As part of a long string of comments to this post (Ladner on Uber), Clark Lim, an adjunct prof at UBC in transportation engineering, added some insight reprinted here that otherwise might get missed.
Why do all topics have to end up arguing about auto vs. transit subsidy?
There are so many cross-subsidies (tangible and intangible) between so many aspects of modern society, including between all transport modes, that it is difficult to prove one is subsidized more than another. To say you know the facts, wel,l no one has really done a good job at such a “wicked” analysis.
Consider this: subsidies are like you doing people favours, and vice versa. Over your life time you probably gave a hand to many people and them in return. Try doing the accounting on that to see who helped who more is probably easier than to figure out the impact of subsidies of various modes over lifecycles and across populations that have varying migration and utilization rates by mode.
I find most studies are either biased to one mode or do not do a complete and exhaustive enough analysis. …
And the word “subsidy” doesn’t even do justice to the concept of the interaction between social welfare and economic equity, which also requires a definition of how each individual perceives value. To really consider this honestly and thoroughly is like opening up Pandora’s Box as you are going down the rabbit hole. I commend those who try with an objective and sincere approach.
Now going back on topic, it is about how technology is affecting human transport. And yes, we do have flying cars by now, in fact a while now. But technical feasibility is the easy part. It’s regulatory, legal, economic, and social feasibility that is and will be the difficult part from now on.
In the past, technology was the hard part (i.e. hundreds of years ago) and what we take for granted, like a TV remote, would be considered magic then. Now technology is becoming ubiquitous and cheap. Did you check how much 1 GB of memory costs these days? We don’t even talk about memory in GBs anymore; it’s now TBs. And that TV remote, when the buttons are gummed up, you just exchanged it for a new one from the Shaw booth at the local mall – so it’s basically free.
Or am I subsidizing everyone’s new remote?
Clark has said some remarkably foolish things about cars in the past. Not sure this is any different: http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/metro-vancouvers-traffic-tension-is-the-car-king-or-kaput
Firstly, not sure how my comments became a post (or a target) but, um, I guess I should say thanks, Gord??
Corey, yes I have said many remarkably foolish things in the past and you can wait in line…the long one that starts with my wife. I believe you are the Corey Burger that works at the CRD so I should first thank you for providing the GIS data for my assignment in developing the CRD’s evolutionary governance model a few years back. There are more “foolish things” in that report that deal with a more comprehensive and holistic planning process in which an evidence-based data to decisions approach is recommended–as data (i.e big data) will be the fuel to more equitable decisions, and infrastructure/service distribution and usage (however I believe we cannot not just let the data take over but need to inject principles of social justice, while we’re still mostly human). If you did not get a chance to read it, I can send you the link.
I’m not sure how my comments regarding subsidy complexities have to do with that Vancouver Sun article which was based on 3 hrs of conversation mainly on technology. And of course only the quick zingers were published, otherwise it would read like one of my walls-of-text blog comment/lectures. But I stand by my observations nevertheless and the writer did a good job pulling things out from about a dozen disparate topics.
If you can enlighten me as to the specifics of foolishness, maybe I can clarify or provide context.
I used to work for the CRD, now work for a private company. I stand by my statement that “Lim says Vancouver “may have over-reacted” by favouring bikes too much.” is a remarkable foolish statement. Vancouver may be spending more than many on bikes, but the reality is that even Vancouver still isn’t a very bike-friendly place and the money spent is still a fraction of what we need to spent on bike (and walking or transit)
Firstly I don’t know what your judgement of my comments from a news article last year has to do with the topic of this post (it seems it is about subsidies), and from such a seemingly random comment I deduce you will take shots at anyone in any opportunity you can when your perceived understanding of the opinion of others counter your opinion. (and good try adding in walking and transit to the argument as you originally made it only about cycling)
Given you are an advocate of cycling, your views are subjective and reflect a silo-mentality. There is nothing wrong with being an advocate (some of the people I respect the most are cycling advocates) but you should honestly know that it is a biased view and therefore your comments and judgements are taken as unbalanced, i.e. one-sided. However if you are suggesting you can think rationally enough to pass such critical judgement, please show me the numbers on your analysis as to how the public bike share is a progressive and effective investment in advocating cycling in this region.
But assuming you wrote this blog post,
http://www.coreyburger.ca/2016/03/further-thoughts-on-bike-score-vs-bike-mode-share/
it may be better you don’t do the analysis as from your conclusion (and self-inflicted confusion) it seems you do not understand the principles of proper balanced and consistent analysis. And if you suggest that yes you do understand because you know the data as you worked on the CRD’s 2011 OD survey, then you made a remarkably foolish post to expose the significant differences between the NHS and R. A. Malatest & Associates’ data, the firm you say you now work for on your blog site.
Given the NHS is conducted by a very well-respected national agency called Statistics Canada with a 25% sample size processed by leading analysts in the field, while the 2011 survey was a 3.5% sample size, you just exposed that Malatest & Associates likely produced a survey based on “bad numbers” as you wrote: “So maybe all of this can be chalked up to bad numbers.”
Therefore you are suggesting that the firm you work for has produced “bad numbers”. That’s what I read into your own published statements. No one quoted you, no one pressed you for it–you published it out of your own volition.. Whereas I was sought out at UBC and quoted without adequate and proper context by a reporter who was learning about the complexities of technology-based transport systems within the span of the interview, you wrote and published your own words under your own blog site.
OD travel surveys are very serious and significant undertakings and are the source of data that is the best indicator of whether a region is sustainable from a transportation perspective. They set the stage for significant, expensive and lengthy planning initiatives and eventually determine if policies are successful and goals achieved. The data is also used to calibrate the region’s travel demand forecasting model. Heck, the calculation of transport subsidies (if I may tap back on topic) depends on such datasets.
If Malatest’s 2011 survey had “bad numbers”, the results of their work is seriously misleading the CRD as they plan the transportation future for over 375,000 residents and expend possibly billions of dollars. You need to do the right thing and warn the CRD of this serious data issue you unearthed. The regions’ sustainability may depend on it.
Now who is the fool? I would suggest you stop these fly-by judgements for your own good. We need not compare resumes or research publications, but I may have contributed more to cycling (and even greater, sustainable transport) in my lifetime than you have, so consider we are on the same team. Happy Easter, and I hope your firm’s survey data can be redeemed.
I’d say Clark has said some remarkably prescient things in that article:
“Lim says Vancouver “may have over-reacted” by favouring bikes too much.
“Some people treat bikes as a religion. They’re evangelizing it,” he says.”
Can I get an Amen!
Can you name me one person who treats bikes as a religion? One!
I dare you.
How has Vancouver over-reacted? Where is the down-side?
So… remarkably foolish statements from yet another “expert”.
Vancouver is hardly a leader in providing for cyclists. This is a global phenomenon that some myopic locals like to think is unique to Vancouver. It allows them to think it odd so they can be critical.
If anything we’re quite timid about providing safe, user-friendly infrastructure for bikes. If only we’d spend on cycling a portion of the transportation budget that is equal to the proportion of cycling trips.
Let me first set the basic principles behind my quotes: it stems from the concept of being “modally agnostic” which is the goal of being objective and allocating every $ in the most effective manner. Being a “religious term”, my view is a segment of the population (not the majority) can be “religious” in terms of promoting their mode and the resulting lifestyle. This has been seen and documented extensively for all technology-based modes: automobile, transit, cycling. Evidence are the various clubs and related websites. I get that you have the extremes that promote certain modes and we all have our interests and hobbies. My observations of these groups finds similarities to religious groups. But there is nothing wrong with that because there is nothing wrong with religion in its purest form (i.e. love, unity, equality, fairness, justice, respect, inclusiveness, etc.). However, it can get ugly when the need to be right starts to cast a shadow over the pure intentions you started out with.
There is a social and democratic need for those that advocate for fairness and equity in specific modes that are not supplied adequately for the demand (typically non-auto modes). They are important and help to “optimize” $’s spent so that they are spent for things needed and things that increase our “sustainability quotient”. However, it isn’t a simple linear function and at some point you get diminishing returns. Yes we need more dollars spent on bicycle infrastructure and programs. However, when you have limited funds, you should try and make the best use of it. Otherwise, ineffective investments (i.e. are you achieving your intended results) could end up with the optics of waste, reducing investments in cycling in the future. Note that decision makers want to invest in winners, not losers.
Going back to the context of the Vancouver Sun quote, I was referring to the public bike share system. It seemed like a great idea when I heard about it, and I was even invited to help with the re-allocation algorithm when you get bikes all bunched up at a few stations that are popular or at the bottom of a hill. This required a flat-bed truck to go around and re-distribute bikes…. Sure you could have financial incentives to help redistribute, but how much of a discount or rebate do you give for the inconvenience of riding to a station (with less bikes) farther away and having to walk it back (defeats the purpose?). I’m not aware of such price-elasticities, but it would be interesting to find out. And then you have the issue with requisite helmets. Followed by quite a lot of material, construction, operations, and maintenance. I can see the value in sharing cars, which has a steep ownership cost- curve. And of course we share transit vehicles. However, how much do bikes cost? I wonder if you would get more cycling by simply buying people bikes for the amount of money the system costed (and costs annually). Maybe buy businesses fold-able bikes to leave in the office for sharing and use to go to meetings. Pairs of shoes can cost more than a bike (so i’ve heard). Should we setup a public shoe share system? I don’t know how effective the current public bike system is, but the one in Seattle recently went bust.
My feeling is the money could have been better spent improving the safety of cycling lanes, as studies conducted by UBC (using computer vision technologies) found numerous safety issues around the world when multi modes are allowed to mix (complete streets are a good idea but safety should be a high priority and monitored for improvements). My view is that safety should always be first, regardless of the agenda.
I am more pro-bike than what you may get from just one quote. I administered the GVRD’s Regional Cycling Committee back in the mid ’90’s, where I managed the production of the region’s first cycling map (I still have an original copy rolled up). Also back then with BCIT’s help, we developed (what is believed to be) the world’s first web-based mapping system to help re-route cyclists with the shortest path and grades as a criteria. It was to be part of an ITS-based advanced traveller information system to promote bikes use, but it was a bit ahead of the invention of smart phones. And i’ve conducted numerous research related to cycling data, my last publication on this very subject. So I hope people do not paint me as anti-cycling as again, i’m more modally agnostic / pro-ecoity.
Not only have I never been a regular public transit user, it doesn’t even occur to me to use it – not part of my DNA. I’d rather walk two hours than take a bus. It’s part claustrophobia; part, the lack of fresh air; part, I don’t know, just weirded out. When you cycle regularly, the idea of taking a bus is nuts.
I wonder if there’s a missing middle here – people that would be more inclined to ride the bus if they were guaranteed a seat – like a tourist bus. Of course it would cost more, but maybe they’d be willing to pay extra, esp. if they were electric. Diesels are nauseating.
The worst, for me, is Seabus. Can’t deal with that at all. Panic. Feel ill just thinking about it, though I haven’t used it in five years. Only did that crossing a handful of times. If I could step outside it would be tolerable.
Most commuters are of the same constitution. According to StatsCan, 74% of workers (11.4M) drive a private car to work and only 5.6% as passengers. It would be worthwhile to dig deeper into what critical jobs these single occupancy drivers are filling. Doubtless, they are easily interchangeable. We need a swap a job location program.
Yes buses are the least common denominator. Everyone with other options will take them: subway, LRT, bike, walk, car or car share. If Uber and the like were more ubiquitous we’d see quite a bit of ride sharing as it provides benefits for the driver who goes anyway and the passenger. The government imposed regs are too stringent on Uber. Far too expensive for an occasional pickup. Phone your mayor and the provincial government to state your view.
“If Uber and the like were more ubiquitous we’d see quite a bit of ride sharing as it provides benefits for the driver who goes anyway and the passenger. ”
You may be unclear on the difference between ride sharing and ride buying I think.
“Uber and Lyft are really new variants on taxi service. They let people use a car they might already own (though Uber is also offering loans to drivers to get new cars), but they are still doing it as a job. If you use such a service, you’re not sharing someone’s car; you’re paying them to give you a ride.”
Fortunately our press agencies are becoming more diligent in their use of the appropriate terminology for describing transport-for-hire services.
https://ggwash.org/view/36979/the-ap-bans-the-term-ride-sharing-for-uber-lyft
Maybe this isn’t the ideal place for it, but it’s perhaps the most relevant among recent posts..
Translink has a horribly misconceived ad campaign to hire bus drivers. They effectively tell transit riders that they are losers. Could someone please ask them to change it?
The ad I saw on Skytrain was for a career as a bus driver. The main text read something like, “Drive your future.”
This is obviously drawing on motordom’s core ideal, that driving a car means freedom, independence and control. There is evidence that this how people feel: car drivers feel more confident, in control, etc. than do even their passengers. Which is not surprising: we are all continuously bombarded with car ads saying exactly that.
This Translink ad activates the mental frame created by the car ads. When people see it, it will remind them that driving will make them feel good. The corollary, of course, is that on transit, you do not drive, you ride; you are not free, independent or in control. (Which is not my personal view, but that’s irrelevant.) They probably won’t think about it consciously, but for riders the subtle message of this ad is: the bus is a loser cruiser.
The vast majority of the people who will see these ads are transit riders with no interest in applying for bus driving jobs. Translink is cutting off their nose to spite their face. It pains me to see it.