A reminder from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure:
Upcoming Time Deadline – The Government needs your input by April 2
Phase 2 Consultation is under way for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project. If you use the tunnel frequently or not, this is the opportunity to get your input in. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is trying to narrow down the potential scenarios for further study.
Information packages for his consultation are available here.
PLEASE COMPLETE THE SURVEY BY APRIL 2, 2013 HERE.
The Ministry would like to reduce the number of scenarios for further technical study. The current scenarios include retaining the existing tunnel, keep the existing tunnel with added capacity with a new and adjacent tunnel or bridge, replace the tunnel with a new bridge or a tunnel, and keep the tunnel and build a new crossing (bridge or tunnel) farther east.
___________________________
.
Here’s what Jack Becker thinks:
Based on the information provided, it seems that the Ministry’s approach to the George Massey tunnel replacement is a highway project without understanding traffic patterns of today or the future. A tunnel is there, so obviously more lanes are needed for the future.
After attending a stakeholders meeting on Thursday, the conclusion drawn is that seems to be their approach. It seems that there is a lack of understanding of the future use of the tunnel. No data was provided on forecast traffic growth, amount that could be converted to transit and other active transportation modes, traffic amount that will be redirected from the tunnel due to the South Fraser Perimeter Road. One business group called for a light rail solution. There was no reaction to that.
It seems that it is time to push the transit and active transportation agenda again.
Maybe the message should be that the billions the government will spend into putting more road lanes across the South Arm of the Fraser should go into transit and light rail transit in Delta, Richmond, into Surrey, to Tsawwassen ferry terminal, and to the US border first. Then the potential for mode conversion to transit will be understood before road expansion capacity is considered.
Maybe the scenario that should be pursued is a modified MOTI’s Scenario 1 – Maintain Existing Tunnel (which includes improved earthquake protection) plus transit investment.
There are options for bus service expansion. Additional transit scenarios that may eliminate need for additional lanes and are worthy to investigate include light rail solutions including LRT, extending the Canada Line, and fast commuter trains to the border.
.
Provisions for Additional Usage of the Highway Right-of-Way
On another thought, the very wide right-of-way of Highway 99 also provides opportunity for fast train trackage south to the border to connect with Seattle and Portland, which can also be used to service the communities within Metro Vancouver along the way.
For movement of goods, there is some call for two-way, separated truck lanes to decrease shipping time.
.
It may be more prudential for the province to proceed on upgrading the tunnel to the level of Scenario 1 – Maintain Existing Tunnel and then study the need for the tunnel over the next few years as other factors evolve, including the affordability of individuals to drive, now and in the future years at all income levels.
___________________________
.
What I think:
No highway, bridge or tunnel project should ever proceed in the Lower Mainland (and none should have) without an embedded transit strategy – costed as part of the project – and consistent with the regional plans, from Metro, TransLink, Port Metro Vancouver, YVR and the municipalities, integrated into the vision we have for ourselves as a region.
Otherwise, we get this:
At a meeting of various agencies, a staffer from the Ministry of Transportation says to the locals:
You may think you’re building Vienna. We’re building Houston.
Did a staff person from MoTI actually say “You may think you’re building Vienna. We’re building Houston”? If so, Houston we have a problem.
I put my 2 cents in…
I totally agree with your sentiment, but remember you have to convince people locally about the need for planning for transit and proper road pricing.
“locally” especially means Delta mayor Lois “park-free-or-die” jackson. Perhaps Delta council (and their electorate) prefers Houston to Vienna, and one has to focus the argument there.
———-
“By contrast, the municipality of Delta has no parking meters, which is good news for shoppers and businesses
“There’s always a place for people to park, and even though it’s busy, as you can see, looking around the streets, lots of cars parked,” said Chris Scurr, of the Delta Chamber of Commerce.
It’s just a perk of living in Delta, said Mayor Lois Jackson, who plans to keep the community a free-parking zone.
“We budget for no parking,” Jackson said. “We manage very well and we manage without parking fees.”
Years ago, Delta Council also turned down a proposal to make drivers pay to park at its hospital. Council also has resisted instituting user-pay at its two transit park and rides.”
CBC [1]
“An attempt by TransLink to charge drivers at park-and-ride lots in Tsawwassen and Ladner has led Mayor Lois Jackson to criticize the transportation authority’s service.
“We have a bylaw in place and basically I said we’re not going to allow this,” said Jackson in a telephone interview on Thursday (Nov. 22).
She said the municipality does not have pay parking anywhere, and will not allow TransLink to start now.”
South Delta Leader [2]
Delta is set up horribly for public transport and active transport. No connections between cul-de-sacs or are really narrow and full of litter.
I second Colin’s incredulity: is that a real staffer quote?
Here would be my proposal then for ANY expansion:
Keep 4 existing lanes for SOV, no countra flow
2 commercial / car pool only lanes
2 transit only lanes – with possible conversion to LRT with increased transit service paid by project and tolling instead of forcing Translink to fund it.
1 – Active transportation Multi-Use path:
separated, with connections to east and west on both sides of crossing. Active transportation pathway constructed along entire 99 corridor length, possibly using existing corridors such as Shell Road MUP and completed MUP in South Surrey. Improved connections along corridor. Connections to both sides of Oak Street Bridge, Connect to Van Horne Way and Canada Line Bridge
At the Surrey Transportation Lecture series in 2010 the MOTI staffer told us in his presentation that after Gateway was finished MOTI would be out of the highway business. WHAT A JOKE!! Gateway won’t ever finish! New Gateway! Next 16th Avenue Freeway Highway 1 in Abbotsford to Highway 99
Forgive me if I counted wrong, but you just proposed 9 lanes. Is that really necessary under any scenario for Delta… ever? Why not 20 lanes? 100 lanes? Etc?
After being stuck on a bus for 2 hours to cross the tunnel, I think any spending on this highway must include a set of median bus lanes. That’s probably the only way we can get rail-like reliability for transit even in the face of car crashes stalls on the regular lanes.
Yeah buses are the real winner to woo people out of their cars …
Note all them condo developments that advertise “we have a bus close by” ..
You want less cars you need a carrot AND a stick: far far higher car use fees in its two states (parking and driving) and rapid transit options. The NDP just killed the one stick that has some effect: bridge tolls. Real real wise …
The new stick stick should be S O V drivers watching HOV s jump the Q at all choke points . The 3.6 billion that the BC liberals planned to spend could pay for about 40 k of elevated skytrain or 10 k of subway
If and only if the tunnel does indeed need replacing due to age and condition, I support a cheaper bridge option, to permit active transportation – walking and biking. No shuttles, no dying of asphyxiation, etc., maybe even a pleasant experience rather than the rather nightmarish one it is now, even in the daytime. Also no counterflow lanes that ties the reverse direction in endless knots.
I am sure that a tunnel option could work for cyclists and pedestrians. Apparently George Massey used a design from a tunnel in Rotterdam which had 3 lanes in each direction and a separated section for pedestrians and cyclists. He suggested this design but the government of the day reduced it to 2 lanes in each direction and on cycling/walking. Too bad they did not implement his proposed design.
The mere fact that it may have been based on a Dutch idea doesn’t make it a good idea. 😉
Can’t wait for a new, wider tunnel and a proper, integrated freeway system to replace the 4th-Century road network we now have on the Lower Mainland. Can’t believe any intelligent person would not support better road transportation – it’s the backbone of our personal mobility and freedom. Bring it on and bring Vancouver into the 21st Century!!
Cue the music:
All by myself
Just want to drive
All by myself
Everywhere
Just be sure
Without my car I’m insecure