Twin that bridge!
Blogger Walter Schultz continues his reaosned and passionate case for the Gateway porject:On occasion, I take transit to work; it takes me one hour to get there, but driving my car takes 15 minutes. I need my car for work, so the only solution is to drive. This is the problem with the "don't build it crowd" and their dogma of telling people to get out of their cars. People will make the choice to drive for the sake of convenience and for the freedom of mobility. Transit doesn't always go where you want it to go and it often doesn't take you there in a reasonable time.
If the special interest groups opposing Gateway really want to get people out of their cars, why don't they become a political party and make that issue a central plank in their political platform. We'll then see how much support they truly have. Hey, here's another idea.....why don't they just ask the NDP to let us know where they stand on the issue of twinning the Port Mann Bridge and Gateway?
The government is building more transit, however it's only one piece of the puzzle. Transit will never be the only solution for all the people, all of the time. We also need to invest in our road capacity to allow for the efficient movement of goods and people within our region.
Back in 1964 when the Port Mann bridge was built, the population of the GVRD was 800,000. Today we have the same 43 year old bridge and we now have a population of 2.5 million. The twinning of the Port Mann is needed to build capacity for goods to move quickly and economically between Vancouver's Ports and Canadian inland routes. The bridge is also necessary to reduce congestion, shorten commuting times, reduce the cost to the economy and to generally improve the quality of life in our region.
With the population tripling in our region, the historical mistake has been not investing in our road infrastructure. We hear a lot of fear mongering that twinning the Port Mann and the Gateway project will bring Armageddon to the world as we know it.
That's a bunch of crap!
In the future, technologies will make the internal combustion engine obsolete and the cars running on the twinned Port Mann will be either electric or hydrogen or some other non polluting emission. We aren't getting rid of the car any time soon; no matter how much bellyaching we hear from these special interest groups.
Walter, I would argue that the NDP has said where they stand on Gateway: they oppose it, according to their membership in the Gateway 30 "grassroots" opposition network.
6 Comments:
I still haven't heard Carole James make a definative statement on the NDP's position on Gateway. And with a number of seats in play in Surrey, I don't think we ever will hear her say no to Gateway?
Sitting on the fence seems to be her mode of operations. Oh, along with quietly supporting the 12 same groups opposed to everything.
This post has been removed by the author.
"People will make the choice to drive for the sake of convenience and for the freedom of mobility."
Isn't ironic that the issue of “choice” is brought up? People are already have the choice to drive their car anywhere in the lower mainland. But people don't have the choice to take rapid transit from Langley, or take transit from Vancouver to Mission in the morning, or take direct connection between Surrey and Port Coquitlam.
If we really wanted to give people choice we would be expanding transit first.
And anyone who has lived in a city with efficient, well-funded transit knows that it can be more convenient and give you more mobility than an automobile much of the time.
“The bridge is also necessary to reduce congestion, shorten commuting times, reduce the cost to the economy and to generally improve the quality of life in our region.”
- All the evidence suggests that the new bridge will not reduce congestion or shorten commuting times for more than a short period.
- Studies have shown that the alternatives to highway expansion will cost less.
- How will decreased health (which the province's own report concedes will occur with Gateway) improve “quality of life”?
Rob,
Great comments but typical.
Building transit will not solve all the regions transportation problems.For an example, I work with people who live in Surrey and they need to drive their cars to get to work, even if there were a transit option.
In case you've missed the news, the government is building new transit lines, however transit isn't the only answer. It's only part of the solution, and the solution includes the expanding of highway #1 and the twinning of the Port Mann.
Maybe, advocating for the banning of the automobile would suit your ideological views?
"...live in Surrey and they need to drive their cars..."
Nobody has said we need to get 100% of people on transit. Right now 70% of the traffic on the PM bridge is SOV. If we could give even 50% of those people a good transit option it would help reduce congestion.
"..the solution includes the expanding of highway..."
What is this based on? All the evidence suggests that cities that rely on highway expansion never solve congestion problems. Transit which is a much more efficient and effective solution.
"the banning of the automobile "
Nobody has suggested this. Injecting red herrings into a debate only indicates the weekness of your position.
Rob, you have several times used the phrase "all the evidence" suggests that widening a highway or bridge will not solve congestion.
I beg your pardon, but no such thing is the case as you well know. If there is sufficient capacity in place to accommodate growth in population and employment there won't be any congestion. Consider the Coquihalla freeway for example. Providing that kind of capacity level is difficult in a growing metropoplitan area where property acquisition costs are high. But to state as you do that increasing highway capacity will contribute nothing to reducing congestion is utterly false, the result of a propagandists clever distortion of the concept of induced demand and a perverse interpretation of works by economist Anthony Downs.
Post a Comment
<< Home