Dear Editor,
Re: “Why wait until 2022 to deal with gridlock?” Letters, Aug. 11.
Every time Richmond Coun. Carol Day writes a letter to the editor, I am motivated to respond and point out some of her nonsense regarding a twinned tunnel.
It is well known that building a twinned tunnel will cause much more environmental damage than a new bridge, a point she doesn’t mention.
A twinned tunnel only provides four lanes each way. One lane would be HOV, I assume, thus trucks and single-occupant cars would be using three lanes, just like we have today when the counter-flow lane is open.
A twinned tunnel is virtually no improvement at all from what we have today and is short-sighted.
She also suggests we consider banning trucks during rush hour.
That is a non-starter because truck drivers and their companies pay significant taxes to drive on roads. This idea to ban trucks will not work and is possibly illegal.
And then she suggests the nonsensical idea of alternating truck use to odd or even days. You’ve got to be kidding.
Coun. Day has “tunnel vision” when it comes to her twinned tunnel solution. She needs to open her eyes. The best solution is to continue with the new 10-lane bridge with space for future rapid transit such as light rail.
Anything less than this solution will be short-lived and we’d soon be back to more gridlock and increased traffic that a tiny twinned tunnel can’t handle.
Keith Munro
Delta
