Stephen Rees's blog

Thoughts about the relationships between transport and the urban area it serves

Archive for the ‘Urban Planning’ Category

Choosing the happy city

with 6 comments

 

 

There is a storify based on the #happycity hashtag,which now features many more pictures thanks to the recent Twitter upgrade

At SFU Woodward’s on Wednesday March 26, 2014 the third in the Translink series.

Choosing the Happy City
Charles Montgomery

There were many empty seats even though SFU had “oversold”. If you reserve a seat at one of these events and then find you cannot attend, please remove your reservation as soon as you can. There were people who would have liked to be there. But at least there was also a live stream and the event will be added to the Youtube site in due course.

The introduction was made by one of Fraser Health’s public health officers. Happiness is fundamental to health. We need a system that promotes physical activity. Urban form and transportation determine how people choose to move around, and also affordability of housing and access to green space. People who live in the suburbs of Vancouver walk more than other places. We must improve and maintain choices especially for non urban places. She made the point that some policies which seek to deter car use can adversely affect the mobility of people who live in places where there is no other choice but to drive for many trip purposes. There is an inequity in adopting such deterrents before there are adequate choices fro everyone.

Charles Montgomery started his presentation with two “exercises” – the first to identify  Translink staff “the institution we love to hate”. He invited audience members to hug a member of Translink staff if they were near them. The second related to two images of dorms at Harvard University. One was a traditional building, the other a somewhat forbidding modern block. Most people indicated they preferred the traditional building, as did newly arrived students. But a study showed that there was no difference in the happiness of the students after three years. Many factors determine happiness not just the design of the buildings but social environment within them is important.

The idea of idea of increasing happiness is not new. Early economists called it maximizing utility. However often  “we get it wrong.I think pursuit of happiness is a good thing. We can measure it. … More pleasure than pain, healthy, in control, meaning, security but strong social connection underlies all of these. Both the GDP and creativity in a city depends on opportunities for social interaction. He showed a three dimensional graph of space time prisms, which showed the people who are more dispersed find it harder to connect. They spend much less time in the spaces and times when they can meet others. The edge of the urban agglomerations are the least likely to be socially active. If you live in the exurbs you do not have the time, energy or willingness to join things or even vote.

The shortness of the the commute time is the best indicator of satisfaction. “How we move is how we feel”, and even only five minutes of walking or cycling improves mood and regularly moving under our own power also  improves health. Equally driving a nice car on an open road also improves our mood. The trouble is that open roads are rare – and impossible to find at commute times. Driving even a nice car in a congested city is like piloting a fighter jet in terms of the stress experienced. People rate the experience of using transit lowest of all mostly due to the loss of control and that the trips on transit tend to be the longest.

In Greater Vancouver 40% of all trips could be done in 20 minute bike ride. In cities the design of the built environment determines both our behaviour and our bodies. If we build infrastructure for cycling – making it safer – more people will cycle. People will walk 800m to shop in a good urban environment but less than 200m in the typical suburban big box centre. The huge parking lots are a deterrent to walking even short distances.

He cited Larry Frank’s work in Atlanta showing maps of destinations available within a 10 minute walk of home. While there are many in the traditional city centre in the suburbs there are none. It is not surprising then that people who live in the suburbs on average have 10 pounds more in weight

Status interventions

- Equity
Having  low social status is bad for health. When transit viewed as a “hand out for the undeserving” – he used the notorious ads in the Georgia Strait some years ago for a GM car dealer which had a bus with the words “creeps & weirdos” as the destination sign – it is unsurprising that it is difficult to persuade people to change modes. Enrique Penalosa redesigned the city of Bogota and it was all about equity. He cancelled a new freeway but built the Transmilenio BRT based on the Curitiba example.

 - Freedom
This is represented by our having mastery of our movement. In one experiment they used skin conductance cuffs on people  in a mockup of a subway car. Even though this was staged at a party, as the space available to the group in the car became more restricted so their stress levels rose. He showed a picture of the Navigo card in Paris which is much more than a transit ticket. It also gives access to Velib bike sharing – and (he claimed) car sharing (which if so is a change since I was in Paris). “It also gets you cookies” But mostly it gives people the freedom to live with less stuff. they do not need to own a car or a bike [and can get around without worrying about either being stolen]

He then showed picture of the land the province has recently put up for sale in Coquitlam. This “swathe of Burke Mountain will not be well connected”. But families can save $10k a year by not owning a car. He cited Daniel Kahneman’s Book “Thinking, Fast and Slow” We are rightly fearful of house fires and build new suburbs to allow access to big fire trucks, with wide roads and sweeping curves – like a race track.  Streets aren’t safe enough for kids to play on – but we somehow think that we have made them “safer” and the areas they serve. There was a notorious experiment on children with Oreos. They could take one immediately or wait awhile and then get two. He says that the problems we require that we slow down and consider their complexity.

The challenge is the cost of congestion, but we attempt to solve it by designing disconnection. He illustrated this with a picture of the new Port Mann Bridge construction and remarked that we only realized that the new bridge was not needed until after it opened. All the traffic and people that now use it could have been accommodated if the old bridge had been tolled and a rapid bus service along Highway #1 introduced. [This was actually something that the Livable Region Coalition pointed out at the time, by the way. No-one believed us.]

“We did it before” He showed a slide of the Livable Region plan from the 1970s. And he also showed the “Leap Ahead” transit plan which its authors (Nathan Pachel and Paul Hillsdon) estimated would cost $6.5 bn but could be paid for with a $0.05 sales tax.

Referendum = fast brain disaster

“The best thing to do is cancel the referendum.” However since that is unlikely  we can save ourselves by adopting the recommendations that Roger Sherman used to win the second Denver referendum. Their program was called “Fast tracks” It was a clear plan and fully costed designed to appeal to the core values of the voters. Most of them drive so it has to show how improving transit improves life for drivers

It is not enough to present a clear picture – it has to have a champion, preferably a celebrity and since Brad Pitt is unlikely to be available he suggested Diane Watts

Bring it back to happiness

Working together is good for us build more resilient community

Q&A

The first question pointed out that the Leap Ahead plan did not seem to have much for the North Shore

“Now is not the time” to determine the details – though it does have a fast bus, and I suggested adding another SeaBus

The second noted that he used an illustration of Disneyland. Expectation of good time in built form

Tests in Disneyland show that architecture that speaks to us is good for well being

Technology in design of transportation

Vehicle sharing systems, driverless cars, use of Car2Go in East Vancouver shows that is a bedroom community. there are plenty of cars there overnight but none during the day. We have to have more activity in our residential areas – this is not a technology problem.

Eric Doherty pointed out that he had not mentioned climate change

“While it feels good to do the right thing but not everybody agrees on what that is. Trying to convince people to think like us does not work”. Gateway sucks did not work – it did nothing to convince people who had to drive that there was any concern over their needs.

How do we overcome this mindset of entitlement?

Golden (referring to the first presentation in this series) got all the players in the room and respecting others point of view. sophisticated comm??

Q from twitter on codes

Self reports on happiness higher in small towns

Rural areas

Everybody can benefit from a village

Codes for rural community Gordon Price commented  “The City is not shaped by market forces”

Nathan Woods (Unifor)  said: We need $3m and Brad Pitt. How do we get that?

Developers stand to benefit – they have the resources. The Surrey BoT strongly supports transit

Can you supply examples of success of postwar planning

Lewis Mumford
False Creek
New Urbanists
Seaside FL

Lean urbanism

Forest Hills Gardens NY (GP again)

Is a dense urban environment enough?

Towers are as bad for lack of trust as exurbs
Just pushing us together is not enough
“Lazy tower style in Vancouver”
Town houses, courtyards, green space

Example of Copenhagen – can we transfer that here?

The answer would be Long and complex. But in one word-  Experiment – just line Janette Sadik Kahn did with bike lanes in New York

Gordon Price pointed out how really emotional the fight over bike lanes here had become

Change is very difficult. Regarded as intrusive

One action for individuals?

Started out as a journalist feeling I had no right. We can all change a bit of the city. Those of us who live here have the right to change where we live

What has surprised you in the reactions since the book came out

Jarret Walker told me that on these examples its not the planners who are the problem. “We know that.  You have to convince the politicians … and the people.”
Try not to scare people

Someone from modo talked about Share Vancouver and its implication for resilience, during disasters for instance

Life changed in New York with Sandy. How can we create that sense of urgency?

Experiment Granville St what are we learning?

The questioner felt that all the changes we have seen have been controlled by the business community

Times Sq occurred with support from the BIA – who have benefitted as rents are now going up. The police closure of Granville St at weekends was a response to violence. It gave more space for people to move around and thus reduced conflicts

Councillor Susan Chappelle from Squamish said that they were trying to get  a regional transportation dialogue going – they are outside the Translink area with a small transit system provide by BC Transit.  They remain “disengaged”. The immense changes he talked about are not translated into budget of small town. In the current situation “Words are used, with no change happening.” Squamish is left disconnected

The measures are the same for reducing GHG and increasing happiness. Should we encourage commuting [between Squmish and Vancouver]? The industrial zoning is out of date.

Can design offset crime?  Social justice?

Some people assert “None of this is going to work until we overthrow the 1%” But his work shows that the way we design cities has an immediate impact. It’s an equity issue. Many people complain that they can’t afford to live here but then they oppose the density increase essential [to get reduced housing/transportation combination cost reduced]

Some who was arranging a summit of cultural planners pointed out how hard it was to get a large meeting to places which did not have good connections. Change the way transit works to support the summit

BC Transit should take cue from TransLink interagency approach We can crowd source all kinds of stuff

btw People actually talk on the #20 bus

Big issue is transit funding. A city has found solution?

Richmond is the only place where car ownership has fallen – obviously a response to the Canada Line
See the example of the Los Angeles referendum which was not just about transit – it paid for everything with something for everyone

REACTION

This was by far the best presentation in the series so far, in large part because it was not read from a script. He was speaking to the slides he was showing but clearly enjoyed interacting with the audience. It was indeed a performance – and a good one at that. On the other hand there did not seem to be a great deal that was new or remarkable in the content. Working in this field for forty years means that I have actually witnessed exactly the same set of prescriptions proffered for a what at the time seemed like different problems – congestion, growth, inequity, sustainability, bad air quality, global warming. And now happiness – or its absence.

I have got into a lot of trouble for stating unequivocally “transit sucks” to transit management. They of course would rather boast of their accomplishments, how well they do under difficult circumstances, and how resistant politicians are to pleas for more money. But the fact remains that despite increasing expenditures, the overall transit mode share is very difficult to change. We know what the solutions are – we always have done – but we seem reluctant to embrace the changes necessary. And he is probably right that we have an elite stuck in fast brain mode whenever they deal with these situations. He actually cited Kevin Falcon – more than once – and it seems to me he is right. The Jordon Batemans of course simply play to that preference. It is a lot easier than actually thinking clearly (slowly) and then acting.

 

 

A New Future for Granville Island?

with 4 comments

A City Conversation held at SFU downtown today.

GI Future

Transformed in the 1970s from a declining industrial area into a centre of arts, culture and food, Granville Island is one of Canada’s most popular attractions, for tourists and residents. With Emily Carr University of Art + Design moving from Granville Island to Great Northern Way, and the loss of almost all the old heavy industry, is it time to refresh the island’s eclectic mix and, perhaps, its caretaker administration? In a recent article, the Vancouver Sun suggested exactly that. Or will it be enough to just find a new tenant, or tenants, for the 200,000 square feet of buildings that Emily Carr leaves behind?

To frame the conversation, we have Daphne Bramham, author of the Sun article, architect Norman Hotson, creator of the hugely successful 1970’s design, and Dale McClanaghan, Chair of the Granville Island Trust.

I have put together a quick storify – only 30 tweets and most of them from City Conversations!

IMG_2012

Norman Hotson and Dale McClanaghan opened with a presentation that I could not see. The room had standing room only and I was lucky to be squashed into a corner with a seat and a surface for my tablet.

Dale said that development on GI is “mixed up, tumbled and random” by design. It was originally a sandbar used by the Salish for fishing with a potlach house. It bacame Vancouver’s “first industrial park” until in 1977 a federal government initiative started to review how the Island would be used in the future. They included a group of local people in that process. One of the diagrams showed how the configuration of streets is based on how railcars were moved. Materials arrived by barge, were transformed by industrial processors and then transferred to rail. (Or, presumably the other way around.) The original land use plan did not using zoning so much as the idea of “realms”. They mentioned Urbanics [who I have learned were consultants on the study]. They created a set of principles that have covered use and development and are well followed. Now there is an opportunity for a rethink as 20% of the usable floorspace on the island will become vacant as a result of the Emily Carr decision to relocate. Granville Island Trust advisory, less of governance, operational focus CMHC good stewards. It is fundamentally a place for the residents of Vancouver: “if tourists come that’s icing on the cake” tourism development could be a threat.

Another six development sites are currently available. Over 2,000 people took part in the Speak Up public process. The general consluion was that “We should not mess too much with a Good Thing.” Other modes of transportation do need to be improved. Public spaces can also  be improved, but its the “best public market in North America” so only minor changes are expected there.

Daphne Bramham. “To me its very personal – from the 1983 job interview when I first came here. I now live near there. I walked across it to get here.” But recently she visited San Francisco and saw the new Ferry Terminal where an old building has been repurposed into a market. While aimed at tourism something about it “feels more modern”. Emily Carr leaving gives us that same impetus to see what needs updating. We need to ask people what they want from a day on Granville Island. It is, she said, “pretty close to perfect. We don’t need to copy other places. We need forums like this.” Need to preserve green space. “I don’t want it to be the Gastown of old. Its our island. We do pay a premium to shop there.” She also pointed to the governance model of the port and airport as examples of how federal institutions became locally controlled.

Discussion

Marguerite Ford opened by asking how the EC site could become an incubator for new businesses

This has been a persistent theme with arts and culture. The problem is that “incubation does not pay its rent.” Balance with nonprofit. Economic model or “where does the money come from?” Local management will need to come from outside CMHC

Someone asked about “spin offs of EC” the library, Opus,

Opus preceeded EC. “It might become a real art store.” One of EC’s staff said the library would move with the rest of the college

No one tenant should dominate

TRAMS Mathew Laird asked if there was anyone who would willing to help fund reopening the Downtown Historic Railway’s streetcar service between Oylmpic Village and GI. He also asked if anyone had considered opening a museum space as they also have a collection of historic buses.

Food, maritime and arts have been the traditional focus but they would not exclude anything.

You don’t build any more parking. Less than half of the people coming to GI drive now.
CMHC could not maintain one old building, so now it’s a parking lot due to lack of CMHC funding.

There is a desperate need for student accommodation in Vancouver – not just for Emily Carr and not just for overseas students. Residences will be part of the new EC site.

A GI printer said that the local CMHC office has no power to make decisions. He wants to rebuild his print works into a sustainable, off grid buidling but can get nowhere locally. He said “students do not contribute to the economy of GI as they are too focussed on thewir school work”. He said the EC buildings could be much needed space for artists, a place to work, purpose built space, tool crib space. He said he was “Totally invested”. The need is for education for people not in school.

Michael Geller asked a question about “respective jurisdiction”

GI is Goverment of Canada land, but there is an agreement with the City – just as there is for the port.

A merchant from the market disgareed with the printer .”Over half of my staff are EC students”. They are also customers for food. “Merchants pay top rents. The market is in fragile state, and we fear of loss of the business EC brings. If the market fails, the island fails.”

Another commenter disagreed on price of produce: she said that local supermarkets charge more

“This conversation should have occurred when the cement plant lease was up”

It is the last industrial operation on False Creek and GI is committed to keeping it.

“I don’t hear proposals.”

We are at an early stage

Frank Ducote housing?

Residents have a different view of “peaceful enjoyment” If housing is developed on GI the other uses will be forced to close

There is a need to dovetail development with South False Creek and the “volatile”  harbour area

Gordon Price observed that it could become an LNG terminal [joke]

Transportation is a critical issue

Bob Ransford: we need a new group:  Friends of Granville Island

REACTION

I was disappointed to see so few tweets. It is extremely difficult to keep up with a fast moving discussion when typing one fingered on a tablet, and I was not sure if there was any recording going on. Clearly this is something that stirs up a great deal of interest and emotion. Much more now needs to happen both to tap into the information about how GI works now – lots of facts and data please – and more needs to be understood about what is likely to be doable on this site. Clearly, given the lack of resources available from CHMC who cannot even maintain the buildings they’ve got, a new local champion – or group of champions needs to take over. I suspect that the federal government will only be too pleased to download the Island to local organization. It also needs to be independent of the City, in my opinion, to maintain that “its for the local community” first feeling. The greatest threat I see is that someone like Tourism Vancouver or a BIA takes over.

Daphne Bramham is misguided if she thinks the port or YVR are examples of how good things are done in a local community. Neither is the slightest responsive to local needs or desires – and both are direct threats to our region’s sustainability. They are solely focussed on their bottom line and growth.

While I have the greatest sympathy for TRAMS and the DHR, I think what is needed are much better links back into the community. That means something much better than the #50 bus. It also needs to be understood that the DHR is not somehow in competition for funding with the Broadway Subway, on which the City has decided to focus all its efforts. There are different markets and different needs. The DHR is the equivalent of the San Francisco cable car. Jarret Walker expresses clearly the difference between cable cars and actual local transit.

The huge, underused parking lot at Olympic Village Station is the resource I would bring into play. The use of this lot to meet the parking needs of the island would free up space and make the rest of the mixed use traffic areas much less car centric. The “woonerf” idea is working on the island – traffic speeds are slow and collisions infrequent. But that does not make walking pleasant. Nor does the amount of space devoted to parking make best use of a very limited resource. It seems very strange to make people pay for the space under cover but encourage people to circulate looking for “free” 1 hour, 2 hour and 3 hour spots. I would reverse the priorities. Much of the traffic is currently people looking for parking spots. Put longer term parking at Olympic Village and ensure that the parking stub acts as a free shuttle ticket for a modern tram service. Of course the service must be restored to Main Street too – and some extension will be needed at both ends. Sorry Starbucks.

The role of the ferries was pointed out. We have used them a lot, but because I got lucky and won free tickets. I am not sure I would be quite so ready to pay their fares so often. Ideally there ought to be integration of the tram shuttle, ferries and Translink. It’s the sort of thing the Swiss manage easily: and did so long before the days of smart phones and wifi.

I think the idea of “a day on Granville Island” is appalling. I would not want to spend more than three hours there – and that is when two of those hours are at the theatre (we have season tickets for the Arts Club).  We go there frequently, we shop at the market, eat at the SandBar, Bridges, Whet  … We buy bread at the bakery, fresh fish and produce at the market. There is a terrific hat shop, and brilliant place for old fashioned pens and paper. We like walking the seawall, so its a good stop along the way for that – and one of my favourite walks along the old BCER Arbutus right of way, when I dream of what it could have been and might be again. Its also a short walk to Kits for the beach or the Bard. It is not sui generis. It is part of the city – and a very significant component of its urbanity. It looks like the change in the beer rules that a visit to the brewery might last a bit longer in future.

Granville Island is great but it is not now, nor ever has been “perfect” and the very idea is anathema to me. It has to be constantly changing and adapting, but true to its values. It is NOT about “objectives” or “targets” or ROI. It is about being aware of a sense of place and how to keep it vibrant and vital.

Written by Stephen Rees

March 20, 2014 at 6:02 pm

Andrew Coyne at SFU

with 5 comments

There is already a post on this blog announcing the talk this evening and with my initial reactions. I have have attached my notes below. I have also assembled a storify from the tweets that used the #movingthefuture hashtag

The evening was remarkably short, ending at 20:15. Usually these things go on until 21:00. Was Translink paying him by the minute? I also have the strong suspicion that he was reading a prepared talk, so it seems quite possible that a transcript may appear sooner than the SFU video which is promised “within weeks”. I would have thought a talk like this, which used no visual presentation materials at all could have been distributed as a podcast much faster.

My reaction then is what I am going to write first. He opened by disclaiming expertise – in this field or any other. Experts, he said, know very much more about much less. He knows less about very much more. He also has seemed to me, from his opinion columns, a convert to right wing politics, and in particular their love affair with markets and less government. For such people economics is delightfully simple and straightforward, for they only have familiarity with the basic concepts as set out in Economics 101. They seem not to have been listening when told that the market conceived of under Perfect Competition is an abstraction. It is an entirely theoretical construct used for didactic purposes: to explain what would happen under a set of highly unrealistic assumptions. You have to grasp that in in order to understand what comes in the later courses – which deal with the complexities and difficulties of the Real World.

I have been an advocate of Road Pricing myself – and covered that here. (There are 69 results if you do a search on this blog for “road pricing” (without the quotes). It would be a better way of allocating a scarce resource (road space at peak periods) than the one we currently use – queueing. But that is not to say that such a solution can be implemented easily or quickly. Road pricing might be a better way to deal with congestion – but that does not mean we can implement it here and now. Andrew Coyne did not deal with either here or now. He did not reference the provincial fiat: they are the only ones who can price provincial assets including the designated provincial highways. So the Mayors have been told that Road Pricing is effectively off the table at present. Indeed they themselves have said that while they recognize its potential usefulness they do not actually want it for at least five years in the the future. Like St Augustine is supposed to have prayed: Give me Chastity but Not Yet.

UPDATE Breaking News – according to a paywalled story in the Globe and Mail this morning Todd Stone is now willing to consider tolls and regional road pricing in the upcoming referendum (Posted at 09:08 Feb 26)

Secondly he was very selective in some of the evidence he cited. And in some cases I feel that he rather mislead the audience. For example he asserted that London Transport had halved the cost of providing bus service since it adopted contracting out. What he did not say was that this was imposed by a Conservative government at the national level with a stated objective of breaking the power of the trade unions. Most if not all of the savings came at the expense of the wages of those actually performing the service. The profits of the bus operating companies have been quite remarkable. Indeed that is also true of the railways. There the cost to the public purse has tripled. A franchise to run trains – such as that owned by Virgin – is a bit like a license to print money. It has been a lot tougher for the people who build trains. Only one UK manufacturer remains. The users also now complain of very expensive tickets and gross overcrowding due to underinvestment in very necessary additional rolling stock. Outside London Andrew Coyne conceded experience had been “mixed”. He failed to mention the complete absence of service in many rural areas, the dearth of off peak services everywhere and the consequential huge problem of social isolation.

He did concede that introducing prices on services now provided “free” like road space, hit poor people hardest, but that he said was simply an income problem. Easily solved by a commitment to give poor people more money. If anyone has ever come across a conservative politician who is actually willing to embrace this notion, please let me know. As far as I am aware the idea of the guaranteed income is anathema to every conservative and is no more likely to be introduced into Canada or BC than I am to be given a seat in the Senate.

UPDATE Todd Litman has posted to Planetizen that road tolls are fair and benefit the poor – with lots of references. He does not address region wide road pricing in this piece. He argues as follows

While it is true that a given fee is regressive (a dollar represents a greater portion of income for a poor than a wealthy person), road tolls are generally less regressive than other highway funding options because poor people drive relatively little on such highways: many poor people are retired or unemployed, lower-income workers often have local jobs that do not require highway commutes, and if they do commute on major travel corridors they are more likely to use alternative modes, or travel off-peak because they often have off-peak work schedules.

Saying “eliminate the subsidies” is easy: getting that to happen requires the enthusiastic cooperation of Stephen Harper and Christy Clark. They would also both have to support income supplementation for the poor. Does that seem at all likely?

Afterthought

I happen to be reading Sacré Blues by Taras Grescoe (it’s about Quebec) where I came across his assessment of Andrew Coyne - “the knee jerk conservatism of power worship”

———————————————-

Easing congestion in Metro Vancouver: Pricing without subsidies.

Traffic is strangling our cities – he produced a bunch of statistics which I am not a fast enough hunt and peck tapper to record. He did not note that driving in the US has been declining – something which is also evident here.

The costs of congestion are massive and growing

Commuting by car 85% of total nationally unchanged in twenty years

We use the most perverse system to ration road space – time
Building more roads also doesn’t work it induces traffic
Reduction in capacity produces less demand
Induced traffic also results from other measures. To the extent that they have been successful in improving traffic volume/delay that space is quickly absorbed by new induced traffic

Incentive requires rational mechanism – tolls
Smeed Report (UK 1964)
Roads represent a tragedy of the commons – people leave early to try to beat the traffic just as farmers drove their sheep onto the common to crop its loser before their neighbours got there.

Sprawl creates congestion

Many will object “I paid for those roads already”  but you haven’t paid for the space you occupy at peak periods. Each extra vehicle that joins a congested traffic stream has an exponentially worse impact.  Congestion exists on some roads and some times, so the toll that is needed is a congestion price. Willingness to pay for uncontested roads is demonstrated by the success of express highway lanes in California, HOT lanes in Minnesota and tolled autoroutes in France. Toronto has Highway 407 an express toll route that parallels a section of Highway 401 but offers a faster alternative to those willing and able to pay. The prices imposed on these roads are set at a level to deter enough new traffic to keep the flow moving smoothly. 

Do we need new roads? Can’t we toll existing ones? It a toll had been applied to Highway 401 maybe the 407 would not have been needed.

Cordon tolls are used in  London and Stockholm which were initially very successful but
have induced traffic within the cordon. Singapore had its cordon set up much earlier and now also applies tolls within the cordon on arterial roads

Why not toll every road all the time?
UK 2004 white paper for just such a system (summarized on wikipedia)
the netherlans and Oregon are both considering such schemes and trucks already pay this way in Germany and Austria

Many are concerned about the impact of specific road pricing by location and time on privacy. However that is already the case with the use cell phones. (It seems to me that the general reaction to the relevations by Philip Snowden on the use of this metadata by the NSA shows this asserted faith in cell phone companies is misplaced).

The biggest objection  is that prices are unfair to the poor. This is an income problem not a price problem. We do not in general try to fix the  price of food which would help rich and poor alike. (This seems to ignore US and European food agricultural policies) Equity issues can be dealt with through tax credits and other transfer payments

Buses would move better as a result of less traffic on the road. He felt that this improvement alone would be enough to create a beneficent cycle of growth of bus use without diverting revenue from tolls to transit. He felt a better use of the revenue would be to distribute the surplus as a dividend to all

Not same to use revenue to subsidize transit
There is no virtue in transit use
Unnecessary rolling roads produces better transit levelling the playing field

Transit use is still subsidizing sprawl

Not a good way to get to use transit. Better passenger experience, subsidies insulate operators. Value to society exceeds cost of provision. Thicket of overlapping subsidies.

Competition
Transit is not a natural monopoly
Experience in UK mixed

People make better choices when they know the true cost

Even a modest rp scheme would have some benefits
No free lunch or no free road

Q & A

1 After a impromptu poll of the audience which I think was supposed to show more people drive than used transit (it didn’t) Test of political bravery. (I think the questioner should have stuck to the track record of politicians unwillingness to try road pricing – there are plenty of examples)

We are at least now talking about this, which was not the case a few years ago. There is a lot of  spadework needed but “the answer is staring us in the face”
Cash grab objection

Political leadership Mayors council says 5 years out

Partial scheme like only tolling one bridge real problems

Eric Doherty:  climate change costs wide range of damage costs of GHG makes congestion cost look trivial

Carbon tax is a separate instrument
Road Pricing (RP) benefits car users

ED: In Zurich all surface transit has exclusive lanes. There even bankers use transit as driving is so slow by comparison

The best thing for transit is take the subsidy out of driving

Clive Rock: we only have a  weak regional entity, and provinces don’t do cities well. We need a
champion for RP who has to have stature. We have to review our institutional structures - municipalities were compared to warring tribes

AC admires the GVRD model and called it  “civic federalism”. He also warned of the penalties of amalgamation and the possibility of getting a Rob Ford instead of an RP champon

The Centre for Dialogue at SFU has been consulting on this issue and found that citizens want fairness and choice. They also preferred that RP be distance based. She also observed that the
capital cost of rapid transit can’t come from the firebox [By the way you can get a pdf file of the report from the SFU Centre for Dialogue]

People will have options and choices
Give poor people more money
Don’t need to subsidize transit
Can borrow or raise on equity markets for private sector transit investment
Transit is only really “needed” if it can be financed commercially

Externalities … Is there a societal benefit from transit use?

Q There are very few places where transit is profitable

By pricing roads you change the options

We are subsidizing sprawl not good public policy

Dense cities built before transit

Make transit better self reinforcing cycle

Affordability guaranteed income without that inequalities

Fixing prices does not target help

Trying do social justice on the cheap

Collective responsibility on the tax and transfer system

Fuel tax does not address congestion

Q BC had a huge amount of trouble getting changes eg carbon tax

This is a local fix and an easier sell than carbon tax
Achievable with a phase in period but there will be life investment upheaval

Richard Campbell: In this region there has been over optimism in tolls on bridges

Which shows the danger of partial solutions It also demonstrates that you can’t be sure of how much revenue you will get, so that is another reason not to rely on RP to fund transit expansion

20: 15 close

Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design

Upcoming event at Richmond City Hall, which I will be unable to attend

On Thursday, May 15, Charles Montgomery, author of Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design, will explain how cities influence how we feel, behave, and treat other people in ways most of us never realize. Preceding this talk will a brief performance by the Indigenous vocal ensemble, M’Girl.

All events will be held at Richmond City Hall Council Chambers, located at 6911 No. 3 Road at 7 p.m. They are free to the public and seating is limited.

To RSVP, please email lulu (at) richmond.ca .

Since 2003, The Lulu Series: Art in the City has presented international, national and regional speakers including acclaimed artists, architects, urban planners and other cultural leaders. From urban planning and placemaking to art as community development and urban revitalization, The Lulu Series: Art in the City explores the relationship between art and our urban environment.

For more information, visit www.richmond.ca/luluseries

Written by Stephen Rees

February 19, 2014 at 10:28 am

Posted in Urban Planning

Tagged with

“Beefing Up Population Density Won’t Curb Greenhouse Gas Emissions”

with 4 comments

I have put the headline in quotation marks as it does not reflect  my opinion – nor does it seem to be based on a very reliable way of forecasting policy outcomes. The headline comes from Atlantic Cities but the research itself is published in Environmental Science and Technology. The title there is “Spatial Distribution of U.S. Household Carbon Footprints Reveals Suburbanization Undermines Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Urban Population Density” (citation shown at foot of this article). And of course you and I do not have the right credentials to actually read this on line unless you are willing to pay a very hefty fee. But at least Berkeley provides a longer item than Atlantic Cities does and this is where their quotes are lifted from

As you will note, other readers have already taken exception to the conclusions that are quoted by Atlantic Cities, so I am not alone at being troubled by the attention getting headline. Because it does not seem to be adequately supported. I also am troubled since I have been advocating and teaching the exact opposite for many years now. First as part of the Community Energy Planning activities of the BC Energy Aware Committee – now the Community Energy Association – and latterly as part of a program for  people wanting to become Sustainable Building Advisors under the the LEED program, sponsored by the Canada Green Building Council. The thrust of my message has been – and still is – the putting up the greenest building possible is not going to achieve emission reductions if you put it in the wrong place and everyone has to drive to get there. Sure the building itself may perform flawlessly but the trips the building’s activities generate will more than make up for the energy savings achieved over more conventional technologies.

Denser urban areas do indeed perform far better – in terms of energy consumption and hence reduce greenhouse gas emissions – than less dense ones, and that is exactly what the maps that accompany the article show.

carbon denver

This just happens to be Denver – and you can also see the smaller city of Colorado Springs off to the left (west) which shows the same doughnut ring pattern of carbon emissions. And they do observe “large metropolitan areas have a slightly higher average carbon footprint than smaller metro areas.” But that may just be that in the US (and the data they use only comes from there) the larger metro areas have proportionately more suburbs.

People who live in denser urban areas do not need to make as many trips by single occupant motor vehicles as those who live in less dense areas. People who work in city locations are much less likely to have drive during their work hours than those in suburban office parks. If you can get what you need within a short walk then you are less likely to need to drive. In places like downtown Vancouver, the vehicle most likely to be used for most trips is the electric elevator. Moreover building technologies and simple physics favour denser areas notably when the designers are thinking holistically. Community energy systems are more efficient than individual systems. The village on False Creek, for instance, gets some of the heat for its buildings from the sewers. Many buildings in city centres need more cooling than heating, so careful siting and interconnectedness produces a better overall outcome than locating them at greater distances where this is not efficient in economic or energy terms.

But there are also all sorts of other benefits from greater densities. Indeed density in and of itself may not be the answer. Better density – the right kind of density – is almost always going to have better results no matter what metric you use. We happen to be concerned in this case with reducing greenhouse gas emissions but exactly the same responses work if you are looking to create a happier human environment, or one that preserves land for food production or recreation, or reducing traffic congestion, or cutting public expenditures. The arguments made by Charles Marohn for Strong Towns are almost entirely financial.

Actually I think what is really at play here is Atlantic Cities looking for a headline rather than better understanding. What the researchers are actually saying is that there is no one size fits all solution and that increasing density does not of itself produce the best outcomes. But it is also clear that continuing with business as usual, widening freeways and building new ones, refusing to invest in transit, sticking with strategies that favour “drive until you qualify” suburbs and so on is a recipe for disaster. And increasing density is often going to be a significant part of the solution.

citation

Christopher Jones *† and Daniel M. Kammen *†‡§
†Energy and Resources Group, ‡Goldman School of Public Policy, and §Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, United States
Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
DOI: 10.1021/es4034364
Publication Date (Web): December 13, 2013
Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society
*Phone: (510) 643-5048. E-mail: cmjones@berkeley.edu., *Address: Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3050. Phone: (510) 642-1640. Fax: (510) 642-1085. E-mail: kammen@berkeley.edu.

Own Your City

with 7 comments

This was actually my first visit to the SFU Woodwards campus: tribute was paid to Warren Gill – this was the third lecture in his honour – and he was credited with the initiative to establish SFU in downtown and in Surrey.

Attendees were encouraged to tweet using the #sfucity hashtag. I have produced a storify from them. Credit should also go to SFU for providing free wifi access. Thank you.

 
Jennifer Keesmaat
Chief Planner and Executive Director
City of Toronto

At SFU Woodwards
December 6

Cities are our greatest hope and our greatest risk. Vancouver and Toronto (where the mode share for transit is 23.3% for the journey to work is comparable to ours when using the Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) rather than the city.

She has identified critical success factors that are going to be necessary for securing a different future to business as usual.

Canadian cities are suburban, auto oriented. We are not as rich we thought we were. WE have a number of perverse subsidies that have led to suburban sprawl. We need to increase density to increase the utilisation of existing infrastructure. Areas that don’t change will be left behind. The legacy we are leaving our children can be seen in the weather. Echo boomers want something different whether the city changes or not.

Illustration of city suburbs “expensive mistakes”. [For an instructive comparison see also the recent SFU lecture by Charles Marohn on "Strong Towns" which is one I missed but the video has now been posted on the Stroad to Boulevard tumblr.]

In the city of the future everything will be within short distance, which means less commuting and more time for everything else.  Is this vision what our suburbs might become? We continue to build suburbs. Consensus on how to change eludes us.

Three Critical Success Factors

1 the need to believe in a better future
She used the frequently cited prescience of the builders of the Bloor viaduct, which had the ability to accommodate the subway under the roadway 48 years before the subway opened. [As a transportation economist I have a somewhat different view of overbuilt infrastructure]
“I don’t get the baby platforms of the Canada Line” [I agree with her there]
Leaders don’t use polling to determine direction

2 the need to cultivate deep understanding about drivers for change
Clear coherent vision for the future essential for consensus. Walkable neighbourhood is better term than ecodensity
Learning and respect – fundamental to democracy

3 the need to engage to build broad and deep constituencies for city building

Chief planner round table
Our urban fabric
Resilient city
Next generation suburbs

Planners in Public Spaces

Partnered with LEGO

Transportation Planning
Feeling Congested?
The future is about moving less
Whiteboard video

One imaginative giveaway was used for on platform TTC surveys and other locations giving respondents free pack of tissues with the feeling congested? web site address on them.

80% of those polled after this exercise now agree with new funding sources for transit

[Saw this today in the National Post "I don’t much care where the money comes from, just tax me however you see fit and build, for God’s sake."]

Belief understanding and engagement

Individual action ..every time you make a choice
Collective action .. Finding ways to shape political decision making

…….

Q&A

q Do City staff follow the advice of living where they work?

a City of TO is actually very weak at walking the talk for staff. Divisions working together on Complete Streets initiative building internal consensus. Water

q  What Provincial and Federal policies are needed?

a  Social housing … Regent park … Impossible for muni tax base to support affordable housing. Transit funding reward for density.

q Transit

a  Compare the NY subway to TTC and Canada line. Capacity!!

q Affordable housing

a  Mid rise stick construction lower price point

q How to frame conversation with professionals

a Not everything worked … you have to take risks
Look at what worked best practices as reference

Right now took it in house with councillors to ward level workshops

TO has not been as ambitious as other cities to get great buildings ( “Despite the talk, it’s now clear Keesmaat has succumbed to the same timidity that has kept Toronto from achieving the greatness it so badly wants.”  Christopher Hume Toronto Star)

Canadian cities do pretty well
Building is not the lynch pin
Great urbanism is about the neighbourhood not the building. [She said that we visit New York to see Greenwich Village or Soho not just the iconic buildings. Don't say that to the people who run the Empire State Building, or Rockefeller Centre, or the Lincoln Centre. Or am I alone in being an architectural tourist?]
Profound mistakes with heritage

“I’m very concerned with the implication that sexy buildings define a city. I don’t have stars in my eyes about starchitects.”

Gehry thinks that only two buildings in Toronto are worth preserving

q Cities to watch?

a Washington DC currently mid rise but now looking at variances for high rises
Portland OR they did it in the seventies. They stuck w the plan
New York resilience legacy of Blomberg
Removing cycling lanes “Other people do dumb things too!”
Vancouver West End plan
Old Montreal “architects with a gentle touch”

Written by Stephen Rees

December 6, 2013 at 9:54 pm

Moving the Future

with 5 comments

UPDATED Nov 14

I spent the day at the Vancouver Convention Centre (West) at what was billed as “A New Conversation about Transportation and the Economy”. Position papers, presentations, videos and other materials from the sessions are now posted at movingthefuture.ca. Attendees at the conference were encouraged to tweet using the hashtag #movingthefuture and a quick search on tweet deck showed that they did, in large numbers. Though early on they seemed dismayed that the news out of Toronto was beating them in the trend analysis.

In view of the amount of information that can already be found from those two sources, I am loth to post my own rather scrappy notes. There are now 2 storifies created by MLR and Translink. For one thing, while the meeting was very well organized and run – free, it had generous catering and was well attended, and seems likely to have been covered by the main stream media – it lacked a fairly obvious facility. I can only assume that the conference centre wanted to be be paid far too much for access to their wifi. So what did emerge would have been from those who had smart phones and similar devices with data plans. Certainly looking through the first few hundred tweets it seemed to start with enthusiasm but that wanes as the critics start to point out some of the flaws in the presentations. For instance the Chief Economist for the Business Council of BC seemed to be an enthusiast for LNG plants, and saw them not only as a financial bonanza for BC but also a way to reduce the impact of burning coal in other places – presumably China. More than one tweeter disputes that analysis. [And even LNG supporters note that the expansion of BC LNG is no slam dunk.]

There is now a pretty good summary at the Vancouver Observer

Gord Price was there. He did raise the question of who thinks the referendum will pass (note that is not the same as ‘should it pass’) and more hands went up for no rather than yes. But on the other hand, certainly from the platform, it seemed that there is consensus that we need transit expansion. Indeed, the problem is not that we cannot agree on what to do – Transport 2040 is the approved plan – but how to do it. The New Car Dealers of BC were one of the sponsors, and so got a moment on the platform. There were introductions of the people who were going to do the introductions of the speakers! By the way sponsors like the car dealers, BNSF and NAIOP got to sit at their own exclusive tables. Which seems to me to be somewhat contrary to the spirit of the thing. Shouldn’t there have been more opportunity to talk amongst ourselves and meet people with different viewpoints?

There are some quotes from my notes I feel like sharing

“I don’t think there is a risk of over investment [in transit]” Ken Peacock, Chief Economist BCBC

“The referendum is gotcha style politics” Gavin McGarigle Area Director BC Unifor

An anonymous commenter from the floor stated that environmentalists – who have been very generously funded from the United States – have got ahead of business on the issue of pipelines and there is therefore a need for business to respond. Frankly I have no idea where this idea comes from, and I have yet to meet an environmentalist who was even remotely wealthy – with the exception of Ducks Unlimited.

Stephen Toop (President and Vice Chancellor of UBC) noted that there is consenus on what needs to be done but “constant churn on how to get there”. The gap is not in the vision but the implementation.

Several people repeated the same observation: density has not increased at many Vancouver SkyTrain stations mainly due to opposition from the neighbourhood organizations. Michael Goldberg (Dean Emeritus, Suader School of Business) was perhaps the most eloquent. Broadway and Commercial is the oat accessible point in Western Canada but all it has is a Safeway and a large car park with some low level retail. It ought to be a node of high density development. (And so should 29th Avenue and Nanaimo stations.) There was perhaps rather too much on how Hong Kong uses real estate development to pay for transit. And how much better that city is than Bangkok.

“When you don’t listen, we call that leadership”

There was also talk of the need for resiliency which resides in redundant systems: in evidence I would cite the recent dislocations caused by one overpass strike in Delta (Highway 99 at Highway 10) or the SkyTrain power rail dislodged near Main Street this week.

The cost of real estate and the higher cost of living on Metro Vancouver was cited several times as a drag on the recruitment of desired professionals from other regions.  Andrew Ramlo observed that we actually spend less on travel per capita than other major Canadian cities where sprawl is a bigger problem (Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto). By the way there is much more from Ramlo on urbanfutures.com

I have to say that my overwhelming feeling is that this is not a new conversation at all. It is the same conversation I have heard ever since I got here – and actually very similar to conversations in Toronto and London.  Maybe, as Eric Doherty observed, we need to study more carefully what they have done in Zurich.

Afterthought: I really ought to have mentioned the keynote by Gil Penalosa. Many of his presentations are already available on line – and his message and style are very effective. If you have not seen him in acton click on this link for his videos

Written by Stephen Rees

October 31, 2013 at 7:42 pm

That new bridge

with 34 comments

I apologize for driving you to a paywalled article. Francis Bula is reporting on what Geoff Freer (executive project director for the Massey project) says about replacing the tunnel and why transit won’t meet that “need”

60 per cent of the commuters are travelling to Richmond or Surrey, the U.S. border or the ferries – so are unlikely to use transit anyway.

The chutzpah of this statement takes one’s breath away.

It is not as if the Canada Line was not already changing travel patterns in Richmond. And the introduction of useful inter-regional connections to the transit system (over many years since it was entirely focussed on downtown Vancouver) with direct service to Metrotown and Newton shows that when the transit system actually looks at how people are moving, as opposed to used to move, even ordinary bus services can be successful. When I first arrived in Richmond and had to commute to Gateway in Surrey I initially tried the #410. Then it was infrequent, with a huge one way loop through Richmond wand was always very lightly loaded. Over the years it has become one of the busiest bus services in Richmond and the only one in the Frequent Transit Network.

The other huge change was when Translink backed off the long held belief  that it ought not to compete with Pacific Stage Lines and run a direct bus between the ferry at Tsawwassen and downtown Vancouver. The new service they introduced initially required a transfer to the B-Line at Airport Station, and now requires a transfer to the Canada Line at Bridgeport. It coincided with increased vehicle fares on the ferry so that walk-on traffic grew exponentially. (BC Transit had long met ferries with an express bus from Swartz Bay to downtown Victoria). The #620 now requires articulated buses and frequent relief vehicles. Just like the express bus to Horseshoe Bay.

Artic unloads at Bridgeport

As for cross border services, it would be easy to set up a “walk across the line service” at Peace Arch, with connections to Bellingham. There are just much more pressing priorities – mostly getting students to post secondary institutions thanks to UPass. But bus service across the line has seen significant commercial traffic with both Bolt bus and Quick Shuttle in head to head competition. Some of the casinos down there run their own shuttles too. The best thing that has happened so far on this route has been the introduction of a morning Amtrak train departure for Seattle.

What is actually needed is transportation planning that looks at the future pattern of development in the region, and integrates land use planning to meet population growth and travel needs. Strangely the desire of Port Authority for deeper draft for vessels in the Fraser River is not the first and foremost consideration. Port expansion is not a driver of economic growth. It is path towards calamity, since it is driven by the desires of a few very rich people to export yet more fossil fuel at a time when anyone with any sense recognizes that we as a species have no choice but to leave the carbon in the ground.

I think that one of the great benefits of rail transit development would be protection of the last bits of highly productive agricultural land left after the ruinous performance of the BC Liberals to date. People riding on trains get fast frequent service through areas which see no development at all, because it is concentrated around the stations. What part of Transit Oriented Development do you NOT understand, Mr Freer? Expand the freeway and sprawl follows almost inevitably.

Trains like this one serve the region beyond the Ile de France, and provide fast direct services for longer distances. The much faster TGV serves the intercity market.

It is perhaps a bit hard for people here to understand the idea of fast frequent electric trains that are not subways or SkyTrain, but they are a feature of most large city regions – even in America. As we saw in yesterday’s post even LA is bringing back the interurban. West Coast Express is not a good model as it only serves commuting to downtown on weekdays. All day every day bi-drectional service demands dedicated track – or at least the ability to confine freight movements to the hours when most people are asleep.

New Jersey Transit provides statewide services to the suburbs and exurbs of the New York region

Transit to Delta and South Surrey has to be express bus for now, just because there is so much catch up in the rest of the region. But in the longer term, really good, fast, longer distance electric trains – which can actually climb quite steep grades equivalent to roads over bridges – must be part of planning how this region grows. It requires a bit better understanding of the regional economy than just assuming that somehow coal and LNG exports will secure our future, when they obviously do no such thing.

Daily life shapes sustainable transportation

leave a comment »

I would like to start by acknowledging Pamela Zevit as my link to this story. She put a link to it on Facebook. I would not normally see phys.org – but I found this article very heartening.

I have been very critical here, and elsewhere, of our reliance on the very limited four-step transportation model, and especially the paucity of data we rely on for some very important decisions. It could be that since 2004 things have improved, but I see no evidence of that. Land use is still treated as an exogenous variable, there is no feedback loop and no ability to predict induced travel making. We still seem to be obsessed by the false analogy that traffic flows like water which must be accommodated. The reduction in driving seen across North America does not seem to apply here, even though there is clear evidence from Vancouver that it is happening here too. And we also have a government that prefers not to pay any attention to science and data, since that deals in facts which disprove most of its preferred political dogmas and ideologies.

In Southern California they have been tracking the movements of 18 million people. Not a small sample, and not just journeys to work or journeys by vehicles. All their trips, for all purposes all day and every day.

this is a new method to reflect the activities, and show how those activities change, in the everyday life of people—how their behavior changes, and how a change in land use is going to provide more incentives for people to walk and bike and not use their car

All of that data goes into the model – and “the researchers were able to map and predict movements and activities down to the mile, land parcel and minute.”

What it means is that instead of the stumbles made here – like Translink’s inability to forecast usage of the Golden Ears Bridge, which means that the company that builds and runs it gets paid so that there is less money for much more essential transit service – the model can actually deal with what happens in real life. Such as the impact of the 405 toll road which put more traffic on parallel streets in stop and go traffic, and creates more emissions.

I would like to think that we are going to emulate that model here, but we will have to continue to deal with the paucity of data, not the least of which is the absence of the long form census, one of the few reliable sources of long term trend data on journeys to work.

Written by Stephen Rees

September 4, 2013 at 10:19 am

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 973 other followers