The success of the Canada Line is wonderful and should be celebrated. I ride it every day and it’s a delight to use. However, the Line has a sour taste just the same. The folks that built it have certainly done no favours for Cambie Village and as far as I can tell, they got away with it.
If you live in the Lower Mainland, it’s impossible not to know about the devastation that Canada Line construction wrought on the Cambie merchant community. What was supposed to be a tunneling job became cut-and-cover, and then it transformed into cut-and-wait-wait-wait-then-wait-some-more-and-finally-cover. Business came to a standstill. Merchants were devastated.
Well, the wait is finally over for the ones that survived. Well, no, actually it’s not. The City, for reasons that I don’t understand, has rendered Cambie (the surface street) almost impassable with traffic lights every block or two for the full stretch from the Cambie Bridge to King Ed.
Now, back in the good old days before this all began, Cambie was an efficient way to get out of downtown heading south. No more! It’s crawl and wait, wait and crawl. While the theory probably was that calmed traffic was more business friendly, the real outcome is that I, and many more like me, will simply stay away. I’m thinking that the well intentioned (but misguided) goal was to remake Cambie Village in the image of South Granville.
But our planners (probably the same folks that forgot to put storm drains on the Blenhiem repaving job) forgot to build a Fir Street-style through-traffic bypass route. South Granville is a successful commercial area because Fir Street channels the through traffic away. Cambie has no bypass route. I know because I tried Ash one day, figuring it was one street to the west and it had a three-letter tree name just like Fir, so maybe it would work the same way. No dice. You can go east or west off the Cambie bridge fairly easily. South? Well, it’s a traffic jam every time.
Well, if the roads aren’t helping the merchants, what about the Canada Line? Well, while people in cars can’t move because of all the stops, people on the Canada Line can’t stop. For reasons that totally baffle me (safety perhaps) the Line built a station at Second Avenue. It’s labeled “Olympic Village” but frankly it’s the stop nobody needs. It was the tunneling machine entrance point, so they built a station there. For the moment there are a small number of buses that intersect it, but otherwise it’s a long way from, well, pretty much everywhere. Olympic Village station could have been left out and nobody would have missed it.
The place they absolutely should have built a station and didn’t is Cambie and Sixteenth. When you look at the Village, it’s obvious that a station there would have been transformational. It would be within walking distance of everywhere that people want to go. Pedestrian traffic from Richmond and downtown would have access to great restaurants, stores and other attractions. After all the disruption that merchants endured, it would have been a real return on investment for them. Instead, tens of thousands of potential customers hurtle by under their feet every day. So near and yet so far.
So, the Cambie Village merchants got pillaged coming and going. Surface streets are impassable most of the time, transit has abandoned them, and they’ve graced with a beautiful new neighborhood that’s designed to be hard to get to.
I wish them all the best.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
The Insanity of Our Bus System: Transit or Welfare?
The definition of insanity is that you keep doing the same thing while expecting a different outcome. Well, if we want people out of their cars and onto transit, we’re going to have change the way we think about our transit system.
If you ride the Coast Mountain buses (the Translink operating company) in the Lower Mainland, you know just how depressing most of them are. Most are old, noisy, smelly (inside) and simply not an attractive alternative to riding in your own vehicle. That, and the schedules are sparse on most routes, and they’re rarely on time.
Why is this, d’ya think? Well, the root cause is that buses are not viewed as a transportation system delivering mobility. They’re seen as “transportation of last resort for people who can’t afford a car”. The conventional wisdom is that anybody who can afford a car won’t take the bus. Therefore, buses don’t need to be an attractive option because for the people using them, buses are the only option.
It’s this tacit acceptance that buses are for people who have no other options that has allowed buses to become part of our social welfare system. Bus fares, as the Bus Rider’s Union will stoutly protest, have to be kept low to assure easy access to the system. Their logic seems to be that raising fares and improving service will keep lower income people off the buses. Their reasoning is probably sound, but I'm not sure that relieving the travails of poverty is Translink's mission.
If we want people who can afford cars out of their cars, then it’s time we act on the notion that that people who spend thousands of dollars a year to own and operate a car can be attracted to an attractive bus service. Getting an “attractive” bus service will require more buses, denser schedules and higher maintenance costs to keep the vehicles attractive. How do we pay for it? Simple! Raise fares and charge what it costs to provide good service on buses that don’t smell. If someone will pay five thousand dollars a year for gas, depreciation, parking, insurance and maintenance, twelve hundred bucks a year for an attractive transit option will look like good value.
In my case, when I switched to transit from my car, my cash saving was about $3,000 a year and I still own the car and use it for recreational purposes.
But what about those people who can’t afford higher fares? News flash: welfare is the welfare system’s problem. If low income or fixed income people need transit to get around, then subsidize them directly.
The insanity must end. We have to leave our transportation system free to adjust to a new role as a better way to get around Vancouver and the Lower Mainland than the automobile.
If you ride the Coast Mountain buses (the Translink operating company) in the Lower Mainland, you know just how depressing most of them are. Most are old, noisy, smelly (inside) and simply not an attractive alternative to riding in your own vehicle. That, and the schedules are sparse on most routes, and they’re rarely on time.
Why is this, d’ya think? Well, the root cause is that buses are not viewed as a transportation system delivering mobility. They’re seen as “transportation of last resort for people who can’t afford a car”. The conventional wisdom is that anybody who can afford a car won’t take the bus. Therefore, buses don’t need to be an attractive option because for the people using them, buses are the only option.
It’s this tacit acceptance that buses are for people who have no other options that has allowed buses to become part of our social welfare system. Bus fares, as the Bus Rider’s Union will stoutly protest, have to be kept low to assure easy access to the system. Their logic seems to be that raising fares and improving service will keep lower income people off the buses. Their reasoning is probably sound, but I'm not sure that relieving the travails of poverty is Translink's mission.
If we want people who can afford cars out of their cars, then it’s time we act on the notion that that people who spend thousands of dollars a year to own and operate a car can be attracted to an attractive bus service. Getting an “attractive” bus service will require more buses, denser schedules and higher maintenance costs to keep the vehicles attractive. How do we pay for it? Simple! Raise fares and charge what it costs to provide good service on buses that don’t smell. If someone will pay five thousand dollars a year for gas, depreciation, parking, insurance and maintenance, twelve hundred bucks a year for an attractive transit option will look like good value.
In my case, when I switched to transit from my car, my cash saving was about $3,000 a year and I still own the car and use it for recreational purposes.
But what about those people who can’t afford higher fares? News flash: welfare is the welfare system’s problem. If low income or fixed income people need transit to get around, then subsidize them directly.
The insanity must end. We have to leave our transportation system free to adjust to a new role as a better way to get around Vancouver and the Lower Mainland than the automobile.
Score One for Translink – Canada Line is a Success
I guess it just goes to show that when you build a transit system between communities with enough people that need one, people will use it. Since I ride the Canada Line daily, it’s pretty clear to me that it’s the right line in the right place. It’s so busy, just a few months into its operating life, that it can be challenging to board at rush hour.
So, how did this success come about? Well, you have to look first at the ones that didn’t work. Let’s say, the Millennium Line. It was a political boondoggle on an even grander scale than the Fast Ferry debacle. Billions were borrowed and spent to build an elevated transit system that stitches together a bunch of staunch NDP ridings. Residential densities along the line are low, ridership is low, and Translink’s operating cost picture is distorted by the ongoing cost of the debt service and operating cost of a line that had no economic rationale when it was built. In the end, through Translink fare boxes and taxes, the entire lower mainland is paying the bill for this folly.
Political decisions driving Translink’s costs are the rule, not the exception. Not only was the Millennium line an economic bust, it took nearly thirty years for the Expo line to break even, even though Translink’s analysis shows that it’s one of the lowest-cost transit lines in the world (you can thank the computer-controlled system that has no high-cost human drivers on each train). Why so long to start paying its way? Simple. Like the Millennium line, there were just not enough riders in the communities along the way for the first decades of its life.
Not only did Translink and the Canada Line planners build the Canada line in the right place, they drove a stake into the heart of one of the most bizarre Skytrain philosophies: for the original construction of the Expo line, the transit purists in charge decided that people who didn't live near a Skytrain station should be confined to using the bus for access. The original Expo line was completely devoid of Park-and-Ride facilities. In response to the inevitable public pressure, later Surrey extensions in 1990 and 1994 included the first two designated lots. The Millennium line, even though it runs though large areas with low housing density and sparse bus service, only added one more lot. While the lack of parking may have contributed to slow growth of Skytrain traffic in the past, it hasn't happened this time. While the Canada Line is only a fraction of the length of Expo and Millennium, it had two Richmond lots open on day one! Well done!
Where does that leave us for the future? Well, there is no shortage of heavily traveled routes to upgrade with trains. The unbridled growth of UBC is putting enormous strain on the road infrastructure. Cross-town routes like Broadway have reached saturation. The next stop is grade separation, a polite term for building a rail line above or below the road. Ditto, the expansion in the tri-cities, where commuters are choked through narrow traffic routes to get to work.
If our political leaders are at all serious about getting us out of our cars, there have to be real alternatives available. Computerized rail is costly to build, but inexpensive to run. We need a long-term commitment to extending it between communities in the lower mainland.
So, how did this success come about? Well, you have to look first at the ones that didn’t work. Let’s say, the Millennium Line. It was a political boondoggle on an even grander scale than the Fast Ferry debacle. Billions were borrowed and spent to build an elevated transit system that stitches together a bunch of staunch NDP ridings. Residential densities along the line are low, ridership is low, and Translink’s operating cost picture is distorted by the ongoing cost of the debt service and operating cost of a line that had no economic rationale when it was built. In the end, through Translink fare boxes and taxes, the entire lower mainland is paying the bill for this folly.
Political decisions driving Translink’s costs are the rule, not the exception. Not only was the Millennium line an economic bust, it took nearly thirty years for the Expo line to break even, even though Translink’s analysis shows that it’s one of the lowest-cost transit lines in the world (you can thank the computer-controlled system that has no high-cost human drivers on each train). Why so long to start paying its way? Simple. Like the Millennium line, there were just not enough riders in the communities along the way for the first decades of its life.
Not only did Translink and the Canada Line planners build the Canada line in the right place, they drove a stake into the heart of one of the most bizarre Skytrain philosophies: for the original construction of the Expo line, the transit purists in charge decided that people who didn't live near a Skytrain station should be confined to using the bus for access. The original Expo line was completely devoid of Park-and-Ride facilities. In response to the inevitable public pressure, later Surrey extensions in 1990 and 1994 included the first two designated lots. The Millennium line, even though it runs though large areas with low housing density and sparse bus service, only added one more lot. While the lack of parking may have contributed to slow growth of Skytrain traffic in the past, it hasn't happened this time. While the Canada Line is only a fraction of the length of Expo and Millennium, it had two Richmond lots open on day one! Well done!
Where does that leave us for the future? Well, there is no shortage of heavily traveled routes to upgrade with trains. The unbridled growth of UBC is putting enormous strain on the road infrastructure. Cross-town routes like Broadway have reached saturation. The next stop is grade separation, a polite term for building a rail line above or below the road. Ditto, the expansion in the tri-cities, where commuters are choked through narrow traffic routes to get to work.
If our political leaders are at all serious about getting us out of our cars, there have to be real alternatives available. Computerized rail is costly to build, but inexpensive to run. We need a long-term commitment to extending it between communities in the lower mainland.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
The Cement Feather-Bed: Traffic Calming, Corner Bulges and Roundabouts
The Bureaucratic Oath starts with the words “Always Look Busy…” and nothing makes that clearer than the City of Vancouver’s traffic calming program. If you want to understand more about the program, there’s an interesting memo on the Vancouver.ca website entitled: “Neighbourhood Collector Streets Traffic Calming Toolkit and Priority Guidelines” dated January 26th 2007.
This document leaves no room for dissent about the benefits of “traffic calming”. It’s clear that calming is a good thing because it’s a priority and that it’s a priority because it’s a good thing. Once you succumb to the tautology, you’ve accepted the City’s laundry list of strategies:
i. Corner and Mid-block Bulges
ii. Medians
iii. Intersection Re-alignments
iv. Roundabouts
v. Narrow Travel Lanes
vi. Curved Streets
vii. 30 km/h Speed Limits in School and Playground Zones
So, what does this list really represent? Well, with the exception of the last item, which has been the practice for decades; it’s all about creating an endless supply of construction work for city workers. It’s “Always Look Busy…” made real on the roads of our city.
And how’s this working out for those of us paying for it? Well, living near Blenheim Street in the newly calmed zone, I’m not seeing any positive outcomes. It did provide some amusement, though. When the first big rainstorm hit in October 2009, the newly installed “decorative gravel” shoulder and parking areas washed down the hill turning the stretch from 18th north to 16th into a creek bed. While City Engineering places a premium on planning for traffic calming, basic storm sewer design seems to have migrated beyond their grasp. The result was two more weeks of construction while the City cleaned up the mess, paved the shoulders and fixed the drains.
Other than the ability of the Blenheim calming strategy to create civic busy-work, it hasn’t made much difference. Now, it is true that there have been fewer emergency vehicle sirens recently. “Calming” has basically rendered the only north-south corridor west of Oak Street unavailable for public safety use. Oh, and it’s made parking on Blenheim much harder to find, pushing it off onto side streets. From a “look busy” standpoint, traffic calming on Blenheim was a roaring success.
From a community point of view, the benefits are hard to discern. After all, Blenheim served its community well for the previous eighty years as a plain old street; suddenly according to the City’s new “calming” religion, it wasn’t good enough. Millions of dollars and more than a year of construction work converted a road strewn with potholes into a road strewn with cement obstacles. A simple, six-week repaving job was all anybody living here actually wanted.
So, the next time you see a Vancouver City work crew digging up old sidewalks to build corner bulges or a roundabout, remember the first three words of the Bureaucratic Oath “Always Look Busy…”. And try to smile. Wave, maybe.
This document leaves no room for dissent about the benefits of “traffic calming”. It’s clear that calming is a good thing because it’s a priority and that it’s a priority because it’s a good thing. Once you succumb to the tautology, you’ve accepted the City’s laundry list of strategies:
i. Corner and Mid-block Bulges
ii. Medians
iii. Intersection Re-alignments
iv. Roundabouts
v. Narrow Travel Lanes
vi. Curved Streets
vii. 30 km/h Speed Limits in School and Playground Zones
So, what does this list really represent? Well, with the exception of the last item, which has been the practice for decades; it’s all about creating an endless supply of construction work for city workers. It’s “Always Look Busy…” made real on the roads of our city.
And how’s this working out for those of us paying for it? Well, living near Blenheim Street in the newly calmed zone, I’m not seeing any positive outcomes. It did provide some amusement, though. When the first big rainstorm hit in October 2009, the newly installed “decorative gravel” shoulder and parking areas washed down the hill turning the stretch from 18th north to 16th into a creek bed. While City Engineering places a premium on planning for traffic calming, basic storm sewer design seems to have migrated beyond their grasp. The result was two more weeks of construction while the City cleaned up the mess, paved the shoulders and fixed the drains.
Other than the ability of the Blenheim calming strategy to create civic busy-work, it hasn’t made much difference. Now, it is true that there have been fewer emergency vehicle sirens recently. “Calming” has basically rendered the only north-south corridor west of Oak Street unavailable for public safety use. Oh, and it’s made parking on Blenheim much harder to find, pushing it off onto side streets. From a “look busy” standpoint, traffic calming on Blenheim was a roaring success.
From a community point of view, the benefits are hard to discern. After all, Blenheim served its community well for the previous eighty years as a plain old street; suddenly according to the City’s new “calming” religion, it wasn’t good enough. Millions of dollars and more than a year of construction work converted a road strewn with potholes into a road strewn with cement obstacles. A simple, six-week repaving job was all anybody living here actually wanted.
So, the next time you see a Vancouver City work crew digging up old sidewalks to build corner bulges or a roundabout, remember the first three words of the Bureaucratic Oath “Always Look Busy…”. And try to smile. Wave, maybe.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Our driver's licensing system needs an update
From the dawn of the automotive age, driver's licenses have been a very routine and comfortable part of life. You get to your late teens, take lessons, and you get your license.
Well, I'm sad to report, this old system was just not designed for the new age of diverse road use. Today's buses, motorcycles and cars are controlled by people properly licensed to operate them on the roads. Bicycles? Not so much.
The concept of the "drivers license" sounds simpler than it actually is. When issued, it gives you the authority to use a motor vehicle on the public roads. What's hard about that? Well, it's really two licenses: one says that you've been trained and tested on the operation of a motor vehicle and the second says you've been trained and tested on the use of public roads. Cyclists may well not need the first qualification, but a solid dose of the second would be a huge step to improving road safety.
The acrimony between cyclists and the motorists has become epic. Both sides, with considerable justification, cite examples of wanton bad behavior on the part of the other. Most of the bad behaviour stems from very different ways that each community uses the roads. It's exacerbated because cyclists act as though they're exempt from the Motor Vehicle Act. They're not, and updating the licensing and insurance regime to reflect that fact needs to be done soon.
It should come as no surprise that to use the road, a road user needs to understand the "rules of the road". Stopping at stop signs and lights, staying in their lane, signaling, looking before proceding, and so on. This is the stuff that motoristst do pretty well most of the time, and that many cyclists seem to consider unnecessary because, after all, they're not driving cars.
The solution is obvious. Lets add a new license to the current system, say a "Class 9 road-use-only" license category that's required if you want to be in control of a moving conveyance on the public roads regardless of whether it has a motor or not.
Combined with existing Class 1 through Class 6 licenses for cars, motorcycles and trucks, the new "9"would extend coverage for cyclists and other non-traditional road users. It levels the playing field. If you break the rules of the road you'll get a ticket and a fine. Have an accident, you've got insurance coverage. Don't know the rules or can't afford insurance? You shouldn't be out there.
It's time for the legislators to take action on unqualified and uninsured road users and make "road use" licensing a reality. It's time to make all road users accountable, whether they're rolling around on two, four, or eighteen wheels.
Well, I'm sad to report, this old system was just not designed for the new age of diverse road use. Today's buses, motorcycles and cars are controlled by people properly licensed to operate them on the roads. Bicycles? Not so much.
The concept of the "drivers license" sounds simpler than it actually is. When issued, it gives you the authority to use a motor vehicle on the public roads. What's hard about that? Well, it's really two licenses: one says that you've been trained and tested on the operation of a motor vehicle and the second says you've been trained and tested on the use of public roads. Cyclists may well not need the first qualification, but a solid dose of the second would be a huge step to improving road safety.
The acrimony between cyclists and the motorists has become epic. Both sides, with considerable justification, cite examples of wanton bad behavior on the part of the other. Most of the bad behaviour stems from very different ways that each community uses the roads. It's exacerbated because cyclists act as though they're exempt from the Motor Vehicle Act. They're not, and updating the licensing and insurance regime to reflect that fact needs to be done soon.
It should come as no surprise that to use the road, a road user needs to understand the "rules of the road". Stopping at stop signs and lights, staying in their lane, signaling, looking before proceding, and so on. This is the stuff that motoristst do pretty well most of the time, and that many cyclists seem to consider unnecessary because, after all, they're not driving cars.
The solution is obvious. Lets add a new license to the current system, say a "Class 9 road-use-only" license category that's required if you want to be in control of a moving conveyance on the public roads regardless of whether it has a motor or not.
Combined with existing Class 1 through Class 6 licenses for cars, motorcycles and trucks, the new "9"would extend coverage for cyclists and other non-traditional road users. It levels the playing field. If you break the rules of the road you'll get a ticket and a fine. Have an accident, you've got insurance coverage. Don't know the rules or can't afford insurance? You shouldn't be out there.
It's time for the legislators to take action on unqualified and uninsured road users and make "road use" licensing a reality. It's time to make all road users accountable, whether they're rolling around on two, four, or eighteen wheels.
It's not a road, it's a loading dock
So, have you been downtown lately? Tried driving in the morning rush? Had to go along Seymour or Homer? How about Hastings? Cordova? Richards? Dunsmuir? It really doesn't matter. Likely, regardless of which street you've been on, you've been stopped for five, maybe ten minutes trying to get by a construction site that's spilled out into the street and is blocking two or maybe three lanes.
As much as we travelers might believe that major downtown thoroughfares are dedicated to the smooth flow of bus, bike and automobile traffic, the Vancouver City works department believes that their true calling is to grow up to be loading docks. If you're a user of the road system, it seems your time at home and at work has been sacrificed on the altar of ... well I'm not sure, actually.
It's not sure because it's not clear what blocking of the traffic lane adjacent to a construction site is supposed to accomplish. It seems that the curb lane beside every building site is automatically handed over to the construction project. From the moment the permit is issued, the curb lane is permanently occupied by the site's dumpster and a collection of shiny pickup trucks. I suppose it's supposed to be used as a place to handle the site's deliveries, but in reality it's just the first lane in a multi-lane road-block circus that goes on for years. It might save the builders money, but the public's time is not free.
And that's why the practice is so extraordinarily wasteful. When it became common practice isn't clear, but it's been overused and taken to ridiculous extremes (remember the chaos on Cordova at the Woodwards' site?). It's just got to stop.
Building construction for new buildings is not a public priority that stands ahead of the needs of people that need to get to work, to get home, or to just get around during the day. Twenty years ago, construction sites handled all of their loading and unloading, except for a few critical moments, by having a loading area on the site. City Hall treats road user's time as a limitless and free asset. The truth however is that every minute wasted by waiting increases environmental damage and is time and money that could be better spent.
Now, I agree that sites will occasionally need to use the roads for loading and unloading. A "usage fee" of, say $50,000 per lane per day would certainly focus their thinking very precisely on only blocking traffic on days they really need to block it. Until then, having a blocked curb lane is a perquisite for the builders that's granted by city hall, paid for by the public, and managed by absolutely no-one.
It's time to end the practice.
As much as we travelers might believe that major downtown thoroughfares are dedicated to the smooth flow of bus, bike and automobile traffic, the Vancouver City works department believes that their true calling is to grow up to be loading docks. If you're a user of the road system, it seems your time at home and at work has been sacrificed on the altar of ... well I'm not sure, actually.
It's not sure because it's not clear what blocking of the traffic lane adjacent to a construction site is supposed to accomplish. It seems that the curb lane beside every building site is automatically handed over to the construction project. From the moment the permit is issued, the curb lane is permanently occupied by the site's dumpster and a collection of shiny pickup trucks. I suppose it's supposed to be used as a place to handle the site's deliveries, but in reality it's just the first lane in a multi-lane road-block circus that goes on for years. It might save the builders money, but the public's time is not free.
And that's why the practice is so extraordinarily wasteful. When it became common practice isn't clear, but it's been overused and taken to ridiculous extremes (remember the chaos on Cordova at the Woodwards' site?). It's just got to stop.
Building construction for new buildings is not a public priority that stands ahead of the needs of people that need to get to work, to get home, or to just get around during the day. Twenty years ago, construction sites handled all of their loading and unloading, except for a few critical moments, by having a loading area on the site. City Hall treats road user's time as a limitless and free asset. The truth however is that every minute wasted by waiting increases environmental damage and is time and money that could be better spent.
Now, I agree that sites will occasionally need to use the roads for loading and unloading. A "usage fee" of, say $50,000 per lane per day would certainly focus their thinking very precisely on only blocking traffic on days they really need to block it. Until then, having a blocked curb lane is a perquisite for the builders that's granted by city hall, paid for by the public, and managed by absolutely no-one.
It's time to end the practice.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)