[dinosaur]

Vancouver has worst traffic congestion in North America: report - BC | Globalnews.ca (http://globalnews.ca/news/949901/vancouver-has-worst-traffic-congestion-in-north-america-report/)


For the first time, Vancouver has surpassed Los Angeles as the city with the worst traffic congestion in North America.

Metro Vancouver residents are spending more time than ever in their cars, according to an annual survey by GPS software company TomTom.

Vancouver is followed by L.A., San Francisco, Honolulu and Seattle in the top five cities in North America with the worst traffic congestion.

Other Canadian cities on the list are Toronto at #7 and Montreal at #10.


In the entire Americas, we are actually #3 – Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, Brazil are in the top spots.

The average Metro Vancouver resident with a 30 minute commute is wasting 93 hours per year stuck in delays. That’s the equivalent of 11.6 working days.

For every hour, about 41 minutes are wasted in traffic delays in Metro Vancouver.

Monday is one of the best days for traffic, with the lowest traffic congestion.

Tuesday mornings and Thursday evenings are the worst peak periods of the week, according to TomTom.

There could be some relief on the way, and commuters have already seen some with the opening of the new Port Mann Bridge.

Part two of the South Fraser Perimeter Road is scheduled to be completed by the end of this year.

The Evergreen rapid transit line to the Tri Cities should also help relieve some congestion.

TomTom says their data goes beyond people’s perceptions of congestion, by using data from the thousands of sensors in their GPS units in vehicles.


The company says the data shows that the way traffic is managed “needs to change.”


Link to the report: TomTom Traffic Index (http://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/trafficindex/)


Although I have not driven in other major Canadian cities, I have driven in LA several times....there is NO WAY Vancouver is worse than LA! I have also heard from friends that driving in Toronto is a nightmare. Vancouver traffic can be fucking terrible some days, but overall, I don't think it is THAT bad. Maybe I'm wrong?

[BrRsn]

Maybe it's based off time spent per kilometer driven?
If that's the case, hell yeah I can see how we're the worst.

It used to take me upwards of 40-45 minutes in rush hour to drive 9 kilometers -- from my house to work in downtown.

That same drive I can make in around ten to fifteen minutes if it's 5 am

[lowside67]

Maybe trying to get over the Port Mann in rush hour traffic is brutal, but there is no way the "average" traffic conditions are worse than Toronto - I have spent so much time sitting in traffic in a cab in Toronto it's unreal.

[RiceIntegraRS]

Ive driven in Toronto, and Toronto is way worse than we got it.

[ryugeeh]

Toronto is WAY worse than Vancouver.

[GLOW]

we change it by adding more bike lanes :troll:

actually that could be true if bikes don't have GPS it won't register with TomTom :troll:

[dinosaur]

To save the search through the report:

19087

19088

19089

Seems the issue is "non-highways"....make a little more sense, I guess.

[DragonChi]

we change it by adding more bike lanes :troll:

actually that could be true if bikes don't have GPS it won't register with TomTom :troll:



http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8456/7999510360_8e46299621_z.jpg


Road space: bus vs bikes vs cars ? a famous photo recreated in Canberra : Diary of an Average Australian (http://www.danielbowen.com/2012/09/19/road-space-photo/)

[gars]

They do it as an index of rush hour vs non-rush hour. So if you normally drive to work in 45 minutes in rush hour - but it takes you 15 minutes in non-rush hour - then it's a factor of 3.

In Toronto - it's always friggin busy - it may take you 1 hour to drive to work - but 30 minutes to drive in non-rush hour - so it's a factor of 2. You may cover a shorter distance in a longer period of time in Toronto - but because the difference between non-rush hour and rush hour isn't that great - it's supposedly not "congested" in Toronto.

Same goes with a lot of US cities. LA Traffic - DC traffic - there are so many terrible rush hours there - but because the city is constantly busy - they won't score as high in Vancouver.

[lowside67]

That's helpful analysis, thanks gars.

As to the study itself, I think it's a ridiculous way to measure traffic though. They should rank cities as the actual time it takes to get on average vs the expected time travelling at exactly the speed limit.

The concept that a city that has so much less capacity than necessary that you are never travelling at the speed limit is LESS congested than one where you are only sometimes, is absolutely absurd.

I commute 35kms per day from West Vancouver (virtually Horseshoe Bay) to right in the middle of downtown Vancouver. I travel over one of the most tightly congested corridors in the GVRD (the Lions Gate & Stanley Park Causeway) twice a day. And yet, my dead of rush hour commute at 8:00am ranges from 25 to 35 minutes depending on the day. For comparison, when I do this commute at 6:30am with no traffic, it takes me just under 20.

I consider that to be a pretty reasonable penalty in waiting time for an absolute peak time and a busy route.

Mark

[Mr.HappySilp]

Great now they are going to build more bike lanes to ease the traffic congesion ><

[Sid Vicious]

i think its skewed towards areas around the massey tunnel, alex fraser, patullo, port mann lol

oak st bridge and arthur lang aint too TERRIBLE, all things considered

[Yodamaster]

Our streets and freeways weren't designed to handle what the GVRD has become today. If you want to ease congestion, you're going to have to tear a bunch of shit out and start over from scratch, though nobody has the time or money for that.

[gars]

I have to say - Vancouver, when it's not Rush Hour - has done a pretty decent job of keeping traffic flowing through. I've been through other cities where the lights aren't timed properly - and it frustrates me so much.

I was visiting my buddy in Ann Arbor - which isn't even a big city. We were driving around at 11 - and we were constantly stuck at lights that have little to no traffic going through. Travelling a few miles took us 10-15 minutes - while the same journey would probably take me 5 minutes in Vancouver.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Our streets and freeways weren't designed to handle what the GVRD has become today. If you want to ease congestion, you're going to have to tear a bunch of shit out and start over from scratch, though nobody has the time or money for that.

Or we could build more bike lanes as the Vancouver Mayor thinks bike lanes will solve all issues!

[lowside67]

Great now they are going to build more bike lanes to ease the traffic congesion ><
Or we could build more bike lanes as the Vancouver Mayor thinks bike lanes will solve all issues!
Yes we get it... bike lanes. Thanks.

[Elements604]

I hope this means they build more bike lanes, since I actually use them to commute.

[xpl0sive]

I've noticed a few areas of the city have gotten a lot worse in recent years. Just last night, it took me 25 mins to get to the gym, when I live less than 5km away. It took me 5mins to get home after. There wasn't an accident or anything, there was just a TON of volume. As others have said, the city was not designed for this number of vehicles. If you compare to cities like Seattle and LA, you can see that there are major freeways connecting all areas of the city. Our "freeway" is a joke compared to the freeways in the states.

[xpl0sive]

I hope this means they build more bike lanes, since I actually use them to commute.

Right ya, let's inconvenience the majority of the population in this city for the benefit of a few. Great idea.

[StylinRed]

I believe it, it's been especially horrible these past few months if I leave from Ridge. When I leave at 6:30am for downtown it takes me 45mins-1hr if I leave a little later 7-7:30am it takes me 2hrs+!!! If I leave when there's light traffic it takes 30mins to get to vancouver

[Tapioca]

I've noticed a few areas of the city have gotten a lot worse in recent years. Just last night, it took me 25 mins to get to the gym, when I live less than 5km away. It took me 5mins to get home after. There wasn't an accident or anything, there was just a TON of volume. As others have said, the city was not designed for this number of vehicles. If you compare to cities like Seattle and LA, you can see that there are major freeways connecting all areas of the city. Our "freeway" is a joke compared to the freeways in the states.

Blame the people living in Strathcona in the 1970s for shutting down the freeway project.

Bike lanes are really only visible in downtown Vancouver. Most major arterials outside of the core don't have seperated bike lanes. There are more people in Metro Vancouver these days and they all have to get around somehow. But politicians are stuck between a rock and a hard place:

- People don't want Skytrain expansions because they cost too much and they will change neighbourhoods.
- But, people don't want bike lanes either because they want to continue driving their cars and have an irrational hate for so-called bike culture.
- But, you can't build more roads in the cities in Metro Vancouver unless you spend billions to tear down houses and expropriate land.

That's why we have traffic congestion in Metro Vancouver and that's why we will continue to have it until someone comes along and tells everyone to shut up and expands the public transit system.
Posted via RS Mobile

[Harvey Specter]

We don't have the road system for the huge population growth over the past decade or so. We should have had a freeway system in place 20 years+ back but no one planned ahead and now we're paying for it. In the US they started to build freeways back as early as the 40's because they knew people would be living outside of the cities and needed a viable road system to travel back into the cities.

And most of our so called "highways" have two lanes, our bridges are clogged up because there's two lanes of traffic. We have bikes lanes going up everywhere so that's take lanes away which are needed. It's a complete and utter mess which i personally don't see been addressed any time soon.

[Tapioca]

And most of our so called "highways" have two lanes, our bridges are clogged up because there's two lanes of traffic. We have bikes lanes going up everywhere so that's take lanes away which are needed. It's a complete and utter mess which i personally don't see been addressed any time soon.

The reality is that seperated bike lanes exist largely in the City of Vancouver and in a few select areas such as the downtown core. The number of cars going downtown has remained stagnant for a decade - traffic congestion has grown outside of the City of Vancouver. To put the blame of all of Metro Vancouver's traffic woes on bike lanes in the city of Vancouver is a bit much (how many here actually commute downtown or to other areas of the City of Vancouver anyway besides a few well-to-do people?)
Posted via RS Mobile

[Harvey Specter]

On a personal level, I work in DT, live 5-10 minutes outside of the core and I can tell you that my commute time has increased by at least 10-15 minutes since the bike lanes went in. The issue isn't the one lane that's been taken away but it's also the traffic patterns that have changed with these lanes going in. It does slow down traffic during commute times.

[Tapioca]

^ I work in the core as well and until recently, I took Skytrain in. Now that I and my partner work in the core, it makes sense financially to carpool. If you're travelling on your own, it doesn't make a lot of sense, from my experience, to take a car into the core given the hassle of traffic and the cost of parking. Even if we removed the bike lanes tomorrow, would the traffic issues be resolved? Maybe in the short-term, but eventually people adjust, more people drive in and you end up where you started.

The bike lanes are there to act as a deterrent - to discourage people from driving if they can and to consider alternatives such as biking or taking the Skytrain. Now consider the city's perspective: if you can't build more roads into downtown, what do you do?
Posted via RS Mobile

[Harvey Specter]

The issue with me is I need my car for clients so I can't carpool or take the skytrain. I know a lot of cities are trying to deter car traffic into their cores but is it a good idea? That's a debate that can go on and on. I personally feelthe next step for Vancouver, if the mayor stays on, will be some sort of congestion charge like they have in London. That would really cut traffic in half but you need a very good transportation system in place before you go down that route or else businesses in DT would greatly suffer.

[Gridlock]

They do it as an index of rush hour vs non-rush hour. So if you normally drive to work in 45 minutes in rush hour - but it takes you 15 minutes in non-rush hour - then it's a factor of 3.

In Toronto - it's always friggin busy - it may take you 1 hour to drive to work - but 30 minutes to drive in non-rush hour - so it's a factor of 2. You may cover a shorter distance in a longer period of time in Toronto - but because the difference between non-rush hour and rush hour isn't that great - it's supposedly not "congested" in Toronto.

Same goes with a lot of US cities. LA Traffic - DC traffic - there are so many terrible rush hours there - but because the city is constantly busy - they won't score as high in Vancouver.

Well if that's how its being measured, then they should call it something different than "congested". The city is actually very easy to get around during the day. I can be over at in surrey in 15 minutes during the day. Right now at 5 o'clock, I'd be the better part of an hour. What do I do? Not go to Surrey at 5 o'clock, that's what.

If that article says, "vancouver has the largest fluctuation in traffic volumes during the day" then it wouldn't get nearly as much press, would it?

[Elements604]

Right ya, let's inconvenience the majority of the population in this city for the benefit of a few. Great idea.

I live near commercial drive and work downtown. There are quiet a few people on the bike lanes, at least during rush hours. For me its faster than driving or taking the bus. Plus saves tons money by not having to park and maintain my car. It is challenging getting to work and changing into a suit, but still better than the bus I find. I Invested in a electric bike and have full rain gear which makes things much more comfortable. It really is awesome not having to deal with stop and go traffic.

I have taken things into my own hands instead of relying on gov to fix roads and make a better transit system.

Maybe you are inconveniencing your self wasting 25 min in traffic to go 5 km. Or maybe you have a good reason to be in a car I dunno. But there are a lot of people out there who really don't need to be driving. I really doubt removing the bike lanes is going to make your commute much better.

The way this city is growing more roads and cars just doesn't seem to be the answer.

[xpl0sive]

I attend sites all over the GVRD and cannot use anything other than a car. If I had an appointment downtown at 9am and had to go to Maple Ridge after, it would take me half a day to get there by transit.

I agree that people who live in the suburbs and work DT, as in sit in an office all day, don't really need to drive. My girlfriend takes the skytrain to work everyday and the skytrain is packed. Maybe the solution is to have more trains running more often? In big cities like London and New York, their subways come every 30 seconds at rush hour. I think it's every 3 minutes for the skytrain during rush hour?
Same thing with busses. I constantly see people having to line up at bus stations to get on a bus and there's never enough room to take everyone. If they had more busses running more often, people wouldn't be as opposed to actually getting on the bus.

If people could comfortably take public transit, traffic issues would be resolved, but it seems the city is not taking enough steps to improve the current system. They keep coming up with new ways to "deter" people from driving, by increasing taxes, taking away lanes of roads for bike lanes, etc. But without other options, people don't have a choice but to pay through the nose to have a car and sit in traffic for hours.

[Nlkko]

They are deterring people who don't really need to drive from driving and I think it's working. There's a lot less people driving now compared to 20 years ago. They're building another line (Evergreen Line) right after another (Canada Line). These lines cost several billions of dollars each. They're setting up a data-mining system (Compass) to utilize future resources. Infrastructure aren't just built overnight.

But of course, it's too easy to blame Translink when a bus skip stops because it's full, train is packed because there's actually something called rush hours. Of course it's too easy to compare our system to the system of cities with super density like London, NYC or Hong Kong. Those cities are ALWAYS busy. Here? It peaks during rush hours then die down significantly. They need to convert more car drivers to transit users so that they can justify running trains/buses more frequently.

It's too bad people who absolutely need their cars are affected by bike-lanes or fuel tax but something has to be done. We cannot build more roads or highways so you better get used to bike lanes and public transit.

[xpl0sive]

They are deterring people who don't really need to drive from driving and I think it's working. There's a lot less people driving now compared to 20 years ago.

O Really? :rukidding:

Number of registered motor vehicles (2006): 2,586,000
Number of registered motor vehicles (2010): 3,236,166

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/trade14c-eng.htm


But of course, it's too easy to blame Translink when a bus skip stops because it's full, train is packed because there's actually something called rush hours. Of course it's too easy to compare our system to the system of cities with super density like London, NYC or Hong Kong. Those cities are ALWAYS busy. Here? It peaks during rush hours then die down significantly. They need to convert more car drivers to transit users so that they can justify running trains/buses more frequently.

How can you convert more car drivers to transit users when the current transit system is already maxxed out? They need to run more trains/busses first, so car adrivers actually have a chance to use the transit system.

[melloman]

They are deterring people who don't really need to drive from driving and I think it's working. There's a lot less people driving now compared to 20 years ago. They're building another line (Evergreen Line) right after another (Canada Line). These lines cost several billions of dollars each. They're setting up a data-mining system (Compass) to utilize future resources. Infrastructure aren't just built overnight.

But of course, it's too easy to blame Translink when a bus skip stops because it's full, train is packed because there's actually something called rush hours. Of course it's too easy to compare our system to the system of cities with super density like London, NYC or Hong Kong. Those cities are ALWAYS busy. Here? It peaks during rush hours then die down significantly. They need to convert more car drivers to transit users so that they can justify running trains/buses more frequently.

It's too bad people who absolutely need their cars are affected by bike-lanes or fuel tax but something has to be done. We cannot build more roads or highways so you better get used to bike lanes and public transit.

Beating the dead horse on our public transportation is too easy now.

You say our govt is pushing people out of their cars, to get into public transit. But nobody can afford housing in Vancouver/Burnaby where transit is prosperous. Leaving people outside of the core to suffer.

Until we have atleast rapid bus lines like Washington (on the I5) that can stretch out further to places like Langley, Abbotsford, Chiliwack.. Trying to reduce traffic entering the core will just make businesses suffer.

They don't understand that they are legit PUSHING PEOPLE AWAY. It's not trying to push them into transit, it's outright expelling them from the core.

[Tapioca]

Facts that are worth repeating in this discussion.

1. Translink is a seperate organization from city governments (though city governments do have input into its decisions)
2. The region has 20+ independent city governments that sometimes make decisions without regard for what happens in other cities.
3. Metro Vancouver is an umbrella organization that tries to ensure the 20+ cities make decisions that reflect shared objectives (such as sustainable growth).

When you have a complicated governance system like this, you will naturally have some issues in managing regional concerns, such as transporation. To put the blame on one city, or on one organization, is lazy at best, or ignorant at worst.
Posted via RS Mobile

[xpl0sive]

Yeah, except even though Translink is a private organization, it still taxes the general population :suspicious:

"South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (TransLink)
– Vancouver Area
The dedicated tax on clear gasoline and clear diesel fuel sold inside the South Coast British Columbia transportation service region (SCTA) is 17¢ per litre."

http://www.sbr.gov.bc.ca/documents_library/bulletins/mft-ct_005.pdf

So in essence, it's bad for Translink for drivers to get on transit. More people on transit = less people buying gas. Less people buying gas = less money for Translink....

[lowside67]

Yeah, except even though Translink is a private organization, it still taxes the general population :suspicious:

So in essence, it's bad for Translink for drivers to get on transit. More people on transit = less people buying gas. Less people buying gas = less money for Translink....

Um no.

More people on transit = less people buying gas = MORE PEOPLE PAYING FOR TRANSIT = more money for Translink.

And Translink is not a private organization, it is a crown corporation.

[xpl0sive]

except more people on transit=more costs for translink. as opposed to collecting their taxes from gas and not spending any extra money on more busses/trains = more ridiculous salaries and bonuses

[melloman]

^^ Either way.. if you drive or take transit..

Translink still has their hand in your wallet.

[Nlkko]

O Really? :rukidding:

Number of registered motor vehicles (2006): 2,586,000
Number of registered motor vehicles (2010): 3,236,166

Motor vehicle registrations, by province and territory (Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia) (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/trade14c-eng.htm)



How can you convert more car drivers to transit users when the current transit system is already maxxed out? They need to run more trains/busses first, so car adrivers actually have a chance to use the transit system.

The number of registered vehicles of course increases because the population increases. The percentage of drivers indeed has gone down. Also you're using 2006-2010 to contradict my arguments that span over 20 years....

In order to run more trains and buses, you would have to buy more trains and buses to maintain the same service level in less busy areas. Those extra trains and buses will not be utilized off-peak. Of course nobody likes being skipped by the buses/trains but that's hardly the result of the system maxing out. Buses and trains do run a lot more frequent during peak hours compare to off-peak.
Posted via RS Mobile

[twitchyzero]

so where's the worst bottleneck in GVR?

Lions Gate, Willingdon Hwy1 to Upper Lvls or Massey Tunnel?

I live in east van and work in north van...I've noticed Upper Lvls Southbound is a shit show at peak hours...50min to an hour for 18km (normally takes 25 min)
for some reason it seems to happen daily in the summer but other than that it's only once in a while

[SkinnyPupp]

Maybe it's based off time spent per kilometer driven?
If that's the case, hell yeah I can see how we're the worst.

It used to take me upwards of 40-45 minutes in rush hour to drive 9 kilometers -- from my house to work in downtown.

That same drive I can make in around ten to fifteen minutes if it's 5 am

It would be 10 mins on a bike, no matter what the traffic

we change it by adding more bike lanes :troll:


Good idea! :thumbs:

[meme405]

so where's the worst bottleneck in GVR?

Lions Gate, Willingdon Hwy1 to Upper Lvls or Massey Tunnel?

I live in east van and work in north van...I've noticed Upper Lvls Southbound is a shit show at peak hours...50min to an hour for 18km (normally takes 25 min)
for some reason it seems to happen daily in the summer but other than that it's only once in a while

Don't drive it regularly but if you get caught at the massey at the wrong time, you are FUCKED. Like straight up you're boned.

The interesting thing about the lions gate is that they debated a lot of different options for YEARS before finally just renovating the bridge and keept it as-is. The reason why they chose that was because they closely monitored traffic across the bridge and realized no matter how much the population of NV and WV were growing that bridge traffic was never really altered much. The reason was it was self policing, people were simply not willing to wait so if traffic got worse it would almost cure itself with more people taking transit... The lions gate actually made an amazing case study. I'll see if I can dig up the reports I saw on it...

[Tapioca]

The interesting thing about the lions gate is that they debated a lot of different options for YEARS before finally just renovating the bridge and keept it as-is. The reason why they chose that was because they closely monitored traffic across the bridge and realized no matter how much the population of NV and WV were growing that bridge traffic was never really altered much. The reason was it was self policing, people were simply not willing to wait so if traffic got worse it would almost cure itself with more people taking transit... The lions gate actually made an amazing case study. I'll see if I can dig up the reports I saw on it...

I've driven across the Lions Gate several times over the past year in various times of the day. I'm glad that they kept the bridge the way it is because aside from the mess at the north end of the bridge, traffic usually moves pretty well once you are on the bridge. As I've gotten older, I have come to appreciate the drive across a lot more, particularly when you cross into North Vancouver. It's quite stunning on a clear day.