George Massey Tunnel Replacement | Proposed

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

BTW, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal, for example, all have much, much better designed and complete highway systems than Metro Vancouver. In fact, we are the laughing stock of Canada in that regard, if ya don't know it yet.

OTOH, these same cities also have great and expanding lrt/subway/rail transit systems.

Just use some common sense and think about it.

Traffic is chaotic in Vancouver, just like any big Canadian city, but we manage to function without a freeway running through DT, or without much of a freeway system at all. This is a testament to how well rapid transit works in Metro Vancouver. In a few years Vancouver will have a longer rapid transit system than a city more than twice its size.

At 79.6 km, Vancouver's SkyTrain system will become the longest rapid transit system in Canada after the completion of the Evergreen Line, compared to the Toronto subway and RT (76 km after the York University/Vaughan extension in 2014) and Montreal Metro (69.2 km).

I often wonder if we might be better off taking the billions of dollars that we spend on new bridges and expanded freeways, and funneled it towards Skytrain expansion and relatively cheap to build commuter rail lines. When you look at the beneficial effect a rapid transit line has on your city vs the detrimental effect a freeway has - the Gardiner Expressway is a fine example - and combine that with the capacity advantages (Skytrain's ultimate capacity is the equivalent of a 20 lane freeway) while taking up far less land, the clear winner is rail transit.

[Metro-One]

While Vancouver may not need a freeway directing feeding downtown, Metro-Vancouver does need a freeways network, like any other industrialized multi million metro in the world.

Also, it is not as simple as measuring the merits of a highway vs. transit simply on the daily use of passengers. The two in many ways serve very different purposes.

One of the most important functions of high capacity roads (freeways) is the movement of goods and services that cannot be transported on mass transit.

I have never been a "one or the other" person. From what I have noticed the healthiest cities in the world have both great mass transit and highway networks.

Also remember that our primary highway (#1) had many structures reaching the end of their functional life and required replacement. Couple that with the extremely outdated 1950's / 60s design, the highway 1 upgrade was more than warranted.

One last point is highways and bridges also carry transit services (and have the potential to increase those service loads).

We live in a region criss crossed with inlets, bays, and rivers, the need for bridges is inevitable. In fact i feel compared to many places I have been in Europe and Asia we are still lacking in bridge crossings, in all fronts (highway, transit, local road, bike, and pedestrian).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

One of the most important functions of high capacity roads (freeways) is the movement of goods and services that cannot be transported on mass transit.

This is the same tired old argument that gets trotted out over and over again to justify freeway expansion. The truth is this: if you remove all the non-commercial Single Occupancy Vehicles then Vancouver has tons more road capacity than what's needed to efficiently move commercial traffic. The problem isn't that we don't have the capacity for commercial traffic, it's that we don't have the capacity for SOVs. If a reasonable share of the transportation budget in this province went toward building a rapid transit network then it would draw away more of those SOV drivers, and THAT would benefit commercial traffic.

[Metro-One]

Well you just cherry picked one of many points from my post. Alone, I would agree, but when coupled with aging structures, half century+ outdated designs, etc... then that justifies fixing / expanding our highways system, especially when ours on an international level is incredibly small. If metro-Vancouver overbuilt its freeway network like many cities in the US and eastern Canada did, then you would have a point, but we didn't.

So now I see that it is more than reasonable that our metro-area should have a freeways network comparable in size and modern design to those in countless European, Asian, and Oceanic cities.

Also, Vancouver's extra "road capacity" is shit for industrial / commercial vehicles, having to start and stop every block at traffic lights.

In my perfect Vancouver world, we should have skytrain built out with the Broadway Line and Surrey extensions, the Van street car network built, the subsequent extra surface road capacity switched over to pedestrian / cycling uses, and a comprehensive freeway network for through traffic / industrial traffic / commercial traffic / rapid buses built / upgraded to modern standards and tolled per km for general users.....omg, that is kind of like Asia and Europe! wow! how about that?

[East Van]

No doubt.

[Millennium2002]

These forums... and their love-hate relationship to freeways... I don't think I'll even step in there...

As for the argument about how Clayton Heights, Grandview Heights, Morgan Heights and others are poorly served by transit... I think the others have hit the nail on the head. Most of the existing projects are only green in image... but are not close to any existing service whatsoever. Yes, it's conceivable to redo transit such that they and the surrounding areas are better served but I'm not completely confident that will happen any time soon.

Anyway, my vision for the George Massey Tunnel is two to three lanes general purpose + one lane HOV. It should be tolled to recoup costs and generate revenue for the rest of the system.

In addition to this, I'd also include within the scope of the project an expanded transit exchange and park and ride at the existing South Surrey location. It'd be housed in a two to three-storey structure with parking and a few shops and services. Fees would be charged (e.g. $2 per day) for parking.

As an alternative/complement to the above, more funds could be permanently directed to reforming transit services in the South Surrey area.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

These forums... and their love-hate relationship to freeways... I don't think I'll even step in there...

As for the argument about how Clayton Heights, Grandview Heights, Morgan Heights and others are poorly served by transit... I think the others have hit the nail on the head. Most of the existing projects are only green in image... but are not close to any existing service whatsoever. Yes, it's conceivable to redo transit such that they and the surrounding areas are better served but I'm not completely confident that will happen any time soon.

Clayton is also a matter of demographics. Lots of families are out there. You also have to have a walkable neighbourhood. This encourages people to either rely on fewer cars or go car-free. Clayton's not bad, but it's still housing around a hub of commercial, instead of housing intermingled with commercial.

You have to put low-rises or mid-rises around the shopping. Get as many people as possible clustered within walking distance of a grocery store and then watch car ownership decrease and transit usage go up.

As for rapid bus through the GM tunnel, who would it serve? Ladner? Wouldn't regular HOV serve the same purpose? Does it really need a dedicated bus lane?

[tybuilding]

We should take a wait and see when it comes to the replacing the tunnel. We should see what the effect of the Port Mann is. Did you know that volumes on the Port Mann have decreased the last 5 years?

http://daily.sightline.org/2012/10/0...rt-mann-bridge



The Patullo dropped from 2005-2008.


http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2012/...-one-gets-cut/

The volume in the tunnel is also dropping:

He quotes a 2008 Regional Screenline Survey from TransLink measuring traffic volumes around the Lower Mainland, which shows the number of vehicles using the tunnel had actually dropped 7.5 per cent in previous years.

Should we risk starting the tunnel in earnest without seeing what traffic volumes are doing around the Lower Mainland? Maybe they will continue to drop as well. The public will be on the hook for lost revenue if the projections made for the project are wrong. Look at other places in the world. That is what happened.

Recent motorway projects in NSW – including the Lane Cove Tunnel, the Cross City Tunnel and the Eastern Distributor – had all falied to reach their forecast traffic numbers.

What happens if the Golden Ears, Port Mann, Patullo and the Tunnel all fail to see projected traffic volumes? Are all these projects viable at current traffic volumes? with continued falling traffic volumes? Who pays? Translink does for the Golden Ears which results in cuts elsewhere. They actually need to advertise for people to use the bridge!

[Alex Mackinnon]

Both Patullo and the tunnel are coming to the end of their useful lives though, which is why these questions are being asked.

They're also pretty crappy when it comes to accommodating cyclists, pedestrians and road users alike. They're both probably not all that seismically sound and both are a definite safety hazard by most standards.

So why would you want to settle for the status quo which is pour money in to exponentially more rehab? The facility needs to be there as is.

As soon as you make the logical decision that you would like to replace these structures, then small expansions is also probably in the cards and building a larger tunnel or bridge isn't much more expensive than building a smaller one. Hence, declining volumes aren't that huge of a deal.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Did you know that volumes on the Port Mann have decreased the last 5 years?
...
The Patullo dropped from 2005-2008.
...
The volume in the tunnel is also dropping:

That's all very interesting, but the fact is that the Alex Fraser volume has grown substantially in that same time and has essentially hit capacity. So it would be wrong to say that bridge traffic has decreased overall, but it would be accurate to say that traffic has finally finished its 25-year process of redistributing that started when Alex Fraser opened.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

As for rapid bus through the GM tunnel, who would it serve? Ladner? Wouldn't regular HOV serve the same purpose? Does it really need a dedicated bus lane?

I think you jumped the gun there. I didn't ask for a bus-only lane, just an HOV lane through the tunnel + transit improvements in the South Surrey area.

This is more akin to the Port Mann project in some respects...

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

As soon as you make the logical decision that you would like to replace these structures, then small expansions is also probably in the cards and building a larger tunnel or bridge isn't much more expensive than building a smaller one. Hence, declining volumes aren't that huge of a deal.

Declining traffic volumes are a big deal if you're basing your financing on the idea of recovering costs through tolls. There are a helluva lot of projects around the world right now that are in big, big financial trouble because traffic didn't live up to projections.

[go_leafs_go02]

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel...sion-Guide.pdf

Hot off the presses, it's the Project Discussion Guide.

77% SOV, 10% HOV use the tunnel at present.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel...sion-Guide.pdf

Hot off the presses, it's the Project Discussion Guide.

77% SOV, 10% HOV use the tunnel at present.

Thanks for the link.

This is very interesting:

Transit comprises about 1 per cent of rush hour tunnel traffic, but carries up to 26 per cent of people travelling through the tunnel. Ten TransLink bus routes operate on the Highway 99 corridor, of which six use the tunnel, including the #351 from White Rock/South Surrey to the Bridgeport Canada Line station. These routes generate up to 40 buses per hour during the peak period.

It sounds like the Hwy99 bus lanes and the queue jumper at the tunnel benefit a significant number of people -far more than it appears from the perspective of someone stuck in traffic. It also sounds like efforts to increase transit use in the short term would have a significant positive impact on the number of people the crossing is able to carry and reduce congestion. If up to 40 buses per hour are responsible for moving up to a quarter of the total number of people using the tunnel, what would the use profile and congestion of the tunnel look like if Translink had the resources to run buses more frequently?

If Translink were given the resources to foster a doubling or tripling of the rate of transit use for the routes that feed into the tunnel it would seem that this mode of travel could conceivably transport the majority of people travelling through the tunnel while only comprising a few percent of the total number of vehicle trips. A replacement crossing is still going to be needed at some point in the relatively near future and the open house boards even note that it could take up to ten years to deliver a replacement crossing. But if alleviating current congestion is the primary factor that prompted a commitment to replace the tunnel as soon as possible, not to mention the construction of the new Port Mann Bridge, the Province should also be prepared to commit dollars to reduce current congestion by significantly increasing transit service on routes that use the tunnel.

95% of the northbound peak traffic through the tunnel goes to Vancouver and Richmond, while 80% originates in South Delta and South Burnaby/Langley. The dispersed origin of trips and relatively concentrated destination areas are well suited to commuter bus service. I honestly think the Province would have a slam dunk on its hands if it launched a high quality, branded premium fare express bus service akin to Ontario's GO Buses. It would require a long-term funding commitment but it would make the most out of existing infrastructure and offer an attractive level of service that would convert trips from automobile to transit, which is long-standing Provincial policy.

If Vancouver and Richmond are destinations for nearly all (95%) peak period trips via the George Massey Tunnel then investments in high quality transit, like the Millennium Line extension along Broadway, and a concerted effort to service Richmond's dispersed employment areas by bus, would both have direct impacts on the attractiveness of transit to those currently driving. If transit already accounts for up to a quarter of the tunnel's users, and doubling the rate of transit use on the routes that use the tunnel could theoretically result in transit accounting for half of the tunnel's user, then then it is madness to not see transit as being in any way connected to a discussion about the George Massey Tunnel.

One glaring thing that jumped out at me from the open house boards was the 'Land Use Impacts' section. The first of the section's two brief paragraphs describes the current industrial and agricultural land uses adjacent to the tunnel and its approaches. The second brief paragraph describes the tunnel's geographic location and notes that the location of the replacement crossing will need careful consideration. This section utterly fails to actually discuss the land use impacts of providing additional road capacity for this crossing. Unbelievable.

For what it's worth, what might the cost/benefit ratio be like between extending the life of the tunnel out by another decade or more and massively increasing its current carrying capacity through a retrofit/transit plan, versus building a new crossing? Returning tolls to the current tunnel as part of a region-wide road pricing system would also have a huge impact on the demand for peak hour road space in the tunnel and its approaching highways, and it would foster medium- and long-term growth and development south of the Fraser that would almost certainly be of higher densities and a greater mixture of uses than current patterns, and it would make a compelling argument for an extensive south of the Fraser light rail system and high-quality local bus service. There's your land use impacts.

[Metro-One]

Yes, I agree, a dedicated HOV/Transit lanes are a must with this project.

[Zassk]

Today I noticed a brand new large yellow-and-blue sign at the north end of the tunnel, similar to the ones that had been posted on Hwy 1 years ago for the Port Mann project. The sign says "George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project" with a subtitle of "Planning for Your Future". It is aimed at the southbound rush-hour traffic on the on-ramp from Steveston Hwy. I assume there is a matching one at the south end of the tunnel. Sorry, I was not in a position to take a picture of it.

[makr3trkr]

http://www.southdeltaleader.com/news/182452471.html

NDP supports Massey Tunnel replacement

New Democrat Party transportation critic Harry Bains dismisses the province's announcement of plans to replace the Massey Tunnel as a vague and unfunded "electioneering" ploy. However, the Surrey-Newton MLA said he wouldn't call off the consultation and planning process if the NDP is elected next spring, agreeing the tunnel is a key Lower Mainland choke point.

"There is a need to have that crossing improved," he said. "It is a main trading corridor to the United States. You can't afford to have trucks lined up in that area." Tolls on the Port Mann and perhaps later a replaced Pattullo Bridge may mean even more traffic trying to use the tunnel, he noted.

Bains said government must also be mindful the Lower Mainland will grow by another million people, most of them settling south of the Fraser. "You have to look ahead and say 'how are we going to move those people and the goods that are going to serve them south of the Fraser?' "

A replaced tunnel could also be a source of new jobs and economic growth in Surrey and North Delta, he said, allowing larger container ships now limited by draft to head further up river to the under-utilized Fraser Surrey Docks, instead of Vancouver terminals. "If we have an opportunity to move those containers closer to their destination, can you imagine all the trucks you will be removing off Vancouver streets and off those crossings of the river?"

Whether the tunnel must be replaced or can be fixed instead would depend on further engineering advice, he said. The big challenge for the next government, he said, will be juggling priorities in the face of limited resources.

Besides the need to replace two Fraser River crossings, there's multi-billion-dollar demands for new rapid transit extensions in Surrey and down the Broadway corridor in Vancouver toward UBC. There's a need to upgrade SkyTrain stations and boost bus service throughout the region.

Better transit has to be the top priority, he said, along with TransLink's need for long-term sustainable funding. The NDP promises to raise corporate taxes – cut to offset the carbon tax – back to 2008 levels.

That would free up about $400 million a year for provincial transportation projects, Bains said. Government would earmark a portion of that for the Lower Mainland, while area mayors would be expected to agree on how they will raise more money from residents.

"I'm willing to sit down with them and look at all options."

[Echowinds]

The NDP isn't all anti-road infrastructure like some here believes. What Bains said here is true - that there's only so much money to go around and equally important projects like those Skytrain lines need a lot of funding as well.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Echowinds

The NDP isn't all anti-road infrastructure like some here believes. What Bains said here is true - that there's only so much money to go around and equally important projects like those Skytrain lines need a lot of funding as well.

The fear was if Meggs and his buddies made it into the provincial NDP, which he tried, it would become like that, luckily he did not succeed.

[WarrenC12]

Bains' initial reaction to the announcement said that the Massey Tunnel replacement wouldn't even make his top 5 improvements (or something to that effect).

Textbook flip-flop.