At the provincial Liberal Party convention in Penticton this weekend, there’ll be a support motion for Gateway from Burnaby-Willingdon. Not surprising, that - but it goes further….
“Encourage the transportation ministry to construct grade-separated interchanges at high-volume intersections on the provincial highway network, with the ideal of building them to freeway standards. “
And here’s the audacious one:
We support funding a third bridge span crossing Burrard Inlet, when the province’s fiscal situation allows it. We reinforce our interest in the environment by establishing high-occupancy vehicle lanes on this crossing”
The Third Crossing lives! And dontcha love the title:
Burrard Inlet Automotive Pollution Reduction.
By keeping the traffic moving, you see, you reduce pollution. It’s good for the environment! And it means you’ll never stop widening roads and building bridges, so the traffic will never, ever again congest.
It’s nonsense, of course. But let’s see what the Vancouver MLAs do, particularly Carole Taylor, Colin Hansen and Lorne Mayencourt, who, regardless of what they may think about Gateway, aren’t likely to want to go into the next election with their party supporting a Third Crossing.
There’s no need for a third crossing to the North Shore. The North Shore is not in the Growth Concentration Area under the Livable Region Strategic Plan and the existing population of 188,000 is only projected to grow to 220,000 by 2031. Those figures do not warrant an additional crossing.
Now if the Lions Gate Bridge annd causeway were closed in or about 2030 is it? in accordance with Vancouver Parks Board demands made when the causeway was widened by a metre or so (following the rehabilitation of the Lions Gate Bridge) - then I could see a replacement crossing - but not an additional crossing.
I think that a third crossing comes up on the radar so often because it is a highly visible corridor on the doorstep of downtown Vancouver. But the need isn’t there, so it’s not required.