Jump to content

      













Photo

[Johnson Street Bridge REPLACEMENT] General, technical, design and naming discussion


  • Please log in to reply
7621 replies to this topic

#41 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 10:12 PM

^ Agreed. Or, if they want rail so badly, they can pay for it w/o a subsidy.

#42 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 08:02 AM

A perspective

The aging Pattullo Bridge might be refurbished rather than rebuilt in order to save money and avoid a controversial decision to charge tolls on it.

http://www.bclocalne.../115577059.html

#43 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,133 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 10:00 AM

^ Agreed. Or, if they want rail so badly, they can pay for it w/o a subsidy.


If they want a retractable roof on BC Place so badly the users can pay for it. Oh wait...

#44 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 10:27 AM

^ I agree with that too. However, one extremely questionable use of money doesn't justify another. If your complaint is that we don't have enough pork in Victoria, at least hit the province up for something that won't at best promote sprawl and at worse be a complete waste of money. Proponents of a retractable roof can at least argue economic spinoffs to justify their proposed investment.

The logic that thousands of people use the Malahat every day, therefore there is demand, doesn't fly. There is commuter rail in southern California, where many millions drive, yet it is still heavily subsidized and used by less than 0.3% of the poluation. Why do we think the Duncan/Shawnigan Lake/Victoria megalopolis will fair any better, and why should Victoria foot a $12 million bill for the last 200 m of such a line?

#45 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,408 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 10:47 AM

Because it will be good for the region. As a Victorian I am happy to pay for it.

#46 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 11:00 AM

"Good for the region" isn't a very discerning criteria in my opinion. There are hundreds of things that are "good for the region" we could spend money on. Given our very limited resources, why should we prioritize this bridge?

#47 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,408 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 11:11 AM

Because it is important for ensuring that the downtown remains the primary focus of employment for the region. It is important for Tourism in that moving the train station to the West side will stop any chance of running tourist trains. Tourism is important to Victoria.

Also having the train come down opens up the possibility that trains up island may at some point increase, better for the environment than driving.

#48 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 45,243 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 11:15 AM

The bridge should have been a regional project to begin with, rail or no rail. It's absurd that the City of Victoria is single-handedly paying for such a major piece of infrastructure ($21-million in federal monies notwithstanding).

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#49 UrbanRail

UrbanRail

    Graphic Artist

  • Member
  • 2,107 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 10 February 2011 - 05:33 PM

^ I agree with that too. However, one extremely questionable use of money doesn't justify another. If your complaint is that we don't have enough pork in Victoria, at least hit the province up for something that won't at best promote sprawl and at worse be a complete waste of money. Proponents of a retractable roof can at least argue economic spinoffs to justify their proposed investment.

The logic that thousands of people use the Malahat every day, therefore there is demand, doesn't fly. There is commuter rail in southern California, where many millions drive, yet it is still heavily subsidized and used by less than 0.3% of the poluation. Why do we think the Duncan/Shawnigan Lake/Victoria megalopolis will fair any better, and why should Victoria foot a $12 million bill for the last 200 m of such a line?


Sprawl has been happening for years, and has nothing to do with the E&N. The high cost of living in Vic has forced many to live up island, so they commute into town everyday.

As for commuter rail in California. Millions still drive in California, due to very poor urban planning over the last 60 years and it will take another 60+ years for commuter rail to take a positive effect.

As for promoting sprawl, the rail line is already there, and I would say that encouraging people to take the train everyday from up island is more green than expanding the hwy through Goldstream Parkl, which will encourage even worse sprawl. People are going to move farther away from Victoria no matter what happens to the E&N.

However, one extremely questionable use of money doesn't justify another.

the retractable roof is a questionable waste of money.

No one is saying that Victoria should foot the whole $12million bill for the rail portion.

Aaron
 

 

Graphic Artist:

AutoCAD Certificate (2010), Architectural Rendering and Drafting Certificates (2009/2010), Engineering Graphics Certificate (2011) and Environmental Technology Diploma (2016)

Member of the E&N Division of the Canadian Railroad Historical Association
Camosun College Student, Graphic Artist, Transit and Rail Advocate,
Currently working on a documentary film to promote the E&N Rwy

Follow me on Twitter; http://twitter.com/IslandRail
Rail for Vancouver Island Facebook Group; http://www.facebook....139261686101247

Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin...ive_tab_profile

 


#50 UrbanRail

UrbanRail

    Graphic Artist

  • Member
  • 2,107 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 10 February 2011 - 05:55 PM

The bridge should have been a regional project to begin with, rail or no rail. It's absurd that the City of Victoria is single-handedly paying for such a major piece of infrastructure ($21-million in federal monies notwithstanding).


But Mike are you surprised by that? This region has a history of people wanting to use things but not willing to pay from them, if its outside their enclaves. The arena is a classic example.

Aaron
 

 

Graphic Artist:

AutoCAD Certificate (2010), Architectural Rendering and Drafting Certificates (2009/2010), Engineering Graphics Certificate (2011) and Environmental Technology Diploma (2016)

Member of the E&N Division of the Canadian Railroad Historical Association
Camosun College Student, Graphic Artist, Transit and Rail Advocate,
Currently working on a documentary film to promote the E&N Rwy

Follow me on Twitter; http://twitter.com/IslandRail
Rail for Vancouver Island Facebook Group; http://www.facebook....139261686101247

Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin...ive_tab_profile

 


#51 UrbanRail

UrbanRail

    Graphic Artist

  • Member
  • 2,107 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 10 February 2011 - 06:00 PM

Vic is paying for the bridge itself, because this region's councils, mayors and citizens lack a regional vision.

Aaron
 

 

Graphic Artist:

AutoCAD Certificate (2010), Architectural Rendering and Drafting Certificates (2009/2010), Engineering Graphics Certificate (2011) and Environmental Technology Diploma (2016)

Member of the E&N Division of the Canadian Railroad Historical Association
Camosun College Student, Graphic Artist, Transit and Rail Advocate,
Currently working on a documentary film to promote the E&N Rwy

Follow me on Twitter; http://twitter.com/IslandRail
Rail for Vancouver Island Facebook Group; http://www.facebook....139261686101247

Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin...ive_tab_profile

 


#52 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,570 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 06:52 PM

Are you suggesting that people are going to want to do multiple transfers to get to downtown. Or that if someone wants to get to up island by train, they have to also do multiple transfers. Stopping the train in Langford is not smart, since the majority of the population is located nearer to downtown victoria, not the westshore.


I'm not suggesting that at all, in fact I'm suggesting just the opposite.

Build a park and ride in Langford and have it connect with rapid transit, not a rail line, at least not the E and N slow line. There would be no need for multiple transfers, you get out of your car and get on the bus/light rail and zip into town the way hundreds of thousands do in Surrey via the skytrain to Vancouver.

The people from further up island can drive to Langford and get one stop service to downtown. When and if the traffic warrents it, you can build another park and ride further north and extend rapid transit to it.
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#53 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 07:16 PM

Sprawl has been happening for years, and has nothing to do with the E&N. The high cost of living in Vic has forced many to live up island, so they commute into town everyday.

As for commuter rail in California. Millions still drive in California, due to very poor urban planning over the last 60 years and it will take another 60+ years for commuter rail to take a positive effect.


I agree with this. Both Shawnigan Lake and Orange County are the result of poor urban planning and over building of highways to cater to the dream of owning your own homestead.


As for promoting sprawl, the rail line is already there, and I would say that encouraging people to take the train everyday from up island is more green than expanding the hwy through Goldstream Parkl, which will encourage even worse sprawl. People are going to move farther away from Victoria no matter what happens to the E&N.


I agree that the train is more green than expanding the Hwy. I would be far more against widening the highway. However, your second statement is doubtful. If traffic is bad on the Malahat, people will not chose to live further away. Particularly if they see their downtown co-workers walking, riding their bikes, or taking the bus or rapid transit instead of sitting in traffic jams.

If Duncan were much larger, I'd buy the rationale for this because you'd have many families where one spouse worked in one town or the other.

Good urban planning would be to allow more density in the core, making it cheaper and more desirable to live here than sit in traffic on the Malahat. Encouraging people to take a train is better, but will still result in more highway traffic for those days where the train is too slow or doesn't run at the right time.

#54 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 07:19 PM

The argument for keeping rail on the bridge is not so much whether you use that capacity in the near future or not. This is about having a "100 year bridge" that is designed to carry the weight of rail cars now or in the future. That rail might not be the E&N as we know it, since that rail bed needs a lot of money spent on it to make it a credible link.

I think there needs to be several park and rides in the Langford area to accomodate vehicles coming from Sooke and Colwood.

The light rail we all talk about may come from Langford and along the Douglas corridor which will connect to more shopping centers before arriving in downtown Victoria. This route favoured by Transit would allow a shorter connection to UVIC and the Saanich Peninsula, during future expansion.

For now we are talking about providing a space on the new bridge for future rail. Whether we like it or not the rail will not come across the harbour during the construction of the new bridge, and that link could be lost as early as July when the fish window opens/closes, and removal of the present rail span begins.

#55 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,408 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 07:42 PM

I once again think that people don't understand the difference between Commuter Rail and Rapid Transit. Commuter Rail to Langford is a good idea, RT remains a bad idea.

A large part of the pop in Duncan already is commuting here and this is growing. South of Duncan is growing faster. Not seeing this area as part of the Capital Region is a big problem.

#56 phx

phx
  • Member
  • 1,411 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 08:05 PM

It's absurd that the City of Victoria is single-handedly paying for such a major piece of infrastructure ($21-million in federal monies notwithstanding).


It seems fair, considering it was the City of Victoria neglected the bridge to the point it needs replacement.

#57 phx

phx
  • Member
  • 1,411 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 08:07 PM

The high cost of living in Vic has forced many to live up island, so they commute into town everyday.


Yeah, all the poor people are forced to live in the Shawnigan Lake ghetto.

Oh, wait. Isn't the average house price in Shawnigan Lake higher than in town?

#58 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 08:16 PM

A large part of the pop in Duncan already is commuting here and this is growing. South of Duncan is growing faster.


Which is happening at the expense of growth in Victoria. Lets have the growth here!

#59 Jacques Cadé

Jacques Cadé
  • Member
  • 622 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 09:23 PM

Build a park and ride in Langford and have it connect with rapid transit, not a rail line, at least not the E and N slow line. There would be no need for multiple transfers, you get out of your car and get on the bus/light rail and zip into town the way hundreds of thousands do in Surrey via the skytrain to Vancouver.


The E&N isn't that slow. Victoria-Langford is 20 minutes on the current schedule – try doing that in your car. Victoria-Duncan is 1:35, versus an hour by car. Slightly slower, yes, but at least you don't have to worry about perishing in a high-speed collision.

Sure, Skytrain-style rapid transit would be faster. But does anyone seriously believe BC Transit is going to build that anytime soon? Call me cynical, but to me the drawings of futuristic streetcars on Douglas Street are pure science fiction, on par with moving sidewalks and anti-gravity vehicles. There's no money for rapid transit here, and there won't be for decades. On the other hand, the E&N line exists, and money's already been put into it. (Check out the improvements at the station outside CFB Esquimalt.) For the next 20 or 30 years, the E&N is the best shot we have at something resembling commuter rail in this region.

#60 Coreyburger

Coreyburger
  • Member
  • 2,662 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 11:03 PM

I will echo the sentiment that the E&N really isn't all that slow. Nor is it very expensive if you are going to Duncan and points further north (the cost to Langford is too high, but that is the reality that a seat that goes to Langford is likely to be empty all the way up). Buses are of similar cost and time and a far less beautiful route. The major issue is that there just aren't enough trains. Imagine if we had three or four departures a day from Victoria on track that could do 80 km/h. It would blow the buses out of the water.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


To advertise on VibrantVictoria, call us at 250-884-0589.