Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Christy Clark announces plans to replace George Massey Tunnel


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
207 replies to this topic

#91 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:19 AM

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).


Well, I can't accept that. Accept that we know there's a problem and we know the 'solution' we're pushing for isn't going to work. But we're doing it anyway? That's lunacy. It's idiotic. As an engineer would you support a project knowing it's doomed to failure?

There are other options other than taxes. Road pricing, region wide tolls, etc.

#92 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,427 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:23 AM

Well, I can't accept that. Accept that we know there's a problem and we know the 'solution' we're pushing for isn't going to work. But we're doing it anyway? That's lunacy. It's idiotic. As an engineer would you support a project knowing it's doomed to failure?

There are other options other than taxes. Road pricing, region wide tolls, etc.


Road pricing, region wide tolls, etc. will justifiably be looked at simply as new taxes. Even the tolls on the new Port Mann are view as unfair by many. Do you really expect a new tax/toll/pricing/whateveryouwanttocallit funding strategy to not be noticed by the media and the population?

This is a region where even a 1% increase in interest rates is expected to put a significant amount of people into financial crisis where at the same time stresses on government revenue are going to be going way up as more and more people retire from taxpaying and graduate to collecting pensions and spending much more time in health care. Do you really think some additional costs are going to be snuck by the population???

#93 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:55 AM

Road pricing, region wide tolls, etc. will justifiably be looked at simply as new taxes. Even the tolls on the new Port Mann are view as unfair by many. Do you really expect a new tax/toll/pricing/whateveryouwanttocallit funding strategy to not be noticed by the media and the population?

This is a region where even a 1% increase in interest rates is expected to put a significant amount of people into financial crisis where at the same time stresses on government revenue are going to be going way up as more and more people retire from taxpaying and graduate to collecting pensions and spending much more time in health care. Do you really think some additional costs are going to be snuck by the population???


No, where have I suggested that would be the case? No again, how can you possibly interpret my posts as this?

Ron, we have money. You can't tell me we don't have money after spending close to 10 Billion dollars on highway/bridge improvements over the past 5-6 years. It's all about priorities. We need to change our priorities, for the very reason you seem to be agreeing with me about--More roads does not equal less congestion.

I do not understand how you can advocate for a project/system you know does not work. That's stupid.

#94 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,427 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:32 PM

No, where have I suggested that would be the case? No again, how can you possibly interpret my posts as this?

Ron, we have money. You can't tell me we don't have money after spending close to 10 Billion dollars on highway/bridge improvements over the past 5-6 years. It's all about priorities. We need to change our priorities, for the very reason you seem to be agreeing with me about--More roads does not equal less congestion.

I do not understand how you can advocate for a project/system you know does not work. That's stupid.


Close to half of that (Port Mann and the soon to be much busier Golden ears) will be recouped through new tolls not even the existing revenue.

As for the rest it's not even close to eating up the gas tax revenue for five years.

I advocate for a system that "doesn't" work because it's the best one available and the only one that has a hope in hell of finding a funding source for transit should they become congested.

The only reason building more roads doesn't work is because the population keeps increasing. If the federal government kept immigration at replacement levels building more roads would work.

However, they are not doing that, and since the overwhelming majority of the growth (much of it the townhouses and condos) is happening outside the Burrard Peninsula (where every new development has the old money that dominates the area demonstrating in the streets) which happens to be the same area that is already taxed to death while getting very little in return I wouldn't expect things to change any time soon.

Hey, I have no problem with putting a congestion charge on downtown (where there are alternatives to get there) and using that money to build skytrain to Langley. Go for it.

However, I realize that it's about as likely as happening as putting tolls on existing bridge crossings.

Roads and highways are a priority because that's what people use and the majority rules. Democracy is a bitch sometimes eh?

#95 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 04:15 PM

Close to half of that (Port Mann and the soon to be much busier Golden ears) will be recouped through new tolls not even the existing revenue.

As for the rest it's not even close to eating up the gas tax revenue for five years.

I advocate for a system that "doesn't" work because it's the best one available and the only one that has a hope in hell of finding a funding source for transit should they become congested.

The only reason building more roads doesn't work is because the population keeps increasing. If the federal government kept immigration at replacement levels building more roads would work.

However, they are not doing that, and since the overwhelming majority of the growth (much of it the townhouses and condos) is happening outside the Burrard Peninsula (where every new development has the old money that dominates the area demonstrating in the streets) which happens to be the same area that is already taxed to death while getting very little in return I wouldn't expect things to change any time soon.

Hey, I have no problem with putting a congestion charge on downtown (where there are alternatives to get there) and using that money to build skytrain to Langley. Go for it.

However, I realize that it's about as likely as happening as putting tolls on existing bridge crossings.

Roads and highways are a priority because that's what people use and the majority rules. Democracy is a bitch sometimes eh?


Don't you think we should find a better system then? I do not understand how you can just basically say 'meh, it's the best we got even though it doesn't work'. Again, that's idiotic.

#96 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,427 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:10 PM

Don't you think we should find a better system then? I do not understand how you can just basically say 'meh, it's the best we got even though it doesn't work'. Again, that's idiotic.


Of course we should find another system but the only one that has a hope in hell of being accepted by the public is my long advocated fixing of the river crossings as well as a 99 to highway 1 connecting road with all of 1, 91, and 99 being at least two lanes plus one HOV with crossings that maintain lane continuity. We pay for those through tolls.

If they never get congested no big deal. If they do we use the extra money to increase the effecientcy of the crossing first by using more express buses followed by a move to extend skytrain like service through out the region.

Pays for itself.

And while creating more density around existing transit and extending at very least express buses (bline service) between all the regional town centres as a way to build up demand until it's replaced by skytrain or better is good too we don't have the money for that. We already have the highest gas prices on the continent and the highest cost of housing to boot relative to income so getting more money out would be like geting blood out of a stone.

Of course, if we could find a way to make healthcare more financially effecient (even a 5% reduction in costs directed towards infrastructure would make a world of difference) then of course we would have money but instead the opposite is going to happen and you can expect less money on roads (save those financed by tolls), for schools, for transit, and for pretty much anything else moving forward.

LIke it or not were moving into a system where if it's not self financed then you might as well forget it.

#97 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:52 PM

Of course we should find another system but the only one that has a hope in hell of being accepted by the public is my long advocated fixing of the river crossings as well as a 99 to highway 1 connecting road with all of 1, 91, and 99 being at least two lanes plus one HOV with crossings that maintain lane continuity. We pay for those through tolls.

If they never get congested no big deal. If they do we use the extra money to increase the effecientcy of the crossing first by using more express buses followed by a move to extend skytrain like service through out the region.

Pays for itself.

And while creating more density around existing transit and extending at very least express buses (bline service) between all the regional town centres as a way to build up demand until it's replaced by skytrain or better is good too we don't have the money for that. We already have the highest gas prices on the continent and the highest cost of housing to boot relative to income so getting more money out would be like geting blood out of a stone.

Of course, if we could find a way to make healthcare more financially effecient (even a 5% reduction in costs directed towards infrastructure would make a world of difference) then of course we would have money but instead the opposite is going to happen and you can expect less money on roads (save those financed by tolls), for schools, for transit, and for pretty much anything else moving forward.

LIke it or not were moving into a system where if it's not self financed then you might as well forget it.


Lol. The only solution is ron's solution to build an entirely new highway on top of the massive highway construction/expansion we're already doing. Then maybe we'll build transit sometime later on... This isn't the 1950's ron!

Did you read any of those links?

#98 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,427 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:15 AM

Lol. The only solution is ron's solution to build an entirely new highway on top of the massive highway construction/expansion we're already doing. Then maybe we'll build transit sometime later on... This isn't the 1950's ron!

Did you read any of those links?


I have read whole volumes of books on planning, taken transit planning courses, read volumes of links. I understand your position just fine.

Density and transit would eliminate the need for more highways. No need to push the point. Problem is people refuse to live like that.

P.S. Soon enough it going to be a lot more like the 1930's so don't count on securing more funding for transit anytime soon. In fact count on less.

#99 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:29 AM

I have read whole volumes of books on planning, taken transit planning courses, read volumes of links. I understand your position just fine.

Density and transit would eliminate the need for more highways. No need to push the point. Problem is people refuse to live like that.

P.S. Soon enough it going to be a lot more like the 1930's so don't count on securing more funding for transit anytime soon. In fact count on less.


I agree about density, but I just can not understand how you can advocate for a solution that you know will not work. 'It's the best we got' is bs. Then we get something different.

#100 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,427 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 09:47 AM

I agree about density, but I just can not understand how you can advocate for a solution that you know will not work. 'It's the best we got' is bs. Then we get something different.


It works better than doing nothing.

There's a reason for the two plus one HOV highway system. Imagine one lane with a bus, the other with a car, and the other with a truck.

There's a reason to have lane continuity, the pinch points are the source of most of the congestion at the crossings.

There's a reason to connect hwy 99/91 with highway 1 - it keeps long distance commuters off of local roads.

You put in improvements and you can win people over to paying for them with through tolls.

If the road gets to capacity you take the excess toll money and use it to run express buses via the primary nodes that use that route. That's why you need the HOV lane.

If the HOV lane gets to capacity you increase the number of people required (instead of two you up it to three or vanpools or whatever if needed).

If that doesn't do it you up the toll a bit and start funding a rapid transit crossing that replaced the express bus.

People that have to drive might be paying a premium but they will at least get premium service.

The emerging town centres south of the river that would be the nodes the express buses would be connecting to would now have a viable transit alternative - which if the doom and gloom scenario of the new toll road becoming congested in short order came true would make a ton of money to provide it right away.

It's not perfect but it's at least viable and complete with it's own funding program.

Taxing bridges that are not being improved is not viable.

Running buses that have to merge into the same choke points as general traffic is not viable and is currently facing a budget crunch.

Telling the feds to limit immigration until infrastructure catches up is not viable.

Limiting new people who arrive to living in dense communities is not viable either for the vast majority of them or the communities people are trying to densify. By all means support measures to do both but it can not be counted on as a method to eliminate congestion. (Reduce sure, but not eliminate).

#101 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 09:57 AM

"It works better than doing nothing."

Doing nothing and doing something that won't work are not the only two options!!!!!!!

#102 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,427 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 10:20 AM

"It works better than doing nothing."

Doing nothing and doing something that won't work are not the only two options!!!!!!!


What won't work with my plan?

What does work with yours? (Not that you have one).

#103 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 10:35 AM

What won't work with my plan?

What does work with yours? (Not that you have one).


Your plan is based on a whole pile of unproven assumptions that you take for facts.

Anyway, neither of us is going to convince the other. But building more roads to solve congestion DOES NOT WORK. Ever. Nowhere. So excuse me if I'd like to try something different.

#104 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,397 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 12 October 2012 - 10:38 AM

So excuse me if I'd like to try something different.


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

Posted ImagePosted Image

#105 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:05 AM

Which would be.....?


There are a number of options to look at. There's no smoking gun/easy to do answer though.

Road pricing
Regional tolls
Some form of tax
Congestion charges
Limiting trucks/commercial to certain hours
any combination of any of the above.

The problem is translink, municipalities and regional districts are all children of the Province. They have to go through the province to get anything approved. But the province isn't willing to engage. So it's all kinda moot until they do. Meanwhile, they plow ahead contrary to what translink, municipalities and the region are advocating for by building/expanding highways.

But doing nothing or just building more roads aren't real options. Especially with more and more information we're getting regarding lower volumes of traffic, higher gas prices, reduced gas consumption, parking rates downtown are dropping like crazy cause they can't fill them up, they can't fill them up because traffic into downtown is the same now as it was in the 1960's. Cycling mode share is up, the transit mode share is up, transit volumes are up. I mean what about any of this says build more roads?

#106 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,397 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:14 AM

There are a number of options to look at. There's no smoking gun/easy to do answer though.

Road pricing
Regional tolls
Some form of tax
Congestion charges
Limiting trucks/commercial to certain hours
any combination of any of the above.

The problem is translink, municipalities and regional districts are all children of the Province. They have to go through the province to get anything approved. But the province isn't willing to engage. So it's all kinda moot until they do. Meanwhile, they plow ahead contrary to what translink, municipalities and the region are advocating for by building/expanding highways.

But doing nothing or just building more roads aren't real options. Especially with more and more information we're getting regarding lower volumes of traffic, higher gas prices, reduced gas consumption, parking rates downtown are dropping like crazy cause they can't fill them up, they can't fill them up because traffic into downtown is the same now as it was in the 1960's. Cycling mode share is up, the transit mode share is up, transit volumes are up. I mean what about any of this says build more roads?


That most people don't commute to Vancouver due to the city driving people/businesses out?

Edited by J.R., 12 October 2012 - 11:14 AM.

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

Posted ImagePosted Image

#107 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:25 AM

That most people don't commute to Vancouver due to the city driving people/businesses out?


Should I bother asking you to back up that claim with evidence or just assume you don't have it...

Since you ignored the content of my post, here's an article for you to read if you choose: http://www.theglobea...article4550376/

#108 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,397 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:35 AM

I believe it was Ron that posted the link like a year ago showing something like 60% of commuting is inter-suburb and NOT Vancouver centric. Maybe he has the link?

Edited by J.R., 12 October 2012 - 11:35 AM.

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

Posted ImagePosted Image

#109 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,427 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:38 AM

Posted ImageJ.R., on 12 October 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

That most people don't commute to Vancouver due to the city driving people/businesses out?

Should I bother asking you to back up that claim with evidence or just assume you don't have it...

Since you ignored the content of my post, here's an article for you to read if you choose: http://www.theglobea...article4550376/


:rolleyes:

Seriously? Look at any translink planning report. Greatest growth in travel and largest change in pattern is traffic having changed from going suburb to downtown to going suburb to suburb.

That's why you see the single tunnel lane and the light on 91 northbound both backed waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up on a daily basis, why the queenbourough south is backed up every morning (I drive by the queue on Stewardson all the time), and why the Port Mann is backed up westbound every afternoon. It's why 40% of Port Mann bridge traffic gets on one exit before crossing and gets off one exit after. It's why Burrard peninsula municipalities are clogged with commuters trying to cross over on side streets as it's the only way to get where they are going.

Every road and every transit system is built to go downtown where the overwhelming majority of growth (still miniscule in the region though the effort downtown is decent) is residential. The overwhelming majority of residential, office, industrial, and commercial space is in the suburbs. You freaking know this.

#110 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:39 AM

A rebuttal to the 'tomtom' measure of congestion.

http://www.southfras...seless-for.html

#111 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:42 AM

:rolleyes:

Seriously? Look at any translink planning report. Greatest growth in travel and largest change in pattern is traffic having changed from going suburb to downtown to going suburb to suburb.

That's why you see the single tunnel lane and the light on 91 northbound both backed waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up on a daily basis, why the queenbourough south is backed up every morning (I drive by the queue on Stewardson all the time), and why the Port Mann is backed up westbound every afternoon. It's why 40% of Port Mann bridge traffic gets on one exit before crossing and gets off one exit after. It's why Burrard peninsula municipalities are clogged with commuters trying to cross over on side streets as it's the only way to get where they are going.

Every road and every transit system is built to go downtown where the overwhelming majority of growth (still miniscule in the region though the effort downtown is decent) is residential. The overwhelming majority of residential, office, industrial, and commercial space is in the suburbs. You freaking know this.


I didn't say I disagreed or don't think more inter community commuting is on the rise. But he said it is the majority (ignoring his stupid Vancouver is driving people out comment). So is it? Show me some stats. I commute from Vancouver to the suburbs every day and the line up on the Knight street bridge going into town is always really long... So does my story win?

#112 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,397 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:42 AM

Not the same study but I did find this with a quick google search that shows even greater numbers of inter-suburban commuters:

http://vannstruth.co...uting-patterns/

Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Pretty clear a LOT of people are not commuting to Vancouver that don't already live there.
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#113 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,427 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:43 AM

There are a number of options to look at. There's no smoking gun/easy to do answer though.

Road pricing
Regional tolls
Some form of tax
Congestion charges
Limiting trucks/commercial to certain hours
any combination of any of the above.

The problem is translink, municipalities and regional districts are all children of the Province. They have to go through the province to get anything approved. But the province isn't willing to engage. So it's all kinda moot until they do. Meanwhile, they plow ahead contrary to what translink, municipalities and the region are advocating for by building/expanding highways.

But doing nothing or just building more roads aren't real options. Especially with more and more information we're getting regarding lower volumes of traffic, higher gas prices, reduced gas consumption, parking rates downtown are dropping like crazy cause they can't fill them up, they can't fill them up because traffic into downtown is the same now as it was in the 1960's. Cycling mode share is up, the transit mode share is up, transit volumes are up. I mean what about any of this says build more roads


There's a reason the province won't put it's neck out there to approve these things, they see what happens to the local mayors that do - they are quickly booted out next election. If you think people got pissed about the HST see what happens if you put in a regional toll or jumped up the gas tax even more! (While at the same time committing to not improving the roads those people paying the gas tax are using!)

As noted, the problem isn't with downtown. Downtown is the one place most people actually CAN get to reasonably with transit. Heck, even in White rock it's not too bad.

But downtown is not where all the traffic is coming from.

#114 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:46 AM

Quickly booted? The surrey mayor is the most popular person in BC politically and she's advocating for region wide tolls. You seem stuck on this mind set that politicians are afraid to do anything, and so I wonder how anything would ever get done in your world?

Anyway, like I said, this is going nowhere.

#115 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,427 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:50 AM

I didn't say I disagreed or don't think more inter community commuting is on the rise. But he said it is the majority (ignoring his stupid Vancouver is driving people out comment). So is it? Show me some stats. I commute from Vancouver to the suburbs every day and the line up on the Knight street bridge going into town is always really long... So does my story win?

\]

Does it matter if it's a small majority or large minority? It's a LOT either way. Ask New West or North Delta how many suburb to suburb commuters there are!

And no, your story doesn't win. How much you want to bet a lot of those people are going to Burnaby or the North shore!

And it's not a stupid comment that Vancouver is driving people out. They might not think that they are but the high cost of parking, the incredible amount of congestion, the ridiculous cost of office or residential space and the very high taxes (all of which are partially or fully attributable to city policies) go directly into the business decisions that determine office locations just as much as they go into the personal decisions people make when they choose where to live.

#116 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:52 AM

\]

Does it matter if it's a small majority or large minority? It's a LOT either way. Ask New West or North Delta how many suburb to suburb commuters there are!

And no, your story doesn't win. How much you want to bet a lot of those people are going to Burnaby or the North shore!

And it's not a stupid comment that Vancouver is driving people out. They might not think that they are but the high cost of parking, the incredible amount of congestion, the ridiculous cost of office or residential space and the very high taxes (all of which are partially or fully attributable to city policies) go directly into the business decisions that determine office locations just as much as they go into the personal decisions people make when they choose where to live.


I don't know--and that's the point. Anecdotes don't work.

#117 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,427 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:53 AM

Quickly booted? The surrey mayor is the most popular person in BC politically and she's advocating for region wide tolls. You seem stuck on this mind set that politicians are afraid to do anything, and so I wonder how anything would ever get done in your world?

Anyway, like I said, this is going nowhere.


It's going nowhere because you refuse to use any common sense.

Of course it's popular for Ms. Watts to support a region wide tolls. I love the idea of tolling north shore bridges to pay for improvements south of the Fraser. Stack up the congestion charges downtown and put in my express bus!

Of course people in Surrey like that idea! They know they have to pay tolls anyways so why not drag everyone else along!

Watch how well that would work out if she was saying the same thing from a provincial position though! I am sure you also noted what North Van had to say about here region wide tolling idea. If not, I can give you a hit - they were less than supportive.......

#118 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,427 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:55 AM

I don't know--and that's the point. Anecdotes don't work.


There's many a traffic study that shows the conventional suburb to Vancouver travel patterns are no longer the norm. I don't keep them in my back pocket you know how to look them up (though you shouldn't need to either way).

#119 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,176 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:58 AM

It's going nowhere because you refuse to use any common sense.

Of course it's popular for Ms. Watts to support a region wide tolls. I love the idea of tolling north shore bridges to pay for improvements south of the Fraser. Stack up the congestion charges downtown and put in my express bus!

Of course people in Surrey like that idea! They know they have to pay tolls anyways so why not drag everyone else along!

Watch how well that would work out if she was saying the same thing from a provincial position though! I am sure you also noted what North Van had to say about here region wide tolling idea. If not, I can give you a hit - they were less than supportive.......


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/

#120 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,397 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:06 PM

I don't know--and that's the point. Anecdotes don't work.


Did you entirely miss the post I made? I even added colour charts to get your attention.
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image




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.