Cycling in Cities Research

The UBC School of Population & Public Health has been hosting a research program that has been studying cycling in urban centres. Their research has looked into cycling safety, barriers to getting people to cycle, cycling's effect on air pollution and climate change, and bikeability of communities.

While some research has been done in the past in these areas, this series of research focused on Canadian cities. One of the things that I’ve known for awhile, and was confirmed in a Portland study, was that many people don’t cycling because of the perceived risk of riding with vehicles (with or without a shoulder bike lanes.) The UBC research also confirmed that people prefer:

1.) Off-street bikes paths
2.) Bike lanes (cycle tracks) next to major street, but separated by a physical barrier
3.) Quite residential streets designated as bike route, with traffic calming

Of course, the big question was if the perception of risk also matched the real risk. It also turns out that people's preferred cycling infrastructure is also generally the safest.

Injury study results on route safety compared to route preferences. Preferences and safety largely agree. Click image to enlarge.

The Cycling in Cities researchers have put together a brochure on the safest and most risky cycling infrastructure based on research they did in Vancouver and Toronto. It is well worth the read.

I’ve been a strong advocate of off-street and physically separated bike lanes. This research reinforces by belief that cities in the South of Fraser need to be focusing more on providing this kind of infrastructure and really deemphasize building tradition shoulder bike lanes on major roads.

While separated bike lanes on major roads and off-street bike-only paths can be pricey, it seems that one of the most cost effective, safest, and preferred ways to encourage cycling is to work on designating quit residential streets as bike routes. The key is to be make residential street routes that are continuous for pedestrians and cyclist, while preventing rat-running by motorist. This seem to be a win-win for both local residents and active transportation users.

Followup on Moving In Metro: A discussion on mobility pricing

Last night, I attended “Moving In Metro: A discussion on mobility pricing” which was hosted at the Langley Hampton Inn & Suites. This dialogue was the last of four put on by the SFU Centre for Dialogue throughout the region. Ironically this was the only dialogue in the series hosted in an area with poor access to transit and in the most unwalkable part of Surrey and Langley. It drove home the point about the imbalance in our transportation system in the South of Fraser. While the dialogue's title contains the words mobility pricing, it was actually a discussion about road pricing.

As you may know, in Metro Vancouver the societal contribution to our transport system is $4.5 billion per year when taxpayer revenue and external cost such as pollution are factored in. Trucks and automobiles alone are subsided by $3.6 billion per year. Gas tax which is the closest thing to a user-fee we have for roads is on the decline as vehicles become more fuel efficient, and people drive less. Congestion is the result of any transportation system when the direct cost to use the facility is under-priced. It has been proven the world over that building more “free” roads, only results in more congestion and more pollution. With this in mind, the dialogue was looking at road pricing as a way to fund our road network in Metro Vancouver. Road pricing has been shown to reduce congestion and provide sufficient revenue to fund transportation systems throughout the world.

Total Annual Societal Contribution to the Transportation Network in Metro Vancouver

Tuesday night’s dialogue focused on bridge/tunnel tolls, area charge schemes like the London Congestion Charge, HOV/HOT Lanes, and distance-based pricing. The SFU dialogue folks gave a brief overview of these road pricing ideas, including examples of where they are in used throughout the world. You can read more about the different types of road pricing in their discussion guide.

The group of people at last night's meeting included truckers, a motorcycle enthusiasts, a driving school instructor, automobile commuters, cyclist, and transit-users. One of the things that pleasantly surprised me was people’s willingness to consider a direct user-pay model to pay for our road network. In fact a distance-based system seemed to be the most popular choice of people at last night’s discussion. Participants wanted a system that was fair, affordable, and accountable. They also wanted a system that would create a sustainable region and improve transit. Reading between the lines, people also didn’t want to have a double-pay user-fee system. It would seem that if distance-based road pricing was introduced, gas tax would have to reduced or removed. This is alright by me as gas tax is a poor way to pay for roads anyway.

Another point that people brought up was that the general public needs to be engaged in a discussion about road pricing and also be provided with information about how it works. One person commented that they didn’t like the idea of road pricing until they learned about it last night.

I walked away last night encouraged that our region seems actually ready to move towards a direct user-pay road pricing system. In fact, it is probably only provincial politicians that need convincing.

While road pricing is part of mobility pricing, last night's event did not talk about the price of parking and the major effect it has one land-use and transportation.

Information from these series of workshops will be complied into a report and present to TransLink and Metro Vancouver. I hope that the province also gets a copy of the report as well.

The Future of Metro Vancouver as a Livable Region

The idea of creating a livable region was first put down on paper in the mid-1970s. Since that time, more policies have been progressively put in place that have set Metro Vancouver on the path to being a world leader in livability. We have been successful in preserving farmland, green space, and providing a transportation network that gives people choices with a world-class transit system, an increasingly connected cycling network, and walkable town centres. These walkable town centres also provide a variety of housing options and opportunities for business. All in all, we have been moving towards a region that will not only serve the needs of the current generation, but future generations to come. While things have generally been moving on a positive path towards sustainability, we are actually at a crossroads that could either further move us in the direction of livability, or potentially unravel the more than 35 years of progressive policy.

Yesterday, I was having lunch with a friend and we started talking about how there has never been so many threats to the livability of the region as there is today. In the next few years, we will know the future path of Metro Vancouver.

The first threat to the livability of Metro Vancouver is the conflict between the province and the region over the future of transportation. While the region and local governments are recognizing that future transportation improvements need to focus on walking, cycling, and transit, the province is on a massive freeway building spree. The challenge is that this freeway building program will not help the majority of people in the region get from their homes to work, school, and other activities. Without walking, cycling, and transit options, our local road network will become increasingly congested as there simply is no room for more roads. A further threat lies in the fact that the province is set on holding a referendum on funding for transit. What happens if people vote no? What is plan B? Without transit, the ability of our region to build livable, interconnected town centres will be compromised. We will be locked into a future of highway tolls, auto-oriented sprawl, increasing congestion, and rising transportation costs. But this is not the only threat.

Right now Metro Vancouver and the Township of Langley are heading to court over the Trinity Western University district. This is the first time that the power of a regional district to regulate land-use has been tested in court. Depending on the outcome, the ability of regions throughout BC to regulate land-use will either be confirmed or denied. If denied, municipal governments will be tempted (and likely will) to sprawl into rural areas and develop housing on industrial land. But there is one more threat to the livability of our region.

The Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) has protected the best farmland in the province which happens to be in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley. This protection has ensured the success of a vibrant agricultural sector in the region. It has also acted as a de facto urban growth boundary. The provincial government suggested this summer that they want to examine the role of the Agricultural Land Commission who regulates the ALR. If the power to protect the ALR is weakened or removed, the viability of farming in Metro Vancouver will be threatened as farmland gets converted into auto-oriented sprawl.

In the next few years, we will know the future of Metro Vancouver. We will either stay the course as a livable region that other parts of the world look to as a model, or our policies that protect our region will be unravelled which will result in more congestion and sprawl, while the things that make our region special get paved over.

Court Decision puts Fort Langley Coulter Berry Project on Hold

If you’ve been reading this blog, you know that I’ve been a strong supporter of the Coulter Berry Building project in Fort Langley. With all the auto-oriented development that occurs within the Township of Langley, this project stood out as one of the few projects that truly put walkability and sustainable first.

Unfortunately, like most things in Fort Langley that involve change, this project was not without its opposition. While the majority of the community actually supports building a walkable village centre and the Coulter Berry Building project, a small vocal group of people opposed the project. While I believe this group would have had a problem with any development proposed for the corner of Glover Road and Mavis Road, they found that the old Fort Langley Heritage Design Guidelines recommend that buildings “not exceed two storeys or 9 metres”. The group latched onto this recommendation; the Coulter Berry Building is three storeys high. The irony of the matter is that there are many buildings in Fort Langley that exceed that recommendation including the Fort Langley Community Hall which is one of the few actual heritage buildings in the community.

The noise generated by this small group was so intense that the Fort Langley Community Association hosted a town hall about the project around this time last year. I agreed to be on a panel at the meeting which included the head Township planner at the time and the architect of the design guidelines. We all were in favour of the project. This small group accused us of being in the pocket of the developer thought the only compensation we received was from the FLCA and it was a free dinner at a local Fort Langley bistro that night.

Township council, recognizing that the design guideline were guidelines, issued a Heritage Alteration Permit which allowed the project to break ground in late August. I was really excited to see this project start as I believe this project will set a positive example for other projects in town centres to aspire to in the Township.

In August, the small vocal group launched a lawsuit against Township of Langley alleging that the Coulter Berry project would “unalterably and irreparably undermine the heritage policies for land located in the Heritage Conservation Area, to the detriment of the cultural and historical heritage of Fort Langley, contrary to law.” I was actually assuming that the court would dismiss this case, but on Friday Supreme Court Justice Groves basically shutdown the Coulter Berry project.

According to the developer, on his blog he says that the decision rests on "a technical concern about the Township's process for granting variances, even though the same process has been used for decades, including for the nearby Reid Block building now under construction." Unfortunately, the Justice’s written explanation will not be available for 4 months.

This is very disappointing news. The Township will likely appeal this decision, but in the meantime Fort Langley’s heart will have a big hole in the middle. The thing that really upsets me is that the developer could have built a strip mall or a parking lot which likely wouldn't have ended up with a court case.

Without the Justice’s written explanation, it’s impossible to know his reasoning for putting the permit on hold. This decision could have a chilling effect on other projects in “heritage areas” around the province. In fact this decision, if not overturned during appeal, might actually hurt heritage as design guidelines may become vaguer to prevent future lawsuits.

I hope that the developer of the Coulter Berry Building does not give up on this project, even though the Supreme Court’s decision is a massive setback. If this project doesn’t proceed, I believe that the walkability and sustainability of Fort Langley will be compromised. The village will not be able to live up to its full potential as a walkable, complete community.