Burrard Bridge

Bob's comments regarding the Burrard Bridge are emblematic of the hate of diversity, pigeon-holing, and ignorance he claims to oppose.

A most illuminating look into the realities of the bridge and which groups of users are growing is available on the city's website, under the heading "Learn more about usership on the Burrard Bridge". The suggested TRIAL of bike lanes benefits pedestrians, joggers, the physically challenged too. But inclusivity isn't the preferred strategy of seeming Auto Luddites.

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/cycling/burrard_trials.htm

The fewer roads we build, the more room we have for parks and homes.

Of course, it's hard not to laugh at a supposed tough guy who wouldn't ride in the rain. My seven-year old manages to do so without blinking an eye. LOL. As do people in numerous countries around the world that are just as wet as Vancouver.

EDITED FOR INSULTS -- TYEE MODERATOR

DO YOU SERIOUSLY EXPECT ANYONE TO BELIEVE THIS?

Bobby Peru
My family goes back three generations of working class in Vancouver, all from East Vancouver. I am locally educated, but made my money internationally, in banking and industry. I am self-made and ambitious combining East Van's working class toughness with American style aggressiveness. For example I own some factories in China that make products for Walmart and Cosco, retailers you love to hate, but love to shop at.

Bobby, I think the atmosphere in the boiler room must have been getting a little giddy when you put this one together. It's outside the range of credible BS.

But don't get me wrong, guy. By going waaaay over the top, claiming to own "some factories in China" you have lightened my day considerably, so please accept my sincere thanks.

I also enjoyed the bit about "combining East Van's working class toughness with American style aggressiveness". I am guessing that the crowd in the boiler room figured, over drinks of course, that this would ring true in the ears of conservative "creme de la creme" types, but would also strike a cord with those NDPers who liked Glen Clark. A nice try, but again the missing ingredient is credibility. Someone who actually fits that profile doesn't have time for chat boards.

PLEASE REFRAIN FROM INSULTING OTHER POSTERS. -- TYEE MODERATOR

Insults

Wasn't an insult to characterize Point Grey folks as creme IMO. How come Bob gets away with 'noisy cyclists'?

THE ISSUE is insults directed at another poster. We aren't able, nor do we seek, to edit critical remarks directed at groups -- whether they be cyclists, the wealthy, etc. -- as long as they aren't racist, sexist or libelous. But please review the rules. Singling out another commenter and directing personal insults their way isn't allowed on The Tyee threads. Thanks. -- TYEE MODERATOR

The Other Side of East Van

Oh really, Rod Smeiser? You mean there are no successful people from East Van who through their own choice and hard work made a life more than five miles from their high school? You are, of course, welcome to ask me any questions about offshore manufacturing and banking. You may be surprised at how I can enlighten you and readers on this site.

And why would you say 'someone who fits that profile' doesn't have time for chat boards? Who does, in your mind? Unemployed losers at the bar? Working class stiffs between surfing porn sites? These boards are a way for me and others to enter into a discourse with people in Vancouver, to break through the cliques that balkanize Vancouver.

Rod, perhaps you should ease off on the discrimination and accept that the internet allows discourse that crosses all boundaries. Don't forget there are a number of people (mostly Asian) in Vancouver who are involved in offshore manufacturing in China. Like some of the new immigrants. Not all of them fit into your stereotype of serving dim sum in Chinatown.

I think Monte meant well to reveal something about ourselves, to show our differences while rising above the class struggle invectives which poison rational thought and meaningful discussion.

Unfortunately, BC wages reflect the quality of BC jobs, which is low and lower than Alberta which benefits from oil and gas development. BC could too, if voters and politicians would stop be cowed by the environmental nuts and go ahead with offshore oil exploration. Why not, Hibernia works fine? Are we any less competent? Why would BC employers raise wages in such an arbitrary way? One of the problems in Vancouver is that there are not enough high paying jobs as there are in NY, Toronto or Tokyo to support our residential and commercial real estate prices. So they must fall. But maybe they won't fall far enough because as I said, the govt won't release more land supply.

Rod, by 'price to earnings' ratio, I think you are referring to rental yields. I think real estate speculation spun so far out of control in Vancouver that buyers were more interested in capital gains than yield. A common sign of a bubble.

And to Stump: we need more roads to get to our parks and homes. Yes, I've seen the study and to reduce the lanes on the bridge for a tiny minority of cyclists is ridiculous. Even the trial is a waste of time as it's been done before with inconvenient results. Stump, imagine office workers or other people who can't afford to be soaking wet in front of clients. Then, you'll see why it doesn't make sense.

I, too, wish we could return to a simpler time in Vancouver. Pre-expo 86 to be exact. But, unless you invent a time machine, we're stuck with today's problems which many of you are trying to understand and solve through yesterday's ideas.

Vivianlea

Best of luck, Vivianlea!

Bobby

I agree that Monte meant well.

I just don't think that civil and “personal” discourse is possible in an anonymous forum. And I’ve seen enough here at Tyee to support that belief dozens of times.

Furthermore, people who don't post their real names can't be credible when they post about how relatively 'successful' or unsuccessful they've been.

In about a nanosecond this kind of thing ceases to be about housing and deteriorates into the usual pissing match.

I just don't think it's helpful - especially with folks I wouldn't know if I met them in the street - or in the aisle at Walmart....

I do think the information from people who are having problems finding and affording decent housing are interesting and revealing and I commend them for having the courage to post their details; on the other hand, I think the stories of those of us who aren't having those problems are pretty much irrelevant.

This is not meant as criticism of you.

In the end, the facts don't lie - Vancouver and much of BC are unaffordable.

Period.

Maybe you should bring some of your factories back to Canada.

Is it getting hot in the boiler room?

Bobby Peru
You may be surprised at how I can enlighten you and readers on this site.

I would be very surprised indeed, Bobby, you've got that right. In fact, I would be surprised if you could enlighten anyone on anything, as opposed to putting out the bafflegab from the boiler room. Is it getting hot in there, Bobby? You sound a bit steamed up.

And why would you say 'someone who fits that profile' doesn't have time for chat boards? Who does, in your mind? Unemployed losers at the bar? Working class stiffs between surfing porn sites? These boards are a way for me and others to enter into a discourse with people in Vancouver, to break through the cliques that balkanize Vancouver.

A nice effort, Bobby. But what about this business of pretending to reject "the cliques that balkanize Vancouver", while peddling such classic stereotypes as "Unemployed losers at the bar? Working class stiffs between surfing porn sites?"

I should add, Bobby, that the last sentence in that passage is a bit of a tip-off. Why would anyone assume that its only or mostly working class people who use pornography, whether online or elsewhere? Isn't this a well-known caricature of the working class that's common in middle and upper-class circles, or cliques if you like?

Sorry to burst your bubble

But although Vancouver is beautiful no doubt prices rocketed do to speculation as BC hot spot because of Olympics with promise of big things in the new ERA,. So its about no planning and bringing in immigrants by the boat loads with promise of great prosperity in the land while ensuring there in little supply and much demand. Campbell got the low down frofm his American buddies on how to max the real estate market. And we know how thats worked for them. How do you think its going to work for you? And thats how you get 18 millions dollars to a 2 bedroom condo. However I'm thinking not now. Anyhow we live in a land of abudance and there is no reason for prices to be so high that the people who have made BC their home cannot afford to live there. Get Real?

another bubble burst

So do you think the rest of the World will want to come beating down your door when you now Live in the Crime Capital of the Planet? Thats right welcome to Gangster Land and Bill's articles are right on as its a reality as experts say we are number one when its comes to having the most Gangsters in the World. So should we do a survey ask the planet would you like to move to a place where you may have to dodge machine gun bullets when picking up a loaf a bread? So do the math as your house prices just keep going down, down, down.

Speaking of Increasing Costs

Robbins & Van Rassel on the City of Coquitlam

Which of the following Coquitlam tax policies would you prefer?

A. A (07%) increase in taxes with a corresponding (07%) increase in services-(15.6%)

B. A (07%) reduction in taxes with a corresponding (07%) reduction in services-(6.8%)

C. No increase in taxes and no reduction in services-(63.9%)

D. It doesn’t make any difference to me-(13.6%)

In your opinion should Coquitlam residents be permitted to opt out of garbage and recycling service and fees---attached to it---which have increased to (49%) per year, and exercise their own personal rights and options as it relates to garbage and recycling in your experience?

Yes-53%

No-47%

Would you support Burke Mountain becoming its own township like Anmore and Belcarra?

Yes-22%

No-36%

Undecided-42%

Which of the following BC leaders and political parties do you support most?

Carole James and New Democrats-(17%)

Gordon Campbell and BC Liberals-(23%)

I don’t support either-(60%)

This is a poll of a City –I’ve been living here for 16 years—and it’s hard to commit to it politically—because to me it doesn’t inspire me—and it ought to------easily.

Jacking up garbage and recycling by (49%) was the Brainchild of a Coquitlam retard. This isn’t meant as derision towards the disabled—no-one who is mentally challenged is getting paid $250,000 a year—or are they? Government mandarin here--.

Coquitlam--(Richard) if you raise the taxes (07%) and there is not discernable increase in service—and you think you can ‘get away’ with this—then fill your boots rancid—because frankly that will be sufficient—to blow your—two term hopes// out the window—you’re on my watch-/- lady! I think you’re finished before you started. Nobody disrespects me—and certainly not you

Nice speculation--/ on (49%) increases for garbage and recycling taxes—own a home or not—the public thinks you are “crazy”—NO increase—Jim and I spoke with Mae Reid---get better/-- lady and let’s do the right thing----/the opt out is one-half of these numbers—but with (53%) of Coquitlam residents ready to opt out of garbage collection frothing at the mouth over the phone))))---anyhow—this is some stupid politics—don’t ya' think?

Burke Mountain doesn’t look like an uprising in the offing---the people are too old and too soft—nice people. Richard Stewart gives the Environment to Brent ABBA? Fin,,, Van Rassel isn’t too pleased about Burke Mountain, no wonder Ms Gold has had it with these beaurocrats. Speaking of Burke Mountain has the City of Coquitlam given control back to those 11 land owners who's property you are in the process of stealing,,,excuse me,,, buy for a song.

Continued on
http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_565.html
-30-

Rod Smelser...

You are obviously correct and that will always be the case with our North American culture. But making that argument around here is akin to banging one's head against the wall as it appears most here ride the bus, in any event.

Only ~13% of Metro Vancouver travel is by transit. Can't see that figure increasing by much over the following decades.

Absolutely fucking amazing

No matter how you set up a story Mr.Paulson,the same batch of of liars,the dishonest,THE UTTER UNBELIEVABLE GARBAGE POSTED BY.......

Banking cartels,multi-national corporations,fortune 500 CEO`s.....Some of you can lie pretty easily.
G West,perhaps your right,this type of forumn is useless,the same spinners,the same liars never change.

Now that I got that out of my system,I would like to thank my dear personal freinds for posting......

Wilfred, Luke Skywalker and.........Drum roll please......The academy award for best actor goes to..........

Bobby Peru in The Tale(tall)of Two Cities.

Cheers

MOSTLY SMALL DIFFERENCES

Toronto has by far the longest average commute (9.2 km). Montreal is next at 7.9 k followed by Ottawa at 7.8 and Calgary at 7.7 and Vancouver and Edmonton round out the top group at 7.6 k. (Stats Can)

Ottawa is third in the percentage of short commutes. One-third (33.9%) in Ottawa travel less than 5 km to go to work. Vancouver leads the nation's big cities with 34.8% of commutes under 5 km , Montreal comes next with 34.1%, Edmonton and Calgary follow with 33.7% and 31.9% respectively. Nationally, 37.8% of commutes to work are less than 5 km.

G West, not to be unduly argumentative, but I think you're forgetting to ask if these figures are a statistic or just a number. Going through the first paragraph and rounding off you get 9, 8, 8, 8, and 8. And doing the same trick in the second paragraph yields 34, 35, 34, 34, 32, and 38. There just aren't really big differences here, except in the second paragraph between the Metro areas and the national average where it's starting to look like they differ by one full notch. Maybe.

The Facts, Man...

Let's see....

1. Deerfoot Trail;
2. Stoney Trail;
3. Glenmore Trail;
4. Scarcee Trail;
5. Crowchild Trail;
6. Hwy 1;
7. Blackfoot Trail;
8. MacLeod Trail;
9. Marquis of Lorne Trail;
10. Barlow Trail;
11. Blackfoot Trail;
12. Memorial Drive;
13. McKnight Blvd;
14. Shaganappi Trail;

And many of these are going to see further free-flow enhancements into the future inclusive of grade-separated interchanges.

Try free flowing

Try "free flowing" along 16th my friend.

Did you not read the rest of the information or understand what average length of commute means?

Apparently not.

Because you can't have a 'compact' network of anything in a city as spread out as Calgary is.

Rod

The data is from Statistics Canada.

I've lived in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary and Vancouver.

Vancouver is far from the worst city for commuters.

But Toronto and Montreal have rational public transit systems.

Vancouver doesn't.

Oh Luke

You're conveniently leaving out the part about how the last Burrard Bridge trial only lasted a week and by the end of that time the traffic problems had largely abated.

As to North American culture, it's an evolving thing. If you can't see how trends and realities change people's behaviours it's a real shame.

What's kind of funny however is hearing how this supposedly permanent auto culture can be brought to a crashing halt simply by taking two lanes away from one bridge (out of three). If that's how delicate the system is, then it's truly time to build facilities that encourage the use of inherently flexible and efficient machines such as bicycles.

NATIVE PLACE NAMES

1. Deerfoot Trail;
2. Stoney Trail;
3. Glenmore Trail;
4. Scarcee Trail;
5. Crowchild Trail;
6. Hwy 1;
7. Blackfoot Trail;
8. MacLeod Trail;
9. Marquis of Lorne Trail;
10. Barlow Trail;
11. Blackfoot Trail;
12. Memorial Drive;
13. McKnight Blvd;
14. Shaganappi Trail;

Note how Calgary has chosen mostly Native names for these highways. You woudn't have that happening in Vancouver, even if there were a highway system here. Instead we stuff get "Massey Tunnel"named after a long forgotten Socred backbencher. It's amazing really that the Alex Fraser Bridge wasn't named the Walter Davidson Bridge, but why couldn't it have been named Musqueam or Tsawwassen?

By the way

On that point about compactness, I should have given you the figures luke.

Here they are:
Calgary = 726 square kilometers
Vancouver = less than 115 square kilometers.

Who benefits from the poor transit system?

G West
But Toronto and Montreal have rational public transit systems.

Vancouver doesn't.

I know it's StatsCan data, but the differences between the cities are minor, that's my point. Perhaps it's your's too?

Why doesn't Vancouver have a good transit system? Could it be a result of extremely parochial, real estate-driven municipal rivalries within the Lower Mainland's warring fiefdoms expressing itself at the provincial as well as local levels, and resulting in exceedingly poor quality decision-making regardless of which party forms the government in Victoria?

"Only ~13% of Metro

"Only ~13% of Metro Vancouver travel is by transit. Can't see that figure increasing by much over the following decades."

Well, I guess that Canada Line money was a real waste then. As will be the Evergreen, and the lanes on the new Port Mann which will be dedicated to transit in a few years.

It's a vision thing Luke. You need to be able to see past the windscreen. Further, if effective transit and better facilities for cyclists and pedestrians lets families give up a car or two, the money they'll save can make a huge difference in saving for down payment on a house. Why anyone would force people to use cars instead of letting them have options to build wealth and financial security leaves me a little confused.

Second that West

Qoute:
"But Toronto and Montreal have rational public transit systems.

Vancouver doesn't"

Having lived in those two cities myself I would also add the following -

Toronto and Montreal have rational freeway systems

Vancouver doesn't

Again, the Facts Man, the Facts...

Oh come, comparing Calgary, a uni-city, to the City of Vancouver proper is akin to comparing apples and oranges.

The real Metro Vancouver figure:

2,878.52 km2

Metro Vancouver has very roughly just over 2 times the population of Calgary.

Yet a relatively recent Transport Canada study on the costs of congestion shows that the costs of congestion in Metro Vancouver are roughly 4 - 5 times that of Calgary.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/releases/nat/2006/06-h006e.htm#table

Interpreting that result, one can conclude that congestion levels in Metro Vancouver are considerably greater due to its outdated highway system. Calgary's is a marvel in comparison. And I'm not bringing in either C-Train or Skytrain into the equation.

And why is that luke

Because Vancouver has NO RATIONAL public transit.

Until it becomes a metro area it's not a metrol area. If you want to play that game I'll include every bedroom community in the area around Calgary too.

Lets deal with facts luke, I know you prefer opinions but I don't.

Rod - happy

I don't disagree with either of those points.

I'd only say, at this stage of the game, building more and better highways ISN'T the way to go.

Needs to be repeated

Luke : "Only ~13% of Metro Vancouver travel is by transit. Can't see that figure increasing by much over the following decades."

Stump : "Well, I guess that Canada Line money was a real waste then. As will be the Evergreen, and the lanes on the new Port Mann which will be dedicated to transit in a few years."

:-)

Not very progressive thinking, Bobby!

"All this to satisfy noisy(??) bicyclers on a bridge while 95% of the traffic is comprised of cars. The inconvenience to downtown commerce is never considered. In a city that rains most of the year, how many of us can ride to work on bicycles?"

You've got to be kidding me! I ride year- round and have for 7 years. I'd be curious to know where all the drivers who go over Burrard bridge every morning are coming from. Kitts? Broadway and 16th? Anyone in a radius of up to King Edward southbound and as far west as McDonald westbound could be ANYWHERE downtown in under 15 minutes on a bike, rain or shine. I was dogsitting for a friend who owns a place on 6th at Burrard and I got to work at Pender and Howe by bike in less than ten minutes, cruising past the cars backed up going over the bridge. Though I don't think the bridge needs to be widened, I think a hell of a lot more people would be surprised at how easy it gets to ride a bike when you set your mind to it. And that isn't really rain most of the time- it's spit.

Fii

Thanks for that...and for allowing me once again to point out the fact from an earlier post...Vancouver leads the nation's big cities with 34.8% of commutes under 5 km

All of which, as you point out, could EASILY be done by bicycle.

Buses run on roads.

G West
I'd only say, at this stage of the game, building more and better highways ISN'T the way to go.

It's an absolutely essential element in any rational transportation plan. Tansit based solutions in isolation will not work to move either goods or people, anymore than highways alone would be an efficient solution. I don't know why I have to say this, but as a transit user I have observed something that seems to forever escape the attention of the "professional" transit advocates, be it Gordon Price, or Eric Doherty, or David Fields, or either of the Rees Brothers (Bill and Stpehen).

Buses run on roads, and over bridges. It is no more possible to construct a good bus system without first building a good road system than it is to build a good railroad system without first building good track lines.

And Rod

On THAT point we'll have to disgree.

It's outmoded and dangerous technology.

Continuing along those lines will be a disaster. We don't need and shouldn't build more and better highways. PERIOD

rangergord

Interesting perspective.

I suspect Monte used Drummond because he was tired of the fact that when one quotes from the CCPA it causes a lot of the right wingers in the audience to over-react and start screaming commie.

But of course you're correct. Drummond's suggestion is absurd. The last 30 years have been a disaster for working people in almost all the urban areas of the country - not just this province.

Unfortunately the guys and gals who run the papers and TV stations and the big companies are doing OK.

Or have been until the last few months.

Good luck!

Road use

"Buses run on roads, and over bridges. It is no more possible to construct a good bus system without first building a good road system than it is to build a good railroad system without first building good track lines."

Roads ARE essential to move people and goods. No argument there. Cars however, are not. They are a luxury for a few and a barrier to livable communities for many. That they are a necessity is just one of the many delusions we've been labouring under for quite some time. Reducing cars on the road means more room for efficient vehicles such as buses and essential services such as short-haul shipping.

Alive

Get rid of inheritence? What else would you like?
How about when the city is full,it`s full,by the way,the city was full 10 years ago,ban immigration,unless they want to live in prince george or fort nelson.

Why does someone who lets their property deteriorate,don`t mow the lawn,garbage everywhere,faded old siding,rotting roof.

But the person who fixes,improves,decorates,maintains their property and spends tens of thousands of dollars to do it,guess what,the guy has to pay more in property than the guy who is a lazy cheap slob.
People,seniors,poor people shouldn`t get chased off their land,why should old land,big properties bought 50 60 years ago and passed on to children,why should people get priced out of their homes?

What people pay on assessments should be based on income,if a senior get 1200.00 a year on a pension shouldn`t have to pay 8000.00 in property taxes,this is how the wealthy steal land from the citizens.

Stump... and greengreen...

I was talking about the regional highway network. And sure it must also be balanced by a regional transit network, albeit most people shun transit for a variety of reasons.

That said, the Canada Line proceeds along its own alignment with a maximum speed of 80 km/hr. Time is also money and convenience. Same for the Evergreen Line.

You know what? Another 1 million people are projected to reside in Metro Vancouver/Abbotsford/Chilliwack/Mission over the next 20 - 30 years.

And lower capacity/ slower transit modes such as buses need to be upgraded, just like the regional highway system. It only makes common sense.

greengreen:

Best investment anyone can make over the long term, just like regular housing ownership. Over the longer term, it's not really the increase in net income, so much, as the capital gains due to the low capitalization rates.

Heck, I know this one hardcore building trades unionist, who is also a hardcore federal NDP'er, and an enviro nut (although I get along with him) who made $1 million flipping a building in June, 2008. He was so happy he bought another one just thereafter but no capital gains to be achieved there for quite a while. :)

looking deeper

"albeit most people shun transit for a variety of reasons."

Yes, it's crowded and slow compared to the comfort of riding in a heavily-subsidized private vehicle. If car drivers had to pay for their choice at a comparable level to transit users, there wouldn't be a single vehicle on the road except for those belonging to the ultra-rich.

Same thing with bikes. Why don't more people use them in North America? Lack of safe facilities. Not rain. Not getting sweaty. Fear of dying.

The regional highway system doesn't really need upgrading. It needs to be run closer to its capacity. A single occupant vehicle takes up far too much space for transporting only one person. Congestion isn't due to buses, or bikes, or lack of facilities, it's due to a gross misuse of public land and public money.

Don't even get me started on the debt auto use is offloading on future generations.

Oh no you didn't

Luke,
You said:
"Only ~13% of Metro Vancouver travel is by transit. Can't see that figure increasing by much over the following decades."

To which I replied:
"Well, I guess that Canada Line money was a real waste then. As will be the Evergreen, and the lanes on the new Port Mann which will be dedicated to transit in a few years."

Now you say this????
"I was talking about the regional highway network. And sure it must also be balanced by a regional transit network, albeit most people shun transit for a variety of reasons."

C'mon man, if you going to backtrack at least sweep the trail with a branch to cover your tracks. You were talking about transit, not highways.

It's quite simple. If you want more room for cars, put more buses on the road and create a safe space for other transportation alternatives, so those who have the will to choose sustainable transportation methods can do so.

Nowhere else in the world

G West
It's outmoded and dangerous technology.

Continuing along those lines will be a disaster. We don't need and shouldn't build more and better highways. PERIOD

Nowhere else in the world besides the BC Lower Mainland would declarations like this be seen as a reasonable policy position. They would be rejected as absolutist rhetoric, not to be taken seriously by either the government or the governed.

But in BC's Lower Mainland it's part of a popular ideology that seems to have two foundations. One is an anxiety over real estate prices, and the other is occupational class imperatives over where the public's dollar should go.

Motorists subsidize transit

Stump
If car drivers had to pay for their choice at a comparable level to transit users, there wouldn't be a single vehicle on the road except for those belonging to the ultra-rich.

Motorists undoubtedly do not pay all the environmental and social costs associated with auto use. But in terms of private, market costs, they pay all of theirs, plus a sizable chunk of the transit systems market costs through the gas tax. If motorists stopped subsidizing transit users, the money would have to come out of the property tax, and then house prices would go down even more. Now ask this question. Who is the beneficiary of transit services, property owners or motorists?

Pardon me?

We don't need and shouldn't build more and better highways. PERIOD

Did I say anything about tearing up the roads and highways we already have?

Did I suggest that the ones which now exist should be allowed to crumble into disrepair?

Kindly don't accuse me of saying something I didn't.

The point is we don't need more roads and we don't need more traffic - we need less traffic and more rational public transit.

And we need better planning and sensible land use.

Tearing up more arable land to build more antiquated highways would make sense to Easter Islanders. And Gordon Campbell's friends.

Rod Smelser...

Couldn't have said it better myself. And ya know what Rod? Many moderate New Democrats such as Mike Harcourt, Mike Farnworth, et al take the same position as yourself.

To put things into further perspective, Calgary has roughly less than 50% of Metro Vancouver's population. That said, do you know what the ultimate design configuration of the SW leg of Stoney Trail will be????

16 lanes

And here in Metro Vancouver we still mostly have a 4-lane free-flow, goat trail, highway system.

As the poster BC Mary stated in another thread:

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2009/02/09/CountingChickens/

I hope not! :)

Out of context again

I'll provide the whole of Mary's post and let readers make up their own minds about why you'd have bothered to quote her is such an out of context way.

Pretty sad luke. Missed the point again.

Here's ALL of what BC Mary wrote as a comment on a column about how badly the current government has performed.

A little disingenuous don't you think?

g west...

To most people, the loonie left is actually the looney left. ;)

Luke

Regarding BC Mary's words, using a quote that had nothing to do with what you claim, well that's stooping incredibly low.

But then considering Stump caught you in another blatant lie I guess you were desperate.

Rod

The car has not been with us that long. In fact we've been a "car culture" for less than a hundred years yet you think we're going to be one for at least another hundred years?

Sort of a Jetson's thing where everything stays the same but we all zip around in $50,000 electric cars and paying $4 for each bridge we cross?

Fine, so let's say the Lower Mainland's population doubles and we double the capacity of the road network and Luke's prediction that all the new transit won't increase ridership comes to pass.

How are we better off? By expanding our road network to handle more people and more big trucks and then bringing in more people until we're at capacity again how exactly have we gained anything?

We'll all be living in sardine cans since the US border, the ocean and the mountains limit where we can put people and the roads will be as crowded as ever with 4 million electric cars. We won't be any further ahead and in fact we'll be worse off as ALR land will have to be used for housing the people you want to build all that new road capacity for.

cars and homes

"Motorists undoubtedly do not pay all the environmental and social costs associated with auto use. But in terms of private, market costs, they pay all of theirs, plus a sizable chunk of the transit systems market costs through the gas tax."

Who cares about private market costs? You're free to spend your money however you see fit, be it buying a car or a baseball card collection.

However, you're not including the cost to everyone represented by traffic enforcement, accidents (the major cause of congestion, not lack of road space), health costs, increased price of consumer goods due to higher transport costs, etc. A measly gas tax is peanuts compared to the costs to society for subsidizing private transit and beggaring public transit.

To bring us back on track again, if we had effective public options for travel, more people could afford homes, and further, development would be more attuned to fitting itself within a public transit framework and creating more livable communities across the region by reducing the amount of cars on the road.

There's no need for more highways and anyone who suggests otherwise would be well advised to parroting poll results or some other activity that won't belie their inability to comprehend the nature and scale of the challenge.

correction

Nothing worse than a good dig hobbled by a hasty posting finger.

"would be well advised to stick to parroting poll results or some other activity"

G West - Some DO want to tear things down

G West
We don't need and shouldn't build more and better highways. PERIOD

Did I say anything about tearing up the roads and highways we already have?
...

Kindly don't accuse me of saying something I didn't.

Mr West, first off, I don't think I said you had proposed removing existing highways, and I don't know why you think I did suggest that. However, you must surely know that there are other vigorous anti-highway activists who have seriously proposed doing precisely that, and with a perfectly straight face.

Gordon Price's blog has in recent weeks been gleefully celebrating the removal of the southwest traffic loop on the Granville Bridge {http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/one-last-loop/} and the City's apparent plan to remove the two north side loops so the land can be sold for lucrative condo developments {http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/update-granville-loops/}. And just the other day Price linked to remarks by the unsuccessful Liberal council candidate in Surrey, youth-blogger Paul Hillsdon, {http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/tear-down-that-viaduct/} that recommended tearing down the Georgia Viaduct.

I am curious as to what the source of your opposition to any improvements to the highway system might be. Is there some author, some book or two, that you could refer me to? Also, I would like to know specifically if you oppose the construction of the new Pitt River Bridge, or the construction of the new Golden Ears Bridge.

As to what authors I rely on, I believe that Anthony Downs makes a good, basic economic case on why expansions to the highway system will still be needed. Beyond that, I have seen work by transportation economists not resident in Vancouver which suggest that gasoline taxes should continue to pay, at least in part, for additional road infrastructure. There was an article in the Journal of Economic Literature in late 2006 on this subject, which I can send to you if you like.

Here's a basic political question for you, Mr West. If you lived in some city in Texas, say, and transportation economists at the nearby university whose chairs were funded by the auto and oil industries were all arguing enthusiastically for the construction of more and more freeways, and were harshly dismissive of any proposals for public transit, what would you think in going on? Now let's change the question. Suppose you live in Vancouver, Canada, and transportation economists in the local universities are all vehement, almost religious opponents of any expansion of the Lower Mainland's highway system (assuming its not an abuse of the language to call it a system), but were boisterous supporters of LRT projects, and it just so happened that these professors occupied chairs financed by railroad operating companies and railroad equipment manufacturers, what woud think is going on?

Stump: Who is going to pay for this transit system?

Stump
To bring us back on track again, if we had effective public options for travel, more people could afford homes, and further, development would be more attuned to fitting itself within a public transit framework and creating more livable communities across the region by reducing the amount of cars on the road.

Stump, the construction and operation of this hypothetical transit system, and remember no one agrees on what it should look like so that's a problem right there, is going to involve significant market costs, costs that must be paid every period. Debt servicing, wages, fuel, maintenance, all these things are private market costs of building and operating a transit system that cannot be escaped.

Who should pay for these costs? The transit user? The motorist? The property owner? Right now motorists pay a subsidy to public transit through the gas tax. As far as I know, cyclists don't.

Rod

This is what you posted, under my name, and including my quote, remember?

Only the words in italics are mine. The suggestion that I said, promoted, or supported any of the other things you implied I did is ludicrous.

I happen to think building more and bigger highways is wrong...and that's ALL I said on the matter; after all, the nominal subject of this thread is the cost of housing.

Call me for what I write - not for what you think I wrote.

Deal?

G West
It's outmoded and dangerous technology.

Continuing along those lines will be a disaster. We don't need and shouldn't build more and better highways. PERIOD

Nowhere else in the world besides the BC Lower Mainland would declarations like this be seen as a reasonable policy position. They would be rejected as absolutist rhetoric, not to be taken seriously by either the government or the governed.

But in BC's Lower Mainland it's part of a popular ideology that seems to have two foundations. One is an anxiety over real estate prices, and the other is occupational class imperatives over where the public's dollar should go.

"Stump, the construction and

"Stump, the construction and operation of this hypothetical transit system, and remember no one agrees on what it should look like so that's a problem right there, is going to involve significant market costs, costs that must be paid every period. Debt servicing, wages, fuel, maintenance, all these things are private market costs of building and operating a transit system that cannot be escaped.

Who should pay for these costs? The transit user? The motorist? The property owner? Right now motorists pay a subsidy to public transit through the gas tax. As far as I know, cyclists don't."

The cost of running the system to facilitate automobiles far outweighs the subsidies to the public transit system. No matter how you slice the pie, car users get a disproportionate piece for the price they pay.

Cyclists pay for facilities the same way as pedestrians. Through taxes. Further, comparing cars and bikes is pointless. One has big costs associated with its use, the other, neglible.

G West - Just Show Me!

G West
This is what you posted, under my name, and including my quote, remember?

Yes

Only the words in italics are mine. The suggestion that I said, promoted, or supported any of the other things you implied I did is ludicrous.

Yes

Call me for what I write - not for what you think I wrote.

Sure. Now just show me where I ever claimed you wanted to remove existing routes.

BTW, would you please answer this question that I asked earlier:

What user fees to cyclists pay?

Stump
The cost of running the system to facilitate automobiles far outweighs the subsidies to the public transit system. No matter how you slice the pie, car users get a disproportionate piece for the price they pay.

No, in BC car users pay gas taxes which pay for the road system plus a portion of the transit system. In other parts of Canada property taxes are the source of funds to subsidize the operation of the transit system, given that fares are not enough.

Cyclists pay for facilities the same way as pedestrians. Through taxes. Further, comparing cars and bikes is pointless. One has big costs associated with its use, the other, neglible.

The costs of cycling infrastructure on new bridges, or new dedicated cycling paths, is not insignificant. If any material percentage of the public were to start cycling on a regular basis, say as much as 5%, the costs of cycling in terms of congestion on cycling routes and injuries and fatalities among cyclists would rise substantially. Yet cyclists are uninsured. Right now this problem is small in scope, but if it were to rise significantly ICBC might have to start licening cycle commuters and charging them premiums.

Rod

We are already using a huge percentage of our land to serve the automobile.

From a PDF of collected stats from Vancouver, Burnaby and Surrey websites :

"The City of Vancouver has 2,997 Hectares of roads, streets and alleys. That equals
26.5% of the total land area of the city. In contrast Burnaby’s roads consume
27.8% of its land while Surrey’s consume 23.2%. This does not include parking or
other automobile related land uses."

As for the ALR, land is already being removed.

From the Georgia Strait :

"Premier Gordon Campbell's B.C. Liberals took office in 2001. According to the Agricultural Land Commission, 215.9 hectares of Greater Vancouver and another 412.9 hectares of the Fraser Valley Regional District were sucked out of the ALR between 2002 and 2007. In total, that's about the size of one-and-a-half Stanley Parks"

http://www.straight.com/article-177711/pressure-builds-farmland

You say we can increase the GVRD's population by 43%, increase the number of roads by at least 43% and not remove land from the ALR. I simply cannot see how you can square that circle.

It would mean using about 37% (+) of our land just for roads which means the ALR will have to be paved as there is no way we can increase the population by 43% and at the same time squeeze them and the existing population into roughly 10% less land than they take up now.

Something has to give.

Not only that but there's no rule that says population increases will stop at 43%, that's simply a cutoff year.

If we can stop the population from growing at some point in the future as the cutoff date suggests then we should think about doing so now before we lose the ALR.

Frank: How much of that is Freeways?

From a PDF of collected stats from Vancouver, Burnaby and Surrey websites :

"The City of Vancouver has 2,997 Hectares of roads, streets and alleys. That equals 26.5% of the total land area of the city. In contrast Burnaby’s roads consume 27.8% of its land while Surrey’s consume 23.2%. This does not include parking or other automobile related land uses."

What percentage of the land consumed by roads is represented by freeways, or at least highways?

Rod

I don't know. It won't open for me as a pdf, I was using an html conversion

Here's the link itself

http://dnnfreshnet-ca.sitepreview.ca/best/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=%2FIymegX9yrQ%3D&tabid=474&mid=940

your facts are wrong Rod

"The costs of cycling infrastructure on new bridges, or new dedicated cycling paths, is not insignificant. If any material percentage of the public were to start cycling on a regular basis, say as much as 5%, the costs of cycling in terms of congestion on cycling routes and injuries and fatalities among cyclists would rise substantially. Yet cyclists are uninsured. Right now this problem is small in scope, but if it were to rise significantly ICBC might have to start licening cycle commuters and charging them premiums."

About 5% of the public already cycle on a regular basis. According to Translink's own numbers, another 50% say they would probably cycle given safer facilities that separate them from the unsafe auto-dominated streetscape.

Cycling infrastructure costs a fraction of that for cars. Compared to the expense required to build similar facilitites to move the same amount of people in cars, insignificant is actually probably the best descriptor of the cost. Esp, if it consists of lane reallocation or traffic calming on residential streets adjacent to main arteries.

Why would injuries and fatalities increase, esp. if the facilities separate cyclists from their biggest threat -- the automobile? There's absolutely no reason to suspect any such thing (costs and injuries to rise substantially) will happen.

Sorry, Rod, grasping at straws and pulling out the arguments that have already been discredited by concrete examples all over the world isn't piquing my interest in this debate.

correction

"No, in BC car users pay gas taxes which pay for the road system"

I hope you're not suggesting gas taxes cover the cost of the road system. That's incorrect.

some proof re road costs

"The fact that Canadians are not adopting these alternatives to a greater extent — especially when they would often be cheaper in terms of out-of-pocket costs — shows how much users value the service qualities they get from cars and trucks: speed, convenience, flexibility, reliability and comfort. But it also reflects the fact that road users do not have to cover the whole cost of road use, because of the way governments fund road infrastructure, and because most users do not have to deal personally with some of the unwelcome social effects. If they had to do so — if road users were charged directly on each trip for the cost of maintaining the road network, as well as for the costs of congestion, environmental damage and accident risks that their road use imposes on others — it seems likely that their choices would change and more of the alternatives would be used. This possibility poses crucial policy issues for governments at all levels."

http://www.reviewcta-examenltc.gc.ca/english/pages/final/ch10e.htm

Rod - you're herding cats

I'm not as apoplectic about planners as you are. My understanding is that the Pitt River and Golden Ears bridges are already fait accompli.

Would I tear them down?

Obviously not; would I have chosen the same expedient if the matter had been up to me?

I don't know and I haven't studied it – in fairness, probably not.

I am not in favour of building more bridges and wider highways to serve automobiles and trucks; I am in favour of better public transportation. I realize we're stuck with cars and trucks in the sandbox for a few more years but I'm also convinced we’d be far better off without a whole lot more of them.

Talk to me in the dog days of August this summer when there's an pressure inversion in the Fraser Valley and the air is thick and brown and you can't see Mr. Baker any more.
Hope that helps.

Golden ears bridge

Cost being touted by Keven Falcon 600 million dollars "on time on budget"

The truth of the matter is

Bridge costs so far---1.2 billion dollars,and the bridge was supposed to be open in late 2007,

"not on time and almost double the projected cost"

Tax-payers on the hook over P3s

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1226999&sponsor=

2006 Census Data on Travel to Work

Stump
About 5% of the public already cycle on a regular basis. According to Translink's own numbers, another 50% say they would probably cycle given safer facilities that separate them from the unsafe auto-dominated streetscape.

Data from the 2006 Census of Canada show that in the Greater Vancouver Regional District 80,000 people out of a total workforce of 1,003,020 travelled to work either by bicycle or walking. This represented 8% of the total. Across British Columbia a higher percentage walked or bicycled, 8.9%, or 167,650 out of a total employed group of 1,890,055. Since these figures represent a combination of bicycling and walking the cycling percentages alone would necessarily be lower.

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CD&Code1=5915&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&Data=Count&SearchText=Greater%20Vancouver&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&GeoLevel=&GeoCode=5915

Stump, if you have a link to any Translink or GVRD data on the subject of biking or walking to work, please let me know. I would be interested to see what data they have collected.

Gas taxes do cover road system costs, plus some of transit

Stump
I hope you're not suggesting gas taxes cover the cost of the road system. That's incorrect.

Yes I am. I don't have a ready link to any particular study, but that's my understanding insofar as the BC Govt is concerned. Perhaps if one adds in municipal road costs, the picture might change. In any case, overlooking the debt financing of recent P3s, the BC Govt's fuel tax levies are designed to cover the costs of operating the BC Highway system, plus transfers to Translink and to BC Ferries.

Cyclists pay income and sales taxes, though not on bicycles, of course. They do not pay any user fees to cover the costs of bikeways, nor do they pay any insurance premiums to cover themselves or pedestrians for the costs of injuries. A single bicycle head/spinal injury can cost the nation just as much in lost productive capacity as the same injury in a motor vehicle or industrial accident.

My wife is a speech language pathologist. Some years ago one of her adult clients was a middle aged man who had nearly killed himself going over the handlebars of his bike on a steeply sloped street. There was no motor vehicle involved. His working life ended at that point, and all my wife was trying to do was get enough of his speech back that he could communicate in a rudimentary fashion with family and care-givers.

Stump: Two more paragraphs from the Transport Cda Review

Here are two additional paragraphs from the Transport Canada Review you linked to:

Golden Ears and Pitt River supported by all parties

G West
I don't know and I haven't studied it – in fairness, probably not.

I gather this is a way of saying no, but trying not to make a big deal out of it.

As a Maple Ridge resident I can tell you that while everyone expects these projects to have their downsides, most see a net benefit, and anyone opposing them would be well advised not to seek public office at any level. No local politician, regardless of party or level of government, has opposed either project.

Going back a few years, much of the initial push to get work going on the Golden Ears project came from the former Speaker of the Legislature and former Mayor of Maple Ridge, Bill Hartley. His successor, Michael Sather, has also taken the position that this is a good project in principal, though he has objected to the particular alignment of one of the access roads, which cut through an organic blueberry farm.

Rod

Its only hearsay but I know several Maple Ridge friends who were upset once the Maple Ridge News published an article saying tolls would be around $9 for a round trip across across the river and that the ferry would no longer be an option.

I was only over there to watch HNIC but it was the subject of discussion for over an hour and no one was onside.

On a related note there are people who live on one side of the river and work on the other who have said they will have to change jobs because with the ferry gone they won't be able to afford the tolls estimated between $120 and $180 a month.

Rod - what do you want?

I said I didn't know, hadn't studied the options but that I have a bias against more and bigger roads. I'd say that's about as straightforward and honest as I can be.

Clearly the gas tax ISN'T covering the cost of roads AND as you well know, grants from the Feds are pretty fickle things to bet the farm on. Take into consideration the amount of land alienated from production for needless roads and bridges, have a look at what's happening in other jurisdictions (my ancestral home is Coventry) and maybe you'll see why I think the way I do.

Anyway, the subject here is really supposed to be the cost of housing. It's no doubt that much of the roads' infrastructure is a question of catering to the needs of commuters who live in the valley because they can't afford the prices in the big smoke.

Maybe solving housing is the real way to eliminate the need for more roads and new 10 lane bridges.

BTW, since you love new bridges and stuff, why didn't Campbell and Falcon do something about that mess between Surrey and New West. Seems to me it is far more in need of replacement than the Port Mann?

BTW about Coventry

You might be interested - there was an interesting pdf available at this address:

www.coventry.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/download/asset/?asset_id=17773679

I assume it's still there.

Why don't they take the bus?

Frank
... tolls would be around $9 for a round trip across across the river ...

With a transponder it will be a bit less, more like $6 or so if memory serves.

On a related note there are people who live on one side of the river and work on the other who have said they will have to change jobs because with the ferry gone they won't be able to afford the tolls estimated between $120 and $180 a month.

In that case they could take the bus over the bridge, for a return bus fare of about $6 and save on gas, insurance, etc.

road costs

Hi Rod:

Any calculation of road costs is incomplete without factoring in accidents, enforcement etc.

As to the gent who got hurt, ask your wife how many victims of cars she's worked with. Or ask an undertaker.. they get most of that business.

bike/ped accidents overall are so few as to be statistically insignificant.

Here's some info on the untapped potential for cycling in the region,

"Cyclists pay income and sales taxes, though not on bicycles, of course. They do not pay any user fees to cover the costs of bikeways"

Which bikeways? They are practically non-existent and the ones there are are also walking facilities. You can't say the same for roads.

"nor do they pay any insurance premiums to cover themselves or pedestrians for the costs of injuries."

see above comment. They are just so uncommon that there's no more need for insurance for such an occurence than there is for snowblower insurance for the chance a neighbbour kid will stick his head in one.

A single bicycle head/spinal injury can cost the nation just as much in lost productive capacity as the same injury in a motor vehicle or industrial accident."

Of course it can. an injury is an injury. The issue is which mode of transportation is so dangerous and frequent that we've come to consider the carnage to be just part of the landscape.

Some Translink stats on potential increases in cycling:
http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/359068/2003/Section11.pdf

It's simple, but unfortunate. The most efficient transportation machine on the planet is stuck fighting for space between cars and pedestrians. Any government worth its paycheques would be fixing this problem. Now that Vancouver Council actually does so, the vocal and irrational car lobby starts honking.

Fuel taxes do cover the market costs of the road system

G West
I said I didn't know, hadn't studied the options but that I have a bias against more and bigger roads. I'd say that's about as straightforward and honest as I can be.

To be blunt, Mr West, it sounds like you're dodging and weaving. Men like Stephen Rees and Gordon Price would never stand for this kind of waffling, you're either opposed 101% or else you're suspect!

Clearly the gas tax ISN'T covering the cost of roads AND as you well know, grants from the Feds are pretty fickle things to bet the farm on. Take into consideration the amount of land alienated from production for needless roads and bridges, have a look at what's happening in other jurisdictions (my ancestral home is Coventry) and maybe you'll see why I think the way I do.

Have they banned all road construction in Coventry? The study which Stump linked to clearly stated, in the paragraphs I quoted, that the motorists are paying the all the market costs of the road system. If there are other environmental and social costs not being paid, that's another issue. The point is that in terms of today's must-pay costs for labour, capital and equipment, fuel and supplies, the motorist in BC is paying for the road system plus a good part of the transit system.

If the motorist is expected to pay all those other, non-market costs, and gas goes to $2.00 plus per litre through additional taxes, then the ability of motorists to support the transit system is going to decrease.

" ... at least once during the past six months." LOL!

From Stump's Translink report:

Well, I think it's a positive development that Translink's officials have finally chosen a realistic radius of about 5km as their target market for increased cycle commuting. That's a vast improvement over the unspecified imagineering I have seen in the past.

However, their survey which identifies as a potential regular cyclist anyone who cycled even once in the past half year is a bit of a joke.

Rod

You're claiming that increasing the costs of commuting will have no effect on people because they have alternatives.

I assume the next logical step in this user pay system is to make people pay for every km they drive into town?

In the past the NDP has been against things like user pay systems that keep out those without the ability to pay and have preferred to build things everyone can use and to pay for it with a progressive tax system.

If they have now changed their minds on this key point they should say so.

commuting distances

Translink is free to choose whatever number (5km) they like.

In the real world, any adult fit enough to walk ten blocks can ride ten km in less than an hour. Considering how long it takes to drive the same distance at rush hour, we're back to the question why don't people ride their bikes. And once again, the answer is fear for their life. Build the bike facilities and the roads will suddenly get added capacity as car drivers abandon their vehicles for more sensible options. The benefits to housing that come from such facilities fare outweigh the benefits offered by even more roads.

" the market costs of the

" the market costs of the road system"

Red herring. The road system can't function without the entire population subsidizing all the other costs.

Nope Rod

It's a complex world. The only simple thing about it is the kind of nonsense we tend to get from many politicians.

Brian Mulroney's going to be on TV tomorrow to tell us how thrilled he is that Lizzy May and a couple other folks picked him as the 'greenest' PM ever.

I didn't catch your response to my point about that bridge between Whalley and New West.

Are you dodging that one?

And I still don't think fuel taxes cover the market cost of roads.

No matter what transport canada says about it.

Not a reg herring at all

Stump
Red herring. The road system can't function without the entire population subsidizing all the other costs.

How is the rest of society subsidizing all these other costs? In the case of accidents, which is the biggest cost, the rest of society is simply ignoring a lot of those costs. Deaths and injuries are partly compensated through insurance that drivers pay for, while those costs not covered by insurance are simply left uncovered. Please don't pretend that someone else is generously stepping up to the plate. They most certainly are not.

The point remains that the BC transit system cannot function without the subsidies it is getting from motorists. If motorists aren't paying all their true costs, that doesn't mean they aren't at the same time paying some of the market costs of operating the transit system. Gas taxes are diverted in BC for that purpose.

Facts don't matter in BC populist politics

G West
I didn't catch your response to my point about that bridge between Whalley and New West.

Are you dodging that one?

If Translink - as presently constituted - replaces the Patullo Bridge it will be a P3 just like Golden Ears, with tolls. There will be another debate over how many lanes the new structure should be. The anti-freeway people will insist that the new bridge be restricted to the same four lanes as the old one.

It will be interesting to see what position is taken on that point by Corrigan's Burnaby, which has been a vehement critic of any expansion at Port Mann, but has been an advocate of a new Patullo crossing. Will Corrigan, assisted by Luksun and Ramsey, seriously argue that an entirely new structure be built at a cost of hundreds of millions, but that it be restricted to the same capacity as the one it's replacing, except for a slight increase due to better lane widths?

Corrigan's Burnaby has also been silent, so far as I know, on the issue of tolls on any new Patullo crossing. Most interestingly, Corrigan's Burnaby has advocated the imposition of substantial TDMs (transportation demand management) measures at all access points to Hwy 1 in what they call "the valley towns", but has not advocated the imposition of comparable measures on Burnaby on-ramps to the same Hwy 1. Gee whiz, Mr West, why do you suppose that might be?

I think a new crossing there is needed because the original structure was under-engineered in terms of lane widths, and would have little durability in even a mid-size earthquake. It should be a six or eight lane crossing, and tolls will be needed. It should not be a P3. To provide for equitable tax treatment of all Lower Mainland residents, a new provincial tolling policy should re-impose tolls on all major bridges/tunnels in the region, so that tolls will be lower but collected on all structures from all sections and all income classes in the region.

And I still don't think fuel taxes cover the market cost of roads.

No matter what transport canada says about it.

You know, it's a funny thing, but I kind of figured that. Facts don't matter, unless they fit the received doctrine. That's one of the core principles of BC populist politics. Tell me Mr West, have you ever gone to a political convention and shouted the word "unanimously" into a live microphone?

The Carbon Tax

I've been vocally against the Campbell Tax because it's nothing more than a stupid and feckless money spinner.

If the CEO had taken the proceeds of the Carbon Tax and funneled it directly into paying for a sensible and rational effort to build decent LRT systems wherever needed, to encourage conversion to natural gas fuel for trucks and industrial equipment and to find ways to enable people to live rationally without using the private automobile I'd have had a hard time criticizing him.

In fact, I'd have had to swallow hard and give him credit for making a hard and proper choice....just like I had to reluctantly pat Flaherty and Harper on the back when they phased out income trusts and prevented the sale of Macdonald Detweiler.

I wouldn't have enjoyed it, but I'd have done it.

That's what it means, in my view, to live in a complex world.

Fortunately, Campbell and his idiot advisers (and on that I agree with you Rod) haven't got the sense necessary to realize how badly they've cocked it up.

A new principle of finance: Motorist pay, not user pay

Stump
In the real world, any adult fit enough to walk ten blocks can ride ten km in less than an hour.

Sure. But they may have other things to do, such as dropping a child at day care, or picking up goods along the way. Cycling isn't feasible for everyone.

And once again, the answer is fear for their life. Build the bike facilities and the roads will suddenly get added capacity as car drivers abandon their vehicles for more sensible options. The benefits to housing that come from such facilities fare outweigh the benefits offered by even more roads.

Well, if they fear for their lives, perhaps there is some risk to cyclists after all. Do you think they should carry insurance? Or should it be up to the motorist to insure? What about accidents where the cyclist was at fault?

Who is going to pay the costs of building these bicycle routes, given that you are opposed to requiring cyclists to pay? Would I be right in guessing that the motorist is your candidate?

Rod

NEVER.

Never been to a political convention of any kind....don't intend to start now.

I met Tommy Douglas twice, once as a boy and once as an adult...that's pretty much my political education - and I belong to no political party.

I have good reasons for not accepting Transport Canada's figures and they have a lot to do with facts and figures.

Sorry Rod

There's no amount of common sense that's enough to change your mind. I'd sooner spend my energies on people with open minds.

cheers.

Rod

To sum up, you're for tolls across the GVRD, think at least 37% of the Lower Mainland's land should be used for roads by 2030 and that bikes shouldn't be on them.

If the NDP ever decided to adopt such a platform they'd cease to exist as there's only room for one BC Liberal party.

Cycling

They do it in other countries....

http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Denmark/General/Cycling_in_Denmark.html

Money quote:

Every single Dane cycles 3 kilometers every single day all his life. On average of course. In a country where the prime minister is often seen on a 3-speed bicycle just about everything has to planned better for cyclists.

You will soon feel this when you arrive in Denmark. You will find bicycle paths, sign posted routes for cyclists and special bicycle areas on camping sites.

You will also find a beautifull well kept country which will provide you with sights and adventures for several weeks. Denmark does not have any challenging mountain passes, but plenty of small winding roads - and if you think Denmark is flat. Well, we would just like to hear your oppinion when you have actually been here.

It seems that Denmark is especially well suited for a family vacation. Plenty of beaches for the kids, quiet back roads with very little traffic (is has to be that way in a country with 180% tax on new cars), no killing mountain passes, and short distances to just about everything.

Just bring your bicycle and the right summer-time-vacation mood. You will surely have a wonderfull time.

And something a little more academic

http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irresistible.pdf

Money quotes (I apolgize for the formatting)

... it may come as a surprise to sceptical readers that there are technologically
advanced, affluent countries that have managed to make cycling a mainstream
mode of transport, a perfectly normal way to get around cities. In the Netherlands,
Germany and Denmark, cycling levels are more than ten times higher than in the
UK and the USA. Dutch, German and Danish women cycle as often as men, and
rates of cycling fall only slightly with age.

Moreover, cycling is distributed evenly
across all income groups. In the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, cycling is truly for everyone and for all trip purposes.

Moreover, cycling in those countries is not viewed as requiring expensive
equipment, advanced training, or a high degree of physical fitness. Nor are cyclists forced to muster the courage and willingness to battle motorists on streets without separate bike lanes or paths. On the contrary, Dutch, German and Danish cyclists ride on simple, inexpensive bikes, almost never wear special cycling outfits, and rarely use safety helmets. Even timid, risk-averse and safety-conscious individuals can be found cycling, unlike the many millions of Americans and Britons who are terrified by the mere thought of getting on a bike.

As documented in this article, cycling was not always thriving in the Netherlands,
Germany and Denmark. Cycling levels plummeted in all three countries
from about 1950 to 1975 (Dutch Bicycling Council, 2006). It was only through a
massive reversal in transport and urban planning policies in the mid-1970s that
cycling was revived to its current successful state. In 1950, cycling levels were higher in the UK than they are now in Germany: almost 15% of all trips. Just as in these other countries, cycling in the UK plummeted from 1950 to 1975, but British
cycling never recovered. It continued to fall to its current level of 1.3% of trips,
only slightly higher than the 0.9% bike share of trips in the USA (U.S. Department
of Transportation, 2003; Department for Transport, 2007).

STUMP: I'll ask my co-worker, an actual cyclist

Stump
There's no amount of common sense that's enough to change your mind.

A most perceptive observation from someone who maintains that every fit adult can ride a bike everywhere, regardless of other committments or responsibilities they have.

I think I'll ask my co-worker who is an actual bike commuter, about 3km each day from the West End to downtown, whether he fears for his life, or whether he used to fear for his life before he started cycling, but has now overcome that fear.

In the meantime, who do you think should pay for the kind of bike infrastructure you desire, and how much would it cost?

FRANK: Pure party politics all the time

Frank
If the NDP ever decided to adopt such a platform they'd cease to exist as there's only room for one BC Liberal party.

That's actually a very, very revealing statement Frank, because it puts everything else you've said into context. This is all just party politics for you, and there's a certain kind of leftist political fashion statement you want to maintain, no matter what. Roads and public transit are not economic policy choices for you. They're just purely political, electoral symbols that you choose to say you support or oppose depending on what kind of voters you're fishing for.

Rod

Have a look at the study.

Okay.

Surely if the Danes, the Dutch and the Germans can handle it without going broke we can too.

Wouldn't you think?

Rod

What's revealing is you don't want to defend your point of view.

Why not state you think 37% of the land mass being devoted to roads for roads is not enough?

Why not state you think the ALR should be handed over to developers since you seem immune to the fact that part of it already has?

Why not state that you think people who can't afford hundreds of dollars a month in tolls should take the bus?

Why not state that you think the transportation system of the Lower Mainland should serve those who want to live in Maple Ridge and work in Vancouver?

Fact is, if you find it too hard to defend what you write when challenged and would instead prefer to continue to play in the gutter I'm happy to oblige, I find it fun.

Canadian Flyer

Ah yes, it's so easy to cite facile studies that blithely say that 28% of all bike trips are within 5 km, as if it's done in the convenience of a gym. But, the fact is many people have good reasons not to make a bike a regular mode of transportation. If the cycling activists can't understand this then they truly represent the worst of clique behaviour in BC. And, have you seen some of the horrific injuries cyclists can suffer on our roads? I would rather spend the money on a car and fuel to avoid living the rest of my life in a wheelchair. I'm certainly not going to be a martyr for the cycling cause.

The growth of the Lower Mainland's population requires growth in both roads and public transport. The problem is that the decisions for both of these have occurred far too slowly. Like it or not, cars are here to stay. Unfortunately, we have city planners who over the years thought that by making it very inconvenient to travel by car, somehow magically people will come to their senses and hop on buses or cycle. This is a silly fantasy that only reduces economic productivity, increases pollution.

Underneath our political leadership, our govt bureaucracies are dominated by elderly hippies and old school Marxists who are disinterested in economic activity and very interested in social engineering. They should stick to building roads and infrastructure.

Bikes and the ALR

From a Van City report just recently released:

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20090217/documents/tt1.pdf

As for ALR land and highways, Hwy 99 runs through ALR land in Richmond and Delta.

And who wants to double the capacity of the Massey Tunnel and Hwy 99? None other than former NDP MLA and Richmond councillor Harold Steves, who is also a strong ALR advocate.

And who was just last week demanding the construction of interchanges along Hwy 7 in Pitt Meadows? None other than local NDP MLA Michael Sather.

Go figure.

Green Party anyone? ;)

Bobby

Did you read the material from, and about Denmark?

Hang out in the gym all you want - the real action is elsewhere.

There's a name for people who continue to do the same foolish things even after they know there are alternatives.

Bobby Peru

"The growth of the Lower Mainland's population requires growth in both roads and public transport."

That growth comes at the expense of either the ALR or property that people live on Bobby. Unless you're planning on filling in the Georgia Strait, levelling the mountains or annexing Washington State.

Misrepresentation

Rod:

"A most perceptive observation from someone who maintains that every fit adult can ride a bike everywhere, regardless of other committments or responsibilities they have."

Nowhere have I said that. Why are you lying and misrepresenting what I've said? What purpose does it serve? It just makes you sound scared and angry at the thought of change. Is that your p.o.v?

Bob:
"But, the fact is many people have good reasons not to make a bike a regular mode of transportation. If the cycling activists can't understand this then they truly represent the worst of clique behaviour in BC. And, have you seen some of the horrific injuries cyclists can suffer on our roads? "

As pointed out upthread... and many countries comparable to Canada have a far higher number of cyclists and consequently less drain on the public purse to cater to automobile use. The important point here is why do the people who WOULD ride bikes choose not to? Again we come back to issues of safety over and above all others. This is a very fixable problem with inexpensive solutions. The bigger question is why do you ignore the evidence and continue with this questionable line of thinking? The simple logic that more bike paths also means more road space for those who can't or won't choose to use a bus or walk, or bike, for some reason, continually escapes critics, yet it's the most basic and sensible reason for them. If people can't see the simple stuff, one wonders why bother trying to discuss with them the nuances and details?

As to injuries, that's why rational people don't consider separate, protected road space or dedicated paths for cyclists an unreasonable idea. The question of cost is silly. A bike path costs a fraction of the equivalent roadway and makes cycling for transportation a viable option for children, families, and older people too. The benefits over its lifespan more than outweigh the costs.

"Like it or not, cars are here to stay. "

Certainty of opinion always gives me a giggle. I'm reminded of the IBM exec. who claimed there wasn't a market for more than a few hundred computers worldwide just a few decades ago.

Frankly, when I see the glum faces stuck in traffic every day at Clark and Broadway, and the smiling cyclists travelling on Tenth Ave, I find it hard to reach any other conclusion other than the dislike of cycling must stem from envy. You think you can't join the club, but believe me, you couldn't be more welcome.

And then there's Luke

Who never let any thread go untainted by his mono-mania for divisive party politics. What a bore. We're talking solutions here Skywalker. Guess what? Maybe people can't be pigeon-holed the way you'd like.

I lol'ed

"Sure. But they may have other things to do, such as dropping a child at day care, or picking up goods along the way. Cycling isn't feasible for everyone."

My kid gives me grief when we DON'T go to daycare by bike.

I don't mean to be rude, but this line of thinking demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge regarding what's possible and practical without using a car. It also points out the all or nothing solution that no one is advocating, unless it's narrow-minded critics seeking to misrepresent the beliefs of others.

Housing and Transportation Politics

The author Monte Paulsen wanted this thread to stay on track, to be about the subject of affordable housing, or more particularly the lack thereof in Greater Vancouver. He could well have added Greater Victoria and to some degree the Okanagan to that. He wanted people to talk about their actual personal circumstances, their housing, what it's costing, and how they are able to afford that, how much they make in other words.

I tried to do that in a post where I reported what I have paid for my house and what the household income is.

Generally though the thread has run into the usual nexus of real estate and transportation ideologies, and personal self-image politics, which tends to become provincial party politics. People adopt positions on issues to match their previously selected party alignment, which was in turn chosen to match their personal socio-economic circumstances.

I don't think there's anything peculiar in general about the second part, that is, chosing the political party that most closely matches one's needs based on one's socio-economic status. That's routine behaviour in any democracy.

What's peculiar about the BC Lower Mainland variant is that personal socio-economic status is not measured rationally in dollars and cents terms. Instead a host of qualitative factors, from religion to lifestyle to particular neighborhood to type of job and education (rather than what it pays) are added up into a total package that has to fit the party choice.

The result is that any party hoping to appeal to people making the same incomes, and living in housing that would sell for the same price, in either Point Grey or East Vancouver, or either Burnaby or Maple Ridge, is facing a very difficult if not impossible task. As usual, the right wing parties, who have the support of the commercial mass media, have an easier time mediating these conflicts that does the left, which never met an unresolvable conundrum it could ever stop talking about.

In any case, I wish Carole James good luck on this, but I am not optimistic. She has said most recently that the Port Mann bridge is needed. But the BC Liberals are harping on an earlier statement which put that position in doubt, and then there's the fact that David Chudnovsky, completely committed to the anti-highways position, was the highways critic for three or more years.

My personal fear for the last several years is that the Port Mann Bridge issue will be to the 2009 election what the Annacis Island Bridge issue was for the 1979 election, the public works issue that wins the province for the incumbent coalition government, Socreds then, Liberals now.

Stump: I agree, and I too laughed!

It also points out the all or nothing solution that no one is advocating, unless it's narrow-minded critics seeking to misrepresent the beliefs of others.

Stump, it's funny you should say that. I agree, there's a lot of that kind of thing that goes on. All or nothing false dichotomies, an old debating trick that got old because it works so well, 90% or more of the time!

Rod

I think you're wrong about how people pick their politics - at least how people who think about it do.

And that's why I posted the very first comment I wrote on this thread.

Here it is again, from 2 days ago:

Although there is evidence that people tend to be more truthful online than on the phone, the idea that an 'anonymous' disclosure of one's living conditions adds anything to the discussion is tendentious at best.

In my view it will provide little more than a grandstand for those who wish to brag and promote the 'success' of a particular point of view and the 'failure' of others.

Although I don't disagree with your theses Monte, I'm afraid this exercise isn't going to get us very far in exploring and understanding the problem and its genesis. It may provide some interesting insights into the ‘character’ or lack thereof of various unnamed participants in these debates.

Disclosing the 'fact' that two thirds of the province’s population can't afford suitable and decent housing is not particularly helpful and far from ground-breaking.

Organizing the grass roots into mounting an effective 'political' response - now that's another matter.

Colonial Thinking

Frank
Why not state you think 37% of the land mass being devoted to roads for roads is not enough?

Why not state you think the ALR should be handed over to developers since you seem immune to the fact that part of it already has?

As you know, Frank, I never said either of these things. In fact, I don't think anyone did. You must be imagining things.

Why not state that you think the transportation system of the Lower Mainland should serve those who want to live in Maple Ridge and work in Vancouver?

Yes, I do think people in Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and Mission are entitled to a fair allocation of the Translink dollar, and that trips from all the outer suburbs to the inner city should be fast and safe. I reject the Stephen Rees type of colonial thinking which states that people who choose to live in outer suburbs have no right to demand equitable treatment.

That's why I ride the West Coast Express to work at a cost of $180 per month. It's one of the two or three best things the NDP ever did, thanks in large part to local MLAs Bill Hartley and Mike Farnworth, and to the Minister at the time, Glen Clark

You will notice that the Express is such good service, and such a sensible innovation that any expansion to it has been stubbornly resisted by all the authorities, and certainly all the local government politicians from the other parts of the Metro region. By providing reasonably fast service (with track improvements it certainly could be faster) from the outer suburbs to the downtown core the WCE violates the GVRD's long standing policy of refusing to plan for efficient trips over longer distances, instead proclaiming that people should be encouraged to work close to home.

That's why the GVRD insists on LRT only, not heavy rail, because it's their policy in terms of land use (READ: real estate prices) to keep the time cost of travel over longer distances high enough so as to discourage longer distance commuting.

In terms of world class cities, it's the exact opposite of what's been observed to be the comparative advantage of metropolitan areas in production and trade, mainly work and trade throughout the region rather than just within localized pockets and precincts.

But the latter is what Lower Mainland municipal pols want, trade and investment within the boundaries of their particular bailiwick, hence the talk about regional town centres connected by LRT lines, with people living in apartments three blocks from work and two blocks from the store. It's an idealized vision, similar to Mr Gordon Price's celebratory write-ups of the West End and Yaletown, which always remind me of a Normal Rockwell painting of small town life. All the flaws and warts have been removed and everything looks so nice.

long distance commuting

I'm another one of those evil people who lives in Maple Ridge and commutes to a job in downtown Vancouver via West Coast Express, which moves several thousand people every day. In our case, the choice came down to the fact that my husband worked in Surrey and I was in downtown, and that we couldn't afford to buy a decent home (as in four walls and a roof that didn't leak in a neighbourhood you felt safe to walk through) in the areasthat the purists think "deserve" to be served by transit (Vancouver/Burnaby/etc.). Renting wasn't an option for us due to the specialized renovations required to accommodate my live-in mother's disability - no landlord we spoke to would allow their property to have ramps or lifting equipment added.

For some people, a longer commute isn't a choice, it's a financial necessity.

Rod

I hope you're not suggesting gas taxes cover the cost of the road system. That's incorrect.

Yes I am. I don't have a ready link to any particular study, but that's my understanding insofar as the BC Govt is concerned. Perhaps if one adds in municipal road costs, the picture might change. In any case, overlooking the debt financing of recent P3s, the BC Govt's fuel tax levies are designed to cover the costs of operating the BC Highway system, plus transfers to Translink and to BC Ferries.

They don't. I made this point some time ago, so the figures are 2005, not current, but you tell me how much has changed. The 2005 BC Budget noted $450 million received in fuel and road taxes, and the Ministry of Highways contract spending on maintenance and operations was $1.1 billion.

So you have to add to it the taxes paid to the feds, which don't come back to the provinces as toad subsidies, and taxes paid to municipalities, which also don't cover Translink operations, which is scrambling to find ways to fund a $125 million shortfall this year, and bigger ones each year after that.

Transportation is a public good - we all benefit from it. But that doesn't mean you should get to do it the way you want. If you want personal service - ie being able to cram the maximum utility into your day - you should have to pay for it. Unfortunately, there isn't any ready measure of utility in transportation, as opposed to luxury, which is why we're getting into this nonsense debate about what's a legitimate transportation expense.

Just accept your subsidy-per-mile-travelled for living in the 'burbs and move on.

No solution

I kind of think Ilahie is right. The solution to high housing prices is high housing prices. I wold add a reform to the tax system to that, but that's for another thread.

I watched in bemusement as the neighbourhood I grew up in changed from single-family earners to two family-earners as prices went up. The determining factor seemed to be what you could afford to pay, not what the property was truly worth. And it was confirmed for me when I looked at property up north years later. But it's important to get things in the right order - house prices went up because families had two incomes, not the other way around.

And now, two-income families are the norm, based on that justification, avidly sold by the ink-stained pop sociologists in the print media. And now with the advent of "monster houses" in the early '80s, the city has been changing to multi-income families now, and so I imagine that in a few years if nothing changes, that the only people who will be living in houses in Vancouver will be extended families and scam artists, and that will be the new norm.

Which doesn't say much for our collective intelligence as a species...

Rod

"As you know, Frank, I never said either of these things. In fact, I don't think anyone did. You must be imagining things."

I asked you to state them. Why would I do that if you already had?

As for the West Coast Express, I did a word search on this page and can't find any reference I made to it, you must be imagining things. If you're asking me now what I think of it, I'm all for it, have been since Day 1.

The point I did make was that thinking we can continue to increase the population and build oodles of more roads to serve that increasing population without impacting the ALR is a fairy tale.

Rhea: Some transit "experts" don't like the WCE

Rhea
I'm another one of those evil people who lives in Maple Ridge and commutes to a job in downtown Vancouver via West Coast Express, which moves several thousand people every day.

Rhea, it's good to know that someone out there agrees that the West Coast Express is a service that should not be kept.

But there are many professional transit advocates who don't like the West Coast Express. Their stated reason is that they say it "automobile dependent sprawl". You can see this on page 15 of this report done for the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation by Eric Doherty, one of SPEC's two urban transportation experts:

http://www.spec.bc.ca/textfiles/Transport%20for%20a%20Sustainable%20Region.pdf

When you add up the requirements in Doherty's prescriptions, you soon realize that it rules out any transit solution for lower density suburbs like Maple Ridge. Doherty is seriously suggesting that if a person drives 5kms to a park and ride so they can take a train for 50kms, ... that's no good! There's too much driving!

Rod

Rhea, it's good to know that someone out there agrees that the West Coast Express is a service that should not be kept.

Um, tell me again where I said that? I think it should be kept. It keeps a lot of single occupancy vehicles off the road, which is supposedly the point of public transit, no? The alternative to no transit to the valley is either mass unemployment or gridlock. Regardless of what morons like Doherty suggest, not all jobs can be done remotely, and it's more feasible for people to bus/carpool/drive to a fixed access point for transit than not to take it at all. I do support the government making the option for telecommuting mandatory for any job that could be enabled, and for scattering the business base outside the Vancouver area. Previous posters have already mentioned the whole fiefdom concept prevalent in the inner Vancouver area. From where I stand, it appears that Vancouver wants to hang on to all the business tax base in the Lower Mainland while keeping residential prices so high that workers can't afford any other options than living outside the area in the suburbs. And then to cap it, instead of focusing on effective transit, they suck it all into project boondoggles like RAV and the Sea to Sky while shortchanging those who need better transit the most. For probably half the cost of the S2S, they could have revived the Interurban line as a light rail option for the Southern Valley.

Rhea: A typo!

Rhea

Rod

I think the West Coast Express is a great thing too - just too bad we don't have more of the same serving other communities instead of the ridiculous toy transit thingy called skytrain.

cheers

Rod

"Personally, rather than revive the Interurban I would like to see another WCE style train launched from Pacific Central Station to Surrey, Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack."

I would like to see that too.

So why isn't more commuter rail on the agenda?

Frank, G West

It's really nice, positively heartwarming in fact, to know you two gentleman think the WCE is a good thing, particularly since you're opposed to the construction of both the Golden Ears and Pitt River Bridges, as well as any new Port Mann structure. It's especially reassuring in view of the previously expressed notion that anyone who "think[s] the transportation system of the Lower Mainland should serve those who want to live in Maple Ridge and work in Vancouver" is being unduly selfish, is demanding something unreasonable.

Translink said they were going to do a long term study of the future of the WCE. But nothing is moving on that study AFAIK. The trains are full much of the time, but no more cars are on order, and no more track time is being arranged.

The Premier's $14B transit scheme says nothing about the WCE, let alone about any further heavy rail services.

Environmental/transit "advocates" (so they would have people believe), from SPEC to BEST to the DSF say nothing about more heavy rail services. They all seem to preach the Doherty Line that these services are urban sprawl promoters. They want buses, LRT and streetcars, and their usual mantra of biking and walking. But for the buses, they refuse any provision for new highways, which defeats the purpose of the bus.

If these environmental/transit types get their way, we in the Ridge Meadows area will eventually get some kind of LRT extension off the Evergreen line. And then the WCE will be cancelled, because taxpayers in the rest of Metro won't tolerate having two subsidized rail services going to the NE sector. Once that happens, it will take 90 minutes to get from Ridge-Meadows to Waterfront on a combination of LRT lines, versus 45 minutes on the WCE, which time could be reduced with track improvements.

I and others in Ridge-Meadows and Mission would regard that as a major deterioration in travel times. But the GVRD planning gnomes and their colleagues at Burnaby and Vancouver City Halls would be positively delighted, because they firmly believe that trips over longer distances need to be made as difficult as possible in order to "encourage" people to live close to their workplaces, regardless of property prices, and regardless of whether there are one, or two, or more earners in the household who may work at very different locations, and regardless of what happens in the case of job change or job loss. That's the official policy that's encapsulated in both Transport 2021 and the much ballyhooed LRSP, and which is pumped daily by such "urbanist" bloggers as Stephen Rees and Gordon Price.

Rod

Rod, that's just not fair - roll back up the thread and read what I wrote about both Golden Ears and Pitt River....and I certainly never said any such thing as what you've alleged above.

I know you have a point to make, and you argue it effectively and well, but putting words into other folks mouths doesn't help your cause a bit.

Cheers - I'll be in the big smoke on the weekend and I'll try to get stuck in a traffic jam if I can manage.

G West: I did roll back up

G West
Rod, that's just not fair - roll back up the thread and read what I wrote about both Golden Ears and Pitt River....and I certainly never said any such thing as what you've alleged above.

When I did roll back up, this is what I found:

"... My understanding is that the Pitt River and Golden Ears bridges are already fait accompli.

Would I tear them down?

Obviously not; would I have chosen the same expedient if the matter had been up to me?

I don't know and I haven't studied it – in fairness, probably not."

I would suggest that the "probably not" phrase is the core of the matter, and that's what I was referring to.