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