Per capita bus service hours low in South of Fraser despite demand

Last week, I posted about TransLink’s 2014 Bus Service Performance Review. One of the tables in the review was about the amount of annual bus revenue hours dedicated to certain parts of Metro Vancouver. I decided to grab the current 2014 population estimates from BC Stats to see how these hours are divvied up per capita. As a note, I needed to use a report which shows the population split per areas in Delta based on the 2011 census. Delta’s growth has been static over the last several years, so this older information is still accurate for the purpose of this post.

2014 Annual Bus Revenue Hours Per Capita. Average revenue hours per capita 1.46. Select graph to enlarge.

Raw Numbers
Vancouver/UBC: 2.25
North Shore: 2.04
Burnaby/New Westminster: 1.59
Richmond: 1.43
South Delta: 1.26
Northeast Sector: 1.26
South of Fraser: 0.96
Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows: 0.83

I’m not surprised that Vancouver/UBC has the highest per capita bus service hours in the region. The 99 B-Line is the busiest bus route in North America. Vancouver and UBC also have the highest transit ridership in the region. The latest trip survey data put it at 22% for weekday mode share. Interestingly, Burnaby/New Westminster had way less per capita bus annual service hours, but had a 21% transit mode share. This is likely due to the fact that these areas are served by two SkyTrain lines.

I’m sure that the high per capita service hours in the North Shore might stick out for some people, but this part of the region has no rapid transit service going through it. All transit service is bus based.

What really sticks out to me is the low per capita service hours in the South of Fraser. The South of Fraser includes Langley, Surrey, White Rock, and North Delta. With only four SkyTrain stations, bus service is the main way people get around on transit in the South of Fraser. Even with low per capita annual bus revenue hours, the South of Fraser still has a 10% transit mode share. This share is similar to the Northeast Sector and North Shore. It appears that there is a huge demand for transit in the South of Fraser, but there is also a lack of funding to provide a much needed increase in service hours.

Due to the rural nature of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, I’m not surprised they have lower per capita annual bus revenue hours.

Othering: How the language we use creates an unhealthy transportation system

Man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, young, old, rich, poor; as humans we really like labels. The problem is that we use these labels on people as a way to differentiate, which can lead to making people who are different than us seem less human.

If you look at racism, sexism, ageism, and homophobia, they are really all just ways in which we single out and degrade people that are different than ourselves based on a label. The general term for this is called “othering.” It was first used in this context by mid-twentieth century feminist scholar Simone de Beauvoir.

So, why am I bringing up this concept of “othering” on a blog post about transportation?

I was at a shop the other day, where I happened to know the owner. I mentioned the news from a few weeks ago about the person who was killed when cycling in Surrey. I was a bit shocked when the store owner said that the cyclist deserved to die because all cyclist ride dangerously. The store owner told me that they hated cyclist.

This is an example of “othering.” The store owner used the label of “cyclists” to dehumanize the person who was killed. Otherwise, how could this generally rational store owner be so happy about the death of another person? Another person who’s only known different was that they used a bicycle to get around. If this store owner used a bicycle to get around, would that death elitist the same response?

“Othering” is very common when there is a lack of understand and exposure to different ideas, people, or ways of doing things.

In the South of Fraser, we don’t have an extensive cycling network. Because we don’t have an extensive network, not a lot of people ride bikes to get around. Where we do build cycling infrastructure, it is normally in the form of shoulder bike lanes. Only about 10% of the population will ride a bicycle on the street or in shoulder bike lanes. Off-street or protected bike lanes are needed to encourage the majority of people to cycle.

So in the absence of proper cycling infrastructure, most people’s only exposure to people who cycle are of the 10% of the population that takes higher risks.

By building safer cycling infrastructure, more people will cycling. More people cycling themselves to get around, or knowing someone that cycles to get around, will go a long way to reducing “othering” in this context. It would also reduce the irrational conversations that come up when people talk about cycling in the region.

Beyond cycling infrastructure, the way that we talk about our transportation system’s users lends itself to “othering.” We use terms like motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian. “That cyclist just blew through the stop sign!” “That motorist almost hit me in the crosswalk!” “That pedestrian just jaywalked across the street!”

What would happen if we just talked about transportation system users as people? “That person just blew through the stop sign!” “That person almost hit me in the crosswalk!” “That person just jaywalked across the street!”

If we start thinking about how our transportation system can best serve people as opposed to motorists, cyclists, transit riders, or pedestrians, we would actually get a very different kind of transportation system.

The words we use have a profound effect of how we view the world. The way that we use labels for people who use various components of our transportation system leads to “othering” which leads to unhealthy dialogue about our transportation system. It even mode-biases how our transportation system is designed.

We need to start thinking about our transportation system in term of people, and not by the mode in which people choose to use.

A sneak peek inside the new Timms Community Centre

Last Thursday, I was on a tour of the new City of Langley Timms Community Centre with other members of the Parks and Environment Advisory Committee. The new Timms Community Centre is 35,000 sq. ft.

Compared to the old Timms Community Centre, the new community centre will have a large gym and running track. The amount of smaller multipurpose rooms have increased from two to four. While the rooms in the new Timms are multipurpose, they all have special features. For example, one of the rooms is connected to a kitchen space. Another of the rooms has a spring-floor to allow dance classes. The room that overlooks Langley Mall on the top floor also doubles as a training spaces, and has all the connectivity needed to act as an emergency communication room for the RCMP.

The library space in the current City Hall —which will essentially be merged into the Timms Community Centre— was reduced. There is less shelf space now. In its place are new showers and washrooms, plus space for recreation staff.

One of the original objectives for the new Timms Community Centre was increased community meeting space. I know that the City will be looking to program the rooms as much as possible, hopefully there will be enough non-programmed time for other community groups to have access to the facility.

The following pictures are from the tour. The $14.3 million facility should be opened in the first quarter of 2016.

Main North/South Corridor. Community Centre Reception will be on the left.

New Gym. A second floor walking/running loop goes around the gym.

View from one of the second floor multipurpose rooms, looking towards Langley Mall.

The creative use of Township of Langley zoning provisions

Tucked away just south of the Golden Ears Bridge is a small residential area in the Township of Langley. This neighbourhood is surrounded by industrial development on the north, west, and south.

The current lot sizes and general configuration of this neighbourhood dates back about 100 years. Even though the largest lot in the area is 17,000 sq. ft, for historic reasons the whole area is zoned RU-1. This zoning allows for two single family dwellings or mobile homes per lot. The RU-1 zone was envisioned for lots larger than 4.2 acres.

Residential area in Northwest Langley that is currently zoned RU-1.

One property owner in the area took advantage of this two dwelling provision and created a strata to allow the development of two dwelling on his lot. This didn't require a rezoning.

Another resident in the area presented this fact to Council last fall as a delegation. Council asked Township Staff to develop as report with options for the area.

Staff came back with a report saying that the RU-1 zoning isn’t the best fit for this area, noting that current municipal services and the community plan don’t support the densification of the area. There would be a cost to provide fully urban roads and services to this neighbourhood. Staff have presented Council with several options for the area.

Status Quo
Further strata development into 2 lots, based on existing regulations, resulting in increased population and no added community benefits in terms of servicing standards. Potential for 36 additional dwelling units.

2 Rezone to R-1A
More consistent with the area to the east. Provides for 1 dwelling unit per +/- 4,000 ft2 lot. 19 new lots may be created, based on area and frontage requirements. Must consider services & allowing mobile homes.

3 Rezone to permit fee simple s/d based on current strata density
Essentially a hybrid option with the density allowed under option; and rezoning process (including servicing) requirements of option 2. Approx. no. of new dwelling units, in theory, would be 36.

4 Rezone to maintain existing lot size, but with 1 dwelling per lot
Rezone to allow a minimum lot size of +/- 10,000 ft2, preventing the 2 unit strata developments, as well as possible subdivision potential of options 2 & 3. Would result in only 2 new additional lots being created.

5 Amend Zoning Bylaw to eliminate 2 dwelling unit allowance in RU-1
This option would amend the Zoning Bylaw to eliminate the provision of 2 dwelling units on a RU-1 lot, which is a historic provision in the Bylaw and likely to be opposed by residents across the municipality.

What I find really interesting about this case is that it shows there are areas in the Township where there is a disconnect between the zoning and intended land use. This isn’t out of the ordinary, but there are many historic and piecemeal provisions in the Township’s zoning bylaw. The zoning bylaw is a lengthy document; for example, the section dealing with the various residential zones is 41 pages long and the section dealing with rural zones is 26 pages long.

While a lengthy and possibly contentious process, it may be time for the Township considers reviewing its zoning bylaw to prevent further creative uses of zoning.