CSDP Policy on the Port Mann / Highway 1 expansion. Civil Society Development Project. 3 Nov. 2008 website.
Keeling, Paul, and Christopher Barrington-Leigh. “Greenwashing Gateway.” The Tyee 19 Mar. 2007. 31 Oct. 2008 website.
The Civil Society Development Project is also opposed to H1 expansion. However they introduce a thorough analysis of PPPs that are now frequently used by the provincial government in major projects. Their claims are that by introducing the concept of profit into services for the general public, a conflict of interest arises. The claim is made that maximizing profits will create inequalities amongst the users. Many examples are used from Toronto and Australia of PPPs where public interest has been compromised. They also claim that PPPs do not have to be as accountable as the government and that there are then issues relating to transparency. They state is that if the government wishes to go ahead with the project, the tolls must be public and be enacted on a system wide basis in order to act equally on all citizens. They say that this would be the most effective way to discourage unnecessary trips. In addition, they explain that if the province and region keep opposing views of infrastructure development, future city planning will be nearly impossible.
The Civil Society Development Project including Keeling and Barrington-Leigh take a more balanced perspective on the issue. They clearly state that they are opposed to the project on similar ground to the LRC and DSF. This article offers some good insight about how to satisfy the economic necessities of twining the PMB and sustainable development. The argument against PPP’s is very strong and builds off what we learned in class. What is even more interesting is the proposal for system wide tolling in order to discourage vehicle usage and finance transportation projects. It would probably be expensive to implement but I can see how it would benefit the region in the long term. It raises the issue of equal treatment of all citizens of Metro Vancouver; why should only those south of the Fraser be paying for vehicle use and be punished for being vehicle dependent.
November 3
.
Showing posts with label Research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Research. Show all posts
The Official Gateway Program
British Columbia. Ministry of Transportation. “Gateway Program Backgrounder.” 5 May 2008 website.
British Columbia. Ministry of Transportation. “Gateway Program Definition Report: Summary.” 31 Jan. 2006 website.
The “Program Definition Report” on the GP prepared by the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation presents the current problem of congestion and offers expanding the PBM and H1 as a viable solution. In addition it discusses current and future projects that could also be used with highway expansion in order to ease traffic congestion. The report begins by explaining the situation of both current and future congestion due to population growth. It then analyzes congestion in both monetary and social costs and states that quality of life would decrease unless the current vehicular capacity was increased. The report then explains what and how the GP would do reduce congestion. Highway expansion and other congestion reduction methods must be used in order to reduce future traffic. This includes tolls, better HOV, cycling, pedestrian and transit infrastructure. If all is properly implemented, there should be no traffic congestion until 2031. The cost of the project is reported to be much less than the benefits of time saved and lower operating costs. Construction should be completed by 2013
The full report is available but the Executive Summary has given me a basic idea of the logic and goals used by the government. The Backgrounder provides some updated information and effectively summarizes the project. It is interesting how little analysis there is of alternative options, I expected proof that expansion of H1 was the most effective option. In my opinion this is very troublesome because the Ministry of Transportation could be so strongly implicated in their support of GP that they may be discounting all other options. When an idea is put forth, an effort must be made to demonstrate full understanding of the issue and complete analysis of alternative options. This should be the main priority for the government who should be working in the interest of all citizens.
November 3
.
British Columbia. Ministry of Transportation. “Gateway Program Definition Report: Summary.” 31 Jan. 2006 website.
The “Program Definition Report” on the GP prepared by the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation presents the current problem of congestion and offers expanding the PBM and H1 as a viable solution. In addition it discusses current and future projects that could also be used with highway expansion in order to ease traffic congestion. The report begins by explaining the situation of both current and future congestion due to population growth. It then analyzes congestion in both monetary and social costs and states that quality of life would decrease unless the current vehicular capacity was increased. The report then explains what and how the GP would do reduce congestion. Highway expansion and other congestion reduction methods must be used in order to reduce future traffic. This includes tolls, better HOV, cycling, pedestrian and transit infrastructure. If all is properly implemented, there should be no traffic congestion until 2031. The cost of the project is reported to be much less than the benefits of time saved and lower operating costs. Construction should be completed by 2013
The full report is available but the Executive Summary has given me a basic idea of the logic and goals used by the government. The Backgrounder provides some updated information and effectively summarizes the project. It is interesting how little analysis there is of alternative options, I expected proof that expansion of H1 was the most effective option. In my opinion this is very troublesome because the Ministry of Transportation could be so strongly implicated in their support of GP that they may be discounting all other options. When an idea is put forth, an effort must be made to demonstrate full understanding of the issue and complete analysis of alternative options. This should be the main priority for the government who should be working in the interest of all citizens.
November 3
.
Livable Region Coalition
Will Freeway Expansion Kill the Livable Region. Oct. 2004 The Livable Region Coalition. 1 Nov. 2008 website.
The Livable Region Coalition effectively argues that the provincial GP counters many regional initiatives for sustainable growth. They cite LRSP goals of protecting green space, building complete communities, achieve a compact metropolitan region, and increased transportation choices and then proceed to demonstrate how the highway enlargement violates these goals. They demand a thorough assessment of the most effective method of long-term congestion reduction. They claim that the plan will not solve the problem of congestion, will have negative effects on the liveability of the region, does not consider more effective solutions, and that the process lacks transparency. The report demonstrates the highways lead to more traffic and not reduced congestion. It also explains the detriments to standards of living such as suburban sprawl, congestion on secondary roads, public health and physical activity, and environmental impacts. The report follows with other solutions of improved transit, carpooling, light rail, flow regulation, congestion tolls, and managing demand on the transportation infrastructure. The conclusion of the LRC is that the GP will not achieve its intended purpose and that different approaches are necessary in order to reduce congestion while keeping Metro Vancouver liveable.
In order to add more weight to the argument, the LRC lists their supporters on the first page. Some may state that this is an elitist strategy and that they are trying to use their credentials instead of logic. I am of the opinion that it demonstrates that they have made a thorough analysis of their position. It makes it easy to distinguish in whose interests the report was prepared. Because I made an analysis of the DSF paper first, and this report is two years older the DSF one and predates the GP Definition Report by 6 months, it is slightly less relevant.
November 3
.
The Livable Region Coalition effectively argues that the provincial GP counters many regional initiatives for sustainable growth. They cite LRSP goals of protecting green space, building complete communities, achieve a compact metropolitan region, and increased transportation choices and then proceed to demonstrate how the highway enlargement violates these goals. They demand a thorough assessment of the most effective method of long-term congestion reduction. They claim that the plan will not solve the problem of congestion, will have negative effects on the liveability of the region, does not consider more effective solutions, and that the process lacks transparency. The report demonstrates the highways lead to more traffic and not reduced congestion. It also explains the detriments to standards of living such as suburban sprawl, congestion on secondary roads, public health and physical activity, and environmental impacts. The report follows with other solutions of improved transit, carpooling, light rail, flow regulation, congestion tolls, and managing demand on the transportation infrastructure. The conclusion of the LRC is that the GP will not achieve its intended purpose and that different approaches are necessary in order to reduce congestion while keeping Metro Vancouver liveable.
In order to add more weight to the argument, the LRC lists their supporters on the first page. Some may state that this is an elitist strategy and that they are trying to use their credentials instead of logic. I am of the opinion that it demonstrates that they have made a thorough analysis of their position. It makes it easy to distinguish in whose interests the report was prepared. Because I made an analysis of the DSF paper first, and this report is two years older the DSF one and predates the GP Definition Report by 6 months, it is slightly less relevant.
November 3
.
Halcrow Analysis of Transit-Only Option
Krajczar, Karoly. Re: Assessment of Transit-only Option for Port Mann Bridge. 31 Mar. 2006 Halcrow Consulting. 1 Nov. 2008 website.
Memo by Halcrow, an infrastructure consultation company, who has been commission by GP to analyze LRC claims that current and future congestion issues on PMB can be solved using only transit. The sketch planning method is used to show that a 20% transit mode share of commuters on the Port Mann Bridge, more than the regional average, could only reduce 350 vehicles. This figure is not enough considering the 650 vehicle queue during the peak morning commute. They state the problem with using transit on the PMB is that it would have to compete with the SkyTrain. The results are the same when using a reliable and frequently used transportation model with a frequency 40 buses per hour. Ridership is estimated at 660 passengers but most are estimated to have been newly generated commuters or been taken from the SkyTrain and only 100 vehicles removed from the Port Mann Bridge queue. The conclusion is that transit-only solutions are not a viable alternative to expanding the Highway 1 corridor.
There are some issues based on historical Halcrow cooperation with the GP and other governmental infrastructure projects. They may have an advantage of good knowledge of the situation; however it is in their interest to keep these infrastructure programs moving to make themselves more business. Their methodology seems sound, especially the use of two models to prove their data. However the seem to miss the point that the LRC demands transit improvements everywhere not just on the congested H1; the PMB express bus would not be competing with the SkyTrain but work with it.
November 3
.
Memo by Halcrow, an infrastructure consultation company, who has been commission by GP to analyze LRC claims that current and future congestion issues on PMB can be solved using only transit. The sketch planning method is used to show that a 20% transit mode share of commuters on the Port Mann Bridge, more than the regional average, could only reduce 350 vehicles. This figure is not enough considering the 650 vehicle queue during the peak morning commute. They state the problem with using transit on the PMB is that it would have to compete with the SkyTrain. The results are the same when using a reliable and frequently used transportation model with a frequency 40 buses per hour. Ridership is estimated at 660 passengers but most are estimated to have been newly generated commuters or been taken from the SkyTrain and only 100 vehicles removed from the Port Mann Bridge queue. The conclusion is that transit-only solutions are not a viable alternative to expanding the Highway 1 corridor.
There are some issues based on historical Halcrow cooperation with the GP and other governmental infrastructure projects. They may have an advantage of good knowledge of the situation; however it is in their interest to keep these infrastructure programs moving to make themselves more business. Their methodology seems sound, especially the use of two models to prove their data. However the seem to miss the point that the LRC demands transit improvements everywhere not just on the congested H1; the PMB express bus would not be competing with the SkyTrain but work with it.
November 3
.
SOV's on PMB
Bisetty, Krisendra. “Car pool, transit better than twinning Port Mann, group claims.” Vancouver Sun 11 Apr. 2005. 31 Oct. 2008 website.
A news article about research and ideas from an east-Vancouver-based group, called Citizens Concerned with Highway Expansion. They use very basic vehicle counts to show that the majority of weekday bridge users are SOV. They suggest using transit or carpooling to reduce the number of vehicles on the PMB. They see this as a solution instead of twining the PMB.
This article does not address the problem of how to get commuters to make the switch. The concept of a bus over the PMB is nearly impossible to implement. As long as it does not have the infrastructure to support it, the bus would get up stuck in traffic and its effectiveness would be compromised. They have good ideas that need more substance.
October 31
.
A news article about research and ideas from an east-Vancouver-based group, called Citizens Concerned with Highway Expansion. They use very basic vehicle counts to show that the majority of weekday bridge users are SOV. They suggest using transit or carpooling to reduce the number of vehicles on the PMB. They see this as a solution instead of twining the PMB.
This article does not address the problem of how to get commuters to make the switch. The concept of a bus over the PMB is nearly impossible to implement. As long as it does not have the infrastructure to support it, the bus would get up stuck in traffic and its effectiveness would be compromised. They have good ideas that need more substance.
October 31
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
