Here and going nowhere fast.
It is interesting to note that the Port Mann bridge was built in 1964 when the population of the GVRD was only 800,000. Today we have the same 43 year old bridge and we now have a population of 2.3 million. Did they build the Port Mann bridge in 1964 to meet the needs of the lower mainland for the next 100 years?Not likely!
At our current rate of population growth, the GVRD is projected to hit a population level of 4 million by 2061. It is obvious that our current transportation infrastructure built in the 1960's was never meant to handle the needs of 2 million residents let alone a projected population of 4 million.
Former Premier Mike Harcourt makes some interesting comments on the lower mainland's traffic and transportation issues.
About Gateway he says, "Why punish people in cars?" Harcourt says peoples' fears that more roads will create a flood of sprawl in the valley ignores reality.
"Those people are there already," he says. Now planners have to figure out how to make their lives easier.
He does emphasize that for Gateway to add to the region's success story, and not detract from it, that means doing it right. That means making a huge investment in transit.
"I think we should go big and bold and quick -- proceed with the Evergreen line this fall and get it built by 2011, do the Millennium line by 2013, proceed with the extension of the Expo line, get a fast bus to Cloverdale and Langley."
And it also means using the new capacity for many modes of transportation. Yes, some for the car. But not just the car.
The problem for the zealots in the anti gateway gang is the only answer they have to our lower mainlands traffic issues resides in one single approach, more transit. You can't solve the issues with just new transit options. For an example:
- How do you run a bus system over the current Port Mann Bridge?
- How do you add a transit line over the current bridge?
- How do you add in a West-Bound HOV lane over the bridge?
The answers to our problems are in providing a mix of transportation improvements. You can't make improvements to transit without twinning the Port Mann bridge.
That's why the previous NDP government planned to twin the Port Mann bridge. And that's why Mike Harcourt has come out in support of the twinning of the Port Mann. There are 2.3 million residents in the lower mainland and growing, they're here and they aren't going to move away.
posted by Walter Schultz @ 7:30 PM
18 comments
18 Comments:
Interesting how you ignore the basic statistical facts that bridges do in fact lead to more sprawl, and that building new bridges, roads, freeways, etc. just ensures that they will be used.
How silly of me! Thank you for explaining that if we build new bridges, roads, freeways, etc., people will just use them.
I thought that was generally the idea behind building them? But I now stand corrected.
Face the facts, open your eyes, smell the coffee, do what ever it takes to understand; the region is home to 2.3 million people and increasing every day. People are making the choice to live here and they are also making the choice to travel where they want, when they want. Yes, transit should be an option. However, trying to make the car illegal continues to be non starter for the vast majority of Canadians, outside of a few environmental extremists.
We are not extremists, and this is not a simple case of pragmatism; the they're here already argument doesn't stand. The exact same argument can be flipped in favour of public transit. We need to densify the already existing geo micro-centres; coquitlam, metrotown, richmond centre, surrey centre, londsale. We can't control that people want to live in such a potentially beautiful place, but we can control their communities. Its called urban plannimg. And the GVRD actually did a wee bit. Its called the Livable Region Strategic Plan, the regions own plan, and its being ignored by Translink, and unelected group of developer-friendly wonks, and the Campbell liberals, because BC loves ridiculous mega-projects. You know, fast ferries, convention centres...
Hi sean,
Glad to see you are back at it. Urban planning, city hubs, densification. All of these ideas work to some degree; however they don't work for everyone.
I live in South Vancouver and my office is located in a regional hub in Burnaby, serviced by sky train. I drive to work because I need my car to visit clients. It takes me 20 minutes to drive to my office. I have tried transit; taking the bus and sky train takes me 70 minutes. Too long in comparison.
That's the key problem with our region. Even with transit options commuting isn't an easy or simple solution. Things work fine if you live on a major transit line and work down line from your work. God help you if you have to make a couple of transfers. And around our region with all our natural obstacles, transit can be very inefficient. I'm not relocating my home and Translink won't be building a direct line from my house to my office any time soon, so I guess I will continue to drive.
People everywhere in our region are making similar economic choices.
Why don't they just buy a condo in one of the Regional Hubs around the GVRD? Because they don't want to. Who are we to judge the choices they make?
It always boils down to personal choice doesn't it? You're content to offer 'options', like phosphate free detergent, fluorescent lightbulbs, and rechargeable batteries. What you fail to understand is that the city wasn't designed on personal choice, it was planned. And we can un-plan it, or rather plan for the future. Thats what a plan is. It isn't designed to inhibit personal freedoms, but to enhance the existing infrastructure to make things more livable. Livable, there's that word again. Why would you ignore the Livable Region Strategic Plan?
"Why punish people in cars?"
We might also ask, "Why punish transit users?" Right now transit users have to put up with over-crowded buses and sky trains, increased fares and a bus fleet that is smaller than plans called for. And they are only getting vague promises of improvements in the distant future sometime after the Gateway program.
So why are we rewarding people in cars with more lanes? These are the people that are contributing to climate change that will have severe consequences for the planet. These are the people that are contributing to pollution that kills 6,000 Canadians every year. And pollution that increases the frequency of asthma attacks among our children.
Why not reward those people who make choices that make our planet a better place to live? Why not reward those whose choices improve our health and well being? Perhaps not everyone can make that choice, but why not reward those that do?
Ah, the benefits of centralized planning. That’s all we need; for the “enlightened” to decide for us where we should live, how we should commute, what we should buy and what we should think. Fortunately Canadians don’t want the state to intervene so highly in our personal lives. I know all about Town Centre Hubs they are a great idea; unfortunately the housing types aren’t suitable for every family. Not everyone in the region wants to live in a condo or in a higher density location.
Are you saying that people in the region will need permission on where they can live or where they can move to? You can’t roll back the clock on where people live today.
Who do you want to make decisions? You, SPEC or some other enlightened organization? Here’s a novel idea; let’s leave it to the Governments we elect? Oh, but that doesn’t work does it? You want control, which you can never achieve through the electoral process.
Once again for the environmental extremists, they always want to make all the choices for everyone else. They can advocate for their views all they want; however the final decisions will be made by individuals making their own choices.
You can keep trying to call us extremists; but the fact is our regional government already addressed this, and now the Provinicial Government, without listening to either the people or the GVRD, is pushing through the Gateway Program. Fortunately Canadians don’t want the state to intervene so highly in our personal lives, right? Here’s a novel idea; let’s leave it to the Governments we elect to be accountable. The NDP did it with the Millenium Line, and the BC Libs are doing it with Gateway.
People in Langley don't have a choice of driving or taking rapid transit from their town to Vancouver.
Adding more lanes of freeway won't give them that choice.
If we really want to give people choice we should be expanding rapid transit to the Valley before expanding freeways.
I am just curious.
For those of you who are against expanding/twinning Port Mann bridge, how many of you actually live in Surrey or Fraser Valley? How many of you have to commute to/from Surrey and Fraser Valley area every day?
I agree with former BC Premier's Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark - we need to twin the Port Mann bridge.
I wonder what Carole James would do?
Calling people environmental extremists does not make them so.
Are you aware that twinning the Port Mann, if it goes through, would not be completed until 2013 (as currently projected)? What would you do until then?
Did you know that many of the suggestions that "extremists" are putting forth would be much quicker to implement and much cheaper. One example is a queue jumper lane for buses to get to the Port Mann faster. This would put transit over the bridge now (okay...maybe in a year), instead of in 6 years. And would be much cheaper. A half-dozen other ideas like this and some of the major traffic problems can be solved.
And, if we do this, but it doesn't work, then we still have time and money do expand a few roads. But, the point is that we need transit *first* to balance the lop-sidedness of our current transportation infrastructure.
As it happens, Carole James just said what she would do:
http://bcndpcaucus.ca/en/transit_now_to_reduce_congestion_greenhouse_gases_james_tells_ubcm
Where are all the cars going to go once they hit Vancouver? First? Hastings?
Light Rail to Langley and even Abbotsford would probably be cheaper than twinning the Port Mann. You guys just got a brand new bridge, that we bus riders have to pay for! Its called the Golden Ears Bridge.
"how many of you actually live in Surrey or Fraser Valley?"
I lived in surrey for 21 years and I was a Green Party Candidate in the Surrey Port Kells riding. I moved downtown because its cheaper, healthier, and a more vibrant community.
My Parents moved out of Surrey into the new Victoria Hill development, sold their surrey house for like 400,000 and bought a loft in Gastown like 5 years ago at 198,00 becuase the trend of densification, and the pending real estate boom, the low interest rates at the time, all led to their decision. We're not a rich family, just a smart one.
Almost 50 percent of the traffic that goes across the Port Mann from south of the Fraser is going to the northeast sector, and we can't even get a bus across that corridor.
I lived in surrey for 21 years and I was a Green Party Candidate in the Surrey Port Kells riding. I moved downtown because its cheaper, healthier, and a more vibrant community.
Ah, you liveD there. So you don't live there anymore. I don't know how it can possibly be cheaper to live in downtown compare to living in Surrey btw.
Its called the Golden Ears Bridge.
Umm, there will be a toll and drivers will have to pay to use that bridge.
Hm. I find this interesting (although a bit late :) its been a busy week).
Walter, I'd be interested in your thoughts on why this is such a black-or-white issue: why is it twinning the Port Mann or expanding transit to the valley (which, if the vote on expanding TransLink jurisdiction out to Mission works, they'll have to). Why can't both happen at the same time?
Hi Nicole,
I always appreciate your thoughtful comments.
It isn't a black and white issue for me. It isn't build a bridge, don't build transit.
I want a twinned Port Mann bridge, that will allow new buses to drive across the Port Mann and I want a dedicated Sky Train line crossing the Fraser. My comments here are directed at the people so adamantly opposed to twinning the Port Mann.
I agree with former Premier Mike Harcout
who said it best; He also supports the plan to twin the Port Mann because the proposal would include dedicated high-occupancy vehicle lanes.
"Just punishing people driving a car without an alternative is cruel." "People are seething with anger, sitting in gridlock, waiting to get on the Port Mann and they don't have an alternative."
A twinned Port Mann Bridge will allow alternatives. The anti Gateway gang are basically an anti automobile crowd who aren't faced with the daily grind of a commute over the Port Mann ever day. I live near the new $2 Billion Canada Line and I will never face the issues the people in the Fraser valley have to deal with. Why can't the people south of the Fraser also have some options to commute in their area?
Car, Bus or Transit are part of the larger plan. No new bridge, means no new buses or transit line. They work as a combined strategy.
Post a Comment
<< Home