Frances Bula header image 2

Province pushes to get Lower Mainland residents to pay more taxes for transit

March 13th, 2010 · 117 Comments

Talking to all the parties involved in trying to resolve TransLink’s financial mess is starting to remind me of sitting at the dinner table every night with your about-to-divorce parents. They keep insisting everything is fine and they’re having long constructive talks about some differences they’ve been having. But then you overhear them exchanging bitter words about who’s going to pay for what when the split comes.

These days, that feeling is running high because of the continuing stand-off over who’s going to pay for the Evergreen Line in the region’s northeast sector. (I have to say, sometimes it makes me long for the days when the provincial government would just unilaterally pay for everything. Sure, they made all the decisions and not always in the best interests of the city. But we didn’t have to hear this back and forth about whose little pile of tax money should be depleted more to pay for these things.)

It’s taken me a while, but I think I’m finally beginning to grasp what the essential disagreement is: who is going to stick it to which taxpayers. (Here’s my MSM version of all this.)

Yes, all the money eventually comes from taxpayers in one way or another. But the local mayors are worried about hiking taxes throughout the region only to pay for the Evergreen Line, which will not be a pretty thing to explain in Delta or West Vancouver. (At least Burnaby, Vancouver and Richmond won’t gripe too much because they’ve had massive spending on transit in their areas.)

So they’d rather see the province put in the missintg $400 million or get it from something besides property taxes, which always creates ill will at the voting booth.

And the province doesn’t want to put in more than the $400 million it already has, because it’s not a pretty thing to explain in Nanaimo or Kamloops or Prince George that all your capital money went into transit projects for latte-swilling urbanites.

So each side is trying to make the case for why the other group should pay. Mayors would like it to be either everyone in the province or, at least, drivers in the Lower Mainland (through road tolls and vehicle levies) — which, in the latter case, is not the same as property-owning, tax-paying, voting residents. The province would like Lower Mainland residents to pay, which is why Transportation Minister Shirley Bond is sounding feistier with every interview and why she’s trotting out more arguments every time I talk to her about the low taxes that people in Metro Van pay.

The province is supposed to be making some kind of announcement by the end of the month. What I’ll be waiting to hear is — will it be something that will really resolve the issue of mega-transit-project funding forever? Or can we look forward to another five-year squabble over who pays for the Millennium Line extension in Vancouver as soon as the five-year squabble over the Evergreen Line ends.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    (1) Attracting ridership to the bus in Vancouver

    This one to Chris and Paul… Using UK numbers, because as you’ve heard me carp here before, apparently we can’t even agree about that, the catchment populations served by bus as very, very light density.

    Extrapolating from that, the populations in Vancouver which are mid-density are not being provided sufficient Transit service by buses. Buses just can’t cope (according to the UK numbers). BRT or LRT could… but, that’s my point.

    The number that sticks in my head, and it’s old and I don’t remember if its regional or not, is 12%. If we are getting 88% of people using their cars with a transportation system heavily dependent on a bus fleet, then buses are not getting the job done. It doesn’t really matter whether we like them or not, they are not working because people prefer to drive than ride a bus.

    I agree with all of Chris’s points. However, they are not the “critical” ones. We can keep hitting all those numbers and still have a transportation system that is crappy, expensive, and that people will not use.

    (2) Paul missed point 2. And I wonder if I am making myself clear enough on this one for folks to understand. For example, I think it drives Zweisystem’s post a couple of stories up from here.

    He is talking about 1978 as the point when LRT transit was planned. I remember a traffic jam at Lougheed Mall morning rush hour because drivers were being asked to stop and take a survey card. Good effort. Must have cost a king’s ransom.

    However, in 1978, I don’t think most people in B.C. were ready to contemplate that the solution to neighbourhood blight caused by “High Traffic Volume Streets”.

    Today, we can contemplate for the first time the solution of taking space away from the cars.

    High Traffic Volume has been shown to decimate the quality of the residential stock on a street. It has been measured as rental turn over, for example. You can just drive over the Knight Street Bridge and look on both sides of Knight all the way to 12th Avenue and see for yourselves. The single family residential is being ravaged by the traffic. Livability is not there.

    The exact same thing happens on all the N-S arterials in Vancouver, the ones that used to carry streetcar.

    I think this is the point even voony doesn’t quite get: If we put LRT or BRT on the center of the street, we “break down” the scale of the street into humanly-managable chunks.

    We also have a dramatic effect in the livability of the place by reducing the amount of stuff that gets kicked up by the tires, and on the quality of the air and the “sense of place”—especially after we plant a double row of urban-scale trees. Trees not only trap particulate matter, the tree canopies act like filters, but they also replenish the oxygen in the air.

    So, here we have two issues that responders thus far have not handled very well. Let’s put it on the vagaries of “blogging”.

    First, history matters. Those of you who agitate for buses (it’s hard to call it anything else, really) must have a historical explanation of sorts for what happened in Vancouver. We have to understand in simple, and material ways what happened here in Vancouver when the trams were taken off and the road space was given over to the car.

    [Hint: neighbourhood blight].

    It didn’t have to be that way. We could have built treed medians over the space of the tracks. Yet, I hear a lot of comments in the blog to the effect that “if we have to blight a street or two just to get SkyTrain going, so be it”.

    That won’t do. The economic viability of every plot of land in our cities is part of the economic viability of the whole.

    The reason we are designers, ladies and gents, is that we are supposed to be able to see our way out of a paper bag, and deliver two results at one and the same time. In this case: a functioning transportation system, and a healthy city.

    (3) I was deliberately lowering my guard because I think voony was snowing us with his bus numbers.

    I am not an expert in transportation, but people that seem to know what they are talking about, and demonstrate the courage to test their own base assumptions have pointed out that:

    – LRT can run two trains together to boost capacity beyond anything BRT can deliver.

    – LRT can run as RER, or commuter on railroad

    – LRT implementation on routes with heavy bus service (like Broadway) may not cost Translink any additional operating costs because of savings achieved from taking buses off the road.

    I don’t know what the frequency in service is. I buy the 30 minute number. It is not “argument” if we seek to win the day by proposing ridiculous premises. We have to keep it real, folks. The Olympic Line is running on 6 minutes, with two trams on the same single track, and there are so many volunteers helping us on and off the cars that loading times are overextended.

    Frequency may have a role in attracting people to transit, but ask yourself if you have all the balls up in the air you need to “to attract people to transit”.

    Then, look at your second pair of arms and ask yourself if you have all the balls up in the air you need to to create great neighbourhoods or quartiers.

    This string can run for another 100 posts, and unless we each try to make progress at seeing these two objectives together, we are not going to resolve anything. We’ll just keep typing past one another.

    A paradigm shift in urbanism has brought us to the brink of something that has not been possible to contemplate in our cities since at least 1942 (when most places raised the speed limit from 30 to 50 kph). For the first time in two generations we can think in terms of limiting the range of the dominance of the automobile over the places we call home.

    However, this is a call to design—and decision making at the local level—in a manner that has also not been in place for about as long, if not longer.

    Those wearing the iron rings will have to demonstrate what we see very little evidence of here in this blog. The ability to communicate in clear and simple terms, and the ability to listen. Not just to their other colleges in city design, but to the people of the place. The holders of the local knowledge.

    If we are to curb freedoms for the automobile, however, we have to deliver an effective and likeable alternative. A good transit system.

    Finally, sticking to the Transportation Planning side of the discussion, can we use LRT or BRT implementation to improve the quality of our neighbourhoods? Here, the polar opposite of “blight”.

    We have the opportunity today for the first time in over a half century to implement transportation in a manner that will both deliver a good system, create pedestrian friendly streets, and improve the livability of our arterials. Each of us does not have to be expert in all of these areas. However, if we are part of the city design professions in the new paradigm, each of us does have a responsibility to be aware of the issues, and how we can help achieve the results in our own sphere of influence.

  • mezzanine

    ^And this my main issue, LNV, with streetcars. I agree that they are wonderful tools to re-invigorate neighbourhoods and the streetscape. But aside from that they offer no further mobility benefit than a bus. (You can add a ROW for buses too, and they are much more flexible; even trolleys can divert).

    I also would prefer to ride on a tram than a trolley or bus. But if it means that frequency is cut, then I would prefer the more frequent/faster option.

    From this perspective, a tram is less of a mobility improvement (negligible speed gains over a bus, less frequency if you are not able to provide enough drivers or tram cars) and more of a neighbourhood amenity/redevelopment tool that costs million and millions of dollars from regional/provincial and federal sources.

    That’s not to say neighbourhood regeneration is not worthwhile, but if a local service tram will provide the same mobility as a bus, you have to be clear about that and ensure that your regional partners are on board.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    We’re getting closer to being on the same page, Mezz. ROW+bus or trolley=BRT. We’re both good with that, both BRT and LRT take cars off the road, and allow for improvements in the urban space, while at the same time providing a transportation boost over buses.

    We are still not clear on the density or catchment population for bus/trolley; BRT; LRT & subway.

    My suspicion—and here I lack expertise, but I’ll try to make up for it by narrowing the reference—is that bus service in the neighbourhoods along Granville, Oak, Cambie, Main, Fraser, Clarke & Victoria (spaced 0.5 miles apart) is underserving that population.

    That is a 3.5 mile by 5 mile urban footprint I am describing (Granville to Victoria; Burrard Inlet to Fraser River). That’s 70 quartiers or potentially 700,000 people after intensificaton. Every front door would be within a 5 minute walk of a tram stop on one of the arterials, and a 10 minute walk from a stop in a neighbouring arterial. Unlike SkyTrain on Evergreen, we would not need to provide a bus link to the station.

    My sense is that buses can’t service that population adequately.

    When I lived near Oak and 70th my neighbours were not using buses. We had them in droves: on Granville (7 mn walk); on Oak (3 mn walk). Yet, everyone I knew living around me was using the car.

    How about the historical perspective? In these neighbourhoods in Vancouver the “bus experiment” has had over 70 years to get it right. Yet, the number of people opting to drive means it is not working.

    Would you agree?

  • mezzanine

    “bus service in the neighbourhoods along Granville, Oak, Cambie, Main, Fraser, Clarke & Victoria (spaced 0.5 miles apart) is underserving that population.”

    You’ve stated that you aren’t an expert, but what do you base that on?

    – I am unsure if there are bus capacity issues/pass-ups as you see on the 99B.
    -Artic trolleys just started running on Main, fraser and victoria, and I am unsure how trams would improve on mobility.
    -I am unsure if you would want to slow traffic down too much on knight st, which is the only truck route from richmond to the port.

    ” In these neighbourhoods in Vancouver the “bus experiment” has had over 70 years to get it right. Yet, the number of people opting to drive means it is not working.”

    Seattle prior to LRT being built had a transit mode share of 17%, and that’s just with buses only. Portland had a 13.3% mode share, with a multi-line LRT.

    http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/010230.html

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Basing it on a calculation of overall population in the area; then taking a gross-density average. Taking into account catchment area & stop spacing we can reduce both calculations to total number of people,

    (The unfortunate bit comes from using U.K. numbers. I can come across that kind of information there packaged inside the urban design literature. Here, I can’t seem to find those numbers anywhere. I’ll check the link, thanks).

    When I do, I get a very low population numbers for a bus system, compared to a medium density population number for Vancouver neighbourhoods on the arterials. That sets my mind thinking.

    On the 70-year experiment of bus implementation, I don’t think that Seattle and Portland are more than just suggestive comparisons.

    There is an opinion being presented that buses are an optimum. I am asking those very folks a question:

    At whatever the mode share is for those Vancouver neighbourhoods (I’m putting it at 12% from memory), is that an optimum for the bus system?

    “The Olympic Miracle” was planning to reduce private vehicular trips by 30%. Indications are the numbers were closer to 37%. If buses are such hot service, why haven’t we seen that type of change over the last 70 years as the neighbourhoods intensified?

    As I have suggested before, i think that the north american bus system is set up as the poor sister for the folks that can’t afford to drive. I don’t agree with that, or the decisions of many drivers, however, we are just reporting what we see out there.

  • Paul

    Lewis.

    I’ve lived my entire life by 41st and Knight. So I have a good idea of this area. Which you in general included.

    From a few posts above you felt this corridor was urban blight. To me it is just a single family homes district. Even if there was a tram on Knight Street or 41st. I do feel it would change the look of the neighbourhood.

    According to the census data from my area which is defined as Fraser,41st,Argyle,49th. 25% of the people over the age of 15 take transit to get to work, 5% Walk or Bike. 68% Drive or are a Passenger in a Car. What it doesn’t imply is those people over the age of 15 that don’t go to work but to school. The post secondary students. I’d say there is a good chance if you included them the public transit percentage would increase quite a bit. The population in this area is 6132 with a density of 5137/sqkm

    Now if I look at the census tract directly south of me bordered by Fraser, 49th, Argyle, 57th. Of the people over 15 going to work 19% take transit, 1.9% walk or bike, 78% either drive or are passenger. Again that doesn’t include people going to school. So I would assume the public transit percentage would actually be higher. And the population in this area is 8341 with a density of 7531/sqkm

    In case your wondering why the percentage numbers don’t add up to 100. That is because a small group of people use “some other means of transport”

    Ok so from that I can tell in my area more people take transit than the “12%” number you have quoted. Which tells me that “12%” is for the entire Metro Vancouver. Not just the area you are referring to.

    The next part is even with all that bus service. along Knight, Fraser, Victoria, 41st and 49th. Why is the transit usage still low. Or at least that is assuming 19-25% is low.

    One aspect on the above state numbers is that the cost of using a car is not expensive enough to persuade people to leave their car at home and take transit. I used to have a car but recently decided to park it and just take transit. But for me to save money on transit I had to not have my car insured and just leave it in the garage. Once I’ve insured my car. Now it costs me more to take transit vs driving. So my thought is a lot of people in my area want to own a car for what ever reason. Once they start paying insurance. They are more or less are forced to drive because of difference in cost between taking transit and the cost of using the car (fuel). Of course if they go to an area they have to pay to park. Then depending on the cost of parking transit may become a better option. This is why I feel when looking at getting more funding for transit. Raising property taxes is not a good thing to do. But raising fuel taxes and putting up tolls is better. It gives a more direct incentive to those who drive to drive less. Property taxes increase don’t give any incentive to people to drive less. Of course there are those that decide they can’t afford to keep the car because of the increase in property taxes. Which is good in a way. But most households want to own at least one car for those times when they still need the car.

    Another point is that time wise it is still quicker to take a car than the take transit.

    Next part is the service level in this area. While the Fraser,Knight,Victoria corridors are busy. As far as I know they don’t get pass ups. The routes are busy and during rush hour it is quite common to have to stand.

    As for the 41st routes of 41,43 and 49th route of 49. Pass ups can be quite common. I’ve been passed up at least once on 49th and once on 41st. I do feel a lot of people on those routes are from outside areas going to UBC and or Langara. There is no doubt that Canada Line as put an extra strain on those routes. As it is quite common for the buses to be delayed a cambie longer than normal as half the bus empties and fills back up with new passengers.

    Would a tram bring better service possibly. But I also feel that if they were to ban street parking from 6am to 9 pm that would improve the service a lot as well. The biggest problem I see is the buses getting bunched up. Generally because one bus ends up stopping at every stop and takes a while to load and unload. Meanwhile the bus behind catches up because it doesn’t have anyone to stop for so it catches up easily to the bus in front. I’ve seen this countless times with the 41. It runs about every 5 minutes at rush hour. Sometimes you can be waiting for a good 15 mins and suddenly see 2-3 buses comming. I also feel to get better timed service. There should be more timing stops. In fact every cross bus route should be a timing stop. Right now on 41st. The time stops are Joyce, Fraser, Granville, UBC. When in reality there should be a timing stop at Kingsway, Claredon, Victoria, Knight, Main, Cambie (especially here) and so on. Sure if a bus is behind schedule it wouldn’t help. But it would help to keep the buses more on schedule. Another aspect to get better service would be to look at all door boarding. Get people on and off faster. Of course that is hard to implement. As there is no proof on whether people have paid or not.

    Back to the idea that the majority of people on the 41,43,49 are people from outside areas going to UBC,Langara. This is why I feel the skytrain along Broadway has to go to UBC. For the simple fact of getting these people off of these routes. While a tram might be nice looking along Broadway. The simple fact is the east west corridor needs something fast and frequent to just move people.

    Back to the idea of no street parking. I would also add that they should make the curb lane on those routes during the time of 6am to 9pm a bus only lane. Once you have a bus only lane that would be the same as having a Tram.

    I also would not want to have a Tram started along a route. Where the frequency of the Tram is far less than what the bus is. The 22 on knight during non peak comes ever 12-15 minutes. If a tram were to come only ever 30 mins that would upset me dearly. Even then 12-15 mins I feel is a long wait.

    So if you want more people on transit. Make it cheaper than driving. Try and make it as fast a driving. Or better yet make sure the frequency is high enough that transfers are not that long.

    Another aspect is where are these people going. If the majority are going towards areas that are poorly serviced by transit. Then chances are they will drive. Even if transit is good where they live.

  • Paul

    Edit on the above where I said

    “Even if there was a tram on Knight Street or 41st. I do feel it would change the look of the neighbourhood. ”

    I meant to imply that it would not change the look of the neighbourhood.

    For that to happen would imply that the homes all get knocked down and something else is built.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    “this corridor was urban blight. To me it is just a single family homes district. Even if there was a tram on Knight Street or 41st. I do feel it would change the look of the neighbourhood.”

    Well, here is a point worth discussing. And, Paul, since you represent local knowledge, we can probably get it right, giving a good feel for what we’ve been on-and-on about.

    The “urban blight” is limited to the homes fronting Knight Street. The school (on 49th), and the businesses on 49th, 41st, and between King Ed and Kingsway, could be much better served by good urbanism applied to the design of the Knight Street R.O.W. (right of way).

    A tram would do that. It would put a continuous double row of trees down the middle of the street on 5-foot medians that would act as “islands of safety” when it is safe to j-walk. Pedestrian crossing distances would be reduced, and the possibility of cars coming over the centre line for head-on collisions eliminated (nearly had one of those north of 27th).

    The tram would occupy either 2 or 3 lanes of traffic, removing between 20,000 and 30,000 vehicles per day. This reduction would mostly take place at rush hour, when the neighbourhood blighting is really at a peak.

    Knight would still be able to handle between 20,000 and 40,000 vpd, plus an additional 60,000 LRT rides.

    So far, we have made a significant impact on the houses fronting (do you know any residents that live in units fronting Kinght, it would be interesting to hear back from them). And, by removing vehicular over-volume, impacted the local streets as well.

    You report a 25% bus ridership. In your gut, does that go up with LRT? I think it might double!

    Your reporting is excellent. Using the lower number, the 5,137 people per km2 factors to 2,600 per quartier, or 22 persons per acre. If we assume 2.2 people per unit we are at a gross density of 10 units/acre or duplex housing. My Formshift entry for the Vancouver Arterials (including Knight) would increase density on lots fronting Knight to 60 units per acre, or a 6x increase.

    Perhaps a greater portion of that new population might use the service slipping along their front door. The FormShift street design also included local access lanes along both sides of the street, but we won’t get into detail with that.

    The “intensification” of Vancouver arterials that I am proposing—including Knight Street—would take place on a lot-by-lot basis. No land assembly required, construction could be by either small or large construction firms. The apartment zone between 63rd and the bridge we would assume might not redevelop because the profits would not be there.

    Your next point….

    “with all that bus service. along Knight, Fraser, Victoria, 41st and 49th. Why is the transit usage still low. Or at least that is assuming 19-25% is low.”

    I am assuming it is low at 25%. Perhaps others can enlighten us. And I agree that this shows that the 12% is probably my memory of a regional number published in the 1990s (I would guess about the time the HOV lanes were announced for the Freeway).

    I also agree with your cost for buying insurance by the year. However, I am supposing that if you had better service in the form of LRT, and you drove to work to a site within the transit network, once you had a monthly pass, you would use it for some evening and weekend trips, and still ensure your car year round.

    Depending on where you were going, signal activated LRT should beat the pants of getting to downtown Vancouver in a car during the rushes.

    Note that we agree, I think, that BRT on the arterials should bring most of the LRT benefits provided the demand doesn’t exceed system capacity.

    Frequency: “The 22 on knight during non peak comes ever 12-15 minutes”

    Olympic Line, running two trains on a single track had frequencies of about 6 mn and operators felt they could improve on it.

    “[to] change the look of the neighbourhood the homes all get knocked down and something else is built [fronting the arterials]”

    [words in brackets are mine]

    The whole idea of “good” urbanism is that we can do two things, maybe more, at the same time. Yes, Paul, this is the way to improve all of our neighbourhoods. Thanks for sharing you knowledge around your neighbourhood.

    I hope we’ve mad a cool post.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    … made a good post.

  • http://voony.wordpress.com/ voony

    Lewis:

    High transit ridership is not necessarily a good thing:

    you will see it in city like Calgary or Seattle, and the reason is that there, you have basically a single purpose CBD where noone live and shutting down at 5pm and , so every one go to a park and ride before heading to work…and don’t go to the city for other reason…that bring you a kind the urbanism we all know: Is it a good thing?

    I think the goal of good urban planning is not to maximize transit ridership, but to minimize trip! and when those are necessary, have a spatial organization benefiting to transit…

    So in that scheme, most of the people walk or bike for their trip, and barely use transit:

    I think you will agree that France is not a land of disaster when come public transit, but still there, when you take the ~ 15 larger cities (outside Paris area), you get a transit share of ~12%, but car is 53% not 78%, because lot of people walk, and some other bike…
    (I have linked source for those number on my page http://voony.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/subway-and-lrt-safety-in-france/ )

    Amazingly enough, it is very similar number you will see in Vancouver DownTown…

    and for the GVRD area, is is a quite large area, the size of one county or 2 in US, so to make fair comparison.

    regarding 25% taking transit to go to work in the Paul neighborhood

    To give a matter of comparison:
    I think similar number for the Paris area with all this commuter trains, RER, subways, trams, buses are below 50%…

    at the end in the statistic, some exhibit the total trip, while the other only the commuter trip, and between the both you can have a significant discrepancy (commuter transit share for GVRD is close to 17%, link to source is in my “gordon legacies” blog entry).

  • Paul

    “The “urban blight” is limited to the homes fronting Knight Street. The school (on 49th), and the businesses on 49th, 41st, and between King Ed and Kingsway, could be much better served by good urbanism applied to the design of the Knight Street R.O.W. (right of way).”

    There is no doubt that having a home along Knight street. Is not as nice as having a home one block in (which is where I’m situated). And could Knight street have been better definitely.

    When there was a “scare” of a toll being put on the Knight street bridge. I hate to say it but I was gung ho for the whole idea. Great make the suckers who don’t even live along Knight street pay to drive up it.

    “I also agree with your cost for buying insurance by the year. However, I am supposing that if you had better service in the form of LRT, and you drove to work to a site within the transit network, once you had a monthly pass, you would use it for some evening and weekend trips, and still ensure your car year round.”

    When I had my car which was an old junker. insured it with no collision, no theft and not comprehensive. Just the basic insurance and third party liability. I used it to go to work. I then want to see if I could put my insurance as pleasure only. What I found out was because I didn’t have those other categories. That pleasure use wasn’t any cheaper. That is when I discovered ok. So I own the car I only want it for pleasure. So when going to work. Even if I had a monthly pass. And I factored in the income tax non credit rebate for monthly passes. The cost of using that compared to putting fuel in my. It was cheaper just to drive the car. The only reason why I decide to drop the car was one it was starting to break down. Although I could have fixed it. But two on a personal level I was just tired of driving with all the other idiots out there. Either way it showed me how badly we need to make driving more expensive. I do feel the price of fuel needs to be up in the $2 – $2.50 range. Which would put it on par with Europe. But I also realize that I’m the exception to the rule. And most people just won’t get rid of their car.

    “Note that we agree, I think, that BRT on the arterials should bring most of the LRT benefits provided the demand doesn’t exceed system capacity.”

    And so once BRT goes past capacity at that point we then start to implement and LRT line of some sort. It is a logical progression. Do I think Knight street needs a LRT now. Probably not. On a personal level it would be nice. But for now a Bus only lane from 6AM to 9PM would do quite nicely. Although before that were to happen I would have the left turn bays at 57th installed first. That way you are guaranted 2 through lanes and one bus only lane.

    “The “intensification” of Vancouver arterials that I am proposing—including Knight Street—would take place on a lot-by-lot basis. No land assembly required, construction could be by either small or large construction firms. The apartment zone between 63rd and the bridge we would assume might not redevelop because the profits would not be there.”

    I was looking at the formshift designs. Not sure if you are the same person. But there was one by Simpson Villegas.

    If your doing it lot by lot . Then it would be easier. Trying to get two or three lots together is a major pain. And most likely will never happen. Which is why we never suddenly saw a major densification of areas around 29th and nanaimo skytrain stations.

    Also it would require a zoning change. In my area no house can be be at 3 full stories. It can be 2.5 stories. Although I do believe that might be changing and 3 stories might come about. Also there is of course the minimum distance a house must be from front side walk and back lane. So that would have to changed.

    In some indirect way though they are starting to build multi dwelling units on a standard lot. There is a house 3 houses from mine being built. I’m guessing it is a standard 2,000 sqft home. Top level is one dwelling at 1,000 sqft Accessed by the front door. Bottom level is split into two separate 500 sqft dwellings. Both accessed by two separate doors at the back of the house. There is a 250 sqft laneway house as well. Or at least I’m estimating it is 250 sqft. So what was once just one dwelling has no become 4 dwellings. Because there is only now one parking garage in the back. Most will have to park in the front street. What I do see happening as more dwellings like this are built. People will have less space to park. And some will just give up on having a car. Which is why higher density brings great transit use.

    “Frequency: “The 22 on knight during non peak comes ever 12-15 minutes”

    “Olympic Line, running two trains on a single track had frequencies of about 6 mn and operators felt they could improve on it.”

    What I’m saying is that if they do build an LRT line. They have to make sure the frequency of the LRT is very close to what the bus frequency was. To build an LRT which will have a greater capacity per train. And then drop the frequency because it isn’t needed. Is bringing worse service. Sure it might be a greater pphpd. But I’m having to wait longer.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    You have the FormShift entry correct, Paul. There would be zoning changes, and more importantly changes to the road standards.

    I am not a transportation expert. But, I don’t see adding LRT, then decreasing frequency of service. You may know something I do not. The BRT implementation is not just two bus lanes at the centre of the R.O.W., but also buses that trip the light signals. When they are taking up passengers, or off loading, the light is red. Every other time, the light is green for the BRT.

    It is interesting that you did the comparison of bus pass to “minimum cost automobile” and came up short. Were you paying for parking at the other end? That is usually the deal breaker.

  • MB

    A very interesting set of comments by people who obviously care.

    Designers do get it, Lewis. And yes, to the point our hair is set on fire with certain images of human scaled urbanism and beautiful architecture from Europe. We can learn much from that continent.

    But the central thrust of Frances’s original post was transit FUNDING. It’s obvious that no amount of articulation, imagery and ideation about redesigning our cities for human beings has attracted the attention Gordon, Shirley and Steve. Moreover, they are distracted now by dubious structural and planned deficits for the next few years.

    However, I believe the resiliency of our cities will be seriously put to the test when the cost of fuel skyrockets + collapses repeatedly, but generally trends way, way upwards over the next decade. No other issue will put our city-building precepts and economy on trial as severely.

    I predict the issue of whether to build transit at much higher levels of long-term stable funding will then be forced, but only after much wailing and gnashing of teeth predominantly by Gordo’s and Steve’s suburban commuter supporters.

    As much as we prefer our leaders to have vision and foresight, the reality is that they are followers of their lobbyists and are shackled by their ideology. Where is the national concensus-builder we need so desperately?

    It may take $3 per litre gas and $300 fill ups to pump the demand for transit alternatives to overflowing. By then, though, much damage to the economy will have already been done, as evidenced by much higher unemployment levels, a stagnant marketplace, and even less government revenue.

    It’s ironic that those who promoted and supported the Gateway project did so with the old saw that it will ‘improve the economy’. They did not do their research, or if they did they censored the results. Gateway’s feet of clay will crumble with escalating private vehicle operating costs and tolls. The debt charges on its $6 billion cost will just be settling in as the half-century act of commuting by single occupant car and all its attendant layers of public subsidy and suburban construction finally cracks and its folly is exposed.

    Perhaps worse for the premier and the former minister of transport is that their supporters in the suburban real estate industry will suffer greatly.

    It’s up to us to encourage decision makers at all levels to come to the table now, or barring that at least have a plan prepared for mid-decade. And that includes as a top priority a plethora of public transit options in all cities, and food and energy security.

    And it’s also up to us as individuals, families and extended families to prepare for the possibility that in harder times many politicians who don’t get it, or who are ideologically bound to do nothing, will absent themselves from the responsibility to help society and the conglomerations we call cities evolve into more resilient forms.

    I for one am looking forward to empty asphalt and see it as a blank canvas, a land base for better things, like transit, pedestrian streets, bike freeways, linear parks, allotment gardens, housing and a gigantic economic stimulus package. But I’m also worried about coping in the meantime. I’m hoping that my quartier ends up having everything I need within a 10-minute walk well into my 80s, or, as it may be, a 10-minute ride in a motorized wheelchair.

    2015. That may be a seminal, paradigm-shifting year.

  • Paul

    @Lewis

    “It is interesting that you did the comparison of bus pass to “minimum cost automobile” and came up short. Were you paying for parking at the other end? That is usually the deal breaker.”

    In my case there was no pay parking at the other end. Of course someone who has to pay for parking will come up with a different set up numbers.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    MB 115 posts into this string, we are allowed to scale down to one-on-one discussions, don’t you think?

    I don’t see the empty asphalt. It may be covered by bikes or something else.

    I have long wondered in the Great Depression what role was played by the swift shift from horse drawn transportation to internal combustion engines. Think of the whole spectrum of infrastructure and supply lines that one day just went dead.

    Think of the economic displacement of that. Sure the farmers were hit. Especially the ones supplying horses, horse feed, and stray to spread over the street to cover up the droppings until they could be shovelled away.

    However, I do see a willingness to take back the dominance of the public realm from the private automobile emerging in our midst. And that is a “new” thing for me. Something I always felt was necessary, but something that has kind of snuck up on me with the “Olympic Miracle”.

  • http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

    I don’t think straw was spread to cover up the manure, at least not in New York City. Here’s an interesting article about horses in NYC and the problems they caused.

    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/when-horses-posed-a-public-health-hazard/

  • MB

    Lewis: “I don’t see the empty asphalt. It may be covered by bikes or something else.”

    It’s not very empty now, but, as I said, it could very well prove to be a blank canvas for better things than private cars in three or four years. Think of a land base equivalent to 1/3 of a typical municipality’s total area. That’s one big chunk of property, and it’s mostly owned by the people.

    “I do see a willingness to take back the dominance of the public realm from the private automobile emerging in our midst. ”

    Spot on! As I mentioned above, I think peak oil will force the issue. But there is a tremendous lack of knowledge about how the anticipated price spikes in fossil fuels will affect society. Portland wrote a report on it and is now acting on it. Metro Vancouver recently wrote a report on peak oil and so far only major Joe Trassolini (Port Moody) has spoken publicly about it (don’t have a link at hand at the moment). We really need to light a fire under the decision makers, otherwise we’ll all be caught unaware.

    I believe we can use the public realm — and the potential to plan it with more care toward the human scale — as a negotiating tool with the private sector and between various levels of government. Cities may not have much money, and they are hamstrung (or should I say have the advantage?) that they cannot run deficits.

    But one thing they do have a lot of is public land under the asphalt.