By Michael Mui in 24 Hours – curiously, one of the only papers to high-profile this.
The tolled Port Mann Bridge is seeing a decline in the number of drivers using the span as the province holds its breath for traffic volumes to “mature.”
But while government waits, Transportation Investment Corp. — the Crown corporation overseeing the bridge — reports projected debt levels for this year have reached $3.6 billion, and its deficit is expected to reach $459 million by the 2016/17 fiscal year.
Dermod Travis, executive director for Integrity B.C., said it’s taxpayers taking a hit as government waits to receive revenues from the Crown corporation.
“They’re saying the traffic is coming back now that people can see they’re saving so much time — well they’re not coming back because traffic is down in 2014 compared to 2013,” he said.
“They have dampened their goals every year — they’ve increased taxpayer exposure to the bridge.”
The bridge replacement was intended to be funded by public-private partnership, but it was announced in late February 2009 that the province would build the bridge under a fixed-price contract of $2.46 billion.
The project was always going to lose money at the beginning, but the plan was for the debt to be paid off using tolling revenues.
In 2012, according to the B.C. government’s budget and fiscal plan of the time, which details revenues from Crown corporations, the province had anticipated revenue shortfalls of $125 million between 2012/13 and 2014/15, to “reflect operating losses during the construction phase” — expecting those to change to “net income as tolls are introduced.”
But by the time of the 2014 budget and fiscal plan, those forecasts had been significantly changed, now showing a $240-million revenue shortfall for the same years, with more losses predicted ahead.
In the document, government was also less optimistic on when TI Corp. would begin generating net revenues, saying TI Corp. would start turning a profit “as traffic volumes mature.”
But it doesn’t appear traffic volumes are growing. In 2006/07, according to a statement from TI Corp., the average weekly summertime “peak” traffic numbers were around 127,000 vehicles per day.
In August 2013 — the highest average daily figure for that year — traffic volumes were at 112,700 per day. In August 2014, which was also the busiest month that year for Port Mann, the figure fell to 110,600.
TI Corp is blaming transit:
“These volumes are lower than the 2006/7 number because of a number of factors, such as the 2008 recession, drivers avoiding the corridor during construction, as well as the popularity of the new ExpressBus service, which all occurred after the original traffic forecast were developed during the PMH1’s design phase,” reads a statement from TI Corp.
The corporation said a revised forecast has now been developed.
TI Corp. says its new forecast confirms its ability to meet financial obligations without taxpayer support, and expects to pay off its debt by 2050.
And then, in a poll below the article:
.
As I don’t have to remind PT readers, Sightline was on to this years ago, as part of their “Dude, Where are My Cars” series:
Just one of many examples of ‘Motordom Fail’ in traffic forecasting, documented here.
.
Motorist response to Port Mann – still current, as the above poll indicates – confirms that tolls create behaviour change. Assumptions about increased convenience and time saved are not a reliable basis for making multi-billion-dollar decisions. And yet, that is exactly what is happening with the Massey Bridge proposal: “B.C. moves forward with bridge to replace Massey Tunnel.”
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
2013PREM0095-001430Sept. 20, 2013Office of the Premier
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
B.C. moves forward with bridge to replace Massey Tunnel
VANCOUVER – Today, Premier Christy Clark announced that the Government of British Columbia will move ahead on the project to replace the George Massey Tunnel, with construction of a new bridge on the existing Highway 99 corridor to begin in 2017.
“We are keeping our promise to replace the George Massey Tunnel and improve the Highway 99 corridor, starting in 2017,” said Premier Christy Clark. “Congestion at the tunnel is frustrating for families and stalling the economy. A new bridge will improve travel times for transit, commuters and commercial users, and open the corridor up to future rapid transit options.”
.
Consider the double irony here:
(1) Billions will be spent on the bridge – without a vote by those who will be paying for it, most likely by tolls – on the basis that it will address congestion, something that could be done tomorrow by putting a toll on the tunnel and using the revenues to vastly improve transit south of the Fraser, especially in South Surrey.
The first action would, like the Port Mann, reduce existing traffic, possibly enough to mitigate congestion, and the revenues would provide another transportation option that would reduce car traffic even more. And yet, this is considered to be politically impossible, and violates existing provincial policy which requires a free alternative to the tolled project, which then undermines its financial viability.
(2) The requirement for a referendum on transit means, if it fails, that there will be no funding for the “future rapid transit options” that the bridge is being built to accommodate. Why, then, is transit funding not included in the budget of the bridge? And of course, as PT has noted repeatedly and will continue to do so, why is there a vote required for one and not the other? (And why is there still not an answer to that question from the premier?)
Why, in short, do we overbuild road infrastructure and underbuild transit? Why is one guaranteed funding and the other put at risk by the plebiscite requirement? Why is TransLink condemned for incompetency and yet the provincial decision-makers not called for accountability when Motordom Fails on the scale of the Port Mann?
Why, in short, do we overbuild road infrastructure and underbuild transit? Why is one guaranteed funding and the other put at risk by the plebiscite requirement? Why is TransLink condemned for incompetency and yet the provincial decision-makers not called for accountability when Motordom Fails on the scale of the Port Mann?
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness …”
so true. Can I retweet what you just said?
Of course.
Is the answer found as simply as asking “who benefits”?
A traditional planning fundamental is “opening up new land for development” — see Demographia article below. So that’s aimed at raising the value of land on the “other side” of bridges, and ensuring profits for sprawl subdivision developers and road builders. Other beneficiaries: car dealers help ensure an increase in populations that have no alternative to the car; oil companies ensure an increase in the market for their products.
Add municipalities that see short-term gains in tax revenue from new subdivisions, and damn the longer term pain in maintaining them.
Is it that simple? Somehow I think not completely. There’s still a dose of “asphalt politics”, and “we’ve always done it this way”.
If the traffic is reduced over the Port Mann due to pricing and transit then this should be considered a success. Less vehicles and more people using transit. What is not to like?
The Massey Bridge is a completely different story. It’s not just about South Surrey.
As it is now we have one lane only southbound between 6 and 9am. Every day there is a line of belching trucks crawling down towards Deltaport and others going to work in Deltaport and Tsawwassen as well as many heading hime from night work in hospitals and airport crews and workers, etc. More pollution, more CO2.
Every day between 3 and 6pm there is one lane northbound. One lane for: two lanes of traffic heading north from Delta, South Surrey and region, including parts of Langley and the USA, plus two lanes of traffic heading and merging north from Deltaport, the Tsawwassen city and ferry terminal and south Delta and Ladner. Plus the traffic coming south along River Road. Essentially, this is five substantial lanes of traffic merging into one slow counterflow lane. Needless to say that this is pollution central for every weekday afternoon. Every single weekday afternoon there are long lines of stationery traffic, all belching away. Many of these vehicles are transit vehicles, US visitors and commercial trucks and vans. The idea that more buses to South Surrey or White Rock or North and South Delta would alleviate the situation is utterly unrealistic.
The tunnel is over half a century old. Back then all the areas to the south were sleepy villages or summer retreats.
The bridge is needed today – if only to reduce the pollution and the CO2.
Author
(1) What was the point of the South Fraser Perimeter Road?
(2) Minimally, why not toll the tunnel at peak times southbound?
(3) There is a transit-only lane that seems to work well to feed into the tunnel, where the traffic moves reasonably well.
(4) Why a ten-lane bridge as currently proposed? And no funding for transit included in the package.
(4) Why not a vote? Similar arguments can be used for the transportation infrastructure we will be voting on (more pollution from all the growth in vehicles necessary without transit choices). A vote for Massey may well pass – but why not include it in a comprehensive referendum?
“We need a ten lane bridge without transit to reduce pollution and CO2” Yikes. 1951 Thinking at its best. Have you ever heard of induced demand ?
If you want solve the traffic problems of the Massey Tunnel, you DON’T NEED TO BUILD A NEW BRIDGE. All you need to do is to TOLL THE TUNNEL. Problem solved, and BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLAR SAVED.
There may be justification for replacing the tunnel if it’s really at end-of-life (much like the Patullo bridge). But the Port Mann shows that a 10-lane replacement is simply not needed if the powers that be can take the heat for introducing a toll.
“If the traffic is reduced over the Port Mann due to pricing and transit then this should be considered a success. ”
There is no IF about it. Transit could have been introduced over the old Port Mann Bridge. The province refused to even consider building a bus only lane on the bridge approaches – which was where the congestion occurred. There was no need for a bus only lane on the bridge itself as traffic was free flowing on the bridge deck, except after collisions, of course. The 555 could have been running years earlier but would have reduced the “need” for the bridge.
Much of the single occupant vehicle traffic across the bridge is short distance travel between North Surrey and Coquitlam. A direct bus from Surrey Centre via Guildford to Coquitlam Centre would be much more convenient than the two mode, multi transfer trip now (and until the Evergreen Line opens). To get that to run reliably at peaks would have required a short length of bus only lane on the shoulder of the last westbound on-ramp.
A stroke of the pen change in policy to allow tolling on existing facilities would have dealt with most congestion issues and provided funding for transit. We have been arguing about road pricing for years, but never doing anything seriously towards its implementation. We just keep on making the same “predict and provide” mistakes over and over again.
Did you ever try and get on to the old bridge from northbound 152nd Avenue? It was virtually gridlock all day long. Had they dedicated a special lane for buses it would have been gridlock all day and all night too. Battles would have broken out at 104th Avenue because none could have got through the intersection.
The same thing is happening now at Taylor Way and Marine Drive.
And in Surrey, they have guns.
You might be interested in knowing that traffic on the Lions Gate bridge and has been dropping for close to a decade: https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/trick-question-how-fast-has-traffic-been-growing-on-the-lions-gate-bridge/
There is no need for expanded highways anywhere in the city, but least of all there.
Afterthought: the same toll revenue prediction error bedevils the Golden Ears Bridge, which drains revenues from Translink that ought to be used for supporting transit, not subsidizing unsuccessful P3 companies.
Exactly. We now have two examples of overbuilt bridges that were constructed in the face of declining traffic numbers. They’ve both become albatrosses around the taxpayer’s necks. And there are plenty more examples to see if we look around at other jurisdictions. How long will it be before the government gets a clue?
Are you suggesting that TransLink acted irresponsibly when it built the Golden Ears Bridge?
It looks like Global TV has picked up this story too: http://globalnews.ca/video/1786888/port-mann-bridge-underused
I think it should also be noted that the decline in traffic volumes goes far beyond being just being a Port Mann bridge issue. In the City of Coquitlam, where I work, average daily vehicle volumes have been falling on most of our streets, including Highway 1 and Lougheed highway, since the early to mid 2000’s. I wish I had time to put together an infographic to show this because the general opinion is that our streets are more congested than ever. Generally traffic volumes have been falling everywhere for about the last 10 years. I think the the bigger story is how the general decline in traffic will impact our whole transportation system.
(1) The South Fraser Perimeter Road was primarily built to facilitate the massive expansion of the movement of goods to and from The Trans Canada Highway to the Deltaport Container Terminal, as well as the easy passage of vehicular traffic from Highway 1 to the BC Ferries Tsawwassen Terminal.
(The South Fraser Perimeter Road serves none of the commuter traffic from Langley, Delta, South Surrey, White Rock, Delta North or South, or Ladner.)
(2) “Tolling the tunnel at peak times southbound”. Do you mean in the mornings, when there’s only one lane and the traffic is almost always stationary? Charge all the trucks going to Deltaport? Even were they to toll the tunnel in afternoons it would only cause some traffic to switch to the 91 and the Alex Fraser Bridge. Thereby, penalizing those that live in Ladner, Delta, Tsawwassen and anyone heading to the Ferries. There is also now, a substantial amount of traffic that travels eastbound on Steveston Highway and feeds into the tunnel. This traffic is coming from parts of Richmond that have obviously expanded because ten years ago there wasn’t much traffic there but there is now – daily.
(3) Yes, the occasional bus manages to get around the congestion.
(4) I don’t know the details of the bridge. I can’t imaging that transit, and bicycles, will not be included in the plan.
(5) A tunnel over fifty years old had to be replaced. Seismic issues and infrastructure lifespan demand it. More good money could be thrown at it but it would still be a little tunnel built a half century ago and without proper space for rapid buses or any bicycles. It’s not really an option, it has to be changed. It has been considered for many years. Kevin Falcon considered a Massey Bridge when he was Minister. The allocation of funds has been thought about for years. The Patullo Bridge is the same. It will be replaced irrespective of how the citizens vote.
It is debatable whether a subway under Broadway is of the same imperative. That’s not a bet I’d put my money on.
The Grand Plan only came up last year and the Liberals made it an election commitment to consult with the mayors on the plan and on the funding.
It’s also worth remembering that a Yes vote will not ensure anything (much to the chagrin of enthusiastic profs at UBC). Two thirds of the funding in the Plan is meant to come from the provincial and the federal government. No local referendum is going to force the federal government to pay for municipal transit. They might chip in but there is no guarantee.
Author
Seriously, you have no problem with spending an unknown amount ranging from $2 to $3 billion (or more) on one congestion point, and yet the Broadway subway is ‘debatable.’? Then let’s have the debate. Put Massey up for a vote with Broadway. Then we can decide where to put our money first.
Eric wrote: ““Tolling the tunnel at peak times southbound”. Do you mean in the mornings, when there’s only one lane and the traffic is almost always stationary? Charge all the trucks going to Deltaport?
Toll all traffic in both directions. What you’ll find is that the toll will give all drivers incentive to change their behaviour. Just as “carmaggedon” never materializes when roads are closed for lengthy repairs, it will not materialize when tolls are applied, either. All that will happen is that some percentage of traffic will literally disappear as drivers most averse to the toll choose to combine trips, pool, divert or take transit. It doesn’t take a very large reduction in volumes to eliminate the lineups.
And I’d bet that if you took a poll of truck drivers heading through the tunnel they’d gladly pay a toll to eliminate the wait times they currently have to endure. To a trucker, time literally is money, and it’s very easy for them to bank the benefit that tolls will provide.
Sean, as I hope you’ve noted, I was responding to a specific comment that Gordon made. Anyway, exacting a toll on stationery traffic squeezing from six lanes into one lane would be interesting but I doubt the result would be anything other than road rage and high blood pressure.
Doubtful that any politician would take that on. A bit like highway robbery. Then what, after you’ve extorted the dross out from the route and caused the East-West Connector to clog up, what then? Toll that and the Alex Fraser too? Which political party is doing this? This is all for what, a Vancouver subway and a few buses?
“This is all for what, a Vancouver subway and a few buses?”
Uhhhh….
https://pricetags.wordpress.com/page/2/
Eric wrote: “exacting a toll on stationery traffic squeezing from six lanes into one lane would be interesting”
You’re completely, utterly and absolutely missing the point. If you apply the toll, traffic volume will decrease and the lineups will disappear. If they don’t disappear immediately, you just incrementally raise the toll until they do.
Of course a responsible government would also provide improved transit service to give people an alternative.
Isn’t the Provincial policy only to implement a toll in connection with an improvement?
WRT tolling and congestion and reducing car trips, if tolling to reduce car trips is such a great idea, why hasn’t the City of Vancouver tolled the bridges solely within its control? Cambie, Granville & Burrard?
…must be a political issue…
Guest wrote: “Isn’t the Provincial policy only to implement a toll in connection with an improvement?”
I think there’s a good argued to be made that eliminating the lineups would be an improvement worth paying the toll for.
Gordon; I walk and drive along Broadway all the time. I was working on Broadway recently too. There’s not much traffic. Many commentors seem to think that more Broadway buses is the answer because the need is really bunched up during rush hours only. There are still many single storey structures along Broadway. The density isn’t there – yet. Train means condos. Tall towers.
For a comparison go and take a look at the congestion at the tunnel any afternoon.
I don’t have a problem with the cost of the bridge. We’re talking about crossing a major shipping waterway and linking six (current) lanes from the north in three directions and six lanes from the south in four directions, when you include a Lander exit. It is what it is. In the past few years the growth of the commercial business at Deltaport and the residential and commercial building that has taken place along Highway 10 in Surrey, all around the completely new billion-dollar Morgan Crossing in Surrey, all along many, indeed most, of the north/south roads in Surrey and Langley and the development of South Delta and Tsawwassen is extraordinary.
The tunnel is probably dangerously old. It has to be replaced.
Replace it with a six lane bridge then, 4 travel lanes and 2 HOV lanes not a 10 lane bridge. Morgan crossing was built with no consideration for transit or walkability so of course those people are going to drive everywhere.
Similarly, the Port Mann Bridge – when finally configured – will be a 6 lane bridge (4 express through lanes plus 2 HOV lanes) plus a 4 lane bridge (4 local connector (Coquitlam and Surrey off-ramp) lanes).
There will be a jersey barrier erected between the express and local lanes.
You can see the makings of something similar (express and collector lanes) at the SFPR & Hwy 99 interchange northbound with the long exit ramp.
Eric wrote: “Many commentors seem to think that more Broadway buses is the answer because the need is really bunched up during rush hours only”
Wouldn’t your comments apply to the Massey tunnel as well? Why do we need a solution for a problem that only occurs a few hours every day?
Broadway is the second biggest employment centre in Metro Vancouver and it’s the most congested transit corridor. It’s a mystery to me getting anything done about transit congestion is so much more difficult than road congestion. It’s almost as if people don’t realize that convenient and fast transit reduces traffic volumes on our roads.
Broadway buses go to UBC at one end and Commercial at the other. Two destinations, one at each end. The tunnel feeds traffic into a multitude of destinations.
Northbound a fair amount of traffic veers off into Richmond at Steveston, that’s why that exit was just substantial enlarged. Further, traffic exits to central and east Richmond on the Westminster Highway. More traffic is split to Knight Street northbound, other vehicles go straight east along the 91 towards New Westminster. Continuing up 99 there is a fair amount that exit at the airport exit and a few more go east into the north east light industrial area of Richmond. Then, there’s the three way split up Cambie (with eastbound Marine taking some), northbound Granville, with some heading west to UBC and northbound Oak that still takes the largest chunk.
Look at a map to figure out the southbound destinations.
A completely different scenario than Broadway.
Entering the city from either the North Shore, Marpole or 1st Avenue off of Highway 1 are far more congested than Broadway. There are two buildings on Broadway that I visit regularly, as well as using Broadway to cross over from the top of Kingsway over to Kitsilano or South Granville. How about Knight Street, that’s another really busy connector full of truck going to and from the Port. No trucks on Broadway.
A correction of facts: The Broadway corridor is extremely dense, has the second largest concentration of jobs in the urban area as well as many, many residents. Gordon Price on this job has already pointed out that it’s the equivalent of five metrotowns.
This is why we need a Broadway subway: https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/extraordinary-facts-five-metrotowns-on-broadway/
That right there? It certainly doesn’t exist in Ladner.
Eric wrote: “Broadway buses go to UBC at one end and Commercial at the other. Two destinations, one at each end. The tunnel feeds traffic into a multitude of destinations.”
Really? This is your argument?
Perhaps you’ve never use transit, so permit me to enlighten you: It isn’t just a collection of individual routes. It’s a NETWORK. The Broadway corridor connects DIRECTLY to ALL of the north/south routes in the city proper, and to most of the east and south suburban areas as well. It connects with Dunbar, Arbutus, Granville, Oak, Cambie, Main, Fraser, Victoria, Nanaimo, Rupert and Boundary Road. It also connects with rapid transit to Richmond, and Burnaby/New West/Surrey/ and (soon) Coquitlam/Port Moody.
Broadway corridor transit improvements would benefit people all across the lower mainland – not only by improving service for the slowest part of many trips, but also by drastically reducing operating costs on the busiest transit corridor in the region so that the money can be used to improve service elsewhere.
“you just have to toll it … It’s much harder to do politically, but a LOT more sensible from an economic perspective.”
You could also stop paying welfare and giving out free transit passes. That would save money too.
Tolling is completely regressive. The wealthy will pay. Businesspeople will pay and deduct the expense and build the cost into their services and products, increasing inflation.
Travelers to the islands on BC Ferries will have to pay extra.
Tolling is a right-wing move. It only increases the wealth gap in society.
Go to London and see who’s driving around town these days. I isn’t the average working stiff, it’s the elite.
Tolling makes more sense than gasoline taxes, for example. Even a Tesla driver or a low consumption smart car pays. London is a great example: only rich guys use a car, everyone else uses the subway or a bus.
When did they build the first subway in London ? 1863. They have a 125 year advantage over Vancouver. We will get there. Eventually. I may even live when the subway to UBC opens. We shall see …
The Broadway catchment area you describe is around 30 sq km. Probably around half a million people max. The south side of the tunnel traffic incorporates an area of more than ten times that and a growing population that is also more. Plus, the traffic to the islands via BC Ferries at Tsawwassen and the USA.
Nevertheless, if the proponents of this tax push and campaign for the Broadway subway to be the first item of business after a Yes vote, then the vast population that lives on the fringe of the north shore, out to Coquitlam and around to Langley, Surrey, Delta and Ladner, will probably not be too excited. And, it’s they that have the numbers.
Eric wrote “The tunnel is probably dangerously old. It has to be replaced.”
What evidence do you have? My understanding is that the whole reason for a bridge is that the Port wants this so that big ships can navigate the Fraser to access coal terminal and a proposed aircraft fuel facility. Port does not want to pay for this, so is asking all of us to pay instead. The proposed bridge will simply further increase the already huge subsidy which we provide to motor vehicles. I would certainly like to be able to vote on this major project.
MetroVan has 30+ ports. Ports need roads or rail to get good moving. We need more bridges, tunnels, railways and highways for that. And yes, a few bike lanes too. Vancouver and area is Canada’s Pacific gateway. Bikes are not the major concern here. Jobs and goods movement is !
Closing the tunnel and building a bridge won’t do anything to assist the navigation of large ships because there is no practical way to remove the old tunnel. Ask any engineer and their answer would be to plug the ends of the tunnel and leave it where it is.
The tunnel will be removed and the Fraser river trenched to allow for more depth and thus, bigger boats. That makes good commercial sense while jobs shift from anti industrial growth towns like Burnaby and Vancoyver to Richmond, Surrey, Delta and New West. Well paid blue collar jobs will appear in those four cities while Vancouver and Burnaby morphe into pretty suburbs where anti-growth green and low paying (barista) jobs prevail, besides the odd office and high tech job.
Some details here http://tollroadsnews.com/news/vancouver-bc-to-replace-massey-tunnel-with-toll-bridge-on-h99-at-lower-fraser-river–big-mouth-bragging
@arnoschort; Twenty five years ago a study was commissioned to look into congestion problems with the Massey Tunnel. Many recommendations were proposed but no third tube was built and no No 5 Road crossing was either.
One lane available to traffic on one of the three major arteries into and out of the city is obviously insufficient.
Large ships already navigate the Fraser at that point.
There are plans to build a terminal for delivery of jet fuel just east of the Massey Tunnel. Problem is that the ships are too large to safely pass over the tunnel. Tolling, will resolve the congestion problem. Motor vehicle use is on the decline throughout North America. Major road expansion projects like Massey Tunnel Replacement are a total waste of money. And why are we not allowed to vote on this project?
Do we really want a California system (Prop 13) of proposition voting?
More coverage here:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Traffic+Port+Mann+Bridge+significantly+down+2014/10751842/story.html
With gas at 97.9 cents a litre – that may provide a boost to traffic over the bridges.
During 2014, I’d guess that gas was usually around $1.40 per litre.
I dont get it. I kept hearing that “widening the bridge is like letting out your belt a notch — you’ll just fill up that new capacity.” Now that we’re seeing less traffic, what gives?
tolls.
Tessa’s exactly correct. You don’t need to widen a route to eliminate congestion, you just have to toll it. Instead of SPENDING several billion to eliminate congestion by completely replacing the bridge, you could instead EARN money through tolls on the existing infrastructure to accomplish the same thing. It’s much harder to do politically, but a LOT more sensible from an economic perspective.
Just as there are plenty of examples where adding more and more lanes failed to eliminate congestion (see: Los Angeles), there are also numerous instances of huge new infrastructure projects financed through tolls which have failed due to predicted traffic volumes. In fact so far it’s looking like that’s true of 100% of the two recent toll-financed projects built in Greater Vancouver. And now the government is getting ready to double down on a third…
This belongs here:
“you just have to toll it … It’s much harder to do politically, but a LOT more sensible from an economic perspective.”
You could also stop paying welfare and giving out free transit passes. That would save money too.
Tolling is completely regressive. The wealthy will pay. Businesspeople will pay and deduct the expense and build the cost into their services and products, increasing inflation.
Travelers to the islands on BC Ferries will have to pay extra.
Tolling is a right-wing move. It only increases the wealth gap in society.
Go to London and see who’s driving around town these days. I isn’t the average working stiff, it’s the elite.
I guess all the talk about “You can’t build your way out of congestion” were inaccurate because they didn’t take road pricing into the equation.
I agree with you, Eric. Tolling is kind of regressive since it is not tied to income. I was listening to callers on CKNW yesterday. Many said they’ve cut out any unnecessary trips across the bridge. So, instead of the casual trip over to Metrotown or New West for dinner, they’re staying on the south side.
If I take a really cynical One Percenter viewpoint, it’s almost like Vancouver is only allowing people from Surrey into our city so they can work. It’s obviously an exaggeration, but it’s become a real life side effect. Imagine if we told residents of the DTES that they’d have to pay a toll anytime they wanted to wander outside of their area. Surrey is not the DTES, but it serves the analogy of how we’re limiting people’s movement.
If tolling motorists is regressive, then so is charging transit fares (a toll by another name). And transit tolls to cross the Fraser are 30% higher than the Port Mann tolls – $4.00 vs. $3.00 – without the benefit of a “free” (aka taxpayer provided) alternative.
Yep. Fair comment on transit fares.
I guess my main complaint is that the toll only applies to certain people. People can go back and forth for free all day from North Van to Vancouver. But, if you’re from Surrey, too bad. We charge Surreyites a mini-head tax.
In fact, you are wrong. Welfare systems, including giving out free transit passes to those who are in dire need, save society money. Without these programs, people in dire need turn to worse alternatives, which end up costing them and all of us dearly.
It’s way cheaper for society to foot the bill for someone to take the bus for free than to have him/her without access to the economic and other opportunities afforded by public transit.
If you’re going to argue about the cost of something, you must account for all the costs, not only the ones that back up your original assertion.
I think the Pattullo Bridge is taking up most of the slack from the traffic not going on the Port Mann.
And here’s something odd — I think it’s not passenger vehicles, but trucks.
About 75% of the time I cross the Pattullo, there’s a large truck and trailer ahead of me taking up both lanes to cross the bridge. It doesn’t matter what time of day or day of the week.
I’ve even heard a rumour that the trucking companies have now told their drivers two things:
1. Take the Pattullo to save the bridge toll
2. Always take both lanes for “safety” reasons (And taking both lanes is apparently illegal so it’s probably not in writing anywhere, but it would be fun to see that actually written out on some trucking company’s website)
I’ve been crossing the Pattullo for 30 years, and it’s only in the last couple of years that I’ve seen this many trucks taking both lanes on the Pattullo. Since the bridge hasn’t actually shrunk, and I’m assuming that trucks haven’t gotten wider, it must be because of the toll bridge.
I think you are right Gladys. Yet Sean suggests that trucks would willingly pay to go through the Massey Tunnel because time is money.
The campaign has just started and the Yes side seems to be desperate. Not good winning vibes. They’re saying crazy things. Dementia epidemic coming, etc.
At the risk of feeding a troll, aren’t you the one who was completely wrong about employment and residential density along the Broadway corridor?
And now you are conflating road tolls with the transit referendum at hand.
You’re also using anecdotes to back up your bias.
Who is desperate and saying crazy things, again?
Once a new Patullo bridge is built and tolled traffic patterns will shift again.
Yes Port Mann is too wide today, but will be adequate in 30-40 years as the bridge should last 100 years ( and yes, it should have had a rail link on it). South Fraser Perimeter Road is already undersized and occasionally congested. That should have been a six lane road with no traffic lights. Just wait and see until Patullo is widened and Massey bridge .. say 2018 or 2020, it will be a bottleneck. Then they will call the ten lane Port Mann bridge visionary.