Hwy 99 Fraser River Tunnel (George Massey Replacement) | Proposed

[libtard]

The stick is the toll

This massive piece of infrastructure is happening because people will be paying for it. You can't just slap a toll on a piece of infrastructure that hasn't been improved in any way over the original non-tolled version.

It's clear mukmuk is just a kid that doesn't drive

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by libtard

The stick is the toll

This massive piece of infrastructure is happening because people will be paying for it. You can't just slap a toll on a piece of infrastructure that hasn't been improved in any way over the original non-tolled version.

It's clear mukmuk is just a kid that doesn't drive

The government can do whatever it wants. The existing 520 bridge was tolled in Seattle.

Tolls seem to dramatically impact the usage of a given bridge, as we've seen. If you want a real prediction of what a future tolled GMT or Patullo Bridge would warrant in terms of volume, tolling the existing options would give you an excellent idea.

There's one taxpayer and one government writing checks. Tolls are closer to "user-pay" systems instead of having everything go in and out of a huge general revenue bucket. Tolls allow for appropriate use of funds based on what people actually want to use, since they'll always vote with their wallet. Using general revenue (income/corp taxes) for everything opens up the possibility of purely political projects.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The government can do whatever it wants. The existing 520 bridge was tolled in Seattle.

Tolls seem to dramatically impact the usage of a given bridge, as we've seen. If you want a real prediction of what a future tolled GMT or Patullo Bridge would warrant in terms of volume, tolling the existing options would give you an excellent idea.

There's one taxpayer and one government writing checks. Tolls are closer to "user-pay" systems instead of having everything go in and out of a huge general revenue bucket. Tolls allow for appropriate use of funds based on what people actually want to use, since they'll always vote with their wallet. Using general revenue (income/corp taxes) for everything opens up the possibility of purely political projects.

I actually dont think it would. If they never expanded the PMB and left the old bridge there and just slapped a toll on it, how can this be in any way compared with having a new bridge double the size with no congestion. As the numbers seem to show, people are coming back to the portm,ann and have been for almost 2 years now. The reason (in my opinion) they are coming back, is the time savings.

Would it be the same thing if it was the same old piece of junk backed up bridge and highway as always? I highly doubt it. There would be no incentive. Just many pissed off motorists.

The exact same thing can be said for the gmt.

As Libtard said previously "I think we should raise fares for buses and skytrains, put that money towards a broadway extension. Then in 10 years if it's still viable we can consider building it with fares increased again"

Do you think that would every fly for transit users?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

What I propose is carrot and stick. A carrot for transit users in the form of transit funding and high quality BRT and mild stick for car drivers in the form of only a limited expansion of the road network to an 8 lane bridge. This would provide more balance to our transportation system and limit traffic expansion.

Bit too much stick, not enough carrot. BRT is mostly an improvement for people who already take transit. It hasn't exactly eased traffic on Broadway, after all - we're going to need Skytrain for that. And Delta isn't getting Skytrain, LRT or commuter rail within your lifetime or mine.

Once again, we're not just dealing with Vancouver-Delta or Vancouver-Tsawwassen commutes. Even if we were, six vehicle lanes wouldn't be enough - the Ironworkers' Memorial is six lanes and STILL choked at peak hour.
Now also consider that the GMT also handles motorists to and from the Washington border. Smooth commutes for tourists and truckers between Canada and the States are in everybody's best interest, and so eight vehicle lanes plus two BRT (ten total) seems like the bare minimum to handle traffic until Delta finally gets rail transit. It's basic game theory - we lose nothing by overestimating traffic levels. We lose several billion dollars and end up right back in gridlock by underestimating.

Remember, most vehicle emissions come from idling engines. It's in our best interest as the aspiring Greenest City to keep those emissions low.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Steveston Hwy interchange:

17A interchange:

From a highway design perspective, I notice that 17A EB ----> 99 NB ramp merges with the higher-speed 99 left lanes, which is kinda unusual. Typically, said ramp would merge with the right-hand lanes - even the initial GMB vid showed that concept.

I don't understand the reasoning behind same albeit I'm sure that MoTI has one.

[Stingray2004]

As usual, the so-called "progressive green" crowd always chimes in viv-a-vis new Metro Van freeway-standard highway design. Seems that most of that sentiment always arises/emanates from inner Van City proper.

BTW, the Burrard St./Granville St./Cambie St. Bridges have a combined lane capacity of 20 lanes (well 19) and are in relative close proximity to each other - equivalent to 2 new PMBs or 2 new GMBs. Can ya imagine that!

So my solution? The CoV should toll each of these crossings as a social engineering experiment. That's where it all should begin. And end. Would grab my bag of popcorn and watch the entire thing unfold. I'm sure that Mayor Robertson would support such an initiative.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

I actually dont think it would. If they never expanded the PMB and left the old bridge there and just slapped a toll on it, how can this be in any way compared with having a new bridge double the size with no congestion. As the numbers seem to show, people are coming back to the portm,ann and have been for almost 2 years now. The reason (in my opinion) they are coming back, is the time savings.

You've just answered your own question. We already have a new bridge double the size with no congestion - it's called the Port Mann. Putting a toll on the Patullo would eliminate all of the traffic that's currently diverting from the Port Mann to avoid the tolls, and it would also divert some traffic from the Patullo to the Port Mann so they could avoid the congestion. Tolling the Patullo would effectively make better use of all that new infrastructure we just recently built without having to spend a whole lot of money building a new bridge.

Of course tolling an old bridge is politically difficult, but it would be made more palatable if the funds were promised toward a replacement and an actual, concrete replacement plan and timetable were promised.

And the icing on the cake would be that we'd have a far more realistic idea of what the actual traffic volumes would be on the tolled replacement bridge.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

You've just answered your own question. We already have a new bridge double the size with no congestion - it's called the Port Mann. Putting a toll on the Patullo would eliminate all of the traffic that's currently diverting from the Port Mann to avoid the tolls, and it would also divert some traffic from the Patullo to the Port Mann so they could avoid the congestion. Tolling the Patullo would effectively make better use of all that new infrastructure we just recently built without having to spend a whole lot of money building a new bridge.

Of course tolling an old bridge is politically difficult, but it would be made more palatable if the funds were promised toward a replacement and an actual, concrete replacement plan and timetable were promised.

And the icing on the cake would be that we'd have a far more realistic idea of what the actual traffic volumes would be on the tolled replacement bridge.

Answered what question? I didnt realize I was asking one. The patullo is going to be tolled. This is known. I feel like you just kind of repeated my statement back to me . Using different words.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

Answered what question? I didnt realize I was asking one. The patullo is going to be tolled. This is known. I feel like you just kind of repeated my statement back to me . Using different words.

Your question was "how can this be in any way compared with having a new bridge double the size with no congestion." The answer is: by making better use of the bridge that has double the size and no congestion.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The government can do whatever it wants. The existing 520 bridge was tolled in Seattle.

Tolls seem to dramatically impact the usage of a given bridge, as we've seen. If you want a real prediction of what a future tolled GMT or Patullo Bridge would warrant in terms of volume, tolling the existing options would give you an excellent idea.

There's one taxpayer and one government writing checks. Tolls are closer to "user-pay" systems instead of having everything go in and out of a huge general revenue bucket. Tolls allow for appropriate use of funds based on what people actually want to use, since they'll always vote with their wallet. Using general revenue (income/corp taxes) for everything opens up the possibility of purely political projects.

I wonder how you would feel about user pay if you suddenly had to pay $6 every time you left your place. Locals should pay for the viaduct demolition, after all.

[jollyburger]

Gas taxes are more user pay than any toll which only gets charged on certain routes. And I doubt whatever taxing method you choose will remove "political projects" from the equation.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Cities with great transportation {and Vancouver certainly does not qualify} are ones that know that transportation cannot be viewed in isolation as it is a system where all modes work together to create a place where people and goods are moved quickly and efficiently in many different modes.

Agree fully ssiguy. I'd like to sharpen the pencil a little though. I walk a lot. I ride a bike even more. But its time we all just admitted that those are minor modes of transportation in a big city. At best they are secondary or local means that still require heavier modes of which they are extensions. Sure, they deserve attention and funding, but we need to get over the idea that we can turn them into major modes. By and large transportation planning needs to focus realistically/rationally on the best possible combination of major modes: cars, trucks, urban transit, interurban trains and freight trains, ships, barges, and aircraft. Infrastructure needs to satisfy load requirements, geographical and temporal connection requirements to the city's functional built form, and the inter-connectivity of those modes that can work together to maximize the overall efficiency. Government can play a constructive role, not just by funding, but in planning and making smart things happen. Containers provide many opportunities that are not being taken advantage of. The whole container barges along the Fraser, utilizing cheaper inland/up river inter-modal and warehousing, while taking trucks off the roads is a smart example that would require some government involvement to get it off the ground.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Vancouver has always thought that if we build transit all of a sudden the congestion will go away. What a juevenille attempt at regional transportation planning and it has left Vancouver with the 2nd longest commutes in NA in a city of just 2.5 million.

This I understand, but don't really agree. Vancouver suffers from talking out of both sides of its mouth at once. There is the green green, cycle transit talk that ignores the required fully rounded plan. And there's the voice that ignores all that and goes ahead with little accountability with the GEB, Coast Meridian OP, Pitt RB, PMB, Hwy 1, GEW, SFPR, and the current project. It is stupid that we build bike lanes, talk about being green, and ignore the vast amount of freeway and other roadwork we are in the middle of constructing. Yes, our roads remain inadequate, but we are pumping out billions of dollars trying to catch them up. The different levels of politicians, with their individual responsibilities, funding sources, constituencies, etc., need some structure under which the whole transportation network is kept in mind. A good start would be if they stopped embarrassing themselves and talked realistically about what they are all building. While they might quibble about how much and where, they look like fools when they talk like they are changing the nature of transport, when the truth is that the nature of the whole system is not changing in any radical way. Transit is still fighting to get a bigger share, but cars are largely as prevalent as ever, just better, more advanced, and operating on an ever expanding and technologically advanced network of roads. There isn't a first world city left that doesn't have a complex mix of transport types. Vancouver is far from best, or worst, but it is not significantly off the norm. Our talk, which assumes we are achieving some more ideal and environmentally sustainable system, is mostly self-serving nonsense.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I wonder how you would feel about user pay if you suddenly had to pay $6 every time you left your place. Locals should pay for the viaduct demolition, after all.

We do, it's called property taxes.

I'd support tolling all downtown bridges if the money went to the owner of the bridge (CoV). It's unrealistic since it would just divert people to the DTES area to access downtown.

When my provincial tax dollars are being over-allocated to a certain specific area, I get to have an opinion on what is happening.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I walk a lot. I ride a bike even more. But its time we all just admitted that those are minor modes of transportation in a big city. At best they are secondary or local means that still require heavier modes of which they are extensions. Sure, they deserve attention and funding, but we need to get over the idea that we can turn them into major modes.

If by "major mode" you mean 30% of commuters, then other cities have shown that it is possible.

Now I agree that cycling share in a suburban location such as where the tunnel is not going to be significant and so something still needs to be done there. But even if a 20% mode share was only achieved within the Vancouver city limits it would free up a lot of downtown road and transit capacity for suburban commuters, and that's not something to be dismissed. We can already see how the improving cycling infrastructure in Vancouver is increasing the number of cycling trips, so IMHO we need to keep moving in that direction.

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by libtard

It's clear mukmuk is just a kid that doesn't drive

I dunno why I'm even responding to such a lame attack, but I actually own two cars.

Regardless of my car ownership status I'm going to commute to work today by transit because it's way cheaper and faster than driving.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Bit too much stick, not enough carrot. BRT is mostly an improvement for people who already take transit. It hasn't exactly eased traffic on Broadway, after all - we're going to need Skytrain for that. And Delta isn't getting Skytrain, LRT or commuter rail within your lifetime or mine.

You seem overly concerned with automobile traffic and not recognizing the massive amounts of people that are being moved here on the Broadway corridor.

If automobile congestion remains static, but the overall share of commuters comprising that automobile traffic is decreasing, then you're actually decreasing congestion. You're not decreasing automobile congestion, but you're decreasing overall commuter congestion.

The Broadway B Line has some 55,000+ boardings a day. How wide would Broadway have to be if all those people commuted by car?

This basic geometry is why it is possible to have a smaller Massey Crossing but move more people overall by focusing on transit.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Once again, we're not just dealing with Vancouver-Delta or Vancouver-Tsawwassen commutes. Even if we were, six vehicle lanes wouldn't be enough - the Ironworkers' Memorial is six lanes and STILL choked at peak hour.
Now also consider that the GMT also handles motorists to and from the Washington border. Smooth commutes for tourists and truckers between Canada and the States are in everybody's best interest, and so eight vehicle lanes plus two BRT (ten total) seems like the bare minimum to handle traffic until Delta finally gets rail transit. It's basic game theory - we lose nothing by overestimating traffic levels. We lose several billion dollars and end up right back in gridlock by underestimating.

Let's be honest with ourselves here. The vast, vast majority of this traffic is every day commuters driving by themselves to work in their own car. Can we agree on that?

Those single commuters take up a lot of space. If you divert a portion of those every day commuters to transit, you free up road space on the road for everyone else that is not commuting and has no other option, such as truck drivers and travellers.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Remember, most vehicle emissions come from idling engines. It's in our best interest as the aspiring Greenest City to keep those emissions low.

I really don't think this is true, but even if it was this is not really something worth focusing strongly on given that the automobile industry is moving to zero emission electric vehicles.

At issue for me is how we move the most amount of people for the lowest cost.

[osirisboy]

Sue would be nice to open up this thread to find actual info about this project versus an endless debate that just goes around in circles.

Some want to have the government fund public transit over this project and others don't. Done. Can you all move on. Every transit thread turns into this shit

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I wonder how you would feel about user pay if you suddenly had to pay $6 every time you left your place.

Every transit user pays a 'toll' when they pay a fare. I think this is something that gets lost in all this.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

If by "major mode" you mean 30% of commuters, then other cities have shown that it is possible.

Now I agree that cycling share in a suburban location such as where the tunnel is not going to be significant and so something still needs to be done there. But even if a 20% mode share was only achieved within the Vancouver city limits it would free up a lot of downtown road and transit capacity for suburban commuters, and that's not something to be dismissed. We can already see how the improving cycling infrastructure in Vancouver is increasing the number of cycling trips, so IMHO we need to keep moving in that direction.

To add to your point, the vast majority of trips that people make are less than 5 km. This means most trips are within practical cycling range.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

If by "major mode" you mean 30% of commuters, then other cities have shown that it is possible.

Now I agree that cycling share in a suburban location such as where the tunnel is not going to be significant and so something still needs to be done there. But even if a 20% mode share was only achieved within the Vancouver city limits it would free up a lot of downtown road and transit capacity for suburban commuters, and that's not something to be dismissed. We can already see how the improving cycling infrastructure in Vancouver is increasing the number of cycling trips, so IMHO we need to keep moving in that direction.

Only it doesn't free up any space as we've seen with the Burrard reconstruction. Gregor just takes a traffic lane unannounced and plops what is sure to be a little used bike lane on it.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

To add to your point, the vast majority of trips that people make are less than 5 km. This means most trips are within practical cycling range.

Yes, look out your window right now and ask how many people would be willing to bike 4km in this weather? Cyclists incorrectly assume the rest of the population shares in their zealotry.