Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Province unveils options for Massey Tunnel replacement


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#31 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,387 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 13 March 2013 - 10:46 AM

About Oak st?

http://forum.canucks.com/topic/341391-province-unveils-options-for-massey-tunnel-replacement/#entry11213837
Well actually about the entire "project" but yes, including Oak Street.

Edited by J.R., 13 March 2013 - 10:47 AM.

  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#32 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,040 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 13 March 2013 - 10:53 AM

Realistically something needs to be done with the tunnel regardless of the SFPR. The SFPR will just make it that much worse. I'd be happy if that "something" was the banning of commercial truck traffic during rush hours (say 7-9AM and 4-6PM) to start with. Do that and see what the results are and go from there.

It would also be pretty easy (cheap) to convert (and expand) the existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes before and after the tunnel. That would also improve transit service FWIW.

As for Oak street...after the tunnel you have options East and West to get in to Richmond, Burnaby and Vancouver. It's less of a problem. But by all means use some of that HOT lane money to upgrade Oak if it's deemed important (along with the Steveston and Hwy 17 interchanges)

Otherwise, the tunnel will need at the very least structural upgrades and there's the aforementioned issues with water depth and shipping to take in to consideration as well. We have to look long and hard whether or not to "throw good money after bad" or not and simply upgrade or if replacement and improvement would be better options/"bang for our buck". And by all means, have any lane expansion be transit/HOT lanes to have continuity through the corridor. A 6 lane bridge with 2 of the 6 lanes being transit/HOT seems a pretty good, long term compromise for better traffic flow, transit options and ability to aid in shipping expansion as well.

Hell if we're smart, we integrate capabilities to add skytrain say on the underside of the bridge for even longer term planning. Have the structure there and engineered for the appropriate loads and then add the track etc later when demand is there.


Yeah, it all sounds good. But it doesn't happen. The province says they don't meddle in translink's planning except of course that they control the purse strings. So it's completely assinine to say you're not involved. Anyway, aren't there already HOT lanes before and after the tunnel? It's great to give them a lane, but if you don't provide more busses...

It's not like I don't see something has to be done with the tunnel. I'm just extremely skeptical of any of these plans actually putting transit as anything other than an afterthought. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
  • 0

#33 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,387 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 13 March 2013 - 10:59 AM

Yeah, it all sounds good. But it doesn't happen. The province says they don't meddle in translink's planning except of course that they control the purse strings. So it's completely assinine to say you're not involved. Anyway, aren't there already HOT lanes before and after the tunnel? It's great to give them a lane, but if you don't provide more busses...

It's not like I don't see something has to be done with the tunnel. I'm just extremely skeptical of any of these plans actually putting transit as anything other than an afterthought. I have no reason to believe otherwise.


Only if you consider occasionally getting ticketed for driving in the HOV lanes a "toll"? :lol: The existing lanes (like all of the GVRD as far as I know) are HOV, not HOT. Which (as usual) is shortsighted, stupid and inefficient.

No disagreement that the government and planning are both poor. So how do we fix THAT?
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#34 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,040 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 13 March 2013 - 11:03 AM

Only if you consider occasionally getting ticketed for driving in the HOV lanes a "toll"? :lol: The existing lanes (like all of the GVRD as far as I know) are HOV, not HOT. Which (as usual) is shortsighted, stupid and inefficient.

No disagreement that the government and planning are both poor. So how do we fix THAT?


No, I think the lanes leading up to and after the tunnel are bus only. Not HOV. I don't drive that often enough to be sure, but I think they are...

Raise a stink I guess. I don't know. Certainly a change in government can't be worse with regards to transit, but will it be substantially better? We'll see I guess...
  • 0

#35 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,387 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 13 March 2013 - 11:09 AM

No, I think the lanes leading up to and after the tunnel are bus only. Not HOV. I don't drive that often enough to be sure, but I think they are...

Raise a stink I guess. I don't know. Certainly a change in government can't be worse with regards to transit, but will it be substantially better? We'll see I guess...


Unless it's recently changed... definitely HOV.

Edited by J.R., 13 March 2013 - 11:10 AM.

  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#36 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,040 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 13 March 2013 - 11:16 AM

Unless it's recently changed... definitely HOV.


Website is totally out of date, but it does say bus only lanes : http://www.th.gov.bc...Lanes/index.htm
  • 0

#37 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,387 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 13 March 2013 - 11:22 AM

Website is totally out of date, but it does say bus only lanes : http://www.th.gov.bc...Lanes/index.htm


Perhaps the parts closer to Whiterock on the South and Vancouver on the North are but immediately before and after the tunnel are HOV as far as I know unless that's changed.

Regardless...doesn't really matter. Both could be improved and expanded.

Edited by J.R., 13 March 2013 - 11:22 AM.

  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#38 Violator

Violator

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,080 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 07

Posted 13 March 2013 - 07:33 PM

An added transit option is a ridiculous idea neither side is dense enough for it something like that can be tunneled in after

Priorities are

1.Coquitlam
2.Surrey
3.UBC
  • 0

#39 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,759 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 13 March 2013 - 07:48 PM

Off Topic slightly: Am I the only one that still uses the cow tunnel?
  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#40 BurnabyJoe

BurnabyJoe

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,361 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 06

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:15 PM

I guess the tunnel is getting old?


- How can we afford this?

- Does HWY 99 really need another lane? We already have a Los Angeles Freeway
  • 0
http://i8.photobucke...e/canucks40.jpg <- Jim Robson's 40th Anniversary Team.

#41 ahzdeen

ahzdeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,569 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 03

Posted 14 March 2013 - 10:49 AM

Off Topic slightly: Am I the only one that still uses the cow tunnel?

What's the cow tunnel?
  • 0

#42 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,387 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 14 March 2013 - 10:56 AM

What's the cow tunnel?


If it's where I think it is...it doesn't remotely help you cross the Fraser.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#43 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,169 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:28 AM

What's the cow tunnel?


A very low and narrow tunnel under highway 99 highway in Delta. The only way across the highway between the Highway 17 and Highway 10 overpasses as far as I know. I'm guessing the vast majority of the 10's of thousands of commuters who cross it every day don't even know it exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGDnbotkgBA

Edited by Coda, 14 March 2013 - 11:29 AM.

  • 0

#44 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,387 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:57 AM

A very low and narrow tunnel under highway 99 highway in Delta. The only way across the highway between the Highway 17 and Highway 10 overpasses as far as I know. I'm guessing the vast majority of the 10's of thousands of commuters who cross it every day don't even know it exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGDnbotkgBA


Yeah except I think you'd land in the middle of the SFPR construction these days. Also, as I mentioned it doesn't remotely help you cross the Fraser. Really not much of help short of the odd time the 99 is an actual parking lot.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#45 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 16 March 2013 - 07:13 AM

First the lane count really makes no difference. There's more traffic flow each direction at certain times of the day. You manage the lanes to make the best use of available lanes to move that traffic. Plain and simple. The amount of lanes makes no difference.

Also, you're not including the traffic to and from Hwy 17 and Steveston Hwy. They're basically at least an additional "lane" of traffic each (and along with the aforementioned trucks the ACTUAL causes of the majority of tunnel congestion IMO).


Had they done that at the time (it's called lane continuity btw) and had three lane tunnels probably would still be fine.

If they don't widen 99 it will be six lane bridge. If they put HOV/commercial/who knows lanes up and down 99 to the border (widen to middle) than it will be a 8 lane bridge.

Existing tunnel is in the way of ships coming up the Fraser.

I suppose we could make the inane's of the world happy and simply do massive infil of the tidal areas and move all the port facilities there but the greens that would fight that have a lot more friends and power than those that try to get you out of your car.

8 lane tolled bridge will be what happens.
  • 0

#46 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 16 March 2013 - 07:14 AM

I prefer option 5 if they were to make No. 8 connect to Boundary Rd.

Edit: Basically two bridges (4 or 6 lanes).


When you do that you do it in the name of improving flow of the Alex Fraser and toll both. Then the south fraser screenline is complete with no free option to distort the flow.
  • 0

#47 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 16 March 2013 - 07:16 AM

I would LOVE to see the truck suggestion implemented regardless of what, if anything, gets built. Maybe the NDP will have the balls but I doubt the Liberals with all the work they've done to increase shipping capacity will want anything to do with limiting that.

The rapid transit suggestion is laughable though :lol: If we're stuck debating on whether there should be a UBC line built (it should) and who's paying for it, having one along the 99 corridor is actually not even laughable.... It's beyond ludicrous in comparison.


It's more likely that you would see a dedicated truck lane built to the border than having a ban, at any time, on any day, for truck traffic.
  • 0

#48 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 16 March 2013 - 07:21 AM

From Gord Price:


Why isn’t transit included as part of any review, not ancillary to it? The Minister of Highways and Infrastructure maintain they can provide additional road space for transit – but are not responsible for the service itself. That’s someone else’s job, that has to come from some other funding source.


So as a consequence, planning for the road expansion omits the possibility that increased transit today could address the congestion problem that the road expansion is designed to address. Which means that Motordom might not get their next billion-dollar project, nor generate the induced traffic to justify the next one after that.


The assumption here seems to be any new tunnel will have transit/HOT/etc... Why would you assume that? The new Port Mann wasn't going to have any transit until people screamed enough so that it now has mediocre service. But if you'll remember one of the big PR bits about the Port Mann back when it was proposed was how great it would be for new transit. Well, that didn't happen now did it.


Well a large amount of hwy 99 has dedicated bus lanes already built to it and the most logical reponse for transit to places like ladner and Twassen is rapid bus service so I personally think it would be shocking if they didn't include bus lanes.

Mind you that means a ten lane bridge if you want to have the two lanes existing plus one for lane continuity for 17 plus one for the widening to the border plus one for the bus lane times two for a total of ten lanes.
  • 0

#49 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 16 March 2013 - 07:27 AM

About Oak st?


Already in the rush hour 99 is configured to push three lanes into 2 and you loose a lane of traffic when you get to 91. Ideally you would have a three lane oak street bridge but unless COV didn't have parking on 99 for a significant stretch (ya right) it would be pointless.

So there would be a line at the oak street bridge.

At least people that hate that line would have the option of pulling off the highway, parking at the bridgeport park and ride, and getting on train the rest of the way.

With a transit alternative in place I could live with the Q.....
  • 0

#50 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 16 March 2013 - 07:33 AM

No, I think the lanes leading up to and after the tunnel are bus only. Not HOV. I don't drive that often enough to be sure, but I think they are...

Raise a stink I guess. I don't know. Certainly a change in government can't be worse with regards to transit, but will it be substantially better? We'll see I guess...


Whatever government is in power will be busy trying to balance the budget in the face of rising health care costs. I wouldn't be too optimistic.

And FYI the NDP is just as committed as the Libs to fixing the tunnel. It's in the way of ship traffic. Even they aren't THAT stupid as to alienate every voter south of the river by coming out against it.
  • 0

#51 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 16 March 2013 - 07:36 AM

An added transit option is a ridiculous idea neither side is dense enough for it something like that can be tunneled in after

Priorities are

1.Coquitlam
2.Surrey
3.UBC


If the existing bus lanes had lane continuity they would be much faster and the existing express buses would be faster and able to do more trips a day even with the existing fleet.

Transit from south surrey to downtown is already decent. If there was no delay for the tunnel it would be awesome.

The main issue with transit in every suburb isn't trying to get downtown. The issue is trying to get anywhere else.
  • 0

#52 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 16 March 2013 - 07:39 AM

I guess the tunnel is getting old?


- How can we afford this?

- Does HWY 99 really need another lane? We already have a Los Angeles Freeway


- Rest assured it will be tolled.

- From 17 (aka the port) to the border it sure does.
  • 0

#53 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,040 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 20 March 2013 - 08:46 AM

Some more information--how much evidence does one need before we wake up?

Fewer teens/early 20's getting drivers licenses:

http://dc.streetsblo...he-millennials/
http://www.latimes.c...0,7422833.story

Vehicle Miles Traveled

Posted Image
  • 0

#54 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 20 March 2013 - 09:04 AM

Some more information--how much evidence does one need before we wake up?

Fewer teens/early 20's getting drivers licenses:

http://dc.streetsblo...he-millennials/
http://www.latimes.c...0,7422833.story

Vehicle Miles Traveled

Posted Image


Fewer teens/early 20s people aren't driving because they don't have jobs or money........

The trend since 2007 (start of the great financial crisis) happens to coincide with a downturn in the economy (greatest traffic releiver ever) in an area where limited road (and transit) capacity doesn't have any ability to increase the amount of vehicle km travelled.

Of course you won't see much higher volumes on facilities that are near or at capacity.....
  • 0

#55 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,040 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 20 March 2013 - 09:24 AM

Fewer teens/early 20s people aren't driving because they don't have jobs or money........

The trend since 2007 (start of the great financial crisis) happens to coincide with a downturn in the economy (greatest traffic releiver ever) in an area where limited road (and transit) capacity doesn't have any ability to increase the amount of vehicle km travelled.

Of course you won't see much higher volumes on facilities that are near or at capacity.....


It's not that they aren't driving, they aren't even getting their license.

This is in the US overall, not here.
  • 0

#56 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 20 March 2013 - 09:47 AM

It's not that they aren't driving, they aren't even getting their license.

This is in the US overall, not here.


Everything I said about the downturn in the economy affecting things is even more true in the US.

I assure you traffic on US 101 in the bay area went way down after the dot com bust.

You could graph just about anything (house prices, home starts, TV purchases, anything and everything) over that time period and it would go down.

It's hardly a sign that people suddenly don't like the idea of houses, TVs, or driving............
  • 0

#57 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,040 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 20 March 2013 - 09:50 AM

Everything I said about the downturn in the economy affecting things is even more true in the US.

I assure you traffic on US 101 in the bay area went way down after the dot com bust.

You could graph just about anything (house prices, home starts, TV purchases, anything and everything) over that time period and it would go down.

It's hardly a sign that people suddenly don't like the idea of houses, TVs, or driving............


The trends began earlier than 2007....the automakers themselves are acknowledging this.
  • 0

#58 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,387 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 20 March 2013 - 09:57 AM

The trends began earlier than 2007....the automakers themselves are acknowledging this.


And the trend of youth having less jobs, income, opportunity and more debt than their parents also began earlier....hmmm

Edited by J.R., 20 March 2013 - 09:58 AM.

  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#59 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 20 March 2013 - 09:58 AM

The trends began earlier than 2007....the automakers themselves are acknowledging this.


Immediately before 2007 Americans were approaching their highest levels of debt ever as they piled all their money into real estate when the US government made it easy for just about anyone to get a home as they tried to pull the economy out of the dot com crash.

But good news! In 2007 the Canadian government, concerned about the slowing economy due to the great financial crisis, made it super easy for Canadians to pile all their money into houses and now were at record level of home ownership and per capita debt! If history repeats itself then you can look forward to some home grown decreases in car purchases/km driven/TVs bought too!
  • 0

#60 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 20 March 2013 - 09:59 AM

And the trend of youth having less jobs, income, opportunity and more debt than their parents also began earlier....hmmm


If you think it pisses off a Vancouverite to talk about the realities of any green scheme they come up with don't even dream of talking about the economy. That REALLY pisses them off.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.