sustainable transportation planning in vancouver
DESCRIPTION
A public policy evaluation of the initiatives the City of Vancouver has undertaken to promote and enhance sustainable urban transport within the city limitesTRANSCRIPT
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
2
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
3
1. Introduction
The City of Vancouver’s 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
4
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 globe. It is now recognized that these policies offer a variety of holistic
benefits in a society, in all sectors, namely 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 Todd Litman, "Well Measured,” Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2012): 6.
2 Litman, "Well Measured," 6.
3 Ibid. 8.
5
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 entails 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
predominantly in the context of traffic congestion,9 ignoring problems of inadequate
mobility for non-drivers, 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 views traffic as a way
to maintain equilibrium. This type of natural driving deterrent can create opportunities
4 Ibid.8
5 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.
10Ibid. 5.
6
to 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 decreases with mileage. On the other hand, 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 exists what is referred to as, the “Green
Transportation Hierarchy,” which is based on the sustainability of particular modes of
transit. From highest to lowest, the hierarchy is as follows: pedestrians, cyclists, 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
Ibid. 5. 12
Ibid. 5. 13
Litman. "Well Measured," 18. 14
Ibid. 13.
7
Objectives
There are many planning objectives that help support a City’s 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, locations and pricing options to suite their transit needs.15
b) System Integration: meaning these systems need to 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, namely 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 vehicle 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
Ibid. 22. 16
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.
8
g) Comprehensive, integrated and inclusive planning: considers all significant
objective impacts and options; coordinates among different sectors, jurisdictions and
agencies; and ensures all 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 be used to perform comprehensive
analysis. Some proposed quantitative indicators include: 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
Ibid. 22. 22
Todd Litman, “Well Measured,” 22. 23
Litman, “Well Measured,” 15. 24
Ibid. 15. 25
Ibid. 15.
9
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 entailed
competition 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
Gordon Price, "Vancouver and the insatiable automobile," Inroads: A Journal of Opinion 30 (2012): 84. 27
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
primarily focused on sustainable transportation change have been relatively slow to
appear, with decisions made largely in reaction to distinct 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 Vancouver’s
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 Vancouver’s 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 the City currently faces,
preventing it from moving forward with the transportation objectives laid out in the GC
2020 Action Plan.
In order to assess the efficacy of the city’s 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 Vancouver’s sustainability policies, 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 felt 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 primarily focused on 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 Translink’s ability to achieve its transit usage goals in the Transport 2040 plan?”
Translink’s 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 Translink’s internal structure and politics has played in its
successes and challenges.
The third objective we are evaluating is the City’s 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 City’s 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 open-
ended 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 Vancouver’s 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 the present 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
Vancouver’s 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 Vancouver’s 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, Vancouver’s 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 out 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 to illustrate 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’ to 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 City’s
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 Translink’s ability to provide for
the Metro Vancouver region. When asked about the main constraints facing Translink’s
ability to accomplish its goals, the former city councilor / Translink board member noted
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 present 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 Vancouver’s 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, for 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
on the transport planning agenda of the City. 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 City’s current
Engagement Structures, as well as the processes through which the City engages with
the public, were not built with Vancouver’s 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 places 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 that would help to make the use of
cycling more appealing as a whole, given the potential deterrent the Province’s
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 Vancouver’s 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 interviews, this is a twofold issue. First, the funding must be
secured for the project. 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. Moreover, 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. The following
are several options that Translink has considered pursuing: 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 City’s 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 Vancouver’s density-
focused 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 City’s 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 Vancouver’s 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-bike-
lanes/
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 Translink’s 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?
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 Vancouver’s economic, social, and environmental goals.
Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3
Output Output Output
Activities Activities Activities
Promoting non-
automotive forms of
transport
Increase usage of
public transit.
Promote sustainable lifestyles and communities through efficient
urban development and land use policies
Enhancing cycling
infrastructure, pedestrian
walkways and public
spaces.
Improve public transit
infrastructure and services;
reduce transit congestion
and eliminate inefficiencies
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
- 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
- Separated bike lanes
- Increased bike parking
- Public bike share program (under
negotiation)
- Curb ramp installations
- Greenways
- Neighbourhood greenway initiatives
- Transportation 2040 - Integrated
Transport Plan
- 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