~ 48 one of the three a harbors in the atural setting, geo- c i g, geo te inegeation and approach Nd gna alled in magnificance Ndeur, 9 citi We and the S of Greater Vancou- idee rer Mainland (and Nada .. € people of B.C. and Usaha Se & whole) Vancouver uty, nine only a mark of Neteial IS also a great com- Moy, Port As such, it is an Aa the entire trade conomie worki anadian economy. a Ugh 9 ” could eee Sates stream— "ore Seay’ * for dir long 0: — thousands of Fares a ucts for foreign ts of More thousands of Mstrieg OCS to feed Canada’s : > “rms and people. _ Po e Crogan of Vancouver is at hsconti dads of coastal and Vester “2ental shinn; r al shippin exys ‘ erminus g and the , As such, omy has, fen a significant iS tole in cto, Europe, nt ‘Canadi One® Past, an econ . Po m ei N the future shonations, its role Ould b a e even a ' for these feioak i elope the Seneral economi omen ic anada i i Ste and in oducts Ndustrialization, more - e' export § imported, ed and th. th Stior at ‘evelopment of Ships ang b : in the Y rail, to Vancouy ; er ect shipment over. Mmediate hinter- that is, in the Lower activity j +. *eouver, Y in the Deg, ost j ee " rt of all: with ar East, Canada has only to abandon its sellout policy to the United States and recognize China in order to sen- sationally increase our trade with the Far East and Europe. Despite these indications of ex- panded activity in the port of Vancouver, and the importance of such developments to the entire economy of Canada, we must ask two questions: Is the port of Van- couver equipped to handle such an increase in trade activity? Has the Canadian government, through its federal agency, the National Harbors Board (which owns and controls a considerable section of the port), made the necessary arrangements and provided the needed facilities for the port to meet its increased responsibili- ties? The answer is an unequivocal no! The National Harbors Board has developed no long range plan for increasing the amount of dock and berth facilities “here, despite the fact that approximate- ly 85 percent of the berth space on the south shore of Burrard Inlet is occupied, and that, in actual fact, there is only one Ppos- sible berthing space left on the south side. The obvious place to expand is on the North Shore, where about eight miles of potential wharfage exists between the First Narrows and Roche Point, at the western end of North Vancouver municipality. But, has the Na- tional Harbors Board made any plans for expanding there? The answer again is no. A recent plan submitted by Ira M. Robinson, instructor at University of British Columbia and planning consultant to the District of North Vancouver, said that “the inevitable development of the northland, Peace River country and other parts of B.C. and Canada as a whole” coupled with the growing shortage of sites for fndustry and space for docks in the City of Vancouver “should enable North Vancouver district to become a thriving In- dustrial harbor.” UPPER LEFT: A view o ship loading at a Vancouver background. Firs: Narrows. Entrance of the CNR to the North Shore (as a result of its lease purchase of the Second Nar- rows bridge and National Har- bors Board terminal railway), said Robinson, places this dis- trict “in the unique position of being able to offer potential in- dustrial and pert developers ac- cess to rail, road and water trans- portation.” é Vancouver: great port Without great vision f Vancouver harbor. UPPER RIGHT: A dock, with the Marine Building in ma i y i i the P CENTRE: The Lions Gate Bridge spanning TGOTTOM CENTRE: A tug off Spanish Banks. For such plans to be realized requires the active cooperation and investment capital of the Na- tional Harbors Board. But the board has done nothing; nor has it projected any plan of its own. For the North Shore to realize its true potentialities requires re- placement of the Second Narrows Bridge. The need for a new con- nection to the North Shore was PACIFIC TRIBUNE — DECEMBER 4, 1953 — PAGE 9 recognized as long ago as 1932 by Sir Alexander Gibbs, famous authority on ports and port de- velopment, in a report to the Canadian government. Not only does the National Har- bors Board lack any long range plans for developing the port, but it has failed to replace and mod- ernize existing facilities.on the south shore of the inlet. Loading and unloading equipment, wharf storage facilities, rolling stock, docks and piers, cranes and other essential facilities of the docks all need examination in the light of modern requirements and future needs. One of the most glaring de- ficiencies in the entire develop- ment of the port is the absence of an industrial road along the south shore waterfront. Not only is such a road needed to expedite the flow of traffic; it is equally important in overcoming the har- bor’s vulnerability to fire. Fire Chief Hugh Bird in his report to the City of Vancouver last May asked for a waterfront road with over (or under) passes to eliminate obstruction of fire- fighting equipment. More than half the city’s 1952 fire loss of $3,175,000 was on the waterfront. Bird told civic auth- orities in his report: “I have never seen such a port with so few facilities to enable firemen to get to the waterfront.” At present no local interest has any say in the development of the Vancouver port. It has been suggested that a local harbor council, similar toe that which Gibbs, in his previous- ly-mentioned report, recommend- ed, be set up, with representatives of business, labor, civic organi- zations, planning and engineering professions, the surrounding mun- cipalities (including the City of Vancouver) and others, and with the port manager as chairman. The establishment of such a local council would tend to identi- fy the citizens of Greater Vancou- ver with the development of the port. The council would be in a better position than a central authority to explore possibilities of local markets, to carry out ad- vertisement and promotional pro- grams and the like. The council would have the right to raise questions with the port manager pertaining to such matters as proposed develop- ments, changes in rates, changes in operation and complaints rais- ed by users of the port.