Rob's Ramblings

With the recent announcement of a 10 lane monster bridge here in Vancouver it might be timely to examine the idea of the efficient car.  Some supporters of the highway expansion project claim that we don't need to worry about greenhouse gas emissions or local pollution because the increased traffic will sometime in an unspecified future be replaced by magical super efficient cars. A recent article in The Progressive, The Myth of the Efficient Car , examines this issue. The article points out that, "...the looming catastrophe of global pollution, including climate change, will never be solved by building more cars – efficient or otherwise." Meanwhile the private partner involved in building the bridge, Macquaire Group, is having problems .

World Changing has an article about few roads can result in less congestion.  To bad Kevin Falcon isn't reading this.

I just read this rather frightening account of a NY State Senator almost crushing a cyclist and then threatening him .  It reminded me of a similar experience I had on Pacific Boulevard in Vancouver.  An SUV driver veered into the cycling lane, hit my arm which I had instinctively stretched out and then yelled at me not to touch his vehicle. But there is also a much more heartwarming account on No Impact Man's Blog where a confrontation ends with a handshake.  And that too reminded me of an incident here in Vancouver.  I was legally using the new bike box on the Carrall Street Greenway.  A delivery van driver started shouting and swearing at me because I was in the bike box.  I tried to explain what the bike box was but he just continued to yell at me telling me that what I was doing was wrong.  I followed him to his next stop and started to phone the number on the side of his truck.  He suddenly became much more resonable and I was able to explain to him how a bike box works.  ...

Some interesting quotes from this morning's Metro Vancouver Sustainability Breakfast : “We have today the most road and parking capacity that we will ever need” - Bryn Davidson, Executive Director, Dynamic Cities Project "We need to redesign Gateway...[if we continue with the current design]...we will have wasted that money...we will have sunk it into a design that was inappropriate." - Anthony Perl, Professor and SFU Director, Urban Studies Program

Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon claims the we need to expand the Port Mann to accommodate “commercial-goods–movement” ( Jan 24 Georgia Straight ). But according to his own department's figures, only 8% of the traffic on the bridge is truck traffic . Clearly the current bridge has plenty of capacity for commercial-goods-movement. The vast majority of the traffic on the bridge is single occupancy vehicles and these drivers need to be given the option of transit now, not years in the future. Falcon does get one thing right - tolls will help induce people to take transit. But we need to start congestion pricing on the current infrastructure not future infrastructure. That is what other cities that are taking sustainable transportation seriously are doing. Why is Metro Vancouver falling behind? Powered by ScribeFire .

GHG Emissions from Cars & Light Trucks Originally uploaded by Rob__ Apologists for the Gateway Program have begun to claim that we can expand highways and reduce ghg (greenhouse gas) emissions because cars are getting "cleaner" and "total emissions continue to decline." The problem is that they are confusing different types of emissions. It is true that emission controls for automobiles have reduced some types of toxic emissions. But these controls do NOT reduce CO2 - the major ghg emission. Fuel efficiency does reduce ghg emissions. But after a sharp decline in fuel efficiency in the 70s and early 80s the combined fuel efficiency of light duty vehicles started rising in the 1990s (partly because people started switching to SUVs, vans and trucks from cars). see: http://www.oee.rncan.gc.ca/english/programs/gif/mfev_figure_05.gif GHG emissions from cars actually declined from 1990 -2005 but the total ghg emissions for car and light trucks incre...

In a recent column in the Surrey Leader BC Trucking Association president Paul Landry said : “...there are people who think you can reverse that logic and apply it to roads – “If you don’t build it, they’ll stay away.” Unfortunately, if you follow their logic you’ll not only end up without a Field of Dreams,...” Of course this is just one man's opinion and he offers NO evidence to support that position. In fact, the evidence suggest otherwise. Extensive research has found that traffic can be reduced if you “don't build it” AND give people alternatives. Here is part of the summary of the report: “This paper reports on two phases of research, resulting in the examination of over 70 case studies of roadspace reallocation from eleven countries, and the collation of opinions from over 200 transport professionals worldwide. ... significant reductions in overall traffic levels can occur, with people making a far wider range of behavioural responses than has traditionally been assume...

I recently had a conversation with a friend ( Nancy Callan , author and environmental food activist ) about the expansion of highway one . I mentioned that freeway expansion rarely solves the congestion and often during peak hours congestion returns to previous levels in a matter of months. This occurs because of triple convergence (also here ). At the time I had forgotten what the three convergences were but after a little research here they are: many drivers who formerly used alternative routes during peak hours switch to the improved expressway (spatial convergence); many drivers who formerly traveled just before or after the peak hours start traveling during those hours (time convergence); some commuters who used to take public transportation during peak hours now switch to driving, since it has become faster (modal convergence)