Metro Vancouver Road Infrastructure Discussion

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Nope, the methodology is flawed, as pointed out above.

People in these cities have hours of commuting per day.

The methodology is sound.

If they wanted to, they could evaluate absolute number of hours of commuting per capita.

That's not what is being evaluated.

If you have a two-lane highway with 15 minutes of congestion, or an 8-lane highway with 30 minutes of congestion, obviously the bigger highway has more absolute congestion.

The question then would be why does the smaller highway have a larger relative amount of congestion?

[SFUVancouver]

The issue is that Tom Tom presents their information with the spin of 'who has the worst' commute. Tom Tom posits that a shorter commute on roads that are proportionately more congested during peak periods vs non-peak/free flow, versus a longer commute on roads that are proportionately less congested at peak periods vs non-peak/free flow. I think that is a poor way of measuring a commuters' hardship. Moreover, a location with permanently congested roads would have this normal baseline count as non-peak/free flow against which the congested periods are measured.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by jbrizzy

Clarendon connector was originally supposed to open on March 31st, but I just noticed that they've change the completion date to May.

As of today (now June) it still is not opened. If it were a bike lane it would be open a month after announcements of the plan approval.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Could this be mitigated, or not? If so, how. Thanks. I think losing the crossing view is a tragic loss.

Yes.

a) Install a help line 20 meters from the bridge deck and a suicide booth 10 meters from the bridge deck.
b) Install cameras to automatically detect jumpers as they leap and before they even hit the water, automatically inform the RCMP dive team of the jumper, the exact location on the bridge deck they jumped from, the approximate location they should be landing, the direction the body should float based on wind/current/tide readings, and a image of the jumper to help identify them.

The costs to society are minimized and the viability of a suicide barrier on the second narrows bridge eliminated (not that I think it makes sense now either).

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Yes.

a) Install a help line 20 meters from the bridge deck and a suicide booth 10 meters from the bridge deck.
b) Install cameras to automatically detect jumpers as they leap and before they even hit the water, automatically inform the RCMP dive team of the jumper, the exact location on the bridge deck they jumped from, the approximate location they should be landing, the direction the body should float based on wind/current/tide readings, and a image of the jumper to help identify them.

The costs to society are minimized and the viability of a suicide barrier on the second narrows bridge eliminated (not that I think it makes sense now either).

The upshot of losing the view is that traffic already flows smoother with the temporary barrier in place. People are focused on the road and not rubbernecking at the inlet.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

The upshot of losing the view is that traffic already flows smoother with the temporary barrier in place. People are focused on the road and not rubbernecking at the inlet.

Very good point. The barrier could be between the road and sidewalk.

Personally I think all highways in a urban setting should have complete noise barriers. If you want views take a side road. Highways should serve one purpose, to efficiently move vehicles from one interchange to the next, while minimizing impacts on neighbouring properties. Its amazing how much nicer and most importantly safer and faster it is to travel on a highway with properly installed noise barriers on both sides to keep your focus on the road. And of course the noise from the highways in minimized to a fraction of what it is. I would put full 5 meter noise barriers along the highway from Chilliwack to Horseshoe bay, while maintaining views for pedestrians crossing the bridges./rant

[roleypolinde]

Originally Posted by cornholio

As of today (now June) it still is not opened. If it were a bike lane it would be open a month after announcements of the plan approval.

I just drove through this intersection today. I saw new chalk marks for a left turn lane to be created westbound on 33rd immediately after the intersection with Kingsway so drivers can queue to turn left onto Clarendon so the work is not quite finished.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

The methodology is sound.

If they wanted to, they could evaluate absolute number of hours of commuting per capita.

That's not what is being evaluated.

If you have a two-lane highway with 15 minutes of congestion, or an 8-lane highway with 30 minutes of congestion, obviously the bigger highway has more absolute congestion.

The question then would be why does the smaller highway have a larger relative amount of congestion?

to me all this means is visions "congestion strategy" is working and that is a big negative in my books (obviously these studies reflect metro, but vancouver's policies can't be helping the situation)

How long until the viaduct decision rears it's ugly head?

[officedweller]

Here's the report sheet for Vancouver (75 mi of highways)


http://www.tomtom.com/lib/doc/pdf/20...nualAme-mi.pdf

For Toronto (581 mi of highways):


http://www.tomtom.com/lib/doc/pdf/20...nualAme-mi.pdf

and Seattle (306 mi of highways):


http://www.tomtom.com/lib/doc/pdf/20...nualAme-mi.pdf

[jbrizzy]

Originally Posted by roleypolinde

I just drove through this intersection today. I saw new chalk marks for a left turn lane to be created westbound on 33rd immediately after the intersection with Kingsway so drivers can queue to turn left onto Clarendon so the work is not quite finished.

I think that's all they have to do, line that intersection, and the Nanaimo/33rd intersection where they're adding left turn lanes. They've finished paving the connector and lined it over the past few weeks which took them long enough to get to. Idk why they're taking forever to finish it.

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Here we go again. Tom Tom's methodology is flawed. Would you rather a 30 minute commute that takes 15 minutes off peak, or a 75 minute commute that takes 40 minutes off peak? Using their methodology, the former reflects more 'gridlock' and, thus, more hardship for drivers. [Scenario A would be a 100% differential due to rush hour traffic, while Scenario B would be a 87.5% differential, despite being a commute that is 45 minutes longer]

Not to mention which daily commuters use a gps?

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No, it really isn't. Compared to Seattle or Toronto, Vancouver traffic is not bad.

Yes, it really is. Its a lot better than Tokyo's too but that doesn't mean a hill of beans. And the traffic in Toronto and Seattle are worse in selected areas but spread out over the entire area we compete quite well in that dubious category. This is all more alarming as those cities are far more spread out and have much larger populations

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Here's the report sheet for Vancouver (75 mi of highways)


http://www.tomtom.com/lib/doc/pdf/20...nualAme-mi.pdf

For Toronto (581 mi of highways):


http://www.tomtom.com/lib/doc/pdf/20...nualAme-mi.pdf

and Seattle (306 mi of highways):


http://www.tomtom.com/lib/doc/pdf/20...nualAme-mi.pdf

The congestion along the non-highway roads is perhaps the most troubling and will probably only get worse as time goes on and more people move to the area. Then again, this a region that seems to be proud of causing congestion through moronic policies regarding road infrastructure. (or the lack thereof)
And when the obvious, predictable results happen they go into full spin mode and reach pretty deep into the ol' excuse bag and question the methodology.

[WarrenC12]

The TomTom study favours jurisdictions that are focused on the SOV commuter, at the expense of everything and everyone else. Those are the places that will get the best "congestion rating".

Do you want a real world statistic that represents something people care about?

What is the average time spent commuting, period. Doesn't matter how far you go, what your mode of transportation is, etc.

The people who spend the least amount of time getting to and from work are the ones who are the best off.

All of those fancy charts tell me absolutely nothing that is relevant to the satisfaction of commuters.

Average Vancouver commute time, for drivers, could be 1 hour. Could be 2 hours in Toronto. Could be vice-versa. The charts don't tell me either way.

What a complete joke.

[makr3trkr]

The TomTom study is not about who is spending the most average time in traffic

Again:

If you have a 2 lane road with 15 minutes of congestion

or an 8 lane road with 30 minutes of congestion

Clearly the wider, bigger road has more absolute congestion and people are sitting in traffic longer.

The point is that the smaller road is experiencing more relative congestion, and the question becomes, why?

Poor regional management? Not enough transit? Etc.

[officedweller]

Arguably, though, total time for commutes are more a function of urban planning and where people decide to live (very subjective), not road infrastructure.

In absolute time terms, Metro Vancouver isn't bad.
In other cities, commutes are longer, so in percentage terms, you need a longer delay to get to the same proportion of delay.

In a 30 minute Vancouver commute on arterial roads, 6 missed traffic lights or missed left turns would be a 20% delay.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Arguably, though, total time for commutes are more a function of urban planning and where people decide to live (very subjective), not road infrastructure.

Well, yeah. And the fact that Vancouver has so many condos within walking distance of downtown jobs is completely ignored by "surveys" like this.

[officedweller]

Well, yeah, that's out of scope.
I guess I could carry a Tom-tom on my walk into work each day.
Maybe if I stop at the McDonalds often enough it'll skew the results.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Well, yeah, that's out of scope.
I guess I could carry a Tom-tom on my walk into work each day.
Maybe if I stop at the McDonalds often enough it'll skew the results.

While pedestrians are not specifically addressed - New York (famous for it's traffic) places 11th in the Americas while Vancouver is at 5th.

I would imagine that is at least partially due to people walking (also they are pushing hard to expand their cycling facilities and probably have more comprehensive transit coverage).

Boston, with the highest percentage of pedestrian commuters in America (15%), places at 22nd (along with a handful of freeways downtown, no less).

[Tetsuo]

The TomTom study also counts how fast the cars are travelling, with so few roads without lights it further prove how flawed their "study" was.


If google maps came out with a study it would be a lot more trustworthy since a large chunk of their data comes from people with cellphones (more broad base, whereas TomTom relies on people depending on a gps, which means it doesn't collect data from those who do not need to use a gps during their daily commute)