ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: May 13, 1997
Dept. File No. BR
CC: File No.: 5560-1
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Transportation Planning Team
SUBJECT: Public Consultation Report on the Draft Transportation Plan
INFORMATION
The Transportation Planning Team submits this report for
INFORMATION.
COUNCIL POLICY
Existing transportation policy is extensive. Key policies include:
CityPlan, adopted by Council in May 1995, which establishes major
directions for transportation policy for the City.
Regional Transportation Policy, as described in Transport 2021",
and supported by Council in principle, provides for regional
transportation infrastructure and measures to and from the city.
Clouds of Change report, adopted in principle by Council in 1990,
supports greater reliance on transit and biking.
A number of Council policies have established priorities for
pedestrians, biking and transit, and transportation targets for
Downtown and UBC.
SUMMARY
The Draft Transportation Plan was released in September 1996. Copies of
a newsletter summarising the Draft Plan were sent out to the
Transportation Plan mailing list which includes nearly 7,000 Vancouver
residents. Copies of the summary were also widely distributed in
libraries and community centres. The Draft Plan was reported in local
newspapers and on radio and television. A series of 11 public meetings
were held in neighbourhoods across the City, and the Transportation Team
attended a number of other meetings of various interest groups.
A total of 66 written submissions have been received on the Draft Plan
and 105 people registered to address a Special Meeting of Council on
three separate evenings.
This report provides a overview of comments received. The Conclusion
indicates some of the changes made to the Plan as a result of the
comments.
Minutes from the special Council Meeting for delegations are reproduced
in Appendix A. Notes from the public meetings are contained in Appendix
B. A summary of written comments from individuals and firms in contained
in Appendix C. The written submissions are contained in Appendix D,
which is circulated separately from this report and is available for
reference at the City Clerk s Office.
PURPOSE
The report provides an outline of the public program conducted since the
release of the Draft Transportation Plan in September 1996, and a
summary of the public comments received. The comments received from the
public and summarised in this report, have been used to revise and amend
the Transportation Plan. Revisions and amendments to the Transportation
Plan are contained in an accompanying report to Council.
BACKGROUND
In May 1995, City Council adopted the Vancouver CityPlan which outlined
general directions for transportation for the City over the next twenty
to twenty five years. To develop these broad CityPlan directions,
Council established the Transportation Planning Team to prepare the
Draft Transportation Plan. The work of this Team was overseen by the
Transportation Plan Steering Committee. The Steering Committee included
Mayor Owen, Councillors Price and Clark, the General Managers of
Engineering Services, Community Services and Corporate Services, and the
Director of City Plans.
Between September 1995 and September 1996, the Transportation Plan Team
undertook an evaluation of the long term transportation requirements for
the City. An extensive public program included a symposium on
transportation issues, over four nights in January 1996, a 12 page
Choices paper, circulated widely across the city and a survey of a
randomly selected sample of residents, and meetings in neighbourhoods
across the city.
On the basis of the responses to the Choices paper, discussion with
residents and other interest groups, the Team prepared the Draft
Transportation Plan. This was released for public review in September
1996. The Draft Plan consisted of two separate but closely related
documents.
The first document, the Transportation Plan Strategy, outlined general
directions for transportation in the city. It describes the philosophy
behind future transportation in the city, specific trip mode targets for
the Downtown, Central Broadway, UBC and the rest of the city, and a
range of measures considered appropriate for achieving these targets.
The second document, the Transportation Plan: Actions Plans, described
in more detail a range of transportation proposals and City initiatives
which the Team suggests would help in achieving the broad directions and
targets of the Transportation Plan.
DISCUSSION
1. Public meetings
Eleven public meetings were conducted in neighbourhoods across the city.
The meetings provided an opportunity for people to ask questions about
the Draft Plan and to discuss issues with others in their neighbourhood.
At the meetings, people were invited to form smaller discussion groups
on the overall proposals or on issues of particular interested to them.
The comments from each discussion group were recorded on flip charts and
then reported to the full meeting. An edited form of these comments is
provided in Appendix B. The unedited notes are on file with the City
Clerk and available for inspection. A total of about 230 people attended
the meetings.
The Transportation Plan Team also attended a number of meetings with
specific groups with interests in transportation.
A special meeting of Council was held over three separate nights in
January and February 1997. One-hundred and five delegations of
individuals and organisations registered to speak to Council.
Major points from written submissions from organisations and
associations are outlined in the following sections. A list of major
points raised in submissions by individuals is included in Appendix C.
The full written submissions have been collected into a separate volume,
"Appendix D, Written Submissions on the Draft Transportation Plan", on
file with the City Clerk.
2. Overall reaction to the Draft Plan
People attending the public meetings generally supported the Draft Plan.
Comments noted in the meetings generally supported the Plan or suggested
it did not go far enough in emphasising the need to improve transit and
other alternatives to the car.
Written submissions and delegations to Council also generally support
the Draft Plan.
GVRD staff reviewed the Draft Plan and concluded that it is highly
supportive of both the Livable Region Strategic Plan and Transport 2021,
as well as other approved GVRD Board policy.
The concerns most commonly noted by the public included:
* too much reliance on Province investing in transit;
* too little recognition given to the needs of car drivers,
especially from the suburbs;
* more provision needed for trucking, especially on Knight
Street, as well as residents concerns that not enough was
proposed to limit the impact of trucks on neighbourhoods;
Some concern was also expressed about the proposed bridge and road tolls
and road pricing on roads leading to the city. However, these measures
are an integral part of the regional transportation policy and are
established Council and GVRD policy.
The following sections of this report summarise responses to the Draft
Plan. They are organised according to major topics. Within each topic,
the order of submissions follows the grouping: (1) municipalities, crown
corporations, etc., (2) submissions from associations, (3) submissions
from firms and individuals. Then within each grouping, submissions are
ordered by date of receipt or presentation. A summary of the verbal
presentations to Council is provided by the minutes of the Council
meeting on the Transportation Plan and is given in Appendix A. A copy of
the full written submissions is lodged with the City Clerk.
3. The Road Network
The Draft Plan proposes not expanding the capacity of the road network
within the city, and following directions adopted in CityPlan, to give
more road space to transit, bikes and pedestrians. The Draft Plan
identifies roads which are major regional connectors, and other roads on
which transit could be given some priority and roads on which bike lanes
and bikeways could be provided.
There was broad support for this approach at the public meetings, and in
written submissions and delegations. Residents in areas affected by
regional connectors were concerned about an increase in traffic, and the
long term possibility of expansion of the roads. Residents of SW Marine
Drive, First Avenue and Knight Street were the most concerned. Some
people and groups felt that the proposals would not result in enough
capacity to accommodate the expected growth in traffic and would lead to
increased congestion in the city.
Specific comments received in written submissions include the following.
The Vancouver City Planning Commission suggests better use should be
made of existing investment. For example, governments should re-allocate
existing roadway capacity, not vehicle-carrying capacity. Similarly,
automobile circulation in the city could be improved by the management
of existing facilities, rather than development of new roads and
widening of existing roads.
The Vancouver School Board expressed concern over the impact any
increase in traffic on regional connectors would have on schools. The
Board estimates that as many as eight schools and maybe more could be
affected. The Board asks that the City postpone any action until
potentially adverse health and safety impacts on Vancouver students have
been examined and addressed.
Note from Team: The identification of regional connectors does not in
itself change the classification of the roads or necessarily increase
traffic. Traffic will increase on these roads under existing policies.
Regional connectors would not in most cases be considered appropriate
for bike or transit lanes. Pedestrian crossing signals would be a high
priority on these streets to maintain pedestrian safety in busy traffic
conditions.
BC Transit states that the network must be managed properly to get the
most productivity out of it while recognising that streets also have
functions other than transportation. BC Transit supports the
reallocation of road space to alternative modes and would like to see a
stronger and more explicit commitment to bus lanes.
The Administrator for Transportation Planning for the GVRD notes that
different roles for different streets in the city may be one of the most
practical and tangible ways of implementing regional policy of putting
greater emphasis on pedestrian, bike, transit and goods movement.
In meetings with The Vancouver International Airport Authority staff
they expressed concern that access to and from the airport is not
adequately addressed for the future, and that airport access could
possibly get worse. They suggest a better balance between the current
bridge capacity (both Oak and Arthur Laing), and the roadway capacity in
South Vancouver. Airport Authority staff also favour allowing airport
related traffic, such as buses, taxis, limos, cargo/courier vehicles to
use the dedicated transit lanes (if implemented) along Granville Street.
However, they are concerned that in the end the concept of mixing
airport traffic in the dedicated transit lanes will probably not be
accepted and that airport access could deteriorate significantly.
The BC Automobile Dealers Association submission supports the use of
public transit but does not support measures that penalise the average
resident of the Lower Mainland who needs his or her vehicle to get to
work etc. The Association believes the "negative behaviour approach"
suggested in the Draft Plan will not produce the desired result as long
as the alternatives are not acceptable, either from a cost or time point
of view.
The Environmental Youth Alliance notes that the Transportation Plan
suggests building a roadway through the Grandview Cut would not answer
Vancouver s car problem and would contravene the City s commitment to
get people out of their cars and into alternative forms of transport.
The Board of Trade in its submission is concerned that the Draft Plan
has an obvious bias against the car. It states that a significant
cultural shift will be required before there is greater urban density
and a consequent increase in transit service and decreased dependence on
the private vehicle.
The Downtown Vancouver Association expressed strong objection to not
increasing the road capacity, if this were to happen without first
adding light rail alternatives, and "a congestive arterial roads policy,
with its significant economic consequences and potential for increased
conflict". The DVA proposes that the City be fully integrated into the
regional road system, incorporating a Third Crossing tunnel and
"sensibly acknowledging" the role of the private automobile.
The Sierra Club of BC, believes road building is not a solution to
easing traffic volumes, and suggests instead that some of the existing
pavement be reallocated to alternative transport modes.
The Mt. Pleasant Neighbourhood Association requests a moratorium on new
roadway construction, as increased roadway capacity means that there is
an incentive to use a car and a disincentive to use transit.
The Kerrisdale Business Association in its submission proposes not
widening streets to accommodate traffic growth, but giving greater
emphasis to transit. The Association requests then that the 17-foot
building set back on 41st Avenue be abolished.
The Clinton Neighbourhood Committee, which represents residents of part
of First Avenue, in its submission generally supports the directions of
the Draft Plan, as it represents a shift in City transportation
priorities away from the car towards alternatives. However, the
Committee is concerned the Draft Plan proposes that First Avenue act as
a regional connector. The Committee believes traffic calming on other
arterials could shift more traffic to First Avenue. The Committee
proposes that all arterials should give increased priority to people and
to other modes of transportation.
4. Transit
The Draft Plan proposes a significant increase in reliance on public
transit, especially for trips Downtown in peak periods. Proposals
include LRT routes along Broadway and to Richmond, increasing the
frequency and speed of local buses, and in the long term, adding express
bus services on a few major routes.
Responses in public meetings were strongly in favour of improving
transit, even to the extent of allocating more road space to transit and
giving priority over cars. People generally agreed with the presumption
that the city will need to rely much more on transit in the future.
There was a widely expressed view that improvements are urgently
required to the transit system, and that the system is already
inadequate to meet the needs of the city and those who already use
transit. There was also strong support for the minibus services and
increasing local control of transit services.
Similar responses were given in written submissions, although some
respondents, notably BC Transit, doubted services could be improved
unless new sources of funding could be allocated to transit.
The Submission from BC Transit covers many aspects of transit in the
Draft Plan. Some of the main points include:
- The Province will not be providing more funding at this time, so
that the cost of additional measures identified in the Draft Plan
will need to be made up from other sources. - BC Transit supports the reallocation of road space to alternative
modes and would like to see a stronger and more explicit commitment
to bus lanes. The City can make a significant contribution to
improving the speed of transit buses by providing bus lanes. These
should not be made available to car pools.
- The Draft Plan is weak in its support for the substantial
investment proposed for LRT which will benefit the heavy travel
volumes along the Central Broadway section in Vancouver.
- Demonstration programs in the Lower Mainland of minibuses have not
been an unqualified success, costs would be higher, and there is no
indication that they increase transit ridership.
- Demand for transit is regional in nature and cannot easily be
divided up by municipality. Constant balancing of funding between
various services is required to maximise transit ridership, utilise
resources wisely and encourage sustainable land use patterns.
- The Draft Plan should specify how the City of Vancouver is willing
to shift capital expenditures toward the support of alternative
modes. It would be helpful to see specific proposals for bus lanes,
signal priority, bus bulges, bus shelters and other projects that
benefit transit customers, and the funding that will be allocated
for these purposes.
The submission from the GVRD Transportation Planning notes that transit
governance is key to addressing the limitations of current levels of
transit service, and notes that transportation governance and funding
arrangements will be a priority for the GVRD in the coming year. The
GVRD Board supports more than doubling the bus transit service by 2006,
providing a wider range of transit services and moving to implement both
the Broadway-Lougheed and the Richmond-Vancouver LRT lines.
The GVRD submission also states that the high transit targets to
Downtown, Central Broadway and UBC, are vital to meeting regional
transportation planning objectives. The GVRD supports the Draft Plan
proposal of emphasising on-street transit priority as being more
important than special facilities for carpooling in the city.
Vancouver International Airport Authority staff expressed concern that
the Richmond-Vancouver Rapid Bus may not be sufficient to divert
commuters to transit and that only true rapid transit will have the
capacity and level of service to control the growth of private vehicle
traffic.
The Light Rail for Vancouver Committee expresses concern that no expert
in modern LRT has been engaged in the consulting process. The Committee
submission states that to be effective, the proposed LRT must serve UBC
and the Downtown. The Committee believes the LRT would cater to local
service and it is not cost effective to operate a local bus service in
parallel. The Committee asserts that an LRT must retain a surface
alignment wherever possible.
The submission from the Cartier/Hudson/Athlone Telegraph Neighbourhood
Group strongly objects to the proposals of Rapid Bus or LRT along
Granville Street and proposes both be located along Arbutus or Cambie.
(Note from Team: BC Transit plans a Rapid Bus service along Granville.
The eventual construction of an LRT would replace the Rapid Bus, but no
route is recommended in the Draft Plan.)
The Transit Users Group submission supports the Draft Plan in putting
transit users on equal footing with automobile users. It supports bus
bulges, improved boarding areas, bus-only lanes, not for HOVs,
continuing development of the False Creek Street Car Line, and exploring
community bus alternatives. The Transit Users Group recommends that BC
Transit order new trolleys, and new Downtown service and initiate
bus-fare programs, such as Seattle s U-Pass system. TUG does not support
the proposals for free-fare zones in the Downtown.
The Building Owners and Managers Association of BC (BOMA), would not
accept bus bulges on roads where peak-period parking restrictions apply.
The Dunbar Residents Association supports more local control of transit
and better funding, and also asks the City to support private
initiatives to experiment with community minibus services.
Canadian Pacific Railway, in its submission states that its property
rights would be impaired by any rezoning of rail corridors for
transportation purposes. CPR requests that all references to rezoning
rail lands be deleted from the Plan
The Special Advisory Committee on Seniors believes there is a need for
more transit service to serve specific destinations in the city which
seniors visit frequently. Specifically, the Committee is concerned about
the lack of an east-west bus route in the heavily populated area between
and parallel to Broadway and King Edward Avenue. The Committee proposes
a new bus route along 12th Avenue. Further, the Committee suggests the
$6 million allocated to the False Creek Trolley could be better spent on
introducing bus priority measures. The Committee supports the concept of
encouraging more transit trips to and from UBC and other higher
education facilities, particularly through the sale and use of special
transit passes similar to the U-Pass introduced by the University of
Washington.
5. Pedestrians
The Draft Plan follows existing Council policy in giving high priority
to improving facilities and conditions for pedestrians. These proposals
were strongly supported at the public meetings, although some concern
was expressed about the impact on traffic flows of increased priority
for pedestrians crossing arterial roads.
In its written submission, the Environmental Youth Alliance supports the
provision of both pedestrian and bike priority zones in neighbourhood
centres throughout Vancouver, but is concerned that proposals in the
Draft Plan suggest these zones are not indicated for the east side of
Vancouver where existing facilities are currently lacking.
6. Bikes
The Draft Plan proposes increasing facilities for cycling to allow
people making local trips or shorter trips Downtown to do so in greater
comfort. Proposals include expanding the existing bikeway program,
improving the visibility of existing bikeways, providing bike lanes on
some arterials (generally not regional connectors), and improving bike
facilities, especially in the Downtown.
The proposals were generally supported in the public meetings. In other
submissions, some people felt that too much emphasis was given to bikes,
and that their potential impact on the free flow of traffic would be
detrimental to vehicle capacity. Specific comments received in written
submissions include the following.
The Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)in its submission supports the Draft
Transportation Plan. The BAC suggests the target for cyclists by 2021 is
very modest and could be easily exceeded. Walking and cycling targets
should be separated. BCA supports the continued expansion of bikeways
and painting bike logos on bikeways. Bicycle parking facilities need to
be improved in existing buildings, especially in the Broadway corridor.
The BAC believes it is important to accommodate cyclists on arterials
and truck routes unless there are compelling reasons not to.
The Environmental Youth Alliance in its submission strongly supports the
creation of both arterial and off-arterial bike routes, but adds that to
be effective bike routes need to be for commuting to and from work and
school, not just recreation. The EYA states that the proposed future
bikeways are insufficient, especially on the east side of the city. In
this regard the EYA favours a bike route through the Grandview Cut.
The Building Owners and Managers of BC, propose that cyclists should be
discouraged from using arterial roads.
The Sierra Club of BC propose better integration of transit with cycling
by the of provision many more bike racks on transit routes and stations.
7. Neighbourhoods and Traffic Calming
The Draft Plan proposes increasing traffic calming in neighbourhoods and
recommends lower speed limits on local residential streets, pedestrian
priority areas in neighbourhood centres, and City traffic calming
resources going first to parts of the city where traffic impacts are the
greatest.
People at the public meetings strongly supported the need for improved
traffic calming, though there was less agreement in how it might be
achieved. There was concern about increased traffic congestion leading
to more short-cutting through neighbourhoods.
Specific comments received in written submissions include the following.
The Urban Noise Task Force submission recommends the City give traffic
calming measures higher priority, paying attention to noise
considerations and input by neighbourhood groups. However, the Task
Force considers reliance on stop signage to be counterproductive.
The submission from GVRD Transportation Planning notes that the proposed
40km/hour speed limit is not the norm for calmed residential areas, and
that experience in other cities suggests a lower speed limit of 30
km/hour.
The Environmental Youth Alliance supports neighbourhood traffic calming
but questions whether it is a spending priority. It suggests calming on
bike routes and Greenways.
The False Creek South Neighbourhood Association supports the concept of
traffic calming outlined in the Draft Plan, but feels that more
enforcement of existing left-turn restrictions in the neighbourhood are
necessary.
The Vancouver Board of Trade supports many of the suggestions to improve
livability in neighbourhoods provided that they give due consideration
to traffic flows and are not funded by levies on neighbourhood
businesses.
The Mt. Pleasant Neighbourhood Association requests the City to do more
to stabilise and eventually reduce the impact of major arterial traffic
on neighbourhoods. Measures supported include, not increasing road
capacity, better funding of transit, increased traffic calming and
mitigation measures to protect neighbourhoods, and encouragement to
alternatives to the car.
The Dunbar Residents Association supports proposals in the Draft Plan
for a priority system for traffic calming in the city.
8. Downtown
The Draft Plan focuses mainly on access to the Downtown and proposes
that transportation within the Downtown be looked at in detail as soon
as practicable. Transit and parking proposals for the Downtown contained
in the report are intended to complement proposals for the road network.
For off-peak travel to the Downtown, limits on general purpose
short-stay parking are not recommended in case traffic conditions are
aggravated by drivers searching for parking spaces.
Written submissions received included the following comments on the
Draft Plan.
The Gastown Business Improvement Society in its submission outlines the
findings of a consultants report on current traffic patterns in the
Gastown Precinct. Proposals include eliminating the present one-way
street system operating north of Hastings Street.
The Environmental Youth Alliance supports measures which limit downtown
automobile traffic, such as carpooling measures, improved transit and
restricting parking.
The Downtown Vancouver Association in its submission states that the
Draft Plan falls short on specific recommendations for the Downtown. The
DVA states that Downtown Vancouver needs:
- a light rail network;
- unfettered regional road connections to Seattle, Calgary Vancouver
Island and Whistler;
- a limited intra-regional arterial road system;
- an unfettered Downtown road circulation system with the restoration
of two-way use of many present one-way roads, re-opening of
Granville Street to traffic;
- an internal Downtown loop bus service, and a safe, attractive
network of independent bikeways.
The Gastown Historical Area Planning Committee propose that traffic in
Gastown should be calmed, but that no transportation system should be
considered which threatens the existing wide sidewalks of Gastown and
their pedestrian realm. A localised transportation plan should be
developed which will anticipate new Gastown development.
The Building Owners and Managers Association of BC (BOMA), policy is
that there should be no reduction in the capacity of the transportation
system to carry goods and people into the Downtown core. Any proposal
which would restrict or eliminate automobile lanes must be compensated
with an increase in the carrying capacity of other modes of
transportation. BOMA is concerned that given the expected population
growth of Vancouver, it may be unrealistic to maintain the current level
of automobile usage through to the year 2021. BOMA suggests that the
Lions Gate Bridge needs to be expanded.
9. Goods Movement
Proposals in the Draft Plan support the completion of the Port Road, but
recommended only minor changes to the truck route network(in the
Downtown). A problem facing the trucking industry and neighbourhoods is
that despite an extensive truck route network, truck movements are
heavily concentrated on a few routes. The Draft Plan proposes
encouraging more truck use of Boundary Road. Proposals for Knight
Street, the chief north-south connector, are for a "whole route
analysis" which will search for improvements for truck movements without
further impacting residents by widening either the road or
intersections.
The trucking industry and the Port both expressed concerns about the
proposals for Knight Street. There was strong support for a high
priority for a whole route analysis of Knight Street which could offer
long term solutions. Residents on Knight Street, SW Marine Drive, and
First Avenue (which is not a truck route but which nevertheless is
impacted by truck and bus movements), suggested that more needs to be
done to spread the impacts of truck movements to other routes.
Submissions were received from the Vancouver Port Authority and the BC
Trucking Association (BCTA). Both criticised the provisions in the Draft
Plan for goods movement. Both ask that the Plan recognise that truck
traffic will likely grow in the future in proportion to the growth of
the city.
The Port suggested that it may be appropriate to give goods movement
priority over private passenger vehicles on certain routes. The Port
objected to the proposal for putting time restrictions on truck
movements through the city. However, the Port does support the proposal
in the Draft Plan for a whole route analysis of the Clark-Knight
corridor. The Port does not accept that Boundary Road offers a viable
alternative to Knight Street for north-south traffic, because of the
steep grades at the south end.
The BC Trucking Association asked that Knight Street be designated a
major commercial traffic flow corridor, and that the truck route network
not be diminished. BCTA also noted the need for improvements for loading
and unloading zones and parking for commercial vehicles, which are
recognised in the Draft Plan. BCTA also asked that the noise bylaws be
amended to allow waste haulers to begin their collection services before
7.00 a.m.
The BCTA asked that the City undertake an economic development study to
determine the economic benefits of superior goods movement and
accessibility, and prepare a truck transportation plan, separate from
the general transportation plan.
Residents on SW Marine Drive, Knight Street and McGill Street expressed
concern for the impact of trucks on their neighbourhoods and asked for
measures to reduce the impact of trucks in their neighbourhoods,
including the designation of new routes, time restrictions, and traffic
management measures to facilitate the use of alternative routes.
The submission from the Urban Noise Task Force recommends revising the
Truck By-law to include restrictions on smaller trucks and hours of use,
and recommends the City advocate more stringent standards for noise
emissions from trucks and buses.
The Vancouver Board of Trade states that the provisions for goods
movement on the main north-south route are inadequate.
Rogers Sugar Ltd proposes that commercial transport needs high volume
limited access traffic routes within the city.
10. Paying for transportation The Draft Plan supports regional policy for road pricing as an
alternative to congestion, and proposes that new Provincial funds are
essential for improving transit. Within the city, the Draft Plan
proposes reallocating expenditures away from improvements to the road
network, towards supporting other modes. The Draft Plan recognises the
importance of not applying costs in a way which would disadvantage the
Downtown and so undermine regional and City transportation objectives.
There was attention to this issue in both the public meetings and the
delegations to Council. Many people supported raising money for transit
from car drivers, though there was also strong opposition to the
proposal.
Written submissions included the following comments.
The Vancouver City Planning Commission (VCPC), suggested that the City
should divert some automobile oriented spending proposed in the 1997-99
Capital Plan, to supporting measures to achieve the goals of
transportation policy. The VCPC also suggested that the City should
remove subsidies to single occupant vehicle (SOV)travel from property
owners to the drivers of single occupancy vehicles.
The Environmental Youth Alliance supports measures which divert the cost
of driving to car users, while re-allocating funds to projects such as
Greenways, bike routes and public transit. The EYA supports the levying
of gas taxes, road tolls and insurance charges.
The Downtown Vancouver Association in its submission noted its strong
objection to tolls and parking taxes. (Note from Team: The Draft Plan
supports the adopted regional policy of tolls on Bridges and freeways
leading to the city. No additional or new tolls or parking taxes are
proposed within the city.)
The Clinton Neighbourhood Committee believes the Draft Plan could do
more to recognise the burden certain neighbourhoods and residents are
bearing, to offer protection from the costs of high traffic volumes and
to promote quality of life for those living near major arterials. The
Committee proposes a study of impacts of First Avenue traffic on the
neighbourhood, and development of a mitigation strategy to reduce noise,
pollution, visual impacts and safety concerns. This would address the
impacts generated by the sports and entertainment district, development
of False Creek, the Cassiar connector, the Boundary bus barn and the
freeway and freeway HOV lanes, all of which have or are likely to
increase traffic on 1st Avenue.
The Special Advisory Committee on Seniors endorses the vision in the
Plan but is concerned that there is too little financial information to
gauge its affordability. The Committee proposes a re-thinking of the
1997-1999 Capital Plan funding for Transportation. The Committee
concludes that the Plan deals with most of the transportation issues
important to seniors but does not appear to allocate budget funds to
implement all its recommendations.
CONCLUSION
The public response to the Draft Plan was generally favourable and for
this reason, the Plan will be submitted to Council with broadly the same
proposals. However, as a result of the public comments a number of
changes have been made to the Transportation Plan that is submitted to
Council for adoption. Many specific actions and proposals in the Draft
Plan require more detailed examination and consultation. In some cases
the Plan has been modified to highlight the need for further examination
before adoption of a specific policy or proposal for action. Some other
proposals have been added as a result of the suggestions received, and
these similarly will be the subject of detailed review and
recommendations to Council.
Important changes include:
(1) Some low-volume minor arterials which were recommended for
reclassification as local streets are now proposed for
reclassification as "neighbourhood collectors", subject to specific
reports to Council.
(2) Wait times for pedestrian signals were recommended for reduction to
15 seconds, are now proposed for reduction, without specifying a
particular target.
(3) Targets for walking and biking were proposed to be only marginally
improved over the present levels. These targets have been
increased, to reflect better the priority which Council already
gives to these modes, and the substantial land use changes expected
in the Downtown.
(4) Some concerns expressed regarding circulation patterns and parking
in the Downtown require more detailed examination and could not be
addressed in the Plan. The revised Plan does recognise the
preparation of a Downtown Transportation Plan as a high priority
for the City. These issues should all be explored at that time. All
proposals for circulation changes in the Downtown are subject to
further reporting and consideration by Council.
(5) Concerns expressed by the Vancouver School Board, the Clinton
Neighbourhood Committee, SW Marine Drive Residents Association, and
others, about the designation of some primary arterials as regional
roads or regional connections is recognised in that no new
designations of arterials have been included in the revised Plan.
The description of some primary arterials as regional connections
in the Action Plan (Blue Book), is not included in the revised
Plan.
(6) Proposals for traffic noise mitigation were not included in the
Draft Plan. Following comments by the Urban Noise Task Force,
proposals for consideration of options in now included in the plan.
Major changes made to the format of the Plan include:
(7) Policies and proposals have been collected in a single chapter of
the revised Plan. Further work needed to examine proposals for
action is identified, together with an expected date for the work
to be undertaken. This new chapter replaces the proposals contained
in the Draft Action Plans (the Blue Book).
(8) Policies and proposals for the Downtown have now been collected and
expanded in a separate Downtown section, within the redrafted
Chapter 3.
* * * * *