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

[libtard]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Yeah they're building a giant bridge down No 3 road towering over all the Richmond residents.

I’m not against the bridge I’m just telling you what the general consensus amongst people from Richmond is

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by libtard

It would have been a monolithic eye sore for the people of Richmond. Richmond is completely flat and this would definitely have been imposing and tower over everything. That’s why the original tunnel was built…

Exaggerate much? You know about the existence of Alex Fraser Bridge? The bridge would haveen something to behold, just like all the other bridges in Metro. I don't know anyone that considers them ugly.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by libtard

I’m not against the bridge I’m just telling you what the general consensus amongst people from Richmond is

Amongst people or amongst the NIMBY vocal minority?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Amongst people or amongst the NIMBY vocal minority?

The results of an Angus Reid Global poll released in September showed that 75 per cent of Metro Vancouver residents thought replacing the tunnel with a 10-lane bridge was the best option. Support among residents of Richmond and Delta dipped to 65 per cent.

https://www.richmond-news.com/local-news...er-than-originally-thought-delta-3069828

[jollyburger]

From a brochure when they made a case for the tunnel:

“A tunnel is better suited to the deep, loose sand foundation conditions at the site; it requires vehicles to deviate only 80 feet from the horizontal, whereas a bridge would require trucks to climb 160 feet.”

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

https://www.richmond-news.com/local-news...er-than-originally-thought-delta-3069828

Wow, a whole 35% of those polled didn't support a bridge, and that 35% was probably really important and had the project by the balls.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Exaggerate much? You know of the existence of Alex Fraser Bridge? The bridge would haveen something to behold, just like all the other bridges in Metro. I don't know anyone that considers them ugly.

The proposed 8 lane bridge would have been taller and longer than every other bridge in the region. You can see the comparison on page 8 of the technical briefing.

I don't find the cable-stayed suspension bridges to be ugly or pretty, they're all the same, and when they're all the same they get kind of boring. Aesthetics-wise I'd rather have the existing Pattullo than its replacement.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The proposed 8 lane bridge would have been taller and longer than every other bridge in the region.

Yeah, the reason is that this bridge would have its piers on land rather than in the river, and that means a longer span than any of the other bridges which necessitates higher towers and longer cable stays.

[jollyburger]

If they aren't going to dredge the river any further for future port use would it still have to be that high? I guess the car carriers are the tallest ships going through?

I mean some of the hysteria over the bridge said they were going to be sending "supertankers" up the Fraser.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

If they aren't going to dredge the river any further for future port use would it still have to be that high? I guess the car carriers are the tallest ships going through?

Right now it's the Alex Fraser that limits heights on the South Arm, so I presume it would have to have at least the same clearance as that. You can't infringe on passage rights in federally regulated port waters.

[moosejaw]

It would make sense for steveston hwy to be a diverging diamond interchange.

[waves]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Wow, a whole 35% of those polled didn't support a bridge, and that 35% was probably really important and had the project by the balls.

35% is almost enough, if not enough, to win an election with a majority in a system without PR.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by waves

35% is almost enough, if not enough, to win an election with a majority in a system without PR.

Well, according to the article:

The results of an Angus Reid Global poll released in September showed that 75 per cent of Metro Vancouver residents thought replacing the tunnel with a 10-lane bridge was the best option. Support among residents of Richmond and Delta dipped to 65 per cent.

It doesn't seem like a smart political move to cater to the 35% when your voter majority (65%) supports a bridge . IJS.

[GMasterAres]

Not to belabor the political point but there is a big difference between support for/against a bridge/tunnel, and the amount of people which this would be an election issue for.

The reality is the 35%/65% support split has no effect really on an election if a large majority of either side don't actually think it is an election issue. I'd venture to bet that even though they want to build a tunnel instead of a bridge, if you polled the 65% that said they'd support a bridge and asked:

"Now that the NDP is building a tunnel instead of the bridge, will this make you re-think voting NDP in the next election?", you're very very unlikely to get a >50% yes honestly.

This is why poll data is really only ever good for the specific questions they ask and you can't infer anything beyond from them. Quite frankly probably 95% of people in Metro-Vancouver don't actually care in the grand scheme of things.

I wanted a bridge because it would have pretty much been built by now, and I feel environmentally it would have had far less impact on the River ecosystem than a tunnel they need to sink and disturb the bottom of the river to build. But at the end of the day I don't use the tunnel barely ever and have not really ever been affected by the horrible traffic there so it doesn't _really_ matter to me what gets built from a day-to-day life thing. I'm just a little annoyed that there is yet more delays that to me are un-needed.

NDP and Liberals parties in BC should take a lesson from the Conservatives of Canada who for the upcoming election said for any major infrastructure project the Liberal government has moved forward with, they will continue to support if they get elected. I'm just tired that in BC any infrastructure project one party decides to do, if the opposite party comes in they almost 100% always cancel it and we end up with decades of delays only to ultimately come to the same or very similar conclusion at the end. So it still gets built, just the people need to wait forever because of pure political BS on both sides. You know that interchange they are building now on the SFPR at the Alex Fraser bridge and improvements there to the highway interfaces? That was all supposed to be built when the SFRP was built... so why now? Election political bullshit that cancelled that part of the project so the Liberals could "balance the budget" and dangle something in the future. Well they didn't get elected and it has taken nearly a decade to get what should have been built to start and we're paying 8 times the amount of money for it today as tax payers.

Guarantee, if the Liberals come into power in the next 4 years, they will be like OK no more Tunnel... it sux... let's now investigate a BRIDGE.... and we'll complete it by 2040.... rinse and repeat BC politics style.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Guarantee, if the Liberals come into power in the next 4 years, they will be like OK no more Tunnel... it sux... let's now investigate a BRIDGE.... and we'll complete it by 2040.... rinse and repeat BC politics style.

Then the next election comes along the project comes to a standstill, and then gets scrapped completely and studied to death.

[Repthe250]

Bridges are beautiful and symbolize unity. Connecting one community to another. Bridges are imposing in all the right reasons. I don’t know anyone who says “my view is ruined by this monstrosity bridge.”

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

Bridges are beautiful and symbolize unity. Connecting one community to another. Bridges are imposing in all the right reasons. I don’t know anyone who says “my view is ruined by this monstrosity bridge.”

Yeah, lots of cities have iconic bridges, like the Brooklyn Bridge, London Bridge, Sydney Harbour Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge.

Not a whole lot of iconic tunnels. But you are right, bridges are imposing for all the right reasons, like statues and monuments are.

[Klazu]

Boston's Big Dig is notorious but not in a good way. I would say Massey Tunnel has a chance to be our own Big Dig, although in Boston they actually achieved something great with it, just at a huge price.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Boston's Big Dig is notorious but not in a good way. I would say Massey Tunnel has a chance to be our own Big Dig, although in Boston they actually achieved something great with it, just at a huge price.

There's no way the massey tunnel turns out anything like the big dig.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

There's no way the massey tunnel turns out anything like the big dig.

It's going to be similarly overpriced but definitely nowhere near as impressive in what gets built. Big Dig is actually quite impressive to drive and how it transformed Boston. It was just plagued with huge cost overruns and construction issues.