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

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

someone actually gets what Transportation Planning is SUPPOSED to be about!!!!!!

YOU NAILED IT !!!! GOOD STUFF !!! IF PEOPLE CAN GET THAT THROUGH THEIR HEADS, YOU'LL HAVE WON AN INTELLECTUAL WAR !!!

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

On one hand you are saying a toll is going to drop demand and people aren't gonna use it. Then you follow that up by saying having more lanes is gonna encourage more people to drive. Which is it? Because your statements seem to be at odds with each other. In my opinion.

This is a good point so let me clarify here.

The tolls can drop demand but only if there's an alternative. This is what we're currently seeing with the Port Mann with traffic spiking in the other untolled bridges. That's why in the scenario I outline you have to have high quality public transit alternatives and compact, complete communities in order to give people less of a reason to take their car across the river.

If there are no alternatives then people simply have to eat the tax. They have no other choice (I wonder how South of the Fraser folks are feeling about this aspect of the bridge). Given that they have no other choice and they have to use the bridge anyway the extra lanes do ease the pain and provide an extra incentive to maintain the status quo and drive. Meanwhile traffic continues to increase and demand for road expansion increases.

Importantly tolls can go away over time. This is why this is an issue in the long term. Eventually this could become a free bridge, then you'd see induced demand in overdrive. For this reason building an extra large bridge even if we did have a super high quality transit system is a bad idea. Eventually tolls could go away and driving on a free, open bridge would be more cost competitive with transit. Then traffic rises and you're going to have a gridlock problem and you need a new bridge again.

In summary:
- Adding more road space incentivizes people to drive.
- Tolls can incentivize people to use alternatives (walk/bike/transit) but only if those alternatives exist and are viable.

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Do you mean six lanes total, or six lanes plus two for BRT? There's a big difference. In case you've forgotten, 6 - 2 = 4. Four lanes is what we have right now, and definitely isn't enough; two lanes will be a nightmare.

I mean 6 + 2 = 8.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And where and when will such funding for rapid transit to Delta come from? We haven't even gotten funding for Skytrain to Broadway and Langley - much less Hastings, Willingdon, North Shore, 41st or anything on the wishlist. Why would anybody intentionally retard the bridge's size in the hope that rapid transit will change commutes a few decades down the road? We've got gridlock right now, and that's bad for everybody.

I mean this is the crux of it. We're massively underfunding transit and the solutions I'm describing only work if we fund transit and build all those things that you describe are on the wishlist. So long as that is true then the car is the only option and mega projects like this are necessary. My issue is that as we've seen from our friends in the United States, this sort of infrastructure doesn't scale. They're building 26 lane roads in Houston for example. I'm not eager to go too far down this path...

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

1) The buses are stuck in gridlock at the GMT as well. What are the passengers going to do, take the bus? A large bridge is in transit users' best interests as well; more lanes = faster trip.

2) The GMT doesn't serve just Metro Vancouver. It's also the main link from Victoria and the United States to mainland BC. Even if we build a Skytrain to Vancouver Island AND Seattle, people will always need to drive from Delta to Vancouver proper and beyond.

3) Those drivers include freight truckers - the people responsible for keeping much of the global economy going. Spoiler alert: even without the cars, they don't have enough space either. Surely you don't expect them to hop on the bus with 20-30k kilos of goods?

More transit users = more cars off the road = more space for commercial drivers and drivers who need to be on the road. It's simple geometry. Cars are big and regular commuters don't need that much space. Let's fix that.

As a tangent can I just say that it's kind of absurd that we consider that someone from Victoria is surely driving a car? That's only true because our infrastructure is such complete garbage that that's the only option. I've biked from Shwartz Bay to Victoria before. The bike path is very nice and it's no big deal. Meanwhile on our side you literally aren't allowed to cross the GMT and our overloaded buses only allow 2 bikes on. This is a fixable problem. Ideally someone should be able to easily bike/transit from Victoria to Vancouver.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We need both road space AND transit - the latter, by the way, often depends on the former. Induced Demand (in relation to traffic) is a response to America's "build, baby, build" attitude to highways; what the experts are calling for is to have some road space, some transit, some bike lanes/etc, so that you're always ahead of congestion and simultaneously bringing it down.

Unfortunately, many people have misinterpreted this to mean that less roads = less traffic. Which is a load of bovine excrement, because the traffic still exists, but now without any infrastructure to support it.

Nope. The people still exist and they can travel by many ways.

The amount of cars entering Vancouver's downtown core is unchanged since the 1960s. How is that possible? The traffic still exists even though population has increased? No, but the people do. The city refrained from building more roads and instead built more dense residential and high quality transit connections. Now more people then ever can enter the downtown core. They walk there because they live there or they can come in by bus/skytrain. The same logic needs to be applied to every town centre of the region, including Ladner/Delta/Tsawwassen.

[mukmuk64]

A glimpse into the future of a 10 lane Massey Bridge if the Province doesn't toll every bridge and/or introduce comprehensive road pricing.

Marketing the Port Mann: TI Corp turns to advertising to increase traffic

You’ve probably heard the commercial… “When you are stuck in traffic on the Pattullo Bridge it can feel like a never ending cycle of gridlock.”

The Crown Corporation responsible for the Port Mann Bridge, Transportation Investment Corporation (TI Corps), is launching a $200,000 radio and billboard campaign.

It encourages drivers to switch from the free Pattullo to the tolled Port Mann Bridge.

Spokesperson Greg Johnson says it’s a safe, fast and reliable alternative.

“We know that during the Pattullo construction, drivers had the opportunity to use the Port Mann Bridge, and now that construction is complete, we want to remind drivers that the Port Mann Bridge is still the right choice.”

The bridge posted an $82.5 million loss for the last fiscal year.

However, TI Crop says traffic is up 5 per cent.

“September is the time of year when drivers go back to school, they head back to work and they make new decisions about the routes they drive. This makes it a great time to remind them about the benefits of the Port Mann Bridge,” says Johnson.

Figures from the provincial budget showed the bridge is forecast to lose more money in the coming years; $102 million in 2016/17 and $106 million in 2017/18.

When asked why the commercial failed to mention the Pattullo is free versus the tolled Port Mann, Johnson says the company thinks drivers are aware of that, adding they just wanted drivers to know the Port Mann is a good alternative.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

San Francisco removed the elevated State Route 480 that used to run along its waterfront after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

Portland (which you mentioned) turned Route 99 from a freeway to a street in 1974, which opened up the western bank of the Willamette River for the massive park that runs along there today.

Milwaukee removed the Park East freeway and replaced it with at-grade streets and a drawbridge.

That's just three. What you've said is demonstrably false.

Well, San Fran just moved 480's problem over to Route 101, where they built the $1 billion Presidio parkway.

Portland closed highway 99, but opened up a much larger I-5 opposite it on the river AND I405 through downtown.

Park East in Milwaukee was almost unused, because it was never actually built. The road they replaced it with was on mostly empty land and BETTER than the freeway.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

The tolls can drop demand but only if there's an alternative.

For the most part that's true, but there can be some demand drop even without alternatives if drivers decide to car pool or to combine trips.

And as the Port Mann has shown, any untolled bridge in the region is also an alternative, even if it takes substantially longer.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

I mean this is the crux of it. We're massively underfunding transit and the solutions I'm describing only work if we fund transit and build all those things that you describe are on the wishlist. So long as that is true then the car is the only option and mega projects like this are necessary. My issue is that as we've seen from our friends in the United States, this sort of infrastructure doesn't scale. They're building 26 lane roads in Houston for example. I'm not eager to go too far down this path...

Yeah, I've been to Houston. Twenty-six is indeed absurd; twelve, not so much.

Problem is that TransLink, even if fully funded ($4 billion per project, every 5-10 years) would take at least fifty years or more to get rapid transit to Delta. Everybody - including non-express buses and truckers - is stuck in traffic in the meantime. Again, we need transit to reduce demand AND road space to manage demand. Hence the extra lanes.

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

As a tangent can I just say that it's kind of absurd that we consider that someone from Victoria is surely driving a car? That's only true because our infrastructure is such complete garbage that that's the only option. I've biked from Shwartz Bay to Victoria before. The bike path is very nice and it's no big deal. Meanwhile on our side you literally aren't allowed to cross the GMT and our overloaded buses only allow 2 bikes on. This is a fixable problem. Ideally someone should be able to easily bike/transit from Victoria to Vancouver.

Transit, absolutely. But forget about bikes. I'm sure it works great for you, and I know a friend of a friend who spent a week cycling and camping from Vancouver to Seattle and back, but most people want their commute to be as quick as possible - and bikes are pretty slow (and tiring) over long distances. I wouldn't presume to force that kind of lifestyle on everybody. Or want to explain to their irritated bosses why they're late and sweaty despite waking up at 5am.

And remember, it's not just Victoria - you've got people coming from northern BC coming to and from Washington. Very few ways to run transit from either direction.

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

The amount of cars entering Vancouver's downtown core is unchanged since the 1960s. How is that possible? The traffic still exists even though population has increased? No, but the people do. The city refrained from building more roads and instead built more dense residential and high quality transit connections. Now more people then ever can enter the downtown core. They walk there because they live there or they can come in by bus/skytrain. The same logic needs to be applied to every town centre of the region, including Ladner/Delta/Tsawwassen.

And yet we're the 2nd most congested city in North America, despite being only the 70th largest. Transit-Oriented Design is great, but not a perfect solution.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

This is a good point so let me clarify here.

The tolls can drop demand but only if there's an alternative. This is what we're currently seeing with the Port Mann with traffic spiking in the other untolled bridges. That's why in the scenario I outline you have to have high quality public transit alternatives and compact, complete communities in order to give people less of a reason to take their car across the river.

If there are no alternatives then people simply have to eat the tax. They have no other choice (I wonder how South of the Fraser folks are feeling about this aspect of the bridge). Given that they have no other choice and they have to use the bridge anyway the extra lanes do ease the pain and provide an extra incentive to maintain the status quo and drive. Meanwhile traffic continues to increase and demand for road expansion increases.

Importantly tolls can go away over time. This is why this is an issue in the long term. Eventually this could become a free bridge, then you'd see induced demand in overdrive. For this reason building an extra large bridge even if we did have a super high quality transit system is a bad idea. Eventually tolls could go away and driving on a free, open bridge would be more cost competitive with transit. Then traffic rises and you're going to have a gridlock problem and you need a new bridge again.

In summary:
- Adding more road space incentivizes people to drive.
- Tolls can incentivize people to use alternatives (walk/bike/transit) but only if those alternatives exist and are viable.

So the AFB is the obvious alternative route for cars. With the new transit lanes (and stops) on the gmt route, I'm having some trouble figuring out if this bridge is going to make more people drive? Or less?

[sim]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Those cities may have gotten of of some highways but they still have vastly superior road network than Vancouver.

Vancouverites have got into their head that somehow there are 2 options....transit or highways which is lunacy. Forward looking cities do not plan for better transiit or roads but rather better TRANSPORTATION in all it's forms whether that be biking, walking, highways, or transit.

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.

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.

You are confusing commute times with congestion. It does not have the 2nd longest commutes in NA. Vancouver is about the only North America city that has their transportation policy heading things in the right direction, despite what your interpretation is. And your belief of what constitutes a forward looking city appears more to be a projection of what you believe constitutes a forward looking city as opposed to one that actually is.

While the second part of your statement is largely correct, you also left out land use, and its interaction with transportation; not to mention we live in a world of finite resources and physical and temporal constraints. Modes cannot compete against each for these things ad infinitum and a line has to be drawn somewhere. This idea that every mode can be quick and efficient is an absolute illusion. Guess which mode impedes that for all others? Guess which modes (generally) work symbiotically?

Residents in this region can be reasonably proud that they live in about the one region on this geopolitical continent getting it somewhat right (ill-conceived provincial impositions notwithstanding), and this is not proven otherwise because you (in the general sense) can't easily drive and park wherever you want with next to minimal impedance and at much lower than the true cost.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

exactly. The city seems to think goods just magically teleport by themselves. They seem to lack any understanding of smooth traffic flow and have done more to cause congestion in recent years, whether by adding traffic lights, removing lanes, or adding bike lanes on major corridors. More congestion = more cars idling = more greenhouse gases. Funny how Vancouver promotes itself as a "green" city.

You don't need freeways to move goods. You don't even need really wide roads; you just need a basic road network. Where most of the delay happens for goods is not while the good is in a vehicle, it's when a good is being transferred between different modes at either a port or a rail yard. A small savings that comes from smoother traffic can easily be wiped out by a delay at the port.

Secondly, I don't think our goal as a society should be to make vehicle flow ideal above everything else. The fact is, vehicular transport is a very inefficient way (both spatially and in terms of resources) of moving large amounts of people and goods. The Skytrain moves the same equivalent number of people as 20 lanes of freeway traffic and has a guideway only 6 m wide. Not to mention the fact that it's much more difficult to integrate a network ideal for vehicular transport with other modes such as walking and cycling - modes which are far more equitable socially and energy efficient. You also end up producing a lifeless and uninspiring urban fabric.

Finally, improving vehicular flow often doesn't result in long-term gains as more people choose to drive to take advantage of the improvements. You end up with the same congestion in the end, except now more people are stuck. And now you have more greenhouse gas emissions. The only sustainable and effective way of dealing with congestion is congestion pricing, where vehicles are tolled at rates that match supply and demand, however, you would have to do this on all roads and all vehicles for it to be effective and such a policy is unpopular because people don't like paying for things.

I'll conclude by saying that I don't think your perspective is wrong, I just think you might have missed a few things. I may have missed some things as well. If your vision is one of free flow traffic despite the consequences, I may disagree with it, but so be it.

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And yet we're the 2nd most congested city in North America, despite being only the 70th largest. Transit-Oriented Design is great, but not a perfect solution.

Congestion is a measure of how fast cars can move.

The goal of a transportation network is moving people.

The example of Vancouver's downtown shows that congestion is a pointless measurement. Vancouver is just as congested as it was in the 60s, however we're now able to move dramatically greater people around despite that congestion.

Building a 10 lane mega bridge is an appropriate solution if our goal is to move cars as fast as possible

We just need to move people though (ok yes and some goods on trucks), so there are more efficient solutions possible.

[cornholio]

Frankly I find it ridiculous that there are people on here against the expansion of critical infrastructure. Road infrastructure that can move people and goods is key to any economically thriving region. There is not a city on this planet that can survive without road infrastructure. Are there a handful of examples of highways being removed in urban areas where decades of rapid growth surrounding them (thanks to them) has led to new infrastructure being built which has made them redundant with better uses for the land taken up in the particular area? Sure, and hand full. Maybe one hand full. That however has nothing to do with the Massey tunnel. The thing should be 10 lanes, the call for some sort of compromise is ridiculous and should be ignored. You don't compromise for the sake of compromise with people who are out to cripple the region because of misguided religious like beliefs.

Build infrastructure. The goal should always be to move MORE people. 10 lanes of congestion moves 250% more people then 4 lanes of congestion. And that ignores the fact that you don't get diminishing returns until you actually get congested and hit capacity.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by sim

You are confusing commute times with congestion. It does not have the 2nd longest commutes in NA. Vancouver is about the only North America city that has their transportation policy heading things in the right direction, despite what your interpretation is. And your belief of what constitutes a forward looking city appears more to be a projection of what you believe constitutes a forward looking city as opposed to one that actually is.

While the second part of your statement is largely correct, you also left out land use, and its interaction with transportation; not to mention we live in a world of finite resources and physical and temporal constraints. Modes cannot compete against each for these things ad infinitum and a line has to be drawn somewhere. This idea that every mode can be quick and efficient is an absolute illusion. Guess which mode impedes that for all others? Guess which modes (generally) work symbiotically?

Residents in this region can be reasonably proud that they live in about the one region on this geopolitical continent getting it somewhat right (ill-conceived provincial impositions notwithstanding), and this is not proven otherwise because you (in the general sense) can't easily drive and park wherever you want with next to minimal impedance and at much lower than the true cost.

I could not disagree with you more. I think Vancouver is the one city on this continent that is getting it completely wrong. Congestion in Vancouver is increasing at a incredibly fast rate year over year. Much faster imo then anywhere else in North America. The city will suffer economically in the future directly because of the poor choices the region is making today in regards to infrastructure. The goal should always be to offer people choices and to allow for as many people to move around as possible through their chosen methods and between their chosen points at their chosen times... the way they want. Vancouver is doing the opposite and it will bite it in its ass and once it does it will be too late. It also doesn't help that most of the immigration now is from overpopulated congested parts of the developing world so these people don't see anything wrong because they don't know any better and they don't complain, which allows the status quo to continue.

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

So the AFB is the obvious alternative route for cars. With the new transit lanes (and stops) on the gmt route, I'm having some trouble figuring out if this bridge is going to make more people drive? Or less?

The only scenario where less people drive is if it is less desirable (generally more expensive in time and money) to drive than it is to take transit.

In almost all scenarios creating a new crossing here will incentivize driving and induce more traffic. The question is by how much. My major concern is that 10 lanes will induce a lot of new traffic, and there are implications to the rest of the Valley in terms of having to deal with that in terms of having to upgrade their feeder roads.

My friend lives in Beach Grove Tsawwassen and works in downtown Vancouver, so let's construct a scenario starring him.

The main variables here are time and money. If the time it takes to get to Vancouver by transit is the same or less than by driving, and it's cheaper to take transit then to drive, then he'll take transit. Otherwise he'll drive.

Let's say that we have a new bridge with dedicated BRT lanes and Translink has made a high quality express B Line from Tsawwassen to Bridgeport. My friend used to drive as his default, but he now has the option to walk 15 minutes to 56th and take the new direct B-Line to eventually connect to the Canada Line. Let's assume taking transit is competitive timewise with driving. This is a great start to incentivizing people to use transit and he's considering it.

Let's also say that this new bridge has a toll of $3. This is a disincentive to drive and it puts driving a bit more on equal ground to the cost of transit. We're assuming here that he values his time enough that he's not going to drive all the way to the Alex Fraser Bridge. There are also the additional costs of parking in Vancouver and gas that further disincentives driving.

In this scenario my friend may switch to transit because it's competitive with driving in terms of time and money.

Now let's say due to political unpopularity of tolls the toll is only $1. Let's also say that this crossing has an additional lane set aside for traffic so that cars just effortless fly through, and lets also degrade the new BRT in some way (say stops every 15 minutes instead of every 10). With this bridge scenario let's say he'd get to Vancouver earlier driving then by transit. In this situation it may be more desirable to drive instead of take transit and that would be what my friend would choose to do.

By adding the extra lane and having low tolls, there is little to no disincentive to drive, and a weaker incentive to opt for transit instead. The result is that most people choose to drive and we have induced more traffic.

I'm not ideologically opposed to cars, but I'd like to avoid inducing more traffic because this additional traffic will have to be accommodated by additional road improvements throughout the valley and over time there will be more pressure to expand other bridges as traffic increases. This new road infrastructure will come at significant cost.

[Migrant_Coconut]

(Wall of text incoming)

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

Congestion is a measure of how fast cars can move.

The goal of a transportation network is moving people.

And by increasing road space, you move the people in the cars... and the people in the freight trucks... and the garbage trucks... and the ambulances... and a whole lot of other motorists who, by definition of their job, are unable to take transit. Said transit, by the way, also being stuck in traffic. What are they going to do, take the bus?

In case you skimmed it over the first few times, the GMT doesn't just link Vancouver to Delta - it links Vancouver Island, Washington, and northern/interior BC. We can't exactly connect those by Skytrain or bus.
So if you can 100% guarantee that saving half a billion on an eight-lane bridge will translate into Skytrain/commuter rail to Delta inside of fifty years, and that said bridge will be able to handle all traffic inside those fifty years without reverting to gridlock, then hey, by all means. Otherwise, better safe than sorry (not to mention short $6 billion).

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

The example of Vancouver's downtown shows that congestion is a pointless measurement. Vancouver is just as congested as it was in the 60s, however we're now able to move dramatically greater people around despite that congestion.

We've got gridlock that's worse than NYC, despite having a tenth of the population. I wouldn't call that "pointless."

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

We just need to move people though (ok yes and some goods on trucks), so there are more efficient solutions possible.

And as soon as those efficient solutions go from the bottom to the top of the Province's To-Do list, we should execute them immediately. In the meantime, we need something else.

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

The only scenario where less people drive is if it is less desirable (generally more expensive in time and money) to drive than it is to take transit.

Very few people are snobbish enough to blindly stick to their cars. Long commute, horrible traffic, a whole lot of idiots on the road, 30-60 minutes spent circling around for a lot, and that's before gas prices, parking fees, traffic tickets and tune-ups.

If transit improved (and only if), people would definitely switch. Merely removing road space just means people sit in their cars - or detour into the quiet side streets they're not supposed to use - and gripe at their elected officials. Gotta have a stick AND a carrot to change behaviours.

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

I'm not ideologically opposed to cars, but I'd like to avoid inducing more traffic because this additional traffic will have to be accommodated by additional road improvements throughout the valley and over time there will be more pressure to expand other bridges as traffic increases. This new road infrastructure will come at significant cost.

Unless we end up in a depression (which is bad), BC's going to see more business, more tourism, and more public services - which translates into more traffic. Many of them need to drive; might as well bite the bullet now.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Frankly I find it ridiculous that there are people on here against the expansion of critical infrastructure. Road infrastructure that can move people and goods is key to any economically thriving region. There is not a city on this planet that can survive without road infrastructure. Are there a handful of examples of highways being removed in urban areas where decades of rapid growth surrounding them (thanks to them) has led to new infrastructure being built which has made them redundant with better uses for the land taken up in the particular area? Sure, and hand full. Maybe one hand full. That however has nothing to do with the Massey tunnel. The thing should be 10 lanes, the call for some sort of compromise is ridiculous and should be ignored. You don't compromise for the sake of compromise with people who are out to cripple the region because of misguided religious like beliefs.

Build infrastructure. The goal should always be to move MORE people. 10 lanes of congestion moves 250% more people then 4 lanes of congestion. And that ignores the fact that you don't get diminishing returns until you actually get congested and hit capacity.

You got it. Most Vancouverites don't. They want to live in bike-and-transit fantasyland.

Originally Posted by cornholio

I could not disagree with you more. I think Vancouver is the one city on this continent that is getting it completely wrong. Congestion in Vancouver is increasing at a incredibly fast rate year over year. Much faster imo then anywhere else in North America. The city will suffer economically in the future directly because of the poor choices the region is making today in regards to infrastructure. The goal should always be to offer people choices and to allow for as many people to move around as possible through their chosen methods and between their chosen points at their chosen times... the way they want. Vancouver is doing the opposite and it will bite it in its ass and once it does it will be too late. It also doesn't help that most of the immigration now is from overpopulated congested parts of the developing world so these people don't see anything wrong because they don't know any better and they don't complain, which allows the status quo to continue.

Sounds as if you've travelled a bit. Building freeways is not evil, and transportation includes, bus, rrt, AND adequate lane-space.

[GlassCity]

All of you guys going off about granola fairy anti-highway people are strawmanning like crazy. I don't think anybody here is calling for the status quo, but there is a legitimate argument to be had about how this replacement would look. Nobody's saying to stop building highways, but we need to be smart about how we do it. When it's easy to drive a car, there is pretty much no incentive to take transit. I'm not saying congestion is good, and I personally support this project as a major inter-regional corridor, but if we start building highways like you seem to be suggesting, we would be heading down a dangerous road.

[Pinion]

There are posters here who literally believe the solution to traffic problems is tolling all existing infrastructure. They believe the problem is people trying to move around the region rather than their inability to do so.

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Build infrastructure. The goal should always be to move MORE people. 10 lanes of congestion moves 250% more people then 4 lanes of congestion. And that ignores the fact that you don't get diminishing returns until you actually get congested and hit capacity.

There are dramatically more efficient ways to move people than building more lanes for cars driven by single commuters. You're focusing on just doubling down on the inefficient solution instead of switching to more efficient solutions.

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If transit improved (and only if), people would definitely switch. Merely removing road space just means people sit in their cars - or detour into the quiet side streets they're not supposed to use - and gripe at their elected officials. Gotta have a stick AND a carrot to change behaviours.

Sounds like we agree to me.

My issue with the Provinces' Massey Bridge plan is that there's no stick and it's carrots all around. All the extra lanes are carrots for the drivers. With no disincentive to drive, the end result is an inducement of more traffic. So long as the Province maintains their vague hostility to transit funding, it's uncertain whether there will be a carrot for transit users even if this bridge is going to have a lane set aside for BRT.

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.