The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Phase 2 Consultation Discussion Guide offers five options to deal with the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project.
After discussing these with many of the ministry officials present at the community open house last month, it appears that none of these options will be available for at least 10 years.
It is also of great interest the relative cost of each plan was not available at the meeting or in any documentation.
We are, therefore, left with a long interim period during which we know that traffic congestion at the tunnel will increase significantly. Most people would like an immediate solution, but that is not likely to be forthcoming.
However, there are measures that can mitigate or alleviate congestion during this period. There is much evidence and information available that can guide us to achieve this.
Sitting in a tunnel lineup is painful for so many reasons, and costly in lost productivity, pollution and expense. There is little doubt that when the plan to build a new bridge or tunnel is announced, it will include a toll charge. The licence plate scan or transponder billing system is already developed and in operation for the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges.
B.C. government studies show that at peak congestion times 77 per cent of vehicles are single occupancy. Obviously, if ways can be found to make more efficient use of the road space by reducing this percentage, congestion can be reduced.
Many countries face similar problems, and there have been some notable solutions that have been adopted successfully during the last decade. These include those in Singapore, London, Stockholm, Brisbane, Hong Kong and others.
They are all based on incentive and congestion charging through electronic means. As an example, a congestion charge can be varied constantly depending on traffic volume, and not be levied on traffic in a high occupancy lane. It is also possible to identify vehicle type to produce a scale of charges. The charge can be zero in off peak times.
The funds flowing from this type of system can be dedicated directly to providing more frequent and better transit. The inadequate bus system through the tunnel could be increased in frequency, and the routing could be designed to serve the market needs.
Perhaps is it too much to expect transit buses could be made sufficiently comfortable, frequent and flexible to attract people away from their daily expensive and time-consuming commute?
In December of last year the Fraser Institute reported:
"Congestion costs stem from drivers being stuck in their cars rather than doing productive things such as working or spending time with family. The cities where congestion is the most costly are Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver.
Furthermore Metro Vancouver was recently ranked the second worst city for traffic congestion in Canada and the United States.
"Canadian cities can look to Europe for the solutions to their present and future traffic congestion woes. Congestion pricing has been implemented over the past decade in London, Milan, Rome, Stockholm and Valetta with great success. Congestion pricing is implemented through tolls on all vehicles entering the downtown core during peak periods. Current technology allows tolls to be collected electronically and via camera, so there is no need for toll booths.
"Congestion pricing provides an incentive for motorists to change their commuting behaviour.
When faced with tolls during peak periods many commuters will choose to flex their work hours to avoid peak periods, take public transit, telecommute or locate work closer to home. People may also choose to commute as usual, but they will now benefit from shorter commute times.
"Critics argue that congestion pricing unduly hurts low-income drivers, and therefore should not be implemented. However other jurisdictions that have implemented congestion pricing, such as London, have used some, or all of the revenues to fund investments in improve public transit."
"Some critics argue that congestion pricing is just another policy instrument for the government to extract money from taxpayers to ever increasing road tolls. However, the Swedish experience suggests that this may not be the case, as the Stockholm rates have not been raised since the system was implemented in 2006."
I think the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure should be required to make a detailed study as soon as possible to determine the possible benefits of a congestion pricing system for the tunnel.
It should also review the high occupancy lane location, and the interchange between Highway 17 and Highway 99, and the layout of the intersection between Highway 99 southbound and Steveston Highway.
Optimist contributor
