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This topic has been archived.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

#211 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,254 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:13 AM

Registration is now open for transponder decals.

There is a special promo. Register your car before November 30 and receive a $30 credit on your account!!

https://www.treo.ca/


Any restrictions on that? I rarely used the existing bridge but I wouldn't mind a $30 credit sitting on my account for the couple times a year I might actually cross it....
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#212 Pasific Coluseum

Pasific Coluseum

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 02:18 PM

I wish. I hate the UPass. This is my 6 year having one. In that time there has been a grand total of 1 month where I actually broke even. It annoys me that in that time I've paid close to 600 dollars more for the UPass than I would have with single trip tickets. It's not like I owned a car and was using that instead either. There's just little point to one if you live on campus and rarely stay for the weekend but of course I'm not allowed to opt out.


BOO HOO! u have to buy a u-pass. Let me guess ur one of those dolts who think public transportation should be free. Suck it up and stop bitching.

#213 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 13 September 2012 - 02:29 PM

BOO HOO! u have to buy a u-pass. Let me guess ur one of those dolts who think public transportation should be free. Suck it up and stop bitching.


Nope it's someone that lives on Campus who much like someone that lives next door to work commutes by foot and has no need for any sort of car or transit save for perhaps a monthly trip downtown that would be cheaper to just pay full price for then get a monthly pass.

#214 ManUtd

ManUtd

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,970 posts
  • Joined: 21-July 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 03:00 PM

BOO HOO! u have to buy a u-pass. Let me guess ur one of those dolts who think public transportation should be free. Suck it up and stop bitching.


I don't think transit should be free. I think everyone should be paying their own way. Students shouldn't get ridiculously subsidized passes paid for predominantly by the taxpayers but also by the students who are forced to have passes they don't need. I sincerely doubt you would be pleased if something was costing you 100 more a year than it should. I also doubt you would be happy if you were paying a minimum of 3.75 for a ticket that costs a random person off the street 2.50. Every time the Upass has come up in the AMS referendum I've voted against it all while knowing it was really nothing but a symbolic gesture because the people who care enough to vote are for the most part the ones that are massively benefiting from it.

rsz_avs.jpg


#215 TigerWilliams

TigerWilliams

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,787 posts
  • Joined: 24-April 03

Posted 13 September 2012 - 03:12 PM

Seems like this has drifted into transit thread zone, but wanted to say that I really don't see much downside to the new Port Mann bridge. The old/current one is unsustainable - I don't know how one can argue that a situation where a 'small' backup which extends 'only' to 160th is a good thing... and we've all been in the ones where you're lined up well past 176th. That situation wasn't going to get better no matter how many transit stations were built. I think only a new and bigger bridge has any hope of improving the flow of traffic.

I'm not a big fan of tolls, and I'd be much more in favour of a toll on every crossing in the lower mainland but at a much lower rate (say 25 or 50 cents-ish?) since it does seem to me that south of the fraser folks bear a disproportionate burden of the high profile transit projects elsewhere.

I also reject this elitist argument that people are 'stupid' or 'silly' to live south of fraser. Not everyone wants to or can (family size) live in an 800 square foot box-in-the-sky a 10 minute walk away from work, and although land values may be cheaper in Surrey relative to Point Grey, you're still likely looking at a half-million for a single family home out there on the low end. It's not like everyone in Surrey has no mortgage or something.

Of course, this is the opinion of someone who lives north of the fraser, but I'm looking forward to the new Port Mann for those occasions when I drive east. I don't really see the downside (apart from the massive cost/debt, but heck, these things aren't cheap, and we've made stupider infrastructure decisions than this one)
"Met him in 1966. Forceful personality. Didn't care if people liked him. Uncompromising. Admired that. Of us all, he understood most. About world. About people. About society and what's happening to it. Things everyone knows in gut. Things everyone too scared to face, too polite to talk about. He understood. Understood man's capacity for horrors and never quit. Saw the world's black underbelly and never surrendered. Once a man has seen, he can never turn his back on it. Never pretend it doesn't exist. No matter who orders him to look the other way."


Posted Image

#216 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,916 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:36 PM

Seems like this has drifted into transit thread zone, but wanted to say that I really don't see much downside to the new Port Mann bridge. The old/current one is unsustainable - I don't know how one can argue that a situation where a 'small' backup which extends 'only' to 160th is a good thing... and we've all been in the ones where you're lined up well past 176th. That situation wasn't going to get better no matter how many transit stations were built. I think only a new and bigger bridge has any hope of improving the flow of traffic.

I'm not a big fan of tolls, and I'd be much more in favour of a toll on every crossing in the lower mainland but at a much lower rate (say 25 or 50 cents-ish?) since it does seem to me that south of the fraser folks bear a disproportionate burden of the high profile transit projects elsewhere.

I also reject this elitist argument that people are 'stupid' or 'silly' to live south of fraser. Not everyone wants to or can (family size) live in an 800 square foot box-in-the-sky a 10 minute walk away from work, and although land values may be cheaper in Surrey relative to Point Grey, you're still likely looking at a half-million for a single family home out there on the low end. It's not like everyone in Surrey has no mortgage or something.

Of course, this is the opinion of someone who lives north of the fraser, but I'm looking forward to the new Port Mann for those occasions when I drive east. I don't really see the downside (apart from the massive cost/debt, but heck, these things aren't cheap, and we've made stupider infrastructure decisions than this one)


Can you cite one example anywhere on Earth where a new and/or widened highway improved congestion over the long term?

#217 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 13 September 2012 - 06:41 PM

Can you cite one example anywhere on Earth where a new and/or widened highway improved congestion over the long term?


Can you cite one example (other than an economic downturn and reduction in population) where any kind of improvement has actually reduced congestion?

This kind of thinking does nothing but stifle the economy and increase congestion as the end result is simply doing nothing.

To say that the new bridge will only induce sprawl is pointless. The rediculous housing prices on the Burrard peninsula are strong enough to induce sprawl that people have been willing to sit idling on the way to the bridge an hour a day every day for years and years now.

#218 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:10 PM

Seems like this has drifted into transit thread zone, but wanted to say that I really don't see much downside to the new Port Mann bridge. The old/current one is unsustainable - I don't know how one can argue that a situation where a 'small' backup which extends 'only' to 160th is a good thing... and we've all been in the ones where you're lined up well past 176th. That situation wasn't going to get better no matter how many transit stations were built. I think only a new and bigger bridge has any hope of improving the flow of traffic.

I'm not a big fan of tolls, and I'd be much more in favour of a toll on every crossing in the lower mainland but at a much lower rate (say 25 or 50 cents-ish?) since it does seem to me that south of the fraser folks bear a disproportionate burden of the high profile transit projects elsewhere.

I also reject this elitist argument that people are 'stupid' or 'silly' to live south of fraser. Not everyone wants to or can (family size) live in an 800 square foot box-in-the-sky a 10 minute walk away from work, and although land values may be cheaper in Surrey relative to Point Grey, you're still likely looking at a half-million for a single family home out there on the low end. It's not like everyone in Surrey has no mortgage or something.

Of course, this is the opinion of someone who lives north of the fraser, but I'm looking forward to the new Port Mann for those occasions when I drive east. I don't really see the downside (apart from the massive cost/debt, but heck, these things aren't cheap, and we've made stupider infrastructure decisions than this one)


Me neither but instead of causing people to really screw up other bridges trying to get to that free alternative simply make screenlines that close it off. Then you simply make one on the south arm of the fraser (so add Putello, Alex Fraser, and Massey) and run it up the Pitt River (so toll Pitt River bridge take toll off of Golden Ears) and then make another corridor on the north shore (Lion's Gate and Second Narrows) and charge a dollar on all of them. Use the money to pay off the Golden Ears and Port Mann debt with the extra (and there will be extra) put into a fund for capital projects in the lower mainland (be they replacing the tunnel or extending skytrain). So long as the money goes towards transportation infrastructure ONLY then it would be equitable and would ensure a steady stream of upgrades.

#219 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,916 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:03 AM

Can you cite one example (other than an economic downturn and reduction in population) where any kind of improvement has actually reduced congestion?

This kind of thinking does nothing but stifle the economy and increase congestion as the end result is simply doing nothing.

To say that the new bridge will only induce sprawl is pointless. The rediculous housing prices on the Burrard peninsula are strong enough to induce sprawl that people have been willing to sit idling on the way to the bridge an hour a day every day for years and years now.


Stifle the economy?

Yes, I can. Many resources here: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm96.htm

Including this quote

"In general, if a corridor has enough vehicle traffic to experience traffic congestion there is enough demand for transit and ridesharing to provide congestion reduction benefits. However, simply operating buses or a rideshare matching service will not necessarily achieve this benefit in developed countries where most households own an automobile, and automobile travel is supported by low fuel prices and free parking. Although owning an automobile is expensive, most costs are fixed, giving motorists an incentive to drive rather than use alternatives. Only by giving discretionary riders (travelers who have the option of driving, also called choice riders) suitable incentives to shift mode can transit and ridesharing achieve their full congestion reduction benefits."

There are a number of examples world wide where removing sections of freeways reduced congestion, reduced air pollution, etc... Keeping in mind it is not in isolation, you have to have other alternatives/improvements, but the notion that the only way out of congestion is more roads is just flat out wrong.

#220 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,916 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:04 AM

http://stephenrees.w...ort-mann-tolls/

#221 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,238 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:45 AM

I don't think transit should be free. I think everyone should be paying their own way. Students shouldn't get ridiculously subsidized passes paid for predominantly by the taxpayers but also by the students who are forced to have passes they don't need. I sincerely doubt you would be pleased if something was costing you 100 more a year than it should. I also doubt you would be happy if you were paying a minimum of 3.75 for a ticket that costs a random person off the street 2.50. Every time the Upass has come up in the AMS referendum I've voted against it all while knowing it was really nothing but a symbolic gesture because the people who care enough to vote are for the most part the ones that are massively benefiting from it.

pretty sure you can opt out of the u pass. i know we could when it first came into existence at SFU. you had to pay at first, but you could go to the students union to get a refund.

#222 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:46 AM

Stifle the economy?

Yes, I can. Many resources here: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm96.htm

Including this quote

"In general, if a corridor has enough vehicle traffic to experience traffic congestion there is enough demand for transit and ridesharing to provide congestion reduction benefits. However, simply operating buses or a rideshare matching service will not necessarily achieve this benefit in developed countries where most households own an automobile, and automobile travel is supported by low fuel prices and free parking. Although owning an automobile is expensive, most costs are fixed, giving motorists an incentive to drive rather than use alternatives. Only by giving discretionary riders (travelers who have the option of driving, also called choice riders) suitable incentives to shift mode can transit and ridesharing achieve their full congestion reduction benefits."

There are a number of examples world wide where removing sections of freeways reduced congestion, reduced air pollution, etc... Keeping in mind it is not in isolation, you have to have other alternatives/improvements, but the notion that the only way out of congestion is more roads is just flat out wrong.


Removing a section of highway will reduce congestion IN THAT location but it will simply either...

A) Move the congestion somewhere else OR

B) Stifle economic activity by eliminating the trip altogether.

Listen, this is how it works. If you want money for transit then your best bet is to get it from extra toll revenue. The people paying those tolls will only pay them if they see some benefit for themselves in the form of road improvements. It doesn't matter that you don't think it will help as long as the people paying think it does.

So just go with that if you want to have any hope of promoting an idea that will actually fund alternatives. And no, you can't just put up tolls and not improve anything and NO they could NOT have just taken three billion bucks put it into transit and tolled the existing bridge. There would be riots in the street.

So can the rhetoric and work on ideas that might actually be implemented or all you are putting out is hot air.

#223 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,916 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:53 AM

Removing a section of highway will reduce congestion IN THAT location but it will simply either...

A) Move the congestion somewhere else OR

B) Stifle economic activity by eliminating the trip altogether.

Listen, this is how it works. If you want money for transit then your best bet is to get it from extra toll revenue. The people paying those tolls will only pay them if they see some benefit for themselves in the form of road improvements. It doesn't matter that you don't think it will help as long as the people paying think it does.

So just go with that if you want to have any hope of promoting an idea that will actually fund alternatives. And no, you can't just put up tolls and not improve anything and NO they could NOT have just taken three billion bucks put it into transit and tolled the existing bridge. There would be riots in the street.

So can the rhetoric and work on ideas that might actually be implemented or all you are putting out is hot air.


Says the guy who wants a revolution from metro vancouver and translink.

Road pricing. Read the links I provided. Stop thinking tolls tolls tolls.

#224 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:03 AM

http://stephenrees.w...ort-mann-tolls/


I don't disagree that the new bridge will help spur development in Langley Township but it's been shown that the development will happen anyways. South Surrey couldn't be further from highway one and while 91/99 aren't AS bad as the Port Mann they are certainly no pick nick and yet development is booming anyways, mostly of the dense variety. (In fact there's a huge tower going up right now in White Rock and I know there's more in the works for sure.)

No amount of road pricing and restriction can stop that because of the incredulous housing costs in the region.

Look on the bright side. The reduced toll has people talking seriously about a regional tolling strategy. Even if that falls flat guaranteed soon people will have to head to the Alex Fraser to dodge a toll (and watch North Delta go nuts when that happens!).

Make no mistake, you can expect there to be a serious lack of funding for things moving forward. Not just for transit.

#225 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,916 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:05 AM

I don't disagree that the new bridge will help spur development in Langley Township but it's been shown that the development will happen anyways. South Surrey couldn't be further from highway one and while 91/99 aren't AS bad as the Port Mann they are certainly no pick nick and yet development is booming anyways, mostly of the dense variety. (In fact there's a huge tower going up right now in White Rock and I know there's more in the works for sure.)

No amount of road pricing and restriction can stop that because of the incredulous housing costs in the region.

Look on the bright side. The reduced toll has people talking seriously about a regional tolling strategy. Even if that falls flat guaranteed soon people will have to head to the Alex Fraser to dodge a toll (and watch North Delta go nuts when that happens!).

Make no mistake, you can expect there to be a serious lack of funding for things moving forward. Not just for transit.


Ok, pretend you're right. Then what. We fill up every square inch of developable land in the Valley building more roads and highways to get there and then.........???

#226 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:07 AM

Says the guy who wants a revolution from metro vancouver and translink.

Road pricing. Read the links I provided. Stop thinking tolls tolls tolls.


A revolution based on not paying has far greater success than one that requires new taxes.

Fixed tolls at crossings, variable tolls at crossings, variable tolls all over the place (road pricing) it's all the same thing. It's still tolls and deciding who pays for it. Though with a microchip on everyone's car (heck I put in for one already) it certainly more possible now than it was before.

Frankly I would have no problem with road pricing on the highways it would be easy enough to set up. However much like the free alternative approach that is about to doom New West pricing all the highways and arterial will have the downside of encouraging the shortcut rat running that is the bane of New West and North Delta.....

#227 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:09 AM

Ok, pretend you're right. Then what. We fill up every square inch of developable land in the Valley building more roads and highways to get there and then.........???


No need to wait. Simply zone enough housing for one million more people on the Burrard Peninsula.

I don't say it for hyperbole (though it is since we both know that's not happening) it's the predicted increase in population in the region!

If you don't like that take it up with the federal immigration minister!

#228 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,916 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:52 AM

No need to wait. Simply zone enough housing for one million more people on the Burrard Peninsula.

I don't say it for hyperbole (though it is since we both know that's not happening) it's the predicted increase in population in the region!

If you don't like that take it up with the federal immigration minister!


But I thought no one wants to live in little boxes? Where would you put them all?

You can't have it both ways.

#229 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 14 September 2012 - 11:14 AM

But I thought no one wants to live in little boxes? Where would you put them all?

You can't have it both ways.


Build bigger boxes! There's lots that can be done. Still single family homes a stones throw from near 30 year old skytrain stations....

There's been a massive housing boom over the last decade that could have been used to massively increase the supply of housing on the Burrard Peninsula but it's been squandered trying to achieve over the top green and sustainability standards that dramatically reduced the amount of units that have been built. There could be many multiples of the amount of housing on the Burrard Peninsula already built.

You know all this though. Fact is places like Vancouver have no real desire to see their population increase substantially. Every development application faces an army of opponents. So the developers move elsewhere. And to a large degree things don't get built at all helping drive up our housing costs to among the very highest in the world compared to incomes (aka people's ability to pay) making things semi dense developments in far off suburbs attractive even if it's the worst of both worlds!

Bob Rennie would tell you any dense development near the skytrain would be sold out in minutes! How did a decade of unprecedented good times to develop lapse without a huge influx of density near every existing transit station?

The consequence of not providing housing near transit should be apparent and even the most heat inefficient baby seal skin carpeted medium or high density housing is far far greener than dooming another soul to the queue for one of the bridges.

#230 TigerWilliams

TigerWilliams

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,787 posts
  • Joined: 24-April 03

Posted 14 September 2012 - 11:27 AM

Can you cite one example anywhere on Earth where a new and/or widened highway improved congestion over the long term?


(sorry, I dont come around here very often, not the best person to have an active debate with)Believe it or not... I actually agree with you. I think it was TheSteamer who used to use a quote that was (paraphrased) "Building roads to relieve congestion is like buying bigger pants to combat obesity"Having said that, you're using a huge wiggle word by throwing in "over the long term" which allows you to prove your point whilst ignoring basic demographics. Obviously the population has grown significantly in the area since the Patullo and Port Mann were originally built, and all things being equal, one would expect the population to continue to grow. So ultimately, yes, of course the new bridge will reach capacity eventually and we'll be back in this situation again ASSUMING NOTHING ELSE CHANGES (ie. no more transit, car culture continues unabated, yadda yadda yadda). Is this really a valid assumption?My point in favour of the new Port Mann/Hwy 1 is that the current situation is unsustainable. And I would be slightly surprised to find someone who thinks it is sustainable. We can't put transit on the existing bridge, it's constantly gridlocked except for the middle of the night, it's old and we live in an earthquake zone, it's a very key link between the lower mainland and the rest of Canada, and frankly as a piece of public infrastructure, it serves us extremely poorly with travel times and inefficient fuel use. Ergo, it needs to be replaced.Now, having stated that it needs to be replaced, and that that is a good thing, We should also pursue more public transit so that the "long term" truly becomes the "really long term".
"Met him in 1966. Forceful personality. Didn't care if people liked him. Uncompromising. Admired that. Of us all, he understood most. About world. About people. About society and what's happening to it. Things everyone knows in gut. Things everyone too scared to face, too polite to talk about. He understood. Understood man's capacity for horrors and never quit. Saw the world's black underbelly and never surrendered. Once a man has seen, he can never turn his back on it. Never pretend it doesn't exist. No matter who orders him to look the other way."


Posted Image

#231 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,916 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 14 September 2012 - 12:09 PM

I guess my point is replacing the bridge may have been necessary, but making it the widest bridge in the world while widening the highway through all of metro van was not.

#232 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 14 September 2012 - 12:13 PM

(sorry, I dont come around here very often, not the best person to have an active debate with)Believe it or not... I actually agree with you. I think it was TheSteamer who used to use a quote that was (paraphrased) "Building roads to relieve congestion is like buying bigger pants to combat obesity"Having said that, you're using a huge wiggle word by throwing in "over the long term" which allows you to prove your point whilst ignoring basic demographics. Obviously the population has grown significantly in the area since the Patullo and Port Mann were originally built, and all things being equal, one would expect the population to continue to grow. So ultimately, yes, of course the new bridge will reach capacity eventually and we'll be back in this situation again ASSUMING NOTHING ELSE CHANGES (ie. no more transit, car culture continues unabated, yadda yadda yadda). Is this really a valid assumption?My point in favour of the new Port Mann/Hwy 1 is that the current situation is unsustainable. And I would be slightly surprised to find someone who thinks it is sustainable. We can't put transit on the existing bridge, it's constantly gridlocked except for the middle of the night, it's old and we live in an earthquake zone, it's a very key link between the lower mainland and the rest of Canada, and frankly as a piece of public infrastructure, it serves us extremely poorly with travel times and inefficient fuel use. Ergo, it needs to be replaced.Now, having stated that it needs to be replaced, and that that is a good thing, We should also pursue more public transit so that the "long term" truly becomes the "really long term".


And to do that since the province is the financier is to use any profits above and beyond what's need to pay for the bridge (and if it turns out that the bridge quickly fills to capacity there will be a LOT of profit. Skytrain to Langley magnitude profits.).

So as I like to say over and over again and what is most crucial is that if there is excess toll revenue that it be poured back into infrastructure. I don't care if it's roads or skytrain just don't suck it into general revenue!




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.