inane Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Do you need further evidence than congestion EVERY rush hour at both the Highway 17 and Steveston exits to show you that those choke points cause lineups which congest the tunnel/highway and reduce traffic volume able to get through? This is not my field of work at all. You show me the website or organization I'd get that data from (if anyone's taking it) and I'm quite sure it will show that those areas are congested and that those lineups and congestion limit volume. It's not rocket science. And if there isn't someone measuring it, there should be. The only other thing that would also improve the situation would be the added suggestion of limiting commercial truck traffic during peak hours. As they also contribute to the congestion. Otherwise you need to get better ways of having people get in and out of those two main junctions and deal with the issue of having a major arterial route reduced to 1 lane twice daily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I'm not arguing there isn't congestion or that there aren't choke points. I'm providing data showing volumes are down. You are then interpreting that as all these other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I'm not claiming traffic volumes, I'm showing you data. If you don't believe it, so be it. They are not blogs against highway expansion, they are blogs, with supportive information for a multi-modal transportation network. You are the one saying if you're not for highway expansion you're against it. That's not what I'm saying. I've never 'opposed any sort of improvement, toll or not. You're making that up. The problem is your admitted hyperbole. You're unwilling to think about the consequences of your thoughts and then claim I'm opposed to everything under the sun because it's convinient to fit me into a little box that fits your position. You're right, I drive and have a single family home. I'm advocating for the very thing that would, in the short term, negatively impact me. So to claim I'm some idealistic boogeyman is pretty rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks_dynasty Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I avoid the Massey Tunnel like a plague during rush hour. It's a zoo. I take River Road to Alex Fraser Bridge to go home or back to work if ever I'm stuck out in Delta. I'm pretty sure that's the reason for "less volume". Remember the Stanley Cup run in 2010? There was like an accident at the Massey Tunnel almost every playoff game. Knowing that...tell me you wouldn't drive an extra 30 minutes to avoid a 3hr gridlock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 As noted by JR as the level of service goes down the total volume goes down (more vehicles pass through per hour at level of service C than at B or D). As well as the percentage of trucks goes up the total volume goes down. Traffic volume may be slightly down but it doesn't mean that the daily traffic reports (we have an all day traffic station for a reason) have nothing to talk about and make no mistake that tunnel is certainly part of the hourly highlight real. If your not opposed to an improvement to the current four lanes of traffic under the river than what would it be? And I am aware of the consequences of my plan which is why it includes measures to mitigate them should they happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Do you have another explanation? Five years ago I could easily commute from my home to my office in 25 minutes barring a major incident. Now it takes me 15-20 minutes to even get from where highway 17 traffic starts merging on the 99 to my office and closer to 35-40 minutes for the entire commute. The majority of that difference being from the additional Highway 17 and Steveston congestion. It's no different than putting flow reduction technologies on a tap or shower head. If you congest a given pathway less overall volume is used over a given time. Congested tap = less water. Congested highway = less vehicle volume. You seem to be an expert on these things, seriously, I'd love for you to point out where I would find congestion data as I'm sure if anyone's bothering to record it, it will prove I'm right. Help me learn, please? If there is no such place or data than unfortunately we have noting to go on but my "anecdotes". Unless you'd like to tell me I'm lying? Can you offer me a better theory as to why all of these things seem to add up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 There are plenty of reasons why congestion might be up yet volumes are down. Maybe there's more truck traffic slowing things down. Maybe there's more cops ticketing people slowing things down. Maybe there's more peak volume but less off-peak volume. Hell, I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 As I said truck traffic is also a problem. Eliminating it during peak hours would be helpful but would only be a first step in fixing the problem. No trucks wouldn't eliminate the lineups to get on the 99 from the Steveston and Highway 17 entrances that go on for blocks congesting traffic even on sides streets. Nor would it entirely eliminate the lineups on the 99 to get off the highway at those points and on to those congested streets. Lineups that congest the tunnel and lead to a slow down of traffic simply trying to pass those points on their way to other destinations. It also would do nothing to solve the single lane issue the tunnel has when accidents are inevitably caused due to that congestion and that lane gets shut down. So where would I go to confirm the congestion from those merge points I listed is the issue? You have yet to answer this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Accidents are inevitbly caused due to congestion? Congestion doesn't cause accidents, bad drivers doing illegal or stupid things do. I don't know how you're sure removing truck traffic would or would not impact congestion. I don't know where you should go find out about congestion numbers, like I said, I just keep my ear open. I'm not an 'expert' on this. Ron claims to be, ask him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Anecdotes Ron! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Bad design also causes accidents. Like vehicles traveling in at highway speeds in a single lane in opposite directions with no sort of separation let alone a median barrier. Removing truck traffic would cut congestion (they are slower and thus heavily impact a choke point like the tunnel) but with port expansion ongoing it's not something that one could expect to realistically expect to be reduced. If anything one should plan on it increasing. And you don't need to be an expert you should know that once volume gets to a certain point congestion builds up until you get to a point where maximum capacity is reached. This is at level of service C. When you get to level of service D or E the total volume goes down. There's still the same number of people trying to fit through as at level of service C but now with more people trying to merge in and out. It's these additional weaving movements that lower the volumes. Now granted that should effect the all day volume but all that really does is move people elsewhere on the network, or people not making the trip at all. The first one is the source of much disdain by people in New West and North Delta. The second depresses the economy as a whole. It's not like everyone decided to walk or get on a bus. What's happening is that that people are deciding to go somewhere else (simply creating congestion elsewhere) or not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 'Everyone' isn't doing anything. Stop lumping this into simplistic terms. Transit numbers are way up. Cycling mode share is up. Traffic volumes are down. In Vancouver, between 1996-2011: 75% increase in population, 26% increase in jobs, 10% increase in the number of people coming downtown, 25% decrease in traffic coming downtown. Look at page 3 of this document, right from the port mann project itself: http://www.pmh1proje... - 20110912.pdf Traffic on the Port Mann has been steadily decreasing since 2005. Gas consumption in Washington is at its lowest point since the 1950's. http://daily.sightli...g-into-reverse/ And again, all of this ignores the environmental, social & health costs. I'm not making this stuff up. I don't know why you're so reluctant to believe any of this.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Ron, if we're in such horrible economic times, then what the hell are we doing building and expanding all these highways. (and yes, I know one of them has a toll...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Ron, if we're in such horrible economic times, then what the hell are we doing building and expanding all these highways. (and yes, I know one of them has a toll...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 It's cheaper to build and creates jobs which stimulate the economy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Cheaper than what??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Cheaper than building anything during a boom. Labour, materials, land, everything is lower during a downturn. If the politicians actually acted in the long term perspective they would ramp back spending a pay off debt aggressively during a boom economy and then use those savings to ramp up public infrastructure during a downturn. Not only does it help to stabalize the economy by smoothing out the bumps in GDP it maximizes the amount of infrastructure created per dollar input. Instead you have the opposite - spending during the high times (like our high cost pre-olympics RAV line) and austerity during the bad times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 What austerity? On the one hand you keep telling me we have no money. But on the other hand we have highway construction all over the place. So which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Ron. You keep talking about the Port Mann. Ok, let's pretend the tolls pay for it and in the end it's a wash. What about all the other highway expansion, widening, and new construction? There are tolls on the vast majority of it. So how does your theory apply to anything other than the Port Mann? I mean you point out austerity, and then go on to say it's not really a problem here. You keep flip flopping your parameters here, I can't keep up.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Ron. You keep talking about the Port Mann. Ok, let's pretend the tolls pay for it and in the end it's a wash. What about all the other highway expansion, widening, and new construction? There are tolls on the vast majority of it. So how does your theory apply to anything other than the Port Mann? I mean you point out austerity, and then go on to say it's not really a problem here. You keep flip flopping your parameters here, I can't keep up.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.