Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Issues when the new Port Mann opens...


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
231 replies to this topic

#61 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,935 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 04 September 2012 - 11:00 AM

:blink:


ha, what?

#62 Armada

Armada

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,320 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 04 September 2012 - 11:30 AM

Sweet! So you support my idea of a downtown congestion charge to pay for more transit in the transit starved south of Fraser?


Yup.

Whatever too make our city better.

Our transit system is pathetic compared to other big cities, time for some growth.

Edited by Armada, 04 September 2012 - 11:31 AM.

1314_IProvo_1680x1050.jpg
______________


#63 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,337 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 04 September 2012 - 11:59 AM

ha, what?


Bit like saying Bertuzzi in his heyday here was a better back-checker than Demitra was while here.

Edited by J.R., 04 September 2012 - 11:59 AM.

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#64 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,509 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 04 September 2012 - 12:02 PM

I love the idea of extending the Skytrian. When I say to spend money on densification projects, I mean things like this. I would have infinitely preferred that TransLink had used their money to extend the Skytrain south rather than build this bridge.


Except that it's the province expanding the highway not translink. Also, tolling the bridge without adding capacity would be suicidal. There's a reason translink has a funding problem it's impossible for them to collect enough taxation to satisfy all their desire.

And even if they had say double their money I still doubt we would have meaningful transit alternatives south of fraser because all their priorities are north of the river. If they had the three billion it's costing for highway one they would have used it to build skytrain to UBC and the south of fraser residents would be paying for it. It's the same story over and over......

#65 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,935 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:28 PM

Except that it's the province expanding the highway not translink. Also, tolling the bridge without adding capacity would be suicidal. There's a reason translink has a funding problem it's impossible for them to collect enough taxation to satisfy all their desire.]


Fine whatever, then the province should give Translink money to extend Skytrain rather than spend it on the bridge. Same difference.

And even if they had say double their money I still doubt we would have meaningful transit alternatives south of fraser because all their priorities are north of the river. If they had the three billion it's costing for highway one they would have used it to build skytrain to UBC and the south of fraser residents would be paying for it. It's the same story over and over......


Again, I'm not blaming the residents south of the Fraser for how badly planned those cities are... but it's impossible to have reasonable transit down there. People are too spread out, businesses too scarce, large urban hubs virtually inexistant. To give everyone south of the Fraser reasonable access to transit would mean to run hundreds of extra buses which would constantly have 5 or 10 people on them. It's not sustainable. I wish someone would give Translink the money to make it sustainable, but until that happens, there's nothing to be done.

And maybe south-Fraser residents partly subsidize north-Fraser transit, but at the same time, north-Fraser people are breathing in all the pollution from south-Fraser drivers, where car use per capita is enormously higher compared to the north. Let's call it even.

#66 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,656 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:30 PM

Except that it's the province expanding the highway not translink. Also, tolling the bridge without adding capacity would be suicidal. There's a reason translink has a funding problem it's impossible for them to collect enough taxation to satisfy all their desire.

And even if they had say double their money I still doubt we would have meaningful transit alternatives south of fraser because all their priorities are north of the river. If they had the three billion it's costing for highway one they would have used it to build skytrain to UBC and the south of fraser residents would be paying for it. It's the same story over and over......


Someone sounds bitter that their transit needs aren't being met.
Posted Image

#67 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,509 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:50 PM

Fine whatever, then the province should give Translink money to extend Skytrain rather than spend it on the bridge. Same difference.



Again, I'm not blaming the residents south of the Fraser for how badly planned those cities are... but it's impossible to have reasonable transit down there. People are too spread out, businesses too scarce, large urban hubs virtually inexistant. To give everyone south of the Fraser reasonable access to transit would mean to run hundreds of extra buses which would constantly have 5 or 10 people on them. It's not sustainable. I wish someone would give Translink the money to make it sustainable, but until that happens, there's nothing to be done.

And maybe south-Fraser residents partly subsidize north-Fraser transit, but at the same time, north-Fraser people are breathing in all the pollution from south-Fraser drivers, where car use per capita is enormously higher compared to the north. Let's call it even.


Except that if the province gave the money to translink instead of spending it on the bridge we would end up with...

-The same tolls that are going to be costing bigtime should someone continue taking the unimproved Port Mann will cost a LOT and the traffic would be just as bad.

-Any transit improvements made would be on the other side of the river.

What needs to happen is for their to be a South Fraser regional district and then south of Fraser residents can figure out how much transit and how we are going to pay for it ourselves. FYI were that to happen it wouldn't be necesary to provide transit for EVERYONE you could make a huge dent in the traffic with just a few rapid bus routes connecting the regional town centres....

#68 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,509 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:55 PM

Someone sounds bitter that their transit needs aren't being met.


Paying huge amounts of gas taxes coupled with the soon to be traffic/tolling nightmare to come with zero hope of having any alternatives short of up and moving (which would then simply create a tolling/traffic nightmare in the other direction for the gf) tend to do that to people.

Knowing that the situation tax/toll wise will only get worse combined with knowing that there will never be any meaningful improvements to transit to at least provide a reasonable alternative only makes it worse.

Once the tolls go in and people see the mess you can bet I won't be the only one.

#69 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,656 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:42 PM

Paying huge amounts of gas taxes coupled with the soon to be traffic/tolling nightmare to come with zero hope of having any alternatives short of up and moving (which would then simply create a tolling/traffic nightmare in the other direction for the gf) tend to do that to people.

Knowing that the situation tax/toll wise will only get worse combined with knowing that there will never be any meaningful improvements to transit to at least provide a reasonable alternative only makes it worse.

Once the tolls go in and people see the mess you can bet I won't be the only one.


Personally - as someone who lives in the Tri-Cities.

Our transit system is a joke.

I can drive to work in 15-20 minutes; but if I take transit, I have to take the bus that is 90 minutes before I start work... otherwise I can't get there on time.
Posted Image

#70 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,509 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 04 September 2012 - 03:04 PM

Personally - as someone who lives in the Tri-Cities.

Our transit system is a joke.

I can drive to work in 15-20 minutes; but if I take transit, I have to take the bus that is 90 minutes before I start work... otherwise I can't get there on time.


Well at least you don't have bridges to cross or tolls to look forward to.

But it's not just the south of fraser residents that are going to suffer. Already New West is chocked with traffic trying to get to the Putello and Queensburough bridges. At least now they quiet down after rush hour. After the toll goes in why would you not simply go the other way (everywhere but north Langley has an other way to take and everyone already knows it as the back up plan for when the Port Mann has an accident or whatever) and save the money unless the otherway is severly congested? There's traffic reports on the radio non stop to guide the decision.

There's a simply exeriment to see what will happen once the Port Mann tolls go in. Just see how much traffic is diverted to the other bridges every time there's an accident on the Port Mann. Let me tell you, it's NOT pretty.

New West and North Delta are going to be near 24-7 swarmed with traffic dodging the tolls. Book it.

#71 Hamhuis Hipcheck

Hamhuis Hipcheck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,082 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 04 September 2012 - 03:08 PM

One more reason to not go to Surrey....



#72 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,656 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 04 September 2012 - 03:08 PM

Well at least you don't have bridges to cross or tolls to look forward to.

But it's not just the south of fraser residents that are going to suffer. Already New West is chocked with traffic trying to get to the Putello and Queensburough bridges. At least now they quiet down after rush hour. After the toll goes in why would you not simply go the other way (everywhere but north Langley has an other way to take and everyone already knows it as the back up plan for when the Port Mann has an accident or whatever) and save the money unless the otherway is severly congested? There's traffic reports on the radio non stop to guide the decision.

There's a simply exeriment to see what will happen once the Port Mann tolls go in. Just see how much traffic is diverted to the other bridges every time there's an accident on the Port Mann. Let me tell you, it's NOT pretty.

New West and North Delta are going to be near 24-7 swarmed with traffic dodging the tolls. Book it.


I moved from Surrey to the Tri-Cities to avoid the tolls as best I could.
Posted Image

#73 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,337 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 04 September 2012 - 03:13 PM

One more reason to not go to Surrey....


I realize your comment was likely made in jest... but you do realize that about 99% of the rest of Canada is over that bridge and beyond. Not just Surrey.

Never mind that off-colour Surrey remarks are beyond tired.
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#74 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,509 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 04 September 2012 - 03:31 PM

I moved from Surrey to the Tri-Cities to avoid the tolls as best I could.


I could get over the tolls they are actually the least of my concerns. In the morning when I can go up 152 with ease and then zip over the bridge it will be worth the three bucks.

But in the afternoon? Already it's not exactly fast to come back the other way even with the extra lane as 152 is a LOT busier in the afternoon and going 80+ blocks of it isn't exactly fun. Which is why in the afternoon I go through the equally annoying (but shorter) New West to get to the Queensbourough/91/99 corridor. Once the tolls go in I will have two choices. Pay the toll again and take the just as bad if not more (what with a much huger bridge to feed it) 152 south. Or get in line with the toll dodgers in the soon to be gridlock known as New West and then knows how crazy the Alex Fraser is going to be. It's already so crazy I drive all the way through Surrey to avoid it in the morning.

Combine that with zero promise of express bus service (which is especially irritating when you work and live next to regional transit depots that for some reason are only connected via downtown) in the near future and you get pissed off.

Make no mistake, I am keen to move to the other side of the river but that would simply transfer to toll cost to the gf. And before anyone asks, make no mistake, there's no jobs for me south of the river, and none for her north.

#75 Armada

Armada

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,320 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 04 September 2012 - 10:45 PM

I could get over the tolls they are actually the least of my concerns. In the morning when I can go up 152 with ease and then zip over the bridge it will be worth the three bucks.

But in the afternoon? Already it's not exactly fast to come back the other way even with the extra lane as 152 is a LOT busier in the afternoon and going 80+ blocks of it isn't exactly fun. Which is why in the afternoon I go through the equally annoying (but shorter) New West to get to the Queensbourough/91/99 corridor. Once the tolls go in I will have two choices. Pay the toll again and take the just as bad if not more (what with a much huger bridge to feed it) 152 south. Or get in line with the toll dodgers in the soon to be gridlock known as New West and then knows how crazy the Alex Fraser is going to be. It's already so crazy I drive all the way through Surrey to avoid it in the morning.

Combine that with zero promise of express bus service (which is especially irritating when you work and live next to regional transit depots that for some reason are only connected via downtown) in the near future and you get pissed off.

Make no mistake, I am keen to move to the other side of the river but that would simply transfer to toll cost to the gf. And before anyone asks, make no mistake, there's no jobs for me south of the river, and none for her north.


Why do I have to suffer because a bunch of cheapos don't want to pay 3 bucks.

New West is already the most congested city since every road is a one lane.

1314_IProvo_1680x1050.jpg
______________


#76 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 04 September 2012 - 10:55 PM

Why do I have to suffer because a bunch of cheapos don't want to pay 3 bucks.

New West is already the most congested city since every road is a one lane.


You could always move. Amirite?

NIMBY
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#77 Armada

Armada

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,320 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 04 September 2012 - 11:17 PM

You could always move. Amirite?

NIMBY


I could, but do I really need to? No.

1314_IProvo_1680x1050.jpg
______________


#78 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,286 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 04 September 2012 - 11:23 PM

We needed a new bridge.
The money should come from the people that use the bridge.
Why should people who never use it have to foot the bill the same as somebody who crosses over 5 times a week?

When I need to use the bridge I will have zero issue with paying the toll.

Jagermeister.jpg


#79 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,509 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 05 September 2012 - 08:21 AM

We needed a new bridge.
The money should come from the people that use the bridge.
Why should people who never use it have to foot the bill the same as somebody who crosses over 5 times a week?

When I need to use the bridge I will have zero issue with paying the toll.


If you want to make everything user pay by all means go ahead and toll all the roads. But while your at it start charging the full cost of the bus instead of sucking away my gas taxes and property taxes.

The reason I am pissed is that paying for the bridge is just going to add to costs it's not going to fix my commute and I already pay a LOT in gas taxes and property taxes that goes towards providing transit for everywhere but the region I live in.....

#80 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,509 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 05 September 2012 - 08:22 AM

Incidentilly seems there must be some sort of milestone they just met because there must have been at least 100 workers on the west end of the bridge all lined up as if for a photo op this morning.

#81 SukhKular

SukhKular

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 05 September 2012 - 08:44 AM

I'm glad Abbotsford doesn't fall into the GVRD or MetroVancouver or whatever they're calling it now. I don't take the bus much but I know people who do. In Abbotsford, it costs $2 to ride the bus and they give you a 3 hour transfer window. Reasonable.

What's an average TransLink bus ticket cost? So often, it's cheaper to drive and quicker, too. People will pay the toll because they will get to work faster.

Most people won't notice, but they'll save gas from not idling on Hwy 1 and cut down on the wear and tear on her vehicles, too. Worth $6 a day? I don't know.... But if I still worked in Vancouver, I'd be on the bridge everyday.

PS: Building a SkyTrain right beside the highway that stops at every exit would be awesome but super expensive, too. Why do they stop SkyTrain at night? I thought they DIDN'T want us to drink and drive?
I'm saying Aladeen a lot because http://forum.canucks...dpost__10922428

I bet when Schneider turns 38, he will have broken all of Luongo's records.


Posted Image

General Manager of Buffalo Sabres; CDC Omega League; CM Connected; NHL 13; [[[[PS3]]]]

#82 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,599 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:30 AM

If you want to make everything user pay by all means go ahead and toll all the roads. But while your at it start charging the full cost of the bus instead of sucking away my gas taxes and property taxes.

The reason I am pissed is that paying for the bridge is just going to add to costs it's not going to fix my commute and I already pay a LOT in gas taxes and property taxes that goes towards providing transit for everywhere but the region I live in.....


Ron, paying true costs is not a road you want to go down. Cars and being subsidized to the teeth, we're just so used to it we accept it without thinking.

#83 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,656 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:33 AM

I'm glad Abbotsford doesn't fall into the GVRD or MetroVancouver or whatever they're calling it now. I don't take the bus much but I know people who do. In Abbotsford, it costs $2 to ride the bus and they give you a 3 hour transfer window. Reasonable.

What's an average TransLink bus ticket cost? So often, it's cheaper to drive and quicker, too. People will pay the toll because they will get to work faster.


1 zone = $2.50
2 zone = $3.75
3 zone = $5.00

Premium charge to go to airport

Posted Image

Most people won't notice, but they'll save gas from not idling on Hwy 1 and cut down on the wear and tear on her vehicles, too. Worth $6 a day? I don't know.... But if I still worked in Vancouver, I'd be on the bridge everyday.

PS: Building a SkyTrain right beside the highway that stops at every exit would be awesome but super expensive, too. Why do they stop SkyTrain at night? I thought they DIDN'T want us to drink and drive?


Don't get me started on how early the skytrain stops on weekends - it's part of the reason why I avoid going downtown during the weekend evenings, as I either have to drive or get out of there around midnight.
Posted Image

#84 mpt

mpt

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,723 posts
  • Joined: 08-November 03

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:43 AM

To stop people from bridge swapo g to save the tolls, we should instead if tolling the port Mann 3 bucks we should toll every bridge 50cents. We'd generate more income and the tolls would pay for future maintenance costs and would stop people from bottling up surrey or other bridges by trying to avoid the toll

#85 Armada

Armada

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,320 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:45 AM

To stop people from bridge swapo g to save the tolls, we should instead if tolling the port Mann 3 bucks we should toll every bridge 50cents. We'd generate more income and the tolls would pay for future maintenance costs and would stop people from bottling up surrey or other bridges by trying to avoid the toll


I like this idea.

1314_IProvo_1680x1050.jpg
______________


#86 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,656 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:53 AM

To stop people from bridge swapo g to save the tolls, we should instead if tolling the port Mann 3 bucks we should toll every bridge 50cents. We'd generate more income and the tolls would pay for future maintenance costs and would stop people from bottling up surrey or other bridges by trying to avoid the toll


Welcome to Florida.
Posted Image

#87 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,509 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:53 AM

Ron, paying true costs is not a road you want to go down. Cars and being subsidized to the teeth, we're just so used to it we accept it without thinking.


So are the sidewalks, bikelanes, and especially the buses which has a subsidy for the bus itself AND the road it goes down. Cars are at least close to paying full cost.

The problem is that everyone south of the river is paying to subsidise all those north of the river while getting slim to none of the benefit already and it's about to get a lot most costly for those that take the Port Mann and hectic for those that don't.

I would happily take transit if it was viable. The long delayed King George Bline would be more than good enough but it seems every time it's close to happening some priority on the other side of the river inevitably comes up.

#88 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,337 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:55 AM

To stop people from bridge swapo g to save the tolls, we should instead if tolling the port Mann 3 bucks we should toll every bridge 50cents. We'd generate more income and the tolls would pay for future maintenance costs and would stop people from bottling up surrey or other bridges by trying to avoid the toll


Absolutely!...but you can't toll existing infrastructure. The electorate would grumble and gather it's pitchforks.

As such you'd have to offer improvements. Which would be relatively easy to do. For instance the Alex Fraser could have a proper interchange put in at 72 Ave/Hwy 91...
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#89 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,509 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:59 AM

To stop people from bridge swapo g to save the tolls, we should instead if tolling the port Mann 3 bucks we should toll every bridge 50cents. We'd generate more income and the tolls would pay for future maintenance costs and would stop people from bottling up surrey or other bridges by trying to avoid the toll


Make no mistake, there will be three dollar tolls, at least on the south fraser bridges. Putello is falling down and it's not like translink has a billion dollars to spare to build it. The Massey tunnel is in the ministries general plans and while not as dire as Putello it also needs to be replaced which would make for the toll. Which would leave only the (already super congested) Alex Fraser as the free route and unless the point of the SFPR was to be a holding lot for the Alex Fraser (not to mention North Delta as well) it would have to be tolled as well - improvements to the system or not.

I suppose if they negotiated with the Golden ears contractor to get them the same amount of money one could in theory stretch a two dollar toll out to the Pacific in a rather short amount of time but I would consider that a best case scenario - and even with that I would seriously doubt they would use that money for improving the highway or even transit. And even if they did use it to improve transit you can bet it would be to build something out to UBC - building anything to give the payers of the tolls an alternative are always last on the priority list.

#90 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,509 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 05 September 2012 - 10:03 AM

Absolutely!...but you can't toll existing infrastructure. The electorate would grumble and gather it's pitchforks.

As such you'd have to offer improvements. Which would be relatively easy to do. For instance the Alex Fraser could have a proper interchange put in at 72 Ave/Hwy 91...


Actually that would do nothing.

It's not as clear on the south side but what you have on either end is a lane continuity problem. Going north even when you get past the light it's still a huge delay because you have all of north delta/Surrey trying to merge onto the bridge.

Going south it's clear as day. Two lanes of highway 91, two lanes of 91A, and one lane from the Island merging into three lanes of bridge.

The lack of lane continuity is the source of the problem, not the light.

Edit: Why delta likes the light...

Oh, and the light acts as a giant ramp meter so that Delta actually has a chance to merge onto the freeway. One could easily fix northbound traffic on 91 by putting up some barriers and making all of delta merge in at one spot. Sure, it would grildlock delta but the through traffic would work alright. Which is of course why you won't ever see that or even the light going away any time soon - it would just transfer the lineup into Delta.

Edited by ronthecivil, 05 September 2012 - 10:06 AM.





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.