Lamenting the decline of the car

[240glt]

Originally Posted by esquire

What exactly do you expect from cars, though? They are not works of art, they are portable appliances that move people and things from point A to point B. Any expectations beyond that are the work of clever marketing, and exist only to extract more $ from your wallet.

I'll say this transcends most cars actually. We rented a new BMW 428 over the holidays while in BC, and I have to say, having driven a number of BMW's over the last 20 years, this one felt very generic and uninspired. It could have been a Honda and you wouldn't have noticed the difference. It was also loaded with tech that made the driving experience a little distracting and a lot of it seemed to be there for no other reason but to cram as much tech into the car as possible.

It's one of the main reasons I love my 38 year old Volvo so much and why it still turns heads out on the street, it's so simple and straightforward, aside for power windows, locks and AC it's pretty stripped down, everything is analog, manual transmission and a design that is the antithesis of most cars built in the last 20 years that look and drive the same.

[Nashe]

Thing to remember is that most family cars have been "evolving" towards a single set of generic parameters over the past few decades. An optimal mix of:

- Price
- Fuel economy
- Power
- Aerodynamics
- Cost of ownership
- Cost of production

It only makes sense that these would all converge to some sort of generic platform that balances all of these. Because when it comes down to it, people view most cars as an appliance now... a way to get their N number of people and things around for the cheapest amount possible. They'll individualize (more power, better looks, better features) as long as that doesn't break the bank significantly.

What that means is we end up with generic looking cars with nearly identical performance parameters. Anything else will cost you more.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Doug

Simple math:
-Same tax base with more roads means less snow removal budget per km
-Snow season spread out over linger period means less budget per day

That's fine in theory, but practice is more complicated than that. How much each municipality devotes to snow removal, different types of precipitation, built form, etc. An older urban environment with narrower streets takes specific equipment and more manpower to clear, for example.

I still haven't seen any evidence that snow removal is worse in the west.

Originally Posted by TownGuy

I find the Mazda 3 to be a sharp looking compact.

And in keeping with the way the conversation has gone, the new generation is available in AWD.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Mister F

I still haven't seen any evidence that snow removal is worse in the west.

Anecdotally, everyone that moves to Calgary from out East comments on how poor the snow removal is, and I believe them. I suspect it is more because Calgarians are cheap and do not value city beatification for the most part, and place reduced property taxes as a higher priority.

[someone123]

For fun I had a look at snow removal budgets for a few cities. These vary since cities dip into contingency funds more or less frequently, cities have different standards for clearance (e.g. does the city clear sidewalks or do property owners have to clear their sidewalks), the cities cover different proportions of their respective metro areas, and they have different climates. These are all from slightly different years too but all recent (maybe back to 2017 or so).

Vancouver's budget is $0.78M -> $1.20 per capita
Halifax's budget is $6M -> $14 per capita
Calgary's is $39M -> $31 per capita
Toronto's budget is $90M -> $33 per capita
Montreal's budget is $158M -> $109 per capita

I had no idea that Montrealers pay nearly 8x more per capita for snow removal than Haligonians. Some of that is due to climate but some must also be due to higher service levels (or worse efficiency). I did suspect that Vancouver doesn't have much of a regular snow removal program.

Montreal's at the extreme end where the city pretty much just wouldn't function without good snow removal. In Vancouver there are years with 0 snow so it makes sense not to have much of an annual budget. On the worst year, the city spends extra (maybe $10M). Halifax has minimal service that is OK if the weather is decent but that people complain about whenever it's not. I've never heard anybody there talk about how they're paying for bargain-level snow removal service.

Calgary and Halifax are basically metro areas while Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver are the inner 25-50% or so of their respective metro areas. Calgary and Halifax should have higher costs, all else being equal, if we assume that lower density makes snow removal more expensive. I suspect that might not be true at all, and that urban areas might be more expensive to provide snow removal in. In a lot of lower density areas you can just run a snow plough along and push everything into the ditch.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Mister F

As for weather, I'd argue that it's more challenging to clear snow in a city that gets the same amount of snow in a shorter amount of time, meaning the storms are either more frequent or more intense. Or both.

Incorrect. It's the other way around - a snow event that wouldn't be challenging at all for Montreal's fleet of equipment would likely be a paralyzing challenge in Washington DC. The explanation is simple - the city that reliably gets lots of snow ("frequently" and "intensely") is the one that's equipped to deal with it.

It's really all about deviation from average. The worst case for snow removal (i.e. highest probability of occasional challenge/paralysis) would be to have an erratic climate featuring potential huge dumps 10 months out of 12, while generally dry enough that snow isn't very frequent, and often melts quickly after it shows up (even in the dead of winter thanks to chinooks) which means you don't need to be equipped to pick it up and carry it away, you can afford to just plow it to the side and wait for it to melt.

A (fictional) place that gets regular and predictable winters would always be well plowed and never paralyzed, regardless of the (insanely high) yearly amount of snow or the duration of winter.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

Calgary and Halifax should have higher costs, all else being equal, if we assume that lower density makes snow removal more expensive. I suspect that might not be true at all, and that urban areas might be more expensive to provide snow removal in. In a lot of lower density areas you can just run a snow plough along and push everything into the ditch.

Exactly. The extra costs of high density (the main one being the obligation to physically load up the snow and carry it away) dwarf the extra costs of low density (which is more miles driven per capita).

Cities in Quebec count the number of times they have to do this per winter because that's expensive. I happen to know that Montreal's at six right now. Normally, everyone at City Hall crosses their fingers hoping they have to do it as infrequently as possible (i.e. conveniently spread snow dumps and some melting between dumps). I also recall Sherbrooke going way over budget a few years ago due to having had to do these removal operations much more often than on a typical winter.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by lio45

Incorrect. It's the other way around - a snow event that wouldn't be challenging at all for Montreal's fleet of equipment would likely be a paralyzing challenge in Washington DC. The explanation is simple - the city that reliably gets lots of snow ("frequently" and "intensely") is the one that's equipped to deal with it.

It's really all about deviation from average. The worst case for snow removal (i.e. highest probability of occasional challenge/paralysis) would be to have an erratic climate featuring potential huge dumps 10 months out of 12, while generally dry enough that snow isn't very frequent, and often melts quickly after it shows up (even in the dead of winter thanks to chinooks) which means you don't need to be equipped to pick it up and carry it away, you can afford to just plow it to the side and wait for it to melt.

A (fictional) place that gets regular and predictable winters would always be well plowed and never paralyzed, regardless of the (insanely high) yearly amount of snow or the duration of winter.

Calgary has about the least predictable weather. The city has significantly improved its snow removal budget, but anecdotally it doesn't sound like service has improved by much and probably can't given the factors I identified earlier. How would you even staff a snow removal program when the biggest storms usually come out of nowhere in Sep, Oct, Apr and May and two month long dry spells are frequent during true winter?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Exactly. The extra costs of high density (the main one being the obligation to physically load up the snow and carry it away) dwarf the extra costs of low density (which is more miles driven per capita).

In Halifax even in downtown areas snow removal follows a similar strategy. You just pretend the sidewalk is a ditch and hope it melts soon.

The climate there is probably one of the trickiest ones to provide consistent snow removal in. It rains a lot in winter plus the temperatures typically go below 0 at night, so you never know if there will be a huge mess or everything will just wash away. It probably doesn't make sense to maintain Montreal-level crews for the 2 weeks a year when things go badly (i.e. pay $30M a year instead of $6M a year), so there is just a frustrating period most years when everybody grumbles about crappy snow removal service and then they forget about it.

In Vancouver the strategy is to pretend it never snows and maybe sprinkle salt around, and it works fine 95% of the time. It is probably the ideal strategy. If you're 100% happy with snow removal at all times, your city is overpaying and there's another area where the money could be better used.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by someone123

I suspect that might not be true at all, and that urban areas might be more expensive to provide snow removal in. In a lot of lower density areas you can just run a snow plough along and push everything into the ditch.

Yeah that's pretty much what I was saying. And that would explain why Montreal is so much higher than other cities. Its inner city has narrower streets than most, it gets more snow than most, and the snow rarely melts until spring. It has to spend that much.

Originally Posted by lio45

Incorrect. It's the other way around - a snow event that wouldn't be challenging at all for Montreal's fleet of equipment would likely be a paralyzing challenge in Washington DC. The explanation is simple - the city that reliably gets lots of snow ("frequently" and "intensely") is the one that's equipped to deal with it.

Of course Montreal can deal with a major snowfall better than DC, it has a lot more snow and the resources to deal with it. That comparison misses my point entirely. My comparison was Toronto and Calgary, which both reliably get lots of snow. I was questioning the assertion that Calgary's slightly more spread out winter somehow makes it harder to clear snow and thus makes people buy SUVs. At the end of the day there's hardly any difference. A car that can handle winter in one city can handle winter in the other.

It's amazing what a simple observation that people's car buying habits have very little to do with weather has turned into.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by someone123

For fun I had a look at snow removal budgets for a few cities. These vary since cities dip into contingency funds more or less frequently, cities have different standards for clearance (e.g. does the city clear sidewalks or do property owners have to clear their sidewalks), the cities cover different proportions of their respective metro areas, and they have different climates. These are all from slightly different years too but all recent (maybe back to 2017 or so).

Vancouver's budget is $0.78M -> $1.20 per capita
Halifax's budget is $6M -> $14 per capita
Calgary's is $39M -> $31 per capita
Toronto's budget is $90M -> $33 per capita
Montreal's budget is $158M -> $109 per capita

I had no idea that Montrealers pay nearly 8x more per capita for snow removal than Haligonians. …

Similarly the budget for St. John's NL is very high, around $15 million, making the per capita cost over $135, in spite of the fact that only the relatively small older section of the city must have actual snow "removal". The issues are similar to Montreal, with snow "storage" space being a real consideration in urban planning. The snow removal process, of course, is primarily automobile oriented, adding to the overall cost of auto transportation in our cities.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

In Halifax even in downtown areas snow removal follows a similar strategy. You just pretend the sidewalk is a ditch and hope it melts soon.

The climate there is probably one of the trickiest ones to provide consistent snow removal in. It rains a lot in winter plus the temperatures typically go below 0 at night, so you never know if there will be a huge mess or everything will just wash away. It probably doesn't make sense to maintain Montreal-level crews for the 2 weeks a year when things go badly (i.e. pay $30M a year instead of $6M a year), so there is just a frustrating period most years when everybody grumbles about crappy snow removal service and then they forget about it.

In Vancouver the strategy is to pretend it never snows and maybe sprinkle salt around, and it works fine 95% of the time. It is probably the ideal strategy. If you're 100% happy with snow removal at all times, your city is overpaying and there's another area where the money could be better used.

People here complain a lot about snow removal and especially (this year) about icy sidewalks.

Still, I do think that there is a "deluxe" element to the approach.

For example, right now in my neighbourhood they've posted those carboard temporary no parking signs indicating they are going to cart away the snow today.

This is along a road where the snow pile on the edge of the road is about this high:



(Photo just for illustration - it's from SignalHillHiker.)

The road itself is clear as is the sidewalk between the snow piles and people's lawns, which are still covered in snow.

It's going to be plus 7 tomorrow and plus 10 on Friday with rain day and night. To me this is a bit of a waste of money as most of this snow would likely be washed away by the rain anyway within 48 hours.

I've never understood why they cart away snow in mid-March here anyway, except for specific situations where it's essential.

[esquire]

Am I the only one wondering if there is a little hanky panky involved with Montreal's inflated number? I mean, this is the city where not that long ago, The Globe and Mail noted that the mafia was reportedly involved with the majority of the road contracts there.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by esquire

What exactly do you expect from cars, though? They are not works of art, they are portable appliances that move people and things from point A to point B. Any expectations beyond that are the work of clever marketing, and exist only to extract more $ from your wallet.

Obviously you have no experience about what cars looked like 40 years ago. All the cars were very different and varied while today they are just mild variations of each other. As for extracting more from your wallet, that's what SUV are for.

As for this SUV being tough in the winter crap, that just to make urbanites feel like rugged and ready for whatever they confront which is laughable. The ads show this people {always with a western accent} driving their SUVs over unchartered territory when the reality is that 99% of all drivers will never take their SUVs more than 20km from the nearest freeway.

[Airboy]

A good breakdown based on 2017 budgets.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4950156/e...oval-spending/

[Innsertnamehere]

Montreal gets *way* more snow than Toronto. No doubt about it.

Toronto had an unusually snowy year this year and actually had to do a "full removal" once - where they went around and trucked away the snow. This is probably the first time in a few years they have had to do that however. Meanwhile you said that Montreal has done it, what, 6 times now?

Never mind the fact that Toronto didn't really get snow until the middle of January and by the looks of the forecast we are done with it now, at least in terms of significant snowfalls. That's 2 months of real, consistent snowfall that requires significant effort to clear. And this was a "bad" year in terms of significant snowfalls.

The shoulder seasons for snow are much shorter than Montreal and we get more melt periods during the snow season. We went about 3 weeks without a single above freezing day this winter - this is fairly rare. It's rarely below freezing for more than a week without getting at least a day or two that allows for some melting.

[rousseau]

Are you allowed to deface your own license plate? Asking for a friend.

[Architype]

^ Not likely rousseau.

Gas Prices In Canada Have Officially Reached A Record-Breaking High In North America

Starting today, gas prices in Vancouver have hit a record-breaking high price of $1.67 per litre. Unfortunately, these shockingly high prices will impact Metro Vancouver for the next foreseeable future.

https://www.narcity.com/ca/bc/vancou...-north-america

This seems like another hurdle cleared in the decline of the car, however high prices like this might expedite the decline of the SUV instead. It now costs approximately $80 or more to fill a compact gas tank. Local prices around my area are actually about $1.58 per litre today.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Architype

^ Not likely rousseau.



https://www.narcity.com/ca/bc/vancou...-north-america

This seems like another hurdle cleared in the decline of the car, however high prices like this might expedite the decline of the SUV instead. It now costs approximately $80 or more to fill a compact gas tank. Local prices around my area are actually about $1.58 per litre today.

I'd be very curious to know how much higher the EV take rate in BC is than other parts of Canada thanks to high gas prices. I see al kinds of EVs daily, despite the fact BC's rebates weren't as generous as ON's and only go up to vehicles costing $77k (ie no Model S).

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'd be very curious to know how much higher the EV take rate in BC is than other parts of Canada thanks to high gas prices. I see al kinds of EVs daily, despite the fact BC's rebates weren't as generous as ON's and only go up to vehicles costing $77k (ie no Model S).

Feels like i'm seeing more and more Teslas every day here in Ottawa.