The Livable Blog

For any of you who like the line "building freeways to solve congestion is like buying a longer belt to cure obesity", you will not be surprised with the following:

No relief for commuters under Fraser mouth
New ring road won't ease congestion
Brian Lewis, The Province
Published: Tuesday, August 24, 2010

If you commute daily through the George Massey Tunnel and think that the $1.2-billion South Fraser Perimeter Road will ease the 51-year-old crossing's congestion when it opens in 2013, you'd better think again.

A significant portion of the tunnel's daily gridlock is caused by an ever-increasing number of trucks, running to and from Deltaport and B.C. Ferries' nearby Tsawwassen terminal, that merge with commuter traffic from South Delta, White Rock and south Surrey into the tunnel's inadequate four lanes under the Fraser River.

Figures obtained last week by our sister weekly newspaper, the Delta Optimist, show that the B.C. government estimates truck traffic through the Massey Tunnel will hardly decline once the 40-kilometre SFPR is completed sometime in 2013.

[snip]
blewis@theprovince.com
http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=4e36d95f-74d1-40ff-b640-a06937541be8

But really, the quote should be something like "building freeways to solve congestion is like spending a billion dollars on a longer belt to cure obesity"

This is what Metro Vancouver chief administrative officer Johnny Carline said recently:

"We don't think we'll be able to afford full-scale investments in the Evergreen Line, south of the Fraser and UBC all in the life of this plan . . . We can't afford to have investments going out to UBC that take away from investment in the major growth areas."

Read the quote carefully - "full-scale investments" really means Skytrain type light metro, or the kind of light rail highway engineers love, with lots of underground stations and underpasses so road space for cars is not reduced.

The fact is that if the province shifted all the billions they plan to spend on urban freeways and other roadway expansions we could have even this kind of gold plated transit well before 30 years is up (noting that most of the gold goes to serve the automobile rather than the transit rider).

Photo: The consequences of climate crime - floods in Pakistan

But we don't have 30 years. Just think about what global warming is doing already in Pakistan and in Russia.

As I wrote earlier, we don't have to wait as long if the transit is on the surface using existing road space. We need a full network of rapid transit within the next five years, and we can afford it if we put the priority on transit not freeways.

Mark your calendar for 10/10/10 www.dig4justice.org

A thought provoking article from the Vancouver Sun. It seems like some people have noticed that the Liberals demand that their TransLink appointees choose only Cadillac rapid transit technology, but fund it on a Hyundai budget.

(Note that a Cadillac is not necessarily better than a Hyundai for getting where you want to go, just much more expensive and polluting)

Photo - Canada Line Subway used huge amounts of steel and concrete resulting in high carbon emissions and costs

Transportation impacts affordable residency

Provincial and municipal government discord costs us all

By Bob Ransford, Special to The Sun September 22, 2009

One of the keys to making housing more affordable is transportation.

The cost of housing in communities with a robust range of transportation choices, especially with well-developed public transit systems, is generally lower.

You can concentrate more people in one area if they can move about efficiently without the need for roads and parking, which consume both land and the dollars to build them. Higher density means more efficient land use and a lower cost of housing on a per-home basis.

A second cost-saving comes from being able to avoid or decrease dependency on a car.

Owning and operating a car is an expensive undertaking.

Good transportation planning and good land-use planning go hand in hand. One can't be achieved without the other.

We are seeing the results of a clear disconnect between land-use planning and transportation planning in Metro Vancouver in the form of our high costs of housing.

In my last column, I talked about the less-than-impressive track record of the provincial government in walking the walk when it comes to all of its talk about wanting to lower the cost of housing and bringing home ownership within reach of our children. The government's failure to ensure that transportation planning and land-use planning are integrated in Metro Vancouver is another example of all talk and no action on the affordable housing front.

[snip]

Urban transportation planning has fared even worse under the Campbell Liberals.

They have washed their hands of playing a coordinating role in major public transit improvement projects. TransLink is on its own to both plan and fund transportation infrastructure in Metro Vancouver.

The Liberals created the Council of Mayors; its members are scared sleepless of the political ramifications of using their severely limited taxing power to raise adequate taxpayer dollars to fund the continued development and operation of an integrated urban transportation network in Metro Vancouver. As the local mayors bob and weave, avoiding the hard decisions, an unaccountable board made up of provincial appointees scrambles to keep the existing public transit system alive.

The premier wasn't afraid to grab headlines with an announcement a couple of years ago of an ambitious plan to expand public rapid transit when he was being roundly criticized for building expensive auto-dependent transportation infrastructure such as a new Port Mann Bridge, while at the same time portraying himself as the patron saint of sustainability.

That announcement, lacking most of the funding it required, now seems long forgotten while the premier and his colleagues continue to refuse to delegate a broader taxing authority to those on whom they have downloaded the responsibility for the expensive but necessary improvements to the public transit network.

Regional transportation commissioner Martin Crilley referred to this lack of provincial-regional coordination in his recent public report when he labelled the gulf that exists between provincial and regional transportation planning and financing "a hazard."

Meanwhile, the same provincial government that is one minute washing its hands of the problem and the next meddling in the issue up to its neck, continues to dictate the kind of technology that is deployed in building the transit network, pushing up the cost per kilometre of building much-needed rapid transit expansion projects.

Compare the cost of SkyTrain versus at-grade trams systems. The estimated costs of extending the Millennium SkyTrain line with a subway along Broadway toward the University of B.C. is about $233 million per kilometre. The costs for new at-grade tram technology chosen by cities such as Portland and Washington, D.C., is around $16 million per kilometre.

The Campbell Liberals chose the more costly SkyTrain technology for the development of the on-again, off-again planned Evergreen rapid transit line to serve Metro Vancouver's northeast sector. Going with this technology is a condition of securing the yet-to-be-committed provincial contribution to fund the project.

Commissioner Crilley pointed in his recent report to his concern about the lack of freedom on the part of TransLink to select "its own optimum rapid transit configuration."

It makes you wonder whether the provincial government even thinks about connecting the dots between the cost of housing and the disconnect between land use and transportation planning.

- - -

Bob Ransford is a public affairs consultant with CounterPoint Communications Inc. He is a former real estate developer who specializes in urban land use issues.
© Copyright (c)

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Transportation+impacts+affordable+residency/2020644/story.html

Joe Trasolini has always struck me as a no nonsense type of guy. This morning on CBC Radio's "The Early Edition", he said without the Evergreen Line skytrain, his community of 32,000 could not support anymore growth without unacceptable gridlock. Which he says is due to Port Moody's geographic nature, which funnels Vancouver commuter traffic along the Barnet Hwy (Rd.), or one has to go out to HWY #1. To that end he would no longer be supporting Port Moody's Livable Regions Official Community Plan which allows for an increase in population to 44,000 residents.

When you think about it, Gordon Campbell may be achieving our desired GHG reductions by default here. No money left for transit means no more growth. All in all, not such a bad thing if it helps the climate change cause by reducing emissions.

PoMo mayor talking tough on transit fundingPoMo mayor talking tough on transit funding
By Gary McKenna - The Tri-City News

snip/...The days of high-density developments could be over in Port Moody if the Evergreen rapid transit line is not built, said the city's mayor.
Joe Trasolini told the Tri-City News Thursday he would seek support from fellow councillors calling for an official community plan that outlines zero growth in the municipality. The move would be in contravention of Metro Vancouver's Livable Region Strategic Plan.
"If they want to take us to court they can do that," Trasolini said. "If they want to enforce them and take us to court I am saying that I accept the challenge. We can't move forward without transportation.".../snip

snip/....However, not all Tri-City officials were in agreement with the mayor of Port Moody.
Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart said construction of the Evergreen Line is not an if, but a when, and that the region cannot move backwards in its development plans.
"Joe and I disagree on tactics," he said Thursday morning. "The Evergreen Line will be built. It has to be. We have constructed our city centre as a transit oriented development.".../snip

Vancouver’s vision for its Olympic village looks dazzling from afar, like the city itself. Up close the details get hairier.The city of Vancouver, British Columbia, has a lot to brag about. It’s got an enviable location, wedged between the Strait of Georgia and the snow-capped Coast Mountains. It’s a perennial winner of “most livable cities” rankings, thanks in part to its parks, arts, and the Canadian social safety net. Its youthful mayor, Gregor Robertson, talks up the city as the greenest in North America and has laid out a plan to make it the most sustainable city in the world.
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-15-green-vancouver-olympic-village-problems

Below is the Livable Region Coalition comment on Metro Vancouver's draft Regional Growth Strategy. Thanks to everyone who contributed!

The draft we commented on is available at http://public.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/LRSPreview/LRSPDocs/DraftRGSFeb2009.pdf

Livable Region Coalition comments on Metro Vancouver 2040
May 22, 2009

Is Metro Vancouver planning to break climate law?
Vehicle travel targets are needed to meet emissions requirements

In 2007, the provincial government enacted the BC Greenhouse Gas Reductions Targets Act. To meet the targets under this Act, local governments will need to step up and play a key role in reducing greenhouse gases.

Metro Vancouver’s draft Regional Growth Strategy is a recipe for violating the GHG Reductions Act. The new land use and transportation document misses the mark on climate change by varying only marginally from the path of automobile dependant development, rather than making the bold change of direction needed to meet the legislated targets. The Regional Growth Strategy will affect emissions throughout Metro Vancouver, where about half the population of the province lives.

The Act requires that the Province reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by at least 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020, and by at least 80% by 2050.

Transportation is the single largest source of personal GHG emissions at about 58 per cent of average household emissions. Metro Vancouver’s draft growth strategy is largely about the land use and transportation decisions that determine emissions for about half the people in BC, and falls well short of the decisive actions needed to meet the legislated targets.

There are motherhood statements in Metro Vancouver’s draft report about reducing emissions, but the strong targets and enforcement measures needed to comply with provincial legislation are missing. In particular, the urgent necessity to significantly reduce vehicle kilometers traveled is barely addressed. Emissions from transportation can be greatly reduced by measures such as re-directing spending from roadway expansion to transit and reducing parking requirements. Moreover increasing the people carrying capacity of the existing road network by converting general purpose lanes to transit, cycling and walking must be an essential element. Across the region the amount of space devoted to parking and moving cars must be reduced steadily as transit and other modes are increased.

Reducing GHG emissions means reducing automobile dependency and vehicle kilometers traveled. Washington State, with a similar emissions profile to BC, has concluded that their emissions targets cannot be met without substantially reducing driving. In order to meet their targets, Washington Bill 2815 requires an 18 per cent reduction in distance traveled per capita by 2020 and a 50 per cent reduction by 2050.

Metro Vancouver must go beyond Washington State’s modest targets and commit to reducing Vehicle Kilometers Traveled (VKT) 25% by 2020. Hard targets for reducing parking supply are also needed to meet GHG reduction commitments. The strategy must clearly oppose the Gateway freeway expansions, pushed by former Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon, which will generate induce more and longer trips and thus increase vehicle kilometres travelled. Even if average vehicle emissions decline due to better technology and tougher standards, this induced travel will more than offset any prospective gains in vehicle fuel efficiency.

The Metro Vancouver board must either demonstrate how this plan will meet the targets set in legislation, or come clean about their intention to deliberately violate the law.

Given the twin crisis of global warming and the impending peak of conventional oil production, a strong plan to change the unsustainable path of development in our region is needed.

The Livable Region Coalition also recommends the following specific improvements to Metro Vancouver’s draft Regional Growth Strategy:

- Point 5.2.3 “develop a Regional Roads Concept generally consistent with Map 7” implies support for the Highway 1/ Port Mann freeway expansion and other Gateway freeway expansions. The GVRD Board opposed this freeway expansion and Gateway is a direct attack on the Livable Region Strategic Plan. It also contradicts the goal of point 5.2.3 (d) which is “reducing motor vehicle emissions and vehicle kilometres travelled.” The strategy must clearly oppose roadway expansions, which drive up vehicle kilometres travelled and emissions.

- The elimination of the Growth Concentration Area concept from the Livable Region Strategic Plan is a big step backwards, and undermines the stated goals of this document (including reducing vehicle kilometres traveled, ensuring efficient transit operations, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting residents from natural hazards, and adapting to sea level rise due to global warming). The LRSP Growth Concentration Area should be retained as a key concept in the new plan and adjusted for the projected increase in sea-level rise due to climate change.

- We strongly support the ides of developing a frequent transit network in higher density areas. However, the Frequent Transit Network concept shown on maps 2 and 6 should specify a frequent transit line within walking distance of all built up areas in north Surrey, and all other areas with higher existing densities.

- We support point 1.1.3(b) to “direct growth to established areas prior to the development of newly developing areas.” However, much more emphasis must be placed on ensuring that development occurs within already built up areas and on existing transit routes. New residential development should not be permitted in any area not served by transit. Moreover, municipalities will have to embrace the concept of transit oriented development both in new developing areas and as part of the redevelopment of existing areas. This includes increasing residential densities along transit routes as well as the development of multiple use nodes at transit stations and exchanges.

- We support the concept of reducing parking requirement in urban centers as per point 1.2.3 (b). However, parking requirements must also be reduced or eliminated, at least in all areas with good transit access. This is essential not only for meeting goals such as increasing transit ridership and meeting GHG reduction targets, but also for providing affordable housing.

It is essential that land use and transportation planning proceed together in an integrated fashion. If transit (and other alternatives to the car) are not available and attractive then new developments will continue to generate excessive car traffic. Reducing parking requirements will only be attractive to occupants and developers if adequate transit service is available before people start moving in. This is obvious, but is in stark contrast to present practice. A Livable Region can only be achieved with adequate operational funding for public transit.

The Livable Region Coalition (LRC) is a group of Lower Mainland citizens and sustainable transportation advocates. www.livableregion.ca