1

Policy Evaluation Memo 2 Sustainable Urban Transportation Planning in the City of Vancouver

POL 358 - Dr. Kina Chenard Simon Fraser University - Fall 2012 Dec. 14, 2012

Tracey Garnett Negar Kaveh Madeline Kennedy Gian-Paolo Mendoza

Policy Memo Outline 1. Introduction 2. Background to Sustainable Transportation Theory 3. History of Sustainable Transportation in Vancouver
4.

Policy Framework for Sustainable Urban Transportation Planning in Vancouver

5. Explanation of Research Protocol and Data Collection Methods 6. Discussion of Results 7. Policy Recommendations a. Objective 1: Promoting Non-Automotive Forms of Transportation b. Objective 2: Increasing the Use of Public Transit c. Objective 3: Promote Sustainable Communities and through Land Use Policies 8. Conclusion of Policy Evaluation 9. Appendix a. Interview Questions b. Results Framework

1. Introduction The City of Vancouvers Greenest City 2020 action plan (GC 2020) is a large -scale comprehensive plan declared by the municipal government of Mayor Gregor Robertson in 2011, which aims to better balance the economic, social, and environmental goals of the City. While the action plan encompasses an incredibly wide variety of objectives in numerous sectors of city life, the elements of the plan focusing on urban transportation will be the main focus of this report. This report will present a preliminary qualitative evaluation of the transportation policies that have come from under the GC 2020, discussing the effectiveness of the sustainable transportation aspects of the Action Plan, as well as discussing specific constraints and challenges that the City faces in moving forward with these goals, in light of existing background theory on sustainable transportation and the insights provided through interviews with individuals with expertise on the social and political aspects of urban transportation planning. We will begin by discussing the theoretical background behind the concept of sustainable transportation as well as a brief history of its use in Vancouver. We will then briefly discuss our results framework model for the evaluation and our research protocol, after which we will present a discussion of our results and policy recommendations.

2. Background to Sustainable Transportation Theory Sustainable urban transportation policy is focused on creating functional and livable communities. Sustainability is defined as a balance of economic, social and environmental goals including those that involve long term indirect and non market

impacts. 1 Livability is a subset of sustainability, although the focus is on how sustainability objectives will affect community members.
2

Existing sustainable

transportation theory outlines a framework to implement and analyze these policies. Sustainable transportation policy is currently being implemented in countries around the global. It is now recognized that these policies offer a variety of holistic benefits in a society, in all sectors specifically health and the environment. Generally, sustainable transportation is championed for increasing overall physical activity and reducing the number of harmful pollutants in the air, which improves overall human and environmental health. Additionally, better health in a population, less environmental degradation and more affordable transportation will aid the economy. These are some preliminary benefits of sustainable transportation policy; more specific benefits will vary depending on the policy. Goals As mentioned, sustainability must include economic, social and environmental goals. Economic efficiency is an essential element of a functional, maintainable, transportation policy. Economic goals focus on economic productivity, local economic development, resource efficiency, affordability and operational efficiency. 3 Social goals consider the human impact of transportation by ensuring equal access, and human safety, security and health. Environmental goals focus on preventing further damage to the earth and are often seen as the central aspect of sustainability. These goals are climate change prevention and mitigation, air noise and water pollution prevention, non-renewable resource conservation, open space preservation and biodiversity
1 2

Todd Litman, "Well Measured, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2012): 6. Litman, "Well Measured," 6. 3 Ibid. 8.

protection.4 All the above-mentioned goals must be accomplished with a government and planning bodies that are committed to integrated, comprehensive, and inclusive transportation and pricing efficiency at all stages of policy development.5 Sustainable transportation policy differs in many fundamental ways from traditional transportation policy. Traditional transportation policy is focused on motor vehicle transportation, which often happens at the expense of alternative modes of transit. This leads to automobile dependent areas. 6 Automobile dependency is prevalent when land use patterns favor automobile travel and provide relatively inferior alternatives; increasing total mobility, vehicle traffic and the associated costs of driving. 7 The negative effect of automobile dependency is that non-drivers become economically and socially disadvantaged since they have higher financial costs or less accessibility to activities.8 Traditional transportation policy often defines transportation problems mainly in the context of traffic congestion. 9 Ignoring problems of inadequate mobility for nondrivers, the cost burden of vehicle ownership, accident risk and social and environmental issues. 10 In contrast sustainable transportation acknowledges the importance of multi-modal transportation. Having the infrastructure to support many different types of transportation increases transportation accessibility and decreases the need for motor-vehicle use. Sustainable transportation also sees traffic as a way to maintain equilibrium. This type of natural driving deterrent, can create opportunities to

4 5

Ibid.8 Ibid.8. 6 Todd Litman. "Introduction to Multi-Modal Transportation Planning." Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2011): 1-17. 7 Litman, "Introduction to Multi-Modal Transportation Planning." 4. 8 Ibid. 4. 9 Ibid. 5. 10 Ibid. 5.

invest in alternative forms of transportation; traditional transportation policy would address this issue by road expansion.11 Sustainable transportation policy also addresses the issue of distorted pricing. Current transportation markets have created distorted prices for motor vehicle use, from underpriced roads and parking, as well as the uncompensated environmental and social impacts of motor vehicle use.12 This is because motor vehicle costs are fixed and the marginal cost decrease with mileage. In contrast, environmental and social costs increase with motor vehicle mileage. Some studies have indicated that this price distortion accounts for a third of all motor vehicles transit, and increases motor vehicle use beyond optimal level.13 Sustainable transportation policy is focused on correcting this distortion by increasing the price of motor vehicle use as well as creating accessible and affordable alternatives. In sustainable transportation there is what is referred to as the Green Transportation Hierarchy based on the sustainability of each mode of transit. From top to bottom the hierarchy is pedestrian, cyclist, public transit, service and freight vehicles, taxis, multi occupancy vehicles and single occupancy vehicles. 14 Transportation policy encourages maximum use of the modes of transit at the top of the hierarchy and minimal use of transit modes closer to the bottom.

11 12

Ibid. 5. Ibid. 5. 13 Litman. "Well Measured," 18. 14 Ibid. 13.

Objectives There are many planning objectives that help support a Citys sustainability goals. Discussed below are a few that are central to sustainable transportation planning:

a) Transportation system diversity: this means travelers can choose from a variety of modes, location and pricing options to suite their transit needs.15 b) System Integration: meaning these systems need to also be well connected to increase ease of use, particularly for pedestrians and cycling access to transit.16 c) Resource efficiency: encourages both energy and land efficiency. 17 d) Efficient pricing and prioritization: means that road, parking, insurance and fuel are all priced to encourage efficiency, and that facilities are managed to favor higher value trips and more efficient modes. Affordability is also important for accessibility and use of transportation services, especially for lower income households.18 e) Land use accessibility or smart growth communities: This supports the creation of communities that have all the necessary amenities in close proximity. This not only increases social cohesion within a community it also reduces the need for vehicles use and encourages, shopping, socialization, school and work within walking distance of your dwelling.19 f) Operational efficiency: makes transportation agencies accountable for their spending to manage costs and maximize services.20

15 16

Ibid. 22. Ibid. 22. 17 Ibid. 22. 18 Ibid. 22. 19 Todd Litman. "Community Cohesion As A Transport Planning Objective." Victoria (2012). 12. 20 Litman. Well Measured, 22.

g) Comprehensive, integrated and inclusive planning: considers all significant objectives impacts and options; coordinates among different sectors, jurisdictions and agencies; and all ensures affected people are able to participate.21

Sustainable Transportation Indicators Measuring the success of sustainable transportation policy is undertaken by measuring a variety of indicators. There is currently no universal standard for

analyzing these policies, and a selection of indicators used, depend on the policy. 22 However, it is commonly understood that these indicators have to be comprehensive and use a variety of measurements for all sustainable transportation goals. Indicators can also be categorized into four groups: process, inputs, outputs and outcomes, to ensure that all aspects of the policy will be analyzed. 23 Both quantitative and qualitative data should also be used to perform comprehensive analysis. Some proposed quantitative indicators are vehicles and personal trips; vehicles and personal miles of travel; traffic crashes and fatalities; transit expenditures, revenue and costs; property value; and annual numbers of trips per capita.24 Some qualitative indicators are survey data measuring: user preferences; convenience and comfort; community livability; and aesthetics factors. 25 Having a clear set of diverse, comprehensive and well-defined indicators is essential in sustainable transportation policy.

21 22

Ibid. 22. Todd Litman, Well Measured, 22. 23 Litman, Well Measured, 15. 24 Ibid. 15. 25 Ibid. 15.

3. History of Sustainable Transportation in Vancouver With the invention of the electric streetcar in 1887, transportation in Vancouver became 5 times faster than it had ever been.26 This encouraged families to spread further outside the city where property was cheaper. By the widespread building of single family dwelling subdivisions, Vancouver became a suburban city built along streetcar lines. In the early 1900s, motor vehicles came to Vancouver, which began competing with streetcars for the limited road space and parking.27 The need for increased road space and driving infrastructure was evident. In the 1920s Vancouver planners and engineers remodeled the city to accommodate increasing motor vehicle use.28 They created sidewalks for pedestrian safety and roads that could be travelled on at higher speeds, with road building eventually becoming a very lucrative public-private enterprise.

In the 1970s, many cities (a notable example being Los Angeles) had begun to build freeways through their city centers, to accommodate the ever-increasing traffic congestion.29 Urban planners proposed this design for Vancouver, although the government was outspoken against this idea. They decided they would not build any roads that would require the destruction of streetcar neighbourhoods, specifically in neighbourhoods such as Strathcona.30 This was a monumental moment for Vancouver transportation, as it created a new commitment to alternative forms of transportation,

26 27

Gordon Price, "Vancouver and the insatiable automobile," Inroads: A Journal of Opinion 30 (2012): 84. Price, "Vancouver and the insatiable automobile," 85. 28 Ibid. 88. 29 Ibid. 88. 30 Ibid. 90.

10

as opposed to road expansion within metro Vancouver.

31

Since then, formal projects

centered on sustainable transportation change have been relatively slow to appear, with decisions made largely in reaction to specific and current needs. However, the current city government under Mayor Gregor Robertson has renewed a level of emphasis on a framework for sustainable urban transportation through the declaration of the GC 2020 Action Plan; an endeavor that is unprecedented in the city of Vancouver.

4. Policy Framework for Sustainable Transportation Planning in Vancouver For the purposes of this report, we discuss the framework of the City of Vancouvers sustainable urban transportation planning policy in the following terms: The goal of the policy is to provide a transportation network that meets the needs of the citizens of the City, and its purpose is to balance Vancouvers economic, social, and environmental goals. The objectives of the policy include the promotion of non-automotive forms of transportation, increasing the use of public transit, and promoting sustainable communities through sustainable land use policies. A list of some of the activities and outputs in the context of these three objectives that are currently being undertaken by the City can found in our results framework diagram listed in the Appendix.

5. Explanation of Research Protocol and Data Collection Methods The main research question this study aims to answer is, how effective have the transportation planning elements of the GC2020 been in promoting and increasing the use of walking, cycling, and public transit in the City of Vancouver? Some major areas
31

Ibid. 90.

11

of focus for this evaluation are the constraints and challenges currently facing the City in moving forward with the transportation objectives laid out in the GC 2020 Action Plan. In order to assess the efficacy of the citys initiatives we have designed a framework of questions through which a series of five semi-structured interviews were conducted. Our selection of interviewees was done with the intention of gaining a variety of perspectives and expertise on the subject of sustainable transportation and the various forces at play in the formulation of transport policy in the City. An agreement was established at the beginning of each interview that the names of each of the interviewees would be kept confidential, only referred to directly in the summary of the interview and for the academic purposes of this assignment. As such, we will be referring to each interviewee by the titles of their respective occupations throughout the following discussion. Two of these interviewees were both former city councilors with expertise in many particular facets of Vancouvers sustainability policies, mainly with an emphasis on public transit and the role of Translink. One of these individuals is a columnist for Business in Vancouver, and the other is a former urban planner and former Translink board member. Two members of the academic community were also interviewed, both with a specialization in the study of cycling infrastructure and its relation to public health. Finally, we interviewed one current city council member who was directly involved in the development of the GC 2020 Action Plan, and who is currently the chair of the standing committee on Planning, Transportation, and the Environment for the City of Vancouver.

12

The questions we devised were designed to cover the three objectives in the results framework. To ask about promoting alternative forms of transportation we asked the following open-ended questions: In what ways could the current City government better promote sustainable transportation? This was meant to be a broad question to elicit basic discussion on all areas of what the city has been doing. It allowed our interviewees to speak to whichever aspect they feel most passionately about. Moving to a more specific question, we asked, How effective do you think the policies under the GC2020 will be (or have been) in increasing the accessibility and use of sustainable transportation in the City? This directed the discussion directly to our objectives and our assessment of them. Our final question about alternative modes of transport was What are some issues you believe the current City government faces in moving forward with these goals? This was a general question for the interviewee to sum up with what they perceived to be the greatest constraints the City currently faces. To assess the second objective of increasing the use of public transit, our questions centred upon how Translink can achieve the outlined goals within their Transportation 2040 plan, as well as the role that the City of Vancouver plays in these objectives. The first question we asked was, What are the main constraints facing Translinks ability to achieve its transit usage goals in the Transport 2040 plan? Translinks revenue shortages are common knowledge so our next two questions, What options do you believe Translink currently has at the moment to increase accessibility and ridership, given the revenue constraints it faces? and, Do you have any idea of any feasible options that Translink could pursue to counter its constraints? were asked to elicit suggestions to work around the limitations that the funding

13

constraints have created. Our final question on public transit: What role does the politics within Translink play in regards to the issues it faces? was meant to gain insight into the role in which Translinks internal structure and politics has played in its successes and challenges. The third objective we are evaluating is the Citys promotion of sustainable communities through smart land use policies. Our leading question, How effective do you believe the current City governments new land use developments have been in encouraging people to make more sustainable choices in their lifestyles? was intended to gauge the current success of the City in their efforts. Our second question, What are some constraints that the City faces in the development of new green spaces and the goal of creating complete communities? sought to identify the challenges the City faces and possible solutions. The third question, Has the city been sensitive to the needs of businesses and other stakeholders in developing sustainable transportation objectives? looked not at how efficient the City has been, but how effectively it has handled public perception, in carrying out its initiatives. There were two sub-questions under this particular question: How crucial is public consultation and participation in this development? and, Has the City done an appropriate job in facilitating this? These directly addressed the Citys efforts to involve the public in the creation of its policies and programs. The interviewees came from a variety of backgrounds and areas of expertise which resulted in some choosing not to elaborate on particular questions, or categories of questions, due to less familiarity with the subject. The results of these interviews were analyzed by comparing the answers under each subject and identifying key

14

points which were mentioned multiple times and also points of disagreement between the academic, business, and political perspectives. The compilation of these answers will be elaborated upon in the following section.

6. Discussion of Results and Findings In accordance with our three categories of questions, each corresponding to our results framework objectives, we will discuss notable results obtained from the series of openended interviews that were conducted with these individuals over the course of November 26 to December 5, 2012. Points of convergence and divergence will be highlighted in the following discussion.

6A) Category 1: Promoting Non-Automotive Transportation Interviews with the Academics revealed strong support for separated cycling facilities as a key component of an individuals decision to use cycling as a mode of transport. The UBC professor took a more critical stance on this particular issue, mentioning that Vancouver had missed an opportunity to capitalize on the development momentum created by the installation of the Burrard, Hornby, and Dunsmuir separated bicycle lanes. The professor also noted that bicycle lanes have not been placed around the city in a manner that allows cyclists to have better access to shopping and amenities centers, specifically in regards to the development of new bike lanes on Cambie street following the construction of the Canada Line skytrain. She further stated that her stream of studies found that Vancouvers shared curb lanes (such as those found on Main Street and Commercial drive) pose a greater risk to cyclists than

15

having no marked lanes at all. Her responses seemed to be in favor of developing physically separated (or buffered) bike lanes separated by physical barriers such as plastic orange bollards or small concrete curbs; she said this would help to encourage people of more ages and abilities to take up cycling as a mode of transport. Also in regards to public hesitancy over the development of new cycling infrastructure, the professor made the argument that cycle tracks or buffered lanes do not have to be made in such a high-profile way as per the Hornby and Dunsmuir lanes; rearrangement of car parking lanes and bicycle lanes in a way that would allow cyclists to ride closer to the sidewalk without fear of hitting car doors would also be an effective manner through which the City could better promote the use of cycling. Additionally, the current city councilor noted that the expansion of separated lanes in the downtown core was on the books of the planning department, but is not a particularly high priority at the moment. The rationale the councilor gave was that the focus on promoting bicycling has been greater in the past, while now the current focus has shifted towards advocating for rapid transit on the Broadway corridor, the details of which will be discussed in the second section.

An interview with the former city councilor and business columnist also revealed a suggestion that the City should focus on connecting arterial Bike routes, especially the neighbourhood greenways through residential areas. Discussions around Vancouvers Cycling Infrastructure and the proposed Bike Share program were also prominent in the interviews with the academics, with only brief mentions about the topic from the current and former city councilors. The professor from UBC expressed

16

concern over Vancouvers current state of separated cycling facilities, pointing out that compared to how other cities have approached their cycling networks in preparation for bike share program implementation, Vancouvers network of lanes may not be up to the level required to accommodate for greater use of a public bike system. The professor stated that separated bike lanes are what encourage people to ride, while pointing fact that Vancouver only has around less than 10 km of these separated facilities. The professor used the example of the city of Seville in Spain as an example for how the installation of brand new cycling infrastructure helped to pave the way for a more successful bike share program. She notes that the city of Seville had expanded its cycling network to over 150 km of separated or marked lanes in preparation for the installation of its public bike system.

The Academic from UBC and all three past and current city councilors all cited the Burrard Bridge trial incident as a major catalyst for a change public attitudes in Vancouver towards dedicated cycling infrastructure in their interview responses, as well as a significant turning point for the method through which the development of new bicycling infrastructure would be carried out by the City. The incident illustrated the extent of public backlash towards the trial for new physically separated bicycle lanes (the first in the city at the time) across 1km of the Burrard Street bridge deck, and for the interviewees who brought this up, serves as a reminder for them, of the importance of public consultation and engagement in the process. On this note, Public Consultation processes were somewhat of a contentious issue amongst the interviewees perspectives. The councilor / business columnist and professor from SFU

17

both noted the cumbersome and often expensive nature of these processes in specific regards to those currently being undertaken in the West side Point Grey area of the city, whereas the current city councilor provided a more optimistic view of the Citys engagement structures. The current councilor cited the diverse array of stakeholders involved in the formulation of the Transport 2040 plan, which included representatives of organizations such as the Board of Trade, taxi drivers, the trucking industry, business associations in downtown Vancouver, and others.

In terms of the promotion of alternative methods of transport, the professor from SFU suggested the City should explore more appealing methods of promoting more cycling, walking and transit use, citing events like Viva Vancouver and Bike to Work and School week put on by independent cycling organizations as being good examples of how alternative modes of transport or uses of public space can be made more fun. The professor used the example of a youtube video in Amsterdam where groups of Karma Police would stand at bicycle intersections while cheering and giving hi -fives for good road behavior exhibited by cyclists. This reflects the use of activities undertaken by the City to promote the use and creation of common spaces throughout Vancouver.

6B) Category 2: Increasing Use of Public Transit Interviews with the former city councilors revealed a consensus that options to create new revenue for Translink are limited predominantly by political factors and funding constraints. When asked the question of what options Translink currently has (given its

18

funding constraints) to increase usage and ridership, both former city councilors suggested that a move towards road pricing (road user charges) should be the next step in addressing the funding constraints that hinder Translinks ability to provide for the Metro Vancouver region. When asked about the main constraints facing Translinks ability to accomplish its goals, the former city councilor / Translink board member responded saying that money was only a manifestation of the political situation. The councilor went on to state that we have been building roads as free goods that cost large amounts of money, but are perceived by the public as being free. In his opinion, the hidden natures of these costs are what the public often takes for granted. He was also confident in maintaining the view that introducing road pricing to pay for new bridges or highways would have negative political implications for a government that would make this choice.

Another topic that came up in the interviews was the importance of the development of a rapid transit line through the Broadway Corridor, stated by the current councilor to be the highest priority on the current transportation agenda of the City. The SFU professor believes Broadway rapid transit development is a high priority for the City and Translink. She also pointed out that construction to establish the rapid transit would be quite disruptive to the area since it could take approximately five years. Translink also has challenge in balancing the needs of an entire metro region in this particular case, as the Broadway corridor services an entire region, being one of the main corridors to UBC from the suburbs. The professor also notes the success of Canada line rapid transit system, which she believes illustrates a substantial need for

19

rapid transit and the latent demand for it. She also stated that people are more likely to use train-based systems than busses, since they revolve around road based issues like traffic.

However, the city councilor stated that political constraints are preventing them from moving forward with this task. She pointed to relations with senior levels of government as the most significant constraint faced by the city in moving forward with its transport objectives. The councilor firmly stated that the range of funding required for the development of the Broadway corridor could only come from the Province or the Federal government; or, that the Province should give the City a mechanism through which they could raise their own funds. Whether this item is on the agenda of the Province of BC was something that was not mentioned or discussed during the course of this particular interview, but the current councilor did comment on how her sense is that the province and federal government do not have a keen grasp on the issues of the core urban areas of the country. The former city councilor / translink board member also noted that rapid, more frequent transit is a desire by transit users that he believes is not incorporated into transit planning; rather, it is the speed of transit that is the more prominent focus. The former councilor continues to note that this narrow focus on speed in transit planning makes serving the peak hours of transit usage (such as the Skytrain) an issue for transportation managers, as it presents them with an additional cost to serve in a limited time. When asked what the most feasible options for Translink would be, given these constraints, the former councilor once again brought up the

20

development of rapid transit along the Broadway Corridor as the best option for facilitating further transit integration with the Metro Vancouver region.

6C) Category 3: Promote Sustainable Communities and through Land Use Policies All the interviewees viewed the City of Vancouvers urban density focused development strategies as an effective policy in promoting sustainable transportation. They recognized the importance of finding new and innovative ways to make better use of land in a way that will meet the growing demand for housing in the City, as well as moving towards the creation of complete communities, in the process of providing more transportation choices beyond the automobile to those living in Vancouver.

The opinion expressed by the professor at SFU centered on the notion that street design to increase Accessibility for Pedestrians and those with disabilities should be given more consideration in the process of developing new common spaces and walkways throughout the city. She cited the Pedestrian Safety Strategy activity undertaken by the City of Vancouver as part of the GC 2020, but pointed out that it lacked an implementation strategy. She also further cited figures of pedestrian deaths being substantially higher compared to cyclist and driver deaths, pointing out their vulnerability and how this needs to be taken into account in future planning decisions for new sidewalks and walking spaces. The current city councilor also pointed out the lack of a constituency advocating for the needs of pedestrians in the public consultation process in formulating new development initiatives. She stated that we could have a much better discussion in the planning of transportation networks if there were

21

organized cycling and pedestrian groups involved in the process. The Professor from SFU also noted this in the closing parts of her interview, stating that it is often difficult to determine what the needs of pedestrians are; which in her view, results in the potential development of street features for their safety and enjoyment being overlooked in the planning process. While increasing the accessibility and usability of sidewalks and pedestrian walkways is already an activity being undertaken by the City as part of the third results framework objective, the opinions expressed through these interviews reflect the increasing need for walking to be considered as a higher priority* in transport planning. One idea that the current city councilor personally said she would like to see happen is the formation of a Downtown Transportation Users Group. She pointed out that the quality of the Citys current Engagement Structures, as well as the processes through which the City engages with the public, were not been built with Vancouvers land use constraints. The main challenge here goes back to the issues surrounding public consultation; given the experience of the Burrard Bridge trial, the City recognizes that it is an important part of the process, but responses from the interviewees indicate that perhaps it may be too much in some cases. The former councilor / business columnist suggested that a fear of change was driving public hesitancy towards more denser development plans. In this sense, he believed that people have not been informed of the benefits of urban densification and complete communities; when asked how the city could better promote or communicate these benefits, he pointed out the importance of harnessing the support of seniors who want to get out of their homes and the support of younger people who want more affordable housing to be able to live in the city.

22

7. Policy Recommendations Based on the information collected through our interviews with members of the academic community in Vancouver, as well as past and current city councilors, we determine the following to be feasible recommendations for the City of Vancouver in moving forward with its transport objectives in the GC 2020.

Recommendations for Objective 1 With the City of Vancouver planning on implementing a public bike share program in the near future, as well as the general promotion of non-automotive forms of transport as a key aspect of the GC 2020, the expansion and integration of cycling facilities is a realm in which the City has a distinct responsibility to uphold.

The first recommendation is that the City should consider the Expansion and Integration of its network of Separated Bicycle Lanes. The development of separated cycling facilities, in terms of their ability to provide less experienced cyclists with safer infrastructure, have proven successful in other North American and European cities that have implemented them as part of their road networks. Some of the most famous examples are in the cities of Amsterdam and Copenhagen, while cities such as New York and Portland in the United States have begun incorporating separated and buffered lanes in more recent years. The main differences between lanes in these cities with those found in Vancouver, is the fact that many of them have at least two feet of more visibly clear separation between them, often routed in areas closer to

23

shopping and amenities, and often constructed in place that are away from car-heavy traffic.32

Taking the experience needs of cyclists of all ages and abilities into account, one option the City may consider in this context is the rearrangement of existing painted lanes with parking lanes for cars, so that the cycling lanes are right next to the sidewalk, with a buffer separating them from the parking lane next to the parked cars. (See Figure A). This would not only provide the aesthetics of safety on public roads, but would also help to protect cyclists from the hazards associated with both parked and moving cars by offering a greater degree of physical separation. The professor from UBC suggested that this may be a more inexpensive option to increase the safety and appeal of using separated cycling lanes, although the costs to the city that would be involved were not discussed. Furthermore, according to interviews with both the professors from UBC and SFU, the expansion of separated cycling lanes is also an incredibly important factor in accommodating for bike share programs. Expanding the numbers of these particular types of lanes provides another rationale would help to make the use of cycling more appealing in general, given the potential deterrent the Provinces mandatory helmet laws may create for the program.

32

John Pucher and Ralph Bueler, Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, Transport Review 28, no. 4 (2008): 512.

24

Figure A: Suggested Buffered Bike Lane Road Placement33

Source: Physically Separated Bike Lanes (http://www.streetfilms.org/physically-separated-bike-lanes/)

Integration and connection of these lanes would also be a viable step forward in encouraging people to choose to cycle more. The opinion expressed by the former city councilor / business columnist suggested that connecting Vancouvers neighbourhood greenways with routes that connect cyclists with more shopping, amenities, and major urban centers would complement the goals of the GC 2020 to increase the number of trips made by bicycle in the city.

The second recommendation this report makes is that the City should continue to expand the methods of promotion and educational aspects of encouraging citizens to incorporate Non-Automotive forms Transport into their daily commutes. While this may or may not take the form of a direct policy, the role of the City in being at the forefront of encouraging the use of alternative modes of transport cannot be understated. Given the more prominent political constraints faced by the City in other objectives of the sustainable transport planning framework, the City of Vancouver should continue to pursue the promotion and education of safe cycling as a viable mode of transport within its realm of influence at the municipal level.
33

Clarence Eckerson, Jr. Physically Separated Bike Lanes, StreetFilms.org (February 17, 2007): accessed via: http://www.streetfilms.org/physically-separated-bike-lanes/

25

Recommendations for Objective 2 Working to increase the usage of public transit will most likely be the objective that the City of Vancouver will have the most difficulty towards achieving. As was noted by most of the interviewees, there are a variety of governmental and authoritative bodies that are involved in the process (Regional bodies, the Province, and even the Federal Government), with the City having little control over the determination of courses of actions in this realm. As a result, the following recommendations encompass that which the City itself is able to undertake.

Our first recommendation for this objective would be for the City to continue and step up political advocacy for the development of a rapid transit system along the Broadway Corridor. Based on our conversations this is a twofold issue. First, the funding must be secured for the project then secondly a plan for the development must be reached. To secure the funding, the City must make it a priority to keep the Corridor on the political agenda. With the example of the Evergreen Line finally under progress after years of political stalemate, it is important that the Broadway Corridor finds a more timely resolution. There is a general consensus amongst the interviewees that improving the transit system that would connect UBC to the main transit line could only have positive results. The City must continue to lobby the Province and Translink to ensure the funding is received with a sense of urgency. Secondly, as part of stepping up its advocacy for the development of this system, the City should begin consultation processes involving stakeholders in the Broadway corridor, prior to implementation of

26

the rapid transit system. Although it was expressed by the current city councilor that the main concern of the City of Vancouver was to secure the project funding first, the planning process may also end up being quite time consuming, according to both the professor from SFU and the former city councilor / business columnist. There are several options that Translink has considered pursuing, including a new Skytrain line, more busses, a streetcar system, and a subway.34 There is a great deal of varying public opinion (particularly within the business realm) on the Citys favoured proposition, which is the underground subway line. The potentially disruptive and lengthy construction process of this initiative will require the support of the community to be successful. Beginning the public consultation phase as early as possible may ensure that the City is able to move forward quickly and with conviction once funding is secured.

Our second recommendation for this objective is that the City should place more consideration on the experience of the rider in transit planning. The main concerns noted in the interviews, when considering an individual's use of public transit, are frequency and reliability. Overcrowding and waiting long periods of time between services are both experiences that may influence people to seek other transportation options, most likely being automobile use. The widespread use of rapid transit systems such as the Skytrain being the most frequent and reliable in the region has resulted in a high volume of riders on the Skytrain lines. These lines have a limited capacity in peak hours as well as an extremely high cost of expansion. Increasing the frequency of
34

Kelly Sinoski, Rapid transit push from Vancouver and Surrey a regional investment, The Vancouver Sun, (November 28, 2012), par. 10. Accessed December 12, 2012 via: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Rapid+transit+push+Broadway+corridor+from+Vancouver+Surrey/7624506/story.html

27

bus service would allow for a reduction in reliance upon the Skytrain at a much lower cost than expanding further lines.

Recommendations for Objective 3 Overall, all the interviewees expressed optimism over the City of Vancouvers densityfocused land use policies directed towards the creation of complete communities. In this light, the following recommendations are made for the purposes of enhancing the efficiency and the quality of the processes involved in formulating land use policies within the City.

The first recommendation for this objective is that the City of Vancouver should focus on Pedestrian Planning; that is, the incorporation of increased accessibility for pedestrians, into new street designs. In planning or altering both new and existing pedestrian amenities, the goal should be to provide ample space so that people are given further ease of movement, especially in places where street furniture (bus shelters, benches, etc.) may be in the direct path of pedestrians with disabilities, such as those who may be blind or require mobility aids. Providing adequate allocation of space on pavements, along passages in public buildings, and through doorways is advantageous to not only the impaired, but to all that incorporate some distance of walking in their daily commutes. Similarly, those who are visually impaired would benefit from street features with a decent level of lighting and a print size that can be read comfortably. More specific needs, such as audible tones for the visually impaired, are also crucial in indicating when it is safe to continue at a controlled pedestrian

28

crossing.35 Providing sufficient seating at locations along pedestrian routes where people may have to wait for transit is also vital for senior residents of the city who may have physical difficulties when it comes to standing for an extensive amount of time. The construction and maintenance of smooth, concrete sidewalks and curb ramps should be made a priority in order to provide access for people who have small children in strollers and for those who use wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Intensified lighting along major routes and intersections is crucial for the overall safety of pedestrians as well. However, a major area of concern within the realm of this objective is traffic management. One approach to dealing with this may be the prioritizing of pedestrian safety through maintaining and increasing pedestrian activated audible signals, shortening crossing distances at intersections, providing more bulges, reducing the number of travelling lanes for vehicles and by normalizing intersections where applicable in an attempt to lessen skews and slip lanes.36 This perspective was put forward by the professor from SFU, who raised concern to the death rate of pedestrians in Vancouver being substantially higher compared to drivers deaths, further pointing out the vulnerability of pedestrians and how this needs to be taken into account in future planning decisions for new sidewalks and walking spaces. The professor from UBC also was in favor of the idea of the concept behind Pedestrian Scrambles intersections, where cars are stopped from driving in all directions and pedestrians are given priority in walking across the intersection in any direction they desire. The Transportation 2040 plan from the City of Vancouver (a vision plan shared
35

City of Vancouver, Accessible Street Design, Accessed Dec 11th, 2012 via: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/AccessibleStreetDesign.pdf 36 Ibid.

29

with the GC 2020) identified this as a possible feature that would make streets safer for walking.37

The second recommendation for this objective is that the City of Vancouver should establish a downtown transportation users group. It is crucial for the public to understand the sufficient amount of benefits that entail these new models of land use development, as the former councilor/business columnist expressed the opinion that a fear of change was driving public hesitancy towards denser development. It is evident that Vancouver is limited in terms of the expansion of physical space when it comes to land use development, but according to the professor at SFU and the current city councilor, the Citys engagement structures and the processes through which the City engages with the public have not been built with the constrained land use in mind; hence the importance of establishing a downtown transportation users group in an effort to increase efficient consultation, for the City to get a better idea of the transportation needs of people who work and live downtown, as certain needs are distinct, or sometimes even exclusive, to the specific mode of transportation.

8. Conclusion of Policy Evaluation Our method of data collection brought to light some of the main challenges the City of Vancouver currently faces, as highlighted by the interviewees involved, under three objectives: promoting non-automotive transportation, increasing use of public transit, and promoting sustainable communities through land use policies.

37

City of Vancouver, Transportation 2040 - As adopted by Council on October 31, 2012: page A2. accessed via: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Transportation_2040_Plan_as_adopted_by_Council.pdf

30

Based on both the data collected from the interviews and information of sustainable transport indicators, this report devised six recommendations; two for each of the three objectives mentioned. For the first objective, promoting non-automotive transportation, we formulated the following two recommendations: Expanding and integrating the separated cycling facilities in the City, as current infrastructure is not designed in a way that is appealing to cyclist who are less experienced, as well as coming up with more appealing ways of promoting non-automotive transportation and further educating the public on non-automotive transportation. For the second objective, increasing use of public transit, we conceived the following two recommendations: The City of Vancouver should continue and step up political advocacy for the development of a rapid transit system along the Broadway Corridor, and the City of Vancouver should place more consideration on the experience of the rider in transit planning through every riders main concerns, frequency and reliability. For the third objective, promoting sustainable communities through land use policies, we contrived the remaining two recommendations: The City of Vancouver should incorporate more accessibility for pedestrians in new street design, as well as the establishment of a downtown transportation users group. Given these policy recommendations, the City of Vancouver can aim to better balance its economic, social, and environmental goals stated in its action plan which entails a sustainable, long-term network for the functioning and livelihood of those who live and work in Vancouvers urban environment.

31

9. Bibliography City of Vancouver. Accessible Street Design. Accessed Dec 11th, 2012 via: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/AccessibleStreetDesign.pdf

City of Vancouver. Transportation 2040 - As adopted by Council on October 31, 2012. Accessed via: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Transportation_2040_Plan_as_adopted_by_Council.pdf

Eckerson, Jr., Clarence. Physically Separated Bike Lanes. StreetFilms.org (February 17, 2007): accessed via: http://www.streetfilms.org/physically-separated-bikelanes/

Jarvis, Ian. "Transportation Design for Sustainable Cities." Municipal World (2012)

Litman, Todd. "Introduction to Multi-Modal Transportation Planning." Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2011).

Litman, Todd. "Community Cohesion As A Transport Planning Objective." Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2012).

Litman, Todd. "Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Sustainable and Livable Transport Planning." Victoria Transport Policy Institute 1 (2012).

32

Price, Gordon. "Vancouver and the insatiable automobile." Inroads: A Journal of Opinion 30 (2012): 84-93.

Pucher John., and Ralph Bueler, Ralph. Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport Review 28, no. 4 (2008): 495 528.

Sinoski, Kelly. Rapid transit push from Vancouver and Surrey a regional investment. The Vancouver Sun. (November 28, 2012). Accessed December 12, 2012 via: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Rapid+transit+push+Broadway+corri dor+from+Vancouver+Surrey/7624506/story.html

33

10. Appendix a) Interview Questions Sustainable Urban Transportation Planning 1. Alternative Modes of Transportation: a. In what ways could the current City government better promote sustainable transportation? b. How effective do you think the policies under the GC2020 will be (or have been) in increasing the accessibility and use of sustainable transportation in the City? c. What are some issues you believe the current City government faces in moving forward with these goals? 2. Increasing Public Transit a. What are the main constraints facing Translinks ability to achieve its transit usage goals in the Transport 2040 plan? b. What options do you believe Translink currently has at the moment to increase accessibility and ridership, given the revenue constraints it faces? c. Do you have any idea of any feasible options that Translink could pursue to counter its constraints? d. What role does the politics within Translink play in regards to the issues it faces?

3. Promote Sustainable Communities through Land Use Policies a. How effective do you believe the current City governments Land Use policies have been in encouraging people to make more sustainable choices in their lifestyles? b. What are some constraints that the City faces in the development of new green spaces and the goal of creating complete communities? c. Has the city been sensitive to the needs of businesses and other stakeholders in developing sustainable transportation objectives? i. How crucial is public consultation and participation in this development? ii. Has the City done an appropriate job in facilitating this? Interviewees: (for the reference of Dr. Kina Chenard only) Dr. Meghan Winters, Dr. Kay Teschke, Mr. Peter Ladner, Mr. Gordon Price, Mrs. Andrea Reimer

34

b) Policy Results Framework Diagram

Sustainable Urban Transportation in Vancouver Results Framework

Goal To provide a transportation network that meets the needs of the City of Vancouver. Purpose To better balance Vancouvers economic, social, and environmental goals. Objective 1
Promoting nonautomotive forms of transport

Objective 2 Increase usage of public transit.

Objective 3 Promote sustainable lifestyles and communities through efficient urban development and land use policies

Output
Enhancing cycling infrastructure, pedestrian walkways and public spaces.

Output Improve public transit infrastructure and services; reduce transit congestion and eliminate inefficiencies

Output Promote, at the city-level, the benefits of creating eco-dense, self-sustaining communities through Increase the role of sustainable transportation planning in new urban development initiatives

Activities
- Separated bike lanes - Increased bike parking - Public bike share program (under negotiation) - Curb ramp installations - Greenways - Neighbourhood greenway initiatives - Transportation 2040 - Integrated Transport Plan

Activities
- Proposed Construction of the Evergreen Line - Proposed Rapid bus over Port Mann Bridge - Proposed B-Line to King George - 109,000 bus annual service hours - Seven stations upgrade project
-

Activities
Promoting the creation of common spaces such as community gardens, libraries, bike share programs, etc. (i.e. Robson Street behind the Art Gallery downtown, VIVA Vancouver) Promoting a culture of fostering complete communities Offer economic incentives to businesses to promote these values in their areas. Encourage eco-density; smart land-use policies to counter urban sprawl Promoting pedestrian and commuter safety. Promote car share programs: Car 2 Go, Zipcar, Modo, and carpooling Visual and environmental enhancements to streets (trees, gardens, wider sidewalks) Inclusive street elements that provide accessibility to seniors, those with disabilities, the movement of goods, and drivers. The use of Long-lasting materials in street construction. Street designs that pay attention to minimizing environmental impacts and accommodate for sustainable modes of transport. All new 1-2 Family homes must have electric vehicle charging systems For Businesses: 20% of parking stalls must have EV chargers

35