Port Mann twin long overdue
Letter writer George Rodger gets it. From the Tri-City News:Every year, Canada's population increases by a number that is equivalent to the population of the Tri-City area. Roughly half of those people settle in the Toronto area and the other half here in the Lower Mainland. With that kind of growth, it should not be a surprise that we currently have serious traffic problems. We are currently in a gridlock situation on the Port Mann bridge. The time for that bridge debate was 15 years ago – we have to solve our problems now.
Prior to development of Westwood Plateau, Coquitlam was promised a rapid transit system to deal with the increased traffic. Homes have been built, adding to the traffic problems, but that promise has not been fulfilled.
Now, it is proposed to develop Burke Mountain for 24,000 people. Nothing has been said about how the traffic will be managed for a much higher level of population. I support Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon in his work to deal with traffic problems, with solutions for the Port Mann, Golden Ears and Pitt River bridges.
Well said, Mr. Rodger. That's just plain old common sense.
3 Comments:
Well said, Mr. Rodger. That's just plain old common sense.
Do explain Jordan.
Is this based on current understanding of traffic, transportation, and urban planning? It doesn't seem to be because it flies in the face current thinking and practice by experts in the field.
What information are you basing your conclusions on?
This blog seems to use the phrase “common sense” often.
Of course “common sense” can be applied to almost anything. I am sure that at one point people thought the concept of a flat earth was “common sense.”
Transportation and pollution are issues that are too important to be discussed with terms like “common sense.” Instead shouldn't we be looking at the evidence?
- Doesn't the evidence suggest that highway expansion does not relieve congestion?
- Doesn't the evidence suggest that highway expansion will increase pollution and greenhouse gas emissions?
- Doesn't the evidence suggest that highway expansion will lead to increased health problems?
- Doesn't the evidence suggest that highway expansion does not relieve congestion?
- Doesn't the evidence suggest that highway expansion will increase pollution and greenhouse gas emissions?
- Doesn't the evidence suggest that highway expansion will lead to increased health problems?
Yes, yes, and yes.
Given that the population of the Fraser Valley is expected to increase substantially over the next decade or two, now would be the time to plan compact, livable communities that are not car-dependent. Take additional cars off the road before they even get there.
Common sense (not of the short-changed, dogmatic variety) will tell you that if Translink is not planning any significant transit infrastructure SoF until 2024 (!!!), how are these people going to get around? By car, of course! Where are these people going to drive their cars? On the widened freeways, of course. What will congestion be like then? Like today, of course, only more vehicles spewing more greenhouse gases.
If we want to avoid this, compact communities are necessary, designed around neighbourhoods that offer all daily necessities within walking or cycling distance, not "power centres" that encourage car use. This is a healthier way of living. Mind you, if you look at the government's report on the SFPR, the expected increase in respiratory problems from greater pollution is seen as a business opportunity for private healthcare providers. Sick!
BTW, good article in the Wall Street Journal on cycling.
Post a Comment
<< Home