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

[Klazu]

As it happens, last Saturday afternoon I visited Deas Island so here are some photos in between all the discussion.

First some evening photos from Lulu Island (Richmond) side. Not very busy at 8pm on Saturday night.







Deas Island



Deas Island entrance.





Ventilation pipes





Tunnel alignment under Fraser River.



Memorial for tunnel opening.





And as a reminder, this is what is being planned.







• Video Link

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jhausner

The lack of road infrastructure is a large contributor to why Vancouver has gone from having 85% of all the regional jobs to 40% and why the region has quickly shifted away from being Vancouver centric.

What you describe is exactly what the Livable Region Plan espoused - create job centers across the region to reduce the need for everyone to commute to downtown. What you state as a failure is in fact a success.

[trofirhen]

^That bridge seems much like the Alex Fraser, only a bit wider.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Pinion

^Well said

lol "I bet wider bridges are at least 50% more expensive"

*Gets evidence showing minimal difference, as any rational person would expect*

"That must be fudged!"

Hey, I never claimed to be an expert, and I did say I was surprised by the small differential, as indeed I am. But I also know that the estimates for these kinds of projects are always lowballed to make them more palatable. And in the case of toll projects the revenue side is similarly over-estimated.

Transit has a much better track record of meeting its targets than road projects have over the past decade.

I'm not against roads as much as I am pro-transit, and my main beef is that transit has suddenly become subject to referenda while road building proceeds unabated. Why the double standard?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Hey, I never claimed to be an expert, and I did say I was surprised by the small differential, as indeed I am. But I also know that the estimates for these kinds of projects are always lowballed to make them more palatable. And in the case of toll projects the revenue side is similarly over-estimated.

Transit has a much better track record of meeting its targets than road projects have over the past decade.

I'm not against roads as much as I am pro-transit, and my main beef is that transit has suddenly become subject to referenda while road building proceeds unabated. Why the double standard?

People I bring this up to say that it's because that transit only moves people, while highways move goods and help the economy. I've heard it claimed that these bridges and Gateway were only built for truck traffic, with commuters being a secondary thought. So the argument is that it's not about drivers vs. transit users, but about goods vs. commuters. Now I don't know if I agree with this or not, but I'd be interested in hearing what the rest of you think about it.

Again, I'll mention I support this bridge, even with 10 lanes (huge surprise coming from the guy from Ladner, I know). But I agree. It's frustrating to see these highway improvements get pushed through so easily while transit is seemingly left to die. I think both are very important and should be funded much more evenly.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

People I bring this up to say that it's because that transit only moves people, while highways move goods and help the economy. I've heard it claimed that these bridges and Gateway were only built for truck traffic, with commuters being a secondary thought. So the argument is that it's not about drivers vs. transit users, but about goods vs. commuters. Now I don't know if I agree with this or not, but I'd be interested in hearing what the rest of you think about it.

Goods movement is very important, or any commercial traffic for that matter.

But the reality is, if you removed say, 20% of the SOV (single occupancy vehicle) traffic from the roads today, everything would be smooth.

Commercial traffic doesn't take up a lot of space given what's available. It's the car drivers that clog everything up.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I'm not against roads as much as I am pro-transit, and my main beef is that transit has suddenly become subject to referenda while road building proceeds unabated. Why the double standard?

Be in favour of both. I voted yes on transit despite never using it myself and I'm in favour of as many future-proof bridges as we can build.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

it's cheaper to build for 100yrs then build two 50yr bridges.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If the region is less Vancouver-centric, that would imply less bridge crossings, since you've got "everything you need" SOF. I realize that's simplistic, but you can't argue both ways = more traffic.

Slap a $3 toll ($9 for trucks or whatever) on the GMT and we'll see it's got enough capacity at 4 lanes.

I don't know what that is trying to prove. If that does happen, that tolls keep people away from the tunnel, what does that imply? That that many people would give up working in Vancouver? Because thousands of homes won't suddenly come into existence at affordable prices in CoV. Less traffic means less intercity commerce. How is it good for Vancouver to tell those people to fuck off and stay on their side of the river?

I think he is saying there is a lot of traffic through the tunnel bound for Richmond. Many jobs and industry over the last decade have moved from Vancouver to Richmond. So people still go through the tunnel but not all the way to Vancouver.

Also, when I used to go through the tunnel in the AM peak, there would be a lineup of container trucks from Steveston to past Blundel, waiting for their turn in the one lane. A climbing lane would be greatly appreciated.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

^That bridge seems much like the Alex Fraser, only a bit wider.

Yeah, that makes it a bit boring. Hopefully they would paint it with some color to make it recognizable.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Goods movement is very important, or any commercial traffic for that matter.

But the reality is, if you removed say, 20% of the SOV (single occupancy vehicle) traffic from the roads today, everything would be smooth.

Commercial traffic doesn't take up a lot of space given what's available. It's the car drivers that clog everything up.

I agree with this 100%. I always hear these "goods movement" arguments in support of more road infrastructure, but it's a complete red herring. If the government truly wanted to improve goods movement then all they have to do is toll single occupancy vehicles and let the trucks use the roads for free. That would solve the problem at almost zero cost. Heck, they'd actually make money on the tolls.

The vast majority of voters don't give a second though to "goods movement", they just don't like congestion. That's who the government's listening to.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I don't know what that is trying to prove. If that does happen, that tolls keep people away from the tunnel, what does that imply? That that many people would give up working in Vancouver? Because thousands of homes won't suddenly come into existence at affordable prices in CoV. Less traffic means less intercity commerce. How is it good for Vancouver to tell those people to fuck off and stay on their side of the river?

What tolls do is make the alternatives more palatable for commuters. That means car pooling, shifting your commuting times, using transit, etc. You don't have to shift a very large percentage of commuters to make a big difference in congestion.

And yes, shifting jobs to the suburbs is part of that too, although it's a longer-term goal.

That's why I'm so incensed at the transit referendum - I believe in congestion management through tolls, but you've got to provide people with reasonable alternatives.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If the region is less Vancouver-centric, that would imply less bridge crossings, since you've got "everything you need" SOF. I realize that's simplistic, but you can't argue both ways = more traffic.

Slap a $3 toll ($9 for trucks or whatever) on the GMT and we'll see it's got enough capacity at 4 lanes.

Sure I can argue both ways! This is the Interweb afterall.

Ok but seriously, I think I wasn't as clear as I could be in my argument. We can't assume NoF = Vancouver.

Scenario 1: Vancouver centric region

In a Vancouver centric region, the majority of people Live outside Vancouver and commute towards Vancouver to work. This actually requires less overall spanning infrastructure than a non-Vancouver centric design given our geography.

For example, you can build 1 rapid transit line (Expo) to cover all the needs of people South of Fraser. You then divert all bus (feeder) transit to feed into that SkyTrain line and throw a bunch of trains to handle the foot traffic.

For cars and trucks, again we are Vancouver focussed so while the population is increasing, the bulk of traffic is centered around rush hour. So you install HOV lanes on the bridges and people simply "suffer" through some traffic jams because that's what happens in big cities. You don't need to increase the infrastructure because the bulk of traffic crossing the Fraser River in a Vancouver centric region is again only at the 2 rush hours.

During the rest of the day and evening, cars and truck traffic should be localized aka only moving around in each city and not crossing the bridge.
Industry is in Vancouver area, people commute there, and people work there. They are only out in the burbs to live and on weekends. So infrastructure can actually be less.

So think of every city and think how it all would point to Vancouver in the above model, the model that has been used for decades in our infrastructure design. Burnaby -> Vancouver, North Van -> Vancouver, Richmond -> Vancouver, Surrey -> Vancouver, Coquitlam -> Vancouver, that's been the assumption. That means all NoF people largely stay NoF (no river crossing) and SoF people only cross the river in very specific commute windows (rush hour).

Scenario 2: Non-Vancouver centric

This is the scenario the region has shifted too but infrastructure has lagged behind. Statistics and evidence provided by numerous studies (which I won't link here for times sake but have been posted in other threads and you can just look it up on Google) show that more jobs are now outside Vancouver and daily traffic patterns have people moving around to other cities than Vancouver on a more regular basis outside those commute windows.

Most people that live in Surrey now work in Surrey for example so while you may say that counters my argument, the population in Surrey has also gone from 200,000 back in the Vancouver Centric days to 500,000 today. So the number crossing that river has still increased.

For example some maths:

Vancouver Centric:

Assume 50% working population of Surrey
Assume 80% working population travels Surrey -> Vancouver
80% of (50% of 200,000) = 80,000 crossing the Fraser River every day

Non-Vancouver Centric:

Assume 50% working population of Surrey
Assume 40% working population travels Surrey -> Vancouver
40% of (50% of 500,000) = 100,000

Net gain = 20,000 new people crossing the Fraser River despite de-centralization.

Now granted the numbers above are "made up" but I think they are reasonable in illustrating how you can become non-Vancouver centric yet still have a net-gain in people crossing that river.

Finally, the above doesn't account for more intercity travel across the Fraser. For example, you have more people now traveling to and from Richmond to Delta and vice versa, more people going between Surrey/Langley and Maple Ridge/Coquitlam, more people from Surrey to New Westminster and Burnaby and vice versa.

The statistics also show job wise we are now in situations where people are reverse commuting meaning they live in Burnaby and commute out to Langley to work or live in Richmond but work in Delta or Surrey. Heck I have a friend that lives in North Vancouver and works out in Port Kells in Surrey and another who lives in Vancouver itself and works in Coquitlam.

Being non-Vancouver Centric doesn't mean NoF stays in NoF and SoF stays in SoF. The above scenario would have been a rarity 20-30 years ago but today it is becoming the norm.

So in conclusion, I believe it is quite possible if not entirely probable that you can (and we have) shift our region away from being Vancouver centric and in turn increase the demand for infrastructure crossing the Fraser River.

That was the point I was trying to make.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

What you describe is exactly what the Livable Region Plan espoused - create job centers across the region to reduce the need for everyone to commute to downtown. What you state as a failure is in fact a success.

No what I state as a failure is the infrastructure upgrades to accomodate creating job centers across the region. As I just explained in my post above, when you shift from a single job center to regional job centers, given our geography, this actually can quite easily = more commuting and traveling over the Fraser River.

Remember it is closer for someone in New Westminster to work in Surrey Central than in Vancouver. That is a goal of the Livable Region Plan, but that person now has to cross the Fraser River when working in Vancouver they did not. So if you don't upgrade our bridges over the giant river, you overload that infrastructure. The last two transportation studies released in the past 5 years show that most traffic over the Port Mann is actually between Surrey/Langley and Coquitlam, and the second that at least 40% of traffic through the George Massey tunnel is between SoF and Richmond.

You see it on SkyTrain these days where when I was younger it used to be full SkyTrains Surrey -> Vancouver and empty Vancouver -> Surrey in the morning then vice versa. Today it isn't exactly equal but it is almost as busy both directions during daily commutes.

So even on SkyTrain our wasted opposite direction capacity has is being eaten up with people reverse commuting. You have people in Vancouver now taking SkyTrain in the morning to Burnaby, New West, Surrey, etc when that was unheard of in the past.

The same is happening on our bridges. So I think the Livable Region Plan from a job focus has been a success. But from an infrastructure to support the plan standpoint, it has failed. If there was no Fraser River or it was a non-working river, this would be easy we'd have 50 bridges or 1000 roads, but it is a working shipping river and wide so building more crossings or bigger crossings is not cheap.

Tolls only help so much but honestly it is a band aid solution. Asking people to live and work on "their" side of the river is just completely unfair of others just like it would be unfair for me to tell you to quit your job and get a new job next to where you live. Without increased infrastructure across the river (and note I say infrastructure, not specifically roads and cars... transit = infrastructure) to make the Livable Region Plan future proof would require us to declare a "THOU SHALT NOT PASS" line along the Fraser River.

We'd have to demand that people NoF only live and work NoF and people SoF only live and work SoF. That's impossible to do and won't happen. What will and is happening is that more people are living and working outside Vancouver itself and in new regional job centers but that has resulted in increased traffic over the Fraser River. We simply need to replace the tunnel and Pattullo and in 10 years seriously look at the AFB and possibly a new road crossing and rapid transit crossing. Road bridges increase car, truck, and bus capacity so you tick all the boxes. And another rapid transit line say from Coquitlam to Langley via GEB connecting to an extension from Surrey to Langley could create a rapid transit loop over the Fraser River to service the new job regions and allow more densification out towards the Fraser Valley.

Unfortunately the region is stuck in this Vancouver centric mentality and at the same time is playing catch up because we're so far behind in many areas. Hell we just wasted what 2+ years arguing over transit funding and we're nowhere further along at all today yet 2+ years and 100,000+ increased population regionally.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I agree with this 100%. I always hear these "goods movement" arguments in support of more road infrastructure, but it's a complete red herring. If the government truly wanted to improve goods movement then all they have to do is toll single occupancy vehicles and let the trucks use the roads for free. That would solve the problem at almost zero cost. Heck, they'd actually make money on the tolls.

The vast majority of voters don't give a second though to "goods movement", they just don't like congestion. That's who the government's listening to.

Name one city on the planet where tolling SOVs has been done and/or has decreased traffic. That's as much a red herring as the "goods movement" you argue and I'd counter-argue it is actually the red-herring not goods movement. Goods movement is real and with more population = move goods movement so that isn't some sort of myth. You've also shifted industry to now largely hug the river so goods traffic over the Fraser River has increased 10 fold in the past 20 years.

Tolling SOVs as punishment is just completely unfair. As someone who has tried to organize carpools in the past many times and who works for an employer with a carpool insentive program, I can tell you from experience that it is far more difficult to arrange and make work and that difficulty increases exponentially the more passengers you try to arrange into a pool than many people on these forums make it out to be.

To illustrate this point, I would ask you to pick one person you work with and just assume they live within 5 minute drive from where you live. Now I challenge you to do a thought experiment and imagine 5 days a week every week for the next 2 years, you need to commute to and from work, at the exact same time every morning and every evening with that person.

You're tied to them 90-95% of your next 2 years of work. So your colleague needs to stop at the grocery store once a week on his or her way home, they can't do that. You want to stop at the grocery store, you can't do that. Your colleague goes on vacation now you're a SoV. Vice versa. You want to take a day off, they are a SoV then. Your colleague calls in sick you're now a SoV. The list goes on.

That's just 1 person. Now add a third and all the complication that yields. Add a 4th, 5th, 6th, exponential.

So yes in concept trying to force everyone into HOV situations would reduce traffic but it is simply NOT that easy. The region is also littered with small employers where if you just went through all the employees you'd be hard pressed to find 3 or even maybe just 2 that lived anywhere close to each other.

I work for an employer with over 1000 employees and in the office I am at there is only 1 person whom I could commute with that is within 15 minutes of where I live and works in the office I'm at. The complication? He works 15-20 minutes beyond my shift (so I'd have to wait every day) and also works Sunday -> Thursday and I Monday -> Friday. Also he picks up his wife after work along the way every day so commuting with him would add a good 45 minutes overall to my work day 4 days a week and I'd still have to drive myself to work on Friday.

So I SoV it all the way.

As I said above, it is easy to go LAWL HOV SOLVE ALL PROBLEMS but that's just completely unrealistic. Yes HOVs and encouraging less SoV is part of the solution but just a part, not a solution in-of-itself and to think it is the solution is just sticking your head between your knees and declaring that ignoring the problem will fix it.

[GMasterAres]

Anyway before the mods ask us to get back on topic I'll say that I'm not going to post more in this thread about regional infrastructure. If we want to discuss/debate further create a new thread and I'll post there.

[GMasterAres]

This post is George Massey Tunnel specific but I'll pull a quote from my post above to illustrate my point on this crossing:

For example some maths:

Vancouver Centric:

Assume 50% working population of Surrey
Assume 80% working population travels Surrey -> Vancouver
80% of (50% of 200,000) = 80,000 crossing the Fraser River every day

Non-Vancouver Centric:

Assume 50% working population of Surrey
Assume 40% working population travels Surrey -> Vancouver
40% of (50% of 500,000) = 100,000

Net gain = 20,000 new people crossing the Fraser River despite de-centralization.

The above is only one direction. So it very nicely ties into my point about how our infrastructure is Vancouver centric and simply has to shift. The Massey Tunnel is currently the poster-boy/girl for Vancouver centric infrastructure.

During the morning commute the HoV lane basically becomes a third lane Northbound which results in Southbound becoming 1 lane.

During the evening commute the HoV lane reverses and you get 1 lane Northbound and 3 Southbound. PERFECTLY acceptable in a Vancouver centric infrastructure design situation given this was built back in 1959 and the target commute metrics were for the 60s and 70s.

What we see today though is two individual problems:

Problem 1: Increased single-direction commuting.

As Richmond has grown and Vancouver itself along with Surrey and Delta, even though the Livable Region Plan has had jobs shift away from Vancouver, the population growth itself has resulted in more commutes along the traditional route aka North in the morning, South in the evening.

As a result, in the morning even 3 lanes North are insufficient to handle the increased overall traffic as I illustrated in my quote above can and has happened. I see this every morning where now traffic North is backed up to the Delta Worksyard and basically parked even though there are 3 lanes North. The same happens Southbound where even with 3 lanes you have people backing up on a regular basis to Westminster Highway.

That's with 3 lanes. So even if we were still Vancouver-Centric, the tunnel needs increased traditional-route capacity aka a 4th lane at least.

Also keep in mind the above increase in traffic happened well before the new Port Mann bridge even started construction so the tolls have nothing to do with it at all. Don't make that counter argument. :p

Problem 2: Livable Region and de-centralized traffic patterns including goods movement

In addition to increased population, we've seen industry vacate Vancouver largely and now really hover around the Fraser River. Heck just 20 years ago port traffic was largely focussed in Burrard Inlet and today it is largely focussed at Roberts Bank and Surrey Fraser docks. So goods come in SoF by train and by ship and it needs to get NoF and vice versa from industry in NoF needing to ship out.

Add to that again the increase in population for all the cities in the region and the fact more people are commuting between Richmond and Delta/Surrey and you also have an increase overall in ferry traffic and US traffic from i5 (seeing as 99 is our major US connection for Metro-Vancouver) and this has all resulted in additional need counter to regular commute times.

So the tunnel drops to 1 lane in the counter directions for large portions of the day (6am to 9am, 3pm to 6pm 5 days a week) and that now results in again what I see every single day. People lined up toward Westminster Highway heading South in the morning as they all go down into 1 lane and vice versa in the afternoon heaps of cars and trucks lined up to the South Fraser Perimeter interchange heading North in the evening.

So that means we need to increase capacity opposite traditional commute patterns along this crossing so from 1 lane to at least 3.

Conclusion:

Along traditional commute direction TODAY (not in the future) need to increase from 3 lanes to at least 4 lanes. Along opposite we need to increase from 1 to 3 lanes.

So you have a net increase requirement just today of going from a 4 lane crossing to a 7 lane crossing. Seeing as we don't build crossings that are asymmetric anymore (easier to engineer symmetry is the quick and dirty reason) that means we absolutely require today an 8 lane crossing (4 in either direction) just to meet the needs today.

The proposal is a 10 lane crossing which will meet not just today but tomorrow's needs in that it isn't just 10 lanes of cars but rather 3 regular traffic, 1 HOV, and 1 goods movement.

It just makes sense and I don't see how anyone can logically argue against it given the facts.


I can't wait until it's built and we can put this debate behind us.

[Genauso]

Time for GMT replacement + high living cost => Richmond and Delta ALR land will transition from mansions without farming, or greenhouses and industrial to Residential & Commercial

A wide GM bridge, and a combination of 6-8 lane Oak St bridge replacement, and maybe another crossing at Boundary Rd to the East/West Connector will be needed much more than the Golden Ears bridge and much sooner. Look at the jump in Surrey's population numbers after the ALR and when land prices went up in existing developed lands, all that will be happening westward and it will happen much faster because those lands are closer to the ocean or existing destinations and the infrastructure cost per capita will be much cheaper with shorter distances and it being a sure thing in the middle of everywhere as opposed to the fringe limited by commuting time

[Genauso]

The only people who use the terminology NoF and SoF are people that are arguing for Surrey, but wanting to hide it.

Langley is too far to have the same transportation interest. White Rock is closer to Delta and Richmond in patterns than Surrey. Burnaby and Coquitlam are NoF but in very different camps than Vancouver, UBC, North Van, West Van. If you wanted to segment, I'd say #of hours/minutes spent on a given Hwy during a normal weekday.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

What tolls do is make the alternatives more palatable for commuters. That means car pooling, shifting your commuting times, using transit, etc. You don't have to shift a very large percentage of commuters to make a big difference in congestion.

And yes, shifting jobs to the suburbs is part of that too, although it's a longer-term goal.

That's why I'm so incensed at the transit referendum - I believe in congestion management through tolls, but you've got to provide people with reasonable alternatives.

I agree with much of what you're saying, but like many people I've debated on these forums, I don't think you're taking into account the fact the population in Metro-Vancouver is increasing faster than you could hope to counter with your proposed "solutions." Growth is simply out pacing these band-aid solutions to the point even if you pushed off the need to build new bridges another 4-5 years (or more if you were cruel), eventually we'd still have to build more infrastructure just to handle the increased population.

From 1995 to 2015 Metro Vancouver grew by roughly 600,000 people. By 2035 expect at least another 600,000 people. Also keep in mind HOV requires HOV lanes. There are none on the Alex Fraser Bridge nor any in the current George Massey tunnel. So one of your solutions already requires more lanes to be built or at least a new tunnel.

So that leaves tolling? That only gets you so far.

Shifting commute times? We're not hong kong, I don't see a mass shift in companies changing their regular hours of work. I can tell my boss as much as I want that I now want to work 10am to 7pm and he'll tell me to polish off my Resume as I'll be looking for a job somewhere else.

Using transit? Well rapid transit is expensive so can't possible cover the entire region and buses last I check use roads and bridges to cross the river...

So *shrug* I think we need a 10 lane bridge to replace the tunnel pretty definitively.