George Massey Tunnel Replacement | Proposed

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jlousa

You could not just twin the tunnel, as you would need to build 2 new tunnels. The existing one would need to be removed as it interferes in the shipping channel with larger vessels. The Federal money on the table for the project is on the condition of opening up that shipping channel.
I'm not so sure we'll see this one nixed quite yet, lets wait until the dust settles.

That and if a major earthquake happens the occupants of the tunnel will all be killed. How can you take a political party seriously with a policy like that? There is no alternative to replacing the tunnel, either with a bridge or a bigger, deeper tunnel. Since the work has been done to decide the best option, just build the bloody thing.

[idunno]

Originally Posted by jlousa

You could not just twin the tunnel, as you would need to build 2 new tunnels. The existing one would need to be removed as it interferes in the shipping channel with larger vessels. The Federal money on the table for the project is on the condition of opening up that shipping channel.
I'm not so sure we'll see this one nixed quite yet, lets wait until the dust settles.

I didn't know there was federal money. Wasn't it a big deal or something when the feds came out with their spending package only to have $0 for this project?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by idunno

I didn't know there was federal money. Wasn't it a big deal or something when the feds came out with their spending package only to have $0 for this project?

That's right, they earmarked no money for the GMT replacement.

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Why not?

A number of things:

• Seismic issues mean that even if a new tunnel was made, the existing one would need to be replaced (see Milo's comment).
• The shipping issue is a concern. Unless new tunnels were much deeper it wouldn't achieve the goal of opening up more shipping abilities on the Fraser river.
• With 2 tunnels there would be property acquisition issues. You couldn't build a parallel tunnel in the existing right-of-way.
• Transporters are not allowed to truck hazardous goods through the tunnel as it's a confined space - they all have to go over the Alex Fraser.

I'd be willing to bet the cost of 2 new deeper (thus longer portal to portal) tunnels is very comparable to the cost of the new bridge as currently designed.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by milomilo

That and if a major earthquake happens the occupants of the tunnel will all be killed. How can you take a political party seriously with a policy like that? There is no alternative to replacing the tunnel, either with a bridge or a bigger, deeper tunnel. Since the work has been done to decide the best option, just build the bloody thing.

There will be a lot of kids killed in earthquakes when their schools collapse. Why isn't that a bigger priority?

Of course it's politics! Same reason we have the current 10 lane bridge as "the best option" despite no real public documentation to prove it.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i find it funny the NDP and the Greens thinks a twinned tunnel would be better for the environment. you'd need a whole 2nd corridor to connect to it. talk about all the farmland and green-space lost. and that island that the tunnel currently connect to with a bridge? that would need to have even more done to it to take away bird space.

this would be a transportation project anywhere but BC. in BC we seem to think, no matter what, "roads bad, bike good." BC is full of hippies who don't understand what would happen to this province, the lower-mainland, without the minimal roads we do have.

if you think this isnt necessary, i suggest you go for a drive sometimes between 3pm and 6pm through the tunnel and see what it is like. i also suggest when the earthquake hits and anyone in the tunnel dies, and the road is destroyed you can tell everyone how "the tunnel replacement isn't needed."

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

There will be a lot of kids killed in earthquakes when their schools collapse. Why isn't that a bigger priority?

I think they should all be a priority. Most levels of government are spending a lot to meet seismic standards. Schools however mostly are a "just need to survive the big event" item.


If a magnitude 7 earthquake were to hit Vancouver during rush hour, chances are the tunnel would flood rather rapidly. Take a guess at how many people may drown. Some schools might have critical failures, but I think most would be more of a condemnation issue than a collapse issue.

Schools however aren't considered critical infrastructure. They just need to survive the main event, they don't need to keep working flawlessly afterwords. Things like water infrastructure or dams need survive and continue working without fault. Emergency access routes also similarly need to be left structurally sound so aid can be delivered to disaster stricken areas.

Metro Vancouver for instance has 4 tunnels being planned for capacity expansion and seismic reasons. They've also just finished building two other tunnels for mostly the same reasons.

Everything I've been working for with Metro Van recently is designed to meet a 1-in-10,000 year earthquake event.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Since the work has been done to decide the best option, just build the bloody thing.

The problem is that there is very little public confidence that the chosen option is really the "best" one because the whole process has been very secretive and rushed.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

This bridge project is not about transportation issues. It is about politics. A project that hangs on the threads of an election is not important enough to be built or it would get built regardless of who is in power. We will have a good idea of where things are headed after the 26th.

Ummm, couldn't the same excuse be used for any skytrain / rail project?

Seems that many here didn't like the Liberals because they assumed that they would not commit to our transit infrastructure.

Ideology / politics do get in the way of many necessary projects. there is a major party currently in power in the US that is against adequate health care for all, so I guess health care isn't important enough either

As the for twinned tunnel issue, just a terrible idea.

The existing tubes are incredibly narrow, the only way to make the twinned tunnel work is if each of the existing sides of the tunnel are reduced to a single lane each way. So then what is the point in keeping them?

Then there is the seismic issue, as discussed in detail above.

Then there is the fact that the existing tunnel is quite old and will need to be replaced regardless only a decade or two after the twinned tunnel is added regardless, so we would be doing the same project twice.

Then there is the port issue and the confined space issue for trucking.

It all points to a bridge (which would also be a better experience for cyclists IMO)

[s211]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

This bridge project is not about transportation issues. It is about politics. A project that hangs on the threads of an election is not important enough to be built or it would get built regardless of who is in power. We will have a good idea of where things are headed after the 26th.

I can't emphasize that enough. I can almost guarantee that the Gregor/Meggs cabal is seizing on an opportunity to whisper in the ears of their NDP and Green comrades and BOOM... bye bye new bridge.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

My point was that there are no meetings of the mind politically or it would get built regardless. That's what makes it political. To the average commuter stuck in traffic, of course it is necessary. What a waste of time sitting in traffic.

In any province aside from BC, such strategic transportation infrastructure would be constructed with minimal, if any, opposition. Even an earlier Insights West opinion poll of Metro Vancouver residents confirms majority support for the proposed Massey Bridge.

Then there is BC. Back in the mid-1950's, the then CCF (NDP predecessor) opposed the original Massey Tunnel as a "Tunnel To Nowhere". During the recent 2017 BC election, BC NDP MLA David Eby opposed the proposed new Massey Bridge as a "Bridge to Nowhere". Deja vu.

Back in the early 1980's, the opposition BC NDP opposed the proposed Alex Fraser Bridge as well as the proposed Coquihalla Hwy into BC's interior. Back in ~2007, the BC NDP opposed the new Port Mann Bridge.

Without the Massey Tunnel, Alex Fraser Bridge, Coquihalla Hwy, etc. ... where would BC be today in both economic terms and congestion?!

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by milomilo

That and if a major earthquake happens the occupants of the tunnel will all be killed. How can you take a political party seriously with a policy like that? There is no alternative to replacing the tunnel, either with a bridge or a bigger, deeper tunnel. Since the work has been done to decide the best option, just build the bloody thing.

No doubt. While the existing Massey Tunnel has had previous seismic work undertaken (those large steel "band-aids" connecting the roof sectionals)... it likely won't survive a shallow, localized quake of ~7.

A quake's S-waves would cause both vertical and horizontal force upon those tunnel sectionals... likely causing the tunnel to "snake" - IOW the tunnel itself would twist like a snake with tunnel sectional seams opening up and pressurized water flowing in... perhaps causing it to sink.

OTOH, cable-stayed bridge design is both cost effective and seismically sound - they can structurally withstand ~ an 8.5 quake - the "big one".

And yes, at the outset of the Massey Bridge consultations - the bridge or tunnel option were at the forefront... most preferred the bridge design and first-responders (police/fire/ambulance) all favour the bridge option as well.

One final point. If a major quake hits the Metro Vancouver region, the current tunnel will not likely survive. Ergo the entire 99 Fwy/tunnel combo will be out of commission for many years - a strategic corridor.

Now if folk north of the Fraser River (south arm) require an escape route... forget about the 99 Fwy/tunnel. More importantly, also forget about the 91 Fwy/Alex Fraser Bridge combo - it will be shut-down as well as it is a designated "Disaster Response Route":

Disaster Response Routes

In an emergency, critical seconds can save lives. Disaster response route signs indicate routes that are designated for use by emergency personnel and are not for use by the general public during an emergency or disaster situation such as an earthquake.

Disaster Response Routes are not Evacuation Routes

Disaster response routes are not evacuation routes. Disaster response routes are required for the movement of emergency responders during an emergency.

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/tr...esponse-routes

Only option would be Hwy 1 eastbound/Port Mann Bridge and, in that context, would obviously be a proverbial "Highway to Hell". Good luck with that.

[GMasterAres]

Just going to say there is a _LOT_ of misinformation on this page for example claims there is no proof of a need for 10 lanes, or that this is all politics. For starters, I suggest everyone stop listening to the headlines in your heads and actually go look for the real documents and read the studies. Here I'll help you:

https://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/documentlibrary/

Feel free. I know many negative nancies will load that page, see how much documentation there actually is (hundreds of documents and reports over decades) and then go "OMG TOO MUCH" and come back to posting "this is a lieberal political plot and there is no need to build this or anything else."

So I'll leave it with the above. If you want to actually have an educated and fact based opinion rather than just spouting out BS that everyone has read over and over, then please click on the above link, do some bloody research, then come back and have an opinion for or against with some real facts. And quite frankly enough with the "There is something better to spend the money on" bs reasoning. There will always be something else to spend money. Spend money on school? Well why not the homeless? Spend money on the homeless? Well why not infrastructure? Spend money on infrastructure? Well why not on hospitals? Spend money on hospitals? Well why not schools? Wait... we just went in a giant circle and nothing got done.

Sometimes I wonder about people.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i find it funny the NDP and the Greens thinks a twinned tunnel would be better for the environment

I'm against twinning the tunnel for the reasons already stated on here, but lets get one thing straight.

The Greens Platform: Suspend work on the Massey Tunnel replacement pending a comprehensive and transparent review of alternatives

They've also talked about working with the Mayors Council, who have not been happy about being out of the loop on this project. It's likely they'll read through the existing documents and talk with the mayors before making a decision - and that would be to build a bridge. Will they commit to a 10 lane bridge or come up with something else?

Originally Posted by jhausner

Just going to say there is a _LOT_ of misinformation on this page for example claims there is no proof of a need for 10 lanes, or that this is all politics. For starters, I suggest everyone stop listening to the headlines in your heads and actually go look for the real documents and read the studies. Here I'll help you:

https://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/documentlibrary/

Feel free. I know many negative nancies will load that page, see how much documentation there actually is (hundreds of documents and reports over decades) and then go "OMG TOO MUCH" and come back to posting "this is a lieberal political plot and there is no need to build this or anything else."

So I'll leave it with the above. If you want to actually have an educated and fact based opinion rather than just spouting out BS that everyone has read over and over, then please click on the above link, do some bloody research, then come back and have an opinion for or against with some real facts. And quite frankly enough with the "There is something better to spend the money on" bs reasoning. There will always be something else to spend money. Spend money on school? Well why not the homeless? Spend money on the homeless? Well why not infrastructure? Spend money on infrastructure? Well why not on hospitals? Spend money on hospitals? Well why not schools? Wait... we just went in a giant circle and nothing got done.

Sometimes I wonder about people.

You only wonder about people sometimes?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Just going to say there is a _LOT_ of misinformation on this page for example claims there is no proof of a need for 10 lanes, or that this is all politics. For starters, I suggest everyone stop listening to the headlines in your heads and actually go look for the real documents and read the studies. Here I'll help you:

https://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/documentlibrary/

Can you point to a comparison of costs between various options? Nope, because that document doesn't exist.

The "Why a bridge" document has zero numbers in it, other than withstanding a "1 in 2475 year" earthquake. It just has feel good statements that are supposed to make you believe that a bridge is better.

The Patullo replacement documents were much more open and transparent, illustrating different options and costing each of them out.

If money were no object, of course we should build 10, 12, why not 20 lane bridges? But that's a fantasyland. A $4B GMT replacement is a waste of money, pure and simple.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Sheba

They've also talked about working with the Mayors Council, who have not been happy about being out of the loop on this project. It's likely they'll read through the existing documents and talk with the mayors before making a decision - and that would be to build a bridge. Will they commit to a 10 lane bridge or come up with something else?

true they have. it doesn't matter though if they work with the mayors. they want NOTHING, not a compromise, but NOTHING. but one, the mayors don't give a crap about BC, they only give a crap about their 20sq kms. the mayors had the chance, they choose to write to the Federal government, to no avail. even the Feds said BC has followed the rules. when you are that far removed from reality there is no point in further working with them.

remember the mayors, Vancouver and others, have been against most projects even the Alex Fraser Bridge, the mayor of Vancouver was against it. then look at New West being against the Pattullo replacement with anything but the status quo. imagine if we didn't have the Alex Fraser Bridge or the 91 connector. the Mayors were against that. the mayors are out of touch that is why Vancouver spent 300k fighting the Kinder Morgan Pipeline which doesn't enter Vancouver and which is a Federal matter, not even a provincial one. the mayors cant be taken seriously on things like this. they have proven it over and over and over again. they just want transit. wah wah wah we want transit wah wah wah. that's all they ever say.

if this project is halted, what will happen is 5 years of consultations, design, and planning is thrown out. a new, worse plan is created, under the NDP it is 10x over budget like M-Line and Fast Ferries and we end up with something worse for much more money which took much longer to get. then in 50yrs we need to do it all over again because the 125yr lasting bridge was built as a 50yr bridge. the NDP has a history of shitty decisions. and the Greens, they just want anything pro environment anti real life.

the mayors cant even work amongst themselves, you really think they can work on a province wide scale?

so much consultation has happened on this thing. if you are against this and think most others are, then you are not seeing the whole picture. if you think it isn't necessary, then you haven't seen it in person.

[WarrenC12]

Here's my favorite part of the bridge documents, the traffic forecasts:

https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads...ng-Summary.pdf

Specifically:



This bridge won't even reach near today's traffic levels for almost 30 years, and we are building a bridge that is 2.5 times the size of today's tunnel. I think we can use that money a little better. Ask the eggheads what we can get for $2B instead.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

A $4B GMT replacement is a waste of money, pure and simple.

Yeah. But ya can't even get that right. Capital cost of the new GMB crosssing + 99 Fwy corridor improvements projected at ~$3.5 billion. Obviously no notion of future feeder growth nodes feeding onto this strategic corridor. Akin to the "Tunnel to Nowhere" rhetoric the CCF said back in the mid-1950's.

And you are the same fella that states he owns a vehicle. And you are the same fella that stated herein that he drove through the existing GMT to the new mall in Tsawwassen. And I highly suspect that ya have driven through the GMT to both the Peace Arch Border Crossing as well as the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal, among other locales, accessible through the GMT.

I have had to "live" the GMT my entire life. You don't. Instead of hypocrisy (and others on here as well)... ditch both your cars/driver's licenses. Take the bus. Will make life a bit more bearable along the 99 Fwy/GMT as well as other Metro Van strategic corridors for the rest of us.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Here's my favorite part of the bridge documents, the traffic forecasts:

https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads...ng-Summary.pdf

Specifically:



This bridge won't even reach near today's traffic levels for almost 30 years, and we are building a bridge that is 2.5 times the size of today's tunnel. I think we can use that money a little better. Ask the eggheads what we can get for $2B instead.

oh and theres the catch 22!

when under the projections... "SEE THE FORECASTS WERE WRONG, WE DIDN'T NEED THE BRIDGE!!!"

when over the projections... "SEE TRANSIT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER WE INDUCED DEMAND!!!"

imagine if we listened to these people, we'd never build anything. we would be a stagnant society with little to no innovation.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Here's my favorite part of the bridge documents, the traffic forecasts

Sigh. More complex than that. With assumptions. Most of the current GMT traffic diverts to the AFB as GMT is too congested.

20 years ago, SB rush hour traffic was able to sail through the tunnel by ~3:30 pm. Today? Better be there prior to 1:00 pm.

20 years ago, one was able to sail through the tunnel at 80 - 100 km/hr. Today? 50 km/hr most of the time.

Today, a large contingent of traffic are commercial rigs.

Today, one even witnesses "rush hour traffic" on weekends heading NB during weekends on many occasions. Unheard of just 10 years ago.

Frankly, I wish insular inner-Van City folk akin to yourself would "live" the GMT for a month. But hardcore ideological enviro values cloud your judgment - even when you drive. C'est la vie.

PS. The BC gov't intends to narrow the current AFB lanes along with an increase to a 7-lane cross-section as well as reduce speeds to 70 km/hr from 90/hr as the traffic volumes are too great and capacity is just not there in terms of existing nearby GMT - 91/99 Fwys both are connecting corridors and have many similar characteristics in terms of point of origin/destination.