inane Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 If they were to widen highway 99 and expand the crossing at the Massey tunnel, you can bet there would be a toll on it. The Putello is getting replaced. You can bet there's a toll on it. The toll revenue from either (and from the Port Mann) will easily cover not just the cost of the bridge but all the highway widening that's part of the project. In fact expect it to make a profit. Even at existing traffic volumes the proposed 3 dollar tolls could fund multi billions of infrastructure. I am sure you could do the math if you want...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Ron, you keep ignoring the inconvinient fact that there ii the brand new SFPR without tolls, the sea to sky, highway 10 widening, highway 15 widening, the roberts bank overpasses, etc.... And with reduced tolls, how can you possibly expect them to cover not only the bridge but also all the widening from Vancouver to Langley? And need I repeat that again, tolls do not cover social, health & environmental costs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Those are all from times when money wasn't so short. And it should be noted that drivers also pay a lot in gas taxes as well. The total cost of the port mann/hwy 1 project is in the order of 3 billion dollars. With ten lanes of traffic collected three bucks a car each way in just over a year and a buck 50 starting in two months over the four lanes of bridge each way you disagree all you want that it will make a profit but if I could be an investor in that scheme I would do it every day and twice on Sunday. And even with the tolls in place all those people will still be paying gas taxes and property taxes to help fund transit. And you do not need to repeat that tolls do not cover social, health, and environmental costs. Much like I tire of repeating that having kilometers of vehicles spent idling as they creep their way over the bridge crossings twice a day ALSO has a social, health, and environmental cost. Nor is there any solution to these social, health, and environmental costs that is politically feasible at the moment that does not involve widening the roads. Heck, even it was, in the case of the Massey tunnel, if you wanted to provide a competitive transit alternative you would at least would have to provide extra capacity if only to provide a bus bypass over the choke point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahzdeen Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Kinda like how the Golden Ears was supposed to be a money maker huh? Did you notice the traffic trends on the Port Mann over the past 7 years? That's from the project website itself! Ron, arguing that having people idle just proves my point. You clearly don't get it, so I guess I'll stop trying to show it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 You clearly never drive from the Fraser Valley. Regardless of the toll, people aren't going to stop driving on the Port Mann bridge because any other alternative is too far away or plops you in the middle of city traffic. The Golden Ears bridge is a completely different animals as it was replacing a tiny ferry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Kinda like how the Golden Ears was supposed to be a money maker huh? Did you notice the traffic trends on the Port Mann over the past 7 years? That's from the project website itself! Ron, arguing that having people idle just proves my point. You clearly don't get it, so I guess I'll stop trying to show it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 People can easily take the Port Mann instead of the Golden Ears as a free alternative. Once that's gone watch how much the increase in traffic is on the Golden Ears (and the Putello, and Alex Fraser, and even the Massey tunnel). If it turn out that the traffic trend turns out that volumes actually go down as we begin the process of widening and tolling all the bridges maybe it does loose a bit of money. But that would be easily erased by the tremendous social, health, and environmental benefits of all those people not driving now wouldn't it! Of course, it seems as though you don't even listen to yourself. Apparently widening the roads and bridges is supposed to generate additional traffic. Now you think it won't??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 What? When did I say that? Listen Ron. You want to pretend this exists in a bubble. It doesn't. You can't engineer your way out of this. As I've said, building more roads does not work. The simple fact that you agree with me, but want to do it anyway speaks volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Well then traffic and thus revenue should be plentiful. If all we did was build more roads it wouldn't work. But combined with a demand management system in the form of tolls that would have any excess revenue dedicated to expanding transit it might. And in the case of the Massey tunnel how the heck would we ever provide a transit alternative when buses have to go through the same choke point as everyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totes McGoats Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Going to replace the GM Tunnel with what? An oil pipeline that nobody wants? Bazinga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 But we don't have tolls on the highways! Bridges and tolls are great and all, but if you're going to wildly expand them then they require massive upgrades to get to them. You keep going on about the tunnel. I agree it needs replacing, all the old infrastructure needs a lot of work if not upgrading. But new or upgrade doesn't necessarily = expansion. That's a whole other topic that we haven't even approached. Maintenance on all this new infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 But we don't have tolls on the highways! Bridges and tolls are great and all, but if you're going to wildly expand them then they require massive upgrades to get to them. You keep going on about the tunnel. I agree it needs replacing, all the old infrastructure needs a lot of work if not upgrading. But new or upgrade doesn't necessarily = expansion. That's a whole other topic that we haven't even approached. Maintenance on all this new infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 This topic is about the tunnel! Forgive me for trying to stay on topic! And of course it will be expensive to upgrade 50 year old infrastructure which for the most part will have to be replaced. But of course whatever happens to the tunnel it will have to be expanded. It doesn't even match the roads that lead to it which is why there's the pinch point. There's no reason to not look at an option that only adds two lanes so that you can have two general + one HOV in each direction.... And with Translink already putting a toll on the New Putello (and there's no avoiding that since it's literally falling down) it will only leave the Alex Fraser as a free alternative and soon the south fraser screenline is complete and you have your first toll line. Like I have said over and over this is unavoidable the only questions will be what is promised in return for the tolls that will have to go on all the south fraser routes (well could do north fraser still) and what will happen to the extra toll money. This will all become obvious early next year when every shortcut through New West and North Delta (and south surrey to some extent for Langley people) becomes even more crazy than it already is and the residents start loosing their minds and demand tolls on the free alternatives..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Well this is the thing Ron--you can't talk about the tunnel and whether or not it should be replaced, or what it should be replaced with without talking about the entire transportation network. This thing does not exist in a bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Sea to Sky was under the Olympics "tent". SFPR is under the "port traffic/moving goods tent". Neither of them are crossings FWIW. (Crossings not having alternate routes all but guarantees customers...particularly when you put in a screen line). Bridges/tunnels will have tolls. Tolls that will help fund transit expansion. There's going to be more people here Inane. We need more roads/expansion so we have somewhere to put the buses that we all want those people on when they get here. The majority of that road expansion is (beyond the two notable exceptions above) will benefit transit expansion. So is there something in particular that irks you about replacing the tunnel or did you just feel the need to soap box and parrot talking points like "environmental cost"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 So what's your plan to move people through the 99 corridor if not replacing the tunnel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I disagre with your basic premise. I disagree based on numbers that we're seeing with regards to transit usage, alternative mode share #'s, volume #'s. Based on gas prices/volitilty in the market. Based on the environmental costs--air pollution, water pollution, land acquisition, sprawl, wasted land on parking lots, etc. Based on the massive and growing amount of information on health care costs, crashes, lost/wasted productivity, etc... Based on efficiency of movement for people and goods. Based on spiralling maintenance costs. Based on social costs--affordability, access, insurance. Based on trends with seniors and teens who want to move back to walkable cities, who aren't getting drivers licenses at anywhere near the rate they use to. etc.... But I know all these things don't matter. We just need to keep building more roads to get out of this nasty problem we have of full roads. Just like we did last time. Because this time it will work. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 LOL Oh I see, we're off topic. How convenient for you to claim that now after numerous pages of going back and forth 'off-topic'. Well this is the thing Ron--you can't talk about the tunnel and whether or not it should be replaced, or what it should be replaced with without talking about the entire transportation network. This thing does not exist in a bubble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 And no, I was not complaining about being off topic. I was responding to your claim I was obsessing over the Massey tunnel. Which of course I am, it's the topic. What would you expect? Of course it doesn't exist in a bubble which will be apparent as soon as they start tolling the Port Mann and even more so when the Putello work starts. Do you really think that people will accept tolls on the other routes with no sort of improvement? Even if they did how the heck would you improve transit on the 99 corridor without some sort of expansion to get past the single lane bottlenecks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 So you deny the tunnel needs more lanes? Even if only for transit/carpool? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.