Editor:
Re: New bridge might not be the fix, Murphy's Law, Oct. 5
I enjoyed reading Ted Murphy's recent article and he makes some valid points about the George Massey Tunnel. However, I would like to encourage Murphy and others to depart from mainstream conventional thinking and consider that more of the same or bigger is not always better.
Yes, I also frequently commute through the tunnel of hate where no doubt the gnashing of teeth and four lettered words are occasionally uttered under one's breath. Vicki Huntington has aptly described the tunnel as a parking lot. That's a pretty good comparison.
I think the seagull population flying high above would unanimously agree with her. I never thought of the tunnel funnel quite in those terms. I thought of it more as a dark abyss I was approaching at glacial speed wondering if I'd ever make it out the other end.
A solution definitely needs to be found but I think we're approaching it from the wrong end, no pun intended, of course.
For sure a bigger, state-of-the-art bridge crossing would alleviate this particular bottleneck, albeit for only a brief time, but this plan would only exacerbate the mammoth bottlenecks that already exist on the Oak Street and Knight Street approaches.
Alleviating the funnel effect at the tunnel by constructing a six-lane bridge simply means motorists arrive at the two other bottlenecks quicker.
Then what? How does this justify spending three to four billion dollars on a six-lane crossing? The Oak Street and Knight Street bridges are simply unable to handle the current volume of traffic let alone additional traffic. In fact, the Vancouver grid system is simply not designed to handle more traffic.
This is our reality.
Considerable condo development is taking place along the Cambie Street corridor in Vancouver. At Cambie Street and Marine Drive a large condo complex is being built adjacent to the Canada Line. When the condos went on sale, they were snapped up in an afternoon and they are not even built yet.
Why? It is because the complex is adjacent to a very efficient Canada Line. The same thing will happen along the Broadway corridor when light rail or a SkyTrain is developed. If there is an efficient, easy-to-access and well-maintained public transit system available it will be used and used regularly.
In my mind, it is not about the environmental impact new construction will have over the Fraser River. It is not about, "Do we build a bridge or a tunnel and should it be six or eight lanes?" Nor is it about, "Where along the Fraser do we build it?"
It is about providing a safe, fast and comfortable means of transporting commuters. It is about developing a state-of-the-art light rail transit system.
I truly believe it is time regional governments and the provincial government took a serious look at this option rather than always thinking bigger bridges or more crossings will solve traffic issues.
David F. Horvath
