October 14, 2016

Massey Tunnel vs. Massey Bridge Once Again

 
shrinking-industrial-lands-for-port-metro-vancouver
Douglas Massey, the son of George Massey the MLA that championed the design and development of the Massey Tunnel which opened in 1959 has weighed in to the Delta Optimist about the proposed Massey Bridge replacement. Massey responds to comments that the tunnel is not ecologically prudent, warranting its removal.

“The George Massey Tunnel was built below the riverbed and does not interfere in the migration of salmon or other fish species, nor does it interfere in the flight path of birds. Should we not be more concerned about the environmental effects of a high level bridge, hundreds of feet in the air, combined with the new overhead high voltage transmission lines (that presently go under the river bed in the tunnel)? Would this not result in more bird kill?

Or with the proposal to remove the George Massey Tunnel and to dredge the riverbed deeper to make the Fraser Surrey Docks a viable operation at taxpayers’ expense? What effect will this increased depth have on migrating salmon or sturgeon who live in the riverbed? What effect would the increased number of ships navigating the river and the increased industrialization have on the foreshores and existing dikes and the habitat on the wetland marshes and would recreational kayaking still be viable?”

While Douglas Massey advocates for the right fit for the environment, another letter writer to the Optimist worries about the tolled bridge as being expensive for lower wage workers, and wonders if the tunnel could continue in operation as an HOV/transit-dedicated route “for those of us who are required to travel to Vancouver every day”.

 If only.

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

Leave a Reply to Thomas BeyerCancel Reply

  1. Post
    Author
  2. I agree entirely with Douglas Massey.
    The replacement of the Massey Tunnel with a bridge is a case of a Provincial government that cares only about carrying out its partisan platform–which does not include any of the consequences of those actions.
    They know full well that another government will have to deal with that.
    What is truly disturbing is that the BC Liberals are willing to ignore the direct environmental consequences of building a bridge, and destroying a tunnel. They want to gloss over any unintended (?) consequences under the guise of an energy program that is in no way “green” or progressive. They do not want anyone questioning either the safety or the environmental impact of bringing Panamax sized LNG bulkers up the Fraser River.
    The scale of an environmental incident involving such a vessel would be a catastrophe on a scale that few of us can even imagine. The subtler side-effect is that, even if things work perfectly to plan, those massive ships, powered by some of the dirtiest fuel available, will be bringing emissions equal to tens of thousands of cars deep inland, right to where we live.
    That’s not counting the carbon footprint of the cement used to build the bridge, nor that of the myriad vehicles that will use it. That doesn’t include the additional cost of correcting the obvious lack of planning for any form of transit that doesn’t run on rubber tires.
    We know–at some level, at least–that our current use of the single occupant motor vehicle is unsustainable. Strangely, we refuse to look at the obvious–that the Massey Tunnel does not actually lack capacity. Rather, it suffers from a complete lack of planning when it comes to entering and exiting the highway.
    Roads that feed Highway 99 are expanded and expanded so that any ridiculous amount of traffic can enter, which turns it into a linear parking lot. The philosophy seems to be that adding lanes ad infinitum should solve all problems–that you can build your way out of poor decisions and lack of foresight.
    Look at Highway 1, and ask yourself how well that worked out.
    To solve the conundrum of the Massey Tunnel, we need to do three things:
    1) hold governments accountable for the policies (that only benefit their 1% friends) that they want to implement at public expense;
    2) recognize the elephant in the room–the single occupant motor vehicle;
    3) plan for effective mass transit, and for better engineered entry and exit on highway 99.
    Most important: we need to understand that we can no longer afford the luxury of using up irreplaceable agricultural land for partisan vanity projects. Opposing this foolhardy and cripplingly expensive project may require direct public action, whether by protest, or by a decisive vote to unseat the current government.

    1. Hwy 1 needs widening after Surrey already, as does SFPR. They will call this bridge “visionary” in 25 years.
      Did you know that MetroVan has 30+ ports ? Did you know that Canada is an exporting nation, and the ONLY real port besides a few smaller ones in Kitimat and Prince Rupert are in MetroVan. As such we cannot allow local myopic mayors that have never been east of the Rockies to dictate national or even provincial business plans !
      Missing is indeed recognition of exports and jobs in the 2040 plan by the MetroVan mayors. At least we have someone looking out for future prosperity for current and future dwellers in the ever more crowded Lower Mainland. We need more land creation projects est into Boundary Bay, west into Fraser delta and off Richmond. Where is the new Lionsgate expansion project and the double decker Second Narrow bridge ? Where is the subway to Noth Van & W-Van, via E-Van ? Where is the UBC subway. ALL of this, incl this bridge is required here for soon 1M+ people and more and more exports and imports into a nation that will approach 100M people in 2100 !

      1. Thomas and Eric and the like have failed to notice that downtown Vancouver, the job centre of the region, does not have a ten lane freeway ripping through it.

        1. Yeah, only 6 lanes called W Georgia. Where is the third crossing or a wider Lionsgate bridge. or W Georgia in a tunnel with pedestrian zones on top ?
          Job center of the region ? Yes, one of MANY centers.
          Where is the subway going to E-Van then onto Burnaby and N-Van via Second Narrows looping back under Marine Drive back to downtown via new Lionsgate ?
          Buses, so overrated !

        2. Thomas, how can downtown Vancouver possibly be THE economic centre without a ten lane bridge at Lions Gate? Your requirements for a prosperous region are not grounded in reality! They are based on an outdated, myopic view of the world you wanted when you were an impressionable child.

        3. Why don’t you ask the folks in N-Van and W-Van who are stuck in 1/2h (sometimes 1h+) traffic jams DAILY !!!
          We either need a rapid train or more car lanes to the N-Shore, likely both.

        4. Why do they do that to themselves? There’s somewhat decent bus service plus the Seabus. They voted against the transit plebiscite. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
          As for car lanes. Why should I have to live in a degraded city with increased noise, stench and carnage to support the “idyllic” lifestyle of those who choose to live in the suburbs and drive? They can take transit. THE economic engine of BC functions quite well without more cars. New office buildings sprouting like mushrooms proves that the development community thinks so too.

        5. Well mayors in the rest of the region were recently whining that downtown Vancouver is getting too big a slice of the office building pie: Telus Garden, The Exchange, Oxford’s tower beside the Marine building, the top four floors of the old Sears building plus significant but smaller buildings at Pender and Seymour, Howe and Smithe. What aren’t you sure about?
          If somebody sold some buildings it is equally true that somebody bought them. Ever wonder about that?

        6. Fair enough. Good points. It’s not as though the Caisse needs the money. The Bentall properties are also in a prime location. Maybe the cost of updating them was too much. They also sold a Metro Tower in Burnaby to Metro Vancouver. Maybe they want some cash. Technology moves fast and newer heating, communications and energy systems for all of them is a major overhaul. I understand there’s lots of vacant space in them too.

        7. Since offices are taxed at 4-5 times the residential rates office is not the focus of downtown but residential and the vacancy is quite high indeed http://www.vancouversun.com/business/commercial-real-estate/Downtown+Vancouver+office+vacancy+rate+year+high/11332949/story.html
          Other downtown office updates here http://www.avisonyoung.com/offices/vancouver?t=research or here http://www.collierscanada.com/en/news/2016/metro-vancouver-office-market-highlights-q1-2016

    2. No politician is going to run on promoting choke points on roads and in favour of more and sustained congestion. Who is going to come out and say, vote for me and my party and we will continue with a single lane in and out of Vancouver to the ferry terminal, Delta Port and to all the communities to the south, as well as the USA.
      What are they going to to do make signs and banners and go down to the congestion, wave to the stationary traffic and promise to keep it congested? Vote for me and nothing will change! Maybe a fast bus in ten years. Sounds like a winner.
      This will send a great signal to those crawling down Taylor Way every day trying to get over the Lions Gate Bridge. All those others inching their way down the cut to cross the Second Narrows Bridge will be shouting out that they too want to go slower, they want more congestion, more delays, more frustrations, more choking congestion.
      I look forward to the next campaign and the loonies it will bring out.

    3. ELEPHANT in the room Single occupant vehicle . (1) Reward HOV by S O V having to yield (not merge) at choke points (2) Reduce number of parking stalls & charge market driven parking fees on the remainder.

      1. With autonomous vehicles (AVs) the elephant in the room is ZOVs (zero occupant vehicles) looking to park or looking to pick up their passenger.

    1. Ah yes, the mythical LNG panacea, that will rid the province of debt by 2025. How many projects are approved and under construction? How many are planned to export out of PMV (rather than Kitimat/Rupert)?
      Price differentials in Asia have shrunk. Sakhalin and Australian supply are closer and producing already. Frankly, Alaska will likely come online ahead of anything out of Kitimat/Rupert (with shorter shipping distances).
      But not to worry, we should still build that overly engineering bridge to account for the 0.01% chance that LNG will ever move out of PMV.

  3. Here’s an interesting comment from a poster on another Vancouver blog:
    Not my words.
    “The George Massey Tunnel is an out-dated design from the mid-1950’s that was completed back in 1959. Has narrow lanes/no shoulders/poor sight lines, etc. Deficient and not up to current safety and seismic standards/freeway standard highway design.
    Moreover, it was placed upon soft silt upon construction, with a protective layer of heavy rock/boulders placed over same. It is also situate ~1,969 feet above bedrock.That underlying layer of soft silt will likely liquefy during a major earthquake leaving essentially nothing for the tunnel to rest on resulting in probable catastrophic collapse. Likely most/everyone therein would entombed for eternity.
    The 4-lane GMT was upgraded seismically about a decade ago (steel band-aids connecting roof-top sectionals) but that is only a partial seismic upgrade and it still would not likely survive a localized shallow 6.5 quake on the Richter Scale.
    OTOH, all other relatively new cable-stayed spans (Alex Fraser Bridge, Golden Ears Bridge, Pitt River Bridge, Port Mann Bridge, Skytrain Bridges, proposed new Pattullo Bridge, etc.) have been designed to structurally withstand a quake approaching 8.5 on the Richter Scale. Very important to note in this seismic prone region esp. when the “Big One” hits.
    The GMT currently has an AADT of ~80,000 vehicles/day and it is well over capacity. Even during off-peak hours traffic typically operates at 50/60 km/hr when the posted speed limit is 80 km/hr. Even on a late Sunday afternoon one can experience “rush-hour’ like traffic backing up well before the GMT entrance.
    Considerable Hwy 99 traffic already diverts to the neighbouring 6-lane Alex Fraser Bridge via both Hwy 91 interchanges and the AFB is over-capacity as well. Major back-ups in both directions during morning and afternoon hours.
    And the future traffic growth nodes for the GMT include, without limitation:
    1. U.S. border tourist traffic;
    2. U.S. border trucking traffic;
    3. South Surrey population growth;
    4. Tsawwassen First Nation residential population growth as well as commercial retail traffic for Tsawwassen Mills/Tsawwassen Commons;
    5. Growth in container port traffic at Roberts Bank Superport;
    6. Growth in BC Ferries traffic;
    7. Another 1 million people projected to be residing within Metro Vancouver over the next 3 decades;
    The new GMB will have a 10-lane cross-section… 1 HOV lane + 3 general purpose lanes + 1 truck-climbing/merging lane in both directions.
    Furthermore, the transit/rapid buses that currently utilize the GMT all incur the same traffic back-ups. With the new GMB, they will enjoy free-flow conditions at 100 km/hr and lower commuting times.
    The project scope comprises the section between Hwy 99/Hwy91 interchange in the north to the Hwy 99/Hwy 91 interchange in the south and will include rebuild of major interchanges (Westminster Hwy/Steveston Hwy/Hwy 17 A) with 3-level stack interchanges, replacement of other structures and a new 4 – 5 lane highway cross-section, with wide shoulders on each side, in each direction.
    Obviously the Hwy 99/Hwy 91 south interchange to the U.S. border to the south as the Hwy 99/Hwy 91 north interchange to and including the Oak Street Bridge will also be future stand-alone projects themselves.
    But traffic modelling has confirmed that most GMT traffic from the south of the Fraser River does not utilize the Oak Street Bridge currently. A good chunk of the current OSB traffic is derived from Hwy 91 at the north interchange on-ramp at Hwy 99 as well as from Bridgeport Road at the Oak Street Bridge bridgehead.
    BTW, every project that enters the BCEAO enviro process undergoes quite rigorous screening IMHO. I have followed many projects therein, over the years, and the extensive number of documents from all stakeholders is voluminous.
    All environment certificates issued at the end of the process period typically always involve numerous conditions dealing with all matters related thereto. Inclusive of the environment.

  4. This is not much more than daylighting 750 metres of pavement. You can argue about when the moment that something becomes obsolete, but in the case of a seismically-deficient underwater structure, that moment will be too late.
    Douggie Massey?? Zero relevance. Remaining comment deleted as per editorial policy.

  5. The most important question is not tunnel vs bridge, it is better public transit vs expanding roads for the private automobile. Everyone knows you can’t build your way out of congestion, so spending billions to add lanes is futile (unless your goal is to sell more oil and automobiles).
    Transit is the better investment (unless you are a representative of Big Oil).

    1. Thank you for making it easy for us to understand.
      Relieving congestion by improving a road is only wanted by those in the oil or automobile businesses.
      The Port Mann Bridge project got us out of congestion all around the Cape Horn. Everyone knows that.

      1. But the congestion simply moved down the road. How congested are the roads leading into Vancouver? How congested is the IWMB and the North Shore? The same thing will happen with Massey. People will stop complaining about congestion due to tunnel and will now wonder why there is so much traffic in Richmond and Vancouver. I predict massive congestion on approach to Oak Bridge. People will feel that they were duped – especially since they will have to pay a toll for the increased congestion..
        On the other hand, if transit and cycling were improved, there would be less motor vehicles on the roads and less congestion. Less expensive infrastructure. Win-win all around. Nirvana for everyone!

  6. Isn’t it strange how the same people who vigorously applaud Gregor for tearing down the much younger, perfectly good infrastructure that is the viaducts are so passionate about keeping the much older, clapped out and inadequate Massey Tunnel?

    1. The issue here is that it is not clapped our and still has a long life though one might consider adding another tunnel for transit and cycling.
      The other issue is that the Province is issuing a pack or lies as to why this bridge is needed. As Harald Steves pointed out, this bridge has nothing to do with beleaguered commuters and suffering families but has everything to do with an expanding port that wants to have ever larger ships proceeding up the Fraser and wants users of the bridge to pay for it Though we will all have to pay for it like we are doing for the Port Mann since it appears that people would rather be congested than pay a toll.
      The tunnel was based on a design used in Rotterdam. Their tunnel was built during the 1940s and is still going strong. Don’t believe all the lies.

      1. So what’s the big deal? All transit is subsidized too. So whatever happens you’re going to pay for it.
        Is there something wrong with large ships going to the port?

        1. 1 – The Province is issuing a pack of lies and I don’t like being lied to.
          2 – Building a 10 lane bridge is overkill. Improved transit and cycling would cost less and would solve the congestion issue.

        2. Eric, if we didn’t subsidize cars we wouldn’t have to subsidize transit either. First of all, we’d all have more money in our pocket to spend as we choose. Transit at twice the price would look like a great bargain compared to the true cost of driving, so more people would choose transit and live closer to their daily activities. Expensive sprawl would be curtailed and transit would be more efficient and cheaper to operate edging out the car further.
          We can’t go back in time. But we can stop this nonsense.

        3. Why are cars subsidized ? A car owner pays huge PST & GST on acquisition, huge annual insurance premiums for too numerous & overpaid ICBC bureaucrats, sizable annual registration fees and massive gasoline taxes. Where is the math please ?
          Roads are an essential ingredient of EVERYTHING like GST or soon carbon taxes, ie. if you tax roads everything will get more expensive as everything you eat, touch or buy gets there by car, small truck or big truck, incl the concrete of the 28 story tower you live in, the TV you watch or the 2×4 used to build a wall in your apartment.
          I am all for taxing roads (especially squatting for free ie parking) more especially at choke points and/or during rush hour but in parallel we MUST HAVE a debate on efficient spending, income or PST/GST reduction and civil servants’ salaries that are all too high !! You can’t have one without the other.
          Education & Health take up almost 75% of the provincial budget NOT ROADS btw !
          Also, what is true in Vancouver is not true in the rest of Lower Mainland, BC or Canada as it is a VAST country and without roads we’d still live in the woods, dying at age 30 for disease, hunger or cold.
          Roads = Life = Progress = Higher Life Expectancy = Health !

        4. More than fifteen years ago the (then) GVRD calculated the average motorist in the region was subsidized by $6,000/year. I’m sure it’s much more by now. Motorists pay fuel taxes but they don’t cover road construction and maintenance costs. Therefore they are subsidized.
          Municipal roads are constructed and maintained out of general revenue. Therefore those who use those roads are subsidized. Motorists use those roads disproportionately more (much much more) than transit users and cyclists, therefor they are much more heavily subsidized than the latter two.
          Thomas, I don’t get free electricity when I pay PST and GST on a fridge. Your argument about those taxes has no value. Insurance is a separate issue, it rarely (very rarely) contributes to road infrastructure. The degradation of the urban fabric and the environment cause by cars has so far been an un-financed externality.
          If you tax roads then the same cost increase added to the value of transported goods stays in your pocket by not paying taxes to build roads in the first place.
          Humans can spread the gene pool with public transit and car travel at its true cost. We won’t eliminate cars and roads by having road users pay the true cost. But we’d see much more efficient and live able cities.
          I’m always amazed that people who want to appear intelligent stoop to spouting ridiculous extreme “consequences” of policies that are counter to their world view.

        5. I know many people that use transit but never the roads.
          Police, fire, ambulances, school buses, garbage trucks, city maintenance vehicles, communications companies, etc. all need roads. So roads will be there anyway.
          Start taxing road use and commercial goods, all retail and services will increase in cost. Inflation is certain. The cost for all purchases of any item or product will have to increase. Call a plumber and it will cost you more.
          Will you have any exemptions?

        6. Eric, please read what I wrote! Inflation would not occur because of making roads user-pay. There would be a one-time bump in the cost of goods and services as the cost is passed on to consumers – and then it would level at that higher cost. That’s not inflationary. But you’d have more money in your pocket because you didn’t pay taxes to subsidize the roads in the first place. So you’d simply pay your tax savings for those goods and you’d come out even.
          As for those you’ve mentioned who absolutely need roads: we’ve already got plenty of roads. Roads are congested because of unnecessary SOVs. We have unnecessary SOVs because of sprawl. We have sprawl because motorists don’t pay the real cost.
          “…roads will be there anyway.” But 10 lane bridges are not.

        7. I agree with most of what RV writes but I would suggest that most people would be much better off in many ways and even financially better off if the huge motor vehicle subsidy were removed. I would also suggest that transit is essentially an automobile subsidy since without it driving in the city would be impossible. Ditto for cycling infrastructure.
          Thomas, I am surprised that your would suggest that road use is not subsidized. This subsidy is huge and is probably one of the biggest social programs in Canada. I am doubly surprised that many otherwise conservative thinking people do not see that there is a subsidy and if they do realize this that the subsidy is OK. Odd that we accept hugely subsidized roads bur would reject subsidized gasoline or free electricity. One immediately realizes that free gasoline would simple create waste by increasing consumption. But why are subsidized roads OK? Would this not create waste? Here is more on the automobile subsidy:
          https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nOeBG4jMElms3BXfB6k4MtqPSHHzFhl03LHqVKeU2FI/edit

        8. @Bob: yes road or bridge tolls would help however we do not offer rapid transit solutions from the N-Shore nor do we offer additional capacity for a fee. We just cram in more condo with nary a $ for infrastructure !! Property taxes are too low and income taxes too high. If we taxed new properties highher ie for the additional infrastructure required we’d actually monetize all this immigration and foreign money better.
          Building more condo but not infrastructure in line with it is the collosal mistake in MetroVan !! Road pricing is a side show.

      2. @RV: road pricing is like carbon taxes: EVERYTHING will get more expensive. OM if we have this discussion with coupled civil servants’ salary reductions and income tax or PST/GST decreases. I like the Oregon model or road tolls in general as indeed car use in both its states are far too low, but a general “Let’s reduce taxes overall” and “Let’s deliver services cost effectively” is missing in this context. Roads, once constructed do not cost a lot. We haven’t build enough new road infrastructure, for example replacing Lions gate bridge which was built 80 (!!!) years ago. Build a new one, toll it, and life will be better for most N-Van and W-Van residents. Most would be happy to pay $3-10 toll if they saved a daily 1/4h to 1/2 in a traffic jam.

        1. Thomas, if EVERYTHING get more expensive it will still equal the amount you save in taxes. It makes no difference to your wallet except that the downward pressure on our roads will mean we can avoid (or at least delay) major new road infrastructure.

        2. LIONS GATE & IRONWORKERS If low occupancy vehicles where charged market driven user fees there would be no line ups with no need for a third crossing . The choice would be (1) PAY UP (2) use TRANSIT o(3) CARPOOL (4)LIVE closer to work o(5) WORK closer to home . SIMPLY PUT IF not enough customers the price is to HIGH .. TO many customers the price is to LOW

        3. Wow. This libertarian view that only those with more disposable money should be driving is somewhat shocking to a progressive like me.
          I suppose this is what the green movement in Germany and Ontario did with electricity rates. Only those that can afford it use it, the rest freeze.
          This would be a strong move to the right. I can’t see a Canadian government getting away with bashing the poor like this.

        4. Sorry Eric, wrong again. Those with less money would have more options to ditch their car and save a bundle. Currently most people are forced to own an expensive car (or two) they often can’t really afford.
          In a no road subsidy scenario far more people would have opted for transit and the resulting built form would be denser and have better transit service. Imagine if transit ridership were only double. We might have 6 SkyTrain lines two Seabus routes and max. 10 minute bus frequencies throughout the entire system. The region would have sprawled less so the density of transit service might be triple what it is today.
          Most people would have choices under such a scenario and it would take less road space to move those who need to drive. Walking and cycling would skyrocket and walkable neighbourhoods would be the norm instead of anomalies we gush over.
          With the car lobby having so much less power we might have opted for 15 LRT lines instead of the expensive SkyTrain designed to appease motorists.
          A tightly networked transit system serving such a denser area could run without subsidies at current fares.
          Don’t use the poor as an excuse to do the wrong thing. It’s condescending at best. I suspect that most who point to the poor in these debates vote for governments that keep them that way.

        5. @RV; There’s nothing wrong and everything right about dense compact communities. Nothing wrong either with rapid transit. Rapid. Rail. Aside from a couple of pockets of development Vancouver doesn’t have dense communities with a sufficient variety of living variations for the market in its entirety. Therefore, people gravitate away from Vancouver in substantial numbers to find what they want to live in.
          Both the zoning of Vancouver and the Agricultural Land Reserve have driven (no pun intended) people to look for and purchase homes in areas without a tradition of city-style planning. This has led to sprawl and the residents of the region are within their civic right to expect sufficient and comprehensive roads to connect these residential areas to the essential city centred facilities, such as the port, the airport, the other commercial and all the cultural destinations that the city has.
          The ideological hatred of vehicles for personal and commercial usage creates an attempt to impede people that now, and increasingly in the near future, live in areas far from the centre of Vancouver and need comprehensive modern road and bridge infrastructure. This is coupled with a cry for more transit and bicycles in a feeble and futile attempt to present an alternative that even the most supportive proponents of transit will tell you, is completely impractical unless tens of billions are spent.
          The only call from the governing body, Metro Vancouver, over the past few years regarding expansion of rail transit has been for a small spur extension to a dead end along west Broadway and a light-rail possibility down the Fraser Highway towards part of central Surrey and possibly into Langley. The transit authority, Translink, has proposed nothing more and meanwhile has been in internal turmoil with frequent changes of top management, firing of many department heads, including the CEOs.
          When looking at the zoning map of Vancouver it is easy to see why it is lacking in dense communities. It is perfectly understandable that the region needs to replace the ancient tunnel.
          This new map is brilliant and instructive.
          http://maps.nicholsonroad.com/zones/

        6. Eric, all those poor development choices that you are using as an excuse for more and bigger roads are in large part because of the subsidized car which can only lead to the need for more and bigger roads. You want to solve the problem by adding to the problem.
          Stop digging!

        7. They are not all because of the subsidized car. The creation of the ALR contributes, as does Vancouver zoning.
          Even Gregor is going to look into zoning changes.
          A proper modern crossing for all traffic across the Fraser river is a separate issue than the need for more transit in Vancouver. That’s like saying cut back on the ferries to the island because they’re subsidized. Let them all fly because we don’t subsidize the airlines.

        8. I didn’t say “all” did I?
          (Don’t know why it shows as anonymous)
          But the pressure to upzone would have been greater without road subsidies to encourage people to commute farther. The ALR contains sprawl, it doesn’t add to it. It doesn’t make commutes longer. There is no reason that a community beyond a stretch of ALR shouldn’t have it’s own self-sustaining economy. It is the wrong-headed view that everyone needs to get to Vancouver no matter how far away they live that causes problems. Would be much less if people paid the true cost.
          A proper modern crossing isn’t what is being proposed. A proper modern crossing would have fewer MV lanes and wouldn’t come with monster LA-style interchanges. It wouldn’t be a political decision to win votes among those who live a lifestyle promoted by road subsidies.
          Personally I’d remove the subsidies for the ferries too. But charging air carriers for their environmental impact would level the playing field.

      3. The tunnel certainly is clapped out. Anything that requires the dangerous counterflow system is long past its best before date. Despite upgrading, it a guaranteed deathtrap in the event of an earthquake.
        I notice you didn’t even try to defend the viaduct removal. As I noted there is a total double standard at work.

    2. RV, studies like that never take into account the fact that roads must be provided for the movement of goods. Do you think Translink could afford to pay it’s share of road maintenance, especially since their heavy vehicles are responsible for more destruction of the road surface than any car? Check out the pavement near any bus stop.

      1. Bob, Really!??? Goods movement takes up a tiny fraction of our road space. Repeat: It is SOVs that cause all the congestion. It is SOVs that demand 10 lane bridges. It is SOVs that caused the sprawl the spawns more SOVs.
        Is a bus harder on the road than a car? Gee Bob. What a question. Is a bus harder on the road than 40 cars?

      2. Actually, TransLink already does pay for the roads they use. It’s called the Major Road Network and they pay municipalities a good portion of road maintenance. For example, the reconstruction of SW Marine is partly funded by TransLink.
        However we will all be paying for an excessively large 10 lane bridge and associated road widening and intersection upgrades which is all done for the port and in support of a heavily subsidized motordom.
        The subsidy lovers try to fall back on goods movement and the poor and other arguments while the elephant in the room is default motordom and the SOV.

  7. Going back to the original post, I find it appalling that those who support the demolition of the Massey Tunnel and the building of a 10-lane bridge seem to uniformly dismiss the consequences to the environment.
    Salmon, and bird migration, ship pollution, plans for a massive LNG industry, and a bridge that will occupy agricultural land–these are all of “zero relevance,” according to one response.
    Just as alarming is the notion that the new Port Mann Bridge “got us out of congestion”–a statement that has been applied to nearly every road expansion project in recent memory.
    Perhaps the all-time epic statement is “Roads=Life=Progress=Higher Life Expectancy=Health.”
    Right out of the 1950s.
    Where does the natural environment figure into that equation?
    What is meant by “Progress” in this context? Surely Progress means getting from where you are to where you want to be. Are we harbouring some “Jetsons” fantasies from childhood?
    One thing is clear to most of us. In terms of progress, we are on the wrong road. We know that design for cars got us into this situation, and that continuing to do so at an ever-increasing rate cannot possibly solve the issues already overwhelming our built infrastructure.
    What we’re doing now is unsustainable.
    Some people claim that you can’t turn back time. If you’re on the wrong road, the most progressive thing is to turn back to where you made the mistake, and get on the right one.
    That sober second-thought might indeed involve the building of a bridge and the eventual closing of a tunnel.
    Whatever the end result, it would have to be a decision made with the serious assessment of environmental consequences, appropriate consultation with those whose unceded land we are standing on, and the forethought to see a future in which our society’s most destructive habits are no being supplied by governments that act like drug pushers.
    Public transit is key to a sustainable future. Failure to anticipate better technologies than heavily subsidized personal vehicles is equivalent to parasitism–a world in which we destroy our host in the interests of short-term gain..

    1. “heavily subsidized personal vehicle” is a myth. We build hardly any new roads. All existing roads in Vancouver are cheap to maintain and carry millions of people and goods DAILY for everything: groceries, ambulances, new bike tires, people, trades people repairing or building, kids to school, seniors etc .. Personal vehicles are a sign of freedom and mobility, maybe electric., maybe 2-wheeled, maybe a mini-van, maybe hybrid, maybe too gas guzzling .. and yes, Teslas or Leafs that do not pay any gasoline taxes are too heavily subsidized and as such we need road tolls.
      Keep families in mind, and elderly people. Not everyone likes European style small condos in dense buildings. Multi-generational (often Asian) families LOVE their 5000 sq ft house with triple garages and a yard in Surrey. Most folks with kids prefer a TH or a single house or a duplex over a condo. Only (mainly) single white male bloggers here on pricetags seem to prefer density in tiny condos. A minority of the Metrovan population
      btw: why is transit “public” ? Why not private ? We need more roads and more transit systems and with rail links being very expensive that leaves buses of all sizes, semi-automatic in the future and semi-private or private-public partnerships. BC Transit or Translink might be the biggest Uber user in a decade ! As such, we need more road capacity incl. this new bridge as rail links will be sparse. As such more bridges are required elsewhere specifically in New West and to North Shore, all three being grossly undersized and far too small today.

      1. “We build hardly any new roads.”
        Try leaving Vancouver. We’re building kilometers of new roads all over the place. Every single family house a city like Langley or Surrey approves is a money loser. By the time the City pays for all the infrastructure and maintenance on all those new pipes, roads, etc etc etc, they lose money. They do it, cause they get money up front. But like all politics, it’s short term vs long term and long term always loses.
        “Personal vehicles are a sign of freedom and mobility”
        Not anymore, not in an urban setting. Being tied to a car financially, having to park it, insure it, maintain it…that’s the opposite of freedom.

        1. Very few single family house subdivisions going in relative to immigration and/or population. Yes some new roads but few.
          And zip in N-Van, W-Van, Burnaby, New West or Vancouver .. hence upgrades are required here and there.

      2. Funny Thomas, very funny! You start with the (erroneous) statement that we don’t subsidize personal vehicles because we don’t build new roads and then you call for more and bigger roads. Hysterical!

        1. ERIC Revenue from road user fees could be used to abolish transit user fees for those without the disposable income to own a car.(even with FREE roads) It would warm any Progressives heart..

        2. Bob: That would certainly be in keeping with the Resort for the Wealthy direction that Gregor and Vision are relentlessly striving for.
          The wealthy would just keep on truckin’ without a care and the poor would shuffle off to the bus stop. Any visitors and newcomers would be outside the established system, until they became woven into their appropriate strata, or class.

        3. Eric, there you go with the poor excuse again. (Pun not intended but it works both ways anyway.)
          You talk about transit like it’s some horrible thing from hell that only losers would suffer with. Congratulations! That’s exactly where the automotive industry wants you.
          The reality is that transit can be reliable, frequent, clean, fast and desirable. Subsidizing roads makes that almost impossible to achieve. That’s also where the automotive industry wants us all. Again. Congratulations.
          Car sharing is an excellent way for those with less money to have access to a car when necessary.
          The rich own yachts. Should we subsidize boating too?

        4. Transit, as I’ve said before, is all good and wonderful but you can’t put a million people on the bus to the outer regions now that Vancouver has designed and built half its living spaces in the ‘burbs.
          Metro Vancouver now has probably half the population, at least, living outside the centre. You cannot just suddenly ignore them and say they should all move back into town. To use a wonderful analogy, you can’t just throw them under the bus. They must have and they will demand proper infrastructure.
          Transit and roads are not an either, or. They are both required. Pitting drivers against bike and shoe leather lovers is a cheap ploy used by fashion conscious inner city snobs.
          It will take decades before Vancouver grows enough to justify the expenditure of rapid rail to all the ‘burbs. Look at the struggle to get Metro Vancouver mayors to approve the rail line to the airport. The minister had to get them to reconsider three times. Meanwhile, roads and bridges are required.

        5. Wrong!
          Eric, you use the poor to justify expensive roads and financially debilitating car dependence. Now you’re using the past to justify the future. Nobody is telling people to move to back to the city. Nobody is tearing out infrastructure to spite the suburbanites. What we’re saying, if you’d care to listen, is don’t continue to sprawl. It doesn’t work. So just stop spending more money on things that make it worse.
          The region sprawled because of subsidized roads and now you want to subsidize more roads to solve the problems that come with sprawl?
          Please!
          We’ve seen with Port Mann that congestion can be greatly reduced with tolling. It can be reduced even further with proper demand management. When motorists pay the true costs they will begin to make decisions that reflect that. Then we’ll start to see a slow evolution of progress.
          Some will choose to live closer to work. Some will choose to work closer to home. Both will allow transit to become more viable. Both will lead to more livable, healthy, efficient cities. I say cities because the suburbs need to pick up the slack and become largely self sufficient – as if Vancouver doesn’t exist.
          By the way, Metro Vancouver had no problem approving a rail line to the airport. There was large consensus. It was the provincial government that was , as usual, determined to tell us how to do things – that it must be an expensive grade separated system that doesn’t impede the almighty car. They still tell us what to do by waving a magic wand and producing monstrously over-sized bridges and having voters go begging for pennies for transit.

        6. The mistake is suggesting motorists do not pay the true cost of the roads. This is a mythological meme.
          Everyone wants decent and efficient transit.
          One lane of traffic across the Deas Slough in an ancient tunnel that could become catastrophic if the big one hits, is insufficient.
          Once the Tsawwassen Commons gets underway the new bridge will reach capacity fairly quickly.
          http://tsawwassencommons.ca/site/
          Remember, Metro Vancouver have known about this for years.
          http://globalnews.ca/video/3011823/development-plans-in-tsawwassen-raise-concerns-about-gridlock
          I’m not applauding this. Neither do I think we should cut them off.

        7. Eric, I have challenged Thomas on his assertion that automobile transportation is not subsidized. You may not have seen this posting, so here is a link to some facts:
          https://drive.google.com/open?id=1nOeBG4jMElms3BXfB6k4MtqPSHHzFhl03LHqVKeU2FI
          Automobile subsidy is well in excess of $6000 per driver per year or by another estimate is about $0.56 per km driven.
          Either find some factual research that shows that there is no subsidy or stop making such nonsensical claims.

        8. Eric, if “the new bridge will reach capacity fairly quickly” on account of another ill-conceived mall then you have to admit just how incredibly flawed your “solutions” are. We need solutions that actually make things better.
          And please acknowledge Arno’s link on road subsidies. Thomas ignores the truth to create his own. Prove you’re better.

        9. Very funny Arno.
          The Transport 2000 study your blurb links to has expired and the other study, I guess from our buddy academic Litman in Victoria is from Texas in 2008! Wow, these academics sure do flit around. In 2008 the price of gas in Texas was around 38 cents a litre and they probably didn’t pay a cent of gas tax! No wonder the transit lobby felt the roads were subsidized. You cannot reasonably base your claim and dollar value on that.
          Here we pay four time that price and a considerable volume of that goes to our governments, including Translink, which you ponited out so helpfully, is responsible for many of our roads.

        10. @RV: The suburbs have been built, due to the ALR and Vancouver zoning. As I’ve said before, you cannot just cut them adrift. They will demand and they need roads infrastructure. No matter whether they were right or otherwise in anyone’s mind.
          This is really not the Canadian way either. We contribute heavily to a strong social services sector. We repeatedly hear that children and families have been failed on and people have slipped through the cracks, etc., and now we must help them. Perpetuating chronic polluting and inconveniencing congestion cannot be the answer.
          Tsawwassen is growing much more than the new mall. Residential and commercial building is taking place at a fast pace.
          We hear that Surrey is growing by 1,000 people per week. They’re growing Surrey all over, including those fast growing areas easily reached south of the Massey Bridge known as Panorama Ridge, Newton, Sullivan, Cloverdale, Rosemary Heights, North Granville Heights (3 new high-rises proposed this week), etc.
          What are you going to do, cut off the water and the police? Refuse to build schools? No. Life will go on and downtown Vancouver will accept reality. The bridge will be built.

        11. Eric, it looks like your motordom friends have removed the research data re automobile subsidy in the lower mainland.
          What about the very recent and local research with shows that each km driven costs society $0.56? Please point me to research which shows there is no subsidy of stop making your claims that there is no subsidy.
          Here is the data from the deleted article: I am sure that the subsidy is much larger today:
          BC Study
          A 1993 study with input from GVRD (now Metro Vancouver) and Province of BC concluded that:
          Automobile transport in the Lower Mainland was subsidized by $2.7 billion representing a 23% subsidy on total costs of $11.7 billion (GVRD estimate) . Provincial estimates put subsidy at $6.6 billion representing a 42% subsidy on total costs of $15.6 billion
          As there were roughly 1 million automobiles in Lower Mainland at the time of the study, this works out to 6.6 billion/(1 million) or about $6,600 per vehicle per year.

        12. Seriously, Arno. 1993? The internet had not yet been invented and Czechoslovakia still existed. In the states gas was $1.16 a gallon.
          For years now Translink has been swallowing the relatively new massive gas tax. That’s why Vancouver has the highest gas prices in North America. Tax paid by drivers for their gasoline gives Translink its second largest source of revenue. The also new massive 21% parking tax also goes straight to Translink!
          Motorists don’t receive subsidies unless they’re wealthy and buy a Tesla. You subsidize them. It’s Translink that receives the subsidies from; Gas Tax, Parking Tax, Property Tax, Electricity Tax. and they want more, much, much more.

        13. Subsidy = revenues generated plus societal benefits minus (expenses + societal costs)
          Love to see that current study taking into account far far higher gasoline taxes today (than 1993), PST, GST, annual reg fees, insurance premiums siphoned off by government into general revenue, bridge tolls, parking revenue, and soon even more CO2 taxes etc
          Aren’t sidewalks and bikelanes subsidized too, as there is hardly any revenue and only cost ? Where is the helmet fee and the sidewalk depreciation surcharge for walkers on every shoe ?
          Love to see the math for those modes.

        14. Eric, you did not respond to the $0.56 per km cost to society for each km driven. You cant just wish this away. Please show me some research to back your claims. I have shown you 4 and can probably find 100s more. You haven’t come up with one. Maybe it is time to concede that there is, actually, a subsidy provided to automobile transportation.

        15. Thomas, you are not reading the research docs. The one which shows that automobile transportation results in a cost to society of $0.56 per km driven also shows that each km cycled results in a benefit to society of $0.15 while transit is in between. Investment in cycling is as close to a money tree as we can get!

        16. Arno; You’re lucky it’s lunch time and I have some spare time, between earning money to pay taxes to subsidize all your pet projects.
          Do you really take this stuff seriously? The study you worship was written by the usual strange mix.
          “Graeme is a reporter with Discourse Media and a freelance researcher. As a lead technical writer with the Uganda National Academy of Science, Graeme researched and published reports about the relationship between population growth and urbanization in Africa.”
          “Caitlin is a data analyst and interactive programmer with Discourse Media. Her background is in applied biology at the Resource and Environmental Management graduate program at Simon Fraser University, where she researches how to use indices to inform the public and policymakers about complex issues like ocean health.”
          “Christine is an urban development journalist and a co-founder of Discourse Media. She has reported for Canadian and international media outlets, and spent three years spent three years travelling around the world as the resident writer of the BMW Guggenheim Lab, a mobile think tank of the Guggenheim Museum.”
          I mean, seriously. Is this the level of education and experience that actually makes decisions in any real world?
          Hey Arno, don’t forget to send them money. They’re begging you. There’s absolutely no way they could actually earn their keep.
          “In order to deliver on this vision, we need Moving Forward to remain independent of any particular editorial agenda. And that’s why we’re asking our audience, people who believe informing voters will lead to a better outcome, to support us. Visit our Indiegogo Campaign to pledge (every bit helps) and signal to the politicians and our colleagues in media that audiences want issues-based data journalism.”

        17. Eric, the article was based on research conducted by a UBC graduate student. From the article:
          “Poulos developed his approach to accounting for the broader costs of travelling in the city of Vancouver as part of research he conducted while a graduate student at the School for Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia. ”
          The writers simply published his results in a way that we can easily understand.
          Anyway, since after repeated requests to you for research to back up your no subsidy claim, I have to conclude that you have none so my heavy subsidy claim stands. Glad we have finally resolved this.

        18. Here’a study for you Arno. It is fairly recent and it’s Canadian It’s from this century too.
          “TORONTO — 2013-A new study says Ontario drivers are paying most of road infrastructure costs, to the tune of more than $7.5-billion a year.
          And those in the Toronto-Hamilton area are paying about $1-billion more in fees and taxes than the annual cost of construction, maintenance and policing.
          The Conference Board of Canada says Ontario road users driving cars, minivans, SUVs and light pickup trucks are paying 70 to 90 per cent of the costs of the road through fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees and tolls.”
          So now we know. Who do you place credence on, a graduate student doing some research or the Conference Board of Canada?

        19. Eric: Good work to locate the Conference Board study. Thank you for bringing it forward. If you are going to cite it, however, how about we look at the overall results, and not cherry pick certain statistics:
          Overall, the study found that Ontario drivers pay approximately $7.7 billion in revenue, whereas the Province and municipalities collectively spend $10-13 billion on roads. That works out to drivers paying between 59 percent and 77 percent of the total cost of the roads they use in the province of Ontario. That is technically most, but certainly doesn’t support your contention that road subsidies are a “mythological meme.”
          The study does not consider the health care costs of road collisions, and should do so considering that hospital costs are paid out of general revenue, not vehicle insurance. Neither does it include emergency services, other than policing.
          The study does not appear to recognize the value of the land occupied by the roadways. That won’t help us get to decisions supporting highest and best use.
          You claim expertise (and presumably impartiality) on the part of the Conference Board. Did you read the reference to who paid for the study? That would be the Canadian Automobile Association, who are also credited with initiating and defining the research. So, the automobile lobby. That doesn’t make the study wrong, but you would do well to check your sources and evaluate whether the study is potentially biased.
          Still want to go all in on this report?
          Have you read the 2005 Transport Canada report?

  8. I think the bigger problem here is that there is no longer a vision that everyone in our society can get behind. The federal and provincial governments are unable to articulate anything except business as usual, while local governments and community want a more sustainable approach to our society. But at the same time, I don’t think people realize the extent that we depend on business as usual, and why the senior levels of government are so nervous to strike out with something new.
    Somehow we need a vision that everyone can get behind, otherwise things will only get more divisive.

    1. Yes, I think you’re quite right–there needs to be a vision that everyone can get behind. It must not, however, be a short-term compromise that in the long run we cannot afford.
      Public education is key to a solution, and despite our anxiety about “moving forward” (I just hate that expression!), it is imperative that we take the time necessary to get everyone on the same page.
      There is a huge amount of misinformation out there–as is very clearly articulated in the exchanges above.
      Our priorities cannot be set by convenience or short-sighted economic theories: they must be grounded in facts, not only in personal opinion.
      It is essential to find answers to questions such as how the Massey Tunnel would fare in a significant seismic event. Structural integrity and life-span must be properly studied, and upgrades or alternatives presented for public scrutiny in the most transparent and understandable manner possible. Environmental concerns must be properly evaluated and addressed.
      In those areas, our governments have failed us utterly.
      Not high on the agenda of many, the ownership of the land being used by the Massey Tunnel (and potentially by an alternative structure) needs to be established.
      Successive governments have rubbed old wounds raw by knowingly building highways over burial sites. Treaties must be drawn up, agreements must be achieved, and proper compensation determined. All of this takes time–plenty of time to educate the public on the issues surrounding the Massey Tunnel.
      Some will whine that it will “take forever” to do all that. It’s all been heard before, and I can’t help but chuckle at the hypocrisy of such a complaint.
      We must come to terms with the fact that we are living on borrowed time, on stolen land. Governments will only compound those problems by spending money we don’t have for a vanity project we don’t need.
      So, what should we do?
      Get serious about public transit. Proper planning in that department will go a long way to addressing environmental issues, economic demands, and housing problems.
      Continuing to build for the automobile will do none of these.

  9. “I mean, seriously. Is this the level of education and experience that actually makes decisions in any real world?”
    You mean like Christy Clark?

  10. Eric, here is more on the automobile subsidy. For other readers, Eric and I have been discussing the automobile subsidy with Eric suggestion this is a myth an with me producing four pieces of research – with one from the BC Government to show that automobile transportation is heavily subsidized. Eric finally produced research by the Conference Board of Canada which shows that depending on where they live, they pay for 70-90% of road costs or they overpay for the road costs. See:
    http://www.conferenceboard.ca/press/newsrelease/13-10-17/majority_of_ontario_road_infrastructure_costs_paid_by_motorists.aspx
    Eric, I am so happy that you produced some research to try to back your claim. As Jeff pointed out, this research was sponsored by the CAA so I am already a bit skeptical. Also, Conference Board of Canada is a right wing think tank and tough they should support market based and user pay, they seem to ignore conservative principles and insist that driving is not subsidized.or only lightly subsidized.
    A big hole in their report (based on their summary statements) is that it does not consider externalities which, as Jeff suggest above, are significant.
    So I will see your research and raise you by research from Sustainable Prosperity which will soon be renamed the Smart Prosperity Institute and contains notables like Preston Manning on their steering committee. They have produced a study on automobile transportation and their conclusion is :
    “There is a widespread view that motorists pay fully for roads
    through fuel taxes. It is a mistaken view; road spending is
    not covered by fuel taxes. Even adding revenues from permit,
    licence and other fees collected by all levels of government,
    the total revenue from road users amounts to only $15.5 billion
    per year across Canada. More than $13 billion per year –
    nearly half – of the annual spending on roads is subsidized
    by other revenue sources.”
    See: http://thecostofsprawl.com/report/the-costs-of-roads-and-highways.pdf
    This study is better than any I have seen so far. Thank you for encouraging me to make my case more clearly.

    1. What do we pay taxes for I ask ? To get stuff. Everyone uses and benefits from roads, even if you never left your condo or house and everything got their, by truck or delivered by others, ON ROADS. Roads = life.
      We could do the same for education or healthcare. Why not charge users only, or far more? Why is this any different than roads ? Some use it more, others less.

      1. That’s right. I don’t think anyone is against the subsidy to motor vehicles. What bugs people is that some drivers aren’t aware of this subsidy and hold a belief that they are paying their own way (and then by extension others are not.)
        I think how roads and streets are paid for should be part of drivers education in schools.

      2. Because education is beneficial for society – there is no downside. Healthcare is beneficial for society – it’s morally responsible.. Subsidized roads encourage sprawl (inefficient -not beneficial) and adds to the cost of healthcare.
        Nothing wrong with roads. They should be paid for by those who use them and that includes increased costs of goods that require roads for transport. But we’d have that money in our pockets because we didn’t get taxed to pay for them.

      3. Thomas, you claim that “roads = life” and that we all benefit from roads to have stuff delivered. Fair enough. But, using the Massey Tunnel project as an example, we see that commercial vehicles, ie the ones delivering stuff, comprise only 5% of the traffic on the current roadway, during peak hours. So, the claim that we need bigger roads to handle more of these deliveries is absurd. If drivers of single occupant vehicles, paid a higher portion of the cost of the roads, we wouldn’t have the same congestion issues. No one is arguing against roads. Just for smarter use of them.

      1. Eric claims that there are no subsidies to automobile use, it is all a “mythological meme”.
        Eric is given links to published evidence that shows his error.
        Eric presents new evidence of there not being a subsidy.
        It is pointed out to Eric that his own link refutes his position. And, he is given links to more studies showing subsidies.
        Eric goes quiet, apart from diversions.
        Just leaving this here as a placeholder for the next time it is claimed by a commenter that there are no subsidies for automobile use.

    2. Arno; After looking at you Sustainable Institute it is clear that paying for usage occurs frequently in their studies. Water, waste water, etc., etc. It is an interesting idea, not new and basically libertarian. I can understand why Preston Manning is involved. It’s user pay.
      Use pay is an idea that finds a comforting home with most people, at first glance.
      User pay for education? That immediately becomes complicated.
      User pay for health care? Need I go on?
      All ideologies ultimately become their opposite. Be careful what you wish for.

      1. Isn’t Preston Manning that guy that helped to transform the Progressive Conservative Party into the new and improved Conservative Party? I recall there was lots of drama associated with this transformation.
        User pay is a Libertarian concept? Isn’t it part of Conservative philosophy? Market based solutions and all?
        You suggest that user pay for education, which is a universal benefit, would not be good.. But would you accept subsidized electricity? Or subsidized fuel – Venezuala is a great example. How about a food subsidy? But yet you implicitly agree to a subsidy on automobile transportation to the point of denying that it even exists. Why is this?

        1. Arno, if you want to move towards a general user-pay society, as explained and discussed by your friend Preston Manning and the Sustainable Institute, then you are opening up a massive realm for discussion.
          User-pay; roads, schools, water, health-care, transit, etc., maybe even bike lanes.
          We already have many of these subsidized. There will obviously be serious discussion if user-pay for roads is contemplated seriously. The areas up for discussion will be what the money is going to be spent on. If this is for Translink, expect some opposition.

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