Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Christy Clark announces plans to replace George Massey Tunnel


  • Please log in to reply
207 replies to this topic

#61 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 05 October 2012 - 03:59 PM

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?


  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#62 Ramathorn

Ramathorn

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 07

Posted 05 October 2012 - 04:03 PM

tollolloolloooolllooll
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image
Posted Image

#63 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,796 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 05 October 2012 - 04:06 PM


Ok, whatever you say. Tunnel is down. Pattulo is down. Overall metro region is down. But your stories are awesome.
  • 0

#64 Dion Phaneuf

Dion Phaneuf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,638 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 12

Posted 05 October 2012 - 04:20 PM

Patullo < Tunnel < Lions Gate

* 3 big problems IMO
  • 0

gallery_47851_23_84084.png

medium.png - CDCGML 483288048.png - EHL medium.png - STHS medium.png - CDCFL


#65 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,101 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 10 October 2012 - 12:51 PM

Anyone who thinks this hugely expensive project won't be tolled is kidding themselves.

This leaves only the Alex Fraser to close the screenline.
  • 0

#66 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,101 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 10 October 2012 - 12:55 PM

Ok, whatever you say. Tunnel is down. Pattulo is down. Overall metro region is down. But your stories are awesome.


Bridge traffic is down because....

A) The economy is down.

B) Business is also moving south of the river so instead of commuting to Vancouver you get people commuting to Surrey.
  • 0

#67 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,651 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 10 October 2012 - 12:56 PM

Ok, whatever you say. Tunnel is down. Pattulo is down. Overall metro region is down. But your stories are awesome.


Inanity at its very, very best ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#68 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,101 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 10 October 2012 - 01:15 PM

Posted Imageinane, 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.



Not just the Oak street bridge, but Oak street itself. You go from 2 lane freeway to 3 lane (but really 1 lane) city street with traffic lights and intersections. Making the pipe fatter at the fat end doesn't help much.


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........
  • 0

#69 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 10 October 2012 - 03:47 PM

Ok, whatever you say. Tunnel is down. Pattulo is down. Overall metro region is down. But your stories are awesome.


Congestion and volume are not the same thing. It's not my fault you don't know how to interpret the data properly. Fact is while there is evidently less people getting across any of these tunnels/bridges, they are busier and more congested than they have ever been. That tells me it's a clogged inefficient system with huge room for improvement.
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#70 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,796 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:12 PM

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 )
  • 0

#71 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,796 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:14 PM

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........


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?
  • 0

#72 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,796 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:21 PM

ttp://www.sightline.org/research/shifting-into-reverse/
  • 0

#73 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,101 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:28 PM

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?


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!
  • 0

#74 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,796 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:33 PM

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!


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.
  • 0

#75 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,101 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:33 PM

ttp://www.sightline.org/research/shifting-into-reverse/


Traffic always goes down in a recession. With less money to shop and less people working there's less traffic on the roads.

Wait till the world recession infects the lower mainland. You will have politicians of every stripe loving the idea of making job intensive roads and praying they become filled with happy working tax paying consumers!
  • 0

#76 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:36 PM

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 )


Frack your obtuse and dense

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...er-ranking.html

Vancouver traffic congestion deemed worst in Canada


http://www.richmondr.../172379011.html

The George Massey Tunnel opened in 1959 and is now congested more than four hours a day. Premier Christy Clark has pledged to replace it.


  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#77 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,101 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:43 PM

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.


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.
  • 0

#78 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,101 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:47 PM

Frack your obtuse and dense

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...er-ranking.html


http://www.richmondr.../172379011.html


Gotta love that even with local politicians shooting down the idea won't stop politicians in the opposition from supporting the tunnel being replaced with a bridge!

Even the NDP isn't that stupid!

P.S. If they happen to take a number 8 road alignment that nicely lines up with Boundary on the other side of the river should they be in the mood to build two bridges......
  • 0

#79 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,796 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:22 PM

Frack your obtuse and dense

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...er-ranking.html


http://www.richmondr.../172379011.html


I love how indignant you are. Tomtom qualifies as data? Is that Vancouver? The region? Where are the stats? Come on bud. Stop acting like I'm such an idiot and this is so obvious and link to stories in the bloody Richmond Review to prove your point.

Edited by inane, 10 October 2012 - 06:03 PM.

  • 0

#80 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,796 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:25 PM

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.


So let's put one in. I agree, stopping all road construction isn't a solution without an alternative. Stopping highways back in the day and not taking that money and putting it towards transit was the first in a number of mistakes. But what's done is done. Let's not repeat it!

You can not build highways to get out of congestion problems. End of story. It does not work. So why promote it as a solution?
  • 0

#81 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,796 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:18 PM

Some more fun info for you (I'm going on the very large assumption you actually click these links to get more informed. Oh how I would love to have you post some links to facts, data, anything other than conjecture to support your positions.

http://www.theglobea...article4552888/

Business people want transit? The bread and butter of the Liberals? What is this world coming to?!
  • 0

#82 No5Butcher

No5Butcher

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Joined: 11-September 11

Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:50 PM

To add to that, perhaps we don't actually need a new tunnel, perhaps we need better or more merge points in and out of South Richmond/Delta. Though I think then the tunnel becomes the choke point rather than the exits so we're back to where we started with also needing a new tunnel.


The Highway 17 overpass is being reconfigured as part of the SFPR. Some of the traffic from Highway 17 will merge at the SFPR overpass near the current Ladner Trunk overpass. This should account for most of the traffic coming from Deltaport and the ferries, but I'm not sure how much it will change things coming from Highway 17 southbound. Much of that traffic is from the Tilbury industrial area. Though River Rd. is being cut off just West of Nordell, so any traffic from that end of River Rd should be merging at the SFPR and Highway 99.
  • 0

#83 No5Butcher

No5Butcher

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Joined: 11-September 11

Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:55 PM

Patullo < Tunnel < Lions Gate

* 3 big problems IMO


The Patullo replacement is already at the stakeholder input stage. The likely timeline puts it going out to bid around completion of the Port Mann Highway One project (late next year).
  • 0

#84 No5Butcher

No5Butcher

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Joined: 11-September 11

Posted 10 October 2012 - 07:15 PM

Some more fun info for you (I'm going on the very large assumption you actually click these links to get more informed. Oh how I would love to have you post some links to facts, data, anything other than conjecture to support your positions.

http://www.theglobea...article4552888/

Business people want transit? The bread and butter of the Liberals? What is this world coming to?!


What they are missing is that the reason we have the highest fuel taxes in the country is that transit loses gobs of money. In terms of the development boom mentioned in the article, this is related to Skytrain lines, not transit in general. Running more transit lines out to the current low density areas would just be a money sink.

What those in the trucking industry are missing is that they are the a big part of the cause of congestion. Or maybe they aren't missing it and just don't like the other solution options. While overall traffic volumes through the Massey Tunnel may be down, since the expansion of Deltaport, truck volume is up. This is likely what has caused the increase in congestion at the tunnel. If Delta and Richmond were to pass bylaws similar to Vancouver, where truck traffic is prohibitted during peak hours, most of the congestion issues at the tunnel would likely be solved.

I do the opposite commute, from Richmond to Delta, and there are two obvious things that come to my mind about the congestion.Truck traffic is one of the big issues. They cause the slinky effect through the tunnel and reduce the average speed by a fair margin. The second is that replacing the tunnel would not just move the choke point. to the Oak St Bridge. Much of the volume through the tunnel peels off at either Steveston or Westminister. In the evening especially. If you are heading downtown in the afternoon rush, from anywhere other than Ladner or Tswassen, it is faster to take the Arthur Lang and cut across the East West Connector to Knight or Oak now.

Unfortuneately, Clark is off on her timeline. The replacement of the tunnel is something that may start to get looked at seriously in ten to fifteen years. Right now it's just not on the radar. The tunnels not being in vogue comment really shows she has no idea what she is talking about. I wouldn't expect to see shovels in the ground in the next twenty years.
  • 0

#85 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,101 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 11 October 2012 - 07:47 AM

Some more fun info for you (I'm going on the very large assumption you actually click these links to get more informed. Oh how I would love to have you post some links to facts, data, anything other than conjecture to support your positions.

http://www.theglobea...article4552888/

Business people want transit? The bread and butter of the Liberals? What is this world coming to?!


Of course business people want transit! Look at all the development (that is if city councils let them) that gets driven up when a new skytrain line goes in!

Don't count on them supporting a hike in business taxes to build it though!
  • 0

#86 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,101 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 11 October 2012 - 07:53 AM

What they are missing is that the reason we have the highest fuel taxes in the country is that transit loses gobs of money. In terms of the development boom mentioned in the article, this is related to Skytrain lines, not transit in general. Running more transit lines out to the current low density areas would just be a money sink.

What those in the trucking industry are missing is that they are the a big part of the cause of congestion. Or maybe they aren't missing it and just don't like the other solution options. While overall traffic volumes through the Massey Tunnel may be down, since the expansion of Deltaport, truck volume is up. This is likely what has caused the increase in congestion at the tunnel. If Delta and Richmond were to pass bylaws similar to Vancouver, where truck traffic is prohibitted during peak hours, most of the congestion issues at the tunnel would likely be solved.

I do the opposite commute, from Richmond to Delta, and there are two obvious things that come to my mind about the congestion.Truck traffic is one of the big issues. They cause the slinky effect through the tunnel and reduce the average speed by a fair margin. The second is that replacing the tunnel would not just move the choke point. to the Oak St Bridge. Much of the volume through the tunnel peels off at either Steveston or Westminister. In the evening especially. If you are heading downtown in the afternoon rush, from anywhere other than Ladner or Tswassen, it is faster to take the Arthur Lang and cut across the East West Connector to Knight or Oak now.

Unfortuneately, Clark is off on her timeline. The replacement of the tunnel is something that may start to get looked at seriously in ten to fifteen years. Right now it's just not on the radar. The tunnels not being in vogue comment really shows she has no idea what she is talking about. I wouldn't expect to see shovels in the ground in the next twenty years.


I would say that the timeline is happening and it won't matter who gets elected she's simply blacktop politicking. You can bet MOT has been doing prelim studies on this but you can't really start the studies for real until you see what the effects of the now much larger (but also tolled) port mann do to traffic volumes on the network.

It's a safe bet though that with the toll screen line moving west that as the number of free options goes away the congestion on the remaining free options will only rise.

With the Putello already being set to be tolled that will leave only the Alex Fraser and Massey to be improved and tolled so that the loop is closed.

Putello is already at design and it's reasonable to assume it's construction will start shortly after completion of highway one.

Based on the timelines going on we could expect planning and engineering for Massey to go on while Putello is being built.

And waaaay off we could be figuring out what to do with the biggest mess of all (Alex Fraser - the bridge that forgot what lane continuity is) which by that time be so congested terrorist groups will be setting up in North Delta with plans to blow it up they will be so pissed off from people short cutting through their community.
  • 0

#87 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,796 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:48 AM

Of course business people want transit! Look at all the development (that is if city councils let them) that gets driven up when a new skytrain line goes in!

Don't count on them supporting a hike in business taxes to build it though!


Well that's the rub isn't it. Everyone wants it, no one wants to pay for it. Some politicians need to sack up and find a sustainable funding solution. The problem now is the provincial government has created all these levels of bureaucracy, downloaded all these things to them, and then cut them off at the knees in terms of funding. The province is the problem here.
  • 0

#88 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,796 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:50 AM

I would say that the timeline is happening and it won't matter who gets elected she's simply blacktop politicking. You can bet MOT has been doing prelim studies on this but you can't really start the studies for real until you see what the effects of the now much larger (but also tolled) port mann do to traffic volumes on the network.

It's a safe bet though that with the toll screen line moving west that as the number of free options goes away the congestion on the remaining free options will only rise.

With the Putello already being set to be tolled that will leave only the Alex Fraser and Massey to be improved and tolled so that the loop is closed.

Putello is already at design and it's reasonable to assume it's construction will start shortly after completion of highway one.

Based on the timelines going on we could expect planning and engineering for Massey to go on while Putello is being built.

And waaaay off we could be figuring out what to do with the biggest mess of all (Alex Fraser - the bridge that forgot what lane continuity is) which by that time be so congested terrorist groups will be setting up in North Delta with plans to blow it up they will be so pissed off from people short cutting through their community.


Region wide price structure and/or tolling. It's not some radical idea, it's being done elsewhere. If not only to pay for transit, but to also pay for all these renovations that are required to all our aging infrastructure. We had it great for 50-60 years, we need to stop pretending this isn't a problem now.
  • 0

#89 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,101 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:12 AM

Well that's the rub isn't it. Everyone wants it, no one wants to pay for it. Some politicians need to sack up and find a sustainable funding solution. The problem now is the provincial government has created all these levels of bureaucracy, downloaded all these things to them, and then cut them off at the knees in terms of funding. The province is the problem here.


There's a reason you don't see politicians stepping up to come up with funding solutions.

Even if they took all the existing gas taxes and put that towards roads/transit it would require other taxes to make up the shortfall to general revenue.

Other taxes are simply a poison pill for any politician. Easiest way to have a recall petition would be to sack up and propose a sustainable funding solution. No need to be surprised that this hot potatoe gets thrown around.

Even when the money is going directly to fixing the problem (such as the tolls on the new crossing) there's still no shortage of people angry about it and in fact some people (such as the conservatives) are keying in on that and promising to remove the tolls!

But don't feel too bad. The conservative are not getting elected and the tolls are here to stay (and new ones are coming).

And yes, one day those roads will be just as a congested but now with even more cars. And yes, what will we do then?

Well, at least we should have a ton of extra toll revenue to provide a sustainable funding source. That is if it isn't sucked into the soon to be massive black hole that is the provincial budget and it's exploding health care costs (already bad -> soon to be much much worse).
  • 0

#90 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,101 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:16 AM

Region wide price structure and/or tolling. It's not some radical idea, it's being done elsewhere. If not only to pay for transit, but to also pay for all these renovations that are required to all our aging infrastructure. We had it great for 50-60 years, we need to stop pretending this isn't a problem now.


While you me and Ms. Watts would love the idea of say tolling the north shore bridges in order to pay for that delayed third seabus and the put off south of fraser express buses it should be of no surprise what the north shore had to say about that idea when it was floated.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.