Yes, no, maybe so

Earlier, we exclusively reported the New Democrat's provincial council endorsed a resolution calling on the party to "oppose the Campbell government's "˜Gateway Program.'" But does that represent caucus's position on the matter? In an interview with Public Eye, New Democrat transportation critic Maurine Karagianis said, "I think that certainly the party has made it clear what their stand is. And I think that's going to be certainly one of the resources that we look at as we go forward with a transportation strategy. But I think it only forms part of that. We've already been quite clear that there are a number of things within the Gateway plan that we do support and some things we don't support. And, certainly, (party leader) Carole (James) is going to have something to say about that very soon - as will I. But, at this point, there was nothing in the resolution that we felt constrained us moving forward with a more comprehensive transportation strategy."

11 Comments

"We've already been quite clear that there are a number of things within the Gateway plan that we do support and some things we don't support."

Hmmmmm.... does anyone else know what the NDP supports or opposes within Gateway?????

No party that has opposed "blacktop government" has ever won a BC provincial election and none ever will. End of story.

"No party that has opposed "blacktop government" has ever won a BC provincial election and none ever will. End of story."

Do you think that the NDP will lose seats next time because of Gateway? Do you think that the NDP will avoid losing 12-15 seats because it supports Gateway?

All eyes in the party are not on 2009, but who will replace the leader after that election is done.

New Democrat transportation critic Maurine Karagianis said, "I think that certainly the party has made it clear what their stand is”

Really? When did they do so and where? Can anyone tell me ? Budd ??? If this was really true why is Katrine Conroy begging the party faithful not to eve bring the matter up ?

If this is the best that Karagianis can do as Transportation Critic; fabricate phantom NDP positions that do not exist the NDP is in serious trouble. Was there really no better talent available to serve as critics or does the NDP just think the little about transportation problems in the lower mainland.

And of course they support the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge - after all both Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark had it in their governments long term plans.

Harcourt recently restated that the twinning of the bridge was a no-brainer given the growth that has already occurred in the region.

When this is being debating in the legislature I fully expect Kevin Falcon to bring up and read into Hansard NDP studies on this matter.

Several posters on this site keep insisting that twinning the Port Mann and doubling the capacity of Highway 1 was part of the former NDP government's long term plan.

This is simply untrue and the spin on that should cease. The single reference to this in the '90s was an allusion in the 1995 transportation strategy "Going Places" which referred but once to twinning of the Port Mann as "an option"...which it certainly is. What the NDP government actually did was add an H.O.V. lane to the bridge and improve the Cape Horn Interchange/Mary Hill bypass. One reason they didn't actually twin or add more room for vehicles was a concern about urban sprawl and the regional growth strategy.

"This is simply untrue and the spin on that should cease. The single reference to this in the '90s was an allusion in the 1995 transportation strategy "Going Places" which referred but once to twinning of the Port Mann as "an option"...which it certainly is. What the NDP government actually did was add an H.O.V. lane to the bridge and improve the Cape Horn Interchange/Mary Hill bypass. One reason they didn't actually twin or add more room for vehicles was a concern about urban sprawl and the regional growth strategy."

What a laugh! And to think the poster has picked the name accuratehistory adds to the amusement, though not the veracity! Premier Mike Harcourt especially made it clear that a second Port Mann Bridge was a core necessity, and did so on numerous ocassions.

Yes, it's true, the document titled "Going Places" contained the policy statement. Twinning Port Mann and widening Highway 1 was clearly identified as the preferred plan, unless some other crossing of the Fraser between Coquitlam and Surrey were found to be a better option. But that is impossible, since no other crossing can deliver anything like the transportation benefits of utilizing the existing Trans Canada Hwy ROW, yet any other crossing of the main channel of the Fraser would cost just as much to construct. Clearly then, no alternative crossing can present a superior benefit to cost ratio.

The reason the NDP Govt went ahead with a minor widening of Port Mann and the addition of HOV lanes only was because of tight overall budgetary conditions. Looking back now, one might say that an error on the NDP's part was to have borrowed liberally for public school construction, some of which are now being closed, while being reluctant to borrow for highways, which are clearly in need of further investment.

I recall at the time of the HOV project the reluctance of the Govt to consider upgrading the entire "Cape Horn" set of junctions to full freeway standards, including the connections to the Mary Hill Bypass. At the time, I thought it strange, but looking back now it's plain that the Govt wasn't prepared to fully upgrade Cape Horn until it had a design in place for a second Port Mann crossing.

If there is any spin that should cease, it's the silly notion highways somehow create traffic our of thin air. Any "induced demand" effects represent increased consumer utility and increased economic activity. If it's true that gasoline or insurance needs to be priced higher to reflect all externatlities, fine, that's a sensible debate to have. But refusing to build badly needed infrastructure is not a sensible debate, and isn't occuring anywhere but in Greater Vancouver.

"Several posters on this site keep insisting that twinning the Port Mann and doubling the capacity of Highway 1 was part of the former NDP government's long term plan." - Accuratehistory
__________________________________________________

From Hansard, Tuesday, June 15, 1993:
[Volume 11, Number 4, Page 7211]

[NDP MoTH Minister] Hon. A. Charbonneau: The member has really hit the goldmine on this one. The congestion, the safety aspects and the delays coming out of the northeast suburbs onto the Trans-Canada are severe, and part of that is the connection from the Mary Hill bypass onto 401.

There is no band-aid solution possible. ****The 401 should be expanded to six lanes plus two HOV lanes, and we need to twin the Port Mann Bridge.**** The Cape Horn interchange needs to be reworked in order to facilitate that and the more direct connections onto the Mary Hill bypass.

Nice work, Bob. Congradulations for finding a perfectly on-point quotation in Hansard.

Just don't get any ideas about achieving traction by utilizing historic facts. After all, the people who are opposed to these projects believe, as Talleyrand did, that "speech was given man to hide his thoughts." What they talk about is NOT what is on their minds.

"The reason the NDP Govt went ahead with a minor widening of Port Mann and the addition of HOV lanes only was because of tight overall budgetary conditions. "

Very true. In fact they didn't spend the extra $10 million that would have been needed to turn the HOV lanes across the Port Mann into reversible lanes. Harry Lalli the Transportation Minister at the time figured it would be best for people to get home to see their families after work, so the HOV lane across the bridge was set for eastbound only. He didn't have the idea that getting to work was also important.

If that reversible configuration was in place, it would have allievated alot of congestion or at least reduced the current congestion to tolerable levels until that second bridge was started.

"I recall at the time of the HOV project the reluctance of the Govt to consider upgrading the entire "Cape Horn" set of junctions to full freeway standards, including the connections to the Mary Hill Bypass. At the time, I thought it strange, but looking back now it's plain that the Govt wasn't prepared to fully upgrade Cape Horn until it had a design in place for a second Port Mann crossing. "

Very true since one would be dependent on the other, and because of the second Port Mann Bridge, the redesign and rebuilding of the Cape Horn/Mary Hill Bypass interchange would be nessesary.

Don't usually agree with Budd on many things, but we're riding inside left and inside right lanes in the same direction on this one.


"In fact they didn't spend the extra $10 million that would have been needed to turn the HOV lanes across the Port Mann into reversible lanes."

Blue Boy, I don't recall hearing about any reversible lane design. Do you have a link or source for this?

Leave a comment

Copyright © 2004 - Public Eye Mediaworks. Reproductions of any portion of this Website are permitted only with the expressed permission of Public Eye Mediaworks.
Canadian Web Hosting graciously provided by dotcanuck Web Services. Layout and graphics courtesy of Art Department Design.