All the traffic isn't going to Hastings.
Originally Posted by Deez
This one project may not lead to a doomsday scenario, but the precedent that it sets could lead to one. Vancouver is one of the most forward-thinking cities in NA when it comes to transportation, and I'd hate to see it fall victim to this kind of studpidity.
The word "bottleneck" refers to the shape of the neck of a bottle, ie. going from wide to narrow. If anything, twinning the bridge and widening the highway will only create more of a literal bottleneck when the traffic reaches Hastings.
Hastings is also on the Grid. Traffic is better handled on the grid as opposed to the freeway.
If there are reasonable solutions for transit people will take them. However, right now there aren't.
How do you propose a person get from Langley to Port Coquitlam? The distance isn't that great and yet there is only ONE reasonable way to get there... the Port Mann.
If someone in Port Coquitlam wants to get to East Vancouver, it's a 15 minute 24km jaunt down the freeway, or Lougheed Hwy, or even the Barnet Hwy, and if you really want, Canada Way, but that's out of the way.
The same 24km from Walnut Grove in Langley to Port Coquitlam has the same amount of Freeway but at least 1.5x the time in NORMAL traffic.... 2.5x in Rush Hour.
We're not talking about Encouraging more people to move out to Langley and Surrey if they work in Downtown, it's more along the line of them working in a neighbouring city like Coquitlam or New West but having an antiquated 2-lane road between the two of them.
When you think about it, many of the ARTERIALS in Vancouver have 3 lanes.
The jobs in the GVRD aren't centralized. This means that people often work closer to their homes but transit is more difficult to do.
They may be trying to make city centres that are transit friendly like Surrey Central, but there aren't many GOOD connections between many of these centres. Vancouver is NOT a spoke and Hub city like Calgary. It's more of a Spider Web.
If you look at the region geographically, it doesn't make sense to have a 2-lane bridge as the sole connection.
Sure, it artifically limits the traffic, but it also makes the region inefficient.
I'm sure we will get more traffic in a few more years. But I don't think it will be as few as 5. We're probably talking more like 10. And by then, there will hopefully be some reasonable rapid transit between some city centres or even hopefully commuter rail.
I would prefer this be PART of the gateway plan, a COMPREHENSIVE transit plan which would double the cost of Gateway (Well maybe increase by %50)