November 14, 2016

Back to the Massey Tunnel, er Bridge

proposed-george-massey-bridge-artist-rendering
Just in case anyone thought that the Massey Bridge was not a fait accompli by the Province, the Delta Fire Chief and Chief Administrative Officer weighed in with more reasons why the tunnel needed to be replaced during a Delta Council meeting, as reported in the Delta Optimist.
Perhaps feeling stung by the lack of support by other regional municipalities  for the replacement of the current four lane  tunnel for a ten lane bridge, Delta has prepared a new report  saying  that the tunnel had a higher accident rate than the provincial average and that vehicular accidents tend to be more severe and result in more significant injuries and death than accidents on open roads.  

Because the accidents happen in the tunnel emergency vehicles can often not access the problem, and first responders have to enter the tunnel on foot. The report also adds In terms of disaster management, there are significant concerns with the existing tunnel, which has approximately 10 years left before major components, such as lighting, ventilation and pumping systems, need to be replaced. Seismic upgrades were completed in the early 2000s which will withstand smaller earthquakes; however, the tunnel will not withstand a major earthquake, and it is not feasible to upgrade it to modern seismic standards.”

Apparently Mayor Brodie of Richmond has written the Premier and the Transportation Minister asking the Province to collaborate with all regional municipalities in this Massey Tunnel rethink. This new report produced by Delta will be sent directly to the dissenting mayors, and the Mayor of Delta outlined the information she felt that the Mayor of Richmond was erroneously talking about.You can access Delta’s agenda here and watch the video. Unfortunately a copy of Delta’s new pro bridge report is not attached for the public.

stevestonhwy99

Proposed Steveston Overpass

Delta Mayor Jackson at the end of the Council meeting stated that building more roadway lanes on the bridge will not create more traffic, that transit will be improved by faster service over the bridge, and that there will be zero net loss of farmland, that farmers could farm below the raised interchanges.There would be reduced congestion for farm vehicles, better land drainage and since 60 per cent of the traffic went to Richmond, there would be no bottlenecking at the Oak Street Bridge. Ten lanes not eight lanes were needed on the bridge to accommodate bicycles and slow-moving vehicles. The bridge was not replacing the tunnel due to navigational needs of Port Metro Vancouver. There is a million hours of idling a year at the tunnel, and it is an environmental improvement to have a bridge for immediate access. Lastly, the Mayor pointed out that there was lots of public process and there was no need for a Federal environmental review as the Provincial review was comprehensive enough. A bridge would also reduce the collision rate by 35 per cent, and save many lives.

The perspectives of the Mayor of Delta and the Mayor of Richmond, both people deeply engaged and passionate about their municipalities are markedly different. One assumes that vehicular travel will remain a constant, the other is siding with other metro municipalities in asking to consider changes in travel patterns, technology, location of this bridge, and also the place of transit. Both feel they have the right approach. But is the 21st century really about building billion dollar highway infrastructure on river delta floodplain that is environmentally sensitive? If it is overbuilt and not well used, we’ll be paying for it in many ways for a very very long time.

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

Leave a Reply to AnonymousCancel Reply

  1. The heart wants what it wants. Of course a massive bridge isn’t necessary, but it checks a lot of the Liberals’ boxes. And like a lot of selective reasoning, facts that marginally support a bridge are critical ammunition; facts that support the existing or upgraded tunnel option are ignored.
    Unless the NDP suddenly petitions the Wizard of Oz for a brain or some courage, this $3B structure will be built. A silver lining is that it will have to be tolled, which will politically require a broader bridge-tolling strategy across the region.

  2. “Ten lanes not eight lanes were needed on the bridge to accommodate bicycles and slow-moving vehicles.’
    Odd that they would add a lie regarding accommodations for cycling The lane count is actually 12 if we add a 3m wide ped/cycling lane. on each side. Unfortunately it will not add to the 20 lanes north of Steveston interchange since they have consistently refused to add any cycling amenities in the rest of the ROW.

    1. Follewed by an even bigger lie:
      “The bridge was not replacing the tunnel due to navigational needs of Port Metro Vancouver.”
      This is the major reason for a bridge. How can one make rational decisions when provided only with a pack of lies?

    2. Ten lanes not eight lanes are needed to rationalize the business case that justifies building the bridge (or at least ever being able to pay it off). In the world of regional traffic models and the business cases built around them; more lanes means more vehicles. More vehicles means more tolls to pay back the bonds required to build this behemoth in the first place. A bridge of six or eight lanes would not induce enough traffic and tolls to ever pay off a $2.5B+ bridge. Supposedly ten lanes would, even at a somewhat higher cost; at least in the simulations the Ministry chose to approve.
      Of course it’s all b.s., but it’s b.s. the province wants to hear. So it’s off to the races.

  3. There is more to the overall story. In Richmond, as His Worship Mayor Brodie must know, just north and east of where the new bridge is being built new industrial parks and waste treatment centres are under construction.
    http://ecowaste.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Industrial-Park-rendering-Sept-2014.jpg
    “Ecowaste is developing 170 acres of industrial zoned land in East Richmond, on the south part of our landfill site. This industrial park is envisioned to eventually contain up to 13 buildings for use by inter-modal logistics, warehousing, and distribution companies, with approximately 2.7 million square feet of building space.
    There will be over $250 million in private funds invested in buildings, infrastructure, and green space. Construction will generate 2,000 jobs.
    Once operational, the industrial park should host 4,800 full time jobs and generate an additional 1,000 plus indirect jobs. It will be a major source of new revenue for the City of Richmond, Metro Vancouver, and senior governments.
    The site supports the Pacific Gateway Initiative to transform British Columbia into the preferred gateway for transporting goods between North America and Asia.”
    “The intent is to restrict new vehicle activity from the development site and development sites east of the No.7 Road Canal from accessing Steveston Highway and the Highway 99 interchange via Williams Road until such time the necessary road infrastructure is in place. At this time, the objective of these traffic measures is to not increase the traffic generated at the Steveston Highway/Highway 99 Interchange until additional planning and transportation infrastructure upgrades occur along the Highway 99 corridor (including applicable highway interchanges). ”
    I wonder if any buses will go out there.

  4. We find it interesting that Malcom Brodie’s administration is issuing a development permit for a 170 acre, 4,800 employee industrial park, with a proviso that trucks and service vehicles not use the Steveston and 99 interchange, until infrastructure upgrades occur along this corridor, yet he claims to be writing to the province for a rethink of the upgrade.
    Maybe he’s winking at the same time as he’s writing.

  5. Post
    Author
  6. If the existing tunnel was more dangerous than other river crossing in the region the provincial govt would be screaming about the fatality & serious injury statistics. They aren’t. So the Massey Tunnel is probably no worse for serious crashes than other crossings.

    1. You’re mixing two somewhat-related but different concepts, and it all relates back to the province’s selective employment of facts. The ministry is probably not lying about crashes being somewhat higher in the tunnel than on bridges, but given the physical constraints of the thing, these are not likely to be fatalities and serious injuries. Probably rear-ends, which are usually only minor. Even the contra-flow arrangement probably induces very few serious crashes (meaning head-on from opposite-facing traffic). But again, it’s selective. Delta and the province want their bridge, so they’ll trot out any tangential fact that remotely supports it and ignore or downplay any facts – however relevant – that do not.

      1. Good points Dan. We must put all things in to proportion and not get too upset about a couple of rear-end collisions or the occasional slow impact of a few head-ons. After all, if two vehicles are going through the tunnel counterflow system and each doing, say, less that the speed limit and around 70 kmh, that would only be the equivalent of a single vehicle hitting a stationery object at 140 kmh. What’s the worst that could happen?
        In fact, this is a dash-cam showing exactly this:
        https://i.ytimg.com/vi/khVk6KUhkyQ/hqdefault.jpg
        Would Roo Bars be a good idea?

        1. Eric, are all your arguments as suspect as your physics? You do not add the speed of the two cars in a head on collision when comparing them to hitting stationary objects. Other complex dynamics aside, it is the same as hitting a brick wall at the speed of each car.

        2. Oh. I stand corrected. Maybe the physics of two vehicles colliding head to head equal only a trivial crash, say 60 kmh.
          Like this controlled one:

          It does make you wonder what all the fuss is about.

        3. You’re highlighting what certainly can happen in a head-on collision. It’s gnarly. However, the Ministry is talking about what has happened in the tunnels. It is not this. It is rear-end collisions. These are being singled out as proof that the tunnel is “more dangerous” than a bridge.

        4. I know Dan, a few hundred crashes here, another couple o’ hundred there, what’s the big deal?
          You expect the same number of crashes when the bridge is built and all the two-way intersections are eliminated? You could be right.
          It’s like bike lanes and sidewalks, isn’t it. Who really cares if one is safer than the other?

        5. RV – I usually agree with you and disagree with Eric, but I am sure that when two vehicles of equal weight have a head on crash at a certain speed, then the effect is similar to each vehicle hitting a solid stationary object at twice the speed.

        6. Should have listened to RV, that would have been the right thing. Conservation of momentum. Each vehicle is hitting a virtual stationary wall. There is twice as much energy, but it is absorbed by two vehicles, not one.

        7. Maybe. Although, even physicists can disagree on this. There are so many factors, momentum of each at the moment of impact. And, RV’s brick wall is stationery, it has no momentum because it has no velocity and it has very little crushable capability.

        8. “After all, if two vehicles are going through the tunnel counterflow system and each doing, say, less that the speed limit and around 70 kmh, that would only be the equivalent of a single vehicle hitting a stationery object at 140 kmh.”
          Who brought up the stationary object?
          But makes no difference. The physics stands.

        9. “Maybe. Although, even physicists can disagree on this.”
          Wait, the laws of physics are subject to personal opinion now?
          This sounds like your previously articulated approach to climate science. A debate with multiple answers, each of them somehow equivalent, the answer depending on the point one is trying to prove.
          As RV said, the physics stands.

    2. The ICBC Crash Map shows that there are more crashes at the Steveston Interchange (by almost a factor of 3) than in the tunnel. Even the Steveston Hwy/No 5 Rd intersection has more crashes showing on the map than the tunnel. Certainly the tunnel is harder to reach by emergency crews if there is a crash, but I suspect the KPI that is of concern is the reliability of the tunnel, ie how often is ‘normal’ traffic interrupted by an incident, and how long do those incidents last.
      The ICBC Crash Map probably helps Eric understand the concerns over putting more traffic into the Steveston Hwy interchange, as well.

      1. Good to know. The City of Richmond staff must have included that proviso for traffic restrictions because of the unfortunate situation around the Steveston interchange, where sometimes only one or two vehicles get through on each traffic light sequence.
        The long detour up to Westminster for truck traffic during construction of both projects, the industrial park and the bridge, is wishful thinking for truckers working on pay-per trip.
        The industrial park is more than twice the size of Tsawwassen Mills.
        It’s right next to that fragrant farm, Harvest Power. Brodie must be very proud.
        It certainly puts the calls to save farmland in perspective. Perhaps an intrepid reporter will ask Harold Steves for an opinion.

        1. One indeed wonders why we do not create more land (farmland, industrial land, recreational land or residential land) south of this new bridge, i..e in Boundary Bay or west of it, i.e. Richmond as well as Tsawwassen. The ocean and even the river is so shallow it can’t be that difficult to dyke it, drain it, harden it and then develop it. Where is this discussion, both here on pricetags as well as in political or urban planning circles ? We used to do it, and many countries to this day do it, why not in MetroVan ?

        2. Because we’re already ridiculously sprawled. We don’t need more land. We need more brains. Well, one of us does for sure:
          While we’re diking more land at sea level, Thomas, why don’t we build more pipelines to burn more fossil fuels to raise the oceans to make us raise the dikes.
          Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

        3. There is quite a bit of industrial land being developed in Richmond, Delta and Surrey.
          All along the south eastern river side of Richmond there are many sites under construction, for massive trucks and warehouses. They are accessed by the recent Nelson link of the Highway 91. Massive warehouses are also expanding on the Boundary Bay airport, accessed by the new 80th Avenue exit on the 99. Taken together, and including the Port in Vancouver and North Vancouver, Tilbury and South Westminster, the links to all these facilities by trucks.
          It’s easy to understand that the Vancouver Public Library employment infocentre is reporting:
          “There is high demand for workers in the Canadian transportation industry. Between 2010 and 2030 the industry will need over 26,000 qualified workers, an increase of 31%.
          Canada could experience a shortage of 25,000 to 33,000 truck drivers by 2020
          The Canadian truck transportation sector alone is expected to require at least 153,000 additional workers by 2021, an average of 14,100 per year.
          Projected employment growth in BC [truck transportation]: 2011 to 2021 13.7%”
          That new bridge can’t come fast enough.

        4. “That new bridge can’t come fast enough” (for the trucking industry)
          Ignoring completely that something like 5% of the peak hour traffic in the tunnel is comprised of commercial vehicles.
          If you cared about the commercial vehicle traffic you would be promoting demand management for the single occupant vehicles that are making it so hard for those truck drivers, and promoting alternatives to sprawl, which is creating more SOVs.

        5. @RV: MetroVan seems more and more congested these days. Yes, we need more brains, of course, but more land too would be useful for 3M and eventually 10M people in this area. 30-40,000 more every year AND the only port region to the Pacific for ALL of Canada ! The argument “them bird sanctuaries” need to be taken into account, of course, as do rising sea levels, but so do industrial, recreational, farming and residential needs of humans !!
          I note that Boundary Bay already has an airport. I bet we will that as a third WestJet/Aircanada airport within 20 years plus expansion around it. Why not build a new Venice in Boundary bay, with bike path, pedestrian friendly, CanadaLine extension to it, green, with beaches ? A new Yaletown if you will ?
          I encourage the editor, if she/he reads it, to open a new blog entry for this discussion as surely I can’t be the only one surmising about these possibilities ?

        6. Thomas. I’ve pointed out on several occasions that the Vienna region (#1 for liveability), for example, has about 4 times the population density as the Vancouver region. We don’t need more land.

        7. @RV: no we do not NEED it. No one needs a new car either, or an e-bike, a 3BR house with a yard, a university education, A/C nor a new coat.
          Sure is nice though, eh ?
          Since you can usually have only one use on one piece of land per level, we stack the uses up: parking underground, retail at ground floor, offices floors 2-5, then condos or hotel or renal units.
          Did someone price this out, i.e. cost of stacking vs cost of new land ?
          As I said, the debate is missing. Like causes of and addressing the challenges of climate change, the science is not settled nor should it ever be.
          Land use debate is vital, incl ALR and creating more land, or repurposing existing land, say a forest, a wide road, a viaduct, a wetland or an older industrial area. The boundaries of this debate are too narrow in MeroVan i.e. “don’t touch the ALR” or “don’t ever build above this line in the forest in N-Van” or “don’t make marshland into a park or housing” is far too simplistic is a complex society.

        8. Have you priced our stacking versus creating new land? It seems municipalities are already very concerned about the massive costs of raising dikes for existing land.
          And you have to add the massive costs of roads/water/sewer/electricity/gas to service all that land.
          I don’t find more stuff nice. Stuff owns you. Just a little bit more than necessary is a great place to be.

      2. @Jeff; with AVs upon us within 20 years we will see more ZOVs (zero occupied vehicles).
        When will we get the Boundary Road bridge extending south from Boundary Road over Fraser River to Richmond’s highway system ? When will we see Lionsgate and Second Narrow bridge capacity expansions ? When will we see Oak and Knight bridge expansions ? They are ALL undersized for a growing region. The disconnect between adding new condo towers at a rapid pace and the lack of rapid transit and highway expansion is astounding !

        1. Yes in theory. Look at the congestion in N-Van for example to see what NOT to do. Adding rapid transit 20 years later is poor urban planning like we see now in Port Moody / PoCo as Evergreen line is 20 years too late. The same will happen with Jericho land, UBC towers and UEL’s Block F if Broadway subway line is delayed and delayed .. or only built to Arbutus. This is sound urban “planning” ???

        2. TransLink and the COV sees all those congestion points as ‘regulators’. That is; they welcome the congestion.
          In 2013 (latest data they’ve given out, 3 years old!) there were 231 accidents and 97 with casualties on and around the Knight Street Bridge. One day soon the people will say enough! Eventually, the citizens will see this for what it really is; they are fiddling while Rome burns, then they will kick the bums out.
          All it takes is for a municipal politician to promise bridge improvements in a campaign.
          Nothing will change until there is a complete change in management.

        3. Thomas – You still havn’t responded as to how all these vehicles are going to move once over your widened bridges. For example, suppose we create a 10 lane replacement for the Lion’s gate, how will this improve traffic flow? How would you get rid of the congestion at either end? If you can’t answer that then what is the use of even considering a widened bridge?

        4. @Eric: Vision is restraining MV traffic. The NPA restrained MV traffic before them as did COPE. Who ya’ gonna call?
          Perhaps there’s a reason why councils of all stripes have tamed the car. Maybe one day you’ll get it too.

        5. I wouldn’t say it’s taming when successive managers have created bottlenecks of congestion with the highest accidents in the whole region all over the place, then they euphemistically call these choke-points ‘regulators’.
          Maybe one day someone will build comprehensive transit to the suburbs too as they do in most cities.

        6. if you take a 4 lane highway like marine drive (or Hwy 1) or a 6 lane highway like W Georgia that funnels traffic onto ONE at best 2 lane like Lionsgate bridge then there is obviously a bottleneck being created.
          Even a 5 lane bridge with one counterflow lane would help A LOT.
          Of course a train below would be far far better.
          Took the CanadaLine yesterday. PACKED. Already way too undersized as a 2 car system. Who designed this ?
          Build it and they will come. Why are we not digging Broadway subway yet ? Or widening Lionsgate, Knight, Oak, Patulloa and Second Narrows ?
          Of all the follies of Justin Trudeau at least on one he is right on: we need to build far more infrastructure. Where is it in MetroVan ? Where ? When ?

  7. “Maybe one day someone will build comprehensive transit to the suburbs too as they do in most cities.”
    Totally, if only we had a plan that involved transit to the suburbs…

    1. THOMAS, Canada line is undersized because it was designed for the CAMPBELL cabinet to keep the cost below $2 billion creating the illusion of cost efficiency. The length & capacity of the stations could be increased for longer trains. It would have been cheaper to get it right the first time.( Measure twice & cut once.)

      1. If you look at the track profile in and out of some of the stations you’ll see that they begin to climb or descend immediately beyond the platforms. I doubt there can be very much length added to most platforms without some awkward and changing slopes.

        1. Reportedly, the 40 metre platforms can be extended to 50 metres, allowing use of an additional (short) car, making three car trains. Before that expense is incurred, though, train frequency can be increased, or seating can be changed to accommodate more people.

        2. Frequency hard to increase as they often go every 2-3 min. They should have allowed both sides of the train to open at busy stations, one side to enter and the other to leave to reduce congestion and train stop times.
          What kind of planner designed this kind of waste ? Or was it merely designed in haste to get it ready for the 2010 Olympics ? Funding sources here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line#Project_funding
          Can we not add a longer train that sticks out into the tunnel on both sides where only the rear or front door opens ?

        3. It was a P3 project so the private partner had a lot to do with the final design. Like Jeff mentioned, a third car can be added. Also, I believe that an increase in frequency is possible but is limited by the single track to the end stations. I would guess that double tracking the last bit of track would be one of the first upgrades after 3 cars and increase in frequency.

        4. Every other trains goes to Richmond and YVR, so one arrives every 5-6 min or so. Yes YVR seems a bottleneck.
          Why is there only one exit per station btw ? To keep cost down ?

        5. “Frequency hard to increase as they often go every 2-3 min”
          Actually, every 3:20. Last report I saw showed 5500 people per hour per direction (PPHPD), actually counted. Capacity at that time of 6600 PPHPD.
          Move to 2 minute spacing, within the design spec, to achieve 10,000 PPHPD. That helps with platform issues as well.
          Move to 3 unit trains, with platform modifications where needed, at 2 minute spacing, to achieve 15,000 PPHPD.
          All it costs is money, for more rolling stock, platform modifications after that, and of course a potentially very expensive modification to the P3 contract.
          Other options include changing the seating (more standing room), and changing the single track at the end of the southern lines, as it limits increased train frequency.
          All it costs is money. If only some people hadn’t campaigned against, and voted against, more funding for Translink.

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles