Some interesting comments from CKNW’s Emily Lazatin who asked Helmut Pastrick the chief economist with Central 1 Credit Union about the impact of a potential minority Liberal government on markets that are the mainstay of this province-forestry, lumber, mining and gas. Pastrick said that there would not be any major impact on the material market-but he does perceive potential changes to “big-ticket” projects-Site C Dam, or the Massey Tunnel Project (now projected at $12 billion dollars , with $8 billion dollars carrying costs.)
“It would result in some decline in the amount of fixed investment that might occur. Now, there may well be other projects that could be initiated to take their places. There are substantial plans for transit infrastructure in the Lower Mainland and perhaps for example funds from, let’s say, the Massey Tunnel Replacement would be diverted to one or more of those transit projects. That would be an offset.”
Pastrick perceived that the Kinder Morgan and Pacific Northwest LNG projects as not impacted because they have already had some type of approval from the Federal government. But the pet project of an overbuilt ten lane Massey Bridge, on the Fraser Estuary, taking out the most arable soils in Canada, the wrong thing in the wrong place, nixed by Metro Vancouver and the Mayor’s Council? The Federal government has not been dialing their dollars or approvals for this bridge boondoggle.
Lets hope that the sense of election party compromise will mean an attitudinal shift from Victoria to start working with instead of talking to the Mayors Council and Metro Vancouver. Imagine what kind of public transit could be built for a few billion, which of course would take drivers off the road for the Massey Crossing reboot. If “congestion” is why the Premier was building this monolith, well, a better transit system would solve that. And if “jobs” would be lost on the bridge project, there would be lots of jobs in a tunnel twinning and the bolstering of a regional connected mass transit.
Pastrick perceived that the Kinder Morgan and Pacific Northwest LNG projects as not impacted because they have already had some type of approval from the Federal government. But the pet project of an overbuilt ten lane Massey Bridge, on the Fraser Estuary, taking out the most arable soils in Canada, the wrong thing in the wrong place, nixed by Metro Vancouver and the Mayor’s Council? The Federal government has not been dialing their dollars or approvals for this bridge boondoggle.
Lets hope that the sense of election party compromise will mean an attitudinal shift from Victoria to start working with instead of talking to the Mayors Council and Metro Vancouver. Imagine what kind of public transit could be built for a few billion, which of course would take drivers off the road for the Massey Crossing reboot. If “congestion” is why the Premier was building this monolith, well, a better transit system would solve that. And if “jobs” would be lost on the bridge project, there would be lots of jobs in a tunnel twinning and the bolstering of a regional connected mass transit.
Author
Reblogged this on Sandy James Planner.
Yesterday I biked to and from Victoria by using Translink to be transported though the tunnel. I travelled from the ferry to Bridgeport at 5 pm last evening where only one lane was available to travel through the tunnel. There was a very long line of vehicles lined up to enter the tunnel heading north. When we reached the Oak Street bridge, traffic was backed up to almost Alderbridge Way. How is it possible by increasing the south Fraser crossing from one lane to five lanes going to reduced congestion? Traffic trying to cross the Oak Street Bridge could be backed up to the new crossing! This was in the evening and what will happen in the mornings? Where you will be increasing the number of lanes from three to five.
Vancouver is an urban grid environment that can not increase its traffic capacity much more than it is now.
The mayor & current council just chooses not to and makes traffic flow by excessive parking and excessive bike lanes miserable.
New bike lanes on Lionsgate or Marine Drive from UBC to Richmond, for example, do not help car traffic flow.
if the province altered the Vancouver Charter by allowing them to create toll roads, for example at rush hour, that would help easy peak demand.
Thomas, improving cycling safety on Lions Gate Bridge and the Causeway did not take away the tiniest bit of car infrastructure. Ditto for SW Marine. Yet these projects increase the number of people cycling and thereby reduce the number of car trips. Please explain how this could not be good for everyone and especially those who choose to drive
Thomas, please check your facts.
In complaining about our Mayor and Council, it doesn’t make any sense at all to talk about bike lanes on Lions Gate Bridge. That is Provincial infrastructure, and you should be talking to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. But as Arno points out, vehicle lanes were not impacted at all, so any person that chooses to use the bike lanes there means one less car on the bridge. It can only help.
SW Marine Drive is CoV responsibility until one gets to UBC (then MoTI) but it is also part of the major road network, so Translink had a role in maintaining (even widening) the previous lane widths when the road was rebuilt. No impact on vehicle traffic from the bike lanes. If you were delayed, it was likely during construction, and that work was so involved because of heavy truck traffic and a worn out road. Not because they painted a bike lane on each side after they rebuilt and then paved it.
“Thomas, please check your facts.”
I LOL’ed. Never gonna happen.
http://ei.marketwatch.com//Multimedia/2014/01/14/Photos/MG/MW-BS549_flying_20140114161056_MG.jpg?uuid=68e22d1a-7d60-11e3-9535-00212803fad6
Thomas, please check your facts.
Unfortunately, he usually leaves that to us. Maybe we should start another site called Correcting Thomas Beyer and install a donate button to offset some of the annoying work. Then we can cut n’ paste stock answers to his stock innuendo and regurgitated Milton Freidman economic theories.
Huh? Cycling infrastructure benefits driving all the time.
We can only hope that the 2017 election results will cause this and a few other projects to be revisited. We can only hope this will also include Site ‘C’ as well.
” markets that are the mainstay of this province-forestry, lumber, mining and gas.”
Actually no, they are nowhere near that important. In 2015 they accounted for 4.3% of the province’s GDP ( source: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/data/statistics/economy/bc-economic-accounts-gdp 2015 chained 2007$)
Editor’s note: I think the referral to markets was stock and capital markets, not economic ones.As always so appreciate your insight on actualities.