August 3, 2016

Pachal: The Unneeded Massey Bridge

From Nathan Pachal’s South Fraser Blog:

Province’s own numbers show Massey Bridge unneeded

As can be seen on the Port Mann Bridge, there is less traffic on the bridge today than went across the old bridge in the past. There has only been a jump in traffic over the Port Mann this May and June likely due to the Pattullo Bridge being virtually closed due to rehabilitation.

The environmental assessment for the proposed George Massey Tunnel replacement bridge is currently in progress. 145 pages of the material submitted by the province for the environmental assessment deals with traffic.
Here’s some facts:

Average traffic volumes across the George Massey Tunnel and Alex Fraser Bridge since 2005. Select table to enlarge.

Traffic volume through the Massey Tunnel has been declining over the last decade. There was less traffic going through the Massey Tunnel in 2014 on average than in 2003.
The Ministry of Transportation’s “independent” traffic model shows that a tolled crossing would drop traffic to a level not seen since the 1980s. TransLink numbers show an even stepper decline in traffic.

Traffic forecasts. TransLink’s tolled traffic forecast: TL-RTM Tolled. Independent traffic forecast: SDG Independent. Select chart to enlarge.

The Alex Fraser Bridge has seen an increase in traffic. If the provincial government was serious about reducing congestion, it would toll all river crossings to reduce congestion, using the revenue to invent in keeping the current road network in a state of good repair, and investing the remainder into transit and the regional transportation vision.
If the province invested the money it spent on the Port Mann Bridge and soon-to-be George Massey Bridge instead on the regional transportation vision, we would have world-leading bus service and rail rapid transit along Broadway, King George, 104th Avenue, and Fraser Highway to Langley today.

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. One lesson learned from the plebiscite was that voters haven’t caught on that Translink is essentially an arm of provincial transportation policy. You’d think that the Liberals could just toll the river crossings and blame the whole thing on Translink. But then they wouldn’t get their bridge, I suppose.

      1. It is because it is the Ministry of Cars and Trucks and not Transportation. They have never been able to see beyond their windshields. Even though the Port Mann Bridge has been a huge financial failure, they fail to look at the numbers and still claim that they will need this capacity.

        1. It’s the business case. The cost to finance this thing can only be rationalized with a lot of lanes to ‘bring’ (induce) lots of traffic and toll revenue. A narrower bridge means fewer cars, which means less revenue, which means the cost borrowed to pay for construction won’t ever be repaid. It’s got to be big if the province ever wants to pay it off.

    1. I know, I know. But cars aren’t entirely out of the picture. It’s just politically sound for the Liberals to build this thing. Bigger ships to Asia and happier suburban commuters – at least in the short term.

    2. Exactly. It is primarily about enhancing COMMERCE. Vancouver & area is the ONLY major port to the booming and growing Asian market. Once Fraser River is dredged deeper bigger boats can go is, creating more ports or bigger ports in Surrey, Delta, Richmond and/or New West.
      Less congestion is a nice side effect. Less idling cars is green policy, too !
      We also need more subways in Vancouver & area, including north shore, and a wider or higher capacity Lionsgate Bridge. Where is this in the 2040 transportation plan ?
      More people and more business in any region requires upgrades of the entire transportation network, incl. roads, tunnels, bridges, buses, subways, pedestrian AND bike pathways. AND as is CAPITAL AND .. and not only one or the other !

  2. So the table shows the combined traffic across the river has grown around 0.3%-0.8% over the ~10 year period. Seems like a case for at least some increase in capacity…
    Not only that, but the Massey tunnel is unlikely to survive a major earthquake. Given the importance of the transport route south to the US and Deltaport, don’t you think there is a case to be made to replace it? With a bridge, which has a better chance of survival? And if you’re going to build the bridge, make it big enough to last 100-150 years?
    Yeah, there are the evil car-drivers who want to destroy the planet, but it would be nice to see a more reasoned debate around these infrastructural issues instead of just the knee-jerk “I hate cars/Liberals/bicycles/Vision” approach that we get.

    1. Seismic upgrades to the existing tunnel were completed in 2006. How much has the state of the art changed since then?
      If we want to project vehicle volumes 100-150 years in the future, then we need a pretty good crystal ball. We know from the Port Mann bridge project that we are not good at forecasting volumes for far shorter time spans. What would we have collectively estimated for today’s motor vehicle volumes, 100 years ago? And even if we did know what would be required in 100-150 years, why overbuild it so much, and then carry that debt for so many years? Much better to build for what we need, and plan for what we may want to build additionally in 20 years.

      1. The seismic upgrade was only partial. The tunnel still doesn’t meet modern standards. But there are earthquake warning sensors at each end now, so you can avoid driving into the tunnel in the event of an earthquake…
        I don’t think anyone could say if it would survive a serious earthquake. Regardless, having a tunnel in a silt bed in a region subject to earthquakes is not best practices. And it’s not practical to widen it or twin it. A bridge makes much more sense from a practical and safety perspective if you were going to replace the tunnel. And it needs replacing. The Ministry says it has 10 years life left, no one believes that, so pick a number – 20 years? Given the development in south Richmond, there’s not that much time left to set aside land for a bridge to replace the tunnel, and you have to factor in 5-10 years from proposal to completion, so it has to get built pretty soon.
        As for the size, well the capital cost difference for 10 vs 8 lanes is not a deal-breaker here. (Especially since we don’t know what the actual bridge will cost – the $3.5b is for all the upgrades along the highway as well, and the removal of the tunnel). And the NDP can turn those extra two lanes into bus-only lanes when they come to power, and take another two out for cycle lanes. With the truck hill-climbing lanes, that leaves only 4 for cars…
        All that being said, what exactly is the proposal from those opposed to the bridge? Do nothing – keep the tunnel? A new, but smaller bridge? Just ban cars from the tunnel to relieve the pretty serious truck congestion every morning and afternoon? I’m actually curious to hear…

        1. If we are going to use the seismic requirement as a project justification, then we should also look at all other significant infrastructure (ie Pattullo, schools) and make sure that we are investing in the highest priority projects. It just feels like the seismic issue is being used as a justification after the decision has been made.
          While building a tunnel in those local conditions can certainly create challenges, the same challenges apply to bridge supports. It isn’t like the bridge is spanning the risk zone, it is built on top of it. So is the 24 km of highway, and so are all of the new interchanges.
          Do we know the difference in cost between bridges of different widths? I suggest there is a difference, and it isn’t just for the bridge but also for the 24 km of expanded highway needed to fill the bridge. That highway cost includes building wider, but also building interchanges wider, and expropriating land to accommodate the increased width.
          I don’t think there is an exact proposal from those concerned about the new bridge. It is more of a concern that there hasn’t been an open process, and lack of respect for local planning authority. We shouldn’t start off saying we need x lanes, or a second tunnel, or whatever. We should start off by defining what the project is intended to fix, defining success, and then designing alternate solutions that deliver on that project definition. Jumping to a conclusion about whether there should be a 6 lane bridge or a second twinned tunnel is no better than arguing for a 10 lane bridge, IMO.

        2. It’s nearly five years since the decision was made for a new bridge, Jeff. It’s like anything, it’s been studied to death. Local consultation meetings and on-line consultations have been conducted for years too.
          Who was concerned about the cost of the cycle bridge under the Canada Line bridge across the Fraser? Were you?
          That bridge cost 10 million dollars, when there’s a perfectly decent separated cycle path on the Oak Street Bridge, just a few hundred meters to the west. In fact, workers were improving and maintaining that Oak Street cycle path just yesterday.
          The earthquake risk zone can certainly be dealt with these days. The whole Pacific Rim of Fire has bridges all around it. Like the weather and the climate changing, the earth is constantly moving too. We can’t avoid the forces of nature. We can only try to work with them.

        3. “Oak Street Cycle Path”.
          Must have missed that one. I only know the Oak St Bridge sidewalk, which people on bikes are permitted to use. Of course, at the other end of this bridge, you had better be going to the airport and not continuing south, because the sidewalk is on the off ramp.
          http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q367/jcleigh/Posts/Oak%20St%20Bridge%20Southbound_zpsib63p7y4.jpg
          There is no comparison between the above sidewalk, and the Canada Line Bridge multi use path for people walking and people on bikes. You really want to argue that the pittance it cost isn’t reasonable, given your unfettered support for multi billion dollar bridges?

        4. “It’s been studied to death”
          If you say so, but that wasn’t the point. The post you responded to talked about lack of transparency, and lack of integration into local (Metro) transportation plans. You appear to be saying that the proponents don’t have to be transparent, or consistent, or respect other levels of government, if they simply talk about something long enough.

        5. The Metro Transportation plan has SERIOUS holes. The province is right to use a wiser approach that moves goods and people and enhances the prosperity of the regions and not appease radical greens and socialists that seem to run the show in MetroVan. No subway anywhere, not to UBC, not along the north shore, not to downtown from north shore, not to E-Van, not further south from Richmond. No new Lionsgate bridge not Second Narrows widening. Nothing. Nada. Just more condos, bike lanes and a few more buses. Where’s the 8 lane Patullo Bridge and a New West bypass/tunnel to ease congestion ? And an Evergreen line 15 years after the first towers pooped up in Port Moody and Coquitlam. A DISGRACE ! Utterly disconnected from teh real world requirements of what people want. Who elected these clowns ? Why have the chair of Major Council on Transportation and the chair of the referendum not resigned, like we saw in Brexit after the “leave” vote won ?

        6. The “clowns” were elected in a democratic process which means they represent what people want in this region. The real clowns in Victoria were elected by the entire province half of which have no idea about our local needs – but they impose them on us anyway.
          I’m sure you’d bankrupt us as quickly as the BC Liberals are trying to do.

        7. Gee, didn’t Mr. Sunny Ways in Ottawa win by spending BIG and teach us to invest in INFRASTRUCTURE ? Even Trump and Clinton support that !
          The elected members of the Mayor Council think we live in tiny 300-500,000 villages when in fact we live in a connected region with 2.5M+ people !! We have far too many little chiefs. Luckily we have a bold premier not afraid to piss of foreign investors with her 15% property tax surcharge, to take on far too powerful teacher’s unions, to take on the fiscally irresponsible VSB and to build necessary infrastructure for growing commerce and traffic flow.

        8. No Jeff, a government that listens to the people and acts according to their wishes is what we have with the new Massey Bridge.
          What you want is a different form of government, That’s where your local Metro plans come in. No matter how many millions of their clients, we taxpayers, money they threw at trying to convince us their Plan was the right one, the people said no. Overwhelmingly No. two thirds No. Whereas, according to Insights West, two thirds support the bridge.
          At some point Metro and its grand Plans are going to have to be revised because the people said No. No to a number of things and that $10 million Bike Bridge was probably one of them. You say that the Oak Street route leads to the southern off-ramp. Yes, that’s what usually happens. So? The Canada Line Bike Bridge leads to River Road and Van Horne a massive two blocks away. At least the Oak Street crossing has signs leading to the bike path along southbound Garden City Road, as well as the west route for bikes on Brigeport .

        9. Eric: “You say that the Oak Street route leads to the southern off-ramp. Yes, that’s what usually happens. So? The Canada Line Bike Bridge leads to River Road and Van Horne a massive two blocks away. At least the Oak Street crossing has signs leading to the bike path along southbound Garden City Road, as well as the west route for bikes on Bridgeport ”
          It isn’t what usually happens. When you are on a southbound route it would be nice to be able to continue southbound. When you arrive at Sea Island and Garden City, watch out for vehicles. It is a high risk location, with the slip lanes.
          And there are no cycling connections northbound for the Oak Street Bridge.
          The Canada Line bike bridge connects through with a continuous bike route on the Richmond side, for both directions. Also on the Vancouver side. Whereas the Oak St sidewalk doesn’t connect to any bike routes on the north end. So we probably don’t have to worry too much about where it goes or doesn’t go on the south end.
          You want to continue to argue that the Oak St Bridge is a perfectly decent cycle path?

        10. Canada Line bridge to Oak Street bridge is roughly 1.5 km depending on where you measure from/to. Not ‘just a few hundred meters’.
          I think it’s an interesting thing when people make claims that are patently false. It leaves the rest of us wondering whether they are ignorant of reality or deliberate dissemblers. Even more fascinating — that someone would put themselves in a position where those are really the only two conclusions to draw from their remarks.

        11. Thank you Chris. You make the point that distance is important. Your numbers though, and consequently your argument, are all wrong.
          At the widest point on the north the distance is about 300m, on the south side it’s down to about 200m.
          Here’s the map Chris. Down on the right corner is a measurement scale.
          http://tinyurl.com/jtcr3pw
          No need to apologize for the snide remarks Chris. We understand that some of us have a habit that’s clearly hard to break.
          As for your point Jeff; the north exit from the Oak Street Bridge is one block south on Shaughnessy to Kent St bikeway. Is one block so onerous that $10 million needs to be spent? No, it’s not but it’s just one reason why the Mayors’ Plan bombed so profoundly.

        12. Not a snide remark Eric. I am truly fascinated by people making remarks made that are easily discounted with a few seconds on Google. Not sure what you want to show with your link — it returns a Streetview image of the road in the area.
          Regardless, here’s a screen grab of two random addresses on SW Marine Drive between the two bridges — shorter than the actual distance it would take to go between them by any mode of transportation, and yet still 1.0km distance.
          https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw7vO_fMHTaxb2EzY3g4RWhJWkE/view?usp=sharing

        13. Eric: Since distance is important to you, consider that Shaughnessy doesn’t go through to Kent S to travel east, and there is a dead end on Kent N. And even if you take Marine Drive on your bike (!) it is a kilometre to the protected lane at Ash. The actual Kent Ave bikeway starts at Ontario, some distance further.
          I’d agree that the two bridges are closer at the south end, but only if you ignore that Oak St is 20m or so in the air at that point. If you are on a bike, which is the context of your claim, I measure 1.5 km.
          Your claims are, as was noted above, patently false. How can we take seriously your other comments on transportation issues?

        14. This bridge has received less official analytical scrutiny than the average mid-rise. The unofficial scrutiny (Nathan’s post above for one) could collectively fill a row of shelves at the VPL.

      2. Debt is cheap. 2% or less. Heading to 1%. See also this latest announcement in the UK as it cuts interest rates by 0.25% to lowest EVER: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36976528
        Will Canada be next ?
        2 year and possibly even 5 year mortgages should head sub 2% in Canada . They are still FAR TOO HIGH ! 10 year notes in Canada are 1.1%. In Germany or Switzerland they are now sub 0. Even the US (both Trump and Clinton) has announced massive infrastructure upgrade programs to create jobs and better flow of goods and people.
        Tunnel and bridges are being tolled to pay for it. I can’t believe we haven’t upgraded Lionsgate bridge or Patullo bridge yet. Where’s the subway to UBC or along the northshore or to downtown via the upgraded Lionsgate bridge or to E-Van ? A crime. Utter policy failures !

    2. The reduced traffic on the Port Mann is a meaningless distraction. The traffic on the Alex Fraser has increased substantially. It’s free and a good alternative to both the Port Mann, for those heading out to central Surrey, south Surrey and Langley, as well as diversion, which is posted on the highway by the MOT, for the Massey Bridge, which is now congested most of the day, in one or the other direction.
      As repeated ad nauseum, the population overwhelmingly supports a new bridge.
      If the NDP campaigns against the new Massey Crossing Bridge they will loose voters in all areas.

      1. The same will happen with the tunnel replacement, traffic will be heading to the Port Mann Bridge to avoid the toll.

        1. An Insights West poll. It’s on their web site. Jan 27, 2016
          “Half of Metro Vancouver residents (51%) support the proposal to replace the Massey Tunnel with a new tolled bridge, while one third (32%) are opposed and 17% are not sure.
          Support for the proposal is highest in Surrey (63%), and among men (59%), Metro Vancouverites aged 35-54 (58%) and residents who drive to school or work (55%).”

        2. These numbers are subject to quick overnight change along with a change in the price at the pump. Likewise, regional vehicle km driven change with the price at the pump over the long run.
          To answer for the usefulness of the congestion data contained in the government propaganda, one has to consider the 100-year life of the bridge and project ahead that far on the price of oil and any potential alternative energy source.
          That is impossible, by the way.

        1. “I’d say that is overwhelming !”
          Yes, you also believe that freighters in our harbour travel at 4 km/h. Pardon my skepticism Thomas. Polls show what people think. They don’t indicate the best direction to take in terms of good transportation design. The world abounds with people making poor choices based on insufficient or inaccurate information. Following their lead when there’s better ways to make smart decisions is how you end up with problems, not solutions.

    1. 32% are opposed. 19% more (51%) want it.
      This means that 60% MORE people want the bridge than don’t.
      Don’t forget this Chris; less than one in three people are against the new bridge.
      You and Jeff may find this chilling but it’s true.

      1. Indeed.
        The question of course matters.
        If they had asked: “Would you have supported a smaller bridge and a subway to UBC for the same $ amount” the answer might have been different.
        Or if they had asked “Should the government do s.th. about daily gridlock in Massey tunnel” then 3/4 would have said “yes”.
        The major issue in MetroVan is that the urban dwellers slightly outnumber the ex-urban or sub-urban dwellers and as such force their overly green “we love bikelanes and hate oil” world view onto the folks that need a car daily. Most people in condos have no clue how the food is grown, how the food gets to the supermarket they walk to, how much Canada depends on exports or imports, how relevant the 30+ (yes thirty plus) harbors are to the economic health of the region and the country. SO they vote “more bikes lanes” and the 2040 transportation plan reflects this overly jaded worldview. The BC government takes a wider view and concludes: roads matter. The economy matters. Flowing goods and services matter. New bridges, tunnels, roads, harbor and industrial expansion matter.
        Massey is just one of many examples where these two worldviews clash. Ditto with XL, NG pipeline, harbor expansions, Lionsgate bridge expansion, ..
        As long as a north shore subway or rail link to downtown from north shore, or subway expansion east out of Vancouver or a subway/rail link to UBC or Lionsgate brdge expansion isn’t even on the table, why fund such gimmicky bus and bike based plans ?
        A region gridlocked.
        How do we get this unclogged ??

        1. You get it unclogged with better urban design – not with wider roads.
          There is more than enough capacity to move goods. Our roads are clogged with single occupant vehicles – most of which could be eliminated if:
          1. there were more high density mixed use neighborhoods providing jobs nearby.
          2. there was more and more frequent public transit.
          3. there were more bike lanes and better sidewalks.
          All at a small fraction of the cost of over-sized ego bridges.
          People who live in sprawl are the problem. It shouldn’t fall on my shoulders to pay for their lifestyle choices. (And no, they weren’t born that way. It is a choice to live in sprawl.)

        2. ‘Gridlock’ is a thing. But we don’t have it. If ‘the question matters’ then by extension the words we use matter. Inflammatory and exaggerated claims bolster your argument but do nothing to advance understanding. Disappointing use of rhetoric from a fellow who claims to want decisions based on logic and good data.

        3. You are right. Inflammatory arguments by green environmentalists, and the politicians they support (aka Tide) not based in reality do not help.
          Sprawl is one way to describe leafy neighborhoods with yards occupied by happy families, assaulted by unrealistic urban condo dwellers.

        4. Thomas:
          I have directly addressed specific comments you have made and claimed as ‘facts’ and pointed out the problems with them. You are making sweeping generalizations based on ideological opposition to philosophies you don’t agree with. That’s your prerogative, but it only suggests (to me) that you can’t find a problem with the specifics of the comments made in response to your erroneous claims.
          I don’t know if you are trying to paint my remarks as being ‘not based in reality’ but by all means, if that’s the case — then be specific. For the record, I have never supported any political party or politician in any way. I do recognize and acknowledge good policy — regardless of the origin.
          It’s hardly my fault that the politicians who espouse your preferred philosophies have the tendency to put forth policies that are damaging to our overall economy and environmental health in the long-term, and for that are taken to task for the sloppy thinking they demonstrate. Although, I will note, I make it a policy to avoid personal attacks on public officials. But foolish, short-sighted ideas get no clemency… and credit (or criticism) is delivered accordingly, to the person(s) who propagate them.
          Gridlock: a traffic jam affecting a whole network of intersecting streets.

        5. @Chris K: people vote not only in the voting booth every 4 years, but primarily with their money and their feet. All I am saying is that he 2040 transportation plan is NOT alleviating gridlock and is not grounded in reality. Why do you find this statement offensive ?

        6. You keep using the term gridlock. We don’t have gridlock. If you didn’t so massively overstate the problem, it would go unremarked. As you noted regarding poll question, the wording matters. We are all smart people Thomas, including you. I expect you to use appropriate words that don’t overstate the issue. I think that’s the respectful way to have a dialogue.

        7. @ChrisT
          We DO have gridlock. Whenever I drive to downtown (along 4th or Broadway usually), or when I drive to West Van occasionally along W Georgia or come from there along Marine Drive then I frequently see GRIDLOCK. Not at 6 am, but at 10 am or at 2 pm or even at noon sometimes.
          Ditto at various Fraser River crossing, or in Richmond, or other parts of MetroVan where I rarely venture but others.
          Perhaps you prefer the term “heavy traffic that crawls like snails” or “rapid transit lacking as it is stuck too with slow cars” or “cars lined up at various intersections in all directions” ? Massive planning and investment failures by various incompetent city planning apparatuses more focused on ideology (no pipelines, free parking in neighborhoods to buy votes, no Uber to get union cash donations, no more land in ALR or mudflats for housing, more bike lanes) than solving real traffic problems !! Massive !!!

      2. Playing a numbers game is good politics, but not good policy. The reality is that one poll of 502 people over two days (with a possible margin of error of 4% either way) showed a tiny majority support a Massey Bridge. But building roads according to public opinion is a recipe for error. One that need not be repeated if good governance is the order of the day.
        ‘Overwhelming support’ is nonsense. Treat your readers with more respect.

        1. Chris; You’re going to need about 8 times that margin of error, in your favour, before your argument is even considered as viable.
          Who is really playing with numbers. No need to disparage Insights West. Are you also prepared to tell them how to do their job?

        2. I haven’t disparaged Insights West Eric. I’m taking issue with your use of words like ‘overwhelming’ to describe a slight majority of opinions. I don’t have an ‘argument’ that needs to viable or not. I have a b.s. detector and it’s pinging louder than a Das Boot retrospective in a Dolby 5.1 theatre.

        3. It’s inappropriate to dismiss a poll done by successful, long time experts in the field.
          As they correctly say, this poll represents, from their experience, a ‘representative sample’.
          Just because we don’t like the results of a poll does not mean that it’s BS.
          Remember too that Insights West polled that the Mayors’ Plan Transit Plebiscite would fail with a 63% No vote. The final result came in at 62%.
          These people know their business.

  3. Back to the bridge/tunnel… The numbers do indicate that there has been in increase in traffic across the combined Alex Fraser/Massey. So, there is need for some improvement. And if you ever use the tunnel in anti-counter-flow, you will know the congestion in the mornings and evenings is terrible. Something has to be done about that.
    I’m not a rabid pro-anti-car/bicycle person. I’m happy to listen to other opinions. But it’s really frustrating to hear people say there’s no problem with traffic in the tunnel. It’s completely ignoring reality. You can hate on cars, but making it so that the movement of goods (which is vital to the economy of the region) is stalled by inadequate infrastructure is really cutting off your nose to spite your face.
    The crossings over the Fraser are a vital link commerce-wise to the USA and the ports (Deltaport particularly, which is really important, since Vancouver has forced all the distribution centres out to Richmond/Surrey, so container traffic is much more efficient through there…).
    If you hate the proposed bridge, then what are the alternatives? I can think of only one:- ban all car traffic counter-flow-wise in the tunnel, so that trucks can move efficiently. Making the tunnel wider is not an option. Twinning it is not an option – putting a tunnel down in the silty soil under the river is a terrible idea earthquake-wise. That leaves a bridge (which BTW, would be better in an earthquake – the piers would be in solid ground, which is exactly what the seismic remediation did for the tunnel – add “anchors” on the ends to help secure it), but it makes no sense to build a 4 lane bridge, so you end up with a large structure that you all hate.
    So, who’s prepared to be the politician that bans car traffic in the tunnel? Who’s willing to be the politician in power if/when the tunnel is damaged in an earthquake and has to close for 6months-year?

    1. I agree with you, especially about the counterflow rush hour delays. There are some ferries I try to avoid when coming from Victoria because of the congestion. That being said, when there are three lanes in the peak direction, the traffic through the tunnel seems to move relatively smoothly.
      What I have a problem with is the overdesigned and overcapacity ten lane bridge, which also increases the costs significantly.

    2. You could also demand manage the existing crossings with variable price tolling and use queue jumpers for transit. You could vastly expand transit service for a fraction of the cost. The existing crossing(s) would have more than enough capacity for the time it would take to have a rational debate about how to build for the future.
      We should probably be talking about a new crossing and it would likely be bigger than 4 lanes. The problem is there was no talk – just a decision made for a completely over-sized car-inducing, sprawl-encouraging, fossil-fuel-ship-accommodating monster.

      1. Slow, crowded, overheated and wobbly buses are not public transit options that regular car users will find attractive.
        The bridge is not only about traffic flow but primarily about Fraser River dredging and deepening to enable more commerce on both sides of the river in New West, Delta, Surrey and Richmond. 8 lane minimum and 10 lanes barely more expensive. Yes slightly too wide today but called visionary in 2030. SFPR is already too naroow, as will be Patullo Bridge. Missing also a wider Lionsgate bridge, a wider Second Narrows Bridge and an extension of boundary Road south to connect with highways in Richmond ! Northshore needs a rapid link with downtown, not just a cutsy seabus and a bridge built in the 1930s by a beer brewer !
        Massive underinvestment in infrastructure in MetroVan !! Massive ! A failed 2040 transportation plan not grounded in reality !

        1. Ten lanes is not just marginally more expensive. With the bridge alone, the weight requirements for 10 vs 8 are a lot more, requiring the whole bridge and supports to be able to carry that additional weight.

        2. Thomas, suppose we do have a 10 lane bridge. Traffic will probably be free flowing and a wide bridge will generate even more traffic. So where do all these extra vehicles go? It is pretty certain that congestion will simply be moved further along and will create congestion into and in Richmond and Vancouver. MOTI’s dream is to double the Knight St Bridge, possibly double the Oak St Bridge and create a new crossing at the Arbutus Alignment. Thus will obviously make things even worse. History shows repeatedly that you cant build yourself out of congestion. They are even finally realizing that in freeway cities like LA and Atlanta. Decision makers in cties around the world are realizing that a successful transportation system is based on transit and cycling combined with density along rail corridors. This is really the only way that motor vehicles can continue to operate in an urban environment. Why are you advocating for something which is extremely expensive and bound to fail? I just don’t get it.

      2. RV; Queue Jumpers already exist for transit on both sides of the tunnel.
        The rational debate has been on for seven years, at least. That’s when Kevin Falcon and the ministry decided to proceed first with the Port Mann and Highway 1 project and leave the tunnel for the next project.
        The idea that buses will reduce the congestion is impractical. Traffic going south goes to Ladner, South and North Delta and Tsawwassen, as well as Cloverdale, South Surrey, White Rock, Panorama Ridge, Morgan Heights, Langley and the USA. You’re going to need at least ten new and extensive and fast transit links to start to serve all these points.
        And, it’s not just because people live in remote sprawl. Many of the vehicles are commercial – trades and trucks. It’s also not all commuters. Every single weekday there is a line of traffic delayed up to 30 minutes heading north, from 3-6pm. Who are they?

        1. Eric, as was pointed out previously, discussing something long enough doesn’t make up for a lack of transparency or lack of a business case.
          Your comments on the challenges involved in providing rapid transit are telling. The area has too much sprawl, with not enough town centres, so you want to double down on more of that. Recall the first rule of holes. Stop digging, don’t dig faster.
          You again claim that many of the vehicles are commercial, when you have been shown repeatedly that truck traffic constitutes less that 5% of the rush hour volume. So, 95% non truck. Your New Math is back. 51% is overwhelming per your claim, so 95% must be really something. Yet you use the 5% as a rationalization.

        2. HOV Q jumper lanes in addition to the existing BUS Q jumper lanes would provide an incentive to car pool . This should apply to all choke points

        3. Do we commentors that never travel the 99?
          Yes, there are queue jumper lanes on Both sides of the tunnel for Both transit and HOV vehicles.
          The Ministry measured trucks. They did not measure trades vehicles, which are carrying equipment and tools that cannot practically be lugged on and off of buses. Many trades people live all over the southern municipalities.
          As for town centres; is Vancouver ready to relinquish the major employment and entertainment centres? We’re talking here about UBC, BCIT, the airport, the hospitals and clinics, the radio and tv stations, the art galleries and museums, the Port, the Convention Centre, the train station, Rogers Arena and BC Place and all the retail. Of course not.
          Unless Jeff and his gang put up wall like Trump is calling for then people in the outer, and growing, municipalities will gravitate to the city and he and his buddies will have to live with it.

        4. Multiple town centres are at the core of our regional growth strategy, Eric. Perhaps take a look at it before disparaging it.
          My gang? Feeling persecuted, are you? If you keep making outrageous claims, expect to get called on them.
          Nobody except you is talking about putting up a wall. We are talking about moving people in more efficient ways, in both directions. You can’t build your way out of congestion with more lanes. Maybe Trump doesn’t know that either.

        5. You’re not talking about moving people around Jeff, your gang is talking about retaining the 60 year old tunnel and charging for all crossings into your town. Two de-facto Trump walls to keep the nasty cars out.
          Your more efficient ways, as you say, for moving people around is ideological social engineering and a dreamlike idyllic fantasy toy land where everyone moves around on bikes and little buses.
          Your avoidance of existence of substantial employment and attractions that cause people to travel into and out of Vancouver and your refusal to accept the fact that trades workers need to get to work with their equipment is not helpful. The 99 is crowded with SUVs and Pick Ups, as well as many other vehicles carrying construction, maintenance and medical employees, etc., with their equipment.
          The construction trades and many others start at 7am. Transit is not an option at this time of the day for these people, or many Port, university, hospital and airport workers, many of these start even earlier. They have to drive or be driven. Roads need to be sufficient and crossings of the river need to be large enough to accommodate the traffic. As Surrey grows to overcome Vancouver in size the need for more large crossings will only increase.

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