I don’t like clutter. I know advertising works (which explains the billions spent on it) the question is… Why would I subject myself to advertising and allow my house to be cluttered just to give someone else my money?
Four times a week we receive a community newspaper. Now the paper is mostly ads, advertisements, paid advertising and ads. There are relevant local articles, but it hardly seems worth the “filtering” to get to the content. Out of 40 printed pages, I’d guess 4 or less actually contain news. Now I don’t believe in mindlessly reading advertisements (and don’t know anyone who will admit to this), but I must admit my relationship to the printed newspapers that appear on my mailbox has been undergoing a transformation.
I was curious what the impact was on my time and on the environment to handle all the paper associated with the unsolicited flyers and community newspapers I receive. To try and estimate the impact on my city, I’m assuming everyone in town does exactly what I do, and I’m believing the newspaper’s circulation figures (averaged to 40,000 per paper) which I found on the Internet. You will see some high dollar figures here, and this is because the cost to consumers is generally left out of the equation and ignored… Retailers don’t incur that cost, it is the consumer’s problem, so why would anyone bother to track or estimate that cost… This is only a rough but fair estimate. Now I’d love to make this more accurate, so if you take issue with the numbers, do us all a favour and contribute some research. Here is the transformation in chronological order:
Handling Flyers and community newspapers (original version 1.0)
Initially we would bring the paper in, sort through the flyers “in case there was something good there”, and put the papers on the coffee table to be read. Then I would flip from front to back through the paper making sure I didn’t “miss anything. So including all the “handling time” bringing in the paper, reading through it. Picking it up off the floor after the small children decorated the room with it. Recycling it. I probably spent 30 minutes per paper and ended up skipping half of the papers completely. The time spent “reading the paper” was time I didn’t spend with my kids etc, so I’m going to think of that cost to me as $20/hour for my like many people earn. The 150 grams estimated weight of the paper is based on Canada Post’s “weight restriction” for mailing community newspapers (mine is probably larger) and 37 grams of flyers. So 150 grams 4 times a week is 0.6 Kg per week or 31.2 Kg per year.
My yearly time spent “handling” newspapers and flyers: 52 hours $1040
My papers and flyers sent to recycling: 31.2Kgs (68.8 lbs)
My city’s yearly time spent “handling” newspapers and flyers: 2,080,000 hours $41,600,000 (this is the cost of consumer’s time!)
My city’s papers and flyers sent to recycling: 1,248,000 Kgs (2,751,369 lbs)
Handling Flyers and community newspapers (updated version 2.0)
Then I recognized the time I was spending “tidying up” these papers all over our living space and I wanted to get the papers re-routed to recycling at the earliest point possible. What I would do is “intentionaly” sit down and skim the newspaper articles for 5 minutes, if there was relevant content I save the paper for my wife and tell her what is worth reading, if not, I recycle it and all of the flyers stuffed inside before the paper even makes it up the stairs to our living space. (Sorry advertisers, your advertising budget was not effectively spent). But this skimming is still an interesting activity to me, I’m not doing it because I am (at that moment) interested in reading the paper or learning something specific, I’m “reacting” to the newspaper being delivered to my door. I’m voluntarily spending at least 20 minutes per week filtering out advertisements…. Hmm, how is it that someone else is “making me” spend time reading their paper…. That wasn’t my idea. Hey I could have used that time for something I WANTED to do.
My yearly time spent “handling” newspapers and flyers: 17 hours $340 <reduced>
My papers and flyers sent to recycling: 31.2Kgs (68.8 lbs) <No change>
My city’s yearly time spent “handling” newspapers and flyers: 680,000 hours $13,600,000 <reduced>
My city’s papers and flyers sent to recycling: 1,248,000 Kgs (2,751,369 lbs) <No change>
Handling Flyers and community newspapers (New Era version 3.0)
So I noticed that when those friendly guys from the “Globe and Mail” would call, I would answer. “Not really interested, I use the Internet.” and they would simply drop it and let me go with no more “sales”… hmmm.. Maybe I could just use the Internet and replace my local community paper… So I testsed this. What I could find online (in several locations) had all the information with much less advertising. In many cases it offered more than the news (videos and such). I bravely asked my wife what she thought and when I learned that she really didn’t use those grocery store flyers I’d been saving for years, our course was set. We put a “No Flyers or Newspapers” sign on our mailbox and suddenly our house is neater, our recycling is lighter, and I’m facing much less temptation to purchase things I would not have otherwise purchased. I’m estimating that I only spend 15 minutes per month looking for local news and information. Only God knows the value of the “impulse purchases” I’m not making.
My yearly time spent not “handling” newspapers and flyers: 3 hours $60 (Internet time) <reduced>
My papers and flyers sent to recycling: 0 Kgs (0 lbs) <reduced>
My city’s residents potential yearly time spent not “handling” newspapers and flyers: 120,000 hours $2,400,000 <reduced>
My city’s could potentially save 1,248,000 Kgs (2,751,369 lbs) of paper from going to recycling (or worse) <Join Me! It’s free!>
Adding back “The Internet”
Sure there is time spent on the Internet to find local information, but I don’t think it is the same as putting a paper on your doorstep. I think that when someone is actually pursuing information, and not just having it “forced” on them, they are able to dig deeper and learn more. Sure I will likely look up some local events using the Internet, maybe 15 minutes per month when I NEED to know something specific. But that is one of the major points I’m making. Newspaper delivery was someone else’s idea that consumed my time and wasted paper.
We are fortunate to live in abundance where one of our major issues is TOO MUCH STUFF! And to keep us buying more, Canadians are inundated with $19 Billion worth of advertising each year. If the old adage is true, “half of all marketing works great, if only we knew which half” why don’t advertisers spend more resources understanding which half works and spend the other half supporting community?
Another small but useful site is: http://www.iwilltry.org/w/index.php?title=Flyers_against_flyers_campaign which advocates convincing your neighbours to join you in giving up flyers. They had some great images you could print out and tape to your mailbox (download the originals from their site).
The Canadian national “Do Not Call List” operated by the government of Canada promises to reduce phone based solicitation. https://www.lnnte-dncl.gc.ca/
The “Canadian Marketing Association has a “Do not Contact Service” designed to get your name on a list their members might check before sending out mailed advertisements. http://www.the-cma.org/?WCE=C=47|K=224217
A ?grassroots? attempt to produce a better “do not call list” http://www.ioptout.ca/ trys to overcome limitations with the “Do Not Call List” (charities are not restricted etc).
(Use the comments to evaluate the usefulness of these links).
Please comment to let me know what you think of all this. Do you have paper taming tricks? ways to find local information that work for you? Would you consider joining me with a simple “no flyers or newspapers” sign on your mailbox? Why or why not?
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.
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 great article over at “HomelessTales.com” addressing the challenges and barriers that sometimes keep homeless folks from receiving the benefits of shelters. Having had the opportunity to twice visit PLOW (Portland Learning Outreach and Worship) with teams of youth where we could learn firsthand about the issues facing homeless folks I can start to appreciate what is being said in this article.
Clearly it is a tough arena to examine and improve. With many of the organizations providing support on a voluntary basis from their own altruism, from their own budget, it just doesn’t make sense to insist on a certain “quality of service”. Certainly the customers they serve don’t have circumstances that make serving them easy and the work can be thankless.
Since “something” is better than nothing (an incremental improvement but not a perfect situation). Organizations meeting the social needs of the homeless receive thanks, and the clients are not generally in a position where they necessarily feel safe suggesting improvements… With the needs of the homeless being so immediate, the idea of feeding someone is measurable and can be achieved. With limited resources, the idea of feeding less people to make the meal experience more humanized seems foolish.
Given the creativity and dedication of the staff I’ve encountered serving the homeless, I can’t help but wonder if some kind of “Council of Best Practices” couldn’t be established to provide a code of excellence in addressing the needs of the homeless. Like a Kaizen Practical framework for evaluating the quality of services provided to the homeless folks. Not some “far removed” academic bureaucratic regulatory agency imposing unrealistic standards on overworked volunteers who are already stretched thin… My 2 cents. If that concept interests you, please comment below.
Anyways back to me recommending you read the other article…
“I’d go crazy listening to that all day” my coworker said today. She was referring to the repetitive recording that was being ’spoken’ by an electronic motion detecting device at the door to the Sushi shop where we were sitting and consuming sushi. Yes, I added, there is an example of something that doesn’t need to be automated.
Someone who is greeted feels good because you took the time and effort to greet them to extend them courtesy and respect. So greeting is good. The greeting itself may have some value, but it is significantly less value than the reasons or attitude behind the greeting. But, some bright guy thought, hey all this greeting is a lot of work, I need some help, I’ll build a machine to concentrate on making the customers feel good, so I can go on with whatever I’m doing. So you walk in and the machine (decorated as a cat or some such friendly apparition) says “Hello”, and when you leave it says “Welcome” or “Hello”. I tried to determine if the greeting was directional (one greeting upon arrival and a different greeting upon departure), but it wasn’t. In fact if you had thought that the initial greeting was cute, leaving reminded you that it was a ‘dumb’ machine that didn’t care whether you were coming or going never mind pretending that it cared about honouring guests with a suitable greeting. So you can imagine that by the time guests finished sitting on the patio next to this, they were quite clear that their “greeting” was only one of hundreds that day, not special, not meaningful, not even cute.
You like cute? fine, like cute. Go cuddle with your kittens and shake the dust off of your crocheted poodle toilet paper roll cover. Cute has its place, but it needs to stay clear of annoying in my opinion. I think there is an important lesson here that we have the opportunity to grasp. Automating something doesn’t necessarily make it better, particularly if it undermines the very reason for undertaking the activity in the first place.
Thanks for reading.
Greg.
When I’m not solving problems and thinking about my world, I’m working at improving the Liberty Workorder Management System from Greentree Software which has been cutting our customers manufacturing costs since 2002. We automated the parts that made sense (math) and left the customer the flexibility to make their own decisions about how they work with their data. For example, there is no interface with your accounting system, allowing you to keep the two seperate, relying on clear accessible reporting to provide your staff with the production management and costing information they need without handcuffing you to a 10,000 pound gorilla who will kill you if you make a mistake. No, we don’t like accounting software we use very much either. Liberty is available now to be deployed within your organization. We support the configuration and deployment of our system from start to finish so you can be up and running sooner with the benefits of a work order management system that can help your sales staff quote more effectively. Visit the GreenTree Software website to learn more., we’ll take good care of you.
Here in British Columbia’s lower mainland, many people take the greenery for granted. The trees seem to grow faster here than they do in other parts of the country (like Manitoba where the growing season is much shorter).
Here there are a number of constraints on the development of new houses, so new houses often displace mature stands of trees. …we can infer that the lots for which there was a higher demand fetched a higher price for both developer and builder. …There are plenty of reasons why a property with trees is prefereable over a lot with no trees. …
Here in British Columbia’s lower mainland, many people take the greenery for granted. The trees seem to grow faster here than they do in other parts of the country (like Manitoba where the growing season is much shorter).
Here there are a number of constraints on the development of new houses. We have an international border with the United States (which we can’t move to make more room for houses), We have the ocean (which isn’t moving any time soon), we have the Coastal mountains, which are quite steep and difficult places to build houses, and we have something called the Agricultural Land Reserve ALR which is a set of laws designed to protect farmland and stop ‘urban sprawl’ (Otherwise we would have a city 120 KM long and 25 km wide).
Forest land is almost guaranteed to not be a part of the ALR, so new houses often displace mature stands of trees. For the developer it is a way to quickly regain some of the money he has spent on the land by selling the logs. It also clears the land so there are few restrictions on where the house can stand. Since today’s developers seem intent on subdividing land as greedily as possible (to fit as many dwellings as possible on the smallest possible piece of land, they don’t want to leave 20ft here for a row of trees, since they could squeeze another property in that space. It would seem that the developers can’t be self-policing since they are guided by greed in squeezing the most profit out of a piece of land. So it would fall to the cities and municipalities to ensure that the land being developed is “livable” and protected. Despite the fact that taxes revenues rarely exceed development and maintenance costs within a city, many beureaucrats are still drawn by the allure of tax dollars. Trees don’t pay tax dollars, but the small dwelling squeezed onto a property does pay taxes, so the trees are at a significant disadvantage. For example Surrey British Columbia calls itself the “City of parks”, I think it should be called the “City of clearcuts”
On my way to work over the last few months, there was some land developed offering 8 lots, 3 of which were treed. I noticed that the treed lots sold first, I also noticed that the builders who then built houses on the treed lots, sold their houses first, it would appear that there was a higher demand for those lots which were treed, and according to common economic theory we can infer that the lots for which there was a higher demand fetched a higher price for both developer and builder. If the value of the land was higher we would also expect that the City could realize higher taxes for the treed properties. So we would expect that with a financial incentive to have a treed lot, that developers and cities would be pushing for more treed lots, but they aren’t. If financial incentive isn’t enough to convince builders and developers to be self-regulating, then the incentive to preserve trees must lie in legislation and regulation that will force developers and builders to do what they would otherwise neglect. The case for such regulation is compelling albeit mostly non-financial.
There are plenty of reasons why a property with trees is prefereable over a lot with no trees. Here are some:
1. Beauty. The first reason is beauty. Instead of seeing the neighbour’s oversized shed, or that freeway onramp, you see a beautiful tree that glows with the light of the sun, changes colours in the fall, fills with blossoms in the spring and displays icicles and horfrost in the winter. Green leaves waving in the breeze help make your property a peaceful sanctuary from the rush of everyday life, while effectively hiding eyesores on ajoining properties.
2.Soil retention. The roots of trees grip the soil and in hilly terrain can make the difference between a useable backyard, and having your house slide down the hill into your neighbour’s backyard. Considering the cost of retaining walls, labour and proper drainage, retaining trees is a bargain.
3. Summer cooling. A canopy of leaves can provide the indoor and outdoor space on your property with protection from the sun. This translates to a roof that lasts longer (less thermal abuse), a yard and deck that are more enjoyable in summer, and reduced cooling costs in your house. Conveniently enough,for deciduous trees, in the winter, those leaves disappear allowing in more sun during the darker dreary days of winter, which helps with heating your home.
4. Air quality. Trees do a fantastic job of absorbing CO2 from the air and replacing it with Oxygen, which makes for cleaner more healthy air. They even act as natural deodorizers making the air smell fresher, all of which is important in urban areas where there is a disproportionately high amount of CO2 and pollution.
5. Wildlife Habitat. With very little use of space on the ground, trees provide a significant amount of habitat for birds and other small wildlife. At our house (where we are privileged to back on a small forested park) we are constantly serenaded by pretty songbirds, something which happened much less in houses that were developed in areas without such concentrations of trees.
So this is my pitch to encourage you to buy a property with trees, to plant trees if you don’t already have them on your property. To prefer buying a treed property if you are a builder, to not clearcut a development if you are a developer, and to not allow clearcut development in your city or municipality if you are in such a position of civic oversight. Thanks for reading, I welcome your comments.
Quality In Life - Living Smarter... 