Vancouver is # 1 in Canada when it comes to traffic congestion

[WarrenC12]

What would the cost be to extend the Canada Line to Ladner? Plenty of land there for a big park and ride.

As compared to say, replacing the Massey tunnel.

[ACT7]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Sure congestion is one thing but did Tom Tom look into the distances that people actually drive for work in other cities? 1.5-2 hour commutes are not unheard of. Some cities are just one big sprawl. Some cities are connected to each other with sprawl. Just fly over the eastern US at night and you can see that yourself.

Also I imagine that the study includes the suburbs where freeways do exist, and are congested. So what does the lack of freeways in Vancouver count for anything? If Vancouver did have freeways the would be plugged up too. Maybe if they were toll freeways so congestion charges come into play.

And that's the point. Differentials will be much lower when:
A) the commuting time is high to begin with because of distance travelled, and
B) when non-peak hours are relatively empty.

When one sits in 'rush hour like' traffic on a Sunday afternoon, the differential will be very small when it's actually rush hour.

This is really just a study in relative commute differentials within each city, but it's hardly a measure of congestion.

[trofirhen]

Having grown up in Vancouver, I remember the years even before the Cassiar Tunnel, or even the Annacis Island -/ Alex Fraser Bridge /- Richmond Freeway System.

Having, as a young kid, visited other cities like Seattle, San Francisco, LA, and Montreal, I was always impressed by the expressways, tunnels, overpasses, and forth. Vancouver seemed to have almost nothing.

I realize that overbuilding freeways (as in LA, the classic example) can lead to enormous, motor-vehicle dependent sprawl, in which a rail transit system is bravely hangin' in.

Regarding Vancouver, perhaps I'm Politically Incorrect, or just totally confused, but I really believe that if people put their creative and engineering minds together .... (and there's a pretty big brainbank here on SSP Vancouver)..... people could come up with ideas; ideas that do not fall into a polarized "for / against" mindset, but where people add ideas and concepts to observed, discussed and considered. Opening the Road Fantasy thread might be one option at this moment, because we are heading into sort of a ZONE RED situation here, and somthethin's gonna give.

Meanwhile, I redirect your attention the topics posted above. Thank you for your time .

[tybuilding]

Just a reminder who the other expert quoted in the Province Article is:
Just so you know the type of person Ferry agrees with, here's Wendell Cox's bio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Cox

A conservative think-tank type who makes a living promoting roads and cars.

- I attended the South of Fraser debate put on with Wendell Cox vs Todd Litman and Wendell Cox wanted to develop all of the ALR and build farms (if we need them) on the mountains. They did it in Italy so why not here? (The farms were developed over hundreds of years). Houston is the best city in North America by the way, as you can buy a 4 bedroom house for $110,000. We don't need any planning/bylaws.

Yah, I agreed with Todd Litman's approach more.
The Province Article

I do agree with Surrey's approach to build more streets in the Whalley area to make a finer grid, it is needed, along with other areas like the Newton town centre. I don't think building additional arterial roads outside of the town centres will help out much unless it makes it easier to get around with other modes of transportation. Building 84th Ave across Bear Creek Park may help to relieve some congestion on 88th Ave but it will just move congestion to somewhere else like 84th and 152 street. Then the road will need 4 laning. Where does it end?
I would however support opening up the grid with additional streets or pathways or transit only streets to aid mobility for all users. For example I would remove a few houses in Richmond and North Delta to open up their blocks as it is impossible to cross the city walking or biking and stick to local streets like one can in Vancouver or Burnaby, even Surrey is better as the pathways provided are more logically placed, even in older neighborhoods.

The reason everyone drives everywhere in our suburbs is because they have been designed around the auto. Now they have to be modified with redevelopment so other modes can be accommodated because there are limits to what arterial roads can carry. The lack of proper planning in North America is the reason why auto transport is so prevalent as other modes were not planned for or were intentionally forgotten. What Wendell Cox promotes is the same old tired method of city building that doesn't work.

I also don't think that Vancouver needs freeways that go closer to downtown. The freeways are a similar distance away to other cities centres in the world, Berlin for example, home of the AutoBahn.

[FCE]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

"... duhh; don't build any freeways, and there won't be any extra traffic."

"Freeways, are bad and eveil and ugly and mean and destroy whatever neighbourhood they are in."

"Tunnels? In Vancouver? Are you crazy? Tunnels are expensive and bad, and evil and they'll only cause more traffic ....."

"Well, let's all use bicycles and (our magnificent, European-style) public transport...."

Vancouver traffic sucks big time, because the road system is underbuilt, and yes I'm talking about freeways. Whichever way you cut it, somebody will be waving an eco-flag to stop ANY kind of expressways, even O/ D ramps, particularly in the city proper. and Vancouver is still backwoodsy enough to sit back, let it happen, and go "DUUUUUUUH" in unison, as a response.

Sorry to be so acerbic, but I've been to lots of cities which have comprehensive freeway systems and are just as liveable in that regard (usually better) than Vancouver, because they don't have this weird "LET'S KEEP VANCOUVER AS HOKEY AND RUSTIC AS POSSIBLE" mentality in their cities, and arterial roads gridlocked with cars, as a result (not to mention people taking fast shortcuts through residential streets where children may be playing .... )

Vancouver's Road Planning is shit. Case closed.

I agree. I'm glad that the crappy road network helped facilitate a large downtown core, but now that the objective has been achieved, perhaps developing some better networks wouldn't be a bad idea.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by FCE

I agree. I'm glad that the crappy road network helped facilitate a large downtown core, but now that the objective has been achieved, perhaps developing some better networks wouldn't be a bad idea.

That's EXACTLY what I meant !! Thanks

[East Van]

Originally Posted by ACT7

Well, let's face it, this study is flawed on so many levels. Other than what I already pointed out about differentials, TomTom is relying on its existing users to collect the data. In other words, if you don't own a TomTom, you don't count. Moreover, if it's not turned on (because lo and behold, you may know you're way to work everyday), you don't count. Anyone who has sat on the 401, or Don Valley Parkway in rush hour can tell you that those two highways alone are more congested than all of Vancouver.

After experiencing rush hour in almost every major Canadian city, Toronto has the worst traffic by far. I've crawled for hours on the DVP, 401 & any other GTA freeway. If there's any sort of multi-vehicle accident. It is garanteed major chaos & delays. With the shear number of lanes & cars competing for all that space, its something we have yet to experience here. There also is noticibly more trucks here which usually do end becoming an issue, especialy with their typical 110km/hr plus operating speeds. We will get a taste when the #1 opens up to full capacity... One thing I did notice was that surface streets outside the core have a much faster operating speed. Inside the core the blocks are larger & lanes wider but the amount of cars kind of distorts that. The distance you have to travel here also seems to always be greater.

I found Montreal to have similar traffic & issues as Vancouver. With poor roads & what seemed like constant construction, MTL is also blessed with choke points like we have here. Tunnels & bridges near the core are pretty competitive during rush. The street grid doesn't line up too well here

A real north-south freeway from the 99 is what Vancouver really needs. Bore the damn tunnel !

[dleung]

The study is obviously flawed, as per ACT's observations about the time differential and Ottawa being on the list. But I can't say i was surprised by the results. There are countless areas in Vancouver and Richmond (esp near aberdeen around dim sum hour) where traffic is backed up across several intersections. The good thing is escape routes are possible since most people aren't trapped on a freeway like in other cities. We are building too much new highway infrastructure already, all we need is better transit and land use planning.

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by dleung

The study is obviously flawed, as per ACT's observations about the time differential and Ottawa being on the list. But I can't say i was surprised by the results. There are countless areas in Vancouver and Richmond (esp near aberdeen around dim sum hour) where traffic is backed up across several intersections. The good thing is escape routes are possible since most people aren't trapped on a freeway like in other cities. We are building too much new highway infrastructure already, all we need is better transit and land use planning.

Agreed! But I guess that makes me a hippie...

[tybuilding]

A critism write up on the Tom Tom study. Crunching the numbers:

TomTom Congestion Index Useless for Metro Vancouver

[twoNeurons]

[sarcasm]
Why's everyone so up in arms about this?


It means Vancouver is now world class!
[/sarcasm]

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by dleung

We are building too much new highway infrastructure already, all we need is better transit and land use planning.

Have gotta disagree with ya. Metro Vancouver's population continues to grow and the congestion continues to grow with it.

The existing and planned highway infrastructure should have been completed 20 years ago. Nevermind proper "network" connectivity.

In that vein, Calgary, Edmonton (which also have excellent lrt systems) , Toronto, and Montreal all have reasonably compact expressway systems that allows one to circumnavigate their respective regions with ease. Still not so in Metro Vancouver.

And Metro Vancouver, in particular, has the worst deficiencies in its highway network in all of Canada (forget about Winnipeg) in my experience.

Frankly. most people are aggravated that it takes 1 1/2 to 2 hours, in many instances, to traverse the region in one direction.

We are still well behind the 8-ball here and the highway capacities as well as highway networks are very deficient.

No wonder that Metro Vancouver places 2nd after LA. I've driven most networks in N.A. and I frankly concur.

BTW, most people don't take transit and never will. I won't list all of the reasons thereto.

And with another 1 million projected to be living in Metro Vancouver over the next 20 - 30 years where are ya gonna put 'em all? In 300-storey, 3,000 ft. buildings in downtown Vancouver? Whoops, forgot about them view cones.

Heck, most areas in Van City proper don't want ANY densification. The NIMBY factor, remember?!

[dleung]

That's cause you're living in White Rock. If you're a commuter to Vancouver, that's your first problem, and it lies in poor land use planning. Building roads pretty much guarantees upward pressure on sprawl, and municipal governments are far too willing to give in to that pressure/short-term revenue source.

The distant suburbs can choose to be quaint but secluded paradises, or they can be well-connected to the metro via commuter rail if they densify enough to justify it. NIMBYs and a culture of auto-dependence can be changed if we stop subsidizing drivers so much.

[ACT7]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

A critism write up on the Tom Tom study. Crunching the numbers:

TomTom Congestion Index Useless for Metro Vancouver

This should be published in every major newspaper and reported in the news. Not just the B.S. TomTom report.

[nname]

Well, according to stats can, Vancouver have the shorter commute than Montreal or Toronto. I think that number is much more meaningful than.. an arbitrary and intangible percentage of how much the road is congested...

EDIT: I didn't realize this is already in the link above before I posted..

[Mousey]

Surprised that we were ranked as the worst but agree with the decision. Hwy 1/PMB WB is backed up from 5am-9pm every weekday. Just like I-110 through LA. Our HOV lane system is a joke. You get nothing accomplished except saving maybe 5 minutes with the only exception being the Tunnel NB in the pm peak. They don't allow you to exit at specific spots, thus limiting their effectiveness and reward. Our Major arterials are laughable as every single one into Vancouver is residential and therefore light syncing has no useful effect. They also all have 50 km/h speed limits making that add time. Parking restrictions are a joke also. Major arterials should be no parking at any time, 24 hours a day. Force them to a back alley and tow their cars then. Right turn lanes at major intersections, or building left turn lanes at major intersections would improve congestion but god forbid the city ever realizes that. Our downtown streets are fairly good but giving longer light syncs would help.
I think LA/NYC/Toronto/Chicago are much worse in terms of traffic jam length, but every major intersection through the Lower Mainland are congested during peak times. Surrey/Richmond do quite well in the peak direction, but that's it from what I know. Excluding No. 3 Rd/KGB/Scott Rd.

[GMasterAres]

Unfortunately I don't think that analysis is entirely correct from TomTom. There are more contributors to our bad traffic. At the end though I don't agree that we are that bad. Not #2 in North America though. Those people claiming that simply have never traveled to Vancouver or to any other metro area in North America.

Sit in I5 traffic in Seattle for any period of time and you realize you're crawling at 5km/h on a freeway that is 10 lanes wide. That's pretty bad to me.

To me metro-Vancouver's key problem areas though are:

1) Really poor North-South and East-West major arterial roadways. Give you an example, Surrey in areas where it needs 3-4 lanes through has 1-2 lanes. Several east-west routes stop at blocks needing people to 'go around.' And then you hit the Delta border heading West and every major road outside of 88th/Nordel goes straight down to 1 lane. Same thing happens in Vancouver. Vancouver really only has 5 or so major East-West routes through the city. Hastings, 1st Avenue, Broadway, Granview/12th, and Kingway. Anything else really? 41st maybe? That's not a lot.

Part of this though comes from our local and provincial governments' alergy to road infrastructure. I still am of the side opinion that the hydro electric car will solve all our problems traffic wise. It is the holy grail of transportation because it will stick all the environmentalists into a box where they can kindly shut up. But I digress...

2) Most of metro Vancouver is still alergic to the "left turn lane" and "left turn arrow." This is a common issue through most of Vancouver itself, many parts of Burnaby, and New Westminster.

3) Many major routes only offer full free flow during peak periods and those peak periods are short. During the middle portion of the day, cars can park on almost all the major routes in Vancouver, Burnaby, etc. Parking on Marine Drive? Sure can after 6pm. What about Oak Street? Yup. How about Broadway!? You betcha! This causes a lot of weaving and stack ups not to mention is messes with the buses.

4) For the TomTom major highway point, I'd partially agree. In Vancouver and Burnaby you really don't have a major freeway right by the city center but this is true of most major cities. Vancouver is the exception to the rule unfortunately. But regionally it isn't entirely accurate. Coquitlam has Lougheed right through the center. Surrey has KGB and soon to be the SFPR near center. Langley has the bypass and Fraser Highway. It is also densifying and building up around Highway 1 better using that stretch. Abbotsford same thing. West and North Vancouver(s) are not that far from Highway 1 either.

So really it comes down to New Westminster and Vancouver which have crappy highway access.

5) Speed limits, in many areas are really unrealistic. You drive anywhere else on the planet especially in Europe and people drive much quicker. Part of the speed limit issue here though are because people are just really crappy drivers here. So rather than force people to be better drivers, we slow things down to the lowest denominator.

I mean 140th between 80th and 104th Avenue? Why is it 50km/h? Because it skirts a park and a school at a few stages? So what? you could easily safely do 60 or even 70 down 140th. Just an example.

In London, look at all the stretches where they have filled the shoulders with speed cameras, average speed checks, and variable speed limits, and you ALWAYS get stuck in purely insane traffic. You get outside of those stretches where people can simply use their brains and traffic flows smoothly. I've gotten caught several times on the M25 in a variable speed zone that is "40mph" and there are absolutely no cars around. Everyone the starts to stack up because we're going so slow and then you hit a 60mph and less than a km later another 40mph. This has people flooring it and slamming on the brakes constantly CAUSING traffic issues.

The realities are the more restrictive and controlling you get with speed limits, the more traffic you build up.

6) Light timings. I'm of the opinion that as with speed limits, light timings are done so as to slow down traffic. You almost never see a 'green wave' in Vancouver or Burnaby. There are rare exceptions like on Nelson street in downtown Vancouver between Granville and the Cambie bridge. And guess what, that stretch is usually not full of traffic! But Stanley Park to Granville can take 100 years because you hit every single red light no matter what.

You have a better chance of hitting green waves in the burbs but anyone who has driven in Coquitlam or Langley around 200th street know red lights = taking 15 minutes to do 10 feet.

Those are my key thoughts as to why I think traffic can be bad in Vancouver.

I don't think though it is #1 in Canada bad or even #2 in North America. It all depends on where you are going, when you are going, and what you are doing. Also knowing alternate routes is a big one. There are some spots where you have no alternate routes but I know a lot of people who get stuck in traffic in daily hot spots who could just drive a few minutes another direction and completely bypass the entire traffic stretch.

Unfortunately in metro Vancouver many commuters don't actually know ways to and from their destination outside of the minimal major routes. They should pick up a map and find alternates so that the traffic ends up being more distributed.

[East Van]

^^^ well said. Especially about left turn lanes. The last paragraph says a lot, there are too many commuters here that are mule type drivers...

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Building 84th Ave across Bear Creek Park may help to relieve some congestion on 88th Ave but it will just move congestion to somewhere else like 84th and 152 street. Then the road will need 4 laning. Where does it end?

Sorry in advance for keying in only on 1 small part of your entire post. As a side note I do agree with much of what you say. But this 1 comment struck me and I'll tell you why.

I hear the argument all the time. Where will it end? If we widen that road the traffic will grow. We will then need it 6 lanes. When will it end? When we make it 8, 10, 20 lanes? Do we need more roads?

The truth is, the argument is flaws in the simple fact that it is attributing "traffic growth" to "adding roads." That's completely false. Traffic growth doesn't come from adding roads. Traffic growth comes from population growth. You add more people, you get more people needing to get from point A to point B. If they aren't on roads then they are adding "traffic" to some system. If you add 20,000 people to Surrey Central you will increase not only road traffic but also transit traffic. This is because you can never fully get rid of cars. That's an impossible dream as impossible as me wanting to breath in space without a space suit or swim to the bottom of the Ocean.

The quick answer to your notion is, it will never end as long as population increases in Metro-Vancouver.

So that remove, infrastructure in all forms needs to be constructed to shape growth not catch up to growth and that's our key issue in metro-Vancouver. People jump up and down saying "WIDEN FRASER HIGHWAY!? WHY!?!?! you will encourage more traffic!" when the truth is, Fraser Highway should really be 3 lanes wide either direction. Based on the purpose of the route and the population today and in the next 20 years, it should be now. Widening it to 2 lanes is just catching us up to the immediate demand today.

But catching up or not widening it won't slow down people moving to the burbs, it won't stop growth, and it won't change habits unfortunately. So I don't really like the "when will it end" argument because I see it as somewhat meaningless.

The only time it will end is if the city stops growing. Not going to happen. Hell even if this was the most crazy utopian of cities where everyone walks around, you'd be shoulder to shoulder walking around everywhere and we'd have forums full of "WHY DON'T THEY WIDEN THE SIDEWALKS!?!?!?!"

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by East Van

^^^ well said. Especially about left turn lanes. The last paragraph says a lot, there are too many commuters here that are mule type drivers...

Which I think is the actual underlining point of the original article. Too many people rely on their TomToms to get them from point A to point B in a city they most likely grew up in and unfortunately sat-navs only every take you down 1 road. And those that have the option for alternate routes, I'd put money that 99% of their owners don't know how to make that function work.

So I think the argument should be ditch the sat-nav, pick up a map book, and explore your city a little bit or get used to getting stuck in traffic with all the other little sheep.