Driving To Deliver Your Business

ability

The Case for Replacing the Massey Tunnel

The Case For Replacing The Massey Tunnel

You will understand that I approach this with a background in trying to integrate transportation and regional planning. It is what I have been doing for the last 50 years, one way and another. Experience has shown us that simply building freeways as a way of dealing with traffic congestion is ineffective. As the capacity of the system is increased, the traffic gets worse, simply due to the almost immediate impact of induced demand, but in the longer term by the changes brought about in land use. Essentially expanding road capacity encourages more car trips, most of which are made in single occupant vehicles. This is about the most inefficient use of transportation infrastructure we could possibly devise. A lane of freeway can move 2,000 vehicles per hour or 2,500 people more or less. Car occupancy in this region has been generally higher than the rest of North America but not by very much. The same width of lane used for transit increases the potential capacity to 20,000 people per hour. The Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) was designed to tackle this issue, by controls on land use and changing the priorities for transportation provision. We said we would build a compact urban region, with complete communities that would protect green space and increase transportation choice. The province of BC was part of that agreement but in the last ten years has decided unilaterally to behave as though it did not exist. The freeways have been widened, land owned by the provincial government has been released for development and resources for better transit have been almost but not entirely restricted to one or two major projects. Replacing the Massey Tunnel and widening the freeway from the Oak Street Bridge to the US border was never part of the RGS. It spoke about increasing the utilisation of the existing highway by promoting the use of higher occupancy vehicles. It is no coincidence that the man most responsible for getting car sharing going here was a cranberry farmer, Jack Bell. Arguments about how to define an HOV were key to the establishment of Translink: the then Mayor of Delta insisted on 2+ for Highway 17/99 or she wasn t going to sign on.

I think it is fair to say that most people were surprised when Christy Clark announced her plan for a massive new bridge. Most people were unaware that this was in the works and had been for some time. But that had little to do with the conventional land use transportation framework or the regional growth strategy. It was driven by the Port of Vancouver. In fact the process has been remarkably similar to the one than led to the widening of Highway #1 and the new Port Mann Bridge. The Gateway Council was front and center but as we now know the trucks are not using the new tolled crossing so much as the grossly overloaded and inadequate Patullo Bridge pouring more traffic onto city streets in New Westminster. Everything that the RGS was supposed to avoid. The process by which we have got to the present has been carefully documented by Douglas Massey: the son of the man for whom the tunnel was named. He has given me permission to place his work here as a pdf file. The Vision to Build the George Massey Tunnel & the Road to its Removal, Jan 19, 2016[1]. Here are a couple of key paragraphs to show you why you need to read the whole thing. The intention of this document is to show the intent from day one that any crossing of the Lower Fraser River, from the Gulf of Georgia to New Westminster, shall not and will not be granted approval unless it meets the approval of the present and future needs of Harbour Boards and industry, never mind the needs of the people, their environment, or the sustainability of the Lower Fraser River for fish and wildfowl.

Port Metro Vancouver, Vice President Duncan Wilson, was quoted in a letter to the editor of Richmond Review on July of 2015, The depth of the river is also a limitation. While the removal of the tunnel may create greater depth at that point in the river, the amount of dredging required on either side of the former tunnel would be extensive and potentially cost prohibitive.

The facts are: that in order for the proposed 14.5m depth to be achieved and maintained, the George Massey Tunnel would have to be removed along with GVWD 30 water main (costs yet to be determined) along with a one- time dredging cost of $200 million, and an estimated annual dredging costs of $30 million. There would be other costs, before any dredging to deepen the Lower Fraser River could take place:(1) The cost of a full hydrological study that would have to be undertaken, to determine what effects this would have on the sustainability of its ecosystem to support fish and wildlife. (2) The effects it would have on the existing dikes and the costs to rebuild them if necessary. (3) Determining if the deepening would result in the salinity advancing too far up river and affecting the ability of the farmers to use the water for irrigation.

All during these discussions there has been little to no discussion about the need for a new river crossing to alleviate the congestion for people and their vehicles. The, emphasis of all previous and present discussions has been on the moving of bulk cargo. Any new crossing of the Lower Fraser River should be to improve the movement of people and not just to make it possible for the complete industrialization and dredging of the Lower Fraser River, at the expense of the river s ecosystem, that is so vital for its sustainability and ability to preserve its fish and wetlands that are so significant to the survival of the wildfowl and mankind. Prepared by: Douglas George Massey

It seems to me that we are repeating the same pattern we saw with the Gateway. The arguments to justify the expansion of the freeways and the building of the South Fraser Perimeter Road were always about trucks. But the real agenda is to encourage the typical pattern of suburban sprawl that the RGS was supposed to deter. It is clear that the BC Liberals care very little about sustainability: transit, walkability, greenhouse gas reduction get verbal acknowledgement mostly PR fluff but the actual decision making is always based on business as usual. And not even growth based on what we can do, and are doing well. But rather the things that we have always done which turn out to be both of little economic value and also come with huge environmental costs. We can see why they wanted to improve the Sea to Sky it opened up land for development in places where the regional growth plan had been careful to restrict reliance on long distance commuting into Metro Vancouver. The Port Mann Bridge is tolled, and is carrying less traffic than the old bridge as a result, but none of the rest of widened highway #1 is tolled. The Golden Ears opens up Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge in a way that the ferry never could have coped with. The SFPR and now a widened Highway 99 clearly will promote more sprawl in Delta. It is already apparent and will increasingly threaten the ALR. But as we have seen with Site C, the BC Liberals care not at all about the ability to grow our own food, now or in the future. Their treatment of wolves and bears[2] shows how little ecology is understood. Port expansion and the reliance on LNG are dangerous nonsense. Climate change is the most important challenge we face, but it is also an opportunity to develop new ways of being. The old model of ripping out resources and disposing of waste carelessly cannot continue. But we already have far more of our GDP coming from a new economy that could potentially be supported by renewable resources. We have huge potential for wind, wave, geothermal and solar energy. We do not need Site C nor is there a viable market now for LNG. We do need to reduce the use of fossil fuel powered single occupant vehicles. We can grow much more of our own food. California is not going to be able to feed itself let alone us. We must protect the ALR and we do need better ways to get around than driving ourselves for every purpose. We know how to do that. Why does Christy Clark not understand any of this and why is she stuck in the 1950 s? And how can we make sure she never gets elected to anything again?

Like this:

Like Loading…


Related

References

  1. ^ The Vision to Build the George Massey Tunnel & the Road to its Removal, Jan 19, 2016 (stephenrees.files.wordpress.com)
  2. ^ bears (www.timescolonist.com)

Harry Potter Night Returns Beverley Library

Harry Potter Night Returns Beverley Library

Calling all Hogwarts hopefuls [1] Book Night is returning to [2], including Beverley for a second year. Fans of the [3] books should dust off their wands or take a trip down Diagon Alley to get a new one. Following the success of last year s event anyone wishing to attend should make their booking as soon as possible to avoid disappointment.

In a statement released, [4] said;

[5], in conjunction with Bloomsbury Children s Books, are delighted to announce that [6] Book Night returns on Thursday 4 February, 2016, at 6PM.

For the first [7] Book Night in February 2015, 10,500 parties and celebrations were held all over the world, and [8] were delighted to host eight exciting themed events attended by 120 children. Councillor Richard Burton, portfolio holder for civic wellbeing and culture, said:

Delving into the mysterious world of [9] with activities, readings and games, children are sure to have a fantastic time immersed in this magical story.

We are thrilled to announce that we are hosting Harry Potter Night at 13 [10] in 2016. Booking opens in [11] from Saturday 9 January.

For tickets, please phone 01482 392699. Places are limited and cost 2.50 per child, payable at the time of booking.

HU17.net – More Stories of Interest

References

  1. ^ (www.hu17.net)
  2. ^ (www.hu17.net)
  3. ^ (www.hu17.net)
  4. ^ (www.hu17.net)
  5. ^ (www.hu17.net)
  6. ^ (www.hu17.net)
  7. ^ (www.hu17.net)
  8. ^ (www.hu17.net)
  9. ^ (www.hu17.net)
  10. ^ (www.hu17.net)
  11. ^ (www.hu17.net)

Care Worker | Hertfordshire Jobs

Care Workers for Letchworth and surrounding areas, paying up to 11.00 per hour.

Make a valuable contribution to the local community by becoming a Support Worker, where you will be assisting service users with their personal care needs. Helping to provide health supervision and attention through direct care as needed. Assist with dietary and nutritional requirements of the service users, ensuring accurate record keeping at all times. Working in a multi-disciplinary team and will be required to encourage service users to remain as independent as possible.

We are looking for self-motivated individuals with a caring nature who can offer flexibility. You must be able to demonstrate excellent communication skills, the ability to show empathy and sensitivity to the needs of others. Drivers preferable but not essential. If you are interested in a career as part of our care team, please submit your CV or visit www.halesgroup.co.uk[1] to register online.

References

  1. ^ www.halesgroup.co.uk (www.halesgroup.co.uk)