And it is a good thing as it is a result of economic activity. I assume you propose building nothing ever. In fact you think building anything ever was a mistake right?
Considering the gridlock on all the side streets east of Hwy 99 in Richmond as people try to find ways to reach their destination, the demand is already there. Nothing to induce at all.
And it is a good thing as it is a result of economic activity. I assume you propose building nothing ever. In fact you think building anything ever was a mistake right?
Put words into my mouth all you like. I agree with the plan of replacing the Massey Tunnel with a bridge so that accidents can be more easily dealt with (which reduces congestion and improves safety) and so that trucks hauling hazardous materials can take Highway 99 instead of having to detour all the way to the Alex Fraser (which should help reduce congestion a little bit on the AFB). That said, replacing the Massey Tunnel with a four-lane bridge meets these goals, but going up to a six-lane (or maybe an eight-lane) bridge would be fine as well. But it needs to be done in accordance with Metro Vancouver's overall transportation plan, which is what the current review is trying to achieve.
You're agreeing with GlassCity about building a blundell interchange in conjunction with the new bridge and an upgraded Steveston Hwy interchange but GlassCity is proposing a new blundell interchange to take pressure off the Steveston interchange with no upgrades or a new bridge. Which is it guys?
Where the did you see me say I don't want upgrades or a new bridge? I've supported a new, expanded crossing since the project was announced.
Where the did you see me say I don't want upgrades or a new bridge? I've supported a new, expanded crossing since the project was announced.
For the expanded crossing, I've always thought that we should just build a 2-laned bridge for buses ONLY and keep the tunnel. Given the frequency of 601, 620 and 351 (8 buses per hour midday, many per hour during rush hour), it should be worth.
On an unrelated note, I've always thought that allowing the trucks to access 99 from Rice Mill Road and vice versa will at least take some pressure off the interchange at Steveston Highway. I still remember the time when I was on the 401 heading to Silvercity and the driver complained that trucks jammed the intersection at Five Road and Steveston Highway really badly.
Update: Oops I just realized I didn't read everybody's comment here. Tbh I don't mind a replacement bridge as long as tankers don't come in. Environmental concerns have been around for a while.
For the expanded crossing, I've always thought that we should just build a 2-laned bridge for buses ONLY and keep the tunnel. Given the frequency of 601, 620 and 351 (8 buses per hour midday, many per hour during rush hour), it should be worth.
On an unrelated note, I've always thought that allowing the trucks to access 99 from Rice Mill Road and vice versa will at least take some pressure off the interchange at Steveston Highway. I still remember the time when I was on the 401 heading to Silvercity and the driver complained that trucks jammed the intersection at Five Road and Steveston Highway really badly.
Update: Oops I just realized I didn't read everybody's comment here. Tbh I don't mind a replacement bridge as long as tankers don't come in. Environmental concerns have been around for a while.
I mean if you're gonna build a bridge anyway you might as well build it big enough for cars. Regardless of the truth surrounding the sesmic capacity of the current tunnel, it is old, and if it doesn't need to be replaced yet, it'll need to be soon enough. I don't think this is really a complicated problem. Build a bridge and get on with it.
Realistically the cost difference between a 6 lane bridge versus a 10 lane bridge is probably not a whole lot. If you are going to build a bridge you may as well build it for the capacity it needs. In terms of handling induced demand however, I am still fond of the idea of 3 lanes each direction with a 2 express lanes that switch from NB to SB at noon and SB to NB at midnight.
Realistically the cost difference between a 6 lane bridge versus a 10 lane bridge is probably not a whole lot. If you are going to build a bridge you may as well build it for the capacity it needs. In terms of handling induced demand however, I am still fond of the idea of 3 lanes each direction with a 2 express lanes that switch from NB to SB at noon and SB to NB at midnight.
Agree with this.
Also although induced demand is real its extent is dependant on lots of factors. If there are fares that is a big factor (see Port Mann example). If development is restricted on one side of a bridge there is rarely a big increase in use. This explains why, decades after construction, they can take 2 lanes out of the Burrard Bridge and plan to do the same on Granville Bridge. Those bridges were initially built with capacity to allow for some future growth and there are policies south of those bridges which limit demand growth.
Development is restricted south of Massey Tunnel because of ALR and zoning. That could change, but if so it would an intentional choice in which case the extra capacity on a new bridge would be a blessing.
i guess the GreeNDP have decided to cancel the Massey Tunnel Replacement. i noticed all those signs about the project with construction start date, etc have all been taken down. just the 3 wooden posts left standing.
i guess the GreeNDP have decided to cancel the Massey Tunnel Replacement. i noticed all those signs about the project with construction start date, etc have all been taken down. just the 3 wooden posts left standing.
It's the least they could do. Confused drivers and kept them pissed off by the lies and empty promises.
i guess the GreeNDP have decided to cancel the Massey Tunnel Replacement. i noticed all those signs about the project with construction start date, etc have all been taken down. just the 3 wooden posts left standing.
Not yet. They are under-going their technical review. See the BC gov webpage here and the terms of reference here. As you can see from the document below we should expect news to break around April or May of 2018.
Quote:
Terms of Reference – Nov. 1, 2017
The timeline for the independent review is expected to be six months. The review will include the following:
1. Review the technical objectives for George Massey crossing improvements;
2. Review the analysis and assumptions made for the Project;
3. Review and analyze previous information collected on considerations such as environmental, agricultural and port-related traffic (e.g., marine, trucks);
4. Undertake a technical review of safety, seismic and congestion issues for George Massey Tunnel;
5. Review the costs and technical requirements of a tunnel versus a bridge;
6. Identify improvements necessary to address safety, seismic and current congestion issues, including any technology limitations;
7. Review traffic models and, with TransLink, determine regional traffic model to be used for George Massey and other future regional traffic demand analysis;
8. Use the outputs from provincial, regional and local transportation planning and regional traffic modelling to validate the future traffic demand for the George Massey crossing;
9. Identify George Massey improvement options that meet technical objectives, including the size and capacity of the infrastructure, scope and cost.
The review is not a reconsideration of decisions made by the environmental assessment process, the Agricultural Land Commission review or by other statutory decision makers. The independent review lead must submit to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure a report by Spring 2018.
Not yet. They are under-going their technical review. See the BC gov webpage here and the terms of reference here. As you can see from the document below we should expect news to break around April or May of 2018.
in GreenDP speak that means, cancelled or going to have another review after that to put off making a decision.
in GreenDP speak that means, cancelled or going to have another review after that to put off making a decision.
Which basically translates to "let's keep these morons in limbo until the next election and then make it an election promise so we can keep it in limbo lol people are so stupid"
in GreenDP speak that means, cancelled or going to have another review after that to put off making a decision.
Hey, they came through on the Site C decision, and it wasn't what a lot of people expected. I for one am not making any pre-judgements about what will happen with the Massey tunnel. I doubt they'll decide to build the massive bridge that was originally planned, but it wouldn't surprise me if they decided to go for a scaled-down replacement.
But the Patullo is in more dire need, so that's got to get sorted out first, IMHO.
in GreenDP speak that means, cancelled or going to have another review after that to put off making a decision.
I am going to agree with Aberdeen that one should not pre-judge the outcome of the review. Even worse however, is pre-judging the outcome and then spouting it as fact with the sole intention of demagoguery. It is literally a fact that the bridge is under going a technical review. Any other spin-off of it being cancelled is just petty, non-nonsensical political rhetoric.
Hey, they came through on the Site C decision, and it wasn't what a lot of people expected. I for one am not making any pre-judgements about what will happen with the Massey tunnel. I doubt they'll decide to build the massive bridge that was originally planned, but it wouldn't surprise me if they decided to go for a scaled-down replacement.
But the Patullo is in more dire need, so that's got to get sorted out first, IMHO.
I would rather they do nothing though then simply add another tunnel (because then we will have to build the same project twice, once again 20 years later when the original tunnels need to be replaced...)
this is why the completely new Port Mann was a much better idea than the twinned Port Mann.
Te Pitt River Bridge is another example of this. It was originally a single swing bridge, they then twinned it with another swing bridge, and then only 30 years later an entirely new span to replace both had to be built.
Also then you get the hodgepodge road alignments, traffic flows, and interchanges with such an option (Which the old Pitt River bridges were also a good example of).
I am still hoping that they will go with an 8 lane bridge and retain at least the majority of the interchange scales / designs proposed (which are needed if we want a true rapid bus to succeed along this corridor). Also this way much of the pre construction work won't be wasted.
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by waves
I am going to agree with Aberdeen that one should not pre-judge the outcome of the review. Even worse however, is pre-judging the outcome and then spouting it as fact with the sole intention of demagoguery. It is literally a fact that the bridge is under going a technical review. Any other spin-off of it being cancelled is just petty, non-nonsensical political rhetoric.
Fact? Exactly what is a "technical" review, anyhow?
Here's my prediction, and you can go back and call me wrong later on, if that gives you some sense of closure down the road:
The governing party/parties will throw the previous governing party under the bus, and will come out prioritizing the Pattullo replacement and deferring the Massey replacement, either indefinitely or with ultra-soft targets for something so generic they can't be faulted if nothing happens at all.
There's no way that the NDP (with Meggs whispering in the NDP's ear) will accept a Port Mann replacement program in any form close to what the Liberals proposed. The Metro's opposition (driven, so to speak, by Vision Vancouver's control of Vancouver's City Council and its representation on the Metro council) to the Liberal's Port Man program virtually guarantees what the NDP will do here.
That's not rhetoric; it's Politics 101, and reading the biggest tea leaves in the room.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
Fact? Exactly what is a "technical" review, anyhow?
The Wikipedia definition is in the spoiler below. Admittedly, the scope of the definition is more broad than for simply Civil Engineering projects it describes the jist of things. I think challenging if the technical review meets the definition is a fair argument to make. However, what is not fair is claiming the project has been officially cancelled when it hasn't yet. As of this point in time it is indisputably the case that the technical review is ongoing. In other words: fact.
Just to be clear, the above is not a commentary on how fair the review will be, or what the NDP plan do with it afterwards.
In engineering, technical peer review is a type of engineering review. Technical peer reviews are a well defined review process for finding and fixing defects, conducted by a team of peers with assigned roles. Technical peer reviews are carried out by peers representing areas of life cycle affected by material being reviewed (usually limited to 6 or fewer people). Technical peer reviews are held within development phases, between milestone reviews, on completed products or completed portions of products.
The purpose of technical peer reviews is to remove defects as early as possible in the development process. By removing defects at their origin (e.g., requirements and design documents, test plans and procedures, software code, etc.), technical peer reviews prevent defects from propagating through multiple phases and work products, and reduce the overall amount of rework necessary on projects.
There are two philosophies about the vested interest of the inspectors in the product under review. On one hand, project personnel who have a vested interest in the work product under review have the most knowledge of the product and are motivated to find and fix defects. On the other hand, personnel from outside the project who do not have a vested interest in the work product bring objectivity and a fresh viewpoint to the technical peer review team.
Each inspector is invited to disclose vested interests to the rest of the technical peer review panel so the Moderator can exercise sound judgement in evaluating the inspector's inputs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s211
Here's my prediction, and you can go back and call me wrong later on, if that gives you some sense of closure down the road:
The governing party/parties will throw the previous governing party under the bus, and will come out prioritizing the Pattullo replacement and deferring the Massey replacement, either indefinitely or with ultra-soft targets for something so generic they can't be faulted if nothing happens at all.
There's no way that the NDP (with Meggs whispering in the NDP's ear) will accept a Port Mann replacement program in any form close to what the Liberals proposed. The Metro's opposition (driven, so to speak, by Vision Vancouver's control of Vancouver's City Council and its representation on the Metro council) to the Liberal's Port Man program virtually guarantees what the NDP will do here.
That's not rhetoric; it's Politics 101, and reading the biggest tea leaves in the room.
Making predictions is fine but claiming something to have happened before it happens is not. At that point it becomes political rhetoric rather than a weighted consideration of possible outcomes (aka. reading the tea leaves).
If July comes around and we still don't have the technical review it would probably be fair to say the NDP don't plan on finishing the technical review and have likely decided to sweep it under the rug. This would surprise me though. They have already shown their willingness to consider technical reviews (Site C completed by the BCUC).
I have my own opinions/predictions on the project, but I won't be passing judgement until I see the technical review because, call me an optimist, I have reason to believe they will consider the review whether that to be to cancel it, go forward with the 10 lane, or something completely different.
Fact? Exactly what is a "technical" review, anyhow?
Here's my prediction, and you can go back and call me wrong later on...
Waves is right - you're talking about a prediction, not a fact. It may well be an extremely likely prediction, but it's not a fact until it's happened, and until then I'll continue to have an open mind regarding the possibilities.
The Wikipedia definition is in the spoiler below. Admittedly, the scope of the definition is more broad than for simply Civil Engineering projects it describes the jist of things. I think challenging if the technical review meets the definition is a fair argument to make. However, what is not fair is claiming the project has been officially cancelled when it hasn't yet. As of this point in time it is indisputably the case that the technical review is ongoing. In other words: fact.
Just to be clear, the above is not a commentary on how fair the review will be, or what the NDP plan do with it afterwards.
In engineering, technical peer review is a type of engineering review. Technical peer reviews are a well defined review process for finding and fixing defects, conducted by a team of peers with assigned roles. Technical peer reviews are carried out by peers representing areas of life cycle affected by material being reviewed (usually limited to 6 or fewer people). Technical peer reviews are held within development phases, between milestone reviews, on completed products or completed portions of products.
The purpose of technical peer reviews is to remove defects as early as possible in the development process. By removing defects at their origin (e.g., requirements and design documents, test plans and procedures, software code, etc.), technical peer reviews prevent defects from propagating through multiple phases and work products, and reduce the overall amount of rework necessary on projects.
There are two philosophies about the vested interest of the inspectors in the product under review. On one hand, project personnel who have a vested interest in the work product under review have the most knowledge of the product and are motivated to find and fix defects. On the other hand, personnel from outside the project who do not have a vested interest in the work product bring objectivity and a fresh viewpoint to the technical peer review team.
Each inspector is invited to disclose vested interests to the rest of the technical peer review panel so the Moderator can exercise sound judgement in evaluating the inspector's inputs.
Making predictions is fine but claiming something to have happened before it happens is not. At that point it becomes political rhetoric rather than a weighted consideration of possible outcomes (aka. reading the tea leaves).
If July comes around and we still don't have the technical review it would probably be fair to say the NDP don't plan on finishing the technical review and have likely decided to sweep it under the rug. This would surprise me though. They have already shown their willingness to consider technical reviews (Site C completed by the BCUC).
I have my own opinions/predictions on the project, but I won't be passing judgement until I see the technical review because, call me an optimist, I have reason to believe they will consider the review whether that to be to cancel it, go forward with the 10 lane, or something completely different.
In that is the case, then they've just made the proponents jobs harder.
If companies staffed up for the project, you can know for sure that either those staff are gone, or are working on something else. It's hard to keep good project teams in limbo for long. Competent engineers and planners aren't cheap staff to keep as an overhead.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Prev
Linear Mode
