Bizarre Gateway Arguments
By b5baxter@drupal.org on June 8, 2007 - 10:42am
The arguments of proponents of the Greater Vancouver Gateway Project keep getting more bizarre.
First, they tried to use the news that BC has reduced it's green house gas emissions to argue that we need to exapnd highways.
Except the fact is that BC reduced emissions during a period when we were NOT building highways but instead making limited investments in public transit. Why would we want to reverse this trend and invest money in highways instead of transit? Especially when the the reduction we have seen is only one tenth of the Province's own modest emissions targets? And when even the Province admits that the Gateway project will increase GHG emissions?
Now, they are trying to argue that the increased use of hybrids means we should support the Gateway program.
These are the same people that tried to argue that the Gateway program would reduce pollution from idling (even though there is no evidence to support this happening for more than a short time period). Aren't they aware that hybrids like the Prius don't produce pollution while idling and that as hybrids become more popular it renders one of their chief arguments mute?
Powered by ScribeFire.
Your arguements against the Gateway are bizarre. How do you expect to carry more goods on public transport? How will the plumber carry his tools on the bus? And the Prius? The average working person can't afford to buy it. Most BC people have common sense and know that we desparately need more highways.
Only 8-10% of the traffic on the Port Mann bridge is truck traffic. If we offer alternatives to the SOV communters we could free up part of this 90-92% capacity for more truck traffic and the plumbers with their tools.
There is still plenty of capacity for goods movement without expanding highways.
There are other options for goods movement as well - barges, rail, etc.
As for the cost of Prius - my point is that we should NOT rely on the Prius as a solution. We should be looking to make public transit a better option for those that can use it. That would save the average working person thousands of dollars a year.
Sorry, baxter, your arguments are tired and don't make sense if you spend anytime at all on Vancouver's roads. Truck traffic is rapidly increasing and trucks are mired in gridlock. That wastes even more time and money.
There is not enough capacity outside of highways. It's a fallacy to think that barges and rail can do the job. Common sense says they can't substitute for road movement directly to plants and warehouses.
Our roads haven't been enlarged since the 80s. Doesn't that make sense?
And the impossible dream of encouraging the 90% of commuters to use public transport will never happen even if you provide the buses. Lots of people in Vancouver need their car. Vancouver is not NY, Tokyo or Hong Kong where there's enough population density to support extensive public transport. And your strategy of hope over reality simply takes too long to work and in the meantime traffic keeps building. The economy needs certainty not wishful thinking.
"...trucks are mired in gridlock..."
And they will still be mired in gridlock if we expand freeways. That is what all the evidence supports. Talk to any long haul truckers that have been driving through Seattle both before and after their latest freeway expansion. It didn't make it any easier for truckers at all.
"..can't substitute for road movement..."
Of course not - that is why I am talking about creating alternatives for commuters that are clogging the roads.
"...since the 80s. Doesn't that make sense?"
Vancouver was the only major city in Canada to see commute times DECREASE during the periods since the 1980s. We are one of the few places in the world that saw GHG emissions decrease. So yes, it does make sense to invest in public transit, congestion charging, TDM and other strategies instead of building more freeways.
Does it make sense to increase asthma attacks? Does it makes sense to increase cancer rates? Does it make sense to increase all the respiratory problems associated with increased pollution?
"...encouraging the 90% of commuters..."
Nobody said anything about 90% of commuters. I said a "part of this 90-92%" capacity. If we could offer alternatives to even one third of these commuters it would take 30% of the traffic off the roads during rush hour. Imagine what that would do for the movement of goods. And what it would do for our air and health!
"...enough population density to support extensive public transport..."
80 years ago we had commuter rail service all over the region including places like Steveston and Langley. Are you claiming that the population now is actually less than it was 80 years ago?