George Massey Tunnel Replacement | Proposed

[casper]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

I’ve been thinking about this for a while now. I know that you have to widen the entirety of Hwy 99 ten lanes if the bridge is ten lanes, but once it reaches to the Oak Street Bridge, it has to merge to six lanes to match the lanes Oak St has. Two of these lanes on Oak—and Granville St, since the 99 route follows it on the map—are used as parking spaces. That bridge is where the bottlenecks occur.

Perhaps the next project to look at is the Boundary Road bridge. There is no reason all the traffic from Delta into Richmond has to feed the same bridge between Richmond and Vancouver.

[s211]

Originally Posted by casper

Perhaps the next project to look at is the Boundary Road bridge. There is no reason all the traffic from Delta into Richmond has to feed the same bridge between Richmond and Vancouver.

I absolutely agree. For that to happen though, you'd need a provincial government willing to tell Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond to go stuff it and build the thing come hell or high water.

What might not be immediate common knowledge is that the Boundary Road right-of-way extends all the way to the Fraser River. Granted, that is likely a left-over from past common practice to extend all road rights-of-way to rivers, etc., but nonetheless it exists and could be utilized if one had the political fortitude.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by whatnext

There's no way that will ever happen.

The proposed bridge was so ridiculously out of scale. Adding a two lane tube to the tunnel would add all the capacity the Oak St bridge could handle.

That's a nice engineering degree you have there. Your comment makes it quite clear you graduated from a highly prestigious school and clearly know what you're talking about.

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

Might want to read a bit more than the back of a cereal box before you comment further.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

That's still a crap solution from an engineering standpoint. Nobody wants to put another tunnel in that soil, and the existing ones aren't seismically up to snuff.

Moral of the story from all the studies done to date are that you couldn't put another tunnel in that soil due to higher building standards and earthquake requirements today. If we were in the 50s or 60s, then maybe but the same reason we don't build with asbestos today or have lead in our fuel is simply because of increased environmental and health safety requirements.

This is what a lot of naysayers simply don't understand. It isn't 1959 anymore, we have seat belts in cars.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Moral of the story from all the studies done to date are that you couldn't put another tunnel in that soil due to higher building standards and earthquake requirements today. If we were in the 50s or 60s, then maybe but the same reason we don't build with asbestos today or have lead in our fuel is simply because of increased environmental and health safety requirements.

This is what a lot of naysayers simply don't understand. It isn't 1959 anymore, we have seat belts in cars.

They had no idea that M8 earthquakes could happen anywhere near Vancouver up until the late 70s.

Lots of things are hopelessly screwed in an earthquake.

[flipper316]

Summer is almost over and that report on the tunnel was supposed to come out in the spring of 2018. Of course, we know in the last update Trevana doesn't give a shit so I'm wondering if this report is ever going to come out.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Summer is almost over and that report on the tunnel was supposed to come out in the spring of 2018. Of course, we know in the last update doesn't give a shit so I'm wondering if this report is ever going to come out.

Do you really expect the NDP to seriously release the report? They're still waiting until the bridge falls to irrelevance.

If the report does come out, libtard will lash out calling it the "worst bridge designed in BC" because it won't have shoulder lanes.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Summer is almost over and that report on the tunnel was supposed to come out in the spring of 2018. Of course, we know in the last update Trevana doesn't give a shit so I'm wondering if this report is ever going to come out.

oh the report did come it, it is just only for Government of BC's eyes. even though the people paid for it, only the politicians at the trough can see it.

don't worry though, them not releasing it means that the report goes against what they want.

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Do you really expect the NDP to seriously release the report? They're still waiting until the bridge falls to irrelevance.

If the report does come out, libtard will lash out calling it the "worst bridge designed in BC" because it won't have shoulder lanes.

in his defence, shoulder lanes are a very good idea. are they necessary? no, but are they a smart and good design idea? yes.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

in his defence, shoulder lanes are a very good idea. are they necessary? no, but are they a smart and good design idea? yes.

I understand that, but whining about it while doing nothing won’t magically have shoulder lanes.

[osirisboy]

Oh yeah we have to have shoulder lanes.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

If the report does come out, libtard will lash out calling it the "worst bridge designed in BC" because it won't have shoulder lanes.

You're a real piece of work. You act like I'm the only one that discusses shoulders. After the bridge collapse in Italy, the topic of shoulders came up and was discussed as well https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showt...84944&page=524

The Ponte Morandi which was completed in 1967 also had no shoulders. What I took away from the discussion was that having no shoulders is not modern standard. With that said, why are we building our bridges without shoulders in 2018? (or whenever the Massey and Patullo bridge get built). Why are we not building our bridges up to modern standards adopted everywhere else on the continent?

But I digress, this section is a joke. You'd rather talk about politics and stick your head in the sand any time an actual question about relevant infrastructure standards is brought up.

[Metro-One]

The Titanic has sank and you guys are arguing where to put the deck chairs.

Bottom line is that fact that the report has yet to be released highly hints that it came out in favor of the project.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The Titanic has sank and you guys are arguing where to put the deck chairs.

Bottom line is that fact that the report has yet to be released highly hints that it came out in favor of the project.

Seems like I’ve pored gasoline on the burning deck.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The Titanic has sank and you guys are arguing where to put the deck chairs.

Bottom line is that fact that the report has yet to be released highly hints that it came out in favor of the project.

This is becoming a pattern with the NDP government. After years of being in opposition objecting to everything the Liberals were doing they are now in government. They put all this large projects in a hold pattern, have a study, then they are left going forward with the project anyway.

When the pendulum shifts pack to the Liberals in a few years, we may very well have the same pattern show up again, just with the parties reversed.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by casper

This is becoming a pattern with the NDP government. After years of being in opposition objecting to everything the Liberals were doing they are now in government. They put all this large projects in a hold pattern, have a study, then they are left going forward with the project anyway.

When the pendulum shifts pack to the Liberals in a few years, we may very well have the same pattern show up again, just with the parties reversed.

Yeah, this is an annoying characteristic that all parties in BC are guilty of.

I just worry that even if the report does side with this project (which I suspect), they won’t let it proceed due to the fact that they already let Site C proceed and will worry about losing more of their hard environmental base.

[cganuelas1995]

I think I've said it once before but I'll say it again. Infrastructure shouldn't be a political issue, whether or not a project is funded affects everyone either directly or indirectly. Sure, someone in the middle of Coquitlam might not need to use the tunnel in their lifetime but the traffic backup will affect them somehow, probably the price or quality of their fresh produce or it might be a bad backup and might make them miss their flight.

[Metro-One]

I know what you mean, wish I could live in a magical world where transportation projects aren’t destroyed or prioritized through politics.

In this world both the GMB / Highway 99 upgrade project and the Broadway Subway (all the way to UBC) are currently U/C.

The Surrey L-Line is a rapid bus.

The Langley rapid transit project will proceed as Skytrain without LRT even entering the debate (given how obviously better Skytrain is for the corridor).

And the Pattullo Bridge will open with 6 lanes.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I know what you mean, wish I could live in a magical world where transportation projects aren’t destroyed or prioritized through politics.

In this world both the GMB / Highway 99 upgrade project and the Broadway Subway (all the way to UBC) are currently U/C.

The Surrey L-Line is a rapid bus.

The Langley rapid transit project will proceed as Skytrain without LRT even entering the debate (given how obviously better Skytrain is for the corridor).

And the Pattullo Bridge will open with 6 lanes.

I believe you meant to say that construction of the Broadway Subway to UBC was started in 2013 and completed in 2016 instead of the Evergreen extension, right?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

I think I've said it once before but I'll say it again. Infrastructure shouldn't be a political issue, whether or not a project is funded affects everyone either directly or indirectly.

The problem is that there are always more infrastructure wants and needs than money available to pay for them. Always. So someone has to decide which project gets the money and which doesn't. And for public infrastructure they have to contend with the conflicting wishes of the people who ultimately pay for it or who have say over who's making the decisions. That is the very essence of politics.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The problem is that there are always more infrastructure wants and needs than money available to pay for them. Always. So someone has to decide which project gets the money and which doesn't. And for public infrastructure they have to contend with the conflicting wishes of the people who ultimately pay for it or who have say over who's making the decisions. That is the very essence of politics.

Ah, so it's like playing God with infrastructure. But when you do it with people, it's literally Hitler.