I attended a session yesterday on Transportation 2040 (the City’s update of Vancouver’s transportation plan) as part of Carbon Talks, and saw three images that graphically illustrate extraordinary things.
For instance, this:
.
Whenever a proposal to reallocate road space is made – add bike lanes, remove viaducts, put a greenway on the Granville Bridge – there’s an immediate concern that it will (a) congest existing vehicle traffic and (b) not handle growth in traffic. Even though, whenever we do it, bad things fail to happen. (For instance, vehicle flows on Hornby Street since the bike lane have improved by 9 percent.)
The chart above explains why: as population and employment growth have increased, with higher density and a better mix, car traffic has dropped, both in the city and, moreso, downtown. It’s so counterintuitive that many commentators simply don’t acknowledge that reality or, based on their perceptions, don’t believe it. Darn facts.
The chart below is a new one, and though a little busy, essentially says this: every time we have set a target for reduced vehicle use, we surpassed it – sometimes decades ahead of time. For instance, in 1976, we thought we might be able to get vehicle traffic down to 75 percent of all trips. Passed that in 1992, when we thought that by 2021 it would be down to 58 percent. We’ve reached that today.
.
.
So here are the proposed targets for Transportation 2040:
.
By 2020, half of all trips will be by foot, bike or transit, and by 2040, two-thirds of all trips.
Some media have portrayed this as a “War on the Car,” looking to get a little Toronto-style conflict happening here no doubt.
But what the chart says is that the number of vehicle trips stays about the same. Essentially, all the growth has to happen by other modes – which is why they need more space. If the next million or so people don’t adopt more active and sustainable modes, and choose to drive, then we really do get gridlock, since there isn’t remotely enough room to handle an increase in cars and trucks on that scale. That’s what would really lead to more conflict.
Instead, we will most likely surpass those 2040 targets too, if experience and current reality is an indication.
.
You can participate in Transportation 2040 too: Talk Transportation With us.
This seems kind of encouraging at a glance, but it could also be a little discouraging, depending on how you interpret the statistics.
The first chart, when compared to the final one, seems deceptive. Does it mean that there was a 20% decrease in growth of cars entering downtown? If cars dropped 20% from 1997 to now, why does that drop halt and remain flat between now and 2040?
The final chart suggests that vehicle trips will stay the same, but that there will be many more people using transit. Unfortunately, the biggest impediment to the efficient movement of public transport (besides money and social/political will) is the existing congestion of automobiles. If in 2040 we’ll have the same number of cars on the streets but a lot more buses, it seems reasonable to conclude that things will be more crowded and slower moving (unless all the roads somehow magically get wider).
Too many people don’t want to use transit today because it’s slow (unless your A and B points just happen to be near SkyTrain stations). That’s not going to change by 2040 just because there are more buses sitting in traffic, it just means that people will grow more resigned to sitting in the traffic, whatever the mean of conveyance.
I’d like to see some targets that show motor vehicle trips decreasing, not remaining flat.