avelanch Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 I don't think transit should be free. I think everyone should be paying their own way. Students shouldn't get ridiculously subsidized passes paid for predominantly by the taxpayers but also by the students who are forced to have passes they don't need. I sincerely doubt you would be pleased if something was costing you 100 more a year than it should. I also doubt you would be happy if you were paying a minimum of 3.75 for a ticket that costs a random person off the street 2.50. Every time the Upass has come up in the AMS referendum I've voted against it all while knowing it was really nothing but a symbolic gesture because the people who care enough to vote are for the most part the ones that are massively benefiting from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Stifle the economy? Yes, I can. Many resources here: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm96.htm Including this quote "In general, if a corridor has enough vehicle traffic to experience traffic congestion there is enough demand for transit and ridesharing to provide congestion reduction benefits. However, simply operating buses or a rideshare matching service will not necessarily achieve this benefit in developed countries where most households own an automobile, and automobile travel is supported by low fuel prices and free parking. Although owning an automobile is expensive, most costs are fixed, giving motorists an incentive to drive rather than use alternatives. Only by giving discretionary riders (travelers who have the option of driving, also called choice riders) suitable incentives to shift mode can transit and ridesharing achieve their full congestion reduction benefits." There are a number of examples world wide where removing sections of freeways reduced congestion, reduced air pollution, etc... Keeping in mind it is not in isolation, you have to have other alternatives/improvements, but the notion that the only way out of congestion is more roads is just flat out wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Removing a section of highway will reduce congestion IN THAT location but it will simply either... A) Move the congestion somewhere else OR Stifle economic activity by eliminating the trip altogether. Listen, this is how it works. If you want money for transit then your best bet is to get it from extra toll revenue. The people paying those tolls will only pay them if they see some benefit for themselves in the form of road improvements. It doesn't matter that you don't think it will help as long as the people paying think it does. So just go with that if you want to have any hope of promoting an idea that will actually fund alternatives. And no, you can't just put up tolls and not improve anything and NO they could NOT have just taken three billion bucks put it into transit and tolled the existing bridge. There would be riots in the street. So can the rhetoric and work on ideas that might actually be implemented or all you are putting out is hot air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 http://stephenrees.w...ort-mann-tolls/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 I don't disagree that the new bridge will help spur development in Langley Township but it's been shown that the development will happen anyways. South Surrey couldn't be further from highway one and while 91/99 aren't AS bad as the Port Mann they are certainly no pick nick and yet development is booming anyways, mostly of the dense variety. (In fact there's a huge tower going up right now in White Rock and I know there's more in the works for sure.) No amount of road pricing and restriction can stop that because of the incredulous housing costs in the region. Look on the bright side. The reduced toll has people talking seriously about a regional tolling strategy. Even if that falls flat guaranteed soon people will have to head to the Alex Fraser to dodge a toll (and watch North Delta go nuts when that happens!). Make no mistake, you can expect there to be a serious lack of funding for things moving forward. Not just for transit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Says the guy who wants a revolution from metro vancouver and translink. Road pricing. Read the links I provided. Stop thinking tolls tolls tolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Ok, pretend you're right. Then what. We fill up every square inch of developable land in the Valley building more roads and highways to get there and then.........??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 No need to wait. Simply zone enough housing for one million more people on the Burrard Peninsula. I don't say it for hyperbole (though it is since we both know that's not happening) it's the predicted increase in population in the region! If you don't like that take it up with the federal immigration minister! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 But I thought no one wants to live in little boxes? Where would you put them all? You can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerWilliams Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Can you cite one example anywhere on Earth where a new and/or widened highway improved congestion over the long term? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 I guess my point is replacing the bridge may have been necessary, but making it the widest bridge in the world while widening the highway through all of metro van was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 (sorry, I dont come around here very often, not the best person to have an active debate with)Believe it or not... I actually agree with you. I think it was TheSteamer who used to use a quote that was (paraphrased) "Building roads to relieve congestion is like buying bigger pants to combat obesity"Having said that, you're using a huge wiggle word by throwing in "over the long term" which allows you to prove your point whilst ignoring basic demographics. Obviously the population has grown significantly in the area since the Patullo and Port Mann were originally built, and all things being equal, one would expect the population to continue to grow. So ultimately, yes, of course the new bridge will reach capacity eventually and we'll be back in this situation again ASSUMING NOTHING ELSE CHANGES (ie. no more transit, car culture continues unabated, yadda yadda yadda). Is this really a valid assumption?My point in favour of the new Port Mann/Hwy 1 is that the current situation is unsustainable. And I would be slightly surprised to find someone who thinks it is sustainable. We can't put transit on the existing bridge, it's constantly gridlocked except for the middle of the night, it's old and we live in an earthquake zone, it's a very key link between the lower mainland and the rest of Canada, and frankly as a piece of public infrastructure, it serves us extremely poorly with travel times and inefficient fuel use. Ergo, it needs to be replaced.Now, having stated that it needs to be replaced, and that that is a good thing, We should also pursue more public transit so that the "long term" truly becomes the "really long term". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.