COORDINATION OF TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLANNING A
CASE STUDY OF GREATER VANCOUVER
by
REGINALD PAUL FAUBERT
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS (PLANNING)
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDrES
School of Community and Regional Planning
We accept this thesis as conforming
to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
October 1990
® Reginald Paul Faubert, 1990 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at The University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.
School of Community and Regional Planning
The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5
Date: October 1990 ABSTRACT
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the coordination between transportation and other aspects of land use planning. This purpose is achieved through studying transportation planning and decision making in light of general overall metropolitan planning. Transportation planning is defined as a process for addressing societal concerns while attempting to meet the demands for transport made by the populace. Decision making is the final result of this process.
In developing a model of the interrelationships between transportation and land use, this thesis examines theoretical literature and international examples. This examination illustrates benefits of transportation / land use coordination, such as the mutual support they can provide one another when pursuing similar policy objectives. The literature studied highlighted these relationships while acknowledging the unknown nature of causalities. In relation to the coordination of transportation and land use policy, planning and decision making, only the technical aspects should be achieved through disciplinary isolation.
A two-example case study of transportation planning and decision making within Greater Vancouver is introduced with a discussion of the past thirty years of regional transportation planning and with a look at the Livable Region Program. This provides the context within which transportation planners of today must work.
The case study utilizes interviews with planning staff members from agencies and municipalities with interest in the two major transportation facilities examined. The first example is the Alex Fraser .Bridge over the Fraser River which was opened to automobile traffic in September of 1986. The second example is the possible future extension of rapid transit into Coquitlam, a facility which the provincial government has not yet committed itself to building. It is concluded that the Alex Fraser Bridge example does not support the policies of the Livable Region Program while the Coquitlam rapid transit example does. Furthermore, neither example supports the notion that the Livable Region Program is coordinated with transportation planning in Greater Vancouver.
The final conclusion is that no coordination is apparent between the planning and implementation of regional transportation facilities and regional planning goals within Greater Vancouver. The transportation decisions analyzed in this thesis have been imposed upon the region by the provincial government. Promotion of regional goals by these transportation facilities is seen to result from similar objectives within different agencies rather than from coordination of planning between those agencies.
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ii
Table of Contents iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
List of Acronyms vii
Acknowledgement viii
I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Purpose 2 B. Background 2 C. Importance of Research 3 D. Method 3 E. Scope 4 F. Organization 5
II. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 7 A. Transportation Planning 8 B. Land Use 12 C. Changes In Transportation Planning 12 D. General Relationships 17 1. Physical Relationships 19 2. Models of Transportation / Land Use 25 E. Examples of Relationships 30 1. Unknowns 30 2. Goal of Automobile Reduction 32 3. Transit Promoting Automobile Usage 34 4. Examples of Transportation / Land Use Coordination 36 F. Conclusion 41
III. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY 43 A. Regional Transportation Planning 43 B. The 1956 -- 1959 Plan 45 1. Context 45 2. The Plan 49 3. Transportation Policy 50 C. Evolution -- 1959 To 1989 51 1. The Livable Region Program 52 2. The Regional Transportation Planning Function 52 3. From Highways to Transit 53 D. The 1989 "Freedom To Move" Report 54 1. Context 54 2. The Report 56 3. Transportation Policy 58
iii E. Conclusion 60
IV. THE LIVABLE REGION PROGRAM 62 A. LRP As Response 62 B. What Is Livability? 63 C. The Livable Region Program 65 D. The Five Strategies of the LRP 68 1. Achieving Residential Growth Targets 69 2. Promoting a Balance of Jobs to Population 70 3. Creation of Regional Town Centres 71 4. Provision of a Transit Oriented Transportation System 72 5. Protecting and Developing Regional Open Spaces 72 E. Conclusion 73
V. GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY 74 A. The Case Study Examples 75 1. The Alex Fraser Bridge 75 2. The Coquitlam Rapid Transit Extension 77 B. Interviews 80 1. Questions 1 Through 8 82 2. Questions 9 Through 14 87 C. Analysis 93 1. Relationships With LRP Strategies 93 2. Coordination With LRP Goals 101 D. Conclusion 103
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 104 A. Summary 104 B. Conclusion 105
Bibliography 106
Appendix 1: Livable Region Recommendations 113
Appendix 2: Case Study Interview Questions 119
iv LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: 1987 Sector To Sector Modal Split (Percentage Using Transit) 23
Table 2: Comparative Transit Data 40
Table 3: Chronology Of Transportation Events 47
Table 4: Population Forecast 1955 To 1 976 48
Table 5:'.Committed Capital Projects In 1989 58
Table 6: Summary Of Interview Responses 92
Table 7: Development Around Transit 96
V LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Space Occupied By Automobiles And Transit...15
Figure 2: Land Use Transport Interaction 27
Figure 3: Interrelationships Between Transportation And Other Aspects of Land Use Planning 28
Figure 4: Aerial View of Development Around Yonge
Street Subway Line Stations In Toronto 37
Figure 5: Proposed Freeway Network -- 1959 49
Figure 6: Interaction of LRP Strategies 67
Figure 7: The Annacis System Highway Development 76
Figure 8: Route Options For Coquitlam Rapid Transit...78 Figure 9: Coquitlam Town Centre Design 81
Figure 10: Percentage Change In Total Municipal Office Space 97
vi LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACT = Australian Capital Territory
AFB = Alex Fraser Bridge
ALRT = Automated Light Rapid Transit
BART = Bay Area Rapid Transit
BTS = Bureau of Transit Services
CRTE = Coquitlam Rapid Transit Extension
CBD = Central Business District
EIA = Environmental Impact Assessment
GVRD = Greater Vancouver Regional District
GVTTF = Greater Vancouver Transportation Task Force
LRP = Livable Region Program
LRPAC = Livable Region Program Advisory Committee
LRT = Light Rapid Transit
MOTH = Ministry of Transportation and Highways
MSA = Metropolitan Statistical Area
RTAC = Roads and Transportation Association of Canada
TAC = Technical Advisory Committee
TCMHP = Technical Committee for Metropolitan Highway Planning
TTC = Toronto Transit Commission
VRTS = Vancouver Regional Transit System
vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank my advisors, Setty Pendakur and Peter Boothroyd, for their support and guidance throughout the thesis writing process. I would also like to thank my fellow students in the planning school for their friendship and
support. I could not have made it through without such wonderful people around.
Thanks.
viii I. INTRODUCTION
Transportation planning and decision making play an important role in urban development since the spatial extent of metropolitan areas is governed by transportation linkages. When personal transportation was limited to animal power, cities were normalty quite compact. Following the industrial revolution and the advent of the streetcar, cities began to expand with suburbs appearing along streetcar routes. The automobile age then led to the urban sprawl apparent in the Western cities of today. Unprecedented levels of personal mobility bring numerous problems to many metropolitan areas.
Problems such as air and noise pollution and traffic congestion, as well as the problems associated with urban sprawl, have ramifications beyond the scope of transportation planning. The metropolitan transportation system can thus be viewed as "a basic component of an urban area's social, economic, and physical structure" (Meyer & Miller, 1984). This suggests that planning within a metropolitan area should recognize the interconnections between transportation and other aspects of planning. The problems associated with transportation planning can then be viewed not in a purely technical manner but as "an inescapable consequence of the manner in which we choose to live and the way we have organized our metropolitan areas" (Orski, 1989). This thesis studies transportation planning and decision making in the context of an agreed general metropolitan plan.
1 INTRODUCTION / 2
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the coordination between transportation and other aspects of land use planning. Coordination refers to planning agencies working together to either actively pursue similar policies or to ensure that work done is not in opposition to one another. Such coordination can refer to dialogue between planning agencies or to amalgamation of agencies into one planning body.
The purpose of this thesis is realized through a case study of Greater
Vancouver. This case study uses criteria taken from Vancouver's Livable Region
Program (LRP) to judge whether transportation planning is coordinated with metropolitan ideals. Although the LRP is an advisory document, it is assumed that it reflects the planning desires of the region. Therefore, this general metropolitan plan that is not specifically nor solely a transportation plan can be used to judge coordination.
B. BACKGROUND
Theory implies a relationship between transportation and other aspects of planning while not indicating specific causality in relation to urban form. This is because there are many influencing factors which do not allow isolation of any one factor as the causal agent of urban form. The background for this study reflects expert indecision in regard to the relationships between transportation planning and urban form. INTRODUCTION / 3
The background for the Greater Vancouver case study provides insight into the
LRP. Local transportation history is defined by debate pitting livability concerns
against highway construction. The LRP is the result of a process of public
hearings and thus may reflect the planning desires of GVRD citizens.
C. IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH
It is an important time to be studying both transportation planning in Greater
Vancouver and the LRP. This is because the transportation infrastructure within
the region is currently being augmented by a multi-million dollar rapid transit
system, and because the LRP is currently being reviewed by the GVRD.
The practical significance of this research is then twofold. First, such a study
can contribute to illustrating how goals from a general metropolitan plan can be
utilized within the realm of transportation planning. Second, lessons learned from
using such goals to examine transportation planning can provide insight into the
relationships between transportation and other aspects of planning.
D. METHOD
A literature review will identify and discuss the various aspects of the
relationship between transportation and land use planning. Second, a case study
of the GVRD analyzes actual transportation decisions and decision making
processes in relation to the land use and growth goals of the LRP. Information
for this analysis was obtained through a review of documents and interviews INTRODUCTION / 4 with planners familiar with the decisions being studied. Specifically, interviews were conducted with eight planning representatives from the following areas or agencies: the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD); B.C. Transit; the
Districts of Burnaby, Coquitlam and Surrey; the City of New Westminster; and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.
E. SCOPE
This thesis looks at major transportation planning decisions made in Greater
Vancouver since the inception of the LRP. Two major transportation decisions are
examined: the building of the Alex Fraser Bridge across the Fraser River and
the possible future rapid transit link to Coquitlam. Analysis of these two
decisions provides insight into decision making in regard to the use of different
modes and facilities. The Alex Fraser Bridge example can be studied with an
historical framework while the Coquitlam rapid transit example is still shrouded
in uncertainty.
The thesis uses criteria from the LRP to evaluate transportation decision making.
Alternate ways to evaluate transportation decisions exist. For example, Navin
draws 25 separate criteria directly from the LRP to assess overall transportation
planning within the GVRD (Navin, 1990). Unlike Navin's study, the purpose of
this thesis is to assess specific decisions with respect to the general ideals of the
LRP to see whether specific major decisions are made with reference to and/or
agreement with the LRP. Five regional strategies proposed in the LRP are used
here as general criteria for evaluating transportation planning and decision INTRODUCTION / 5 making. It must be noted that decisions promoting LRP goals do not necessarily reflect strong institutional coordination of the decision making process with LRP ideals.
F. ORGANIZATION
In Chapter Two, theory and international examples contribute to an examination of the relationships between transportation planning and other aspects of land use. The literature studied highlighted these relationships while acknowledging the unknown nature of causalities. Chapter two concludes with a model that incorporates transportation and land use planning.
In Chapter Three, an historical account of transportation planning development in
Greater Vancouver is provided as a background to the case study. This chapter discusses several important historical episodes (ie. the Great Freeway Debate) and
how they relate to and constrain current planning.
In Chapter Four, the Livable Region Program is presented. Discussion relates to
the feasibility of using this metropolitan plan in a transportation analysis. This
chapter concludes by introducing the criteria which will be used in the case
study.
The case study of Greater Vancouver is presented in chapter Five. This chapter
first introduces the two transportation decision making examples being studied.
The responses gathered from the interviews conducted are then outlined. These INTRODUCTION / 6 responses are then analyzed in terms of the perceived relationship and the perceived coordination that exist between transportation decision making and the
LRP. Conclusions following from this analysis are then presented.
In Chapter Six, the conclusions are summarized along with their inherent implications. The thesis ends with a discussion of the lessons that can be learned from this research. II. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
The relationships between land use and transportation planning go well beyond the simple fact that transportation facilities use land. Transportation impacts development on surrounding lands while actual land uses often dictate the location and modal choice for transportation facilities. As Owolabi (1986) states, land use depends on the character of the transportation network which in turn depends on the land use pattern.
Every metropolitan area is dependant on the physical linkages within its borders for the distribution and movement of people and goods. This implied that transportation planning should be studied as a consequence of land use. Despite
this and the twoway relationship Owolabi mentions, the bulk of the literature is
concerned with the reverse equation, the impact of transportation facilities upon
surrounding areas. This may be a result of the higher visibility of these impacts.
The spread of cities has increased as transportation technologies have increased
personal mobility, allowing residential areas to attain lower densities.
The vitality, the universal availability and the cost of urban transport deeply affect the way in which the city and its citizens function. Because the transport system has such a primary impact on a city's extension, sprawl and population density, it also has a considerable effect on the cost of other urban services (Pendakur, 1986).
This chapter discusses the relationships between transportation and land use
planning using theoretical examples as well as international experiences. This
chapter begins with a discussion of transportation planning, which concludes by
defining transportation planning as a process for addressing societal concerns
7 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 8 while attempting to meet the demands for transport made by the populace. The dynamic nature of land use is then discussed as combining with transportation planning to result in urban development.
This chapter then reviews various aspects of this relationship between
transportation and land use. This discussion is split into three sections. First, the
changing focus of transportation planning over the last thirty years is examined.
Second, the general relationships between transportation and land use are
discussed and modelled. This leads to the conclusion that the technical aspects of
transportation planning can be achieved through disciplinary isolation while
transportation / land use coordination is appropriate within the policy, planning
and decision making stages. Third, examples of these relationships from around
the world are discussed. This discussion reveals three major physical examples of
the transportation and land use relationship: traffic congestion, possible alternative
uses of space and the spawning of additional developments.
A. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Transportation planning is not simply a matter of deciding where to put roads
or what rapid transit alignment should be utilized. The process, principles and
purposes involved relate to such diverse areas as engineering and social equity.
Meyer and Miller (1984) view the process of transportation planning as having
five distinct elements:
1. Understanding the types of decisions that need to be made. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 9
2. Assessing opportunities and limitations of the future.
3. Identifying the short- and long-term consequences of alternative choices designed to take advantage of these opportunities or respond to these limitations.
4. Relating alternative decisions to the goals and objectives established for an urban area, agency, or firm.
5. Presenting this information to decision makers in a readily understandable and useful form.
This process hints at how transportation planning can be accomplished. To better understand transportation planning, there is a need to understand the principles which underlie it.
Meyer and Miller (1984) relate five such basic principles. These are not meant to parallel the five elements of the transportation planning process just listed.
These principles are:
1. To consider transportation planning as part of the social and economic system.
2. To view transportation planning as interconnected facilities designed to service travel.
3. To consider the transportation system as consisting of different modes.
4. To have the transportation system planned, designed, built, operated, and maintained by organizations and individuals with different objectives, mandates, constituencies, and problem definitions.
5. To recognize that changes in the transportation system can include a variety of infrastructure and service actions, applied at different geographic scales by the public and private sectors.
The process and principle lists provide insights into how transportation planning LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 10 is accomplished and what realm the transportation planner works within.
However, these lists do not state the purpose of transportation planning. Beyond the obvious purpose of facilitating movement, transportation planning occurs as a response to the concepts of demand analysis and social equity and as an end in itself.
Transportation demand differs from demand for other products for a number of reasons. First, transportation demand is derived from the travellers desire to partake in activity at some given location. For example, commuting is a transportation demand derived from working and living in different locations.
Second, transportation demand results in a disutility in terms of time and convenience. Third, transportation demand can be measured along many dimensions, including origin/destination and trip purpose. Fourth, transportation demand analysis usually deals with aggregated trips rather than individual trips
(Meyer & Miller, 1984). If transportation planning is defined solely in terms of
demand analysis, the planner's role becomes one of meeting demand.
Transportation planning responds to social equity arguments in two ways, dealing
with both metropolitan socioeconomic development and equity between individuals.
The following statement outlines the first of these arguments:
Efficient transportation supports the foundation of regional socioeconomic development by providing smooth connections among spatially separated locations. Transport planning is ... a vital element in furthering socioeconomic planning at various spatial levels, ie. the national, regional, and urban levels (Ohta, 1989).
This statement simply states that transportation planning is an element of LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 11 socioeconomic planning. By making transportation subordinate to socioeconomic planning, movement towards the ideal of social equity is inherent.
Social equity implies equity between individuals, and transportation planning can be defined in these terms. As Norrbom (1987) states, a certain supply of public transport is necessary for social reasons. This is in "accordance with the requirements of fair distribution and in order to ensure a basic standard of transport" (Norrbom, 1987). Transportation planning then becomes a means of ensuring that the socioeconomic groups with the least mobility (the poor, elderly or disabled) are provided for within a transportation system.
The third theoretical reason for transportation planning relates it as an end in
itself rather than as a means to an end. The argument is that in our industrial
society, the transport sector has itself become a major industry (Nijkamp &
Reichman, 1987). Transportation planning can be used by the government to
facilitate economic growth by providing construction jobs and contributing large
capital expenditures to the economy. While providing a reason for the existence
of the transportation sector and possibly giving insight into the reasons why
certain projects are built, this view does not examine the role that transport
plays within our society. Even if transportation planning is an end in itself, the
planning of it must somehow fit with metropolitan or community goals.
Following this discussion, it is difficult but necessary to provide a summary
statement to define transportation planning. Transportation planning is thus a
process for addressing societal concerns while attempting to meet the demands for . LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 12 transport made by the populace. This thesis is concerned with transportation decision making, which is the final result of this planning process, although the actual decisions do not necessarity follow from the transportation planning (for reasons such as political expediency). This section contributes a brief overview of what transportation planning is and some of what transportation decision makers should take into account. The importance given societal concerns highlights the appropriateness of analyzing transportation decision making in the context of general metropolitan plans.
B. LAND USE
Planning is concerned with the dynamic nature of land use -the change in land use over time. In relation to transportation planning, changes in land use both impact and are impacted by changes in transportation facilities. The dynamic nature of both transportation and land use combine as urban development. Urban development can be seen as a manifestation of changing transportation and land use patterns as well as a proxy for measuring such change.
C. CHANGES IN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
This section discusses reasons for the movement of transportation planning away from the strict highway age focus on road building to a greater recognition of the benefits of and need for rapid transit in metropolitan areas. The reasons discussed include: the potential for land use development around transportation facilities. The following section discusses some of these relationships between LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 13 transportation and land use in greater detail.
The focus of transportation planning has changed considerably over the last thirty years. Transportation planning moved from an age of highway building and automobile dominance toward an age of transit and energy conservation. This new focus does not mean that the relationships between transportation planning and other elements of land use have changed, but only that different aspects of such relationship emerged in the consciousness of planners. Such relationships are not completely understood, but reasons for the changing focus of transportation planning are derived from new understanding of such association.
The highwaj' age of the 1950's and 1960's was an era of great freeway building. Urban sprawl followed new freeways and cities became amalgamations of indiscriminately located suburbs.
But people didn't like what they appeared to want and in the late 1960's concern with the quality of life and the character of the city led to public outcries and political antagonisms that redirected transportation planning from freeways to rail transit (Kopystynski & Pawlowski, 1980).
Rather than rebelling against sprawl and other land use results that freeways
seemed to exert upon urban areas, the citizens rebelled against associated quality
of life as measured by air, noise and visual pollution. Citizens complained about
the loss of pedestrianized streets.
This example highlights one reason for the changing focus of transportation
planning - the emergence of a popular emphasis on quality of urban life. This LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 14 urban environmental issue parallels the growing importance of the environmental movement in recent years. A strong desire to develop not only effective but also attractive transportation systems (Kuipers, 1980) is one land use result of such change. A more obvious result has been the "desire to make heavily used areas, particularly C.B.D.'s more appealing to pedestrians and less choked by cars"
(Kuipers, 1980). Numerous cities across North America have developed outdoor pedestrian malls (e.g. Boston's Quincy Market) and transit malls (e.g. Vancouver's
Granville Street) by restricting automobile traffic and accessibility.
A second reason for a changing focus in transportation planning is the growing recognition that new roads do not necessarily eliminate traffic congestion. A circular relationship exists between traffic congestion and increased road capacity.
New roads ... fill up with cars almost as soon as the ribbon is cut. This should come as no surprise, for new roads improve accessibility, and greater accessibility increases the value of land. Higher land values, in turn, dictate a more intensive use of land, which generates more traffic, which fills up the highways (Orski, 1989).
This recognition is based on an assumption of high car ownership and a finite
supply of land available for transportation facilities. This has contributed to the
decision within numerous cities to place new emphasis upon transportation modes
other than the automobile. However, these cities may only discover that they
have shifted from one congested mode to another.
All modes have a maximum capacity, and thus any mode may have a circular
relationship similar to that described for new road development. However, as
illustrated by figure 1, the congestion within alternative modes is a congestion LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 15 within vehicles based on vehicle capacity rather than a congestion of and between vehicles. The circular relationship for fixed guideway rapid transit vehicles (e.g. Vancouver's SkyTrain) is constrained by the number of vehicles that can operate within a given safety margin. The circular relationship for new roads leads to greater safety and pollution problems because this upper limit does not realistically exist. The road is open to everyone with an automobile.
Figure 1: Space Occupied By Automobiles And Transit
2 ARriCULATEOSTRlETCARS . ]80 PEOPLE
LQJ
Q^nroon^trpn~ntrpotrn ^tniQffTiO(PQ^rrTi(rn ^Qcrgtn?tn]inin~nirn{p 010(0(0000003 B a a § a § OOTDI1 HQ PQTirrnirnfrTi 10(00(0(00000 (OOOOOOOOO I a 11 s a la Sins
IS* CM* « 2B0PEOPU
(TTC, 1987)
This circular argument against road construction is a difficult argument to base LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 16 planning on since it may result in promoting mass transit over the automobile.
The automobile is seen by many as an extension of the personal freedom that our society is based upon. While the quality of urban life argument is built upon a positive individual right (to live in a healthy environment), the road congestion argument is built upon seemingly taking a perceived right (to automobile usage) away. As Orski (1989) states, traffic congestion is "an inescapable consequence of the manner in which we choose to live and the way we have organized our metropolitan areas".
A third argument for the changing focus of transportation planning over the last thirty years follows from this discussion of alternate modes. There has been an increasing awareness of the benefits that rapid transit can contribute to an urban area. These benefits include the enhancement of economic development and job creation, the promotion of environmental friendliness and energy savings, the
reduction of traffic congestion and the provision of better mobility for the disabled
and lower income segments of the population (RTAC, 1989).
However,the rapid transit benefit of enhanced economic development and job
creation is a misconception. During construction, any type of transportation
development is going to have economic spinoffs. After construction, any type of
transportation facility may have land development effects upon the surrounding
areas. However, there may be some benefit in this development being
concentrated along fixed rapid transit lines rather than being spread haphazardly
throughout the metropolitan area. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 17
The benefits of promoting environmental friendliness and reducing traffic congestion underlie the basic arguments of the first two reasons discussed for the apparent change in the focus of transportation planning. The last benefit mentioned relates to improving the mobility of those with the greatest physical and economic barriers to personal mobility. It is a benefit of rapid transit but not a reason for promoting rapid transit over the construction of new roads.
D. GENERAL RELATIONSHIPS
The numerous relationships that exist between transportation and land use are categorized here into three sections. The first relates to the domain of the transportation planner and whether it includes other aspects of land use. The second relates to the actual physical relationships between transportation and land use. The third draws on these first two sections to develop a model of the physical relationships between land use and transportation. These general relationships are organized here with sub-sections discussing each.
The jurisdictional domain of the transportation planner has distinct geographical and political (ideological) boundaries. The Greater Vancouver example can illustrate such political and geographical boundaries. The GVRD has no official transportation planning responsibilities. Therefore, the Provincial Government of
British Columbia is the only governmental level with a jurisdictional mandate to plan Greater Vancouver's transportation network in the regional context. However, intra-regional facilities are often left to member municipalities. The result is that
"municipal networks are sometimes discontinuous at municipal boundaries, either LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 18 in terms of their existence, classification or standard" (GVTTF, 1989a).
The problems with such disjointed transportation planning revolve around a lack of cooperation between municipalities. Conversely, a regional transportation authority may not be responsive to the concerns of the member municipalities.
This lack of responsiveness may result in planning that is increasingly separated from those affected by planning.
With respect to the political organization of transportation planning, governments tend to departmentalize. In a study based on transportation planning within the
United States, Engelen (1982) states that the responsibilities for transportation and land use are almost always separated by government departments. "This separation reduces the potential for coordination of transportation system management and land use management" (Engelen, 1982). Such departmentalization proceeds along lines of specialization in an attempt to make bureaucracy both more efficient and understandable. For many of the technical aspects of transportation planning, such separation is needed.
However, departmentalization should exist within an atmosphere of cooperation that recognizes the interrelationships between the departmental fields. Such social issues as civil rights, class, and distributive justice are beyond the limited scope of any one department, yet all departments should respond to them. The transportation planner should remember that "these vital social concepts related to transportation, mobility, and the right to travel are well within their domain"
(Hand, 1978). Transportation planning is not only related to land use LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 19 development through direct effects between the two but also through mutually affecting social aspects of our society.
This perception of the transportation planner's domain provides insight into the relationships between land use and transportation planning. First, the transportation planner's domain limits the impacts which will be examined in relation to changing land use. The act of defining a limited domain necessarily
results in the planner being restricted to studying only certain elements of the
relationships between transportation and land use planning. Second, government
departmentalization typically separates transportation planning from other aspects
of land use planning making coordination between the two difficult. Third,
transportation planning is related to land use development because of their
mutual ability to affect the social aspects of our societj7.
1. Physical Relationships
The most visible result of the relationship between land use and the
transportation infrastructure is traffic congestion. This problem displays a feature
representative of problems with transportation systems: such problems bear close
relation to the public's perception of how the sj^stem should operate. Thus, as
Meyer and Miller (1984) point out, in transportation planning public involvement
should be an integral part of the problem identification process. This feature
illustrates an inherent dependency of transportation planning on other factors. In
this case, the other factors are public perception and land use. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 20
Two illustrations of Orski's argument which relates land use and new transportation facilities to exacerbated congestion follow. First, certain land uses, such as industrial districts, regional shopping centres, university campuses, medical districts, recreation attractions and high density housing, benefit from proximity to major transportation nodes (Klassen, 1987). These land uses are thus attracted when accessibility to an area is increased. This attraction results in a further need to increase road capacities.
The second example is illustrated by a study of the Delaware Valley Region around Philadelphia. Between 1960 and 1980, the suburbs grew rapidly while maintaining densities lower than the central city. Development presupposed automobile use since low density suburbs cannot be served efficiently by transit.
In 1960, 25 percent of the workforce used public transit. By 1980, this figure was down to 14 percent. The study concluded that "previous efforts to improve mobility by constructing or improving transportation facilities in the suburbs have been adversely affected by subsequent land development" (Zakaria, 1986). The building of roads and development of suburbs built upon one another to exacerbate the problems of traffic congestion.
If Orski's argument is true, then the congestion problem seems unsolvable. As a result, transportation planners strive to manage the problem (Orski, 1987). Such management approaches tend to emphasize that congestion is as much a land use problem as it is a transportation problem.
How do you manage traffic congestion? Basically, by practising three strategies: incrementally expanding road capacity; reducing the growth of transportation demand; and controlling the intensity and pace of LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 21
development (Orski, 1989).
Congestion is inherently a problem of road capacity. The first two of Orski's management ideas strive to overcome capacity limitations in pure transportation planning ways: expand road capacity and reduce demand on the system (through such means as promoting the use of higher occupancy vehicles). The third management idea is a land use based approach: utilising stricter controls on land development.
However, communities tend to approach a traffic crisis with methods that actually perpetuate such a crisis. Development of lower housing densities, shopping centres and dispersed industrial parks build in automobile dependency.
Such built in dependency "leads to congested arteries, which results in cries to reduce densities of development, which in turn creates greater dependency on automobiles" (Porter, 1987). The instinctive reaction to congestion is to disperse the population, but this reaction results in further automobile dependency. Higher densities can be developed over time to function smoothly and economically in a manner that promotes higher occupancy travel modes thus not exacerbating traffic problems. The result, as Porter (1987) states is that the solution to traffic congestion is ultimately a land use solution.
Another relationship between transportation and land use planning discusses the implications of new development on existing land usage. For example, freeways have a series of land use implications aside from increased accessibility leading to urban land development. Freeways use space and are often created at the LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 22 expense of other land uses. As Klassen (1987) points out, slum clearance or other forms of land expropriation and the disruption of existing neighbourhoods may be land use implications of transportation planning.
Transportation facilities do impact land use, but the degree of such impact is an area of speculation. For example, there is a recognition that "development does not necessarily accompany transportation improvement alone" (Hand, 1978).
Transit is seen to be a special development tool that cannot "stand by itself
(Hand, 1978). All sites within a metropolitan area are accessible by automobile.
Therefore, transportation planning must be coordinated and integrated with other factors such as housing policy in order to have any significant developmental impacts (Hand, 1978).
This view of transit having only limited impacts on land use development is further reinforced by an examination of modal split within metropolitan areas.
Using the example of Greater Vancouver, table 1 illustrates the percentage of total trips made by various transit modes. There are more transit trips to/from the metropolitan CBD than to/from any other node, yet non-transit modes still account for 63 percent of these trips. Such statistics have lead authors to describe the automobile and the bus as "today's mass transit vehicles" (Jensen,
1978), since they move a greater mass of persons than rapid transit vehicles. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 23
Table 1: 1987 Sector To Sector Modal Split (Percentage Using Transit)
Burnaby From/To North Shore Vancouver CBD Vancouver North Shore 10 31 1 3 6 CBD 9 39 1 6 1 1 Vancouver 8 39 1 8 10 Burnaby 6 38 1 3 1 1 N.E. Sector 9 34 1 3 Q -> Richmond 12 36 1 4 7 Fraser South 16 38 1 9 1 0 Overall 9% 37% 1 6% 1 0%
(Gvttf, 1989b)
Jensen uses these statistics to argue that there is a basic fallacy in using transit as a catalyst to urban development. This topic is often approached with a belief that "urban development ought to conform to an ideal transit system rather than that the transit system should conform to urban development patterns that are feasible but never ideal" (Jensen, 1978). Although there exists a relationship between rapid transit and urban land development, to expect development to simply follow rapid transit lines disregards the major transportation mode within an urban area. This does not mean that planners should not use rapid transit to promote and focus development, but only that planners should recognise the limitations that constrain such promotion.
The fact that transportation and other elements of land use planning are interrelated is the reason for planning the two in coordination. This does not necessarily mean that the two should be planned together. While recognising the LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 24 need for coordination, Haley notes a difference in the time perspective of transportation planning as compared with other aspects of land use. Noting that major transportation facilities take (on average) 15 to 20 years to plan, design and build, Haley argues the need for separation of transportation and land use planning duties.
Transportation is one of the most important components in both regional and local land use planning, providing the structural framework that moves people and goods from one place to another. ...Best viewed as a regional system, transportation needs to be planned broadly and separately from other land uses. Its large, expensive elements require long planning and development lead times (Haley, 1988).
This isolationist view of Haley's may be appropriate for the technical stages of facility development and construction, but seems inappropriate for the development of overall transportation policy. If transportation planning and decision making occurred in isolation, the resulting infrastructure may prove detrimental to other aspects of land use planning, adversely affecting the developmental aspirations of metropolitan communities.
In summary, this section traced a number of relationships between land use and transportation. They seem to impact one another, often resulting in a circular relationship leading to traffic congestion. It was recognized that urban development is a reflection of these factors, but such relationships are neither well defined nor exact. Therefore, although the technical aspects of transportation planning can be achieved through disciplinary isolation, coordination of the policy, planning, and decision making stages between transportation and other land use planning is appropriate. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 25
2. Models of Transportation / Land Use
"Models attempt to bridge the gap between theory and practice" (Hammermeister,
1987). In other words, models take theory and display it in a form that is understandable and useful to those working within the given field. Models can also be used to describe relationships based on real or theoretical examples.
Modelling is used here to conceptualize the general flow of the theoretical relationships between transportation and land use planning. Hammermeister presents three types of models that can be used to describe this relationship.
The first model is the purely descriptive. These can be used to analyze and describe the "characteristics of land-use and transportation from historical trends and present spatial patterns" (Hammermeister, 1987). The second are predictive, used to forecast "the development of urban areas based on a set of prechosen variables" that the modeller draws from the examined relationship
(Hammermeister, 1987). The third are processoriented models that reflect the performance of land use and transportation facilities based on such variables as travel performance and accessibility (Hammermeister, 1987). These three models should not be viewed as mutually exclusive. A model can and should display elements of all three. The models discussed below are inherently descriptive of theoretical relationships and display a process orientation intrinsic with the two way flow of affects. This understanding makes them predictive, since they can aid forecasting by pointing out possible developmental impacts.
However, Hammermeister's account of these three types of models outlines the LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 26 weakness of defining models as simply an "attempt to bridge the gap between theory and practice". This weakness is that reality is left out of the definition.
To forget reality is to create models that may not relate to actual planning. For example, Lowry (1988) states the following problem for transportation planning:
The bad news, to most of those who worr}' about urban problems, is that the plans must deal with the reality of nearly universal ownership of personal - not family - automobiles and a dispersed pattern of travel.
Lowry's point is well taken and any model for transportation planning must somehow incorporate such aspects of reality or be cast aside as irrelevant. The models in figures 2 and 3 are general enough to incorporate such aspects of reality.
Figure 2 displays a model of land use and transportation interaction developed by Khan in the early 1970s. Along with this conceptualization, Khan (1984) points out that this interaction is dynamic over time and occurs at all spatial levels of activity. Khan's model depicts those involved in the land use and transport system — the users, suppliers and societal groups — as making up the household, public and private sectors. Each of these sectors influences both land use and transport, and the interactions between land use and transport.
This model displays some of the relationships discussed previously. For example, it shows that the relationships are not strictly between transportation and land use but are often tempered by other sectors within society. This is a reflection of transport's role within society, as a derived demand resulting from a desire of LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 27 the traveller to participate in a behaviour at a given location or land use
(Meyer & Miller, 1984).
Figure 2: Land Use -- Transport Interaction
Socio-Economic Environment — Impact Groups
Societal Groups and Governments Society as Whole Soc/Ec Classes Firms Property Owners Ne i ghbourhoods Governments
• Private • I Sector I
The Land Use and Transport System
(Khan, 1974)
However, this model is weak in certain respects. Although Khan refers to the
interaction within the model as dynamic, the model appears hierarchical. The flow
seems to be from the top down, with the socio-economic environment influencing
the land use and transport system through the household, public and private
sectors. Although considerable literature discusses impacts of land use and LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 28 transportation facilities upon other sectors, this reverse flow seems to be missing.
Furthermore, the model seems to say only that everything is related to everything else without actually contributing to the understanding of such relationships.
The model needs a greater balance and a more circular nature which allows depiction of two way affect flows. The circular model developed in figure 3 incorporates the strengths of Khan's model while illustrating the interrelatedness of transportation and other aspects of land use planning.
Figure 3: Interrelationships Between Transportation And Other Aspects of Land Use Planning
(c) Combined Impacts LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 29
This model is circular and non-hierarchical. The flows on the diagram are self-explanatory, although there is a need here to elaborate upon the captions.
Box A corresponds to the sectors within Khan's model. The major difference here is that the word preference is specifically used, illustrating that transportation and land use are dependant upon demand. Such demand is incorporated in relationships (a).
The direct relationships between transportation and land use planning (Boxes B and C) are depicted by relationship (b). One example of this relationship is
Orski's argument that improved transportation facilities lead to greater accessibility and thus higher land values, which then leads to development of higher density and ultimately to greater demand upon the transportation facilities
(Orski, 1989).
Box . D (other planning aspects) refers to those facets of planning that may be institutionally distinct from transportation and land use planning, such as social and environmental issues. These are impacted by transportation and land use planning both in combination (c) and separately (d). An example of a combined impact (c) is traffic congestion; an example of a separate impact (d) is noise pollution. Transportation and land use planning then reflect back upon personal preferences (Box A) through relationship (e), the influence of planning upon demand or personal preference.
This model incorporates three major aspects of the relationship between transportation and land use discussed in this chapter. First, the relationships are LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 30 not one-way. The model displays transportation and land use planning as being affected by and affecting outside circumstances, as well as being mutually impacting. Second, the model does not stress the importance of planning for one mode over another, reflecting a recognition that all modes fit this relationship.
Third, the model does not attempt to measure or predict actual levels of impact, but only to show possible paths of impact. This reflects the inherent uncertaintj' of these actual relationships in reality.
E. EXAMPLES OF RELATIONSHIPS
This section discusses three main aspects related to the model of interrelationships in figure 3 before providing examples of the benefit gained by planning transportation and land use in tandem. These aspects are: the unknown degree and characteristic of these relationships, the goal of automobile reduction and how rapid transit promotion can actually promote other modes.
1. Unknowns
Figure 3 is a model of an unknown relationships. The lines (a through e) represent theoretical flows of relation while no attempt is made to gauge the intensity or degree of relation. Although the relations exist, there is debate over their characteristic and degree. Meyer and Miller (1984) contend that numerous studies have shown that land use impacts of new transportation facilities are merely locational (they focus development rather than create new development) and that transportation facilities designed to influence land use patterns produce LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 31 minimal results. Others believe that the evidence points to fixed transit facilities
as having the potential to "attract real estate development and thus create and expand their own traffic generators" (Henry, 1989).
These two opposing ideas illustrate a basic difference in philosophy between those
who feel that transportation planning can have a significant impact on changing
land usage and those who do not. Such a difference can have serious
consequences when the planner follows one philosophy in a situation where the
other is paramount. For example, influencing urban development through use of
transit must be tempered with the realization that the automobile represents an
extension of personal freedom in North America which allows virtually
unrestricted travel. Here, the philosophy that rapid transit will evoke land use
development should be tempered by the fact that automobile usage is paramount.
In Walnut Creek, a suburb of San Francisco, a station on the Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) system was built. One of the planning justifications for building
the station was that "it would function as a magnet for commercial growth"
(Cervero, 1988). Although Walnut Creek has since developed as an area of
mid-rise office towers, the evidence suggests such development occurred because of
other policies and not as a result of BART.
Unfortunately, fewer than 4 percent of the workers at nearby offices currently ride BART, partly because most have free parking and partly because BART goes nowhere near where most live. Thus, rather than filling up rail cars, Walnut Creek's suburban downtown has instead flooded local streets with additional traffic (Cervero, 1988).
Although the development may have been undertaken as a result of BART, the LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 32 actual development is not BART dependant. It seems that the planners felt relationship (b) in figure 3 (mutual impacts between transportation and land use planning) would be a one way flow, with transportation influencing land use. The greater impact has been the opposite. The conclusion here is that the relationships between transportation and land use planning are complex, multi-dimensional and often unknown in character or degree.
2. Goal of Automobile Reduction
Many transportation studies tend to focus upon such negative externalities as air pollution. The result is often an attempt to find ways to reduce the number of automobiles on the roads. This goal has been sought in numerous ways, both voluntary and regulatory. Voluntary methods ask automobile users to combine trips, carpool or use transit. Regulatory approaches include reserving lanes for high occupancy vehicles, restricting parking and creating automobile free zones
(Schonfeld & Chadda, 1985). Such methods tend to emphasize the relationship between the personal preferences of the public and private sectors and transportation and land use planning (relationship (a) in figure 3).
Schonfeld and Chadda, however, point out that planning must reduce the need to travel in order to significantly reduce the use of the automobile. Reduction then becomes a land use problem which can be approached through such methods as promotion of high density corridors with mixed types of land use (Schonfeld &
Chadda, 1985). This approach is based on the idea that land use can help dictate transportation mode. However, personal preference will result in many LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 33 choosing not to live in high density, mixed use developments and not to reduce usage of their automobiles.
Numerous cities are utilising land use approaches to automobile reduction. The recent North American trend toward pedestrian and transit streets is one such example.
Some view pedestrian and transit streets as the way to revitalize the city centre - to stimulate new investment and to bring about a dramatic resurgence of downtown activity. Others fear a loss in business due to the drop in passing automobile traffic.
Urban planners and transit operators see many pedestrian, environmental and transit service benefits resulting from the removal of automobile traffic. Traffic engineers, in contrast, often express concern over the lack of street capacity and the likely increase in congestion on parallel streets (Levinson, 1986).
Both sides of the automobile-free zones argument produce valid points.
Automobile-free zones can increase transit efficiency, improve pedestrian safety, improve local area environmental conditions and make outdoor street level businesses more viable. However, automobiles are still the mode of choice for many and need be provided for to some degree.
Land use plans for automobile-free zones cannot be successful without support from both transportation and other land use planning. The actual physical layout of developments "directly defines the kinds of traffic conditions that will exist, including the relative ease of site access, and even the modal preference of employees" (Cervero, 1986a). Sufficient parking in or around a development may adversely affect planning attempts to reduce automobile usage. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 34
Similarly, further encouragement of public transit usage is needed if automobile free zones are to be successful. For example, European cities of moderate size tend to reinforce automobile free zones with regular transit provision, limited
availability of central city parking and reduced automobile access to the central
city areas (Whitson, 1980). Similarly, reasons for the introduction of Light Rail
Transit (LRT) in North American cities have included automobile reduction. The
City of Edmonton justified LRT development as "an alternative to the auto
dominated transportation system" (Hammermeister, 1987). Some such schemes
may have limited success if they neglect the complexity of relationships. For
example, planning for rapid transit can actually promote automobile usage.
3. Transit Promoting Automobile Usage
New transit facilities in both Vancouver and Seattle may not result in a shift
away from automobile usage towards transit. Both systems, although utilizing
vastly different technologies, provide similar underground service within the central
cities. By doing this, they ignore rather than address congestion on downtown
streets. With a subway approach, the City of Vancouver does not provide "a
pre-eminent downtown circulation system based on LRT" and thus may "not give
the automobile user sufficient incentive to leave his car at home" (Kuipers,
1980). Some commuters may use the automobile because of a belief that rapid
transit has made the streets less congested. However, there is no evidence to
suggest that the construction of SkyTrain in Vancouver has actually influenced
downtown traffic congestion. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 7 35
In Seattle, a 1.3 mile tunnel is being constructed under downtown streets for electric buses. Seattle Metro (transit authority) is trying to escape the congestion of downtown.
Metro's ability to provide efficient and reliable transit service to the downtown area is substantially reduced by downtown congestion, operational problems experienced by buses sharing rights-of-way while competing for curb lanes and sidewalk capacity deficiencies. Pollution, crowded and noisy sidewalks and an overwhelming wall of buses downtown are the byproducts of a system near capacity (Sandaas, 1986).
Like the Vancouver example, this solution is an escape from the land use problems at the street level and not a solution to the effects of congestion.
Removal of buses from downtown streets may simply attract more automobile traffic.
Some define the automobile as a mass or rapid transit mode of choice since automobiles tend to move more people, quicker and more conveniently than other modes (Jensen, 1978). Reducing congestion while still accommodating the automobile may be a goal similar to emphasizing transit provision. For example, a "$3billion, privately funded 'subway for automobiles'" has been proposed to radiate out from central Paris (RTAC, 1988). There are two major problems here that other modes better address. First, traffic congestion in the central city will increase if better access is provided for automobiles. Second, this works in opposition to the transit provision goal of reducing air pollution. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 36
4. Examples of Transportation / Land Use Coordination
This chapter has called for coordination of transportation and land use planning to reduce the negative developmental impacts of each upon the other.
Coordination will also allow both concepts to work in tandem towards similar community goals, rather than negating one another while pursuing opposing goals.
Examples from Toronto, Ottawa, Seattle and Canberra, of such coordination at work are examined here.
Metropolitan Toronto's status as a leader in coordinating transit and land use planning dates to the development of the Yonge Street subway line in the 1950s and 1960s.
In part due to the granting of density bonuses and issuance of air rights leases, high-rise towers began mushrooming up around station areas immediately following the subway line's completion....Before-and-after aerial photos of the Yonge Street line [figure 4] have become perhaps the most graphic testaments to transit's city-shaping abilities anywhere in the world (Cervero, 1986b).
The subways in Toronto were effective in influencing urban form since the system was built "over a period of about 35 years at the same time that the population of metropolitan Toronto doubled" (Pill, 1988). LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 37
Figure 4: Aerial View of Development Around Yonge Street Subway Line Stations In Toronto
(TTC, 1987)
The result has been a fast and efficient transit service that is used by 65 percent of Torontonians over the age of 15 at least once a week (Pill, 1988).
The recent extension of rapid transit to the Scarborough Town Centre attests to
Metropolitan Toronto's continuing commitment to guide growth via coordination of land use and transit planning (Cervero, 1986b). Although this points to how successful transit can be in shaping urban form, the success here may not be LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 38 transferable to other established urban regions. The argument is that Toronto developed around transit since transit was introduced while Toronto was still fairly small. Other established urban regions may not exhibit such success since the automobile has already dictated their development. But cities continually change and coordinated planning can allow for promotion of increased urban efficiency.
Ottawa has been developing a busway rapid transit system with developmental impacts. By coordinating land use planning policy with the development of the busway system, more than $800 million of development, including office towers and suburban shopping centres, is under construction along busway routes
(Stacey, 1988). Such coordination has resulted in nearly 60 percent of downtown
Ottawa destined peak hour journeys being made bj' bus. Similarly, downtown parking is 15 percent below the 1975 rate despite a near doubling of office space (Cervero, 1986b). The lesson here is that bus transit can compete
successfully with the automobile in terms of ridership and with other transit modes in terms of impacts upon land development. However, such success is the result of a series of coordinating actions, not simply "the result of a single,
major program" (Stacey, 1988).
Coordination of land use and transportation planning requires accommodation on
both sides of the equation. To be successful, the users of land as well as the
transportation planners must work toward common goals. Downtown Seattle is
characterized by low office vacancy rates (Edmonds, 1986) and traffic congestion
(Sandaas, 1986). The result is a demand for more office space within a LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 39 transportation system that is already exceeding capacitj'. The city is now making new developments incorporate traffic and transportation impact mitigation techniques.
Columbia Centre is a new 76 storey building with over 1.6 million square feet of office, retail and other commercial space (Edmonds, 1986). The developers were required to build traffic mitigating measures into their development.
Edmonds (1986) listed these measures as follows:
-- initiate ride sharing and car pool parking program.
- provide capitalization fee equivalent to 20 vans for van-pool services operated by METRO.
- allocate 20 (of 1000) parking spaces for van-pool usage.
-- allocate 290 (of 1000) parking spaces for carpool usage.
- employ full-time transportation coordinator to assist tenants with carpools, vanpools and transit.
-- encourage tenants to subsidize employee transit use.
- provide 25 bicycle racks.
Although all local impacts will not be totally mitigated with this scheme, this example does illustrates a recognition by both local governments and land developers that transportation and land use must be coordinated. Compliance with mitigation measures allowed the developer to constructively participate in such coordination.
The benefits of coordinating transportation and land use planning can best be seen through comparison of two similar jurisdictions which approach coordination LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 40 differently. Warren (1988) completed such a comparative study using Canberra,
Australia and Springfield, Illinois. Both cities are seen to have comparable populations, densities and employment structures. In 1980, the population of
Canberra was 223,000 with a local neighbourhood density of 9.6 people per acre.
Similar statistics for Springfield were 187,800 and 7.9. Table 2 provides a
comparative list of transit data for Canberra and Springfield.
Table 2: Comparative Transit Data
Item Canberra Springfield
Annual Passenger Boardings 24 000 000 2 656 092 Average Daily Boardings 100 000 7 030 Daily Passenger Boardings 0.45 0.04 Gross Revenue $13 100 000 $782 624 Total Subsidy $14 200 000 $2 699 724 Subsidy per Boarding $0.59 $1 .02 Percent Subsidy Level 52.0% 77.5% Route Mileage (all routes) 804.7 187.2 Annual Boardings per Route Mile 9 824.8 14 188.5 Number of Routes (total) 1 1 2 18 Number of Routes (weekdays) 56 18 Busiest Route (boardings) 13 000 677 Number of Interchanges 3 1 Number of Buses 392 42 Total Employees 805 91 .2
(Warren, 1988)
Although the number of automobiles in each city are similar, table 2 displays a
vast difference in transit usage. Taking all these items together, Canberra's
transit utilization is of a magnitude roughly 10 times greater (Warren, 1988).
Three reasons for such different ridership figures are apparent. First, Canberra
promotes and subsidizes transit to a greater extent. Second, transportation in LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 41
Canberra is more "oriented to the plan of the city". Streets are radial from the centre with curvilinear neighbourhoods, while Springfield displays a grid pattern better conducive to flow through traffic. Third, Canberra has a residential land use policy in effect dictating where development is to occur. Springfield has not adopted a plan for "structuring land-use activities" (Warren, 1988).
F. CONCLUSION
The relationships between transportation and other land use planning are complex.
Each affects the other while they combine to impact other elements of the planning world. Figure 3 illustrated this by means of a circular diagram that depicted the flows of impacts. The major physical examples of these relationships are threefold: traffic congestion, possible alternative uses of space and the spawning of additional developments. The overall conclusion is that transportation and land use planning should be coordinated to take advantage of their inter-relatedness. Although technical aspects of each type of planning are best handled by those who specialize in that field, coordination of planning, policy and decision making is appropriate.
This conclusion specifically calls for coordination between planners responsible for different aspects of planning as well as for different jurisdictions. This conclusion does not discuss how coordination should be accomplished but only that it should exist. The case study then follows from this discussion of theory by addressing the following question. Do the case studies of Greater Vancouver display any planning, policy or decision making coordination in relation to transportation LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / 42 facilities? Furthermore, if coordination is displayed, what form does and what form should it take? These questions are specific to the Greater Vancouver case study but the answers can provide insights beyond the geographic extent of the region. III. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY
In the introduction to Planning Canadian Communities, Hodge (1986) reminds us that the planner "works with a legacy of past decisions about a community's physical form". The metropolitan planner must contend with the physical and social structures which already exist. Transportation facilities represent the single largest use of land within a metropolitan area and embody a monumental legacy for current and future planning. By providing a historical background of transportation planning within Greater Vancouver, this chapter outlines the transportation legacy or context within which planners of today must work.
This chapter addresses this purpose with four main sections. The first describes the Greater Vancouver region in transportation terms. The second investigates the regional transportation plan devised between 1956 and 1959 with emphasis on how it relates to the prevailing public policy of the day. The third section analyzes the evolution of transportation planning between 1959 and 1989 while the fourth investigates the "Freedom To Move" documents released in 1989. This chapter concludes with a discussion of future directions that transportation planning is taking in Greater Vancouver.
A. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
The Greater Vancouver Transportation Task Force (GVTTF, 1989b) states that local geography allows the region to serve three special transportation functions:
~ to serve the daily-use needs of people and goods travelling within
43 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 44
the region.
-- to function as Canada's Pacific gateway for imports and exports.
-- to act as the key link in the provincial highway system between the mainland and Vancouver Island.
In serving these functions, transportation planning must cater to the numerous modes used for personal mobility (electric and diesel buses, automobiles, bicycles, the SkyTrain, the SeaBus, trains, airplanes and walking) and goods movement
(small and large trucks, trains, ships and airplanes). This list of modes makes no mention of the complexities inherent in moving certain goods (hazardous) and people (disabled).
The numerous responsible jurisdictions divide their transportation planning responsibilities in terms of mode and geography. The Federal Government looks after airports, railways and ports. Highways, ferries and public transit are governed by the Provincial Government. Local governments manage local roads.
The regional governments have no direct planning responsibilities at all. This leaves only the Provincial Government with the jurisdictional mandate for planning in a regional transportation context, yet intra-regional facilities are often left to member municipalities. The result, "municipal networks are sometimes discontinuous at municipal boundaries, either in terms of their existence, classification or standard" (GVTTF, 1989a).
A regional transportation authority could help eliminate competition between municipalities for the limited public funds available. Instead of competing, municipalities within the GVRD need "a co-ordinated, targeted approach to TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 45 transportation improvement ... to ensure effective spending of transportation dollars" (Development Services, 1989). It is uncertain whether such a coordinated targeted approach could result from a regional structure or from better coordination between existing planning structures. However, the need for some type of coordination between the various agencies responsible for the different aspects of transportation planning is apparent.
B. THE 1956 « 1959 PLAN
This plan, by the Technical Committee for Metropolitan Highway Planning
(TCMHP), was released in two parts. The first, in 1956, was actually a lengthy statement of objectives and terms of reference for the resulting study, released in six volumes as part two in 1959. The objective was to produce an adequate, efficient, and flexible transportation plan that was "consistent with the development strategy of the area" (TCMHP, 1956).
1. Context
The terms of reference charged the committee to address transportation needs, location of proposed arterial roads, approximate construction costs and required construction dates (TCMHP, 1956). By asking for the location of arterial roads, these terms of reference restricted the committee from the outset to making freeway related recommendations. Even the name of the committee suggested that only "lip service" be paid to nonhighway transportation alternatives. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 46
These restrictive terms of reference were a product of that time's dominant way of thinking. The 1950's and 1960's was an era of great freeway building throughout North America. Urban America was being transformed into a maze of highways, and such American thought was prevalent in Canada. In cities such as Vancouver, with low population densities, the only viable rapid transit was defined as "express buses on freeways, expressways and major streets" (Sutcliffe
& Mills, 1959), rather than as vehicles on separate rights of way. The year
1952, with the Social Credit Party under W.A.C. Bennett's leadership gaining power (table 3), saw the advent of the highway age in British Columbia. Thus, the 1956/59 plan was produced when highway promotion dominated transportation planning.
The studj' area for the 1956/59 plan was divided into internal and external areas based on travel patterns implicit with then current levels of development and density. The internal area included Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster,
Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and Richmond while the overall study area comprised twelve municipalities and three electoral areas (table 4) covering an area of over 300 square miles (TCMHP, 1956).
The population in the study area (table 4) was 665,100 in 1955 and was projected to reach 1,241,000 by 1976 (Sutcliffe & Mills, 1959). This represented a study area population increase of nearly 87%. The projections called for the population of the external area to increase by 201%, compared to about 60% within the internal area. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 47
Table 3: Chronology of Transportation Events
Year Event 1952 Socred's gain power (WAC Bennett), advent of highway age. 1955 Last street car run -- "rails to rubber". 1956 TCMHP begins work. 1959 Proposed freeways with bus rapid transit (TCMHP Report). 1962 Study concludes no passenger demand in Vancouver for rail rapid transit before 1980. 1963 Study links Vancouver central business district (CBD) rejuvenation with freeway development. 1964 Substantial freeway system proposed for Vancouver including re-routing Trans-Canada through c ity. 1967 "Black Tuesday" (October 17) -- proposed freeway through Chinatown. "Great Freeway Debate". 1968 Transportation planning becomes a regional function. 1968 First routes for rail rapid transit proposed. 1969 Expressway plan, "Swan Wooster Report". 1970 Review of all rapid transit systems being developed, emphasis on heavy rail. 1971 First mention of Light Rapid Transit (LRT). 1971 City Council resurrects freeways idea. 1973 Bureau of Transit Services (BTS) established. 1973 Vancouver supports LRT -- municipal/provincial talks on subject initiated. 1974 BTS issues LRT plan. 1975 GVRD loses control of transportation planning to BTS, transportation planning now provincial funct ion. 1976 Jack Volrich elected Vancouver mayor on LRT platform. 1976 Livable Region Plan introduced by GVRD. 1978 $300000 GVRD study of LRT initiated.
(Kopystynski & Pawlowski, 1980) TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 48
Table 4: Population Forecast 1955 To 1976 Population Population Location 1955 Forecast 1976
Vancouver 365 800 463 000 U.E.L. 3 000 1 5 000 Burnaby 83 700 1 69 000 D.L. 172 1 400 2 000 New Westminster 31 700 38 000 Richmond 26 000 96 000 North Vancouver City 20 000 35 000 North Vancouver District 26 300 76 000 Coquitlam 21 000 56 000 Port Coquitlam 4 600 1 5 000 Port Moody 2 700 1 1 000 Surrey 49 400 180 000 Delta 8 800 44 000 West Vancouver 19 200 41 000 Unorgan ized 1 500 Total 665 100 1 241 000
(Sutcliffe & Mills, 1959)
The expected population growth was accompanied by expected trends in vehicular traffic. Witness to a doubling of traffic since the Second World War, the authors of the 1956/59 plan had no reason to expect anything but continued traffic growth. Their plan was developed with the following expectations: that vehicle traffic would increase threefold by 1976, that transit usage would decrease from
18% to 11% of personal trips and that total vehicle mileage on Vancouver streets would double by 1976 (City Planning, 1959a). The 1956/59 transportation plan was written in the context of rapid population and traffic growth, and in an era of transportation megaprojects. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 49
Figure 5: Proposed Freeway Network -1959
Numbers refer to lanes available on each freeway (TCMHP, 1959a)
2. The Plan
The planning reports examined and recommended a 45 mile network of freeways
(figure 5) be built at a cost of $465 million (TCMHP, 1959). A freeway was defined as an access-controlled expressway with no cross traffic at grade, no access to or from abutting property and connection only at specially designed interchanges (TCMHP, 1959). Although no cross traffic at grade was planned, major streets were to be continuous across the freeways (City Engineering, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 50
1959b). The planners felt that the proposed system represented only the minimum freeway requirements needed to serve the expected 1976 traffic volumes
(City Planning, 1959b).
The plan displayed bias favouring the private automobile by stating that "no form of transit can be devised which will be a realistic substitute for the freeway system" (TCMHP, 1959). A realization that public transit had to be
provided led the authors to recommend a freeway bus system, since it would be
uneconomical not to utilize the developed freeways. The plan also recognized the
need in certain local areas for separate lanes and even roads for buses (Sutcliffe
& Mills, 1959).
3. Transportation Policy
Government transportation policy can be defined as the guiding rationale for the
actions taken by government in relation to transportation. Like planning, policy is
inherently futureoriented. The plan is both a product and a mirror of public
policy, but is not itself a policy.
Transportation facilities have numerous positive, negative, intended and unintended
effects upon other aspects of planning. Transportation policy should reflect these
externalities. During the era of the 1956/59 plan, transportation policy in the
United States coupled "extensive freeway development ... with urban renewal"
(Kopystynski & Pawlowski, 1980). In Greater Vancouver, transportation policy
was to facilitate the urban form impacts that policies of other departments were TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 51 exerting upon the region. The plan referred to Greater Vancouver as "being planned as a low density area" (Sutcliffe & Mills, 1959) to argue that the freeway system was the way to service dispersed transportation needs.
This 1956/59 plan reflects a policy of promoting the private automobile as the mode for personal mobility. The highway age saw politicians elected both provincially and locally on road building platforms. Such policy emphasis is apparent in the following quote which addressed the trouble buses were having on congested central city streets: "the elimination of vehicle traffic from the central business district ... is not considered to be a practical proposition for
Vancouver" (TCMHP, 1959).
C. EVOLUTION - 1959 TO 1989
Table 3 lists transportation planning events that occurred prior to 1978 in
Greater Vancouver. This chronology illustrates a major shift in transportation
planning centred around the 1967 Great Freeway Debate. The table entries
preceding 1967 stress expressway schemes while those afterwards emphasize
transit. The most important transportation event in recent years has been the
building of SkyTrain, which corresponded with Vancouver's hosting of the 1986
World Exposition, which used transportation as its theme. This section briefly
outlines three themes important to this change in transportation planning: the
Livable Region Program, the regional transportation planning function, and the
movement from highways to rapid transit. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 52
1. The Livable Region Program
In 1975, the Livable Region Program (LRP) was introduced (table 3) by the
GVRD (GVRD, 1975a). The LRP proposed a series of regional town centres for future development to help decentralize the economic activity of the region. The strategy was to "preserve, protect and enhance Greater Vancouver's greatest strength - its livability" (Stevenson, 1989). Such a plan has the potential to greatly influence transportation planning if the regional town centres are viewed as hubs for rapid transit. The LRP is still an important planning document in the region as environmental concerns continue to prevail upon all aspects of planning.
The LRP illustrates a shift from the dominant planning paradigm of the 1956/59 era. It embodies a growing subordination of transportation and other land use planning elements to environmental factors.
2. The Regional Transportation Planning Function
Between the 1959 and the 1989 regional transportation reports, the GVRD had aspects of the transportation planning function both given to and rescinded from them by the Provincial Government. As table 3 reveals, transportation planning powers were granted to the region in 1968 and rescinded in 1975. This 1968 granting of power was recommended in the 1959 plan. The 1975 rescinding of those powers was a prelude to rescinding all regional planning powers in the early 1980s. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 53
Between this granting and rescinding, public transit was emphasized in numerous policy statements. For example, the GVRD (1971a) in a policy statement asserted that:
1. Public transportation is a service to be bought and provided for the general public, as is fire protection, public health services, and roads.
2. Public transportation investment can reduce the requirements for roads and highways.
A second volume of the same report made first mention of utilizing an LRT system (GVRD, 1971b). These points help to define the shift in policy that occurred from catering to the personal automobile to providing rapid transit. In contrast to the 1959 report, which stated that "no form of transit can be devised which will be a realistic substitute" for freeways (TCMHP, 1959), the
1989 report recognized that provision of public transit could reduce road and highway requirements (GVTTF, 1989a).
3. From Highways to Transit
This shift from provision of highways to transit occurred partly because of the
negative externalities which freeways exert. In the Vancouver case, these
externalities included both aesthetic and community disruption concerns. Although
other factors may have helped influence this change in transportation focus,
widespread public resistance to accepting these externalities was the catalyst.
The Great Freeway Debate (table 3) resulted from a 1967 plan to build a radial TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 54 freeway network centred on the CBD being endorsed by city council. The plan included a freeway through the heart of Chinatown. Overwhelming public support
for the "grassroots resistance" of the Chinatown Property Owners Association
forced Vancouver Council to withdraw approval of the plan in early 1968. The
outcome of the 'Great Freeway Debate' finally ended serious discussion of an
extensive freeway system for Vancouver. Later in 1968, the first routes for rail
rapid transit were proposed (Kopystynski & Pawlowski, 1980).
D. THE 1989 "FREEDOM TO MOVE" REPORT
This regional transportation report was released in July of 1989 by the Greater
Vancouver Transportation Task Force (GVTTF). Five separate volumes covering
modes of personal mobility and goods movement comprise this comprehensive
report. These five volumes represent only the first stage of the task force's
mandate and thus are limited to short-term transportation needs. The report on
the long-term strategies of the region will be released in the future.
1. Context
The terms of reference given the task force were quite broad. They were asked
to:
(a) establish regional transportation strategies that will serve as the blueprint for future expansion of the existing transportation network; and
(b) identify the priority transportation infrastructure projects that should be undertaken in the short term and that are consistent with the strategy for the longer term (GVTTF, 1989a). TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 55
The study's objective was to develop an integrated transportation strategy that encouraged "orderly economic development" while remaining consistent with the concept of a Livable Region (GVTTF, 1989a). Such a scope does not imply bias for one mode over another. Even the name given the commission (Greater
Vancouver Transportation Task Force) suggests an unbiased approach to transportation planning.
The 18 municipalities and three electoral areas in the study area had a combined 1986 population of 1,336,000, equal to 46% of the provincial population
(GVTTF, 1989a). This population is forecast to reach 2,005,000 by the year
2011 (GVRD, 1989). Recent years have witnessed "major improvement in the regional economy", including reduced unemployment (BCTransit, 1989a). Suburban employment growth is expected to continue. However, 40% of employment growth is expected to occur in centrally-located communities resulting in a predicted increase in commuter traffic (GVTTF, 1989b).
The proportion of senior citizens is expected to increase from 14% of the regional population in 1986 to 16% in 1996, thus increasing the demand for this sectors special transportation needs (Development Services, 1989). Other elements of regional transportation in Greater Vancouver face similar trends. Such forecasts include: a 35% increase in the number of commuters by 2001 (GVTTF, 1989b), an increase in rail and heavy truck traffic moving goods to and from the port
(GVTTF, 1989e) and a continued increase in transit ridership mirroring the trend of recent years (BCTransit, 1989a). TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 56
2. The Report
Although a variety of short term projects are discussed and related recommendations made, the predominant purpose is to gain understanding about the regional transportation problems facing Greater Vancouver. Such a purpose is consistent with the terms of reference given the task force. The recommendations discussed here relate to three themes: capital projects, related land use strategies and transit.
The report highlights capital projects which the province and member municipalities are currently committed to (table 5). These projects display transit's recent importance as a planning issue, with two capital projects for the exclusive use of transit vehicles. These projects are excluded from the "candidate projects" examined by the task force. A list of 500 candidate capital projects was generated by the task force working with the municipalities. A priority ranking scheme was then used to filter this list down to 58 recommended projects (with a total cost of $2.45 billion), of which 11 (total cost $1.21 billion) are for the exclusive use of transit vehicles (GVTTF, 1989b). The "Freedom to Move" report mentions and then virtually neglects the theme of related land use strategies.
The task force explicitly recognizes that transportation and land use strategies impact one another, but then never pursues this point.
Apparent throughout the report is the theme of transit promotion. Their specific recommendations on this theme relate to both institutional frameworks and actual capital projects. The Committee calls for a regional body to manage transit and TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 57 for the Provincial Government to "recognize that rapid transit systems are the
equivalent of provincial arterial highways" for funding purposes (GVTTF, 1989a).
Committed and recommended capital improvements include: rapid transit extensions
to Surrey, Richmond and Coquitlam; provisions for bus lanes on major arterials
and near bottlenecks; numerous park and ride lots; and the recommended
purchase of a minimum of 20 articulated and 20 standard buses in each of the
years 1990 to 1996 (inclusive) over and above those buses needed to replace
vehicles being retired (GVTTF, 1989a). TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 58
Table 5: Committed Capital Projects in 1989
Exclusively Capital Project Transit (*) 1) Alex Fraser Bridge widening to 6 lanes. 2) Braemar-Dempsey Connector (North Vancouver). 3) Broadway widening to four lanes between North Road and Gaglardi Way (Burnaby). 4) Cassiar Connector (Highway 1). 5) George Massey Tunnel -- bus access to portal. * 6) Highway 17 Causeway widening (Delta). 7) Highway 91/Highway 91A interchange grade separation. 8) Lonsdale and Westview interchanges (Highway 1). 9) Mariner Way/Johnston Street overpass (Coquitlam). 10) Mariner Way - 10th Avenue Connection (Burnaby). 11) Mary Hill By-pass widening to four lanes from Lougheed (Coquitlam). 12) Nordel Way extension to 116th Street (Delta). 13) Richmond Expressway completion between Highways 91 and 99. 14) Royal Avenue widening to four lanes between Columbia and Eighth Streets (New Westminster). 15) Scott Road widening to four lanes between Yale and Grace and between 80th Avenue and Highway 10 (Surrey/Delta). 16) Sea to Sky Highway. 17) Shell Road extension from Alderbridge Way to Westminster Highway (Richmond). 18) SkyTrain extension to Scott Road and then Whalley. * 19) No. 2 Road Bridge across the Fraser River Middle Arm (Richmond). 20) 200th Street widening to four lanes from Highway 10 to Highway 1.
(GVTTF, 1989a)
3. Transportation Policy
The 1959 and the 1989 reports promote policies which differ markedly both in terms of scope and recommendations. The "Freedom to Move" documents promote TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 59 the coordination of all aspects of transportation planning, encourage transit and even mention the importance of livability.
The first transportation policy apparent in the 1989 report is the desire to coordinate the diverse aspects of transportation planning. The scope of the task force's mandate makes this policy apparent. When the two part study is complete, the short and long term transportation needs of transit users, automobile owners, and goods movement by rail, truck, ship and airplane, will have been examined.
The second transportation policy evident is the promotion of public transit. This policy and the environmental reasons for it represent a fundamental change from the transportation policy of thirty years ago. The building of SkyTrain in the early to mid 1980s, along with the committed and recommended extensions of the SkyTrain service referred to within the current report (GVTTF, 1989a) illustrate this policy.
The third policy evident is the promotion of livability. As concern for the environment grows, it becomes tantamount to political suicide not to promote environmental protection as policy. The "Freedom to Move" report underscores this issue in two ways. First, a number of planning recommendations are built upon maintaining environmental quality. The report calls for an environmental impact assessment (EIA) of proposed capacity improvements at Vancouver
International Airport (GVTTF, 1989a) and asks that "appropriate weight" be given to "environmental effects" when improving regional roads (GVTTF, 1989b). TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 60
Second, other policy directions mentioned above seem predicated by environmental policy. For example, promoting transit is a means of increasing fuel efficiency and reducing air pollution.
E. CONCLUSION
Regional transportation policy has evolved over the last thirty years in response to the shifting roles of citizen and expert participation in the planning process and to changing perceptions of environmental issues as evidenced b3' the Livable
Region strategy and the current predominance of environmental concerns. This evolution can be illustrated by the policy shift from catering to automobiles to promoting transit.
The 1959 plan proposed a substantial freeway system for the region, neglected
other aspects of transportation planning and concluded that transit could only be
provided economically if it utilized the freeway system (TCMHP, 1959). Between
then and 1968, virtually every official study concluded that a freeway system
incorporating transit was needed (Kopystynski & Pawlowski, 1980). The 'Great
Freeway Debate' of late 1967 and early 1968 was the major citizen participation
catalyst in the evolution of policy toward transit. The radial freeway system for
Vancouver was almost immediately replaced by discussion of rail rapid transit
which began in 1968 (Kopystynski & Pawlowski, 1980).
The policy evolution toward rapid transit was strengthened with the release of
the Livable Region Strategy in late 1975. Although lacking a transportation TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN VANCOUVER: HISTORY / 61 planning function, the GVRD focus became maintaining a "region in nature"
(Stevenson, 1989) and all aspects of planning were focused on this livability goal.
The result of this evolution is the current underlying transportation policy of promoting transit apparent in the recommendations of the "Freedom To Move" reports.
This historical discussion has hardly mentioned the relationships that exist
between transportation and land use planning, except in relation to externalities.
The recent "Freedom to Move" report discusses land use only in relation to
externalities rather than in relation to coordination. This traditional separation of
planning duties is a strong barrier to setting up institutional structures which
allow the 'experts' in each planning field to work more closely together toward
common goals. However, this hurdle must be overcome, either by creating a
regional body responsible for transportation planning or by providing better
coordination between existing authorities. IV. THE LIVABLE REGION PROGRAM
In 1975, the Greater Vancouver Regional District introduced a general metropolitan development strategy called the Livable Region Program (LRP). The
LRP is an advisory strategy designed to guide planning toward achieving the regional goal of enhanced livability. The LRP is presented in this chapter with a discussion of what the strategy was responding to. This is followed by brief discussions of what both livability and the LRP are. The LRP's relevance today is examined and then the five specific LRP strategies which are used here as criteria for the case study in chapter five are introduced.
A. LRP AS RESPONSE
In 1971, the GVRD board established managing "growth and change so as to maintain or enhance the livability of the Region" as a major objective (GVRD,
1975a). The subsequent LRP recognized Greater Vancouver's popular appeal as an attractive migration destination and expressed concern over a projected virtual doubling of population between 1974 and 2000.
The Greater Vancouver Region reached a population of 1,140,000 people in 1974 and is currently growing at a rate slightly under 3% a year. Even at a lower rate of growth, the population will reach nearly 1,500,000 by 1986, and approach 2,000,000 by the year 2000 (GVRD, 1975a).
Such projected growth is a controversial, since growth is seen as both the cause of urban prosperity and the root of urban ills (GVRD, 1975a).
62 THE LIVABLE REGION PROGRAM / 63
The LRP is then a response to such rapid projected growth. It is not a means to slow growth, but rather a strategy to manage it. The spatial extent of
Greater Vancouver is constrained by the mountains, sea and United States. The
LRP seeks to incorporate growth within this limited area while protecting those features of the region which make it an attractive place to live. At the heart of the LRP -is the idea that "coordinating the location of new jobs, housing and transportation will reduce ... travel time and frustration and avoid pressure on sensitive ecological and agricultural areas" (GVRD, 1980).
The LRP strategy is also an expression of a popular desire to retain the
physical attractiveness of the region's natural setting. The Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC, 1987) states that one goal of the LRP is to develop a "region
in nature". The strategy allows growth within the context of retaining livability but may be viewed as a hopeful bid to achieve opposing ideals -economic growth
and ecologic sustainability. Rather than balancing these two forces against one
another, the LRP assumes attainment of the best that each can offer. The
difficult choices that need be made seem missing or trivialized within the LRP.
However, recognition of both realms in a strategy to guide regional development
is better than the promotion of one to the exclusion of the other.
B. WHAT IS LIVABILITY?
Livability means many different things to different people. The 1975 LRP
outlined "livability issues" without itself defining what livability meant. The LRP
document (GVRD, 1975 a) identified the following eight livability issues as THE LIVABLE REGION PROGRAM / 64 apparent from public meetings:
-- To avoid disruption to the lives of the citizens which often accompanies rapid population growth.
- To avoid ruining the clean air and water or shattering the quiet which makes the region attractive.
- To bring a broader range of community services near to where the citizens live.
-- To preserve the natural assets of the region.
- To reduce the time and effort involved in travelling.
- To address the high cost of housing.
- To provide fast, frequent and convenient public transit which will allow residents to rely less on automobiles.
- To increase participation in government decisions.
Livability seems to evoke statements on how to create a region with the best
possible amenities. Combining these eight issues into one definition is clearly
absurd, resulting in only a meaningless blanket statement. Without a working
definition, the GVRD was still able to develop a strategy based upon livability.
This is because the livability concept is readily understood but too subtle for
simple definition. People relate to the concept individually, highlighting different
positive aspects of Greater Vancouver. However, there is some "collective
understanding or vision of Greater Vancouver as a livable region" (GVRD, 1981).
Six years after the release of the first livable region strategy, subsequent reports
still defined issues similar to those discussed above. The livable region is one:
- "which develops in a manner unique to its setting, economy and the aspirations of its residents" THE LIVABLE REGION PROGRAM / 65
"in which the natural environment is retained and forms an accessible part of the region's fabric"
- "where the problems of getting around to work, to shop and to play are not overwhelming"
- "which has buoyant a economy within which people can prosper"
-- "where the urban area plays its role as a source of creativity and innovation"
- "in which government action is coordinated and makes the best use of tax dollars"
~ "in which the residents have a pride and pleasure in their region" (GVRD, 1981).
These seven points are basically rewritten versions of the eight listed earlier.
Thus, the concept of livability is not one which requires strict definition. Point number seven above ~ a region "in which residents have a pride and pleasure"
(GVRD, 1981) -provides a summary of livability by emphasizing resident acceptance. Such acceptance is important since regional livability in its most basic sense is the ability to live safely and peacefully within the region. Beyond this, livability is the idea of retaining healthy living conditions and the natural scenic beauty of the region.
C. THE LIVABLE REGION PROGRAM
The LRP should be viewed as an "expression of the policies which the Regional
District feels should be followed in order to achieve the 'livable region', and an illustration of the expected results of those policies" (Peat Marwick, 1975). In other words, the LRP is a guide, not a rigid plan, to achieving livability. THE LIVABLE REGION PROGRAM / 66
Furthermore, the LRP is advisory in nature since the GVRD has no actual planning powers. The municipalities are under no obligation to accept or follow the edicts of the LRP. The success or failure in meeting LRP objectives is in the hands "of municipalities, private individuals and groups, and many small public and private organisations" (Peat Marwick, 1975).
The LRP proposed an inter-related five point strategy to enhance livability. These five strategies were consciously chosen to be mutually supportive (GVRD, 1976).
These five strategies (discussed separately and in greater detail below) were to:
- "achieve residential growth targets in each part of the region"
- "promote a balance of jobs to population in each part of the region"
- "create regional town centres"
- "provide a transit oriented transportation system linking residential areas, regional town centres and major work areas"
-- "protect and develop regional open spaces" (GVRD, 1975a).
Figure 6 is drawn from the same source as these strategies (GVRD, 1975a) and
schematically displays the perceived relationships between these strategies. The residential targets, job targets and the regional town centres concept form three connected points of a relationship. The area within these points depicts the
transportation strategy which impacts and is impacted by the other strategies.
Similarly, the outside area represents the similar relationships that these
strategies have with the regional open spaces strategy. THE LIVABLE REGION PROGRAM / 67
Figure 6: Interaction of LRP Strategies
Open Space
Residential Targets
Transportat ion
Job Targets Regional Town Centres
Open Space
(GVRD, 1975a)
This figure illustrate the overall concept of the LRP. Growth in both population and the economy are accommodated. Focusing growth in certain areas is proposed through the connection of job and housing targets to the regional town centres concept. Promotion of efficient transportation and regional open spaces are represented by areas to illustrate the extensive and complex relationships these
strategies have with the other three.
The LRP concept is not completely represented by the schematic diagram in figure 6. Although the livable region recommendations adopted in 1975 by the
GVRD board (see Appendix 1) do evolve from these strategies, there is a strong
underlying belief in public participation apparent within the LRP process. The five
strategies and the recommendations were developed through a process of extensive
public consultation. As recommendation number 20 in Appendix 1 states: "the THE LIVABLE REGION PROGRAM / 68 regional board support the mandate to the livable region program advisory committee to carry out a continuing public information and feedback program"
(GVRD, 1975c). The LRP is a program developed through public participation which recommends continued public consultation.
This basic concept -- five interrelated strategies planned in coordination with one another -- remains the focus of the LRP. The concerns of urban sprawl, escalating housing prices, increasing traffic congestion, imbalances within the region in respect to social, recreational and consumer services, insufficient open spaces and a need to geographically balance jobs and labour force have been the major concerns whenever the LRP has been reviewed (GVRD, 1978a, 1978b,
1979, 1980; TAC, 1987). These listed problems reflect concerns surrounding the five areas of interest of the LRP. Although the region has grown and changed over the past 15 years, the LRP remains the preeminent document defining regional goals. This five part strategy provides a general basis for analyzing planning within the region in terms of regional impacts and planning coordination.
D. THE FIVE STRATEGIES OF THE LRP
This section discusses each of the five strategies depicted in figure 6 and indicates how each will be used as criteria for analyzing transportation planning and decision making in the region. THE LIVABLE REGION PROGRAM / 69
1. Achieving Residential Growth Targets
The first of the LRP's strategies is to achieve residential growth targets in each part of the region based on targets set by municipalities in concert with one another. Basically, there was a call to manage growth and make it more even among the municipalities (GVRD, 1975a). This means that each municipality would be asked to take measures to adjust its rate of growth based on achieving some form of parity through municipal consultation and coordination. It is meant to promote areas more capable of handling growth based on factors such as existing infrastructure and ecological sensitivity. The LRP's list (GVRD,
1975a) of distinct strategies for attaining this goal included:
- promotion of development accessible to public transit;
— promotion of development around regional town centres;
- promotion of development in existing urban areas (infilling); and
— minimisation of travel time and inconvenience by automobile.
The achievement of growth targets can contribute to the assessment of
transportation planning using these four strategies. These four impact
transportation provision and should therefore be incorporated in transportation
plans of regional significance. If transportation planning is coordinated with other
types of land use planning on a regional scale within the GVRD, then such
plans should reflect this growth target strategy as well as the other four LRP
strategies. THE LIVABLE REGION PROGRAM / 70
2. Promoting a Balance of Jobs to Population
The second of the LRP's strategies is to promote a balance of jobs to population in each part of the region (GVRD, 1975a). This strategy is a call to make municipalities within the GVRD more self-contained, thus overcoming the results of job imbalances such as commuting (GVRD, 1975a). The objective of creating a more equatable share of industrial and commercial employment throughout the region is limited by the specialised locational requirements of many jobs.
Economic agglomeration factors, for example, result in many office buildings being located in the CBD. Although good accessibility and services may be available in other metropolitan locations, many offices may still locate in a CBD for reasons of prestige.
The LRP strategy of promoting a balance of jobs to population in each part of the region can be used to assess transportation planning by analysis of accessibility. Although not the only concern, accessibility is an important locational element for both employers and residents. Balancing jobs to population in each part of the region is used as a criterion to judge if transportation developments improve both local and regional accessibility to local employment nodes.
Transportation planning cannot achieve such a balance itself and must be recognised as part of a coordinated planning effort. THE LIVABLE REGION PROGRAM / 71
3. Creation of Regional Town Centres
The third of the LRP's strategies is to create a number of regional town centres
(GVRD, 1975a). This strategy could achieve two major goals. First, it could spread the availability of regional services and activities as well as employment opportunities to the selected centres rather than continuing their concentration in the CBD. Second, this strategy could lead to shorter trip distances for commuters, shoppers and users of regional services by bringing facilities into the suburbs where people live. To achieve the regional town centres strategy, the
LRP proposed:
to create Regional Town Centre's by concentrating a substantial portion of the future office and other types of employment, major new cultural, entertainment and education facilities in a few centres which can serve the major growth areas of the Region (GVRD, 1975a).
The original LRP designated the following areas to be regional town centres: the
Metrotown area of Burnaby, New Westminster, the Whalley area of Surrej' and an undisclosed centre within the northeast sector (the Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam,
Port Moody area) (GVRD, 1975a).
Planning for such a strategy is related to transportation planning in two major ways. First, the areas designated must have or construct the necessary local transportation infrastructure to serve the resident and peripherally dependant population. Second, regional access to the designated centres must be adequate in order to attract office and residential development. These two criteria are used in relation to the regional town centres strategy to evaluate transportation planning. THE LIVABLE REGION PROGRAM / 72
4. Provision of a Transit Oriented Transportation System
The fourth of the LRP's strategies is to provide a transit oriented transportation system linking residential areas, regional town centres and work areas. This is to be achieved mainly through growth management, better use of existing facilities and the construction of new facilities where required (GVRD, 1975a). It must be remembered that the provision of a transit oriented system does not constitute neglect of the automobile. Although stating that "a good transit system is the backbone of regional development" (GVRD, 1975a), the LRP stresses regional accessibility. Such accessibility must include providing adequate automobile capacity since many in the region do not or cannot utilise public transit. The LRP emphasizes transit but seeks to attain a balance of modal options.
As a result of this strategy, different interpretations can be used to evaluate
actual transportation planning. First, transportation facilities which contribute to a
transit oriented system can be viewed as promoting the LRP while other systems
can be viewed as detrimental. Second, and more realistically, each transportation
decision can be evaluated in terms of how it contributes to the modal choice and
accessibility within the region. This second point provides a more appropriate
focus for this thesis in relation to this strategy.
5. Protecting and Developing Regional Open Spaces
The fifth of the LRP's strategies is to protect and develop regional open spaces
(GVRD, 1975a). The LRP (GVRD, 1975a) states: THE LIVABLE REGION PROGRAM / 73
To keep this a livable Region, we must retain unobstructed views of the mountains and sea, protect our wilderness areas, and provide future residents with access to recreation. Proposals for conserving open space and for developing more recreation opportunities are therefore crucial to our planning strategy.
This LRP strategy does not directly pertain to preservation of agricultural land, which is therefore excluded from the later evaluation of transportation decisions.
The relationship between this strategy and transportation planning is not obvious.
By increasing accessibility, transportation facilities can bring developmental pressures to bear upon open space. However, lack of accessibility reduces the recreational value and does not contribute to the livability of the region as perceived by those inhabitants who cannot take advantage of the open space.
The open space strategy is used as a criterion to evaluate how the examined transportation facilities promote the goal of developing open spaces.
E. CONCLUSION
The five mutually supportive strategies of the LRP are adequate criteria for analyzing transportation planning within the region since they are derived from a process of public consultation and therefore (arguably) represent public views on regional planning. The five strategies are each related to transportation planning in some way, whether through land use relationships or direct promotion of public transit. These five strategies are used as criteria for evaluating the transportation planning and decision making examples in the next chapter. V. GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY
This thesis has examined the two way relationships between transportation and other aspects of land use planning. Figure 3 in chapter 2 presented a diagram which illustrated the complexity of such relationships. The conclusion that the planning aspects highlighted in this figure should be coordinated is based upon the impacts each have upon the other. A brief transportation history of Greater
Vancouver revealed an historical lack of such coordination. The case studies within this chapter seek to reveal whether this historical inclination is still dominant within Greater Vancouver.
To accomplish this, the case study analyzes two major transportation decisions by utilizing the five strategies of the LRP as criteria. The LRP resulted from a process of public participation and seemingly reflects public attitudes toward planning within the region. If transportation and other elements of land use planning are regionally coordinated, they should reflect and promote the strategies of the LRP. To complete this analysis, interviews were conducted with staff planners from selected agencies responsible for and the municipalities impacted by the transportation decisions discussed. The questionnaires which structured these interviews are presented in appendix 2.
This chapter begins with a brief overview of the two transportation planning decisions examined: the Alex Fraser Bridge and possible future extension of rapid transit into Coquitlam. Responses to the interviews conducted are presented in the second section. The third section draws upon these responses to analyze whether
74 GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 75 transportation planning is coordinated with the Livable Region Program. This analysis is based upon the five LRP strategies used as evaluation criteria as outlined in the previous chapter.
A. THE CASE STUDY EXAMPLES
The two case study decisions discussed differ markedly in a number of ways.
The Alex Fraser Bridge (AFB) is a fairly recent decision that has already been
constructed while the Coquitlam Rapid Transit Extension (CRTE) is a future
possibility. The AFB caters to the automobile while the CRTE is a mode of light
rapid transit. Similarities do exist between the two. Both represent major
transportation links between the inner metropolitan area and the rapidly growing
suburbs. Both also represent significant capital expenditures. The AFB system
cost $440,000,000 (Marinakis, 1986) while the CRTE will cost anywhere from
$417,000,000 to $524,000,000 (B.C. Transit, 1986) depending on the route chosen
(see figure 8). It is important to study these two decisions in relation to the
LRP since transportation planning involves more than catering to one mode. This
section briefly describes what these two transportation decisions represent in
terms of regional infrastructure.
1. The Alex Fraser Bridge
The AFB is the key element within the Annacis system (figure 7) of highway
development built in the early to mid 1980s. The provincial government
announced in 1980 that the bridge would be built and construction began in GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 76
Figure 7: The Annacis System Highway Development
(Sun, 1986a)
1983 (Parkes, 1990). Opened on 22 September 1986, the system contains 32.5 kilometres of new highways, 16 kilometres of new and improved connectors, 37 overpasses and two 154 metre bridge towers. Including the approach spans, the actual AFB component of the system is 2.5 kilometres long. Other components include the Annacis Highway south of the Fraser River, an east/west highway into Richmond, connections such as Marine Way to the north of the river and GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 77 access into Delta (Sun, 1986a).
2. The Coquitlam Rapid Transit Extension
The Coquitlam Rapid Transit Extension (CRTE) is an example of ongoing planning and future decision making. It must be stated at the outset that the
province has not committed itself to extending SkyTrain to Coquitlam Centre.
Current commitments call for rapid transit to Whalley by 1993 and to both
Lougheed Mall and Richmond by 1995 (Leicester, 1990). A B.C. Transit report
(1986) studied numerous possible extensions of SkyTrain to Coquitlam Centre
(figure 8) but made route recommendations only to the Lougheed Station. Based
on factors such as lowest cost per new rider and the development of potential
stations areas, the report recommended the Edmonds/Cariboo route to Lougheed
Station only (figure 8b) with Coquitlam Centre served by suburban buses.
This case study is concerned with possible extension of rapid transit into the
Coquitlam regional town centre. It is assumed then that such an extension will
actually be built. This is not an unreasonable assumption to make since the
planning for the Coquitlam Town Centre incorporates SkyTrain in its designs
(figure 9; Tiessen, 1990). GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 78
Figure 8: Route Options For Coquitlam Rapid Transit (A) Extension From New Westminster GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 79
(B) Extension From Edmonds
(B.C. Transit, 1986) GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 80
B. INTERVIEWS
Appendix 2 lists the questions asked of staff planners in relation to the two case studies. There are two questionnaires displayed in appendix 2. These reflect the differences in wording needed to conduct interviews on two case studies.
However, the two separate questionnaires ask the same fourteen questions. The open nature of the questions allowed for collection of a wide range of opinions and responses. The questionnaire provided a flexible structure for the interviews as a means to generate discussion. All interviews took place during July and
August of 1990. This section outlines the responses given by interviewee's to these questions. Table 6 at the end of section 5.2 summarizes the responses listed here.
The interviewee's are senior planners working with either the municipalities, the
GVRD or provincial agencies responsible for transportation facility planning. Their positions allow the assumption that they have considerable knowledge about the case studies being examined. It must be noted that these people represent a limited sample with conflicting views and diverse loyalties. The analysis recognizes the biases involved and displayed within the interview results.
Eight planners were interviewed for this thesis. In relation to the Alex Fraser
Bridge case study specifically, the following three people were interviewed. First
was Eleanor Atienza, a senior planner in the Planning and Development Services
department of the District of Surrey. Second was Gerrard Ferry, the director of GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 81
Figure 9: Coquitlam Town Centre Design
(District of Coquitlam) GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 82 the GVRD's Department of Planning during the planning and construction of the
Alex Fraser Bridge. Third was Derek Parkes, the regional manager of planning for the Vancouver branch of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways
(MOTH).
In relation to the Coquitlam rapid transit extension case study specifically, the following two people were interviewed. First was Gordon Chen, a planner in B.C.
Transit's Vancouver planning office. Second was Eric Tiessen, currently the acting director of Department of Planning for the District of Coquitlam.
The final three people interviewed were chosen for the knowledge they have in relation to both case studies. First was Robert Glover, a transportation planner in the Planning and Building Department of the District of Burnaby. Second was
Doug Peterson, the current administrator of the Development Services Department of the GVRD. Third was Steven Scheving, a planner in the Department of
Planning for the City of New Westminster.
1. Questions 1 Through 8
These questions are designed to elicit the interviewee's immediate perceptions of the two case study projects before explicitly referring to the five main strategies of the LRP. The first question asks if the interviewee perceives any relationship between the given case study's decision making process and the LRP. Response to this question provides direct insight into the coordination with LRP strategies. GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 83
Respondents did not perceive such a relationship in the AFB example. Two different reasons were given for this. First, Peterson and Atienza stated that the decision was provincially made and imposed upon those impacted. Second, Ferry
and Parkes argued that the decision to build the AFB before SkyBridge was
opposite to and thus not coordinated with LRP goals. Respondents also tended
not to perceive a relationship between the CRTE future decision process and the
LRP. Peterson, Tiessen and Glover described the decision as following a provincial
political process, separated from those impacted. Although they conceded that the
decision itself may reflect LRP goals, the hidden provincial process was not
perceived as being coordinated with LRP ideals.
The second question asked the interviewees to briefly explain the process followed
by decision makers in relation to the case study examples. The answers here
provide insight into how the process of decision making compares to that followed
and recommended by the LRP (see recommendation 20 in appendix 1).
The respondents to this AFB question (Atienza, Ferry, Parkes, Peterson) described
the provincial government's process as nonconsultative. The process was seen as
a provincial decision with little of no input from those impacted. One respondent
(Parkes) however referred to the subsequent planning of the alignment as
consultative, citing cooperation with government agencies (Fisheries, Coast Guard)
and those municipalities which approached the Ministry of Highways. Respondents
to the CRTE question (Peterson, Scheving, Tiessen) also described the decision
making process as non-consultative. The provincial government was recognized as
the major player with the power to make the decision irregardless of local input. GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 84
The third question asks about coordination between the various jurisdictions and
agencies involved in or impacted by the given decision. This question refers to
policy formulation and decision making. It is intended to examine whether or not
there are existing structures in place allowing coordination within the region and
with the GVRD (hence with the LRP). Respondents discussed a lack of such
coordination in relation to the AFB example (Atienza, Parkes, Peterson, Scheving)
although many felt that this has since changed, with the Ministry of Highways
becoming the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.
There was a difference of opinion in relation to such coordination in the CRTE
case study. Tiessen stated that the decision and thus the policy is a provincial
function imposed from above. Peterson, however, contended that existing structures
(i.e. the VRTS; boards which oversee B.C. Transit, B.C. Rail and B.C. Ferries;
project steering committees) reflect such policy coordination. These boards and
committees are typically made up of officials from the various municipalities and
agencies involved in a project or decision.
The fourth question asks how public participation fits into these two decision
making processes. The LRP is a strategy developed through a process of public
participation which recommends further public participation in planning. The
responses here provide insight into how these decision making processes strive to
incorporate basic LRP ideals. Responses to both the AFB and CRTE questions
were similar. Some responded that public input is heeded by local planners to
help mitigate the impacts of transportation planning (Atienza, Tiessen). However,
all respondents to this question stated a lack of public participation in the GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 85 provincial decision (Atienza, Parkes, Peterson, Tiessen).
The fifth question asked the interviewee to list the important reasons/arguments for building the project, while the sixth asked if these reasons/arguments justified the high capital expenditures. These were asked to determine if reasons given would reflect the LRP strategies. Reasons for constructing the AFB included:
1) a decline in traffic service quality on the pre-existing Fraser River crossings (Ferry, Parkes, Peterson);
2) a good central access point on the river for an additional route into Vancouver (Atienza); and
3) a need to improve access to Vancouver to make potential housing developments south of the Fraser more viable (Ferry).
No one would speculate on whether these reasons justified the capital expenditure. Reasons given for extending rapid transit into the Coquitlam town centre include:
1) rail transit has better developmental impacts since it would represent a provincial commitment to the development of the area (Glover, Tiessen);
2) rail fits LRP ideals of transit orientation (Glover) and environmental friendliness (Tiessen);
3) that Coquitlam is a rapidly growing area at the centre of the Lower Mainland (Peterson, Tiessen);
4) other modes cannot handle the necessary volumes and thus result in congestion (Tiessen); and
5) geographical difficulties do not allow the improvement of the current poor road connections to/from the area to increase vehicular capacities (Peterson). GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 86
Glover and Peterson favour high occupancy vehicle lanes on existing roads and the use of Superbuses (articulated) to service Coquitlam. This implies that these five reasons do not justify the capital expenditure needed to extend SkyTrain.
However, Tiessen argues that SkyTrain will be cheaper than catering to other modes in the long run.
The seventh question asked how the growth of suburban areas at the ends of the projects fit into the regional strategies and subsequently how the transportation decision fits into such growth. This question was asked in order to determine if the growth promoted follows from LRP ideals or not. There was a general consensus that the AFB promoted residential growth at low densities
(Atienza, Ferry, Parkes, Peterson). The location of this growth is impacted by the bridge while the actual growth is seen to occur irrespective of the bridge
(Ferry, Parkes). The northeast sector is growing rapidly. The CRTE is seen as allowing this growth to fit into the LRP by focusing it within a designated regional town centre (Peterson, Tiessen). Building the CRTE may also result in concentrating growth in an unanticipated town centre in the Lougheed Mall area of Burnaby (Glover).
The eighth question asks if the decision making structures integrate transportation with other aspects of planning. This is similar to the third question but with a slightly different focus. The third question discussed coordination between planning agencies while this question seeks information on the coordination between planning aspects (i.e. transportation planning and land use planning). GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 87
The interviewees responded that no such coordination occurred in relation to the
AFB (Ferry, Parkes). At the time of building, concern was for the movement of cars, with the people or impact aspect of planning seemingly neglected (Ferry).
With relation to the CRTE, some coordination was apparent at the provincial agency level. Although Chen stated that B.C. Transit is a transportation agency with nothing to do with land use, Tiessen indicated a small degree of coordination between B.C. Transit and the Coquitlam planning department. The
Coquitlam planning department is including alignments and ALRT stations within their planning of the Coquitlam Town Centre (figure 9). These alignments were determined with help from B.C. Transit, despite a lack of provincial commitment to extend rapid transit to Coquitlam (Tiessen).
2. Questions 9 Through 14
These questions refer to the actual LRP strategies which are used here as criteria. Question fourteen asks those interviewed in relation to one of the case studies if they could provide any insights in relating the five LRP strategies to the other case study. As a result, question fourteen responses relate to and are integrated with the discussions of the responses to questions on each specific LRP strategy.
The ninth question asked the interviewees how the case study relates to the
LRP strategy for achieving residential growth targets. There was differing opinion in relation to the AFB example. Glover stated a neutral position: the AFB helps
accommodate growth without impacting such growth either positively or negatively. GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 88
Atienza and Peterson both stated that the bridge helps to achieve the LRP strategy by allowing increased housing starts in Surre}'. Ferry, Parkes and
Scheving answered no to this question. These three stated that the bridge draws growth away from the concentrated areas that the LRP seeks. As Scheving stated, the LRP targeted growth with density while the AFB promotes automobile oriented residential growth at lower densities.
The respondents felt that the CRTE example would promote the residential growth targets strategy (Glover, Peterson, Scheving, Tiessen). Glover states that there is no problem in reaching growth targets in suburban areas since people obviously want to live there. This growth targets strategy would thus be supported by CRTE by focusing development and growth at locations and densities in accordance with LRP targets.
The tenth question asked the interviewees how the case study relates to the
LRP strategy for promoting a balance of jobs to population in each part of the region. Again, there was a difference of opinion in relation to the AFB example.
Two respondents (Glover, Scheving) stated that the AFB supports industrial decentralization within the region and thus promotes a balance of jobs to population. There were four others (Atienza, Ferry, Parkes, Peterson) who answered that the AFB did not promote a balance of jobs to population. Their reasons included:
1) the AFB could strengthen the "bedroom community" status of municipalities south of the Fraser River by reducing commuting time to Vancouver (Atienza);
2) the promotion of lower density housing necessarily means that GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 89
housing will be further from jobs (Ferry);
3) the actual jobs created within automobile oriented development tend to be part time service industry jobs rather than "bread winning" jobs (meaning that the household "bread winner" must still travel out of area to work) (Parkes); and
4) the AFB promotes residential growth in areas which already have an excess population to jobs (Peterson).
There was a unanimous belief that the CRTE could promote a balance of jobs to population (Glover, Peterson, Scheving, Tiessen). The answers tended to reflect a belief that concentrating residential development around ALRT stations would create an urban situation that could attract investors and thus office development.
The respondents voiced a further belief that such a balance may not be immediate. The concern that ALRT cannot promote industrial development may restrict the ability of the CRTE to balance jobs with population (Glover).
The eleventh question asked the interviewees how the case study relates to the
LRP strategy for creating a number of regional town centres. Two respondents
(Ferr}', Peterson) stated that the AFB decision was uncoordinated with and impartial to the development of regional town centres. Two other respondents
(Atienza, Parkes) voiced the concern that the AFB draws development away from the designated regional town centre at Whalley-Guildford. Two others (Glover,
Scheving) voiced a similar concern about Whalley-Guildford while stating that the
AFB promotes the development of the Metrotown and New Westminster regional town centres. This results from allowing the commercial cores of these centres to draw on the population base of a larger area. GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 90
All respondents to the CRTE aspect of this question (Atienza, Ferry, Glover,
Peterson, Scheving, Tiessen) felt that the construction of the CRTE would promote the regional town centres strategy. Although all stated that such development would help the Coquitlam town centre, three respondents (Ferry,
Glover, Scheving) felt that the promotion of either the New Westminster or
Metrotown town centres would prove greater depending on where the CRTE branches off the main line.
The twelfth question asked the interviewees how the case study relates to the
LRP strategy of providing a transit oriented transportation system. It must be remembered here that the LRP stressed accessibility as well as transit. Two respondents to the AFB example (Atienza, Peterson) stated that the decision to build reflected a lack of coordination with this strategy. However, these two respondents as well as Ferry and Parkes state that building an automobile bridge does not contradict the LRP, since modal choice and accessibility are both elements of livability. As stated by three respondents (Peterson, Scheving,
Tiessen), the CRTE example obviously reflects the strategy of transit promotion.
This reflection does not necessarily mean that the political decision to build a
CRTE will be based upon LRP ideals (Scheving).
The thirteenth question asked the interviewees how the case study examples relate to the LRP strategy of protecting and developing regional open spaces.
Four respondents (Ferry, Glover, Parkes, Scheving) stated that the AFB decision is neutral to this strategy. These respondents believe the existence of the AFB neither promotes nor detracts from this strategy. Atienza and Peterson both GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 91 expressed ways in which the AFB actively promotes development and preservation. The open space vistas and mountain views that accompany the
AFB can promote the maintenance of open spaces. It is important to remember that this LRP strategy states view preservation as one aspect of open space preservation. Also, the AFB promotes open spaces b}' providing improved accessibility to regional parks.
The CRTE example is seen by most to have no relation to regional open spaces
(Glover, Peterson, Scheving, Tiessen). However, on the local municipal scene, there are a number of ways that ALRT can promote open spaces that may prove regionally significant. Two examples are:
~ in Burnaby, the ALRT alignment is utilized as a bicycle path (Glover) and
— in New Westminster, the ALRT has helped promote the conversion of the once industrial waterfront into park land and residential areas
(Scheving).
The CRTE could have the same impact upon open spaces within Coquitlam.
However, such impacts reflect a municipal desire for enhancing livability rather
than provincial or regional coordination with this LRP strategy.
The responses discussed are quite varied and often contradictory between
respondents. Table 6 below provides a summary of the responses to the
interviews. GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY I 92
Table 6: Summary of Interview Responses
NO Quest ion AFB CRTE Respons 1) Linkages between decision 0 Yes 0 Yes From 2 making and LRP? 4 No 3 No 2) Decision making process? Both described From 1 as » non-consultative provincial processes. 3) Coordination between 0 Yes 1 Yes From 3 planning agencies? 4 No 1 No 4) Public participation? 0 Yes 0 Yes From 4 4 No 4 No 5) Reasons/arguments for * * * facility? 6) Reasons/arguments justify From 8 expendi tures? 7) Decision affect growth? Promotes Promotes non-LRP LRP growth growth 8) Integration of planning 0 Yes 1 Yes From 4 aspects? 2 No 1 No 9) Support residential growth 2 Yes 4 Yes From 1 targets? 3 No 0 No 1 Neutral 10) Support balance of jobs 2 Yes 4 Yes From 1 to population? 4 No 0 No 1 1 ) Support regional town 0 Yes 6 Yes From 1 centres? 4 No 0 No 2 Neutral 12) Support transit 0 Yes 3 Yes From 1 orientation? 2 No 0 No 2 Neutral 13) Support regional 2 Yes 0 Yes From 1 open spaces? 0 No 0 No 4 Neutral 4 Neutral
* Reasons given in relation to AFB were: decline in traffic service quality; good access point location; aid potential of housing developments south of Fraser River.
** Reasons given in relation to CRTE were: rail represents provincial commitment to area's development; rail fits LRP ideals; Coquitlam is rapidly growing; other modes inadequate; geographical difficulties for road development. GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 93
C. ANALYSIS
The responses to the fourteen questions refer to both the processes and impacts of transportation planning and decision making. These responses provide the major input for the following analysis. This analysis is divided into two subsections.
The first examines the perceived physical relationships between the infrastructure in each case and the five LRP criteria. It therefore discusses mainly the responses to questions nine through fourteen of the interview questionnaires. The second examines the perceived process of decision making and its coordination with and relationship to the LRP. Both sections contribute to understanding the relationships between transportation and land use.
1. Relationships With LRP Strategies
The first criterion is based upon the LRP strategy of achieving residential growth targets in each part of the region. The various interviewees expressed opposite perceptions about the impact that the AFB could have on promoting this LRP strategy. Those who believe the AFB promotes this strategy argue that it has led to an increase in the number of housing starts in the District of Surrey.
However, they do recognize that these starts are in low density housing developments (Atienza, Peterson). This reason contradicts many of the LRP's stated methods for promoting residential growth targets. Low density housing development does not reflect residential development accessible to public transit, nor the promotion of residential development within centres or existing urban areas. The development of the AFB, therefore, does not contribute to the GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 94 attainment of the residential growth targets strategy.
There was a general feeling that the CRTE does promote this residential growth targets strategy. These positive responses are consistent with the specific transportation methods the LRP mentions for promoting this strategy. Residential development would be accessible to public transit and focused upon a regional town centre if the CRTE is built. Furthermore, the CRTE would also help to minimize travel time and inconvenience by not contributing more vehicles to the already congested arteries within the northeast sector. Thus, development of the
CRTE would contribute to the promotion of the growth targets strategy.
The second criterion is based upon the LRP strategy of promoting a balance of jobs to population in each part of the region. Respondents displayed the belief that the AFB would impact this goal, but expressed difference as to whether this impact would be positive or negative. The argument that the bridge provides trucking access across the Fraser River which allows manufacturing plants and warehouses to locate in the southern municipalities (Glover) is supported by the growth of the Tilbury industrial area in Delta (Sun, 1986b). Employment nodes such as shopping malls may. also develop as a result of the AFB since automobile oriented access promotes the dispersed locations of such facilities.
This latter argument was directly opposed by one of the four respondents
(Parkes) that stated the AFB works against this LRP strategy. The promotion of employment in regional shopping facilities may not contribute to achieving a balance of jobs to population since such facilities tend not to create a large GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 95 number of full time or "bread winning" jobs. Other arguments included the case
that the AFB promoted residential growth in an area (south of the Fraser River)
that already had an excess of population to jobs.
All respondents seem to believe that the AFB influences both residential and
employment location. Which of these is influenced to the greater extent is the
crux of their different opinions. Therefore, the conclusion here is that the AFB
has the potential to both promote and discourage a better balance of jobs to
population.
AH respondents to the CRTE aspect of question ten displayed a belief that
eventual development may promote a greater balance of jobs to population.
Glover and Tiessen's argument that the ALRT can be a locational factor
providing a focus for office as well as residential development is reflected in both
table 7 and figure 10. Table 7 is from a B.C. Transit sponsored study (Egby,
1989). This table relates over five billion dollars of development and economic
multipliers over fifteen billion dollars to the existence of the main ALRT
alignment. Although the inclusion of a number of these developments is clearly
absurd (Coal Harbour and Pacific Place), the location of other entries such as
the Intercon development are clearly related to ALRT.
Figure 10 displays the percentage change in total office space development for
Burnaby, Vancouver and the GVRD, for the periods 1977-1982 and 1982-1987.
As evident in Figure 10, the Burnaby rate of office growth between 1982 and
1987 (89.38%) dwarfed those of Vancouver and the GVRD (40.01% and 52.08% GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 96
Table 7: Development Around Transit
Construction Development Cost (1) Waterfront Tower (Marathon) $ 200 m. (2) Coal Harbour (Marathon) 1 b. (3) Royal Centre 10 m. (4) Burrard Building 1 2 m. (5) Pacific Centre 1 00 m. (6) Adams Properties 100 m. (7) Pacific Place (Expo lands) 2 b. (8) Science World 17. 3 m. (9) Terminal/Main/Quebec 350 m. 10) Intercon (Broadway and Commercial) 20 m. 1 1 ) Metrotown 100 m. 12) Station Square 90 m. 13) Eaton Centre 1 30 m. 14) Bonsor Park 9 m. 15) Resource Library 18 m. 16) Burnaby 2000 School 16 m. 17) Edmonds Town Centre 180 m. 18) New Westminster Quay 1 00 m. 19) First Capital Place 75 m. 20) Westminster Pier 1 25 m. 21 ) Columbia Square 20 m. 22) Columbia Centre 16. 9 m. 23) New Westminster Courthouse 1 . 6 m. 24) Columbia Station Condominiums 16 m. 25) Ricardo Nordelli 1 . 2 m. 26) New Westminster Quay II 215 m. 27) Cressy's 13. 2 m. 28) SkyTrain (phase 2) 1 79 m. 29) Scott Road Interchange 20 m. 30) Edgewater Project 20 m. Total $ 5145. 2 m.
(Egby, 1989) GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 97
Figure 10: Percentage Change In Total Municipal Office Space (1977-1987)
10DSS -, '. .
Burnaoy Vancouver GVRO ctat&f)
V/\ * Change 0977-82} (Vv] % Change C13B2-B7)
(data in Hutton & Davis, 1985)
respectively). This may be coincidental with the building of SkyTrain to
Metrotown, but does suggest some relationship between the ALRT development and the promotion of a balance of jobs to population in each part of the region.
This discussion shows that the ALRT has the potential to promote a balance of jobs to population. The conclusion here is that CRTE development may promote a balance of jobs to population in the long run depending upon whether or not a regional town centre is achieved. Office development will probably not occur as a result of ALRT unless further promoted through visible government actions such GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 98 as movement of government offices into the Coquitlam regional town centre.
The third criterion is based upon the LRP strategy of creating a number of regional town centres. With reference to the AFB, two respondents stated that the decision did not impact this goal either positively or negatively, four stated that it detracted from the Whalley-Guildford centre and two (of these four) stated that it promoted the Metrotown and New Westminster centres. The AFB's encouragement of low density housing in the District of Surrey is perceived to compete with the development of the Whalley-Guildford town centre. However, this argument is somewhat tenuous since the LRP only tries to focus growth in the regional town centres, not to forbid it elsewhere. The conclusion here is that the AFB does not promote nor detract from the regional town centres strategy of the LRP.
All six CRTE respondents stated that development would promote the creation of the regional town centres strategy. There was debate expressed about which regional town centre would be promoted most by such development: Metrotown,
New Westminster or Coquitlam. However, this debate is irrelevant to the conclusion that the CRTE would promote the LRP strategy of developing a number of regional town centres.
The fourth criterion is based upon the LRP strategy of promoting a transit oriented transportation system. The LRP (GVRD, 1975a) specifically states that:
New auto bridges and freeways can only be costly stop-gap measures for coping with forecast traffic growth. In the long term they will only make congestion worse by creating more suburban sprawl and GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 99
bringing greater numbers of cars through Vancouver neighbourhoods into busy downtown streets.
This may automatically lead to the conclusion that the AFB decision contradicts the LRP. However, the four interviewees that discussed this LRP strategy in relation to the AFB stated that the building of the bridge may promote livability by increasing accessibility across the Fraser River and by increasing modal choice.
Although the focus of this LRP strategy is accessibility by transit, there must be a recognition of the need for regional road access. Goods cannot move by transit, so truck access to all areas of the region needs to be maintained. Also, manj' people will continue to drive so their choice of mode must be accommodated to some degree. Even on such accessibility grounds, the AFB opposes LRP ideals.
Rather than managing growth, the AFB has allowed growth to sprawl randomly.
The original LRP has a three point strategy for achieving an improved transit oriented transportation system. It proposed to: manage growth, fully utilize existing facilities and provide new facilities - mainly public transit ~ as needed
(GVRD, 1975a). It is obvious that if the CRTE development should occur, it would be in accordance with each of these points. By helping to focus residential and employment development, the CRTE would be managing growth. Existing transportation facilities are being over-utilized and are congested during peak hours. The CRTE would contribute to their better utilization by possibly drawing some automobile commuters into transit vehicles. GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 100
However, this does not mean that ALRT is the only possible transit service that can help alleviate the congestion problems of the northeast sector. Other possibilities include commuter rail on existing heavy rail lines, SeaBuses operating between Port Moody and downtown Vancouver and FastBus (high capacity articulated) service to an ALRT terminus at Lougheed Mall (Leicester, 1990).
Whichever of these is provided, separately or in combination, the transit orientation does favour the ideals of the LRP.
The fifth criterion is based upon the LRP strategy of protecting and developing regional open spaces. Most respondents felt the AFB decision was impartial to this LRP strategy. There were no concerns voiced alluding that the AFB is in opposition to this strategy. The argument that the AFB promotes low density land uses and urban sprawl was disputed by those who feel the AFB accelerated but did not cause such dispersed development.
Two respondents argued that the AFB decision actually promotes the conservation of open spaces. Their arguments reflect the importance of public attitudes toward maintaining regional parks. Accessibility by automobile is an important aspect of recreational potential since those participating in outdoor activities (i.e. picnicking, backpacking) will often not utilize public transit. The AFB does not contradict the open spaces strategy, if it is assumed that dispersed development occurring south of the Fraser River would have occurred regardless. The conclusion here is that the AFB development is consistent with the open spaces strategy.
All four respondents felt that the CRTE has no role in promoting the strategy GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 101 of protecting and developing regional open spaces. Two respondents did mention that the ALRT has been utilized by municipal planning departments to promote municipal open spaces. However, the regional significance of such open space is limited. The only way in which transit facilities such as the CRTE fail to promote regional open spaces is by not providing good access to these areas.
Although transit vehicles may travel to regional parks, the necessary equipment for utilizing the parks (i.e. barbecues, backpacks) are not easy to transport on transit. The conclusion is that the CRTE does not have the potential to greatly impact the protection or development of regional open spaces.
2. Coordination With LRP Goals
The previous section analyzed the case study transportation infrastructure in terms of the perceived relationships to the five LRP strategies. This section is concerned with analyzing whether the process of transportation planning is coordinated with these LRP goals. The analysis here draws upon these perceived physical relationships but is mainly concerned with the responses to questions one through eight of the questionnaires listed in appendix 2.
The examination of the five LRP strategies in relation to the transportation infrastructure would seem to indicate that the AFB is not coordinated with LRP goals while the CRTE is. This is evidenced by the AFB being perceived as supportive of the LRP only in one of five strategies (the promotion of open spaces). The CRTE by contrast was perceived as supportive of four and not contradictory to the fifth (also promotion of open spaces). However, these findings GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 102 do not reflect the planning processes for the two cases. In neither the AFB nor the CRTE case was the planning process perceived to be coordinated with the ideals of the LRP.
All respondents to the AFB case stated (for question one) that they perceived no coordination with the LRP in the planning process. The LRP is a program that stresses public consultation while the planning for the AFB was perceived to be top-down with no formal public participation. There was also no perception of jurisdictions being coordinated with this planning process. Furthermore, there was no perception of coordinating the bridge decision with other aspects of land use planning within the municipalities impacted.
The CRTE promotion of most of the LRP strategies is not surprising. This is because the CRTE is a transit mode and one of the five strategies is the promotion of transit. This suggests that the promotion of the LRP by B.C.
Transit is not a conscious one, but one which results from both the LRP and
B.C. Transit independently pursuing the goal of transit ridership. The view that the CRTE planning process may not be coordinated with LRP goals is apparent from the interview responses. The CRTE is seen as a provincial decision emanating from a nonconsultative process. Although some coordination occurs between B.C. Transit and the Coquitlam planning department, there is a perception that B.C. Transit is a transportation agency that has nothing to do with land use. GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION CASE STUDY / 103
D. CONCLUSION
It is concluded that the decision to build the AFB did not support four of the five LRP strategies while the CRTE would support all but one. These conclusions are based on the perceived ramifications of the decisions. In either case, the analysis does not support the notion that the process of transportation planning was coordinated with LRP goals. The potential support that the CRTE can play in relation to LRP strategies seems a result of the LRP's promotion of transit rather than B.C. Transit's support for the LRP.
This would indicate that better coordination is needed between those actors responsible for policy formulation, decision making and planning of transportation systems and those responsible for areas serviced and impacted by transportation facilities. Better coordination could allow a growth strategy "which brings on change in a slower and more acceptable way, psychologically and financially, than might otherwise be possible" (GVRD, 1975a). If the growth strategy (LRP) and transportation planning were to become better coordinated, then a whole new set of questions would result. Braham (1989) quotes Anthony Parr, Planning Director for the District of Burnaby, as stating the following:
We have to determine to what extent we can use transit to manage growth and to what extent we can manage growth to determine what kind of transit system we want. VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this thesis was to examine transportation planning and decision making in terms of coordination with other aspects of land use. A related objective was to examine transportation decisions in light of a general metropolitan plan. The case study of Greater Vancouver utilized the strategies of the LRP as criteria for analyzing regional transportation decisions within the
GVRD. The LRP is neither solely nor specifically a transportation plan, but represents regional planning goals and can be used as a benchmark for analyzing regional planning.
A. SUMMARY
Chapter two used theoretical examples and international experiences to discuss the relationships between transportation and land use. Transportation planning was defined as a process for addressing societal concerns while attempting to meet the demands for transport made by the populace. It was concluded that although the technical aspects of transportation planning can be achieved through disciplinary isolation, transportation / land use coordination is appropriate within the policy, planning and decision making stages.
Chapters three and four provided the background necessary for understanding the case studies presented in chapter five. Chapter five presented the case study of
Greater Vancouver. It was concluded that the AFB did not support four of the five LRP strategies while the CRTE example supported all but one. Furthermore,
104 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION / 105 the analysis supported the notion that neither of the transportation planning and decision making processes examined displayed coordination with LRP strategies.
The CRTE's support of the LRP was seen as a result of the LRP's promotion of transit rather than B.C. Transit's decision process reflecting the LRP.
B. CONCLUSION
The conclusion of this thesis is that no coordination is apparent between the
planning and implementation of regional transportation facilities, and regional
planning goals within Greater Vancouver. Several major transportation decisions
have been imposed upon the region by the provincial government. Promotion and
support of regional planning goals by these transportation facilities appears to
result from similar independent and mutually exclusive objectives within different
agencies rather than from rigorous coordination of planning between those
agencies. Therefore, the benefits of coordinating transportation and land use
planning as reviewed in chapter II may not be attainable in the Greater
Vancouver and if attained, appear to be incidental results of uncoordinated
planning and implementation.
However, this conclusion is based upon a perceptual analysis of a limited sample
of interview respondents. Nevertheless, it is indicative of the current state of
planning and coordination within the region, especially considering that all of the
respondents have been and are major players and professionals in transportation
and regional planning. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Atienza, E. 1990. Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, District of Surrey. Personal communication.
B.C. Transit. 1986. "SkyTrain extension to Coquitlam. Transit planning study. Summary report".
. July 1989a. "1990/91 Annual Service Plan for the Vancouver Regional Transit System."
August 1989b. "Vancouver/Richmond rapid transit project. Terms of reference: technology/alignment selection".
Braham, D. 08/12/89. "Learn to manage transit, GVRD told". Vancouver Sun.
Chen, G. 1990. Planner, Department of Planning, B.C. Transit. Personal communication.
Cervero, R. 1986a. "Safeguarding urban mobility". Transportation Research Record, 1079: 16-23.
1986b. "Urban transit in Canada: integration and innovation at its best". Transportation Quarterly, XL (3): 293-316.
. 1988. "Congestion, growth, and public choices". Berkeley Planning Journal, 3 (2).
City Engineering Department, Vancouver. 1959a. "A Study on Highway Planning. Arterial Street and Highway Deficiencies for 1976." Prepared for the Technical Committee for Metropolitan Highway Planning.
1959b. "A Study of Highway Planning. Geometric Design Standards and Capacities for Freeways." Prepared for the Technical Committee for Metropolitan Highway Planning.
City Planning Department, Vancouver. 1959a. "A Study on Highway Planning. The Analysis and Forecast of Motor Vehicle Travel." Prepared for the Technical Committee for Metropolitan Highway Planning.
. 1959b. "A Study on Highway Planning. The Testing and Evaluation of Alternate Arterial Highway Systems." Prepared for the Technical Committee for Metropolitan Highway Planning.
. 1983a. "Planning for the community and rapid transit: Nanaimo and 29th station areas".
. 1983b. "Planning for the community and rapid transit: ALRT - a noise study".
106 / 107
1983c. "Planning for the community and rapid transit: An overall context for ALRT development".
Department of Planning, District of Coquitlam. "Urban design guidelines, Coquitlam town centre".
Development Services Department, GVRD. 1989a. "Bulletin: Cooperative Transportation Planning for Greater Vancouver."
-—. 1989b. "Greater Vancouver key facts" (draft).
Droettboom, T. 1980. "Planning for Rapid Transit." Quarterly Review (Vancouver Planning Department), January 1980.
Egby, R. 1989. "SkyTrain: a catalyst for development". Prepared for B.C. Transit".
Edmonds, E.A. 1986. "Government consideration of large developments in urban areas". Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 112 (1): 60-67.
Engelen, R.E. 1982. Coordination of Transportation System Management and Land Use Management, Transportation Research Board: Washington, D.C.
Ferry, G. 1990. N.D. Lea Associates (former Director of Planning, Department of Planning, GVRD). Personal communication.
Glover, R. 1990. Transportation Planner, Planning and Building Department, District of Burnaby. Personal communication.
Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). 1971a. "Regional Transportation as a GVRD Function. The Transportation Function: A Policy Statement."
1971b. "Regional Transportation as a GVRD Function. Fundamental Propositions."
. 1975a. "The Livable Region 1976/1986 -Proposals to manage the growth of Greater Vancouver".
1975b. "The Livable Region 1976/1986. Decisions taken by the GVRD Board of Directors on further actions to implement the Livable Region proposals to manage the growth of Greater Vancouver".
1975c. Notes from the GVRD Board meeting on "the Livable Region 1976/1986".
. 1976. "LRP: the first year". Status report on GVRD growth management strategies.
-—. 1978a. "The LRP after 2 years". Prepared by the GVRD Planning Department. / 108
1978b. "The Livable Region Program public events", (pamphlet).
. 1979. "The Livable Region Program calender", (pamphlet).
-—. 1980. "The Livable Region from the 70s to the 80s".
. 1981. "Effectiveness: a discussion paper".
September 1989. "Regional Household Demand, Municipal Households and Population Forecast Technical Memorandum".
Greater Vancouver Transportation Task Force (GVTTF). July 1989a. "Summary Report". Prepared for the Province of British Columbia (Ministry of Regional Development) and the GVRD.
. July, 1989b. "Main Report". Prepared for same.
. July 1989c. "Consultations and Communications." Prepared for same.
. July 1989d. "Technical Report." Prepared for same.
July 1989e. "Report of the Goods Movement Working Group." Prepared for same.
Haley, D. 1988. "Long range transportation planning: achieving good land use planning with workable transportation systems and networks". Urban Land, 47 (11): 36-37.
Hammermeister, J.P. "The co-ordination of light rapid transit and land-use: an examination of the institutional framework in Edmonton". Master's thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning: UBC.
Hand, I. 1978. "Conference findings". In Transportation and Land Development: Conference Proceedings , Transportation Research Board, Special Report 183: Washington, D.C.
Henry, L. 1989. "Ridership forecasting considerations in comparisons of light rail and motor bus modes". In Light Rail Transit: New System Successes at Affordable Prices, Conference Proceedings, Transportation Research Board: Washington, D.C.
Hodge, Gerald. 1986. Planning Canadian Communities. Methuen: Toronto.
Hutton, T.A. & H.C. Davis. 1985. "The role of office location in regional town centre planning and metropolitan multinucleation: the case of Vancouver". The Canadian Journal of Regional Science, VIII (1): 17-34. / 109
Jensen, H.S. 1978. "Public transportation and land use: a developer's perspective". In Transportation and Land Development: Conference Proceedings, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 183: Washington, D.C.
Khan, A.M. 1974. "Land use and transport interactions: policy and planning implications". High Speed Ground Transportation Journal, 8 (1): 125-151.
Klassen, J.P. 1987. "An examination of the benefits and implementation problems of the transportation / utility corridor concept". Master's thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning: UBC.
Kopystynski, A. & S. Pawlowski. 1980. "The Genesis of L.R.T. in Vancouver." In Light Rail Transit in Vancouver - Costs, Potential and Alternatives (M.C. Poulton, editor), Centre for Transportation Studies: UBC.
Kuipers, A. 1980. "What is L.R.T.?". In Light Rail In Vancouver - Costs, Potential and Alternatives (M.C. Poulton, editor), Centre for Transportation Studies: UBC.
Lee, J. 16/03/89. "Coquitlam stares down 18 developers". Vancouver Sun.
Leicester, G. 1990. "B.C. Transit and the Vancouver Regional Transit System (VRTS)". (Notes from a lecture given on February 17, 1990).
Levinson, H.S. 1986. "Streets for people and transit". Transportation Quarterly, XL (4): 503-520.
Livable Region Program Advisory Committee (LRPAC). 1975a. "Public response to the livable region program: proposals to manage growth in Greater Vancouver". Prepared from community meetings held by the GVRD.
Lowry, I.S. 1988. "Planning for urban sprawl". In A Look Ahead - Year 2020, Proceedings of the conference on long-range trends and requirements for the nation's highway and public transit systems, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 220: Washington, D.C.
Marinakis, D. 09/23/86. "It's a go! Traffic's a breeze on span." Vancouver Sun.
Meyer, M.D. & E.J. Miller. 1984. Urban Transportation Planning: A Decision-Oriented Approach, McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York.
Mitchell, G. May 1982. "Building boom continues, Coquitlam, British Columbia". Trade and Commerce Magazine .
Navin, F. 1989. Notes taken during Dr. Navin's December 6 presentation at the GVRD's 'Choosing Our Future' meeting. / 110
Nijkamp, P. & S. Reichman. 1987. "Transportation planning in a social context". In Transportation Planning In A Changing World (Nijkamp & Reichman, editors), Gower Publishing Company: Brookfield, Vermont.
Norrbom, CE. 1987. "Planning criteria in the provision of public transport services". In Transportation Planning In A Changing World (Nijkamp & Reichman, editors), Gower Publishing Companj': Brookfield, Vermont.
Ohta, K. 1989. "The development of Japanese transportation policies in the context of regional development". Transportation Research Part A: General, 23A (1): 91101.
Orski, C.K. 1987. "'Managing' suburban traffic congestion: a strategy for suburban mobility". Transportation Quarterly, XLI (4): 457-476.
. 1989. "A realistic appraisal of traffic congestion". Urban Land, October: 34-36.
Owolabi, B.O. 1986. "The transportation engineer: an indispensable entity in land use planning". Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, 56 (6): 37-39.
Parkes, D. 1990. Regional Manager of Planning, Ministry of Transportation and Highways, British Columbia. Personal communication.
Peat Marwick and Partners. 1975. "Implementation of the Livable Region plan". Prepared for the Technical Planning Committee of the GVRD.
Pendakur, V.S. 1986. "Urban growth, urban poor and urban transport in Asia". Centre for Human Settlements, Occasional Papers Number 39: UBC.
Peterson, D. 1990. Administrator, Development Services Department, GVRD. Personal communication.
Pill, J. 1988. "Toronto: thirty years of transit development". In Transit, Land Use and Urban Form (W. Attoe, editor), Center for the Study of American Architecture: Austin, Texas.
Porter, D.R. 1987. "The future doesn't work". TR News, 133: 14-15.
Ricketts, M. 09/03/81. "Whoa! Maybe LRT isn't such a great idea. Unmentionable doubts, unthinkable thoughts and other blasphemous notes on a very sacred cow". The Province .
Roads and Transportation Association of Canada (RTAC). 1988. "A car subway for Paris". RTAC News, 14 (5).
1989. "Transit funding shortfalls outlined in new RTAC report". RTAC News, 15 (1). / 111
Sandaas, R. 1986. "Downtown traffic goes down under". Civil Engineering, 56 (11): 36-38.
Scheving, S. 1990. Planner, Department of Planning, City of New Westminster. Personal communication.
Schonfeld, P.M. & H.S. Chadda. 1985. "An assessment of urban travel reduction options". Transportation Quarterly, XXXIX (3): 391-406.
Stacey, I. 1988. "Bus technology as rapid transit in Ottawa-Carleton". In Transit, Land Use and Urban Form (W. Attoe, editor), Center for the Study of American Architecture: Austin, Texas.
Stevenson Kellog Ernst & Whinney Management Consultants. 1989. "Achieving Greater Vancouver's Potential: An Economic Vision and Action Plan for the Livable Region." Prepared for the GVRD.
Sutcliffe, E.D. (Western Development and Power Ltd.) & D.W. Mills (B.C. Electric Railway Co. Ltd.). 1959. "A Study on Highway Planning. The Transit Planning Study." Prepared for the Technical Committee for Metropolitan Highway Planning.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). 1987. "Challenges for a contemporary statement of the Livable Region strategy: a working paper". Prepared for GVRD Development Services.
Technical Committee for Metropolitan Highway Planning (TCMHP). 1956. "A Study on Highway Planning for the Metropolitan Area of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia."
. 1959. "A Study on Highway Planning. Freeways With Rapid Transit."
Tiessen, E. 1990. Acting Planning Director, Department of Planning, District of Coquitlam. Personal communication.
Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). 1987. "Individual and community benefits of public transit services and facilities".
Vancouver Sun. 20/11/73. "Ban on more freeways urged in district report".
22/09/86a. "Take the Fraser over the Fraser".
. 22/09/86b. "Tilbury project helped by new transport system".
Warren, W.D. 1988. "Impacts of land use on mass transit development: a comparison of Canberra and Springfield". Transportation Quarterly, XLII (2): 223-242. / 112
Whitson, B. 1980. "The users: who? when? where?". In Light Rail In Vancouver - Costs, Potential and Alternatives (M.C. Poulton, editor), Centre for Transportation Studies: UBC.
Wotherspoon, P. 1983. "Planning for ALRT development". Quarterly Review.
Zakaria, T. 1986. "Traffic trends and emerging transportation planning issues in the Delaware Valley Region". Transportation Quarterly, XL (2): 171-188. APPENDIX 1: LIVABLE REGION RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: The board endorses the concept of growth shares and will seek agreement with all municipalities on a set of residential growth targets for the region. -Approved.
The Planning Committee wishes to make clear that in adopting this recommendation, the Board is not adopting the specific residential growth targets outlined in the Livable Region Proposals. Rather it would initiate negotiations with municipalities to arrive at a workable set of targets for the Region, as soon as the Dollar Burden of Growth findings are available to assist the municipalities to fully assess the impact of the proposed targets.
Recommendation 2: The board direct staff and the technical planning committee to report on means by which growth targets of municipalities can be determined and attained. The report shall cover:
(a) Means of setting individual municipal targets which will accommodate the overall regional growth. (b) Means of determining the limits to which actual growth can vary from the individual municipal targets. (c) Means of stumulating growth and means of retarding growth rates to achieve individual targets.
-Approved.
Recommendation 3: The board further directs staff to bring forward a program budget for the development and negotiation phase of implementing targets prior to carrying out the preceding directive. -Approved.
Recommendation 4: The regional board accepts the objective of balancing jobs and resident work force in each part of the region and therefore instructs stagg to:
(a) Investigate and report on means to ensure that 'population serving' jobs are provided in rapidly growing residential areas as growth occurs rather than much later as at present. (b) Requests the director of regional development to report on the
113 / 114
work program, budget and appropriate responsibility for these investigations.
-Approved.
Recommendation 5: The regional board instruct staff to investigate means by which industrial development can be attracted to areas of high population and work force growth, including:
i. Means of ensuring that adequate industrial sites are assembled and serviced in areas proposed for increased incustrial employment. ii. Proposals for adequate truck arterials and reil facilities as required. iii. Means to coordinate development and marketing of industrial sites which are aided and/or developed with public funds.
And request the director of regional development to report on the work program, budget, and appropriate responsibility for this investigation. -Approved.
Recommendation 6: The regional board adopt the concept of developing regional town centres and establish the following priorities for regional support:
i. Downtown New Westminster and Burnaby Metro Town be brought to self-sustaining size with the desired qualities, by 1990. ii. Choose a location for a regional town centre in the northeast sector as soon as possible, and create the preconditions by 1986 for self-sustaining size and quality to be attained. iii. Create the preconditions by 1986 for an eventual self-sustaining regional town centre in North Surrey.
-Approved.
Recommendation 7: The regional board agree to participate in preparation of regional town centre plans with the municipalities concerned. -Approved. / 115
Recommendation 8: The regional board direct staff to prepare an action program for regional town centre development including the following:
i. Prepare amendments to the official regional plan to designate regional town centre reserves and arrange for the regional town centre plans to be incorporared in official community plans of the affected municipalities; ii. Investigate appropriate action to ensure that speculative land price increases in regional town centre reserves do not prevent full development of each centre; iii. Estimate the need for and size of a revolving fund for advance assembly of key sites in planned regional town centres; iv. Develop procedures and agreements to bring about government office decentralization to regional town centres; v. Monitor growth and change in various employment categories in each part of the region and the supply and usage of commercial and incustrial lands; vi. Define measures to encourage office and cultural facility development in regional town centres and to control the rates of growth in downtown Vancouver, Broadway and other centres; vii. Investigate the form of management to be established for each regional town centre and the respective roles of private enterprise, the public, senior governments, the local municipality, tna the regional district;
And request the director of regional development ro report on the work program and budget for preparation of the action program ser out above. -Approved.
Recommendation 9: The regional board commit itself to:
i. The objective of maintaining the present levels of transportation accessibility in the region; ii. Immediately initiate the process of planning and construction of the major link in the light rapid transit system between Vancouver and New Westminster; iii. Prepare a cost sharing formula outlining municipal and regional financial commitments to this project; iv. Initiate discussions with the provincial and federal governments to produce their fair share of financing light rapid transit costs and related costs.
-Approved. / 116
Recommendation 10: The regional board rescing its previous offer to contribute to the operating deficits of the bus system and advise the provincial government that it intends to commit its funds to initiate the process of design and construction of the light rapid transit system. -Approved.
Recommendation 11: The regional board, with the affected municipalities, prepare a program for preliminary engineering, traffic management, adjacent land development and zoning, and financing of the initial light rapid transit link. -Approved.
Recommendation 12: The regional board place the issue of initiating the light rapid trasnit system as a regional responsibility before the voters by means of a plebiscite or referendum;
And if successful then
The regional board apply for letters patent to permit construction, financing, and operation of the light rapid transit facility. -Tabled.
Recommendation 13: The regional board request the transportation function study committee to investigate the regional road network to determine and coordinate an effective arterial road system. The investigation should include considetation of planning, funding, coordination, construction and maintenance functions. -Approved.
Recommendation 14: The regional board requests the director of regional development to report on the scope of work, budget and appropriate bodies to examine and carry out proposals to more fully utilize the existing transportation facilities. -Approved.
Recommendation 15: The regional board and member municipalities adopt the open space conservancy concept and instruct staff to prepare a final conservancy map to be considered for adoption as a schedule of the official regional plan, in consultation with the technical planning committee and senior government agencies. / 117
-Approved.
Recommendation 16: The regional board instruct staff to investigate and propose legislation and administrative changes necessary to enable municipalities and GVRD to influence development in 'conservancy' areas and to act constructively to protect and use them. -Approved.
Recommendation 17: The regional board adopt an expanded open space program which will maintain the present acquisition budget and substantially increase the budget for development and operation on the basis of minimum copital investment and minimum facilities in a large number of regional park and other potential sites for regional recreation. -Approved.
Recommendation 18: The regional board recommend a budger level for the regional parks-open space function at the equivalent of 0.70 mill based on the 1975 taxable assessment, with a 0.35 mill equivalent allocated to development and operation.
And
. Direct staff to prepare alternative five year capital and operating programs for regional open space protection, acquisition and development under the direction of the regional parks and planning committees and with direct public involvement. -Approved.
Recommendation 19: The regional board directs that all briefs and submissions to GVRD be forwarded to the director of regional development for appropriate referral and acknowledgement, with copies to be forwarded to the Livable Region Program Advisory Committee for information, consideration and action as appropriate. -Approved.
Recommendation 20: The regional board support the mandate to the Livable Region Program Advisory Committee to carry out a continuing public information and feedback program, as set out above and in the report of the advisory committee. -Approved. / 118
Recommendation 21: The regional board should not set aside the livable region objectives and strategy but work within these objectives to encourage and assist programs designed to provide adequate housing in the region. -Approved.
Recommendation 22: The regional board request the director of regional development to report on means by which GVRD can assist in the study, encouragement and acceptance of new forms of housing and on necessary revisions to housing regulations as to help meet the nedd for more lower cost housing. -Approved.
Quoted from (GVRD, 1975c). APPENDIX 2: CASE STUDY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
LRT Case Study Questions
1) I am studying transportation decision-making and its relationships with the Livable Region Plan. Specifically, I am interested in the current and future decision-making process surrounding the extension of rapid transit to Coquitlam. Do you perceive any linkages between the LRP and this specific decisionmaking process?
2) Can you briefly explain the process decision-makers are following in this example?
3) Is there coordination in policy and decision-making between jurisdictions and between planning agencies? How about historically with relation to other similar decisions? How can this situation be improved?
4) How would public participation fit into this process?
5) What are the important reasons/arguments for this rapid transit extension? Explain.
6) Do these reasons justify the high capital expenditure?
7) How does Coquitlam and its growth fit into the region? How does a rapid transit extension fit into this growth?
8) Does the current decision-making structure integrate transportation planning with other types of planning? How or why not?
119 / 120
9) The first of the LRP's strategies is to achieve residential growth targets in each part of the region based on targets set by municipalities in concert with one another. Basically, there was a call to manage growth and make it more even among the municipalities. Does this specific decisionmaking process affect or consider this goal? How or why not?
10) The second of the LRP's strategies is to promote a balance of jobs to population in each part of the region. Does this specific decision-making process affect or consider this goal? How or why not?
11) The third of the LRP's strategies is to create a number of regional town centres. Does this specific decision-making process affect or consider this goal? How or wh3r not?
12) The fourth of the LRP's strategies is to provide a transit oriented transportation system linking residential areas, regional town centres and work areas. This is to be achieved mainly through growth management, better use of existing facilities and the construction of new facilities where required. Does this specific decision-making process affect or consider this goal? How or why not?
13) The last of the LRP's strategies is to protect and develop regional open spaces. Does this specific decision-making process affect or consider this goal? How or why not?
14) In light of these five goals, can you provide me with any insights into my other decision-making case study example: the historical decisions surrounding the building of the Alex Fraser Bridge?
Alex Fraser Bridge Case Study Questions
1) I am studying transportation decision-making and its relationships with the Livable Region Plan. Specifically, I am interested in the historical decision-making process that surrounded the building of the Alex Fraser Bridge. Do you perceive any linkages between the LRP and this specific decisionmaking process? / 121
2) Can you briefly explain the process decision-makers were following in this example?
3) Was there coordination in policy and decision-making between jurisdictions and between planning agencies? How has the relationship changed as a result of the Alex Fraser Bridge example?
4) How did public participation fit into this process?
5) Can you summarize the important reasons/arguments for the building of the Alex Fraser Bridge?
6) Did these reasons justify the high capital expenditure?
7) How does the existence of the Alex Fraser Bridge fit into or affect the growth of the region?
8) Did this historical decision-making process integrate transportation planning with other types of the region? How or why not?
9) The first of the LRP's strategies is to achieve residential growth targets in each part of the region based on targets set by municipalities in concert with one another. Basically, there was a call to manage growth and make it more even among the municipalities. Did this specific decision-making process affect or consider this goal? How or why not?
10) The second of the LRP's strategies is to promote a balance of jobs to population in each part of the region. Did this specific decision-making process affect or consider this goal? How or why not?
11) The third of the LRP's strategies is to create a number of regional town centres. Did this specific decision-making process affect or consider this goal? How / 122 or why not?
12) The fourth of the LRP's strategies is to provide a transit oriented transportation system linking residential areas, regional town centres and work areas. This is to be achieved mainly through growth management, better use of existing facilities and the construction of new facilities where required. Did this specific decision-making process affect or consider this goal? How or why not?
13) The last of the LRP's strategies is to protect and develop regional open spaces. Did this specific decision-making process affect or consider this goal? How or why not?
14) In light of these five goals, can you provide me with any insights into my other decision-making case study example: the decision process surrounding possible future extension of rapid transit to Coquitlam? -s-