George Massey Tunnel Replacement | Proposed

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I totally agree with this, and AFAIK the best part about the PMH1 project isn't the increased capacity, it's that we're replacing most of its aging infrastructure. Heaven forbid we should end up like Quebec.

But we have to ask ourselves whether we really want to dramatically increase single-occupancy vehicle capacity and therefore strongly encourage auto use, or whether we should be allocating a reasonable portion of money to transit and strongly encouraging transit use. Society as a whole would be a lot better off if we did the latter.

This is why I've been advocating for an 8 lane new crossing. You're not adding any additional SOV capacity in the peak crossing direction (3 lanes), but adding a Bus/HOV only lane that could expand to 2 lanes dependant on future demand.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by Zassk

There is more to it than that. Our 1950's infrastructure is reaching end-of-life. It is a fact that we must either replace it or else decommission it.

Whether we replace it at the same size or with expansion (even though the city has quadrupled in population during that timeframe) is an open question.

But every ~60 years we simply must rebuild bridges and tunnels, whether we want to worship the automobile or not.

Decommissioning Massey Tunnel in order to build an LRT line in Whalley is simply not an option.

New infrastructure has to be built simultaneously with the rebuild schedule of old infrastructure.

Were not exactly "replacing" we are massively expanding highway capacity in the SOF while barely doing anything with transit. We have added 6 lanes of capacity between Maple Ridge and Surrey/Langley, adding 5 lanes at the Port Mann and would add how many lanes at the Tunnel? The tunnel may need a rebuild or a seismic upgrade but it should have a service life of 100 years.

[Metro-One]

Exactly!

This is what I advocate as well. The tunnel needs to be replaced due to its age and extremely outdated design.

Honestly, the Bus que jumper lane is horridly designed.

My options would be what you listed above, or an 8 lane crossing with 2 multipurpose lanes in each direction, 1 bus/HOV lane, and 1 commercial vehicles only lane.

That, or a 10 lane crossing with a C/D system with 2 multipurpose through lanes in each direction, plus an HOV / Bus lane.

That being said I agree that the province should take charge regarding the Broadway extension as well as they have on highways.

Instead of bringing highway planning down to transit's current level, transit should be brought up to highway's level.

The Port Mann #1 project has been a great project in that it has not added a massive amount of capacity, but it has replaced the majority of aging structures with new, modern designed structures. Even in the most bike / transit orientated cities in the world they still have highways that they update regularly to meet modern standards.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

But we have to ask ourselves whether we really want to dramatically increase single-occupancy vehicle capacity and therefore strongly encourage auto use, or whether we should be allocating a reasonable portion of money to transit and strongly encouraging transit use. Society as a whole would be a lot better off if we did the latter.

Well said. This is at the heart of many criticisms of the Gateway Program; the investments in bridges and highways, and now a tunnel replacement, come at the same time as an ongoing crisis over how to fund the region's public transit system. By no stretch of the imagination should everything be spent on transit -far from it, but there seems to be a profound double standard when it comes to Provincial commitment to transportation and the shaping of growth in the region.

A continuous stream of funds is available for road projects, as necessary as they are, yet rapid transit funding is ad hoc and comes twice a decade at best. The Province has simply announced the current highway and bridge projects without first undertaking a multi-year public consultation process that looks at needs and alternatives. Nor has the Province waited to proceed until local and national funding contributions were secured. Yet these steps are required for major public transit projects and the Province will still only fund 1/3rd or so. Why is there a double standard, especially when it is Provincial policy to take steps to transform our society into one that is less auto-dependant? At this point do we even still need to list the rationale why this is a desirable outcome?

There is a finite amount of taxpayer money available to be spent on infrastructure and yet there seems to be no consistency in determining how it is spent, when, and for the benefit of whom. Even when the design of the new bridges, highways, and presumably tunnel, have space allocated to HOV/transit there is still no money in the project buget to pay for this service. Translink is cutting service because its funding sources are either effectively capped (no new property tax and limited fare increases) or in free fall (gas tax), and there is no appetite on the Province's part to offer new revenue streams.

Why can the cost of congestion and delay be used to justify a highway project but not a rapid transit project? Why is it not relevant to the decision-making process that induced demand will inevitably claw back any short term amelioration of congestion? Why aren't a balance of both highway and transit improvements considered by the Ministry of Transportation when it studies options to reduce congestion. The capital cost of both should be funded out of a project's budget and along with ongoing operating expenses, which would be defrayed through tolls and transit fares.

It is extremely frustrating to watch Metro Vancouver lock-in another generation of auto-dependency South of the Fraser, but that is exactly what is happening and it's the Province that's fostering it one road project at a time.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

A continuous stream of funds is available for road projects

Basically, I disagree with this statement, which is the basis of your whole post as far as I could tell.

A continuous stream of funds is available for road projects when tolls are on the table.

Thus there were many road projects prior to 1962 when tolls were routine, and there will be another wave of road projects in this generation if tolls continue to be tolerated. In the intervening 40 years, when tolls were scorned, there were comparatively few road projects.

And this is why I am on board with these projects. The major road projects should be self-funding. The government gravy train should pay for transit projects instead.

[Metro-One]

Also we are doing major catchup now because so little was built / replaced for nearly 4 decades.

[twoNeurons]

Tolls recover capital cost over time, but when it comes to getting capital, roads get it easily. Couldn't transit fares be considered tolls/user pay?

The tunnel is an election thing. It's a way to bait the opposition into opposing it and creating points of contention and seeding doubt. Building infrastructure like this also has fairly universal support among the average voter.

[SFUVancouver]

Zassk and Metro-One, you both make good points: we are catching up on infrastructure under-investment, and on new infrastructure tolls are a long-overdue part of the transportation equation. However, by deciding to invest exclusively in road infrastructure south of the Fraser automobile dependency is being written into the fabric of these growing communities and I think that is going to be a disastrous decision in the long run.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Tolls recover capital cost over time, but when it comes to getting capital, roads get it easily. Couldn't transit fares be considered tolls/user pay?

The tunnel is an election thing. It's a way to bait the opposition into opposing it and creating points of contention and seeding doubt. Building infrastructure like this also has fairly universal support among the average voter.

Perhaps if you doubled or tripled most transit fares. Transit isn't cheap to operate, and aside from a few select routes, users pay much less than the operating costs.

A 60' Trolley bus for instance costs about $1.5Mil in capital costs, plus road maintenance induced, plus support infrastructure, plus maintenance, plus elctricity, plus a driver. Most routes don't pay down the operating expenses, let alone the capital costs.

Heck, even the Skytrain will probably never pay off it's capital costs based on fares alone.

[Stingray2004]

Hey, I support rapid bus, Skytrain, lrt, streetcars and whatever.... but I wish these highway v. transit debates would stay out of and quit derailing these highway specific threads. We've heard it all before.

BTW, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal, for example, all have much, much better designed and complete highway systems than Metro Vancouver. In fact, we are the laughing stock of Canada in that regard, if ya don't know it yet.

OTOH, these same cities also have great and expanding lrt/subway/rail transit systems.

Just use some common sense and think about it.

[tybuilding]

Its pretty sad that we replace a bridge, add capacity and barely add a bus. Even after this project is done it will still take 1.5 hours to go 12 km on transit from Guildford to Port Coquitlam. Isn't this ridiculous? Maybe a portion of the tolls should also fund the bus service or the P3 contractor should operate the transit service as well?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/imag...ies/banana.gif

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Zassk and Metro-One, you both make good points: we are catching up on infrastructure under-investment, and on new infrastructure tolls are a long-overdue part of the transportation equation. However, by deciding to invest exclusively in road infrastructure south of the Fraser automobile dependency is being written into the fabric of these growing communities and I think that is going to be a disastrous decision in the long run.

While I do feel you make good points, South of the Fraser will always require more intense highway infrastructure not because of the communities, but indeed simply because of their location. South of the Fraser communities are located between the heart of metro Vancouver and the outside world, so simply due to being stuck in the middle they will always be home to the majority of the region's highways. For example, Delta, White Rock, West Surrey, and Tsawwassen are located directly between the Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond population centre and the USA / ferries to the Island. Therefore highway connections. The same way Langley and eastern Surrey are located between the heart of Metro Vancouver and all of Canada to the east.

That being said I do agree more transit needs to be built South of the Fraser and transit projects should be pushed forward akin to these highway projects.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

That being said I do agree more transit needs to be built South of the Fraser and transit projects should be pushed forward akin to these highway projects.

And SOF also needs to step up to the plate by continuing to densify and create job centres to make transit more viable.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Hey, I support rapid bus, Skytrain, lrt, streetcars and whatever.... but I wish these highway v. transit debates would stay out of and quit derailing these highway specific threads. We've heard it all before.

With respect, that's the very attitude that is causing the problem. They aren't separate discussions; these are the transportation and growth planning issues facing the region. Permitting discussion about how many lanes, etc., while not being comfortable about discussing the context in which these decisions are being made is in my opinion absurd.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

And SOF also needs to step up to the plate by continuing to densify and create job centres to make transit more viable.

Absolutely. The 'plan effect' of putting routes on a map, even well in advance on project delivery, plays a big role in shaping what is to come. We have seen this in the Tri-Cities along the Evergreen Line route, and we are not seeing this in Surrey as Guildford and Newton stagnate while unfunded SOF rapid transit plans are hashed out.

With all of that said, I'll back off in this thread for the time being. I also think that a six-lane replacement for the Massey Tunnel is warranted, for what it's worth.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

And SOF also needs to step up to the plate by continuing to densify and create job centres to make transit more viable.

It's not always the problems of Surrey and Langley for creating auto-orientated communities. Look at how dense the new communities like East Clayton in Surrey, Willougby in Langley, and yet Translink can't even get a decent route through there. Willoughby in Langley has NO transit period, even with Carvolth located less than 2 km away from there. East Clayton does have the 502 running at 15min frequency on Fraser Highway, but other than that, there is one community shuttle running through an area with well over 15,000 residents.

[nname]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

It's not always the problems of Surrey and Langley for creating auto-orientated communities. Look at how dense the new communities like East Clayton in Surrey, Willougby in Langley, and yet Translink can't even get a decent route through there. Willoughby in Langley has NO transit period, even with Carvolth located less than 2 km away from there. East Clayton does have the 502 running at 15min frequency on Fraser Highway, but other than that, there is one community shuttle running through an area with well over 15,000 residents.

TransLink has listed a few corridors where frequent transit exists and a others where local transit is available. Would it be TransLink's fault if Surrey and Langley decided to start development far away from these corridors, in the middle of nowhere?

And for East Clayton, there's ONE community shuttle routes for over 15,000 residents. Yet these same 15,000 residents couldn't even support the ONE shuttle routes, which is facing service reduction due to very low productivity?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

With respect, that's the very attitude that is causing the problem. They aren't separate discussions; these are the transportation and growth planning issues facing the region. Permitting discussion about how many lanes, etc., while not being comfortable about discussing the context in which these decisions are being made is in my opinion absurd.



Absolutely. The 'plan effect' of putting routes on a map, even well in advance on project delivery, plays a big role in shaping what is to come. We have seen this in the Tri-Cities along the Evergreen Line route, and we are not seeing this in Surrey as Guildford and Newton stagnate while unfunded SOF rapid transit plans are hashed out.

With all of that said, I'll back off in this thread for the time being. I also think that a six-lane replacement for the Massey Tunnel is warranted, for what it's worth.

I don;t see why you need to back off, it is good to have some constructive debate on these threads.

I personally would go for an 8 lane crossing, but that is because I would like to have a true rapid bus system in place. So 2 bus only lanes, feeding the ferries and south Surrey, Delta, and White Rock.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Look at how dense the new communities like East Clayton in Surrey, Willougby in Langley, and yet Translink can't even get a decent route through there.

Plopping a bunch of houses down way out on the easternmost fringes of Surrey certainly doesn't count as "transit oriented development". If anything, it's yet another example of why serving Surrey residents with decent transit is so difficult.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Plopping a bunch of houses down way out on the easternmost fringes of Surrey certainly doesn't count as "transit oriented development". If anything, it's yet another example of why serving Surrey residents with decent transit is so difficult.

Clayton is smack dab in the middle of Fraser Hwy, which is a frequent transit corridor.

[squeezied]

^so you're suggesting Clayton is sufficiently served then?

Anyway the problem with these "dense" enclaves like Clayton and Willoughby in the transit viability standpoint is that other than density, there's really nothing else supporting transit. Density is only one of many factors that affects transit viability. Equally important factors include: location (proximity to employment and amenity hubs vs. in the middle of agricultural lands) and development form (there are such things as dense sprawl hostile to pedestrian activity and thus transit). The unfortunate setback for Clayton and Willoughby is mainly location. If you pluck these areas out and place them near downtown I guarantee you transit service will be very different. People need to consider the regional context to understand why some dense areas have poor transit and why some low density areas have good service.

It amazes me that people always think density is the only factor for transit.