Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[GMasterAres]

Owning a car isn't just about numbers. People seem to only ever focus on raw numbers and while they are important, they don't quantify "freedom."

My sister for example owns 1 vehicle and they often need 2. Living in South Surrey which (like the vast majority of Metro Vancouver) has not access to any mode share or zipcars or anything like that, she borrows my parents' vehicle all the time. They have 2 vehicles.

I've watched this happen for 2 years and it very much inconveniences both of them constantly switching vehicles, constantly not having 1 and needing to ask to borrow another.

You can get away with not owning a vehicle a lot more in Vancouver but it just amazes me how often my friends that don't own cars in Vancouver borrow or ask friends to help them many times a month. "Can you give me a lift, I need to do a big shopping?" "Can I catch a ride with you I'm running short on time?" "Missed my bus can you come grab me?"

Happens near constantly.

It also depends on your family size and dynamic. I'd content your average family raising 1 or more children is compeltely crippled if they don't own at least 1 vehicle. Can they make it happen? Sure. But on their own they waste far more time every day compared to if they had a vehicle in the first place and time is money.

Your average retired couple with no children, or older couple with children moved out, or single student going to school can manage 1 or no cars far easier. And that's if their family lives around them.

Family lives elsewhere in Metro-Van and you either need to spend a huge amount of effort to go visit or as seems to happen, rarely visit each other due to the distance.

THAT SAID, I still stick with the notion that removing the viaducts is just silly and all the presentations that show "Hey we'll make a giant awesome park of green" is also a load of BS. Take the viaducts down and they'll want to turn all those parking lots into high rise buildings increasing the density and car footprints even greater.

I say maintain them until they need replacing, then reconsider then. The city will be far different then and heck transportation probably will be too. Cars are in the next 15 years going to run on Hydrogen Fuel Cells and for the most part won't pollute anymore so this whole debate about getting rid of evil cars will be done with.

Then again, I don't live in Vancouver so this doesn't really affect me and if they do tear them up and traffic becomes a nightmore, just means more business and people moving out to Surrey which is fine by me.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Big portions of the streetcar line are geared for tourists, not regular commuters. Did you ride the Olympic demo line? Not a huge capacity on that thing. I would think the articulated buses easily hold more passengers.

And who says Translink is paying for any of it?

If the streetcar were to be built, it would probably be largely funded by the City of Vancouver as they are spearheading the project. But there's no question in my mind that the operators will be Translink, and the City of Vancouver will make up the operational cost difference if it goes into the red. It makes sense for Translink to operate public transit as they have experience with it. If not, maybe a private company. But either way, it'll most definitely use the same Compass fare system.

And fyi, the capacity of the Bombardier Flexity Outlook's we had during the Olympics were 190 passengers per train.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

In 10 more years that same type of car might just drive itself.

Self-driving cars aren't going to solve any problems. They'll use up just as much road space - perhaps even more since they'll be programmed to actually allow a safe separation between vehicles. They won't be any cheaper to run. The best that can be hoped for with autonomous cars is more car sharing, since a commuter can allow his car to be used for other purposes while he's working as long as it drives itself back to him when he's ready to leave work.

It's self-driving buses that are going to really change things. They'll remove one of the largest cost factors (labour) from the most common mode of transit, and probably improve the transit experience by providing smoother rides. Reduced bus costs will allow better frequencies and better coverage of outlying areas, all of which will increase demand for transit.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

You could say that about owning a house versus renting to a much larger extent.

A good car with average use is about $0.40/km right now. It will come down over the next 5 years though. Expect for a city car style EV to cost about $0.25/km. That is with everything included, power, insurance and capital costs. In 10 more years that same type of car might just drive itself.

Funny that you break the cost down by km. 40 cents? That's nothing. But when it's $400+ per month, there's a lot you can do with that money.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Self-driving cars aren't going to solve any problems. They'll use up just as much road space - perhaps even more since they'll be programmed to actually allow a safe separation between vehicles. They won't be any cheaper to run. The best that can be hoped for with autonomous cars is more car sharing, since a commuter can allow his car to be used for other purposes while he's working as long as it drives itself back to him when he's ready to leave work.

They'll get rid of one key problem, which is knowing how to drive. Any blind senile granny may be able to operate a car safely.

They will also be a lot cheaper to insure in the long run. Most people drive like idiots, with automation they'll get into less accidents.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Funny that you break the cost down by km. 40 cents? That's nothing. But when it's $400+ per month, there's a lot you can do with that money.

When you factor in lost time it's dirt cheap as long as you're not broke. My car saves me roughly 1.33 hours per day versus busing. My car costs about $0.27/km to run. I spend $5.27/hour to not take transit which isn't bad.

It helps that it's a 21 years old car, that's cheap to run, cheap to insure and I have a reverse flow commute which is very quick relative to transit.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by theKB

I wouldn't be surprised if we started to see cars with at least autonomous attributes within ten years. The advances on that front are nothing short of spectacular. From in the 90's need to have specially constructed highways to where we are today with Google and other companies having fully autonomous solutions that can drive in normal vehicular traffic. Even as of now you already have certain systems that are aside from holding the wheel fairly autonomous with laser guided cruise control, queue assist and crash intervention.

Sorry went on a tangent there

Until the city stops growing removing infrastructure is just not appropriate.

Well we have cars with autonomous attributes. Take for example the new Skoda Octavia with lane assistant that has a camera that watches lane markings and takes control of the steering to get you back in your lanes if you begin to drift.
video-info...video showing automatic parking, etc...... Octavia

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Funny that you break the cost down by km. 40 cents? That's nothing. But when it's $400+ per month, there's a lot you can do with that money.

When you factor in time savings and opportunity cost savings (due to flexibility) you are going to be saving several times that amount per month, and the more your time is worth (the more you make) the more you will save. There are very few scenarios where you will not save money owning a car, after all not that many people actually live and work downtown. Its simply not economical for most employers, and as a result it is not economical for most employees.

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698;
It's self-driving [U

buses[/U] that are going to really change things. They'll remove one of the largest cost factors (labour) from the most common mode of transit, and probably improve the transit experience by providing smoother rides. Reduced bus costs will allow better frequencies and better coverage of outlying areas, all of which will increase demand for transit.

Self driving buses would be cool, but what will change things is a system where people can be picked at from their house/apartment by a self-driving car. It won't be a bus, because who wants to sit on a bus while it robotically drives all over some suburb picking people up. But something on a finer-grained level, more like a car-pool car, might work. It doesn't even have to make the whole trip, it can just deposit you at the bus stop just in time for the robot bus to turn up.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cornholio

When you factor in time savings and opportunity cost savings (due to flexibility) you are going to be saving several times that amount per month, and the more your time is worth (the more you make) the more you will save. There are very few scenarios where you will not save money owning a car, after all not that many people actually live and work downtown. Its simply not economical for most employers, and as a result it is not economical for most employees.

Several times $400?

I own a car, I recognize the value, but it certainly isn't required for modern life.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Well we have cars with autonomous attributes. Take for example the new Skoda Octavia with lane assistant that has a camera that watches lane markings and takes control of the steering to get you back in your lanes if you begin to drift.

I can't wait to see the recriminations and publicity that happens when a driver of one of these cars tries to ease partway into an adjacent lane to leave some room when passing a cyclist and the car steers itself right back into the cyclist. I just hope the poor cyclist isn't me...

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I can't wait to see the recriminations and publicity that happens when a driver of one of these cars tries to ease partway into an adjacent lane to leave some room when passing a cyclist and the car steers itself right back into the cyclist. I just hope the poor cyclist isn't me...

I don't want to sidetrack the thread, although advancements in vehicle technology is relevant to the viaduct removal issue...but the car has sensors in the steering wheel that recognize the type of steering you are doing so if you are actively steering and changing direction it will not activate. Infact the car tells you if you are tired, etc. by monitoring your steering patterns. Also if you use your blinker or the lane markings are poor the system shuts off. Basically it works if it is not getting A) any steering input and B) recognizes a loss of steering input C) recognizes a gradual drift. Also something to remember it is meant for highways and activates at over 65kmph and with clear lane markings. It is pretty cool actually. But it is not the first time this technology has been used but it is one of the first times it has been used in a economical car. Skodas are pretty awesome actually and its unfortunate they don't plan to enter the north american market because they are now a VW subsidiary.

The point is technology keeps improving making car travel safer, more economical and efficient.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Several times $400?

I own a car, I recognize the value, but it certainly isn't required for modern life.

Maybe you are one of the few that find themselves in a scenario where it really is not economical, I don't know. That or you don't have a family and a active and productive life, I don't know. Also keep in mind I base the savings on what your time is worth (income etc.). If you are a CEO or a McDonalds worker you are going to have different results when you break the costs down.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I don't want to sidetrack the thread, although advancements in vehicle technology is relevant to the viaduct removal issue...but the car has sensors in the steering wheel that recognize the type of steering you are doing so if you are actively steering and changing direction it will not activate. Infact the car tells you if you are tired, etc. by monitoring your steering patterns. Also if you use your blinker or the lane markings are poor the system shuts off. Basically it works if it is not getting A) any steering input and B) recognizes a loss of steering input C) recognizes a gradual drift. Also something to remember it is meant for highways and activates at over 65kmph and with clear lane markings. It is pretty cool actually. But it is not the first time this technology has been used but it is one of the first times it has been used in a economical car. Skodas are pretty awesome actually and its unfortunate they don't plan to enter the north american market because they are now a VW subsidiary.

The point is technology keeps improving making car travel safer, more economical and efficient.

Maybe you are one of the few that find themselves in a scenario where it really is not economical, I don't know. That or you don't have a family and a active and productive life, I don't know. Also keep in mind I base the savings on what your time is worth (income etc.). If you are a CEO or a McDonalds worker you are going to have different results when you break the costs down.

You can get his on the new Ford Fusion as well. Many cars have it, but most use brakes to nudge the car one way or the other. The Ford system just steers the wheel back. The car can also park itself using most of the same tech which is pretty cool.

The next BMW X5 is supposed to combine lane departure controls with radar cruise control to make it so you basically can ignore the car during stop and go traffic on the highway.

As far as use goes, I generally take my car to go skiing most weekends in the winter and usually have a good road trip or two in the summer. I'd imagine that most people probably like to do things along these lines. In my opinion mobility is one of the key components of modern life. There's only so much to do in a city, and less that is simple to do without some sort of motor vehicle.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There are those of us who think that spending the money on the streetcar project would just be another way to flush it down the drain.

If it was put to Vancouver voters: would you rather spend $100 million and get a streetcar or spend it and remove the viaducts I have no doubt even the befuddled voters of Vancouver would choose a streetcar.

Viaduct removal is driven by nothing more than: 1) trendy urbanista anticar sentiment 2) a chance to reward developers. There is no imminent threat driving their removal, no grand project requiring it, no massive citizen support for it.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Maybe you are one of the few that find themselves in a scenario where it really is not economical, I don't know. That or you don't have a family and a active and productive life, I don't know. Also keep in mind I base the savings on what your time is worth (income etc.). If you are a CEO or a McDonalds worker you are going to have different results when you break the costs down.

For the record, I have a car, a family, and "a productive life". We could easily afford a 2nd car, but there's much better things we'd rather do with that money.

The point is that people get unnecessarily tied to vehicle ownership, "because of the freedom" but obviously that point is lost on many here.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If it was put to Vancouver voters: would you rather spend $100 million and get a streetcar or spend it and remove the viaducts I have no doubt even the befuddled voters of Vancouver would choose a streetcar.

And if you gave them a third option of not spending the money at all I'd wager that's what the majority would choose. Which is exactly my point - some people think either project is a waste of money.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

For the record, I have a car, a family, and "a productive life". We could easily afford a 2nd car, but there's much better things we'd rather do with that money.

The point is that people get unnecessarily tied to vehicle ownership, "because of the freedom" but obviously that point is lost on many here.

But you DO have a car and probably one or two of you work downtown, maybe a 9-5ish job, maybe you live downtown. If one of you don't need a car for a daily work commute then one car can suffice. What I think is being lost is that you think I am saying everyone should have a car and use it all the time, no, what I am saying is that just about everyone is better of with a car to use as they need. Certainly if you are in a situation where you don't use it every day you will spend less on it but the savings will still be there.

[Sir Conga]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If it was put to Vancouver voters: would you rather spend $100 million and get a streetcar or spend it and remove the viaducts I have no doubt even the befuddled voters of Vancouver would choose a streetcar.

Viaduct removal is driven by nothing more than: 1) trendy urbanista anticar sentiment 2) a chance to reward developers. There is no imminent threat driving their removal, no grand project requiring it, no massive citizen support for it.

I've talked about Viaduct removal ideas with a few friends that don't really follow development and city issues, and there certainly isn't a strong sentiment either way. Most people have agreed with my stance: which is to leave them be for their feasible life-span, then get rid of them.

I don't arrive at my stance from being anti-car, or for any reasons to do with rewarding developers. I personally just think the area would be a lot nicer without them. I have many reasons, that I've shared in this thread, but that's my main reason.

I can absolutely understand some of the legitimate reasons for being against their removal. I just wish people who are ardently against their removal would ditch the attitude that there are no good reasons for removal. There are plenty of reasons, and this discussion is better served not completely dismissing them.

BTW, I think the case has been already made quite effectively in this thread for leaving the Viaducts in place. I'm not trying to start up that circle-jerk.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If it was put to Vancouver voters: would you rather spend $100 million and get a streetcar or spend it and remove the viaducts I have no doubt even the befuddled voters of Vancouver would choose a streetcar.

Viaduct removal is driven by nothing more than: 1) trendy urbanista anticar sentiment 2) a chance to reward developers. There is no imminent threat driving their removal, no grand project requiring it, no massive citizen support for it.

I think you summed it up precisely. This post could be the referential post for anyone seeing the benefit of keeping the viaducts.

[Sir Conga]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I think you summed it up precisely. This post could be the referential post for anyone seeing the benefit of keeping the viaducts.

Um... No. Some thoughtful and coherent arguments have been presented in this thread. This is hardly a benchmark example.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

Um... No. Some thoughtful and coherent arguments have been presented in this thread. This is hardly a benchmark example.

I don't think there are any coherent arguments for removing them within the next several decades. Your last post sums up the incoherence of the pro removal group, you start of saying you are not choosing a side and end of saying there is no good reason to not remove them..only to include a final I am not picking a side sentence again...I think you made your agenda clear over the last few years, stick to it instead of playing politics.. I hope if those that are in positions of power (thanks to an insignificant voter turnout because the middle class is being squeezed from all sides to the point that they don't have the time to pay attention or vote on what is going around them) that want them removed succeed, get destroyed by the public at a later date and loose their careers and get trampled in life. I think it is disgusting that this is even a threat to our lives, removing our viable infrastructure that the forefathers of this country built.

[Sir Conga]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I don't think there are any coherent arguments for removing them within the next several decades. Your last post sums up the incoherence of the pro removal group, you start of saying you are not choosing a side and end of saying there is no good reason to not remove them..only to include a final I am not picking a side sentence again...I think you made your agenda clear over the last few years, stick to it instead of playing politics.. I hope if those that are in positions of power (thanks to an insignificant voter turnout because the middle class is being squeezed from all sides to the point that they don't have the time to pay attention or vote on what is going around them) that want them removed succeed, get destroyed by the public at a later date and loose their careers and get trampled in life. I think it is disgusting that this is even a threat to our lives, removing our viable infrastructure that the forefathers of this country built.

What the hell are you going on about? Either you merely skimmed my comment, or your reading comprehension is quite low.

Let me break it down for you.

My most recent comment was saying there have been well reasoned, coherent arguments made for the pro-viaducts side. Some how you inferred the opposite. Saying the only reasons to be pro-removal are being an anti-car urbanista or developer-lover is a snarky over-simplification based off nothing but assumption. That trofirhen latched on to it should be no surprise... I don't think it was on point.

The main point of my comment you refer to was that there are valid reasons to both sides, and those should be considered. More so, that proponents of the Viaducts remaining do not serve their case by outright dismissing the motives of the pro-removal crowd. This obviously was not clear to you.

I did not start by saying I was not picking a side, in fact I stated my opinion. Which is that the Viaducts should remain in place during their feasible life-span, while a future without them is planned. My initial point was more that among the people I have discussed this with, there have been no strong opinions.

My last statement is not saying that I am not picking a side, I am merely pointing out that the case has effectively been made. In so far as I understand the issues, and do not wish to see them re-stated ad nauseam.

I have no agenda, just an opinion. I was born and raised in Vancouver, and have lived two blocks from the Viaducts for the last four years. I just love the idea of the Viaducts being removed. I fail to see how discussing and sharing my opinion in a discussion forum is playing politics. I am so far from the political arena, you would laugh at your statement if you knew me.

Your comment kinda devolves towards the end... Trampled in life? threat to our lives? Let's not get carried away.