I have no data but the Marchetti hypothesis of the 30-minute commute rings true.

Transit is great when
(a) it provides fast and reliable commute times (no variation for traffic issues)
(b) allows me time to read or some other enjoyable experience
(c) more social for those that take advantage of that (not many)

The car is great for
(a) comfort – stereo, air conditioned, super comfy seats, etc
(b) generally much faster for multi-stop trips
(c) trips that do not match fixed transit corridors
(d) non-commute pleasure trips (when was the last time you took the bus to Whistler? or Kelowna?)

Will the car go away — unlikely
Is transit effective for high density, home-to-work, peak time travel – definitely

I find that Boltbus and Greyhound are great for non-commute pleasure trips. Boltbus and the new Greyhound buses offer wifi, nice new seats, and more legroom. Online booking makes it very convenient to purchase tickets. Unless you are carpooling, taking the bus often makes much for financial sense. http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/2014/07/13/greyhound-transformation-100th-anniversary/12364103/

“So if you want to increase the share of sustainable mode (bike+transit), there is no much other way that make driving more difficult (and way more expensive in the case of London) than those sustainable mode…”

This is wrong on so many accounts but unfortunately pretty much reflects the philosophy of our Vision councillors.

London has an extensive transit system so there are viable alternatives to cars. In most cases, the time for journeys in and around London are about the same whether by car or by transit. Compare that with Vancouver and transit is usually no less than twice the time by car. And the congestion charge is a way of allocating the usage of the fixed number of roadways and keeping cars moving to avoid gridlock. Same with Singapore where there is an excellent transit system but also has a congestion charge. The objective in both cities is to keep people moving as efficiently as possible whether by car or by public transit.

Contrast that with Metro Vancouver. We don’t have the same transit coverage and, because of low density, will not likely have one that will be a viable alternative to cars in the near future yet because of a Green philosophy our council is intent on making cars less attractive despite the lack of viable alternatives.

I would support paying more for transit and even a congestion/road pricing tax if the clear objective was to get people moving and not a means to raise revenue while at the same time looking at other ways to make driving less attractive. Until then, my vote will always be no.

None of the story is a surprise at all. The current situation is the result of decades of under investment in transit and cycling. In the past 16 years, around $6 billion has been spent on highways while only $2 billion has been invested in rapid transit. In spite of the fact that more has been spent on roads, the percentage of people driving has not increased. It also fails to mention that where transit and cycling improvements have been made, both have increased, often dramatically.

Hi Michael. Thanks for the thoughtful comment and view from elsewhere. I was struck when I interviewed people about how much pleasure some of them did get from their commuting, even people who were doing extremely long commutes. That obviously is a factor that plays in when they choose how to commute. But I have to say, I don’t think all millennials see it as pleasurable.

Millennials who are still child-free and have relatively simple lives may see commuting as a pleasurable part of the day. But the many I talked to for this story (and others I’ve done) who have kids — they HATED having to spend even 15 minutes extra commuting each way because they wanted that time with their kids. That was one of the biggest drivers for them.

As well, while they may find some commutes pleasurable, many are philosophically opposed to long commutes. I can’t tell you how many I’ve talked to who said, “We were told we should live in walkable communities and, by god, I’m not moving to Port Moody and driving to UBC.”

I can see that commuting can be a fun part of the day for groups in all age brackets. I think it really depends on how many other responsibilities and chores you have. When I am travelling, I love bopping around by bike and bus. When I am here, trying to get to four different places at once and dealing with an ailing parent and various kids with various problems, plus five different work tasks, it’s really hard to feel carefree on slow transit.

I can see that when I work less, I’ll once again go back to having fun getting around the city in all kinds of ways, just as I did when I was a student and young adult with less on my plate. I expect that will happen with a lot of us boomers.

It’s unlikely the average millennial is going want to bike from Surrey into Vancouver or even Richmond, no matter how great the infrastructure. Sure, there will always be a handful who might, but in general its a non-starter.

I get *sick* on transit. I am a little bit motion sick, never when driving or cycling, but often on buses or just as a carpool passenger.

And I get literally sick from people sneezing on me on the bus (mind you I only bus in the winter when people are more likely to have a flu or something).

The bus is not good for me at the best of times.

It is not scientific but often when I use Google maps to get directions I look at the estimate time by transit as well. It is rarely less than twice and the further the journey the worse it gets.

Oh, right, Google Map! I use it myself to plot routes at rush hour, so yeah that makes sense.

How are you able to determine which of your experiences in public space turn out to be the place where you are picking up germs?

Couldn’t one just as easily argue that prolonged low level exposure to a variety of germy locales builds immunity more effectively?

“I think Norman12’s observation is fairly typical”

Yep.

“if you decide you need a car then the number of hours you spent to purchase it becomes irrelevant”

Perhaps you have a better version of this statement that doesn’t read as though car buyers aren’t considering price when they buy.

“If your analysis was even close to being on the mark then it wouldn’t be necessary to make travel by cars more expensive/inconvenient in an effort to drive more people on to transit”

Actually, my comments directly support this contention.

“Certainly there are times they are more convenient”

Regardless, changing that equation is a proven method of changing public behaviour and is pretty clearly the only thing that generates significant uptake of transit for transportation in the absence of vastly improved bus/subway/what-have-you. Some administrations have the courage to do it. Others do not. So it goes.

“And the only thing murky about those “lost opportunities” to ride transit is where they actually exist.”

You’ve changed my comment to make it something I didn’t write. Motoring demands attention, esp in an urban setting. When you aren’t behind the wheel you can focus on other things more easily. This seems fairly obvious to me. As I noted, quantifying that benefit is difficult.

I did not describe transit as an idyllic experience.

Describing the optimization of alternatives to the automobile as ‘Green’ ideology is to ignore the reality that such initiatives have been underway since the 70s if we count Amsterdam as the leading edge of this evolution — and the fact that such changes are as much about the space limitations of urban places (as true in Metro Vancouver as Amsterdam) as environmental concerns.

Isn’t it fascinating how we can find the Bogeyman behind every shadow once we imagine him into existence?

You actually don’t have to “look behind every shadow” to find what is driving the agenda as it is right out in the open.

The City Manager was quoted in the Vancouver Sun:

“Listen to this, sitting here,” Johnston said, as cars and trucks zipped past along busy nearby Cambie Street. “It’s a constant part of our consciousness, the fossil fuels that are being burned in our city. … Imagine living in this city, sitting in this spot, without all that noise. Where the primary noise you were hearing was not that leaf blower burning gas, but it was the birds in this tree above us, or the wind blowing in the trees. Imagine a city like that. It’s hard to imagine, but we’re doing it. We’re actually doing it.”

Again the City Manager from an item on the CTV site:

“City manager Sadhu Johnston has written a letter to Environment and Climate Change Canada saying the department should look at downstream emissions created from processing, refining, transporting and using the pipeline’s oil when assessing environmental impact.”

Downstream impacts? This is the most radical position taken on fossil fuels and it is ridiculous since the oil not shipped will be replaced by someone else (and likely from a less environmentally responsible producer). The City should be concerned about the safety aspect of oil tankers passing the shores of the City but it is clearly beyond the City’s mandate to be oppose the pipeline based on the downstream emissions of the oil the pipeline will transport.

It does explain why the City refuses to expand taxi service and opposes Uber, both services for which there is clearly an unmet demand completely funded by the user of those services and despite the fact it may actually save lives by providing another way that people can get home safely rather than driving after drinking. Shameful to choose ideology over the safety of people.

Really Chris? I think your calculations have failed to include the formation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a precursor to amino acids, as well.

Of course it takes several minutes to buy a car and several months of reading Car and Driver and Consumer Reports and convincing your wife that it is actually a pretty good idea, if you think about it.

Then…it’s done.

And you ride your bike to work anyway, so, tra la.

http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2014/nov/06/ten-public-transport-myths-busted

“1. Public transport will make you ill: In fact, people who don’t catch the bus or tube to work are more likely to get the flu than those who do, according to a 2013 survey by doctors of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “How often does someone actually sneeze in your face on the tube?” Dr Alma Adler, a researcher in the field of infectious diseases, points out.”

Because we were talking about time of commuting. Not time to acquire sufficient fat stacks to accomplish said commute.

Obviously, the debate of bus vs car vs bike vs Star Trek transporter has a necessary precondition whereby one has access (e.g. fiscally) to said technologies.

And my contention is that car purchase price (and the time required to earn that money) is a part of that equation. This isn’t a revolutionary idea.

“A 2012 study by Royal Bank of Canada and the Pembina Institute came to similar conclusions about Toronto. The study, which compared three-bedroom homes in different parts of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) found that “car ownership has a significant impact on monthly costs – for each vehicle removed from a household budget, approximately $200,000 more can be carried on a 25-year mortgage.” The study found that for a working couple with jobs in downtown Toronto, it is more affordable to live downtown and walk or bike to work than it is to live in a car-dependent suburban community.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/why-commuting-from-the-burbs-can-be-more-costly-than-living-downtown/article29642363/

Yes, let’s take a look at Singapore who actually has a world class transportation system:

– There are no on-road bicycle lanes in Singapore. Dedicated bicycle paths have been constructed but lanes available for vehicles have not been reduced to accommodate cyclists.

– Pedestrians do not jay walk and while there is not a crossing at every corner, there are ample options for pedestrians to get around safely.

– There is an abundance of inexpensive taxi’s at any time of the day

– They have an efficient transit system that is easily accessible and both clean and safe to use.

In short, it does what a transportation system should do – get people moving efficiently, including people in cars.

Singapore currently has road pricing and they have just committed to spend another $500 million to implement a more sophisticated system with current technology which will be completed in 2020. (hands up everyone who has confidence that Translink will be able to implement road pricing given their track record with the Compass Card and the fact it is going to take them 2 years just to review their fare system).

And how does Singapore determine the rates to charge for road pricing?

“ERP rates are determined by a quarterly review of traffic speeds of priced roads and during the June and December school holidays. Based on an optimal speed range of 20-30 km/h on arterial roads and 45-65 km/h on expressways, ERP rates will be adjusted accordingly.”

Road pricing is not about raising revenue but about efficiently keeping cars moving. Motorists will accept that but road pricing (as proposed by the mayors) just to raise revenue will justifiably meet significant resistance.

Vancouver’s priority is their Green Plan and not a Transportation Plan so where they conflict, the Green Plan wins and cars will always lose. What is really pathetic is that these crusaders against fossil fuels actually believe they are accomplishing something important.

Not surprisingly you have chosen to ignore the central issue which is not how Singapore has chosen to deal with their transportation issues and we should adopt those exact same measures but the fact that Singapore has a transportation plan that works and has not embarked on a quixotic quest to rid Singapore of all fossil fuels like Vancouver.

Perhaps I am being unfair in expecting someone who believes traffic congestion is caused by drivers looking for parking can understand the distinction but chooses to ignore it.

You know, for a LONG time people have known this. I like it when city planners plan based on “living close to work.” If my job changes, do they expect me to move? That just doesn’t work.

I read a comment a long time ago that pointed out that *couples* (of which there are many) often compromise by living half way between where both work. The horror! (I had a friend who worked downtown while his wife was a teacher in Surrey–tell me, walkability wonks, where they were supposed to live.)

I had a debate with a self described city planning consultant a while ago who argued that the solution to the problem of suburbs was density. When I pointed out that there are people who live AND work in places like Maple Ridge and Langley she looked like a deer in the headlights; the thought had never occurred to her.

It’s amazing how many intelligent people can’t see beyond the way they live into alternatives and take a larger view of the situation.

*cough* Carbon Tax *cough*

My first comment acknowledged that Vancouver has its own requirements and that solutions from other cities may not work here and nowhere did I suggest implementing Singapore’s transportation plan here (although no road bicycle lanes seems quite sensible). In fact, I suggested I was open to increasing the cost of travel by car through road pricing/congestion taxes if the objective was to get everyone moving faster. However, I would not support these initiatives as long as Vancouver has its Green plan as the first priority over transportation. This is not politicizing the discussion but opposing a policy of eradicating fossil fuels at the expense of other considerations.

I supported my argument with the words and actions of the City Manager and of the City Council which you chose to not respond to. I do not care if you chose to ignore or rebut my argument but you are not free to misrepresent the issue I raised.

Time = money. If you don’t count the time to make the money to buy the car, you’re ignoring a significant time commitment you’ve made towards car ownership. No one is ‘telling’ you that you must include that time in your decision, but it’s real and it’s not spectacular.

“(I’m at work anyway, and it’s not as if I’m going to say ‘I don’t have a car so I’m going to take a job that pays $6,000 a year LESS because I can!’)”

I would suggest that there are a lot of people out there who choose to forego car ownership because they want to use their time/money in other ways. I know I did. Had little to do with the environment (I drive car share vehicles fairly regularly when it’s the right choice for me) and more to do with being able to make other employment choices and money decisions that would have been harder if I was putting that time/money into car ownership. I suppose it’s a specific situation that defies the norm, but if you have a choice (about whether or not to buy a car for work commuting) then including the time needed to buy it is part of the deal, unless the money is coming from an income source unrelated to your time demands.

No, it isn’t semantics. If you use road pricing as a means of raising revenue, then you charge as much as you can without causing the peasants to revolt and it may or may not reduce congestion. I believe Translink has indicated there would be minimal reduction in congestion.

If you use road pricing to reduce congestion then you charge enough to accomplish the target of utilization you have set. Drivers pay more but are able to travel faster.

So in the first scenario, road pricing is just a tax on drivers where in the second scenario it is a method to reduce congestion. Clearly Translink and the Mayors are thinking scenario 1.

End result is the same. Road pricing. So it seems like semantics to me.