TransLink’s representative for the redesign of the Broadway-Commercial station, Bryan Shaw of AECOM, told the City of Vancouver’s Urban Design Panel, as quoted in NRU:
… the site is quite constricted and yet it must handle more passengers annually than Vancouver International Airport does, or about 115,000 per day
The panel has not been overly enthusiastic about the new design, narrowly supporting it by a 4-3 vote, recognizing that without context, because of unknown zoning in the ongoing Grandview-Woodland plan, it is difficult to design a major station. More work, say panel members, is needed. And some wondered if the pedestrian passerelle across Broadway, proposed to be expanded, is still too narrow.
Note the difference in approach to rapid transit versus our commitment of resources to airports, bridges and roads.
Excellent insight ! I would suggest that a solution to this problem would be to get more people using Public Transit, especially the “1%” and business people…. that way people who use Public Transit would not be treated like 2nd class citizens.
But of course the “catch-22” is that Public Transit facilities need to be improved (via funding) before more people would actually use them….
My solution to the dual problem of lack of funding and insufficient use – which I have been advocating to the Mayors Council – is an improvement to the Vehicle Levy proposal (lets call it Vehicle Levy PLUS) whereby the value (cost) of a Vehicle Levy could be applied to Transit use (applied to a drivers SmartCard Account). That would create the best of both worlds, funds for transit and public transit for drivers which in turn would reduce road congestion & air pollution while improving health through exercise – which of course is a value worth even more than money. Fitness classes for drivers might also be an option, see my proposal – http://www.bcwellnesshub.ca/
While a flat fee or sliding scale vehicle levy is easily understood and collected it does not address the right issue. Cars have a high up front cost. So once you’ve made a huge payment or signed a contract committing you to make to payments for years to come, there is a strong incentive to make use of that sunk cost. If you choose to leave it in the driveway all day depreciating the general public really shouldn’t care, the only person that car is hurting is you.
What we do have a problem with is accommodating all the people who want to move their cars and trucks around, particularly because most of them seem to want to do it at the same time as everyone else.
A basic levy applied on a vehicle is like an increase in insurance rates or sticker price, it penalizes ownership. If such a levy does anything at all it actually encourages owners to get out and use their rapidly depreciating asset.
But the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people to get out and use their cars more. So I categorically reject the entire concept of a levy based upon mere possession of a 2 tonne heap of metal, glass and plastic.
The problem isn’t possession but use, so we absolutely must target use when thinking of any form of vehicle levy. But even that is too broad a brush because the amount of road space and parking required at 3am is insignificant next to the power of the Force, sorry, I mean compared with rush hour streets and parking for major events. From both the noise abatement and injury & death standpoints 3am traffic is less benign (more speeding, more DUI, more drowsiness, less tolerance for noise), but the built environment isn’t shaped by 3am traffic the way it is by 8am or 8pm traffic.
So we must devise a solution that attacks the problem of peak use, one that penalizes the worst drivers in the least efficient vehicles. Unfortunately that sounds like the guy who depends on his exhaust spewing 20 year old pickup to get to and from the job site is going to get hit hardest because he has no choice about when, where and how to travel. The odds of him supporting the levy are below zero. Meanwhile the executive in her Tesla has far more options and greater ability to pay, but is unlikely to support a levy on her “clean” vehicle. Even fair, progressive taxation isn’t popular.
Well argued. That is why gasoline levies and annual fees alone do not work. It has to be by the mile, say 10 cents for a certain piece of road, say Granville street from airport to downtown, and another 10-50 cents at certain hours, say 8-10 am and 3-7 pm.
Technology exists, via GPS to track actual mileage driven, when & where. In Europe or Singapore (perhaps other places, too) they are experimenting with it already. See here, for example: http://roadpricing.blogspot.ca/2013/05/singapore-assessing-gps-based-urban.html .. in place since 1997 and now being moved to GPS. WOW. Talk about forward thinking. THAT is what we need in Vancouver.
In parallel car use has to be made more miserable, slower and far far more expensive too for congested areas. Only if the Lexus is passed three times by the bus will the Lexus driver switch to a bus.
Time is money.
Yes time is money and transit users know that time spent on a bus/train can be productive time. People who get on transit at distant stops where they’re guaranteed a seat can often be seen working all the way to work. You can’t do that behind the wheel of a Lexus.
Unless it is driverless .. soon, eh ?
Thomas – While I agree with your end goal (increased transit use and decreased car use), I fear that framing the issue negatively (e.g. driving is going to become more expensive, slow, and inconvenient) is counter-productive. You need public support, and this sentiment will turn off a lot of people who are unfortunately addicted to automobility and the car as the de facto transportation option.
Instead, we need to highlight both the benefits of better public transit (cheaper, less stressful, convenient for reading/working/multitasking) and congestion charging (driving will be more expensive but faster; you’ll rarely be caught in a traffic jam).
Indeed. Every issue has two sides: pro’s and con’s, costs & benefits. I can see both usually, but many folks stress one over the other only.
Since we are asking people to pay more (in property taxes, or road levies, or annual registration fees, or congestion charges, or taxes, or transit fares) indeed we have to show what we will get for it. Hence the referendum.
I like the Singapore model. Car use is very very expensive, thus fast for those that wish to pay for it. For the rest there are cabs and public transit. Vancouver will be there in 40-50 years. The city was built around cars for 100+ years. We can’t change that in a decade. It will take 4 or 5. I am just stating the obvious: if you want less car use it must be more far more expensive. Of course with a Transportation Minister from a small town (Kamloops) and a governing party that has more rural than urban votes that kind of thinking would be a surprise.