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

#121 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,951 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:12 PM

Lets toll it, so we can piss off everyone in this thread.

Even if they tolled it $50/car, it would be a hell of a lot better than BC Ferries
  • 0

#122 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:06 PM

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/


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.
  • 0

#123 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,951 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:19 PM

But, dude, the internet clearly knows more about everything than professionals ...
  • 0

#124 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:22 PM

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/


As for the links....

The exercise one is irrelevant. Everyone going on a 15 minute walk on their lunch break would do more than trying to micromanage where everyone lives.

As for the blogger I too welcome the idea of the feds pouring tons of money (they collect enough in gas taxes) to fund a bunch of transit projects. However (and you should be familiar with the idea now) the federal government is facing the same pressure an aging population is making on the provincial government and there's a reason why they are scrambling to close down the kits coast guard station for example - they know that a lot of small cuts makes a big difference and they know that moving forward they are not going to have enough money.

I might note in the same blog he advocates raising corporate taxes to pay for this. I would recommend he stick to transportation economics since raising corporate taxes in the middle of a global recession would be a self defeating move that could very well result in less overall revenues (less than the less they are already going to be) and more costs.
  • 0

#125 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,998 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:36 PM

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.


Then what the hell are we doing expanding highways!

This isn't an engineering problem.
  • 0

#126 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:48 PM

Then what the hell are we doing expanding highways!

This isn't an engineering problem.


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!
  • 0

#127 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,998 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:05 PM

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!


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.
  • 0

#128 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:13 PM

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.


All kinds of densifying going on in Surrey. Too bad there's little to no transit to connect it.

Still single family homes a stone's throw from lots of expo line skytrain stations.

Someone planned out the gateway program before they gave it out.

Someone is no doubt planning out the massey tunnel improvements right now.

Seems to me the planners don't plan anything either. They also just do what's given to them.
  • 0

#129 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,998 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:15 PM

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...
  • 0

#130 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,073 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:33 PM

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...


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.

Edited by J.R., 12 October 2012 - 02:35 PM.

  • 1
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#131 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,998 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:53 PM

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.


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.
  • 0

#132 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,073 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:07 PM

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.


There ya go again. All defensive and preachy without any actual substance. C'est la vie....
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#133 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,998 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:10 PM

There ya go again. All defensive and preachy without any actual substance. C'est la vie....


http://forum.canucks...0#entry10939097

The answer to your question that I already gave.
  • 0

#134 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:52 PM

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


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.
  • 0

#135 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,998 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:57 PM

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.


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).
  • 0

#136 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 04:14 PM

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)


Moving people more efficiently would give them more time to pursue social activities or improve their health. Certainly even the people paying the toll in my system would have more time to do this. It can't possibly be worse than the current situation where people spend their time queued for their bridge or tunnel of choice each morning on to get home at the end of the day exhausted.

Not having the money to provide even an express bus alternative (and if we did the service is unreliable due to having to fight to get over the same congested crossings) is certainly a downgrade from my system.

And regardless of whether my system was implemented or not we should be looking to improve the efficiency and emissions of vehicles. Odds are we won't be driving in gas powered cars in 50 years any more than one would expect the train to run on coal.

What will soon be a grim reminder (with much more nasty results than simply not being able to afford a transit line or a coast guard station or a group home) to everyone is that much like the rest of the world in financial crisis until we get our fiscal house of cards in order if we don't stop borrowing money from the future to live in the present the old "those that don't pay saturday will be paying on sunday" will be coming true big time for all levels of government.

Prepare to live in a world where if you don't have the finances pre planned that it's a complete non starter. My plan is very forward thinking - it's already there.

The mayors can easily wake up to the reality since they are not the ones funding it. It's easy to spend someone else's money. If the mayors really think transit is a priority it's in their powers to jack up property taxes and use it to start laying down tracks. But they won't and neither will the province (even if the NDP get in don't expect them to suddenly start approving car levies or what have you even they aren't THAT stupid) and there's a reason for that which we have already gone over.
  • 0

#137 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,998 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 04:17 PM

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!!
  • 0

#138 No5Butcher

No5Butcher

    K-Wing Star

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

Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:55 PM

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.
  • 0

#139 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 15 October 2012 - 09:58 AM

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.



Ooh, I always dreamed of them four laning 16th, upping the speed to 80 km/h, and connecting it through to the Mount Lehman exchange!

Expanding the bus lane on 99 is still good even if they do improve the crossing. There's still space to add a third traffic lane in the median and then you have the roadway to match the expanded bridge. Except this time you make the bus lane continue over the bridge so it never gets congested.

Edited by ronthecivil, 15 October 2012 - 09:58 AM.

  • 0

#140 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,998 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 17 October 2012 - 12:27 PM

http://stephenrees.w...audit-complete/
  • 0

#141 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,073 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 17 October 2012 - 12:41 PM

http://stephenrees.w...audit-complete/


So basically the transit system is fracked because, (as Ron has pointed out many times) transit needs do not fit in with the political reality of the people who control the planning/money of/for transit.

So how do we get those two things to jive?
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#142 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,998 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 17 October 2012 - 12:47 PM

So basically the transit system is fracked because, (as Ron has pointed out many times) transit needs do not fit in with the political reality of the people who control the planning/money of/for transit.

So how do we get those two things to jive?


Like I've said, a change at the provincial level. This group are bent on suburban sprawl. It's all hand waving until they are gone.
  • 0

#143 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,073 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 17 October 2012 - 12:58 PM

Like I've said, a change at the provincial level. This group are bent on suburban sprawl. It's all hand waving until they are gone.


Do you honestly believe the NDP are going to do anything drastically different? The problem isn't the people in power, it's that there's little to no political gain to changing the status quo.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#144 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 17 October 2012 - 03:05 PM

Do you honestly believe the NDP are going to do anything drastically different? The problem isn't the people in power, it's that there's little to no political gain to changing the status quo.


You could elect an NDP government, put the mayors back in charge and give them all the power in the world to say put in a vehicle levy.

But even then you still wouldn't get a vehicle levy. Local mayors know what happened to the last mayors that championed that idea. They were quickly turfed next municipal election. And if that threat didn't work you can bet a torch and pitchfork committee will be paying a visit to the local MLA office to eliminate that tax in short order.

The population wants for other people to pay for things that benefit themselves. Even getting them to pay for things that benefit themselves directly is a stretch - many will say they already pay for it many times over.

Watch how big the Qs for the Massey and Alex Fraser get once there's tolls on Port Mann and Putello. Only then will there be a hope of floating the even my ideas.

You would have better luck getting elected on a promise to put in the HST than you would on increasing property taxes or vehicle levies of anything else you can dream of.
  • 0

#145 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,073 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 17 October 2012 - 03:39 PM

You could elect an NDP government, put the mayors back in charge and give them all the power in the world to say put in a vehicle levy.

But even then you still wouldn't get a vehicle levy. Local mayors know what happened to the last mayors that championed that idea. They were quickly turfed next municipal election. And if that threat didn't work you can bet a torch and pitchfork committee will be paying a visit to the local MLA office to eliminate that tax in short order.

The population wants for other people to pay for things that benefit themselves. Even getting them to pay for things that benefit themselves directly is a stretch - many will say they already pay for it many times over.

Watch how big the Qs for the Massey and Alex Fraser get once there's tolls on Port Mann and Putello. Only then will there be a hope of floating the even my ideas.

You would have better luck getting elected on a promise to put in the HST than you would on increasing property taxes or vehicle levies of anything else you can dream of.


Exactly.

So again, how do we get those disconnects to jive...?
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#146 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 17 October 2012 - 04:13 PM

Exactly.

So again, how do we get those disconnects to jive...?


Feel free to campaign on my south Fraser screen-line idea.

People paying the tolls might pay a bit more but they save time and gas.

People taking the bus actually have a much better alternative.

People that don't use it don't pay.

Thousands of temporary (construction) and long term (extra revenue feeding transit) jobs created.

Boost to GDP in general as quicker travel times save people money allowing trade to flow better. Makes the money factory known as the port that much more competitive.


But most of all......

If it's not done the artificial demand created by the free alternatives are going to mess up New West in the short term from people trying to get to the free Putello and North Delta for a long time from people trying to get to the Alex Fraser.

Upping the capacity of 99, capping the demand (and paying for it) with a toll, and putting in effective rapid transit that replicate the demand (you could subsidise the heck out of the 351 and whatever the express buses to Ladner and Twassen are) that would genuinely be fast (you could have a dedicated transit lane from White Rock to the River Rock ditto with Twassen/Ladner) makes a winning situation for just about everyone.
  • 0

#147 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,073 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 17 October 2012 - 04:24 PM

I have a feeling you have more free time than I do to run for political office ;)
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#148 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,998 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 17 October 2012 - 05:25 PM

Do you honestly believe the NDP are going to do anything drastically different? The problem isn't the people in power, it's that there's little to no political gain to changing the status quo.


I think they can't do worse.
  • 1

#149 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 18 October 2012 - 08:32 AM

I think they can't do worse....


From an article JR linked a while back...

NDP finance critic Bruce Ralston said there are real benefits to replacing the tunnel, particularly with a bridge instead.
“You could have ships with a deeper draft go further up the river up to Fraser port in Surrey,” Ralston said, adding there’s no doubt traffic outstrips the tunnel’s capacity.


Don't get your hopes up!

But don't be too sad. At least the south fraser toll-line project is step one into getting your road pricing in.

Edit: Oh, and to predict the future for you....

Watch how fast the liberals trumpet the newly flowing traffic over the port mann and make it a promise to super size 99 to make sure all those south of fraser votes go the right way.

Watch how even faster the NDP (as noted by someone who aspires to be finance minister) makes a point of saying "Me too! Me too!".

Too bad all the money it will make in profit will be going to general revenue for the province.

Edited by ronthecivil, 18 October 2012 - 08:37 AM.

  • 0

#150 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,998 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 08:51 AM

Ron, you don't need to tell me politicians are short sighted. The it's plain as day what the Liberals support. Massive, unrestrained highway expansion contrary to all the best practices. I suppose I'm an eternal optimistic and someone will have the balls to think beyond their own nose. It isn't radical or crazy, plenty of other places are doing it.
  • 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.