[officedweller]

Good article from today's Vancouver Sun. I've highlights a few items.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=a6cadb13-b8a1-4649-a200-a688163615da&p=1

Stuck in traffic: URBAN PLANNING. Even with the best transit plans, a U.S. traffic expert says, the GVRD will continue to be plagued by road congestion because that's part of what makes a city

Doug Ward, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, March 10, 2007

Barring an economic implosion, future population growth means the Lower Mainland will become even more car-dominated than it is today, urban guru Anthony Downs says

One of the most influential traffic experts in the world says gridlock-weary residents of Greater Vancouver shouldn't be deluded by ambitious plans for gleaming new rapid transit lines and bigger fleets of new buses.

Barring an economic implosion, says Anthony Downs, future population growth means our region will become even more car-dominated than it is today.

The most a revamped TransLink can do is slow the rate at which our highways and arterial roads become more clogged.

But Downs, who visited Vancouver this week, says we still have to make an effort to fight back against the lure of the automobile.

Governing bodies such as TransLink and the Greater Vancouver Regional District should expand road capacity, charge tolls on some lanes during peak hours, fund more transit and create more affordable and compact communities.

The 76-year-old American thinks it's a fine idea for a new transportation authority to develop land around transit hubs as proposed this week by the provincial government.

He favours comprehensive regional planning managed by elected regional governments with real power.

But the elderly sage from the Brookings Institute, a think-tank in Washington, D.C., attaches a caveat: Traffic congestion is here to stay.

You can control its rate of growth. But you can't get rid of it. There is no silver bullet.

All of which Downs said this week while on a tour of downtown Richmond -- an area where planners envision the emergence of a town centre with a forest of highrises, new office buildings, diversified retail and accessible transit.

Downs was being guided along No. 3 Road by Chris DeMarco, a planner with the Greater Vancouver regional district. DeMarco told Downs about the GVRD's attempt to concentrate future growth in Richmond's city centre and seven other city centres across the region.

She pointed to early construction of elevated guideways of the Canada Line along No. 3 Road.

And she pointed out to Downs that she could see six buses moving down the busy street -- evidence that people are willing to embrace transit.

"I see a lot of cars too," countered Downs, ever the realist. "How many cars do you want to count?"

As they drove away in a regional district-owned car, Downs cautioned that the GVRD's Livable Region Strategy and other pro-transit strategies are well and good -- but that gridlock won't disappear.

"Once you have congestion on your road system, it is very difficult to eliminate it.

"But what you can do is make it get worse more slowly."

In 1992 Downs published Stuck In Traffic, a landmark book in which he outlined his principle of triple convergence -- a dynamic which frustrates efforts to curb peak-hour congestion by pouring more asphalt.

Adding capacity has three unintended consequences, according to Downs. Drivers shift from alternative routes and begin to use the new, wider highway. Motorists who previously drove at off-peak times go back to driving at rush hour. And people using transit opt to commute by their car.

"Traffic will move much faster at first during rush hour but pretty soon the word gets out," said Downs. Drivers will converge on the expanded route and once again cars will move at a crawl.

The upside is that the newly improved road will be able to carry more people at peak hours. "There are benefits but eliminating congestion isn't one of them."

Planner DeMarco said that Stuck In Traffic "was an important book because it confronted people with the fact that congestion is a function of a successful city."

Stuck in Traffic argued for a comprehensive carrot-and-stick approach to traffic planning, said DeMarco. The carrots including better road systems and transit, and the sticks including tolls and other ways of influencing behaviour.

DeMarco said Downs' broader perspective influenced the development of the successful U-Pass program for most post-secondary students in the GVRD.

Stuck in Traffic also shaped the perspective of DeMarco and other planners who successfully urged the city of Vancouver in the mid-'90s against adding more road capacity in its transportation plan.

In the Downsian universe, congestion isn't necessarily a bad thing. Only prosperous and vibrant regions, after all, have congestion. Want to get rid of congestion? Have a recession. Or move to Hornby Island and play hacky-sack.

Living with congestion is an essential element of metropolitan life. Congestion allows the vast majority of us to move to and from work or school at the same times most days.

Downs made this point during a speech at Simon Fraser University when one student asked if it wasn't time for politicians to restrict use of single-occupant vehicles.

"I think the idea of increasing the use of transit is an intelligent policy and could produce an alternative to single-occupancy vehicles," said Downs.

"But let me say right off the bat: The idea of getting rid of congestion altogether is a delusion. Traffic congestion is an inescapable result of the way we organize society. It's not going to go away -- in fact, it's going to get worse."

Congestion, said Downs, is a solution to society's needs rather than a problem.

"It's a means by which we achieve other objectives that are more important, such as having a wide range of choice of where to live and work."

Downs told his SFU audience that the GVRD predicts there will be 400,000 new jobs in the region by 2031. Even if 25 per cent -- or 100,000 -- of these new jobs were serviced by better transit systems, that still leaves 300,000 new employees driving to work in the region.

(Currently, only about 15 per cent of all commuting trips take place on transit.)

Clogged expressways are not a North American phenomenon, said Downs. While many European cities have excellent transit systems, they also have auto congestion. So do most urban centres in the developing world. Car travel, he added, accompanies rising incomes -- just look at the mad rush to buy cars and build highways in China.

"Around the world, as people's incomes rise and the population goes up, people buy vehicles."

Greater Vancouver's population rose from 1.9 million people to 2.1 million between 1996 and 2006. During the same time, the number of cars in the region jumped from 1.06 million to 1.3 million.

But policy-makers who warn that congestion is threatening the GVRD's international competitiveness should relax, says Downs, because gridlock is growing faster in most other major metropolitan regions.

Which brings us to Down's take on the GVRD's Livable Region Strategic Plan and its goal of expanding transit and reducing the growth of auto travel while absorbing a projected 750,000 more people in the next 30 years.

Before flying to Vancouver for two speaking engagements, Downs read GVRD planning documents -- calculator in hand -- so that he could better address the question: What is to be done?

Downs doubts the GVRD can reduce the use of cars if the region's population jumps by the forecasted increase.

The region's residents now use cars for 70 per cent of commuting and over 80 per cent of all travel, said Downs.

He noted that the number of vehicles registered in Greater Vancouver rose by 55,000 between 2002 and 2003 while the population rose by only 31,200 -- or 1.7 vehicles for every additional newcomer.

Transit now only accounts for about 15 per cent of commuting trips and so far cannot efficiently serve low-density neighbourhoods in many suburbs.

To make matters worse, he added, the developers of office parks are avoiding the GVRD's eight regional town centres and moving out to low-density office parks where land is cheaper.

Land costs pose a dilemma for urban planners everywhere who want to concentrate jobs around transit hubs, said Downs.

"To concentrate jobs in growth centres means you need to control land there.

"You need some way to control the owners' ability to raise rents because when you force offices and housing into specific areas, you drive up the price of land."

Affordability of housing is a key challenge for the GVRD as it tries to control future growth and limit sprawl further east, said Downs.

He suggested that the region consider inclusionary zoning, an approach which requires developers to make a certain percentage of the housing units they build (usually 20 per cent) affordable to low- and moderate- income households.

Downs said inclusionary zoning could work in the GVRD if homebuilders are given off-setting benefits such as density bonuses and other regulatory breaks.

Inclusionary zoning, he added, works best if the rules are enforced by a regional authority and applied to all municipalities.

"If you leave affordable housing in the hands of local governments, it won't work because local governments are dominated by homeowners interested in maximizing the value of their houses and so are afraid of having low-cost housing near them."

GVRD planner DeMarco said that hundreds of municipalities in the U.S., especially in California, use inclusionary zoning.

The practice is among the methods being considered by the GVRD as it develops its regional affordable housing strategy.

Downs said attempts to control future growth will require a regional government capable of over-riding the wishes of individual municipalities.

"If you are going to do high-density stuff you need a unified plan where the housing, office, transit and highways go. And the plan can't be based on maximizing the tax income for each of 21 municipalities."

In the end, no matter how efficient our transit system or compact our communities, our roads will still be crammed with cars, says Downs.

We'll still be stuck in traffic -- it seems -- but perhaps not quite as deep.

dward@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Sun 2007

[smasher000]

Rapid transit would totally reduce traffic. Why hasn't the government supplied the damn money when they've been complainig about it for so long.

[fever]

I wouldn't expect rapid transit to reduce traffic congestion noticeably in itself. It provides an alternative to many people, and it will reduce the rate at which congestion increases (which may or may not be measureable).

Traffic congestion is an inescapable result of the way we organize society.
As long as demand is high and the cost is low...

[Lee_Haber8]

What rapid transit does is it reduces the percentage of people who drive their cars to get to a destination which is good in itself. It also removes any reason for building roads and makes it politically possible for roads to be narrowed and parking to be built on. It permits a greater volume movement of people, but does not reduce traffic congestion. If you want to get rid of traffic you need to narrow roads and slow them down.

Downs is absolutely right in that more roads increase automobile congestion. I wish more people would get this through their heads when they think about widening roads and adding interchanges (I'm looking at Calgary)

[Boris2k7]

The concept of induced traffic is pretty much common knowledge among planners. Yes, even in Calgary. We all know about it. It's mostly just political will that is keeping the local governments from investing more, as is easy to satisfice a whole lot of drivers who know almost nothing about planning by simply building more roads (although there are a few older planners who have been floating around in the planning department for 40 years... most of them will retire soon).

And yes, rapid transit investments can quite visibly decrease congestion, just as the disruption of such services will visibly increase congestion. You want proof, look at the last transit strike in Calgary. Imagine what happens when a (at that time) fifth of a million transit riders suddenly are forced to drive or carpool. Smog days and congestion follow...

[twoNeurons]

Public transit that is not public road-based. (ie. in its own ROW) eliminates traffic... for those that use it... there is no traffic.

That's the point. More transit doesn't eliminate congestion, it provides a choice.

Go to Japan... super busy, they toll all their roads, but they still have lots of congestion... and their transit lines are super busy.

They run most of their mail at night via shinkansen.

[Boris2k7]

Japan also has a buttload of people. It takes a lot more infrastructure to relieve that kind of demand for transportation.

Again, more transit can eliminate congestion, if you are prepared to commit to high levels of service, which, of course, costs a lot. The same can be said for roads... it just costs insane amounts more (basically can only be done with huge federal government grants) and is highly destructive in social and environmental terms.

A foreseeable scenario would be a city where the rail lines and guideways are dominant and seen as the backbone of the transportation network and the roads as subsidiary to them. In such a system, and with densification policies in place to ensure that the city becomes more concentrated around the transit backbone, a city can perhaps eliminate automobile congestion. Of course this assumes some major changes not only in lifestyles, but also in the way that we view the transportation system... as a way to move people around, not cars. Our cities have to be reorganized, resocialized... pedestrianized. It will be no small feat, requiring huge amounts of effort from a variety of groups. However it also has to be done, and people will be forced to change eventually by global warming or perhaps simply by economics. One would think, though, that it would be better to start now voluntarily than leave the final solution to a variety of crises...

However, it doesn't have to sound so dramatic or even painful a change. In many ways it is just a return to how our cities looked in the early 20th century, but with modern amenities, techniques and technologies. Sometimes you need to retract before you can once again expand, else you overstretch and hurt yourself...

[Lee_Haber8]

I think we're also forgetting that a lot of smart planning can also decrease congestion. When people are lets say walking to get groceries, clothing and other basic amenities that really reduces the trip load on the system. The goal here is instead of making the trip from A to B faster we make it shorter. Remember only 20% of trips are commute related, the other 80% is mainly for basic needs, which in any well planned neighborhood should be in convenient walking distance. If people want to go to the store that's a bit farther there should be convenient bike routes that will help get them there. This means that by planning for pedestrians and cyclists we can eliminate at least 80% of traffic congestion!

[Boris2k7]

^ No, I definately agree about the need for smart planning. That is what I am talking about when saying we need to pedestrianize cities.

But you know, 20% of traffic may be for the commute, but its the commute that causes the congestion. Traffic for other needs is usually more spread out so it doesn't cause congestion.

In the end, without strong transit connections, the community is still auto dependent.

[fever]

Has anyone been paying attention to the Cambie Bridge lately? It went from 3 lanes to one lane southbound for skytrain construction. I haven't gone over it on weekdays, but I have on weekends. For the first three weeks it was pretty bad, but now the delay is about the same as waiting at an extra traffic light. How is it on weekdays?

The reason I'm asking is because the current council decided against removing a single lane in each direction for cycling from the Burrard Bridge. Instead council is planning to spend about $20 million (it could be more?) to widen the sidewalks to make cycling safer. If two lanes can be removed from one False Creek bridge with little negative effect, then this spending is wasteful. It's also pissing off the heritage people..

[SpongeG]

there was some problems related to this huge rainfall along the canada line - apparently debris or mud or whatever has spilled and only busses are being allowed through now - its closed to cars - check our 730 am if in the area

[Lee_Haber8]

^ No, I definately agree about the need for smart planning. That is what I am talking about when saying we need to pedestrianize cities.

But you know, 20% of traffic may be for the commute, but its the commute that causes the congestion. Traffic for other needs is usually more spread out so it doesn't cause congestion.

In the end, without strong transit connections, the community is still auto dependent.

That's definitely true. Luckily good transit reinforces pedestrian-friendly communities if designed properly. Despite it's high ridership numbers, this is one the things Calgary's C-Train does not do as light-rail is implemented in a very unpleasant way for pedestrians and there is practically no TOD. The same goes for the Millenium Line on Lougheed Hwy near Brentwood - having the guideway right in the middle ruins any potential for a nice streetscape.

[Xelebes]

The key, I think, is that after a certain amount of congestion, other forms are seen as preferable.

Basically, given the amount of people moved in maximum tolerable congestion is 100, public transportation allows for more people to go that route making that number go to 125, 150 and beyond.

[Boris2k7]

That's definitely true. Luckily good transit reinforces pedestrian-friendly communities if designed properly. Despite it's high ridership numbers, this is one the things Calgary's C-Train does not do as light-rail is implemented in a very unpleasant way for pedestrians and there is practically no TOD. The same goes for the Millenium Line on Lougheed Hwy near Brentwood - having the guideway right in the middle ruins any potential for a nice streetscape.

Well, TOD is rather new in Calgary but it is growing fast. The Bridges is seen now as perhaps the best example of TOD in Canada. There are also plans for Heritage Station (see the first page) and Dalhousie and Josh White has been working on Anderson station for his thesis (the City of Calgary is apparently working on a plan for there as well). Most of the areas that the CTrain runs through were already in existance so of course they aren't transit oriented per se, but I wouldn't say that layouts for the most part are anti-pedestrian. For example, it is quite comfortable to take the train to Sunnyside and walk through to Kensington. Of course this is not the case with stops such as Southland or Brentwood where it takes longer to get from the platforms to your destinations and you can't walk directly off the platform.

[SpongeG]

i think the problem with vancouver is they seem to be focussed on getting people into downtown instead of from one suburb to another

you have to go way out of your way to get from one place to another

the town centre idea will work somewhat but be useless if they are not well connected

[Stingray2004]

Recent stats in the Vancouver Sun show that roughly 12% of Greater Vancouverites utilize transit.

It makes one wonder if that figure has really changed that much since before the advent of Skytrain when essentially only buses provided the same transit service.

[officedweller]

Has anyone been paying attention to the Cambie Bridge lately? It went from 3 lanes to one lane southbound for skytrain construction. I haven't gone over it on weekdays, but I have on weekends. For the first three weeks it was pretty bad, but now the delay is about the same as waiting at an extra traffic light. How is it on weekdays?

The reason I'm asking is because the current council decided against removing a single lane in each direction for cycling from the Burrard Bridge. Instead council is planning to spend about $20 million (it could be more?) to widen the sidewalks to make cycling safer. If two lanes can be removed from one False Creek bridge with little negative effect, then this spending is wasteful. It's also pissing off the heritage people..

Excellent point. A co-worker drives it on weekdays from downtown and says that it's not a long wait - maybe 15-20 minutes at most. The traffic volume has adjusted and found alternate routes - the same would happen if the Burrard were narrowed - even to 4 lanes. The hokey trial period on the Burrard Bridge was ill-planned and not well publicized.

*******

i think the problem with vancouver is they seem to be focussed on getting people into downtown instead of from one suburb to another

you have to go way out of your way to get from one place to another

the town centre idea will work somewhat but be useless if they are not well connected

The rapid transit lines in the Livable Region Strategic Plan connect the town centres. That's the so-called "T" line (M-Line plus Evergeeen Line form the "T"). The T-line allows rapid transit connections from Coquitlam to Surrey - essentially a crosstown connection in the suburbs.

Of course, the problem now with the town centre approach is that each town centre needs its own system of feeders into it.

*********

One of the most important points in the news article is that once you force businesses into the town centres, you may have to control the rents in those areas, otherwise it becomes uneconomical for businesses to operate there - with demand comes higher rents unless the supply of space constantly inreases (i.e. offices move to the business parks because it is cheaper, stores move off Robson because it is cheaper).

And of course, if you cannot enforce the Plan against member municipalities, no municipality will commit to the Plan, because it'll be undercut by the neighbouring municipality (who will then reap the tax revenue). i.e. Surrey approved the Campbell Height business park - arguably against the Plan - but Surrey has to compete with Burnaby for businesses and Burnaby has a whole wack of office parks (Lake City, Dominion Bridge (Lougheed/Gilmore), BCIT Discovery Parks, Glenlyon). Why should Surrey be forced to build in Whalley Town Centre (at high rent to business tenants) when Burnaby is zoning to allow low rents in business parks?

[ssiguy]

Finally someone speaks sense.
Traffic is here to stay and no amount of transit is going to stop that.
Transit can definatly help but it will always be up against a rising tide.
Transit simply gives one alternatives but will never take over the car.
There is another issue that he forgot to mention.

People like be nearing rapid transit foor its convience and speed but that in turns raises property values in the area which results in people having to move further out to get affordable housing. This can be particularily difficult for people in expensive cities like Vancouver where 20% more for housing is
50k for a condo and 100-150 for a house. Thats a lot of money for people where they can hardly afford housing at all.

I hate it where mayors and planners tell people tell people to live near they work. I went to city hall meeting and I asked them when they were going to double their pay rates. They looked at me with a glazed look on their face and I said that Vancouver City Hall is in Westside where you would NEVER get a house under $700k. They quickly shut up.

[Boris2k7]

You are against rapid transit, and you are against living near jobs... :koko:

Well I guess I should just go live out in High River, buy a huge gas-guzzling SUV and commute to Calgary everyday. Yeehaw! :rolleyes:

Maybe Vancouverites should just commute to Surrey from Vernon?

[queetz@home]

I hate it where mayors and planners tell people tell people to live near they work. I went to city hall meeting and I asked them when they were going to double their pay rates. They looked at me with a glazed look on their face and I said that Vancouver City Hall is in Westside where you would NEVER get a house under $700k. They quickly shut up.

So it was YOU that asked one of the most smartass but absolutely insurmountable question that was ever asked to those hollier than thou Vcr City Hall planners ever! Good job!!! :tup:

[officedweller]

I love it when there are revelations like that on the board.....

[SpongeG]

You are against rapid transit, and you are against living near jobs... :koko:

Well I guess I should just go live out in High River, buy a huge gas-guzzling SUV and commute to Calgary everyday. Yeehaw! :rolleyes:

Maybe Vancouverites should just commute to Surrey from Vernon?


have you tried to buy just a condo here recently?

its a nice ideal but its not reality

there are about 500 units going in within minutes of where i work - they all start at over $300,000 and i am single and make a good wage but i would never be able to get a mortage for that amount

[Boris2k7]

The point was that he was against BOTH rapid transit and living near where you work. If you are forced to live in the middle of nowhere AND drive 50Km to your job, then there is no point in living in the Region in the first place. Just get a job in Kamloops...

[SFUVancouver]

Recent stats in the Vancouver Sun show that roughly 12% of Greater Vancouverites utilize transit.

It makes one wonder if that figure has really changed that much since before the advent of Skytrain when essentially only buses provided the same transit service.

While Transit only has a mode share of 12% throughout the Greater Vancouver Regional District in Vancouver the mode share is changing rapidly. In the last 10 years bicycle ridership is up 180% and now stands at about 50,000 trips a day. Walking is up significantly, I forget the percentage, and now stands at about a bit more than 300,000 trips a day, transit ridership is up 20% with about 330,000 trips a day, and auto use is down 10% to about 350,000 trips a day.

Land use planning, significant investment in bike lanes and expansion of the seawall route, widespread upgrades to the pedestrian realm (tonnes of pedestrian controlled lights have been added), and a general increase in transit service, plus the U-Pass, have all meant that the City of Vancouver is going in a different direction than the rest of the region. The rest of the region needs to follow suit and prioritize pedestrians, transit, bicycles, and goods movement above the movement of single passenger vehicles. Most importantly, though, the rest of the region needs to get moving on creating vibrant, urban, pedestrian-oriented spaces in their communities and then expand them. Don't wait for mass transit because with the governance review and a provincially-run Translink I think we will all be waiting an extremely long time.

I was at the Anthony Downs lecture and despite his good ideas, immense charm (some really good jokes), and huge weight of expertise, he is still a representative of the old guard of city and traffic planning. I truly believe he cannot see beyond the car and the auto cities that define the United States. The fact that his examples and research draws almost exclusively on US cities is nonesense and largely predetermines his case. None the less, I like that he forcefully states that congestion (trips) are not going away. That opens the door to converting those trips into more benign and varied modes of movement. Land use is key and walking is free.

[SpongeG]

The point was that he was against BOTH rapid transit and living near where you work. If you are forced to live in the middle of nowhere AND drive 50Km to your job, then there is no point in living in the Region in the first place. Just get a job in Kamloops...

oh

confoozled

whos against what now?

[Jared]

While Transit only has a mode share of 12% throughout the Greater Vancouver Regional District in Vancouver the mode share is changing rapidly. In the last 10 years bicycle ridership is up 180% and now stands at about 50,000 trips a day. Walking is up significantly, I forget the percentage, and now stands at about a bit more than 300,000 trips a day, transit ridership is up 20% with about 330,000 trips a day, and auto use is down 10% to about 350,000 trips a day.



Good point, its really the % of SOV trips that matter, not so much transit. Walking, biking etc. should be seen as a positive.

[EastVanMark]

Finally someone speaks sense.
Traffic is here to stay and no amount of transit is going to stop that.
Transit can definatly help but it will always be up against a rising tide.
Transit simply gives one alternatives but will never take over the car.
There is another issue that he forgot to mention.

People like be nearing rapid transit foor its convience and speed but that in turns raises property values in the area which results in people having to move further out to get affordable housing. This can be particularily difficult for people in expensive cities like Vancouver where 20% more for housing is
50k for a condo and 100-150 for a house. Thats a lot of money for people where they can hardly afford housing at all.

I hate it where mayors and planners tell people tell people to live near they work. I went to city hall meeting and I asked them when they were going to double their pay rates. They looked at me with a glazed look on their face and I said that Vancouver City Hall is in Westside where you would NEVER get a house under $700k. They quickly shut up.

Your first paragraph says it all. Until people grasp that reality, we'll keep going around in circles. More transit are options are great, but you can't keep ignoring cars, hoping the problem will go away. Its like the twinning of the Port Mann; people complain that adding more lanes won't solve the congestion problem, yet doing nothing will somehow magically help it? Or the idea that if a transit line was put out to there, everyone would jump out of their cars and on to transit. I like the current proposal that brings new lanes of traffic, AS WELL as a public transit component.

[mr.x]

Your first paragraph says it all. Until people grasp that reality, we'll keep going around in circles. More transit are options are great, but you can't keep ignoring cars, hoping the problem will go away. Its like the twinning of the Port Mann; people complain that adding more lanes won't solve the congestion problem, yet doing nothing will somehow magically help it? Or the idea that if a transit line was put out to there, everyone would jump out of their cars and on to transit. I like the current proposal that brings new lanes of traffic, AS WELL as a public transit component.

Everybody here and the mayors are saying improve transit in replacement of Gateway.

[EastVanMark]

:previous: Why can't we do both? Why is there always only one cure for any problem; traffic or otherwise in this region.

[mr.x]

:previous: Why can't we do both? Why is there always only one cure for any problem; traffic or otherwise in this region.

More roads would encourage people to live further away, in sprawl neighbourhoods, and it's difficult to provide them with transit. We'd see the Port Mann, congested again in just 5 years after construction.....$3 billion flushed down the toilet. But with transit, there's more capacity for less money and it helps make our region more sustainable.

Just look at China......they're building a huge network of highways, and it has a lot to do with tens aof thousands of cars being sold each week. It's starting to clog their newly paved roads. Or look to Los Angeles.....they thought highways were the solution to congestion.....they were so wrong, and it's one of the reasons why their city is extremely polluted.

[hollywoodnorth]

"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads."

[EastVanMark]

I don't know about China, but LA as a whole almost completely ignores transit. Thats why I said to do BOTH. I know just building more roads wont solve congestion, but you can't force people on to transit either. If you pay attention to both, you can at least stretch out that five years to maybe 10 or 15 while you add even more public transit infrastructure.

[Lee_Haber8]

I don't know about China, but LA as a whole almost completely ignores transit. Thats why I said to do BOTH. I know just building more roads wont solve congestion, but you can't force people on to transit either. If you pay attention to both, you can at least stretch out that five years to maybe 10 or 15 while you add even more public transit infrastructure.

People in LA want transit more than ever actually, it's just that they don't have much of it right now. Back in the day LA had one of the largest streetcars network in the world, there weren't any freeways back then and nobody complained about traffic and smog

[IntotheWest]

Do recent congestion reports ever take into consideration the huge improvements in auto technology and efficiency in the past 10 or 20 years, or do they believe it will continue to stay static (i.e. always pollute the same)? No, you're not going to eliminate traffic - not a mystery. But you don't have to design to accomodate for car-growth...I think Vancouver has done a great job at resisting super-freeways and interchanges all over.

However, I firmly believe that Canada needs to adopt some policies used elsewhere with regards to vehicles - so as pointed out, not everyone is driving a large SUV from "High River". First, align Canadian auto emission standards to CARB ...this can allow to mandate a higher percentage of efficient cars are sold here, and help bring further options to reduce their smog/emissions, such as more AT-PZEV rated vehicles. Honda has also stated that it will offer a ZEV-rated Civic by 2010 likely in a test market like California...of course, BMW has also been hard at work on similar technology. So, zero emissions is a reality, but government truly has to push for this.

I also don't believe in Federal incentives/credits to get people into these efficient cars, but instead set up a vehicle tax similar to what London has introduced (and Paris may be following). Tax on a vehicles efficiency rating, distance driven, or age...In fact, start banning cars of 15 years old or older, unless given special permits - or, at least add a "carbon credit" tax to those that want to drive, but refuse to part with their "cheap-to-repair" beater.

Well I understand and fully appreciate how planners want to shape the cities, it's not going to always replaces cars - so, other measures also have to be pursued. Nothing I've stated hasn't already been done elsewhere, but I realize it would meet heavy criticism (maybe not?)...but it's something that needs to happen that a) wouldn't cost a lot to implement, and b) add more money to the cities to help fund future design improvements.

[ssiguy]

I don't generally agree with Gateway {except the South Frazer Highway} but a good compromise is to redesign or widen the bridge for HOV and Buses.
Right now there are no commuter buses at all from the valley with good reason.........they wouldn't be able to keep any kind of schedule.
HOV/Bus lanes and special access/ overpass routes for buses only would allow for true rapid/commuter service for the valley.
Right now there are no option. Someone living in Langley going to downtown/UBC/Broadway corridor have to go to SkyTrain and then take a packed car to the city...............minimum 90 minute commute each way most of which you will be standing.
Commuter buses on HOV down the HWY#1 would get you from Langley to downtown at a maximum of 45 minutes with a comfortable bus and {god forbid} you might even get a seat.

[cornholio]

Gateway is great and much needed, my only problem is that it could be done in a much beter way. Although there are some comercial vehicle only lanes such as a east bound lane across the new pitt river bridge, a off ramp at mary hill bypass and a couple other sections...but thats not enough. I would increase the budget and add 4 lanes of comercial only (and high ocupancy vehicles, anywhere from 2 people and up...this would all be determined and changed acordingly to give comercial vehicles priority and keep the new lanes uncongested and moving all the time)...with this you could also have reliabel and efficent express bus service to the fraser valley...anyways I would have these lanes divided by a barrier from the rest of the highway and have their own off/on ramps, posibly at different streets. This would give a huge economic boost to all industries in the vancouver region and a gurantee for the longterm future of easy and economic access to most parts of vancouver. There would never be a need to increase highway capacity and this could be a model for other cities to folow. In my opinion this could be done probably with another 1.5billion or less and i realy dont see ahow it wouldent make economic sense.

By the way even with the curent plan if the highway gets congested within 10 years or so its still not money flushed down the toilet because you still have a increased capacity, so more cars/trucks can move through out the region and in return our regional economy gets stronger. So instead of moving two trucks through congested traffic you can now move say four trucks through congested traffic.

[SpongeG]

i agree transit needs to be fixed - but for a city the size of Vancouver the infastructure is completely lacking - gateway is long over due, whether we like it or not we need more roads, more direct routes and bridges

once a proper infastructure is in place than we can tackle how to get transit working and get people out of their cars onto a great system - but currently its - get stuck on a bus or get stuck in your own car - hmmm

[SpongeG]

plus we have to give up the notion that people can live where they work

Real estate cost is ridiculous and i don't know anyone who can afford to live within a few kms of where they work

unless renting becomes the norm - but it seems its drilled into our heads from a young age that you must buy you must you must you must why pay someone elses mortage blah blah blah

maybe we should encourage people to start renting?

[EastVanMark]

i agree transit needs to be fixed - but for a city the size of Vancouver the infastructure is completely lacking - gateway is long over due, whether we like it or not we need more roads, more direct routes and bridges

once a proper infastructure is in place than we can tackle how to get transit working and get people out of their cars onto a great system - but currently its - get stuck on a bus or get stuck in your own car - hmmm

Totally agree. The infrastructure situation here is poor to say the very least. The movement of goods from our ports to regions beyond cannot take place on a bus or skytrain car. If the region completely ignores these vital trucking routes, its just a matter a time before these companies move on to other options. (taking away ironically a monster load of tax income of the Provincial Government, that could be used for things like improvements to public transit).

[Lee_Haber8]

i agree transit needs to be fixed - but for a city the size of Vancouver the infastructure is completely lacking - gateway is long over due, whether we like it or not we need more roads, more direct routes and bridges

once a proper infastructure is in place than we can tackle how to get transit working and get people out of their cars onto a great system - but currently its - get stuck on a bus or get stuck in your own car - hmmm

You say that size is a reason for widening roadways. Hmmm...well back at the turn of the 20th century New York City had 3/2 times as many people as Vancouver has today. There weren't any freeways, yet somehow goods managed to effectively reach people despite inferior technology. What would really help make goods movement efficient would be unclogging the roads via improved public transit and automatic road tolling

[SpongeG]

eventually yes

the problem is the lack of roads

you want to get from coquitlam to surrey there is one option - the port mann

tolling it would be unfair at this point - but if they were to provide two more crossings than they could toll one or even both of the new crossings

once we have a decent infastructure in place we can than develop better transit

tell me honestly - the idea of taking a good 60+ minutes to get from coquitlam centre just to guilford in surrey via tranist - as it currently takes or hop in car an get there in 15-20 minutes? which is more appealing?

if you take transit you have to go from coquitlam to burnaby/lougheed town centre, get off the bus, get on the skytrain, get off the skytrain, get back on the skytrain at columbia, get off the train and get on a bus

there are no direct transit services connecting the two cities

you can figure it out for any suburb to suburb - it sucks and is not appealing at all

transit and the roads are not set up from getting from one suburb to the next quickly and efficiently at the moment - at least the gateway plan addresses some of the problems

[IntotheWest]

What would really help make goods movement efficient would be unclogging the roads via improved public transit and automatic road tolling

Most people are going to drive still (take it from a car-guy :-)...Vancouver roads are just not that bad - even with the lack of freeways. Some will "convert" to public if it is more accessible - but also if the cost to drive is cost-prohibitive.

For congestions-reduction, and in the interest of the environment - see my post above. Road tolling is one solution, but I think more onus has to be put on the government, and on individuals for their car buying choices.

People love their cars (I do), and for most, its the best and easiest way to get around...that will likely never change.

[baggab]

You say that size is a reason for widening roadways. Hmmm...well back at the turn of the 20th century New York City had 3/2 times as many people as Vancouver has today. There weren't any freeways, yet somehow goods managed to effectively reach people despite inferior technology. What would really help make goods movement efficient would be unclogging the roads via improved public transit and automatic road tolling

Most people didn't have cars back then... Cars were exclusive to the rich in the turn of the 20th century...

Even if you compare it to the 1960s cars were about 1 per household. Now, there's "practically" one car for every adult.

[Lee_Haber8]

Most people are going to drive still (take it from a car-guy :-)...Vancouver roads are just not that bad - even with the lack of freeways. Some will "convert" to public if it is more accessible - but also if the cost to drive is cost-prohibitive.

For congestions-reduction, and in the interest of the environment - see my post above. Road tolling is one solution, but I think more onus has to be put on the government, and on individuals for their car buying choices.

People love their cars (I do), and for most, its the best and easiest way to get around...that will likely never change.

The big advantage of the automobile is to go directly from point A to point B. But does that mean you have to own a car, drive a car and have all the inefficiencies and wastefulness associated with personal car ownership? I shouldn't think so. All dense cities have good taxi service and it would be even better if they deregulated it. Taxis are many times more efficient and I would consider them a form of privately run public transit.

I hope your wrong and that someday walking will again be the cheapest, most convenient and most common way of getting around.

[fever]

Gateway's a problem, imo, when it's a highway widening project. The capacity that will be added is minimal, but the cost is very high. I'd rather see bridges distributed more evenly than have existing ones twinned.


Adding more general purpose lanes won't help goods movement. Highways don't handle large peak loads well. Supposedly adequate infrastructure only takes a few years to become congested with commuters.


Maybe the increased capacity could be justified if there were some motivation other than just moving more commuters around. Otherwise it's just an expensive way of distributing the population a little differently.

[EastVanMark]

Most people are going to drive still (take it from a car-guy :-)...Vancouver roads are just not that bad - even with the lack of freeways. Some will "convert" to public if it is more accessible - but also if the cost to drive is cost-prohibitive.

For congestions-reduction, and in the interest of the environment - see my post above. Road tolling is one solution, but I think more onus has to be put on the government, and on individuals for their car buying choices.

People love their cars (I do), and for most, its the best and easiest way to get around...that will likely never change.

That last line speaks to the reality of the situation; except for the word, "likely".

[SFUVancouver]

Here is my take on the Gateway debate.

1. Let's spend some money to improve the movement of goods, which is ostensibly the purspose behind the program. Build the North and South Fraser perimiter roads to connect Hwy 1 to Fraserport and Deltaport and the industrial north east. Follow the lead of the UK and rebrand HOV lanes as HPV lanes (high priority vehicles -includes freight and transit). Widen Hwy 1 as needed to ensure a HPV lane in each direction from the tunnel by the 2nd Narrows all the way out to the valley and to the US border/Pacific truck crossing, if needed. A second bridge over the Fraser would likely be necessary to provide the extra lane and to accomodate future (soon!) light rail, so build it and divide the lanes accordingly, no tolls. Add HPV queue-jumped lanes at interchanges to speed HPV access to and from Hwy 1.

To me such a road building programme would address the very valid need to move goods into, through, and out of the region and the ports in particular while not explicitly condoning suburban sprawl out into the valley as a general road-building program would.

2. The above-mentioned construction program will address congestion to a limited degree by taking a lot of the freight and HOV commuters off of the main lanes of traffic. It also enables viable express bus service to operate along the corridor and this should occur with routes connecting to downtown Vancouver, New West, and all the regional town centres. This should be ready to roll the day the new lanes are opened. Extensive park and ride facilities should be built with the intention of upgrading these later to incorporate light rail stations, multi-storey parkades, mixed-use commercial buildings, and ideally be future anchors to small walkable downtown-esque business parks with a decidedly urban character, including dense residential development.

3. Translink needs to put some serious resources into creating and immediately implementing a comprehensive South-of-the-Fraser transit plan. Pour in hundreds and hundreds of buses and aim to provide bus frequencies and service coverage equal to that offered North-of-the-Fraser. Large portions of Surrey are dense enough to warrent and support transit, espeically if it was incorporated into a viable network. This will require a major boost in transit funding and will likely absorb most of Translink's attention for several years.

A incremental step-based approach should be taken whereby a route is introduced and operated with community shuttles on a 15 minute timetable (this should be the maximum for all routes throughout the whole region in my opinion). As ridership grows increase frequency to 10 minutes and then switch to full-size buses for rush hours. Once ridership warrants it the route should begin using articulated buses during rush hour and increase frequency further. When it is truly at capacity switch to trams and ramp up capacity further that way. When mixed-with-traffic trams become full and routes congested switch road lanes to transit-only during rush hour etc. etc.

[EastVanMark]

Most people didn't have cars back then... Cars were exclusive to the rich in the turn of the 20th century...

Even if you compare it to the 1960s cars were about 1 per household. Now, there's "practically" one car for every adult.

People seem to want to ignore that last fact. Funny that a city like New York roughly 9 times the size of Vancouver has a great subway system (one they've been talking about overhauling; for anyone who's been there will know how expensive that will be), yet they still are building vehicle crossings just having completed the latest one a few years ago.

And as far as waiting for walking to become the primary mode of transportation that will take place at the same time as the "outhouse" roars back to popularity.