Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698
Exactly - because the people making the argument aren't really concerned about goods movement, they're actually just concerned about their own convenience. If it was really about goods movement then the "shift SOV trips to transit" solution would get just as much play as the "build more capacity" argument.
|
Agreed. And, be patient as outline my full position.
This thread highlights the larger disagreement on the forum and in general regarding mode investment for the region. The argument for investment in regionally significant infrastructure such as bridges and even roads to accommodate the growing port and associated industries is necessary in places. And, many have pointed this out on the various threads supporting these projects.
However, you should not be surprised that there are many critics of this position given the lack of equal treatment for the necessary transit and associated active transportation infrastructure for moving people. Moreover, the blatant attempt to promote both priorities as competing instead of complementary, disregards the extra cost of hindering one priority at the cost of the other.
We should also not be surprised at the demand for more road projects given the inability of transit service to keep pace with land development in the south and east of the region. It still doesn’t make for good planning, but is understandable if you sit in traffic ever day commuting to want a bigger road or bridge, i.e. more investment in your situation.
But, pitting one mode against another is foolish. There is no war on cars. Transportation planning is about moving goods and
people not goods and cars or goods and bikes. This rhetoric is dangerous as we simply have too many people using cars to fulfill too many of their trips regardless of the projected growth. However, the rhetoric has worked so well it has become provincial and federal policy. And so we get the zero-sum game. “If we don’t invest in roads, the congestion will only get worse. Ect…” And is great to see the expediency despite the critics, but then it is huge let down to not see the same effort and support with the other regional priority of transit.
This is a bit ironic (given the current governing parties are supposedly fiscally responsible) as transit investment is a better return on investment than road building for facilitating more trips. But, road projects trump because they are good for retail politics and the economic prosperity messaging (donors??). And, continuing to invest in the one priority arguing goods movements while not even considering the incentive for driving this creates, undermines the long-term goal of managing congestion. To be short: Every investment that facilitates more car-based trips may provide a short-term gain in terms of achieved mobility per user, but the long-term trend is more car trips and "bad congestion".
Congestion should not inherently be perceived as a bad thing as it is a measure of success for a transportation asset and a feedback loop for transportation demand management (TDM). We aren’t trying to eliminate congestion as no congestion indicates being overbuilt. We are trying to eliminate road failure when usage technically exceeds capacity. (In modeling it will show road failure measures in places even at 110%)
So, bringing this back to the issue at hand, when the City of Vancouver decides to eliminate a piece of urban highway that provides direct connection from east Vancouver to downtown, I see a re-balancing and a shift of incentives. I see driving downtown will be a pain in the back-side and most people won’t unless they have to. I also see urban revival in the area and a stronger business case for the streetcar plans. Many people moving into the expanded neighbourhood may or may not purchase a car, but they definitely will have a clear incentive to use other modes for some of their trips and those other modes will be available.
Prev
Linear Mode
