473 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

Frank Stanford's comment Tues Nov 4 2014

November 4, 2014 7:30 AM from Frank Stanford

 

Rather than throwing up regulatory roadblocks the government of B-C...along with municipal governments...should embrace the Uber transportation concept.  They should be saying : "what can we do to make sure this idea catches on?" 

 

"Do you need tax subsidies?"

 

"How can we help?"

 

I don't know how many years ago it was, that I first offered the observation that the solution to our daily transportation bottleneck...and everybody else's...is zipping by...or at certain times of day, crawling by, right in front of our noses.  It's the three empty seats in every single occupant vehicle on the highway.  There were tens of thousands of passenger seats going to waste.

 

Find a way, I said, to use them.  Hire a computer nerd to figure out a ride share system that works.  It must be possible.  And it must be possible to do it for less than the billion dollars that it would cost to build  a single point to point rapid transit line. 

 

If this is what Uber has achieved, more power to them.

 

If there are some warts, some insurance issues for instance, then it's up to the government to get on board and expedite solutions.  Because the up side of this idea is absolutely immense.

 

This is Frank Stanford

 

 

 

I'm not sure Uber fixes the Colwood crawl.

 

And I'm sure technology could help car-pooling.  But I'm not sure that it can fix it until you have a car-pool lane.  Because everyone that sits in the crawl blame it on "traffic" but they do not see themselves, in a single-occupancy car, as part of the problem.  And until 25% or more cars decide to double up and pool, it wont get better.  But a car-pool lane would make it instantly attractive.

[Bingo]

I agree.

[Coreyburger]

And car-pools have been shrinking in the US for years (since the 1970s). Need to look at Canadian numbers again.

[Mike K.]

What the US is now doing is building express lanes for which you pay to use.

[sebberry]

What the US is now doing is building express lanes for which you pay to use.

 

They'll fill up and slowly lose their advantage over time.

 

That's the problem with touting bus, bike and other transit options as being good for the environment and region - extra road capacity freed up by these alternative methods is usually used up by people shifting back to driving. 

[Coreyburger]

Most HOT (High-occupancy or toll) lanes aren't working as they planned. Biggest issue in the US is that their land-use sucks compared to ours. Victoria has a natural pinch-point at Colwood Interchange, why transit makes sense (essentially geography is our friend here).

[Mike K.]

The beauty of the express lanes is the price changes constantly. Older systems have limits but the new ones like in LA display a digital toll amount that is in constant flux. It works.

Eventually we'll have a new route through the highlands together with a major Malahat improvement. Once the region creeps past 400k it'll become the #1 infrastructure priority (right now its all about interchanges). That and the bridge between N Saanich and Cowichan are both the biggies in our future.

[Coreyburger]

The beauty of the express lanes is the price changes constantly. Older systems have limits but the new ones like in LA display a digital toll amount that is in constant flux. It works.

Eventually we'll have a new route through the highlands together with a major Malahat improvement. Once the region creeps past 400k it'll become the #1 infrastructure priority (right now its all about interchanges). That and the bridge between N Saanich and Cowichan are both the biggies in our future.

 

Almost all HOT lanes have changing tolls that match demand. They still don't work.

 

I seriously doubt we will ever have a new road through the Highlands (and rural Saanich). Bridges up north are also equally unlikely. Look at history, the only truly new roads (not upgrades) built in the past two or three decades are part of new developments. Further, the trend is moving away from building new roads at the municipal level (the province is still attached to it, but mostly on the mainland).

[lanforod]

South Fraser perimeter rd.

[Mike K.]

Where have you seen tolled expressways not work? I see them working everywhere I go. Even Seattle's 530 crossing (or whatever it is) in the middle of rush hour is free flowing.

[Coreyburger]

South Fraser perimeter rd.

 

SFPR fits the criteria of "on the mainland". Where the province is super keen to build roads that don't make money and then saddle Translink with them (Golden Ears Bridge).

[lanforod]

SFPR fits the criteria of "on the mainland". Where the province is super keen to build roads that don't make money and then saddle Translink with them (Golden Ears Bridge).

First off, roads aren't supposed to 'make money'. However, the SFPR likely does provide an economic boost to the region. It's also the best example I can think of in BC when comparing to a new route through Highlands. I don't agree with this whole Island vs Mainland argument. The mainland rarely gets new roads that aren't new development either.

 

I do think it will happen, but not for at least another decade, probably 2. There are some hurdles with the route. An interchange at Mckenzie and Hwy 1 will happen first, then Tillicum needs to be fixed. Once those are saturated again, an alternative route to take traffic going up the Malahat will probably help take pressure off that intersection, especially in the summer. I think a North Saanich to Cowichan bridge would be a better solution.

[spanky123]

I agree.

 

Agreed. There may be ride share services out there but Uber wasn't designed as one. It is a taxi service and has no impact on traffic if it is still one passenger using the service. May in fact make it worse if someone decides that Uber's flexibility is preferable to taking the bus.

[Sparky]

I just received this email from Uber. I'll let you read it and make your own comments.

 

 

  UBER VANCOUVER      

SIGN THE PETITION TO SUPPORT UBER VANCOUVER

Hey Sparky,

British Columbia and Vancouver are home to the quintessential winter playground, shining examples of liveable cities, and a launching pad for countless innovators and trailblazers across many industries. 

That's why so many residents are disappointed by Vancouver's limited transportation options. To make matter's worse, the Province of British Columbia, at the behest of the taxi industry, isn't putting consumers first or thinking about how new innovations can create better transit solutions for all. 

The ridesharing industry is a very new one, but cities all over the world are embracing it as a way to address the shortcomings of mass transit, reduce congestion and emissions, connect previously isolated neighbourhoods, and overall bring cities together in a way never before imagined. These are benefits that people are experiencing right now in more than 200 cities around the world -- but Vancouver isn't among them.

SIGN THE PETITION

Why?

The taxi industry is hard at work to shut out innovators like Uber and preserve their cartel. With the lowest number of taxis per capita in North America, Vancouver residents and visitors are woefully underserved when it comes to transportation options. While consumers are left stranded, the government continues to protect taxi interests under the guise of of maintaining "industry health", a stated goal of the Passenger Transportation Board (PTB) and preventing "destructive competition", as cited in countless PTB decisions as reason for denying applications that would bring more supply and competition to market. Why do a select few rich taxi owners get the sworn protection of government agencies that are supposed to serve the public? 

Stand up for choice in Vancouver and sign the petition -- because a bold innovative city like Vancouver deserves bold and innovative solutions like Uber.  Let your voice be heard! #VancUBER

ENCOURAGE FELLOW VANCOUVERITES TO SIGN THE PETITION

 

  

With love,
Team Uber Vancouver

[spanky123]

I would have preferred if Uber had made an effort to address the points being argued against them. The fact that they didn't sort of tells me that they are true.

[LJ]

Basically they are just an unlicensed taxi. Taxi drivers don't make a ton of money, add in these guys and it would be even less, that is why there are only so many licenses available.

 

Now if you got ride share going to help commuters I would be in favour of that, because people aren't commuting to work in Taxi's and ride sharing would take some of the vehicles off the street. Allow them in the bus lanes as well.

[Jason-L]

Pretty sure the only Uber people getting rich are going to be the ones not doing the driving.

[VicHockeyFan]

Basically they are just an unlicensed taxi. Taxi drivers don't make a ton of money, add in these guys and it would be even less, that is why there are only so many licenses available.

 

But would you extend that logic to hardware stores, restaurants or chiropractors?  

[lanforod]

Pretty sure the only Uber people getting rich are going to be the ones not doing the driving.

Those folks may save a little money, not get rich. The ones getting rich are the owners of Uber. It isn't fair that they are running what is essentially a taxi company using under licensed drivers and under insured cars. They can argue they are a tech company all they want but unless they make it a requirement that all drivers who sign up with them use a licensed taxi as the transport vehicle and have a class 1, 2 or 4 license, they are breaking the law. These laws exist to protect consumers. Yes, they also cost consumers money, but I think that is better than the alternative. Plenty of warning about avoiding unlicensed and unregulated cabs in countries that don't enforce it.

[spanky123]

But would you extend that logic to hardware stores, restaurants or chiropractors?  

 

Liquor licenses are certainly controlled.