Stephen Rees’s blog

Hat tip to Dave Thomson on the trans-action list
Paul Krugman at the New York Times blog has a neat little table that compares a selection of countries.

Unfortunately he does not give the original source for the data or a year. But he does have this observation.

Canada has lots of open space, too — and it doesn’t even have $8 a gallon gas. Yet it still has usable public transit in a lot more cities than we do.

Our gas is currently around $5 a gallon. And while Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster have usable public transit most of the rest of this region doesn’t. Which is why we are not much better than the average for the whole of the country. Given that we are the third largest urban conurbation, nearly everywhere except Toronto and Montreal is in a worse position than we are in terms of size. Bigger places tend to have better transit systems. And while people like to say we are less dense than most cities that neatly avoids the sort of comparisons that show that the developed bits of Surrey are denser than the developed bits of Burnaby. Indeed much of Lulu Island is cranberry bog and blueberry patch. So the developed bits of Richmond - especially the large central area - are actually quite dense too, and getting denser. Not that the Canada Line will actually serve the whole of the city centre, let alone the rest of the city. And it will be next to impossible to extend too.

Who would you most like to emulate on this list?

Vancouver - as an urban region - really needs to catch up to the targets is set for itself back in the early ’90s. By now we should be at 17% transit mode share. And, of course, back then no one expected that the main east west freeway from the eastern edge of the City of Vancouver out to Langley would be doubled - or the Port Mann twinned. Nor that the Golden Ears Bridge to replace the Albion Ferry was the highest possible priority for the agency tasked with care of the transit system.

Not so long ago we were engaged in a debate about how transit could be made free to use. This article in the Guardian purports to explain how things can be given away, and by operations that make lots of money. Which I thought was good until I came across this paragraph

But even that was good news. High-street bookshops might not have space to stock those Compton-Burnett novels I so ardently crave, but some warehouse off the M1 near Daventry might supply my outre demand if I ordered online. What is more, the internet could link geographically distant secondhand booksellers into one webpage. As a result, I need not visit Hay-on-Wye to trawl secondhand book shops. I could instead buy a book online, thereby saving me travel costs, while incurring negligible postal charges. In so doing I would be making someone outside the book-retailing mega-chains a few bob. Which has to be a good thing, doesn’t it?

Yes and it already exists and has done for some years. The site is called Abe books and it was started by a secondhand bookshop in Victoria BC and has already transformed the used book business. And not just in Canada.

When I read a newspaper like the Guardian I assume it is written by people who know what they are writing about. Of course in my own specialized sphere, I do not expect them to be quite as knowledgeable. But something like this really begins to make me doubt the value of my source. And Guardian is still one I refer to a lot out of more than just nostalgia.

But there is some kernel of wisdom here. Right now tax payers pick up half the bill for transit - and here in Vancouver BC that translates into high fares and poor service for most of the region. And because it is a monopoly and under control of government, innovation is rare and sputtering, and often in bizarre areas of little concern to the people trying to get on a crowded bus. But money gets spent on things that appeal to politicians - and they seem to think they know better than we do what we ought to want.

So there could be a way to do free to user transit - but as long as the present system of (mis) governance persists, I do not see how we can break out of the mould that has trapped us in an expensive system that still only carries 11% of the trips at high cost to riders and taxpayers, and does not serve most of the geographic area very well - and some of it not at all.

Langley Times

Maybe I need a new category called “retrofitting the suburbs”. If Langley - and especially the dreadful 200 St - is going to become human something like this is essential.

Why is 200 St dreadful? Because it was turned over to the developers for Highway Oriented Development, which of course is the easiest option if all you want to do is make money. But it does not have a human scale, and is inimical to walking and cycling. It screams at you that only people in cars are worth considering - actually make that oversized pick up trucks.

Jordan Bateman is proposing a new mass transit option for Langley’s 200 Street corridor

Turn 200 Street into San Francisco, with streetcars running up and down the hill, taking travellers to shopping, sporting and business parks, says Township Councillor Jordan Bateman.

I don’t think he means the cable cars.

Photo by “Blende8″ on flickr

Though I think these could find a useful home in North Vancouver and New Westminster

UPDATE

Here is his slideshow

and here is that image of a streetcar climbing a hill in Lisbon

Image from John Mariani

Two stories which may not. on the surface, seem to have much to do with us.

New Zealand has decided to buy back its railway and its ferries. It seems that sometimes privatisation is not the solution to every problem, and the movement back to public ownership is happening elsewhere too. Both Railtrack and Metronet in Britain are now back under public ownership, as is the Croydon Tramlink. Some places had to learn some very hard lessons - and we should take note. For the BC government mandates P3s for large projects. This approach almost makes it certain that we will be paying more for worse public services, since we seem to be incapable of framing contracts in a way that ensures that non-financial but still important concerns are taken into account.

The other lurch back to reasonableness is in Quebec which had been following a policy of insisting that its buses be built locally. With predictably bad results. So now they are going to allow open and fair bidding.

I am not actually against privatisation. I am against dogmatism in the face of hard evidence. If something is clearly not working as intended then you should stop doing it and try to work out why. It is not true that “government is the problem”. The private sector is concerned with making profits - and sometimes loses sight of the need to balance other concerns against that. That is why most industries require some degree of regulation - of only because left to their own devices, profit making enterprises behave very badly indeed. When I started learning economics, the example was of children being employed in coal mines. Sadly we now have plenty of more modern examples of the outrageous lengths entrepreneurs will go to make a quick buck. And the life and health of their customers, employees and even shareholders is of no concern at all.

If you set out the terms of the contract clearly, and ensure an open and fair bidding process contracting out can work well. Sadly, in many cases the only reason to contract out has been to reduce employees wages. But of course the spin doctors say it is about innovation and new methods, and the much greater efficiency of modern management methods. And most of that turned out to be hogwash.

Sun

I did get an invite to the Board of Trade for this speech - but they charge a lot for attendance. I do not think I need to pay to listen to a commercial.

Worth quoting

“Mobility is a critical issue for any region striving to be a true player on the global stage,” Betler said. However, when it comes to moving people, transportation systems in regions such as Metro Vancouver are out of whack and weighted too heavily toward roads. Traffic congestion is one of the results, the cost of which has been calculated at $700 million to $1.2 billion per year in the Metro Vancouver region.

“We simply can’t build enough roads to accommodate the volume of people that need to have access to our urban centres,” Betler said. “Not today and certainly not when you consider what’s coming in the future.”
Transit trains, he added, can help balance out the transportation formula. A modern transit system, he said, can carry 40,000 people per hour heading in either direction, versus 6,000 people driving on a two-lane highway during the same time frame.

Betler did not disparage the province’s other transportation plan, the Asia Pacific Gateway Strategy, which calls for new perimetre [misspelled in the original] roads, twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and expansion of the freeway. “[Transportation is] personal preference,” he added. “But at some point in time, economics and environmental conditions are going to force a solution.”

Transportation is a lot more than personal choice. Transportation shapes development. Transit makes denser, walkable centres possible. Building freeways means there has to be more parking and more vehicle circulation space - and roads which are designed to deter through traffic on distributors. The dendritic street pattern that gives rise to low density sprawl. We need rail based transit systems; not so that  Bombardier can make more money, but to secure a future that is sustainable and does not threaten the ALR and the Green Zone. Trains and trams can run on electricity which can be generated from a wide variety of sources. At the moment that is not a very practical or economic option for road vehicles - and that includes my beloved trolleybuses.

“Making a pitch” is a waste of effort if we have an objective, fact based bid appraisal process. It is not that the lowest price should win: there must be a value for money evaluation. Some things are worth paying extra for.

We do not need the Gateway. We do need a livable, sustainable and affordable region.

There was a final trolleybus ride organised by TRAMS last Sunday. Jason Vanderhill was among those I shared the experience with and he has a wonderful set of images on flickr.

Mine - as seen on the Vancouver Metblog - were very ordinary.

Photo by Jason Vanderhill

This picture is of a low floor diesel light rail train running on existing freight rail track in Ottawa, which would be the easiest way to get started on passenger rail for the Fraser Valley.

An interesting afternoon yesterday at the Township of Langley’s new municipal hall (memo to self get new map book and/or update Mapopolis).

As I was on the panel I did not get my notebook out, but I did learn quite a lot. For example, SRY actually owns the track but not the right of way. The successors to BC Hydro do not want anyone stringing trolley wire over the tracks, even though that is what the double line of poles once supported. So the introduction of a pilot program or demonstration project may not be a straightforward as I once thought. On the other hand it comes down to money in the end, and all it takes is for the province for reset its priorities and do transit first rather than highway expansions.

Yeah, right, like that’s gonna happen!

Turnout was somewhat low - but then it was a very nice day for a change so I expect a lot of people who might have gone decided that a day outside would make a nice change, and I cannot say I blame them. Those that did come were not only interested but interesting - and the discussion was generally well informed and very civilised. It was nice to meet Malcolm Johnson - who is much nicer in person than the on line persona he adopts. We must have known each other “virtually” for a long time. Also notable was that all the panel members drove there - and much of the discussion was really about why transit service south of the Fraser is so dreadful. And why the Province and the FVRD both seem committed to keeping it that way.

The Fraser Valley Heritage Railway seem to be very confident that they will get going soon.

And as predicted I was able to recycle most of Cris Leinberger’s material. When you speak last after four other people that is not a lot that can be said that is new or original - but people seemed to like it.

UPDATE  April 30 There are very positive reviews in the Langley Advance, Langley Times and also on VALTAC’s blog

and ensuring room for industry – key issues in regional development
This dialogue series will explore the linkages between transportation and density, as well as the need for mechanisms, such as a designation for industrial lands in Metro Vancouver.

I won’t be going to the Morris J Wosk Centre for Dialogue on May 1 at 11:30am even though it is usually a nice free lunch. There’s a limit to how much of this stuff I can take.

The panel is:

Ann McAfee
retired Director of Planning, City of Vancouver and Principal, City Choices Consulting

Sheri Plewes
Vice President, Planning and Capital Management, TransLink

Bill Tucker
Director, National Association of Industrial & Office Properties

Bob Wilds
Managing Director, Greater Vancouver Gateway Council

This does not seem to me to represent even a pretence at “balance”. It is the elite telling us what is good for us. The audience, being mostly business people, will lap it up. There may be a few greenies, and even fewer genuinely interested ordinary citizens. But the “discussion ” is you ask a brief question and all four on the panel will be allowed to pontificate at length, usually just restating what we have already heard.

Metro has teamed up with the Board of Trade to run these things, so it is not as if they are actually trying very hard to hear anything but business interests.

They do not even give poor old Rafe Mair a credit any more. And he is about the only person on the platform who will cast doubt upon the Gateway, or any of the rest of the “even more business as usual” message.

Lois Jackson writes

While Metro Vancouver has earned its reputation as one of the most livable places in the world, now, as we shift our focus to the longer term sustainability of our region, some of the challenges we face and opportunities available to us are crying out for attention.

New and innovative approaches to regional issues and attention to the growing impacts and opportunities of globalization are fundamental if we are to sustain those things that make our region special. Therefore, your opinions and participation at these sessions are vitally welcome and important.

And if you think she really means that you can register by sending an email to RegionalDialogueWoskCentre (at) metrovancouver.org - just make sure to take out the spaces and replace the at with the right sign

Streetcars and Interurbans Shape a Community: TOONIE TALK
7:00 pm – 8:30 pm FRIDAY, MAY 9

Learn how Dunbar developed from remote bush to a desirable streetcar suburb. Henry Ewert will present a slide show on how the West Side of Vancouver (formerly the Municipality of Point Grey) developed with the introduction of electric interurbans and streetcars.
Meeting place: Dunbar Community Centre, Room 202.

One of my online correspondents recently wrote to me that she hangs out on facebook to absorb the energy and enthusiasm of young people. I have been really impressed by some of the work being done by students, and thanks to the internet, this no longer just languishes in neglected folders, but gets shared. Paul Hillsdon, Ryan Longoz and Erika Rathje are all great examples.

An exercise in cartography (in pdf format) at UBC by Michael Kushnir has recently been completed and is doing the electronic rounds thanks to Richard Campbell (who does not blog but posts compulsively to email lists, thank goodness).

This map neatly illustrates where the density is in relation to railway lines, and tends, in my view, to support the thesis that we can better link to existing dense places by using the mode which actually brought most of them into existence. That is, as opposed to building even more infrastructure for a mode which we know has brought mostly misery and ill health in its wake. For if you are going to cross large areas of no people at all much better that you do it with trains that do not stop than roads which inevitably bring development with them.

The failure of the road system in the 1930s was due to what was then called “ribbon development”. New divided highways built in Britain as part of the unemployment relief efforts were not like the German autobahns (limited access roads). As a result, development sprang up along them, greatly reducing their utility as longer distance routes due to the number of accesses onto them. And covering some prime agricultural land in the process. At that time farming was in a slump due to the use of “Empire Preference” (which meant grain came from Canada, lamb from New Zealand and beef from Australia - and Argentina, which wasn’t in the empire) and the lack of need for horse fodder due to the mechanisation of road transport. A similar pattern afflicts the Fraser and King George Highways here today. Across the US the “defense” interstate highways enabled longer distance commuting and produce the freeway on ramp cluster that has made much of the country into a corporate clone of parking lots, fast food, gas stations and motels - ringed by big box retailers and outlet malls. And was eagerly copied by Doug McCallum in South Surrey.

The idea that you should use government investment as a way to shape growth seems to be anathema to our present provincial government. They even go so far as to claim that widening the freeway will not influence growth - even though they have been promoting development at highway interchanges in this area. They are even better at it than Judge Doom. The map also shows mode share - and how, at present, transit does not meet much need in the exurbs. That is because the distances to be covered are too great to be covered in a reasonable time by a bus that stops at every hole in the hedge. Assuming there is a bus service at all, which usually there isn’t. So speedy rail cars stopping only at centres will encourage transit oriented development there - provided the municipalities zone it properly.

It requires some concerted effort, by all three levels of government to create a framework whereby we will stop doing what we have been - since we know that doesn’t work - and try another approach, which has been demonstrated many times to be effective. And which will serve us all much better in an oil starved future.