Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Province unveils options for Massey Tunnel replacement


aGENT

Recommended Posts

Well I'm sure pouting and throwing a toddler like tantrum is probably the answer :rolleyes:

You act like the GVRD is some monotonous mass of consciousness that evidently (according to you) wants to pave over everything.

It's a diverse area of people of wildly varying backgrounds. Some of those people could care less if we did pave over everything, some want to tear up paved areas and restore them to their natural glory. Some lie somewhere between those two extremes. They all get to vote and pay taxes. THAT is the reality.

Until you realize that all of us (and especially politicians courting those votes) have to work within that framework of reality, you will continue to bang your head against this wall of futility.

There's a reason the term "baby steps" was invented. Sure I'd love to wake up tomorrow to some modern utopian version of the GVRD with seemless transit for all and clean air, green spaces and low footprint living all around us. The reality is that it's going to be a long, convoluted road to that destination. So rather than being frustrated with not being there, why don't you concentrate on what small steps we can take now to get us down that road faster and in a less convoluted manner?

Yes, good job missing my sarcasm laden posts.

We've been taking baby steps for a while now, about about we learn to walk. I'm not into the whole scaring people into action thing, but we can't learn to walk forever. There will be and already are consequences for our inaction. What is absolutely mind boggling is that we think we can avoid those consequences but doing the same things that got us there.

Did you read the cost benefit analysis? I'm not making this stuff up, and it's not fantasy land pie in the sky ideas. I've said before, we need leadership. Real leaders make bold moves because it is the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find funny is that my plan I put out is really only different from the things he cites where tolling existing road users is considered ideal is that I simply want to build new toll roads/bridges that do the exact same thing.

That's exactly what's going to happen the only sad thing is that the tolls will end up going to general revenue (read healthcare monster eating up every other program budget) instead of going to transit.

If the greens went after the revenue instead of trying to stop the projects that are going to happen anyways they might have their funding solution but instead it's sticking to oppose all projects and toll existing facilities like it would ever actually happen.

I agree. And for the most part the "new" projects are not actually new but replacing/upgrading existing infrastructure. About the only things that aren't are the SFPR and that proposed new crosiing in East Richmond. It's not like we're replacing vast swaths of green space with pavement left, right and centre. Largely we're upgrading what already exists to handle current/future capacity and increase safety etc. All while gaining revenue sources for transit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find funny is that my plan I put out is really only different from the things he cites where tolling existing road users is considered ideal is that I simply want to build new toll roads/bridges that do the exact same thing.

That's exactly what's going to happen the only sad thing is that the tolls will end up going to general revenue (read healthcare monster eating up every other program budget) instead of going to transit.

If the greens went after the revenue instead of trying to stop the projects that are going to happen anyways they might have their funding solution but instead it's sticking to oppose all projects and toll existing facilities like it would ever actually happen.

How do you not see that this is taking five steps back to take one step forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, good job missing my sarcasm laden posts.

We've been taking baby steps for a while now, about about we learn to walk. I'm not into the whole scaring people into action thing, but we can't learn to walk forever. There will be and already are consequences for our inaction. What is absolutely mind boggling is that we think we can avoid those consequences but doing the same things that got us there.

Did you read the cost benefit analysis? I'm not making this stuff up, and it's not fantasy land pie in the sky ideas. I've said before, we need leadership. Real leaders make bold moves because it is the right thing to do.

I didn't miss a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. And for the most part the "new" projects are not actually new but replacing/upgrading existing infrastructure. About the only things that aren't are the SFPR and that proposed new crosiing in East Richmond. It's not like we're replacing vast swaths of green space with pavement left, right and centre. Largely we're upgrading what already exists to handle current/future capacity and increase safety etc. All while gaining revenue sources for transit.

Grandview Heights, Anniedale Tynehead, East Clayton, Tsawwassen Mall, Abbotsford, etc etc etc they all say hi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grandview Heights, Anniedale Tynehead, East Clayton, Tsawwassen Mall, Abbotsford, etc etc etc they all say hi.

I lived nearby that road upgrade a brand new park with about 3km of walking area was also built aswell as a pedestrian over pass on one side and another park with walking areas on the other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you not see that this is taking five steps back to take one step forward?

I see it as putting in the facilities to modern design standards, changing cost for congestion as a demand management tool, and implementing a funding system for transit that increases in the event that the new facilities are congested.

So I see it as three steps forward.

This isn't blazing an elevated freeway down Vancouver. It's relieving choke points and using a different demand management tool that actually takes account of the cost of the facilities being used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe we were actually discussing one without the other until you attempted to veer the thread off on another inane tangent....

If you think talking about land use decisions in a thread about transportation is an inane tangent, well, you're an idiot.

Now I know you're not an idiot, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lived nearby that road upgrade a brand new park with about 3km of walking area was also built aswell as a pedestrian over pass on one side and another park with walking areas on the other

I'm talking about the land use plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about the land use plan.

Well if you want leadership we can abolish the GVRD municipalities and merge it into one super municipality that might have a hope in hell of actually FOLLOWING the agreed land use plan and then the business case for transit would be significantly improved.

Of course while were at it might as well bring in a German consulting team to convert our healthcare system into a public/private hybrid modeled on their own as a way to help actually having something in the budget for anything but healtcare.

Ohh and while were at it we can link every public sector pension with the actually contributions given and not on any sort of guaranteed return.

In fantasy land (the one where anything can stop local mayors from resisting the urge to grow their city, however they can) anything is possible!

Unfortunately people aren't really keen on any of those things. What they are keen on is back yards, impressing the neighbors, and not having to jam in with the infectious plebeians that ride transit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you want leadership we can abolish the GVRD municipalities and merge it into one super municipality that might have a hope in hell of actually FOLLOWING the agreed land use plan and then the business case for transit would be significantly improved.

Of course while were at it might as well bring in a German consulting team to convert our healthcare system into a public/private hybrid modeled on their own as a way to help actually having something in the budget for anything but healtcare.

Ohh and while were at it we can link every public sector pension with the actually contributions given and not on any sort of guaranteed return.

In fantasy land (the one where anything can stop local mayors from resisting the urge to grow their city, however they can) anything is possible!

Unfortunately people aren't really keen on any of those things. What they are keen on is back yards, impressing the neighbors, and not having to jam in with the infectious plebeians that ride transit.

And what happens when that's no longer possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...