Dear Editor,
Re: “Six lanes and a train, get on it,” Letters, May 13
Great letter by Lynne Jones. The grandiose, 10-lane “election year” Massey Bridge is overkill, far larger than currently necessary, too intrusive, too far-reaching and too expensive.
The planning for it has consumed years of study and caused a great deal of discontent and is still not a done deal.
Assuming, as reported, that the existing tunnel has not been condemned and that the Fraser River marine vessel clearance is not an issue for the Port Metro Vancouver, why not maintain the existing tunnel for a four-lane (three, plus HOV) southbound route, as all the roads and approaches are generally in place?
Then, construct a more economical narrower northbound, five-lane bridge immediately to the east of the tunnel to line up with the recently constructed four lanes of blacktop leading from the new South Fraser Perimeter Road.
The new bridge deck could have four, reasonably wide lanes for vehicles, all north-bound (three, plus HOV).
The fifth lane could be a smaller, separate barrier space for two-way pedestrians and bicycles located on the west side of the bridge deck.
The north end of the new bridge should include an upgrade to ease the congested section of Steveston Highway and have an overpass of Highway 99 integrated with a merge to the existing three-lane freeway.
The new construction could be an H-type cable stayed or suspension style bridge with provision to facilitate a future five-lane, southbound deck below the initial northbound deck.
The initial construction should include all the support to enable the southbound deck to be installed without disrupting the northbound deck above.
The lower deck could be constructed when the Massey Tunnel is beyond its useful life, in say another 20 years, and as a separate project.
This will defer a significant amount of the proposed funding and will be a legacy for a future consideration.
The initial bridge construction should include a lower support base for a light rail train at the lower level, directly below the west side pedestrian/cycle path.
This will locate the LRT guideway between the north and southbound Highway 99 lanes and be an effective routing for security and safety near the grade level freeway.
The LRT could then proceed as soon as funding is approved without disruption to the initial bridge traffic flow.
This bridge solution would facilitate river crossing traffic alternatives in an emergency, by use of a counter-flow system.
Also, in a catastrophic earthquake event, alternatives would be immediately available to route all traffic by the bridge, assuming it would survive even if the tunnel failed.
The eventual separating of the north and southbound bridge decks would also be a vehicle safety attribute.
One would think that a phased, double stack, five-lane bridge would be more economical and less intrusive and would address the immediate traffic issues.
Geoff White
Richmond
