Idling Away the Hours
David Suzuki has a little column in the Vancouver Sun called “small steps.” Have you seen it?Last week, Suzuki included a little factoid about idling. He says “by cutting back on five minutes of idling a day, Canadian drivers would save a total of 1.6 million tons of carbon dioxide from burning up our atmosphere and 1.8 million litres of fuel...”
Hey, I’ll bet the average driver in the Lower Mainland spends a lot more than five minutes a day idling in their car. I know I do. After all, we’re Canada’s traffic congestion capital.
The big question, then, is how much of that 1.8 million litres of wasted fuel is being wasted right here in the Lower Mainland idling? And what disproportionate share of that carbon dioxide is being spewed into the local atmosphere while the NIMBYs and the naysayers try to hold back progress?
The sooner we get traffic and people moving again in the Lower Mainland, the sooner we’ll all be able to breathe a lot easier - and save on our gas bills too....
Carl Congestion
posted by Carl Congestion @ 9:47 AM
8 Comments:
“...we’re Canada’s traffic congestion capital”
What is this statement based on?
In fact Vancouver, is the only major city in Canada where the average time spent commuting has not increased over the past 13 years (Vancouver Sun , July 31, 2006). I think this qualifies us for NOT being the “congestion capital of Canada.” Other cities have it much worse.
We have been moving in the right direction when it comes to reducing commute times. This is due in part to the fact that we have not relied on massive freeway investment.
“...try to hold back progress?”
Yes, definitely. We need to stop holding back progress. And more and more cities around the world are beginning to understand that progress means more trains, bus rapid transit and other forms of public transit. Freeway expansion is an old idea from the 1950s that has proven to be ineffective.
“..people moving again in the Lower Mainland”
Yes, again! And the most effective way to do that is rapid transit. Highway expansion will NOT relieve congestion for the long term (see the study by Newman and Kenworthy, titled "Sustainability and Cities Overcoming Automobile Dependence").
The evidence and experience of cities all over North America indicates that highway expansion only leads to more congestion, pollution and negative health consequences.
Having sat in Port Mann gridlock for three miles on Sunday (SUNDAY!) morning, I know for a fact we need that bridge twinned--and all of the transit improvements that will allow.
Great first post, Carl!
But if you are concerned about congestion why do you connect this with highway expansion?
After all hasn't highway expansion been shown to be the most costly and least effective way to address congestion?
Here is just one example of a study that supports this:
A 15 year study of 70 urban areas by the Texas Transportation Institute concluded that “metro areas that invested heavily in road capacity expansion fared no better in easing congestion than metro areas that did not. Trends in congestion show that areas that exhibited greater growth in lane capacity spent roughly $22 billion more on road construction than those that didn't, yet ended up with slightly higher congestion costs per person, wasted fuel, and travel delay.”
Using your logic Rob, are you advocating we dismantle and close down the Port Mann Bridge? I've got a 15 second study of 70 bridges that proves it will "solve" the problem. Once you get rid of the Port Mann Bridge, there won't be any congestion in that area!
Your analysis is similar to the medical phrase "curing the disease by killing the patient". In fact, you're misdiagnosing the "disease", which is traffic. Growth in traffic goes hand in hand with economic growth.
All the people driving across the Port Mann (and many other major roadways) is a signal that the money used to build the infrastructure was well spent and that more should be considered in the same area.
When the urban density gets high enough to support it, transit can be installed. The people that use the Port Mann come from Horseshoe Bay to Chilliwack which is not nearly dense enough to warrant it.
We need both!
“...we dismantle and close down the Port Mann Bridge...”
Instead of an intelligent response to my points you accuse me of some bizarre position.
“...the 'disease', which is traffic....”
The disease is congestion. I have offered evidence that the the most effective cure to solve congestion in urban environments is to expand transit rather than highway expansion. If you have evidence that highway expansion can more effectively solve the problem present your evidence.
“Growth in traffic goes hand in hand with economic growth.”
Cities that chose not to expand SOV infrastructure but instead expand transit have experienced good economic growth (Zurich is the classic example).
“... a signal that the money used to build the infrastructure was well...”
The overcrowded skytrain at rush hour is a signal that money was well spent there. And that more people would use it if we put more money into that infrastructure. And it would be a more efficient use of limited tax-payer money.
“When the urban density gets high enough ...”
There were interurban trains going to Langley 80 years ago. Are you suggesting that urban density was higher at that time?
“We need both!”
Yes, but we have 4 lanes of highway from Hope to Horsehoe Bay. We don't have rapid transit from Langley. We don't have good transit connections between the tri-cities area and south of the Fraser.
If we really need “both” than we should be installing the transit infrastructure first. It is what we don't have.
You can't have the transit infrastructure and HOV lanes without a new bridge. Your rhetoric and nonsense is getting tired, Rob.
Response to Rob.
"Instead of an intelligent response to my points you accuse me of some bizarre position."
Actually, you never answered my question. Are you advocating that closing down lanes on the Port Mann Bridge will help traffic problems? Or are you saying that 2 lanes west-bound and 3 lanes east-bound is the perfect solution?
"If you have evidence that highway expansion can more effectively solve the problem present your evidence."
The Port Mann moves 140,000 vehicles daily. This is roughly 200,000 people AND many many TEU's of cargo. Can transit do this over the Fraser River? Not a chance.
For comparison, the Millennium line does 49,000 people daily as of 2003. The Expo line does 160,000 people, but guess what? That's where you have enough density to support such a service. The Canada Line will undoubtedly do 100,000 by the time it launches.
But Skytrain over the Port Mann? Won't even be close to economical.
"(Zurich is the classic example)."
We're not in Europe. We don't have Amtrak/ViaRail moving people across the country, let alone cities. If you want real North American analogies that work with respect to building roads, try Phoenix or Salt Lake City.
The overcrowded skytrain at rush hour is a signal that money was well spent there.
Absolutely correct. The density is there along the Expo line. It isn't across the Port Mann since you have a huge area being serviced - not enough density.
There will be a time for it across the Fraser, just not today. Would you want your transit dollars being spent on heavy density or light density areas?
There were interurban trains going to Langley 80 years ago. Are you suggesting that urban density was higher at that time?
Automobiles and roads deprecated the interurbans. Just like how we don't use horses and carriages, although we still use horses for other purposes.
Post a Comment
<< Home