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

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Pinion

THE GOAL ISN'T TO REDUCE MOVEMENT. How many times do we have to go over this in infrastructure discussions?

No, the goal is to move people more efficiently with less impact on the environment. That's why we need to spend more on transit infrastructure to provide fast, convenient and reasonable alternatives for commuters rather than constantly building new bridges all the time.

All this "good movement" BS is a false argument. Our roads are being sized for peak loads of which the vast majority are single occupancy commuters. If "goods movement" was REALLY the priority then all we need to do is to put restrictions on the SOV commuters and prioritize commercial traffic. But oh no, you never hear road proponents suggest that.

Of course you can't do that unless you provide the SOV commuters with alternatives. That's why transit is so important.

Yes, we need to upgrade aging infrastructure. And yes, there should be some future-proofing. But the mad rush to get this new bridge approved and built, one that will have well over twice the capacity despite the government's own projections that the tolls will cause a reduction in trips, shows that our priorities are very skewed, IMHO.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

In terms of people travelling in private automobiles, uh, yes it is.

In terms of net movement of people, no.

i.e. redistribution of mode share

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

In terms of people travelling in private automobiles, uh, yes it is.

In terms of net movement of people, no.

Ending single occupancy usage may be your goal, but they aren't building a 10 lane bridge for your goals. They're doing it for free flowing movement. Technological advancements in electric/self driving cars etc will render any environmental argument moot. Individual vehicles for everyone is the future, not the past.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Ending single occupancy usage may be your goal, but they aren't building a 10 lane bridge for your goals.

1) Nobody is talking about "ending" SOV usage. We're talking about providing and incentivizing decent alternative means for the many people who could use them. It doesn't take a very large percentage reduction in SOV use to dramatically reduce congestion.

2) I wholeheartedly agree, they're not building a 10 lane bridge to do that. Building a 10 lane bridge will encourage SOV usage. And that's the problem.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Ending single occupancy usage may be your goal, but they aren't building a 10 lane bridge for your goals. They're doing it for free flowing movement. Technological advancements in electric/self driving cars etc will render any environmental argument moot. Individual vehicles for everyone is the future, not the past.

So no one should use buses or transit, because the environmental argument isn't there, right?

Carpools are essentially mini-bus systems. Plus, I get the feeling most people on HOV lanes are either actually SOVs, are parents carrying their children, or buses.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

well...

Airport Looks at Bridge Tolls, Restrictions

they have been looking at this idea of tolling it for non-airport users since 2006. even in their YVR 2037 plan, they talk about it as well.

How? They would have to track every vehicle on every crossing to Sea Island- which would be VERY expensive.

If they toll the Bridgeport Bridge (or demolish the original two bridges for one, 8-lane bridge, and expand the road all the way to 99), then maybe it deserves to be tolled.

[osirisboy]

Holy fuck. 90% of this thread is one huge circular argument over SOVs versus public transit. Which has already happened already during the port Mann replacement.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by fredinno

So no one should use buses or transit, because the environmental argument isn't there, right?

... this is a really weird response to anything I've said.

[GlassCity]

I strongly disagree that a vehicle for every person is the future. It just does not make sense. The space isn't there. There's only so much road you can build. Transit may not be competitive at the moment due to the way our city is built and the way transit is currently run, but overall, transit is simply a much more logical way to carry people in a big, dense city. It's a much more efficient use of space. No amount of environmental advances in cars can change that.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Holy fuck. 90% of this thread is one huge circular argument over SOVs versus public transit. Which has already happened already during the port Mann replacement.

I'm not sure why you think people are against SOVs. Just because there's a toll bridge doesn't mean people switch to transit. I certainly don't.

The issue is the massive over-commitment of limited tax dollars to a bridge that is sized far too large. The PMB was supposed to recoup it's costs and instead it loses $100M+/year.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I strongly disagree that a vehicle for every person is the future. It just does not make sense. The space isn't there. There's only so much road you can build. Transit may not be competitive at the moment due to the way our city is built and the way transit is currently run, but overall, transit is simply a much more logical way to carry people in a big, dense city. It's a much more efficient use of space. No amount of environmental advances in cars can change that.

The only reason roads are clogged is because people are controlling cars (badly) with their primitive monkey brains. Once automated driving is safe and fully adopted, road speed can be increased exponentially. Traffic jams will cease to exist. It'll start with one dedicated lane and eventually people in urban areas just won't learn to drive because they won't need to. Children and aging seniors will be able to transport themselves. It's closer than you think - at least close enough that the Massey crossing plans should be considering it.

Transit will never be preferable to private cars for most people.

[Migrant_Coconut]

No, the roads are clogged and traffic is jammed because there's no more room.



High-tech cars may cancel out human error, but they can't cancel out physics. Cars are big. City roads are small. There are only so many big things that can fit into a small space.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

High-tech cars may cancel out human error, but they can't cancel out physics. Cars are big. City roads are small. There are only so many big things that can fit into a small space.

Exactly.

I don't know where this idea of autonomous utopia comes from. The reality is that the people who deign to carpool today are unlikely to want to share an autonomous ride, so there will be just as many cars on the road. And in fact with empty cars roaming around to pick up the next ride there may even be MORE cars on the road.

There may be some gains from concepts like platooning, but those can't come until all the manually controlled vehicles are off the road. In the meantime, automated cars that actually maintain safe following distances from unpredictable human drivers are likely to increase congestion.

Autonomous cars are a long, long way from being the transportation panacea that a lot of people seem to think they'll be.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm not sure why you think people are against SOVs. Just because there's a toll bridge doesn't mean people switch to transit. I certainly don't.

The issue is the massive over-commitment of limited tax dollars to a bridge that is sized far too large. The PMB was supposed to recoup it's costs and instead it loses $100M+/year.

What? I wasn't even talking about tolls. you didn't get my point

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Holy fuck. 90% of this thread is one huge circular argument over SOVs versus public transit. Which has already happened already during the port Mann replacement.

No kidding. All the usual suspects a.k.a. trolling flakes always attempting to derail these threads. It's unreal.

Hey, why don't you trolls open up your own thread on cars v. transit and leave this thread for the GMT project?

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

No, the roads are clogged and traffic is jammed because there's no more room.



High-tech cars may cancel out human error, but they can't cancel out physics. Cars are big. City roads are small. There are only so many big things that can fit into a small space.

This is a cars vs bus argument, nothing to do with autonomous cars.

And yes I'm going to stop taking the bait now too. Make your own thread.

[osirisboy]

^^ exactly. And it also has nothing to do with this thread.

Where are the mods????

If ppl want to have an endless discussion about car vs bus go make a thread

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Pinion

This is a cars vs bus argument, nothing to do with autonomous cars.

Fair enough. Here's Part 2.



I agree with you that the GMB needs to be future-proofed for high levels of traffic, especially as BC becomes more interconnected with Washington and Oregon... and seeing as rapid transit isn't coming to Delta any time within the next twenty years.

But let's not pretend autonomous cars will solve gridlock, which is the only point I'm responding to here. They take up just as much space as a normal car, and there WILL be a point where there's so many on the road that you can't fit in any more; it'll simply come at a later date than with non-autonomous cars.

Originally Posted by osirisboy

^^ exactly. And it also has nothing to do with this thread.

Where are the mods????

If ppl want to have an endless discussion about car vs bus go make a thread

I believe this was the catalyst:

Originally Posted by Pinion

THE GOAL ISN'T TO REDUCE MOVEMENT. How many times do we have to go over this in infrastructure discussions?

Somebody posts, somebody else counter-posts, and it snowballs. Disagreement =/= trolling.

[libtard]

This is why SSC is a better site. They have an infrastructure section that focuses on discussion about projects instead of letting people troll with their own political agendas. The bridge is happening, get that through your thick heads

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I believe this was the catalyst:

Seriously? It was a response to the actual catalyst, posted by the usual suspect:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Am I the only one who sees that according to their own report tolling alone would reduce the congestion problem? Why build a bridge at all?

I am pro-Massey bridge, I can't be the reason for the constant derails.

And you still refuse to understand how autonomous cars work, because it hurts your agenda, but - AGAIN - this is not the place.