Underground UBC-Broadway SkyTrain needs to be regional priority

[ronthecivil]

Massey Tunnel & Hwy 91 upgrades >>>>>>>>>>>>> UBC Skytrain

[ronthecivil]

Add the Pattullo Bridge to that as well.

[ronthecivil]

Fear not. There's always money for road projects and expanding road infrastructure even though it has been proven time and time again you cannot build your way out of congestion.

[inane]

It's there anyting proven to remove congestion other than a massive downturn in the economy?

If you want to do anything transit related you have to win the crowd. Why do you suppose politicians always have money for road projects? Could it be it makes the public happy?

[ronthecivil]

Is there anything to prove building more roads removes congestion? No, of course not, I've asked that 100 times and there's utter silence. And guess what, Vancouver, the backwards hippy freeway hating city didn't build more roads back in the 70's and guess what--the population has doubled, jobs have doubled and traffic into downtown is at 1960's levels.

http://pricetags.wor...c-volumes-1965/

[inane]

Of course traffic downtown is at 1960s levels. The roads were already at capacity and they haven't built any more.

And while the number of jobs and people living there has doubled it's still a tiny portion of regional growth in that frame of time.

And while some people decided walking to work from a skybox in a dense city was a cool thing to do the majority don't care being forced into density.

If all building more roads does is create a stream of automobiles you should love my new bridges to generate toll idea. If it turns out you're correct then there's a windfall of money to fund transit alternatives!

If you wonder why we don't just toll existing bridges then there's no hope for you.

[aGENT]

You don't/won't get it. You can't build a pile of new roads, bridges and highways to get money to build transit. By building all those new roads, you drive auto-oriented development that is incompatible with transit. Not to mention the fact that, as I've pointed out before, business wants transit, offices want transit, residential want transit. You have yet to ever produce one link backing up your position that more roads is better.

[Electro Rock]

I wonder what % of Translink buses are tied up in servicing UBC through the Broadway corridor alone?

[inane]

In fairness, most of his plan isn't "new" (in a didn't exist before sense). Most of it is replacing pre-existing, failing and woefully inadequate infrastructure. In that regard it seems to make pretty good sense to use those projects to both fund themselves as well as expanded transit. And how is it incompatible with transit? All those bridges etc will have transit/HOV lanes...you know, required to actually move the buses that would otherwise be sitting in congestion..

I'm having trouble seeing why you would oppose the expansion of transit via this method. You gain, safer and more efficient replacements for pre-existing "traditional" infrastructure and a funding source for much needed transit expansion. Win, win, no?

[Buggernut]

He has all these pie in the sky ideas of a new bridge across to Boundary and new crossings into Coquitlam etc...

But regardless, my issue with replacing these structures (yes, I know they need replacing now or at least soon) is that replacing turns into expanding. Port Mann being the overly obvious example. I mean look at the Port Mann, they weren't even going to put the bus in until at the last minute they were basically forced to do it.

[inane]

http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/the-gap-between-perception-and-priorities/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm

[inane]

But with the tolls in place, the congestion on the Port Mann is nowhere near as bad as it used to be. They do thin out traffic.

[ronthecivil]

In the short term, of course. If you build a wider road, of course congestion will be lessened. But what about 10 years from now, 20 years from now? What kind of future do we want? What happens when the new Port Mann is full of congestion, build a 20 lane wide bridge?

This is what I'm talking about. It's easy to make decisions based on the benefits you'll see immediately, but who does that really serve?

[inane]

With a toll in place you could simply raise the toll and if it's high enough people won't use it. See the effect of ferry fares and people opting to not travel at all.

If excess toll revenue is tied to transit funding it would seem to be quite a benefit to have a lot of traffic. Odd you can't square that circle.

Either way the alternative is to bitch and moan that there's no transit, too much money spent on roads, and operation defer and cut expenses to continue to infinity.

[aGENT]

He has all these pie in the sky ideas of a new bridge across to Boundary and new crossings into Coquitlam etc...

But regardless, my issue with replacing these structures (yes, I know they need replacing now or at least soon) is that replacing turns into expanding. Port Mann being the overly obvious example. I mean look at the Port Mann, they weren't even going to put the bus in until at the last minute they were basically forced to do it.

[ronthecivil]

You don't/won't get it. You can't build a pile of new roads, bridges and highways to get money to build transit. By building all those new roads, you drive auto-oriented development that is incompatible with transit. Not to mention the fact that, as I've pointed out before, business wants transit, offices want transit, residential want transit. You have yet to ever produce one link backing up your position that more roads is better.

[inane]

Well I gathered that those two would be quite a few years away if they were to happen at all and far behind the obvious Patullo, tunnel and Alex Fraser redos. That said, if say 20+ years from now there appears to be a current/future need for them, they'd require very little in the way of additional roads and would simply be yet another funding source for further transit expansion, which again, is what you want, no? But perhaps by then with the SF screen line tolls we'll have enough funding in place to continue expanding transit everywhere so that it's a viable alternative for even people SOTF and we won't require those additional crossings as car traffic volumes stagnate. One can dream.

It's serves the taxpayers you want to fund the expanded transit. How else do you propose we pay for these things? It's not like you can tack on a "toll" for the UBC line for it to pay for itself. Are you planning on charging every transit user of that line an additional say $5 "toll" to help it self-fund itself?

[inane]

Ya right.

The port mann has been a disaster for decades. Yet despite the ever increasing lineups, single family homes were built like mad in Langley over the last 20 years.

And in some areas that actually do have density (like South Surrey/White Rock) even with all the dense living everyone gets in their car and drives because there's no transit alternatives.

There's tons of apartment and townhouses being built all over the region, even in so called car oriented areas.

I would say the pattern of development would best be said as "random". New condos and townhouses in highway served south surrey where there is no transit. Single family homes right next to skytrain stations in Vancouver near 30 years after they were built.

Had the planning community gone full out and made every existing area near a skytrain station full on density like you see at Metrotown or Joyce then there would be far less desire to build them.

[ronthecivil]

I'm not arguing tolls go to transit alone, that's a piece of the puzzle only.

Read the article above, and this one: http://pricetags.wor...the-difference/

Can you answer that question? (Not to mention the social/environmental aspects that we always choose to ignore of course).

[inane]

He answers it himself....

But its political masters are loathe to increase taxes.

Duh.

Drivers are the majority. Transit users are the minority. To win the majority, they have to see (what at least to them in the near future) is a benefit.

It's not rocket science.