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

[moosejaw]

Link to article from 2016 where it mentions the mayor was sent a report from the Fire Chief of Delta claiming the tunnel wasnt safe.....

http://www.delta-optimist.com/massey-tunnel-safety-called-out-1.2561836

So how can they (City of Richmond) claim they were never consulted???


Also i will quote from the Fire Chief of Delta...........
""Seismic upgrades were completed in the early 2000s which will withstand smaller earthquakes; however, the tunnel will not withstand a major earthquake, and it is not feasible to upgrade it to modern seismic standards."

Hopefully that will put a nail in those coffin of those who claim the tunnel is perfectly fine.

Im still looking for that audio clip of the poor Richmond councilor who doesnt have bluetooth in her car

[cganuelas1995]

I think people should understand that you can only upgrade a thing so much before it becomes absolutely fucking necessary to upgrade another thing supporting it, because no matter how much you upgrade that thing, after a certain point it will cause problems for the thing supporting it. Sure, you can put a bigger and faster engine in your car and keep upgrading it but after a while you will need to upgrade your fuel system and you transmission and your axles and your battery and so on and so on. A thing is only as good as the worst part.

[s211]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Link to article from 2016 where it mentions the mayor was sent a report from the Fire Chief of Delta claiming the tunnel wasnt safe.....

http://www.delta-optimist.com/massey-tunnel-safety-called-out-1.2561836

So how can they (City of Richmond) claim they were never consulted???

I've personally observed Richmond staff and counsellors rail about never being consulted about the bridge, only to be rebuffed with a long list of specific occasions when the Ministry was in contact with City staff.

[teriyaki]

They're just sour at not being asked "pretty pretty please".

[Steveston]

Originally Posted by stump

I've lived in Richmond for most of my life and it's embarrassing that he continues to get re-elected. He has been our Mayor for 16 years which is far too long. There needs to be term limits for mayors. I'm not sure if residents just check the box because they recognize the name or if opposing mayoral candidates are that bad because to be beaten by Brodie, they have to be pretty useless.

Quite frankly, after reading some of the things that have come out of his mouth, I think he is just ignorant about many topics or a liar and thinks his constituents don't care since they keep re-electing him.

Brodie, McNulty, Steves -- they're all way, way beyond their "Best Before" dates.

I 100% agree that there should be term limits on municipal council positions. Three terms (12 years) max; then you must be off Council for at least one full term (4 years) before you can attempt to be re-elected. At least then, you'd be pretty well guaranteed to have some decent candidates to choose from every third election. The way it is now, too many people feel that it's a shoe-in, so we only get the incumbent Mayor and some wingnuts on the ballot.

[jlousa]

As much as I don't like a certain party in a certain city, I disagree with term limits. As long as we have a open democracy and the playing field is level I think the public should be entitled to keep voting in the same person for as long as they want. Putting in term limits for politicians removes a freedom from voters. The problem is voters not term limits.
Personally would rather see the whole project shelved right now so it can revived in a few years as opposed to having the wrong project pushed forward and us being stuck with it for decades.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by stump

...I think he is just ignorant about many topics or a liar and thinks his constituents don't care since they keep re-electing him.

Or - just possibly - he actually understands what most of his constituents want.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

A thing is only as good as the worst part.

Basically. Fact is the tunnel will never be able to transport the hazardous and volatile goods that a bridge can. Especially with engineering standards from the 50's.

The tunnel really is a major setback for goods movement in the southern GVA. If you would like to see any sort of reduction in container truck traffic through Burnaby or Vancouver; support the bridge.

More goods can be shipped through southern port facilities and out of harms way with easier highway access.

[ronthecivil]

Welcome to an engineers opinion!

Since nobody seems to want major roads through the centre of their city (understandable) then clearly we should just go around. I hereby present to you.....

The Vancouver Bypass!

Where the SFPR is roughly at 76th street/Ross Road, put in in an interchange, designed for a six lane (three each way) north. Build this as a new bridge north over the south arm of the Fraser.

Interchange (trumpet to portside road) on the north side to access the industrial properties on the north side of the river. Don't sweat doing much else, not really intended for commuters.

Go north along the No 8 road corridor. No 8 road might need to get moved or whatever, but the road beside it. Whatever works best. Overpass Westminster highway, build interchange with highway 91.

From there go north over the north arm of the Fraser. If Burnaby and Vancouver don't want an interchange (or partial interchange) at Marine drive, don't build one, simply progress to next portion.

Hill nicely sets up for a tunnel. Cut and cover all of Boundary, all the way to Highway one. Build one side, two lanes on the other to keep Boundary open, then switch positions. Connect directly to Highway 1.

Expenses? Probably same ballpark as the existing project.

Benefits? Probably don't need to ban trucks from the tunnel after this, they would have next to no reason to use it. Provides long fabled highway from highway 1 to 99, connecting the Burrard Inlet ports with Delta ports and the Fraser ports. Sucks tons of truck traffic of over Vancouver city streets. No real reason for commuters to use it, only really connects industrial properties, with the exception of people doing nutty things like doing from the north shore to Ladner.

Might want to up 91 to three lanes as part of the deal.

Drawbacks? Blows up some stuff at the south end interchange. Impacts farmland. If you build Marine drive interchange that will be messy. Will suck if you commute anywhere near Boundary for a while. Complex interchange at highway 1.

That said though, in the scheme of trying to move goods around, this works at lot better, and actually points the goods in the direction they want to go.

[trofirhen]

^That sounds genuinely intriguing and original. Being a visual person, I'd like to ask if you if you could make a diagram of that, if you have the capacity to do so. Thank you.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by jlousa

As much as I don't like a certain party in a certain city, I disagree with term limits. As long as we have a open democracy and the playing field is level I think the public should be entitled to keep voting in the same person for as long as they want. Putting in term limits for politicians removes a freedom from voters. The problem is voters not term limits.

agreed. the Green want term limits, but if people keep voting for them, why shouldn't they get elected? if that's who the people are happy with. for example, look at BC under WAC Bennet; imagine if he was limited to 2, 3(what the Green want) terms. the province would probably look very different; and i doubt it would be a good different.

Originally Posted by jlousa

Personally would rather see the whole project shelved right now so it can revived in a few years as opposed to having the wrong project pushed forward and us being stuck with it for decades.

agreed again. if they decide to change it up and scrap the bridge I'm hoping that the redesigns take longer then how long this frankenstein government lasts and then when people realize that the NDP aren't a real alternative the proper project gets reinstated.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

You should see the comments on Facebook, its really sad to see people that have no clue voice such a strong opinion that gets a lot of attention by the media. One lady mentioned the skytrain to hope. Many ppl feel that skytrain is a charity. It doesn't matter to them about ridership levels or studies or even planing, just build it because its needed. Disregard the experts as they dont know what the public wants

My favorite is still the city councilor in Richmond who doesnt have bluetooth in her car.

Its really sad since i was a kid there was opposition to HWY 91, to the cassiar tunnel, to Lions Gate Bridge expansion, to HWY 1 expansion, the south fraser perimeter road and somehow someway the same people use the same stall tactics to delay vital peices of infrastructue. Is it not fact that the tunnels are unsafe? Yes the foundations will liquefy in event of an eartquake? What will it take to shut the snowflakes up?

Offtopic ....Here in Miami we have been paying a 1% sales tax surcharge to expand our metrorail (similar to skytrain) for the last twenty years and now this week the mayor has opted to expand BRT instead while reducing metrorail service.

Guarantee you the same morons who are against expansion/new roads are using those same roads today. lol skytrain to Hope. Where do they come up with this shit?

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by jlousa

As much as I don't like a certain party in a certain city, I disagree with term limits. As long as we have a open democracy and the playing field is level I think the public should be entitled to keep voting in the same person for as long as they want. Putting in term limits for politicians removes a freedom from voters. The problem is voters not term limits.
Personally would rather see the whole project shelved right now so it can revived in a few years as opposed to having the wrong project pushed forward and us being stuck with it for decades.

That was my response to a reddit thread about this. At this point just cancel the damn thing. Don't spend another nickel and let the commuters suffer. They've already gotten used to it. All the mayors and the public against this will be happy till they move on to the next project to complain about. Fuck em.

[Metro-One]

I agree, best to build it right. Adding more tunnels will create Frankenstein style traffic flow / interchanges on either end and the project will have to be built twice, the new tunnels now and again in 20 years to replace the old tunnels. Always amazes me that this wasteful solution still has traction... then again, some people are still arguing for LRT along Broadway so no amount of stupidity amazes me anymore.

Buuuut, with that being said be sure to still voice your desire for this project. Do not become silent.

Send it to the NDP / Greens, even if it is just to show that the battle is not over.

And, maybe more importantly, continue to pester the Liberals about it, just to ensure that it is still on their radar come next election and they also don't change their plans.

And write editorials, combat these lazy articles coming from Richmond.

[cganuelas1995]

I think city council is waiting until the problem directly affects them before they do something about it. Just a hunch.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by M00dy

...
I also don't buy that twinning would cause less damage. For one the tunnel would require dredging of the river/cut & cover for the full approaches. The bridge design didn't even have a pier touching the river.

In addition,
- a parallel tunnel will require a much wider right-of-way for the approaches compared to a bridge - because there needs to be separation between the two tunnels.
- a parallel tunnel portal will take a big chunk out of Deas Island Regional Park, unless the tunnel is built longer than the existing tunnel and emerges farther south.
- parallel tunnels for different uses (i.e. HOV) may end up duplicating flyovers and access ramps.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by officedweller

In addition,
- a parallel tunnel will require a much wider right-of-way for the approaches compared to a bridge - because there needs to be separation between the two tunnels.
- a parallel tunnel portal will take a big chunk out of Deas Island Regional Park, unless the tunnel is built longer than the existing tunnel and emerges farther south.
- parallel tunnels for different uses (i.e. HOV) may end up duplicating flyovers and access ramps.

Yeah I was thinking it would be an engineering challenge. It's a really tight area too.

[moosejaw]

http://www.news1130.com/2017/07/27/delta-mayor-continues-push-massey-tunnel-replacement-bridge/


Well today the mayor of delta is meeting with the mayors council to try and gather support for the crossing. Shes also going to pitch the tenth lane as LRT to Chilliwack. Dont know if thats possible.


I think if you were going to expand transit east, it should be done rail like the WEC, that way you can transport the most people on one platform. Perhaps transition to a Skytrain Station in Richmond as much as i hate the idea of using two platforms of transportation to get to one place. I don't think if you were to incorporate skytrain that the cars can make the climb plus you have to remember the canada line only has two cars by the time they hit richmond they could be full already?

Lets hope she can get some support from the mayors council. They have already been presented with the facts regarding tunnel vs bridge. Saying they need more time to study this proposal is just plain silly.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Well today the mayor of delta is meeting with the mayors council to try and gather support for the crossing. Shes also going to pitch the tenth lane as LRT to Chilliwack.

What the heck??? Why on earth would an LRT line to Chilliwack (even if that were a thing that had a hope in heck of getting done) need to go through west Delta?

That kind of crazy proposal really puts a big dent in whatever credibility she might have had, IMHO.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

What the heck??? Why on earth would an LRT line to Chilliwack (even if that were a thing that had a hope in heck of getting done) need to go through west Delta?

That kind of crazy proposal really puts a big dent in whatever credibility she might have had, IMHO.

It's pretty crazy. There are already rail lines that head east to Chilliwack. They could extend the WCE over the rail bridge at Mission, head through Abbotsford, and then use the lines that go out to Chilliwack. Then it becomes a matter of negotiations with the rail companies instead of building all new sub-optimal infrastructure that'd cost a huge amount of money. Lois Jackson has some crazy ideas sometimes (like pulling Delta out of TransLink and running their own transit system) but this one is about the craziest I've seen from her.