James to dodge traffic but not trouble over Port Mann Bridge
Another good reason to dislike the Globe and Mail is the way that it mixes opinion and news in the same story – and reprints false assertions as though they were true. And printing a story under the strapline “Gridlock” is a good warning of where the editorial position is.
People who believe that twinning the Port Mann Bridge will solve congestion are deluded. Not only is there not one example of where this policy has worked, it has also been shown that the so called studies used by the Ministry of Transportation to support the proposal were based on totally unrealistic assumptions. And there are letters on line at the EAO web page from two federal government departments saying so.
Falcon is quoted once again as saying “I hope she enjoys the experience of the 14 hours a day of congestion that the Port Mann has” – but that in itself is a gross exaggeration. The congestion occurs at peak periods and not on the bridge at all but its approaches. And if Mr Falcon actually wanted to deal with that, all he need do is either twin the bridge but leave the freeway the way it is so that it is no longer the bottle neck, or provide transit on the existing structures (note the plural there).
The bridge is so congested that it hasn’t had bus service for 20 years because traffic would play havoc with schedules.
That is not Mr Falcon that is Justine Hunter, who calls herself a journalist. It is simply not true. Bus service across the bridge was withdrawn when the SkyTrain was extended into Surrey. Bus routes were diverted from serving downtown directly to feeding into SkyTrain. The justification had nothing to do with traffic. You do not spend billions on a rail rapid transit system and then operate buses in competition with it. That has been the long standing principle in this region since SkyTrain started and is still used today. Or will we be reading that we need to twin the Oak Street and Arthur Laing Bridges because they are “so congested that you cannot operate a bus across them” after the Canada Line opens? In fact when the modelling of demand across the bridge was done the imaginary transit routes they used were designed to not attract traffic! And even Translink admitted that they could operate a bus on the Port Mann using the HOV lanes and a new queue jumper – it was even in a three year transit plan – until they were told to take it out!
And before the idiots out there start saying I am advocating twinning the Port Mann – no I am not. IF you really care about congestion and spending money wisely, you use what we have better. We do not need any more road capacity across the Fraser. We need more people moving capacity. And we can do that more quickly and cheaply by increasing the number of SkyTrains across the SkyBridge – there is a great deal of unused track and signalling capacity there – and we should have a bus service across the Port Mann to link Coquitlam and North Surrey – because that is where most of the traffic is coming from at peak periods. It is NOT the trucks and it is NOT long distance travel. It is short distance commuting for which the current transit route is simply too indirect. And a queue jumper northbound is all that is needed and could be accommodated on the existing hard shoulder.
On the other hand if you want to promote more low density residential development in Surrey and Langley and encourage a lot more vehicle kilometres on the system then the NDP should indeed back the bridge. I happen to think that is a policy that was wrong back in the sixties when gas was cheap. Now we know a lot more about climate change we might be wise to think a bit longer term than a “quick fix” that has never ever worked to produce what Mr Falcon and Ms Hunter say it will do. Because there is no “gridlock” (go look it up). Traffic slows as it approaches the merges – and more lanes of traffic approach the bridge than cross it. And that will still be true after the project is built – the numbers of both simply double. So the amount of traffic congestion simply doubles too. And if Pete McMartin can work that out, so can most of the NDP voters in Surrey.
well said– falcon and campbell cannot be that stupid, they must know the numbers don`t add up -the science is not there to back them up,so why, why do it! matbe they believe with a million more drivers ,consumers,tax payers that goverments and cities will be flush with cash, problems solved—uh-uh read parkinson`s law ( by c.northcote parkinson ) has there ever been a society in the history of mankind that got better with -massive expansion! take china and india –populous got so large that the only way to manage it — ——–is to provide,nothing . we have to slow down, we have to make what we have ( NOW ) work — I understand the gvrd is a desirable area -so what,there`s room in vernon- gold river,prince rupert ,fort nelson etc . ya can`t un do-it THE LOWER MAINLAND IS A JEWEL –LETS KEEP IT THAT WAY! falcon and campbell ( they have a agenda ) no matter what you tell them, no matter what proof you display to them , they won`t change course –falcon and campbell ,will be kicking and screaming to the end! thats why we must all vote them out! ——-signed……………………………24century and beyond
grant g
March 22, 2008 at 10:20 am
Stephen, I sent an email to Ms Hunter (below), and I copied your above opinion piece only because you say it so well. I’m not sure how to email you direct to seek your prior permission, but I thought you wouldn’t mind seeing that you already posted it. If so, then I apologize.
Anyway, my fear is that JS is representative of many mainstream journalists who utterly fail to do adequate research before publishing an opinion, especially when it editorializes outside of the editorial pages with little opportunity for direct rebuttal. Thank the gods for the Web.
***
Dear Ms Hunter,
I am appalled that a journalist with a reputable national newspaper would not do adequate research when supporting the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars on a project that has feet of clay, and in fact parrots clichés about congestion without knowing anything about it. Do you not have the ability to conduct a simple Web search to find, for only one example, the federal government’s environmental review of the project? They and many others with professional transportation backgrounds (and I must say no direct association with the BC ministry of transportation) have ripped on innumerable occasions the falsehoods behind the project.
It is very sad when car dependency — and I would emphasize single-occupant cars — are advocated above all else in such massive withdrawals from the public purse. This project is not about trucks and cargo (most containers are shipped by rail; 75% of the PM bridge traffic is single-occupant cars). It is not about improving the economy (freeways are one of the most debilitating elements ever invented). It is not about reducing GHG emissions (if you believe that, then up is down and black is white). It is about promoting sprawling suburbs and those who build them, who happen to be Kevin Falcon’s Liberal Party campaign supporters.
The most painful thing of all is that Gateway and its supporters, like you, will likely ignore the economic hardships imposed on families south of the Fraser who will not only be faced with the upcoming very steep increases in fuel in the near future as worldwide conventional oil supplies decline, but also 35 years of tolls and absolutely no realistic transit alternative on the horizon.
You also commit to an opinion that will, if you had your way, impact very seriously urban design, land use planning and the environment on a planetary scale without knowing anything about them either. God help us.
Perhaps the rebuttal of your article below will give you pause before writing about Gateway next time, and cause to exercise the research abilities you were supposedly trained in in journalism school. The piece was posted by Stephen Rees on his blog ( http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/page/2/ ) who is a transportation economist.
I’ll leave you with his words.
Meredith Botta, Vancouver
Meredith
March 26, 2008 at 1:39 pm