Two issues that don’t often get into same story:
While TransLink asks the public about its plan to selectively cut bus service on some routes, the province is launching its own consultations – on the premier’s recent promise to replace the George Massey Tunnel. …
The existing tunnel has 10 to 15 years of useful life left before major components must be completely replaced, Transportation Minister Mary Polak said.
And since it takes about a decade to plan and build such a project, preliminary work must start now.
“One thing is very clear to us – the status quo is not an option,” Polak said. …
TransLink, meanwhile, is consulting on its plans to further “optimize” service by cutting frequency at some times on some routes in order to boost it on others, where it believes it can serve more riders and pull in more revenue. …
Transit advocates, who see the two decisions as clashing transportation priorities, say it’s ironic TransLink riders in some areas will soon see less service while planning begins for a costly new bridge or tunnel mega-project on Highway 99.
Gordon Price, director of SFU’s City Program, questions the underlying logic.
He says road and bridge projects are routinely justified by politicians on the basis they save motorists time and therefore money by relieving congestion.
Yet the same calculation isn’t applied to transit service cuts that leave passengers waiting longer, arguably costing them and the economy money.
“Time is treated completely differently,” he said, adding transit delays should also be counted as a cost, and not just as a way of saving money.
Peter Ladner, part of the Get On Board coalition for transit funding, also calls it a funding double standard that puts road work ahead of transit.
“Where’s the consultation on sustainable funding for transit?” he asked. “Surely that has to come first.”
So the “status quo is not an option” because the tunnel, opened in 1959, is at the end of its useful life.
By contrast, here is the CN rail bridge over the Fraser at New Westminster – opened in 1904, a critical link to the south, unable to handle the demand, an impediment to high-speed rail, of unquestioned economic importance, and for which the status quo is very much an option.
Very good post. issue very well framed (as usual, but sometimes it goes better by saying 😉
3 other things of importance;
-transit share in the tunnel:11%, on lion gate bridge bridge:.20%
-The main bottle neck for Marine traffic (especially barging) is the bridge you have in picture (beside for wood, barging is basically nonexistent in Vancouver compared to other port like Rotterdam where 50% of all cargo left/arrive the port by barge).
If people really believe congestion put a toll on our economy, then let be serious on it and tackle it right now! It can be done overnight, and the solution is well known.It is called “Toll”: they did it on the SR520 in Washington state! Why not here?
-by the way, the “real cost” of the congestion in the tunnel: $46millions/year That is the congestion toll revenue, when set at a level able to alleviate congestion (that is not enough to serve a $1B debt, and no doubt a tunnel replacement could cost more).
Written a bit on it last month:
http://voony.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/the-george-massey-tunnel-saga/
Alas, here is what the mayors of the SoF has to say
Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts –
“The City of Surrey is looking forward to the consultation process because this crossing impacts an important transportation corridor, including our port network.”
“Seventy per cent of the region’s growth is taking place south of the Fraser River, so replacing the George Massey Tunnel will help improve the flow of goods and people, and create a more efficient transportation system.”
May be it is time to suggest to our friend of the South Of Fraser wanting more transit,of not doing it at the expense of Vancouver, but at the expense of bridge and tunnel in their own vicinity…
That is called, making priority choice, is it something too much to ask?
60 years ago, removal of Patullo Tolls finally knocks the death of the King from the headline. In other news, rain will fall, bus/streetcar fare to skyrocket from 10 to 13 cents. “Public ownership!” Tom Alsbury’s radical suggestion will have to wait for 9 or 10 years.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=AzhlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nIkNAAAAIBAJ&pg=1611%2C1703471
That bridge is definitely a bottleneck and a massive slowdown. If a new intercity rail bridge is completed, that would allow for commuter rail to Delta, Langley, etc. I am not sure if you can get a successful system given that metro systems have quite high ridership. However, if the service gets people from the outlying areas to Vancouver in an hour or less, I think more people would be willing to use it. A bus connection to either Canada Line or Expo Line could then service as a redundancy and to reach points in between. That would help relieve both lines and perhaps encourage people to connect at Waterfront to get to where they want to go rather than utilize Expo’s full length. Not sure how viable that would be but I say it is worth to build a new redundancy.