This was a blog post that was going to start out as criticism, but as time has progressed, the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation has addressed the problem admirably and taken the wind out of those critical sails, so you will get to hear the story of what they did to improve the quality of one of BC’s freeway overpasses to prevent accidents and protect infrastructure.
The story
In the 1960s, the overpasses above Highway 1 were built to similar design and varying clearance. Perhaps in those days it was inconceivable that trucks would stretch 4.4 Meters (almost 15 feet) into the air, or perhaps years of additional paving shaved inches off of that clearance. Whatever the case, we find clearance signs with various “heights” recorded on most of the overpasses East of Vancouver 4.6 Meters being the most common I’ve observed.
Overpass Clearance (one of many)
Overpass clearance - 2
Overpass clearance - 3
Year before last, some surprised trucker plowed into the Glover Road freeway overpass Eastbound on Highway 1 in Langley. That particular overpass was a little lower than some of the others, so conceivably he might have driven quite some way before having his big rig stopped (the hard way). The damage to the overpass was significant enough that traffic on Glover Road was reduced to 1 way alternating traffic for the several months it took for repairs.
I’m sure someone in the Ministry of Transportation thought “Wow, that was shocking, that guy’s truck just hit the overpass. Hope that doesn’t happen again…”
Last year, another surprised trucker plowed into the same Glover Road overpass. Same damage, same road closure with alternating traffic. The repairs made one side of the overpass solid, presumably to lend additional strength to the bridge (under siege). Since that second repair, there have been additional precautions taken, which together have formed a system to try and prevent this from happening again.
Overpass under siege (repaired again)
Preventing the collisions
First there were 2 signs positioned further up the road on either side which re-stated the clearance information printed on the bridge. With advance warning a trucker could conceivably stop before hitting the bridge. The signs used bright contrasting colours to draw attention.
Bright clearance signs (with enough room to stop)
Next, a bunch of yellow and black reflective signs were added to the bridge to draw attention to the bridge.
So if a trucker was overheight, knew he was overheight, read the signs, did the math and stopped in time he could avoid hitting the bridge. But what if he didn’t know he was overheight?
A series of bright yellow warning / informational signs were deployed, starting with a sign warning trucks to use the right lane for the overheight detection system.
Truckers Keep Right for overheight detection system
Then the overheight detection system which triggers a flashing overhead sign that would warn when a truck was overheight.
Glover Road Overheight detection system uses beams (of light) when interupted, flashing signals are triggered.
When flashing give that overheight truck that isn't stopping lots of room
Then a small pull-out was built where trucks could pull off the freeway to check their loads. It had a large bright yellow “pull-out” sign for easy identification, and a series of bright yellow signs warning that the pullout was approaching. At the pullout there is an informational sign intended for those who have used the pull-out (my eyes are good, but at 100km/h that font is too small even for me 🙂 )
overheight truck pullout ahead
overheight truck pullout ahead (getting closer)
overheight truck pullout NOW! (no seriously, NOW)
So now overheight trucks can be detected and “flashed”, and there is an illuminated pullout available for these trucks. Assuming that works and the driver notices he is overheight, this challenge remains for a driver who is overheight. He either needs to back up the freeway for 2-3 miles, or he needs a crane to unload him so he can drive underneath the bridge.
Now the Ministry has added a “detour route” informational sign West of the 200th street interchange in the same bright yellow colour, warning drivers of overheight vehicles to detour off of the freeway.
Good job guys, hopefully we don’t see another accident at that freeway overpass like the last two.
The unmeasured cost
Glover road was reduced to single lane alternating traffic next to a university on the main road leading from Langley to the Albion ferry crossing (on the Fraser river). Thousands of people had to wait each day while traffic changed direction to cross the freeway. This took them away from their families, their jobs, their volunteer engagements. This time was simply lost. Add to that unmeasured cost, the construction costs and the real cost of not putting signage up after the first incident becomes more apparent. The albion ferry is reported to have moved about 4,500 people per day, so this number would be reasonable for forming an estimate. Assuming a 1 minute delay for 4500 cars per day for 180 days (2 years 3 months out of service each year), with commuters earning $25/hour, the inconvenience could have cost citizens. $337,500 over 2 years. That number will never appear in a government balance sheet, but it is a cost that was paid by citizens, and it is a cost we may be able to avoid paying in the future thanks to the improvements brought by the Ministry of Transportation.
Traffic congestion HWY 1 Eastbound
I find it ironic that the train bridge overpass to the East of Glover Road (bearing scars from previous impacts) is even lower… We’ll wait and see if that has been taken into account.
The "even lower" railway overpass to the East (notice the repairs from past collisions...)
We are in the last days going into the May 12th provincial election here in BC.
I thought I’d share some final thoughts…
Vote Here (flickr credit: myJon)
If you care about the environment, and have concerns about the unbalanced power held by corporations, especially in light of what appears to be the Liberal agenda to sell out public infrastructure / legacies to corporations, then you should definately watch the video here: http://www.callingfromthecoast.com
In the last election I Did not vote Liberal because they basically said “You don’t want the dishonest NDP do you?”, and I didn’t vote NDP because they basically said “We hate everything the Liberals stand for”, so I voted Green because they spoke of a triple bottom line of Economic, Ecological and social responsibility. It was the freshest thing I had heard in Canadian politics since the Reform party was formed.
This election, I think I must stop the Liberals who seem to want to sell everything they can to greedy corporations. BC-rail, BC-Hydro transmission, BC-Gas, BC-Tel… “What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul?” There is more to life and government than money. Much more. Justice, compassion, vision, planning, responsibility, leadership, inovation. Money? come on some of the things being sold are irreplacible.
I’m not impressed with the green party this election, because our local candidate keeps mentioning the legalization of marajuana on par with other issues. Serious hit to your credibility guys. THAT green agenda is something entirely different than the one I’m concerned with.
This leaves me with the NDP. I don’t think their record is much worse than the Liberals, and when I look at the Millenium line and much of the provincial land reserves, the NDP deserve full credit.
The only thing I’m excited about this election is the STV, the “BC-STV” to be precise. After researching it, I’ve now blogged about BC-STV here, and here.
1. At the polling station you mark your choices 1,2,3,4…. instead of marking an X by only one candidate.
2. Your riding or electoral district is joined with others to contain more than one MLA. (same total number of MLAs)
3. Your vote goes to your first choice. If there is a surplus of votes for that candidate, or if that candidate is eliminated, then your second choice comes into play (and so on). Your vote goes farther. The BC Citizens Assembly on electoral reform explains this in detail in their website. Read their PDF “how the votes are counted”
BC-STV gives British Columbia the opportunity to have proportional representation in the legislature. It will likely weaken the “2 party pendulum effect” we have been seeing where policy swings far to the left and far to the right. This should lead to more moderate and stable government policy. This should reduce the party rhetoric because MLAs are going to have to work WITH each other.
By the way “The Corporation” is pretty much required viewing if you want to be informed about the world around you. Check out the copy at your local library.
Cheers friends, make me proud, vote for BC-STV and give that first video a watch.
Greg.
I wrote about the BC-STV the other day. I continue to learn more good things about STV and am determined to do my part in informing other voters in my sphere of influence so they can make an informed choice on May 12th.
I heard some really compelling arguments in favour of the STV written by Arthur here: http://Ansak.blogspot.com
And today in the paper “Dave” from Castlegar BC offered a letter comparing First Past the Post (FPTP) with Single Transferable Vote (STV):
… First past the Post:
Fails to accurately reflect voter’s choices (percentage of votes case is not accurately represented by seats in government)
Allows a minortity of votes to elect majority governments
Restricts new parties and independent candidates from fair competition
Entrenches power in established political parties
Narrows voter choice <not wanting to “waste votes”>
Single Transferable Vote:
Accurately reflects voters choices by seats in government
ensures that majority governements are not formed without a morjoity of voter support
Allows new parties and independent candidates to fairly compete
Increases voter choice.
As a footnote Dave went on to mention that in Ireland where STV is used, the politicians held two referendums in an effort to get rid of STV and both times the public voted to keep it. As more people become educated about STV, its support increases…
Vote with me on May 12 2009 to implement the “Single Transferable Vote” and redeem the opportunity of a lifetime to improve your democracy in a significant way.
British Columbians have a unique opportunity to improve the quality of our electoral system on May 12th when our province holds its next provincial election. Under the slogan “Power up the vote”, the BC Citizen’s Assembly is advocating the “Single Transferable Vote” this may be the single most significant opportunity to improve how we vote. Their website tries to anticipate and answer questions about the STV.
The Citizen’s Assembly was charged with making a recommendation directly to the citizens of BC, to improve our voting system. through a process detailed on their website, the BC Citizen’s Assembly determined that the BC-STV system would bring us the most advantages.
Current system
In British Columbia currently there is the system of “first past the pole” the candidate with the most votes wins. Truly it is the simplest system, but upon comparison with other options it is clearly far from perfect. Consider a hypothetical situation with the current system where in a riding there were 4 candidates each receiving 24%, 24%, 25% and 27% of the vote. It is clear that the candidate with 27% of the vote is the winner. However, it is also clear that 73% of the votes were “wasted” / “unrepresented in government” and that the majority of voters preferred someone other than the winner. Here is how the BC Citizen’s Assembly put it…
British Columbians believe that it isn’t fair that a party can form government without having the most votes, or that our province could be left without an official opposition – even if we voted for one. We don’t think its fair that a party can govern as if it had majority support when it doesn’t, or that a majority of votes do not elect anybody, or that some regions may have no representation in government at all.
Regardless of how we vote, British Columbians think elections should be about fair results, greater choice, effective local representation and accountable government.
Basically you only get to vote once, but your vote is more powerful. If you picked a losing candidate, your vote keeps on working to better represent your vote. Check out the 4.5 minute video below. It is brilliant.
Why is there another referendum after the one held in 2005?
In the referendum in May 2005, STV received 57.7% of the total vote and a clear majority in 77 of 79 electoral districts. Although it far exceeded the first bar of receiving majority support in at least 48 constituencies, it narrowly missed the second unprecedented 60% province wide threshold. Clearly this created a problem because only 42.3% supported retaining the current system. Given the results it was entirely appropriate that the people of BC be further more opportunity to explore STV. The question will be put to all the voters in BC in a second referendum, held on May 12, 2009, in conjunction with the next provincial election. If the voters clearly endorse the Citizens’ Assembly’s recommendation, the government has promised it will introduce legislation so that the new electoral system could be in place for the following provincial election in May 2013. http://www.bc-stv.ca/
Vote for the BC-STV
From what I’ve learned in my research, the BC-STV is an improvement that would give British Columbian voters better representation by popular vote. It seems like a brilliant idea, let me encourage you to;
1. Vote for the BC -STV on May 19th 12th. [Updated, Thanks!]
2. Explain the BC-STV to at least 3 other eligible voters so they can be informed.
Happy Voting! Oh, and check out these related videos on Proportional Representation featuring John Cleese and one of the Royal Canadian Air Farce: https://stv.ca/humour
Greg.
For those of you who know my passions, you will recognize the sparkle in my eyes since traffic is the topic.
I couldn’t believe my eyes as we left the Cancun International Airport. A divided highway with overhead lights on the median. Not only in the city , but in the country stretching for many kilometers. The highway was well marked, well signed, well maintained and in most ways as safe as any other north American Highway.
Good Highway in Mexico South of Cancun
Illuminated LEDs embedded in the roadway guided vehicles to merge. it was impressive even if this tourist highway was not typical of highways elsewhere in mexico.
This highway was a “1/2 freeway” not Interstate standards, but pretty close.
The highway was limited access, had some at grade crossings as well as overpasses. Also seperating it from freeway standard was the provision of the uturn “retournos” where traffic could exit the fast lane, turn around and enter the opposite fast lane. The roadways in mexico often use metal speedbumps embeeded at different interfals where traffic is expected to stop for a police check or an at grade intersection.
Mexican Police checkpoint
I noticed other modes of transportations in cities. Playa del Carmen had more scooters than I’m used to. and more bicycles. Playa had dedicated bidirectional bicycle lanes seperated from traffic by a curb. Practical tricycles pedalled by union tricyclests carry many local deliveries.
Taxis (Playa is a tourist area) are plentiful as well as busses and collectivos. The taxis were similar to anywhere else except for the reputation that Mexican taxi drivers have for being daring. Taxis are not metered there, so negotiate your price before you get it and pay when you get there.
The busses are like the greyhound or charger coaches seen in Canada and USA. Plush seats, airconditioning, TVs, curtains (some seatbelts). Taking a 20 minute ride between towns cost only $1.80 which is a bargain considering a similar trip would cost $5-15 in Canada. It seems that those busses run very regularly. Hourly or every 15 minutes. In Canada you are lucky to get 1/2 a dozen busses in a day. So as a Canadian I can’t help feel like we are being ripped off here. A poorer country like Mexico can make nice regular cheap bus service an option? (Maybe everybody owning a car up here has made that a difficult challenge for the operators here?) I wonder what I’m missing here?
Mexico has something special I haven’t seen elsewhere in North america. Collectivos are 15 passenger vans that operate somewhere between bus and taxi. Heading down the freeway they will pick up people who need a lift as long as there is room left. When full, the collectivo will travel at alarming speeds to get you to your destination and it becomes more like a taxi at that point, leaving main roads to drop you at your destination.
Collectivo
Those are the neat observations I made about Mexican transportation. Thanks for listening, I’m glad I could share some of the things that impressed and surprised me.
I love the freeway. I get on it, I drive as far as I want and I get off. It isn’t like some of the other roads we have around here. You know the ones where you stop every block or two because there is a single car pulling out of some mini-mall. In fact there are some pretty hillarious roads around here. One of them is the “Langley Bypass”. Historically most of the vehicle traffic going through Langley travelled on Fraser Highway, which was 1 lane in each direction with businesses down both sides of the street (the typical downtown for a small town). People on Fraser Highway were stopping at stored, looking for parking, backing out of parking spots and basically making this road a very poor choice for anything other than shopping. A plan was designed to bypass langley (appropriate name). As a provincial highway it connected Fraser Highway to itself, bypassing the city as well as connecting to glover road 200th street, the route to the ferries. With 2 lanes in either direction, it moved traffic quite well. At first. Then the township decided to allow zoning all along the bypass for shopping. 3 starbucks, countless restaurants, RV dealerships, audio video stores, and of course we will need some traffic lights to let the shoppers in and out. So rather than this area being a “bypass” to allow through traffic to flow efficiently, it became a traffic magnet attracting more vehicles, and disrupting the flow of the traffic.
What happened? The planners forgot what they were doing. They forgot the purpose of the road. To “bypass” Langley.
Often there will be a visionary who will present a great idea like a “bypass road” if it remains true to its vision it works well. BUT somebody always wants to make plans work for their own interests. The land owners won’t make as much money selling farmland as they would selling land with potential for “retail development”… so they lobby government to change the zoning. If the city / municipality doesn’t have a zoning plan (or doesn’t stick to the plan) “good luck”. If we could stay “on vision” we would have roads that performed their designed function well, instead of doing a mediocre job of many contradictory functions.
Freeways work so very well because they are “limited access” (You can only get on or off at certain points), because they have no “at level” intersections (meaning the traffic can carry on at speed despite the presence of other roads crossing), and they are built to a very consistent standard (meaning the road is predictable in signage and design). Can you imagine if Freeways started having pedestrian crosswalks installed? or if a business was forced to have their driveway onto the freeway? It’s the wrong road for those purposes.
We need to classify our roads, and we need to build them to meet their function, and protect them from those who would dilute their function.
From my limited experience I’m familiear with the following types of roads;
Residential
Collectors
Non-Commercial Arterial
Commercial Arterial
Limited Access
Highways
Service
You look for a Residential street when you are ready to buy your first house and you are ready to settle down and have children, you want to avoid a “busy street”. You are essentially choosing to avoid living on a “collector” or “arterial” road. A road fit for the purpose of living on.
Collector roads have more traffic and bring folks in from residential areas to the higher speed roads that actually go someplace.
Non-commercial Arterial roads are urban roads that act as the main routes for carrying traffic through a city. Their focus is on the efficient flow of traffic through a city. If you want to go somewhere quickly get on a non-commercial arterial road.
Commercial arterial roads provide easy access to businesses, with mini malls, mom and pop shops, big box stores and any number of opportunities to stop your car and spend your money. The flow of traffic is less efficient because of the abundant access to businesses. If you want to buy something get on a commercial arterial road.
Limited access roads such as free-ways, seriously limit where traffic can get on or off, which makes for very efficient travel on these roads. This is why the freeway moves so well, there is little turbulence from new traffic entering, and in this case, no interference to the flow of traffic caused by traffic lights. I remember a number of years ago, the embarassment that was expressed in North Vancouver, that they had the only traffic light on the transcanada highway. (It isn’t true, there are traffic lights along the highway in towns like Golden BC or Revelstoke BC, but perhaps North Van was the last in a developed urban area.
Highways allow for travelling further, without significant business or residential access, but they often do allow more access to collector roads.
Service roads provide a unique function with highways. Where highways come into town (like in Rocky Mountain House AB) “service roads” are employed to provide access to businesses such that the function of the highway isn’t impaired by the business access. Its a smart idea.
Understanding why Business Frontage is only of benefit sometimes
When a motorist wants to get from point A to point B in a timely manner, Business frontage or access on the streets the motorist drives on, has no advantage for the motorist or the business owner. For the business owner, he is NOT a potential customer. For the motorist, the buesiness access just slows things down by congesting traffic and introducing more traffic lights where he needs to wait on his trip. So a word of wisdom to the cities and municipalities that consider introducing commercial development on non-commercial arterial roads. Don’t. The old fashioned idea that business frontage is good for property value and taxes does not hold on these roads. It is a compromise of the road’s primary purpose which is to move traffic efficiently. That thinking only holds when you are considering a commercial arterial road. In Abbotsford, there is an commercial arterial road called “South Fraser Way” which has shopping malls and auto centres, and strip malls, and car dealerships, and it is a place where people go to buy things. Maclure is a non-commercial arterial road in Abbotsford which stretches almost the entire length of the city, with almost no commercial at all. It is limited access (every 1/2 mile or so, rather than every block) and it is 2 lanes with a median. It is the most efficient road in Abbotsford for travelling across town and a testament to the prior city leaders who had the vision for a road with no drive-ways.
The different types of roads above look different. residential and collector are likely to have sidewalks, arterial might, but limited access, highways and service are unlikely to have sidewalks. Speed limits are different too. A commercial arterial road should have lower speed limits than a non-commercial arterial road that is limited access.
I see anomolies. Perhaps someone is working on our behalf to keep things simple, but in our cities, a standard speed limit of 50 Km/h applies unless it is otherwise posted. South Fraser way is a major 2-3 laned commercial road with a speed limit of 50, and my small dead end residential road full of young families with children has no posted limit meaning that it’s limit is also 50. This does not make sense. Perhaps there should be a sliding scale based on road classification;
Residential 40 KM/H
Collector 50 KM/H
Non-Commercial Arterial 60 KM/H
Limited Access 70-100 KM/H
Now I’ll introduce you to a radical idea of which I am quite an advocate… Ready? Roads are for driving on. They exist only to move people from place to place. They are not for parking or any other purpose. They are to provide space for people to move from one location to the next. With the context of this truly revolutionary idea the next points will fall into line.
The idea of allowing car parking on roads is silly. Regardless of what has happened in the past, why do we need to build roads 4 lanes wide just because somebody decided to leave their car “out” on the street? We see car parking on some commercial. arterial and collector roads as well as residential. The idea that people view this as a right rather than a privilege, that people don’t consider whether they have space to park a car before they buy one is bizarre. Since the roads are built with your tax dollars, and you are forced to go work to earn that money I think this should be a point that is dear to you. In progressive countries like Japan, you need to prove that you have room to park your vehicle before you are allowed to purchase one. (Smart)
In Canada we have very wide lanes. Our lanes are much wider than our vehicles. Most vehicles will have an extra 1-2 meters of space beside them in their lane. Its hard to estimate exact distances while driving on the freeway, and no I’m not walking out there with a tape measure. We also (at least in the lower mainland of BC) have this annoying habit of making roads wide enough for 2 lanes and then not putting lane markings on them. So where you could safely have people passing each other allowing for a smoother flow of traffic, you have this ambiguity.
Or there might be times where you want to restrict people from passing to make a safer stretch of road, or where you could have a bike lane that is then swept clean where bikes would be safe to travel with less interference from cars. Often there is just a single lane and then there are 2 lanes, with no sign or warning. the dotted lines come out of nowhere, making the road and the traffic on the road unpredictable and therefore less safe. Plus if you need to increase the capacity of a road, a can of paint is a pretty cheap way to improve your road’s carrying capacity.
So this post feels like a plane circling in the air looking for a place to land, and I think it will have to be a work in progress. It holds some examples of the need for design, but isn’t really a comprehensive treatment… yet.
Today was the “most exciting” carpool moment in commuting I’ve had in the last 6 years. Following a flatbed semi with a double trailer I noticed a pilot truck down the bank in the center of the freeway with the driver standing in the bed of his truck. Just then the truck in front of me locked up his brakes, producing clouds of smoke while his trailers tried to stop with the cab. Fortunately reactions kicked in and the other drivers and I were able to get stopped without incident. As the adrenaline worked its way out of my system I thought again that there must be some ways to make our roads safer by controlling how trucks and cars share the road.
The truck ahead of me was driving in the fast lane, and had been for 7 miles…
(flickr credit: C.P.Storm)
The good and bad of Professional truck drivers
I have a love-hate relationship with the commercial truck drivers on the road while I commute.
For the good, they are generally better drivers than the people in the cars. Professional drivers often don’t get the consideration they deserve (which would make their jobs easier and less stressful). Because of their experience, training and the weight of their trucks, they tend to be patient and less impulsive. They perform very well in traffic and goodness knows many of these drivers are being watched with the “1-800 watch my driving” stickers and GPS logging. Sitting higher in traffic they often have better perspective than other drivers. Truck drivers are often proactive in traffic, using their rigs to smooth out traffic, turning potentially dangerous stop and go traffic into steady traffic (which queueing theory leads us to understand should improve the overall throughput of the highway). Often they can administer a unique kind of justice with the massive size of their trucks, returning the shoulders to their intended purpose from the “impromptu kamakaze right hand passing lanes”. The professionalism is necessary because of the greater responsibility truck drivers have to keep their heavy vehicles and heavier loads from squishing families in mini-vans.
Normally “truckers” are great, but there are certainly a percentage of truckers whose impatience, indifference to human life, or incompetence regularly puts the lives of other drivers at risk. One day a truck travelled all the way from 176st in Surrey to Mt lehman in Abbotsford in the fast lane, which is a distance of 35 Km, then got out of the fast lane to exit the freeway. I’ve seen poorly adjusted brakes for empty or full trailers result in an impaired ability to stop in time. I’ve seen trucks blowing tires and not even noticing (or deciding that stopping isn’t their best option) despite the obvious risk of flying steel belt radials on the freeway.
I’m interested in what strategies could be employed to make our roads safer within the bounds of our current transportation infrastructure.
Recording devices to help drivers obey traffic laws
I recall seeing on a trip to Europe that commercial buses and trucks at that time had a recording device (some use paper disks) which tracks the driver’s speed, stops, breaks, sleep and other items relevant to safe vehicle operation. In any participating country, police can ask to see the record (paper disk), and can fine the driver for any infraction in the last 3 days, regardless of which country the driver was in when they committed the offence. It is remarkable to observer how obediently the trucks and buses follow the posted speed limit and other regulations. An environment is created where the rules apply whether there is a police officer in attendance or not, and as the driver of our tour bus explained, the fines imposed by automated systems like red light cameras, follow the license plate and then the driver themselves.
Most trucks I see on the freeway are driving close to the posted speed limits, others (like the dump truck with trailer that passed us doing about 140KM/H) need to be fined out of business and off the road for the safety and reputation of the other “good” drivers. No I didn’t get the license because it was covered in mud.
Treating Trucks Differently
First of all; Trucks ARE different. Trucks are;
slower to accelerate or climb a hill. In rush hour traffic, trucks appear to be the rocks in the stream with the cars being the water flowing around them.
more intimidating if they choose to use their size and weight to “force” a lane change where it really shouldn’t take place.
generally travelling farther than other traffic
more likely to throw rocks up at car windshields than other vehicles. (I suspect tire tread and weight is a factor)
prone to kick up far more spray (reducing visibility) on wet roads, in rain storms and in loose dry snow
big and reduce visibility by blocking the view of vehicles travelling behind them.
heavier, harder to stop and much more deadly if they
driven by drivers who typicaly have more training and experience than the rest of us.
I’ve observed three really useful strategies for “treating trucks differently”;
The first strategy I’ve see involves encouraging trucks to use some roads and cars to use others. Many cities have signs indicating “truck routes” and other signs indicating that only trucks making local deliveries are allowed on certain streets. In industrial areas, where corners are wider to allow for the special turning needs of the trucks, cars are the minority. Because cars and trucks typically don’t mix, many of the issues that emerge when they mix are avoided.
The second strategy I observed in Washington, Oregon & California, where they have a lower speed limit for trucks. The trucks are in the right hand lane (except to pass) abiding by a speed limit which is adequate, but 5-10 miles/hour slower than the cars. There is something predictable about trucks being on the right while other traffic flows past on the left. This ensures excellent visibility for the cars because the trucks are not impeding their vision.
The third strategy I observed was in Germany on statutory holidays like “Fathers Day” when law requires that all transport trucks be off of the roads. “It is because so many more people are travelling for the holidays was the explanation offered by our bus driver”. Every road side pullout or rest-stop was full of trucks, pennants draped across the front windows, drivers discussing European Football and catching up on sleep.
(flickr credit: austrini)
Perhaps those strategies have their place in British Columbia in the Lower Mainland. I think that our current highways require trucks and cars to use the same roads to go to the same places, so separate routes may not currently be feasible. While a lower speed limit for trucks might help trucks behave more predictably, I know all too well what happens when one driver gets stuck climbing a hill… everyone tries to pass, and here there are only two lanes so the problem snowballs and both lanes slow right down. It won’t be a complete solution to our problem. I think however that the third solution might have merit if it were applied to rush-hour.
A suggested solution for improving rush hour traffic on the #1 highway in the lower-mainland is to create a time when cars can move without having trucks on the road.
In the past 40 years zero lanes have been added to widen the freeway. Our capacity to move traffic has not grown with the population and the traffic. Peak load on the freeway (6-8AM and 3-5PM) occurs because people must arrive at work within a limited time-frame. The absense of truly viable transit or any form of commuter rail in the South Fraser corridor means commuters are in cars. We must reduce the number of vehicles travelling on the freeway during rush “hour”. The transport of many non-perishable goods in many cases is date sensitive and not time sensitive. Did the lumber arrive at 7PM or 3PM? It is still usable lumber. So truck traffic in many cases could be loading and unloading “at the dock” during rush hour, and then hitting the road as the commuters come off of those roads. If we were to regulate that commercial trucks could not be on the road during those hours, suddenly the “truck/car” dynamics would be gone and the roads would be largely homogenous and less full. Clearly there is more definition work to be identified. Where do the in-coming trucks “wait” if they arrive from outside the lower mainland? Chilliwack from the East or South Surrey from the USA? What trucks if any are exempt. are the 3ton cube trucks fine, but 18wheelers are out?
This may not be the idea that solves the interaction of commuters and heavy trucks during rush hour in the lower mainland of BC, but we need to do something… maybe several things to make life more reasonable for car and truck alike, in the interests of safety and efficiency.
Thanks for listening. I’m interested to hear your ideas.
There is a really informative video by Jonathan Jarvis at Vimeo which provides an overview of the credit crisis.
If you have found yourself struggling to understand how everything could get so messed up, you might find this video to be quite enlightening.
I have been observing clean energy since 1999, and since then I’ve watched some pretty amazing advances, and some pretty pathetic progress. Technology is making advances, but the practice and social aspects of change are not keeping pace. I live in North America, and here we use more energy per person than anywhere else in the world, something like 5 times as much per person as other industrialized nations. We are wasteful, affluent and often appear to not care about the impact that our “lifestyles” have on others around the globe, and on the environment. Looking to the future, it seems that this cannot continue forever, and that it would be better for us to change while we have the choice, rather than waiting until we are forced to make a drastic change.
coal power plant Flickr Photo Credit: Velaia (ParisPeking)
Energy is required to manufacture, to transport, and even to consume what has been manufactured. Currently much of the energy we have is produced by large corporations in a polluting, unsustainable and inequitable fashion that by definition of corporation and free market, has as its primary goal “making corporations money” and as its secondary goal “maintaining the status quo of those making the money”. Neither of those two goals will necessarily; Protect consumers from unfair profiteering, protect the natural environment, promote innovation, or allow for sustainable development of energy infrastructure.
Clean energy from wind power, flickr photo credit: kilobar
I propose that we are stuck in this place because of some of our beliefs. I don’t claim to have a complete picture, but I’d like to suggest that there are a number of myths that support the status quo and thereby hinder us from moving towards cleaner energy. Lets debunk some myths that are commonly circulated:
Myth: There is a shortage of energy:
Actually every hour, the sun showers the earth with more energy than the world’s entire population consumes in a whole year. (source: Sesci.ca)
Myth: Clean energy will result in a loss of jobs.
Recently I heard a statistic that more Americans are employed by the US wind industry than the US coal industry. I think we will see a shift in jobs. New jobs might include designing, producing, selling and delivering parts for; solar cells, geothermal systems and heat exchangers, bio-gas facilities, wind turbines, hydro turbines, power storage and regulating equipment. Research and development to improve the efficiency and quality of these systems.
Myth: Clean energy costs too much money
From a consumer perspective, in British Columbia, the residential rate for electricity is 7.2 cents per KWH and 85% of our power comes from hydro dams. In keeping with Moore’s law, solar cells are becoming about twice as efficient every year (as solar cell manufacturers purchase the technology no longer needed by the likes of Intel and AMD). A Geothermal system installed at a cost of $10,000 when a house is built can provide heating AND cooling at about 1/4 of the cost of conventional methods. So if $275 / month is normal, that means $825 in annual savings and a breakeven point of about 12 years. (Those with better numbers are welcome to comment). So likely a case by case comparison depending on what options are available and what energy costs are needs to be done. Certainly some forms of cleaner energy production won’t be available in all locations. When we start factoring in “health” and “social justice” (no blood for oil etc) it quickly becomes apparent that there are some costs not fairly represented on the balance sheet.
Myth: Clean energy is only for granola eating hippies or tin-hat wearing wackos
Since utilities buy and sell power using the infrastructure of electrical transmission lines, your power could be purchased from anywhere. Without you knowing, your utility could purchase some power from a coal plant or a wind farm, and that clean energy would seamlessly appear in your house’s electrical system. As stated earlier, in British Columbia, 85% of electricity used is from renewable (rainwater powered) hydro dams. So clean energy is something any of us could be using, whether we enjoy granola or not.
Myth: Clean energy is experimental or in its infancy, not ready for serious commercial use
Despite the persistence of solar energy displays and fuel-cell displays at local science fairs, these technology are actually well developed. Consider early designs of the steam engine which used “wet ropes” to ensure a seal for the piston. We have much more advantage now. In Denmark, the last time I checked, 20% of the nation’s electricity was being generated via wind turbines. Denmark with it’s shallow coastal areas realized that 7km offshore, the wind farms have nothing blocking the breeze and they are essentially silent and invisible as far as humans are concerned. Solar found a boost near its inception with the space race of the 60s if I recall correctly, and so represents a technology that has received barely 50 years of serious development. Perhaps solar finds itself in an awkward adolescence where we can see the potential, but we aren’t quite ready to turn over the reins. Solar is a de-facto standard for remote installations like track side railway equipment in the Rockies, marine equipment marking channels, roadside traffic signs and solar calculators. So it seems the technology is there, the adoption however is wanting.
Myth: Coal energy is cheap
Not really, you need coal mines, transportation infrastructure, generating plants or furnaces to burn the coal, lots of air land and water to receive the sooty pollution and CO2. There has been the human health cost of mining and breathing that dirty air. An amazing amount of effort has been invested in coal energy, some of the excavators have buckets as big as a house. Leaving giant scars on the surface of the earth. Since the mining of coal and burning of coal are centralized activities, this concentrates the energy in the hands of a few (those who own large coal generating plants), now there is the added cost of distribution, such a system puts a wealthy few in a place to set the price of electricity for the people who purchase it. Coal is a non-renewable resource, which means once it is used, there is no more coal to replace it. Much like the dinosaurs who contributed to the coal, it will soon go extinct.
Myth: All energy needs to be generated using one method (All wind/ All hydro etc)
All or nothing thinking makes it very easy for a person to dismiss clean energy. However, a diversity of generating methods allow for a lessened impact on the environment and resilience in the event of a shortage of any one kind of energy generation (a shortage of rain one year might reduce the power that can be generated using hydro dams, when the wind stops blowing wind turbines are idle, when there are no waves, wave generation produces no power, when it is nighttime, solar generation isn’t effective.
Myth: Energy production must be entirely clean.
While that is a worthy goal, it isn’t immediately attainable by most of North America. The myth is an error in thinking, a false dichotomy that says a half way solution, or a marginal improvement is worthless. This flies in the face of experience that teaches us that most real improvement is incremental and continuous. In other fields marginal improvements are celebrated and embraced, like the medical discovery that consuming baby aspirin fights the chance of strokes and heart attacks occurring. If we can even REDUCE our dependence on unsustainable dirty energy generation, we are moving in the right direction. So lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater, when we see improvement. Lets embrace any move in the right direction. One encouraging tidbit I have to share is that according to the Danish Wind Association (sorry if I got the name wrong guys). A wind turbine cancels out it’s own environmental impact (refining the steel, machining, transportation, installation, access roads etc. in 2 months of full-time operation. 2 months is a fantastic payback for erasing ones own tracks so to speak.
Myth: Doing the right thing must provide higher profits than taking the lazy way out.
Somehow many of us have adopted the moronic thinking that somehow doing the right thing should be cheaper. We hear things like “Gee that wouldn’t pay for itself for 10 years, I’m not interested”, or “Gee that has a $10,000 initial capital cost” (as the guy signs a 30 year mortgage for the $500,000 house…) Sometimes doing the right thing will be as expensive or more expensive than doing the thing that will potentially poison the air.
Myth: Higher efficiency stoves/ furnaces / etc will allow us to be responsible while still using carbon based energy
While it’s true (and commendable) that efficiency for gas furnaces and other items are improving, this is really little more than damage control. (putting the filter on the cigarette and claiming it’s healthier to smoke). Carbon based fuels are not renewable, meaning we can’t sustain their consumption. Carbon based fuels release CO2, CO and other pollutants into the air we breathe, risking our health. It is telling (and not commonly understood) that many furnaces burning “natural gas” may expel 20-30% of their heat energy up the chimney where it does not benefit the homeowner. “Higher efficiency” generally means cleaner more complete combustion so you are wasting less energy. We need to move away from dirty unhealthy unsustainable methods and start seeding the clean sustainable technologies that will outlast carbon. (Anybody know how much longer the Sun is expected to last?)
Myth: North America is innovative in energy production.
If Green-wash were a clean energy innovation, this would be true. It would seem that GM killed the (EV1) electric car despite people offering to buy out their leases. Many subdivisions in attractive neighbourhoods have covenants on the properties preventing people from putting up clothes lines or solar installations on their roofs because they are “unsightly”. North Americans consume more energy, more products and more packaging than anyone else in the industrialized world. Most jurisdictions in North America have been very slow to permit/encourage net-metering and other progressive measures which would encourage de-centralized independent power production. North America keeps proposing “carbon offset credits” and other measures which essentially permit some fancy accounting and transfer of money without fundamentally addressing how the power is created. (Essentially it is purchasing the “right” to pollute by putting money in the pockets of folks who are doing the right thing.) Did you catch how the goal isn’t to improve, its to “offset”? North America has incredibly skilled labour, good working conditions, lots of money and…. we are not showing anywhere near the leadership that is required to turn energy production around and get it pointed in the right direction.
Myth: If I can’t buy it at Walmart it isn’t really “available” (yes I heard this one)
Somewhere along the line we lost our spirit of invention, our willingness to risk, research and investigate. Anyone reading this, has the most powerful research tool (Google?) and the most powerful shopping network. (Ebay?) at their fingertips. Don’t wait for Walmart to stock the $10 home fusion generators. Take some initiative and be the first on your block! 🙂
I hope…
that if we could clear the air by addressing more of these myths, by getting the green-wash out of the room, by recognizing how bad the situation is, by encouraging government that would promote innovation that ordinary citizens could participate in. That we would see noticable progress. (Note: this is not the same as us sitting around watching our big TVs, waiting for government to “fix it”.) Then we could find ourselves in the environment that nurtured the Renaissance of clean energy. Lets hope! Actually, join me and lets get out there and start making a difference. Anyone want to start an “at cost solar system/ geothermal system” mail-order charity?” 🙂
Are there some other myths you’ve been observing? Add them in the comments.
I don’t believe that gambling is harmless entertainment. I continue to hear stories of how it hurts people with addictive personalities. How it hurts the companies they embezel from. How it hurts the families that are neglected while they gamble, both emotionally and financially.
Gambling hurts the businesses that otherwise would have created value by creating something. If a tourist spends money on gambling, that money is not available for souveniers / hotel / dinner etc. We are a debt ridden society and need to encourage financial responsibility and self control not irresponsibility. Gambling is a tax on those who can’t do math well. The poor and the uneducated are its most common prey. The government has a fiduciary duty to protect those most at risk. Gambling is an unproductive activity, which entices many to throw away the money they have to chase an unlikely dream rather than working or investing what they have.
Despite the promises of economic growth, it is my understanding that increased gambling in an area typically results only in low end jobs increased crime and reduced property value. All of this is at a huge economic cost of government subsidies. People work hard for their taxes, their taxes should not support such an industry. Many of the arguments used to justify the gambling industry are also used to justify the pornography industry. Those are my immediate thoughts and I hope to study the issue in more detail so I can speak less from my feelings and more from my head (I do trust my gut on this one…).
Here is a letter that appeared in the Abbotsford News.
“this is in regards to the article “Langley’s new caasino coming up aces” (The News, Aug. 1) Economics 101: taking $90 million out of a community and handing back $4 million is not sustainable in the long run. This means people in the langley area contributed $90 million to a single business with a percentage going to municpal, provincial and federal coffers. The amount given back to individuals as “winnings” are other people’s “losings” and are nominal, usually spent back to the house. Research confirms that the first three or four years of a casino will be a honeymoon period. National and international studies show decreases in crime, improvement in local economies, and upgrading of unattractive areas to be short-term as addictions take time to take hold and personal / family resources take time to deplete. It is the long-term effects which are so sobering. A study by Laval University on Quebec’s Hull Casino showed that after on year of the casino opening, the proportion of local residents who gambled increased from 13.8 per cent to 60.4 per cent. The at-risk gamblers more than doubled, from 3.3 per cent to 7.8 percent, like many other studies showing availability and marketing increases addiction levels. The very purpose of marketing is to attract clientele and reveals the slogan of “people would gamble anyway” as the ruse of a profit hungry gambling industry. Like smoking, decreasing availability and advertising while increasing education on the dangers decreases addiction. The gambling industry is only profitable because it does not cover its true costs of operation. It produces addicts and smillingly hands back a minute amount of the local money, leaving communities to pay for the estimated $10,500 to $19,000 costs per year, per addict. While the province earned a net $818.0 million in 2004-2005 from gambling revenues, social costs are estimated (at their lowest) at almost $1.3 billion. So family and children ministries suffer, while the government robs Peter to pay Paul and spins the numbers to look good. As for organized-crime involvement in legalized gambling, I suggest the reporter do some research on RCMP studies on the subject. It only takes a moment to search and I grieve over the lack of investigative reporting that results in gambling industry advertising being presented as facts. I challenge “Black Press” to say “This approach is far better” a few years from now to the families of those who watched their loved ones slip away.
Since the letter was written, we’ve had a similar push for a casino here in Abbotsford; or uh, sorry its not called that by enlightened people, its called a “community gaming centre”. There is more thoughtful commentary to share on this topic, but that will have to wait. let me be absolutely clear. I’m saying government shouldn’t be actively profiting from it gambling.
Quality In Life - Living Smarter... 