George Massey Tunnel Replacement | Proposed

[SOSS]

.... by any chance will this 10-lane + 2x 3 meter sidewalk/bike path bridge regain BCs title of having the worlds widest bridge?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by jhausner

That would be fine if the purpose of replacing the tunnel was to combat traffic. It isn't. It is for industry and helping traffic is just a nice side effect. We shouldn't kid ourselves and in our down turned economy, we kind of need to encourage business and industry, so I think it is a perfectly valid reason alone to do the project. They want to dredge the Fraser River deeper at the point of the tunnel so they can fit larger ships and/or ships loaded more up to Surrey Fraser docks. It will also better facilitate traffic to/from the US and to/from Richmond/Airport to South of Fraser where all the shipping companies have moved now.

You say this but there are other impediments nearby, like a major Metro Vancouver water main that's at the same level as the tunnel. And the mouth of the river downstream from the tunnel actually has lower depth than at the tunnel due to all the silt and sediment that gets washed downstream. They'd have to do additional major work, and Metro Vancouver would have to get onboard as well.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by SOSS

.... by any chance will this 10-lane + 2x 3 meter sidewalk/bike path bridge regain BCs title of having the worlds widest bridge?

Doubt it - both Port Mann and the Bay Bridge have a gap between the roadbeds that this one won't have.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Will it be not an "immediate issue" when thousands are crushed/drown when the big earthquake inevitably comes?

Yeah, it's not an "immediate" issue because you don't know when the Big One will hit.
Once it does - it's a "past" issue.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Doubt it - both Port Mann and the Bay Bridge have a gap between the roadbeds that this one won't have.

I wonder if the experience with the ice bombs on the Port Mann bridge led to a design that avoids having the cables cross above the roadway. You still get ice bombs, but not as many if the cables are confined to the sides.

[officedweller]

Yes, I would think so, but the bridge piers here will also straddle the existing tunnel.
Single pole towers would have to pierce the tunnel on the same alignment (and an adjacent alignment would eat into farmland).

[Millennium2002]

I seriously disagree with the way this project is being planned for transit use.

The BRT portion of it has been cheaped out to the point it's practically a fatal accident (or many) waiting to happen. Like, why are they making opposing bus traffic intersect in not one, but THREE separate places.... No other jurisdiction does this, and the ones that have centre platforms have dedicated left-hand-side doors! I would understand if the opposing lanes were grade-separated from each other, but they are clearly not in this case! I wouldn't even feel good if a poor traffic light was trying to control things... we all know that it takes a fair amount of distance and time to stop when travelling fast.

It's been also noted that buses to/from Ladner and Tsawwassen have no access to the freeway's HOV lanes or the Delta Freeway Bus Station. So not only will Vancouver-bound commuters of those areas lose out on a faster and more reliable commute, the commuters heading between Delta and Surrey will also have to travel even further to transfer at Steveston. And how is that supposed to encourage inter-regional use of transit?

I really think the province is just screwing with the region and the transit authority at this point. Make a mess, say great things about it, and then have the others clean up after you at their expense. And I won't let that pass.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

The BRT portion of it has been cheaped out to the point it's practically a fatal accident (or many) waiting to happen. Like, why are they making opposing bus traffic intersect in not one, but THREE separate places.... No other jurisdiction does this, and the ones that have centre platforms have dedicated left-hand-side doors! I would understand if the opposing lanes were grade-separated from each other, but they are clearly not in this case! I wouldn't even feel good if a poor traffic light was trying to control things... we all know that it takes a fair amount of distance and time to stop when travelling fast.

It's been also noted that buses to/from Ladner and Tsawwassen have no access to the freeway's HOV lanes or the Delta Freeway Bus Station. So not only will Vancouver-bound commuters of those areas lose out on a faster and more reliable commute, the commuters heading between Delta and Surrey will also have to travel even further to transfer at Steveston. And how is that supposed to encourage inter-regional use of transit?

I think the Bridgeport overpass is cheap because they know they'll be replacing the Oak St. bridge fairly soon.

The crossover bus stations are used in LA on the Metro Silver line. They keep the station from being too wide, requiring two platforms. It also means that any bus can be a rapid bus, not just a dedicated fleet.

I'm most concerned about the lack of connection from 17A to the bus lanes. This should be built at the same time a other rapid bus service is established to Tsawassen and Ladner. There shouldn't be a forced transfer for the major traffic flow direction. The routes should be interlined.

[Millennium2002]

I would not mind the presence of a centre platform bus station but only if:
- either we have a dedicated fleet purchased for TransLink for this purpose, OR
- opposing traffic is grade-separated from each other, like in Los Angeles.

In this case, neither is happening...

[officedweller]

Here's a pic of the bus criss-cross on the Harbour Freeway Silver Line in Los Angeles.



Video of a bus entering the station at 2:44 and exiting at 3:23 here:

• Video Link

There was an accident in 2012 when a private vehicle accidentally exited the HOV lane and entered the bus station and hit people on the platform.
The platform is now protected with bollards.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/...iting-for-bus/

[cairnstone]

Oak street will be going through deck rehab and addition half life improvements in the next few years extending its life 30 plus years.

[Metro-One]

The bus station cross over is fine.

Most bus depots / hubs have far more conflicting traffic movements so if bus drivers can't navigate a simple cross over of bus only lanes entering and leaving a station, well, then they should not be driving at all. An average intersection is far more busy and difficult to navigate.

Also, it makes sense to have it so all buses can bu used at these stations, not just specially designated.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

Oak street will be going through deck rehab and addition half life improvements in the next few years extending its life 30 plus years.

Oh god why bother. Just build a new bridge.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

You say this but there are other impediments nearby, like a major Metro Vancouver water main that's at the same level as the tunnel. And the mouth of the river downstream from the tunnel actually has lower depth than at the tunnel due to all the silt and sediment that gets washed downstream. They'd have to do additional major work, and Metro Vancouver would have to get onboard as well.

Main is easy to deal with and will be. The reason the silt is higher is because they haven't been dredging that far as there is no point with the Tunnel being so shallow.

Once the tunnel is gone the main will be relocated deeper and that stretch including the mouth downstream will be dredged so that they can increase ship load from 40% right now to 60%. This has all been stated in documents elsewhere, just read through the reports from a few years back. I don't have the time to pull it up, but the purpose of the bridge was chiefly so they can dredge the river deeper and increase ship load capacity downstream from Surrey Fraser docks to attract more shipping companies and expand use.

Remember the tunnel is the big media item. Water mains and dredging happen all the time and while they can be expensive too, nobody every noticed or says anything. Case and point, the major main put in at the same time as the Port Mann Bridge (and continuing after). Did you hear anything about it in the news? Nope. So once the tunnel is gone they will just deal with the water main like they always do, to little fanfare, and no opposition.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Oh god why bother. Just build a new bridge.

You buying?

[s211]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Oh god why bother. Just build a new bridge.

No kidding. Good luck burying your head in the sand, City of Vancouver. Or should we just call you New New Westminster?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Main is easy to deal with and will be. The reason the silt is higher is because they haven't been dredging that far as there is no point with the Tunnel being so shallow.

Once the tunnel is gone the main will be relocated deeper and that stretch including the mouth downstream will be dredged so that they can increase ship load from 40% right now to 60%. This has all been stated in documents elsewhere, just read through the reports from a few years back. I don't have the time to pull it up, but the purpose of the bridge was chiefly so they can dredge the river deeper and increase ship load capacity downstream from Surrey Fraser docks to attract more shipping companies and expand use.

Remember the tunnel is the big media item. Water mains and dredging happen all the time and while they can be expensive too, nobody every noticed or says anything. Case and point, the major main put in at the same time as the Port Mann Bridge (and continuing after). Did you hear anything about it in the news? Nope. So once the tunnel is gone they will just deal with the water main like they always do, to little fanfare, and no opposition.

I'll just put this out there as response:

The facts are: that in order for the proposed 14.5m depth to be achieved and maintained, the George Massey Tunnel would have to be removed along with GVWD 30” water main (costs yet to be determined) along with a one- time dredging cost of $200 million, and an estimated annual dredging costs of $30 million. There would be other costs, before any dredging to deepen the Lower Fraser River could take place: (1) The cost of a full hydrological study that would have to be undertaken, to determine what effects this would have on the sustainability of its ecosystem to support fish and wildlife. (2) The effects it would have on the existing dikes and the costs to rebuild them if necessary. (3) Determining if the deepening would result in the salinity advancing too far up river and affecting the ability of the farmers to use the water for irrigation.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I'll just put this out there as response:

Maybe they can reclaim some land for industrial uses using the dredged up material. Anyone want to calculate how much material they would need to dredge up to reclaim say a 1 sqkm patch of land somewhere near Roberts Bank (assuming a depth of say 5 meters at high tide).

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You buying?

I would gladly pay a toll if it were at least 6 lanes.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Oh god why bother. Just build a new bridge.

They should build an additional bridge linking No 5 Road with Fraser with no on/off ramps to Mitchell Island. It can't be that expensive if they build a simple 4-lane box girder bridge like the Canada Line bridge. Put a $1 per crossing toll on it along with the Oak Street Bridge.