Never heard of the BAU/ST Dichotomy?
That’s probably because we just coined the term. And by “we” I mean the participants* in the SFU City Program’s new online course on ‘Next Generation Transportation.” (There’s an information session on Apr 30 for the next opening, see below).
So what is it? Technically, it’s the split or conflict between ‘Business As Usual’ (BAU) and ‘Sustainable Transportation’ (ST) in the development of our urban environment and transportation systems – as described by Preston Schiller, Eric Bruun and Jeff Kenworthy in “A Highly Mobile Planet and Its Challenges: Auto Dependence, Equity, and Inequity.”
Many of the participants in the course have personal experience of the dichotomy in action when describing the situation in their respective cities:
- The City talks a good game … (but) is having a hard time progressing toward ST.
- There is a huge disconnect between policy (which is very ST focused) and provision (still far too much BAU).
- The concepts of Sustainable Transportation are frequently cited as objectives for the city and other local governments but the reality is much more business as usual.
- The planners and staff understand and believe in the concepts of sustainable transportation, but the majority of politicians and the public do not.
- I also see a disconnect between the increasing implementation of ST in the city core but very much continuing BAU on the periphery.
Here’s an example from Auckland, where the City on one hand is making a significant commitment to ‘Shared Streets’ in the core:
.
While in more suburban parts of the City, it’s BAU on a big scale:
.
And of course that’s true in the Vancouver region – perhaps even more dramatically here than in other places. For instance, the City of Vancouver is making (often controversial) progress towards complete streets:
.
While out in the region, the Province is shaping Motordom by Default with its multi-billion-dollar commitments to the Gateway Projects:
.
One of the participants provides an example from Calgary of the difference when expressed financially:
In Calgary, like many places, there is a gap between policy and practice. The Municipal Development Plan and the Calgary Transportation Plan clearly state that “sustainable modes of transportation should be emphasized where they can provide convenient and realistic travel choices”.
At the same time, the magnitude of debate surrounding the potential approval of a $11 million pilot for the Centre City Cycle Track Network while the completion of the Southwest Ring Road will cost an additional $5 billion is a testament to the how difficult it can be to shift to Sustainable Transportation in a city that has been (mostly) developing in a Business as Usual manner for decades.
The BAU/ST Dichotomy may be the major challenge facing those who see the need to shift resources to fulfil the commitments stated in the plans – but not in the budgets.
If PT readers have their own examples, send them in, preferably with images or links. The more contrasty, the better. And if you think you have a better word or phrase to describe the BSD, let us know.
.
* In particular, Canisius Chan, who came up with the phrase.
Perhaps the dichotomy recognizes that “one size does not fit all”.
(i.e. the difference between long haul travel and neighbourhood travel needs and patterns).
You don’t see the City of Vancouver converting the West Side arterial segments of Oak Street or Granville Street or Grandview Highway, 1st Avenue or Southeast Marine Drive on the East Side.
Individual vehicles (traditional cars, e-cars, mini-cars, motorbikes, e-bikes, ..) are continued to be required, especially in cold weather climates and outside of the urban core !
As such, we must have both private and public transit solutions.
What works in Vancouver, or even in MetroVan’s dense areas, does not work further out.
Look at Europe, they have a 2000 year lead on North-America as they built walkable cities 200, 500, 1500 years ago as there was no cars then.
NA incl. MetroVan grew around the car i.e. the last 100 or so years. Calgary, Edmonton or Winnipeg are large cities landwise and as such a car is a basic necessity unless you live within the inner core.
So what is required is a transportation network grounded in reality, for example park&ride lots on high speed/high volume bus or train stations, or parking for mini-cars or motorized bikes.
Cars might eventually not be combustion engine cars, but e-cars or motorbikes with a shell around it – such as seen here on a recent tour of Europe: https://www.facebook.com/thomasbeyer2000/media_set?set=a.10203517178789188.1073741833.1205706309&type=3
But the INDIVIDUAL vehicle will be with us for 100+ years, and that has to be recognized by city planners. So, for example, why do we not have more dedicated motorbike parking slots downtown, or price per foot of length of car as a mini-car takes only 1/2 to maybe 1/4 the space of a larger/normal one.
The word “sustainable” has to be replaced with the word “individualized” as that is what is required: individual, customized transportation solutions i.e. a combination of private and public transport.
Well, at the risk of over-simplifying or being too blunt, here is my explanation for the BAU/ST dichotomy – politics.
Vancouver, and probably Aukland too, as well as may other cities, in this day and age, produces this political result – left wing in the inner city, more right wing in the suburbs, and at the regional and provincial level.
Thus, progressive transportation approaches in the inner city, and regressive approaches in the suburbs and at the regional level, or where the province is paying and calling the shots.
It is interesting to apply this model to Toronto. Since Toronto was amalgamated by the province in the 1990’s, the left wing inner city has lost its power, relative to the region. Along came Rob Ford with his “stop the gravy train” and “get rid of the streetcars” dogmas. Perfect timing, if you’re a regressive when it comes to transpo planning.