George Massey Tunnel Replacement | Proposed

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Ah, so it's like playing God with infrastructure. But when you do it with people, it's literally Hitler.

Hey, someone has to make the decisions. At least here the decision makes are, in theory, answerable to the electorate. You just have to hope that your particular hot-button issue is considered important enough to a broad enough swath of people that it's the thing that decides the vote. And aye, there's the rub all right.

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The Titanic has sank and you guys are arguing where to put the deck chairs.

Bottom line is that fact that the report has yet to be released highly hints that it came out in favor of the project.

Sounds like a good time for an FOI request

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by M00dy

Sounds like a good time for an FOI request

Watch it be like the last FOI request for the George Massey Bridge project: "No Records Found."

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Watch it be like the last FOI request for the George Massey Bridge project: "No Records Found."

Or sorry we deleted it.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Or sorry we deleted it.

*smirks in front of the public*

[ClaytonA]

Originally Posted by casper

...

When the pendulum shifts pack to the Liberals in a few years, we may very well have the same pattern show up again, just with the parties reversed.

A reason to vote yes for proportional representation. While things move forward more slowly as the politicians actually have to care about what the other parties think, there is much less policy reversal. Much less absolute power/ability to ram through partisan projects.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

A reason to vote yes for proportional representation. While things move forward more slowly as the politicians actually have to care about what the other parties think, there is much less policy reversal. Much less absolute power/ability to ram through partisan projects.

Since I doubt the NDP will ever team up with the Libs though, we also need more than three relevant political parties. Politicians are like diapers, and both should be changed often for the same reasons; there's not much point in replacing a Liberal two-decade status quo with a Green/NDP two-decade status quo.

[stump]

I sent an email to Claire Trevena just to see what kind of time frame we are looking at for the release of the public report. This was the reply I got from her department:

Thank you for your email regarding the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project.

The provincial government is working to find a solution for the George Massey crossing that addresses the congestion and safety issues along this corridor. As you know, Stan Cowdell, a professional engineer with expertise in major infrastructure projects, led an independent technical review of the options available for the corridor. Mr. Cowdell submitted his report to the ministry in late June.

The ministry is thoroughly reviewing the report to consider its findings and possible next steps. In the fall, the Honourable Claire Trevena, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, will discuss the findings with Metro Vancouver and the region’s mayors to ensure that any future direction on the tunnel crossing is supported by the people in the region.

Lisa Gow, Executive Director, Major Projects and Alternate Procurement, would be pleased to answer any questions you may have regarding the review and can be reached by telephone at 250 356-0514 or by email at Lisa.Gow@gov.bc.ca.


Thank you for taking the time to write.

Regards,

George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project team

[libtard]

The Honourable Claire Trevena has spoken

[waves]

Originally Posted by stump

I sent an email to Claire Trevena just to see what kind of time frame we are looking at for the release of the public report. This was the reply I got from her department:

The reply doesn't actually say that they will release the report to the public in the fall, just that the ministry will discuss with the mayors council in the fall. Maybe you could send her a second email and an email to Lisa asking if you can see the report/asking when it will be released for the public to view in its entirety.

[Metro-One]

It is looking pretty obvious that they have no real intent to continue with this project.

Again, I would prefer that they do nothing than proceed with some clunky band aid solution project (or a project that only addresses some of the crossing / highway's concerns, and not all of them).

For example, simply adding another tube would still require upgrading the current tunnels (and their ultimate replacement only a couple decades latter), would not allow dangerous goods to travel through, would still be a miserable nightmare for cyclists and pedestrians (if allowed), would likely still retain the current narrow lanes, and would likely lead to Frankenstein
interchanges on either end.

It is the same feeling I have towards the Langley rapid transit. Either build it right or don't at all.

This scheme of allowing the mayors to dictate highway and rail infrastructure seems to be a recipe for a disaster. One community will get transit right, another wont, one community will get highways right, another wont.

IMO it should be the province's job to overrule the mayors regarding major projects of regional (and even provincial / federal) importance to make sure they are built correctly.

[Firebrand]

I'm getting really annoyed of the NDP's overindulgence of the mayors' wants. I get that you want to support the GVRD mayors because the BC Liberals couldn't give a rats bottom about them, but they've gone a step too far.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

I'm getting really annoyed of the NDP's overindulgence of the mayors' wants. I get that you want to support the GVRD mayors because the BC Liberals couldn't give a rats bottom about them, but they've gone a step too far.

What has the NDP done to demonstrate "overindulgence of the mayors' wants"?

[libtard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What has the NDP done to demonstrate "overindulgence of the mayors' wants"?

Even mentioning the mayors council in the email that was posted is IMO out of line. The mayors are irrelevant in this situation which is a provincial matter of transportation. The fact their opinion is even being considered is a joke

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by libtard

Even mentioning the mayors council in the email that was posted is IMO out of line. The mayors are irrelevant in this situation which is a provincial matter of transportation. The fact their opinion is even being considered is a joke

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What has the NDP done to demonstrate "overindulgence of the mayors' wants"?

Well keeping on the topic at hand, indulging the mayors was absolutely one of the reasons given by the NDP when they cancelled the project.

"I don't think the former government had buy-in from the communities," said Trevena.

"You need to have the social licence and ensure the project is being delivered is absolutely right."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...pt-6-1.4277357

Whatever happens will be “a new process” with more consultation and research to get buy-in from the community and Metro mayors, said Trevena. In the meantime, significant traffic gridlock around the tunnel is likely to continue in both directions for years.

https://vancouversun.com/news/politi...bridge-project

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by M00dy

Well keeping on the topic at hand, indulging the mayors was absolutely one of the reasons given by the NDP when they cancelled the project.

Yes, apart from this project. The poster implied the NDP was bending over for the mayors.

Let's be honest here, this huge budget bridge was a BC Liberal pet project that they promised and strung along for a few votes (I guess?), dating back 6 years or more. If they wanted it built they should have started it midway through their last term.

It was brought forward as "the only" option, unlike every other major infrastructure project, that had open consultations and discussions on a number of feasible options. Evergreen Line, Canada Line, PMB, and Patullo all had multiple versions on the drawing board.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by libtard

Even mentioning the mayors council in the email that was posted is IMO out of line. The mayors are irrelevant in this situation which is a provincial matter of transportation. The fact their opinion is even being considered is a joke

I hate to keep saying this, but people keep saying what you're saying so...

It will not always be true that the province supports better projects/policies than the mayors. In a future where we have infrastructure-supportive local governments and an anti-spending provincial government, I imagine you'd flip very quickly.

Plus think about this logically, regardless of who has what position: "The fact [the mayors' council's] opinion is even being considered is a joke." Seriously? You think local governments shouldn't have a say at all over what happens in their jurisdictions??

[misher]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I hate to keep saying this, but people keep saying what you're saying so...

It will not always be true that the province supports better projects/policies than the mayors. In a future where we have infrastructure-supportive local governments and an anti-spending provincial government, I imagine you'd flip very quickly.

Plus think about this logically, regardless of who has what position: "The fact [the mayors' council's] opinion is even being considered is a joke." Seriously? You think local governments shouldn't have a say at all over what happens in their jurisdictions??

If anything local representation is the most important.

However, since this is being built between municipalities I think its a provincial decision where the mayors get some opinion but ultimately the province decides. Given that we've already sunk a fair bit into a solution that seemed like a decent solution (a giant bridge!) it should take a really good reason to halt it. Just because it was started by the last government is not a good reason. When you takeover for an employee in a company you don't halt/cancel their ongoing projects (which would usually make your boss fire you), you continue through with them.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by misher

If anything local representation is the most important.

However, since this is being built between municipalities I think its a provincial decision where the mayors get some opinion but ultimately the province decides. Given that we've already sunk a fair bit into a solution that seemed like a decent solution (a giant bridge!) it should take a really good reason to halt it. Just because it was started by the last government is not a good reason. When you takeover for an employee in a company you don't halt/cancel their ongoing projects (which would usually make your boss fire you), you continue through with them.

I agree that local representation is the most important, and I'll say for the record that I support the bridge and I oppose Surrey LRT - both positions going against the mayors. I have no issue with the province stepping in and sorting squabbles out.

But just logically, of course local representation needs to have a say. Them not having a say is how interstates were driven through the downtowns of just about all American cities.