Why don't they take all the money that they're going to spend on on twinning the bridge and use it to promote commercial growth and job opportunities south of the bridge? Then people wouldn't need to commute across the bridge. I would think that distributing development amongst more communities lessens the overall impacts; environmental, commuter and otherwise.

amen, goweropolis!

i'm curious though, why does there have to be a bridge twinning to be able to make dedicated lanes? three lanes out: HOV/bus, SOV, truck/industrial. Two lanes in: HOV/bus, truck/industrial.

What's that? I forgot a lane for commuters? Whoops.

What are the odds that one or more federal politicos will use this Port Mann football in his or her own soon-to-be-announced election platform?

I agree with goweropolis,

why can't we promote commercial growth (as well as advocating the shifting of main offices, etc.) to south of the bridge?
Instead of funneling half of the Fraser Valley downtown and back everday, why not bring some of the work out to them?
Also, i believe a diverse approach is key: some LRT throughout the entire region, add more buses instead of RAV, and perhaps, instead of standard public transit over the bridge, maybe some dedicated rush-hour shuttles? At least it's a start, progressive, and won't cost a fortune. why does this government seem to want to solve all traffic problems at once, with enormous one time projects?
diversity, i believe, is key.

How many more silk corporate pockets are going to get lined thanks to ill-conceived white-elephant mega-projects rubberstamped by "knuckles" falcone?

you know, the reality of it is that the lower mainland is growing. It's expanding out towards the valley for various reasons and it is becoming more of a region rather than vancouver vs burnaby or surrey. It would be nice to shift more commercial to that side of the river, and it will happen, but that takes time. The problem needs to be addressed now.

anyone who has tried to get from surrey to coquitlam over the port mann at 8:00am on a weekday (or often a sunday!) realizes something has to be done. The car is the method of transportation that dominates, like it or not, and it will be for a very long time. So the solution has to reflect that.

Unfortunately spending money on twinning the bridge may not appeal to someone on Commercial Drive or in Yaletown, but to the majority of the people in the region, it will make a HUGE difference.

It's about time a project like this happens, and I think the likes of Corrigan are simply trying to stir the pot and cause problems for a politicians that don't sit on his side of the spectrum. I don't think Corrigan has what is in the best interest of the region in mind - he's all politics.

No one likes a toll, but I bet if you walk from car to car parked in traffic at the 152nd street exit on a Monday morning and ask drivers if they would mind paying at toll to avoid bumper to bumper and cut their daily commute by an hour a day or more, you'd get a lot of takers.

Bring on the twin!

The problem is the commercial growth south of the Fraser. Or more presisely, this growth is occurring mostly in sprawling business parks that are impossible to serve by public transit. Also, in households with two wage earners, one will work in one suburb, one will work in another and they live in a third suburb. This creates a lot of suburb to suburb commuting, which again is impossible to serve with public transit.

Hey Grump

Yes SkyTrain costs more than LRT but to thing this extra money would have been spent on LRT or transit is wishful thinking. Most likely, this money would have been spent on road projects and the Port Mann would have been expanded years ago.

Commercial transportation is a major issue. Look at all the truckers hauling containers out of the port — it's at breaking point because of bottlenecks and traffic jams that cut into efficiency, cause unnecessary idling pollution, and make it hard for truckers to make a decent wage. It's also becoming a problem with growing rail traffic going in and out of Deltaport tying up suburban traffic at controlled crossings. North and South Fraser Perimeter roads and Hwy 1 urgently need upgrades to solve these problems.

RAC has a point about business parks and transit, but it depends on what kind of park it is. An office park works well in suburbia (eg. King George Hwy., Metrotown, etc.) next to transit services, but an industrial park that is dominantly warehousing probably would not. There are industrial parks south of the Fraser which essentially serve to deliver goods via thousands of transport trucks daily, and whether they are located in proximity to transit service matters less than a location next to the freeway or the border, for example.

"The car is the method of transportation that dominates, like it or not, and it will be for a very long time. So the solution has to reflect that."

There is no long-term solution that can accomodate our current attitudes towards car use and be sustainable. It's that simple. Don't delude yourself into thinking it's even remotely possible. Let's give up the addiction now and move on before it's too late.

Better idea.

Let's just abandon that entire blot on the north side of the Port Mann as far as the Ironworkers Memorial.

Just shut it down and move somewhere dryer and more central for the benefit of the entire province.

Let the railways stay, along with the trucking lanes, both of which will have one purpose moving goods to and from the shipping docks.

With every one living on the proper side of the Port Mann the private sector can have and pay for any bridges they want or need.

The rest of us can then expect our taxes to go toward proper transportation networks that don't subsidize the BC Car Dealers Association or other Liberal friendly asphalt kissers.

Be the first in your neighbourhood to take the challenge. Trash your car.

How can one elected official rule willy nilly over all the other elected officials opposed to this plan ?

In Vancouver every would be elect voiced opposition against the expansion of the freeway and twinning of the bridge.

Allan - I trashed my car in July, I now cycle or take transit and I live 50 feet from the freeway. I also intend to run in this federal election [Burnaby Douglas] on bike and transit to get me from place to place.

I doubt very much other candidates will be showing up for debates on their bikes.

http://voteforian.com

rac, the sad thing is, and you like to forget, is that when 'rail' transit is so expensive, no one thinks about it, but if 'rail' transit is much cheaper, then it becomes affordable and plannable.

As I said before, SkyTrain and the planning associated with it has caused this miserable state of affairs and unless there is a viable (please, viable) plan B, highway & bridge construction will become the norm for the region.

Grumpy

How about concentrating on plan B instead of spending your energy trashing what has already been done. That would be a much more effective way of getting more light rail. The Port Mann Bridge twinning and highway expansion will be around $1.5 billion. That is a lot of light rail.

The problems with trashing SkyTrain are:
1. Most people don't know and don't care what the difference between LRT and SkyTrain. By trashing SkyTrain you actually push people away from supporting any rail transit include LRT. The highway lobby loves this stuff. Notice how they don't bash each others projects unlike some transit advocates.
2. Most people think SkyTrain is a success. A lot of people do use in and the expo line is packed at peak hours. Sure LRT would have been cheaper and may have been more successful but most people don't know this and don't care.
3. It is already built or in the case of RAV, it is too late to stop it.

I suggest you join the battle against the Highway Expansion. There are a lot of people involved in the battle. LRT is definately an option that many would support and your expertice and passion would be very helpful. How about proposing a $1.5 billion dollar LRT network for the communities south of the Fraser.

I don't care how lanes the Port Mann has. Hwy 1 won't get to carry any more traffic until they build some decent on/off ramps. Most of them are controlled by lights so it can take you 45 minutes to travel the last 500 metres onto the freeway. The 160th Street on ramp is a good example. But like I said before they don't want you out of your car unless you give them other revenue source to replace gas taxes.

I had to peek despite the blatant neon rockerbiff.

Your second issue on Olympics cost overruns has my hearty endorsement.

Alas, you are dancing on the wrong stage, I'm afraid.

Old Premier Gord accepted outright responsibility for any overruns on behalf of we good British Columbians, so not much traction on that one with fed bashers.

Still, I do appreciate you raising the touchy issue as I doubt our premier really wants to say too much about it.

Maybe it's time for a feisty Tyee to poke around in advance at the big O and then to give we the faithful a sneak preview of expected service cuts or tax increases to cover the growing costs.

Maybe it will then recommend the same free enterprisers who flashed so much cash in selling this sports extravaganzy to the impressionable jump back into a leadership position through real financial commitments to ensure their games are successful.

Hey, sounds reasonable, eh?

I congratulate you rockerbiff for trashing the four wheeler and then climbing aboard that sleek stead you now power all by yourself.

That is real freedom.

Local NDP MPs are on record for not putting any federal money into this project:

http://action.web.ca/home/billsiksay/en_alerts.shtml?x=82861

The first day of the federal campaign Harper wants to round up the gays.

Next Allan wants to round up people living on the "wrong" side of the Fraser and put them on the "right" side.

And after everyone is inside the Warsaw ghetto, where next?

kurt, you misunderstood.

I don't want to round people up. I just don't want to go on paying for silly and unnecessary infrastructure like monster bridges for fat asses who haven't the desire to lift their own legs once in a while.

Or worse, so that car dealers et/al can continue having their gleaming new eternal pollution machines subsidized by us.

Now, as a BC Liberal member you might take umbridge with my suggestion that car dealers who support your party so generously are getting a form of corporate welfare, but then you seem to get confused about a lot of things.

I note you point on Steven Harper. Still, I urge you not to support him.

Allan,

Steven Harper has my absentee vote in North Vancouver. It should be a close race, but I am confident we can return North Vancouver to the Tories.

You left-wing lunatics are great. All of your ideas are great in theory, but poor in practice.

Unfortunately, vehicles are necessary. Quite frankly, I don't have the time to take public transit nor does most of the population that has a family and lives off of a major transit line.

A few years back (8 years or so ago) as a junior consultant, I would travel to sites throughout the GVRD. Nowhere was traffic worse than the Port Mann Bridge. This bridge was full of trucks, commuters and containers. I can only imagine the problem has increased ten-fold, as I have heard from a few friends that have moved South of the Port Mann.

This is the one artery that brings goods into Vancouver. A significant amount of productivity is lost due to these bottlenecks.

This bridge is necesary to facilitate continued economic growth as well as ease the pain of thousands of commuters.

Good for you mabellbc.

As for the Port Mann bridge bringing goods to Vancouver, I do believe you are right, although I suspect far more goods could be delivered into the same area with far less congestion, less cost, less pollution and less taxation of those who don't use or benefit from it, if rail was the transportation choice.

Of course, if rail was the choice, auto dealers, instead of giving donations to the BC Liberal Party, would be there with their hands out in public rather than in the planning sessions.

Studies in every major city in the world show when you expand roads you get more vehicles.

The problem of gridlock keeps reappearing and the only ones who benefit.. well I think you know who they are.

'Of course, if rail was the choice, auto dealers, instead of giving donations to the BC Liberal Party, would be there with their hands out in public rather than in the planning sessions.'
typically another crock of shite from allan. don't you ever get tired of that class-warfare crusade al? maybe we should look to the ndp to solve our transportation problems. how about putting wheels on the fast ferries?

It's absolutely amazing what surfaces when you poke a stick into a pool of used motor oil and stir a bit.

BTW Elliot, why did the liberals give those ferries away for less than scrap metal prices when they were offered millions more for them prior to that firesale?

It's ok, take your time, contact the right flak over at Finance and I'm sure you'll get a ready answer.

"Class warfare"? Isn't that why you're here Elliot?

Allan,

I really don't think there are too many people that will switch to driving from public transportation because of the twinning. There is terrible public transportation in that area, because it is incredibly spread out.

You are right, in 15 years there will be gridlock again. The reason for that is growth.

It doesn't sound like you believe in growth and would prefer a country like Germany - where there is negative economic and population growth. In Germany it is pointless to go to college, because there are no professional jobs there for the young.

However, unfortunately for you - you live in Canada - where enough people have ambition to prevent your idealistic left-wing society.

They expect the GVRD to add a million people by 2015. Many of whom will move South of the Port Mann. Imagine if we still only had one bridge then....

I believe in public transportation as you do. I hope one day they'll connect SkyTrain all the way to Abbotsford.

mabellbc, try to think what would happen if more than a million people move into the Lower Mainland in the next decade and none of them use cars, pickups or SUVs.

Of course that could only happen if there is sufficent public transportation available to reduce the need for the waste of single occupant car-trips, such as your Sky Train example.

Imagine being able to look westward from the Port Mann bridge in the early evening and not have your eyes assaulted by an ugly greyish-yellow hue rising from the earth, the product of thousands of internal combustion engines.

Imagine living in a community where there are weather inversions, yet when they occur you aren't choking on auto fumes that linger until a wind drives them into the next neighbourhood.

Imagine living in a society where the daily needs of residents took precidence over blacktop politics.

Imagine living in a community where politicians responded to the needs of ordinary citizens rather than to whose who lobby with campaign contributions.

And BTW, don't know where you've been lately, but you hardly have to travel to Germany to find thousands of university grads who can't find work other than the $6 an hour kind that is driving down wages and real income across the board.

Of course, if you were a retailer you might have already noted that people are buying less these days.

I wonder why?

It's true that efficient movement of containers (I’m using this generically here) helps both the economy and the environment. But let’s remember that people constitute human capital from the same view.

The government says that 50 per cent of the GVRD's new jobs are in the suburbs. This almost seems counter-intuitive when examined beside plans to expand any suburban-metro corridor.

It’s a fact that Greater Vancouver – all of it – is growing quickly. The big questions revolve around how the entire region will work together.

The GVRD’s LRSP is, unfortunately, just a plan. Without any substantial ways to enforce it, sprawl trumps densification.

The Lower Mainland is, in many ways, a 21st-century frontier town. It’s not yet a New York, a London, or even a Montreal. Among other things, this means that the GVRD has an untapped opportunity to do two things: innovate, and learn from the successes (and the mistakes) of well-established cities.

There are several ideas, on both sides of the spectrum, which deserve public discourse.

Port Mann or no Port Mann, Kevin Falcon is a lunatic who acts like a petulant child when he doesn't get his way.

I miss Judith Reid. She hired Indo-Canadian gangster drug dealers but her incompetence was at least amusing.

Of course the movement of commercial goods is important and again our planners fail to provide anything but a 'rubber on asphalt' solution. The powers that be killed off any incentive for railways to carry local freight and has made the 'highway' the only way to move goods.

In Europe there are experiments with multiple unit container trains, like passenger MU's (short trains with 2 driving positions in the front and rear for easy movement) and in Dresden, the transit system operates "contaner trams", trams designed to carry containers on tram tracks. The container tram has caught the eye of several cities to move goods and experiments are taking place in Switzerland & France. Sadly, our SkyTrain light metro cannot do this.

Commercial vehicles do not pay their fair share of taxes to maintain highways, as they do the most to destroy them. The movement of goods on the public highways are a vast hidden subsidy to big business!

For those who want SkyTrain to Abbotsford:

Vaancouver to Abbotsford - 80 km. @ $80 million/km. to build = $6.4 billion. Potential for extentions - nil.

LRT, using existing railway rights-of-way and connection to the Abbotsford Airport and new Bridge across the Fraser River:

90 km. @ $15 million per km. = $1.35 billion. Potential for extensions - good. Shared operation with existing railways dramtically recused cost.

Which one is affordable?

There is not a single shred of evidence that the porvincial government plane to put a toll on the Port Mann. Why is that stated here, then?

mabellbc, you have to understand that socialists are white and middle aged; they are only interested in maintaining their lifestyles in the Beaver Clever way. They refust to see the demographic changes around them and thus oppose any change that might alter their lives.

Grumpy, I certainly can't argue with your numbers on the for Skytrain or LRT service to Abbotsford.

Either, in my estimation, is better than the likely blacktop solution this transpo' minister, his government and their financial contributers want and plan.

Perhaps one of our resident privateers will respond to your quote and justify that ongoing theft Grumpy, but somehow I suspect they'll all be too busy today.

Great quote, I'd say.

Perhaps when Working Mouth is finished tossing racial barbs he'll pick up the challenge and tell us why the transportation industry should remain so mired in the ambition-busting clutches of such a debilitating corporate welfare system.

Let's break this incorporation to bankruptcy dependency on our tax dollars. I'd recommend a bit of tough love for these slackers.

Working Man why do you insist on stereo typing people? I work with many people of different origins and the vast majority are quite happy to have the "socialist" aspects of the Canadain system in trade for their taxes. You know schools, hospitals, the safety nets of social services in general. To say that the only people who want to maintain this lifestyle are middle aged whites is ridiculous and insulting to those who came and will come to Canada expecting to create a "Beaver Cleaver" life.

I am also quite happy to pay my taxes and lots I do pay. However, perhaps I am a bit sarcastic. The lower mainland is a changing place. The world is also changing and the huge explosion of population is spilling into our neck of the woods.

I am all in favour of taxing the living daylights out of gas guzzlers. There is no place on earth except North America and Australia where a working stiff could drive around in a truck or SUV with a six litre V-8. The taxes raised in the process could build top class public transit at affordable prices.

I don't see any mainstream politcal party ready to do that. The NDP would not do it because to many union members rely on the auto indusrty and the Liberals would never do it in fear of pissing off the Americans. It would have to be done nationally to work. This is why all the Kyoto ads on TV are complete bunk. Canada's CO2 emissions are still rising because not a singe mainstream politcal party has the will do anything about it.

Blonde, I might also add that the post war boom and demographics we grew up with are gone and are never going to come back. The standards of space and living our parents enjoyed in the 1950s and '60s were an anomoly and with a world population of over six billion are not going to come back. We live in an information based economy now and those who either lack the will or ability to access information are going to get left behind and there is no government in the world that can prevent that. It is a matter of personal choice and responsibility.

The fact is, only the Green Party has the guts to really do something to reduce traffic and pollution. I have examined their platform and find it very sensible. I would vote for them if it were not for the threat of an NDP government. It seems I am not alone in this as the Greens siphoned off quite a bit of the NDP vote. This is largely because the NDP refuses to recognise that the economy of our parent's time is gone, that demographics have changed.

If we did tax cars based on CO2 output (or engine displacement) things would rapidly change and for the better. The auto makers would not lose a dime because they already have the models in other markets. Governments would have a huge windfall they could spend on better and cheaper public transit. They could easily build Sky-train to Abbotsford and Mission with the porceeds and make the cost of using it affordable.

Further, I do not buy the "we subsadise Sky-train too much" dogma. If you look at the cost of maintaing roads and the space they take up, public rapid transit is still a way better deal. I am also not averse to putting a toll on the Port Mann bridge. Why not? If people insist on living so far from where they work they should pay the price for it. It is a false economy moving that far out anyway. When you add the cost of driving a car (or two) from Abbotsford to Vancouver every day you are not saving anything compared to living in, say, Dunbar.

Lifestyles are chaning whether we want to realise it or not. Same for demographics; this is the main reason I stay from socialist based politcal parties. They are locked in the past and wish to return to it; same goes for the Stephen Harper crowd. I find both leagues equally distasteful/

Please let me explain the quote. I was told by a Vancouver City Engineer that heavy vehicles do untold damage, not only to city streets, but the plumbing underneath.

Go to Knight Street or Hwy 17 in Delta and see groves cut in the pavement by the trucks tandem wheels. But this is not all, the heavy trucks shake the sewer & water pipes underneath, causing premature ruptures. Cars, being much lighter, do not so this type of damage. The commercial vehicles just do not pay their fair share for road maintenece as they cause most of the problems.

They also don't pay for that absurd theft called Air Care.

Sky Train was an Expo toy that should have ended with that useless spectacle. LRT is the only option to Abbotsford, and it better go as far as Chilliwack if you want it to be useful.

On the endless attacks on commuters from the Fraser Valley into Vancouver: If you really do want to end people commuting then how about supporting some economic development in the lower mainland? Ever try and find a job in Aldergrove? Ever try to find a community development plan for Aldergrove? (Relax there is none.)

Further if you want to cut traffic, then how about a stadium in Surrey, rather than promoting the traffic jam to the latest hockey or rock spectacle?

And last but not least the pollution and traffic is not just caused by cars.Count the trucks hauling consumer junk from one end of the valley to another.

As an aside: Cities are not sustainable by their very nature and it is well past time Vancouverites thought about this. Vancouver is interconnected with the larger valley whether its residents want to admit this or not. A little less blaming and a little more effort at finding real solutions might help.

I heard the plan is to extend the West Coast Express commuter train from Mission to Abbotsford.

And once Deltaport's expansion is completed, it will be twice its size and presumably twice the number of coal trains will serve it.

SW Rail owns the old Interurban line from Surrey out to Chilliwack, runs a couple trains a day, and probably would be amenable to leasing some track time for revival of a commuter train. One complication though — CP bought the tracks from SWR between Cloverdale and north Langley, for their ever-growing Deltaport runs, and it's questionable whether there would be any track time available along that stretch for a commuter train. Since SWR still owns the right of way, that stretch of tracks could be twinned, but only for a few hundred million or more. Still, even a commuter train service from Cloverdale through to the Surey-New West border seems worthwhile pursuing.

Yarrow is mistaken though, because it's in suburbia that all the new jobs are being created. Only about 20% of the Port Mann traffic enters Vancouver.

Back to Falcon and the Port Mann twinning, I predict it will be done and that the NDP will find a way to take some of the credit for it, not to block it. After all, statistically speaking, about half the commuters in cars and about half the truckers are NDP voters, and apart from some hardcore ideologues on the fringes (remember COPE?) most NDP MLAs aren't stupid enough to kiss off a bunch of suburban voters come the next election. The NDP have never been shy about building transportation when they were in government (Island Hwy., Port Mann's fifth lane, #1's HOV lanes, Skytrain Millennium line, West Coast Express, Half-Fast Ferries) because, just like the Socreds before them and the Liberals today, they know it wins votes.

To paraphrase Benito, all the public cares about is that the trains and traffic arrive on time.

you have to understand that socialists are white and middle class

isnt there someone who moniters the site for this type of behavior.

They also don't pay for that absurd theft called Air Care

Really? You would prefer we did not test cars for pollution? I remember 20 years ago, smog was far worse than it is now. Further, aircare has the effect of getting the worst junk off the road. Just go outside the Lower Mainland and see how many Shit-heap beaters with bald tires are driving around. I also believe the fee charged for Aircare should be proportional to the CO2 the vehicle emits.

Just to play a Devil's advocate before I continue: it's crucial to remember that political parties leaning one way or the other make certain, but sometimes similar arugments.

If you agree that "socialist" parties preach about a return to the past, it should be agreeable that many 'right' parties around the world -- Canada included -- build platforms upon fear of change, and selling voters on 'the way things used to be in the good old days.'

As for our suburban-urban divide... There's a premise in politics that seems to be generally accpeted: a 'me-first' attitude towards livability and commuting.

That line of thinking makes it acceptable for people to work in-city (across the bridge) and live deep inside the Valley. But it's not wholly wrong.

Now, mobility is a right. And housing prices don't usually jibe with employment centres in the Lower Mainland. There are valid reasons many people commute (i.e. there's a lack of job diversity outside our metropolitan core).

Without planning, however, Vancouver could end up looking like Seattle with so many freeways and little movement.

So another question reads something like this: how are people encouraged to work nearby where they choose to live?

Ideas?

Thank you DJ Lam for staying with us here in the gallery despite the peanuts that have been tossed at you.

"Now, mobility is a right," you offer.

Let me take that out of context a tiny bit and suggest that mobility is sold as a right, but in reality it is simply another indicator of the economic slavery that binds and unbinds all of us.

It's a dilemma every generation faces all across Canada so we put on a brave face and tell the world we're liberating ourselves by pulling up stakes.

Yes, you have the right to move away from family, friends, support groups and any other core of humans you might otherwise wish to remain with, so that you can toil for minimum wage.

That right, despite the image of the smiling freedom riders motoring across the landscape, is a public relations right, just like you have the right to starve right here in the horn of plenty if you can't afford the going rate.

As for your good question, I'd say most people don't chose "where they live", it comes in relative geographic relationship to where they work.

The relative includes house pricing, transportation and a whole whack of things we really don't chose nor even get much say in.

With some of the highest density in the world, Vancouver has run up against it's own limits.

Gridlock has set in as it did in the early 60s when the Port Mann bridge was way out of town and people had trouble driving those old gas guzzlers along congested, narrow roads.

Could someone please explain how that will be avoided again 20 or 30 years down the road if all we do is add new lanes to accommodate even more cars?

hey allan; you spend far too much time blathering on about nothing on this site. you need to get a life man.

And why are you here again, Elliot?

"So another question reads something like this: how are people encouraged to work nearby where they choose to live?"

By making rental housing so cheap, palatial, and available, that moving to be near work isn't prohibitive because you have an investment in a house. By which I mean people would invest their money in other things, and treat housing as a service like a leased car (or co-op). aka socialist workers paradise ;-)

Not sure that it's a great scenario, but it might address the question.

Difficult problem, DJ. Especially because the "Beaver Cleaver" family someone referred to no longer exists. June Cleaver was a stay at home Mom, but today both partners work, and rarely in the same building at the same hours, which means they can't even carpool as a couple in most cases.

People will go where their careers take them, and in some cases it's not always the same place every day: ie. truckers, rail engineers, salespeople, delivery people, tradespeople etc.

We can only encourage people to use transit and rideshares whenever it's practical. I make a point of using the useful "trip planner" feature on transit websites — it's like the mapquest website — to try to find new ways of getting to my destinations via transit. The more people use transit the better the service will get, as it usually grows to meet demand.

I Lived in San Francisco for 11 years. I was really jazzed about moving back to BC, because the tone of political discourse in the US has become so vitriolic and plain nasty, that unless you enjoy a regular serving of that kind of bile, after a while you have to stop listening.

Can we all think about that before dismissing eachother's points of view based on ideology? Shouldn't these discussions be about facts and ideas and opinions, rather than writing off other people's points of view based on political ideology? It seems to me that a bunch of people in this discussion despise a bunch of the other people, mainly because their ideas differ. Disagreement is a healthy thing, but it seems to me that there's no need to be mean to eachother about it.

A few thoughts about the issues:

- Crossing the Fraser at the Port Mann sucks, and we should fix it. I live and work in North Vancouver and have no commute at all, but I don't begrudge the money it's going to cost to enable people who live on one side of the Fraser and work on the other.

- Public transit is a really good thing. As a practical matter, I don't get to use that either, but again, the world is bigger than my backyard, and I don't begrudge the money spent on it.
- Moving jobs to traditionally suburban areas might help too, but it's only part of a long-term solution. The Port Mann commute is a problem now, and it also needs to be solved.

- Ditto with skytrain ridership. It is built for larger urban density than we currently have. But that density is coming whether we want it or not - it's cheaper to spend that money now than 10 years from now.

- Based on my experience living in San Francisco, street level muni rail is really lousy for both commuters and for drivers. Grade-separation is the way to go - underground or overhead. Having rail at street level, that gets blocked by, and blocks, traffic, was a real pain. Feel free to disagree if you want, but try going from Concord to downtown San Francisco on the BART (an underground/overhead light rail system) and then going from dowtown SF to the SF Zoo. Once the muni gets to street level, you better have a good book.

- Why do we judge the success of transit systems by initial ridership volume? I'm sure when the Port Mann bridge was built, it wasn't end-to-end traffic. But I'll bet its cost of building has been justified many times over since then. (Imagine what this discussion would be like if there was no bridge there at all). Transit is likewise supposed to be built with lots of capacity for growth.

BART is so expensive, we would banrupt the province building it here, diito for SkyTrain and light metro. Remeber California's population and tax base is greater than all of Canada.

Much of the Muni is grade seperated and contrary to what the previous chap has said, most people in San Francisco like the Muni and champion plans to extend it across the Bay Bridge to OakLand.

It was public support that save the Muni from extinction.

The trouble with the Muni is that it's cars are decades old and need updating. Love to see Combino's of Flexity cars operating there!

My understanding is that 30% of Port Mann Bridge users in the morning (the peak congestion time) get on the highway at the last Surrey exit before the bridge and 32% get off at the first exit after, with less than 20% going on to the Downtown or North Shore. It seems clear that this is an issue of the amount of inter-suburb commuters between Surrey and Coquitlam exceeding the capacity of the highway / bridge for this particular part of its length. While I’ve no doubt that many of these commuters will have their car keys ‘pried from their cold dead hands’, it has to be acknowledged that public transit between these two urban centres is lousy. It’s difficult to expect people to give up their cars when the alternative is a 90-minute bus trip with three transfers. It’s also a little sanctimonious to tell them to live nearer work when the chances are that they’re from two-worker households and while if they’re lucky one will work locally, the chances are that both won’t.

Let’s be clear, I’m totally against the twinning of the bridge. You only have to look at the impact of the construction of the Alex Fraser Bridge on the populations of South Surrey and White Rock to see that this will result in unsustainable population growth along the Route 1 corridor. We need to look at what could realistically be achieved if the amount of money earmarked for this project was spent on a well-considered alternative transportation strategy for this area.

While I’m not in favour of he Golden Ears bridge either, I was wondering if anyone knows the impact of it’s construction on this issue ie. How many people currently waiting in line for the Port Mann for whom this might be an alternative.

Canyon: Anecdotally, I think most commuters from north of the river will be coming into Langley/Surrey to work, and there are a lot of them. From the other direction I have no idea what the short term impact will be but in long term, the north side wants to develop new industry to grow its employment base.

And in addition to the modern situation of two-income households, there is also the fact that few have lifetime careers these days. Most of us change jobs, even careers, several times in our lives. If people were to move as often as they changed jobs it would be pandemonium.

Just a note. I was wondering if the new Golden Ears bridge had any plans for addition for rail at a later date? I doubt it though, we don't plan that way.

The Granville bridge was designed with streetcars/LRT in mind and can accomodate them, though Vancouver's enginnering dept. would rather not let anyone know about it. It would only make the Arbutus (only 1 block away, more attractive for LRT!

The real problem with the gateway project is that there is no plan B, and new highway construction is the only way out so far. The building population in Surrey, Langly, and beyond needs to be serviced. We are not doing nothing at all about this as transportation issues are not dealt with until they are in crisis. The result > Gateway!

The Golden Ears bridge is to be built with the capability for LRT. But that means nothing, as the Alex Fraser Bridge was designed the same way too, with only four traffic lanes at its opening. You see any LRT on it? No, just 6 lanes of congestion now. The same will happen with the Golden Ears. The problem with all bridge building is the same one that's been alluded to countless times before: Build it and they will come. Period.

An LRT only bridge over the Fraser at Albion with connections to the Interurban at Langley and also with a West coast type system on the CN mainline on the south side of the river would have been the smart solution, but intelligent planning has not been a hallmark of the Ministry of Transport and Highways (note the title).

The only long term solution to Port Mann is this: accept congestion for automobiles and spend the 1.5 billion on transit (a combination of LRT and buses) instead.

A combination of carrot and stick is the only way to make people choose sustainable modes of living. If people have a relatively equal personal choice between car or transit, they'll take the car. Transit has to be demonstrably better for it to be successful-Vancouver City is a good example. As long as we continue to subsidize unsustainablility, that's what we're gonna get.

"build it and they will come" or so they say.

We didn't build it and still they came and they are still coming.