stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge (Pattullo Bridge Replacement) | U/C

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Oh stop being a crybaby because I created an unbiased political discussion where I don't bash others.

Everybody who disagrees with Stingray is a "well known troll".

I agree with Alex that the Patullo is in actual danger of collapse, with or without a seismic event.

The GMT replacement is more about capacity than imminent danger. Same as the old PMB.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by libtard

I classify the Stormont Connector in the same category as a bridge at the bottom of Boundary. We shouldn't even entertain the idea because it's never going to happen.

Then why do they own the land...

[rickvug]

Originally Posted by libtard

I classify the Stormont Connector in the same category as a bridge at the bottom of Boundary. We shouldn't even entertain the idea because it's never going to happen.

I would put them in the same category but I wouldn't mark that category "never going to happen". Sparing a revolution in automobile transportation (ie. autonomous driving) and transit service I believe both are inevitable due to the sheer volume of cars that will be on the road. Timeline is very long though. 20 years out a minimum after Massey, Port Mann, Skytrain to UBC, and likely even Skytrain to Langley.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by libtard

They call me a troll. Why is it so important to replace a bridge leading into new Westminster when they haven't played ball with any transportation plans in the past. Is the NFPR included in this Patullo proposal? If not then screw them they should be happy if the Patullo becomes unuseable it'll mean less cars driving through their precious city. GMT is part of a major transportation corridor with the ROW already set aside and prepped.

Richmond opposes the GMB just as much as New West opposes the Pattullo.

[Metro-One]

As with transit and roads, the Pattullo and the GMB are not an either / or situation, both need to be replaced. New West delayed replacing the Pattullo for a good decade, but now that things are slowly rolling it is time to get this project off the ground.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by rickvug

Sparing a revolution in automobile transportation (ie. autonomous driving) and transit service I believe both are inevitable due to the sheer volume of cars that will be on the road.

This is a bit off topic, but for the record autonomous driving won't remove cars from the road. Just as many people are still going to want to commute in their own personal little bubbles, and in addition to those active trips you're also going to have a bunch of empty cars milling about to find parking spaces or reverse commuting to pick up more rides. The total number of cars may go down due to sharing, but the number of active and deadhead trips is going to go up.

So better start building those bridges!!!

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Richmond opposes the GMB just as much as New West opposes the Pattullo.

You are mixing a bit of apples and oranges here though.

New West council has always been full of centre-left/left ideologues, which impacts their decisions.

1. Gated United Blvd years back at New West/Coquitlam boundary, which required Court injunction for removal IIRC;

2. New West council opposed United Blvd extension;

3. New West council at odds with Pattullo Bridge v. Surrey over 6-lane replacement;

4. New West council removed proposed Stormont Connector from their OCP years back;

Interestingly enough, when the Pattullo Bridge was closed down last year, for many months, for refurbishment, many in New West commented how "peaceful and calm" McBride Blvd became.

Obviously, McBride Blvd, cut and covered from new Pattullo Bridge to New West boundary with Burnaby, and the Stormont Connector would solve alot of New West's traffic problems. But ideologues don't understand that.

Now Richmond. Not many ideologues except for Steves and Day - Steves 1972 local NDP MLA while Day was 2013 local BC Con candidate. Most of Richmond council would support GMB crossing with rebuilt/expanded Oak Street Bridge. But that would be a future & separate stand-alone project. Moreover, traffic modelling doesn't support their assertion.

Meanwhile, Richmond Mayor Brodie is a bit of an eccentric/oddball. They come and they go. Brodie is certainly no long-time former Richmond mayor Gil Blair (1973 - 1990). Akin to Van City mayor Robertson being no former Van City mayor Fred Hume or Art Phillips. In that vein, Surrey mayor Hepner is certainly no Dianne Watts.

Also remember that Burnaby mayor Corrigan, an ideologue, also opposed the PMB/Hwy 1 expansion through Burnaby as well as the Canada Line.

These guys should not have much weight in terms of regional transportation. Too parochial and eccentric.

OTOH, current Delta mayor Lois Jackson? First elected as Delta councillor back in 1972 - 45 years ago and just 13 years after GMT opened. Has seen traffic/growth patterns evolve since then and knows the ropes.

[Pinion]

It's not apples and oranges when both are opposed. Everyone wants to prevent cars from driving through their municipality, same reason the CoV fucks the north shore.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

New West council has always been full of centre-left/left ideologues, which impacts their decisions.

What does it matter when Richmond is just as opposed?

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

What does it matter when Richmond is just as opposed?

Richmond is not just as opposed. Brodie doesn't speak for Richmond any more than Corrigan speaks for Burnaby.

Brodie is engaged in a bitter war against the Port. Period. He is unable to separate the bridge from his other Port issues. He is convinced that the bridge is a scheme to aid the Port. His vision is utterly clouded on this.

I don't know why he thinks his city will get favourable treatment from the NDP when his own constituents have always voted for BC Liberal. Richmond was utterly neglected by the NDP in the 90's, and that made sense, because Richmond had embraced the Socreds so fully (even being the seat of the premier). The same will happen again. Brodie should have listened to his constituents and embraced the BC Liberals while they were in power.

[Trainguy]

Since the new Pattullo bridge will be toll free as promised by the NDP, it will fill up quickly as people avoid the PMB. Oh wait, the NDP also promised to eliminate the tolls on all bridges. Let's see if they are true to their words or liars like all politicians are!!!

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Since the new Pattullo bridge will be toll free as promised by the NDP, it will fill up quickly as people avoid the PMB. Oh wait, the NDP also promised to eliminate the tolls on all bridges. Let's see if they are true to their words or liars like all politicians are!!!

Green's said they don't support that of the NDP. and i doubt the liberals would vote in favour of it. odds are, don't count on it. plus when the NDP realize their plans are crazy expensive and unattainable they will need the tolls to push through their unattainable plans; just like the 90's

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

Green's said they don't support that of the NDP. and i doubt the liberals would vote in favour of it. odds are, don't count on it. plus when the NDP realize their plans are crazy expensive and unattainable they will need the tolls to push through their unattainable plans; just like the 90's

Hey... you are destroying my rose coloured glasses!!!

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Since the new Pattullo bridge will be toll free as promised by the NDP, it will fill up quickly as people avoid the PMB. Oh wait, the NDP also promised to eliminate the tolls on all bridges. Let's see if they are true to their words or liars like all politicians are!!!

Not entirely correct though. The BC NDP only promised to remove bridge tolls on both the MoTI PMB as well as the Translink GEB.

One reason why the BC NDP won more seats than expected in Metro Van- a deliberate strategy or "populist" narrative. Appealed to many "low information" voters believing that they would "save money" along with other "perceived" narratives such as "lower housing prices", etc. BC NDP MLA Carole James is now quoted in the media concerned about "managing public expectations". Sure got that right. Good luck with that.

The last time BC elected govt's on "populist" platforms was Socred Bill Vanderzalm back in 1986 and NDP Glen Clark in 1996. Both gov'ts eventually collapsed on both scandal, arrogance, incompetence, and deceit. Will leave the rest for an eventual BC Poli post.

Now back to public policy. IMHO, as well as previous opinion polls, most Metro Vancouverites agreed to tolls on new crossings - saved them time, money and gas savings - was also an enviro TDM measure.

Herein, I have always publicly advocated that the current ~ $3.15 per crossing was too much for the public. Hell, let's face it, for many its frankly tough to pay their bills. I have always advocated for a $1 toll - balances public wallets with financial realities of constructing highway infrastructure.

With the BC NDP's "populist" platform of removing tolls on both the GEB and PMB - that's it folks... forget about any tolls on new bridges - too politically unpalatable now. Basically a right-wing preserve of an "anti-tax" measure.

I have no doubt that the BC NDP will remove the GEB/PMB tolls in their September, 2017 budget. They have already announced that they will utilize the $500 million capital in the "Prosperity Fund" to pay for same over the next 3 years. Drains the capital in the Prosperity Fund. But what about year 4? Major cash crunch then.

Let's just look at Translink's GEB - tolls brought in ~$50 million/year ending December 31, 2015. While toll revenue will increase, so will GEB expenses. Leaves a major Translink revenue hole thereto moving forward. Translink already faces major revenue holes.

Translink's new Pattullo Bridge financing model includes tolls - the only way they can move forward even with prov/fed CAPEX. With foregone GEB and now Pattullo toll revenue - Translink will sink into an even deeper financial hole.

Now Translink is looking at road-pricing (mobility pricing). Global BCTV news has already broadcast a report that someone from Langley heading to Van City would save the current $3.15 toll on the PMB - but pay extra with mobility pricing. Poor saps who unknowingly voted for that.

No jurisdiction in North America has road-pricing or mobility pricing. If Translink mayor's endorse same (which BC NDP supports) would be equal to committing political suicide. Having followed BC poli for several decades... when public finds out that they will be charged per km on their odometer - they will undoubtedly take proverbial pitchforks & torches, enmasse, to those making that decision.

Fun political times though!

[POCO]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Not entirely correct though. The BC NDP only promised to remove bridge tolls on both the MoTI PMB as well as the Translink GEB.

One reason why the BC NDP won more seats than expected in Metro Van- a deliberate strategy or "populist" narrative. Appealed to many "low information" voters believing that they would "save money" along with other "perceived" narratives such as "lower housing prices", etc. BC NDP MLA Carole James is now quoted in the media concerned about "managing public expectations". Sure got that right. Good luck with that.

The last time BC elected govt's on "populist" platforms was Socred Bill Vanderzalm back in 1986 and NDP Glen Clark in 1996. Both gov'ts eventually collapsed on both scandal, arrogance, incompetence, and deceit. Will leave the rest for an eventual BC Poli post.

Now back to public policy. IMHO, as well as previous opinion polls, most Metro Vancouverites agreed to tolls on new crossings - saved them time, money and gas savings - was also an enviro TDM measure.

Herein, I have always publicly advocated that the current ~ $3.15 per crossing was too much for the public. Hell, let's face it, for many its frankly tough to pay their bills. I have always advocated for a $1 toll - balances public wallets with financial realities of constructing highway infrastructure.

With the BC NDP's "populist" platform of removing tolls on both the GEB and PMB - that's it folks... forget about any tolls on new bridges - too politically unpalatable now. Basically a right-wing preserve of an "anti-tax" measure.

I have no doubt that the BC NDP will remove the GEB/PMB tolls in their September, 2017 budget. They have already announced that they will utilize the $500 million capital in the "Prosperity Fund" to pay for same over the next 3 years. Drains the capital in the Prosperity Fund. But what about year 4? Major cash crunch then.

Let's just look at Translink's GEB - tolls brought in ~$50 million/year ending December 31, 2015. While toll revenue will increase, so will GEB expenses. Leaves a major Translink revenue hole thereto moving forward. Translink already faces major revenue holes.

Translink's new Pattullo Bridge financing model includes tolls - the only way they can move forward even with prov/fed CAPEX. With foregone GEB and now Pattullo toll revenue - Translink will sink into an even deeper financial hole.

Now Translink is looking at road-pricing (mobility pricing). Global BCTV news has already broadcast a report that someone from Langley heading to Van City would save the current $3.15 toll on the PMB - but pay extra with mobility pricing. Poor saps who unknowingly voted for that.

No jurisdiction in North America has road-pricing or mobility pricing. If Translink mayor's endorse same (which BC NDP supports) would be equal to committing political suicide. Having followed BC poli for several decades... when public finds out that they will be charged per km on their odometer - they will undoubtedly take proverbial pitchforks & torches, enmasse, to those making that decision.

Fun political times though!

Yea, you think people lost their tinfoil hatted minds over smart meters, can you imagine the government "tracking" where you drive?

[Caliplanner1]

Another road pricing strategy is a flexible/sliding toll model towards hiking tolls at the maximum sustainable money level during specific peak hour traffic times (e.g. 7am-9:30 am and 3:30 pm-7:30 pm etc., with gridlock times being frequently adjusted based on real time traffic camera data) and (thus) lowering said toll in off hours (after the gridlock periods).

[Metro-One]

You really want to do a smart tolling system that has multiple beneficial layers for the economy and the environment? Have prices set for how energy efficient the cars are. The more green the vehicle, the lower the toll. In Japan this also helps people economically because the majority of fuel efficient cars are also the cheapest and smallest (which most people on low to moderate incomes own, including my family) They are called K-Cars.

All this anti-highway talk from Vision and the Greens is nonsense, in Japan they realize that having a strong highway system is beneficial to the economy, so instead of being anti-road they have strongly encouraged people to drive more environmentally friendly vehicles. Smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient. These cars also have much lower insurance costs.

You want to drive a super cool 6 cylinder car / fuel guzzling truck that is too big for what you use it for / oversized Hummer SUV / etc... then you are going to pay more... much more.

If you can afford fancy expensive cars you can afford a higher toll.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

You really want to do a smart tolling system that has multiple beneficial layers for the economy and the environment? Have prices set for how energy efficient the cars are. The more green the vehicle, the lower the toll. In Japan this also helps people economically because the majority of fuel efficient cars are also the cheapest and smallest (which most people on low to moderate incomes own, including my family) They are called K-Cars.

All this anti-highway talk from Vision and the Greens is nonsense, in Japan they realize that having a strong highway system is beneficial to the economy, so instead of being anti-road they have strongly encouraged people to drive more environmentally friendly vehicles. Smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient. These cars also have much lower insurance costs.

You want to drive a super cool 6 cylinder car / fuel guzzling truck that is too big for what you use it for / oversized Hummer SUV / etc... then you are going to pay more... much more.

If you can afford fancy expensive cars you can afford a higher toll.

In the states some jurisdictions (like New York/New Jersey) have been doing what you've suggested above: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/automobiles/27GREEN.html

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

No jurisdiction in North America has road-pricing or mobility pricing. If Translink mayor's endorse same (which BC NDP supports) would be equal to committing political suicide.

It doesn't have to be. BC implemented the carbon tax with very little resistance by ensuring that the public understood it to be revenue neutral. If they do the same with a mobility tax then it could well be sold to the public. If, for example, the average cost for a week's worth of commuting was offset by a an equivalent reduction in tax paid on the gas for those trips, then I think it could be done.

I coined the name "SpeedCents" to sell it - combining the goal ("speedy movement"), the cost (small, mere cents) and the "sense" that it makes. A good marketing campaign would do the trick, I think.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

You really want to do a smart tolling system that has multiple beneficial layers for the economy and the environment? Have prices set for how energy efficient the cars are. The more green the vehicle, the lower the toll. In Japan this also helps people economically because the majority of fuel efficient cars are also the cheapest and smallest (which most people on low to moderate incomes own, including my family) They are called K-Cars.

All this anti-highway talk from Vision and the Greens is nonsense, in Japan they realize that having a strong highway system is beneficial to the economy, so instead of being anti-road they have strongly encouraged people to drive more environmentally friendly vehicles. Smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient. These cars also have much lower insurance costs.

You want to drive a super cool 6 cylinder car / fuel guzzling truck that is too big for what you use it for / oversized Hummer SUV / etc... then you are going to pay more... much more.

If you can afford fancy expensive cars you can afford a higher toll.

Not to mention that it's inevitable that most cars and trucks will be zero emission in the not so distant future. Basically all car manufactures will have multiple electric models out on the market by 2020 and the costs will be no more expensive than gas cars. My next car will be electric. THey need to get over the anti-freeway mentality. It makes no sense.