Disaggregating Gateway II

If the aim of the Gateway project is to improve Vancouver's position as Canada's 'gateway' for goods from across the Pacific Rim, why are we being told that the widening of the Trans Canada Highway and twinning of the Port Mann Bridge are essential?

This seems misleading, since the vast majority of containerized cargo that is off-loaded in Vancouver is shipped out of our region by rail, not by truck - rail is much more efficient over long distances, and most cargo winds up going outside of BC to the population centres of eastern Canada and the US.

(Click map for a larger version).

If the aim is to improve the efficiency of our port system, it would therefore make the most sense to improve road connections between the ports and railyards.

Indeed, the Gateway project's South Fraser Perimeter Road will do a good job of connecting Deltaport with key CN and CP intermodal railyards located on the south side of the Port Mann Bridge, while CP also operates a major railyard at the Port of Vancouver.

So with relatively little container traffic heading for the Port Mann, why should we twin it?

Rather than going ahead with a strategy that we know will offer relativly little benefit to the trucking industry, and instead promote greater reliance on automobiles, the first option should be to encourage greater population density - a strategy that we know works well from our own experience, wherever we've built new transit lines.

As part of his argument in favour of a widened Trans Canada highway, Kevin Falcon is promising that new roads will lead to rising property values for his constituents.

However, the promise of commuter rail would likely do just as much, if not more for people out in Surrey and Langley - just look at what's happened to property values in communities located along the West Coast Express line, or in Richmond, along the Canada Line route.

It's clear that improved public transit should be the first option, while expanding the freeway should be the last. Unfortunately, Kevin Falcon has it completely backwards.

His approach isn't exactly helping the trucking industry either - Gateway is fast becoming a dirty word among Lower Mainland residents, who would rather not see more urban sprawl in their region.

Fortunately, this doesn't have to be the case, if we could simply remove the most controversial segment from the project.

Since the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge would have such a significant impact on the day-to-day lives of many of us, this is one issue that's worth calling or emailing your MLA about.

You can find out how to contact yours here.

Comments

[Albert Meerstra]

I think this Port Mann twinning repercussions are way over blown. We are not going to become another Los Angles or even a Seattle...are you aware that only one more lane each way will be added west of the Port Mann, all this will do is finally free up the huge bottleneck east of the the bridge. I live in Surrey, and have to travel to Vancouver quite often..it is not just backed up during rush hour but almost all day, plus on weekends, it can backup to to 200th..maybe you should put yourself in the shoes of all those frustrated drivers.If there is no expansion it will only get worse. Transit won't help because the bridge can not handle it...there hasn't been a transit bus over that bridge in 20 years or more. We need that bridge twinning now or it will be a disaster in the making.

[Chris]

I agree with Albert. Leaving the Port Mann bridge as is is just not an option. That bridge is a disaster that's backed up 13 hours a day. Twinning the bridge is decade overdue.

[djmk]

the port mann is a mess. the 152nd entrance alone is so backed up that it needs its own bridge. it's unbelievable to me that all of BC (canada!) enters vancouver on just a couple lanes. besides, there is over 350,000 people in surrey. how dense do you want vancouver?

however, what i do not believe that adding to the bridge cycling lanes and/or making it skytrain compatible. competing infrastructure never can really co-exist. those ideas are important but need to be addressed separately and not thrown in as a bonus/selling point

[Chris]

I still don't understand what twinning gives you, other than a reprieve for a few years, until demand fills that extra capacity. Wouldn't it be better to find alternatives? Like building a some kind of off-road rapid transit line - SkyTrain or rail. Taking cars off of the road is the only long-term solution to reduce congestion.

[Sungsu]

Even if you are pro-twining or widening, it is logical to also support immediate bus queue-jumper lanes and transit investments. Those can be implemented quickly and will provide relief to the congestion years before the first truck goes over the twinned bridge.

[clauf]

I completely agree with twinning the bridge and widening Highway 1. But I also believe that introducing new car infrastructure, one should also introduce new transit. Highway 1 does need expansion (needed long ago), but then our transit needs the same too. I'm actually getting sick and tired of this transportation talk too now.... It's clear that Vancouver needs better infrastructure, and the Federal Gov't is doing nothing!

[luke]

I can't understand how there are still people out there that just don't get it! Adding road capacity has proven itself over and over again to NOT aleviate traffic in the long run. Almost every single city in the US will verify that.

djmk, do you honestly think that 350,000 people spread out over a city close to three times the size of Vancouver (a city with close to double the population) is DENSE??? I think you need to get out more and see the vibrancy of Vancouver and how TO build a city. If you do, notice the emphasis on transit. Are you starting to see a correlation?

The suburbs of Vancouver (and i guess much of Vancouver itself (but this happening with eco-density)) desperately need to re-evaluate the way they grow.

Give the boot to Falcon! He does not know how to do things right.

[Jim Pick]

I live downtown, so I'm clearly biased. I don't want to see more sprawl all the way down the valley. The type of development happening in Surrey/Langley is not the type I'd like to see.

If they add tolls (to pay into transit) and the ability to cycle across the bridge, that would be nice. I could get behind that, especially if they tightened emission standards as well to offset the extra pollution.

But it looks like tolls are more likely to fund the P3. I'm not a bit fan of P3s (public stuff should be owned by the public).