aGENT Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Like I said, I posted information. You're the one arguing it with your stories. If you don't believe the statistics, so be it. You're saying congestion = lower volume. So are those cars disappearing? Going somewhere else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramathorn Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 tollolloolloooolllooll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dion Phaneuf Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Patullo < Tunnel < Lions Gate * 3 big problems IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Anyone who thinks this hugely expensive project won't be tolled is kidding themselves. This leaves only the Alex Fraser to close the screenline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Ok, whatever you say. Tunnel is down. Pattulo is down. Overall metro region is down. But your stories are awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Ok, whatever you say. Tunnel is down. Pattulo is down. Overall metro region is down. But your stories are awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 /index.php?app=forums&module=forums§ion=findpost&pid=10928578">inane, on 03 October 2012 - 03:30 PM, said: Great point about Oak Street, someone else made that point a few years ago while promoting the SFPR. Who was that again? "Kevin Falcon, who a few year’s ago, when Minister of Transportation, observed that a new tunnel would not be needed-- It would only push the congestion a few kilometres down the road to the Oak Street Bridge." http://www.yourlibra...60218/news.html Huh, weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Ok, whatever you say. Tunnel is down. Pattulo is down. Overall metro region is down. But your stories are awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Until you have data showing congestion is up, your stories will remain fiction. By the way transit ridership is at an all time high. (warning, pesky facts ahead: http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/Transit%20Ridership.pdf ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 People queued at the Oak street bridge would at least have the option to pull off and get onto transit at the River Rock park and ride. That Vancouver is hell to go through is still true though. If only someone could come up with some way to by-pass Vancouver....... Maybe take that toll money and widen the 91 to direct traffic going elsewhere to the Knight street bridge and while were at it a new bridge to connect to Boundary road........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 ttp://www.sightline.org/research/shifting-into-reverse/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 How many times and in how many different ways do you need to be told that more roads does not equal less congestion. I would ask you, again, for the 15th time to find one example on planet earth where that has worked. As we know you can't, I wonder why you keep pushing for that as a solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Because the real solution is proper planning and zoning and since the only place they seem to allow development to keep up with our growing population (good luck telling the feds to lower immigration) happens to be south of the river we have to make enough roads to deal with where the population exists. Go ahead and convince Burrard Peninsula municipalities to zone for enough housing to fit one million more people (as well as jobs and services for all) and I will happily advocate bulldozing out the "excess" road capacity. Since that's not happening either I agree that widening the roads will only work for so long but it's better than doing nothing. Besides, all those drivers are paying gas taxes and it doesn't matter if the people are wrong (see HST stupidity) we're in the majority. They don't call it blacktop politics for nothing - it works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 ttp://www.sightline.org/research/shifting-into-reverse/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Until you have data showing congestion is up, your stories will remain fiction. By the way transit ridership is at an all time high. (warning, pesky facts ahead: http://www.metrovanc...t Ridership.pdf ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I guess this is where we disagree. It's worse than doing nothing because it just continues the cycle, worsens the problem making it longer, harder and a lot more expensive to correct in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Frack your obtuse and dense http://www.cbc.ca/ne...er-ranking.html http://www.richmondr.../172379011.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Frack your obtuse and dense http://www.cbc.ca/ne...er-ranking.html http://www.richmondr.../172379011.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 It's not the only point we disagree with. In order to have a city that didn't rely on highways for internal travel you would have to have significant increases in density. As we can note from the latest episode of people in Vancouver going bonkers because the bowling alley is (gasp) slated to turn into a denser development (and don't kid yourself if they made it even bigger and denser by putting a bowling alley and theatre back in they would go more bonkers) places that are dense are not always keen to let in even more people. And even in areas that are dense like Manhatten or downtown Paris or London where people within the core using autos is very much the minority and transit covers most of the trips they are all surrounded by huge suburban areas that car dependent. The kind of city that doesn't rely on cars is a fantasy because people aren't willing to live that kind of lifestyle. It's pretty clear that as much as people might hate spending big bucks to be trapped in traffic hours a day than shelling out megabucks to live in a box in the sky. You can point all the holes into road building and suburban sprawl you want. I frankly don't disagree. It's just that there's no viable alternative. Even right here in the lower mainland where there's at least hope of having a series of town centres in the burbs with their own condos and townhouses all those people are getting out of their density and driving because there's not enough tax money to pay to provide a reasonable transit alternative and anyone that tries to raise it will have a very short time in office. That's reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.