THE CAR - EVERYTHING EVIL IN VANCOUVER.....

Well, of course, we don't think that. But have you noticed how, over the past couple of years, just about everything that comes up in the news regarding transportation in southwestern British Columbia portrays the private automobile as some sort of evil thing, the root cause of every urban problem that can be identified? And that is just the everyday family car. The anti-car faction hasn't really even begun to fight against the use of cars for entertainment, and all of us who love cars derive pleasure from them on some level. We'll just talk about cars in general for now. To get this rolling, we'll look at a couple of news items and put our two cents worth in.

Vancouver City Council outraged over Lions Gate Bridge plans

After years of wrangling over several proposals to repair or replace the crumbling Lions Gate Bridge to the North Shore, the Provincial Government’s transportation authority has let it be known they plan to upgrade the present structure into a four-lane roadway, and charge tolls to cross it.

To those used to modern road systems, like every other urban dweller in North America, this might seem amusing. If it isn’t four now, what is it? Well, three lanes, and very narrow ones. Too narrow for trucks, for example. OK, so there is no question that something needs to be done before the present bridge collapses into the ocean. Finally, there is action being taken. But for Vancouver City Council, it is unacceptable. You see, they feel that adding a lane to the crossing will result in more cars clogging the West End residential areas because more people will be encouraged to drive their cars into town.

Let’s look at the question of lanes on the bridge. In the current three-lane set-up, traffic in the busiest direction gets the second lane. Makes sense. With a divided four-lane roadway, each side would get two lanes. Unless the situation becomes like that of the Deas Tunnel with a counterflow lane, we fail to see how the fourth lane would even accommodate, much less encourage, more traffic. There is no room at either end of the bridge for counterflow lane infrastructure, so the point is moot. Where do City Councillors feel that all these additional cars are going to come from anyway? Do they think that all of a sudden, the good folks of the North Shore are going to find other cars to drive at the same time as they drive the ones they already drive? Their argument is nonsense; the new bridge as proposed might speed up the flow of traffic, but it will not significantly add to it. While we’re not suggesting that this new bridge proposal is the best way to go - surely a mid-harbor tunnel with a system of tunnels under the city, one leading to a roadway on the current Grandview Cut for commercial vehicles, would be the best - it must be one of the cheapest. If this City Council had any more foresight than the many before it, they would look for ways to keep traffic flowing along Georgia Street. There is not any more traffic on city streets than any other major downtown area, just more hindrances to its steady flow. Nobody wants above-ground freeways through downtown. But surely things could be done on existing streets to minimize the impact of traffic and speed its flow. And we don’t mean “speeding.” Like no left turns and no parking along Georgia, plus synchronized traffic lights.

As for charging tolls to use the bridge, well, we can understand the unhappiness of North Shore users to have to pay to cross. But is it not better than the situation that exists now, wasting half an hour each day sitting in traffic? We have never heard too many complaints about the $10 toll on the Coquihalla Highway. It is worth it to save all that time travelling to the Interior. If they don’t want to pay a dollar or so, they can go the long way around Second Narrows. Somehow, traffic has to be made to flow in this City, and if that is the small cost, then so be it. If this is the bridge plan that will be adopted, Vancouver City Council ought to take their collective heads out of the sand and try to work with it, or come up with the half billion dollars needed to build the third crossing they want. The argument that residents of the expensive condos near Stanley Park are going to be more disturbed by a few more cars exiting onto Georgia Street is a specious one at best. If those well-off people wanted absolute peace and quiet, they could have bought out in the valley. They knew what they were getting into.

B.C. Emissions will be way above National Target......

The emissions of so-called greenhouse gases have been on the front pages recently, what with the world conference in Japan being held to try to come up with some consensus on how much, and how, to reduce the production of carbon dioxide and other gases that threaten all sorts of damage to the world’s environment. The Federal Government has stated its desire to see the level of emissions reduced to 1990 levels by 2007, with further reductions to follow. Who could argue with that?

Into the fray wades the B.C. Environment Ministry, saying that they predict that the output of these nasty gases on the Left Coast will skyrocket 53% over the next 22 years. We assume that they are primarily referring to the Greater Vancouver area. The reasons given for this pessimism? Population growth, and people’s continuing love of cars. Here we go again, blaming the car and the people who drive them. The same cars, presumably in the same numbers per capita, are to be found in any number of comparable cities in Canada and the U.S. Take Toronto, for example. Yes it’s much bigger, at least in physical size, it has lots more heavy industry, and it has a different climate. And sometimes it has pollution, too. But probably no more than Vancouver and the Fraser Valley on a hot, still summer day. How could that be? The unique geography here, with mountains trapping the air, and prevailing winds, could be part of the answer. But the biggest differences, we think, between Vancouver and Toronto (and Calgary and Montreal), is that traffic does not move steadily in Vancouver, and there is not an efficient transit system like in the other cities. The road system in and around Vancouver is a joke. We are now paying for the short-sightedness of planners 20 and 30 years ago. All of these patchwork solutions like HOV lanes on Highway 1 will do little or nothing to get traffic moving, because at the first sign of narrowing again to two lanes, (like at the Port Mann Bridge), there will be stop-and-go chaos.

There is little that can be done within the boundaries of the City of Vancouver that would not cost many billions of dollars. The minimum seems to us to re-look at the concept of a dedicated route along the Grandview Cut for commercial vehicles, so as to get them off city streets as they make their way from the harbor to Highway 1. But of course, this proposal was allowed to be shot down by a few people concerned with a few rare species of pigeons and weeds growing along the proposed route. Unbelievable. The modern car is an engineering marvel. They emit about 99% fewer nasty gases than the cars of just 20 years ago did, and at normal operating speed, pose little threat to the environment in the grand scheme of things, compared to polluters like large diesel trucks and buses, steam generating plants and factories. But the key here is that they have to be operating in their most efficient engine speed range. And that is not at idle, or in continual acceleration mode as found in stop-and-go traffic. I think that our politicians would be pleasantly surprised at the improvement in greenhouse gas emissions, to say nothing of consumption of gasoline itself, if they would do what is needed to get traffic moving. We would think that the money spent would be quickly recouped, too.

Bike People want Burrard Street closed to traffic

Now we’ve heard everything. Close Burrard Street to cars, from West 16th to the waterfront. This group of pro-bicycle, anti-everything else including cars, zealots, has commanded much media attention recently with their zany antics like blocking major roadways with bike rallies in support of their cause. Yes, there ought to be more bike lanes in Vancouver. With the crazy drivers here, riding a bike is a very hazardous activity. And we fully support those who see biking as a viable alternative to private vehicles and public transit. But we don’t support in any way their notion that they have as much right to use the existing roadways as cars and buses do. When you are driving along a major arterial route, say Granville Street, and traffic is moving smoothly with no problems, and then all of a sudden, there is some commotion up ahead with many vehicles slowing quickly and changing lanes, you can be almost certain that the reason is someone riding a bike in the curb lane, taking up essentially the whole lane no matter how close to the curb the person is.

There are plenty of quiet side streets that are safer for bikes to be on. Not only are bikes on major arterials a major hazard to traffic, but the riders of them are putting themselves at great risk. The city needs to designate more bike routes within the city, introduce a by law stating that bikes shall not be driven on major arterial routes, and enforce it! Reducing a three-lane roadway in any way is not acceptable. Maybe when bicycles pay road taxes and can move at 60 kph up hills, they can use major roads. Until then - no bikes on major streets!

**********