Andy Yan adds another term to the housing lexicon. From the Vancouver Sun:
Yan, who is director at Simon Fraser University’s City Program, looked at the impact of transportation costs on housing affordability.
In the City of Vancouver the average cost of transportation over 25 years — assuming two per cent inflation per year and that nothing changes to improve the current situation — works out to be $298,459, according to Yan.
By comparison, if you live in the Township of Langley, the 25-year cost of transportation would be $563,755.
Across the Metro Vancouver region, if you add in amortized 25 year average annual transportation cost estimates, the percentage of homes with a cost of over $1 million rises significantly from 43 per cent to 92 per cent.
In areas such as Vancouver, the North Shore, Burnaby and Richmond, adding in such transportation costs increases the percentage of home values, but it’s in Coquitlam, New Westminster, Surrey, Delta, Port Coquitlam and the township and city of Langley where the contrast is most pronounced. In Coquitlam, the percentage of home valued over $1 million goes from 22.4 per cent to 97 per cent if you account for estimated amortized transportation costs. In the township of Langley, the percentage rises from 4.8 per cent to 90 per cent.
“This is only looking at the (straight) cost of transportation, not even the time,” said Yan.
He continued: “There is ‘phantom affordability’ too, if you will. This idea that you can drive (further from the city) until you qualify (to buy a home) doesn’t take into consideration that as home mortgages (cost less) transportation mortgages (in some areas) go up.”
Yan said this is precisely the direction seen in some U.S. cities, where the areas hardest hit by affordability woes have been the outskirts and suburbs rather than the city centres even when they have seen some of the highest home prices.
What terribly depressing news! Of course, this analysis is correct – one adds transportation costs IF you move to the suburbs that have no local services or local transit so one is forced to be a one or two car family that commutes for employment and services. However, rapid transit (Skytrain ie rail, not buses) moving to suburbs can reduce all those extra costs and make living in such suburbs a true dream.
A true dream? Yes because everyone can live near SkyTrain – right? The whole problem with sprawling suburbs is that it can’t be served by SkyTrain except in very narrow corridors. But those narrow corridors/nodes with access become increasingly dense and much more expensive than the cheap SF houses that people are looking for in the first place. Add a connecting bus trip (or two) and the “dream” quickly dissolves.
If we do manage to build a high frequency transit system running at a big loss in the sprawling ‘burbs you’re really asking others to subsidize your decision to move farther out to have your precious house.
The reality is, once towns grow to be cities, it makes less and less sense for the masses to live in SF houses. Most people can’t afford it but we’ve been masking that with huge road subsidies and the sale of new greenfield lands to fund the losses.
It’s not sustainable (in any way) and we should really be recognizing that by now.
It also depends on who commutes (i.e. family of 4 – do both parents commute, or just one?). Can the kids walk to school in the suburbs?
Most suburbanites don’t leave their communities except maybe for work (i.e. they don’t visit Vancouver for shopping, etc.)
If the extra cost over 25 years is “only” about $300,000, that certainly seems to be worth the difference between a 4 bedroom house in the suburbs and a small condo in the city – at least in terms of quality of life for a family.
It is not just the commuting. Needing to own at least two cars is the real problem especially when the children are driving age and need a car to get anywhere.
Agreed. The majority would much rather have a 2000+ square foot house with a nice yard for the kids to play in, rather than a shoebox in the sky and a needle-strewn park.
Size isn’t everything. Every suburban family I knew over the past 40 years with two or more kids never used the entire yard. What’s more, once the kids hit 12 they went further afield, or later left for uni or work elsewhere. Meanwhile, the yards, like dead storage spaces for cars, just sat there unused but requiring maintenance, and are taxed.
All these families without exception sold out, downsized and moved closer to the amenities, services, transportation alternatives and social networks they didn’t have in the suburbs. Not one of them stayed and aged in the burbs.
Compare that to the overcrowded schools and lack of three bedroom apartments in downtown. And to inner city neighbourhood kids who were born and raised in houses less than 1,800 ft2 in size on postage stamp yards (or in rental condos), and are now grown up with the parents staying on and not willing to give up on walkable neighbourhoods.
Suburbs are not the nirvana they were made out to be a half century ago. They waste an inordinate amount of land and resources. They are heavily subsidized (averaging $10,000 per household in suburban Calgary, according to one study always quoted by the mayor). And thanks to people like Andy Yan, the proof is coming home that “home” can be more costly than average folks know. And that cost doesn’t always manifest itself in money when you account for the wasted value of your time spent away from your family ’cause you’re stuck in traffic … again.
Many factors and the impact / effect probably depends on the particular family.
Likewise, many parents are often away on business trips or have long hours at work, then there’s the “astronaut” families.
Many families make use of their yards with vegetable gardens and fruit trees in their yards, maybe even a swimming pool.
Some people may actually enjoy gardening and take pride in their gardens!!
… and no one is saying that you need to live in the same house forever.
That’s actually one of the “problems” with the west side of Vancouver (maybe not anymore though with skyhigh prices) – all the older folks who refuse to move out to free up the houses for others.
You don’t need a 7,000 ft2 lot a 3 km drive from the nearest supermarket to enjoy gardening. Many of us remain passionate gardeners on ultra-tiny lots within a 10-minute walk of a plethora of food stores. Young kids use the neighbourhood parks as their collective backyard.
In this particular collection of towns land use is everything. Large lots — even in the exurbs — cannot be sustained for more than another generation or two before colliding with the sea, forests, mountains, protected farm land, real estate prices and demographics. We are so far beyond that on the Burrard peninsula, yet the conversation seems stuck on detached homes surrounded by overly generous open space.
Meanwhile the politicos continue to be weak-kneed when it comes to affecting the necessary but highly positive change on this issue, something that is completely within their control. You would think affordable housing would be at the top of their agenda, but opting for teeny tax bumps on speculation and empty homes instead of freeing up tens of km2 of land through rezoning RS districts for un-strata’d attached homes certainly counters their stated motives. They are chicken shits.
This conversation should first acknowledge that large lots with detached homes became obsolete in the Lower Mainland at the beginning of this century. Once fully admitted, then we can finally fire up the creativity to explore ways to accommodate families in the umpteen forms of attached single-family homes that occupy a lot less land.
Where are the seminars and public workshops on the ‘missing middle’ in housing and zoning?
“In Coquitlam, the percentage of home valued over $1 million goes from 22.4 per cent to 97 per cent if you account for estimated amortized transportation costs. ”
That is true, but instead of adding transportation costs, you could just wait a year. Per MLS there are 250 houses currently for sale in Coquitlam, of which around 30 are priced under one million dollars.
Yes, always important to add to the cost of purchasing a house the cost of owning one and likely two cars, if transit is not great and work, family or friends not easily connected to through transit.
Also, I think it would be worthwhile for Andy to add to his research what is actually happening in these “single family” districts. As we know, here in Vancouver you can put three homes (two in the house plus a laneway house) on one lot in RS-1 zoned sites. Some RS-1 zoned areas of Vancouver we are seeing three homes being built on a lot or a laneway house added in the backyard. I know in some areas of other lower mainland cities zoned “single family,” many houses have a suite. Many people purchasing a house also have a mortgage helper suite.
Many years ago studying housing policy at UBC with David Hulchanski, he reminded us that households often turn to renting a suite as a way to afford living in a house.
My point here is “single family residential” sales values are not all equal in terms of how many households end up living in the house or those that have an additional home in a laneway infill home.
Thanks for pointing that out. Those of us who have not developed our basement suites feel obligated to do so; that takes lots of money as well. One may be property rich but cash poor.
Plenty of financial options are available to get cash from equity in your home, such as a reverse mortgage or a LOC ( line of credit ). An LOC is usually better as you pay interest only on what you need, and most banks will give you one to at least 50% of property value, and some up to 75%. Interest rate would be prime to prime plus 1%, ie 2.7 to 3.7%. Seniors can also delay provincial property taxes. As such, doing the math you will see it is usually worth borrowing $100,000 to fix the basement at a cost of less than $4000/year to rent it at $1000-$2000/month depending on location, size and quality. Or take a vacation or cruise, on the house !
Good point.
One friend lives next to a new-build house off Main Street in South Vancouver and the new house has 2 basement suites and a laneway house (in addition to the principal residence).
Ironically the first thing that struck me about that map is how the ALR is forcing sprawl by taking up souch land close to employment centres. Andy Yan does great work and should be commended for actually finding stars while all levels of government whistled and looked the other way on the housting market. However in this case there seems to be a subtle spin that if only suburbanites knew the cost of commuting they would make another choice. Everyone I know is well aware of the cost and tradeoffs but has no regrets.
Huh? ALR close to employment centres? Could you point out where please?
What I see is the ALR containing development – as it should. This should discourage people from travelling unnecessarily by helping keep housing, jobs and services concentrated. The pattern you see in Richmond and south of the Fraser is much closer to what you see in Europe: clusters of towns and villages rather than the endless, mindless, monotony of sprawl. There are still too many loopholes and exceptions but this map shows that the ALR has been working.
This pattern also fits better with public transit by allowing more frequent service in a smaller, denser zone and express service skipping from town to town. I might also lead to more unique expressions of urbanism in each place making them more interesting to visit rather than one mall looking just like the last one.
“It” might also…
Why move here from Europe if Europe is so perfect ?
Many people prefer a nice house with a yard ( and an associated car or three as you see all over Canada incl the Lower Mainland) to a small apartment on the fifth floor with no elevator for the same price. That is why so many moved here. Or for more land so they can buy a farm. For space and less congestion. Or more business opportunities. Or less bureaucracy.
Of course, as Canada is growing up and becoming more like Europe the issues become the same. High taxes. Excessive bureaucracy. Overpaid and far too many civil servants. Social welfare systems being exploited due to hammock conditions, crowds, road tolls, traffic jams, more regulations, petty policies, high prices ..
But indeed congested places are usually better organized in Europe as they have centuries of experience and in Canada maybe 20-30 years only.
Do we want to become like Europe here ? What can we learn from their mistakes ?
The biggest mistake Europe has made was to copy North America with freeways and sprawl. Luckily for them they realized the mistake much faster than we did.
If you’re paying attention, Thomas, you will see that cities are growing (that is – more people moving to them) even though they are getting denser with less space, more apartments, more congestion, fewer houses and more bureaucracy. Suburbs are quickly urbanizing with all of those same characteristics.
Are people flocking to small towns where you can still have all the things you’re so convinced everyone wants?
Maybe the up-sides of cities with all their tight spaces still beats “the American Dream”. Maybe more people recognize that it really was just a dream – not something that had any sustainable basis in reality.
As stated elsewhere, sprawl is a loaded biased word. The average Punjabi immigrant to Surrey, for example, with a multi-generational family of 12-15 people in a 6000 sq ft house and a quadruple garage would think of that property as heaven or success. The average IT yuppie might be happier with a 500 sq ft condo in Yaletown with no car and only a bike. Others aspire for a modest TH with walkability and a SkyTrain nearby yet a car to use on weekends to go skiing or biking on the North Shore. Most middle income folks still prefer a house over a condo if they can afford it and if commute is not too bad. That is what MetroVan offers and that is why it is attractive to so many. To call this “sprawl” bad or “bad dream” is somewhat condescending is it not ? Would the Punjabi immigrant family be truly happier in a 5 BR condo downtown or in a cluster of 6 story buildings in Surrey ? I doubt it very VERY much ! Most would prefer a big house.
Of course we all know that going forward to accommodate another 1M people in the same area will not work with the same model that used to work.
Europe had the advantage of being dense 200+ years ago as there was no car, not even a train, just a horse for the affluent to travel afar or a ship. The rest walked. When the car was invented and available at reasonable prices, ca 100 years ago, the world changed. That certainly benefited Canada and the US. Hence the mass immigration, initially from Europe, then from other parts of the world. The attitudes to housing haven;t changed all that much, just the prices, of course. That is why you see quite a few folks leaving Lower Mainland now moving to places like Nanaimo, Kelowna, Kamloops, Vernon, Sunshine Coast, Pemberton, Squamish etc where land is cheaper and the dream can continue (for them anyway). Mid-rises or high-rises are not for everyone.
A big city like Metrovan has to offer ALL options, not just dense ones. Of course we should discuss pricing of roads, sewer lines or water lines to afar places as some of it is indeed mispriced. But guess what, even with an Oregon style per km charge in MetroVan many folks will still opt to drive, and be happy to pay as the road will be emptier and flow better. Today we pay in time, yet many refer to pay with money and save time. MANY ! Far more than even conservative politicians wish to acknowledge, the latest one being the Ontario conservative leader poopooing Toronto’s Mayor’s very sensible road toll proposal.
Roy asks about centres of employment. Well, YVR employs over 23,000. As we know, a massive amount of them travel to work by private vehicle because they work outside transit hours of operation. A very large number also live in Delta and Surrey, beyond the ALR, so they travel by private vehicle along the 99 and particularly the 91. All of them looking forward to the new bridge.
Another centre of large employment is UBC, to the west of another chunk of ALR. 15,000 employees.
Europe seems to be bouncing back from its car-oriented mistakes. Note that Paris and London alone have recently invested $US55+ billion in transit between them, including their exburbs. Add up all the commitments to other urban and regional transit and intercity high-speed rail and you have probably exceeded a quarter of a trillion.
Note also that London, Paris or any other large Euro city do not have 4,000 ft2 lots with detached homes (aka the Vancouver standard lot), at least not priced less than a palace deigned for royalty.
Yup, Vancouver house prices indeed are not inflated compared to Paris, London etc .. and that is what foreign buyers seem to have realized, too, and thus bought in large quantities the last 2 decades.
London built its first subway 150+ years ago due to road congestion from all the horse carriages. France had had road tolls for a few decades. UK on the other hand has very few if any.
Densification in Vancouver will help, as will subways or LRTs. Plenty of high end row housing or luxury 3-5 story buildings in London or Paris.
Eric, I asked Bob to point out where he claims the ALR is isolating residents from employment centres. He has not done so because it is a false statement and your comments do not address the point.
YVR is not isolated by the ALR but by it’s own inherent limitations.
UBC is not isolated by the ALR but by a large park.
Residents of Surrey and Delta are not isolated from employment centres by the ALR either. Each “town” within those municipalities has employment within their built up zone and there should be no need to commute through rural farmland to another town or city. There is certainly work to do to get a better balance of jobs to residents. But you won’t achieve that by making it easier to sprawl.
Many businesses need a critical mass of supporting and even competing businesses to be most successful. Containing development by setting clear boundaries benefits everyone except suburban style developers and those who are determined to live in a house at all cost. Sprawl is costly for everyone, and those who live far and commute don’t pay the full cost. If they did we’d see a lot less of it.
Those who think we should just keep on gobbling up the entire valley with houses and shopping malls never have an answer to, “and then?” They don’t do future. They’re the same ones who don’t understand climate change. It’s a mental disability.
Roy, If you were to look at a map of the ALR you would see that there are 2 ALR sections on Sea Island in Richmond, where the airport is located. East and south of the airport in Richmond are ALR lands too. In fact, the majority of Richmond is ALR land.
To the south east of UBC is another ALR area which is about the same size as the entire downtown Vancouver peninsula, if we exclude Stanley Park.
In the near future we cannot expect that another international airport will be built in Surrey or Delta. UBC is growing rather than shrinking. Therefore, people will need to take personal vehicles to both these locations, unless some administration comes along and forces people to live in a place they haven’t chosen for themselves.
There seems to be a small group of enthusiasts in Vancouver that want to make the central city into a gated no-car city, just like those retirement communities in Arizona.
I’m not sure your dream will come true any time soon.
If you say so Erin.
Eric, you’re morphing your metaphors again. Gated transit communities? That’s pretty comical.
Ron correctly points out that the ALR helps control and direct growth. That is still only a powerful side effect of its primary function of preserving the highest quality food-producing soils, and it is based on science first and foremost, not on urban planning.
We all know what you think about science, but your feelings don’t change a thing.
The planning part starts only where the science leaves off, and is realized through a large set of collective public consultations throughout the Metro over the decades, and that has resulted in many regional and local bylaws to protect the Green Zone over the last generation, all built on the original ALR provincial policy of the early 70s.
Harp all you want in blogs against the ALR, but to change it you’ll have to obtain official agreement to drill through all the legal, planning and scientific layers over multiple jurisdictions. Moreover, public support to get rid of the ALR is just not there given the fact it has survived relatively intact for decades. I guess that’s why the BC Libs (and the Socreds before them) haven’t really gone at it, though they obviously have been ideologically opposed to it for a half century and have nibbled away at the edges at every opportunity.
Have another look at your map of the ALR. Note where the greatest population and job densities are. You will see that cities have directed growth into town centres since the ALR was formed. Growth along previously developed corridors and downtown were excepted. Now take Ron’s comment about the future and apply it to the low density sprawl you and Thomas so love. My bet is the math will show that we will arrive at total build out to Chilliwack by 2025. Then what? Level the mountains and fill in English Bay?
@Ron van der Eden, I hadn’t replied yet because a) I have a life and b) it should be obvious. As Eric ably pointed out, the ALR in Richmond sucks up valuable housing land adjacent to YVR and very close to Metro’s other two big employment centres: UBC and downtown. Richmond is closer to all three than Surrey, Coquitlam, Langley etc etc. All so we can be cranberry supplier to the world?!
Can someone explain why Southlands, eight next to UBC, is in the ALR? Is it a vital food source or a handy place for the 1% to stash their horses and play golf!
Well Bob, it isn’t obvious as anybody who looks at the ALR maps can see. Your comments lacked any basis in fact and Eric’s (or Aaron’s or Derrick’s or whatever we should call him) lack the same. There is no ALR land on Sea Island and what is in Richmond does not isolate anybody in Richmonf from the employment areas in Richmond.
If you have to commute through agricultural land it’s more than likely that you have to commute too far. Stop doing that to yourself and you’ll have a lot more time to have a life.
Ron, there is indeed ALR on Sea island, check the ALR’s website. If you can’t see how all the land on Lulu Island locked up in the ALR is preventing affordable housing then you are truly blinkered by ideology. If you are so rabidly against commuting through ALR lands, do you suggest the entire Metro population squeeze into the City of Vancouver, Burnaby and the North Shore?
I notice you conveniently glossed over my question about the politics and sanity of having Southlands in the ALR.
Here Ron, this might help you arrive at the right answer:
http://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dmf-viewer/?siteid=7180127263339106301
Just zoom in.
Bob, do you volunteer to live beside an airport runway downwind of the Iona sewage treatment plant? No? Who would want to live there? It’s not suitable whether it’s in the ALR or not.
(Another ALR map failed to show this area on Sea Island but it’s moot anyway.)
Your point was that the ALR isolates people from jobs. I contend it does not. People isolate themselves from jobs by choosing long commutes. You continue to miss my point. There is plenty of sizable regions in the valley that are not ALR so people can build functional self-sufficient communities with jobs and services so they don’t have to travel to Vancouver for work.
Southlands is a red herring. Whether it’s a wise designation is a whole other story that has nothing to do with your original point.It does not isolate people from jobs.
Roy, you seem to be insisting that everyone that works at the airport, all 23,000 of them, plus all the people that work on airliners that land and take off from the airport (the pilots, engineers and cabin crews) should also live in west Richmond too.
What if some of these people have husbands, wives or other family members that perhaps teach or are nurses in Surrey or Delta or Burnaby or even Vancouver. Should they all move to, well, to where exactly, based on your dictums? I know people that fly for a living and live by Tsawwassen in Centennial Beach, their spouse works in health care in Delta. Under your rules they might have to move. To where?
Perhaps you think only one member of a household should work and the household should live near that work. Justin Trudeau might then tell you that no, it’s 2016. Maybe the husband is a doctor at the Richmond Hospital and the wife is a truck driver and operates from a base in Burnaby. Would you seriously demand they split up?
As you can see, your proposition is a bit ridiculous, with all due respect.
Since you are having trouble with the maps I’ve found it for you, here:
http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/assets/alc/assets/alr-and-maps/maps-and-gis/alr-maps/metro-vancouver/92g/alr_map_92g_025.pdf
You’ll need Adobe Reader. At the bottom the green area is the ALR. It’s also marked Sea Island, so you know we are next to the airport. This section is starts about 3 km to the east of the Iona Plant, it then is shown to the west along some very valuable waterfront property. This map also shows a substantial section of the Southlands ALR. Southlands ALR is not a red herring it’s very nice and quite bucolic but it’s a bona fide barrier to compact dense living in south Vancouver. Of course, this is reserved for wealthy horse owners and the golf clubs, so the plebs have to live out in the burbs. Many of them on the other side of where the new Massey Bridge crossing is being built.
Erin, you’re too funny! You think turning “bucolic southlands” into dense urban living (which you seem to despise) is going to make a difference in our region’s development because… why? I have no dictums, Aaron, But your absurd thinking taken to its logical conclusion is that we should all live in one sprawling but uninterrupted blot of a megalopolis centred around Toronto.
Derrick, think about it. What if somebody works in a downtown Toronto law firm but their spouse works in a hospital in Calgary? Makes zero sense. Look at how long a commute that would be. We should just eliminate all that useless space in between everything and live in one giant suburb where everyone can live and work everywhere without having to cross land not used for suburban purposes.
I’m sure this would require many many 40 lane bridges but so what? Ontario is a big place. We could sprawl and sprawl and sprawl to you heart’s content. Wouldn’t it be great? a city of 35 million people that all your family members could regularly drive across unimpeded by such mundane and useless things like places to grow food.
Darren, I hope you can see the absurdity in your thinking. But alas, Erika, I’m not holding my breath.
Eric and Bob, why don’t you run with your assumption that the ALR is limitless and run the numbers on developing the hell out of it with “affordable” sprawl? Let’s see you do the same math several generations of planners and scientists have already done. Tell us when you’ll hit the mountain walls at Hope with your precious 7,000 ft2 lots with 3,500 ft2 detached houses with beautiful garage door architecture and the economic contribution of 100-acre transitless malls.
Prove that you are right and the planners and scientists are wrong. Prove that you can take responsibility for your opinions, that you are not ill-informed and stand apart only on your hubris.
C’mon, lads, go for it. Show us your number crunching abilities, your zoning and land use plans, your 10-lane bridge and 21-lane freeway road maps to nirvana.
“The 2011 regional trip diary was the primary source for the transportation cost data. TransLink undertakes a regional trip diary survey of randomized households every 4-5 years to obtain information on 24-hour weekday travel. The study area comprises the Lower Mainland, from Lions Bay to Hope. …”
Mmmm. Funny to see the town of Hope mentioned in the study and by the commenter. I suppose that if we include all those commuting from Kamloops then the cost of transportation will jump up even higher.
This studies business is a damn good earner. I bet it’s bigger than dentistry.
The assumption of this guy’s exercise is malformed. It assumes you drive away from the core for a home, then keep driving back & forth from core to home. The reality is that this region of 2.8 million has many centres of liveability, education, entertainment & employment. E.g., live in Delta, work in Surrey. Live in New West, work in Richmond, shop & dine in Burnaby. And, the best natural recreation areas are far from the core. Many people live rich lives without having to deal with the core, and some of it’s profoundly negative features; exorbitant costs of space causing cramped living, noise, crime, etc.
And your comment is well-informed?
I’d say your observation merely replicates the intent of the Livable Regions Strategic Plan of some 20 years back. You will note that there are seven regional town centres connected by rapid transit (with the great exception of Broadway), and that the numbers of people living, working and transiting between them far exceed the dispersed demographics of the burbs.
Moreover, the vehicle km travelled (as well as ownership) are well documented, suburbs vs city. One is a lot higher than the other, and there are associated costs not always accounted for. Yan documents this trend. Will you provide documentation of your assumptions that dismiss his work?
I’ve owned my car, bought new, for cash, almost 24 years, so the 25 year average cost of transportation given above is a shocker. The car, a bare bones manual wagon cost about 13K. The biggest expense in keeping it on the road has been insurance – almost twice that amount – a rip-off for someone that uses it as sparingly as possible. It has just over 150K on it. Our family of four mostly walks or cycles. We do not use public transit even though Skytrain is just a five minute walk.
Repairs and maintenance of the vehicle this year was zero. Last year it was zero as well. Maybe next year I’ll change the oil and filter. Using synthetic and the quality filter that have been sitting in the garage a couple of years, that’ll cost under $50.00. More than 25 years ago I read a book called: Drive it Forever, by Robert Sikorski. It should be required reading to get a driver’s license.
The vehicle has had repairs over the years, but well under $5K, and that includes two windshields. People drive like idiots and wonder why their cars keep breaking down. If they drove like cyclists – gauging lights and flowing instead of jackrabbiting, they wouldn’t have a stack of repair bills. The original tires lasted 120K. Their replacements were bought used for $100.00.
There are enough vehicles on the roads and parked – mostly parked – that we need not manufacture another one for 50 years. Look at Cuba.
If you can’t afford to buy a vehicle for cash, and have a substantial pile left over, you shouldn’t buy. And buying used is a very bad idea. Take the bus; ride a bike; do car share. If you’re still keen to become a car slave when you’ve saved your boodle, buy a base vehicle with a good reputation. It’s extraordinary how aroused people get over a depreciating asset. They’ll buy a new car for $60K instead of something perfectly good for $20K – like a Mazda 3 wagon.
Be the change you want to see. If everyone bought and drove the way I do, the motor industry would shrivel; insurance would be peanuts; collision shops would scarcely exist. That would be a good thing.
Something the hippies in the ’60s and ’70s were into were Volkswagens. The main reason being the ability to fix it themselves therefore they were less dependent on the system.
For any product, if you buy something that’s repairable it will be cheaper in the long run. (Of course some people want a new thing every few years. It’s their money and none of my business.)
I guess in Andy Yan’s world every house has two new cars every couple of years and they commute every day from deep burbia, then go to Whistler every weekend.
This study gives no references.
Is this what they call fake news?
The article refers to the BC Assessment Authority and to standard transportation data regarding costs. The latter obviously relates to the Metro Vancouver Transportation Cost Burden study (2015), though the Sun article neglected go mention it. Ten seconds on Google brought up the link:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiA2orYk5rRAhVE-mMKHUWOAa4QFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.metrovancouver.org%2Fservices%2Fregional-planning%2FPlanningPublications%2FHousingAndTransportCostBurdenReport2015.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGcDTIWOEB7QPoCyw0Ifl9Ma4kajg&sig2=GSP_oCDX16–aHbAnzVQog&bvm=bv.142059868,d.cGc
OK. So this was another study using the TransLink trip diary, where they give free tickets to the PNE and Playland to those that agree to participate. I guess that’s why the representation from the westside of Vancouver is around half of that from the east-side.
What the study shows and what it might not want to brag about is that drivers are severely punished with high gasoline and other costs, so that transit can be heavily subsidized.
In a world of equality the costs would be evened out.
The citizens that cannot use the subsidized transit system might not always feel generous and inclined to pay more, just to get around. This is something all politicians need to keep in mind.
You have mentioned several times this snippet about west side response rates. You seem to be suggesting that the data is not representative. Refer to the methodology:
“To ensure the dataset from the 2011 Regional Trip Diary Survey was an accurate reflection of residents’ behaviour, it was necessary to ensure that the sample of households and residents that responded to the survey (referred to herein as the sample) were reflective of the actual population on key criteria. The standard practice with research studies is to apply mathematical weights to bring the dataset in line with actual population and demographic figures. Using information from the 2011 Census and an analysis of the Trip Diary, weights were applied based on:
• The number of households in each sample sub-area1;
• Household size distribution by sub-area;
• Age and gender distribution by sub-area.”
So, maybe not fake news but rather fake controversy.
That snip proves nothing and we all know it. Residents on the west side of Vancouver, similar to those getting points-for-cash in InSights West’s polls, are not enticed with tickets to the PNE for keeping a diary of their travels.
A quick glance at the percentage of residents compared to the overall area, then a percentage of the respondents, clearly shows that the overwhelming weight of the respondents was on the east side.
Furthermore, drivers using their vehicles for commercial business were excluded. This includes a substantial proportion of road users, everyone from a probation officer to a doctor or a window cleaner, etc., etc. This glaring omission was not published in the findings and therefore renders them selective, at best.
Fake news? Well, as Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
“OK. So this was another study using the TransLink trip diary, where they give free tickets to the PNE and Playland to those that agree to participate.”
OK, so it appears you haven’t actually read the relevant survey methodology report. Always a good idea, if you are going to repeatedly criticize studies and reports, to actually read them first. That way readers can decide if you should be taken seriously or not.
http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/customer_info/translink_listens/customer_surveys/trip_diaries/2011_Metro_Vancouver_Regional_Trip_Diary_Methodological_Report_December%202012.pdf
Eric doesn’t appear to want to review the methodology, linked above. For those that do, the link has a 122 page report on methodology. Note that PNE tickets aren’t mentioned, it was something else. Anybody on the west side ever visit Starbucks? Note also that because the CoV contributed, sub areas within the City were over sampled. And then west side sub areas even beat that target, by up to 12%, before the data was normalized to match populations.
Perhaps instead of trying to clumsily dismiss the data, we could discuss the findings.
If you have any references to any research that disproves transportation costs are higher the farther out you live and the greater car dependency you experience, then please show it.
Meanwhile, here’s a link to a site that expounds on transportation planning and informatively looks at Jeff Kenworthy’s work. Kenworthy and Peter Neuman have written extensively on transportation, and produced works like ‘The Ten Myths of Car Dependency.’ That’s worth looking up.
Of particular interest is the table a few paragraphs down that neatly compares the “Incremental” status quo car-dominated approach to urban planning to the “Urban Systems” approach that focuses on the advantages on transit and compact development.
Very illuminating and totally relative to this discussion.
http://davidpritchard.org/sustrans/NewKen99/
Better keep that one hidden too. It shows that car travel is twice as fast as bus and that only 6.5% of travel in Vancouver is by transit. 95% by other modes.
But no, I don’t doubt that vehicle travel is more expensive because TransLink proudly states that transit is heavily subsidized and cheap.
Again, the important point is for politicians to be cognizant that the majority, the drivers, are paying part of the cost of the transit system and if the politicians want to be re-elected the voters need to be comfortable with that.