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

[Metro-One]

I am sorry, but that is a BS argument. I am against tolling old, unsafe, inadequate infrastructure just to reduce congestion. That is very economically irresponsible.

That is the same as saying "just double the fair to use the 99 B-line and we don't need to build skytrain!"

Sure it may fix the congestion problem, but at the cost of the region's economic health.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I am sorry, but that is a BS argument. I am against tolling old, unsafe, inadequate infrastructure just to reduce congestion. That is very economically irresponsible.

I'd say what's equally economically irresponsible is to build giant infrastructure that will be paid for with tolls, that ends up being over built, behind budget, and draining money from other projects.

Examples: Port Mann Bridge, Golden Ears Bridge.

So before we go building yet another vastly expanded piece of infrastructure, it would be worth seeing what the difference in traffic volumes are once tolls are introduced.

[Metro-One]

Exactly, we should double the fare for the 99 Bline and seeing what ridership is before investing billions in a subway that we have to subsidize.

And sorry, the GEB is a weak example, the bridge volumes are pretty healthy and it was a needed link between the NE part of the metro and Surrey / Langley. The only mistake of that project was Translink banking on tolls to pay for the capital.

Never ever expect tolls or passenger revenue to pay off the capital on transit / road projects. Thats it, that was the only mistake (and the capital should have been provided by the province, not Translink).

And how is the Port Mann Bridge draining resources?

I always love this either or argument.

Believe it or not, but this is actually what turns people off from funding transit is this attitude.

While not always eye to eye I respect people such as Aberdeen5698's opinion because it is far more leveled headed.

Yes, major transit projects should be funded by the province (and feds) and given the same priority as this project, but these tunnels do need to by replaced and simply slapping tolls on them is a terrible idea. I guess if people n Van love retarding the economy then go for it!

And the 99 B-Line fare increase is meant to be silly because that is how silly your idea sounds.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

And how is the Port Mann Bridge draining resources?

Well, traffic volumes on the Port Mann have been falling for a decade, yet billions have been spent to increase its capacity. Since fewer people are driving across the new bridge than were driving across the old one, it shouldn't be too hard to understand why some people think that the money could have been better spent elsewhere.

When I compare the below-forecast usage of our newest bridges with the above-forecast usage of our newest Skytrain line, I really have to ask myself why our money is being spent the way it is.

[Metro-One]

Again, I am not completely against you, as I really do wish that the province would fund transit projects in the same manner as they are funding bridge projects, but I feel many people do get very confused regarding the price of the Port Mann. Many assume that the 3 billion was for just the bridge itself, when indeed the 3 billion was for the massive upgrade of the entire 30km+ stretch of highway 1, which included many massive interchange improvements (all of them needed regarding how old the previous interchange designs were).

Again, people like Warren though will never be happy with any type of road project / outcome it seems. Therefore when people become that extreme I find their view to be null and void. The same way I feel towards someone who treats transit or even bike infrastructure that way.

If the GEB / Port Mann were to have had above estimate usage, then all we would here is "they are just building for more congestion, you cant build your way out of traffic, it has just encouraged people to drive, etc..." Below estimates it becomes "see, we didn't need this new bridge, etc..." Their negative opinion was already decided despite the outcome, that is what makes it funny.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Exactly, we should double the fare for the 99 Bline and seeing what ridership is before investing billions in a subway that we have to subsidize.

My argument was tongue in cheek and apparently went way over your head.

Changing the fare structure for the 99 B-Line doesn't make sense, since the Skytrain line would cost the same as it does for the bus today.

If you are suggesting there will be no fare change between the GMT and the new bridge, you haven't been paying attention.

We can make all the predictions we want about GMT traffic, but the evidence suggests that traffic volumes will drop dramatically for a route when tolls are introduced, even when that route has vastly superior infrastructure and provides a faster trip.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Again, people like Warren though will never be happy with any type of road project / outcome it seems. Therefore when people become that extreme I find their view to be null and void. The same way I feel towards someone who treats transit or even bike infrastructure that way.

Stop making unfounded assumptions about how I think. Please use facts in your arguments.

[makr3trkr]

If traffic is modestly decreasing year over year at the tunnel, some of that is almost certainly due to people avoiding the crossing because of the congestion in the first place.

A replacement Massey could cut travel times in half, and fair tolling will prevent crossings increasing to meet capacity without forcing too many people to use the Alex Fraser.

The price difference between a 6 and an 8 lane crossing is on the order of 10%, and the extra lane is not so much about capacity as it is about safety and flow (large trucks merging at the bridgehead).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

If traffic is modestly decreasing year over year at the tunnel, some of that is almost certainly due to people avoiding the crossing because of the congestion in the first place.

Well of course. People "pay" to use the tunnel with their time. If a higher capacity replacement bridge is tolled, then some people will avoid it (or be more selective about their trips) because of the explicit cost instead. If nothing else, the declining traffic on the uncongested, higher-capacity but tolled Port Mann has demonstrated that people are no more willing to pay cash to cross the bridge than they are to waste their time in a lineup.

Therefore, one has to ask the question: why bother spending all the money to build new crossings with more lanes when tolls on the existing infrastructure can pretty much do the same thing and actually produce a net revenue stream at the same time?

Of course it's political suicide to impose a toll out of the blue. Spending a billion or so on a new bridge provides a convenient excuse to impose tolls, although it's not necessarily the best use of the money.

Of course the Massey Tunnel is a bit different than the Port Mann because (like the Patullo) it's near end-of-life and so something has to be done anyway. But if nothing else the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges should teach us that (a) the traffic forecasters are not to be believed and therefore (b) 10 lanes is way overkill.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

have they actually decided on a size yet? 8 or 10? or is it more just rumors/wishful-thinking at this point? i was looking around the MOT's website and didn't see any announcement on what size they have chosen yet.

[ssiguy]

Stingray2004.......

Yes, traffic slows down during the tunnel but on each side of the tunnel it comes to a screeching halt.

There should be 2 sets of tunnels..........express and local. The local would be for strictly for people getting on at Steveston and going over to SoF. From the other side, one tunnel would be strictly for Steveston bound traffic. In other words, 4 lanes thruway and 4 lanes of a new tunnel for a Steveston/River Road connector.

The province {and the developers/construction companies} have already decided on a bridge, by that pathetic little "report", that is quite obvious. No matter what happens, people SoF will end up getting stung for yet another toll while those NoF get away scot free such as the fortune spent on the Sea to Sky to cater to the wealthy going skiing for the weekend.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The province {and the developers/construction companies} have already decided on a bridge, by that pathetic little "report", that is quite obvious. No matter what happens, people SoF will end up getting stung for yet another toll while those NoF get away scot free such as the fortune spent on the Sea to Sky to cater to the wealthy going skiing for the weekend.

Both north shore bridges were tolled. I would love another tolled bridge with more than 1.5 lanes.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The province {and the developers/construction companies} have already decided on a bridge, by that pathetic little "report", that is quite obvious. No matter what happens, people SoF will end up getting stung for yet another toll while those NoF get away scot free such as the fortune spent on the Sea to Sky to cater to the wealthy going skiing for the weekend.

People in Surrey were asked if they would support a toll to replace the PMB. They were overwhelmingly in favour. Short memories.

Then there's the toll-free SFPR...

[memememe76]

Where are these polls where Surrey residents clamoured for tolls? I sure didn't want them.

[bardak]

I'll be honest I don't expect too much public transit wise. My best case scenario would be moving the bus/HOV lanes on the 99 from the oak street bridge to KGB into the centre lane. Add a couple BRT stations at Cambie, to connect to the 410, Stevenson to connect to the 401/403/404 and at 17A so that South Delta service can be increased by adding some short turns to connect to the 351.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by memememe76

Where are these polls where Surrey residents clamoured for tolls? I sure didn't want them.

Don't have a link, but studies were conducted in which people were asked if they would support a toll if that was required to fund a PMB replacement. The yes vote was around 65-70%.

This was probably in about 2004.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Both north shore bridges were tolled.

This is frequently forgotten when tolls are discussed.

Let us not forget the true "price" of the 1962 ban on tolls: we basically stopped building bridges for a generation after that.

All of today's infrastructure deficiencies can be traced back to the 1962 ban on tolls. To me, the lesson is obvious.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by Zassk

This is frequently forgotten when tolls are discussed.

Let us not forget the true "price" of the 1962 ban on tolls: we basically stopped building bridges for a generation after that.

All of today's infrastructure deficiencies can be traced back to the 1962 ban on tolls. To me, the lesson is obvious.

Wasn't the idea of a toll floated to be used to fund a tunnel or larger bridge to replace the lions gate. It still boggles my mind that they spent all the money to replace the bridge deck and not add an extra lane at the very least.

I do believe that any new crossings should be funded by tolls. Maybe they should be considering lower tolls (one dollar) instead of 3-5 dollars. The other thing that could be considered and Denmark does this is offer a tax write-off for the cost of getting to work? Maybe even just for tolls.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by theKB

The other thing that could be considered and Denmark does this is offer a tax write-off for the cost of getting to work? Maybe even just for tolls.

That's a great idea.

[Pinion]

My boss noticed some Surrey-based companies have started adding Port Mann crossing fees to their invoices.