n00bxQb Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Lets toll it, so we can piss off everyone in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Common sense? From the guy that wants to expand highways knowing it is long term dumb? Here's some more links supporting my position. I still have yet to see a single link from you... do I dare to dream? http://www.theatlant...lkability/3326/ http://stephenrees.w...snt-pixie-dust/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n00bxQb Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 But, dude, the internet clearly knows more about everything than professionals ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Common sense? From the guy that wants to expand highways knowing it is long term dumb? Here's some more links supporting my position. I still have yet to see a single link from you... do I dare to dream? http://www.theatlant...lkability/3326/ http://stephenrees.w...snt-pixie-dust/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Expanding highways is only really dumb if you don't have a demand management system in place. Right now the only demand management system we have in place is congestion. Growth patterns show this has been ineffective. I support a tolling system that adds enough roadway to support existing capacity as well as a transit alternative to make more use of the system. Under my system if congestion gets bad we end up with more money for transit. I don't need any links. I am a professional engineer. I can use myself as a reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Then what the hell are we doing expanding highways! This isn't an engineering problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 They are getting a demand management system (in this case a toll) being put on them. Just like the Putello will. Just like the Massey should they fix it will. Did you forget that? The liberals do these things (and the NDP are not stupid enough to disagree with doing something similar with the Massey tunnel) because they know how incredibly pissed off people get being stuck in traffic. I would perhaps have more respect for planners if they were capable of introducing any sort of demand management system other than congestion. And even that's not working. Well after the construction of the Alex Fraser and the expo line and well before any wild dreams of widening highway one the population was moving out to the valley in droves (even with half hour queues to get on the bridge) and about the only adaptation in behaviour was to start getting up at five so that the q's start earlier than the first traffic report now! When planners fail and their only response to problems is in stark contrasts to the wishes of the public it's time to call in the engineers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 You keep blaming 'planners'. 'Planners' have nothing to do with demand managment controls. That's the Province. Go read the latest council reports from say Surrey. Tell me how many multi-family developments there are vs single family. And if single family, how dense? Planners are doing their bit. Engineers don't plan anything, they just do what's given to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Whatever, this isn't a pissing match. All of this bs doesn't even factor in the social/environmental costs of all of this which I would hope you acknowledge has driving cars as worse than anything else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Whatever, this isn't a pissing match. All of this bs doesn't even factor in the social/environmental costs of all of this which I would hope you acknowledge has driving cars as worse than anything else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Why is it you always seem so intent on making a point rather than actually making/discussing changes and options? You're so busy trying to be right you don't see the forest for the trees. Neither myself (and I doubt Ron) need convincing that long term, density, transit etc are the routes to go or that cars are "bad". That's where you seem to fall flat on your face though. Ok great, 50 years from now we all want a dense transit connected utopia. How do we get there? How do we fund it without the people revolting and without crippling current commuters and goods movement? It's not going to happen tomorrow Inane so how do we get there? So far Ron's ideas sounds a lot more feasible and realistic given present needs, future wants and, political and economic realities. Better than your "cars and highways are bad" anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 50 years from now we'll be having the same discussion if all we do is cater to immediate needs and build highways all over. Except for then we'll have magnified all the problems. I've already listed, and provided sources for a number of potential options. If you choose to ignore them, that's your deal. If all you get from my posts is 'cars are bad' then there's no point discussing this with someone who has such poor reading comprehension skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 There ya go again. All defensive and preachy without any actual substance. C'est la vie.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 50 years from now we'll be having the same discussion if all we do is cater to immediate needs and build highways all over. Except for then we'll have magnified all the problems. I've already listed, and provided sources for a number of potential options. If you choose to ignore them, that's your deal. If all you get from my posts is 'cars are bad' then there's no point discussing this with someone who has such poor reading comprehension skills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Actually my "build highways all over" plan would have tolls installed as a demand management system with an agreement in place that excess revenue be directed towards increasing the efficiency of the route should it reach capacity be used to to fund transit. So in 50 years one of three things would happen.... Economy sucks and we do a Japan style old person system with deflation over decades. Then the population and economy is stable and building the highway works on it's own. Though like the intention of the Port Mann but this time actually fund it as part of the toll have the express bus alternative for people that don't want to pay the toll open with a park and ride or two going on day one. Moderate growth. The route gets busier and we get sprawl. You start to put in peak hour pricing and the HOV lanes are limited to van pools and the express buses start operating at Bline frequencies which would be almost the same as having a light rail line in place. Sprawlegeddon: Massive growth and huge traffic at least equals massive toll revenue. Use the money to build a rapid transit line to upgrade the bus. It's a new paradigm. Instead of using congestion as a demand management tool you use cost. Except that in my paradigm if you pay for premium service (the toll) you at least get premium service. If you don't want to pay that you have a subsidized alternative payed for by those that get the premium service. They benefit knowing that the subsidy ups the efficient increasing the service for them. Not loved by all but given how fast people signed up for the Port mann tolls and the clamour for the express buses a scheme like this might pass the public scrutiny test if floated. Even in the short term the express buses would obvious connect to regional town centres which provides incentive for people living in the burbs to join their dense hubs as it would provide commuting options for those people that would eliminate the need for a car for at least a lot of the them for at least a lot of their trips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 All of this isn't in a vaccuum though ron. The social, health, environmental costs of all of this you are completely ignoring. If the only question were financial and moving people you might have something. But waiting 50 years to have money to build transit, on top of 50 years worth of more damage the unabated sprawl would do is a non-starter. This requires action now. Not in 50 years. The mayors are waking up to this reality. The province is not (at least this bunch) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Moving people faster is better, but getting people out of their cars is A LOT better. There is money Ron, I keep telling you this. They just announced 24 million for a new interchange at hwy 99 and 16th ave like an hour ago. There is money!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No5Butcher Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 An article regarding the interchange: http://www.news1130....w-road-projects To quote from it "The new highway connection will link South Surrey and Langley to Abbotsford Airport and should reduce truck congestion." That is where much of the provincial and federal infrastructure dollars for road improvements are aimed. Eg. the Port Mann Highway One and SFPR are both funded as part of the federal Gateway program, the purpose of which is to ease the flow of goods through the country. You can't ship goods with transit. Also note that they announced two transit improvements at the same time. Expanding the King George park and ride and extending the bus lane on Hwy 99. In terms of whether or not the money is there, it depends on what improvements you are looking for. I'm not sure you have specified this (it wasn't in the last few pages anyway). If you are talking extending the Skytrain lines, it's an entirely different amount you are looking at. The Evergreen Line is projected at around 1.4 billion for 10.9km of track, or close to $130 million per km. And it doesn't include any major bridges, which something like extending the Canada Line to south of the Fraser would. If you mean expanded bus service, as other have noted this is unlikely to make much difference in commuting tendencies in most places. Even with HOV lanes, once you have situations where the bus has to merge at a choke point a fair part of the advantage to taking transit is lost. Many of the bus lines now lose money yearly, so while extended bus routes may not be a huge expenditure to start with it is one that is paid annually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 An article regarding the interchange: http://www.news1130....w-road-projects To quote from it "The new highway connection will link South Surrey and Langley to Abbotsford Airport and should reduce truck congestion." That is where much of the provincial and federal infrastructure dollars for road improvements are aimed. Eg. the Port Mann Highway One and SFPR are both funded as part of the federal Gateway program, the purpose of which is to ease the flow of goods through the country. You can't ship goods with transit. Also note that they announced two transit improvements at the same time. Expanding the King George park and ride and extending the bus lane on Hwy 99. In terms of whether or not the money is there, it depends on what improvements you are looking for. I'm not sure you have specified this (it wasn't in the last few pages anyway). If you are talking extending the Skytrain lines, it's an entirely different amount you are looking at. The Evergreen Line is projected at around 1.4 billion for 10.9km of track, or close to $130 million per km. And it doesn't include any major bridges, which something like extending the Canada Line to south of the Fraser would. If you mean expanded bus service, as other have noted this is unlikely to make much difference in commuting tendencies in most places. Even with HOV lanes, once you have situations where the bus has to merge at a choke point a fair part of the advantage to taking transit is lost. Many of the bus lines now lose money yearly, so while extended bus routes may not be a huge expenditure to start with it is one that is paid annually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/translink-audit-complete/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.