Metro Vancouver needs more bridges: report


The Canadian Press

Rivers and ocean water surround and criss-cross Metro Vancouver but a new study shows the region has drastically fewer bridges than four landlocked Western Canadian cities.


Get Moving BC says Vancouver would need many more bridges crossing the Fraser River, just to match the bridge capacity in cities such as Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon or Winnipeg.


A spokesman for Get Moving BC says other cities have done a much better job of matching their infrastructure needs with population growth.


He says along with several new bridges to ease traffic gridlock over the Fraser River, the region also needs a new bridge or tunnel to replace the aging Massey tunnel connecting Richmond to Surrey and Delta.

What a crock.
Bridges in those cities are short and low level. Vancouver crossings not only have to be long due to the width of our waterways but also very high to accomodate huge cargo ships etc. There is no comparison.

I mean, c'mon. One just needs to look at where this 'call' is coming from? GetMovingBC, what a crock indeed. Since when have we ever aspired to be Calgary or Edmonton or any other Canadian city? What other city has our types of obstacles and challenges. And on that note, comparisons between cities mean jack - each situation is so different and unique. Bah. This infuriates me (just a little). My public tranist panties are in a knot.

we do need more bridges though for a region we are short of crossings

granted the terrain is different to the other cities in the study which ads to the cost but we do need more corssings

be them bus only crossings or cars/trucks combined with train crossings we need some

burnaby has no bridges to richmond or the north shore for example

if you live there and want to get across the water you have to go via another municipality to do so and those crossings are already congested hence why it can take 45 minutes to get across the knight street bridge as yoiu sit there stuck in traffic - the busses get stuck too...

we are a region of over 2 million with infastructure for half that population

its only get to get worse

It's also incredibly hard to get anything built here...we are NIMBY heaven remember? Build bridges and growth will happen...and I don't mean in the good way (skyward). I rather take the congestion instead of risk having another Surrey pop up in Langley, oh wait, Golden Ears bridge... oh noes

^^ Bridge or no bridge, Langley, Maple Ridge and even Abbotsford will become another Surrey, just a matter of sooner or later.

^^

I just pray that the region becomes very strick with the ALR. At this point I don't think anything should be allowed to be removed from the ALR, even the land that is not so usable for agriculture, even if only to prevent sprawl. Towers should be allowed in Langely and Maple Ridge. It's not like it won't happen someday anyways as available land continues disappearing.

We're at a crossroads where we have a chance to make a stance against allowing the eastern part of the lower mainland from turning into the typical sprawled out jungle seen in most of North America. We've always been an innovative region, and I hope that continues.

Sometimes I feel like democracy just doesn't work in the scenario we're facing in the coming decades. We talk about densification to protect our land, and then I see that giant palace being built on the east side of Granville St. just below of South Granville. Sure, we're fine with gentrifying most of the major arterials in Vancouver, and yet the vast majority of housing space is of single family variety, in some cases rediculously large. We need to rezone 90% of that land to allow for future multifamily dwellings. Put a moritorium on building new houses, anything too old has to become townhomes at the minimum. Why build out on the farmland in langely? We should redevelop the land we have already taken from nature. If most of the houses in Metro Vancouver were converted even into townhomes we could sustain population growth in the region for a damn long time.

Bottom line I think we need a dictator to come in and make the tough decisions that the public won't allow haha.

^ what about the Garden City lands?

Please please please tell me exactly how the Lower Mainland is an "innovative region," because I would really like to know.

We are now at least 40 years behind Europe and Japan in developing human-scaled, livable communities with decent transportation, and not catching up any time soon. Even Vancouver is nothing compared to any number of other cities, apart from an isolated area here and there like the seawall. But countless other cities have seawalls that are just as nice, with walkable neighbourhoods and world-class rapid transit to boot. Anyone who believes that "most livable city" or "Best Place on Earth" BS has obviously never lived anywhere else.

This region is no better than Calgary, except we lucked out with some interesting geography and nice natural views.

Are you serious? I've walked throughout pretty much the entire Vancouver. It is highly walkable and pretty every neighbourhood is interesting or has something interesting about it. Comparisons, especially off continent, are not helpful as many people here must recognize differences in history and geography (I'm mostly thikning about us not having to rebuild anything due to massive war time damage).

However, I do agree that many parts of the Lower Mainland can do much better. But in terms of Vancouver and its immediate neighbours/suburbs, I'm always amazed at how burnaby (and richmond to an extent) has its own skyline. That's gotta be something special right?

^correction nova: not skyline (Referring to burnaby), it's Skylines! The have Metrotown, Edmonds, Brentwood (which is smaller), and Lougheed (which is also smaller).

^^

I just pray that the region becomes very strick with the ALR. At this point I don't think anything should be allowed to be removed from the ALR, even the land that is not so usable for agriculture, even if only to prevent sprawl. Towers should be allowed in Langely and Maple Ridge. It's not like it won't happen someday anyways as available land continues disappearing.

We're at a crossroads where we have a chance to make a stance against allowing the eastern part of the lower mainland from turning into the typical sprawled out jungle seen in most of North America. We've always been an innovative region, and I hope that continues.

Sometimes I feel like democracy just doesn't work in the scenario we're facing in the coming decades. We talk about densification to protect our land, and then I see that giant palace being built on the east side of Granville St. just below of South Granville. Sure, we're fine with gentrifying most of the major arterials in Vancouver, and yet the vast majority of housing space is of single family variety, in some cases rediculously large. We need to rezone 90% of that land to allow for future multifamily dwellings. Put a moritorium on building new houses, anything too old has to become townhomes at the minimum. Why build out on the farmland in langely? We should redevelop the land we have already taken from nature. If most of the houses in Metro Vancouver were converted even into townhomes we could sustain population growth in the region for a damn long time.

Bottom line I think we need a dictator to come in and make the tough decisions that the public won't allow haha.I totally agree.

What do you call the part of Granville that is below South Granville??? South South Granville???? Can anyone fill me in?

Well I think when it passes 49th, (I'm thikning link Granville and 70th) isn't that Marpole?

^^Marpole is a neighborhood though, not a street. "South Granville" is referring to that part of the street, yes?

South Granville is the neighbourhood from the south end of the Granville Bridge (say 6th Ave.) to 16th Ave. - lots of high end shops, etc. on Granville itself, but people still say they live in South Granville (as opposed to Fairview, Kitsilano or in planner-speak "Burrard Slopes") if they live a few blocks away.

I totally agree.

What do you call the part of Granville that is below South Granville??? South South Granville???? Can anyone fill me in?

from north to south along granville

South Granville (Fairview), Shaughnessy, Oakrigde/Kerrisdale (Granville borders both) and then Marpole

Thanks. I'm familiar with the neighborhoods, just was a little confused (mislead..) with the South Granville reference.

everyone calls it south granville - has been that way for years

its an odd idea to non-locals but its the area not the street

I've been a local probably longer than everyone here. :lol: I get it now. :) I blame it on the fact I've never shopped much on that part of Granville.

i think it goes back to the day when vancouver was called "Granville" and the slopes/broadway area of modern day granville street was referred to as south granville as oppossed to the main granville acorss the water

Get Moving B.C., a transportation advocacy group, suggests replacing the outdated George Massey Tunnel

Sandor Gyarmati, The Delta Optimist
Published: Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Drivers waiting in the daily congestion at both ends of the George Massey Tunnel might like what a transportation advocacy group has to suggest.

Promoting major transportation infrastructure improvements, Get Moving B.C. has come out with a report recommending the replacement of the almost 50-year-old tunnel with an eight-lane bridge.

The recommendation in the report, Bridging the Infrastructure Gap, is part of a wide-sweeping series of major upgrades that go well beyond the current $3 billion work plan of the provincial Gateway Program.

http://i471.photobucket.com/albums/rr71/yellowfever_2008/eight20lane20bridge.jpg

Nearing its 50th birthday, the George Massey Tunnel can no longer accommodate the volume of traffic in the region.
file photo

Predicting even worse traffic gridlock in the Lower Mainland in a few years, the study compared several river crossings and bridges in the Lower Mainland to those in Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Saskatchewan. The study concludes three major crossings are needed to meet what's expected to be major population growth south of the Fraser.
"As far as the George Massey Tunnel, which had a counter flow lane system initiated almost 20 years ago to help relieve congestion, everyone recognizes it's been woefully inadequate for many years and can't wait for change many years down the road," said Patrick O'Connor, principal author of the report.

"I think everyone we've talked to, and I've been in that lineup a few times trying to get from one side to another, believes the tunnel really needs to be replaced, and you need much more capacity," he said.

O'Connor said most drivers would likely favour a bridge and planning needs to start now.

"I know the buses go through the tunnel right now on a priority basis, but I don't think that's the only solution. You need to increase that capacity with the growth that's happened, and most people recognize that," he said.

O'Connor said changing the way people cross from Delta into Richmond has to coincide with a series of other changes throughout the region to prevent what's expected to become total gridlock.

The Get Moving B.C. report notes the Port Mann Bridge is the busiest crossing with an average of 24,949 vehicles daily. That's followed by the Knight Street Bridge (24,919) and the George Massey Tunnel (21,864).

In 2006, the Ministry of Transportation released the Gateway Program Definition Report, which described the causes and effects of road congestion in the Lower Mainland, as well as proposed improvements. The report noted consideration was given to widening the tunnel in conjunction with development of the South Fraser Perimeter Road. However, to capture sufficient benefits, twinning the tunnel would also require improvements to other crossings over the North Arm of the Fraser River, such as the Oak Street or Knight Street bridges, or a new crossing associated with employment growth in central Burnaby.

"While upgrades to the George Massey Tunnel remain part of the Ministry of Transportation's longer term plans, widening of the Port Mann Bridge and development of the South Fraser Perimeter Road would provide greater overall benefit to the region," the Gateway report states.

At around the same time in 2006, a companion report that was not released by Gateway, but leaked to the public anyway, recommended twinning the George Massey Tunnel and six-laning the Highway 99 approaches. Written by British consultants Steer Davies Gleave, the long-term plan, dubbed the Highway 99 plan, also recommended construction of a new four-lane expressway to connect Highway 99 with the Trans-Canada Highway.

much what? it gets cut off at the end :(

^^ Ooops! Sorry.

Those figures are obsurd.....................are they suppose to have a 1 in front of them?

I'm not big on building highways but they do have to do something with that road.
Maybe leave the George Massey alone and build a separate bridge from Steveson Road to Ladner. Much of the traffic just goes between ladner and Richmond and does not carry on after Steveson Road.

I'm weary of new roads, bridges, freeways, etc... Traffic in the city proper is decreasing. The only reason we have increasing traffic problems in the tunnel or the fraser crossings is because of urban sprawl. First priority is to tackle that, not accomodate more sprawl. If we built sustainably and compactly around transit hubs, Surrey, Delta, Ladner, etc can add a lot more people without adding cars to the system. Ladner is not geographically efficient, as skytrain connection via Richmond>Ladner>Surrey will not be practical, so there's no room for sustainable growth. If that's the case, then growth shouldn't be allowed. Places like White Rock that are far away should develop it's businesses and transit as a separate city and not rely on commuting back and forth from Vancouver. Focus the rest of the growth in the downtowns of Surrey, Richmond and the nodes within Burrard Peninsula, then all we'll need to do is buy more trains.

well thats a good idea

but the 99 is the main highway between Vancouver and Seattle - even Los Angeles

its not just for locals that some upgrades need to be considered for it

Side note: The tunnel is also not a major trucking route because dangerous goods (explosives, compressed gases, etc.) cannot pass through the tunnel - they have to take the Alex Fraser.

whatever happens and for reasons only known to those commuters who choose to live where they do and put up with it

its not like ladner, south surrey and white rock have ever been cheap places to live

Traffic in the city proper is decreasing.

Where does it say that? Cause that's not true