George Massey Tunnel Replacement | Proposed

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Since there seems to be more conversation here about the 97 than either the Kelowna or BC highway thread, please read this article and my theoretical practical properly scaled highway plan for the 97

How did the George Massey Tunnel thread turn into the Fantasy Okanagan Highways thread???

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

How did the George Massey Tunnel thread turn into the Fantasy Okanagan Highways thread???

I think you mean “how did the fantasy George Massey Tunnel thread turn into a fantasy okanagan highway thread”. I explained on the last page

[Tysonbrown]

Let's move the discussion about Kelowna and Hwy 97 to a thread about Kelowna and Hwy 97.

[kungfucious]

Hi guys....
Love the forum and the information & ideas always being tossed around
I finally decided to register cause now I have a question (actually a few):

So the groundbreaking was td for the tunnel replacement proj.
1. What happened to the reversed bus island under the overpass? This was innovative and gotta admit, leading edge for anything in NA. U/f, now I cannot find any mention of this nor even pictures of it online. I suspect this has something to do with the cancellation of the original bridge project and not wanting those remnants to be still circulating for ppl like me?

2. In the latest mock-up drawings, bike lanes are depicted in the middle of the tunnel. Can anybody confirm this will indeed come true?

3. This guy admitted he is a BC Liberal Party supporter, but he makes a great point which applies to this project as well as any other major transportation project ever done in BC (still looking at you Port Mann) or anywhere else in NA for that matter... Why the exclusion for future transit needs? How come there was no inclusion for prepping the tunnel now for rapid transit in the tomorrow?
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/mass...nion?auto=true

4. I understand the tunnel will be demolished after this one is built (this question goes a little deeper).
For this project, a bridge was originally intended. I'm neutral to the whole bridge/tunnel choice anyways, but why wasn't there any effort to upgrade and preserve the original? In my perfect world, the existing tunnel would have been upgraded to meet current safety standards AND a new crossing would have been built directly over top. Why the need for both? To separate direction of traffic and to use the new crossing as the base to build a rapid transit component. In this scenario, traffic capacity would effectively have been doubled instead of the 1.25, 1.5, 1.75x factors of either the original bridge/ current tunnel proposals.

note: I am making the same argument critiquing the Port Mann bridge and any other crossing yet to be constructed. The old PMB could have been kept as a pedestrian, bicycle, rapid transit crossing. Obviously not directly comparable, but with imagination... our own NYC High Line?

note: If anybody decides to answer, please don't use cost/money as an answer. We all know, in any political environment, any cost can be a justified expense so long as you can sell it to the public. In these cases, you can't put a price on good LT urban planning.

[flipper316]

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/rich...l-construction

What a joke .

[wabooba]

Originally Posted by flipper316

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/rich...l-construction

What a joke.

Not to contradict in any way, but purely out of intellectual curiosity, why do you consider this interchange a joke? Is it underbuilt? What?

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by wabooba

Not to contradict in any way, but purely out of intellectual curiosity, why do you consider this interchange a joke? Is it underbuilt? What?

because it's a much scaled down version of the original concept, and it doesn't solve the bottleneck issues because it still has the traffic lights.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/stev...ridge-richmond
This is the original concept that was part of the bridge project. It's 100% free flowing, and the bus interchange is right in the middle so passengers do not have to cross any streets to make any transfers. However, the morons at Richmond city hall opposed it.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by kungfucious

Hi guys....
Love the forum and the information & ideas always being tossed around
I finally decided to register cause now I have a question (actually a few):


2. In the latest mock-up drawings, bike lanes are depicted in the middle of the tunnel. Can anybody confirm this will indeed come true?

3. This guy admitted he is a BC Liberal Party supporter, but he makes a great point which applies to this project as well as any other major transportation project ever done in BC (still looking at you Port Mann) or anywhere else in NA for that matter... Why the exclusion for future transit needs? How come there was no inclusion for prepping the tunnel now for rapid transit in the tomorrow?
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/mass...nion?auto=true

4. I understand the tunnel will be demolished after this one is built (this question goes a little deeper).
For this project, a bridge was originally intended. I'm neutral to the whole bridge/tunnel choice anyways, but why wasn't there any effort to upgrade and preserve the original?

note: I am making the same argument critiquing the Port Mann bridge and any other crossing yet to be constructed. The old PMB could have been kept as a pedestrian, bicycle, rapid transit crossing. Obviously not directly comparable, but with imagination... our own NYC High Line?

I haven't seen images of the bike lanes being in the middle - this is the image I've seen, with bikes / peds on one side (which could also be used as emergency access if needed).

There were no plans for adding rail to this project as the idea is laughable (and FYI I grew up in N Delta). That far south wants to be lower density, which means there aren't enough people for rail transit to be worth it. It will take a loooong time before buses aren't enough and changing to a true BRT system (with physically separated bus-only lanes) won't cost anywhere near as much. There's a reason TransLink is looking into doing BRT vs trying to add Skytrain absolutely everywhere.

You're not the first person to bring up 'why can't we keep it for ___?' The reality is that they've looked into it and the useful lifespan left on the tunnel is likely less than 50 years. When you do the math of how much it will cost vs how many people will use it until it has to be demolished - well I for one would rather they spend money to add a bike / ped lane to the new tunnel instead.

I don't know what state the Port Mann was in but I know that when the Pattullo bridge is replaced they won't be keeping the old one for a linear park as it's in pretty bad shape (they've been having to do band-aid repairs on it to keep it safe until the new bridge opens).

[Metro-One]

It’s barely an upgrade at this point. A single overpass structure with lights and squeezed in sub-par transit amenities.

And keep in mind, all this for a much higher price tag!

[libtard]

It’s definitely an upgrade. For the people that actually live in the area it will make east/west travel across steveston highway much better.

[connect2source]

It'll likely be ripped-up again or heavily modified if the Liberals win and re-start their cancelled bridge project.

[SpongeG]

is the new tunnel expected in the 2030s?

[s211]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

And keep in mind, all this for a much higher price tag!

B-B-B-B-B-B-B-But you can't put a price on "Community Benefits"!!!!!

Oh no, wait. Yes the NDP just did.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

is the new tunnel expected in the 2030s?

it was 3 billion bridge in 2022. original plan.

4 billion tunnel in unspecified 2030s. NDP plan.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

it was 3 billion bridge in 2022. original plan.

4 billion tunnel in unspecified 2030s. NDP plan.

And the 2022 plan also had 35 km of the highway being fully upgraded akin to the #1, with a true centre lane rapid bus system with free flow grade separated ramps and full scale stations.

This plan has shoulder “bus lanes” with rinky-dinky stops, at grade bus “ramps” that dissect on ramps (traffic lights) and nearly no highway upgrades.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

it was 3 billion bridge in 2022. original plan.

4 billion tunnel in unspecified 2030s. NDP plan.

Without taking sides on the bridge-vs-tunnel debate, it is fair to note that the construction costs for the bridge could well have gone significantly over budget given the rise in costs from COVID.

[Lexus]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

because it's a much scaled down version of the original concept, and it doesn't solve the bottleneck issues because it still has the traffic lights.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/stev...ridge-richmond
This is the original concept that was part of the bridge project. It's 100% free flowing, and the bus interchange is right in the middle so passengers do not have to cross any streets to make any transfers. However, the morons at Richmond city hall opposed it.

I actually agree with Richmond Mayor. Those ramps Are commonly seen between interstate connections. These are only to connect Steveston HWY to HWY 99.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Lexus

I actually agree with Richmond Mayor. Those ramps Are commonly seen between interstate connections. These are only to connect Steveston HWY to HWY 99.

Yes, it would not be safe to have traffic coming off NB 99 at freeway speeds only to run smack into the intersection at Steveston Hwy and No. 5. It's busy with truck traffic going to the industrial park and shoppers going to Ironwood.

[officedweller]

I think the main reason for the 3 level interchange was to accommodate the "basket-weave" on the middle level which had traffic flow "wrong side" so that right-side bus doors would land on the centre platforms (which had escalators and elevators to the bus station on Hwy 99 below). That wrong-way configuration would complicate/prevent a traffic light configuration for on-ramps and off-ramps (because drivers would have to know to turn into the wrong-side (left) lanes), so they flew them overhead to avoid conflicts.
Without the median bus stations on Steveston Hwy and Hwy 99, the flyovers are not necessary.



https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/stev...ridge-richmond

The bus station on Hwy 99 would also have had a level criss-cross of bus lanes to get doors to the centre platform, as seen in LA on the Harbor Transitway.

https://www.transit.wiki/Harbor_Freeway_Station

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by connect2source

It'll likely be ripped-up again or heavily modified if the Liberals win and re-start their cancelled bridge project.

Yes, one can hope it will be ripped out and replaced soon after completion. Just like Nordel Connector.

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Without taking sides on the bridge-vs-tunnel debate, it is fair to note that the construction costs for the bridge could well have gone significantly over budget given the rise in costs from COVID.

While construction costs would have raised, the bridge would have been largely completed before COVID.