Hwy 99 Fraser River Tunnel (George Massey Replacement) | Proposed

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Changing City

What 40% funding did the Federal government say they would support? The last piece I read on the subject earlier this year said there wasn't any Federal funding for this project.

Federal funding for Broadway & Surrey rapid transit. If Horgan and Weaver want to try and bring the thunder, chances are that Trudeau's going to bring it right back.

Shouldn't this go in the Politics thread? Or shouldn't we make a new one for Trans Mountain?

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Federal funding for Broadway & Surrey rapid transit. If Horgan and Weaver want to try and bring the thunder, chances are that Trudeau's going to bring it right back.

And the Pattullo Bridge and interior Hwy 1 projects and... the list goes on and on and on.

Not only are the NDP/Greens declaring war on PM JT/feds but also on the AB gov't vis-a-vis KM and KM is crucial to the re-election chances of the AB gov't. IOW a trade war with AB is looming.

On Friday, long-time Calgary Herald political columnist Don Braid wrote that AB can use the "nuclear option" against BC - they have used same twice before against Eastern Canada.

What is that "nuclear option"? AB has the authority to decide what flows through the existing KM pipeline. IOW, it's currently a batched pipeline whereby refined products gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, flow to the southern interior (Kamloops distribution facility) and the Lower Mainland/Van Isle.

The AB gov't has the authority to completely shut down the flow of refined products through same and only permit unrefined crudes/bitumen to flow through same.

The Lower Mainland only receives some jet fuel from the WA State Cherry Point refinery.

End result? Fuel supplies dry up:

1. YVR/YYJ jet fuel supplies drastically decline;
2. Diesel/bunker oil for BC Ferries dries up;
3. Taxi industry brought to standstill due to gasoline shortages;
4. Trucking industry grinds to halt due to diesel shortages;
5. Translink buses can't run due to lack of diesel;
6. Regular drivers won't be able to drive due to gasoline shortages;

Etc., Etc.

Most gasoline stations will be closed due to lack of supply. The remaining open gasoline stations may be able to source some from WA State at a premium cost in $U.S., which would also see major price spikes.

Major economic crisis for BC, which would undoubtedly gain widespread popular support in AB. And then the BC gov't falls as a result of their own doing.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/b...e-alberta-has-ways-to-get-tough-with-b-c

PS. All assuming that LG asks NDP/Greens to form gov't.

[dreambrother808]

His posts get more ridiculous and desperate by the day.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

His posts get more ridiculous and desperate by the day.

Welcome to the real world!

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

On Friday, long-time Calgary Herald political columnist Don Braid wrote that AB can use the "nuclear option" against BC - they have used same twice before against Eastern Canada.

What is that "nuclear option"? AB has the authority to decide what flows through the existing KM pipeline. IOW, it's currently a batched pipeline whereby refined products gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, flow to the southern interior (Kamloops distribution facility) and the Lower Mainland/Van Isle.

The AB gov't has the authority to completely shut down the flow of refined products through same and only permit unrefined crudes/bitumen to flow through same.

Not that I really want to get into this, but I hate fear mongering...

Derrick PennerDERRICK PENNER
Published on: June 2, 2017 | Last Updated: June 2, 2017 6:18 PM PDT
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/...shut-fuel-pipeline-to-b-c-pretty-ruinous

It would also hurt the Alberta oil producers and refiners that use the Trans Mountain pipeline more than it would hurt B.C., said Chevron spokesman Adrien Byrne, which is why he thinks an Alberta energy blockade is an unlikely option.

Chevron’s Burnaby refinery, which fills about 25-per-cent of B.C.’s fuel demands, is a big Trans Mountain pipeline customer, Byrne said. But if Alberta turned it off, could source oil within the company’s integrated network, including additional marine imports.

Alberta refiners, however, which the company estimates could be up to 70 per cent of the demand, would be cut off from the market.

“It would be pretty ruinous to the Alberta economy, to be honest,” said Byrne.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Not that I really want to get into this, but I hate fear mongering...

Derrick PennerDERRICK PENNER
Published on: June 2, 2017 | Last Updated: June 2, 2017 6:18 PM PDT
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/...shut-fuel-pipeline-to-b-c-pretty-ruinous

Read Don Braid's column. And I am certainly not fear-mongering... am already aware of Penner's column, which also has inaccuracies therein.

[waves]

Lets keep this thread to GMT posts.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Changing City

What 40% funding did the Federal government say they would support? The last piece I read on the subject earlier this year said there wasn't any Federal funding for this project.

I was referring to the transit projects like the Broadway Skytrain and Surrey LRT. They can delay and cut off this funding pretty easily and quickly.

[Metro-One]

I doubt they would take any already announced funding away, but securing funding for future projects may be more of a challenge... Either way getting off topic here.

I do wish that this project was in federal hands, akin to the Champlain Bridge in Montreal. A massive project rivaling or surpassing this in scale.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I doubt they would take any already announced funding away, but securing funding for future projects may be more of a challenge... Either way getting off topic here.

I do wish that this project was in federal hands, akin to the Champlain Bridge in Montreal. A massive project rivaling or surpassing this in scale.

If only we could get the feds to bankroll a project of this magnitude on the West Coast. It would be remarkable. I'm sure the majority of voters would accept the pipeline if they bridge came with it, using federal tax dollars.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm sure the majority of voters would accept the pipeline...

Yeah. But. Numerous public opinion polls since the fed KM approval (various firms/methodologies) confirm that BCers now support KM. Do you want me to list all of 'em?

Here's just Ipsos Reid for BC:

Agree: 54%
Neither Agree nor Disagree: 21%
Disagree: 26% (19% "strongly")

http://ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=16229

That issue is politically D-E-A-D in BC for those that aren't yet aware.

PS. Except, of course, for the diehards.

[Mininari]

I think it has been mentioned before that while there was no specific federal funding mentioned for the GMB in the 2017-2018 federal budget, this project is an excellent candidate for the new Federal Infrastructure Bank. Granted, that depends entirely on the ability for the project to pay a rate of return... i.e. tolls.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Mininari

I think it has been mentioned before that while there was no specific federal funding mentioned for the GMB in the 2017-2018 federal budget, this project is an excellent candidate for the new Federal Infrastructure Bank. Granted, that depends entirely on the ability for the project to pay a rate of return... i.e. tolls.

Especially given the Port requirements...

[Marshal]

Politics of all stripes and levels have brought us to this. And its been a process resulting from decades of sheer stupidity and political greed.

Transportation is a necessity that can be determined by rational means. For it to be divided amongst different levels of government is stupid. For it to be used as a political carrot (GMB) is stupid. For funding to be used as a tool of negotiation between governments/government levels is stupid. Our region, like any big complex urban territory, needs a lot of rationalization applied to transportation planning and implementation. Examples: Champlain is federal and Port Mann is not - ridiculous. GMB being provincial and the Pattullo being Translink - absurd. Rapid Transit being planned and prioritized because of relatively arbitrary municipal boundaries (Evergreen built because its the turn of the Tri-Cities - really, that was the reason for its priority?, Surrey needs something next - really, is that a scientific determination - or, are there not several lines within the CoV that would be better for ridership, transport planning, and land use development planning.)

There is so much blame to go around: the mayors, the Liberals, the NDP, the Greens, the Feds, the population that bitches about things the region needs without question . . . it's endless.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Especially given the Port requirements...

The Port have recently confirmed that they have no need, and no intention of deepening the Fraser River, so there's no basis from a Port operations perspective to remove the existing tunnel or to prevent a new parallel tunnel.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The Port have recently confirmed that they have no need, and no intention of deepening the Fraser River, so there's no basis from a Port operations perspective to remove the existing tunnel or to prevent a new parallel tunnel.

Didn't they get involved during the initial design phase and that's why the new bridge is so high (for ship clearance). Something fishy going on for sure...

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Didn't they get involved during the initial design phase and that's why the new bridge is so high (for ship clearance). Something fishy going on for sure...

I'm not sure that's necessarily true - if there's going to be a bridge, then the Port has height requirements. They say they don't have any issues with maintaining the river depth at the same as it is currently maintained, so that doesn't prevent a tunnel alternative from their point of view.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Didn't they get involved during the initial design phase and that's why the new bridge is so high (for ship clearance). Something fishy going on for sure...

Bridge heights are federally regulated and that is why the PMB and GMB have to be a certain height. Building another tunnel won't be any cheaper than building a new bridge. Public transportation projects are totally political because money is tied to politics... always has been.. always will be.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I doubt they would take any already announced funding away, but securing funding for future projects may be more of a challenge... Either way getting off topic here.

I do wish that this project was in federal hands, akin to the Champlain Bridge in Montreal. A massive project rivaling or surpassing this in scale.

If the NDP/Greens fight the Feds on the KM deal, don't expect them to happily just hand over 40% for local transportation projects. I can see long delays or outright cancellations. The Feds hold all the cards..

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Didn't they get involved during the initial design phase and that's why the new bridge is so high (for ship clearance). Something fishy going on for sure...

no, that is false. the Port did ask for 63m, but the BC Government left it at 57m, the same as the AFB. nothing special was done for the height even though anti-highway people say there was.