Jump to content

      













Photo

Mainland BC road infrastructure


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#1 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 10:56 AM

Christy Clark announces 10-year-plan to replace George Massey Tunnel

Read more: Christy Clark announces 10-year-plan to replace George Massey Tunnel

Does anyone know why a tunnel makes more sense than a bridge, anyway? Wikipedia says it's only 22m deep at its lowest point.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#2 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,220 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 11:16 AM

Meanwhile the province's investment in large infrastructure in the Capital Region is...??? :confused:

#3 Urbanistco

Urbanistco
  • Member
  • 172 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 12:22 PM

Soil conditions on either side of the tunnel prevent a bridge.

#4 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 8,630 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 12:30 PM

Does anyone know why a tunnel makes more sense than a bridge, anyway? Wikipedia says it's only 22m deep at its lowest point.


I would guess that perhaps it's cheaper to build a shallow tunnel than a tall bridge. Do large vessels that would require a high bridge transit this portion of the river?

I found the following article. Apparently the main proponent of the tunnel, George Massey, was able to convince the politicians of the time that a tunnel would be more cost effective than a bridge.

The Persistent Tunnel “Vision” of British Columbia’s George Massey - Industrial History Political History - British Columbia Fraser River Geroge Massey Ladner Massey Tunnel Richmond Social Credit Vancouver WAC Bennett - History to t

#5 bluefox

bluefox

    ex-Victorian

  • Member
  • 697 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 04:31 PM

Soil conditions on either side of the tunnel prevent a bridge.


This, and also...

Remember that time Christy promised $500 million in upgrades and renovations to St. Paul's Hospital, and then the same day Kevin Falcon blatantly contradicted her to say there was only up to $8 million available?

I'm just waiting for Mike de Jong or a deputy minister to come out and bring her back down to earth yet again...

She is the queen of politically-charged funding announcements for which there is no money available. I can't wait to see how she plans to pay for something like this (clearly a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure project of the same scope and depth as the Port Mann replacement).

Sorry, Christy, but I'll believe it when I see it.
(Not the owner of, nor am I associated with, the Blue Fox Café, in any way.)

#6 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,220 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 06:28 PM

...Sorry, Christy, but I'll believe it when I see it.


Don't hold your breath. This woman is done like dinner come May 2013. I suppose knowing this she can make any "promises" she likes, knowing full well they will never come true.

#7 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,587 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 06:36 PM

^Yeah, it's kinda like the NDP always complaining about how the government is run and making outlandish statements. Now that it is a possibility that they will become government it is not so much fun. Yeah we are going to have to raise corporate taxes and balanced budgets, well we don't really believe in those.
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#8 bluefox

bluefox

    ex-Victorian

  • Member
  • 697 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 07:27 PM

^Yeah, it's kinda like the NDP always complaining about how the government is run and making outlandish statements. Now that it is a possibility that they will become government it is not so much fun. Yeah we are going to have to raise corporate taxes and balanced budgets, well we don't really believe in those.


What is the point in having balanced budget legislation if the Liberals just amend it or ignore it every time they need to re-forecast or adjust their own budgets? :whyme:

And, for the record, I don't expect anything out of Christy and I never did. In fact I'm one of the few people I know that has been harping on her and calling her crap consistently since the very day she "left" provincial politics in 2004.
(Not the owner of, nor am I associated with, the Blue Fox Café, in any way.)

#9 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,419 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 08:55 PM

There is a large vehicle port just past the tunnel. It is pretty cool to see one of those car carriers going across as you descend beneath the bridge.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#10 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 09:21 PM

We saw this when entering the tunnel this June.



Note the "N" on the back!
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#11 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 09:45 PM

Christy Clark announces 10-year-plan to replace George Massey Tunnel

Read more: Christy Clark announces 10-year-plan to replace George Massey Tunnel

Does anyone know why a tunnel makes more sense than a bridge, anyway? Wikipedia says it's only 22m deep at its lowest point.


In this location the tunnel was probably cheaper to build as there was no bedrock, the approaches are shorter as you don't need the elevation required for a bridge.

I remember watching a documentary on the Deas Island tunnel construction. The sections were built on land and then floated into position and sunk in a dredged channel.

You can watch a 90 minute uTube of the construction here.
construction of george massey tunnel - YouTube

#12 Urbanistco

Urbanistco
  • Member
  • 172 posts

Posted 29 September 2012 - 08:01 AM

It's a win win for the Liberals. If the NDP builds these projects out, the Liberals share the credit. If the NDP doesn't, it shows bad fiscal management because the Liberals were "able" to build the projects.

As for the tunnel versus bridge, the area is surrounded by peat bogs, shifting sand, aircrafts to YVR, so the necessary clearance for passing ships would have been an issue when building the bridge footings. Add in the tide fluctuations where flow can go from 12ft to still in seconds and a prefab tunnel was the preferred option.

#13 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 29 September 2012 - 11:54 AM

I have been through the tunnel recently and saw no obvious problems, so why does it need to be replaced? Why not twin the tunnel and keep the present one?

Whatever you build in Richmond will likely suffer in a large earthquake, with tunnels flooding and bridges collapsing.

#14 bluefox

bluefox

    ex-Victorian

  • Member
  • 697 posts

Posted 29 September 2012 - 03:00 PM

It's a win win for the Liberals. If the NDP builds these projects out, the Liberals share the credit. If the NDP doesn't, it shows bad fiscal management because the Liberals were "able" to build the projects.


Um, no on the second half of your comment. How does it show bad fiscal management if the NDP says "oh, guess what, the Liberals said there was money for this but there isn't and never was"?!

The Liberal government needs to be able to fully cost this project out before it even comes close to a preliminary planning or design stage. Nobody will settle for or accept anything less than honest numbers, based on past cost overruns and drastic last-minute changes by this government.
(Not the owner of, nor am I associated with, the Blue Fox Café, in any way.)

#15 http

http

    Data Sans Practicality

  • Member
  • 1,024 posts

Posted 29 September 2012 - 04:29 PM

[ snip ] The Liberal government needs to be able to fully cost this project out before it even comes close to a preliminary planning or design stage. Nobody will settle for or accept anything less than honest numbers, based on past cost overruns and drastic last-minute changes by this government.


Judging from history, the citizens of the City of Victoria sure will.
"Who are those slashdot people? They swept over like Mongol-Tartars." - F. E. Vladimirovna

#16 renthefinn

renthefinn
  • Member
  • 571 posts

Posted 29 September 2012 - 05:55 PM

This, and also...

Remember that time Christy promised $500 million in upgrades and renovations to St. Paul's Hospital, and then the same day Kevin Falcon blatantly contradicted her to say there was only up to $8 million available?

I'm just waiting for Mike de Jong or a deputy minister to come out and bring her back down to earth yet again...

She is the queen of politically-charged funding announcements for which there is no money available. I can't wait to see how she plans to pay for something like this (clearly a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure project of the same scope and depth as the Port Mann replacement).

Sorry, Christy, but I'll believe it when I see it.


Soil conditions do not prevent a Bridge.... It may be more costly though than a tunnel (not sure if that's true or not), I suspect they will explore both options....

#17 bluefox

bluefox

    ex-Victorian

  • Member
  • 697 posts

Posted 29 September 2012 - 10:17 PM

Soil conditions do not prevent a Bridge.... It may be more costly though than a tunnel (not sure if that's true or not), I suspect they will explore both options....


Yes, they do. We did a months-long case study on bridge feasibility over the South Fraser when I was in university. The fact is the soil is much too weak and sandy on the Richmond side to support a bridge; it's not stable enough. Not without significant investments in stabilising infrastructure, which could as much as double or triple the capital cost of a bridge.

That's why they built a tunnel in the first place. Even then, with technology not advanced enough to build a bridge to withstand natural disasters in the region, they knew a tunnel was better. And look how long it's lasted. Only needed a couple of major retrofits.

During an earthquake, the southern half of Lulu Island will be the most likely to succumb to severe liquefaction and soil wastage, and the prospect of alleviating traffic congestion with a bridge that has the capacity to handle 2012-level traffic flow is not worth the risk in that case. Conversely, a tunnel built to modern specifications would likely be able to withstand up to a magnitude 9.5 earthquake, and makes sense for this particular crossing.

Bridges are better than tunnels any day, but in this case, it doesn't work. The only solution that could work would be a cable-stayed bridge supported by a jack and damper system and pillars that can slide laterally with tectonic movement. Like this: Rio-Antirrio bridge
(Not the owner of, nor am I associated with, the Blue Fox Café, in any way.)

#18 splashflash

splashflash
  • Member
  • 101 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 04:54 AM

Yes, they do. We did a months-long case study on bridge feasibility over the South Fraser when I was in university. The fact is the soil is much too weak and sandy on the Richmond side to support a bridge; it's not stable enough. Not without significant investments in stabilising infrastructure, which could as much as double or triple the capital cost of a bridge.

That's why they built a tunnel in the first place. Even then, with technology not advanced enough to build a bridge to withstand natural disasters in the region, they knew a tunnel was better. And look how long it's lasted. Only needed a couple of major retrofits.

During an earthquake, the southern half of Lulu Island will be the most likely to succumb to severe liquefaction and soil wastage, and the prospect of alleviating traffic congestion with a bridge that has the capacity to handle 2012-level traffic flow is not worth the risk in that case. Conversely, a tunnel built to modern specifications would likely be able to withstand up to a magnitude 9.5 earthquake, and makes sense for this particular crossing.

Bridges are better than tunnels any day, but in this case, it doesn't work. The only solution that could work would be a cable-stayed bridge supported by a jack and damper system and pillars that can slide laterally with tectonic movement. Like this: Rio-Antirrio bridge


I thought I read that a crossing east at the South Fraser Perimeter near 72nd St to cross to No. 8 Rd and connecting to Highway 91 was being examined, much to the despair of Harold Steeles, architect of the ALR.

If a connection were built there, could the tunnel at Deas be retrofitted?

It looks like the Liberals are continuing planning with no consideration of Van Island. This announcement is strictly to salvage what seats they can to avoid wipe-out in the Lower Mainland. It's pretty sad that this forum is discussing Metro Vancouver projects and not newly announced plans for the Pat Bay Highway or even buslanes under a new MacKenzie interchange.

#19 renthefinn

renthefinn
  • Member
  • 571 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 09:34 AM

Yes, they do. We did a months-long case study on bridge feasibility over the South Fraser when I was in university. The fact is the soil is much too weak and sandy on the Richmond side to support a bridge; it's not stable enough. Not without significant investments in stabilising infrastructure, which could as much as double or triple the capital cost of a bridge.

That's why they built a tunnel in the first place. Even then, with technology not advanced enough to build a bridge to withstand natural disasters in the region, they knew a tunnel was better. And look how long it's lasted. Only needed a couple of major retrofits.

During an earthquake, the southern half of Lulu Island will be the most likely to succumb to severe liquefaction and soil wastage, and the prospect of alleviating traffic congestion with a bridge that has the capacity to handle 2012-level traffic flow is not worth the risk in that case. Conversely, a tunnel built to modern specifications would likely be able to withstand up to a magnitude 9.5 earthquake, and makes sense for this particular crossing.

Bridges are better than tunnels any day, but in this case, it doesn't work. The only solution that could work would be a cable-stayed bridge supported by a jack and damper system and pillars that can slide laterally with tectonic movement. Like this: Rio-Antirrio bridge


I don't think you read my post, I said the soil conditions do not prevent a bridge crossing, and that is true, whether it makes it prohibitive cost-wise versus the cost of another tunnel is separate issue.

#20 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,220 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 09:35 AM

It looks like the Liberals are continuing planning with no consideration of Van Island. This announcement is strictly to salvage what seats they can to avoid wipe-out in the Lower Mainland. It's pretty sad that this forum is discussing Metro Vancouver projects and not newly announced plans for the Pat Bay Highway or even buslanes under a new MacKenzie interchange.


This. There is at least a slightly better chance that under an NDP government Vancouver Island won't be completely ignored when it comes to provincial infrastructure spending. Keep in mind that our last major transportation upgrade was financed and built before the Liberals took the reigns.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


To advertise on VibrantVictoria, call us at 250-884-0589.