Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have never disagreed with Robynator in a long long time but I do now. That could be due to most of my existence around big American cities which were covered, crisscrossed and surrounded by freeways. The time I lived in North Van, every time I was stuck in traffic because 2 or 3 lanes squeezed into 1 because of a bridge such as at the dilapidated Lions Gate Bridge I can only wonder why they never spent any money improving the roadways. Because improved roadways is how trucks move goods and commerce right? Improving our commutes improves air quality right?
As one goes through the Peach Arch the difference in roadways is obscene. I understand what you are saying about more roads could make more people want to give up mass transit, our govt has been saying that for years as an excuse to not fund road projects. I don't believe this govt when they say that and I don't believe yours. Why can't they just improve HWY 1? Bring it up to modern day standards. For safety sake. I don't remember too many places where there was not enough room to add a lane and a shoulder all along 1.
Hey I ain't complaining, I loved my time in North Van and would go back to stay for good given half the chance. I just grew up in the states with an interstate highway system that can take you to every city without traffic lights including rest stops, shoulders, minimum road widths and other safety factors. I am no fan of taking busses and trains but that is just the culture I grew up in. I would not call for additional major highways over and around Vancouver but bringing HWY 1 up to modern safety standards would improve life as well as transportation of goods in your area. Like Montreal or Toronto maybe?
Originally Posted by Zoisite Are you asking about highways development, or urban / agricultural & land development?
all of the above, I'm all ears. I like BC, and I learned something tonight from these posts that Vancouver doesn't need or want freeways and they have other things in mind. More power too them! I'm glad I opened this thread and what I lean here on CD. I've driven in Vancouver with frustration on being stuck in traffic on Georgia St heading for the bridge; however I suppose building new freeways is very 20th century and introducing other ways of mobility is 21st century. Vancouver is a young and modern city, yet ahead of the curve on some aspects. But I changed my mind (imagine that) and see Vancouver's point of view. With the city recently showcased to the world in the Olympics, it makes me wonder what Vancouver andthe BC lower mainland will evolve into.
You haven't said when was the last time you were in Vancouver. I'll assume it's been awhile. So, I don't know if this is the kind of information you're looking for....
With regard to highways development and commuter transportation ..... Hwy 1 is gradually being developed. It is now 6 lanes from the boundary of Vancouver going east to Surrey where it becomes 4 lanes again. Road work is ongoing eastward from there to continue developing it into 6 lanes. It's a big project and will of course take several years to be completed. The past 4 years more attention was paid to improving the Sea-to-Sky highway from Vancouver to Whistler because of the 2010 Olympics, as well as developing transit rail systems from Vancouver to Richmond. There is also a commuter rail system from Vancouver to Mission and another from Vancouver to Surrey, (and the 2 new bridges I mentioned in previous post).
Urban and agricultural land development are still on the increase as always. I'm posting a link below for you that shows a color-coded map of the lower mainland eco-region, updated as of last year (it says 2000 on the map but it's actually updated as of Oct. 2009). There you will see the extent of urban and land development, the development of annual and perennial crop lands, etc. as well as wetlands and wildlife reserve lands. Many parts of the Agricultural Land Reserve (the ALR is unique to BC) and wildlife reserve in the valley can't be used for urban or highways development. Urban development is spreading upwards into the foothills of the mountains along the north side of the valley, and further up into all the big hills in the middle of the valley around Abbotsford and Chilliwack regions.
The pink areas on the map - that's people and urban development.
Every large city needs freeways. They have a far higher capacity than surface streets, as they lack traffic lights, cross traffic, property access and other crap that makes driving on regular roads in peak hour a living hell. On the freeway, even if it is congested, you don't have to wait for 10 changes of the damn traffic light to get moving.
All the public transport foamers will ofcourse cry foul over any freeway proposal, but they are full crap, as it is impossible to have an effiecent transport system based on only 1 mode. Freeways and public transport compliment each other, not substitute. Alot of people live an inconvenient distance away from PT, or their destinations are far from train/bus lines etc so driving makes more sense to them. Things like that needs to be taken into account. You can't have one or the other.
It may be so that large cities might need freeways. However, Vancouver, which is what this topic is about, is not a large city. By the standards of large cities around the world, Vancouver would be considered very small. The city itself has a population of around about 600 thousand, and the population for the B.C. lower mainland is just over 2.1 million.
I really hope Vancouver gets some good freeway systems going because as much as I hate them, Vancouver is not a small city and will not be getting any smaller either. It needs something like this. I know what it's like to be stuck in bumper to bumper traffic in the downtown core. It is ridiculous to think that everyone will use public transit instead of taking their car. It's unrealistic. I know Vancouver isn't big enough to be called a LARGE CITY but it is big enough to be an average city and cities that are even smaller than Vancouver have freeways.
It may be so that large cities might need freeways. However, Vancouver, which is what this topic is about, is not a large city. By the standards of large cities around the world, Vancouver would be considered very small. The city itself has a population of around about 600 thousand, and the population for the B.C. lower mainland is just over 2.1 million.
.
It is large enough to justify a proper road network
It may be so that large cities might need freeways. However, Vancouver, which is what this topic is about, is not a large city. By the standards of large cities around the world, Vancouver would be considered very small. The city itself has a population of around about 600 thousand, and the population for the B.C. lower mainland is just over 2.1 million.
Little old backward Perth, Arse End of Nowhere, has a Freeway - the Mitchell north of the Swan River and the Kwinana south of it - 80km of it now. Started it back in the 70's. Population now: 1.5 million. Plus a great train system - carriages built by Bombardier. Carriages way nicer than Montreal's, but certainly not the coverage of Montreal.
I've lived in both cities. Love both cities, maybe Vancouver more so, but Perth kicks Vancouver's arse when it comes to getting about via train or car. Bike too - our bike paths are amazing. Vancouver is unbearably frustrating when it comes to building/improving anything - roads, train system, whatever. I hate those elevated tracks! Blight, or what? We twinned our Causeway here in Perth, with no fuss, something that should have been done to the Lion's Gate years ago. Except last time I lived there (pre '99) they were crying over eels or something, so no extra bridge or tunnel or anything.
Caphillsea77, I think you posted reasonable and polite questions so I'm not referring to you in this
- but as for the rest of you exhaust loving "freeway-pushers", I think you are utterly hilarious and just a wee bit pompous with your protests. You're moaning and criticizing about Vancouver not having freeways (that you won't be paying for but you think we should), suitable enough for your superior standards and expectations ..... but you don't live here and wouldn't benefit from them even if we did have them.
That cracks me up. I wish we had a smilie on this board that shows the little guy splitting a gut and crying tears from laughing so hard.
Absolutely loving Vancouver for not having freeways. Seattle has them, and traffic is still horrible. And look at this ugly freeway cutting the city right in the middle!
Vancouverites don't want freeways. They chose not to have them. And I hope it stays this way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
