| Acuracura | 05-29-2012 09:37 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4444
(Post 7932118)
the thing that sticks out like a sore thumb to me - THE SAME INFRASTRUCTURE!!!! same roads - think how much vancouver's population has grown, yet still same bridges from vancouver to North Van/West Van, and this was almost 40 yrs ago
| Old infrastructure is just as good now as it was then. Take an old city like Paris, for example. The roads and bridges they have now are basically what they've had for the last 40 or more years. They have also had significant population growth and as a result, the city and people have adapted. Their mindset is not to build more bridges or wider roads. Instead, they accept the fact that there are too many people in one place, thus, concessions must be made. Many of them ride motorcycles and scooters. Many more own bicycles or use the public bicycle sharing system (velib). Most Parisians use the Metro as it is fast, reliable, and relatively inexpensive. Amsterdam is another city that hasn't needed to change their infrastructure, despite their population growth. They have implemented cycling into their lifestyle which moves everyone where they need to go without burning a single drop of petrol. It is not uncommon to see a business man wearing a full suit riding a bicycle to and from work because they have embraced this method of transportation as the norm. In addition to this, bicycles take up significantly less space than a car, require very little maintenance, and is less costly in terms of ownership and liability (insurance). The city hasn't needed to build more infrastructure because the existing roads and bridges are sufficient, given the people adapt to transportation methods other than cars.
Both Paris and Amsterdam are very old European cities so let's take a North American example, such as New York. The population of New York City is almost double of all of BC. Most New Yorkers don't own a vehicle, rather they rely on services like taxis or MTA. There is simply too many people and not enough space. Still, their roads and bridges have not drastically changed over the last 40 years. It hasn't had to because the people who live there have adapted, mostly by giving up on the car. Vancouver is nowhere near at capacity like NYC is, but the fact remains there is nothing wrong with our 40 year old roads and bridges. The problem lies in the lack of supporting infrastructure, mainly public transit and pedestrian/cyclist areas. A good local example is Downtown Granville Street where there is access to public transit, thriving shops, and only foot traffic is allowed. Not only is it far more pleasant and attractive, but it moves a lot more people a lot faster with less emissions. No matter what the problem is, be it the growing population or lack of infrastructure, the solution ultimately lies in the mindset of the people. At some point the people of Vancouver will realize there are too many people and not enough lanes or parking spaces for everyone to drive. Even if we did replace our current roads and bridges with ones twice as wide, we would still have a problem with congestion and gridlock. Perhaps not right away but eventually the population will catch up and surpass the car carrying capacity of the roads. Even with an excellent transit system like Hong Kong's MTR, they still face severe congestion, not on the roads but in the trains. Imagine if all those people were driving. Even a 12 lane highway wouldn't be able to accommodate that number of people in cars. Even if you do make it to work or home, where do you and the other 500 people in your building park? Even with the imperfect MTR system there are still more people getting to where they need to go more efficiently than any other method of transportation. | 