June 29, 2016

Metro Vancouver Opposes Big Massey Bridge

Jeff Nagle brings us this news from the Metro Vancouver regional board via the Peace Arch News.
Massey.Bridge

Metro Vancouver’s regional board says it can’t support the province’s $3.5-billion plan to replace the Massey Tunnel, at least not the proposed 10-lane bridge.
The regional district has released an assessment critical of the project, arguing the proposed bridge will have a dramatic impact on regional growth, steer more people into cars instead of public transit, and ultimately increase not decrease congestion. . .
. . .  “We definitely disagree with a 10-lane bridge,” Metro board chair Greg Moore, adding something between four and 10 lanes might be more acceptable. “We know from experience around the world you can’t build your way out of congestion.”
Moore said the regional planners are concerned such a huge expansion of the bridge and Highway 99 will increase pressure to develop farmland and undermine Metro’s regional growth strategy of containing urban development.
The region also cites concerns about ecological disruption to the Fraser estuary, air quality impacts if all 10 lanes end up clogged with idling traffic, impacts on Deas Island Regional Park and extra costs for municipalities for local roads. . . .
. . . . Buses make up one per cent of trips through the tunnel now but carry 24 per cent of the people going through it and Moore argued more emphasis on transit as an alternative to single occupant vehicles could increase that further.

 

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

  1. . . . “We definitely disagree with a 10-lane bridge,” Metro board chair Greg Moore, adding something between four and 10 lanes might be more acceptable. ”
    How about 7 lanes Greg? Two for buses and one for cyclists, that leaves 4, which is where we are now. OK, how about a couple more to relieve the traffic, that’s now 9. How about 9 Greg, is that OK?
    Charlie Smith, in the Georgia Straight exposes himself as someone that really doesn’t go through or know the tunnel. Yesterday he erroneously wrote a whole paragraph, stating: “The tunnel has only three lanes.”
    Moore said the regional planners are concerned such a huge expansion of the bridge and Highway 99 will increase pressure to develop farmland and undermine Metro’s regional growth strategy of containing urban development.
    Someone should reming Moore that running a little SkyTrain spur along Broadway for a couple of billion dollars doesn’t reduce by one iota the building of needed homes for the million people he told us are coming to the region by 2040.
    All politics, all the time.

    1. Why has he not resigned after he lost the referendum like the British PM ?
      So out of touch with the electorate.
      Democracy. Who needs it, eh ?

      1. A million more people coming to Vancouver soon and Vision and Greg Moore are going to squeeze them all into Granville Woodlands and Strathcona. Well, a few in Port Coquitlam too. And, don’t forget, once the subway is running under Broadway there’ll be some fantastic views from the 40 story condo towers all over Kits and especially around Arbutus.

        1. Unclear why Moore is the head of the Mayors Council on Transportation as he is from N-Van. Gridlock there everywhere and not a subway anywhere, neither to W-Van nor via Lionsgate or Second Narrows to downtown. That is sound planning ?
          I guess he is the cream of the crap ?
          Took a drive today around Ladner – from picturesque sunny Steveston – as I had never been there. Loads of land around there, for birds and some food. Some could easily be for people to live. We could build 10 new train-connected Ladner’s south of the Fraser in the vast mudlands. I call it Vaikiki. Beaches galore, highrises, townhomes, terraced 8 story buildings, dense and beautiful, with few cars and ped/bike oriented. Like a modern Dubai cum Venice. Plus the CanadaLine ends in Richmond although more highrises are further south. Why is there no extension built yet ? Plus Broadway subway only to Arbutus.
          The incompetence & lack of foresight is unbelievable. Oh yeah, 20 minute traffic jam getting out of Richmond into the Massey Tunnel. 10 lanes sure would have helped here. Ended the day driving to DeltaPort. Massive. Huge number of trucks and containers on trains. Not a single bike in sight …

        2. He is chair because he was appointed by the (elected) members of the Mayor’s Council. He is not from North Van, you are confused. And as chair he has the responsibility to have a regional view, not a parochial one. That is three errors in two sentences. In some activities, three strikes means you are out.

        3. I accept one strike, the wrong city. Not the other two. He was elected, yes, by his peers as a chair. The referendum was lost. Did the council learn anything from this ? If not, the chair HAS TO GO !

        4. Perhaps Thomas you can lobby Christy to allow a Metro board to be directly elected by the people under our representative democracy. The system too often short circuited by irresponsible referenda imposed by politicians substituting it for leadership. An election is the only referendum we need except in the rarest of circumstances.

        1. Not really. She asked the Mayors to put a package together acceptable to voters. Voters said “no” to this package (which included a very modest PST tax increase), which was CC’s suggestion all along.
          If they had put in more subways, road tolls, higher parking fees on residential streets and increase of PST by 2% I would have voted yes. But more buses ? No congestion reduction ? Sme old, same old car friendly proposal caused me to voted “no” and others for other reasons. It was a bad bad plan that would have done little to ease congestion. Only far higher car use fees in both its state (driving and parking) coupled with RAPID transit makes a difference. How long will it take the Mayors to understand that ? That is why Mr. Moore is the wrong leader for this file !

        2. But you said like the British PM, Cameron lost the referendum that he called, the mayors did not want a referendum. The person who calls the referendum should resign.

        3. “If they had put in more subways, road tolls, higher parking fees on residential streets and increase of PST by 2% I would have voted yes.”
          Had they done that, you know darned well that the referendum would have failed even more badly. Is there any proposal they could have made that both you and voters would have supported? If not, how can you blame the mayors for failing, instead of Christy Clark for putting them in a no-win position?

        4. The mayors were told that the government was elected on the promise of not introducing any new taxes. Therefore, if the mayors’ plan were to include a new tax a referendum would be required to fulfill the promise the government made to the people.
          The mayors chose a new tax. Therefore, the mayors knew a referendum was now inevitable and it was then triggered by the mayors.
          The premier had the good decency to support the mayors in their plan and she often said she hoped the referendum would pass and she would honour the result.
          Smacking premier Christy Clark in the face saying she made them have a referendum that she hoped would fail is typical of smear, negative and baloney politics.
          The mayors spent many millions of taxpayer dollars on trying to convince the public that TransLink was super nice and needed super big loads of their money. The numbers were around $12 million, at least. This is a huge waste. The public saw it for what it was, another example of TransLink throwing away loads of taxpayer cash, while telling them it was good for them.
          As is normal when technocrats and politicians try to patronize to the people they actually work for, the citizens told them where to shove it. The result was an overwhelming two thirds saying NO.
          The mayors still don’t get it. They are in denial. They are pretending nothing happened and are soldiering on with their plan and trying to blame it now on someone else. Classic denial.

        5. @Geof: yes, if they had cut spending, for example on excessively paid civil servants’ salaries & benefits, that eat up 75%+ of any city’s budget they would not have had to raise taxes. They are making out like bandits: http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/7290-public-sector-workers-oped.html
          See also: Brexit, the rise of Trump and other anti-EU parties. People are sick and tired of a professional elite running the show and paying themsleves first. We have to pay civil servants well, but not too well. A 25-30% salary cut across the board is the right level to bring them to private sector norms when counting hours, benefits and the very low risk of layoffs !

        6. My, Eric, your comments should be posted on minister Stone’s “Myths” propaganda piece on the Massey project (building more roads will relieve congestion and lower emissions, etc. etc. etc.).
          The plebiscite was a cynical piece of manipulation of the locals that would never have been imposed on road projects in the Metro. If you despise TransLink so much then why not lobby the lady to kill it outright and bring transit back into the BC Transit fold? Or is that too easy, and removes a favourite object of derision?

        7. TransLink might be OK but firing the CEO and pushing him down the corridor to a corner room, while crowning another so they were then paying over $60,000.00 per month, plus parking privileges, for twin CEOs became a sad joke, not to laugh at but to cry over. And the public made their voice heard on that alone. “Shooting themselves in their own foot”, as some commenters said. A wholesale shake up eventually ensued. Is it enough for the public to feel confident? I wouldn’t put a nickel on that.
          The road projects come out of general revenue. As I said, the new tax called for by the exalted mayors required a plebiscite – this was well known to the mayors, they wrote their own script and thought they could sell it using massive advertising expenditures that was paid for with their constituents money. It worked for Gregor and his vast Bureau of Opaque Information but the people got wise this time. It also became a joke with warnings of dementia and obesity from the co-opted suckered tenured social science professors.
          Yes, even the simplest plebeian understands that congestion caused idling and idling causes more emissions. They didn’t need university professors to study, analyze, publish and peer review studies on that. Joe Sixpack understood.

      1. Lol if you have a bus going over the bridge every 5 minutes, is it really justified to build an entire lane for it? How much would that increase the traffic if that bus had to share a lane on the bridge.

        1. If you want to relieve the congestion you’ll have to schedule fast buses every ten minutes to Delta and Tsawwassen, North Delta and Panorama Ridge, South Surrey and Granville Heights and White Rock.
          That’s a bus every second minute.

        2. ok fine that is a bus every 120 seconds. So you still have at least 95% of the road space in that scenario not being used. Still a huge waste. Why not try putting that type of bus service first and then evaluate the traffic to see if we need to spend 3.5 billion dollars on a huge white elephant.

  2. Agreed, you don’t need a bus lane, you need a combination bus and HOV lane, just like Hwy 1 has. And then you deduct that bus and HOV volume from the current volume, so the remaining lanes are dealing with less traffic than now, not the same.
    Interesting that Eric is suggesting that we count a bike lane. The plans show that there are going to be sidewalks that will serve as multi use paths for pedestrians and people on bikes. One MUP on each side. Eric, would you say then that the current plan is actually for a 12 lane bridge?

        1. The wealthy cyclists living in the downtown Resort of Vancouver™ don’t take ferries. They take Harbour Air.

  3. On a related topic, someone really should go for a quick drive south of the tunnel and along 62b/River Rd. in Delta towards Tillbury and count the number of ‘For Sale’ signs on farmland down there, there is a lot posted. And at least two signs that I saw tout it as a great ‘investment opportunity’…..I’m guessing they don’t mean the likelihood of strong cranberry profitability.

  4. Of course this is nothing more than peevish tit for tat posturing by the mayors.” You don’t like our team sit plan? Well we hate your bridge!”
    The hypocrisy of saying a smaller bridge is OK but a 10 lane bridge will have some horrible impact on the surrounding environment is laughable. As is Richmond’s Brodie’s pull up the drawbridges approach. If you want a major employer like the airport in your boundaries then realize you need better traffic fllow. Ten lanes does seem excessive 6 would probably be sufficient. If Christy were smart she would graciously compromise on that but I doubt she will.

  5. Bob – maybe, but I don’t see it as tit for tat. The mayors understand the need for public transit and focused TOD-oriented town centres, while through their autonomous actions the Province fosters Motordom, sprawl and loss of farmland. All of which is in violation of Metro’s Regional Strategy.

    1. Just build what people want. We need density AND leafy neighborhoods, 40 stories AND townhouses, more bike lanes AND more tunnels or bridges, more land for development AND more density along transit nodes, more subways AND more pedestrian zones !

    2. Frank – The province has an obligation to ensure the highways are suitable for the traffic.
      Even if Surrey is gradually building a town centre in Whalley, another is growing in Newton, which is as far away as Strathcona is from north Burnaby. Yet another is growing larger than both these in Langley and another in South Surrey. All these are directly in line to the shortest routes into town, Highway 10 and the 99.
      Don’t forget Ladner and Delta.
      None of these are constructs of the province. All these communities are well long-established semi rural towns and areas and very attractive for the newcomers and those that want to start families, so they are growing fast.
      Yes, some of these areas can be called sprawl. This is not necessarily a derogative. There are two perfectly viable and coherent schools of thought that are quite vocal these days. One abhors suburban living and the other understands the attraction to more quiet and more rural environments. There are studies that people in the inner city like the invisibility and anonymity they often have. Some find the city unfriendly and they become lonely. Some studies claim that children raised in high-rises have societal adjustment problems. Some kids just want to run away to the city lights.
      Meanwhile, it’s the province that must maintain the infrastructure to match the volume of all traffic.
      The sprawl will continue as will the development of transit oriented nodes. Some mayor even claimed that the Metro Regional Strategy and Plan obliges his municipality to accommodate a certain number of the “million more arriving”, in the Plan. As long as they are living 50km from the airport and the city many of them will drive and they will need more people in other vehicles to service and maintain their communities. Ergo, more traffic.
      The geography of Vancouver with its dispersed population needs for a wealthy society to be able to afford the many billions in expenditures required to realize a comprehensive commuter rail system. The mayors should be working together to grow the business and tax base of the region and should be working with the port and the province to expand facilities to bring more wealth so their transit dreams can materialize. Constantly criticizing the provincial government seems wasteful and counter productive since all surveys and polls show that the expansion of this highway with a new bridge is overwhelmingly popular.
      The mayors opposed the Millennium Line and the Canada Line, now they oppose the bridge. Who would now oppose either of those rail lines?

      1. Frank wrote: “The province has an obligation to ensure the highways are suitable for the traffic.”
        Really? I believe that the province should ensure that our built environment and transportation systems are built in the most cost effective manner in order to provide decent housing and safe and convenient mobility for residents and business. This means working with the Mayors and TransLink in order to develop and implement regional growth strategies and transportation plans. The biggest problem is that they use 1960s thinking on these issues and stonewall any attempts by Mayors and TransLink to improve the situation.

        1. In all fairness to Frank, Arno, that is a quote from me. I was replying to Frank.
          The province is ensuring that our built environment and transportation systems are built in the most cost effective manner in order to provide decent housing and safe and convenient mobility for residents and business.
          The province is applying 21st century consultations and planning it is the Mayors that want to hang on to the tunnel that is even older than 1960s thinking, it’s 1950s. The tunnel has served us well. It was rightly built to last for decades, at a time when little residential or commercial developments existed south of Richmond. It is now almost 60 years old. The new bridge should be also built to last for many decades.
          The Mayors tell us that in the next 25 years there are a million more people coming to the region. We are told we must prepare and build the necessary infrastructure for this massive 50% growth in the region.
          The province does work with the Mayors and with TransLink. The province supported the Mayors choice for a new funding mechanism for the plans that the Mayors and TransLink drafted. The province furthermore agreed to fund whatever the Mayors and TransLink decided on, to the usual formula of one third of the total cost.
          The province is supportive in all areas, including funding. The only stonewalling is being done by the Mayors in their attempts to thwart the province in conducting its work, that is, building the necessary infrastructure that falls under its mandate.

        2. “The province is ensuring that our built environment and transportation systems are built in the most cost effective manner in order to provide decent housing and safe and convenient mobility for residents and business.”
          It is more cost effective to move a greater percentage of people via rapid transit. Your assertion is at odds with recent investment decisions by the province.
          We don’t need to move more cars. We need to move more people. It can be done with more single occupancy private vehicles, but that isn’t efficient, effective, or sustainable.

        3. The bridge is being built primarily for rapid-transit buses and commercial traffic. There will of course be other vehicles crossing the span. There will also be separate lanes for cyclists and pedestrians, which are not possible in the tunnel.
          People want to cross the river at that point by bike, some want to walk. With rapid-transit buses these three primary modes of transportation are sufficient alone to justify a bridge at this point on the river.
          The future shows clearly that cycling is a growing transportation mode. Everything is expensive here in our resort city on the Pacific and the cost of building a bridge will fade into history once cyclists can travel unimpeded from Vancouver to the main BC Ferry terminal at Tsawwassen for their travels to Vancouver Island and the other Gulf Islands.

        4. “The bridge is being built primarily for rapid-transit buses and commercial traffic. ”
          How are we to reconcile that statement with the report from the Ministry that during rush hours, when congestion is a problem, trucks of all sizes comprise 5% of vehicles going through the tunnel, and buses less than 1%? It seems that the bridge is being built 94% for private vehicles.
          And if the bridge was being built for rapid transit buses, how is it that there is no corresponding budget for those new buses? Empty lanes won’t move people.
          I agree with you that cycling is clearly a growing transportation mode. It would be good to plan for unimpeded travel to the BC Ferry terminal, and other destinations. Unfortunately, at the moment, the project scope includes only shared paths on the approximately 3 km bridge itself, and highway crossings at the new interchanges along the 24 km project scope. There are no bike routes planned for those 24 km, yet. So how are cyclists to travel unimpeded?

        5. Jeff,
          You ask where the funding is for new buses. In 2012 TransLink had income of $1.44 billion (incidentally $330,000,00.00 of that came from the fuel tax from drivers of both commercial and private vehicles, that’s about a million dollars a day from drivers to TansLink, over and above what they pay in property and other taxes). As TransLink makes clear:
          “The Strategic Priorities Fund, established in 2005, allows for the transfer of federal gas tax funds for infrastructure improvements that deliver environmental benefits such as reduced GHG emissions and improved water quality. In Metro Vancouver, the revenue has been dedicated to transit initiatives replace older buses with new fuel efficient vehicles, and expand the transit fleet, including a new SeaBus passenger ferry and 14 new SkyTrain vehicles in addition to bus fleet expansion, …”
          Should be easy to by a few more buses. Chump change for an organization as big as this. Heck, a big bus can be bought for what TransLink pays just one of their multi-CEOs a year.
          I see your problem with the other 24km, although that route is actually not heading towards the ferry terminal but for the dense suburbs to the south east.
          What do you figure that would cost, considering the bike bridge at Cambie cost $10 million the roadway should come in for about a million a km? Could you cut back on what’s turning out to be very expensive, multi millions, for that couple of blocks in Point Grey, and shift some funding to the ferry route?

        6. Eric;
          There is no funding in the tunnel replacement project for more buses. The question was asked and answered. I think that if it was easy to just buy some more buses, as you claim, then we wouldn’t have needed all this discussion about a lack of Translink funding. If you want them to redeploy buses to this route from others, then put forth a proposal with which routes you would scale back.
          The issue with the other 24 km is that MoTI has a published policy that any new road construction that they do must include cycling infrastructure. We haven’t seen that here on this project for the 24 km scope, yet. It should be funded as part of the project. The bridge and highway expansion will be paid for by tolls. No, I don’t think that City of Vancouver taxpayers should pay for MoTI projects in other jurisdictions. It is an MoTI responsibility.
          The ferry terminal was your example. At the very least, the bike routes should connect to the direct routes to the ferry, perhaps 17a. And they should extend for the full 24 km, as per MoTI policy, for people on bikes to access those dense suburbs you refer to. Offloading the responsibility to local municipalities will lead to the situation we have in Coquitlam today with the Port Mann bridge. There is a good MUP across the bridge. Then you get to the end of the bridge in Coquitlam, and it stops. We shouldn’t repeat that on future projects.

        7. TransLink buys the buses Jeff, not the province. Even you know that. As you point out, there are jurisdictions regarding funding and you’re probably correct that the COV shouldn’t have to pay for bike lanes down to the suburbs. Yet, TransLink paid ten million dollars for the Canada Line Bikeway Bridge (wow, $10 million !), under the Canada Line bridge that starts in Vancouver and terminates in Richmond. Why wouldn’t they pay for a much less expensive bike path down to the ferries?
          Hey, what about that $740 million the federal government just last month coughed up? There has to be a couple of million there for a few new buses.
          Is it really all going to studies, meetings, planning and one new SeaBus?

        8. Mayors and councillors also ought to work with their voters, and if the voters say “no” to a referendum, much like Brexit, then that should give pause to previous thinking and new thinking is required, such as: more subways, less buses. Buses will not lure folks from cars. Only RAPID transit, non-wobbly, airconditioned does that ! Specifically:
          a) CanadsLine extesnion further south in Richmond
          b) subway on and to the North Shore (via E-Van so we can re-vitalize that and via Stanley-Park / west-end so we can remove cars there .. why is the corner of Denman/Davie and Beach Ave not one big car free plaza with a subway station below?)
          c) UBC subway/LRT for the latter km post Jericho (and not only to Arbutus)
          d) SkyTrain extension to Langley, Walley and further south in Surrey.
          So yes to more & heavy road/bridge/tunnel tolls and higher gasoline surcharges but no to a gimmicky bus based plan like the one that was voted down by voters in a referendum ! To reduce road congestion we need less cars on the road, i.e. it has to cost far more AND we need rapid alternatives. Where is that new plan ?
          Also: can we really expect bikes to travel dozens of km in or between areas south of the Fraser, and if so, what routes are heavily used ?

        9. Remember Thomas, it’s still in the Mayors 2040 plan to close the Lions Gate Bridge to traffic in 2030. Someone from the City of Vancouver was again proudly stating this in June 2013. And, the alternative? Another Sea Bus?

        10. “Remember Thomas, it’s still in the Mayors 2040 plan to close the Lions Gate Bridge to traffic in 2030”
          Actually, it is in the Transportation 2040 plan (Vancouver, not Metro, so no, not the Mayors) to rescind the agreement to close the bridge to motor vehicle traffic. The opposite of what you claim. One suspects you knew that, though.
          The inclusion of this action in the plan is because the original agreement was predicated on a 3rd crossing being constructed first, and none is evident. Therefore there is no plan to close the bridge. It is simply housekeeping to clean up the plans.

        11. So Dale Bracewell was wrong in June 2013 when said at SFU he was at the Pro Walk Pro Bike Conference in Long Beach California and was chatting with Mikael Coalville-Andersen and Tanya Paz and he reminded everyone that closing the Lions Gate Bridge was on the agenda and this was exciting?
          Or is this a new development?

        12. “TransLink buys the buses, not the province. ”
          Exactly right. Which is why it made no sense for you to claim a rapid transit improvement for the proposed bridge. The bridge design team aren’t in the bus business. Fair enough. But if the province wants to claim a benefit for those additional transit lanes they need to announce additional transit vehicles, or else the transit lanes will be empty. And that represents a cost, not a benefit.
          Similar situation with the planned multi use paths. There are no benefits planned for additional cycling numbers per the project definition report, because the paths planned for the bridge don’t yet connect up to through cycling routes. So every time you claim a cycling benefit for the new bridge we need to understand that this is an unrealized benefit. Unless connecting routes are planned, funded, and constructed.

        13. So …. was wrong in June 2013 when….he reminded everyone that closing the Lions Gate Bridge was on the agenda and this was exciting?
          I wasn’t there. Maybe you should ask him. Or you could ask the province if they have plans for a third crossing, as that is a prerequisite. But recall that Transportation 2040 was issued in 2012, prior to your meeting. So maybe the province thought about it when asked in 2012, and dropped the idea later when they evaluated the opportunity. There were lots of reports in 2015 that it wasn’t on the table.

        14. Come on Jeff, the airport might build a new runway but it doesn’t by the aircraft and give them to the airlines that will use it. TransLink knows all about buses and if you think the province should take away the buying power of TransLink and purchase their equipment, I for one, would certainly be prepared to support you in this endeavour. Hey, I hope we have many private and competitive bus lines using the new Bridge too. We don’t need the province to create a new procurement agency.

        15. We know you write to Dale Bracewell, on occasion. In fact, you and Lisa copied him on a letter to Gregor a few weeks ago. Don’t be coy. You have a direct line to him. If you are unclear about the City of Vancouver plans to close the Lions Gate Bridge to all traffic, except buses and bikes. Would you be so kind as to ask him if there has been a change of plan in the past 18 months. We missed it. Did you see it?
          What sort of 3rd crossing would your people be interested in? Obviously a tunnel just for vehicles could be a bit harrowing for a cyclist. Perhaps a new bridge much like the one underway to Delta would be suitable. I’m thinking a bus lane, a bike lane and a couple of vehicle lanes, each way. That’s eight lanes, if the cyclists don’t mind sharing with pedestrians, otherwise we’re up to 10.
          Question is, where?

        16. Eric, I am not at all unclear about plans to close the Lions Gate Bridge to all traffic except buses and bikes. There is no such plan. Suggesting there was a plan was a failed tactic by Jordon Bateman during the plebiscite last year. The Province bought it and ran the story. Other media outlets investigated, and called Bateman out on it. It’s a shame you are repeating it now. Surely you can do better.
          http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Lions+Gate+Bridge+close+cars+city+province/10981831/story.html
          http://globalnews.ca/news/1946543/government-says-lions-gate-bridge-will-not-close-to-cars-come-2030/

        17. Are you sure? So it’s been rescinded? If it has not been rescinded Jordan Bateman was right.
          “Transportation 2040 acknowledges that a past agreement still exists to remove private automobile traffic from the Stanley Park Causeway and Lions Gate Bridge by 2030. However, the agreement stipulated that this repurposing would take place in conjunction with the development of a third Burrard Inlet crossing. Since there are currently no such plans for a third crossing, the City will work with partners to determine whether this agreement should be rescinded, as well as any other appropriate actions for this regional issue.”
          There was much press and the Minister commented on the agreement saying it was not going to happen. It’s impossible to say whether it was a failed tactic but it was true. Has it been rescinded?

        18. “So it’s been rescinded?”
          Asked and answered. Read the links.
          “If it has not been rescinded Jordan Bateman was right.”
          Not much chance of that. He was exposed in the Global link provided, in 2015:
          “I think some media outlets got played by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation,” says Baldrey.
          “This goes back more than 15 years. It had no credibility back then, it had no credibility between then and now, but it got a little life breathed into it today, and I think Jordan Bateman’s probably happy he got this much media attention.”

        19. Well, you don’t and neither does anyone else say it’s been rescinded but it is contingent on a new crossing, so we accept that it’s moot.
          Amazing that it found its way into the official Transportation 2040 Plan and was approved in 2012 by the City of Vancouver council.
          That probably explains why Dale Bracewell, City Manager of Active Transportation, you know, the guy you wrote to in May; he was duped too and proudly talked about the closing of the Lions Gate Bridge in 20130, to delegates at a conference in California and at a presentation at SFU.
          If you missed it I can post a link to the session, if you like.

      2. Where would this third crossing be ? Presumably close to the current Lionsgate bridge as that is the only narrow section.
        A triple decker would make sense, with ped and bike path on top deck, middle deck with 5 or 7 lanes for vars, buses and trucks and a lower deck for a train to connect the burgeoning north shore population with downtown, SkyTrain, CanadaLine, airport and beyond ?
        Or what is the thinking here ?

        1. Wouldn’t be near Lions Gate, as the objective was to take vehicle traffic out of Stanley Park. That leaves mid harbour. Sounds expensive. Don’t hold your breath waiting for it. Seems to me more likely that increased transit to and from the North Shore will have more impact in the next decades than a third crossing. That and any vehicle tolling that gets introduced.

        2. Increased transit from North Shore ? Seriously ? How ? Another seabus ?
          Marine Drive is already congested going east or west, as are both bridges.
          We honestly expect affluent W-Van and N-Van dwellers to take a bus more ? Even the buses are stuck on Marine Drive and the bridges. How will this help ?
          The only revolution that may come if there is no north-shore subway nor train crossing (as appears likely in our 2040 “vision” document) would be far more e-bikes, or e-trikes such as http://www.velometro.com with dedicated lanes. We shall see.
          More likely is far more traffic jams as we continue to put in more housing unabated and do nothing – or not nearly enough – for more rapid transit. This is vision ? This is sustainable ?

        3. Thomas, I will repeat: MV traffic in and around downtown is decreasing! Now we just need to teach the rest of the region how to achieve that so we can save a fortune on big new bridges and roadways.

  6. Like the Port Mann Bridge, the province doesn’t have the money to build this thing so they’re putting it on layaway. It needs a business case to justify the province-backed loan required to pay some consortium to build it. The loan will be repaid through tolls – for many years. Only if the bridge has enough lanes will it supposedly induce enough traffic to to repay the cost of its construction. Hence 10 lanes. A narrower bridge won’t bring enough traffic/toll money to justify the expense to build it. These figures may not be public, but the Ministry knows this much.
    This bridge checks too many boxes and is far too important to everything the provincial Liberals want. It permits larger ships into the Fraser. It enables faster trade with the US. It will spur suburban development in Delta and South Surrey. And it’s too far along to be stopped, even if the Liberals get the boot next year. Barring a catastrophic collapse of any P3 arrangement, this thing is happening.

    1. Isn’t most of Delta some of the best farmland we have? Hard to see this particular section of ALR being let go. Langley should be let go.

      1. I bet the folks from Langley have a different view here.
        How about: make more land ? DeltaPort is massive and man-made. Lulu Island was a marshy island and is now massive Richmond. We can create more Ladners or Richmonds in the Fraser Delta or in Boundary Bay. Where is this discussion topic here on pricetags or in Metrovan ? Other nations do it in numerous locations in rivers and coastal areas. Running out of land is not unique to MetroVan.
        What can we learn from others ? What are best practices ? What should be avoided ?
        We used to do it. Why not anymore ?

        1. Or a way easier way to create more land would be to sub-divide most of the lots in Metro Vancouver. Most lots are 50 to 60 feet wide. That’s outrageous for a city (Metro) in Vancouver’s situation.

        2. In politics it is often good to have a serious problem, especially if it’s one that your constituency also has, if you can blame the problem on your enemy.
          This strengthens your vote base if you can constantly blame the problem on the other side, even while you ignore implementing solutions you might have.
          The high cost of housing is perfect a tool for this.
          Vision keeps raising the cost of housing with CACs for community amenities, & etc., while they resist rezoning of happy single family owners of properties from Boundary to Blanca. Meanwhile, it’s not their problem, it’s Christy Clark’s fault.
          Along comes Justin Trudeau and suddenly he’s like family. He’s young, he probably rides a bike. He likes dope.
          So far he’s resisted being the wedge Gregor’s masters would love to have between Vision and the BC Liberals.
          When you have political power you can gain public support by solving problems or shifting the onus of blame on to your opposition.

  7. If you want to encourage transit use then build a four lane bridge for trucks and buses and dedicate the Massey Tunnel to cars and motorcycles.

  8. We are not containing urban development, we are constraining urban development. We need bridges to far off places because municipalities will not up zone single home neighbourhoods.

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles