Hwy 99 Fraser River Tunnel (George Massey Replacement) | Proposed

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

An immature comment, I know, but maybe the NDP should keep the "construction starting in 2017" signs up, but slap a huge "Cancelled by the NDP!" sticker over top just to remind drivers on their daily commutes.

Your wish is sort of granted.

http://theprovince.com/opinion/columnists/mike-smyth-massey-tunnel-fight-heats-up-on-the-ground

[Klazu]

Haha, that's excellent! But the clueless people in the comments... Oh boy. It sounds exactly the same type of feelings based reasoning as during the plebiscite.

[flipper316]

http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/delta...ddress-tunnel-safety-concerns-1.23070789

So if the Richmond fire chief recommends this why doesn't he show his recommendations to that idiot Brodie.

[flipper316]

http://vancouversun.com/news/politics/ndp-govt-quietly-starts-review-of-george-massey-tunnel
nothing really new. same old bullshit.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Well, at least they've stopped kicking the ball around.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by flipper316

http://vancouversun.com/news/politics/ndp-govt-quietly-starts-review-of-george-massey-tunnel
nothing really new. same old bullshit.

Can someone please explain to me, in great detail, why they have to review it again?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Can someone please explain to me, in great detail, why they have to review it again?

Populism 101: Promise everything, commit to nothing, do very little.

Leadership means making tough decisions, but tough decisions mean losing voters... so if you don't make any decisions, you don't lose any voters. It's why centrist parties generally have no ideas, while the left-wing and right-wing parties generally have bad ideas (they're targeting one specific voting bloc rather than a whole bunch of them).

[libtard]

"When we’re spending public dollars I want to make sure there’s more than just the infrastructure benefit.”

What the bloody f*ck does that mean?

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by libtard

"When we’re spending public dollars I want to make sure there’s more than just the infrastructure benefit.”

What the bloody f*ck does that mean?

This makes my brain hurt.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by libtard

"When we’re spending public dollars I want to make sure there’s more than just the infrastructure benefit.”

What the bloody f*ck does that mean?

It is politician speak. It sounds good but means nothing because it can be interpreted in so many different ways.

The thing about the tunnel that really needs to be answered is who is using it and would a crossing at a different location be better for them. Are most of the people using it really going to and from Delta, Tsawwassen and Ladner? I doubt it. From what I have heard, the tunnel is not at its end of life, so rather than replace it, why not supplement it with a new crossing that is better suited for the bulk of its users.

Also, are there other options? Difficult because it was under-built, but could the Canada Line be extended to cross the Fraser? If so, would that help?

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Can someone please explain to me, in great detail, why they have to review it again?

Getting rid of tolls also means we probably can’t afford it. Do we take the money from elsewhere or go into greater debt?

[ClaytonA]

Originally Posted by roger1818

...

The thing about the tunnel that really needs to be answered is who is using it and would a crossing at a different location be better for them. Are most of the people using it really going to and from Delta, Tsawwassen and Ladner? I doubt it. From what I have heard, the tunnel is not at its end of life, so rather than replace it, why not supplement it with a new crossing that is better suited for the bulk of its users. ...

All areas not supposed to grow that much in the regional growth strategy due to high quality farmland and greater susceptibility to things like climate change/sea level rise, etc.

I've heard the argument about South Surrey and supposedly the critical 5% of traffic crossing the US Border being primary motivations for this project. If the regional growth pattern was to be supported with single occupant vehicles in mind (trucks, transit again are a very small vehicle %), then given S Surrey's location why not a better connection through Surrey to the Port Mann bridge and Hwy 1? Bonus better connection to Port Metro Van on Burrard Inlet. Only thing this doesn't improve is airport freight. While the tunnel does need upgrading, not to such a wide multi-lane bridge.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Getting rid of tolls also means we probably can’t afford it. Do we take the money from elsewhere or go into greater debt?

Government = borrow and spend.

Let the future governments deal with the debt problem.

[MIPS]

I've always interpreted provincial and federal debt as "that thing that progressively increases regardless, but the rule of the game is to see who can make it increase the least."

Short of cancelling debt out you can never get rid of it. Eventually either you implode or someone's going to come in and help prop you up to pay the bills.
China is the most likely country who would swoop in as a hero and offer a line of credit as they already have a very large and vested interest, however as we all know once we bite on that they'll hang us by the balls with a second rope.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The thing about the tunnel that really needs to be answered is who is using it and would a crossing at a different location be better for them.

The answers to this are in the existing GMB project study documents. There are breakdowns by origin and destination, in both a.m. and p.m. peaks.

Surprise: 2/3 of the traffic going through the tunnel is headed to Richmond for daytime purposes (work/shop/etc).

Surprise: 1/3 of the traffic is going directly to/from the Steveston part of Richmond, an area that would not be well-served by a crossing located anywhere else.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Are most of the people using it really going to and from Delta, Tsawwassen and Ladner? I doubt it.

Your question is backwards, based on the studies we have in hand. The bridge/tunnel's main purpose is all about getting people to Richmond for employment purposes. Serving Delta or Vancouver traffic is a secondary concern of this crossing.

Originally Posted by roger1818

From what I have heard, the tunnel is not at its end of life, so rather than replace it, why not supplement it with a new crossing that is better suited for the bulk of its users.

The tunnel is nearly as old as the Patullo, and was built using a questionable design which will not age as well as the Patullo. It can be argued that the tunnel is even less safe than the Patullo.

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

All areas not supposed to grow that much in the regional growth strategy due to high quality farmland and greater susceptibility to things like climate change/sea level rise, etc.

This is not really the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that there is major employment in Richmond, and the tunnel gets people there for that purpose. 60% of the tunnel traffic is due to this need. This is not at odds with the regional growth strategy.

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

why not a better connection through Surrey to the Port Mann bridge and Hwy 1?

Because the Port Mann Bridge is not pointing in the right direction. The employment served by the GMT is mainly in Richmond and south Vancouver.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Also, are there other options? Difficult because it was under-built, but could the Canada Line be extended to cross the Fraser? If so, would that help?

The documents we have in-hand also address this question. There is not enough density in Delta to justify this, and as Clayton pointed out, we don't want there to be enough density there. And if we only built a rapid transit crossing, we would be left with a tunnel that is basically a second Patullo in terms of its long-term reliability.

[WarrenC12]

The government borrows at incredibly low interest rates. They also control the money supply. Getting out of debt should only be considered when they are no long term infrastructure investments worth pursuing.

[p78hub]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Also, are there other options? Difficult because it was under-built, but could the Canada Line be extended to cross the Fraser? If so, would that help?

It would be prohibitively expensive to redo the single-tracked section and extend it, and Richmond will block it at every turn as long as Brodie remains mayor.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Surprise: 2/3 of the traffic going through the tunnel is headed to Richmond for daytime purposes (work/shop/etc).

I have trouble digesting that bit of info which has been widely trotted out by the previous govt and some on here for quite some time.

For one Oak Street Bridge sees as much daily traffic as the current GMT. So that the study concludes that 2/3 of all GMT traffic stops at richmond would tell me that 1/3 continues on to Vancouver. However as i pointed out earlier the same amount of traffic destined for Richmond is somehow back on the OSB? Whether that remainder is based in Richmond or just that the study is flawed...i still have a hard time believing that 2/3 of GMT traffic ends up in Richmond.

I believe the traffic counts on both crossings are related and have been for some time.
If you increase the capacity of GMT whether it be bridge or tunnel, somehow someway that same capacity will wind up on Oak Street Bridge. I dont buy this 66% of GMT traffic winds up in richmond story.

[KPELLY]

While I think it is true that 2/3 of the GMT traffic ends up in Richmond. This doesn't account for traffic originating in Richmond that uses the OSB. Are those numbers provided anywhere?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by KPELLY

While I think it is true that 2/3 of the GMT traffic ends up in Richmond. This doesn't account for traffic originating in Richmond that uses the OSB. Are those numbers provided anywhere?

Exactly, it's not like Richmond doesn't provide its own drivers going to Vancouver. I feel like given that most people here live in Vancouver they tend to really underestimate the amount of employment in the suburbs.