So they're going to replace the tunnel! As someone who uses it, (who doesn't?) I'm ecstatic. But then my scepticism starts up. Work is slated to begin in 2017 - isn't that an election year? And what about those oil tankers that can't get over the existing tunnel? Actually, I seem to remember hearing choked tunnel solutions in the past.
In 2006 a local newspaper reported Kevin Falcon (then Liberal Transportation Minister) as saying, "The plan is to twin the tunnel - and pay for it in part through tolls - after the Gateway project and other major infrastructure projects, such as the Sea-to-Sky Highway widening and Golden Ears Bridge, are complete. That puts the tunnel at least 15 years away." Falcon, to his credit, continued, he's "willing to sit down with Richmond council and discuss the timing of the tunnel project."
At the time, I'm noted as commenting that I was "sceptical of massive road improvement plans. A balance needs to be struck between new roads and bridges with rapid transit and dedicated truck lanes for goods movement."
Not much has changed other than this announcement is for a bridge rather than a tunnel. To call it a plan is premature as no one has any information regarding design, traffic patterns and corridors, environmental and farmland impacts.
Project Manager Geoff Freer stated, "We'll be looking at every inter-change and updating the traffic numbers north and south of the tunnel."
If he's read his letters he would know Richmond has sent dozens telling him exactly what is required for Westminster and Steveston interchanges. Also, this bridge plan seems to ignore the city's long-term plans to construct a mid-island dike along the highway corridor to enhance flood protection.
We've even sent in suggestions for decongesting the corridor up to the tunnel. In a letter to Port Metro Vancouver, we suggested, "reducing truck trips in peak periods by encouraging truck drivers and companies to shift their pickup and delivery to off-peak delivery times....Utilize GPS or other tracking technology in co-operation with trucking associations... to anticipate travelling conditions for individual vehicles, thereby creating better arrival and departure strategies; and providing designated sites in the vicinity of Deltaport for waiting trucks." I think we received a "Thanks for your suggestions letter."
TransLink has a regional plan and states "significant investments are needed to expand the transportation system, to keep pace with growth, achieve our goals and meet the diverse needs of all parts of the region....
"Pubic resources are scarce, so we have to maximize the value of every transportation investment from fare purchases to new rapid transit projects."
The premier's government is looking at a referendum on TransLink. These huge infrastructure projects need to be integrated into a regional plan, not announced as a plum for election promises.
Do we need a replacement for the Massey tunnel? Probably yes, but we also need rapid transit south of the Fraser. Do we want a bridge that will inevitably be tall enough for oil tanker traffic in the Fraser may be another question.
Has Port Metro been made to consider other alternatives to simply another costly bridge? I just have this nagging concern this announcement has less to do with easing life for the commuter than making more money for the Port and pipeline people.
I have to question the motives for this announcement, which seems devoid of any rapid transit solutions, eliminates the barrier to very large oil tankers and doesn't appear to be linked to regional planning.
I hope I'm wrong.
Linda Barnes is a Richmond City Councillor.
