In the Globe and Mail Ian Bailey reports that the proposed Massey Bridge which is slated to replace the Massey Tunnel at a cost of around $3.5 billion dollars is going to be an election issue. The leader of the New Democratic Party John Horgan stated “I won’t rule out a bridge, but I don’t believe that bridge is supported by the mayors and it’s not, certainly supported by the people of Richmond. ”
Now here is the piece that gets a bit weird. Everyone knows that this bridge is going to take out Class one farmland in the most fertile soils in Canada. We also know that despite what the Province is saying, that there will be dredging, probably by the Port to allow for bigger, deeper boats to bring things like LNG (liquid natural gas) by boat down the Fraser River. The dredging will impact the salmon and the fragile estuary of the Fraser River. We also know that a ten lane bridge is a massive overbuild at this location and we know that all the Mayors of Metro Vancouver with the one exception of the Mayor of Delta have asked that this bridge be located elsewhere.
The Premier’s response was not about any of this. It was about the jobs being created to build this massive bridge. Talking about John Horgan in the legislature, The Premier Ms. Clark stated “He hates the plan to renew the George Massey bridge and put thousands of people to work.” Somehow overbuilding this bridge in the wrong place has turned into a Provincial sponsored make-work project. This bridge once built will also be tolled at an estimated cost of $7.00 a trip, and because tolling will mean vehicles will flee to toll free bridges, they will be tolled as well.
Ian Bailey reports that Todd Stone, Minister of Transportation for the Province has had enough banter about the bridge. “We are now moving forward with the bridge. The decision has been made, period,” he said. “The talk is over. We’re moving forward with action.”
Even Port Coquitlam Mayor Greg Moore, the chair of the Metro Vancouver Regional District, has stated that the Province’s multi-billion dollar bridge has been made without due consideration or process. He noted “It was, ‘Here’s what we’re going to do. How do you like it?’” While the mayors of Metro Vancouver understand that there is a need to ameliorate congestion, “… a 10-lane, auto-oriented bridge is too big in scope,” Mr. Moore said, expressing concerns about increased traffic and pressure to develop area farmland. We didn’t want to be presumptuous in stating what needs to be built. A more inclusive dialogue would get us to a better result,” he said.”
Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver also thinks the Liberals are building the bridge “as an excuse to dredge the Fraser River to allow for the easier transit of tankers for the liquified natural gas sector the Liberals back. In an interview, he also said he was concerned about farmland being impacted by the project.”
And it’s no surprise that Mr. Weaver also thought that twinning the current tunnel was probably a better idea.
Not one vehicle in this motordom porn shot.
Curious how signs went up long ago along the 99 – like a dog marking a tree. Stating that this waste of our money was going to be built – giving commuters a frisson; titillation; a chub.
If anyone with half announce of brains, thinks a bridge is the way to go, get your head read! Farm land, sustainable farming and fish habitat, the
Fraser River, is in My 81 year old brain, the most important things we have. Add two more lanes to a very usable Tunnel, and destruction of the farms and river will be avoided.
Industrial needs, jobs, tax revenue, N-S traffic flow, farmland ALL have to be considered in this equation. Another tunnel seems to make the most sense if no dredging is envisioned but my understanding is that we want more industrial ship traffic up the river into New West, Richmond, Delta AND Surrey ! Better to reduce port traffic into N-Van or Vancouver than expanding there.
Where else do you propose to expand harbours if you so “no” to a new bridge ?
Keep in mind that Vancouver exists due to its harbors (30+) as it is the only Canadian major port to Asia as all pipelines, highways, railways and rivers end/begin here !
You can build housing, casinos or malls anywhere but ports need to be water based. Expand west or southbound into Boundary Bay or west of Richmond ?
Prince Rupert is the deepest natural sea port in North America. About a day closer to Asian markets compared to much of the west coast as well. Also, expensive and environmentally destructive dredging is not required.
Author
Reblogged this on Sandy James Planner.
Its obviously pushed ahead as a prot for revenues and jobs sake. its the underhandedness I dont like. I asked Todd stone what he thinks about the port being under water in 100 years of climate change. He stalled , he never thought of it, nor did the Feds. Can you believe it?. I asked him if he was a climate denier. He stalled again. EVen in Israel ,IAI is offering multilevel container storage and can be added on for water level rising. Having agricultural back up is a consideration with the rising tech of vertical farms. Google it. Youtube it.
A tunnel is better with rising sea levels ?
a tunnel is better than a bridge. They already have had to build the bridge 1m higher based on provincial estimates of sea level rise. This is a low estimate, so if sea level rises more, we will simply have to build another new bridge. But no worries – it is a great make work project. Come to think of it, our current tunnel will allow for deeper draft ships if we simply wait a few years.
A tunnel is better with rising sea levels?
So, you now acknowledge anthropogenic climate change, Thomas?
On the tunnel, they’d have to extend the ramps at both ends to achieve a higher elevation, and build up the highway. Expensive, but not a massive waste of money to create a few jobs, so they say while counting their road builder, LNG industry and subdivision developer’s donor’s cash.
Some of us would rather see a new two-lane bridge for these things while keeping the existing tunnel, with seismic and electrical upgrades …
http://e-spaces.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/coradia-nordic.jpg
The BCLiberals really want this bridge to free up the foreshore land around Vancouver harbour so their developer friends can build more shiny expensive condo towers for foreigners to buy and leave empty.
That’s priority #1. Priority #2. is putting more traffic up the river. None of it is about commuters or traffic problems. What a clusterf***!!
The NDP years ago thought fast ferries was a good idea , and after many studies telling them it was a bad idea , pushed the building of fast ferries by saying it would create jobs and help a stagnant ship building industry . Well what did that cost the taxpayer ? Careful what you wish for Christy !
Huge car carrying fast ferries were a bad idea then, and they would be again now. They were also poorly engineered. This is what happens when a politician tries to be project management.
Smaller, cheaper fast ferries exclusively for passengers — hopefully connected to a decent commuter rail service on the Island — is a fine marriage waiting for consummation. Probably forever at this rate.
Yes, this is off topic, but you brought it up Eric-Anon.
I drive the tunnel all most every day it’s dangerous it’s dark I’ve seen far too many accidents first responders telling people to shut off the engines a bridge is far safer also the way the population is growing out here in south delta Surrey and beyond a ten lane is awesome we have the big semi trucks bringing and taking goods from and to the port we have more people wanting to live out here in delta it’s a safe and great place to live expanding the tunnel would also chew up a huge chunk of farm land.rush hour is now 1:30 in the afternoon please build a bridge don’t end up with another lions gate bridge north shore situation!!
It’s sad to see posts by people who parrot the illogical claptrap pushed by Todd Stone without even one question. Nothing justifies a 10-lane bridge or 21-lane freeway interchange. Trucks? Give me a break. This is about the suburban and corporate BC Liberal voters and donors, not about any recognizable transportation planning methodology, and least of all about commercial vehicles.
Let’s all bike or walk to Delta. Tunnels for e-cars only. More humans offloading containers, i.e. forbid container ships and offloading cranes, too. Let’s all live in condos, minimum 2 people per bedroom. No more meat eating either, veggies only. Only BC grown, of course. No imported bananas from Mexico or oranges from California. Reduce imports, and let stick with grey coats only, as red, green or blue ones are just too consumption oriented. Convert the airport to a sailboat port. Trucks, such dinosaurs. Human operated wheelbarrows create far more jobs.
Does this sum up your vision for BC Alex, more or less ? or merely status quo ? No more immigration ? No more cargo than last year ? Reduced imports & exports ?
We all know that when one resorts to absurd extreme’s the argument is lost.
Exactly. But that is what many the nay-sayers to ANY project have in common: they do not show alternatives. No to pipelines, no to road expansions, no to new bridges, no to Site C hydro even. Just higher taxes and more socialism, an ever bigger state telling us how to live ever shrinking lives. Where do they expect jobs and progress to come from ? Not everyone can wot in the TV or software business.
Clearly you aren’t reading people’s posts.
Oh clearly I do. I see “build a train over the ALR but don’t touch the ALR” and “another tunnel” .. but that does NOT tie into the industrial expansion & job creation & tax revenue growth due to more economic activity vision of the majority of residents (aka BC Liberals as their reps) nor into the south-of-Fraser growth envisioned the next 50 years.
Alex Fraser is 6 – 8 lanes and too small. Thus 10 makes total sense to me. Even considering a six lane bridge for Patullo bridge is ridiculous. The traffic jams, like in Toronto, are pre-programmed. This is vision ?
If you walk backwards you can’t see what is ahead of you. That you refuse to see what those ahead of you are saying doesn’t mean they aren’t offering solutions for the way forward. You only know how to look back. So you stumble and pine for a past that can no longer exist. A trail of white elephants is what you will see.
That was a poor attempt to try and put words in my mouth, Thomas. It doesn’t appear to be working.
You have ignored the photo of the train above, which represents the capacity to remove 300 cars from the road on each trip by offering a decent alternative to the Dark Ages engineering tactic of over-building road infrastructure. You have ignored the massive existing shipping and marine industry all around the BC Coast, including the Fraser River. And your ignorance of the economic impact of your goulash of projects is as unforgivable as your ignorance of the environmental impact.
Keep trying though.
I guess they could narrow the bridge down, to satisfy these people that say it’s too wide.
Let’s see; we can cut out any bicycle lanes, no pedestrians are really going to use it either. The buses might as well go along, as they do now, with the ‘regular’ traffic, because, really, all traffic is important. OK, that cuts out four lanes right there.
@Alex: a train to Ladner or Delta or Tsawwassen ? Through the ALR ? There isn’t enough volume. We can’t even fund or build a subway to UBC or dense Jericho Land, a corridor with far more daily users.
10 lanes is likely too wide for the next ten years but in 2040 or certainly 2050 they’ll call this bridge visionary and the new 6 lane Patullo Bridge stupidly undersized !!
Thomas, the new Patullo bridge will be four lanes. Why do you keep referring to it as having six lanes?
@Jeff: I thought I read somewhere it was to be six lanes. Perhaps that was an old proposal. Four is even worse. http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and-Projects/Roads-Bridges-and-Goods-Movement-Projects/Pattullo-Bridge/Pattullo-Bridge-Replacement.aspx No wonder the province takes such a hard line funding such myopic narrow visions.
What is wrong with the Lions Gate Bridge?
it is FAR too narrow for the traffic volume and population growth on the N-Shore.
Where would you put the additional cars in downtown if a wider Lions Gate Bridge was built? Or on the North Shore for that matter.
An old figure, but buses carry 30% of people over the Lions Gate Bridge. Perhaps more now.
The bridge isn’t too narrow. There are too many single occupancy cars on the bridge wasting space.
The Massey (if it survives the upcoming election) will be a replicant of the “widest bridge in the world”, the Port Mann.
The planning precepts such things are based on come from an old school of thought taught by this big fellow
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/news/2016/04/21/01-baby-dinosaurs.jpg
This bridge, like many new bridges that will be built around the world, is designed wider than previous bridges to accommodate cyclists, pedestrians and a rapid-rail commuter line, as well as vehicles.
This is the future. Bridges for multi-modes of transportation. It has to be wider than the old bridges that were only designed for motorized vehicles.
Balderdash. If you are going to count the multi use paths as lanes, you are going to have to include them in your count of lanes. Do you prefer to call it a 12 lane bridge, including the bike paths, or a 14 lane bridge, counting sidewalks?
Why not build a two track rapid transit bridge with a MUP off one side? The Canada Line Bridge 2.0? Nobody wants to walk or ride right next to a ten lane highway, even if the speed limit is reduced as is coming soon to the Alex Fraser bridge.