Haven't read the entire thing but on his first point I think I'd have to again caution people believing everything anyone with something after their name says. I'll point out why:
Quote:
|
If we define “The project” as a 10-lane high level bridge, then clearly it is not the only solution to the problems presented here. Traffic congestion in the bridge has been demonstrated to be getting better, not worse, over the last decade, and the Ministry’s own data shows that 87% of vehicles in the tunnel are cars (almost all single-occupant) while more than a quarter of the *people* going through the tunnel are in the 1% of vehicles that comprise the inadequate transit service through the tube.
|
Point 1:
Let's take the first point. Congestion has been going down? He misses the context of the greater region, something I find politicians in the individual Metro-Vancouver communities often do. While statistics at the Tunnel have been going _slightly_ down over the past decade, the AFB (the alternate route) has gone up considerably in that same time.
As someone who drives by the Tunnel every single day and has done so now for 15 years straight, my opinion is that the tunnel has reached maximum capacity and traffic numbers there are a result of people simply diverting. Unfortunately he ignores this completely and given his title, is to me being no better than the government he is picking a fight with. They are biased toward building the bridge, he is biased against. Both sides ignoring actual facts.
Point 2:
Good point that a lot of vehicles are single occupancy cars. My question though is this. He assumes he knows who is driving the cars though but doesn't actually detail who these cars belong to and who these drivers are. He can't do that because I don't believe the stats are available nor can the Government.
What the heck do I mean? What percentage of those cars are local commuters who have an option of commuting in HOV? What percentage of those cars are American from the US or Ferry goers?
If the latter is the greater number of the single occupancy vehicles, or make up at least a fair amount, then simply focusing on transit would never solve anything long term. For example, if 20% of your traffic through the tunnel turns out to be a combination of ferry traffic and US border traffic both direction (which is not far fetched imho), then focusing entirely on transit would have as great an impact as he implies.
Without those actual statistics then the same stats we have which are simply vehicles using the tunnel can accurately argue both points.
This is why stats are dangerous!
Quote:
|
Providing better options for only 15% of the people who use the tunnel would virtually end congestion, leaving a bunch of money left over to finish the work to make the tunnel earthquake safe again. Saying “we need to do something” is not the same as saying “we need to do this thing”. This project is not needed. Myth not busted.
|
I'm not entirely sure where he gets 15% of the people from. He says 87% of vehicles in the tunnel are cars. So if you add a lane, wouldn't that mean 87% of the people would benefit assuming 1 vehicle = 1 person in this case?
I just don't understand where he pulled 15% from maybe someone can help me. Sounds like Donald Trump numbers.
Quote:
|
What a steaming pile this is. “keeping traffic moving to reduce GHG emissions” is a perfect example of bullshit: it’s not wrong, it’s just stupid. Ways to reduce GHG impacts of transportation have been studied to death, and yes, idling reduction (depending on conditions) can reduce gas consumption per kilometre, but it does not reduce GHG emissions anywhere near as much as dozens of other available techniques, including modifying trip-making choices, increasing vehicle occupancy rates, shifting (freight and passengers) to more efficient modes, compact community planning, etc. etc. – policies that are directly undermined by this very project! Claiming that “free flowing traffic” induces transit use boggles the mind. The other “improvements” and “enhancements” listed here could easily be funded at a fraction of the cost of building a $3.5Billion bridge, without the boondoggle hanging over it. Why is planting a tree contingent on laying asphalt, what does one have to do with the other? Myth not busted.
|
My thoughts on his points regarding better reductions in GHG:
1) modifying trip-making choices
A) What trip choices? AFB which is a parking lot too? He forgets there are limited trip choices South of Fraser. Someone from New West I don't think would realize that. Evidently he doesn't. It's like saying Americans have a lot of choice in their next President when the fact is they don't... they have 2 choices out of 300+ million people. So this wouldn't solve anything since we have no choices. I'd love choices.
2) increasing vehicle occupancy rates
A) I'll give this to him but it still doesn't address people from the US border and those from the Ferries which I would venture a guess do contribute a fair amount of traffic through the tunnel. High occupancy vehicle rates are statistically only effective on commuting population. So I don't think this would have as much an impact as he thinks. That and he probably fails to realize there is actually no HOV at the Tunnel... There is an HOV leading sort of too... but no HOV both sides. HOVs get stuck in almost as bad traffic as everyone else.
3) shifting (freight and passengers) to more efficient modes
A) Like? Transit? Ok. Freight to what though? Trains? Where's the train bridge then? Trains are more efficient but our railway network isn't designed to get things NoF to SoF easily and it would likely cost as much to just rebuild the rail network. So that leaves trucks. What mode can they switch too? Blimps?
4) compact community planning
A) Ok but that doesn't solve expensive community housing that is driving sprawl. That's outside of the scope of the Ministry of Transport. They just have to deal with today and now. So I don't see how that is their problem even though I do agree with him here.
The rest of his claim is just as mind boggling since it seems to just be opinion with no facts.
Anyway not going into the rest don't have the time but while it is good to see another point I fear he is no better than the government and as extremely biased the other direction.
*sigh*
When did facts vanish from debate.
Prev
Linear Mode
