Time is NOT Money! Got it?

Through the miracle of government accounting, time is not money. It's just time, and it's free.

That's why politicians say things like (and I paraphrase) "Putting the dedicated bike lane on the Burrard Bridge only delays travelers by a couple of minutes." Amazingly enough, they say that like it's a good thing.

Living in Vancouver, you get a lot of that. The notion behind this blog started a few years ago when there was a urban planning conference in Vancouver, where Vancouver staffers proudly talked about how they were slowing traffic down to make it run smoother. I was absolutely dumbstruck - at least until I got my breath and started to swear.

Apparently, there are people at City Hall (and presumably in Translink) that come to work every day secure in the belief that if they impede mobility in the Lower Mainland, then they've done their jobs.

Very clearly, time is NOT money in their world. The fact that parents have less time with their kids is of no consequence. Or that if the daycare closes at 5:00, leaving work earlier to enjoy their new "slower but smoother" traffic just won't be a problem. Where did they (the City, Translink, etc) get these people? More importantly, can we send them back?

News flash: We're not rats and the Lower Mainland roads are not a maze, at least not in the "rats in a maze" sense that the traffic planners appear to have adopted. I sincerely begrudge every minute I spend sitting in a tailback created by some bright spark that funneled all the traffic into one lane from three "to smooth out the flow". Dude, you're an idiot.

So what's this got to do with mobility in the lower mainland? Well, lets look at that two-minute Burrard Bridge delay a little closer.

My back of an envelope calculation, based on this two-minute-delay number and assuming that the average Vancouverite using the bridge costs about $50,000 per person-year, the trivial two-minute trip delay costs about $16 million dollars a year! Just think! In two years, that's enough to build a bridge for the cyclists and return that blocked lane to operation.

I have to say it was a shock - the 1,000 extra bikes using the bridge are costing $16,000 each per year. It's a subsidy. No wonder the biker riders are happy - it's free money!

Would anyone care to work out the carbon calculation on this little escapade? I did - the numbers are gruesome. The "net-net" is that the delayed cars produce far more carbon than the few cyclists save. Blocking the lane on the Burrard Bridge INCREASES the total waste carbon production in the lower mainland. And cycling was supposed to be so green.

Oh well. So, repeat after me - "the public's time is free - we can waste all of it we want". Actually that's not true. I'll write about that soon.

Buses vs. Bikes vs. Cars

So, with so many topics to choose from, which goes first?

How about the "rolling roadblocks" - buses and bikes?

The issue in the Lower Mainland, Vancouver in particular, has been characterized as a competition for access to roads. Politicians get on bandwagons, voters cheer, and really dumb decisions get implemented.

Just to be clear, I'm an executive living on the West Side, near Dunbar. I work Downtown, near the Seabus terminal. I own a very nice automobile that I just love to drive.

Sounds pretty traditional, right? Well, I have a Translink Employee Pass and I take transit to work every day. My sport of choice when I was young was cycling. When I was a teenager growing up in North Vancouver, I used to cycle all over Vancouver - downtown, Stanley Park, out to UBC, and so on. I've commuted in Vancouver for decades, mostly by car. I know my way around the city.

So, with all that background, I'd like to think I have a balanced perspective.

What's the problem? Let's start with "Share the Road". It's stupid. "Let's Not Even Try" makes a lot more sense.

Simply put, buses and bikes need their own roads. In places like Ottawa where there are separate roads for buses, cars don't slow the buses down and buses don't slow the cars down. Transit usage is huge.

Same goes for bikes. The current system of "bike lanes" is misnamed - those narrow strips of pavement should be called "cyclist killing grounds". Whoever thought of that system, with cars on the left, bikes in the middle and parked cars on the right, had no clue what cycling is about. It's absolutly diabolical!

So what's my solution? I'll work my way there as I roll out these posts. One thing I will do is try to present a rational basis for decision making. The current system leaves a lot to be desired.

The current system will be the topic of another post. Soon.