Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp
I thought of that as well. Except I would still make the toll more expensive on the Viaducts. I'm not talking about a major difference. Maybe $1-$2 more to cross the viaducts. If over time it gets to the point that hardly anyone is using the Viaducts then take them down.
Problem with high occupancy vehicles. Is how does the electronic toll tell the difference between a single person in a vehicle and a vehicle with more than one person.
|
Well personally I am in the camp that the viaducts should be maintained for the sake of keeping downtown-bound traffic off side streets in Gastown, regardless of overall traffic volume. However, if the overall traffic downtown is maintained at current levels or is even reduced over time, I could support the idea of removing the two 3 lane Viaducts in exchange for one 4 lane viaduct. This would maintain the ability of the road network to keep non-Gastown related traffic out of Gastown.
As such, I can't support the idea of an increased toll rate for the viaducts. As it is, a 2.50 entry/exit fee for traveling through the downtown area should be enough to convince anyone traveling alone to work downtown that transit is the far cheaper option (5 bucks a day to go downtown not including gas, isn't that enough for a daypass?).
As for the HOV, that's why I said registered. The idea is that if you carpool to work, you and your associates can register yourselves under an HOV do-not-charge list. Basically, if 2, 3, or more people are registered as commuting to downtown under one license plate, then that plate isn't charged every time it is seen crossing into downtown.
To prevent fraudulent use of the system, all people involved would have to register in person, with all driving information surrendered so as to produce a database of who is with who.
I feel the same thing should have been done with the GEB, but alas.
However, as a part of traffic reduction and overall fairness if there is to be a levy to go downtown, downtown is going to need a lot more transit access from other parts of the region. This, in my humble opinion, should include a Hastings line through northern Vancouver & Burnaby (with a Millenium/Evergreen transfer near BCIT), as well as a second north-south route or better connections from south/south-east Vancouver to Expo and Canada lines (better application of ground-level LRT/Streetcar than Broadway?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradigm4
If the goal is to reduce traffic, why make it a system more complicated than it needs to be. Example after example around the world shows: more roads equals more cars, less roads equals less cars. Traffic is not like water, but like a gas; it fills up whatever space is available. If congestion is bad, people find alternate routes. If alternate routes are congested, they adjust their time of travel. If that doesn't work, they get out of their cars, or move closer to work.
|
And like a bad gas, it really stinks if their is to much of it lingering in one area, such as the local streets in Gastown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradigm4
So your argument is, accommodate traffic because otherwise fumes and noise will discourage walking? Where does it stop though? This is the same type of argument for building freeways downtown. You need to accommodate the traffic cause it won't go away.
Reality is that traffic fluctuates with capacity. Build more capacity, you get more traffic. Remove capacity, you get less.
Traffic however will always exist. There is traffic on SkyTrain and buses too. It's called rush hour. How do people avoid rush hour? They move about their schedules if possible, or they live with it.
|
Yea, my argument is exactly that, to accommodate the current levels of traffic, which our current set up does fairly well. I do not advocate expansion of the system to give room for more traffic. On the contrary, I am quite open to the reduction of capacity if there are better methods to reducing traffic than simply tearing down the viaducts. Such as transit expansion, or my just mentioned idea of tolling all SOV traffic into downtown.
Tearing down the viaducts wont remove traffic outright. Traffic is just like a gas, and when it has less space to fill, it simply builds pressure. On the street that pressure is noise, congestion, pollution, people at greater risk and/or perceived greater risk of being endangered by increased traffic levels, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradigm4
I'm not sure what a so-called "LOCAL" road is downtown anyways. Outside of the West End, I wouldn't call any of the streets local. They are primarily all either arterials or collectors. Pacific is most certainly an arterial, as is Hastings and Smithe.
|
Maybe so. But even in rush hour those streets are currently comfortable to cross. With increased traffic on them they wouldn't be, and they'd become the 8th ave of Vancouver. If you ever go to NYC, check that street out during rush hour to get what I mean. Call me belligerent; I've jumped from hood-hood on cars crossing that road to get across from it being so packed... And that's with the A, C, and E subway lines running directly beneath and parrellel to that road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradigm4
And just to bring some context back to this debate, I think we need to visualize long term what we want downtown to be. Car usage is declining. I for one would like to see that continue, and that means making adjustments to the road network and building more infrastructure to facilitate walking, cycling, and transit.
My biggest argument for tearing down the viaducts to develop the lands and use the money gain through that process to build the Downtown Streetcar. In doing so, as you remove one mode, you provide another. Seems like a win-win to me, although I suppose some people would rather keep the viaducts than build the streetcar.
|
Again, not really win-win when you force the non-SOV traffic onto city side-streets to accommodate the streetcar.
At best the streetcar will act as a feeder to the bigger lines (Expo, Millenium, Canada), as well as a ring-route around False Creek. While those are excellent reasons for having the streetcar, and why I think it should be built ASAP; the streetcar wouldn't fill the same role as the viaducts do. For the SOV users of the viaducts, a more appropriate replacement than a streetcar would be another arterial skytrain line that runs along Hastings out to Burnaby and beyond.
And even if you do develop the land, developers aren't going to give you enough of a down payment, and you aren't going to receive nearly enough money from taxes, to outright pay for the streetcar through downtown, never mind the more appropriate replacement; another East-West Skytrain line.
A better way to build funds would be to charge $2.50 for every entry and departure from downtown ($5.00 round tip). Even if the average traffic through downtown is only 25 000 per day (I don't have figured handy), that's $125 000 per day, or $875 000 a week, or $3 750 000 per month. Still not superb amounts of cash, but after just 10 years that will have put $400 000 000 in the bank, as well as reduce the total number of SOV commutes to and through downtown.
With $400 000 000, you could easily complete a large section of the streetcar network at no cost to taxpayers, have now reduced the overall number of SOV trips to/through downtown, and in all likelihood have boosted transit ridership on the Millennium Line, Expo Line, and various East-West bus routes, all without tearing down the viaducts and forcing that traffic through Gastown. Now that is a win-win scenario.
Prev
Linear Mode
