HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 7:32 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,345
George Massey Tunnel Replacement | Proposed

Premier Christy Clark announced today that the province will being the process of replacement of the George Massey Tunnel.

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_rele...118-001456.htm

Quote:
The government of British Columbia will also immediately begin planning and project development to establish a concept and scope for replacement of the George Massey Tunnel. The four-lane George Massey Tunnel under the Fraser River was built in 1958. It now carries over 80,000 people each day, and is the only major Fraser River crossing in Metro Vancouver, with a single lane of traffic in the off-peak direction during the morning and evening commute.
Obviously this is completely contingent on the Liberals getting re-elected as I can't see the NDP interested in such a project - or really any major road improvements anywhere in Metro Vancouver that would benefit SOV in any way shape or form..

This plan also is expected to take 10 years in terms of planning, design, and construction. Whether it's a twinning, or a new tunnel or a new bridge is yet to be determined.

As the tunnel is older than the Port Mann - I wonder what service life is remaining in the tunnel to expand to 8 lanes (2x2x2x2)?

Last edited by go_leafs_go02; Sep 28, 2012 at 8:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 8:04 PM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 3,645
what is it witht the NDP and not investing in roads?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 8:07 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by osirisboy View Post
what is it witht the NDP and not investing in roads?
cars = fascist means of transport
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 8:09 PM
moosejaw moosejaw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Miami
Posts: 267
Well this is exciting news, well over due.

I also wonder if it will be a tunnel or a bridge. Could be either. Prob cheaper to do a bridge.
I wonder what the supporters of Burns Bog will have to say?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 8:10 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by s211 View Post
cars = fascist means of transport
Blanket statements = fascist form of arguing.

A replacement of the GMT and the Patullo Bridge is inevitable, but what form they take and if tolled are the big questions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 8:11 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by osirisboy View Post
what is it witht the NDP and not investing in roads?
What is it with the Liberals and not investing in transit?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 8:15 PM
paradigm4 paradigm4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Surrey, BC
Posts: 679
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
What is it with the Liberals and not investing in transit?
You guys are both being dicks. The NDP built the HOV network, expanded the PM by one lane and rebuilt the Lions Gate. The Libs built the Canada and Evergreen Lines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 8:22 PM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 3,645
oh I thought you needed roads for transit?

my comment about NDPs not investing in roads just comes from the general comments over the years in a dozen threads that suggest that. I really honestly have no opinion on it. I always hear that if the NDP get in then there wont be any investments in highways. I am just wondering why
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 8:30 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 3,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosejaw View Post
Well this is exciting news, well over due.

I also wonder if it will be a tunnel or a bridge. Could be either. Prob cheaper to do a bridge.
I wonder what the supporters of Burns Bog will have to say?
I hope it's a bridge. I like how bridges look. Another thing is that a bridge will allow larger container vessels to travel up the Fraser to Fraserport or to potentially a new port in Richmond.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 8:42 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,833
Does the tunnel now interfer with cargo ships trying to navigate over it? I've never heard that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 9:02 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 3,507
It's a submerged tunnel, so once it's removed it will allow larger container ships to navigate the Fraser. Fraser port could take on more traffic if needed, or that huge container storage area in Richmond could play a larger role someday.

The Gilmore farm plus the land they already have is a massive area. Do you think they just have storage in mind for this massive piece of property?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 9:05 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 884
Yet again, build, build, build the vehicle infrastructure. It is time to have road pricing across Metro Vancouver. While gas tax collected is dropping (presumably because people are driving less) we are rapidly adding to infrastructure for vehicles:

· Construction of the $3.3-billion Port Mann Bridge replacement and Highway 1 improvement project.
· Construction of the $1.264-billion South Fraser Perimeter Road project.
· Completion of the $198-million Pitt River Bridge and Mary Hill Interchange project.
· Completion of the $297-million Border Infrastructure project, including four-laning of both Highways 10 and 15


Some comments,

They better include a bike/pedestrian crossing on any expansion of this crossing

Can't they just expand the existing by adding more tunnels? Probably same as Port Mann, will come down to seismic hazard and life cycle maintenance.

If we had an expanded rapid transit in Surrey/Langley would we need to replace the tunnel?


"only major Fraser River crossing in Metro Vancouver, with a single lane of traffic in the off-peak direction during the morning and evening commute." -

So What? Are these valid reasons to replace other infrastructure bridges?

"It is the only 3 lane bridge in Metro Vancouver"
"It is the only bridge that is built with structural steel over the main channel of the Fraser River"
"It is the only suspension bridge in Metro Vancouver"

-- The SFPR should be a toll road, the gateway should be tolled at multiple locations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 9:12 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradigm4 View Post
You guys are both being dicks. The NDP built the HOV network, expanded the PM by one lane and rebuilt the Lions Gate. The Libs built the Canada and Evergreen Lines.
... And the NDP built the Island Highway and the Socreds (the Libs old daddy) started the Skytrain network and extended it to King George and drafted the original plans for extension into Coquitlam.

Speaking cynically, It's really about whose votes they are trying to buy, not their deep seeded ideology.

Liberals try to get votes from people in business and construction. So they hand out succulent contracts on large mega projects, boosting growth in the construction industry.

The NDP try to get votes from people in the public sector (and people who use the public sector). So they freeze tuition and hire more teachers. They pay nurses and doctors more. They build hospitals in small towns. They boost growth in public sector jobs.

Where they meet in the middle, in an attempt to get the average person's vote, is where good things usually happen.

The only reason the NDP built the Millennium line is to try to move towards the middle. The core of the NDP would rather have spent the money building schools or hiring bus drivers. But the average Joe didn't want to ride a bus. So they built the overbuilt, highly technological (for them) Skytrain line. Speak to a card carrying CCF member of the NDP and the skytrain is a disaster because it doesn't employ enough people. The capital resources would have been better spent on wages. But the centrists in the NDP built it because it would get them votes from people in the lower mainland (especially steal some construction worker votes). They built the highway on the island to reward voters for basically sweeping them into office (and what else could you actually do for the island, really). There is no way the NDP would have built the Canada Line as it is today, it probably would have been LRT down Arbutus instead.

On the other side, the Liberals have resisted slashing the public sector to keep middle ground votes. They haven't sold off BC Hydro or shut down ICBC. And they would have had they not lost so many middle voters after selling off BC Rail.

How does this tie in with the GMT? Well, if the Liberals weren't trying to win an election (where SOF is swinging away from liberals in both directions (NDP and Cons)) they probably wouldn't touch the GMT. It will meet a lot of opposition from elsewhere in the province. And there are easier, more profitable projects they could force ahead. The NDP wouldn't build it because Delta voters are swinging in their direction already, and the money could get them more votes by spending it elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 9:16 PM
Doug Doug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by osirisboy View Post
what is it witht the NDP and not investing in roads?
Under the NDP, the cost to operate the public sector escalates faster so the amount of capital investment must fall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 9:22 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
I hope it's a bridge. I like how bridges look. Another thing is that a bridge will allow larger container vessels to travel up the Fraser to Fraserport or to potentially a new port in Richmond.


I think a bridge would be next to impossible. The ramps on the North side would be insane to get them to meet up with Steveston Highway. One of the biggest problems with the AFB is the climb up from Nordel. A bridge at Deas Island would be even worse climbing up from Steveston.

With current technology we could build a much nicer tunnel which would be much safer, and I think it would be cheaper than a bridge. A bridge would need so much stabilization work done. Think what they've had to do at Cape Horn, but worse, and on both sides. If we build everything as close to the ground as possible, I think it would be cheaper.

We could also upgrade it in phases, resulting in a much less mega mega project. We can start by adding a new tube to the east or west of the current ones. Then when that is open we demolish and replace the other tubes. That way no capacity is lost during construction, and we don't need to buy up swaths of new land next to the tunnel for the new roadway.

I think the George Massey Tunnel needs a replacement (for safety and lifespan issues) and slight expansion. I don't think it needs something as radical as the new Port Mann Bridge. And the current George Massey tunnel is already better off than the old Port Mann bridge because at least the GMT has 3 lanes open in peak direction at peak hours, you can't say that about the old PMB and it equals the AFB. The real problem with GMT is reverse peak direction. 10 lanes would be more than ever needed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 9:24 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 884
Over the last 10 years major project spending $3.7 billion for transit, $5 billion for roads. We are still giving more $ to roads than transit.

At my Surrey Transportation Lecture series I was told by the MOTI speaker that after SFPR was done they would be "committed to transit", what a joke.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 9:36 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 3,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
I think a bridge would be next to impossible. The ramps on the North side would be insane to get them to meet up with Steveston Highway. One of the biggest problems with the AFB is the climb up from Nordel. A bridge at Deas Island would be even worse climbing up from Steveston.
It looks to be about the same distance from Steveston to the Fraser as it is from Nordel to the Fraser at the Alex Fraser Bridge.

Where's the tunnel guy?

I thought a tunnel would be technically harder to do because of soft ground conditions, unless we build another submerged tunnel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 9:44 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
It's a submerged tunnel, so once it's removed it will allow larger container ships to navigate the Fraser. Fraser port could take on more traffic if needed, or that huge container storage area in Richmond could play a larger role someday.

The Gilmore farm plus the land they already have is a massive area. Do you think they just have storage in mind for this massive piece of property?
I'm pretty sure the tunnel does not pose any issues to ships, but I looked into it. It has a depth of 22m now and panamex are only 13M, even new-panamex is only 15.2M deep leaving lots of clearance. The ships using Fraser docks already pass over it problem free.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 9:52 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by tybuilding View Post
Over the last 10 years major project spending $3.7 billion for transit, $5 billion for roads. We are still giving more $ to roads than transit.

At my Surrey Transportation Lecture series I was told by the MOTI speaker that after SFPR was done they would be "committed to transit", what a joke.
Transit trips 14%
Car trips 86%
Productivity of the average car user...much higher then the average tranist user I would bet, and by much I mean 5-10 times more.

They can invest a $100billion in transit and I still wont be able to use it because I have tough time constraits and require maximum flexibility at all time.

So using your logic we are investing too much in transit, we should invest about 75% less to keep it in line with road investments. Oh and charge transit users more.


Lets think a bit more realisticly about these things...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 10:00 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by tybuilding View Post
Over the last 10 years major project spending $3.7 billion for transit, $5 billion for roads. We are still giving more $ to roads than transit.

At my Surrey Transportation Lecture series I was told by the MOTI speaker that after SFPR was done they would be "committed to transit", what a joke.
The tunnel (at present) deals with congestion that impacts both transit and vehicles.

With the tunnel, you'll see dedicated lanes for bus/HOV only that don't require you to get on and off the highway like the present configuration (especially heading northbound)

I don't see a 10 lane crossing, but rather an 8 lane crossing (3+1 Bus/HOV) You wouldn't be adding SOV capacity in the peak direction, but doubling capacity in terms of laning.

I'd also recommend a tunnel, simply because the preload for a bridge with its approaches would be huge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:30 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.