Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaytonA
The Fraser River Rail Bridge was as high or a higher priority than the George Massey Tunnel on the Gateway planning documents. There were 5-7 high priority components IIRC. It’s too bad the http://www.gatewayprogram.bc.ca/ no longer exists, or I’d provide a link. I cannot find it elsewhere on the internet anymore either. ... This project is about the Port wanting deeper draft for shipping and ALR land speculation in Delta, White Rock, and probably at the margin in South Surrey (ie traffic commuting or light industrial warehouses).
...
It does need to be upgraded or replaced; there’s little controversy with that argument. The poll question was a poor one. There is controversy about allocation of resources given a timeframe or prioritization. A more illuminating question would be which transportation project (not just highway projects although there are several) would you prefer given a list? Or do you think the GMT should be done first before x, y, or z? |
Found a link to planning documents:
http://www.gvgc.org/pdf/SW1040_FinalReport_Revised2.pdf (fair bit here starting from 1998)
No idea if the list on page 42-43 (57-58) is ordinal (although they did use numbers); a new road and rail crossing at New West is listed above the George Massey Tunnel. Also note that they are asking for only 2 new lanes of capacity, so 10 lanes vs 6 means the land speculation comment still applies - that much new capacity isn't warranted.
Furthermore this report says the rail capacity will experience bottle-necking hurting competitiveness starting in 2015. Rail tonnage is forecast to increase by 70% versus 19% for long haul trucking (Table 5-1, pg 32 (46)). It doesn't name the reports, but claims that rail upgrades cannot preclude road upgrades since a mode shift (usage) of trucking to rail isn't significant. This seems counter-intuitive, is trucking faster - probably, cheaper - doubt it, socially cheaper - no (ie traffic accidents, use of finite labour pool, more land required), environmentally cheaper - no, constrained by capacity like rail - less likely with public versus private investment to relieve congestion. Each rail car equals 2 trucks off our highways, less highway and bridge maintenance, safer highways etc. Anecdotally there is much more long distance trucking than there was 10-15 years ago especially noticeable if you drive really early in the morning (before 5am) when they're often parked along the road in pullouts.
I concur with the local trucking and handling estimated at 50% (vs 19% long haul, 70% rail) along with population growth affecting the region's road network congestion and road upgrades being needed. Public highways and roads versus private railways; should government be investing in infrastructure for private railways? One wonders if cheaper rail investments for 20% more demand would give us more efficient use of resources while investing a bit less in roads, more in transit and land use changes (more density) could partially mitigate more expensive road investment? This report throws out the goals of the regional growth strategy or whatever it was called then by assuming the primary transportation mode for commuters will be SOV ie transit investment will be less than required and less likely to actually occur. Rail, transit, and road improvements need to be made, but to the degree of two of the widest bridges in the world?
Perhaps many of the rail improvements have been done too, just with less fanfare? Surely some of it has. It doesn't seem to be a priority though with the BC government/whomever basically dropped as a partner by ODOT and WSDOT on inter-city rail according to their planning documents. Build the bridge, but it doesn't need to be 10 lanes. Put the money we'd save into a need more pressing, like transit or rail.
Prev
Linear Mode
