April 6, 2017

Mayors' Council Futile Election Strategy: 'Curing Congestion'

Here’s how the Mayors’ Council is trying to make transit a provincial election issue:

Curing congestion – who could be against that?  And it resonates nicely with more than a half-century of advertising for nasal congestion that we have embedded in our minds.


But a note of caution …
We always think of congestion as a bad thing – and at some particular choke points, it is.  But beyond the most egregious examples, there’s a belief that, ideally, traffic should always be able to flow at the posted speed limit.
So is congestion, then, traffic that is moving at 20 kmh rather than 50?   Should our transportation system be aiming for constant free-flowing traffic at high speeds everywhere, all the time. That’s what the functional definition of congestion implies.(Tom-Tom is Smart-Smart – and Dumb-Dumb.) However, to achieve that ideal means destroying the idea of the city as a place of human exchange, with commensurately crowded public spaces.
The congestion-free ideal is used to justify billions in excessive transportation infrastructure that at best will temporarily deal with only one choke point and then, literally and metaphorically, move the problem down the road.

“This will be the largest bridge ever built in B.C. When completed, it will address what is now the worst traffic bottleneck in the province and bring travel time reliability to one of our most important transportation corridors, serving national, provincial and regional economies,” said Transportation and Infrastructure Minister, Todd Stone in December, 2016.

Nor will transit ‘solve’ the problem.  It offers a choice and can help prevent a road-based problem from becoming a lot worse.  It helps shape a less car-dependent urban form. But so long as the mentality of the ever-expanding free road exists, transit won’t deliver what the advertising promises: a cure for congestion.
If we continue to offer an illusion, we’ll be taking on a challenge that we can’t, and shouldn’t, meet.

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

Leave a Reply to EricCancel Reply

  1. I also think this is a self-defeating strategy. As you say, it makes a false promise and fosters car-centric thinking. I think most people intuitively realize it won’t deliver much impact for drivers, so this comes off as propaganda. I think the problem of framing is more insidious.
    Studies of environmental messaging illustrate the problem. Say you want people to reduce their environmental footprint. You have a choice of two strategies. The first is to appeal to their community spirit: help us build a healthy environment together. The second is to appeal to their self-interest: buy a fuel-efficient car and save money on gas.
    Each of these messages activates a values framework: community-oriented or self-interested. We all apply both of these frames at different times. Activating one set of values makes it stronger: and the other weaker (there is empirical support for this). If I appeal to your community values for one issue, you are more likely to prioritize community values for other things too. If, on the other hand, I appeal to your self-interest, you are more likely to value self-interest for other issues.
    A likely outcome of the self-interest campaign is that people buy more fuel-efficient cars: but they are more likely to reject collective action to protect the environment where it does not benefit their self interest. You win the battle, but lose the war.
    On its own, the word congestion activates a whole constellation of ideas and values: about free movement, about individuality, about private versus public, and of course about cars. It makes people think about cars, about the problems they have with cars, about how to make traffic move more smoothly. Talking about congestion is more likely to sell the Massey Bridge than transit investment.
    This is as ridiculous as Coke running a “don’t buy Pepsi” ad. They would never do it: they want you thinking about Coke, not Pepsi. If you want to sell transit, sell a positive vision about transit, not something about cars. (In my opinion, this basic failure to present a positive vision, rather than a negation of her opponent, is a big part of the reason what lost Clinton the election.)
    This is the same mistake Translink is making with those “Drive to your future” ads for bus driving jobs. Transit is a long term challenge for our region. The communication strategy should be to build a positive image for transit over time, not sacrifice that image for short-term expediency.

    1. I find congestion is both a well understood and a misunderstood concept. It is well understood as we see it every day. We experience it through queues (length), increased numbers of people and vehicles on limited capacities (density), and delays (time). This is evident in all modes. But it is also misunderstood as always being a bad thing, which is mainly driven by our *immediate* perception of congestion for what it is, which is a physical impediment to where we want to go. We need to look deeper.
      Being a traffic engineer, I deal with this concept almost on a daily basis. We were traditionally trained to “get rid of it.” (I say “were” as it is not the case anymore: today’s young traffic engineers are much more pro-active transport than I ever was). However, I find taking a ‘Confucius’ view of congestion, helps me to understand it better and accept that it is a part of life. We seem to have a hate-need relationship with congestion–we hate it when there is too much of it, but we really need it when there is not enough. Sounds bizarre, but hear me out:
      Take for example two restaurants next to each other, where one has a line up and the other empty of patrons. Which one would you rather go to? No one likes to wait in a line up as much as they don’t like to drive in congestion. But the reason for the self-inflicted congestion as we get in the snaking line-up is because of the desire or demand for the more popular eatery (and because of our lemmingish tendencies).
      Similarly, congestion (looking deeper past the physical impediment it is) is an indicator of success. Congestion on our roads indicates our city is a desirable place, not like a “dying” city where the roads are empty. Congestion is a symptom or byproduct of success–a “necessary evil”. When the tech market bubble burst, places like San Francisco had less congestion because less people were driving to their remaining jobs. So if one were to desire complete removal of congestion…well be careful what you wish for.
      The question is can we have the ‘cake and eat it too’….can we have a successful and desirable place to live without the inefficiencies of excessive congestion and other externalities? I think the answer lies in a functional and integrated multi-modal system where choices are provided, but at the same time priced relative to their social merit (this is very difficult to do as it goes back to the subsidy mapping issue). One path that may lead us there is through automation and connectedness within an established and mature ‘shared economy’. But as history usually repeats, one solution may cause yet another problem…

      1. Not that I propose it as a solution, but as a thought exercise.
        What if governments didn’t build transportation infrastructure. What if their only role was to provide ROWs which they would lease to the private sector to build what ever the private sector thought was the best way to make a buck. What is the travelling public paid market rates for whichever mode or service they chose.
        How do you think that would have changed the way we built cities?

        1. Paying the actual costs of mobility, then adding a profit margin on top, would be an extremely radical change to the status quo where users pay a much lower rate than even simple cost recovery.
          This demonstrates how mobility profoundly influences the way we build our cities, and how profoundly cities have been misdirected. Transportation networks are literally the skeletal frame upon which cities are hung, and choosing one of the most inefficient methods to be mobile over all others was, in my view, one of the biggest mistakes of the last century.
          I agree that the language and focus must change, but I think it’s best to redirect it toward the bigger picture beyond congestion relief of building more resilient cities with sustainable systems and true democracy in financing mobility.

        2. Interesting thought, Ron. That would allow the market to do what it wants to do. However the ROW can be the most of the cost (land, utilities, etc.) and so as a company wanting to maximize returns may pave roads and charge tolls vs build transit and fares because you first need paved roads to operate transit. Possibly you’d have a world of cars and bikes, with cars being used for longer distance trips and bikes for shorter. If you price everything right with some oversight regarding minimizing externalities then an “optimal” system may evolve, only limited to the provision of ROW.

      2. “congestion . . . is an indicator of success. Congestion on our roads indicates our city is a desirable place, not like a “dying” city where the roads are empty.”
        Yes! Anything less than congestion is inefficient: it means under-user of the roads. I like the way you put it: congestion means success. This expands the discussion beyond technical matters of movement to bigger questions of what we want to achieve.
        I want to work out how to shift the focus to what we really want. I think that starts with mobility.
        In Motordom, the concept of mobility is reduced to driving. Obsessed with technical means, we exclude human ends. Arguing for transit, or against cars, suffers from the same failing. What matters is not whether we drive, take a bus, bicycle or walk: these are just technical means to achieve mobility.
        Mobility in turn is just a means: what really matters is the many meaningful reasons why people want or need to get places. It is not the journey, but the destination. I make a trip to visit a friend or to work to feed my family. My mother in law makes a trip so that she can see her grandchildren or buy groceries without depending on me. Independence, community, family, labour: these are why mobility matters.
        This is where motordom lost the plot. You hear it every time someone says we need a ten-lane bridge for trucks. Such a ridiculous denial of the reality of why people drive (and of the economic role of labour) covers up for a gaping weakness: an inability to articulate why it is so important to drive everywhere.
        I am bothered that congestion dominates these comments. I think that risks making the same mistake the traffic engineers made when they turned the design of cities into a question of vehicles per hour: which is to lose touch with the fundamental reasons why any of this matters. In the past, I have said that for me this is about what kind of city we want to live in. Perhaps I was wrong. That is part of something even more basic: what kind of lives do we want to lead?
        Mr Price held a contest for amateur ads during the referendum campaign. Those that we liked the best were about the people we want to be and how we want to live. They were not dishonest attempts at persuasion: in my opinion, they were more truthful than the list of proposed bus and train routes mailed out to every household.
        It seems to me that focusing on congestion can be disrespectful regardless of whether we believe we can really “cure” it. It is dishonest if we try seduce others by telling them we care deeply about something we think they care about, when in fact we want something else.
        This is a shame, because the better argument, in my view, is not about us persuading them: it is about values that we all share. I think that really effective, honest communication is a process through which we figure out what matters, and and a way of enlarging the circle of who “we” are: not a we who persuade and a they who are persuaded, but all of us together sharing a common vision.
        Mobility: independence, family, labour, community: I would start there.

        1. That is a very cogent argument, Geof. I know it’s too easy to get stuck on technology, mode, the minutia of policy and whatnot, which tend to be only a means to an end.
          A community of our making, that is the place to start.

        2. Geoff, I agree the staring place is with our collective values. It is a simple concept yet a difficult thing to define. But very important first-step in the planning process because this is where you establish your foundation.
          However, we do have approaches and means to do this but transforming industries to best practices in consultation, communication, and evaluation towards decisions that in turn support the collective values, is not easy as it sounds.
          Nevertheless, our approaches should be founded on the fact that collective values are the input or stating point, and they are also the desired outcome. Process is as important as the outcome. Everything else can be wide-open, and should be, including the solutions or options of choice. This is where I derived my “modally agnostic” stance in that having a modal-bias does not help. If a certain mode or solution is the best, then an objective and honest approach will reveal that in due time.

        3. Clark, I agree with many of your posts, however your “modally agnostic” is a bit off the mark. You write that CoV is not modally agnostic because they do a few things to improve the safety and convenience of those who choose to walk or cycle for some of their trips and do it with minimal effect on motor vehicle traffic. And in spite of their efforts, CoV stlll has a serious cycling deficit And it is not like the politicians did a switcheroo on the voters – they plainly stated that they wanted to improve the lot of those choosing to ride a bike for some of their trips and a majority voted for them.
          However In a culture which is not modally agnostic, how can one do the right thing? without showing leadership? By pushing the envelope, and demonstrating that small changes in infrastructure do not spell the end of motordon, people are slowly accepting change. Many people, including the DVBIA are now totally on side and cycling mode share is approaching 10% Would these changes have happened if we started with our collective values and attempted to plan a brighter future? My guess is not. Are the outcomes positive for the city? I would suggest that they are very positive. Modal agnosticism may sound good but in reality, I don’t think it works.

        4. I’m not sure what it means to be modally agnostic. In the end, something gets built and we decide what that something is.
          But we don’t have to put that at the centre of our arguments. Before anything is built, we need the will to do it. I’m talking about generating that will: about the mental framework for making those decisions. This is an election strategy, a communication strategy. You can call it marketing, though I don’t particularly like the word. How do we mobilize public and political support for transit investments? The criticism is that talking about congestion is unlikely to achieve that. My argument is that talking about values can.
          Not because we trick people with propaganda into agreeing to something they don’t want: but because when we remind them of their values, many of them will see the merits of alternatives to the car. To do that, we need to keep our eyes on the prize: not on transit, but on what we hope to accomplish with transit.
          Let me give you an example. An elderly woman was angry with the tax department. Why should I pay all of these taxes, she asked. Her daughter replied, because the sky is blue (and the woman thought of Beijing). The streets are safe. The schools are clean. The hospitals treat us when we are sick. She spoke of ends, not means: not of taxes or policies, but of values. The woman, reminded of all these things that she treasured, replied: “you are right.”

        5. I think Vancouver’s success with bicycles does not apply to transit. Vancouver was able to impose bike lanes on a sceptical public because Vancouver alone was able to muster the political will and resources, and because the change was incremental. The city was able to lead and justify the infrastructure after the fact.
          Transit isn’t like that. It requires collaboration from multiple governments and levels of government. The costs of implementation are very high. Though it does occasionally happen, I don’t think that’s at all realistic to expect politicians to lead. In a democratic society, their primary job is to follow. If leadership is not an option, if no-one is going to step in and just build it, then the only alternative is to build support for the idea.
          If we want change, we need to build a movement or a vision so that politicians can leap in front of it. We have just seen than happen: with the NDP and the Port Mann bridge. This is how most politics work: the public’s frame or way of thinking is so powerful that party ideology is irrelevant. If people felt that way of transit, then it would be built; all that would remain would be the technical question of how.

        6. Arno, the comment (I guess from the vancouver sun) was referring to the public bike share based on my understanding of the typical system design and demands for it locally. Even if the policy emphasis is towards more cycling, it still precludes funding dollars be spent in the most effective means. So pro-bike policies do not mean you should build gold-plated bike lanes, but to have more people cycling (outcome is not necessarily infrastructure, but usage, and further still, social, environmental, and economic benefits). So the *means* on how that is achieved should not be limited. It should be design-agnostic or neutral, if you will. From my research into this topic and considering the data from locally and abroad, I found that over-emphasis on certain modes can become a bias that leads to inefficiencies. I think some could agree there was an over emphasis on the automobile in the past, causing inefficiencies impacting congestion, safety and air quality. Now does this mean we then turn and over emphasize on the other modes (i.e fight fire with fire)? It seems to some this is the approach that should be taken, and it can seem a war-like approach at times. Or instead should we stop and think about the kinds of inefficiencies and waves we are creating from all this back and forth, and instead move forward in a more diplomatic, rational and steady approach.
          Again, traveling is a means to an end for most people, and they do not take a certain mode just because unless they are restricted to just a few choices. I agree cycling or walking can optimize your time by not having to go to the gym to get exercise, but the purpose of traveling isn’t always about exercise. I think to start from a platform of a specific mode is premature. Rather we should step back and start from the more fundamental platform of effective and equitable transport, whatever that may be or look like.
          Whether modal agnosticism can work or not, it is a more holistic view or attitude towards our understanding of the reality of the dynamics between supply and demand of the transport system. However, desiring to align with this approach or not as you say, it requires leadership. I can simply offer up suggestions.

        7. Okay Clark, so what are our values?
          Efficient use of resources and tax dollars.
          Increased safety.
          Healthier, fitter population.
          Accessible for all – rich and poor.
          Quieter.
          Choice/multimodal.
          Easy on the environment.
          Low/no pollution.
          Flexible.
          Expensive to build.
          Expensive to operate.
          Often dangerous.
          Noisy.
          Contributes to air pollution and climate change.
          Contributes to obesity and other health problems.
          Reduces choice and options for multimodal.
          Encourages sprawl and long commutes.
          High land consumption.
          Vast pavement/less green space.
          Aggravation.
          Comfort.
          Isolation.
          Limited hours of operation.
          What weight does an agnostic give these values?

        8. That is the point: a modally and solution agnostic approach does not give any weight to any values. An objective and neutral approach allows society to determine the values and the weights, without bias from the process or approach. Is that not what democracy represents–to allow us to determine what matters for us? However I think we can also agree democracy can lead to unintended consequences (e.g. tragedy of the commons) and leaders can take a more parental role (what is best for you vs. what you want) through policies and regulations. How to determine what is the best for us can obviously be controversial and the subject of most political discussions, but that is why we elected them into the position for: to decide what is best for us (which usually is a range of compromises given the wicked/complex nature of human issues).
          As for professionals, I believe we should not impose our values in our work out of respect of the varied values people have in society. We should limit our personal values to our own personal voting and voicing. In the end we provide elected officials with objective information based on evidence and sound reasoning (with the disclaimers of limitations), and they make the decision. Everyone plays a part in that decision through voting and voicing, which is the benefit of the liberty bestowed on us through our constitutional rights.

        9. Clark, I do think that the city could do more to emphasize the benefits that improved cycling and walking infrastructure provide to society, but it is clear from most research I have read, that safe and convenient cycling infrastructure is essential in order to get more people cycling. Also, I suggest that investment in cycling infrastructure is the least costly way of providing mobility in an urban environment. And the results achieved by CoV bear this out. Unfortunately, many people fear change, however, when presented with infrastructure that works they do accept it. Jeanette Sadik-Kahn transformed New York by putting in all sorts of temporary infrastructure to improve walking and cycling and after a year everyone loved it so much that she made it permanent. CoV is moving much slower, but the results are still quite positive.

        10. Arno, I whole-heatedly agree with you and the evidence is clear that safety is essential when provisioning active transport infrastructure, given the vulnerabilities of these modes relative to motor vehicles. And the priority is to ensure safety before simply provisioning for the sake of increased uptake. You will lose any uptake if a design is unsafe, so safety is paramount and foundational to the effectiveness of that investment.
          We need advocates such as yourself to raise awareness of issues of inequity. And if corresponding professional analyses result in validating your concerns, your argument is not only all the more effective, but powerful to reinforcing pro-cycling policies. However the analysis, and your validation, is founded on the objectivity of the work, akin to the foundation (“objectivity”) of a structure (“analysis”). If I were to do the analysis and I was known to be biased towards cycling, ironically, I would weaken your argument.
          To me, that is the thrust of the “modally agnostic” approach. If you truly believe in your cause, you would trust such an approach would maximize the validation of the mode you advocate. Sort of like you know your sports team is the best team and you want and trust the referees to be objective in their reffing, regardless of which is their favorite team. By definition, advocates need not be modally agnostic. However I believe professionals, who provide official advice to elected officials, should be.

  2. Perhaps someone at TransLink has noticed that being sadistic and promoting painful vehicular congestion is not entirely flavour of the month.
    Promoting congestion as a cure seems like an extreme approach that cannot be welcomed by the majority of the public, unless they are mostly masochistic.
    Congestion in any form in the universe is unhealthy and dangerous. When the wilderbeest congest along their trek the weak are picked off. When liquid congests it can quickly become fetid and stagnant and unhealthy. In any organism, congestion can lead to pain and worse.
    For a transportation entity the efficiency of all modes under its jurisdiction should be equally refined to continually relieve congestion where ever it manifests.
    It is understandable that special interest groups will emphasize, lobby and promote their own pet mode and seek that mode’s priority. When the tactics or commentary lean too far towards the detriment of an alternate mode, then strong leadership is required to maintain a balance and keep everything flowing smoothly – and not congested.

    1. When the weak are picked off the species becomes stronger. Wetlands are congested water flow and are great at cleansing that resource.
      Our roads are not congested. They are temporarily congested because the cost of keeping them free-flowing for the few hours a day that traffic slows is not worth it for those who have to pay for it. And it wouldn’t encourage new and smarter ways of doing things.

      1. I bet if they installed express lanes for a fee on Lionsgate bridge, or any congestion point, MANY would be happy to pay rather than wait 5 or 10 or 25 minutes for a crossing.
        Left lane wait = 20 minutes
        Right lane = $5 and no wait.
        How many folks on Hwy1 or W-Van or over Second Narrows would avail themselves to that option ? 10% ? 5% ? 25% ?
        First class travel comes at a price and many would be happy to pay for it. The toll could be adjusted up or down to guarantee a minimum flow rate ! For example here, in Miami, or Baltimore, but I know there are many other such solutions in many countries: http://www.95express.com/ or http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-95-express-lanes-20141117-story.html
        Why not in MetroVan ?

    2. I understood that Translink leadership was promoting congestion relief, not congestion. In that sense, Eric, you are aligned with Translink leadership, perhaps accidentally. I agree with others that the problem is in how we define congestion. Instead of comparing travel times to free flow times, just as an example, why not compare them to average times, instead of zero-traffic times. If a trip normally takes an hour, or 30 minutes with zero traffic, and it takes 70 minutes at a particular time, then there was 10 minutes of congestion delay, not 40. And the cheapest way to address it is to provide alternatives so that some of those lining up see the benefits of and opt for another form of travel (other time, other route, other mode, etc) and there is more resulting space left for those who need to drive at that particular time.

      1. If you would review the article introduction, as well as some of the informed comments above, you will learn that some are considering congestion to be other than an unwanted thing. Any definition is partly subjective. Nobody would consider busy traffic moving along a freeway at 90 kmh to be congested, only perhaps slightly busy and therefore slightly slowed from clear-road maximum. Same for an inner-city road traffic moving along around 30 or 40 kmh.
        Since we know that everything from doctors and ambulances, school buses and police, our daily bread & etc., arrive on vehicles along roadways, then these must be built and maintained and I am pleased to strongly support this.
        You are welcome to travel by your chosen mode and you are welcome to promote your chosen mode(s).
        I will not attempt to encourage you to travel using my chosen mode. Neither will I complain as to whichever mode you, or anyone else choses, even though I know I will be paying substantially for transit infrastructure and running costs though all manner of taxes.
        Neither do I expect or you to complain in return, or lobby against, whichever mode I, or anyone else, choses to travel by.

      2. Jeff, you bring in a crucial point in that how we define congestion (i.e. what we use as the reference in order to compare peak-time travel speeds to), matters. You can use a number of possibilities, of which you mentioned free flow and “typical” average speeds. Free flow and the use of a posted-speed definition is more of an absolute reference, whereas “typical” or average is relativistic and can change over time. They all are useful and just understanding the definition matters. Also, depending what context or application you are using the concept of “congestion”, one definition may be better than another.
        Back in 2003, we developed and conducted the region’s first travel time survey using GPS equipment (one purpose was to define a benchmark for future monitoring). As we only surveyed peak periods, we didn’t have “free-flow” speeds so we used a surrogate definition based on posted speeds. A key finding was not just that we got actual data in terms of travel times between major centres in the region, but that the travel times varied such that the variance or “reliability” was a noticeable issue.
        Psychologically, people accepted it took, for example, 45 min to get from one place to another, but when that “normal” time is much higher (and it can easily double), it can increase stress and frustration, prompting calls to the local MLA or Mayor. I have witness people who are so in-tune with their commutes that if I change the signal timing, they notice and may complain if I shifted some of their green time to opposing approaches.
        A good congestion measure is one that is both sound technically and understandable/relate-able to the audience you intend the measure to be used by. As I noted earlier, it can be both a well understood (a daily commute feature) and misunderstood (definition and technical aspects) concept, as you exampled.
        I always wondered if commutes were more stable, maybe that will lead into “congestion contentment” and less demand for more infrastructure. And when commute times flare up (due to weather, accidents, etc.) it’s maybe these events that trigger the need for more infrastructure….

        1. And who decides which mode we pay when it is congested ? By default we pay in time, but why not relieve the congestion by tolling i.e. pay money ? Where are the express toll lanes ?
          For example here, in Miami, or Baltimore, but I know there are many other such solutions in many countries: http://www.95express.com/ or http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-95-express-lanes-20141117-story.html
          Why not in MetroVan ? Where is this debate ? Or does socialism ie equal access ie wait (and pay in time rather than $s) trump all ?

        2. The definition or measurement of congestion is one thing (i.e. developing a congestion ruler) and more a technical matter, while the judgement on what is actually considered “congestion that should be reduced” (i.e. a certain threshold or level of the ruler in which measured congestion has exceeded) is another and more a political matter.
          As to the means of dealing with the reduction of congestion to a certain level, there are many approaches, including pricing and provisioning of infrastructure and services.
          What is unfortunate is that not everything can be measured easily, and some things more easier to measure than others. This is where the bias towards vehicles originated in the past, for obvious reasons (easier to count cars than occupants).
          We are improving our ability to measuring people movement vs. just vehicle movement, but given our current means, they are still on the majority vehicular based. The technologies driving the autonomous vehicle industry’s growth will also provide the ability for us to see, plan, and operate at the person-trip level system-wide. This will have numerous benefits as well as ramifications (i.e. privacy).

        3. Seriously ? We can’t measure congestion ? You ask any driver, bus user or subway user if it is “congested” and they will tell you with very high accuracy.

        4. Thomas, of course we can measure congestion or travel time and delay. What I was referring to was the fact that it’s easier to measure vehicles and so that was the majority of the things in the transport system that were measured (as opposed to people). Even transit ridership was difficult and only until recently with the Compass system can we obtain a system-wide assessment of travel patterns. However there are limitations such as the lack of “tag-off” data on buses so these have to be deduced.
          And while drivers and users of the system know if roads/transit is “congested” (again a subjective judgement), it requires objective and empirically derived data to understand levels of “congestion” on a consistent manner. Not to say subjective assessments of congestion do not matter or are wrong. Simply it’s difficult to fairly and objectively assess the situation without consistent methods or observations.
          So that’s the technical side, and we are now able to measure “congestion” more accurately these days (maybe better to use the word “density” or “median road segment speeds” rather than the judgemental word “congestion”). The philosophical side is whether congestion is such a bad thing or a part of life in a desirable region. For me the technical question is easier to answer even though it’s taken me most of my career to figure out (and still a work in progress).

        5. Europe’s navigation systems use average speeds on road segments and then compare that to actual speeds of actual cars as they send their data into the cloud to show green, yellow, orange or red. It exists today. Yes it is per car as it does not show if car has 0, 1, 2 or 5 passengers. [0 being an AV picking up a load.]
          Does the PM bridge camera system have the ability to estimate # of occupants ?
          Does Oregon with their tracking system require to state occupant load (likely not) ?

  3. The illusion is that we pay either in time or in money. But politicians do not like such bluntness. They could ask: “What do you prefer: paying in time or paying more in taxes or tolls ?” Of course they do not do that and pretend that voting for them is all a free lunch, paid for by “the other guy”. See also MetroVan now wiggling out of their traditional 33% funding role into a 20% role where BC and feds each pick up a 40% tab. Somehow this apparently is fairer for whatever reason.

    1. Fairer, but not fair enough. Why not portion the costs by the tax revenue share? Wouldn’t that be fairer? Especially since it is all our money.

      1. Still not fair enough. Of course not. Gimmy, gimmy, gimmy. I want mine and I want yours too.
        I’m a sucker. I admit it. My name is Eric and I’m a sucker. I pay my income tax, my GST, my TransLink Gas Tax, my TransLink Tolls tax, my property tax, I declare all my earnings, I pay my bills and don’t use cash, I even donate to charities. I don’t get no rebates because I work too much to qualify.
        I like art but how about public consultation and voting next time they want me to buy a big white plastic poodle?

        1. LOL. Apportioning contributions based on the share of tax revenue collected is the opposite of asking for special treatment.

        2. “I pay my taxes…..”
          Are you under the misconception that you are somehow unique?
          I don’t even think your name is “Eric”

        3. Many Canadians and Canadians of convenience pay far too little in taxes yet get ESL, schooling, roads, healthcare, policing etc for free ! A flat income tax of 10-15% would allow for that ( say 10% provincially and max 15% federally), higher MSP, road tolls, higher property taxes and PST. We tax incomes too high and consumption, incl real estate consumption too low. We don’t even track condo and pre-sales assignments by SIN and have billions in annual tax leakage.
          Oft course spending needs to efficient too and not overpaying safe public sector employees with cushy benefits.

        4. “By the way, what would you consider to be fair enough?”
          Eric, that was answered in both of my posts that you responded to. Please read them again.

        1. If only different levels of government published how much they collect in taxes. Then we could add up,the figures and draw a pie chart. Or we could google for an example of that already having been done.

  4. Just to bring things down to the anecdotal level – yesterday we made two car trips to the boggy (literally) West Side from the fabulous East Side. That wasted 2 hours of my life. By bus, it would have been 4. Bicycles would have been quicker but it was raining, and we were carrying stuff.
    4 hours in a bus?! Torture. Not going to happen.
    Even by car, it’s such a grind. OMG – all those routes are horrible – Marine, King Ed, 41st. Stop-and-go in a hostile motorized environment. The juxtaposition with cycling, esp. in good weather, is stark. Cycling is so good.
    But we couldn’t cycle yesterday, and taking the bus would have been penance. My wife will actually throw up if she’s on a bus for more than 20 min.
    Hard to believe, but it wasn’t that long ago that bus drivers had to wait to enter gaps in traffic – as hard to believe that people used to smoke in restaurants and in parks. Now, buses have right-of-way, and smokers are lepers.
    So there is hope for change.
    We need intelligent traffic management with synchronized lights. That means reducing the number of times you have to stop your vehicle. Better to move non-stop at 30 km/hour than sporadically at 50. It kills your car and drives you crazy.
    Pushing a button to cross – forcing, sometimes 30 vehicles to stop, so you can scoot across on your bicycle, or with your dog on your daily walk, is wrong. I do push the button sometimes when I’m on my bicycle, but I feel like a jackass doing it. It’s nice for me, but it’s anti-ecological. And dog walkers that punch to cross? Don’t do it. Please.
    Left turners – a pestilence – a fly in the ointment. And to those who wait until the light turns green before making your intention known? Yes, that’s me on the horn.
    Buses need pull-outs at every stop – they could use the mouths of intersections, so motorists can keep flowing. When bus drivers are on strike there’s a huge improvement in movement.

    1. “When bus drivers are on strike there’s a huge improvement in movement.”
      All the pesky poors are essentially housebound.

    2. Hence, over 150 years ago folks in London, UK decided to go underground due to congestion. We will see that solution in time .. ca two centuries later when the subway to UBC, along and to crowded north sore or deeper into congested Richmond finally opens ..
      Buses, a low cost, least common denominator solution …

    3. You do realize, Arnie, that synchronizing traffic lights would mean that the traffic would move smoother and faster. This would mean too that the ‘regulator’ effect would be null and more people would like driving, so more would drive. That would go against the current ideology that wants you to be so uncomfortable and congested and stressed and mad that you walk or hop on your bike. You must be taught that driving is not good for you or for anyone else. You must learn that driving is horrible and nasty and we are going to make it so horrible that you will soon give in and walk!

      1. Vancouver’s roads are built on a grid system. The synchronizing traffic lights are changed though out the day depending on the volume and direction of traffic. If north-south traffic is the largest volume than the east-west traffic is considered secondary. Also built into the synchronizing of the traffic lights is direction of the main volume of the traffic going east-west.
        The bottom line is that only one direction on one road can be prioritized and synchronized.
        The traffic is managed by computers systems and it is not an ideology. I worked for the engineering company that set up the computer system about 40 years ago.

      2. Apart from the north/south and east/west decisions, there are mode decisions. How about prioritizing for pedestrians since they are the top of the hierarchy? Then bikes. Then transit. Then commercial vehicles. Then private automobiles.
        It seems that some consider any priority other than putting private vehicles above all others to be a “war on cars” when it is nothing of the sort, but rather the logical result of respecting long standing transportation priorities.

    4. Arnie, your anecdote just shows how addictive driving is. The moment you get in a car every thing that makes a city good for humans must be thrown out, stomped on, despised, buried.
      Please don’t drive. Get a trailer and good rain gear. Write positively about the experience of cycling instead of negatively about the entire city while driving.
      It isn’t the rain that makes cycling unpleasant. It’s the cars.

    5. Arnie, yesterday my wife and I rode 30km round trip to a bike shop in Burnaby. I carried a bike frame and forks back using only my rack. I do almost all my shopping using a rack and panniers. For really large loads (lumber, plywood, gyproc, mattresses) I use HUB’s 6 ft trailer which is free for members to use. And I am well into my senior years. So much more enjoyable than driving. Like a business person I know who drove downtown from Pt Grey most of his life and recently switched to cycling says to anyone who will listen:
      “My worst day cycling to work is better than my best day driving to work ever was”

    6. Arnie, see that bus ahead stopped at a bumped-out passenger refuge holding up outside lane traffic for all of 30 seconds? That thing takes at least 30 cars off the road during rush hour. And the lack of bus stop pull-outs? They shave 20 minutes off each shift trying to pull back into traffic.
      It’s too bad you had to drive that rainy day, but sometimes you just gotta suck it up and think how much worse it would be without buses and pedestrian fatalities where there are no signals. These things would really screw up your trip.

  5. Zipcar did a study in 2009 where they took car keys from 250 car addicts (not run-of-the-mill owners) and had them use transit, self-propelled, and Zipcar. At the end of the study, purportedly, 100 of the participants didn’t want their keys back.
    I suspect, if motorists were required to park their beasts one month a year to do the same, there would be a large drop in ownership.
    A Brookings Institution report stated that parking cash-outs reduced personal vehicle use – once free parking at work translated into cash into workers’ pockets – they took the cash, and took the bus (or bike, or share). This shows how employers affect commuterdom.
    Extrapolating, clearly, if employers are obligated to pay worker commute times, they will hire locally.
    Imagine just one billionaire with 40,000 wage slaves. By definition, they are greedy – they will find a way to be more efficient. That’s how they got the billions.
    That’s also the perfect source for funding major infrastructure and affordable housing. Come March, the accountants come in and say that if cash isn’t donated, it will go to taxes anyway. The billionaire gets to look like a benefactor, and to stick their name on something.

    1. That’s a nice fantasy but few employers will find enough workers who can afford Vancouver’s bloated housing prices. I guess they should just move their offices to Surrey then.

  6. Back at some of the above:
    I’ve long considered buying a Yak bike trailer, but will stick with full panniers for shopping; I sometimes use bungees on the rack, or carry a geologist’s backpack on foot, or cycling. If I needed to move larger objects and didn’t have my little station wagon, I’d employ a taxi van, delivery driver, or car share. Love the idea of shlepping stuff with a trailer, but if I did that to the West Side twice in one day, that’s all I’d have done, and would need another day to recuperate.
    Re. bus pull-outs: of course, they’d have right-of-way to pull back into traffic. A bus may take 30 cars off the road, but it also blocks 30 cars from proceeding. Even if this is only for 30 seconds at a time, it is very disruptive. Try regularly blocking traffic in the street with your vehicle and see how long it takes for someone to put a tire iron through your windshield. One of the things that makes the TransMillenio so successful is that it doesn’t impede other vehicles and vice versa. With bicycles, there’s a dangerous leapfrog – the bus passes and pulls over; cyclist squeaks around; bus passes …
    I used to be one of 40,000 wage slaves for a multi-billionaire. I could have worked for him in one of his environmentally harmful businesses for a lifetime and not saved enough for a studio apartment, let alone a place to raise a family. Many of his wage slaves commuted for hours to get to these sad jobs. Ridiculous because he has identical businesses within walking distance of these people. But he has no incentive to shuffle them around because it costs him zero for them to show up wherever. The cost is externalized. This is someone who wouldn’t notice if there were million dollar bills falling out of his back pocket.

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles