BC Fishing Reports banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm a lot about people paying their own freight if they will benefit from a capitol project.

The new Massey Bridge is being proposed as a toll bridge from what I've heard. The increase in draft in the river is a Port Metro request to facilitate deeper draft vessels making it to Surrey Fraser docks and New West. Should not Port Metro be contributing to the costs of the new bridge? How do we go about making this a priority and get the attention of the Provincial government? All good ideas on this are greatly appreciated, Grizzz.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
I do not think the ports should be paying for infrastructure like the massey bridge. they are already a massive economic driver for the province/country. I could see asking them for a portion to help such a project get underway..... but to say the ports should pay because a bridge benefits them with increased ability to move goods which drive the ecomies of more than just Vancouver/BC? I disagree.
thousands of area businesses and commuters would see a larger benefit from new infrastructure through that corridor.
the business and commuters who utilize that route over the fraser should be the ones who pay the lion's share for whatever crossing is planned. Toll away.
the massey tunnel is old as all heck and no doubt has a service life.
USER pay and leave the rest of the province's tax dollars out of it LOL
just my opinion, don't flame me for it. I live in the cariboo but spent 40 years growing up in the lowermainland
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Any reason they put a tunnel there rather than a bridge in the first place?
I can't find anything on that, maybe some engineer was extra keen. It was the first precast tunnel that was sunk into place at the time so maybe an attempt to be first in the engineering world???

The original tunnel was financed with tolls which went away once the debt was paid in the 60's.

I also heard the coal handling expansion at Surrey Fraser is waiting til the tunnel is gone? I think we need mix pay for mixed benefits. I live 1 mile from the tube and it constricts traffic and generally is best to avoid it during certain times. It does back traffic up Steveston Hwy and messes up lots of other routes on this side (Lulu Isl.) especially the Steveston overpass (2 lane). Port expansion funding is a question I'm semi naive about just curious if the shipping community carries it's own fiscal weight?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,669 Posts
'The main advantage of an immersed tube is that it costs less than other options, such as a bored tunnel or bridge.'

That's all I could find so I am assuming the tunnel was a cheaper option back then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,113 Posts
Immersed tube wold be the only way you could build a tunnel in that muck. I suspect a bore tunnel was not possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,669 Posts
Immersed tube wold be the only way you could build a tunnel in that muck. I suspect a bore tunnel was not possible.
But a bridge obviously was. A bored tunnel too if you went deep enough. Looks like it was cost which was $25M at that time. Not sure what 1959 dollars translate to today. OK, it's around $200M.(only currency converter I could find only did $US back that far). Be interested if anyone knows what the bridge cost might have been as it looks like a tunnel was built solely because no-one knew how.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Coal has nothing to do with the tunnel. Coal will be shipped by barge to Texada Island to be loaded on to ships bound for China. The reason for the bridge is too accommodate deeper draft container ships and break bulk for FSD. From what I understand the new bridge will end up landing where Fraser Wharfs is now...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,113 Posts
But a bridge obviously was. A bored tunnel too if you went deep enough. Looks like it was cost which was $25M at that time. Not sure what 1959 dollars translate to today. OK, it's around $200M.(only currency converter I could find only did $US back that far). Be interested if anyone knows what the bridge cost might have been as it looks like a tunnel was built solely because no-one knew how.
For sure the precast tunnel would be the cost winner. Fraser delta sand/mud is over 600 feet deep at a minimum. Going deep enough for a bore tunnel would be unrealistic.


Common depth point seismic data, collected as part of a hydrocarbon exploration program in the Fraser River delta has been interpreted to map the depth to bedrock, which coincides with the Pleistocene-Tertiary unconformity. A structure map of the surface shows northwest-trending highs and lows, ranging in depth from 200 to 1000 m. The development of a bedrock map forms a key component of the geological and geophysical framework relevant to geotechnical investigations focussing on the ground response to earthquake shaking.


Author​
Britton, J R; Harris, J B; Hunter, J A; Luternauer, J L​
Source​
Current research 1995-E/Recherches en cours 1995-E; by Geological Survey of Canada; Geological Survey of Canada, Current Research no. 1995-E, 1995; p. 83-89​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
Im sure the cast tunnel was the cheapest option at the time. Its easy to say now there should have been a bridge, but at the time it was built there was almost nobody living south of the tunnel, and a fraction of the population there now is in richmond (It was still ditchmond back then with open ditches everywhere). For a very long time the tunnel was more than adequate for the traffic through it. As for funding it sounds like the ports and Government should kick in some money as there is a generalized economic benefit for the province, with the rest (probably the majority) of the cost being directly funded by users with tolls.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,386 Posts
The container traffic between Tsawassen and downtown and the terminals in east Richmond has increased over the years to the point that massive truck lineups occurred on Hwy 99 and other feeder routes. The shipping terminals have been assisted by the development and completion of the south Fraser perimeter road, however the largest shipping container port/exchange is located on the other side of the river at the south end of #9 road.
Why are they building the bridge near the existing tunnel? A large percentage of vehicles using the existing tunnel originate in south delta, white rock, south surrey, cloverdale etc.........It would seem to me the bridge would serve all the communities better by moving it east and widening the east west connector and adding another bridge into the city. The knight street bridge is rapidly becoming a parking lot much like the tunnel.
Why not explore the option of keeping trucks off the roads at rush hrs.?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Don't forget the new jet fuel barge and storage facility, curious as to how that will work out? I'll keep tabs on it, as I fish coho 1/4 mile from the new fuel dock site. Ortho's concerns about the backlog just moving on to Knight, Oak & Lang bridges are very valid. Yesterday on the way to VGH I was caught up in the backlog caused by the police shooting at Knight & 41st! 2 days after the incident, they were still measuring and checking evidence. Oak bridge is also far past it's best before date, witness the constant patching around the expansion joints. A new bridge connecting #4 rd. & Main or #5 rd. & Fraser would help as well if the Oak bridge stays at 4 lanes. The Tsawassen First nation is also expanding the port there, this will add more sea-can trucks to the road as well. Tolls are a given, vehicle mileage tax is going to be part of the translink referendum from what I've heard. Can we not get a better solution to the massive waste at translink? The mayors will never reach consensus with all the neighborhood agendas in play. Maybe they will have an epiphany and come to their senses, but holding ones breath waiting for that would kill anyone. Interesting debate, like to hear more possible solutions on increased river traffic (someone in the shipping/tug industry). Note also that Delta has been opposed to almost all infrastructure spending on roads/ bridges like New West seems to be in perpetuity. Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,812 Posts
In response to the original question, I believe (as i have firmly believed for every major infrastructure project in the past) the province should pick up the major portion of all such projects. The concept of "user pay" has a great PR value, but little else. A more appropriate take would be "benefiter pay". When the lower mainland operates more efficiently, the province as a whole benefits. Provincial tax revenues increase which in turn create more economic benefits, both to the LML and the "Heartland" (as the Socberals once tried to brand it). By the same token, I opposed the tolls on the Coquihalla as the benefits of moving goods and services more efficiently, were felt from Ft Nelson to Victoria to Fernie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
572 Posts
I went from Skidegate to Prince Rupert return last week, cost me $450.00 for my toll bridge, except I can only use my bridge tuesday and thursday or thursday and sunday...
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top