Common sense: Yes, Gateway will help transit
A commenter and blogger named Rob Baxter has been posting all over the place, including on Urban Vancouver, the following:Jordan Bateman has blogged "...road and transit options--Gateway will help us with both..."
That Gateway will somehow help with transit is one of those ideas that keeps getting repeated but there seems to be no evidence to support it.
There have been some vague promises about bus service on the twinned Port Mann bridge in the far distant future but there have been NO specific plans on incorporating transit into the Gateway project.
In fact, transit projects keep getting delayed and reduced due to funding cuts. If the funding that is planned for the Gateway project could be used by transit we might be able to meet the original targets for bus and rail expansion in the lower mainland.
Transit is a much more efficient way to move people in urban and suburban environments. But currently
people are choosing to drive single occupancy vehicles because our buses and skytrains are overcrowded. An investment in transit could provide immediate congestion relief.
Common sense dictates that the twinned Port Mann will indeed be good for transit. There has not been a bus cross there for more than twenty years!
The six-mile stretch of congestion along Highway 1 every morning even discourages people driving from Abbotsford and Chilliwack from using SkyTrain, as they can't access 160th quickly enough to get to a Park and Ride.
Has Gateway made specific promises about what transit service will occur? No. They can't, because transit service isn't in their jurisdiction. That's up to TransLink. But the TransLink planners I have talked with are looking forward to running express buses across the new Port Mann to Baird Station and other locations, knowing they will be able to stick to a schedule.
The Gateway planners have even included space for a light rail line, which most Valley communities, including my own, would love to see sooner than later. No new bridge: no space for that line.
I haven't even mentioned the cycle or HOV lanes--or tolling--all of which will help move people out of single-occupancy vehicles.
So yes, the twinned Port Mann Bridge will be very, very good for transit. And with the Province increasing its stake in TransLink, I am confident they will be looking for transit projects to fund. Gateway doesn't preclude that from happening--it encourages it.
4 Comments:
I remain amazed at opponents to the twinning who state that all we need is more transit and that transit should be enhanced on the bridge. Do they not read their history? Transit was cancelled on the bridge run because the transit authority could not run buses on any sort of schedule when they got trapped in traffic coming into the bridges.
Even if you give buses accelerated access through jumper lanes on the highway, they still need to get to the highway. The roads both north and south of the highway are backed up all day. Look at the bridge over the 104st access or the access roads around 176th.
“all over the place”
Jordon, please try to be accurate and honest. I posted these comments on your blog(s), my perosnal blog and Urban Vancouver. Three places hardly constitutes “all over the place.”
“...discourages people driving from Abbotsford and Chilliwack from using SkyTrain...”
Which is why we need to extend the SkyTrain, LRT, BRT or some other form of rapid transit farther out the valley. Even you admit this is a good idea.
Since this this would be more efficient at moving people, and would not come with all the side affects of highway expansion (pollution, health affects, greenhouse gas emissions) why not do it first? Why wait for decades?
“Port Mann will indeed be good ...running express buses ...knowing they will be able to stick to a schedule”
This is based on the ASSUMPTION that gateway will “remove” (or even reduce) congestion.
However, there is no evidence in the real world that highway expansion will reduce congestion for more than a very short time.
Unfortunately, most of live in the real work not some fairy tale where highway expansion makes congestion magically disappear.
Why not try implementing express buses on this route now with queue jumping to bypass some of the congestion and congestion charging during peak hours? It would provide single occupancy vehicles (SOV) drivers with an alternative and help reduce congestion.
When transit was used on the bridge before did the try congestion charging and queue jumping?
Here is a quote from a study called, "Analysis of Metropolitan Highway Capacity and the Growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel," presented to the U.S. Transportation Research Board, January 2000 :
“Widening and building new highways actually causes, not relieves, traffic congestion in Cincinnati and other major U.S. metropolitan areas. This study estimates that up to 43% of traffic in Greater Cincinnati is caused just by expanding the area's road network.”
Jordan, I will be in Langley sometime soon. Would like to discuss this more over a coffee?
Judging by your confrontational attitude "all over the place", I can well imagine you'd be one of those obnoxious twits that attends civilized transportation meetings only to heckle your opponents, shutting down any sort of engaging discussions.
That aside, you constantly promote "queue jumping" for buses as the be all and end all solution. That's all fine and good, but how the heck do you implement queue jumping on ancient infrastructure that's over 40 years old?!? The vast majority of the interchanges have only been built with one lane facilitating on and off-ramp movements. So you're telling us that a bus can somehow magically leap frog over the backed-up traffic to the front of the line? Then what, it sits in traffic like everyone else. Give your head a shake man! This defines any sort of reasoned logic!
"...only to heckle your opponents, shutting down any sort of engaging discussions..."
I don't recall ever doing that.
“...how the heck do you implement queue jumping on ancient infrastructure that's over 40 years old...”
Hasn't this been done before in our region (Massey tunnel and the Lion's Gate Bridge)?
Aren't there plans to do this on other sections of the “ancient infrastructure” that is highway 99
(http://www.peacearchnews.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=44&cat=23&id=969844&more=)?
Here is a report that discusses how HOV/queue jumping was planned for our region and in some cases implemented on existing infrastructure : http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/transport2021/Report21.pdf
Here is a report that gives a much more detailed analysis of how HOV/queue jumping has been implemented on existing infrastructure in the GVRD:
http://www.inro.ca/en/pres_pap/international/ieug98/msword5.doc
I apologize if I gave the impression that I was “constantly promoting” queue-jumpers. I think that they are only part of a solution that involves HOV lanes, TDM, congestion pricing, improved transit and LRT/BRT/other rail.
Post a Comment
<< Home