable Lions Gate-like situation where no one is willing to commit political suicide to expand it.

Yes.. that would be in the 6-8 lane area, not 10.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

this bridge has nothing to do with Translink, so it wont effect Translink's own funding for projects. and the province isn't taking money from possible funding for transit and putting it for the GMT/B. you said 6-8 is a good replacement, well they are looking at 8-10. all infrastructure should be over built. or you will just have to replace it in another few decades. build it to last for 75-100 years and you save a lot of time, money, and hassle.

of course maintenance is a factor. it will always be a factor since it cost lots of money to maintain things.

you cant just look at initial purchasing costs when wanting to replace something. it needs to be an economical thing. and the province has a lot more information on what the tunnel is really costing/projected to cost. it is also a major choke point for traffic and transit since buses use the route. and in an earthquake, you better hope no one is in there.

the tunnel is just not worth keeping around for much longer, it has out lived out its usefulness. an added bonus is that the new crossing will have light-rail capabilities, something which the tunnel will never have.

so, there really is no point in keeping the tunnel around at all with a new bridge. which i am glad to see will go along. it is long overdue.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

...an added bonus is that the new crossing will have light-rail capabilities, something which the tunnel will never have.

That carrot was also used to sell the Port Mann Bridge, but somehow over the course of design and construction that capability was (quietly) eliminated. That gives me zero faith in this claim for the tunnel replacement.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Sure. I suppose I was referring more to the "10 lane" plan. If it could survive another 20 years with maintenance, that's worth looking at too...

Easy to say when you don't have to drive that stretch every single day. I know it is impossible but I'd challenge you to every day drive out to South Surrey during rush hour either morning of evening for just a week to see how hellish it is along Hwy99. When you're on your way back through the tunnel towards Vancouver at 5pm and it takes you (and I am not kidding here) 45 minutes to drive 2km, then we'll see how "worth looking into" maintaining it for 20 years really is.



Just Northbound. Check out the right side, 5 lanes (6 if you count the other side of 17a) going into 1 lane and today is a good day. That's just to the 2km mark from the tunnel (2km end of line to the tunnel). Typically it is backed up like that aka cars are NOT MOVING at all even further beyond the dump curve. And yes those cars on the right are not moving.

Southbound for a good 2-3 hours the traffic is bumper to bumper @ 10kph from the tunnel all the way to Westminster Highway and that's with 2 lanes + an HOV.

Again easy to say when you don't have to commute every single day through that stupid thing.

I mean that picture above is just awesome for the environment and awesome for people that are stuck in traffic for 1.5 to 2 hours along a commute that with no traffic would normally take 30-40 minutes tops.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That carrot was also used to sell the Port Mann Bridge, but somehow over the course of design and construction that capability was (quietly) eliminated. That gives me zero faith in this claim for the tunnel replacement.

Who cares if it has LRT or not. Not every single bridge on the planet is built with LRT or train tracks. Why? Because most of our transit in the region and in the world is done through these things called busses that drive on these things called roads. You'd also never build a bridge anywhere if that were the requirement. Should the new bridge in Kelowna have been built without LRT? What about the twinning of bridges in Prince George? Should that have LRT?

Some people on these forums are being completely unrealistic about this "there should be LRT on bridges." Why? Name 1 road bridge in Metro Vancouver that has LRT on it today even SkyTrain.

I'll save you the trouble... that's a big none out of 14 major bridges.

I actually think putting LRT on the bridge is a massive waste of time because you have to engineer the bridge differently and you're forcing yourself into a specific type of transit for the future and ultimately deciding you MUST put trains along that route because if you don't it is a "waste of money." Busses serve South Delta and South Surrey well right now along that corridor and the efforts should be made to not improving transit along HWY99 but rather encouraging people South of Fraser to commute towards Surrey Central and along that route.

You also have an average income along HWY99 of 150,000+ combined so most people that live in South Surrey and South Delta wouldn't adventure onto transit in the first place. I've pointed this out a million times. It is no different than building LRT to West Vancouver. Most people in West Vancouver would never jump on a bus or SkyTrain ever. LRT is a complete waste of time and space along HWY99 imo for at least the next 20 years and while it may be a good idea to build the bridge thinking maybe about the future beyond that, I won't lose sleep if it doesn't happen. I'll be well into my 50s when that happens and quite frankly a lot can happen in 20 years. In 20 years cars will probably not pollute anymore getting us off this obsession with them being products of the devil.

Quite frankly the only reason he is saying the "LRT" buzz word is to quiet up detractors that have a the fixation that all road infrastructure must be built with 50% being transit oriented like any other city (read that as none) in the world does that.

I'm actually glad they decided with the current Port Mann not to include LRT because quite frankly they wouldn't have built it in the next 20 years anyway the speed transit gets constructed in this city. 15 years just to get Evergreen for example. And Surrey is still waiting for an extension 20 years later. Even the Broadway run, a stretch almost everyone agrees on that is in absolute need for train transit is already 7 years into the discussion without a single RFP put out to tender.

Unfortunately it seems a lot of people live in fantasy worlds. There is a huge difference between utopia and what reality actually ends up being.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Who cares if it has LRT or not. Not every single bridge on the planet is built with LRT or train tracks. Why? Because most of our transit in the region and in the world is done through these things called busses that drive on these things called roads. You'd also never build a bridge anywhere if that were the requirement. Should the new bridge in Kelowna have been built without LRT? What about the twinning of bridges in Prince George? Should that have LRT?

Some people on these forums are being completely unrealistic about this "there should be LRT on bridges." Why? Name 1 road bridge in Metro Vancouver that has LRT on it today even SkyTrain.

I'll save you the trouble... that's a big none out of 14 major bridges.

I actually think putting LRT on the bridge is a massive waste of time because you have to engineer the bridge differently and you're forcing yourself into a specific type of transit for the future and ultimately deciding you MUST put trains along that route because if you don't it is a "waste of money."

I'm actually glad they decided with the current Port Mann not to include LRT because quite frankly they wouldn't have built it in the next 20 years anyway the speed transit gets constructed in this city. 15 years just to get Evergreen for example. And Surrey is still waiting for an extension 20 years later. Even the Broadway run, a stretch almost everyone agrees on that is in absolute need for train transit is already 7 years into the discussion without a single RFP put out to tender.

Unfortunately it seems a lot of people live in fantasy worlds. There is a huge difference between utopia and what reality actually ends up being.

My thoughts exactly. Running LRT down Highway 99 would be a giant waste of money. Buses will more than suffice for a long, long time.

*************

Traffic has eased considerably through the tunnel since the opening of the SFPR, but it still has occasional traffic jams. I think 4-5 lanes (one of which would be an HOV) is the perfect number.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Who cares if it has LRT or not.

Then people need to stop claiming that the GMT replacement will have LRT as if that somehow justifies 10 lanes.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Then people need to stop claiming that the GMT replacement will have LRT as if that somehow justifies 10 lanes.

Since trucks can't take LRT, those extra two lanes would at least provide sufficient capacity for goods movers in the future. The bridge expansion, even to 10 lanes, isn't all about the commuters.

Many businesses will also expand warehouses or production capacity to match demand forces and growth. The same logic applies to regional transportation when there is economic and population growth beyond existing capacity.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That carrot was also used to sell the Port Mann Bridge, but somehow over the course of design and construction that capability was (quietly) eliminated. That gives me zero faith in this claim for the tunnel replacement.

Wouldn't call it a carrot. And while you are at it, the Alex Fraser Bridge was also "designed" for LRT as it's "3rd lane" in each direction back in the early '80's. Yep!!!

You also obviously don't take the GMT on a regular basis. Quite obviously actually. And likely have no idea of the residential development now occurring (and more importantly, will be occurring in the South Surrey area).

In any event, the new GMT replacement will be 1 HOV lane in each direction, 3 GP lanes, and an auxiliary lane for bridgehead-entering traffic. Makes common sense. The Alex Fraser Bridge should have been built at least with an 8-lane cross-section based upon all of the lanes funneling traffic at each end of the bridgehead. Another example of failed foresight.

Hell, Vancouver's False Creek has a combined ~20 bridge-lanes crossing in relatively close proximity - without HOV lanes. What's up with that?!

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

You also obviously don't take the GMT on a regular basis. Quite obviously actually. And likely have no idea of the residential development now occurring (and more importantly, will be occurring in the South Surrey area).

You don't even have to do it regularly. My wife and I drove down to White Rock a few times looking for a non-rainy place to take a walk and ended up looking at condo showhomes, then we got stuck in three separate horrible traffic jams on the way home, in non-peak hours, and decided living that far south would never be a desirable option as long as we both work near Burrard inlet.