Stephen Rees's blog

Thoughts about the relationships between transport and the urban area it serves

City Business: Gordon Price

with 2 comments

Business in Vancouver:

Gordon posted this week’s article to the lrc listserve: it is worth reproducing in full. Well done Gord!

Liberals’ Gateway transit commitment too little, too late

Twenty buses in six years.

That was the extent of the commitment the premier made as part of the Gateway project for service south of the Fraser. When the twinned Port Mann Bridge opens around 2013, there will be an express bus service running across it.
If you were a planner south of the Fraser, would you now want to reorient your community transportation plan? If you were a developer, would you now cut back on the number of parking spaces? If you were a home buyer, would you change the location of where you buy so you wouldn’t need a second car? If you were a student, would expect to get around by U-Pass?

Will 20 buses in six years turn the valley away from car and truck dependence?

Obviously, no – not just that. But it could be a start.

In the meantime, for at least the next six years, most people in the valley south of the Fraser will reasonably expect to get around solely by car.
Given that the biggest promise of Gateway is improved vehicle mobility, the fastest growing part of Metro Vancouver will build itself out on that expectation.

The valley will be a northern version of southern California.

That’s the real consequence of Gateway: putting the pattern of car dependence in place.

For the next six years, we will design our built environment – our buildings, our streets, our subdivisions, our shopping centres – on the assumption that the car will be the No. 1 and only. A few places will be different: Surrey City Centre, uptown White Rock, Langley City. But most of the valley will be designed for the guys who drive big trucks.

Six years from now, however, our assumptions might be different. Mother Nature is already starting to punch back. The reality of climate change – not the theory – is changing our expectations about the future. Add in peak oil, the geopolitics of energy competition, unexpected financial fallout – and a fossil fuel-dependent transportation system, with no Plan B, doesn’t look to be as promising as its assumptions.

Even using current plans and projections, Gateway doesn’t pass the smell test, in part because it lowballs the carbon impact. The Sightline Institute in Seattle estimates that every one-mile stretch of lane added to a congested highway will increase climate-warming CO2 emissions by more than 100,000 tons over 50 years. Gateway rather deceptively focuses only on congestion-related emissions, resulting in an estimate that bears little relationship to reality.

But beyond that, Gateway’s model doesn’t take into account the changes induced by the project itself. And in the end, it’s not just about the road and the bridge; it’s about city building.

It’s hard to get an answer from Gateway supporters to this essential question: what place in North America would you like Metro Vancouver to be more like? Calgary? The 905 Belt of Toronto?

Is there any growing region that has solved the problem of increasing vehicle congestion by building more roads and bridges – and is that what we should be more like? Atlanta? Denver?

Examples given so far: none.

We’re going to need a few alternatives, and soon. Change is coming at us, and fast. If we stay on the present course, we’re going to be increasingly vulnerable as things turn ugly.

The premier, showing the leadership that continues to outflank his critics, has called for us to shape a different reality: 33% fewer greenhouse emissions by 2020. Twenty buses, I assume, are a downpayment to start us moving in that direction, but it’s a very small downpayment and a very long time in coming. There’s no reason why the queue jumpers couldn’t be built now. The problem for bus service is not the bridge; it’s the roads leading to it.

The premier still has to define a much larger strategic direction for Gateway, as he did for the region when he was chairman of the GVRD – a vision expressed in land use, in city building, in a valley that is less vehicle-dependent, not more.
So much remains to be done – transit plans completed, land-use plans revised, serious resources committed – if planners, developers, home buyers and students are going to reach a different set of conclusions than the ones they’re getting so far from Gateway.

Gordon Price is the director of Simon Fraser University’s city program and a former Vancouver city councillor. His column appears monthly.Gordon Price

Written by Stephen Rees

October 22, 2007 at 7:28 pm

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Good read, the only line I didn’t like is this one:

    “what place in North America would you like Metro Vancouver to be more like? Calgary? The 905 Belt of Toronto?”

    As a former Vancouverite now living in Calgary, I can tell you that, much to my surprise, Calgary’s suburbs are much better served by transit than those in Metro Vancouver. Calgary has a well deserved reputation for being car oriented, but now that I see it up close, it feels no worse than Metro Vancouver’s car dependence. Except that Calgary has ever expanding LRT lines that are serving the suburbanites. Should Metro Vancouver try to be more like that? Absolutely.


    October 23, 2007 at 9:00 am

  2. Gordon Price replied
    > > Actually, that’s a good comment. If Gateway had been
    > > framed and planned with a serious transit component, the whole
    > > debate would be different.

    I think it sounds like the current proposition they are voting on in Seattle that conflates transit and freeway expansions. If you want transit there you have to vote yes to freeways as well.

    Expanding freeways is monumentally stupid and self defeating, if you are thinking about dealing with congestion it does not work. If you are concerned about land use it is the worst thing to do. the 905 area has GO Transit commuter rail and express buses. York region has taken over their regional buses and rebranded them. But it also has freeways including the 407 tollway. And the result is sprawl over much wider areas including the very ecologically sensitive Oak Ridges Morraine and Niagara Escarpment.

    I recently tried walking in Aurora: it was just houses, houses and more houses. Not so much as a stick of chewing gum could be bought within walking distance, and the only facilities in neighborhoods were parks and primary schools. They may be served by transit but only on a very limited basis – if they want to go to work in downtown Toronto. For everything else they drive.

    Stephen Rees

    October 23, 2007 at 11:43 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: