It wasn't mentioned in this news article, but I am under the impresison that previously the junior Massey was suggesting to have a new bridge built somewhere else at a second location, and keeping both the tunnel and the new bridge in place. Truck traffic should then be diverted to the new bridge and banned from the tunnel.

I heard one suggestion that the new bridge should align with No.8 Rd. and connect straight over the North Arm, to Boundary Rd. On the South Arm the bridge would then land on Tilbury Island and could connect through to the SFPR.

Another suggestion has it connecting straight to Knight St., then down No.6 Rd., and then landing on or beside Deas Island, not far from the south end of the tunnel, for easy connection the 17/99 interchange.

Either way, as has already been noted, the problem with keeping the tunnel around is the upkeep required on it. Although I'm sure commuters would be more than happy to pay a toll to support that... right?

Just name the new crossing after his father, problem solved. I don't think anyone really cares what it's called.

Why get rid of the tunnel though? Is it leaking or some shit? Seriously, build another tunnel beside the existing one and do an extensive reno of the current one. Why a bridge? It's going to be ridiculously huge and probably cost 3 times as much as tunnel expansion.

When I heard about this project it got me reading about the population of the gvrd back when these bridges and tunnels were built. gvrd was around 560k people. richmond had like 40k, delta had (hah) 20k. That was 60 years ago. Now vancouver has around 2.4 million. richmond almost has 200k, delta has 100k.... This city was poorly planned for expansion from the get go. I rarely use this tunnel anyway so this hardly affects me. One thing that people should learn from this is that in a city as expensive as vancouver you need to be more centralized with how you live. Work, shop, and live in the same city isn't too difficult... Well except for that work part. This city was not well planned for that. In most cities the downtown is in the CENTER of the city. If vancouvers downtown was in the center of the region it would be around New West minister, not on the edge of the city. Straight up, this city was designed and built by a bunch of friggen monkeys.

One problem with having the existing tunnel there is that it limits the depth of the channel, and thus limits the size of ship that can move up the river. Getting rid of it would allow larger ships to move to the Surrey Fraser Docks and other facilities.

Also, one thing I haven't heard mentioned yet: would YOU want to be inside the tunnel when "the big one" hits? Under the water, surrounded by nothing but liquified sediment? Yeah, didn't think so

Thing is, it wasn't really "designed"... all of it just kind of grew this way over time, without a lot of planning, and that's the REAL issue. It also doesn't help that any attempt to plan ahead is shouted down by the eco-weenies and NIMBYs and anyone who just wants everything to stay the way it always was, and so nothing gets built or upgraded or improved when it SHOULD be... it takes things becoming a massive clusterfuck before anything is actually done.

I have to say that I agree with Soundy. We should build a bridge and demolish the old tunnel so we can kill 2 birds with 1 stone. If we cna get more container ship traffic through the South arm, it's better for our economy.

We just need to make sure that these companies that want the South arm to go deeper and wider, pay for it too.. And not just drop the buck on us tax payers and enjoy the spoils afterwards.

The difference between Vancouver and city center based cities like Calgary for example, is Calgary was designed as city from the get go. City Center in the middle and sprawl out from there.

Vancouver, or the GVRD I should say, is just a huge mess of a handfull of different cities that have sort of spread into eachother.


New Westminster: incorporated 1860
Surrey: incorporated 1879
Richmond: incorporated 1879
North Vancouver: incorporated 1891

Vancouver: incorporated 1886

New Westminster actually was the center of the GVRD, and was the capitol of BC in 1858 until the CPR pushed the rest of the way to the coast to connect with shipping. Vancouver didn't really start to develop until the railway came and was smaller in population that New West until the early 1900s. And then it turned out more people wanted to live on that really nice rock in the bay on the ocean than on the edge of the river up stream. Then 100 years later, everyone still would rather live on that rock, but they cant afford to, so they work and play on that rock but are forced to live way out of town.

I used to be anti-toll, but I've pretty much come around to the opinion of tolls being the most fair way to pay for infrastructure. If you use it, pay for it.

Yeah it's going to suck to have to pay for the ferry and then a toll on top of that to visit my folks in Richmond, oh well. I'm just going to have to convince them to move out of that shithole.

If they built a bridge across Finlayson arm here bypassing the entire Malahat, I'd HAPPILY pay a toll to use it.

The tunnel was built with old technology and design. In the event of an earthquake, the consequences would be catastrophic. It only makes sense to get replace an aging and unsafe structure with better ones.

I honestly would not mind paying 5 dollars a day to shave an hour off my commute everyday. (my commute without traffic is 15 minutes)
but again... aint my problem no more :fuckthatshit:

Why do we need larger cargo ships on the fraser river? Is there even place for them to dock at the surrey docks?

Toll will extend life of Massey Tunnel replacement: report | News1130

So it'll be a toll bridge. I am not at all surprised by the outcome, and it is in fact refreshing to see some sensibility from people such as the Delta mayor. Then again, if all bridges were tolled, it'd be a sad day when I have to pay just to get into Richmond from Vancouver. I would also be very surprised if Richmond businesses don't see a dip in their overall revenues.

Isn't there a BC Law that says , there must be a free bridge within reasonable distance?

No. There may be POLICIES, but no law.

Why not just lay more tunnel beside the existing tunnel, there is nothing wrong with the current one apart from width.

They toll Canada's highway, they'll toll anything. I'm in the $1 toll on every bridge camp as long as the money is getting directed to the right place. To often do they collect revenue and divert somewhere else. Does anyone know how much of the $3.00 they collect for crossing the Port Mann actually goes to paying off the bridge? I don't have any information telling me otherwise but my skeptical side say's is less then 1/2 with the rest going to *running the toll system and other aeas. That's just me guessing but I bet I'm not that far off.

Said gas runs divert money out of the Province's pockets; thats why there are tolls. :troll:

Ah, this gem again. There's nothing unusual about a toll on Hwy. 1. It's done at other places in Canada, specifically the Confederation Bridge connecting PEI to the mainland - $45 round-trip for the first two axles, $7.50 per axle after that; and a 30km section in Nova Scotia that starts at $4/vehicle.

Every now and then some wankers try to claim the main ferry runs should be free because they're "part of the Trans Canada" too. :fuckthatshit:

Long story short: it's not unique to BC, it's not "illegal" or "unconstitutional", and it's not going away. Get over it.

LOL, it was kind of tounge in cheek I actually don't really have a problem with user pay, everything should be like that.

Long story short: I don't mind paying for crossing I just think the toll is a little high. Totally over it. :)

Fair enough.

BTW, you think it's bad with the Port Mann, where there ARE alternate routes (inconvenient though they may be)... check out this 1999 CBC news item: CBC Digital Archives - Trans-Canada Highway: Bridging the Distance - Tolls on the Trans-Canada