HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 3:28 PM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
Statcan logs the data. You can find it here

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...016029-eng.pdf

According to Statistics Canada, the share of commuting using carpool in Vancouver is 11.2%. However commuting makes up a minority in highway travel overall, so the real share of carpooling among all traffic is much lower than 11%, making carpool lanes either underused or not used as intended (most carpoolers are family members who would travel together regardless of carpool lanes, so they don't actually reduce vehicle travel).
But it's also transit that uses those lanes. So that report shows that theoretically, HOV lanes should be used by about 31.6% of the population for the Vancouver CMA, or 19% in Abbostford-Mission. Also, the goal is to reward these two modes by increasing their relative speed in congested highways, and to get these (often slower) vehicles off the general travel lane.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 5:37 PM
libtard's Avatar
libtard libtard is offline
Dahvie Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
But it's also transit that uses those lanes. So that report shows that theoretically, HOV lanes should be used by about 31.6% of the population for the Vancouver CMA, or 19% in Abbostford-Mission. Also, the goal is to reward these two modes by increasing their relative speed in congested highways, and to get these (often slower) vehicles off the general travel lane.
That's not how it works... Just because 20% of the population uses transit doesn't mean the HOV lanes are utilized 31.6% on Highway 1 lol. Like I said you can reward people for using the HOV lane, but the fact is they're not being used. So dedicating 1/3 of capacity to something that is under utilized is backwards thinking
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 11:24 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
Statcan logs the data. You can find it here

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...016029-eng.pdf

According to Statistics Canada, the share of commuting using carpool in Vancouver is 11.2%. However commuting makes up a minority in highway travel overall, so the real share of carpooling among all traffic is much lower than 11%, making carpool lanes either underused or not used as intended (most carpoolers are family members who would travel together regardless of carpool lanes, so they don't actually reduce vehicle travel).
That's not how it works... Just because 11.2% of the population uses carpooling doesn't mean the HOV lanes are utilized 11.2% on Highway 1 lol.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 7, 2019, 12:22 AM
libtard's Avatar
libtard libtard is offline
Dahvie Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
That's not how it works... Just because 11.2% of the population uses carpooling doesn't mean the HOV lanes are utilized 11.2% on Highway 1 lol.
Yes, they are probably utilized even less than that number. Those carpooling numbers are facts. 11.2% of commuters carpool. Take the overall numbers of commuters, even factoring in the rapid bus that runs on HWY 1, utilization for HOV lanes has to be abysmal
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 7, 2019, 1:29 AM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
Yes, they are probably utilized even less than that number. Those carpooling numbers are facts. 11.2% of commuters carpool. Take the overall numbers of commuters, even factoring in the rapid bus that runs on HWY 1, utilization for HOV lanes has to be abysmal
That sounds like all guess work to me and not using and logic to back up your reasoning.

I could argue that if 11% of metro Vancouverites carpool, that it's not evenly distributed.

The statscan document says 20% of Vancouverites take transit, but as we all know, from many studies done focusing on specific areas, that that number is not a constant across the Metro. Some areas will see over 40% share, while other will see far less. That difference is attributed to the availability and quality of transit in those areas.

It also says that 6.7% of commuters walk, and I for sure do not see any pedestrians walking along highway one.

So logically, I would infer that areas with more roadspace dedicated to carpooling, will attract a higher number of carpoolers than somewhere with no advantage to carpooling.

People from the West End aren't going to Carpool downtown, they are going to walk. People from Joyce aren't going to carpool downtown, they are going take transit. People who do short trips by car, probably do it alone because the odds of being on someone else's route is smaller the shorter your trip.

The people likeliest to carpool are those that live near, or commute along routes with, carpool lanes. So I would argue that while region wide the number of commuters who carpool is 11%, the share on Highway 1 is higher.

The use of HOV lanes also extends beyond statscan commuter data. A lot of people travelling outside of reasons for work travel together. Whether it's people on trips for personal reasons, out shopping, or making appointments, many of those trips are done with more than one person in the car. They aren't carpooling to work, but they aren't single occupancy vehicles either. And those people will also benefit from HOV lanes.

And it on top of it, it sounds like you have never traveled on the HOV portion of Highway 1. I can attest that the many times I've driven on the roadway, that the use of the HOV lanes is not abysmal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 7, 2019, 1:41 AM
libtard's Avatar
libtard libtard is offline
Dahvie Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
That sounds like all guess work to me and not using and logic to back up your reasoning.

I could argue that if 11% of metro Vancouverites carpool, that it's not evenly distributed.

The statscan document says 20% of Vancouverites take transit, but as we all know, from many studies done focusing on specific areas, that that number is not a constant across the Metro. Some areas will see over 40% share, while other will see far less. That difference is attributed to the availability and quality of transit in those areas.

It also says that 6.7% of commuters walk, and I for sure do not see any pedestrians walking along highway one.

So logically, I would infer that areas with more roadspace dedicated to carpooling, will attract a higher number of carpoolers than somewhere with no advantage to carpooling.

People from the West End aren't going to Carpool downtown, they are going to walk. People from Joyce aren't going to carpool downtown, they are going take transit. People who do short trips by car, probably do it alone because the odds of being on someone else's route is smaller the shorter your trip.

The people likeliest to carpool are those that live near, or commute along routes with, carpool lanes. So I would argue that while region wide the number of commuters who carpool is 11%, the share on Highway 1 is higher.

The use of HOV lanes also extends beyond statscan commuter data. A lot of people travelling outside of reasons for work travel together. Whether it's people on trips for personal reasons, out shopping, or making appointments, many of those trips are done with more than one person in the car. They aren't carpooling to work, but they aren't single occupancy vehicles either. And those people will also benefit from HOV lanes.

And it on top of it, it sounds like you have never traveled on the HOV portion of Highway 1. I can attest that the many times I've driven on the roadway, that the use of the HOV lanes is not abysmal.
I provided data. If carpooling numbers are low, there is no getting around the fact that HOV lane use is also low. You have only provided anecdotal evidence and theory
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted May 7, 2019, 10:27 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
I provided data. If carpooling numbers are low, there is no getting around the fact that HOV lane use is also low. You have only provided anecdotal evidence and theory

You are taking a statistic for one factor and applying to to a different factor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 7, 2019, 3:41 PM
mezzanine's Avatar
mezzanine mezzanine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
I provided data. If carpooling numbers are low, there is no getting around the fact that HOV lane use is also low. You have only provided anecdotal evidence and theory
Not sure, I think you are basing a lot on the 11% carpooling rate, using a lot of anecdote on carpooling and bus utilization and ignoring the effect of the HOV lane and the rapid bus.

There has been precedent where an "empty" HOV lane in SoCal was relaxed from a 3 person HOV to 2 person HOV with worsening results with less throughput. It was eventually re-instated.


Quote:
In 1999, then state senator Hilda Solis authored a bill, Senate Bill 63, to drop the carpool definition from three occupants to two, which passed both the state Assembly and Senate and was signed by Governor Gray Davis on July 12, 1999. The bill was opposed by both Caltrans and Foothill Transit, as well as the Southern California Transit Advocates, a transit users’ organization. It received support from many cities hoping that carpool rates would increase. SB 63 went into effect on January 1, 2000. As a compromise, the bill was designated an experiment which would sunset in 24 months.

In fact, the actual number of people moved on the busway dropped, meaning that the lowered requirements did not attract new carpoolers. Instead, many carpoolers previously forced to triple up moved to two-person carpools, which increased the vehicle volume on the roadway and consequently resulted in severe congestion. As a result of the congestion, many individuals abandoned carpooling and decided to drive alone. Speeds on the busway dropped markedly from 65 mph (105 km/h) before the experiment to 20 mph (32 km/h) during the experiment, where speeds in the regular lanes did not change significantly (as a result of 2 person carpoolers moving to the busway), and actually dropped from 25 mph (40 km/h) to 23 mph (37 km/h), paradoxically making the busway slower than the regular lanes. Accident rates on the busway increased significantly from zero in the six months before the experiment to five during the experiment. Travel times along the busway increased by 20–30 minutes in each direction, generating over 1,000 complaints to government agencies, and requiring Foothill Transit to hire more drivers and stage more buses to provide busway service.

As a result of public outrage, Assembly Bill 769 was passed in July 2000 that was an emergency measure to terminate the experiment during peak hours. … Hilda Solis … did vote for AB 769, effectively admitting that her idea was a failure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 7, 2019, 3:50 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
That was my thought too. Today you see HOV’s fly by you as you sit in traffic, tomorrow you will find 2 other people to join you so you can fly by others too.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 7, 2019, 4:49 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,617
There's also the program for EVs to travel in HOV lanes. At least provincial ones.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 7, 2019, 6:25 PM
Jalapeño Chips Jalapeño Chips is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Vancouver, B.C
Posts: 127
I drive Hwy 1 a lot, from Van to Abby and back. The HOV lanes are well used, always with cars. I don't recall ever seeing them empty. They help reduce congestion. There is zero point, or chance, in taking them out. This shouldn't even be a debate or discussion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 9, 2019, 6:10 PM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
That's not how it works... Just because 20% of the population uses transit doesn't mean the HOV lanes are utilized 31.6% on Highway 1 lol. Like I said you can reward people for using the HOV lane, but the fact is they're not being used. So dedicating 1/3 of capacity to something that is under utilized is backwards thinking
Yeah, but that's not how humans, or roads work. Roads can't be 100% utilized, or they get congested, slow down, and people will stop using them.

If transit is only used by 20% of the population. Why build Skytrain for the 20% of the population? (I guess optimistically +9.1% as well due to the active transportation it supports).

Should freeways not exist in Soeul, S. Korea because most of the population uses transit or active transportation?

This is circular reasoning, and exacerbates a chicken-and-egg problem. You're effectively advocating giving up sustainable transportation because it's not the majority.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2019, 11:56 PM
libtard's Avatar
libtard libtard is offline
Dahvie Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jalapeño Chips View Post
I drive Hwy 1 a lot, from Van to Abby and back. The HOV lanes are well used, always with cars. I don't recall ever seeing them empty. They help reduce congestion. There is zero point, or chance, in taking them out. This shouldn't even be a debate or discussion.
No one is talking about taking out the HOV lanes that currently exist. It’s actually the opposite. According to the proposal we will be losing 1 general purpose lane in each direction for this stretch of new highway and gaining an HOV lane. Enjoy your commute
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2019, 12:04 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
Not sure what you are talking about libtard. They are adding 1 HOV lane each way to make it a total of 6 lanes. It will be good but should be going further to west.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2019, 2:34 AM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
No one is talking about taking out the HOV lanes that currently exist. It’s actually the opposite. According to the proposal we will be losing 1 general purpose lane in each direction for this stretch of new highway and gaining an HOV lane. Enjoy your commute
Hwy #1 should be 8 lanes from the Port Mann through Abbotsford at the least. Stopping at 264th will just move the bottleneck further east along the highway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2019, 3:03 AM
libtard's Avatar
libtard libtard is offline
Dahvie Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Not sure what you are talking about libtard. They are adding 1 HOV lane each way to make it a total of 6 lanes. It will be good but should be going further to west.
There are already 6 lane sections from 216 to 264. All general purpose. What happens to those?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2019, 3:24 AM
mezzanine's Avatar
mezzanine mezzanine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
There are already 6 lane sections from 216 to 264. All general purpose. What happens to those?
That's incorrect. aside from the EB 5th lane for hill climbing from 232, it's 2 lanes in each direction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2019, 3:54 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
There’s also a westbound climbing lane from Mt Lehman Road (304th Street) to the midpoint* between Bradner Road (288th Street) and Ross Road (296th Street), and that’s all. Everywhere else, there are only 4 lanes in total.

* I was gonna say 292nd Street but it sounded made-up.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2019, 4:14 AM
libtard's Avatar
libtard libtard is offline
Dahvie Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by mezzanine View Post
That's incorrect. aside from the EB 5th lane for hill climbing from 232, it's 2 lanes in each direction.
How is that a climbing lane? It’s literally 3 lanes east bound from 232nd to 264th. That’s more than a climbing lane that’s a legitimate 3rd lane. If the new configuration is 6 lanes total, 2 HOV that means it will now be 2 general purpose lanes from 232nd to 264th east bound instead of 3
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2019, 4:22 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
How is that a climbing lane? It’s literally 3 lanes east bound from 232nd to 264th. That’s more than a climbing lane that’s a legitimate 3rd lane. If the new configuration is 6 lanes total, 2 HOV that means it will now be 2 general purpose lanes from 232nd to 264th east bound instead of 3
Note how the far right lane is barricaded from the other two at both interchanges though. My wild guess is straight up adding an HOV lane each direction between Highway 10 (232nd Street) and Highway 13 (264th Street).
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:18 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.