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

#151 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,946 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 18 October 2012 - 09:39 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.


Actually the move from dense cities to suburban sprawl is common around the world and even the dense well connected with transit places like New York or Paris or London (which even has a green belt around it) have suburbs that form rings around them. People love their cars and not everyone wants to live in an apartment.

The liberals might be more pro highway expansion (since it stimulates the economy and makes their developer friends happy) than the NDP (who don't exactly hate it as it makes voters happy and creates union jobs) and less rapid transit expansion than the NDP. But the liberals still made a big push to ensure that the RAV line got built - in fact that's why translink got re-hauled in the first place - and are also supporters of the Evergreen line - it certainly makes them friends in the business community.

While the NDP was in power they were also responsible for building the Island highway, no country road itself.

About the only real difference is that the liberals will spend more on public infrastructure. You get more highways AND more transit projects out of them than you do with the NDP.

If you doubt me watch the massey tunnel turn into an election issue and then see who opposes it. The only difference is will the excess revenue go to tax cuts or to raises in the public sector.....
  • 0

#152 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,847 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 18 October 2012 - 10:14 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.


The Liberals support getting elected/votes and scratching the backs of their supporters, just the same as the NDP. That you think there's any real difference between the two apart from being the "two sides of the same coin" is kind of sad. The sooner you realize the system is the problem and start figuring out how to get what you want given that system, the better off you'll be.
  • 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


#153 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,946 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 18 October 2012 - 10:25 AM

The Liberals support getting elected/votes and scratching the backs of their supporters, just the same as the NDP. That you think there's any real difference between the two apart from being the "two sides of the same coin" is kind of sad. The sooner you realize the system is the problem and start figuring out how to get what you want given that system, the better off you'll be.


Nobody wants what Inane wants though, so it wouldn't matter what system you used. Even a dictatorship would think twice about forcing everyone into apartments and taking away their cars.

Some people might want dense cities and less car travel but they tend to want it for other people, not themselves. Heck, I hear a certain highway hater here has a single family home and a car himself!

We really do need some name for this creative mindset. You know, as much as the people in the city are NIMBYs for not wanting a new condo tower bringing more traffic in we do have a bunch of suburbanites that want everyone else to take the bus. Perhaps a "get of my road take the bus" or GOMER TTBs or something?

I don't know.
  • 0

#154 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,847 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 18 October 2012 - 10:35 AM

:lol:

In fairness those people who say one thing and do another...are part of that same "system" I referred to ;)

Edited by J.R., 18 October 2012 - 10:36 AM.

  • 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


#155 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,648 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 10:49 AM

Nobody wants what Inane wants though, so it wouldn't matter what system you used. Even a dictatorship would think twice about forcing everyone into apartments and taking away their cars.

Some people might want dense cities and less car travel but they tend to want it for other people, not themselves. Heck, I hear a certain highway hater here has a single family home and a car himself!

We really do need some name for this creative mindset. You know, as much as the people in the city are NIMBYs for not wanting a new condo tower bringing more traffic in we do have a bunch of suburbanites that want everyone else to take the bus. Perhaps a "get of my road take the bus" or GOMER TTBs or something?

I don't know.


If you actually, honestly think that's what I want, this discussion is pointless.
  • 0

#156 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,946 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 18 October 2012 - 11:00 AM

If you actually, honestly think that's what I want, this discussion is pointless.


Hyperbole? Sure.

But let's be serious here. This is a thread on expanding the Massey tunnel and Hwy 99. The primary highway between Vancouver and all points south of the border. A road that is a single lane in one direction for hours each day that can be blocked should there be an accident in it. It's not that unusual for poor souls to be trapped in a non moving Q for a couple hours while they sort it out and try to find a way to cross over the median to go back where they came from.

A single, often very congested, occasionally completely blocked traffic lane on our primary north south highway? Even the poor buses that have miles of HOV lanes get to squeeze through that pinch point at very slow speeds.

And when presented with an idea to perhaps change this what do you do?

Claim traffic doesn't support expansion.

Link a ton of blogs against highway expansion.

Oppose any sort of improvements - even if they come with a toll.

So you will have to excuse the hyperbole. It might not be your goal to force EVERYONE out of their cars and into apartments but getting large numbers of people to do just that is the stated effect of the policies you support. With sticks in the form of taxes and congestion for people that have no other options.
  • 0

#157 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,648 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 11:16 AM

I'm not claiming traffic volumes, I'm showing you data. If you don't believe it, so be it.

They are not blogs against highway expansion, they are blogs, with supportive information for a multi-modal transportation network. You are the one saying if you're not for highway expansion you're against it. That's not what I'm saying.

I've never 'opposed any sort of improvement, toll or not. You're making that up.

The problem is your admitted hyperbole. You're unwilling to think about the consequences of your thoughts and then claim I'm opposed to everything under the sun because it's convinient to fit me into a little box that fits your position.

You're right, I drive and have a single family home. I'm advocating for the very thing that would, in the short term, negatively impact me. So to claim I'm some idealistic boogeyman is pretty rich.

Edited by inane, 18 October 2012 - 11:16 AM.

  • 0

#158 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,847 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 18 October 2012 - 11:34 AM

I'm not claiming traffic volumes, I'm showing you data. If you don't believe it, so be it.


I believe both Ron and I showed you that you were interpreting that data incorrectly.
  • 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


#159 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,648 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 11:40 AM

I believe both Ron and I showed you that you were interpreting that data incorrectly.


No, the data is data. You're assuming the reduced volume is because of x, y, or z. But you have not shown any evidence other than anecdotes.
  • 0

#160 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,847 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 18 October 2012 - 11:51 AM

Do you need further evidence than congestion EVERY rush hour at both the Highway 17 and Steveston exits to show you that those choke points cause lineups which congest the tunnel/highway and reduce traffic volume able to get through?

This is not my field of work at all. You show me the website or organization I'd get that data from (if anyone's taking it) and I'm quite sure it will show that those areas are congested and that those lineups and congestion limit volume. It's not rocket science. And if there isn't someone measuring it, there should be.

The only other thing that would also improve the situation would be the added suggestion of limiting commercial truck traffic during peak hours. As they also contribute to the congestion.

Otherwise you need to get better ways of having people get in and out of those two main junctions and deal with the issue of having a major arterial route reduced to 1 lane twice daily.
  • 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


#161 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,648 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 12:13 PM

Do you need further evidence than congestion EVERY rush hour at both the Highway 17 and Steveston exits to show you that those choke points cause lineups which congest the tunnel/highway and reduce traffic volume able to get through?

This is not my field of work at all. You show me the website or organization I'd get that data from (if anyone's taking it) and I'm quite sure it will show that those areas are congested and that those lineups and congestion limit volume. It's not rocket science. And if there isn't someone measuring it, there should be.

The only other thing that would also improve the situation would be the added suggestion of limiting commercial truck traffic during peak hours. As they also contribute to the congestion.

Otherwise you need to get better ways of having people get in and out of those two main junctions and deal with the issue of having a major arterial route reduced to 1 lane twice daily.


I'm not arguing there isn't congestion or that there aren't choke points. I'm providing data showing volumes are down. You are then interpreting that as all these other things.
  • 0

#162 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,847 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 18 October 2012 - 12:26 PM

I'm not arguing there isn't congestion or that there aren't choke points. I'm providing data showing volumes are down. You are then interpreting that as all these other things.


Do you have another explanation? Five years ago I could easily commute from my home to my office in 25 minutes barring a major incident. Now it takes me 15-20 minutes to even get from where highway 17 traffic starts merging on the 99 to my office and closer to 35-40 minutes for the entire commute. The majority of that difference being from the additional Highway 17 and Steveston congestion.

It's no different than putting flow reduction technologies on a tap or shower head. If you congest a given pathway less overall volume is used over a given time. Congested tap = less water. Congested highway = less vehicle volume.

You seem to be an expert on these things, seriously, I'd love for you to point out where I would find congestion data as I'm sure if anyone's bothering to record it, it will prove I'm right. Help me learn, please?

If there is no such place or data than unfortunately we have noting to go on but my "anecdotes". Unless you'd like to tell me I'm lying? Can you offer me a better theory as to why all of these things seem to add up?
  • 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


#163 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,946 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 18 October 2012 - 12:34 PM

I'm not claiming traffic volumes, I'm showing you data. If you don't believe it, so be it.

They are not blogs against highway expansion, they are blogs, with supportive information for a multi-modal transportation network. You are the one saying if you're not for highway expansion you're against it. That's not what I'm saying.

I've never 'opposed any sort of improvement, toll or not. You're making that up.

The problem is your admitted hyperbole. You're unwilling to think about the consequences of your thoughts and then claim I'm opposed to everything under the sun because it's convinient to fit me into a little box that fits your position.

You're right, I drive and have a single family home. I'm advocating for the very thing that would, in the short term, negatively impact me. So to claim I'm some idealistic boogeyman is pretty rich


As noted by JR as the level of service goes down the total volume goes down (more vehicles pass through per hour at level of service C than at B or D). As well as the percentage of trucks goes up the total volume goes down. Traffic volume may be slightly down but it doesn't mean that the daily traffic reports (we have an all day traffic station for a reason) have nothing to talk about and make no mistake that tunnel is certainly part of the hourly highlight real.

If your not opposed to an improvement to the current four lanes of traffic under the river than what would it be?

And I am aware of the consequences of my plan which is why it includes measures to mitigate them should they happen.

Edited by ronthecivil, 18 October 2012 - 12:35 PM.

  • 0

#164 canucks_dynasty

canucks_dynasty

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,067 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:01 PM

I avoid the Massey Tunnel like a plague during rush hour. It's a zoo. I take River Road to Alex Fraser Bridge to go home or back to work if ever I'm stuck out in Delta. I'm pretty sure that's the reason for "less volume".

Remember the Stanley Cup run in 2010? There was like an accident at the Massey Tunnel almost every playoff game. Knowing that...tell me you wouldn't drive an extra 30 minutes to avoid a 3hr gridlock.
  • 0

#165 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,648 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 09:31 PM

As noted by JR as the level of service goes down the total volume goes down (more vehicles pass through per hour at level of service C than at B or D). As well as the percentage of trucks goes up the total volume goes down. Traffic volume may be slightly down but it doesn't mean that the daily traffic reports (we have an all day traffic station for a reason) have nothing to talk about and make no mistake that tunnel is certainly part of the hourly highlight real.

If your not opposed to an improvement to the current four lanes of traffic under the river than what would it be?

And I am aware of the consequences of my plan which is why it includes measures to mitigate them should they happen.


No, you're not. You are keenly aware of certain consequences, and ignorant (willfully or not) of others.
  • 0

#166 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,648 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 09:36 PM

Do you have another explanation? Five years ago I could easily commute from my home to my office in 25 minutes barring a major incident. Now it takes me 15-20 minutes to even get from where highway 17 traffic starts merging on the 99 to my office and closer to 35-40 minutes for the entire commute. The majority of that difference being from the additional Highway 17 and Steveston congestion.

It's no different than putting flow reduction technologies on a tap or shower head. If you congest a given pathway less overall volume is used over a given time. Congested tap = less water. Congested highway = less vehicle volume.

You seem to be an expert on these things, seriously, I'd love for you to point out where I would find congestion data as I'm sure if anyone's bothering to record it, it will prove I'm right. Help me learn, please?

If there is no such place or data than unfortunately we have noting to go on but my "anecdotes". Unless you'd like to tell me I'm lying? Can you offer me a better theory as to why all of these things seem to add up?


There are plenty of reasons why congestion might be up yet volumes are down. Maybe there's more truck traffic slowing things down. Maybe there's more cops ticketing people slowing things down. Maybe there's more peak volume but less off-peak volume. Hell, I don't know.
  • 0

#167 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,847 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 19 October 2012 - 09:34 AM

There are plenty of reasons why congestion might be up yet volumes are down. Maybe there's more truck traffic slowing things down. Maybe there's more cops ticketing people slowing things down. Maybe there's more peak volume but less off-peak volume. Hell, I don't know.


As I said truck traffic is also a problem. Eliminating it during peak hours would be helpful but would only be a first step in fixing the problem.

No trucks wouldn't eliminate the lineups to get on the 99 from the Steveston and Highway 17 entrances that go on for blocks congesting traffic even on sides streets. Nor would it entirely eliminate the lineups on the 99 to get off the highway at those points and on to those congested streets. Lineups that congest the tunnel and lead to a slow down of traffic simply trying to pass those points on their way to other destinations. It also would do nothing to solve the single lane issue the tunnel has when accidents are inevitably caused due to that congestion and that lane gets shut down.

So where would I go to confirm the congestion from those merge points I listed is the issue? You have yet to answer this...
  • 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


#168 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,648 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 19 October 2012 - 10:45 AM

As I said truck traffic is also a problem. Eliminating it during peak hours would be helpful but would only be a first step in fixing the problem.

No trucks wouldn't eliminate the lineups to get on the 99 from the Steveston and Highway 17 entrances that go on for blocks congesting traffic even on sides streets. Nor would it entirely eliminate the lineups on the 99 to get off the highway at those points and on to those congested streets. Lineups that congest the tunnel and lead to a slow down of traffic simply trying to pass those points on their way to other destinations. It also would do nothing to solve the single lane issue the tunnel has when accidents are inevitably caused due to that congestion and that lane gets shut down.

So where would I go to confirm the congestion from those merge points I listed is the issue? You have yet to answer this...


Accidents are inevitbly caused due to congestion? Congestion doesn't cause accidents, bad drivers doing illegal or stupid things do.

I don't know how you're sure removing truck traffic would or would not impact congestion.

I don't know where you should go find out about congestion numbers, like I said, I just keep my ear open. I'm not an 'expert' on this. Ron claims to be, ask him.
  • 0

#169 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,946 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 22 October 2012 - 11:37 AM

Accidents are inevitbly caused due to congestion? Congestion doesn't cause accidents, bad drivers doing illegal or stupid things do.

I don't know how you're sure removing truck traffic would or would not impact congestion.

I don't know where you should go find out about congestion numbers, like I said, I just keep my ear open. I'm not an 'expert' on this. Ron claims to be, ask him


Bad design also causes accidents. Like vehicles traveling in at highway speeds in a single lane in opposite directions with no sort of separation let alone a median barrier.

Removing truck traffic would cut congestion (they are slower and thus heavily impact a choke point like the tunnel) but with port expansion ongoing it's not something that one could expect to realistically expect to be reduced. If anything one should plan on it increasing.

And you don't need to be an expert you should know that once volume gets to a certain point congestion builds up until you get to a point where maximum capacity is reached. This is at level of service C.

When you get to level of service D or E the total volume goes down. There's still the same number of people trying to fit through as at level of service C but now with more people trying to merge in and out. It's these additional weaving movements that lower the volumes.

Now granted that should effect the all day volume but all that really does is move people elsewhere on the network, or people not making the trip at all. The first one is the source of much disdain by people in New West and North Delta. The second depresses the economy as a whole.

It's not like everyone decided to walk or get on a bus. What's happening is that that people are deciding to go somewhere else (simply creating congestion elsewhere) or not at all.
  • 0

#170 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,847 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 22 October 2012 - 11:40 AM

Anecdotes Ron! :frantic:

:lol:
  • 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


#171 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,648 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:34 PM

Bad design also causes accidents. Like vehicles traveling in at highway speeds in a single lane in opposite directions with no sort of separation let alone a median barrier.

Removing truck traffic would cut congestion (they are slower and thus heavily impact a choke point like the tunnel) but with port expansion ongoing it's not something that one could expect to realistically expect to be reduced. If anything one should plan on it increasing.

And you don't need to be an expert you should know that once volume gets to a certain point congestion builds up until you get to a point where maximum capacity is reached. This is at level of service C.

When you get to level of service D or E the total volume goes down. There's still the same number of people trying to fit through as at level of service C but now with more people trying to merge in and out. It's these additional weaving movements that lower the volumes.

Now granted that should effect the all day volume but all that really does is move people elsewhere on the network, or people not making the trip at all. The first one is the source of much disdain by people in New West and North Delta. The second depresses the economy as a whole.

It's not like everyone decided to walk or get on a bus. What's happening is that that people are deciding to go somewhere else (simply creating congestion elsewhere) or not at all.


'Everyone' isn't doing anything. Stop lumping this into simplistic terms.

Transit numbers are way up. Cycling mode share is up. Traffic volumes are down.
In Vancouver, between 1996-2011: 75% increase in population, 26% increase in jobs, 10% increase in the number of people coming downtown, 25% decrease in traffic coming downtown.
Look at page 3 of this document, right from the port mann project itself: http://www.pmh1proje... - 20110912.pdf Traffic on the Port Mann has been steadily decreasing since 2005.
Gas consumption in Washington is at its lowest point since the 1950's. http://daily.sightli...g-into-reverse/

And again, all of this ignores the environmental, social & health costs.

I'm not making this stuff up. I don't know why you're so reluctant to believe any of this....
  • 0

#172 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,946 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 22 October 2012 - 02:21 PM

'Everyone' isn't doing anything. Stop lumping this into simplistic terms.

Transit numbers are way up. Cycling mode share is up. Traffic volumes are down.
In Vancouver, between 1996-2011: 75% increase in population, 26% increase in jobs, 10% increase in the number of people coming downtown, 25% decrease in traffic coming downtown.
Look at page 3 of this document, right from the port mann project itself: http://www.pmh1proje... - 20110912.pdf Traffic on the Port Mann has been steadily decreasing since 2005.
Gas consumption in Washington is at its lowest point since the 1950's. http://daily.sightli...g-into-reverse/

And again, all of this ignores the environmental, social & health costs.

I'm not making this stuff up. I don't know why you're so reluctant to believe any of this....


Transit is up, and cycling is up, but that's a small percentage of trips, especially south of Fraser.

The Qs to the south of Fraser bridges are certainly not going away. And on things like the Massey tunnel it's impossible to put in a reliable bus to help a mode shift since they have to go through the same choke points. To actually achieve a realistic chance of getting more people on the bus there would need to be a bus only lane that actually went the entire distance which would require at minimum one more two lane bridge/tunnel just for the buses.

I have no trouble believing trips to downtown are down. Downtown is the one place where competitive transit (even for white rock!) actually exist. And while trips to downtown are way down the one mode shift that is certainly true are the trips becoming predominantly suburb to suburb.

I also have no trouble believing that gas consumption in Washington is at it's lowest point since the 1950s. A LOT of things are at their lowest consumption numbers in decades. It's called the global economic recession.
  • 0

#173 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,648 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:10 PM

Ron, if we're in such horrible economic times, then what the hell are we doing building and expanding all these highways. (and yes, I know one of them has a toll...)

Edited by inane, 22 October 2012 - 03:12 PM.

  • 0

#174 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,847 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:21 PM

Ron, if we're in such horrible economic times, then what the hell are we doing building and expanding all these highways. (and yes, I know one of them has a toll...)


It's cheaper to build and creates jobs which stimulate the economy....
  • 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


#175 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,648 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:36 PM

It's cheaper to build and creates jobs which stimulate the economy....


Cheaper than what???
  • 0

#176 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,946 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:43 PM

Cheaper than what???


Cheaper than building anything during a boom. Labour, materials, land, everything is lower during a downturn.

If the politicians actually acted in the long term perspective they would ramp back spending a pay off debt aggressively during a boom economy and then use those savings to ramp up public infrastructure during a downturn. Not only does it help to stabalize the economy by smoothing out the bumps in GDP it maximizes the amount of infrastructure created per dollar input.

Instead you have the opposite - spending during the high times (like our high cost pre-olympics RAV line) and austerity during the bad times.
  • 0

#177 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,648 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:47 PM

Cheaper than building anything during a boom. Labour, materials, land, everything is lower during a downturn.

If the politicians actually acted in the long term perspective they would ramp back spending a pay off debt aggressively during a boom economy and then use those savings to ramp up public infrastructure during a downturn. Not only does it help to stabalize the economy by smoothing out the bumps in GDP it maximizes the amount of infrastructure created per dollar input.

Instead you have the opposite - spending during the high times (like our high cost pre-olympics RAV line) and austerity during the bad times.


What austerity?

On the one hand you keep telling me we have no money. But on the other hand we have highway construction all over the place. So which is it?
  • 0

#178 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,946 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 22 October 2012 - 04:26 PM

What austerity?

On the one hand you keep telling me we have no money. But on the other hand we have highway construction all over the place. So which is it?


It's not all that much austerity around here. Not yet at least. But the desire to spend is down.

However there's one other thing. You have to separate operational costs or ongoing costs vs. capital costs.

A new bridge/tunnel with a toll on it will have a large capital cost, a smaller operational cost, but will have an ongoing operational profit that would easily pay for the two.

A new sky train extension would have a large capital costs, a small operational cost, and a decent amount of ongoing revenue that would cover the operational cost but not all the capital costs.

Expanding the bus fleet would have a small capital cost but a large operational cost that is only partly offset by revenue.

If you don't want to raise taxes to cover a larger operational cost it's pretty easy to see where your priorities would be if your a politician. You can add to the debt for the capital cost but it doesn't show up as a yearly budget item (well the interest payments will, which is part of translinks problem) so you get to look like your doing austerity while you get to spend.

In other words, you can have all kinds of highway expansion (or other capital intensive projects like skytrain or bus lanes) without having any money. And if you create a revenue stream in the form of toll revenue, it's easy to get people to lend you money.
  • 0

#179 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,648 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 22 October 2012 - 06:01 PM

Ron. You keep talking about the Port Mann. Ok, let's pretend the tolls pay for it and in the end it's a wash.

What about all the other highway expansion, widening, and new construction? There are tolls on the vast majority of it. So how does your theory apply to anything other than the Port Mann?

I mean you point out austerity, and then go on to say it's not really a problem here. You keep flip flopping your parameters here, I can't keep up....
  • 0

#180 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,946 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 23 October 2012 - 09:05 AM

Ron. You keep talking about the Port Mann. Ok, let's pretend the tolls pay for it and in the end it's a wash.

What about all the other highway expansion, widening, and new construction? There are tolls on the vast majority of it. So how does your theory apply to anything other than the Port Mann?

I mean you point out austerity, and then go on to say it's not really a problem here. You keep flip flopping your parameters here, I can't keep up....


If they were to widen highway 99 and expand the crossing at the Massey tunnel, you can bet there would be a toll on it.

The Putello is getting replaced. You can bet there's a toll on it.

The toll revenue from either (and from the Port Mann) will easily cover not just the cost of the bridge but all the highway widening that's part of the project. In fact expect it to make a profit.

Even at existing traffic volumes the proposed 3 dollar tolls could fund multi billions of infrastructure. I am sure you could do the math if you want......
  • 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.