Clarks’s $3.5 Billion Vanity Project – A Gift To Surrey Docks
No, the George Massey Tunnel replacement bridge is not going to reduce congestion or bring faster commute times, the real reason for this bridge has nothing to do about transit or gridlock, it is all about LNG, Alberta Oil, and Montana coal.
The folks who own Fraser Surrey Docks want T1 Supertankers sized tankers for LNG, T1 and dirty bitumen oil from Alberta; and Valemax sized ore carriers to carry very dirty Montana coal and these massive tankers and colliers due to their immense size, need a greater draft to navigate the Fraser, deeper than the top of the George Massey Tunnel. This means that the Massey Tunnel needs to be replaced and at the taxpayer’s expense.
Maybe Fraser Surrey docks should foot the bill for the new bridge and not the BC taxpayer.
Beware of claims of improved transportation because all this $3.5 billion bridge will do is move congestion about 3 km into Richmond, with tailbacks beginning at Steveston Hwy.
Why?
Simple, because the present four bridges, the Lang, Oak, Knight, and Queensborough are at or near capacity during the day and more traffic provided by the new bridge has nowhere to go, but sit and idle on Hwy. 99.
Until a new bridge across the North Arm of the Fraser and highway is built to Burnaby/Vancouver, congestion will reign supreme in Richmond.
Plans met with calls for new road pricing policy
By Kelly Sinoski, VANCOUVER SUN December 16, 2015
The province has unveiled plans for a new $3.5 billion toll bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel. The 10-lane bridge will include an HOV lane in each direction and will be built in the same location as the old tunnel. Highway upgrades will also include new interchanges in Richmond and Delta. Rendering of a proposal for a bridge over the Fraser River to replace the George Massey Tunnel.
The B.C. governmentai??i??s announcement of a $3.5-billion toll bridge to replace the George Massey Tunnel could signal a massive change involving charges facing Metro Vancouver motorists in the future, with regional mayors renewing calls for a region-wide tolling policy.
By the time the first cars hit the new 10-lane Massey Bridge in 2022, regional mayors hope they will have some form of road pricing ai??i?? such as tolls on all roads and bridges or a fee per distance travelled ai??i?? in place across the region. The idea is to make travel more equitable across the region, particularly south of the Fraser, where residents are already subject to a tolled Port Mann Bridge and Golden Ears Bridge, and would also face fees to cross the new Massey Bridge and a replacement Pattullo Bridge.
This would mean the already heavily congested Alex Fraser Bridge would be the sole free bridge across the river. Many drivers are already using that crossing to skip tolls on the Port Mann, which range from $3.15 per small vehicle to $9.45 per truck.
There should be a law that if the new bridge is built, the river cannot be made any deeper then it currently is, unless those wishing to do so pay for the bridge.
Another reason this won’t reduce congestion is induced traffic…. Like the 23 lane Katy freeway http://www.streetsblog.net/2015/05/28/the-23-lane-katy-freeway-a-monument-to-texas-transportation-futility/
I saw a great tweet about this bridge:
@Doug_Merry –
@jeffnagel @toddstonebc @TranBC Visionaries don’t spend billions on a 1950’s solutions to a 2015 issue.
The ministry finally has documents posted for this and a survey with it. There was a link on CBC. Read the documents and take the survey. Who knows maybe someone will listen if enough people speak up. For the record it notes the tunnel is not actually the shipping restriction and the bridge clearance will be the same as Alex Fraser so looks like LNG/coal was not part of the business case….which looks totally made up as do the traffic projections and the rationale for not really considering smaller structures like a 6, 7 or 8 lane options.
Zwei replies: Absolutely wrong Rico, as always. Of course coal and oil are not in the business case, because if it were, we would expect Fraser Surrey Dock to pay for the bridge. If there is no need for a deeper channel, why remove the tunnel?
The following is courtesy of Laila Yuile blog, No Strings Attached.
http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=0c3cc174-0094-4fc2-92d7-44e23b60736a&sponsor=
Twinned tunnel part of Victoria’s long-term plan
BY THE VANCOUVER SUN FEBRUARY 16, 2006
The provincial government’s long-term road-building plans include a second mega-project on the scale of the $3-billion Gateway Program, studies done for the Gateway plan show.The second project would include twinning the George Massey Tunnel under the south arm of the Fraser River between Richmond and Delta, expanding Highway 99 on both sides of the tunnel from four lanes to six, and building a new four-lane expressway to connect Highway 99 with the Trans-Canada Highway.
However, there are no immediate plans to build it.
The Gateway Program calls for the Port Mann Bridge over the Fraser to be twinned, widening of the Trans-Canada Highway on both sides of the bridge and building new truck routes on both shores of the river.
The longer-term plan — dubbed “the H99 project” by British transportation consultants Steer Davies Gleave, who did the major studies for the Gateway plan — “is still in the early stages of development for possible future long-term implementation,” their report notes.
The report — not yet public but obtained by The Vancouver Sun — says the H99 project is similar to the Gateway plan “in that it assumes a widening of both the Fraser River crossing, in this case the new bore next to the existing George Massey (Deas) Tunnel, and widening of a length of the existing highway to both the north and south of the crossing.”
The project is on the back burner in part because it would put pressure on traffic bottlenecks to the north, requiring expansion of the Oak Street and Knight Street bridges into Vancouver or a new bridge into Burnaby.
Gateway Program executive director Mike Proudfoot said Wednesday the Highway 99 plan is one of many proposals for the region.
“That would be part of our longer-term strategy,” he said. “The Gateway Program corridors are the priority ones.”
Hi Zwei,
Glad to hear you are still as thick as always. For the record I am against the bridge and the business case stinks to high heaven…especially if coal/LNG is not part of it…But you should actually read things before you bash them. This is from the CBC report quoting the report.
7. No extra height for ships
Clearance for ships under the bridge will be 57 metres in height, roughly equal to the Alex Fraser Bridge just up river.
Likewise the depth of the river will likely not change, since there are no plans to dredge the river to increase the draft for larger ships, following the removal of the tunnel.
It turns out the tunnel is not the shallowest point within the main shipping channel; the Steveston Cut at the mouth of the river is shallower.
I am not saying they don’t plan to use this as a way to get coal/LNG ships upstream, but I am saying it was not part of the business case they published (and I don’t believe).
Zwei replies: It is not the height of the ship Rico, rather the draft, you know, the part under water, the river must be dredged about 3 metres below the top of the Massey Tunnel, that is why the tunnel must be replaced. Rico, dredge, you know the machine that makes a shipping channel deeper, the entire river must be dredges to a lower depth.
You see Rico, your logic is faulty because instead of building a $3.5 billion bridge, just lay another tube down, cheaper and easier.
I think you may benefit from reading peoples complete comments, or maybe it is a compression issue?
Zwei replies: Well you believe in BC Government business cases, I have some swampland, er quality beachfront property in Florida to sell you!
— Personal attack removed —