George Massey Tunnel Replacement | Proposed

[gordoninvancouver]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The problem with this article is it's also bullshit.

It's just a scattershot of ideas being fired at the target to see what sticks. He rants about traffic decreasing, then worries about traffic increasing. How it benefits no one, yet benefits the port.

He's treating it like he is a defense attorney and all he has to do to win is produce reasonable doubt, and to do that you attack it from many, even contradictory angles, because maybe one is just true enough to instill doubt.

I also question his facts he brings up. Right off the bat he cherry picks an article (from the Straight no less) that focuses on traffic change in 2008. You know, the 2008 during which the worst financial crisis since the great depression hit. It claims a 7.5% drop from 2004 to 2008. Yeah, no shit, I would wager that unemployment went up by a similar amount. Canadian GDP drop by 11%

Then he brings up the The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion. So, which is it: is traffic going to decrease or increase? The data he picks shows a decrease, but then he quotes a work that pretty much guarantees an increase.

And that increase is misleading. The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion, boiled down, says that average travel speed will stay fairly constant. Increasing road capacity allows more people to use it. People have a set tolerance for congestion. Increased capacity encourages more use, thus more immigration and economic growth.

Think of a grocery store. A huge one. It only has 1 checkout. How long will you wait in line before you shop somewhere else? 10 minutes? So that's the average wait, 10 minutes. Now the store puts in 3 extra checkouts. So is your checkout shorter? At first, then more people realize they can now check out in under 10 minutes. So the store gets more busy until people start having to wait 11 minutes, then levels off because no one wants to wait 11 minutes. Is the store a failure? Hell no, it just quadrupled its business!!! Your life is the same, but now more people can enjoy doing what you do.

So, according to The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion, if your goal is to eliminate congestion, forever, it's probably impossible. Does that mean doing nothing is the better choice? If commutes today are an hour, and commutes 30 years after building a new bridge are an hour, individually not much happened, but collectively, at least 3 times as many people can commute to work. The economy is larger and can support more growth.

This is a good explanation of the Fundamental Law, but the Law is just an approximation. It does not always follow that new capacity brings new users, sometimes there are reasons why the new users do not arrive. Take for example the Burrard and Granville Bridges, those have excess capacity many decades after they were built. The same can happen in the GMT, where 10 lanes may be enough for 100 years...the combined effect of zoning limitations and the ALR may prevent a huge increase in users south of the tunnel.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jhausner

So 8 lane bridge = 1 additional lane. Therefor the Government is quite correct (and I've pointed this out numerous times here) that 10 lanes is required if we want there to be any traffic relief during rush hour and during infrastructure issues such as accidents on alternate routes for anything more than 5 minutes.

Again I just wish people would argue with facts not opinion. Then again it is a blog post so it is purely opinion by design I guess.

I don't think you can say the counterflow system is the equivalent of having a 6-lane crossing. It's complex and inefficient, although does provide some benefit over the default crossing design.

His point was that the government was saying 2 things simultaneously:

1. 8 lanes will be congested on opening day, ie: not enough capacity.
2. 10 lanes would be sufficient to allow free-flowing traffic in 2040 - ~20 years after the bridge is built.

Those two simply don't jive.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by gordoninvancouver

This is a good explanation of the Fundamental Law, but the Law is just an approximation. It does not always follow that new capacity brings new users, sometimes there are reasons why the new users do not arrive. Take for example the Burrard and Granville Bridges, those have excess capacity many decades after they were built. The same can happen in the GMT, where 10 lanes may be enough for 100 years...the combined effect of zoning limitations and the ALR may prevent a huge increase in users south of the tunnel.

You make a good point. If regional jobs location continues to shift and you end up with a situation with more people live and work North of Fraser and live and work South of Fraser combined, you could actually see a reduction in river crossings even if our population goes up.

Personally, I don't think that is likely to really happen given we're suffering partially by a housing price forced evacuation of the city residential wise. That means people are leaving no because of work but because of price and desire to live in large housing. So the commute remains.

But you do have a valid point as to how it doesn't always follow the rule of capacity means new users.

Ultimately our congestion solution regionally IS to discourage cross-regional commuting by allowing people to live, play, and work as close to their place of residence as possible. The region has been shifting of sorts in the last decade or more but personally I don't think it is rapid enough to counter our population growth.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Ad hominem attacks don't add anything.

It wasn't an ad hominem it was a pithy one line summation of the guy's predictable response.

As BCPhil points out there are so many biases. Car haters love to base their stats after 2008 so they can use data skewed by the Great Recession to bolster their arguments. "Miles driven are dropping like a stone" "Young people don't buy cars"!! Meanwhile as the recovery finally takes hold we see all those trends reversing. Turns out a recession is just a recession, not a "this time it's different" moment.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

No one but a handful of reactionary NIMBYs ignores the fact that the region is growing. They simply can see well enough that that growth should not be accommodated in cars

The Fundamental Law of No-Shit Sherlock does not imply that that infrastructure be built to serve single-occupancy vehicles, and the fundamental laws of geometry would imply that orienting your infrastructure towards space-inefficient single occupancy commuter is a bad idea as your city grows upward. The streets aren't getting any wider. The parking isn't getting any more abundant. A low-carbon future isn't getting any less necessary.

If we collectively want LA, we'll get LA, but it's a dumb, unsustainable, and inhuman idea.

If you want to get people out of their cars, make transit more attractive. This means that those who don't *need* to use a car (there are some that need the flexibility for work related transportation) will take transit, while those who do need to drive will see efficiency gains as congestion is reduced.

Getting people out of their cars by making driving less efficient is a horrible way to go about things. In a lot of cases, transit is significantly less convenient then driving, so many will continue to drive even if driving gets less convenient. As well, making driving inconvenient is a huge burden on those who don't have any other choice.

Think of it from a utility perspective. People will switch to transit if u[transit]>u[driving]. Say the overall utility from driving for the average person is currently 10, and for transit it is 8. Keeping transit utility at an 8, and reducing driving to a 6 may get people to switch to transit, but it does so at the cost of reduced average utility. On the other hand, keeping driving at a 10, while increasing transit to a 12 also gets people out of cars, but it does so by increasing utility.
But why stop there... Even better would be increasing driving to a 12, and transit to a 14. Why not replace the GMT with a 10 lane bridge, AND run more transit across it? Both drivers and transit riders gain.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

No one but a handful of reactionary NIMBYs ignores the fact that the region is growing. They simply can see well enough that that growth should not be accommodated in cars

The Fundamental Law of No-Shit Sherlock does not imply that that infrastructure be built to serve single-occupancy vehicles, and the fundamental laws of geometry would imply that orienting your infrastructure towards space-inefficient single occupancy commuter is a bad idea as your city grows upward. The streets aren't getting any wider. The parking isn't getting any more abundant. A low-carbon future isn't getting any less necessary.

If we collectively want LA, we'll get LA, but it's a dumb, unsustainable, and inhuman idea.

I would argue that a single downtown where everyone works is also unsustainable. Continually growing upwards ads to ever increasing cost and decreases competition, thus increasing rents/prices. Without diversity and selection, prices can run away quickly. Look at the prices of homes in Vancouver today. Imagine what would happen to prices if you limited supply and choice and forbade spreading the suburbs.

Same with the job market. Not all employers have huge margins where they can spend lavishly on finely appointed downtown office space. Many businesses also need vast amounts of squarefootage to conduct their operations (maybe they need inventory space, space for tools, space for parking fleet vehicles).

Can you imagine if BC Hydro centralized all Metro Vancouver jobs downtown? Imagine the size of the building they would need to park their service trucks. Or why not sort new vehicles from Japan on the 24th through 55th floor of Park Centre? Maybe we should put Fuel storage tanks on top of every skyscraper?

There is always going to be some decentralization of the job market. Not all roads can lead to Rome. Even if the ratio stays the same and 50% (or whatever) of jobs are always downtown, as the economy grows, that means there are more jobs, more commutes, that are not downtown centric.

The fundamental law does also apply to transit. Studies have been done to show that mass transit built to ease transit congestion leads to more transit congestion. There are people who currently do not ride transit because there is not room for them, build more room and it fills up. Is that bad. No, that's progress and growth. But for some reason it's not economic growth if more people are commuting to jobs that are dispersed around the region?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

No one but a handful of reactionary NIMBYs ignores the fact that the region is growing. They simply can see well enough that that growth should not be accommodated in cars

The Fundamental Law of No-Shit Sherlock does not imply that that infrastructure be built to serve single-occupancy vehicles, and the fundamental laws of geometry would imply that orienting your infrastructure towards space-inefficient single occupancy commuter is a bad idea as your city grows upward. The streets aren't getting any wider. The parking isn't getting any more abundant. A low-carbon future isn't getting any less necessary.

If we collectively want LA, we'll get LA, but it's a dumb, unsustainable, and inhuman idea.

Vancouver is so far away from LA road wise it's not even funny, so that last comment is fairly meaningless. Just because you want some freeways in a city of millions doesn't mean you want a sprawling car only cesspit. Vancouver has already screwed itself permanently by underbuilding roads, which combined with a lack of necessary alternative investments in rail transit means there are no good options for getting around most of the city.

As others have said, make transit better to get people to use transit while also realising many trips are only feasible by car. Don't make it a race to the bottom where everyone loses.

[hankthetank]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Vancouver is so far away from LA road wise it's not even funny, so that last comment is fairly meaningless. Just because you want some freeways in a city of millions doesn't mean you want a sprawling car only cesspit. Vancouver has already screwed itself permanently by underbuilding roads, which combined with a lack of necessary alternative investments in rail transit means there are no good options for getting around most of the city.

As others have said, make transit better to get people to use transit while also realising many trips are only feasible by car. Don't make it a race to the bottom where everyone loses.

I agree, they should spend a lot more money on transit. I would love to take transit to work every day, but why would I when I can drive to work in 25 minutes vs taking transit which takes slightly over 2 hours?
Roads and parking are incorporated into every single development, even small scale, single family homes. Imagine if we treated transit the same way?

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

If we collectively want LA, we'll get LA, but it's a dumb, unsustainable, and inhuman idea.

This is such an absurd and hyprebolic comment that it doesn't warrant a serious response...

Vancouver is nothing like LA, nor are the planned investments in highway infrastructure going to make Vancouver anything like LA.

And if we take a look at cities in Europe with excellent public transport, dense walkable neighbourhoods, and much more sustainable urban planning they almost all have excellent highway infrastructure as well.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by hankthetank

I agree, they should spend a lot more money on transit. I would love to take transit to work every day, but why would I when I can drive to work in 25 minutes vs taking transit which takes slightly over 2 hours?
Roads and parking are incorporated into every single development, even small scale, single family homes. Imagine if we treated transit the same way?

Seeing how buses, taxis, car share programs, bikes, and pedestrians all also require roads, there is a very good reasons why they are part of every single development. Emergency vehicles, utility vehicles, and various commercial vehicles also require roads. That is quite a silly argument IMO.

Even here in Japan, the country with the world's best train network, every single development still incorporates roads.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by hankthetank

I agree, they should spend a lot more money on transit. I would love to take transit to work every day, but why would I when I can drive to work in 25 minutes vs taking transit which takes slightly over 2 hours?
Roads and parking are incorporated into every single development, even small scale, single family homes. Imagine if we treated transit the same way?

An interesting question, but how would a modern city work without every house and business not having road access? Even if you say everyone can walk or take transit, how do you get deliveries? Emergency services? Construction?

We may like it or not, but road infrastructure to all units is mandatory while public transport is not. The only alternative to roads I can think of is some sort of Minority Report style personal rapid transit, but that is pretty much the same as roads anyway!

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by milomilo

An interesting question, but how would a modern city work without every house and business not having road access? Even if you say everyone can walk or take transit, how do you get deliveries? Emergency services? Construction?

We may like it or not, but road infrastructure to all units is mandatory while public transport is not. The only alternative to roads I can think of is some sort of Minority Report style personal rapid transit, but that is pretty much the same as roads anyway!

It's not really that hypothetical of a question as there are many cities that have pedestrian only areas of the city.

You still have streets for pedestrians and cyclists but they are wide enough that small vehicles can go down them if need be.

If you restrict car use to certain time of day deliveries and emergency use you really don't need a great deal of space for cars.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

It's not really that hypothetical of a question as there are many cities that have pedestrian only areas of the city.

You still have streets for pedestrians and cyclists but they are wide enough that small vehicles can go down them if need be.

If you restrict car use to certain time of day deliveries and emergency use you really don't need a great deal of space for cars.

But those are still roads. That is not what he was saying. And those districts are still serviced by much larger roads. And those larger roads by even larger roads. The only difference is the scale, it is not having no roads at all.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

But those are still roads. That is not what he was saying. And those districts are still serviced by much larger roads. And those larger roads by even larger roads. The only difference is the scale, it is not having no roads at all.

Exactly. It definitely does put transit at an automatic disadvantage, but I don't see any alternative - all buildings must have roads built to them.

[Steveston]

Apologies if someone has covered this in a previous post, but I don't have time to read them all...

I use the GMT on my weekday commute, but counterflow, so although I'm not stuck in the long lineup, I still see what everyone else is talking about. I don't dispute the need to do something, but I'm not 100% sold on the giant bridge option.

I'm wondering if it's time to have another look at the expanded/upgraded tunnel option.

Why not consider adding another 4-lane tube parallel to the existing tunnel. For illustrative purposes, let's say it's built to the east. The new tube would be entirely NB, the existing tube would be converted to entirely SB.

What if there was a counterflow lane in each tube designated as the primary flow HOV lane? Then you'd have 4 lanes + HOV NB during the AM rush, and 3 lanes SB. During the PM rush, the counterflow would switch to the other tube, and you'd have the same scenario: 4 lanes + HOV SB, and 3 lanes NB. You wouldn't need an HOV lane in the opposite direction, because you've increased the number of lanes in the non-rush direction from one to three -- more than enough to handle the traffic.

The Port claims that the tunnel is not a factor in their planning for facilities on the Fraser, so let's call their bluff and say "OK, we'll keep the tunnel, and expand it".

If the existing tunnel needs major seismic upgrading, then build the new tunnel, switch all traffic to it while you upgrade the existing one (the traffic pattern will remain as it currently is), then open the whole works to the new 4 + HOV pattern when the upgrade is done.

And add tolls. At least until we get a workable mobility pricing system sometime in the distant future.

I'm pretty sure that this would cost a whole lot less than $3.5b. Use the cost savings to extend the Broadway line all the way to UBC.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Steveston

I'm pretty sure that this would cost a whole lot less than $3.5b.

Why are you so sure? Sounds awfully expensive for a less desirable solution.

[GlassCity]

While I'm not too keen on the 10 lane proposal, I do think it needs to be a bridge, if only for the pedestrian and cycling connections. I think it'll go a long way to make South Delta feel less isolated. As far as whether or not a replacement is needed, yes, it is. I lean quite heavily towards transit over cars, but the fact is that this piece of infrastructure is simply too undersized at this point. I do think they're overbuilding it, especially with the enormous highway expansion as well, but that's a worse problem to have then the status quo.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

It's not really that hypothetical of a question as there are many cities that have pedestrian only areas of the city.

You still have streets for pedestrians and cyclists but they are wide enough that small vehicles can go down them if need be.

If you restrict car use to certain time of day deliveries and emergency use you really don't need a great deal of space for cars.

That's because many cities like that have small streets in areas that comprise of buildings that are hundreds of years old, and probably won't be replaced, ever. If they are, most likely it will be by a building of similar, limited height. In areas that see larger economic growth and taller, more modern buildings, they have wider roads. You can't stage large scale construction and bring in building supplies like steel girders on tiny bike only streets (or if you are forced to, it drastically increases cost and/or build time).

Even everyone's favorite bike friendly city Copenhagen has the Øresund Bridge, a 4 Billion Euro ($5.75 billion) project connecting Denmark and Sweden. It only carries 19,000 vehicles/day (but also trains), and they figure it has already contributed 8 Billion Euros to the economies of Copenhagen and Malmo. The Storebæltsbroen, on the other side of Funen, cost $1.2 billion (1990 dollars) to build just the vehicle suspension bridge portion that carries 32,000 cars a day.

So heavy spending on supporting road infrastructure isn't out of the question, even in a place like Denmark. And this is what we are talking about, a major highway bridge that is connecting different cities, ports, and a border crossing; not the streetscape of an urban center.

[urbancanadian]

Saw this in a Richmond City Council report, thought it might interest some people. The golf course to the west of Highway 99 has closed and the owners are planning to subdivide the parcel to allow for more of the same along that stretch (places of worship and light agricultural land - you can see an example immediately south).

Anyways, the map also shows how much land the MOTI will be expropriating through this section.



Link to the document below. The image is on page 399.
http://www.richmond.ca/agendafiles/O..._5-24-2016.pdf (34 mb)

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Steveston

I'm wondering if it's time to have another look at the expanded/upgraded tunnel option.

Why not consider adding another 4-lane tube parallel to the existing tunnel. For illustrative purposes, let's say it's built to the east. The new tube would be entirely NB, the existing tube would be converted to entirely SB.

As I have mentioned numerous times before. the GMT will likely suffer major catastrophic failure even with just a shallow, localized 6.5 quake as opposed to a cable-stayed bridge over the Fraser River (eg. AFB), which is constructed to withstand major structural failure even at 8.5.

For illustrative purposes, this realistic hypothetical article regarding the "big one":

In 2009, the Ministry of Transport contracted Vancouver-based Weir-Jones Engineering to hook up a ShakeAlarm warning system for the Massey Tunnel, which runs below the Fraser River. It detected last year's Dec. 29 magnitude-4.8 quake northeast of Victoria more than 10 seconds in advance, but that quake wasn't big enough to shut the tunnel down.

[The Big One] is strong enough to trigger action: the signal lights in both directions turn red. Traffic stops, so the tunnel is clear when 100 m of fine clay beneath the structure liquefies and the tunnel collapses.

Except for the poor saps caught inside the GMT at the time.