George Massey Tunnel Replacement | Proposed

[Metro-One]

This has just become the most obvious political stunt.

I can’t see how those who supported the stoppage of this project at the start (based on the “environmental and land use” premises) can support it anymore given the direction it is going now. (Essentially a worse form of the project with nearly the same traffic volume, potentially with more loss to the ALR (previous design was actually a net gain) and the downgrade, or even complete removal, of the transit portion.)

[officedweller]

Transit might be relegated to the old tunnel.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Transit might be relegated to the old tunnel.

The options that retain the old tunnel and only construct a new 4 lane structure actually state that all lanes will be general purpose...

The new 6 lane structure with retaining the tunnel options state using the old tunnel for local traffic and / or transit.

That would still be a much lower design standard than the streamlined centre lane rapid bus with stations and dedicated ramps we had before.

[Dave2]

All 18 options:

6 options that incorporate existing tunnel:

New four-lane bridge; keep existing four-lane tunnel (all GP lanes)
New four-lane deep bored tunnel; keep existing four-lane tunnel (all GP lanes)
New four-lane immersed tube tunnel; keep existing four-lane tunnel (all GP lanes)
New six-lane bridge (all GP lanes); keep existing tunnel for transit or local traffic
New six-lane deep bored tunnel (all GP lanes); keep existing tunnel for transit or local traffic
New six-lane immersed tube tunnel (all GP lanes); keep existing tunnel for transit or local traffic


12 options without the existing tunnel:

New six-lane bridge (all GP lanes); with counterflow
New six-lane deep bored tunnel (all GP lanes); with counterflow
New six-lane immersed tube tunnel (all GP lanes); with counterflow
New six-lane bridge (all GP lanes); without counterflow
New six-lane deep bored tunnel (all GP lanes); without counterflow
New six-lane immersed tube tunnel (all GP lanes); without counterflow
New seven-lane crossing; with counterflow (assume all GP but consider a peak direction-only transit lane)
New seven-lane deep bored tunnel; with counterflow (assume all GP but consider a peak direction-only transit lane)
New seven-lane immersed tube tunnel; with counterflow (assume all GP but consider a peak direction-only transit lane)
New eight-lane bridge; consider potential dedicated lanes
New eight-lane deep bored tunnel; consider potential dedicated lanes
New eight-lane immersed tube tunnel; consider potential dedicated lanes
The provincial government has noted that only six-lane to eight-lane options will be considered.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/geor...s-june-21-2019

[osirisboy]

none of this makes any sense

They've spent decades looking at all these options. The only one that makes sense it what started construction already. What the NFL shouldn't just do an eight lane bridge instead of ten. Take the cost savings from that and stick into transit. Done.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

none of this makes any sense

They've spent decades looking at all these options. The only one that makes sense it what started construction already. What the NFL shouldn't just do an eight lane bridge instead of ten. Take the cost savings from that and stick into transit. Done.

The National Football League builds bridges now?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Just going to remind everybody that removing bridge lanes doesn't save that much money. The original ten-lane bridge was $1B or less, and the other couple billion went to the rest of the highway.

[osirisboy]

Oops autocorrect.

Yes we know it won't save much money. But that doesn't matter. This is all about politics. And the ndp need to propose something different than what the liberals did. And by going with eight lanes they can say money saved can be diverted to transit. And optically that would make them look good for their anti car voters

[Klazu]

The sad thing is that by delaying this they won't save anything and instead spend MORE for an inferior outcome. While I have been generally happy with NPD, the political circus around Massey Bridge makes me hate the guts of these idiots. So much time and money wasted for politics.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Klazu

The sad thing is that by delaying this they won't save anything and instead spend MORE for an inferior outcome. While I have been generally happy with NPD, the political circus around Massey Bridge makes me hate the guts of these idiots. So much time and money wasted for politics.

I actually feel quite the same.

Anyways, my feeling on the 18 choices, from best to worst:

Best:

This is what should have been done with little interruption or any of these further delays:

New eight-lane bridge; consider potential dedicated lanes

Although it should be "with dedicated bus lanes" as in a continuation of the original rapid bus proposed, not consider...

Good:

The cost will be higher and has a few more issues than above, but still a long term solution:

New eight-lane deep bored tunnel; consider potential dedicated lanes
New eight-lane immersed tube tunnel; consider potential dedicated lanes

Okay

Big drop from above, but these ones could still work:

New six-lane bridge (all GP lanes); keep existing tunnel for transit or local traffic
New six-lane deep bored tunnel (all GP lanes); keep existing tunnel for transit or local traffic
New six-lane immersed tube tunnel (all GP lanes); keep existing tunnel for transit or local traffic


Bad

And here you have the rest, all terrible in their own way (not future proofing, lack of proper transit potential, will waste too much land, will require upgrades again too soon in the future, and counter flows, no new piece of infrastructure should open with a counter flow lane, unless it is a major counter flow system like on the I-5, and the transit option especially should not be a peak direction only counter flow lane)

New four-lane bridge; keep existing four-lane tunnel (all GP lanes)
New four-lane deep bored tunnel; keep existing four-lane tunnel (all GP lanes)
New four-lane immersed tube tunnel; keep existing four-lane tunnel (all GP lanes)
New six-lane bridge (all GP lanes); with counterflow
New six-lane deep bored tunnel (all GP lanes); with counterflow
New six-lane immersed tube tunnel (all GP lanes); with counterflow
New six-lane bridge (all GP lanes); without counterflow
New six-lane deep bored tunnel (all GP lanes); without counterflow
New six-lane immersed tube tunnel (all GP lanes); without counterflow
New seven-lane crossing; with counterflow (assume all GP but consider a peak direction-only transit lane)
New seven-lane deep bored tunnel; with counterflow (assume all GP but consider a peak direction-only transit lane)
New seven-lane immersed tube tunnel; with counterflow (assume all GP but consider a peak direction-only transit lane)

I highly doubt that the wisest 3 option will be chosen, so realistically the best I can hope for now is the new 6 lane bridge with the tunnels being converted into rapid bus transit lanes. Will still create a bit of a cluster fuck at the interchanges, but it seems the best option out of those that have any chance of being chosen given the political circus around this.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I highly doubt that the wisest 3 option will be chosen, so realistically the best I can hope for now is the new 6 lane bridge with the tunnels being converted into rapid bus transit lanes. Will still create a bit of a cluster fuck at the interchanges, but it seems the best option out of those that have any chance of being chosen given the political circus around this.

We'll need at least 5 more studies before we get to that point.

[stump]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I actually feel quite the same.

Anyways, my feeling on the 18 choices, from best to worst:

Best:

This is what should have been done with little interruption or any of these further delays:

New eight-lane bridge; consider potential dedicated lanes

Although it should be "with dedicated bus lanes" as in a continuation of the original rapid bus proposed, not consider...

Good:

The cost will be higher and has a few more issues than above, but still a long term solution:

New eight-lane deep bored tunnel; consider potential dedicated lanes
New eight-lane immersed tube tunnel; consider potential dedicated lanes

Okay

Big drop from above, but these ones could still work:

New six-lane bridge (all GP lanes); keep existing tunnel for transit or local traffic
New six-lane deep bored tunnel (all GP lanes); keep existing tunnel for transit or local traffic
New six-lane immersed tube tunnel (all GP lanes); keep existing tunnel for transit or local traffic


Bad

And here you have the rest, all terrible in their own way (not future proofing, lack of proper transit potential, will waste too much land, will require upgrades again too soon in the future, and counter flows, no new piece of infrastructure should open with a counter flow lane, unless it is a major counter flow system like on the I-5, and the transit option especially should not be a peak direction only counter flow lane)

New four-lane bridge; keep existing four-lane tunnel (all GP lanes)
New four-lane deep bored tunnel; keep existing four-lane tunnel (all GP lanes)
New four-lane immersed tube tunnel; keep existing four-lane tunnel (all GP lanes)
New six-lane bridge (all GP lanes); with counterflow
New six-lane deep bored tunnel (all GP lanes); with counterflow
New six-lane immersed tube tunnel (all GP lanes); with counterflow
New six-lane bridge (all GP lanes); without counterflow
New six-lane deep bored tunnel (all GP lanes); without counterflow
New six-lane immersed tube tunnel (all GP lanes); without counterflow
New seven-lane crossing; with counterflow (assume all GP but consider a peak direction-only transit lane)
New seven-lane deep bored tunnel; with counterflow (assume all GP but consider a peak direction-only transit lane)
New seven-lane immersed tube tunnel; with counterflow (assume all GP but consider a peak direction-only transit lane)

I highly doubt that the wisest 3 option will be chosen, so realistically the best I can hope for now is the new 6 lane bridge with the tunnels being converted into rapid bus transit lanes. Will still create a bit of a cluster fuck at the interchanges, but it seems the best option out of those that have any chance of being chosen given the political circus around this.

In my opinion, opening a new piece of infrastructure with counterflow is an immediate failure. That's not building for the future, that's building for the past and not taking population and economic growth into account at all.

I have a hard time believing anyone with a brain would approve one of those options as the final choice and move ahead with it.

I also agree that your Best option is the best option in the list and anything keeping the old tunnel in use and have counterflow from the beginning should be removed from consideration.

[moosejaw]

The Alex Fraser bridge at 6 lanes cannot accommodate traffic at its current levels
Whats the justification for the George Massey Crossing to be built to the same standard?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

sigh.

we are such a short sighted people... we will build the status-quo of 3 lanes of general purpose traffic. sigh.

such a waste of fucking money.

[flipper316]

https://www.peacearchnews.com/news/g...-in-september/

[Migrant_Coconut]

So is this an indication of which option they're going with, or just an interim renovation?

[Axe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So is this an indication of which option they're going with, or just an interim renovation?

. The project is part of a $40-million suite of interim safety and reliability improvements being undertaken in the tunnel.

[Klazu]

There was yesterday a news video of Delta's (??) Mayor accidentally slipping in a press conference that the 8-lane option is currently leading their selection process. I hope that's the case, be it a bridge or a brand new tunnel.

[Sheba]

Originally posted in the general transit discussion thread.

City of Richmond envisions Canada Line double-tracking and Steveston LRT

Joining the general public, municipal governments across Metro Vancouver are participating in TransLink’s Transport 2050 planning process of creating the region’s next 30-year transportation strategy.

For consideration for further deliberation and inclusion in TransLink’s process, the City of Richmond has outlined its list of ideas and concepts for long-term transportation improvements within Richmond and connecting with other areas of the region.

...

Rapid transit across the new Massey Crossing

City staff have identified a need for a new rapid transit service between a Canada Line station and communities further south of the Fraser via the planned new George Massey crossing.

Three possible route alignments have been created for further comment. This includes one option running from Bridgeport Station and along Highway 99, a second option from Bridgeport Station via the existing CN Rail right-of-way, and a third option from Richmond-Brighouse Station via Steveston Highway.

The provincial government is still working on its redesign for a solution to the George Massey Tunnel after cancelling the project for a new 10-lane bridge. However, the region’s mayors are now requesting for marginally smaller eight-lane bridge with rail transit capabilities, and the provincial government has stated the new crossing may not be completed until 2030.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Sheba

...May not be completed until 2030

Whenever I hear them speak of 2030, or "if this project touches the river, it will kick off a multi-year federal environmental assessment process" I think of this little moment back in 2017:

https://theprovince.com/opinion/colu...-on-the-ground

So, basically cancel the 10-lane bridge project, delay for 5-10 years, and then proceed with an 8-lane bridge project, with inflated labour costs due to the community benefits agreement (a.k.a. 100% Union labour), not to mention inflation and materials cost increases. Plus, if an 8-lane bridge with rail capabilities is likely.... gee, that's starting to sound like a 10-lane bridge, with 2 lanes repurposed for rail.

"The new 8-lane replacement bridge will be complete by 2030, at an estimated cost of $10.0B. Existing interchanges will be spackled and painted, a la BC "Value Engineering" techniques.