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

[gkz]

The cost of going from zero to an 8 lane bridge is very high.
The additional cost of building a 10 lane bridge, instead of an 8 lane bridge, is very small in comparison.
Even if it is overkill on day 1, it makes sense to overbuild a bit now, because the additional cost of making it a 10 lane bridge is minuscule in comparison to having to build another bridge when the 8 lane one fills up.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by gkz

The cost of going from zero to an 8 lane bridge is very high.
The additional cost of building a 10 lane bridge, instead of an 8 lane bridge, is very small in comparison.
Even if it is overkill on day 1, it makes sense to overbuild a bit now, because the additional cost of making it a 10 lane bridge is minuscule in comparison to having to build another bridge when the 8 lane one fills up.

The project cost needs to be considered as a whole. An 8 lane bridge would likely mean less upgrades along the 25 km stretch of highway that is being improved. I could easily see it reducing the price about $500M, no small amount.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The problem is that when you build a bigger road to relieve the congestion, it makes land on the other side more valuable and attracts new development. If no transit has been built into the area, then it has to be built to accommodate cars instead. People who move into the area are then car dependent, and as a result you get more congestion.

This is exactly why Surrey is such a transit wasteland. All of the major shopping and business developments are ensconced in the middle of vast parking lots. Housing is a mess of cul de sacs which discourage walking and make convenient and efficient transit impossible. Once that stuff is built it's almost impossible to change.

You can't slow growth without building a Trump-style fence, which is impossible under Canadian law. This area is too desirable to live in. Even if foreigners weren't buying up property there's a while generation of baby boomers about to retire across Canada, many of whom would like to come here. The only viable solution is to manage growth through good planning, and to do that you have to recognize that transit is just as important as roads.

Like I sai you need to keep up, or slow growth, or both. Our birth rate is bellow replacement levels. If we are not keeping up with road construction then we need to lower immigration levels. Back in Czech republic where I am from road construction is resulting in reduced congestion, simply because population growth is zero and stable. You can build your self out of congestion, and you should try. You don't give up simply because it is hard to keep up. As for reducing immigration this is exactly in our control and we can set levels anywhere between 0 to unlimited (currently we set it at 250-300k per year). Regarding baby boomers retiring here in the other thread (BC Population) I showed that metro Vancouver is losing residents and has been for a while. More citizens want to leave here then come here. Only the Kootneys/Okanagan/Vancouver Island has some slight demand from the rest of Canada for baby boomers.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I would have love to have seen real options presented to the public, just like the Patullo study results that Translink shared 1-2 years ago. Multiple costed options, including an option of a crossing in a new spot. I don't think a different crossing spot is an option here, but it shows that the other group was at least thinking outside the box.

This study is just "it needs to be this, trust us."

There are no traffic or revenue projections, no talk of impact on the SFPR, Hwy 17A, 91 connector, AFB, and so on.

I can understand why crossing in a new spot would not be an option, and for good reasons.

Doing so would require a lot of new green field highway infrastructure, therefore loss of ALR.

One thing this project seems to be doing really well is its footprint is remaining within the current highways footprint with likely little ALR loss. (maybe even becoming more compact in some spots, such as the south approach interchange.)

[Stingray2004]

As time goes on, BC MoTI will provide a massive document dump at the BCEAO, which will be publicly available online. All for the environment certification process. These documents will cover every angle of the project. I mean every angle. We've only scratched the proverbial surface, so far, in terms of document release concerning the project. (Suspect most documents are still in drafting stage, etc.)

And later a public comment period will also be included for the BCEAO enviro review process.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

for the new direction they are adding at the 99/SFPR. i bet they will make it an underpass under the exit to the Vancouver Landfill. looking at street view it looks like there would be space if they did something like how the 91 connects Northbound to the Knight Street Bridge. that little round tunnel thing.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Like I sai you need to keep up, or slow growth, or both. Our birth rate is bellow replacement levels. If we are not keeping up with road construction then we need to lower immigration levels. Back in Czech republic where I am from road construction is resulting in reduced congestion, simply because population growth is zero and stable. You can build your self out of congestion, and you should try. You don't give up simply because it is hard to keep up. As for reducing immigration this is exactly in our control and we can set levels anywhere between 0 to unlimited (currently we set it at 250-300k per year). Regarding baby boomers retiring here in the other thread (BC Population) I showed that metro Vancouver is losing residents and has been for a while. More citizens want to leave here then come here. Only the Kootneys/Okanagan/Vancouver Island has some slight demand from the rest of Canada for baby boomers.

Please stop with this idea that Metro Vancouver's population growth is somehow going to slow. It isn't. Metro Vancouver's population is projected to be over 3.4 million people by 2041, a million more people than in 2011. I don't know where you're getting this idea that Metro Vancouver is losing residents, because that's about as far from the truth as you can get.

Delta's population is projected to be 121,000 in 2014 (102,000 in 2011) and Richmond's is projected to be 280,000 (194,300 in 2011). There's growth of 100,000 people in just two cities in the region right there.

[red-paladin]

This thread really needs to stick to the topic.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I would have love to have seen real options presented to the public, just like the Patullo study results that Translink shared 1-2 years ago. Multiple costed options, including an option of a crossing in a new spot. I don't think a different crossing spot is an option here, but it shows that the other group was at least thinking outside the box.

This study is just "it needs to be this, trust us."

There are no traffic or revenue projections, no talk of impact on the SFPR, Hwy 17A, 91 connector, AFB, and so on.

The Phase 2 consultation had the options (not costed though)
The Phase 2 display boards and consultation summary are here:

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/documentlibrary/

It says that the agricultural community opposed a new bridge at Tilbury Island.

The consultation Summary Report also shows that the City of Richmond opposed - and passed a Council Resolution opposing - Scenario #5 (Tilbury Island Bridge):


http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2013/11/Phase-2-Report-Appendix-B-Part-2.pdf


http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2013/11/Phase-2-Report-Appendix-B-Part-2.pdf

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by officedweller

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/documentlibrary/

Thanks for the link to that document repository!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Thanks for the link to that document repository!

Agreed, thanks.

Quite a few documents on there as compared to the FOI request that turned up nothing a few months ago.

[ClaytonA]

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2015/12/Traffic-Data-Overview-2015.pdf

Much better than check marks-maybe they should have used starfish-lol. Criteria appears to be free-flow rush hour traffic in 2045 (between 8 and 10 lanes options).

pg 11 - currently only the northbound afternoon counterflow really experiences significant (i.e. >6-7 minutes) delays due to traffic congestion with ~17 minute annual average with all over 15 minutes average delays in the summer. I wonder if the MOTI could mitigate some of the delays somehow? Looking at this from June-Aug it might make sense to eliminate or reduce the afternoon counterflow.

Traffic is expected to grow to 115,000 per day in 2045 (for comparison the Broadway subway forecast is 250,000 per day when it opens). Transit is 1% of the trips but 16% of the # of people. In October 3 days of 31 had delays over 30min, average <15min. Single occupant vehicles during the peaks are 75-85% of the vehicles by type (pg 20). Trucks are 3% during the peaks, growing to 9-11% mid-day. Per App H, an 8-lane bridge will experience congestion on opening day if it includes an HOV lane over the bridge and assuming users stop staggering their commute time to mitigate traffic delays. There's a chart outlining how the peak got sharper on the Port Mann by about 1500 vehicles per hour with free-flow traffic on pg 32.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Trucks are 3% during the peaks, growing to 9-11% mid-day.

...which shows the how false the "goods movement" argument is. This argument is constantly trotted out to justify road expansion, but we have way more than enough infrastructure to move goods. The problem isn't goods movement, it's single occupancy vehicles. By far the cheapest way to expedite goods movement would be to create incentives (like tolls) for SOV traffic to choose different alternatives (like transit).

[ClaytonA]

https://web.archive.org/web/201512220445...174-0094-4fc2-92d7-44e23b60736a&sponsor=

...

Falcon's plan calls for a $2.50 one-way toll to cross the twinned Port Mann Bridge, but no other tolls.

Most of the traffic models studied by the consultants included a lower toll on the Port Mann plus "distance tolls" on the expanded section of the Trans-Canada Highway and on the new South Fraser Perimeter Road.

The consultants' "preferred scenario" included a $1 toll on the Port Mann for cars, plus distance tolls of 10 cents per kilometre on the expanded section of the Trans-Canada and on the South Fraser road.

Light trucks would pay 1-1/2 times as much as cars, and heavy trucks twice as much. The tolls would be collected electronically and vehicles would not have to stop to pay. They would rise with inflation.

The consultants envisioned similar tolls on the Highway 99 project: $1 to use the Massey Tunnel and distance tolls on an expanded Highway 99 and the Highway 99-Trans-Canada connector.

The tolls could fluctuate with time of day or with the level of traffic congestion, and other "road-pricing" measures could include allowing single-occupant vehicles to use priority lanes if they pay an additional toll. ...

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

...which shows the how false the "goods movement" argument is. This argument is constantly trotted out to justify road expansion, but we have way more than enough infrastructure to move goods. The problem isn't goods movement, it's single occupancy vehicles. By far the cheapest way to expedite goods movement would be to create incentives (like tolls) for SOV traffic to choose different alternatives (like transit).

Aberdeen... both you and the foregoing poster are `cherry-picking` data. Quite easy to do in order to arrive at a certain willful conclusion. Very obvious that both of ya have not had personal `day-to-day` as well as `long-term exposure` to the GMT. IOW, have not `lived` the GMT - like I and many others have. I have explained, in my numerous previous posts, detailed facts inclusive of the massive container trucking increase (with impacts thereto) ... but obviously to no avail.

Based upon the data... just this nugget:

In the afternoon, delays for the one lane of northbound traffic are far greater, averaging about 20 minutes and ranging up to 50 minutes.

Ya just gotta try that some time - just getting from one side of the GMT to the other (forget about the rest of the way). Might just grow some hair on your chest.

BTW, funny ya mention GMT SOV traffic. I know that ya are from inner city Van. But guess what? I just re-read a chunk of the PMB thread and noticed that ya posted numerous posts thereto looking forward to `drive` certain segments of the new Hwy 1 upgrades. Why didn`t ya just take `transit`? If ya deny same, I will re-post your posts thereto. No skin off my back.

So why the hypocrite? Ya wanna impose social engineering in my neck of the woods, yet ya freely boasted in the PMB thread that ya were lookin`forward to drivin` the new Hwy 1 upgrades? No logical sense whatsoever. What gives?

On that note, others here say that we can `save` money on the project by reducing its scope. I can say the same thing about the proposed Broadway subway line. Why not just turn the curb lane into a bus-only lane and add numerous more buses? Would save $billions, right?

Or perhaps turn the Broadway curb lane into at-ground LRT? Would save another $billion perhaps. Right? But I know better. And have some schooling in transportation & logistics. Only a subway along Broadway is a long-term solution - akin to the current GMB proposal. When ya build somethin` - best strategy is to build it `right` from the get-go. End of story.

[ClaytonA]

This newspaper report from 2006 mentions the preferred option being a new bridge into Burnaby. Blundell interchange isn't happening like they wanted 10 years ago either.

https://web.archive.org/web/201512220514...hmondreview/archive/RR20060218/news.html

Where would you put a new bridge (in a fantasy)?

No 5 Rd to Fraser St? Shell Rd to Main St? Both would have to extend clear to SW Marine Dr likely. I'd have probably chosen No 5 road.

[ClaytonA]

Also at the margin, given the scale, the GMT replacement probably hurts Surrey's downtown aspirations regionally since it focuses transportation investment away from it and towards Vancouver's downtown. It continues the hub and spoke type of set up with the hub being Vancouver and further locks in the orientation of South Surrey, Delta, et. al. as bedroom communities for Vancouver than Central City.



here: http://public.tableau.com/views/CommuteF...bed=y&:display_count=yes&:showVizHome=no

or;

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/01/08/interactive-map-shows-metro-vancouver-commuting-patterns/

[Pinion]

lol. The bridge is the last of Surrey's concerns. If anything it opens up south Surrey to tourism etc from the north - I refuse to go through the tunnel any time before about 9pm currently.

[ClaytonA]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Aberdeen... both you and the foregoing poster are `cherry-picking` data. ...

Hmm - I included the bit of the October survey with 3 days over 30 minutes. That 20 minutes appears rounded up. That 50 minutes is an extreme value. The summer is worse than the more granular, daily data provided for Oct. Your anecdotes are still appreciated and understood. You chose to live where you do and your commute.

Anyway I gained some appreciation after access to some actual data versus a chart with check marks and associated fluff. Also interesting to see this wasn't as out of the blue as I'd thought per 10 year old MOTI ministerial comments that it was next after the Port Mann. Finally there wasn't as much congestion in the data as advertised here and in the fluff, matching my experience occaisionally using the tunnel-I can't recall ever waiting more than 20min or so to get through and usually it's much less, like 5-7mins which is pretty typical. Waiting more than that as outlined does happen-primarily in the summer months and whenever there's an extraordinairy event like an accident.

As long as, for 10 lanes, the users are willing to pay the higher tolls, the federal government isn't suckered into contributing any other way than the Building Canada Fund (no impact to potential transit or sewage monies for metro Van), the province doesn't extend freeways further, and the ALR remains intact, hey we live in a democracy and the Liberals got elected with this promise partly by those SOF. We all make our bed and have to sleep in it. Lobbying re. tolls by politicians-well sure they have to appear to make a fuss to get re-elected. Average daily tunnel user, especially a SOV, wanting free flow traffic-well be honest, if you're lobbying agaisnt tolls you're just being selfish. Those on the North Shore didn't want them either and under a different government they got what was most important to them.

I think the 2006 comment regarding a third bridge either into Vancouver or Burnaby has merit given this goes ahead. I'd pick No 5 Rd to Fraser or No 8 to Boundary.

[ClaytonA]

Originally Posted by Pinion

lol. The bridge is the last of Surrey's concerns. If anything it opens up south Surrey to tourism etc from the north - I refuse to go through the tunnel any time before about 9pm currently.

If you have a daughter, then you'll have to buy get her a pony stabled over there-LOL.