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

[theKB]

Originally Posted by Pinion

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

I'm sorry but adding fuel surcharges or anything else on top of your price is just gouging since 99.9% of the time a smart business will calculate the costs into their base price and then add on the surcharge after if they can hose their customers for that.

IF you have ever negotiated rates with shipping companies you know all the "extra's" are just that... extra's

[ssiguy]

There are a couple things that bother people down here.

First, a lot don't have a problem paying tolls but the rates they charge are outrageous.
Seriously, a 0.5km bridge is $3 and small wonder the truckers avoid it at $9 a pop. Hell they even charge motorcycles $1.50.

Second, it seems patently unfair that the PM is a toll on an existing piece of infrastructure. The toll is in place because the province let the road rot for 40 years with no major upgrades except for HOV. This is the same as the tunnel. These are just improvements to current highways and yet the Sea to Sky which cost a King's ransom and carries a fraction the amount of traffic doesn't cost the wealthy skiers a damn cent for 150km of upgraded road.

If the people SoF have to contribute to Translink which offers inferior service down here then it is only fair that the people NoF help with the roads down here. If the region truly is a region then costs like this should be covered regionally.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This is the same as the tunnel. These are just improvements to current highways and yet the Sea to Sky which cost a King's ransom and carries a fraction the amount of traffic doesn't cost the wealthy skiers a damn cent for 150km of upgraded road.

Sea to Sky highway was originally constructed in mind with a toll when it was built for the Olympics. But it met with unpopular sentiments by businesses in the Whistler/Squamish Area

If you read the link below, there have been some in the media who have speculated it s financed as a shadow toll. invisible to the public. In this system the govt pays a concessionaire a fee based on the usage by vehicles. Your tax dollars fund this. Soin essence its a toll road

Now keep in mind Sea to Sky was done as requested by the IOC, not because it was unsafe for the general public to drive on but bc it was a requirement to land the Olympics. So the govt was forced to spend money to bring it up to modern standards. Even with all the money, the government still cut corners.

It is still to this day even with the millions and millions of dollars spent looks like it was ( I would hate to say it) half assed. Lets face it BC will always underfund road construction. No matter which political outfit is in charge. And you can tell where they cut corners....Signage, right of way, striping, lighting etc....

I always used to think the govt didn't want another I-5 type of structure running through their neck of the woods. I still do believe part of that hyperbole. Say you remove America from thh standards of highway construction, but look at countries with similar or less populations that manage to connect their urban center with modern infrastructure. Countries like Australia, Israel, Taiwan. Even countries that are in financial strife like Greece and Spain have built better highways than BC. A country like Brazil has managed to build a modern four lane expressway from Sao Paulo to a northern suburb of Campinas. Connecting a strategic region that is heavily traveled by commercial traffic. Why does BC routinely do this? BC Highways will always look third world. And that's not bc its poor or unstable. Its because someone at MOT or the province is always taking a red pen to highway budgets no matter what.

Tell the public it will cost X Amount and give them Y amount at the end of the day. Look at the blunder on SFPR and Hwy91 Connector (Nordel Road I believe). Who is the govt official that eliminated that intersection. How come his name is being kept quiet?

I love Vancouver but the local politics esp when it came to infrastructure funding drove me mad. I remember leaving right after the Lions Gate Bridge Study (I've always had a greencard). Here in Miami we just finished a tunnel linking the interstate and the Port of Miami to take 18 wheelers off downtown city streets. Zero federal funding (for those who will argue the US Interstate System is federally funded). All contributed by the State and the County. Beautiful piece of infrastructure that no one 'Value Engineered"

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Sea to Sky highway... Even with all the money, the government still cut corners.

It still to this day with the millions and millions of dollars spent looks like it was ( I would hate to say it) half assed. Lets face it BC will always underfund road construction. BC Highways will always look third world. Its because someone at MOT or the province is always taking a red pen to highway budgets no matter what.

The underlying problem is the selection of the following within BC MoTI's planning:

Functional Design/Classification:

1. Rural Freeway Divided;
2. Rural Expressway Divided;
3. Rural Arterial Divided;

Design Speed:

1. 110 km/hr;
2. 100 km/hr;
3. 90 km/hr;
4. 80 km hr;

Unfortunately, they did cheap out going for the lowest common denominator design in for both the SKS and SFPR - Rural Arterial Divided/ 80 km/hr design speed.

OTOH, Rural Expressway Divided with a 100 km/hr design speed is a completely different highway... softer/gentler curves, wider median, different vertical/horizontal geometry, etc. Actual interchanges instead of the "mini-changes" utilized on the SKS and SFPR.

Why BC MoTI selects the cheap RAD/80 km/hr design beats me. No other jurisdiction, that I am familiar with, would opt for such a design for a major highway.

BTW, the recent rebuild of the Port Mann Bridge/Hwy 1 as well as future rebuild of the GMT/Hwy 99 are a consistent Urban/Rural Freeway Divided functional design along with a 100 km/hr design speed. Much, much higher design standards.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

The underlying problem is the selection of the following within BC MoTI's planning:

Functional Design/Classification:

1. Rural Freeway Divided;
2. Rural Expressway Divided;
3. Rural Arterial Divided;

Design Speed:

1. 110 km/hr;
2. 100 km/hr;
3. 90 km/hr;
4. 80 km hr;

Unfortunately, they did cheap out going for the lowest common denominator design in for both the SKS and SFPR - Rural Arterial Divided/ 80 km/hr design speed.

OTOH, Rural Expressway Divided with a 100 km/hr design speed is a completely different highway... softer/gentler curves, wider median, different vertical/horizontal geometry, etc. Actual interchanges instead of the "mini-changes" utilized on the SKS and SFPR.

Why BC MoTI selects the cheap RAD/80 km/hr design beats me. No other jurisdiction, that I am familiar with, would opt for such a design for a major highway.

BTW, the recent rebuild of the Port Mann Bridge/Hwy 1 as well as future rebuild of the GMT/Hwy 99 are a consistent Urban/Rural Freeway Divided functional design along with a 100 km/hr design speed. Much, much higher design standards.

Agreed but let me ask you this?
Was SFPR always designed even in its original conception as a Rural Arterial Divided/ 80 km/hr design even with all of the fantasy interchanges ?

[Zassk]

Ten years ago, when the various Sea To Sky route options were being presented and debated with open houses, the impression I got was that a Rural Freeway Divided 100 km/h design would be 2x to 3x more expensive than the Arterial 80 km/h that was actually built. Put another way, we could have had a top-of-the-line Sea To Sky highway but no SFPR, or the reverse. It seems unlikely that the province could have afforded the extreme price premium to build both at the higher standard.

My personal feeling is that we got at least 80% of the benefit of a freeway for 40%-50% of the price. I don't like the fact that these two highways were not fully built 100 km/h freeways (nor that there is a large gap on the Sea To Sky left for future build), but I DO like that we were able to build both of them almost at the same time, with no tolls.

If the Coquihalla Freeway is the gold standard, we have to remember that the Coquihalla was the most expensive freeway in the world per km at the time it was built, and that it cost roughly 3x as much as was budgeted, and the only reason it did not financially ruin the province was because of a very expensive toll charged in both directions for 20 years. We cannot build all of our highways to that standard.

The NDP tried it the following decade with the Island Highway through the gentle terrain of their heartland, and discovered that even $2 billion cannot get you a full freeway, at least not if you build it at union labour rates.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Agreed but let me ask you this?
Was SFPR always designed even in its original conception as a Rural Arterial Divided/ 80 km/hr design even with all of the fantasy interchanges ?

Yes. The SFPR was conceptualized, during the 1990's, as a 80 km/hr, RAD, "truck route". And that concept was what also was eventually constructed.

Problem that I see is that the SFPR was also a regional "non-truck" route connecting Hwy 1 with Hwy 99 and the 80 km/hr RAD design is not appropriate for that long-distance corridor.

Furthermore, the 80 km/hr design is also what is causing alot of the heavy truck overturns. Even with an RAD, a 100 km design speed would prevent alot of the truck overturns, along the SFPR as well as at its intersections.

Why? The curves along the SFPR are not only sharper, with an 80 km/hr design speed, but also "flat". IOW, with a 100 km/hr design speed the curves not only would be gentler but would also incorporate super-elevation or "banking" preventing most heavily-loaded trucks from over-turning. Kinetic energy at work, so to speak.

BTW, "value-engineering" doesn't impact a highway design.

For example, a part of the Kicking Horse Canyon section of Hwy 1 would have seen carriageways on either side of the Kicking Horse River. After "value-engineering" the design was changed to incorporate a unique cantilevered structural over the Kicking Horse River. No impact upon highway design at all.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Ten years ago, when the various Sea To Sky route options were being presented and debated with open houses, the impression I got was that a Rural Freeway Divided 100 km/h design would be 2x to 3x more expensive than the Arterial 80 km/h that was actually built.

Very true. The SKS corridor is mountainous. A RED or RFD, 100 km/hour design along that corridor would have increased costs exponentially with more viaducts, longer bridges, more blasting, concrete retaining walls, etc. I spoke with one of the project engineers at the time about same.

While the overall design was not my preference, I am quite happy with the improvements considering budgetary limitations.

That said, however, am not happy with the design of much of the SFPR (RAD/80 km/hr design speed) considering that same was constructed over relatively "flat" terrain.

Originally Posted by Zassk

If the Coquihalla Freeway is the gold standard, we have to remember that the Coquihalla was the most expensive freeway in the world per km at the time it was built.

And I would consider the $1 billion/ 23 km section of the Kicking Horse Canyon section of Hwy, east of Golden, to be the most expensive rural section of highway to be built in Canada, with its 100 km/hr RED design.

Originally Posted by Zassk

The NDP tried it the following decade with the Island Highway through the gentle terrain of their heartland, and discovered that even $2 billion cannot get you a full freeway, at least not if you build it at union labour rates.

I will say that the Nanaimo By-pass or Parkway (even with its many signalized intersections) is a very well designed and beautiful stretch of highway - with a 100 km/hr RED design. Actually always a fave drive of mine.

North of Nanaimo, they incorporated an old 1970's, 4-lane section with an 80 km/hr design speed, through Nanoose Bay up to the Craig's Crossing interchange. The rest of Hwy 19 northward is also a great design - a mix of RFD/RED with a 100 km design speed.

Just wish that they didn't cheap out with the concrete median barrier for the last section up to Campbell River. A continuation of the depressed grass median would have been more aesthetically pleasing.

South of Nanaimo, BC MoT went from an initial RED design to an RAD design due to cost factors. And of course, the Victoria western approaches are an U/RFD design

With a 100 km/hr design speed, it can be comparatively easy to eventually upgrade the highway to a RED or RFD standard.

Not so much an 80 km/hr design. In the instance of the SPFR, it would need to be entirely rebuilt from the base up for an RFD, 100 km/hr design.

[Zassk]

The SFPR has one section that is similar to the Sea To Sky, and will always have limitations to its expansion because of that. However, I feel that the rest of it is adequate to be treated as a 100 km/h freeway once the signals are removed.

There are only three substantial issues with speed on the whole SFPR route: the Patullo section (which would be resolved when that bridge is replaced), the 91 connector (which has been well documented lately), and the sharp turn onto Hwy 15 at the other end. All three of these sharp turns are reasonably simple to fix through related projects.

[ssiguy]

They will never bring the SFPR up to freeway standards, hell #99A still has a stop light.

Even after all these highway improvements, BC still has, by a long shot, the worse highway infrastructure in the country.

Anyway we all know why the STS wasn't tolled and that was because of the "type" of people who will use it. They might as well just call it the Point Grey/Whistler express.

I think a small toll on a new tunnel would be reasonable but I mean small like a $1 but even that is still patently unfair. Someone in Maple Ridge can drive over to Coquitlam {on their new bridge no less} and then hop on the {new} HWY#1 and go all the way to Whistler {on the new STS highway} and not pay one damn cent put some poor sucker who goes 2km from Ladner to Steveston is going to get stung for at least $6 bucks a day.

I do agree to a certain extent on a user pay system but within reason and the tolls they are charging are absolutely ridiculous. If they really wanted to make a fair system they would toll the entire HWY#1 such as a flat 50 cents every time you go on it meaning all e freeway entry points including from the Cassier Connector so people in North/West Vancouver don't get off scot free.. That would be the only toll, just 50 cents no matter how far you go but it would spread out the pain. People in N/W Van, Van City. Tri Cities, Nuwest all benefit from the improved HWY#1 but don't pay a damn thing for it.

Same thing should be done on the George Massey............a new 50 cent toll but an additional 50 cents when you cross into Vancouver. In other words people in Richmond going to Vancouver and vice versa also have to chip in. Vancouver city dwellers have to share the pain as well. They are the first ones to talk tolls knowing they will be the one place that will never have to pay them.

[Zassk]

I've lived in Richmond all my life. I think it is time to stop talking about a new tunnel. I for one am glad that the decision has been made to build a bridge instead of a tunnel. There are no substantial benefits to a tunnel, and tons of downsides. IMO the existing tunnel was built as a technological statement in the crazy 1950's, not because it was the best choice of infrastructure.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Anyway we all know why the STS wasn't tolled and that was because of the "type" of people who will use it. They might as well just call it the Point Grey/Whistler express.

I think a small toll on a new tunnel would be reasonable but I mean small like a $1 but even that is still patently unfair. Someone in Maple Ridge can drive over to Coquitlam {on their new bridge no less} and then hop on the {new} HWY#1 and go all the way to Whistler {on the new STS highway} and not pay one damn cent put some poor sucker who goes 2km from Ladner to Steveston is going to get stung for at least $6 bucks a day.

I do agree to a certain extent on a user pay system but within reason and the tolls they are charging are absolutely ridiculous. If they really wanted to make a fair system they would toll the entire HWY#1 such as a flat 50 cents every time you go on it meaning all e freeway entry points including from the Cassier Connector so people in North/West Vancouver don't get off scot free.. That would be the only toll, just 50 cents no matter how far you go but it would spread out the pain. People in N/W Van, Van City. Tri Cities, Nuwest all benefit from the improved HWY#1 but don't pay a damn thing for it.

1) Small tolls are stupid because they cost a fixed amount of money to collect, thus increasing the % of overhead costs and minimizing the benefit.

2) S2S users will also probably pay about $8 in gas tax every time they drive from Vancouver to Whistler and back. The whole highway upgrade was under $1B. People driving over a bridge probably pay about $0.03 in gas tax due to the short distance traveled and a replaced bridge with minimal other infrastructure will likely be $2B. Project by project, the gas tax generated by the S2S covers much more of the cost.

3) The new bridge over the Pitt River was cheap compared to any S. Fraser bridge. Just like a replaced Knight St., Oak St. or Arthur Laing would be cheap. Smaller bridges don't cost much. Tall ones and long ones do. We're talking $1B vs $100M.

4) The North shore doesn't really need greatly expanded car infrastructure and when it did previously, it paid for it through tolls on both it's bridges. Meanwhile, South Surrey and Delta are still building sprawly crap everywhere encouraging the need to expand car infrastructure.

[makr3trkr]

The majority of the expense of the S2S project was between Horseshoe Bay and Squamish, about 45km.

The total length of the Highway 1 upgrades was about 40km. The Port Mann Bridge itself was only about 800-900 million as per comments from Todd Stone.

Distance based tolls on both the Sea to Sky and the entire Highway 1 upgrade would have been preferable to the current situation. As it stands, someone travelling from Vancouver to Coquitlam potentially cuts their travel time by 20 minutes without paying a toll.

If the Massey replacement includes system-wide upgrades, I think a distance based toll (30 km) between Surrey and Vancouver would be more appropriate than a $4-$10 toll just at the bridge.

[SFUVancouver]

Here are some facts I've compiled about our region's bridges and tunnel:

Alex Fraser Bridge - 2,525 m total length - 465 m span - 55 m clearance - Built 1983 - Original cost $58 million ($116M in 2014 dollars) - Owned & managed by BC Ministry of Transportation
Arthur Laing Bridge - 1,676 m total length - 270 m span - Built 1975 - Owned & managed by YVR
Burrard St Bridge - Built 1932 - Original cost $3 million ($51M in 2014 dollars) - Owned & managed by City of Vancouver
Cambie St Bridge - Built 1985 - Original cost $53 million ($106M in 2014 dollars) - Owned & managed by City of Vancouver
Dinsmore Bridge - 300 m length - Built 1969 - Owned & managed by City of Richmond
Golden Ears Bridge - 974 m length - 244 m span - Built 2006 - Original cost $808 million ($930M in 2014 dollars) - Tolled - Owned & managed by Translink
Granville St Bridge - 27.4 m clearance - Built 1954 - Original cost $16.5 million ($141M 2014 dollars) - Owned & managed by City of Vancouver
Ironworkers Memorial Bridge - 1,292 m length - 335 m span - Built 1960 - Original cost $15 million ($122M 2014 dollars) - Tolled until 1963 - Owned & managed by BC Ministry of Transportation
Knight St Bridge - 1,436 m length - Built 1974 - Original cost $15 million ($72M in 2014 dollars) - Owned & managed by BC Ministry of Transportation
Lions Gate Bridge - 1,823 m length - 472 m span - 61m clearance - Built 1937 - Original cost $5.9 million ($103M in 2014 dollars) - Tolled until 1963 - Owned & managed by BC Ministry of Transportation
Massey Tunnel - 629m length - Built 1959 - Original cost $25 million ($208M in 2014 dollars) - Tolled until 1964 - Owned & managed by BC Ministry of Transportation
Moray Channel Bridge - 58m swing span - Built 1957 - Owned & managed by City of Richmond
No. 2 Road Bridge - 590 m length - Built 1993 - Owned & managed by City of Richmond
Oak St Bridge - Built 1957 - Tolled until 1959 - Owned & managed by BC Ministry of Transportation
Pattullo Bridge - 1,227 m length - Built 1937 - Original cost $4 million ($66M in 2014 dollars) - Tolled until 1952 - Owned & managed by Translink
Pitt River Bridge - 380 m length - Built 2009 - Original cost $200 million ($219M in 2014 dollars) - Owned & managed by BC Ministry of Transportation
Port Mann Bridge - 2,093 m length - 470 m span - 42 m clearance - Built 2009-2012 - Original cost $820 million ($897M in 2014 dollars) - Tolled - Owned & managed by BC Ministry of Transportation
Queensborough Bridge - 924m length - Built 1960 - Original cost $4 million ($33.5M in 2014 dollars) - Tolled until 1966 - Owned & managed by BC Ministry of Transportation
Sea Island Connector - Built 2002 - Owned & managed by City of Richmond
Westham Bridge - 325m length - Built 1912 - Original cost $50,000 ($1M in 2014 dollars) - Owned & managed by Translink

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Here are some facts I've compiled about our region's bridges and tunnel

Terrific reference, thanks!

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Terrific reference, thanks!

Thanks. It's certainly not complete, but some interesting facts came out, like how inflation-adjusted prices for our older large bridges are so far removed from the prices of roughly comparable modern bridges. I also didn't appreciate how many of our bridges were originally tolled. I knew about the Lions Gate, Ironworkers Memorial Bridge, the Pattullo Bridge, and the George Massey Tunnel, but I didn't know that the Oak Street and Queensborough Bridges were tolled for some time.

[jbrizzy]

How was the Alex Fraser so cheap ?!

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by jbrizzy

How was the Alex Fraser so cheap ?!

Beats me. I looked up a couple of sources and they both cited $58M. One noted that the cost of the approaches was not factored into the cost of the bridge. For the Cambie Street bridge (same era, very similar price) the project cost included demolition of the previous bridge, construction of the new bridge, and its approaches/street connections. Still, the Alex Fraser seems impossibly cheap.

http://www.richmondreview.com/news/121808769.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Fraser_Bridge

[Metro-One]

Great post SFUVancouver, but some of your stats include the approaches while others don't.

For example, the GEB is actually 2410 meters long including the approaches.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Great post SFUVancouver, but some of your stats include the approaches while others don't.

For example, the GEB is actually 2410 meters long including the approaches.

Whole heatedly agree with the critique. These were sourced almost exclusively from Wikipedia and the quality of the articles for the respective bridges varies widely. Was also working on this on my lunch hour, so time was limited.