If it makes for better context, I don’t fully blame the NDP on this, in fact I believe they likely would have continued with something similar to what I suggested if it wasn’t for the fact that they had a coalition government with the awful Greens. I think the cancellation was to appease their dogma. I also blame the Liberals for not getting all the contracts signed before the election. I hate the dangling of projects before an election.
It pretty much comes down to the NDP accepting it's not worth the hassle of appeasing 2 or maybe 3 ridings. I speak to countless people in Richmond who seem to mostly care about the drug crisis/homeless and could give a rats ass about a new bridge/tunnel. The bridge is a massive issue for locals in Delta, Ladner and Tsawwassen but their voting intention is always for the right of center party anyways.
This is the downside with our political system. It breeds selfishness and rural areas are ignored, even if it's to the detriment of region/province as a whole.
I used to think you had credibility, but to suggest people go from South Surrey to UBC through New Westminster... I dunno, man.
Yeah no, absolutely not, this tunnel is used by South Surrey/White Rock residents in greater numbers than any other location. You can just sit at the Ladner interchange and see how many are exiting versus continuing on to SS/WR. Anyone actually going to UBC from SS/WR and not driving is taking the 351 to Bridgeport and then they used to take the 480 to UBC from there, now probably Canada Line to the R4 or 99.
Now is it worth building a new tunnel for $4B+ (probably $8-10B by the time we've signed contracts) for roughly ~20% of a community of roughly 200k to have a slightly faster commute to work in Richmond/Vancouver/UBC? Probably not.
It pretty much comes down to the NDP accepting it's not worth the hassle of appeasing 2 or maybe 3 ridings. I speak to countless people in Richmond who seem to mostly care about the drug crisis/homeless and could give a rats ass about a new bridge/tunnel. The bridge is a massive issue for locals in Delta, Ladner and Tsawwassen but their voting intention is always for the right of center party anyways.
This is the downside with our political system. It breeds selfishness and rural areas are ignored, even if it's to the detriment of region/province as a whole.
To be fair, this project was initiated in the first place due to the same political forces. The BC Liberals were the party in power for South Delta/South Surrey and their successors the Conservatives, still are. This project was not as important from a structural standpoint as the Patullo (which took a backseat during the BC Liberal years since it was in NDP territory) and is not nearly as critical as a bottleneck to replace as the Ironworkers bridge is (also somewhat in NDP territory), or as critical as a people moving issue as replacing the 99 with the UBC/Broadway Extension (again, something that the BC Liberals shifted priority away from during their years in power since it served NDP territory). Playing political games with projects is a double edged sword for both sides and we're at least seeing this advanced under this current government instead of indefinite delays like we saw with the Patullo replacement and Broadway/UBC extensions under the BC Liberals.
Also rural areas ignored? Excuse me? They receive way more funding than they generate in taxes, it's the urban areas of the Province that are ignored relative to their tax generation. And this does not serve rural areas in the slightest.
The Ministry of Transportation and Transit is proposing to replace the existing George Massey Tunnel on Highway 99 with a new, eight-lane immersed tube tunnel.
Application Development and Review Phase public comment period: May 22 to June 23, 2025
The Ministry of Transportation and Transit is proposing to replace the existing George Massey Tunnel on Highway 99 with a new, eight-lane immersed tube tunnel.
Application Development and Review Phase public comment period: May 22 to June 23, 2025
I'm sure that the bureaucrats have mandated shelf/expiry dates on engagement studies. Keeps them employed, no?
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
i think its more they changed the plan completely, so by law, they need to restart all the consultations since no one actually agreed to doing a stupid ass design, other than loser politicians who are a bunch of idiots.
wouldn't be needed if they just completed the bridge 3yrs ago, like they should have.
Our political system sucks. Most popular leads, second most popular has to fight with the most popular, everything needs to be this and that. They should just all work together on something and get this done.
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 3,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it's the worst system except for all the others.
Yes, we can always say that, but not all democracies are created equally. When it comes to delivering on projects your Spains and Italys of the world are democracies too but seem to be much more effective.
Yes, we can always say that, but not all democracies are created equally. When it comes to delivering on projects your Spains and Italys of the world are democracies too but seem to be much more effective.
Some democracies just fit the technical definition. Look at North Korea for example. They have elections, thus making them technically a democracy.
The elections are obviously what you think they are like.
hey look, the same number of general purpose lanes we already have totally worth the billions extra, decades longer, more negative environmental impacts, and worse transit infrastructure.
good job NDP. you saved us from building something actually good, and only cost us money, time, the environment, and benefits.
that middle pedestrian bike tunnel is so unnecessary. Who is the right mind is going to take the tunnel by walking??
it's wasting money on additional ventilation equipment as well as being a security liability.
If you thought about it for even a small amount of time, you'd probably realize that the tunnel requires an emergency egress anyways, might as well spend a minuscule amount of money on it to make it useful as a pedestrian bike tunnel.
hey look, the same number of general purpose lanes we already have...
The merits of the proposed bridge versus this tunnel are one thing - ten is obviously more than eight - but you must know that your statement is nonsensical. The current tunnel only has three "general purpose" lanes in one direction if you reduce the other direction to one lane, versus three each way all the time. Plus, the bus lane means that transit won't be bogged down in regular commuter traffic. That plus the better traffic flow from a modern roadway means it will be an improvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikeredheads
that middle pedestrian bike tunnel is so unnecessary. Who is the right mind is going to take the tunnel by walking??
it's wasting money on additional ventilation equipment as well as being a security liability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcj
If you thought about it for even a small amount of time, you'd probably realize that the tunnel requires an emergency egress anyways, might as well spend a minuscule amount of money on it to make it useful as a pedestrian bike tunnel.
Yes, exactly. It's actually pretty innovative and the marginal costs involved will be balanced by the elimination of the need for bike shuttles.
The bike / pedestrian tunnel in the middle is fine, though it will be far more utilized by bikes than pedestrians, and the spectacular views offered by crossing a bridge on your bike than in a tunnel sandwiched between the highway is another detriment. (And to those who claim weather protection, well, that argument only works if the majority of your bike trip on either side of the tunnel is somehow also weather protected... which it obviously wouldn't be, so that argument is kind of mute.)
The joke here is just the increased cost for a project that is:
A decade delayed.
Lower capacity (though I'm personally fine with 8 lanes, and THAT should have been the compromise with the original project, simply reducing the bridge from 10 lanes to 8 to please the Greens since it was a coalition government at the time, and continuing with the project.)
Far worse bus infrastructure. (shoulder lanes instead of centre bus lanes, loss of direct free flow bus ramps, etc...)
Severely downgraded interchange designs.
Greatly reduced scope of project.
And, most ironically, a much higher environmental impact and more land use. Seriously, that image of the manufacturing facility on Deas Island is hilarious as to home much more impactful this project is.
Tunnels are also much more susceptible to delays and unforeseen problems during construction (and cost overruns).
hey look, the same number of general purpose lanes we already have totally worth the billions extra, decades longer, more negative environmental impacts, and worse transit infrastructure.
good job NDP. you saved us from building something actually good, and only cost us money, time, the environment, and benefits.
You seem to leave nearly the same comment on this thread every other month. Also "same number of general purpose lanes" is a little disingenuous. It's only 3 lanes one direction during counterflow. this will be 3 general purpose lanes both directions 24/7, plus a bus lane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikeredheads
that middle pedestrian bike tunnel is so unnecessary. Who is the right mind is going to take the tunnel by walking??
it's wasting money on additional ventilation equipment as well as being a security liability.
It'll be used by far more cyclists than pedestrians.
__________________
Vancouver born and raised | My Flickr
Prev
totally worth the billions extra, decades longer, more negative environmental impacts, and worse transit infrastructure. 
Linear Mode
