HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2013, 11:58 PM
theKB theKB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
I'd also be okay with the province bringing back a mandatory annual vechile inspection once Aircare is gone. This would get a bunch of clunkers off the road making it safer for everyone.
As somone that likes to modify my vehicles I say this very cautiously and wish that any such inspection is only concerned with safety and performance.


I agree and hope that they think that way as well, I like to tinker a bit (much less than I used to however) and hope they go to an inspection that basically makes sure your brakes, windshield, lights, tires and suspension are in good working shape.

They should also do away with roadside notice and orders unless there is some blatant safety violation (cracked winshield, bald tires etc) because 95% of cops on the road have no clue what is actually in the MVA.

And the immediate roadside impound has no reason to exist frankly.
__________________
-independent retailer
---
Sales @ Mercedes-Benz
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2013, 3:31 AM
moosejaw moosejaw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Miami
Posts: 267
Is aircare going away?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2013, 3:34 AM
spm2013 spm2013 is offline
More Towers
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,312
Yeah, end of 2014 for light vehicles and trucks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2013, 12:29 PM
moosejaw moosejaw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Miami
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by spm2013 View Post
Yeah, end of 2014 for light vehicles and trucks.
Can't say thats a plus as there are a lot of older vehicles in BC. But otherwise it made no sense to test emissions on new cars?

Well at least the hot rod guys now will be able to put headers on their car or will no longer have to swap them back to stock cats when testing time comes around.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2013, 1:31 PM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
I'd also be okay with the province bringing back a mandatory annual vechile inspection once Aircare is gone. This would get a bunch of clunkers off the road making it safer for everyone.
As somone that likes to modify my vehicles I say this very cautiously and wish that any such inspection is only concerned with safety and performance.
Be very specific, inspections for degradation of safety and performance. Improving safety or performance shouldn't be poo-pooed.

As for the coke, I'm glad there are assholes that will pass me at 150+ pretty much every time i drive it. Means I can drive a speed i feel comfortable at with less risk of getting pulled over. Same can be said for highway 19 on the island, but most people don't seem to go over 140 there.

also, not trying to play mod, but shouldn't this be in the BC section?
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid

Last edited by Canadian Mind; Sep 6, 2013 at 2:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2013, 2:29 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by spm2013 View Post
Yeah, end of 2014 for light vehicles and trucks.
Is that confirmed? It seems like they have been stretching AirCare's life out forever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2013, 3:11 PM
spm2013 spm2013 is offline
More Towers
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Is that confirmed? It seems like they have been stretching AirCare's life out forever.
Unless they changed their mind.. From last year:

Quote:
B.C.’s AirCare program, which many Metro Vancouver motorists have regarded as a costly headache despite its vaunted role in cutting carbon dioxide emissions, is being phased out.

The provincial government announced Thursday that the 20-year-old AirCare will stop tailpipe testing of light cars and trucks at the end of 2014 and turn its attention to heavy-duty diesel vehicles.

Environment Minister Terry Lake said newer cars are much cleaner now — a point argued over the years by AirCare’s many critics.

“With new technology in cars, what we’re seeing is the incremental benefits to the airshed are smaller and smaller,” Lake said Thursday.

The Environment Ministry has estimated the AirCare program takes 20,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions out of the lower Fraser Valley airshed every year.

Passenger vehicles are exempt from the program for the first seven model years. Drivers of vehicles manufactured before 1992 pay $23 each year for tests while owners of newer vehicles pay $46 for tests every two years after the seven-year exemption.

Lake called the fees a significant cost to families.

“When governments have programs that are in place, I think it’s responsible to say ‘OK, have we achieved the objective?’ and if we have, let’s phase that out and look at other areas where we can make some better improvements to those objectives,” he said.

AirCare was introduced in 1992 because of warnings from experts that Vancouver’s air quality would be worse than that of Los Angeles by 2010.

There were plenty detractors of the new requirement that drivers demonstrate they had recently passed an emissions test before being given their auto insurance.

Besides costing motorists money in fees and mechanical repairs, the annual or biennial AirCare test was an inconvenience and a source of anxiety for car owners who wondered whether their car would pass the test.

Among those who detested AirCare was Vancouver Sun columnist Doug Sagi who called the new program “AirScare.”

In a 1992 column, Sagi lamented the program was here to stay because the “total scrapping of the silly scheme is ... as doubtful as the emergence of common sense as the dominant rule of human behaviour.”

Sagi said “the fact that it is a stupid program that will have only marginal to minimal effect on motor vehicle pollution is being overlooked.”

A poll conducted for The Sun in 1994 captured the public’s ambivalence over anti-emissions measures. The survey found that 75 per cent of British Columbians wanted tougher anti-air pollution laws and nearly 84 per cent of respondents were willing to pay more for cars with higher emissions standards.

But only 65 per cent wanted AirCare to remain in place.

The government-mandated program drew the ire of the Fraser Institute which urged the province to scrap it, calling it a waste of money.

The right-wing think-tank estimated in a 1998 study that AirCare cost $63 million a year in tests, fees, repair costs, expenses and lost time, while only reducing emissions that would cause $500,000 worth of damage annually.

In 2000 TransLink cited evidence the AirCare program had led to a 30-per-cent reduction in auto pollution.

But TransLink also acknowledged improved emission controls meant newer vehicles rarely failed the AirCare test.

So the agency in charge of AirCare passed a new testing and fee structure in 2000, in which owners of newer vehicles would escape annual AirCare tests in favour of a biennial test that would cost twice as much.

The AirCare program found more than 40,000 vehicles failed an AirCare inspection in 2011 — more than half of them for the first time.

AirCare general manager Dave Gourley said earlier this year the program “has significantly reduced vehicle emissions and helped to improve the air quality in this region. This is not propaganda but a fact supported by numerous independent audits of the program.”

The province’s decision to shift gears at AirCare comes despite a Metro Vancouver committee’s recommendation in 2010 that the program be extended to 2020, warning that ending AirCare would put air quality at risk.

AirCare’s new focus on heavy-duty diesel vehicles, however, does follow recent passage of a Metro Vancouver bylaw aimed at reducing emissions from backhoes, excavators, forklifts and other diesel-powered machines.

“Addressing major sources of contamination, and diesel particulates is certainly ... key to managing and improving air quality,” said Metro Vancouver chairman Greg Moore.

He said working with the provincial government to reduce emissions from heavy-duty vehicles is the next step in that process.

The B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union, which represents 114 workers at AirCare stations, said the government’s decision on AirCare will lead to more pollution and fewer jobs.

“AirCare helps everyone breathe easier, so we welcome the decision to introduce heavy-duty vehicle testing,” said union president Darryl Walker.

“But AirCare is more cost-effective in removing pollutants from the atmosphere than any other transportation-based measure, so why would you scrap light vehicle testing in 2014?”

AirCare costs about $19 million to run each year.

The decision was also attacked by the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, Local 378, which represents the employees at Pacific Vehicle Testing Technology, which administers the program.

“The provincial government is saying ‘Mission Accomplished’ with regards to emissions but there’s work yet to do,” said the union, in a media statement.

“Cars and trucks should continue to be tested — AirCare catches close to 40,000 vehicles with emission problems each year. And without that testing that number will compound from one year to the next, growing exponentially.”
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Air...280/story.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2013, 10:45 AM
Dave2 Dave2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by twoNeurons View Post
I disagree with it being completely the driver's responsibility to drive within weather limits on roads like the Coquihalla.

MOST of the people in this province don't often drive on snowy roads. They live in the Fraser Valley.

Little known fact: Deer are one of the most dangerous animals in BC. Deer kill more people yearly than Bears, cougars and pitbulls combined.

Any increase in the speed limit on the Coq should be limited to daytime travelling. Deer are dangerous.
Speed Limit 60 - Black on white
Night 50 Nuit - White on black...

Hmm, must have been Banff or Jasper.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2013, 8:35 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,595
I think the Coquihalla is fenced and has wildlife overpasses and underpasses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2013, 8:38 PM
Denscity Denscity is offline
Suburbs Suck
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Castlegar BC
Posts: 4,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
I think the Coquihalla is fenced and has wildlife overpasses and underpasses.
It is and does yup.
__________________
Daily 1 hour flights from YCG to YVR & YYC on ACX
British Columbia is named after the Columbia River, a 4 minute walk from my house
Exactly halfway between Vancouver and Calgary
castlegar.ca
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2013, 2:21 AM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 543
Between Bridgeview Drive and 104th Avenue, Highway 17 (perimeter road) is built to the same or higher standard as Highway 91. There's no reason for the limit to be 80 instead of 90 (or eventually 100 if they build interchanges) for anything but political reasons.

Cops had about half a dozen people ticketed under the Port Mann when I drove by today. I really don't think people doing 100 there on a clear, sunny, day with almost no traffic is what the cops should be wasting their time on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2013, 5:46 AM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,475
Haven't read anything in this thread (only the topic) as I wanted to post my thoughts before I had them swayed or changed by reading what others posted.

With that said, I just got back from a road trip with my wife down through Washington, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana. Being a road trip, and being conscious of not wanting to get a speeding ticket, I noted every speed limit we came upon. What I found was interesting. Washington state on average outside of major cities has higher speed limits for cars than here in the majority of BC @ 70 mph / 113 kph.

When you're in major city areas it drops on average to around 60 mph in areas up and down the I5 for in Spokane to around 65. Note, it drops down to nearly the MAX on Highway 1 (96kph is 60mph) and drops down to still be faster than speeds on HWY 91, 99, pretty much everything else outside of the Coquihalla.

We then entered Idaho and the speed limit jumped up a bit to average 75 mph everywhere. In major cities it was 65. So that is a top out at 120kph outside of major city limits and 104kph in major city limits like Boise. The other thing I did notice was that their highways are straighter though that the majority of our highways and felt wider.

The same trend continues in Utah which for the most part hovered around the same speeds only dropping down through areas like Moab where you're swerving through canyons but even then the speed limit was higher through curvy canyons than on straight HWY 1 stretches.

Whyoming was a tough one because we really only spend our time through Yellowstone which tops out at 45mph everywhere which is actually interesting into itself. The roads through Yellowstone are narrow 1 lane with either sharp drop offs on the side or thick trees. Not to mention A LOT OF ANIMALS including Bison and Elk tromping all over the place.

But 45mph is 72kph. Not that far off 80kph seen on such stretch as the Golden Ears bridge or Highway 17. If you can do 72kph on 1 lane winding roads through a National Park in the US... why does 80kph on a wide 2-laned divided highway in BC seem to crazy fast to government officials?

Montana though was the eye opener and maybe it is just because of the wild west attitude there but we were hitting 75mph speed limits on very windy 1 lane roads in the middle of cattle country DURING THE DAY. They do actually have speed limits 10mph less during the night. So it says 75MPH Day, 65MPH night. Wow who would have thought, different speed limits for different conditions?????!

We even hit 1 highway where the speed was 75mph and giant signs were posted saying "active grazing, watch for cattle on highway." I was like "ok..... set cruise control @ 75mph" and no issues.

They also had posted overhead signs that read "2012, 205 road fatalities, 75% unbuckled." Seemed to tell me they've concluded in Montana that speed probably isn't the biggest contributor to fatalities because let's face it, a head on at 55mph vs 75mph or hitting a Moose at either speed probably won't change the result. But rather buckling your seat belt is probably more important (or not talking on cell phones maybe which seems to still happen way too often in BC?)

So after that road trip we hit the Canada/US border and I felt the same way I felt after coming back from my last trip to the UK, like I was driving down HWY 99 towards my home in Surrey so slowly that I could get out and ride a bike faster.

Now my opinion on BC highways:

1) I do think many of our highways are fine at around 90kph due to not just design but risk of animal crossing. You wouldn't catch me driving up HWY 97 for example up towards Prince George in even my pickup doing much over 90kph. There is nowhere I need to be fast enough that warrants reducing my ability to attempt to react to a Moose, Dear, Elk, Bear standing in the middle of the highway around the next corner. I am fine with 90kph on most of the highway.

2) I think they need to relax speed limits on major passing lanes on our 1 lane highways. It always seems annoying when you're putting along at 70-80kph on a 90kph highway behind someone and then you hit a passing lane and they jump up to 90kph in the right lane.

You have to break the law to pass the asshole (for lack of a better word) and I think on those straight stretches that are much wider, it would be nice to bump up to 110 or something to allow people to actually pass. Yes people still do it, but it would be a nice to have.

3) I think all our dual carriage way highways even in town should have a speed limit of 100kph. That includes HWY 1 once you cross the Port Mann and are North of Fraser with MAYBE the exception of the Upper Levels stretch and parts of the Sea to Sky which can get very curvy. HWY1 should also bump up to 110kph from Abbotsford to Hope imo. People already do 120-130 so the highway is more than capable of handling those speeds and let's face it, people drive on average what speed they feel comfortable doing on a given road.

I would classify dual carriage ways as HWY 17, 17A, 91, 99, and Golden Ears way. I find it insane that Lougheed Highway through the Riverview stretch is non-divided yet has the same speed limit as the new SFPR which is, minus a few traffic lights they are putting in, a freeway.

4) I think the Coquihalla would be fine at 120kph for most of it with the exception of the stretch from Hope to the giant hill climb heading East. That's fine at the current speed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2013, 5:51 AM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,475
The other thing I noticed and should point out is that in Washington state, where the speeds are 60 in town and 70 out, people averaged 75 mph everywhere even in the city. So most 'locals' did OVER the speed limit.

When we were in states where the limits were 75 mph, almost everyone did... 75 mph. So it seems like the sweet spot. I could set my cruise control and I wouldn't pass anyone or get passed by anyone anywhere. The odd person sure here or there but that only happened when I dropped to 65 mph in the cities where the limit would drop but all the "locals" kept doing 75 mph.

So I absolutely agree with the notion that it is false to think if you increase speed limits people will always go over them. Again it is proven over and over again that this is BS and that people simply drive with the flow of traffic and at speeds they feel comfortable traveling at. Why do you think people do 100kph down 96th avenue towards 176th even though the limit is 60kph? Because it is ridiculous to do 60kph through that stretch and it feels absolutely safe at 100kph.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2013, 5:59 AM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,475
I also subscribe to the notion that the faster you drive the more attentive you are to driving. I actually think in many areas slower speeds give people the illusion they are being less dangerous while being distracted. Ever wonder why that person is putting along at 70kph on HWY 1 while yapping on their cell phone? Or why the driver having a very animated conversation with their passengers is doing 20kph under the speed limit down KGB? It's because we automatically drive slower when we start to become distracted as we think it makes us safer.

It doesn't. It also gives us this false sense that "Oh I'm going slow enough, I can type a text message right now." If on our highways the speeds limits were actually bumped up and people did the speed limit, I think drivers would drive better and we'd have fewer accidents. Most car accidents don't happen on our highways and freeways remember. Per capita, most accidents happen on low speed roads in the city where everyone is just going through the motions, thinking about what's for dinner, I need to get home to watch my TV show, I need to buy new clothes for my kids, ugh another dinner with the parents, etc. etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2013, 8:35 PM
Political_R Political_R is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 102
Realistically, all the limited-access roadways should be 120 outside the urban areas, once the exit density increases comes down to 110 to 100. Perhaps also add ITS overhead gantries that display speed limits to adapt to varying conditions. That would need enforcement though.

17, and 17 a do need speed limit increases and same with Golden Ears Way. I'm surprised they did not make Golden Ears limited access from Hwy 1 via Mary Hill-Golden Ears-Hwy 1 on the other end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2013, 2:57 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
zoom zoom
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,379
Saw this video making the rounds..

Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2013, 1:19 PM
moosejaw moosejaw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Miami
Posts: 267
Very good video. I'm dumbfounded by that cop that ticketed everyone going over 50k based on that yellow advisory sign. Every ticket he had ever written should have been thrown out and everyone who was ticketed could use that video to prove it. I cant believe that cop thinks its legit and did you see him to claim that he could confiscate cars?
Thats crazy. And did you see his rank, he's a sargeant.

It reminds me of the New West Cop at roadblock who upon seeing my Florida Drivers License demanded to search my vehicle and told me he didnt need my consent to search my vehicle. He claimed the search and seizure laws are different in canada than they were in the US. And that I couldn't refuse such a search or I would be taken to jail. I read online later that this was false and i learned of my rights at a traffic stop or DUI checkpoint.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2013, 3:09 PM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by AverageJoe View Post
Hwy #99 southbound just south of the Oak St. Bridge: 60 km/h speed limit. 98% of the cars going through that stretch could be legally impounded.

One time I just tried doing 60 km/h on that stretch just for s**ts and giggles. There were some very angry motorists passing me with mean-looking faces.
Heh heh, I was just in town recently and took advantage of my Manitoba plates to 'do the speed limit' in a few places. I actually had a guy roll down his window (furious) and yell "GO BACK TO WINNIPEG %$#@!@."

I grinned stupidly and yelled back "WHY? I'M FROM PORT MOODY!"

Sure was fun.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2013, 4:25 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,346
100,000 views in a day. Transportation Minister gets the 85th percentile comment. He gets that slower vehicles on freeways are dangerous.

Change seems to be in the air! I loved the portion of the video on Marine Drive, where he measured vehicles with camera to determine the speed limit should be 80 km/h on there rather than 50 km/h.

Last edited by go_leafs_go02; Sep 12, 2013 at 5:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2013, 4:37 PM
theKB theKB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 662
This needs to be posted and re-posted on every social media site, this video needs to continue to go viral.
__________________
-independent retailer
---
Sales @ Mercedes-Benz
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 5:54 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.