Transportation Plan - Choices Survey Response and Proposed...

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Date: June 21, 1996

TO: Vancouver City Council

FROM: General Manager of Engineering Services and
Director of City Plans

SUBJECT: Transportation Plan -
Choices Survey Response and Proposed Direction

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. THAT staff be instructed to prepare a draft Transportation
Directions Plan on the basis of feedback from the public on
the Choices Survey proposals;

B. THAT staff be instructed to undertake a public consultation
program on the draft Plan in September;

C. THAT the Mayor and Council meet with Provincial Government
representatives to explore the following:

(i) Immediate increase in the number of buses serving
Vancouver routes; and

(ii) Improvement of customer services, such as timetabling,
easier fare payment, etc.; and

(iii)Ways of making the bus system more responsive to
the needs of City of Vancouver residents.

COUNCIL POLICY

Existing transportation policy is extensive. Key policies include:

(i) No freeways within the city;
(ii) No increase in peak period vehicular capacity entering the
city;
(iii)A hierarchy of mode priorities being pedestrians first
then cycling, transit, goods movement and vehicles;
(iv) Clouds of Change directions to reduce the number of automobile
trips in the city and region and increase opportunities for
non-auto transportation including bicycles, walking, rail,
buses and alternative vehicles;
(v) Livable Region Strategy and BC/GVRD Transport 2021 Plan;
(vi) CityPlan policies to improve transit, improve the environment
for walking and cycling, discourage auto use and make more
efficient use of existing facilities;
(vii)Downtown parking policies.

SUMMARY

In May 1995, Council instructed the Engineering and Planning Departments
jointly to prepare a transportation plan for the city. The
transportation plan was to be based on the strategic directions
established in the Livable Region Plan, Transport 2021, and CityPlan.

Beginning in September 1995, the Transportation Plan Team has considered
major transportation issues and choices which might form the basis of a
comprehensive transportation plan for the future. Ideas were canvassed
as part of a public symposium, consisting of four public seminars held
in January 1996.

A Transportation Choices Survey was prepared identifying 23 key
transportation choices to which the Team wanted public reaction.
Together, these choices could represent an overall framework for the
draft transportation plan. A positive reaction to the proposals would
suggest general approval to the direction being taken.

The Choices Survey was widely circulated in May and June. About 35,000
copies were distributed, through the mailing list (7,000); in community
centres, libraries, stores, etc. (12,000); through community groups
(7,000); and through the mail for a special sample of randomly selected
households (7,000). Replies to the survey are still coming in, with
about 2,500 received as of June 24.

This report outlines the responses to the 23 transportation choices. The
review of the responses identifies differences according to place of
residence in the city and age. Differences between the general responses
and the special sample of randomly selected households are also noted
where these are significant. These are described in the report.

In general, the responses strongly support the choices/proposals
outlined in the Transportation Choices paper. For a few of the choices,
the responses were supported but less strongly.

On the basis of the positive response to the choices/proposals, the
Transportation Plan Team proposes now to prepare a draft Transportation
Plan. This draft plan is scheduled for completion and publication in
September 1996. A public program similar to that conducted in May this
year would then enable people to respond to the proposals. These
responses should be available in October, allowing Council to consider
the Transportation Plan in October.

The proposed draft Transportation Plan would contain an overall
Transportation Directions Report, together with a number of more
detailed Action Plans.

(a) Transportation Directions Report

The City's transportation objectives are already well established
thanks to the regional transportation policy and CityPlan. The
proposals suggested for the draft Transportation Plan are for
measures the City can adopt to help to achieve these objectives.
They include:

A reclassification of the arterial road network, to reflect
better the patterns of traffic movement in the city, and
to support a higher priority for some uses;
Suggestions for BC Transit and the City for a practical
approach to transit improvements;
Initiatives to support the regional policy for a better
balance of transportation for the downtown, one which
would place greater reliance on transit for peak journey
to work travel;
Proposed improvements for goods movement, which would mitigate
the impact of trucks on those neighbourhoods where truck
traffic is heaviest;
1. A revised approach to traffic calming in neighbourhoods,
which would emphasise assisting areas where traffic
impacts are most serious;
A range of measures to support Council's existing priority of
promoting walking and cycling.

Many of these transportation directions demand more study and much
local public input before the Team would be able to recommend
specifics. Nevertheless, they would provide Council and staff with
clear directions for transportation planning over the next 20 to 30
years.

(b) Transportation Action Plans

Many of the details of the Transportation Plan will need to be
worked out in collaboration with other agencies, and with local
communities over the next few years. A series of more detailed
Action Plans will describe the kinds of detailed proposals the Team
believes should be considered.

Action Plans would include proposals for:

(i) Transit;
(ii) Neighbourhoods and walkability;
(iii) The road network;
(iv) Goods movement;
(v) The downtown;
(vi) Cycling.

Not all transportation initiatives outlined in the Transportation
Directions Report need to be undertaken immediately. As well as
providing a framework for further consideration of transportation
proposals, the Action Plans would summarise transportation
priorities, and steps needed to begin implementation. This could
include a supplementary report on possible implications for the
Capital Plan.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is to provide the results of the
Transportation Plan Choices Survey and associated meetings. This report
also sets the direction for development of the draft Plan.

BACKGROUND

(a) Policy Development

In the early 1970's, the City of Vancouver decided against building
freeways in the city. In many respects that decision was a big
achievement. Yet in opting against the freeway we did not opt for
alternatives. The growth in automobile travel that was anticipated
at the time has occurred and has been accommodated on the existing
street system by widening streets, adding left turn bays, stripping
parking, and signalization improvements. The impacts of this
traffic growth have been felt in neighbourhoods throughout the
city, eroding their quality of life. Many Vancouverites have
remarked that aggressive driver behavior has compounded the
problems in recent years. These changes have happened bit by bit,
without an opportunity to look carefully at our options or at the
cumulative impact of many small decisions.

The existing arterial streets in the city could accommodate roughly
5% more automobile trips in the peak periods. Combined with
downtown housing this means that growth in jobs of about 15% could
occur given current transportation trends. However, the Livable
Region Strategy calls for 35% growth of jobs by the year 2021 and
the built out capacity of the downtown could result in 60%
employment growth. Clearly this growth cannot be accommodated if
we rely as much on the automobile as we do now. Even if the 15
more lanes of traffic that would be required to reach the downtown
were somehow added, we could not accommodate that much more traffic
once it arrived there.

The Livable Region Strategy and BC/GVRD Transport 2021 recognized
that current trends could not be accommodated by relying on the
automobile without destroying the region s livability. These plans
laid out a strategy to concentrate growth and to maintain strong
regional links primarily through a combination of transportation
demand management (TDM) and transit improvements. Council has
supported these strategies in principle. The strategy would result
in 50% of peak trips downtown being made by transit. As a
comparison, Vancouver currently achieves about 38% by transit and
Toronto currently achieves about 60% by transit in the peak period
to their central area.

Aside from the impracticality of continued reliance on automobiles,
Council recognized in 1990 through adoption of Clouds of Change
recommendations that the existing high level of automobile use was
undesirable from an environmental perspective. At that time the
Task Force on Environmental Change recommended changes in land use
and transportation as fundamental measures to address atmospheric
concerns.

Specifically, Council adopted objectives to:

(i) Reduce the number of automobile trips in the city and the
region;
(ii) Increase opportunities for non-auto transportation
including bicycles, walking, rail, buses and alternative
vehicles.

These objectives were to be achieved through trip reduction
by-laws, parking regulations and parking fees to favour high
occupancy vehicles, cycling improvements, transit improvements and
road pricing to fund transit.

Both the Transport 2021 Strategy and the Clouds of Change
recommendations were echoed in the CityPlan recommendations adopted
by Council in 1995. In CityPlan, residents said they wanted more
livable, pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods, better transit, a
better environment for cycling and walking, and less reliance on
the car.

The Transportation Plan therefore did not start with a blank sheet
of paper. A regional Transportation Plan (Transport 2021) has
already established the strategy to maintain regional links. The
task of the Transportation Plan is to provide a strategy for
achieving the CityPlan goals in the context of Transport 2021.

(b) Transportation Plan Choices

According to Transport 2021, over the next 25 years the expected
growth in trips can be accommodated on existing city streets
provided that TDM measures are in place. The growth of trips in
the city must be met by transit improvements. Streets may be more
or less congested than they are now depending on the degree to
which parking charges are increased and tolls on bridges to
Vancouver are implemented.

Regional strategies however do not ensure that livability in
Vancouver is enhanced or that local transportation alternatives are
available. If, for example, we respond to increasing congestion in
the city by stripping parking instead of insisting on improvements
to alternatives, then livability and the viability of local
business will suffer. If we choose not to make alternatives more
viable compared to the car then we will pay a higher price for the
car use through congestion or road pricing before we are willing to
use the alternatives.

The central issues in the Transportation Plan therefore are not how
we maintain regional links. That has been determined in Transport
2021. The question is how far we go in the city to enhance
livability, protect community cohesion, and improve alternatives
while still preserving those regional links.

In October and November the Transportation Planning Team held
preliminary meetings to hear about transportation issues of concern
to neighbourhood and business groups. We also met with BC Transit ,
the Port and Airport Authorities, and BC Trucking Association. The
Transportation Symposia held in January gave the public and staff
a chance to hear about ideas from other cities and from local
experts and to kick off the transportation debate. The
Transportation Choices Survey was distributed in May as a series of
proposals emerging from research and feedback.

We found that measures which improve livability and improve the
viability of alternatives in many cases infringe on automobile use.
This means that to implement such measures on some streets or on
some street segments will make other streets more important for
moving the anticipated regional traffic. The Transportation
Choices Survey was developed to gauge public opinion on a variety
of proposals that help implement CityPlan objectives. If the
reaction to the various proposals was favourable, then some or all
of these proposals could be pulled together in a transportation
plan.

The Choices Survey focused on issues where decisions are likely to
be the most difficult and these tend to be where there are real
tradeoffs to be made. An example of this was the proposal to
provide bus only lanes on some important transit routes. These
lanes have the potential to enhance transit service but the
tradeoff would be the reduction of lanes available for general
purpose traffic or parking. The Choices Survey asked questions and
contained background on 23 such issues. Many other components must
make up a Transportation Plan. However, we hoped that feedback on
the key issues in the Choices Survey would provide a reliable basis
for what direction the public would like the plan to move in with
respect to transit, neighbourhoods, cycling, walking, the car, and
goods movement.

DISCUSSION

1. Results of the Choices Survey

(a) Who Did We Reach?

Thirty-five thousand copies of the Choices paper were printed
and were distributed as follows:

7,000 Mailing List: Mailed to the Transportation Plan
mailing list which was made up of the CityPlan list
plus several thousand additional people who asked to
be put on the list through the process. Also
included were agencies such as BC Transit, the Airport, and trucking concerns which have an
interest in the issues. Many people on the list
live outside Vancouver.

There was no significant change when drivers or transit 7,000 Distributed by resident groups door to door. These
users were analyzed separately. surveys were analyzed separately.

2,000 Distributed at meetings with neighbourhood and
QUESTION 3 - Do you agree or disagree that a business groups, including seven public workshop
comprehensive review of the transit route structure is meetings, and meetings held in Cantonese and
needed to be sure the system will best serve our changing Punjabi. Surveys were translated into Spanish,
City?French, Chinese, and Punjabi.

12,000 Distributed at community centres, libraries and a
variety of convenience stores in Vancouver.

7,000 Random Sample: Mailed to Vancouver residents
selected randomly by an outside company. These
surveys were analyzed separately.

During May and June, 7 workshops were held in neighbourhoods
throughout the city. These were advertised in the newspaper
and on posters distributed throughout the city. An additional
32 meetings were held with resident groups, business
associations, and cultural groups. The meetings were attended
by about 1000 people in total. Appendix A contains a list of
all meetings held, notes from the meetings, a list of
individuals who provided submissions, and notes from
organizations who provided a submission. QUESTION 4 - Do you agree or disagree with experimenting
with a public-private partnership in designing and
(b) Who Responded? operating mini-bus service to complement BC Transit
buses?
Over 2,300 completed surveys have been returned in time for
use in this report, representing the views of 3,000 to 4,000
individuals. Of these 2,300 surveys, 950 returns have been
received from the random sample.

In the following response sections, results of survey
questions which describe the responses according to the
respondent group classifications. For each question, the
results are given for self-selected respondents ( Self ),
random survey respondents ( Random ), and a combination of
self-selected and random respondents ( All ). Self-selected
respondents include interested persons who had asked to be
placed on the Transportation Plan mailing list or had
voluntarily obtained a Transportation Choices Summary from a
public meeting or distribution point and returned the survey
form. The Choices document was available in many public
locations, including community centres and libraries. Random
survey respondents were selected from Vancouver residential
addresses and sent a Transportation Choices Survey with a QUESTION 5 - Do you agree or disagree with establishing a
postage pre-paid envelope. new Local Transit Authority to run the transit system in
the central densely populated municipalities of the
The responses to demographic questions included in the survey region?
were:

WHERE DO YOU LIVE?

It should be noted that there was a significant number of
neutral responses to this question.

(ii) Cycling

QUESTION 6 - Do you agree or disagree with promoting
cycling by expanding the off-arterial bikeway program at
While the locational distribution of residences for random a faster rate?
survey respondents was reasonably representative of the city,
it should be noted that self-selected respondents were
predominantly from the west side of the city. The following
graph shows the approximate actual population distribution of
the three areas in the city selected for use in the survey
(i.e., Downtown Peninsula, West Side, East Side) for
comparison purposes.

QUESTION 7 - Do you agree or disagree with creating bike
lanes and wider curb lanes on some arterial streets?

HOW DO YOU NORMALLY GO TO WORK/SCHOOL?

Stronger support was seen from respondents living in the
downtown area, where there are currently no special
facilities for cyclists.

There was an apparent difference in the modal preference
distribution of respondents. In particular, the number of
drivers appears lower and the number of walkers and cyclists
appears higher among survey respondents than the general
population, as compared to 1991 modal split data for the
journey to work.

QUESTION 8 - Do you agree or disagree with improving the
integration of cycling with transit?

This difference can be attributed in part to the large number
of respondents who specified more than one mode as how they
normally went to work or school. School is assumed to be
primarily post-secondary institutions in this survey. The
modal split of Vancouverites according to the 1991 data is
given in the following graph. Random respondents did show a
slightly higher proportion of car drivers and passengers, as
While all groups supported the cycling proposals, the following graphs show.
cyclists were overwhelmingly in support.

There was some difference in the level of support for
cycling initiatives among age groups. Respondents in the
younger age groups were strongly in favour of cycling
initiatives, while respondents in older age groups were
moderately in favour, as the following graphs show.

YOUR AGE?

There was unfortunately a negligible number of respondents
from the under-20 age group. As the following graph shows, the
age groups from 20-64 appear to be over-represented while the
(iii) Neighbourhoods under-20 age group appears to be under-represented and the
over-64 age group appears to be reasonably represented.
QUESTION 9 - Do you agree or disagree with reallocating
money from street construction to make pedestrian routes
more enjoyable, comfortable and convenient?

In any survey, there is a question as to the profile of
respondents and the probability that the received responses
are representative of the views of the general population.
Respondents from outside of Vancouver and those who drive
were less supportive of this proposal, as the following In most cases, the results did not vary considerably with the
graphs show. respondent group demographics, i.e., by area, age, or primary
travel mode. Where a difference was noted, graphs that
provide results according to the demographic characteristic
are given. Similarly, in most cases, the results from random
respondents do not vary considerably with the broad
distribution and these differences have been highlighted.

In some situations, to get a broad opinion check telephone
surveys are done. In this case the whole approach was to get
people thinking more deeply about the issues by providing
necessary information in an accessible way. This could not be
achieved in a telephone interview. The opinion questions that
could be reliably asked in a telephone survey have already
been asked in surveys by the GVRD and others and therefore we
did not repeat them. See Appendix A for results of a recent
GVRD compendium of various telephone surveys on TDM.

(i) Transit

QUESTION 1 - Do you agree or disagree with speeding up
buses on some routes by reducing the number of stops?

QUESTION 10 - Do you agree or disagree with designating
pedestrian priority zones in neighbourhood centres?

There was some variation in responses according to age
group. In particular, as the age group increased, the
number of respondents who disagreed with a reduction in
the number of transit stops (i.e., an increase in the
average distance between stops) increased.

QUESTION 11 - Do you agree or disagree with reducing the
speed limit on local streets from 50 to 30 kilometres an
hour?

QUESTION 2 - Do you agree or disagree with expanding
rapid bus service on more city routes, in addition to
Broadway and Granville, such as Main, Hastings, and
others as needed, by providing bus only lanes?

Pedestrians and cyclists were in favour of the proposal,
while groups within Vancouver were evenly split on the issue and respondents from outside of Vancouver were
strongly against the proposal, as the following graphs
show.

While the response to lowering speed limits was positive,
a significant number of meeting participants and those
who submitted additional written comments felt that 30
km/h was too slow but that they would support 40 km/h.

QUESTION 12 - Do you agree or disagree with directing
more resources to calming traffic along residential
sections of busier streets?

Respondents from the downtown area were strongly in
favour of the proposal, while respondents from outside of
Vancouver were opposed, as the following graph shows.

QUESTION 13 - Do you agree or disagree with giving
priority in traffic calming projects to areas with the
worst traffic problems, rather than where there are
complaints, with clear guidelines on how calming measures
should be employed?

(iv) The Car

QUESTION 14 - Do you agree or disagree with keeping the
number of cars entering the downtown at about the level
of today?

QUESTION 15 - Do you agree or disagree with designating
the main roads which connect to the region as regional
routes and giving priority on these routes to moving
traffic?

QUESTION 16 - Do you agree or disagree with giving
greater priority to local traffic, transit, pedestrians
and cyclist on those parts of the road network which are
primarily city streets?

As was noted in the response to question 12, respondents
from the downtown area were more supportive to this
proposal, while respondents from outside of Vancouver
were less supportive, as the following graph shows.

(v) Goods Movement

QUESTION 17 - Do you agree or disagree with improving key
Port truck routes to discourage the use of other routes?

QUESTION 18 - Do you agree or disagree with NOT providing
a new truck route to the industrial areas at False Creek
Flats and Mt. Pleasant?

Respondents from the east side of Vancouver were strongly
in favour of not building a new road, while respondents
from older age groups felt that a road should be built,
as the following graphs show. Overall responses were
fairly evenly split between agree and disagree, with a
large number of neutral responses.

(vi) Funding

QUESTION 19 - Do you agree or disagree with the City
reallocating money from projects that assist the flow of
cars to projects which promote walking, cycling and
transit?

Walkers, cyclists, and respondents from Vancouver, the
Downtown in particular, were strongly supportive of this
proposal, while drivers and respondents from outside of
Vancouver were less supportive, as the following graphs
show.

QUESTION 20- Do you agree or disagree with asking the
Provincial Government to support major expansion of
transit services?

QUESTION 21 - Do you agree or disagree with asking the
Province to increase charges to car drivers so as to make
better use of the road network?

As in question 19, walkers, cyclists, and respondents
from Vancouver, the Downtown in particular, were strongly
supportive of this proposal, while drivers and
respondents from outside of Vancouver were less
supportive, as the following graphs show.

QUESTION 22 - Do you agree or disagree with the City
spending money to reduce adverse impacts of changes in
the road network?

It should be noted that there was a significant number of
neutral responses to this question.

QUESTION 23 - Do you agree or disagree with asking the
Province to share with the City the revenues from speed
enforcement, to cover costs of enforcement and help
finance local traffic calming?

d) What Do the Survey Results Tell Us?

The responses were generally supportive of the proposals
presented. For many of the proposals, the responses were
similar whether they resulted from the self-selected group or
the randomly selected group. In addition, for many proposals,
the responses were similar and supportive whether the
respondents were walkers, cyclists, transit users, or drivers.

Some important differences in some proposals were observed in
responses from people living outside of the City. These
respondents were opposed to lower speed limits on residential
streets, wanted a route through the Grandview Cut, and did not
want the cost of driving to increase.

People who attended the Choices meetings were generally
supportive of the proposals and had many of their own, some of
which go further than the Choices Survey. The Task Force on
Transportation Access to UBC/UEL arrived at similar proposals
to those raised in the Transportation Plan. Past task forces
such as Clouds of Change have pointed in the same direction.
Clearly people who took the time to get involved in all of
these processes have come to similar conclusions: expand
transportation choices so that we can rely less on the car and
improve livability in our neighbourhoods.

The Choices Survey was specific about proposals which would
give over some street space or priority to transit,
pedestrians and bikes. It was clear that to do this would make
getting around by automobile more difficult. Nevertheless
these proposals were overall strongly supported.

People were strongly in favour of improving the transit
system, especially the proposal to increase the number of
rapid bus routes in the city using bus-only lanes. People also
felt strongly that a comprehensive review of the transit route
system should be undertaken.

Cycling proposals including off-arterial bikeways and arterial
bike lanes and wider curb lanes were highly supported by
drivers and cyclists alike as were pedestrian zones in
commercial areas. Nevertheless, proposals that would
facilitate traffic on some routes were also supported. There
was strong support for improving key Port truck routes to
discourage use of other routes and there was high support for
designating some routes as regional routes and giving priority
on those routes to moving traffic.

2. Overview of Draft Plan

The purpose of the Transportation Plan is to look for approaches
that are supported by Vancouverites and that implement the
directions of CityPlan, the Central Area Plan, the Livable Region
Strategy, and BC/GVRD Transport 2021. The proposals in the Choices
Survey are building blocks which help staff piece together the
elements of the Transportation Plan. Public reaction to these
specific proposals provided us with an important indicator of
attitudes and consistency with the directions articulated in
CityPlan.

The transportation system includes a variety of transportation
modes vying largely for space on the same road network. Supply of
transit and road space for cars must meet the overall demand for
trips efficiently. The Transportation Plan recognizes it is
impossible and undesirable to build roads to provide for everyone
to drive whenever and wherever they wish. When the City rejected
freeways in the 1960's it took the first steps towards a city less
reliant on the car. The next steps are to provide practical
alternatives to the car and to limit some of the impact cars are
having on our neighbourhoods.

The responses to the Choices Survey show strong support for the
proposed direction. The Transportation Planning team recommends
moving ahead with these proposals to the draft plan. The draft
plan would be comprised of the following:

(a) Transportation Directions Report

The City's transportation objectives are already well
established thanks to the regional transportation policy and
CityPlan. The proposals suggested for the draft Transportation
Plan are for measures the City can adopt to help to achieve
these objectives. They include:

A reclassification of the arterial road network, to
reflect better the patterns of traffic movement in
the city, and to support a higher priority for some
uses;
Suggestions for BC Transit and the City for a practical
approach to transit improvements;
Initiatives to support the regional policy for a better
balance of transportation for the downtown, one
which would place greater reliance on transit for
peak journey to work travel;
Proposed improvements for goods movement, which would
also lessen the impact of trucks on those
neighbourhoods where truck traffic is heaviest;
a. A revised approach to traffic calming in
neighbourhoods, which would emphasise assisting
areas where traffic impacts are most serious;
A range of measures to support Council's existing
priority of promoting walking and cycling.

(b) Action Plans

A series of actions plans will provide details on achieving
the plan. The Action Plans will include transit, the road
network, goods movement, cycling, neighbourhoods and
walkability, and the downtown.

Outlined below is the recommended overall approach to the Plan as
well as some specifics on the individual elements of the Plan. The
main objectives of the Draft Plan are to:

(a) Ensure that transportation decisions support CityPlan,
the Central Area Plan, and regional planning directions;
(b) Provide practical alternatives to the car, especially for
travelling to work, and getting around the downtown;
(c) Recognize the value of cars and the need for efficient
goods movement so that we can continue to move around the
city and region, with as little disruption to others as
possible;
(d) Encourage people to improve their own neighbourhoods by
looking at ways to reduce their car trips

The key components of the Plan are described under the following
headings. This section briefly highlights the key directions under
these components. In the Draft Plan, detailed implementation
measures will be included for the following components:

(a) A Road Network that Works;
(b) Achieving Efficient Goods Movement;
(c) Transit That Provides a Real Choice;
(d) A Better Balance of Transportation for the Downtown;
(e) Calmer Traffic in Neighbourhoods;
(f) Enhancing Cycling Opportunities.

3. Draft Plan Components

(a) Road Network that Works

At present the arterial street system is developed throughout
the city to accommodate all modes of transportation in a
similar manner. For example, pedestrian signals generally are
co-ordinated with other signals in a similar way whether the
street is Cambie or Dunbar. Similarly, the treatment of
transit is the same whether the street is Kerr or Kingsway.
However, our arterial streets currently serve quite different
functions. The Plan creates more differentiation in the
treatment of various streets to reflect more specialized roles
and to make better use of the existing network.

Main elements include:

(i) Regional Routes: Getting Around the Region

The Regional transportation plan, Transport 2021, looked
extensively at regional connections for the future and
concluded that regional trip growth could be accommodated using a mix of transit and HOV improvements in
combination with a range of transport demand management
measures. These regional connections are important not
only for suburban commuters and visitors, but also for
the 25% of Vancouver residents that commute to jobs
outside the city and for business that depends on
automobile access and goods movement.

To maintain adequate regional links for general purpose
traffic that some of our arterial streets be designated
as regional routes . Through movements, turning bays and
parking restrictions, much as we have today, would be
appropriate on these routes.

At the public meetings many people voiced concern about
the idea of designating regional routes. The Choices
Survey did not give details on which roads could be
regional routes and what changes could be made to these
routes. All these details will not be worked out by the
time the draft Plan is complete. However, we do not
intend that these roads would be widened to encourage
additional traffic. The concept is primarily to focus
changes that would impede traffic, such as bus lanes, on
other streets. A program to identify regional routes and
details on changes if any to existing roads will be
necessary before decisions can be made.

(ii) City Streets: Working for the Neighbourhoods

The arterials which are not designated as regional routes
will continue to play an important role in moving
vehicles but the needs of the local community will take
greater priority. Pedestrian crossings, on-street
parking, transit priority measures, and bike lanes on
these arterial will reduce car capacity but improve
amenity and mode choice.

(iii) Transit-Oriented Streets

To make the significant gains in transit use needed, some
arterial streets will become more transit-oriented than
they are today. Transit's 10 year plan calls for LRT on
Broadway and Rapid Bus on Granville Street. Express buses
on Broadway will commence in September 1996. Rapid bus
does not necessarily require bus only lanes but combined
with signal priority, bus lanes would help make rapid bus
a more attractive alternative.

A grid of express routes on some arterials to provide
faster transit trips for Vancouver residents would be
identified. These might be established on Main Street,
Victoria, 41st Avenue, and Hastings Street. See transit
section for more details on how these streets would
function.

(b) Transit That Provides A Real Choice

Transit is the most important component of the city s
transportation future. Without a good transit system,
there will not be a viable alternative to the car for
many people. To keep the car in check at near current
levels, transit ridership to the downtown by the year
2021 must double. Transit use must also increase between
neighbourhoods and from the suburbs. More people will be
attracted to transit only if it becomes more competitive
with the car. To compete with the car, public transit
must be fast, frequent, safe and comfortable. It must go
where people want to go. To build a viable transit
system and continue to improve it will also require a
strong financial base and local accountability.

Main elements of the Plan include:

(i) Speeding Up the Buses Now by Improving Frequency

A frequent bus service is fundamental to providing a
realistic alternative to the car. Throughout the plan
process, people said that the existing service is simply
not frequent enough. This leads to long waits and
overcrowding during rush hours.

A proposal for speeding up the buses by removing stops
was included in the Choices Survey. Although the level of
support was quite high (65% agreed), a number of people
at the public meetings, particularly seniors, voiced
concern over this proposal. They did not want the
inconvenience of longer walks and felt that increasing
frequency was a better way of tackling the problem.

At present most routes in Vancouver provide a service of
ten minutes or less during peak periods. In the mid-day
and evenings the service is closer to 15 minutes on most
routes. People would like to see service in the 5 minute
range in peak periods and 10 minutes or better in the
mid-day, evenings, and weekends. In addition , the
afternoon peak frequencies trail off before 5:30 PM in
many cases leaving poorer service at the end of the day
and often adding 15 minutes to the return journey at the
end of the work day.

Most of the City of Vancouver's bus routes are served by
trolley buses. There are approximately 240 trolley buses,
all purchased in 1982. BC Transit states that the
trolleys have only about seven years life remaining
before they have to be replaced. The City's population
has grown by 100,000 people but not a single trolley bus
has been purchased since 1982. A rough estimate suggests
that an additional 100 buses are needed to deliver
frequencies at levels stated above. Whatever the exact
number, it is clear to Vancouverites that large increases
in the number of buses are needed to make a viable
transit system.

An expansion of services is essential to meet overall
demand within Vancouver as well as demand generated by
UBC. Discussions with BC Transit to date have not yielded
any commitment to major bus system expansion in
Vancouver. Without this expansion it seems unlikely that
Transport 2021 ridership goals or CityPlan directions can
be achieved and consequently either the Transportation
Plan or how transit is provided would have to be
reconsidered. The Transportation Planning team
recommends that the Mayor and Council immediately begin
discussions with the Province to determine how bus
frequencies can be improved.

(ii) Express Routes to Serve City Residents

At present many express bus commuter trips from distant
suburbs take less time than trips by Vancouver residents
on local services. A grid of express routes could be
established to provide faster transit trips for Vancouver
residents. These might be established on Dunbar,
Granville Street, Main Street, Victoria, Broadway, 41st
Avenue, and Hastings Street. Initially these routes may
only be express buses using the existing stops at some
intersections. This would not change the nature of the
street for other traffic. As implementation of the plan
progresses, bus bulges might be added at major
intersections. In the longer term, bus-only lanes and
signal priority might become appropriate. These measures
could be tried on less busy sections of some routes to
test effectiveness and impact. If bus lanes are
established on Granville Street, they can also be used by
airport buses.

(iii) A Better Transit System in the Long Term

In BC Transit's Ten Year Plan, the majority of funding is
slated for the Broadway LRT line (about $1 billion) and
the Richmond Rapid Bus ($100 million). The LRT and Rapid
Bus are important regional links and could provide some
benefit to Vancouver riders. As currently designed, the
LRT will primarily serve suburban communities to
downtown and the Broadway corridor. To ensure that the
LRT serves Vancouver and not merely cuts through it, it
must have frequent stops in densely populated areas. On
the street alignment, it should enhance street amenity.
The feasibility of continuing LRT to the downtown should
also be examined.

Many Vancouver residents and commuters will continue to
rely on buses. BC Transit proposes to expand the bus
fleet from 950 buses region-wide to 1200 buses over the
next 10 years. However, GVRD projections estimate that
1900 buses will be needed by 2006 to support Transport
2021 goals, a shortfall of 700 buses. One of the reasons
BC Transit gives for the shortfall in buses is that
growth in the region has lagged behind population
projections. However, in Vancouver, where buses are used
the most, growth has far exceeded projections. In fact at
current growth rates, provided that the zoning was in
place, Vancouver could reach its population forecast for
2021 sometime between 2006 and 2010.

(iv) Focus on Customer Service

During the plan process, many people expressed the
frustration that BC Transit was doing the minimum and
that customer service was a low priority. They also felt
isolated and unable to influence decision-makers at BC
Transit. Many small things were suggested to make transit
experience better- timetables, more comfortable stops,
easier ways to buy tickets, adequate telephone lines for
customer information and customer complaints, bike racks
on buses, bike racks at major transit stops etc. These
are not new observations. They have been raised often in
the past but clearly have not been acted on adequately to
date. BC Transit's answer is that it all costs money.
In contrast, the highly subsidized West Coast Express
commuter rail service, with an initial capital cost of
over $180 million, was implemented by BC Transit in less
than one year.

The draft Plan will look at the city s role in provision
of transit and will make recommendations on creating an
effective transit user group and increasing
representation of the City of Vancouver on the BC Transit
Commission.

At present heavy trucks can use most arterial streets although
a few are much more heavily used than others. The approach
outlined below focuses on identifying which routes are most
heavily used, whether alternative routes provide a better
solution, and applying mitigation measures along most heavily
travelled routes where appropriate.

Main elements of the Plan include:

(i) Ensure Good Access to the Port and Airport

The Port is the largest generator of heavy trucks in the
city. Good access to the Port is essential to its
competitiveness but at present this traffic is creating
significant impacts on city neighbourhoods. It is
recommended that the Port roadway be expedited to move
trucks east-west and out of neighbourhoods in the
northeast sector of the city. The Grandview Cut is not
recommended for truck movements as it would cost much
more and be less effective than the Port roadway. The
Plan will recommend that Knight Street continue to be the
main north-south Port truck route, as there are no
alternatives that are clearly better.

Adequate access to the airport would be maintained
through the regional route system and improved transit.

(ii) Truck Route Improvements

A whole route analysis needs to be undertaken for
Knight Street to determine how truck efficiency can be
enhanced and how effects on neighbourhoods can be
mitigated. Some other routes in the city may need
restrictions on trucking hours or stricter speed
enforcement.

Goods movement in the downtown should be improved by
ensuring enforcement of lane circulation and unloading
facilities. Road delays getting to the downtown are
reported to be small in comparison with delays accessing
downtown lanes and arranging unloading.

(d) A Better Balance of Transportation for the Downtown

There will be a substantial increase in jobs and housing in
the downtown over the next 20 years. The resident population
will increase from about 45,000 to close to 80,000 people.
Jobs in the CBD could increase from 110,000 to about 180,000.
Using cars the way we do now would mean too many cars in the
downtown and too many cars leading to the downtown. This
situation works against the quality of life we are seeking to
attain through providing high density living in downtown
neighbourhoods close to jobs, shopping, and recreation.

In the future travel to and within the downtown will rely more
on transit, walking, and biking. The emphasis will be on
keeping the number of cars downtown, at or below the present
level of 34,000 cars entering the downtown in the morning peak
hours (6 AM to 9 AM).

Following regional policy, the City will work toward
increasing transit use to the downtown, especially for the
journey to work. This will mean requesting BC Transit to
provide for a significant increase in transit trips to the
downtown, an 80% increase in peak period trips by 2021, so
that the number of people using transit to go to work will
increase to about 50% (from 35% to 40% at present) and the
number of people going to work by car will decrease to about
40% from 50%.

Main elements of the plan include:

(i) Revise Downtown Traffic Circulation

Through-traffic would be reduced where practical. Traffic
moving through Vancouver would be directed to the Second
Narrows Bridge which is already a faster route from any
point south of the Fraser and east of Oak Street.

The street circulation pattern would be revised to
protect downtown neighbourhoods, calm residential
streets, and enhance the pedestrian environment. Streets
not essential for cross-downtown traffic movements would
be treated as local streets.

(ii) No New Road Capacity for the Downtown

Building more roads will attract more cars and result in
more congestion in the downtown and neighbourhoods. Road
capacity into the downtown from the north shore of
Burrard Inlet should not be increased. The present
transit queue jumpers allow buses to travel relatively
freely and have capacity to accommodate growth on the
North Shore.

(iii) Much More Convenient Transit to and around the
Downtown

Much improved transit services to the downtown are
required to be consistent with transport targets of about
50% of people coming to work by bus and another 10% by
walking or bicycle. The increase in peak period trips
would be provided by a major expansion in transit, both
LRT along Broadway, and possibly from Richmond, as well
as expansion and improvements to bus service within the
city. Existing rail links should be preserved.

Transit needs to provide a comfortable, cheap, and
convenient way to get around downtown. Buses need to be
more frequent, waiting and boarding facilities would be
improved, priority needs to be given to buses on some
streets, and a downtown low-fare bus loop should be
created.

A trolley route right-of-way has been preserved in South
False Creek. The feasibility of this line serving
downtown should be examined in light of competing demands
for transit improvements. Dedicated transit right-of-ways
have been reserved in major new downtown developments
such as Coal Harbour.

(iv) The Downtown Would Be a Nicer Place to Walk Around and Cycle

One of the key attractions of the downtown peninsula, for
residents and visitors alike, is its walkability. There
are opportunities to enhance the cycling and pedestrian
environment and to provide better access to Stanley Park,
Granville Island, and Central Broadway. The draft plan
would include marked bicycle lanes for some routes in the
downtown.

(e) Traffic in Neighbourhoods

Cars in neighbourhood residential streets, commercial centres,
and even on arterials are a significant concern for Vancouver
residents. The recommended direction is to promote
alternatives to the car where practical for travel within and
between neighbourhoods and give greater emphasis to the
quality of the living environment. Part of the solution lies
in strengthening local neighbourhoods to minimize the need to
travel as set out in CityPlan directions. The Community
Visions Program of CityPlan will be a forum for neighbourhoods
to plan how they want to implement neighbourhood initiatives
in the Transportation Plan.

Main elements of the Plan include:

(i) Pedestrian Priority and Traffic Calming Will Be
Extended to Commercial Centres

At the heart of CityPlan is the desire to improve the
quality of commercial centres. A new emphasis is
recommended on calming traffic within the commercial
centres by enhancing the pedestrian environment, making
street crossing easier, slower traffic, and keeping
on-street parking.

(ii) Reducing Speed on Neighbourhood Streets

Speed of traffic seems to be the biggest concern on
neighbourhood streets. The Choices Survey included a
proposal to lower the speed limit to 30km per hour. Lower
speed limits offer the opportunity to introduce
alternative road designs which will lead to calmer
streets. This proposal received support from less than
half of the respondents. We recommend that the draft
Plan include a number of alternatives to reducing speed
and possibly the alternative of lowering the limit to 40
km/h rather than 30 km/hr.

(iii) Traffic Calming Public Process to be
Improved

Public process concerns around traffic calming programs
emerged as a significant issue during the course of this
study. It is recommended that a priority system be
adopted to target streets and areas with the worst
problems. The revised street classification system should
help in avoiding some traffic calming problems. Better
and more accessible information would also help the
process. Proactive action could be taken on busier
residential streets where certain speeds, accident
levels, or volumes exceed agreed upon criteria. The
traffic calming techniques diagram in the Choices Survey
has received a good deal of attention during the Choices
meetings. A Traffic Calming Kit would form part of the
plan to provide more information on costs and benefits of
different alternatives.

(f) Enhancing Cycling Opportunities

An examination of cycling networks and use of bikes for work,
recreation, and shopping in other cities demonstrates that
significant increases in bike use are possible. Providing
biking facilities is cost-effective compared to accommodating
other modes and of course cycling is non-polluting. The city s
land use patterns contribute significantly to cycling
opportunities. For example, a large population in Kitsilano
and South False Creek lives close to jobs shopping and
recreation on the downtown peninsula and Central Broadway.

Main elements include:

(i) Expansion of the Bike Network

We recommend that the plan identify bike corridors to
serve all neighbourhoods in the city. Many of these
routes would only need minor improvements to ensure safe
cycling. Where practical, bike only lanes would be marked
on some arterial streets especially where there are no
viable alternatives.

(ii) Bicycle Safety

The Police Department is expanding its outreach program
to schools to help children ride safely. We recommend
that the City work with the Police Department to
designate safe routes to school and work with School
Board to provide better lock-up facilities at
destinations. This would give mobility to children and
at the same time reduce car traffic.

(g) Plan Implementation

Many of the recommendations can and should be tested in a
limited way and then phased in as conditions warrant. We
recommend that the draft plan include options for phasing the
implementation.

4. Draft Plan Process

The Transportation Plan Team recommends a broadly based public
program to encourage consideration of the proposals prior to
consideration by Council.

(a) Distribution of the Draft Plan

The Draft Plan will need to contain both details and overall
approach. Three separate documents are suggested:

A four page newsletter to summarize the proposals. This
would be circulated to the mailing list and all
normal outlets;
The Draft Plan itself would be about 60 pages, covering
the proposals, and some background explanation. The
Draft Plan would be mailed out on request only, and
given out at meetings etc.;
Action Plans to cover items such as Transit, Networks
Cycling, Pedestrians, Downtown, Neighbourhoods, and
a Funding Strategy. These would give more details
on the next step, and would contain suggested
approaches to such things as transit proposals,
which will need to be explored in greater detail
before they are ready for Council's consideration.
Action Plans would be given out on request, or
perhaps contained as an attachment to the Draft
Plan.

(b) Public Briefings and Displays

Public meetings will be essential to allow for
explanation and feedback from the public. As with the
Choices Paper, seven meetings would be held in
neighbourhoods, together with as many additional local
neighbourhood and interest group meetings as are needed.
To reach more people than would come to a public meeting,
a simple display is proposed for shopping centres,
community centres, and other appropriate locations.

CONCLUSIONS

Following on from the Livable Region Strategy, Vancouver's CityPlan set
the direction for greater emphasis on public transit and discouraging
the growth in the number and use of cars. The Choices Survey was used as
a gauge of public support on a number of specific proposals which would
help implement CityPlan objectives. The level of support demonstrated
by the responses to the Choice Survey and in the public meetings gives
staff confidence to proceed with these proposals to a Draft
Transportation Directions Plan. Alternative courses of action will be
identified in the draft Plan for the contentious proposals. The draft
Plan will be circulated in September and a public consultation program
will be completed by October.

* * * * *