George Massey Tunnel Replacement | Proposed

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

I don’t understand the logic of “a new bridge will add 50,000 new vehicles.” Those vehicles are already on the road. No one’s going out and buying a car if they don’t already have one just because a new bridge opens up.

Shhhh!! You're ruining the agenda with your logical thinking! Haven't you heard of ALL THE STUDIES and can I introduce you to our Lord and Saviour, the holy religion of Induced Demand??

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

I don’t understand the logic of “a new bridge will add 50,000 new vehicles.”

Induced demand originates in a lot of different ways. There are plenty of people who have vehicles but don't use them to cross the bridge (either at all or less often than they'd prefer) due to the congestion. They find alternatives such as transit, carpooling, or batching trips.

Also, when you have multiple congested bridges in a region and one of them is upgraded, traffic reroutes from the other congested bridges to the new one with more capacity. This effect was clearly seen with the new Port Mann bridge, especially when tolls were applied and then removed (tolls act as a kind of artificial congestion, causing some drivers to avoid the bridge). The other nearby bridges saw big changes in their traffic volumes as drivers adjusted their routes to optimize their travel.

Another big factor that happens over the longer term is that if access becomes easier than properties become more attractive, and people move to places that require traversing the bridge. This is exactly why Surrey developed so rapidly once the original Port Mann bridge was built. As well, people decide to take jobs on the other side of the bridge that they would have turned down when it was congested.

All this demand induced by expanded capacity is exactly the opposite of what happens when capacity is reduced due to circumstances such as construction. Traffic finds another way around the construction in order to get to its destination with minimum delay. You might as well ask "where did those extra 50,000 cars a day disappear to?". The cars didn't disintegrate - those drivers changed their travel patterns to adapt.

If you imagine a congested bridge as being akin to a road whose capacity has been reduced due to construction, it's perhaps easier to understand why more vehicles will suddenly start using it if you expand its capacity. A congested crossing almost always has a lot more motorists that would like to use the bridge, and once the capacity constraint is removed they will start using it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Useful things get used a lot; the Canada Line hit the three-year target in four months. Though it doesn't always work in reverse (i.e. when you remove roadspace and don't replace it with something better).

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

I don’t understand the logic of “a new bridge will add 50,000 new vehicles.” Those vehicles are already on the road. No one’s going out and buying a car if they don’t already have one just because a new bridge opens up.

If the bridge commute shortens by 30 mins thanks to more lanes, this is exactly what people do. Or more specifically, they will move across the bridge because they see their access to work (downtown, whatever) is much smoother, at least for a few years. Why is this so difficult to understand?

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

Since the new Port Mann and Golden Ears opened, not once have I been stuck in bumper to bumper traffic crossing either. Before it opened you couldn’t move more than 5 km an hour from Langley to Burnaby any given weekday.

One issue with eliminating chokepoints is scope-creep. If you add a crossing in Kelowna, you will have greater capacity for vehicles crossing the lake. That is a positive, but eventually all of those cars will converge on highway 97 and the chokepoint will move from the bridge to the highway. Then the highway is widened and then the highways 97 and 6 intersection in Vernon becomes overloaded. And on and on and on...

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Shhhh!! You're ruining the agenda with your logical thinking! Haven't you heard of ALL THE STUDIES and can I introduce you to our Lord and Saviour, the holy religion of Induced Demand??

Yes, the studies explicitly show that adding road capacity results in extra vehicle miles travelled.

Be careful, if you continue mocking statistics and experts because you don't like what they say, we might start calling you a Trumpist.

[Migrant_Coconut]

In fairness, Kelowna won't have the density for a SkyTrain (or even a streetcar) any time soon, so the obvious solution isn't necessarily that obvious.

The ideal solution would naturally be to go back in time to 1950 and make sure West Kelowna is contained within Westlake and Ogden Roads until now; failing that, there's not much they can do besides bus lanes, water taxis and/or road expansion.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, those existing 50k drivers won't be a problem. I'm talking about the other potential 50k drivers that might take a trip across the lake now that there's capacity; guesstimating traffic is a very tricky business. Even 10k more trips would likely offset any CO2 savings from reduced gridlock.
As for the Port Mann, it's smooth-sailing... for now. When this version fills up, what replace it? 12 lanes? 14? 18? Pretty sure it's diminishing returns from here on out.

It's in the second article: the plan for Manhattan Point includes extending Clement to McCurdy along the rail line. If Mill Creek is anything like Still Creek (in Burnaby) or Sumas Lake, that might not be the best idea - any flooding means you're down to one highway anyway.

Kelowna could also look at bus lanes. Sure, they're not going to help with provincial traffic, but if most of the local traffic just needs to get to West K. and back, that'd take a lot of cars off the bridge. They'd also help contain sprawl and coalesce density for when a Kelowna Metro finally makes sense. I'm also kind of surprised that Kelowna, being a town on both sides of a lake, doesn't have any kind of ferry service.

There's Highway 97 to Penticton? I doubt Goats Peak and Bear Creek will be on fire at the same time. Not ideal, but you've still got three and a half ways in and out. Vancouver Island has to be content with one highway for everybody.

At any rate, redundancy and capacity are two different things. For the former, nobody builds bridges they don't need "just in case," and for the latter, solving traffic requires more than just roadspace.

I’m sure no one thought highway 5, 3 and 1 and 8 would ALL have major landslides this November but look what happened.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If the bridge commute shortens by 30 mins thanks to more lanes, this is exactly what people do. Or more specifically, they will move across the bridge because they see their access to work (downtown, whatever) is much smoother, at least for a few years. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Then by that logic it frees up space on the existing bridge. What you’re not understanding is if everyone shifted to the new bridge, that would leave an empty old bridge. Or, people who work closer to the new bridge would take the new bridge and people who work closer to the old bridge would take the old bridge. The new bridge would bypass harvey ave and connect to 97 in rutland. The old bridge would be a direct connection to downtown, pandosy etc.

Two options are better than one. 8 or 9 lanes across the lake are better than 4 or 5. In the case of an emergency especially, since Kelowna has one hospital. Slim chance both bridges would be bottlenecked at the same time. Kelowna is growing but it’s not that big.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

One issue with eliminating chokepoints is scope-creep. If you add a crossing in Kelowna, you will have greater capacity for vehicles crossing the lake. That is a positive, but eventually all of those cars will converge on highway 97 and the chokepoint will move from the bridge to the highway. Then the highway is widened and then the highways 97 and 6 intersection in Vernon becomes overloaded. And on and on and on...

Are you against the new GMT then? Because adding more lanes will just add a choke point at the Oak Street Bridge. It’s gonna happen almost anywhere in this province when we upgrade one structure because our infrastructure en masse is a total fail.

Highway 97 needs to be upgraded or Kelowna needs a full freeway bypass. Which will never happen. Along with the second crossing. Because I feel like, with the amount of negative feedback I’m getting on this subject from a bunch of lower mainlanders, on a thread where I thought I’d get positive feedback due to its relevance, that the overall impression is a negative one across the board and unlikely to ever come to fruition because of it. Sad, because ask anyone in Kelowna and they desperately need it.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Useful things get used a lot; the Canada Line hit the three-year target in four months. Though it doesn't always work in reverse (i.e. when you remove roadspace and don't replace it with something better).

That’s because the Canada line connects the airport to the downtown core. It’s not rocket science

[Klazu]

If there is one thing that I have been humbled to learn from our resident traffic planners participating in the discussion, it is that the best solution for Massey Tunnel is actually not to replace the tunnel with a bridge, but completely remove the crossing. Since more lanes only induces demand, the opposite must also be true, right? Everything else would be illogical and people will just move north of Fraser and everyone will be happy.

But all kidding aside, the real reason we need a new crossing is the hordes of cyclists that are just itching to pedal across the river. Just look at the current tunnel shuttle frequency, how much capacity it carries and how full it always is. There are literally dozens of bicycle commuters in Delta!! The only problem is going to be the new crossing moving the bottleneck further up north and bike lanes in North Richmond and South Vancouver will be congested with thousands of bicycle commuters. The sound of overtight Spandex will drive Marpole residents crazy!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

Then by that logic it frees up space on the existing bridge. What you’re not understanding is if everyone shifted to the new bridge, that would leave an empty old bridge. Or, people who work closer to the new bridge would take the new bridge and people who work closer to the old bridge would take the old bridge. The new bridge would bypass harvey ave and connect to 97 in rutland. The old bridge would be a direct connection to downtown, pandosy etc.

Two options are better than one. 8 or 9 lanes across the lake are better than 4 or 5. In the case of an emergency especially, since Kelowna has one hospital. Slim chance both bridges would be bottlenecked at the same time. Kelowna is growing but it’s not that big.

Twinning the existing bridge gets you 100k/day. There's over 200k people in Metro Kelowna alone. Mathematically speaking, a double bottleneck is entirely possible, and then you're out a billion with nothing to show for it.

Originally Posted by Repthe250

That’s because the Canada line connects the airport to the downtown core. It’s not rocket science

Actually, the airport only accounts for ~10-15k of 140k daily riders - the rest are going to South Van or Richmond.

Ditto a bridge to West Kelowna. Only 8,000 drivers are from out of town. That's 42k of 50k bridge users that're locals.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

T Mathematically speaking, a double bottleneck is entirely possible, and then you're out a billion with nothing to show for it.

Not quite nothing.
Yes, you still have congestion, but with the extra capacity you still have more throughput.
The benefit is the throughput, not the time savings.
Politicians will try to sell the time savings because it appeals to the individual, but the broader benefit is the increased throughput.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Not quite nothing.
Yes, you still have congestion, but with the extra capacity you still have more throughput.
The benefit is the throughput, not the time savings.
Politicians will try to sell the time savings because it appeals to the individual, but the broader benefit is the increased throughput.

True, but it's still pretty bad value for money in this case. BRT can get them 38k daily (56k minus MV lane removal) for $400 million; SeaBus can get them 18k daily for $200 million; if ambulances are really having trouble, a helipad at Kelowna General can be as little as $1 million. To try and get things back on topic, the GMT needs a replacement because there really aren't any other alternatives.

[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:

Kelowna's growth requires a second Okanagan Lake bridge

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/kelo...an-lake-bridge

So, to March what is seen in the rest of the developed world this is what a 10 to 15 year highway / transportation plan should look like for Kelowna and the surrounding area:















Almost mockingly this is what is actually planned over the next 10 to 15 years:





Dear province of B.C., please higher me as your transportation planner!

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

Are you against the new GMT then? Because adding more lanes will just add a choke point at the Oak Street Bridge. It’s gonna happen almost anywhere in this province when we upgrade one structure because our infrastructure en masse is a total fail.

My point was not an argument for or against a new crossing in Kelowna. But I think it should be considered that one upgrade will require that others are considered. Just take a look at Metro-One's post to see the domino effect of building a second crossing or upgrading 97 to a controlled-access freeway.

Given Kelowna's rapid population growth something must be done. But topographically speaking we couldn't have picked a worse location for BC's seventh- (someday third or fourth???) largest city. Maybe a vacation destination with a massive lake down the middle of the city, multi-million dollar homes all along the shore line, and mountains on all sides will never have the traffic throughput we hope for.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Dear province of B.C., please higher me as your transportation planner!

If you think the province has the spare cash lying around to build all those new roads, you're probably quite high enough already.

[Mininari]

Why are we talking about Hwy 97 and the 2nd crossing of Lake Okanagan in the George Massey Tunnel Thread?

... but it all fairness, with the 8+ years we now all have to wait for fully complete tunnel replacement to open, when the original bridge project could have opened earlier this year, I guess we need something to fill the time here.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Why are we talking about Hwy 97 and the 2nd crossing of Lake Okanagan in the George Massey Tunnel Thread?

... but it all fairness, with the 8+ years we now all have to wait for fully complete tunnel replacement to open, when the original bridge project could have opened earlier this year, I guess we need something to fill the time here.

I apologize it was my fault. It was because I had mentioned that the new tunnel or bridge needed to be upgraded to handle emergency evacuation traffic in case of a big earthquake or flood (especially if other routes become damaged) as Richmond is below sea level and currently at the greatest risk of climate change. Because it appears our government hasn’t learned anything from the past year we had. And that’s when I mentioned Kelowna only has one 5 lane bridge across the lake and is growing rapidly yada yada yada.

By the time this bridge or tunnel gets completed, it’ll already need a replacement at this pace.