The disappearing gas station is something that has attracted my attention for years. You see the signs of their former selves all over the city, sometimes sitting unused for many years because of the remediation needed (Broadway/Guelph, for example), sometimes instantly snapped up for development (Main/25th).
So of course, I jumped like a rabbit when the Chevron people sent out a little notice saying they are putting three sites up for sale, including the ever-popular Georgia/Bidwell one. My story here.
I’m thinking if enough of them disappear, it will help spur the move to electric cars. I resisted electric in my last purchase two years ago because I was worried that, given my chaotic life, I’d be driven mad trying to find charging stations while I was running to my usual seven appointments a day.
But if gas pumps become just as difficult to find, well, might as well switch.
34 responses so far ↓
1 penguinstorm // Aug 25, 2016 at 11:04 pm
Clearly these need to be given a heritage designation and maintained for future generations. It worked for the Bowmac sign.
2 Norman12 // Aug 27, 2016 at 9:35 am
Good luck driving just about anywhere outside the city.
3 A Taxpayer // Aug 28, 2016 at 1:37 pm
Vancouver will not need any gas stations if the City succeeds in its quest to rid the streets of the demon automobile. One cannot help but contrast the transportation policy of Vancouver which promotes the use of an early 19th century invention, the bicycle, with Singapore which is currently street testing leading edge 21st century technology, a self-driving taxi, which has the potential to significantly reduce the number of vehicles on the road without reducing consumer convenience. (Not surprising since the City also favours a technology that is 1,500 years old, the windmill, to supply society’s energy needs over that of fossil fuels, a proven inexpensive source of energy that has helped to lift millions out of abject poverty) Another example illustrating the difference between a transportation policy that puts Green ideology considerations above all others with that of a transportation policy that is about moving people efficiently from point A to point B.
4 Everyman // Aug 31, 2016 at 5:14 pm
Fortunately the now bursting real estate bubble is likely to put the kibosh on this sale, along with a host of other “get out now” listings, like Cadillac Fairview’s attempt to unload Richmond Centre. Timing is everything when a bubble bursts. Looks like the thousands of West End car owners will have a local station for a while longer.
5 francesbula // Aug 31, 2016 at 6:40 pm
I dunno. I heard Bosa sold 104 of their 120 condos at their new project on Georgia last weekend. Maybe things aren’t quite as they seem.
6 Everyman // Sep 1, 2016 at 12:23 pm
According to Bosa. I say let’s see firm contracts.
7 Kenji // Sep 6, 2016 at 3:34 pm
Singapore’s self driving taxis are electric vehicles, actually.
8 A Taxpayer // Sep 7, 2016 at 3:20 pm
And your point is? I have no problem if the gas stations disappear because consumers prefer electric cars, self driving or not, if it improves the ability to move about the city. It is the fact that, unlike Singapore, the actions of the COV are ideologically motivated and not directed to efficient transportation that consumers want. Similarly, I am not in favour of solar and wind generated energy because it costs more, it is unreliable (so you must have alternative sources for when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining) and the wind turbines chop up a lot of birds and bats. The proponents of these sources of energy only have their green ideology to justify these uneconomic sources of energy.
9 spartikus // Sep 8, 2016 at 9:47 am
I’m sorry, please walk us through how the CoV’s “ideological actions” led Chevron to sell it’s downtown gas stations?
10 A Taxpayer // Sep 8, 2016 at 11:21 am
I did not suggest that Chevron was leaving downtown Vancouver because of the direction the COV is taking on cars, only that they would not be needed if the City’s anti-car policies were successful. My response to Kenji is to clarify that I am not ideologically pro fossil fuels but rather pro transportation policies, like Singapore’s, that are motivated by getting people moving and not some arbitrary goal of the Greenest city in the world. Singapore recognizes that the automobile is the most convenient form of transportation that consumers want and are willing to pay for while at the same time developing a first class transit system. This is also evident in the case of car sharing in Vancouver – unlike bicycle share and transit, it is funded by the users.
I do not take issue with developing and investing in either transit or even bicycle sharing. I do believe the City is wrong to encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation by taking action to make the car less attractive. A more far sighted approach to reducing congestion would be to reduce the number of private vehicles by increasing the number of taxis, encourage the introduction of Uber and plan for the day of self-driving cars.
11 Kenji // Sep 8, 2016 at 12:18 pm
The point was that Singapore is not a very good example of a city that stands in contrast to hippie, green-washed morons on Cambie who are, unlike yourself, unconvinced about the unlimited supply and inherent desirability of dinosaur grease as transit fuel.
Solar is uneconomic until it isn’t, just as dinosaur burners replaced then-disadvantageous steam and electric vehicles, and as the telegraph replaced horse and rider.
12 spartikus // Sep 8, 2016 at 1:15 pm
I don’t know what Singapore you’re talking about, but the one at the tip of Malaysia actively works to constrain the car in favour of other transport options.
http://www.slideshare.net/PaulBarter/barter-for-ipt-forum-3-sept-2013
13 spartikus // Sep 8, 2016 at 1:23 pm
Also, Google: “Singapore” + “Vehicle Quota System.”
To claim the City of Vancouver is attempting anything even close to the restrictions Singapore has placed on the automobile is delusional.
14 Chris Keam // Sep 9, 2016 at 8:23 am
Don’t forget to mention the billions of public money Singapore gives to private bus companies so Taxpayer can ignore that inconvenient reality too!
15 A Taxpayer // Sep 9, 2016 at 9:16 am
Of course governments must manage demand if it outstrips the ability to supply any public good or service. With the limitations of their geography, Singapore has had to implement policies to manage the demand for road space. So how is this any different than Vancouver?
Singapore manages demand to reduce congestion and has been relatively successful with traffic moving efficiently. Vancouver takes actions, like converting roadways to bicycle lanes, which increases congestion in an effort to reduce demand. Further, they take no action to make a better use of the existing roadways by increasing the number of taxis or encouraging Uber.
Another example of the difference in approach is that
Singapore uses road pricing as a tool to reduce congestion setting rates to achieve the desired road utilization. Metro Vancouver looks to road pricing as a means to generate revenue so the rates will be set to maximize revenue and not minimize congestion. If you want drivers to buy into paying more, then you better start showing them the benefits.
As the City Manager was quoted in the Vancouver Sun:
“Listen to this, sitting here,” Johnston said, as cars and trucks zipped past along busy nearby Cambie Street. “It’s a constant part of our consciousness, the fossil fuels that are being burned in our city. … Imagine living in this city, sitting in this spot, without all that noise.”
Clearly the objective is Green first, efficient transportation second.
16 spartikus // Sep 9, 2016 at 9:32 am
Clearly the objective is Green first, efficient transportation second.
But you just claimed in the previous paragraph that Metro Vancouver’s (a different entity than the CoV btw) goal with road pricing (something not implemented) was revenue.
In summary, Singapore, amongst other things:
1. Requires you to justify to the government your need for a car before being issued a permit to purchase one.
2. Has road congestion pricing.
3. Directs substantial funds to public transit.
vs.
The CoV…
1. Re-allocating a small fraction of the total road network to separated bike lanes. Something which the data, contrary to your claim, shows has not “increased congestion” substantially, or in some cases, at all.
Got it!
17 A Taxpayer // Sep 9, 2016 at 11:34 am
Let’s see now. We shovel millions of dollars into Translink and get fiascoes like the Compass Card and Singapore has a world class transit system. So which do you think is the better outcome?
It is the same “progressive” thinking that results in Canada spending on health care ranking in the top 5 yet only ranks around 30th when health outcomes are measured yet progressives are fighting tooth and nail to preserve a system that you will only find in North Korea and Cuba. Whatever the issue, for progressives it is always ideology first, outcomes second.
18 Chris Keam // Sep 9, 2016 at 12:21 pm
Don’t run away from Singapore so fast. You like the system. Be specific, which features of their transportation program meet with your approval?
Singapore’s system is ‘world class’ (isn’t this ridiculous expression played out yet?) because they pump billions into their system. With that kind of money and Singapore’s high costs of car ownership and big investments in buses this region’s transportation system would be quite a sight as well. Again, which specific aspects of Singapore’s transit are you suggesting we adopt here?
(the idiotic labelling of people as Progressives or whatever strikes me as a highly ideological position)
19 A Taxpayer // Sep 9, 2016 at 1:27 pm
You did not supply a reference to your claim but in any event I don’t think many people who drive regularly in the downtown core are going to buy that congestion has not increased substantially since the introduction of the segregated bicycle lanes. It is not possible to screw up key streets like Dunsmuir and Hornby without there being a significant impact on traffic.
And I suspect that even fewer would challenge that this is exactly the outcome the City wants.
20 A Taxpayer // Sep 9, 2016 at 1:33 pm
We have a different geography and demographics so our solutions will likely be different but we should start with the same mind set which is to find ways that moves all people efficiently.
As for labeling, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck……..
21 Chris Keam // Sep 9, 2016 at 1:49 pm
S0, we should or shouldn’t look to Singapore for solutions? Which specifics of geography or demographics have precipitated your move away from heralding Singapore as the answer to effective transportation systems just a few comments upthread?
22 A Taxpayer // Sep 10, 2016 at 3:09 pm
Please explain how investing in an energy source where you cannot guarantee power when you need it and which costs more than alternative reliable sources is at all an advancement like the other innovations you listed? (Ontario has made an even worse deal where not only is there no surety in sourcing the energy when needed, they must purchase the power even if they don’t need it and sell it on at a loss). The renewable energy boondoggle has cost consumers billions of dollars world wide all because of Green ideology.
23 Kenji // Sep 11, 2016 at 11:06 am
It’s not ideology that petroleum is finite, has a myriad of applications in medicine, agriculture, plastics etc that make it a waste to burn as fuel, and that burning it makes toxic smoke. There’s a reason you wouldn’t suck on a tailpipe (and by you, I mean someone who isn’t totally ignorant).
It is also true that the sun will eventually burn out, in about 3 billion years, but for practical purposes it will continue to put out usable amounts of radiation until humanity exterminates itself.
The problem is not sourcing free energy, it is collecting it. Batteries are not efficient yet. Microwave beaming is line-of-sight and theoretical.
Elon Musk is pitching the idea that his electric car is not only running on energy, it is part of the grid. I’m sure that there are other ideas about this and more to come.
If the oil companies were smart, which they aren’t, they’d understand that they are not in the gas biz, they are in the people energy biz and that their infrastructure and the culture are already set up for them to refuel the consumer.
There’s no need for you to fret about losing your car. You won’t. Ot will just have a different energy source. It makes no difference it is liquid dinosaur or a stream of electrons.
24 A Taxpayer // Sep 11, 2016 at 2:24 pm
This is a good argument as to why we should invest in research into alternative energy sources (although I think thorium powered nuclear energy would be a better bet) but says nothing about why we should be adopting solar now when it is unreliable and expensive. In fact, you have carefully avoided commenting on or even acknowledging how badly countries (and Ontario especially) have harmed their economies by relying on expensive and unreliable renewable energy sources, all because of a Green imperative. If we spend more money on producing energy, consumers will have less to spend on other things and our manufacturers will be even less competitive.
25 Chris Keam // Sep 11, 2016 at 9:21 pm
The Sun is unreliable? My friend Annie tells me it’ll come up tomorrow. Further, she assures me I can bet my bottom dollar on it.
“Experts agree: We can significantly ramp up renewable energy without affecting the reliability of our electricity supplies”
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/increase-renewable-energy/fact-renewable-energy-is-reliable#.V9YsT5MrKV4
26 Chris Keam // Sep 11, 2016 at 9:22 pm
Perhaps with great lashings of tax dollars thorium moves beyond vapourware, but it’s hardly a more fiscally responsible choice at this time.
‘Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.’
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium
27 A Taxpayer // Sep 11, 2016 at 10:50 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/12/10/green-power-gridlock-why-renewable-energy-is-no-alternative/#730247776a81
28 A Taxpayer // Sep 11, 2016 at 10:52 pm
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/01/16/thorium-future-nuclear-energy/#.V9ZCYZgrKUk
29 Kenji // Sep 12, 2016 at 2:19 pm
I’ll meet you half way on this (maybe because I was not as far as you might think) which is that of course we have to be competitive and try not to stretch wires at neck level across the places where our business is doing the work that makes the money that funds everything.
My understanding is that the reason we don’t do solar today is not because we don’t know how but because it costs.
That makes it possible, whereas I’ve never heard of powering things with thorium. Thorazine, maybe.
And if it is possible, why don’t we do it? Have you heard of subways and other transportation projects getting cheaper the longer you wait for them?
30 A Taxpayer // Sep 12, 2016 at 3:51 pm
It is not only the cost of solar and wind but the fact you cannot control when the power is generated and there is no way to store the energy.
Thorium is a form of nuclear energy but without some of the negative features (you cannot build nuclear weapons with the by products). It is only a concept now and not commercially viable.
Finally, I am not opposed to developing transit but will never vote in favour of a transit plan until Vancouver ends its policy of purposely impeding vehicle traffic in an effort to force drivers to alternative means of transportation. (and you just might find that drivers are not switching to bicycles but rather driving to places like Park Royal, Oakridge or Metrotown where you don’t have to take out a mortgage to pay for the parking)
31 Chris Keam // Sep 12, 2016 at 6:22 pm
And again we see that your bold pronouncements are poppycock
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/how-energy-storage-works#.V9dUgZMrKEI
32 Chris Keam // Sep 12, 2016 at 8:47 pm
“Ontario’s provincial economy is growing faster than that of Canada, the United States, or any other G7 nation, boasts Premier Kathleen Wynne.”
https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/07/18/wynne-confident-strong-growth-will-help-ontario-eliminate-deficit-in-2017.html
33 peakie // Oct 31, 2016 at 1:08 pm
I see that the Chevron in the Chilliwack (dead mall) Mall south of the Cottonwood Mall has been dismantled.
There are lots of petrol stations in the area, but one said that they are getting rid of the DDF pump, Domestic diesel as few drivers have the VW diesels out there.
34 peakie // Oct 31, 2016 at 1:12 pm
Chevron is also closing their On the Run stores in favour of the shop being a 7-11 with pumps.coff
The entrepreneurs who took up the On the Run franchise are furious.
I would be curious to see how the ones with a Tiny Tim Horton’s stand-up-only coffee shop with doughnuts and sandwiches do. Bridge Street businesses rely on a run to the one at Hastings and Skeena for their fix-and-fill-up.