The transit funding discussion continues in Metro Vancouver

A recent article in the Globe and Mail titled "Transit advocates launch campaign for property-tax hike" adds to the hitherto highly mixed discussion regarding funding for TransLink, the regional transportation authority for Metro Vancouver.

The article makes reference to a group in Vancouver called the Sustainable Transportation Coalition:

"An influential group of planners, architects, and environmentalists is launching a campaign this week to persuade hesitant Metro Vancouver mayors to commit to property-tax increases in order to kick-start a plan for massive transit expansion."

The group favours a hike in property taxes to pay for transit, but they have also echoed support for using revenues from the carbon tax and road pricing as well. Here is some information about the funding plan that is going to be voted on within the next month among the 22 mayors in Metro Vancouver:

"The plan, which is a supplement to TransLink’s basic operating budget, would raise $700-million over 10 years. That would provide TransLink’s share for the long-delayed Evergreen Line in the northeast. It would also provide another $300-million for other major improvements, including a bus on King George in Surrey, a Highway 1 express bus for Langley commuters, and an extra SeaBus for the North Shore".

Whichever funding alternatives gets the green light, this will be a momentous decision for transit in Metro Vancouver for the future.

Revival of Urban Agriculture

My good friend, Marc Schutzbank, recently published an article titled "revival of urban agriculture". His article provides a very informative and educational overview of the history of urban agriculture (or urban farming which can be used interchangeably) in North America and why it is a salient topic of discussion today. He discusses four principal reasons why urban agriculture is important which include its potential to alleviate obesity, assist cities with food safety, help mitigate the burden of high international food prices and its benefits in creating an environmentally focused local food system.

Marc is a Master's student in the Faculty of Land and Food Systems at UBC. His research is focused on evaluating the feasibility of urban farming in Vancouver, particularly how urban farming businesses contribute to both the economic and social fabric of Vancouver’s growing local food movement.

Here is an excerpt from his article:

"Canadians are witnessing increasing rates of obesity, heightened risk of food contamination, and inflated food prices. As a result, many people are starting to seriously consider the question of how to feed themselves for the first time since the 1950’s. One of the answers is the rejuvenation of urban agriculture, dusting off pitchforks and turning soil in a new grow-your-own food culture.

In this article, we will explore four modern motivations for urban agriculture in Canada: an increasing obesity epidemic, fear of food insecurity, heightened food prices, and a desire to make environmentally sound food choices. Canadian urban agriculture organizations are beginning to address these massive problems. We will highlight their work, concluding with a discussion of a new urban farm that we helped to initiate".

"Urban farmers are developing local food markets and producing food choice just by showing up at the market. Both local rural and urban farms build a market where citizens can use dollars to vote for local businesses over national chains, environmentally sustainable food over conventional agriculture, and a food culture that values its producers".

Please find his article here.

The irrationality of rationality: 2 cent gas tax increase for transit

There has been on-going debate over the past 4 weeks about the relative merits of a 2 cent increase in the gas tax to help pay for the Evergreen Line, a yet to be built transit line in Metro Vancouver. Here are some facts you should know about courtesy of the popular urban planning blog, Planetizen:

"The two-cents-per-liter tax on gasoline is a new way to fund the delayed Evergreen Line, a $1.4 billion project."

"The fuel tax is part of a proposed funding formula announced Wednesday and designed to generate an additional $70-million per year for transportation authority TransLink, which has an annual budget of about $1.1-billion."

"Along with the fuel tax, the proposal includes potential property-tax increases or – the mayors’ preferred option – a new long-term revenue source that could involve a vehicle levy or some form of “road pricing” such as tolls."

"The proposal follows recent meetings between regional mayors and provincial Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom, who last month criticized mayors for not coming up with a plan to fund their share of the Evergreen Line."

A couple of other facts courtesy of the CBC:

"According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Metro Vancouver drivers already pay the highest gasoline taxes in Canada, at 33 per cent."

"Construction on the Evergreen Line project was originally expected to start in 2010 and be completed in 2014. But by 2009 only the provincial and federal governments had committed just over $400 million each to cover their share of the cost for the $1.4 billion project." Plans for the line have been stalled for years because Metro Vancouver and TransLink have not come up with $400 million dollars to cover their share of the funding for the project."


I titled this post "the irrationality of rationality" because I have heard lots of complaints recently about the idea of a 2 cent increase in gas tax to fund transit. People are attempting to rationalize the economic futility of using the gas tax because of their selfish thinking and complete reliance on their cars. I have seen/heard these complaints via local radio, comment sections of news articles and from others. Opponents of the 2 cent increase in the gas tax generally argue that they do not use transit so why should they pay for it. They also argue that increasing transit fares are a more sensible approach  to generate revenue because those using transit should pay for. Last, some say its just another tax without any palpable benefits.

I think all of the arguments above are slightly irrational. One, while Metro Vancouver residents do pay one of the highest gas taxes in Canada, they receive a lot in return from this through a well functioning and efficient transit system and through good roads across the region. Yes, many people do not use transit and prefer their cars to drive around; but an additional 2 cents that may amount to an extra $10-20 per month in fuel expenses, that can, inter alia, help bring about new transit infrastructure to alleviate traffic congestion and pollutants is certainly a worthwhile compromise. Also, higher gas taxes are meant to pay for road maintenance and expansion too thereby yielding benefits for drivers too.

Increase transit fares instead? Transit in regions like Metro Vancouver is used by all demographics (low income, students, seniors, professionals and more). Lots of research has shown how the poor pay relatively higher transit fares per unit of service than the non-poor. Thus, just from a social equity point of view, increasing fares would likely reduce ridership. And when transit ridership has grown by 50 percent in this region in the past 10 years, this move would be highly idiotic.

Metro Vancouver Bikeability Index

A team of researchers at UBC recently released the Metro Vancouver bikeability index. The map above shows the availability of bike facilities, bike route density, topography and land use.

"If you make cycling and walking the easier choice, then people will be more likely to choose it because it’s faster to get [somewhere] than sitting in traffic,” said lead researcher Meghan Winters. “Then people will be less likely to choose their cars, they’ll be more likely to engage in physical activity, and that will reduce congestion in the city.”

I have been doing research this summer on active transportation exploring transportation options such as walking and cycling. Both options are becoming more salient forms of sustainable transportation and its refreshing to see a visual representation of such modes in the region. Indeed, the Metro Vancouver walkability index was released in the fall, and the bikeability index just a few weeks ago. Visual representations and maps like these, beyond the benefits of providing more information to residents, also help urban planners determine areas that could use more cycling infrastructure, for example.

Couple of small critiques. 1) I don't think the width of a bike path is measured. I have seen bike paths in Richmond, BC that are very narrow with most of the road space allocated to cars - hence a little less safe and secure.

2) While beyond the scope of the index, it would be neat if there was a qualitative dimension built into it. By qualitative I mean asking cyclists and motorists alike about their perceptions of cycling and perceptions of safety around cycling. For example, I may feel very safe and comfortable cycling in a separated bike lane downtown, however, a motorist may feel incredibly uncomfortable by my presence and less certain of how to interact with me when I leave the separated bike lane. Showing differences in perception of safety, among other things, would be a neat addition, I think.

Overall, this is really fascinating and, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Research:

"The Canadian Institutes of Health Research has provided the team with additional funds so that they can make up bikeability indexes for Victoria, Calgary, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Charlottetown, Moncton and St. John's by 2012".

Metro Vancouver Walkability Index

The physical activity of walking is becoming a central part of discussion today in fields such as public health and transportation research. It is a very topical theme in general as cities prides themselves on being "walkable". Indeed, a report on the world's top ten most walkable cities was just released. In June, Chris blogged about urban walkability and a software called Walk Score. Walkability, believe it or not, is becoming very popular because it has economic, social, health and environmental implications.

A team of UBC researchers recently wrote a report titled "Neighbourhood Design, Travel, and Health in Metro Vancouver". The research was led by a professor in my program named Dr. Larry Frank.

Professor Frank and his team developed the Metro Vancouver Walkability Index (VWI) to measure neighbourhood urban form characteristics in Metro Vancouver. The report summarizes results from local studies that have applied the VWI to explore associations between neighbourhood design and travel behaviour, physical activity, obesity, and air pollution exposure.

The walkability index specifically measures residential density, commercial density, land use mix and street connectivity. Without getting caught up in this jargon, the key point is that neighbourhoods that are well serviced by public transit, are in close proximity to amenities (grocery stores, schools, community centres, shopping areas, entertainment), and are close to major street intersections are all conducive for walking.

Generally, compact and mixed use neighbourhoods allow for shorter trips (that can be done by walking or cycling) to access local amenities and services. If amenities are a 10 minute walk from someone's house, cycling and walking become much more desirable options and the physical health benefits of this are enormous.

Image credit: The South Fraser Blog

The map above shows the walkability of Metro Vancouver. It's fairly evident that the City of Vancouver is more walkable than Surrey, or Richmond. There are many reasons why this might be, but I can tell you that Vancouver has higher density than the aforementioned cities and is also better serviced by public transit.

Why is this important? Measuring walkability has implications for public health policy and transportation. Larry Frank's study looks at the relationship between walking and active transportation i.e. adults living in the top 25% most walkable neighbourhoods drive approximately 58% less than those in more auto-oriented (less walkable) areas. They are probably more physically active as a result.

The report also looks at neighbourhood walkability and air pollution exposure. Nitric oxide (NO) levels are highest in urban areas of high residential density and on arterial roads where more vehicles in a smaller area result in higher concentrations of this pollutant. What does this mean for the walkers who are exposed to air pollution?

It is a really dynamic and informative study. I would encourage you to read it if you have some time on your hands. While the focus is on Metro Vancouver, it is critical to understand why walkability is important in our cities so that we can do smarter planning for active transportation and a healthier society.

Check out the report here.

Bike Lane Debate in Vancouver

Urban bike lanes always face opposition. People say they hurt businesses, they take space away from motorists, they are too expensive etc etc. We had a guest post in the summer from the Executive Director of the Toronto Cyclists Union that challenged many of the conventional arguments made against bike lanes.

On a separate note, I was speaking with a physicist who argued that bike lanes make cyclists less conscious of their surrounding environment and are thus more at a risk of colliding into a motorist. He suggested that bike lanes have rumble strips to make both cyclists and motorists more attentive and aware of their lanes.

My friend and classmate, William Dunn, recently wrote a short and excellent story about a new bike lane in Vancouver that has generated a lot controversy. In short, City Council recently approved the Hornby bike trial which is a protected cycling track in downtown Vancouver.

Will writes:

"The City’s decision to re-appropriate public streets for the creation of a protected cycling track has been one of the most divisive civic issues in memory. News1130 and other media have labeled it a misappropriation of public space and funds, business owners along the routes are furious, and motorists grow increasingly frustrated. With City Council’s October 5 decision to approve the Hornby bike trial, the debate seems destined to intensify".

Read more here.

Streetcars coming back to Vancouver?

Photo Credit: Rail forth valley

This past Wednesday I attended a symposium titled “Streetcars: The Missing Link?” It was a symposium put together by UBC’s School of Environmental Health and the UBC School of Community and Regional Planning. I attended it with a number of my classmates.

The purpose of the symposium was to explore the historical role of streetcars in Vancouver, how much it would cost to bring them back to the city, streetcar impacts on urban form and mobility, urban design and how the streetcar can complement others forms of transit such as buses or Vancouver's Skytrain system.

As a part of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, a demonstration section of the Downtown Streetcar was available for public use. The Downtown Streetcar was a 60-day demonstration period (January 21 to March 21, 2010) and ran between Granville Island and the new Canada Line Olympic Village Station on 1.8 km of newly constructed dedicated track. This demonstration project was successful; it provided reliable transportation for athletes, visitors and residents as often as every seven minutes and decreased the number of private vehicles, motor coaches and transit diesel buses to and from Granville Island.

Bombardier built the streetcar (as seen in the image) and would provide a fleet of them if Vancouver decided to go that route. I learned that Toronto is going to upgrade its streetcar system with a new fleet from Bombardier. There will be 200 new streetcars in Toronto between 2012 and 2018. This decision has also tempted Vancouver to bring streetcars back. The biggest issue is money. Research has shown that streetcars can help promote neighbourhood development and street life. They can help provide an urban identity too.

According to a speaker at the symposium, Vancouver was one of the first places on the planet to really embrace streetcars, in the year 1890. For almost 70 years, Vancouver had an extensive streetcar network. Don’t think of streetcars as a substitute to city buses, but instead as complementary form of transit that can help create higher density and move people easily within the downtown. Transit demand has increased 30% in Vancouver. This reason alone justifies some sort of public transit expansion.

By taking city buses a couple of times a week, it has become quite evident that buses are running at capacity. Streetcars have a longer life span and lowering operating costs than buses. They run on electricity and not fuel which is more environmentally-friendly. Again, they are not meant to replace but complement them.

While some Torontonians might think streetcars are a terrible form of public transit, they are beginning to take off all over the U.S. (especially in Portland) with 45 systems planned. A major impetus for bringing them back is that they can fulfill the transit hierarchy. By helping complete the transit hierarchy, Vancouverites would have every reason not to use their car.

In Vancouver, the streetcar would be connected to the Canada line, Skytrain and trolley buses and could take Vancouverites to work, errands etc. It would also connect tourists to Vancouver’s top attractions i.e. Stanley Park and Granville Island.

A former graduate student in my program conducted his thesis research on the Olympic streetcar. The results were overwhelmingly positive and the city is now looking at finance options.

Oh, one more thing. Many people I have talked to have negative attitudes toward streetcars, especially Torontonians. Let me tell you though, new streetcars would be grade separated meaning that the rail lines are elevated on a platform from the street so cars cannot drive in front of them. They would have right of way and allow for much smoother traffic flow.

More to come on streetcars and Vancouver’s impending decision on whether to re-implement them.

Bill Rees, The Ecological Footprint and Climate Change

Bill Rees is a prominent academic ecologist who co-created the Ecological Footprint concept back in the mid-1990s. Bill is also a distinguished professor in my graduate program (SCARP) and is well-known at UBC and in the City of Vancouver.

The 9-minute clip above is an introduction to a lecture he delivered at the World Federalists' Meeting this past April.

Bill draws on the problematic impacts that humans have had on ecology and explains the notable climate change implications. He also summarizes the ecological footprint concept very succinctly. Some of the points are a bit pessimistic but will hopefully give you an idea of the great challenges that planners and other professionals are currently confronted with. Bill works with a number of students in my program to develop ideas that will have salient policy impacts that alleviate human stresses on ecosystems.

Greenest City Action Team: Vancouver

I am reading through a report titled "Greenest City". It was put together in 2009 by the Greenest City Action Team (GCAT). The team comprises a number of environmental experts including councillors, Vancouver's Mayor Gregor Robertson, David Suzuki, David Boyd (one of Canada's leading environmental lawyers) just to name a few. This group of independent experts represents an immense knowledge base. They have a close understanding of the most pressing environmental interests that Vancouver faces.

The GCAT was given an audacious mandate: to figure out what Vancouver needs to do to become the greenest city in the world by 2020. The report is about 30-pages in length.

The report outlines several recommendations including the "greenest city action fund". In short, this recommendation suggests that the City seek funding partners (the provincial and federal governments, private donors, and businesses) to establish a Greenest City Action Fund to support investments in green infrastructure, energy efficiency, green jobs, environmental education and green business.

Specifically, with the establishment of this fund, the City could create a world-class environmental education centre, the acquisition of land for public green spaces, development of small-scale sources of renewable energy (geothermal, biomass, solar etc) and even an energy efficiency retrofit program for residential buildings.

Cities like Stockholm have shown great leadership on similar initiatives. Indeed, in 2003, Stockholm established the "Miljomiljarden" or Environmental Billion initiative, dedicating one billion Swedish kronor to improving environmental conditions. The money was spent on various projects including: environmental information, activities that promote the preservation of biodiversity, efficient energy consumption and waste management and the decontamination of polluted lands, lakes and water courses. Stockholm was recently named the Greenest City in Europe.

Vancouver has high hopes but is undoubtedly on the right track. The Greenest City Action Fund is a progressive and holistic approach to greening a city. However, it is not money that will exclusively solve all of Vancouver's environmental challenges. The fund will require a number of inputs beyond just monetary provision. Indeed, greening a city requires active participation and collaboration among the private sector, government agencies, citizens, agriculture and local schools. All of these stakeholders are critical in the sustainability process and all need to articulate how such a fund would benefit the city as a whole.

Key Message: We should commend the hitherto green leadership shown by the Mayor, Gregor Robertson and the Greenest City Action Team. With their ambitions, vision and drive, the team will in some way lead Vancouver in a direction that will make the city more livable and sustainable.

Vancouver should be more pro-active with green roof development...

Vancouver is a “great opportunities city”- it has enormous potential to revitalize its environmental and economic environment. Vancouver’s city policies have thus far supported numerous urban sustainability solutions such as increased urban density, mixed-use developments, buildings that preserve special green space and infrastructure for transit, cycling and walking to provide non-automobile options for living in and moving between Vancouver.

What the city needs to do is bring about green roof technology through policy tools such as market-based instruments. Why? Vancouver receives a higher than average amount of precipitation than other Canadian cities. Climate change, in particular excess rainfall, can pose numerous challenges for Vancouver in the future.

Vancouver’s urban hydrologic system will have to cope with a highly fluctuating amount of surface runoff water, which can become extremely high during periods of rainfall. Climate change has the potential to intensify rainfall patterns resulting in increased risks with flooding.

When a high percentage of the city’s residents live in these compact urban areas, flooding will cause massive displacement and be an economic nightmare. Market-based instruments such as direct financial incentives, serve as the necessary policy tools to promote this technology and make it affordable. Green roof technology will serve to help the city with stormwater management and reducing risks of floods.

Market-based instruments like direct financial incentives can help make them popular and environmentally attractive. More importantly, the utilization of market-based tools can help determine if there is sufficient demand for green roof development and the economic viability of them.

Toronto recently adopted a by-law that will govern the construction of green roofs on new development. However, before this regulatory requirement came about, the city ran a program called “Toronto’s Green Roof Incentive Pilot program”. This program offered a grant of $10/m² to eligible green roofs and proved to be popular. Vancouver should run a similar program.

As mentioned, over the past 10 years, a large percent of the metropolitan region’s new housing units were built within the existing urban area. Such density is important for the city, but there must still be a sufficient amount of permeable surfaces to capture and drain rainfall so it does not runoff and cause flooding. Thus, stormwater management must be optimal to avoid flooding of a highly dense urban core.

Green roofs can help capture rainfall and ultimately improve the urban hydrologic system. This environmental reason alone should suffice and act as an impetus to begin a green roof pilot project program as done in Toronto.

Through pilot projects, knowledge and experience is gained and the city becomes more familiarized with how green roofs operate. These steps are important for bringing about green roofs because everyone benefits through increased knowledge. These sorts of policy instruments are more effective for environmental change than by simply resorting to regulatory measures. While regulation sets a precedent for the city’s commitment to sustainability, it is too precipitous to implement right now and does not provide the developer with sufficient incentives.

As stormwater management gains more salience, policy-makers will realize the benefits of providing incentives to developers and building owners to bring about green roof technology. Also, energy prices are increasing for building heating and cooling and green roofs have proven to be efficacious at minimizing these costs.

Key message: Green roofs will help Vancouver promote healthy and sustainable communities.