Archive for the ‘disability’ Category
CUTA Integrated Mobility Report
I have decided that there is no way to make this work just with a retweet. So this blog post is addressed to mostly to readers who come to this blog because they are interested in how Canadian transit agencies should better adapt themselves to changing circumstances. Unlike CUTA’s approach to transit statistics, this report is not restricted in its distribution and it is free to download as a large pdf.
It is meant to be a resource for transit agencies wishing to advance their communities towards integrated mobility.
So if that is something you want to read, start at the CUTA report web page from which there is a download link.
Jericho Pier Renewal
Jericho Pier is a regular destination for our walks, but I have many more photos taken from the pier than of the pier itself. I thought it might be a good idea to record what is there now, before work starts. Then I took a look at the City webpage
The Vancouver Park Board, in partnership with the Disabled Sailing Association, is renewing the aging pier at Jericho Beach and providing an accessible dock for sailors with disabilities.
The pier is a popular destination for locals and visitors as well as for fishing and crabbing. The ramp and float on the east side of the pier are used for emergency boat landing.
The reconstructed pier will:
-
Provide an accessible floating dock to provide for users of all ages and levels of mobility, accommodating up to 15 sailboats for the Disabled Sailing Association’s adaptive sailing program
-
Provide seating and views of Burrard Inlet and English Bay
-
Offer recreational fishing and crabbing opportunities
-
Accommodate future sea level rise
So it looks like I have some time. It also looks like there is a conceptual design already although not on the webpage at the time of writing. Ken Ohrn on the PriceTags page does have a rendering – but without any link to where he got it from – so I won’t steal it.
If you cannot make it to the open house at pier tomorrow 11:00am to 2:00pm, presentation materials and an online questionnaire will be available September 16 to October 2, 2017.
Is MicroTransit the answer?
Regular readers of this blog will recognize a long running idea of mine, that we need something that is “better than a bus but cheaper than a taxi”. Now back when I was actually working in the industry we had not yet got the sort of systems that we have now that would make this sort of thing possible. But one thing has stuck with me, and that first entered my mind in 1988. I was new in town (Toronto) and writing a proposal for the TTC in response to an RfP on what they called WheelTrans.
They used these Orion II vans for the specialised dial a ride transit service (“paratransit”) offered by the TTC to those who need door to door transit. Of course, wheelchair users are a minority among those whose disabilities make conventional transit difficult or even impossible. But also the number of rides they could actually offer, and the ability to match routes of the vans to potential riders, was very limited. The company I worked for was at the leading edge of demand forecasting, so my proposal was that we would come up with better ride matching software. We did not get the job because the people reviewing the proposals simply did not understand what I was proposing. You have to bear in mind that in 1988 cell phones were a novelty and most people did not have a PC on their desk.
It seems that even though we now have much better hardware and software, there is still a big issue: transit needs subsidy. The recent closure of Bridj in Boston shows that.
Transit depends on subsidies, and if microtransit really is an answer to underused, oversized public buses traveling along 30-year-old routes, then at least some of its backing should come from taxpayers, without the expectation of turning profits.
In this region, the oversized buses have been taken away to run on the overcrowded routes. Some routes now run as Community Shuttles, which have somewhat lower costs (due to a different union agreement) but still run on fixed routes.
The HandyDART service has a different vehicle – the lift is at the back not on the side – and operates on routes which are based on prior bookings.
There have long been complaints that this service is woefully inadequate to meet the needs of those who cannot use conventional transit, and while some changes have been made, and Translink is looking at more, the cost per ride of this service is much greater than conventional transit – or even taxi services. One advocate even suggested at one time that taxis be used as the contractor for all these trips – but I think he was out of touch with both basic economics and the expectations of most HandyDART users.
DART by the way is the acronym for “dial a ride transit”. But you can’t just call for a ride like you do for a taxi. First you must be qualified, and second you must book in advance. And currently trip bookings are allocated by priority – work/school, medical, other. Unsurprisingly, given the demographics of users it is the second one which accounts for most of the trips. To allow for some spontaneous trip making, registered HandyDART users can buy taxisavers to make subsidized taxi trips.
It seems to me that microtransit has the potential to solve a number of issues.
What Bridj offered was nothing new, really: services like jitneys and dollar vans act as informal, quasi-public shuttle transport all over the world, and plenty of agencies serve paratransit needs this way. What Bridj brought (and others bring) to the table is super-smart software that formulates routes and spits out pick-up spots in real time, based on demand, for any type of rider.
The idea I had back in 1988 – and still think might work – is that we could use some super-smart software to provide better door to door transit for all. It should be accessible to everyone. And to make sure that people with disabilities get first dibs we come up with a booking system that works like the dedicated seating on conventional transit. People who can use conventional transit would have to give up their seat if someone who needs it more wants it. If the software is smart enough that can be done without bumping. This ought to make transit much more attractive – after all fixed routes take you from where you aren’t to where you don’t want to be. So if you are saving some walking you ought to be prepared to pay more for that convenience: people who can’t walk, wouldn’t have to pay that premium.
Both need subsidy, but it ought to be less than the current dedicated system, and it will also be cheaper than running a big bus nearly empty. It will also remove whatever stigma is associated with a specialised service. As the US Supreme Court famously noted “separate isn’t equal” (Brown vs Board of Education).
Source: Translink Accountability Centre
A number of things need to happen to get this to work. Firstly, the current contracted out HandyDART has to be brought back in house. Secondly the legislation that governs ride sharing in BC needs to be revised. It also needs to recognize that it is quite legitimate for existing taxi operators to expect some protection from predators like Uber and Lyft. While they are currently aiming at getting a monopoly of taxi like services, it is clear that transit is also in their long term strategy. And some politicians of the “anti-subsidy except for my favourite corporations” parties want to facilitate that. So a public service obligation has to be baked in with provision of subsidies.
But most importantly, transit planning for the future has to be for everyone and not just for those who can run up and down stairs. Transportation planning also has to be for everyone and not just those who want to drive or ride in a single occupant vehicle.
UPDATE November 6 2017
Another microtransit company recently went bust – mostly because it could not meet even the most basic requirements of driver qualifications (holding the right kind of driver’s license) or insurance. This article in CityLab explains – and shows that the companies involved were not doing what I envisaged in the post above. They were simply poaching traffic from public transit on their most used routes. Not extending the reach of transit into low density areas ill served by fixed route transit, no matter what size the vehicle.
Incidentally the pattern shows remarkable parallels with what happened in Britain when buses were deregulated and privatised. The private companies are only interested in running profitable services, and local government was even prohibited from subsidising essential services. The result is widespread social isolation and reduced mobility of the workforce. Not one we should wish to emulate.
Equity, Opportunity and Good Health
A free public lecture from SFU Continuing Studies and The City Program
How Transportation Affects the Essential Qualities of Life In Metro Vancouver
Thursday, 30 April 2015 7:30 PM at SFU Segal School of BusinessTransportation connects us to our community, our place of work and our friends and family. The way transportation infrastructure is designed and the modes of transportation that we have access to impact our lifestyle and our health.
The lecture reviewed some of the evidence from other jurisdictions, but focused primarily on the findings from the My Health My Community project that surveyed 28,000 Metro Vancouver residents in 2013/14.
While there are clear dividends in health for active transportation users, current transit infrastructure does not equally benefit all communities in Metro Vancouver. Access to transportation widens opportunity and is a significant equity issue in Metro Vancouver.This lecture was in collaboration with the 2015 ITE QUAD Conference, May 1-2 at the Pan Pacific Hotel, Vancouver.
It is fortunate that the text and illustrations that were used for this lecture are all available on line. I noticed that several people were trying to photograph the illustrations used, but that turns out to unnecessary too.
The talk was preceded by a presentation by Dale Bracewell, the Manager of Active Transportation at the City of Vancouver. He started by stating that Vancouver now designs its active transportation projects to meet the needs of all ages and abilities. The overarching goals are set by Transportation 2040 but that includes the interim goal of 50% of trips by walk, cycle and transit by 2020. The City has set itself objectives in the fields of Economy, People and Environment. The active transportation program fits within the People category and the Healthy City Strategy, which has a four year Action Plan. Walking and cycling are now the fastest growing transportation mode which reflects Vancouver’s high Walk Score. A panel survey is conducted annually with the City’s Health Partners.
Walking has increased by 19% while the collision rate has fallen by 20%. The collision data also needs to be seen within the context of the City’s Vision Zero. Cycling has increased by 41% while collisions have fallen by 17%. It is clear that the safety in numbers effect is working. Vancouver has installed a series of automated bike counters. He had a set of graphics which I have yet to find but the data is available as a large pdf spreadsheet.
This is the counter at Science World which now has the biggest count – even greater than the Burrard Bridge
The counters show cycle use growing between 7 and 15% over the last year. The Lion’s Gate Bridge now equals Hornby and Dunsmuir, even before the new safety measures for cyclists have been introduced.
Hornby Street still moves as many vehicle now as it did before, simply because the two way separated bike lane replaced on street parking. There are still 14,000 cars a day, but cycle traffic has increased 50% to 2,700 per day. At the same time there are 5,000 people on the sidewalk, with pedestrians showing a clear preference for the side with the cyclists rather than the parked cars. The street is now moving more people overall.
He also added a plug for an upcoming conference in Vancouver next year pro walk pro bike pro place September 12 – 15, 2016
Dr. Jat Sandhu is the regional director of the public health surveillance unit at the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. He stressed that his remarks are his own personal views.
He started by contrasting the experience of driving a car in congested traffic on the Sea to Sky Highway with that of riding a bike on a path next to the North Arm of the Fraser River – the stress of the former versus the relaxation of the latter. He grew up in Hong Kong and described his boyhood commute to school from Stanley to Kowloon: and one and half hour combination of buses and ferry to cover the same distance as the Canada Line from Richmond Brighouse to Waterfront.
He cited the work of Larry Frank at UBC who has published the all embracing literature review on health and transportation, looking at physical activity, air quality, mental health, injuries and equity. “Urban Sprawl and Public Health”. He also pointed to USC study of the Los Angeles to Culver City Exposition LRT which reduced daily vehicle travel by households of between 10 to 12 miles a day which a 30% reduction of CO2 emissions.
It is known that daily physical activity helps maintain a healthy weight, reduces the risk of chronic disease and grants a 40% reduction in the risk of premature mortality. Yet only 40% of the population meet the recommended activity levels. Obesity is now overtaking smoking in the mortality race. Physical inactivity is a large part of the problem as shown by a study of commute time against obesity in Atlanta GA (Am J Prev Med 2004). He also pointed to the lack of transit equity citing the Next Stop Health study in Toronto.
The My Health My Community survey covers the entire area covered by Fraser Health and Vancouver Coastal Health. What makes Canadians sick? 50% of the time “your life”.
The study asked respondents 90 questions about their socio-economic status, health, lifestyle, healthcare access, built environment and community.
The transportation report on Metro Vancouver released last week is the first of a series of reports from this data, intended to inform the discussion of the transportation plebiscite in this region. It draws from the survey responses from residents of the region – which is a subset of the survey mostly conducted on line, but with supplementary paper surveys to ensure adequate coverage of ethnic minorities. It covers only those over 18 years of age. Its target was a 2% sample which may seem small but is much better than the 0.5% sample of the typical transportation survey. Census data to neighborhood level was used to ensure a representative sample. It was a one year process, and results have been weighted to correct for age, gender, education and geography. Of 34,000 respondents, 28,000 live in Metro Vancouver: 80% of those make daily trips for work or education.
55% car driver or passenger
29% transit
10% walk
4% bike
2% other
Only Vancouver, New Westminster, Burnaby and the City of North Vancouver have over the Metro Vancouver average for active transportation modes.
I think the two maps are perhaps the most useful representations I have seen especially since they also map the Mayors’ Council’s proposals. What I think would be immensely more useful is a map of the non-active modes with the road projects that have been built in this region in the last ten years or so. While Dr Sandhu points to the goodness of fit of the proposals to correct some of the grosser transit inequities of this region, I think a map of “motordom” showing how the widening of Highway #1 (ongoing) the increase of traffic speeds on the Sea to SkyHighway, the impact of the South Fraser Perimeter road and the increase of capacity along Highway #10 through South Surrey, as well as all the various interchange improvements financed by development (200 St and Highway #1 for instance) as well as the Golden Ears Bridge and the new bridge over the CP yards in Port Coquitlam vastly overshadow anything that might happen as a result of the Mayor’s plan. I do not have the technical competence to produce such a map overlay myself, but I do hope one of you does.
By the way, the originals of these maps are huge: click on them to enlarge and see the details.
Among some of the other results he quoted:
The median commute time is 30 minutes: for car users it is 25 minutes and for transit 45 minutes. He said that reducing travel time for transit users should be a target, though absent the data on distance I am not sure that actually tells us much. To some extent, people choose how long they are willing to travel – and for some, such as West Coast Express users – the travel time will be viewed in a positive light. However, as a selling point for the Yes side in the plebiscite “Less time in your car, more time in your community” works well.
The determinants of transit use include age: the two biggest groups are 18 to 29 and those over 70. In both cases there is often a financial incentive for transit use (UPass, concession fares). 14% of transit users have a chronic health condition which he said points to the need for more HandyDART, which is included in the plan. There is a 50% higher transit usage by ethnic minorities – except for South Asians – with the highest usage among recent immigrants – who of course are not eligible to vote. Neither, come to that is Dr Sandhu. Only 75% of respondents are Canadian citizens. Transit use decreases with increases in income.
He also produced a graph showing municipalities by commute mode and the incidence of obesity. He said the correlation coefficient (r²) was 0.99 [which as far as I am concerned is unheard of].
He also showed the WalkScore map of the region – which I wish I could find on line. The web page I link to is not exactly what I was looking for!
The current transit infrastructure does not equitably benefit all communities. This is a social justice issue as it impacts access to education and employment. The proposed investments will be positive in this regard. The greatest health legacy of the Olympic Games was [not the creation of his position] the Canada Line. Metro Vancouver is 4th in transit use in North America, only behind the very much larger populations of New York, Montreal and Toronto. We have a relatively small population of 2.5 million and thus “do not have the same tax base”.
Q & A
1. A question about the aboriginal use of transit which seemed to be explained by lower income and the availability
2. Some people use different modes for the same trip on different days: walking or cycling in good weather for instance. Or more than one mode during one trip. The reply was that the choice of mode had been “collapsed down” and respondents were asked to pick their primary mode
3. A technical discussion of the sample compared to household survey which replaced the long form censu s
4. A question about income which produced the response that the City of Vancouver saw similar levels of active transportation across the city, but immigrants were more economically active than the population in general – a reflection of federal immigration policies.
5. Do people realize how walkable their neighborhood really is? Don’t we need more education?
The study helps the Health Authorities feed information into the OCP and community partners, as well as their interactions with nonprofits and school boards
6. “I have not heard the word Translink used. Is there going to be more bus service?”
7. Eric Doherty pointed out that just increasing bus service shows diminishing returns without a greater commitment to bus priority. He also mentioned feelings of superiority when he rode on a bus to the ferry and passed all those car users stuck in congestion.
I responded that bus priority measures are one of the most cost effective ways of improving the attractiveness of transit, but requires a level of enforcement not so far seen here.
REACTION
Gordon Price was really impressed by the cycling data. There’s nothing like a few good figures to destroy some long held misbeliefs.
The health study simply confirms what we have long known, but seem reluctant to act on. My own views on this were set out in a post in published earlier this year. I want to acknowledge the recent promotion of that post on Twitter by Brent Toderian which has had a very significant impact on my WordPress statistics.
The talk was in a larger room than usual, and was linked to the ITE Quad conference, but was poorly attended. The discussion was really rather muted.
HandyDART Trip Denials Soar to Record Levels
Press Release received from Eric Doherty via Twitter
Seniors vote needed for transit referendum win
For immediate release –Thursday February 27, 2014
Data obtained through freedom of information requests shows that people with disabilities and seniors were denied HandyDART service over 42,000 times in 2013, an eight-fold increase in four years. There were 5,075 HandyDART denials in 2009, 18,188 in 2011, 37,690 in 2012 and 42,418 in 2013.
“Other folks in society are sentenced to house arrest for committing a crime,” says HandyDART Riders Committee spokesperson and former Vancouver City Councillor Tim Louis. “We have committed no crime and yet are sentenced to house arrest when demand for rides outstrips capacity to provide rides because politicians won’t make transit funding a priority.”
HandyDART service was increased by about 5% annually to meet growing demand between 2002 and 2008. However, 2013 service hours were slightly lower than in 2008.
“HandyDART service levels have been frozen for five years while the population of older seniors and people with disabilities has grown dramatically” says transportation planner Eric Doherty the author of the 2013 report Metro Vancouver’s Aging Population and the Need for Improved HandyDART Service. “The number of people over 70 in Metro Vancouver will increase by 40% in the next decade.”
The HandyDART Riders’ Alliance says that three 80,000 hour increases, each costing about $7 million or 0.5% of TransLink’s present budget to operate, is needed to catch up after five years without an increase. After that, smaller regular increases will be needed to keep up with growing demand.
The provincial government has delayed transit improvements, including HandyDART service increases, pending a transit funding referendum likely to be held in June 2015. The TransLink Mayors council will apparently be setting the HandyDART service levels to be voted on, although the provincial government has not released details of promised governance changes.
HandyDART is a door-to-door transit service for people with disabilities and older seniors who cannot use the regular transit system for at least some trips.
“Seniors like me vote. The transit funding referendum likely won’t pass unless we can vote to meet the needs of an aging population, including better HandyDART service” says Elsie Dean, a HandyDART Riders’ Alliance member. “It is time to make the investments in public transit, including HandyDART, needed to make Metro Vancouver a livable and age friendly region.”
The newly-formed HandyDART Riders’ Alliance is open to HandyDART riders and allies. The group will be holding their first public meeting and electing board members on Saturday March 1st 1:30 to 3:30 at the 411 Seniors Centre, #704-333 Terminal Ave. Vancouver (5 min east from Main Street SkyTrain station).
Metro Vancouver’s Aging Population and the Need for Improved HandyDART Service was commissioned by Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1724 and is available from http://www.ecoplanning.ca/selected-projects. ATU Local 1724 also commissioned the FOI requests described above: Trip Denials http://ecoplanning.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FOI-Release-2014-009-1-2013-Denials-Refusals.pdf & http://ecoplanning.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FOI-Release-2013-179-Denials-2008-12.pdf HandyDART Service Hours http://ecoplanning.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FOI-Release-2014-012-2-Service-Hours-02-13.pdf
Losing Taxi Savers Program Will ‘Clip Wings’, Say Users
The Tyee has a very good summary of the users’ case for retaining the TaxiSaver program.
I am not going to repeat what is in that article. As usual I refrain from stating the case that needs to be made by others – especially when they have been so eloquent. But where I feel my experience or knowledge add something I will chime in. And what made me react was this sentence
When the Taxi Saver cuts were first announced, TransLink indicated it was a budgetary decision that would save over a million dollars. More recently, TransLink has stated that money saved by cutting Taxi Savers would be re-deployed to finance improved HandyDart services.
When I was employed by TransLink I was expected to examine the whole range of services to people with disabilities – mostly because as the economist I was expected to provide some professional advice on things which on a per passenger ride basis were extremely expensive. TaxiSavers were indeed introduced to increase mobility – but that was because the system itself was overburdened from the start – and always will be. The people who act as “gatekeepers” and certify that someone needs special assistance have no interest at all to save Translink – or the taxpayer – money. They meet the needs of their clientele. As they should. Other systems, like Calgary, have a much more stringent approach to determining eligibility, but that reflects a different kind of organization. There the City provides both transit and social assistance of various kinds: that is not the case with Translink.
TaxiSavers halve the cost of a taxi ride for users. But they also greatly reduce the cost of the same ride compared to what it would cost Translink if it were obliged to deliver service using its own equipment. Transit is rationed here – mostly by the location of where people live. In fact people with disabilities who qualify for handDART and live in the outer suburbs may even enjoy more transit access than their neighbours who have no disability. But handyDART is rationed by trip purpose. Because there is so much demand, and trips must be booked in advance, trips for school, work or medical reasons take precedence. In reality that means that any trip outside those classes doesn’t get booked. Taxi Savers allow people to make trips at short notice and for any purpose at all. There is also no need to see if the trip can be shared with others.
I think that the Taxi Saver program saved Translink a great deal, since it removed a lot of pressure to improve the shared ride, pre-booked system. There is an equity (or “human rights”) argument: imagine waiting in line for the #99 – but having to persuade an official before being allowed to board that your trip purpose fitted some predetermined category. Imagine further that you have some of the problems of aging or limited intellectual capacity – or are too principled to game the system. That is the situation that HandyDart users face everyday. It would be intolerable if it applied to the population as a whole, but somehow it is acceptable when applied to an identifiable minority. Who are supposed to be protected by legislation. And the Charter.
The claim that the savings will go to improve service are sophistry – since the trips people make with TaxiSavers do not qualify for those prebooked trips which are always oversubscribed.
But the Translink Board now is not accountable. Local politicians would never have dared have made this decision. But an appointed Board can have no conscience – it simply follows the mandate it has been given. The problem we have now is we are ruled by a bunch of politicians who think cutting taxes and public spending is always the right answer to every problem. And who believe that the way to achieve that is to cut service no matter what the consequences. So we have cut environmental protection – and people can set their drinking water alight. We have reduced all those “frills” in education like special needs assistants and librarians, and we wonder why our children now cannot find employment. In the US the Republicans have just cut federal funds to walking and cycling programs: they are the same people who decry the increase in demand for health services, because they are so expensive. In Britain, public transport was deregulated and most of the subsidies eliminated. Not long afterwards we started reading about a new problem – social exclusion. That is not a phrase we have heard much here. Expect to hear it more often in future.
UPDATE 1pm Wednesday 11 July Outcry forces TransLink to Reverse Decision on the TaxiSaver program Vancouver Sun
Vancouver mayor blasted for bragging about wheelchair accessibility
Calling Vancouver “the most accessible city in North America” is not only unproven, it also sends the message that nothing more need be done – which is obviously not true. And this quite substantial critique for people who have to cope with what has not been done, or been done badly, demonstrates that the City of Vancouver has a long way to go. As does every other municipality.
And it also affects transit. This is Margaret Birrell of the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities talking about the Canada Line
“There are 19 things wrong with the design of the stations for the blind the visually impaired alone — and they are going to rectify that — but why wasn’t that thought about before? Why didn’t they hire a specialist in design?”
Or just talk to the people who have been working steadily to make SkyTrain accessible for the last twenty years.
The fact that we might be a bit better than Seattle or Kelowna is irrelavant. Accessibility is one of those thing that is either there or not – and it is very specific and needs a strong commitment with leadership from the top. It is not enough that Sam says “I just set policy”. He has a responsibility to ensure that policies are implemented effectively – not just taking credit for the things that seem to work better here than elsewhere.
Transit gets accessible
As of yesterday …the region’s transit system, which includes buses, the SkyTrain, West Coast Express and SeaBus, became completely accessible.
The big difference being the retirement of the old E901 trolleybuses, which occurred sometime ago. I am not sure what happened yesterday that made a difference. I do hope it was not just a photo op for the Mayor.
It is an important landmark, and it shows admirable determination against people who kept up a constant barrage of complaints against the reduction of seats on low floor buses. Unlike the United States, we do not have the same legal framework, which imposes duties such as specialised van services for people with disabilities restricted to areas served by inaccessible conventional transit – that is within a mile of a bus route.
Since the trolleybus system was mainly in the City of Vancouver, and the demographics of the City are different to the region as a whole, demand for HandyDART – always more than can be provided everywhere – was a particular issue. However, it is not possible to make every bus stop accessible, since there needs to be a level landing pad and space to turn around – as well as step free access to that area by sidewalks and so on.
So while this is a big step forward, we are still some way back from a “completely accessible system” – we now have accessible vehicles. Much of the work that still needs to be done is the responsibility of the municipalities, and some of that requires retrofits to ill thought out cheap solutions. For example, the many ramps at intersections that are at 45 degrees. Saves money but shoots the user into traffic! Mostly it is fighting with property owners to get thin strips of land to make decent sidewalks – and often the expectation is that they will also pay for this provision!
But door to door service with operator assistance is still going to be needed for many people. And the growth of HandyDART has not been tracking the growth in demand for service.
City needs to push the envelope to stay on top
Miro Cernetig talks to Larry Beasely
The ostensible reason for the article is that we have moved up another of those best city lists.
These rankings take our attention off the question that’s really at hand: With a million more people expected to be here by 2030, how are we going to stay on the cutting edge of urban planning that’s put us in the livability big leagues?
Larry of course is building not one but two cities in the dessert of Abu Dhabi and
“I’m learning we’re not as far ahead on some of this stuff as I thought we were,” he says.
Which is refreshing. The problem with these rankings is they have gone to our head – or at least to the collective heads of the planners. And upstart furriners like me who keep saying “The Emperor has no clothes” are simply not listened to. But Larry, with his OC and new perspective will be.
The trouble I have is that they think it is about buildings and especially cultural institutions. Which seems to me to reflect the priorities of Marie Antoinnette.
There are some very basic things we need to be doing – and architects are not going to be the most important component of that, neither are the problems or their solutions the exclusive domain of the City of Vancouver. No doubt working for a Crown Prince with few budget constraints is a heck of a lot easier than herding cats, but in a metropolitan area being run (and ruined) by the province, that is what has to be done.
For starters, there is the problem of housing, and the related issues of mental health and welfare. These are basic social problems – and in my mind the quality of society is measured not by its glitzy buildings or cultural institutions, but by the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens. And right now the only thing that seems to be grabbing our attention is how to conceal the extent of our social policy collapse during the weeks of and around the 2010 Olympics. Lack of affordability of homes to buy is actually the least of it. We are supposed to have free at the point of service for public health, yet people with multiple diagnoses are simply turned away from treatment. We shy away from creating more and better public spaces for fear that the homeless will move in. We cannot buy a decent bus shelter or bench in case somebody finds it a better place to sleep than a doorway. And instead of building more public housing, we simply buy up a few more roach infested SROs, and do a half hearted job of trying to clean them up, displacing more people in the process. And actually destroying some of the best public housing we have, and rebuilding it to provide more marketable homes!
It is not the buildings that are the problem. They simply reflect what we are willing to pay for. And the answer here at present seem to be not much since the land costs so much. But it is the spaces in between the buildings that matter – and in the words of that tired old cliché we have private affluence and public squalor. We devote more space to car parking than almost any other activity. Our streets may be broad, but the sidewalks are mean. And public places where people gather are few and inadequate. And we concentrate on Vancouver – and especially downtown – as if that were the only place worth considering.
And I haven’t even started on our infrastructure. “World class” cities surely need good waste disposal (liquid and solid) as well as reasonable movement alternatives for goods as well as people.
Oddly enough there is no need to “push the envelope” with any of this, the solutions have been around for decades. We have just turned our back on them in our obsession with finance and profitability, as if that is the only way to measure worth. How can we boast of our GDP per capita – when so many of those heads have no pillow?
Green light for HandyDART overhaul
By Jeff Nagel
Black Press
Jul 07 2007
Groups representing the disabled and other users of HandyDART are applauding TransLink’s move to overhaul the custom door-to-door transit service.
Right now the GVRD is carved up into eight zones, with eight different contractors running HandyDART service. Administration, dispatch and other functions are heavily duplicated and trips across zone boundaries can be complex to coordinate, with lengthy delays.
By 2009, a simplified three-zone system is to be in place that will operate much more like a single unified system.
A new office will offer a single point of contact for users to register, book trips and get information.
Shorter advance booking times and online booking are among the promised advantages.
“These improvements are like a dream come true,” said accessible transit advocate Laurie Hill.
The changes are mapped out in TransLink’s new Access Transit Plan, the culmination of a more than two-year process, which was approved last week.
Reform of handyDART is long overdue. The system has been overloaded for years, and many trips cannot be made. The system has not been able to cope, and the public health bureaucracy has taken advantage of its existence. People who find they cannot get a ride give up trying to book one, so the statistics for rejected rides are useless. Many people who use the service are frail and vulnerable, and many fear that if they complain, their requests for trips will be rejected. This belief may be founded in their experience of the institutions where they are – or were – housed, and have nothing to do with HandyDart at all, but it is a perception that is hard to change.
Since there were always more requests than capacity, so a system of rationing had to be devised. This was based on giving priority to regular trips – those needed by people who work, attend post secondary eduction or need to get medical treatment. It is this last category that has ballooned. Partly because the health system has been closing beds, and relying more heavily on “care in the community”. For the hospitals, getting long term patients out of acute care beds into care facilities has been a high priority, but the same people still need care – and often have to be transported from the facilities where they now live to where they can be treated. Centralization of care was often seen as a way of achieving economies of scale even when patient care actually suffered due to the arduous nature of the journeys patients had to make to get treatment. But the other reason for the growth in health related demand is that other trip purposes do not get priority – so if you want a trip to go shopping or get your hair done, hard luck. Smarter people make sure that their dentist or chiropractor is located in a mall and multi task on the priority trips they can book.
Nearly 70 per cent of the service is consumed by medical and social services trips.
And an estimated 12 per cent of all custom transit trips carry patients to local hospitals for kidney dialysis.
Margaret Birrell, executive director of the B.C. Coalition of People With Disabilities, said area health authorities should contribute towards the cost of medical trips, estimated at $10 million per year.
I know where she is coming from, but this is not going to happen. The best parallel I can think of is the food bank. It was supposed to shame the Province into reversing its cuts to welfare. Didn’t work. Politicians have no shame. The food bank is still with us twenty years on, the welfare cuts are worse than ever but the food banks’ use increases and fewer people actually starve to death. The Province uses the food banks’ existence to avoid raising welfare rates. The Health Authorities have cut back on the transport provision (“Not part of our core remit”) because HandyDART picks up (some of) the slack.
And anyway, the high percentage of medical trips is the inevitable outcome of the priority rules. But that is not something that they can now get out of.
No one ever looks very hard at who is booking trips. Frankly, one view is that the service is so bad that no-one who had any other choice would want it and therefore it is self regulating. Other systems have used more rigorous eligibility criteria. Calgary looks at every trip and the options available, and will tell people to use conventional accessible transit if that can cover the trip for that individual. For one thing, this develops self reliance and confidence – but that is well, outside handyDART’s remit. (Calgary is an integrated local authority that provides both transit and social welfare services.) Basically the response up to now has been that eligibility is something that is too sensitive to take a chance on changing.
The introduction of low floor accessible trolleys will have helped quite a bit. This is removing the last major barrier to accessibility in terms of vehicles on the bus system. Of course, that is also one of the reason why the new buses have fewer seats. The low floor design means the wheel wells protrude – loss two seats each. Then the designated area for wheel chairs has tip up seats – and loses two or three seats when occupied. (The other big loss is at the back where perimeter seating is used to encourage people standing to move to the back.)
Community Shuttles should have helped too, but they have been used to provide fixed route small bus services, not the flexible “closer to your door” service originally anticipated. Their main function has been to release big buses for busier routes – and we have plenty of those now.
The taxi system is also supposed to be able to help – but this piece is long enough already. The sad story of the accessible cab business I will leave for another day.
Plenty of other barriers remain: lack of sidewalks, lack of curb cuts, no space at bus stops to deploy ramps, no shelters and so on. All these issues are outside Translink’s remit – they fall to the municipalities and performance there is variable – from dismal to non-existent.
Reorganising the number of contractors will help a bit, but the fundamental issues remain – and will continue to cause concern. One day, someone will have to grasp the nettle.
Stephen Rees's blog 