Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

The Official Transit Thread


  • Please log in to reply
9569 replies to this topic

#7321 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,742 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 08 January 2010 - 10:59 PM

The same reason why gas taxes should go towards transit. Less environmentally friendly transportation choices should be deterred, not encouraged.

You might have a case for those who walk or bike to/from the airport, in which case maybe they should jack up the parking, taxi and car rental fees.


Gas taxes go toward benefiting a much bigger group, that is, ALL the people who use any service provided by Translink.

With this "pollution fee" you're trying to propose, it's a bad policy in that it only helps such a small group of travelers trying to get to point A (YVR). Meanwhile, everyone else has to pay for their usage of that system. It'd be much easier simply keeping the AddFare in effect and retaining the status quo.

You're also suggesting that the "pollution fee" is a means of punishment for those who decide to drive/taxi to YVR. This sort of punitive tax only works in areas of high concentration (ie: bottlenecks like bridges and tunnels, downtown Vancouver). Even then, you need high numbers of commuters that go to those areas of high concentration in order for that tax to succeed.
  • 0

#7322 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 08 January 2010 - 11:10 PM

Gas taxes go toward benefiting a much bigger group, that is, ALL the people who use any service provided by Translink.

With this "pollution fee" you're trying to propose, it's a bad policy in that it only helps such a small group of travelers trying to get to point A (YVR). Meanwhile, everyone else has to pay for their usage of that system. It'd be much easier simply keeping the AddFare in effect and retaining the status quo.

You're also suggesting that the "pollution fee" is a means of punishment for those who decide to drive/taxi to YVR. This sort of punitive tax only works in areas of high concentration (ie: bottlenecks like bridges and tunnels, downtown Vancouver). Even then, you need high numbers of commuters that go to those areas of high concentration in order for that tax to succeed.

Traffic on Grant McConachie way practically pollutes to the same pool of air as the Oak Street Bridge or any other high traffic area.

If the traffic is high enough to justify building the Canada Line there in the first place, then the same principle should apply as the high concentration areas that you speak of. Those who choose not to use it should be penalized.
  • 0

#7323 ThePointblank

ThePointblank

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,105 posts
  • Joined: 13-September 07

Posted 09 January 2010 - 01:06 AM

Making a surcharge for the airport, or making it zone three, is a pretty bad idea. We WANT people to use the train to get to the airport, not to discourage them.

There are far better and equitable ways of getting additional funding than this.

Basically, I see this as a cave in to another special interest group, in this case cab drivers.

Actually, having a additional surcharge for rapid transit to the airport is not unusual. For example, in San Francisco, the BART has an $4 airport surcharge if you want to get to San Francisco International Airport. New Jersey Transit has an airport access fee to get to Newark International Airport.
  • 0
Remember: SOME PEOPLE ARE ALIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT THEM

The whole world has gone completely mad! The Canadians are one of most viable NATO partners, the French won't surrender, the Germans won't invade, Russians are neutral and the Italians are on our side!


#7324 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,169 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 09 January 2010 - 09:53 AM

I couldn't agree with this more. It should extend up arbutus and through to Stanley Park as proposed on the city plan. This is the kind of thing the city needs.

http://www.vancouver...3956/story.html

One important project this year can trigger the kind of redevelopment that will shape sustainable urbanism and real livability in more than one Vancouver neighbourhood.

This one single project can clearly demonstrate a commitment to return to a time in Vancouver when public transit set the pattern for an urban fabric that made it easy for everyone to live in distinct neighbourhoods that are complete neighbourhoods and have easy access to jobs, services and recreation without having to drive a car.

This one project can be pointed to as a true Olympic legacy left behind after the Winter Games--a legacy that could be a powerful form-maker for Vancouver's future growth. In fact, the promise of this project is being dangled right in front of Vancouverites, in a way teasing us all during the upcoming Olympics.

I am talking about the Olympic Line -- Vancouver's 2010 demonstration modern streetcar line showcasing for two months the potential to one day reintroduce the streetcar to Vancouver's streets.

That one day could be soon if the city continues to take the lead and plan creatively to keep the streetcar running after the Olympic demonstration and quickly expand it by a few kilometres.

Interestingly, the Olympic Line doesn't involve TransLink, the region's cash-strapped, but all powerful transportation authority. Instead, it's an innovative joint venture between the City of Vancouver, Bombardier Transportation and the federal government's Granville Island.

Beginning in a couple of weeks and through to March 21, the Olympic Line demonstration streetcar project will run between the entrance to Granville Island and the new Canada Line Olympic Village Station at West Second and Cambie. As part of its partnership, Bombardier, a world leader in urban transit technology and a respected Canadian-born company, is providing two of its ultramodern Flexity-brand streetcars on loan from Belgium's Brussels Transport Company. The city invested $8.5 million to upgrade the 1.8-kilometre portion of Downtown Historic Railway line on which the two low-floor streetcars will run. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., Granville Island's administrator, provided an addition $500,000 to the project.

This project demonstrates that a streetcar, operating at grade on existing rights-of-way, is a relatively inexpensive form of public transit, especially when compared to tens of millions of dollars per kilometre it costs to build the neighbourhood-unfriendly elevated or subway SkyTrain.

The partnership between the city, Bombardier and Granville Island that made this project happen serves as an example of the kind of innovative partnership that can be forged to bypass the typical politically complicated mega-project structures that seem to take forever to get a project off the ground.

With very little effort and relatively few dollars, the Olympic Line could become permanent and expanded to achieve multiple objectives.

First, by extending the line east through the city's Southeast False Creek lands--through the heart of the Olympic Village development--across Main Street and less than another 2.5 kilometres east to the Clark Drive Sky-Train Station, this streetcar line can effectively link all three main rail transit lines: the Canada Line, the Millennium Line and, through the Commercial and Broadway Station, the Expo Line.

Crossing Main Street means providing transit access to the False Creek flats, one of the city's largest tracts of land ripe for redevelopment, and the logical area for a new form of expanded downtown.

Planners have long fretted over the threat of losing this once-industrial district to another single-use residential neighbourhood. They know any sustainable city needs a service and light industrial district close to its downtown. They also know that the central business district eventually needs room to grow to maintain downtown jobs and those jobs need to be close to inner-city housing.

With neighbourhood-scale transit access that links the area to the region's transit backbone, the False Creek flats could be transformed into an urban district that takes its cues from all that is good and has been good in the past in Vancouver.

The Vancouver of the distant past saw richly diverse mixed-use neighbourhoods originally form around key streetcar lines. The False Creek flats could become a district rich with a mix of light industrial, processing, service-commercial, retail, residential and recreational uses. The form of development could take its cue not from the highrises of the downtown peninsula, but from the midrise density of Southeast False Creek with European-style narrow streets in a grid pattern that provides form to a neighbourhood easily served by a linear at-grade streetcar line.

With a streetcar line effectively linking the three rail transit lines that bisect Vancouver and tying together a number of key bus lines, the justification for increased density around Vancouver's transit stations and key transit intersection becomes even clearer. This holds the promise of the city moving toward a form of ecodensity that will provide the kind of housing supply needed to keep housing prices from continuing to skyrocket.

Finally, a permanent streetcar line terminating at Granville Island provides further justification for a continued public reinvestment in the island and its aging facilities. Granville Island is now more than 30 years old. Significant dollars need to be spent to maintain and renew the heavily used public place. By making it easier to access the Island, especially without the car, there will be a renewed focus on this world-renowned urban jewel.

Let's hope, before the Olympics are over, a few bright minds sit down and figure out how to keep the Olympic Line running and realize the promise of the first phase of a real streetcar project to enhance Vancouver's future urbanism.

Bob Ransford is a public affairs consultant with CounterPoint Communications Inc. He is a former real estate developer who specializes in urban land use issues. E-mail:

ransford@counterpoint.ca


  • 1

#7325 trek

trek

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,418 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 04

Posted 09 January 2010 - 02:57 PM

I couldn't agree with this more. It should extend up arbutus and through to Stanley Park as proposed on the city plan. This is the kind of thing the city needs.

http://www.vancouver...3956/story.html


Amazingly I agree with inane. I especially like the idea of improving access to the industrial areas near the Olympic village as well as linking Clark Drive Skytrain with the Canada Line.
  • 0

#7326 TheKlatter26

TheKlatter26

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: 28-August 07

Posted 09 January 2010 - 05:18 PM

I'm sorry if this has been covered already But does anyone know what the skytrain schedule will look like during the Games? Will it be running 24/7 or what will be the cut-off times and resume times?

Any help would be appreciated. Me and a bunch of friends are attending the games and will be counting on the skytrain as our mean source of transportation.

Thanks.
  • 0

28

#7327 trek

trek

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,418 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 04

Posted 09 January 2010 - 05:23 PM

I'm sorry if this has been covered already But does anyone know what the skytrain schedule will look like during the Games? Will it be running 24/7 or what will be the cut-off times and resume times?

Any help would be appreciated. Me and a bunch of friends are attending the games and will be counting on the skytrain as our mean source of transportation.

Thanks.


Last train for SkyTrain is 2:15 am, Canada Line is 1:15am.

http://www.translink...-Services.aspx.
  • 0

#7328 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,939 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 10 January 2010 - 03:22 PM

Nice scam, eastbound only. And just in time for the Olympics. Guess they need to cash in when they can.

And why not? I have no problem with rich tourists helping to pay for our transit system. If they can pay thousands of dollars to travel here, get a hotel, and buy tickets to events, they can afford another $5 to support our city's "green" infrastructure.
  • 0

#7329 ThePointblank

ThePointblank

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,105 posts
  • Joined: 13-September 07

Posted 10 January 2010 - 06:08 PM

And why not? I have no problem with rich tourists helping to pay for our transit system. If they can pay thousands of dollars to travel here, get a hotel, and buy tickets to events, they can afford another $5 to support our city's "green" infrastructure.

And it is cheaper than taking the taxi, and faster than the bus. Win-win situation.
  • 0
Remember: SOME PEOPLE ARE ALIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT THEM

The whole world has gone completely mad! The Canadians are one of most viable NATO partners, the French won't surrender, the Germans won't invade, Russians are neutral and the Italians are on our side!


#7330 Opmac

Opmac

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,526 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 07

Posted 10 January 2010 - 06:19 PM

And it is cheaper than taking the taxi, and faster than the bus. Win-win situation.

blue.dragon258 did some math.

Really depends.

Let's say family of 4 (2 adults, 2 concession) carrying luggage wants to go d/t.

That'll be 8.75 (2-zone and RAV fee) + 8.75 + 7.50 (2-zone concession and RAV fee) + 7.50 = $32.50
For a taxi ride, it's approx $30.00 (http://www.yellowcab...taxi_fares.html). To err on the safe side, lets go for $37.50.

That's only a $5 difference. The added benefit is that you go from your hotel doorsteps to the departure level all without having to lug around luggage!



Might be cheaper for single and couple traveling, but not a whole family.
  • 0

Posted Image


#7331 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:00 PM

Why don't they just instead slap on an additional $5 to the airport usage fee instead? That way, they'll all pay for it, whether they take the train or a taxi or limo instead.

Charging different fees for the same service kind of leaves a bad taste in tourists' mouths, no? Kind of like merchants that charge a higher price for tourists than to locals.


Well, for one, that would hardly help to keep the taxi industry happy.
  • 0

#7332 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:03 PM

Well, this is clearly a method of leeching $$ off the tourists who think paying $3.75 + $5 to get downtown from YVR is considered a "good deal."

I say take a taxi...it'll probably be faster, what with the luggage and everything.


I thought we wanted to encourage tourism. That's a good way to make a first impression, gouge them nearly nine bucks to take TRANSIT from the airport.

Of course, they could take a cab and get a bad first impression that way as well. When I was living in Cali when I would fly up and take a cab the guy in the cab would ask me how to get where I was going. God forbid I was a tourist. How the hell would you expect your average person coming from the airport to know the way. Strikes me as a way to test to see if it's a tourist so you can gouge them.

If we liked tourism, we would't gouge them the moment they step off the airplane.
  • 0

#7333 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:05 PM

The same reason why gas taxes should go towards transit. Less environmentally friendly transportation choices should be deterred, not encouraged.

You might have a case for those who walk or bike to/from the airport, in which case maybe they should jack up the parking, taxi and car rental fees.


Well, they do. Problem is, all the people that drive (aka the majority) might be upset to see their tax dollars being sucked away to fund something they don't use. If they don't see any benefit to themselves they are not going to like it in the least.
  • 0

#7334 ahzdeen

ahzdeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,569 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 03

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:06 PM

I thought we wanted to encourage tourism. That's a good way to make a first impression, gouge them nearly nine bucks to take TRANSIT from the airport.

Of course, they could take a cab and get a bad first impression that way as well. When I was living in Cali when I would fly up and take a cab the guy in the cab would ask me how to get where I was going. God forbid I was a tourist. How the hell would you expect your average person coming from the airport to know the way. Strikes me as a way to test to see if it's a tourist so you can gouge them.

If we liked tourism, we would't gouge them the moment they step off the airplane.

Or maybe that's the reason we like tourism.
  • 0

#7335 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:14 PM

I couldn't agree with this more. It should extend up arbutus and through to Stanley Park as proposed on the city plan. This is the kind of thing the city needs.

http://www.vancouver...3956/story.html


This should be the kind of thing tranlink (if they had money) should be jumping all over. Making a third leg that goes to the west end along the water would provide another link to that very dense neighbourhood. Make the central node at main street station and build a roundhouse type facility so you could basically have three lines (west end to VCC via main, granville island to west end via main, and granville island to VCC via main) that would make a very large upgrade in connectivity to the region. And since the lines would primarily follow the shoreline of false creek and the rail right of way, there would be very little crossing conflict. I would expect this kind of project to have a very high cost benefit ratio.

Only thing I don't like about it is the train would conflict with peds going to the beach, which is a significant traffic flow.
  • 0

#7336 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:17 PM

Or maybe that's the reason we like tourism.


I am fairly sure they will spend plenty of money on accomidation, dining, and attractions. Funny thing about those things, you can still get the money out of them while leaving them with a good impression. Word of mouth advertising is cheap and effective and doing things to encourage it in a positive light strike me as a good idea.
  • 0

#7337 Buzzinator

Buzzinator

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 585 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 09

Posted 11 January 2010 - 05:14 PM

Quick question: Anyone know the model name/no. of those yellow buses? (the ones that the 492, 496, etc. used)

Edited by Buzzinator, 11 January 2010 - 05:14 PM.

  • 0
Caniac nation

#7338 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,742 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 11 January 2010 - 05:44 PM

Quick question: Anyone know the model name/no. of those yellow buses? (the ones that the 492, 496, etc. used)


Orion V

Their numbers for CMBC were the R9200s.

Edited by blue.dragon258, 11 January 2010 - 05:46 PM.

  • 0

#7339 luongoisdaman

luongoisdaman

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,215 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 11 January 2010 - 06:39 PM

Does anyone know if food/drink is allowed on the Canada Line?

And what the heck is the YVR AddFare thing?
  • 0
Posted Image

#7340 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,742 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 11 January 2010 - 06:45 PM

Does anyone know if food/drink is allowed on the Canada Line?

And what the heck is the YVR AddFare thing?


Food and drink is allowed, so long as you don't make a major mess of it. You spill it, you clean it. It's like your bedroom.

The YVR addfare thing is an additional $5 for passengers taking the RAV from YVR, Sea Island, or Templeton to Bridgeport. Say for example, you're going from YVR to Waterfront. The cost will be $8.75 ($3.75 for an adult 2-zone as well as the $5 add-on). Same thing for YVR to Richmond. It'll be $7.75 ($2.75 for adult one-zone and $5 add-on).
This AddFare only applies when you're buying tickets at YVR, Sea Island, or Templeton. You don't have to pay if you have a Upass, faresaver, month-pass, Olympic bus pass, etc.
  • 0

#7341 Stemm

Stemm

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 09

Posted 12 January 2010 - 11:29 PM

Why is America's infrastructure so much more superior than Canada's?


  • 0

#7342 nitronuts

nitronuts

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,779 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 07

Posted 12 January 2010 - 11:51 PM

Why is America's infrastructure so much more superior than Canada's?


It's not.
  • 0
Posted Image

#7343 Stemm

Stemm

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 09

Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:00 AM

It's not.



Transportation, energy, water management, and communications infrastructure in the US is much more cutting edge and built to a higher standard

They've got us beat in every category of infrastructure
  • 0

#7344 nitronuts

nitronuts

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,779 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 07

Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:15 AM

Transportation, energy, water management, and communications infrastructure in the US is much more cutting edge and built to a higher standard

They've got us beat in every category of infrastructure


I don't know about communications, but the other three you mentioned are completely not true. There's an overwhelming public infrastructure deficit in the United States, particularly with regards to transportation infrastructure as it is deteriorating quickly, much more so than Canada.

There's a long-standing national problem in the states...neglect, underfunding, and a lack of leadership and vision and it has allowed American infrastructure to deteriorate. Nothing about US infrastructure is cutting edge, there's been very little investment in infrastructure since the 1970s.

Canada has an infrastructure deficit of its own, but it's relatively much less per capita and infrastructure is actually maintained to a certain standard.
  • 0
Posted Image

#7345 Stemm

Stemm

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 09

Posted 13 January 2010 - 01:17 AM

I don't know about communications, but the other three you mentioned are completely not true. There's an overwhelming public infrastructure deficit in the United States, particularly with regards to transportation infrastructure as it is deteriorating quickly, much more so than Canada.

There's a long-standing national problem in the states...neglect, underfunding, and a lack of leadership and vision and it has allowed American infrastructure to deteriorate. Nothing about US infrastructure is cutting edge, there's been very little investment in infrastructure since the 1970s.

Canada has an infrastructure deficit of its own, but it's relatively much less per capita and infrastructure is actually maintained to a certain standard.



Are you.... kidding me?

Perfect example of the infrastructure gap between countries. Most of the pollution in the great lakes is coming from the Canadian side. The US has made huge investments in their water management infrastructure for the areas surrounding the great lakes. They have greatly reduced the amount of pollutants they let into the water over the past few years. Canada meanwhile has made no effort.
  • 0

#7346 nitronuts

nitronuts

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,779 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 07

Posted 13 January 2010 - 01:36 AM

Are you.... kidding me?

Perfect example of the infrastructure gap between countries. Most of the pollution in the great lakes is coming from the Canadian side. The US has made huge investments in their water management infrastructure for the areas surrounding the great lakes. They have greatly reduced the amount of pollutants they let into the water over the past few years. Canada meanwhile has made no effort.


You can be selective about certain areas and so can I, such as a major freeway bridge collapsing in Minnesota two years ago, but overall Canada's infrastructure is vastly better than the United States.

While American apathy towards bigger government is largely behind its infrastructure woes, Canada's problem is that municipalities have very few and insufficient revenue sources.
  • 0
Posted Image

#7347 Stemm

Stemm

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 09

Posted 13 January 2010 - 02:45 AM

You can be selective about certain areas and so can I, such as a major freeway bridge collapsing in Minnesota two years ago, but overall Canada's infrastructure is vastly better than the United States.

While American apathy towards bigger government is largely behind its infrastructure woes, Canada's problem is that municipalities have very few and insufficient revenue sources.



Yeah and a bridge in ontario collapsed in the same year whoopie. Wasn't on the same scale as the bridge in Minnesota but then again we only have 1/10th of America's population.

On average the US spends much more on their infrastructure. Its maintained more often and built to a higher standard from the start.
  • 0

#7348 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,169 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 13 January 2010 - 08:26 AM

Stemm didn't you try this a few months ago? Why don't you go do some research and come back with some stats rather than your childish opinion.
  • 2

#7349 ahzdeen

ahzdeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,569 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 03

Posted 13 January 2010 - 09:33 AM

Yeah and a bridge in ontario collapsed in the same year whoopie. Wasn't on the same scale as the bridge in Minnesota but then again we only have 1/10th of America's population.

On average the US spends much more on their infrastructure. Its maintained more often and built to a higher standard from the start.

Weren't u the "American cement barriers are better because they don't move" guy?

Edited by ahzdeen, 13 January 2010 - 09:33 AM.

  • 0

#7350 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 13 January 2010 - 11:21 AM

Yeah and a bridge in ontario collapsed in the same year whoopie. Wasn't on the same scale as the bridge in Minnesota but then again we only have 1/10th of America's population.

On average the US spends much more on their infrastructure. Its maintained more often and built to a higher standard from the start.


How do you propose to generate the funds to build our infrastructure to a higher standard?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.