UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Coordination of transportation and land use planning : a case study of Greater Vancouver Faubert, Reginald Paul 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1990_A8_2 F38.pdf [ 5.96MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0098439.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098439-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098439-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098439-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098439-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098439-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098439-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

COORDINATION  OF T R A N S P O R T A T I O N  C A S E STUDY  AND  L A N D U S E PLANNING  OF G R E A T E R V A N C O U V E R by  REGINALD  A  THESIS SUBMITTED THE  PAUL  IN PARTIAL F U L F I L M E N T OF  REQUIREMENTS MASTER  FAUBERT  FOR  OF ARTS  THE  DEGREE  OF  (PLANNING)  in THE F A C U L T Y OF  GRADUATE  STUDrES  School of Community and Regional Planning  We  accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE  UNIVERSITY OF October  BRITISH  COLUMBIA  1990  ® Reginald Paul Faubert, 1990  A  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. I N T R O D U C T I O N A. B. C. D. E. F.  1  Purpose Background Importance of Research Method Scope Organization  2 2 3 3 4 5  II. L A N D A. B. C. D.  U S E AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Transportation Planning Land Use Changes In Transportation Planning General Relationships 1. Physical Relationships 2. Models of Transportation / Land Use E. Examples of Relationships 1. Unknowns 2. Goal of Automobile Reduction 3. Transit Promoting Automobile Usage 4. Examples of Transportation / Land Use Coordination F. Conclusion  III. T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N N I N G IN V A N C O U V E R : H I S T O R Y A. Regional Transportation Planning B. The 1956 -- 1959 Plan 1. Context 2. The Plan 3. Transportation Policy C. Evolution -- 1959 To 1989 1. The Livable Region Program 2. The Regional Transportation Planning Function 3. From Highways to Transit D. The 1989 "Freedom To Move" Report 1. Context 2. The Report 3. Transportation Policy iii  7 8 12 12 17 19 25 30 30 32 34 36 41 43 43 45 45 49 50 51 52 52 53 54 54 56 58  E. Conclusion  60  IV. T H E L I V A B L E R E G I O N P R O G R A M A. L R P As Response B. What Is Livability? C. The Livable Region Program D. The Five Strategies of the L R P 1. Achieving Residential Growth Targets 2. Promoting a Balance of Jobs to Population 3. Creation of Regional Town Centres 4. Provision of a Transit Oriented Transportation System 5. Protecting and Developing Regional Open Spaces E. Conclusion V. G R E A T E R V A N C O U V E R T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C A S E S T U D Y A. The Case Study Examples 1. The Alex Fraser Bridge 2. The Coquitlam Rapid Transit Extension B. Interviews 1. Questions 1 Through 8 2. Questions 9 Through 14 C. Analysis 1. Relationships With L R P Strategies 2. Coordination With L R P Goals D. Conclusion VI. S U M M A R Y A N D A. Summary B. Conclusion  CONCLUSION  1: Livable Region  74 75 75 77 80 82 87 93 93 101 103 104 104 105  Bibliography Appendix  62 62 63 65 68 69 70 71 72 72 73  106 Recommendations  113  Appendix 2: Case Study Interview Questions  119  iv  LIST O F T A B L E S  Table  1: 1987 S e c t o r To Sector (Percentage Using T r a n s i t )  Modal  T r a n s i t Data  Split  23  Table  2: C o m p a r a t i v e  40  Table  3: C h r o n o l o g y  Table  4: P o p u l a t i o n F o r e c a s t 1955 To 1 976  Table  5:'.Committed C a p i t a l  Table  6: Summary Of I n t e r v i e w R e s p o n s e s  92  Table  7: D e v e l o p m e n t A r o u n d T r a n s i t  96  Of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n E v e n t s  Projects  V  I n 1989  47 48 58  LIST O F F I G U R E S  Figure  1: Space O c c u p i e d  Figure  2: Land Use  By A u t o m o b i l e s And T r a n s i t . . . 1 5  Transport Interaction  27  F i g u r e 3: I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s Between T r a n s p o r t a t i o n And O t h e r A s p e c t s o f L a n d Use P l a n n i n g Figure  4: A e r i a l  View o f Development  28  A r o u n d Yonge  S t r e e t Subway L i n e S t a t i o n s I n T o r o n t o  37  Figure  5: P r o p o s e d F r e e w a y N e t w o r k -- 1959  49  Figure  6: I n t e r a c t i o n o f LRP S t r a t e g i e s  67  Figure  7: The A n n a c i s S y s t e m Highway Development  76  Figure Figure  8: Route O p t i o n s F o r C o q u i t l a m R a p i d 9: C o q u i t l a m Town C e n t r e D e s i g n  F i g u r e 10: P e r c e n t a g e O f f i c e Space  Change  In  Total  Transit...78 81  Municipal 97  vi  LIST  OF ACRONYMS  ACT  = Australian Capital Territory  AFB  = Alex Fraser  Bridge  ALRT  =  Automated  BART  =  Bay Area Rapid Transit  BTS  =  CRTE  EIA  Bureau of Transit Services =  CBD  Light Rapid Transit  Coquitlam  = =  GVRD  Rapid Transit Extension  Central Business  District  Environmental Impact Assessment =  Greater  GVTTF  =  LRP  Livable Region Program  =  LRPAC LRT  =  Vancouver Transportation Task  Livable Region Program Advisory  Committee  Ministry of Transportation and Highways  = Roads and Transportation Association of Canada =  Technical Advisory  Committee  TCMHP  =  TTC  Toronto Transit Commission  VRTS  Force  = Metropolitan Statistical Area  RTAC TAC  District  = Light Rapid Transit  MOTH MSA  =  Greater  Vancouver Regional  =  Technical Committee  = Vancouver Regional  for Metropolitan Highway  Transit System  vii  Planning  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  I  would  their  like  to thank  support and  like to thank  my  my  guidance  advisors, throughout  Setty  Pendakur  the thesis  and  writing  Peter Boothroyd, for process. I would  fellow students in the planning school for their friendship  also and  support. I could not have made it through without such wonderful people around. Thanks.  viii  I.  Transportation development  planning since  transportation  INTRODUCTION  and decision making  the spatial  linkages.  When  power, cities were normalty  play  an important  extent  of metropolitan  personal  transportation  areas was  role  in urban  limited  to  the  routes. The automobile  Western  cities  animal  quite compact. Following the industrial revolution and  the advent of the streetcar, cities began to expand with suburbs appearing streetcar  by  is governed  of today.  age then  led to the urban  Unprecedented  levels  sprawl  of personal  along  apparent in  mobility bring  numerous problems to many metropolitan areas.  Problems such problems  associated with  transportation viewed  as air and noise pollution  planning.  (Meyer  metropolitan area  can  The  sprawl,  have  metropolitan  aspects then  &  Miller,  1984).  ramifications beyond  transportation  as "a basic component of an urban  structure"  other  urban  and traffic congestion, as well as the  This  system  the scope of can  thus  be  area's social, economic, and physical suggests  that  planning  within  a  should recognize the interconnections between transportation and  of planning. The problems  be viewed  not in a purely  consequence of the manner  in which  associated with  technical we  manner  choose to live  transportation planning but as "an inescapable and the way  we  have  organized our metropolitan areas" (Orski, 1989). This thesis studies transportation planning  and decision making  in the context  plan.  1  of an agreed  general  metropolitan  INTRODUCTION / 2 A.  PURPOSE  The  purpose of this thesis is to examine the coordination between transportation  and  other  aspects  working together  of land use  planning. Coordination  agencies  to either actively pursue similar policies or to ensure that work  done is not in opposition to one between  refers to planning  planning  agencies  another.  Such coordination can  or  to  amalgamation  thesis  is  realized  of  refer to dialogue  agencies  into  one  a  study  planning  body.  The  purpose  of  this  Vancouver. This case Program  (LRP)  metropolitan that  to  study judge  uses criteria taken whether  ideals. Although  it reflects  metropolitan  the  through  the  planning  from  transportation  LRP  is an  desires  of  of  Greater  Vancouver's Livable Region  planning  advisory  the  plan that is not specifically nor  case  is  coordinated  with  document, it is assumed  region.  Therefore,  this  general  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  one  the  causal  factor  reflects  as  expert  planning and  influencing factors which do agent of urban  indecision in  urban form.  regard  to  form. The  the  not  allow  background  isolation of for this  any study  relationships between transportation  INTRODUCTION / 3 The  background  LRP.  for the Greater  Local transportation history  against  highway  Vancouver  case  study  provides  is defined by debate pitting livability  construction. The L R P  is the result  of a  hearings and thus may reflect the planning desires of G V R D  C.  IMPORTANCE  the  of public  citizens.  time  to be studying both  transportation planning  in Greater  and the LRP. This is because the transportation infrastructure within  region  is currently being  augmented  by a multi-million  system, and because the L R P is currently being reviewed  The  practical  can  contribute to illustrating  utilized  process  concerns  OF RESEARCH  It is an important Vancouver  insight into the  significance  within the realm  using such  of this  research  is then  how goals from  dollar  rapid  transit  by the GVRD.  twofold. First,  such  a  study  a general metropolitan plan can be  of transportation planning. Second, lessons learned from  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 of  the G V R D  analyzes  actual  transportation  decisions  and  decision  study making  processes  in relation to the land use and growth goals of the LRP. Information  for  analysis was obtained  this  through  a review  of documents  and interviews  INTRODUCTION / 4 with  planners  were  conducted  agencies:  familiar with  with  eight  the Greater  the decisions planning  Vancouver  Districts of Burnaby, Coquitlam the Ministry of Transportation  E.  being  studied.  representatives Regional  from  District  Specifically,  interviews  the following  areas or  (GVRD);  B.C. Transit; the  and Surrey; the City of New  Westminster; and  and Highways.  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 the  possible  decisions  future  provides  rapid  transit  in  link  Bridge  framework  Fraser  across  to Coquitlam.  insight into decision making  modes and facilities. The Alex historical  Fraser  while the Coquitlam  Analysis  in regard  Bridge  transit  River and  of these  two  to the use of different  example  rapid  the Fraser  can be studied  with an  example  shrouded  is still  uncertainty.  The  thesis uses criteria from the L R P to evaluate  Alternate  ways  to evaluate  transportation  transportation decision making.  decisions  exist.  For example,  Navin  draws 25 separate criteria directly from the L R P 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 L R P are used here  as  general  criteria  for evaluating  transportation  planning  and  decision  INTRODUCTION / 5 making. It must be noted  that decisions promoting  reflect  coordination of the decision  strong institutional  L R P goals do not necessarily making  process  with  LRP  ideals.  F.  ORGANIZATION  In Chapter of  Two, theory and international examples contribute to an  the relationships  between  transportation  planning  and other  examination  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 chapter  concludes  by  introducing the criteria  which  will  be  analysis. This  used  in the case  study.  The  case study  of Greater Vancouver is presented in chapter Five. This chapter  first  introduces the two  The  responses  gathered  transportation from  decision  making  the interviews conducted  examples are then  being studied. outlined. These  INTRODUCTION / 6 responses perceived  are then  in terms  coordination that exist between  LRP. Conclusions  In  analyzed  Chapter  of the perceived  transportation decision making  following from this analysis are then  Six, the  conclusions  relationship and the  are summarized  and the  presented.  along  with  their  inherent  implications. The thesis ends with a discussion of the lessons that can be learned from this research.  II. L A N D  USE AND TRANSPORTATION  The  relationships between  the  simple  fact  that  land  use and transportation  transportation  facilities  use  PLANNING  planning  land.  go well  Transportation  beyond 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 for  area  the distribution  is dependant on the physical linkages  and  transportation planning  movement  should  of people  be studied  and  within  goods.  This  its borders  implied  as a consequence of land  that  use. Despite  this and the twoway relationship Owolabi mentions, the bulk of the literature is concerned  with  the reverse  surrounding areas. This may The  spread  personal  equation,  the impact  of transportation  be a result of the higher  of cities has increased  as transportation  facilities  upon  visibility of these impacts. technologies  have  increased  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  planning chapter defining  using begins  discusses  the relationships  theoretical examples with  a discussion  transportation  planning  between  as well  as  of transportation as  a  process 7  transportation  and  land  international experiences. planning,  which  for addressing  use This  concludes by  societal  concerns  LAND USE while  attempting  to meet the  nature  planning  to result in urban development.  chapter  then  transportation and  use  is then  reviews  discussed  various  the  discussed  and  of  this  / 8  the populace.  The  with  transportation  relationship  relationships  over the last thirty years  between  transportation  and  modelled. This leads to the conclusion that the  transportation transportation  combining  PLANNING  between  land use. This discussion is split into three sections. First, the  general  and  as  aspects  changing focus of transportation planning Second,  TRANSPORTATION  demands for transport made by  dynamic  This  of land  AND  planning / land  decision making  can  use  be  achieved  coordination  stages.  through  is appropriate  Third, examples  is examined.  land  use  are  technical aspects  disciplinary within  the  isolation  of  while  policy, planning  of these relationships from  around  the world are discussed. This discussion reveals three major physical examples of the transportation and uses of space and  A.  what  rapid  relationship: traffic congestion,  planning transit  PLANNING  is not  simply  alignment  a  should  matter be  of deciding  utilized. The  and  Miller  (1984) view  the  process  where to put  process,  purposes involved relate to such diverse areas as engineering  Meyer  possible alternative  the spawning of additional developments.  TRANSPORTATION  Transportation or  land use  and  roads  principles and social equity.  of transportation planning  five distinct elements:  1. Understanding the types of decisions that need to be made.  as  having  LAND 2. Assessing  U S E AND  TRANSPORTATION  PLANNING  / 9  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 for an urban area, agency, or firm. 5. Presenting this information understandable and useful form.  This process hints at how understand  transportation  to  decision  transportation planning planning,  there  and objectives established  makers  in  a  readily  can be accomplished. To better  is a need  to understand  the principles  which underlie it.  Meyer to  and Miller  parallel  (1984) relate five such basic  the five elements  principles. These  of the transportation  planning  are not meant  process just listed.  These principles are:  1. To consider transportation economic system.  planning  as  part  of the social  2. To view transportation planning to service travel.  as interconnected  3. To consider modes.  system  the transportation  facilities  as consisting  and  designed  of different  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 is  accomplished  and  what  USE AND  realm  the  TRANSPORTATION transportation  PLANNING  planner  However, these lists do not state the purpose of transportation the  obvious purpose of facilitating movement, transportation  response to the concepts of demand  works  within.  planning.  Beyond  planning  analysis and social equity  / 10  occurs as a  and as an end in  itself.  Transportation  demand  reasons.  First,  partake  in activity  transportation Second,  transportation at  some  demand  demand given  location.  derived  from  transportation  demand  results  Third,  dimensions,  including  transportation  (Meyer &  Miller,  working  deals  with  in a  demand  origin/destination  analysis usually  for other products for a number of  is derived  demand  convenience.  demand  differs from  and  For and  the travellers  example, living  can  measured  trip  purpose.  of time  Fourth,  trips rather  planning  is a  in different locations.  in terms  be  desire to  commuting  disutility  aggregated  1984). If transportation  from  is defined  along  and many  transportation  than individual trips solely in terms of  demand analysis, the planner's role becomes one of meeting demand.  Transportation with The  both  planning  metropolitan  responds to social equity  arguments in two ways, dealing  socioeconomic development and equity  between individuals.  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 socioeconomic  planning.  By  USE  AND  making  TRANSPORTATION  transportation  subordinate  PLANNING to  / 11  socioeconomic  planning, movement towards the ideal of social equity is inherent.  Social equity be  defined  transport  implies  requirements  ensuring  necessary of  fair  third  individuals, and  Norrbom  social  Reichman, facilitate  transport 1987).  the  sector  growth  certain  transportation projects  plays within planning  are  our  to  this  statement  to  has  by  end.  The  then  basic  becomes  with  the  standard a  means  of of  (the poor, elderly  planning  can  and  built, this  view  a  major  be  used  construction  possibly does  providing giving not  transportation  but  planning.  industry by  jobs a  the  and  an  examine  reason  the  end  (Nijkamp  &  government  to  for the the  end  large  existence  reasons  role that  is an  in  industrial  contributing  insight into  if transportation planning  it is difficult  relates it as  argument is that in our  become  economy. While  sector  discussion,  process for addressing  a  can  of public  "accordance  ensure  planning  itself  providing  society. Even  define  in  least mobility  of it must somehow fit with metropolitan  Following  is  planning  for transportation  Transportation  economic  planning  for within a transportation system.  capital expenditures to the of  order  socioeconomic groups with the  theoretical reason  the  in  This  1987). Transportation  itself rather than as a means to an society,  transportation  (1987) states, a certain supply  reasons.  distribution and  (Norrbom, that the  for  or disabled) are provided  The  between  in these terms. As is  transport"  equity  why  transport  in itself, the  or community goals.  necessary  to  Transportation  provide planning  a  summary is thus  a  societal concerns while attempting to meet the demands for  . LAND transport decision actual  made  by  USE AND  the populace.  This  making, which is the final decisions  do not necessarity  TRANSPORTATION  thesis  result of this planning follow  from  reasons such as political expediency). This what transportation planning should  take  B.  the transportation  / 12  transportation although the planning (for  a brief overview of  is and some of what transportation decision makers  of analyzing  general metropolitan  with  process,  section contributes  into account. The importance  appropriateness  is concerned  PLANNING  given  transportation  societal  decision  concerns  making  highlights the  in the context  of  plans.  LAND USE  Planning use  is concerned with the dynamic nature of land  over time. In relation  impact  and are impacted  to transportation planning, by  changes  use -the change in land changes in land  in transportation  facilities. The  use both dynamic  nature of both transportation and land use combine as urban development. Urban development can be seen as a manifestation use  C.  patterns  as well as a proxy for measuring such change.  CHANGES  IN T R A N S P O R T A T I O N  This  section discusses  from  the strict highway  the  benefits  of changing transportation and land  reasons for the movement of transportation planning age focus  of and need  discussed  include:  facilities.  The  PLANNING  for rapid  on road transit  the potential for land  following  section  discusses  building to a greater in metropolitan  use development some  of these  areas. around  away  recognition of The reasons transportation  relationships  between  LAND  U S E 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  automobile  dominance  new  does not mean  and  focus  toward  moved an  from  age of transit  of highway  and energy  building and  conservation.  This  other elements of land use have changed, but only that different aspects of  completely  understood, but reasons  highwaj'  age  of the 1950's  building. Urban sprawl  of planners. Such relationships are  for the changing  planning are derived from new understanding  The  age  that the relationships between transportation planning  such relationship emerged in the consciousness not  an  and  focus  of transportation  of such association.  1960's  was  an  era of great  freeway  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  planning  -  highlights  one  reason  for the changing  the emergence of a popular  focus  of transportation  emphasis on quality of urban life. This  LAND urban  U S E AND  TRANSPORTATION  environmental issue parallels the growing importance  movement in recent years. A  (Kuipers,  of the environmental  (Kuipers,  1980) is one land  use result of such  more obvious result has been the "desire to make heavily used  particularly  C.B.D.'s  more  appealing  1980). Numerous cities  pedestrian malls  / 14  strong desire to develop not only effective but also  attractive transportation systems change. A  PLANNING  to pedestrians  across  North  and  America  less have  choked  areas,  by  developed  cars"  outdoor  (e.g. Boston's Quincy Market) and transit malls (e.g. Vancouver's  Granville Street) by restricting automobile traffic and accessibility.  A  second  reason  recognition  that  for a changing focus in transportation planning new  roads  do  not necessarily  eliminate  circular relationship exists between traffic congestion  is the growing  traffic  congestion.  A  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  supply  of land  of high  available for transportation facilities. This  decision within numerous cities to place new other  than  car ownership  the automobile. However, these  and a finite  has contributed to the  emphasis upon transportation modes 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  relationship  described  illustrated  similar  to that  by figure 1, the congestion  for new within  road  have a circular  development. However, as  alternative modes  is a  congestion  LAND within between  vehicles  based  vehicles.  U S E AND TRANSPORTATION  on vehicle  The circular  capacity  relationship  rather  than  a  PLANNING congestion  for fixed guideway  rapid  / 15  of and 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 010(0(0000003 10(00(0(00000 ( O O O O O O O O O  a a §a § I a 11 s a la Sins B  ^tniQffTiO(PQ^rrTi(rn ^Qcrgtn?tn]inin~nirn{p O O T D I HQ PQTirrnirnfrTi 1  IS* C M * « 2 B 0 P E O P U  (TTC,  This circular  argument  against road  1987)  construction is a difficult argument  to base  LAND planning on The  since it may  automobile  USE  AND  TRANSPORTATION  PLANNING  result in promoting mass transit over  is seen by  many  as  an  the  / 16  automobile.  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), argument is built upon seemingly away. As the  taking a  perceived right  the road  congestion  (to automobile  usage)  Orski (1989) states, traffic congestion is "an inescapable consequence of  manner  in which  we  choose  to live  and  the  way  we  have  organized  our  metropolitan areas".  A  third argument for the changing  thirty  years  increasing  follows from  awareness  of  focus of transportation planning over the last  this discussion of alternate modes. There has the  benefits that  rapid  transit  can  been  contribute  to  urban area. These benefits include the enhancement of economic development job creation, the  promotion of environmental  reduction of traffic congestion and and  friendliness and  energy  an an and  savings, the  the provision of better mobility for the disabled  lower income segments of the population (RTAC, 1989).  However,the  rapid  creation  a  is  development  facility  However,  concentrated throughout  benefit  misconception.  is going  transportation areas.  transit  of  During  there  have may  land be  economic  construction, any  to have economic may  enhanced  spinoffs. After development  some  benefit  along fixed rapid transit lines rather than the metropolitan area.  type  and  upon  this  job  of transportation  construction, any  effects in  development  the  of  surrounding  development  being spread  type  being  haphazardly  LAND The  benefits  of  promoting  USE AND  T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N N I N G / 17  environmental  friendliness  and  reducing  congestion underlie the basic arguments of the first two reasons discussed apparent  change  mentioned  relates to improving  and  focus  of transportation  the mobility  economic barriers to personal  not  D.  in the  planning.  of those  with  The  last  the greatest  mobility. It is a benefit of rapid  traffic for the benefit physical  transit but  a reason for promoting rapid transit over the construction of new roads.  GENERAL  The  RELATIONSHIPS  numerous  categorized  relationships that  here  transportation  into  three  planner  exist between  sections.  and whether  The  transportation  first  relates  it includes  other  and land  use are  to the domain  aspects  of land  of the  use. The  second relates to the actual physical relationships between transportation and land use.  The third  physical  draws  relationships  on these  first  two  between  land  use  sections and  relationships are organized here with sub-sections  transportation.  model These  of the general  discussing each.  jurisdictional  and  political (ideological) boundaries. The Greater Vancouver example can illustrate political  transportation British  and  geographical  planning  Columbia  of the transportation  a  The  such  domain  to develop  boundaries.  responsibilities.  is the only  planner  Therefore,  The  has distinct  GVRD  has  the Provincial  geographical  no  official  Government of  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 "municipal  networks  are sometimes discontinuous  municipalities. The result is that at municipal  boundaries, either  LAND  USE AND  TRANSPORTATION  PLANNING  / 18  in terms of their existence, classification or standard" (GVTTF, 1989a).  The of  problems with cooperation  authority This  such disjointed transportation planning  between  may  municipalities.  not be responsive  lack of responsiveness may  Conversely,  to the concerns  revolve  a  around  regional  a lack  transportation  of the member municipalities.  result in planning  that is increasingly  separated  from those affected by planning.  With  respect  tend  to departmentalize.  United and  to the political organization  States,  land  separation  Engelen  planning,  governments  In a study based  on transportation planning  (1982) states  the responsibilities  use are almost reduces  of transportation  the  always  that  separated  potential  for  by  government  coordination  of  within the  for transportation departments.  transportation  "This system  management and land use management" (Engelen, 1982). Such  departmentalization  proceeds  bureaucracy  more  along  lines  efficient  and  of specialization in an understandable.  For  transportation planning, such separation  However,  departmentalization  that recognizes  should  attempt  many  to make  of  the  technical  an  atmosphere  aspects  both of  is needed.  exist  within  of  cooperation  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  transportation planner should  should  respond  1978).  them. The  remember that "these vital social concepts related to  transportation, mobility, and the right to travel are well (Hand,  to  Transportation  planning  is  not  only  within related  their to  domain"  land  use  LAND development  through  USE AND  TRANSPORTATION  direct effects between  PLANNING  the two but also  through  / 19  mutually  affecting social aspects of our society.  This  perception  of the transportation  relationships  between  land  transportation  planner's  domain  relation results  to changing land in the planner  relationships  between  departmentalization of  land  use  planner's and  limits  domain  provides  transportation  the impacts  insight into the  planning.  which  will  First,  be  the  examined in  use. The act of defining a limited domain necessarily  being  restricted  transportation  typically  and land  separates  use  planning  making  transportation  planning  is related  to studying  only  use planning.  transportation  coordination  use  Second,  planning  between  to land  certain elements of the  the  from two  development  government  other  aspects  difficult. because  Third,  of their  mutual ability to affect the social aspects of our societj . 7  1. P h y s i c a l Relationships  The  most  visible  result  of  the  relationship  transportation infrastructure is traffic congestion. representative relation  of problems with  transportation  to the public's perception  Meyer  and Miller  should  be  an  This  land  problem  systems: such  and  the  displays a feature problems bear close operate. Thus, as  (1984) point out, in transportation planning  public involvement  illustrates an inherent  the sj^stem  use  should  integral part  of how  between  of the problem  dependency  identification  of transportation planning  this case, the other factors are public perception  process.  This  on other  and land use.  feature  factors. In  LAND Two  illustrations  transportation  of  Orski's  USE AND  T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N N I N G / 20  argument  which  facilities to exacerbated  congestion  relates  land  use  and  new  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  when  accessibility  nodes  (Klassen,  to an area  1987). These  is increased.  This  land  uses  are thus attracted  attraction results in a further  need to increase road capacities.  The  second  around  example  is illustrated  Philadelphia. Between  maintaining  densities  lower  1960, 25 percent  a  1960 and than  automobile use since low density In  by  the  study  1980, the suburbs central  city.  grew  Region  rapidly while presupposed  efficiently by transit.  public transit. By  The study concluded that  Valley  Development  suburbs cannot be served  of the workforce used  was down to 14 percent.  of the Delaware  "previous  1980, this figure efforts to improve  mobility by constructing or improving transportation facilities in the suburbs have been  adversely  building  affected  of roads  and  by  subsequent  development  exacerbate the problems of traffic  land  development"  of suburbs  built  (Zakaria, upon  problem  seems unsolvable.  result, transportation planners strive to manage the problem  use  approaches  tend  another  to  congestion.  If Orski's argument is true, then the congestion  management  one  1986). The  to emphasize  that  congestion  As a  (Orski, 1987). Such is as much  a  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  LAND  USE  AND  TRANSPORTATION  PLANNING  / 21  development (Orski, 1989).  Congestion  is inherently  management planning such  ideas  a problem  strive  to overcome  ways: expand road capacity  means  as  of road  promoting  capacity.  capacity  The  two  limitations in pure  and reduce demand  the use  first  of higher  of Orski's  transportation  on the system  occupancy  (through  vehicles). The  third  management idea is a land use based approach: utilising stricter controls on land development.  However,  communities  actually  perpetuate  shopping  centres  tend  such  densities  automobiles" the  approach  crisis.  "leads  of development,  (Porter,  population,  a  and dispersed  Such built in dependency reduce  to  a  traffic  Development  industrial  parks  to congested which  crisis  of  lower  methods  housing  build in automobile  arteries, which  in turn  with  creates  densities,  dependency.  results in cries to  greater  1987). The instinctive reaction to congestion  dependency  but this reaction results in further automobile dependency. Higher  manner that promotes higher The  congestion  is ultimately a land use solution.  have to  result,  occupancy travel modes thus not exacerbating  problems.  of new  land  (1987) states  transportation  development  a series of land  urban  as Porter  relationship between  implications  on  is to disperse  densities can be developed over time to function smoothly and economically  Another  that  is that  and land  on existing land  use implications aside  development. Freeways  from  use space  the solution  use planning  in a traffic  to traffic  discusses the  usage. For example, freeways increased  accessibility  and are often  created  leading at the  LAND expense other  of other  forms  may  land  of land  U S E AND  uses. As  Klassen  expropriation  TRANSPORTATION (1987) points  of speculation. For example, there  not  necessarily is seen  accompany  factors  improvement  to be a special development  transportation  such  planning.  is a recognition  transportation  (Hand, 1978). A l l sites within Therefore,  clearance or  facilities do impact land use, but the degree of such impact is an  area  Transit  out, slum  / 22  and the disruption of existing neighbourhoods  be land use implications of transportation  Transportation  PLANNING  as housing  a metropolitan  planning policy  tool that area  to have  "development does  alone" cannot  (Hand, "stand  by  1978). itself  are accessible by automobile.  must be coordinated in order  that  and integrated  any significant  with  other  developmental  impacts (Hand, 1978).  This  view  further Using  of transit  reinforced  by  the example  having  only  limited impacts  an examination  of Greater  of modal  on land  split  Vancouver, table  within  use development is metropolitan  1 illustrates  areas.  the percentage of  total trips made  by various  transit modes. There are more transit trips to/from  the  CBD  to/from  metropolitan  than  percent  of these  any other trips.  Such  node, yet non-transit statistics  have  lead  modes  still  account  for 63  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  1987  USE AND  T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N N I N G / 23  Table 1: Sector To Sector Modal Split (Percentage Using Transit)  Vancouver 31 39 39 38 34 36 38 37%  From/To North Shore N o r t h Shore 10 CBD 9 Vancouver 8 Burnaby 6 N.E. S e c t o r 9 Richmond 12 Fraser South 16 Overall 9%  Burnaby  Vancouver 1 3 1 6 1 8 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 9 1 6%  CBD  6 1 1 10 1 1 Q -> 7 1 0 1 0%  (Gvttf, 1989b)  Jensen  uses  these  statistics  to argue  that  there  transit as a catalyst to urban development. This a  belief that  rather  than  patterns a  "urban that  that  the transit  between  development  to  transportation  mode  fact  interrelated  that  rapid  simply  should  fallacy  topic is often  to conform  system  to  in using  approached  to an ideal  conform  urban  transit  area.  to promote  transit  urban  with  system  development  This  land lines does  and focus  development, disregards not mean  development,  to expect the  that  major  planners  but only  that  the limitations that constrain such promotion.  transportation  and  other  is the reason for planning  necessarily mean  and  rapid  an urban  transit  recognise  transit  follow  within  not use rapid  planners should  The  ought  basic  are feasible but never ideal" (Jensen, 1978). Although there exists  relationship  should  development  is a  that the two should  elements  of land  use  the two in coordination. be planned together.  planning This  are  does not  While recognising the  LAND need  for  coordination,  Haley  transportation planning major transportation and  build, Haley  planning  as  USE notes  AND a  TRANSPORTATION difference  compared with other  in  the  PLANNING  time  aspects of land  facilities  take  (on  average) 15  argues the  need  for separation  to 20  / 24  perspective  of  use. Noting that  years to plan,  of transportation  and  design  land  use  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  facility development and of  construction, but  overall transportation  occurred  in isolation, the  aspects of land metropolitan  use  relationship  leading  development  is a  well defined  nor  planning, planning  and  for the  seems inappropriate planning  resulting infrastructure may  planning,  adversely  affecting the  technical stages of for the development  and  decision  making  prove detrimental  to  other  developmental aspirations of  communities.  transportation. They  can  appropriate  policy. If transportation  In summary, this section traced  planning  be  be  seem to  to  a number of relationships between land use  impact  traffic  reflection  achieved  It  factors, but  although the  was such  resulting in a recognized  circular  that  urban  relationships are  neither  technical aspects of transportation  through disciplinary isolation, coordination  decision making  is appropriate.  another, often  congestion.  of these  exact. Therefore,  one  and  stages between transportation  and  of the policy, other  land  use  LAND 2.  Models  USE AND  of Transportation / L a n d  TRANSPORTATION  PLANNING  / 25  Use  "Models attempt to bridge the gap between theory and practice" (Hammermeister, 1987). In other  words, models  take  theory  understandable  and useful  to those working  also  to describe  relationships  be  used  Modelling  is used  relationships  here  between  within  based  to conceptualize  transportation  and display  on  it in a form  the given real  and  land  use  flow  first  describe and  model  is the purely  to forecast  variables"  the 1987).  performance of land  modeller The  performance  should  not be viewed  and accessibility as mutually  relationships  and display  way  of affects. This  from  historical  A  models  below  makes them  reflect the  on such variables as three  models  can and should  display  are inherently  orientation  relationship  that  1987). These  model  trends  are predictive,  examined  facilities based  (Hammermeister,  understanding  to analyze and  on a set of prechosen  the  are processoriented  a process  this relationship.  1987). The second  from  exclusive.  Hammermeister  can be used  areas based  of all three. The models discussed  theoretical flow  third  draws  use and transportation  travel  elements  (Hammermeister,  "the development of urban  that  (Hammermeister,  aid  These  the "characteristics of land-use and transportation  present spatial patterns"  used  descriptive.  examples.  of the theoretical  planning.  presents three types of models that can be used to describe  The  field. Models can  or theoretical  the general  that is  intrinsic  descriptive of with  predictive, since  the two they can  forecasting by pointing out possible developmental impacts.  However, Hammermeister's  account  of these  three  types  of models outlines the  L A N D USE weakness of defining models as theory To  and  practice". This  AND  simply  TRANSPORTATION  an  PLANNING  "attempt to bridge  the  weakness is that reality is left out  forget reality is to create models that may  gap  of the  / 26  between definition.  not relate to actual planning.  example, Lowry (1988) states the following problem for transportation  For  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  somehow incorporate models  taken  and  any  model  for  such aspects of reality or be  in figures  2  and  3  2  displays  a  model  in  early  are  general  enough  transportation  planning  cast aside  irrelevant. The  to  as  incorporate  such  must  aspects  of  reality.  Figure by  Khan  points  out  levels  of  the  that  activity.  This it use  1970s. Along  Khan's the  household, public and and  transport, and  model  but  are  and with  the  depicts  transportation this over  those  users, suppliers and  private sectors. Each  time  and  involved  often tempered  by  other  not  in  of these sectors  strictly  between  sectors within  Khan  occurs at  societal groups —  relationships discussed  relationships are  interaction developed  conceptualization,  the interactions between land use  model displays some of the  shows that  use  this interaction is dynamic  transport system —  use  of land  and  the  land  (1984)  all spatial use  as making up  and the  influences both land transport.  previously. For  example,  transportation and  society. This  is a  land  reflection  of transport's role within society, as a derived demand resulting from a desire of  LAND the  traveller  (Meyer &  to  participate  USE  in a  AND  TRANSPORTATION  behaviour  at  a  given  PLANNING  location  or  / 27  land  use  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  The Land Use  and Transport System (Khan,  However, this  model  is weak  • I  in certain  1974)  respects. Although Khan  refers to the  interaction within the model as dynamic, the model appears hierarchical. The seems to be from the  land  sectors.  use  and  Although  flow  the top down, with the socio-economic environment influencing transport  system  considerable  through  literature  the  discusses  household, public impacts  of  and  land  private  use  and  LAND  USE  AND  TRANSPORTATION  PLANNING  / 28  transportation facilities upon other sectors, this reverse flow seems to be missing. Furthermore, everything  the  else  model without  seems actually  to  say  only  contributing  that to  everything  the  is related  understanding  of  to such  relationships.  The  model  depiction  needs  of two  a way  greater affect  balance  and  flows.  The  incorporates the strengths of Khan's  a  more  circular  model while  circular model  nature  developed  illustrating  Figure 3: Interrelationships Between Transportation And Other Aspects of Land Use Planning  Combined  Impacts  in figure  3  the interrelatedness  of transportation and other aspects of land use planning.  (c)  which allows  LAND This  model  is circular  self-explanatory, Box is  A  although  AND  TRANSPORTATION  non-hierarchical.  there  is a need  The  here  flows  on  to elaborate  PLANNING  / 29  the diagram  are  upon  the captions.  corresponds to the sectors within Khan's model. The major difference here  that  and  and  USE  the word  land  use  preference  is specifically  are dependant  upon  used, illustrating  demand.  Such  demand  that  transportation  is incorporated  in  relationships (a).  The  direct  and  C) are depicted  Orski's  relationships between  argument  accessibility higher  by  that  and thus  density  transportation  relationship improved  higher  land  and land  (b). One  example  transportation values,  and ultimately to greater  which  demand  use planning of this  facilities then  B  relationship is  lead  leads  (Boxes  to  greater  to development of  upon the transportation facilities  (Orski, 1989).  Box . D  (other  institutionally and  planning distinct  environmental  planning impact  from  transportation  issues. These  both in combination (c) is traffic  preferences  (Box A)  demand or personal  model  and land  are impacted  (c) and separately  congestion;  pollution. Transportation  This  aspects) refers to those facets of planning  an example  and land  through  may  be  use planning,  such  as social  transportation  and  land  (d). A n  example  of a separate  use planning  relationship  by  that  then  of a combined  impact  reflect back  (e), the influence  use  (d) is noise upon  personal  of planning  upon  preference.  incorporates  three  major  transportation and land use discussed  aspects  of  in this chapter.  the  relationship  between  First, the relationships are  LAND not  USE AND  TRANSPORTATION  one-way. The model displays transportation  affected  by  impacting.  and  affecting  outside  and land  circumstances,  as  PLANNING  use planning  well  as  as being  being  mutually  Second, the model does not stress the importance of planning  mode over  another, reflecting  a recognition  that  all modes  / 30  for one  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. E X A M P L E S OF RELATIONSHIPS  This  section  discusses  three  main  interrelationships in figure 3 before planning  transportation and land  aspects  providing  related  the  model  of  examples of the benefit gained by  use in tandem. These aspects are: the unknown  degree and characteristic of these relationships, the goal and  to  of automobile  reduction  how rapid transit promotion can actually promote other modes.  1. Unknowns  Figure  3  represent  is a  model  of an  unknown  theoretical flows of relation  relationships. The  while  no  attempt  lines  (a through  is made  e)  to gauge the  intensity or degree of relation. Although the relations exist, there  is debate over  their characteristic and degree. Meyer  that  studies  have  merely  locational (they  and  that  shown  that  transportation  land  focus  and Miller  use impacts development  facilities  designed  (1984) contend  of new  rather  transportation  than  create  to influence land  new  numerous  facilities are development)  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 land  feel that transportation planning can have usage  and  consequences  those  when  other is paramount.  who  the planner  of  unrestricted  not. Such  personal  a  difference  follows one philosophy  For example,  transit must be tempered extension  do  a significant impact on changing can  have  in a situation  influencing urban development  serious  where the  through use of  with the realization that the automobile represents an freedom  in  North  travel. Here, the philosophy  that  America rapid  which  transit  will  allows  virtually  evoke  land use  development should be tempered by the fact that automobile usage is paramount.  In Walnut Transit the  Creek, a suburb of San Francisco, a station on the Bay Area Rapid  (BART) system was built. One of the planning justifications for building  station  (Cervero,  was  1988).  that  "it would  Although  function  Walnut  Creek  as a has  magnet since  for commercial  developed  as  an  growth" 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 B A R T 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  L A N D USE actual  development  relationship  (b) in figure 3  planning) would be greater  impact  relationships  Goal of  Many  and  BART  TRANSPORTATION  dependant.  on  the  and  or  &  the  opposite. and  and  goal  Voluntary  transit.  personal  conclusion  land  use  here  is  planning  that  are  the  complex,  or degree.  has  preferences planning  been  methods  Regulatory  1985). Such  land use  upon such negative  sought ask  and  methods of  the  include  creating  tend  to  public  to significantly use  of high  1985). This transportation  reduce the  is based  mode. However,  use  be  corridors with  approach  of  users  to  reserving  automobile  emphasize and  combine lanes  free  for  zones  the relationship  private  sectors  and  (relationship (a) in figure 3).  problem which can  density  number  in numerous ways, both  automobile  approaches  parking  externalities as air  ways to reduce the  Chadda, however, point out that planning  becomes a land  dictate  The  attempt to find  vehicles, restricting  travel in order  Chadda,  roads. This  use  transportation and  promotion  felt  The  often unknown in character  Chadda,  the  Schonfeld  planners  flow, with transportation influencing land use.  transportation  regulatory.  occupancy  between  the  use  result is often an  carpool  (Schonfeld  that  Automobile Reduction  automobiles  trips,  seems  / 32  land  transportation studies tend to focus  voluntary  It  PLANNING  (mutual impacts between transportation and  way  been  between  pollution. The  high  a one  has  multi-dimensional  2.  is not  AND  of the  approached  mixed on  the  personal  must reduce the need to automobile. Reduction then through  types of land idea  that  preference  such methods use  land will  (Schonfeld use  result  can in  as & help  many  LAND  USE AND  T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N N I N G / 33  choosing not to live in high density, mixed  use developments  and not to reduce  usage of their automobiles.  Numerous  cities  recent North  are utilising  American  trend  land  use approaches  toward  pedestrian  to automobile  and transit  reduction. The  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  Automobile-free  zones  can increase  improve  area  environmental  local  businesses  zones  transit  argument  efficiency,  conditions  more viable. However, automobiles  and  produce  improve make  are still  valid  pedestrian  outdoor  the mode  points. safety,  street  level  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 including employees"  "directly  the relative  defines  ease  the kinds of traffic  of site  access, and even  conditions  that  the modal  (Cervero, 1986a). Sufficient parking in or around  adversely affect planning attempts to reduce automobile usage.  will  exist,  preference of  a development  may  LAND Similarly, further free zones tend  to  are to be  successful. For  automobile  availability  of central city  city  (Whitson,  Transit City  (LRT)  of  may  have  TRANSPORTATION  usage is needed  example, European  zones  parking and  American  justified  transportation limited  free  transit  with  cities  regular  reduced  PLANNING  transit  automobile  Transit  New  LRT  system"  success  if they  Promoting  Automobile  transit facilities in both  away  from  cities have  included  provision,  development  as  "an  (Hammermeister, neglect  the  automobile  usage  doing this,  streets. With pre-eminent the  a  they  subway  towards  and  user  sufficient  1980). Some commuters transit  has  suggest that  made  the  may  the  streets  the construction  downtown traffic congestion.  incentive use less  reduction.  alternative  1987).  Some  complexity  Seattle  transit.  ignore rather  downtown circulation system  automobile  limited  to  the  such  Rail The auto  schemes  of relationships.  For  usage.  Usage  Vancouver  approach,  size  access to the central  automobile  Both  may  than  City based to  not result in a  systems,  vastly different technologies, provide similar underground cities. By  if automobile  of moderate  example, planning for rapid transit can actually promote automobile  3.  / 34  1980). Similarly, reasons for the introduction of Light  in North  Edmonton  dominated  AND  encouragement of public  reinforce  areas  USE  congestion on  of Vancouver on LRT"  the automobile  utilizing  service within the central  address  leave  although  shift  his  does  not  and  thus may  car  at  because  provide "a "not give  home" (Kuipers,  of a belief that rapid  congested. However, there is no  of SkyTrain in Vancouver  downtown  has  evidence to  actually  influenced  LAND USE In  Seattle, a  1.3 mile  electric buses.  AND  tunnel is being  TRANSPORTATION  constructed under  PLANNING  downtown  7 35  streets for  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,  problems  at the street  Removal  of buses  level  from  this  solution  and not a  downtown  streets  is an  solution may  escape  from  to the effects  simply  attract  the land use of congestion.  more  automobile  traffic.  Some  define the automobile  automobiles modes  a  or rapid  transit  mode  of choice since  tend to move more people, quicker and more conveniently than other  (Jensen,  automobile  as a mass  may  "$3billion,  1978).  congestion  be a goal similar to emphasizing  privately  radiate out from  Reducing  funded  'subway  while  still  accommodating  the  transit provision. For example,  for automobiles'"  has been  proposed  to  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,  opposition to the transit provision goal of reducing air pollution.  this  works in  LAND 4.  Examples of  This to  chapter reduce  Coordination  USE  AND  Transportation / L a n d Use  has  called for coordination  the  negative  will  also  allow  both  concepts  from  one  PLANNING  / 36  Coordination  of transportation and  developmental  community goals, rather than negating Examples  TRANSPORTATION  impacts to  work  of  each  land upon  in tandem  another while pursuing  Toronto, Ottawa, Seattle and  use  Canberra, of such  planning  the  other.  towards  similar  opposing goals. coordination  at  work are examined here.  Metropolitan  Toronto's  status  as  a  leader  in coordinating  transit  and  land  planning dates to the development of the Yonge Street subway line in the and  use  1950s  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  system was  in  Toronto  were  built "over a period  population of metropolitan  effective  in  of about 35  influencing urban years  at the  Toronto doubled" (Pill, 1988).  form  since  the  same time that  the  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  percent of Torontonians over the age of 15 at least The  land  use and transit  successful  transit  planning  (Cervero,  can be in shaping urban  is used  once a week  recent extension of rapid transit to the Scarborough  Metropolitan Toronto's continuing commitment  that  Town  (Pill,  by 65 1988).  Centre attests to  to guide growth via coordination of  1986b). Although  this  points to how  form, the success here  may  not be  LAND transferable developed fairly the  to  other  around  USE  established  transit  AND  urban  since  TRANSPORTATION regions.  transit  was  change  and  has  already  coordinated  dictated  planning  may  their  can  argument  introduced  small. Other established urban regions automobile  The  not  while  for  is that  Toronto  / 38  Toronto was  still  exhibit such success  since  development.  allow  PLANNING  But  promotion  cities  of  continually  increased  urban  efficiency.  Ottawa  has  been  impacts. By busway and  developing  coordinating  land  system, more than  suburban  a  shopping  busway use  rapid transit  planning  $800 million  centres,  is  system  policy with  under  construction  1988). Such coordination has  resulted in nearly  Ottawa  destined  being  parking  is  space  15  percent  (Cervero,  successfully  hour  with  below  1986b). the  journeys the  The  1975  lesson  automobile  in  developmental  development  of development, including office  (Stacey,  peak  the  with  made  rate here  terms  of  60  a  that  busway  percent  bj' bus.  despite is  along  of  a  series of coordinating  actions, not  towers routes  Similarly, downtown  near  bus  doubling  transit  ridership and  simply  the  of downtown  with  of office  can  compete  other  modes in terms of impacts upon land development. However, such success result  of  "the  result  transit is the  of a single,  major program" (Stacey, 1988).  Coordination  of land  both sides of the transportation  1986).  and  equation.  planners  characterized by (Sandaas,  use  low The  To  must  transportation planning be  successful, the  work  toward  requires  users  common  of land  goals.  office vacancy rates (Edmonds, 1986) result  is  a  demand  for  more  accommodation as  well as  Downtown  on the  Seattle is  and  traffic  congestion  office  space  within  a  LAND  USE  transportation system that is already new  developments  incorporate  AND  TRANSPORTATION  exceeding capacitj'. The  traffic  and  PLANNING  city is now  transportation  impact  / 39  making mitigation  techniques.  Columbia of  Centre is a  office,  were  retail  required  and to  new  76  other build  storey  building with over  commercial traffic  space  mitigating  1.6  (Edmonds, measures  million  1986). into  square feet  The  their  developers development.  Edmonds (1986) listed these measures as follows:  -- initiate ride sharing and  car pool parking  program.  - provide capitalization fee equivalent to 20 operated by METRO. -  allocate 20  -- allocate 290  (of 1000)  parking  (of 1000)  vans for van-pool services  spaces for van-pool usage.  parking  spaces for carpool usage.  - employ full-time transportation carpools, vanpools and transit.  coordinator  to  -- encourage tenants to subsidize employee transit -  provide  25  Although  all local  example  does  tenants  with  use.  bicycle racks.  impacts  illustrates  will a  not  be  recognition  totally by  mitigated  both  developers that transportation and  land use  must be  mitigation  developer  to  measures  assist  allowed  the  local  with  this  scheme, this  governments  coordinated.  constructively  and  land  Compliance with  participate in  such  coordination.  The  benefits  of coordinating  seen  through  comparison  transportation  of two  and  land  use  similar jurisdictions which  planning approach  can  best  be  coordination  LAND differently. Warren Australia  and  populations,  Similar  (1988) completed  Springfield,  densities  Canberra was  USE  and  Illinois.  AND  TRANSPORTATION  such  a  Both  employment  comparative  cities  are  structures.  223,000 with a local neighbourhood  statistics  for Springfield  were  study  seen  In  PLANNING  to  1980,  / 40  using Canberra, have  the  comparable  population of  density of 9.6 people per acre.  187,800  and  7.9. Table  2  provides a  comparative list of transit data for Canberra and Springfield.  Table 2: Comparative  Transit  Item  Canberra  Annual Passenger Boardings 24 Average D a i l y Boardings D a i l y Passenger Boardings G r o s s Revenue $13 T o t a l Subsidy $14 S u b s i d y per B o a r d i n g Percent Subsidy Level Route M i l e a g e ( a l l r o u t e s ) A n n u a l B o a r d i n g s per Route M i l e Number of R o u t e s ( t o t a l ) Number o f R o u t e s ( w e e k d a y s ) B u s i e s t Route ( b o a r d i n g s ) Number of I n t e r c h a n g e s Number of B u s e s T o t a l Employees  (Warren,  Although the number vast  difference  transit Three  is of a  reasons for such  promotes  and  Springfield  000 100  000 000 0.45 100 000 200 000 $0.59 52.0% 804.7 9 824.8 11 2 56 13 000 3 392 805  2  656 7  092 030 0.04 $782 624 $2 699 724 $1 .02 77.5% 187.2 14 188.5 18 18 677 1 42 91 .2  1988)  of automobiles in each city are similar, table 2 displays a  in transit  utilization  Data  subsidizes  usage.  Taking  all these  magnitude roughly  different ridership transit  to a  10  figures  items  times  together,  Canberra's  greater (Warren,  are apparent. First,  greater extent. Second,  1988).  Canberra  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  better  conducive  use  curvilinear  neighbourhoods, while  to flow  through  Springfield displays  traffic. Third, Canberra  a grid  pattern  has a residential  policy in effect dictating where development is to occur.  land  Springfield has not  adopted a plan for "structuring land-use activities" (Warren, 1988).  F. CONCLUSION  The Each  relationships between transportation and other land use planning affects the other  planning depicted are  world. Figure the flows  threefold:  while  they  3 illustrated  combine this  to impact  by means  other  land  inter-relatedness.  of the  diagram  that  of impacts. The major physical examples of these relationships  traffic  use  elements  of a circular  congestion,  possible  alternative  uses  spawning of additional developments. The overall conclusion and  are complex.  planning  should  Although  technical aspects  handled by those who  be  coordinated  to  of each  and the  is that transportation  take type  of space  advantage  of their  of planning  are best  specialize in that field, coordination of planning, policy and  decision making is appropriate.  This  conclusion  specifically calls for coordination  different aspects  of planning  does not discuss how  the  following  planning,  question.  policy  or  then follows from Do  responsible for  as well as for different jurisdictions. This  coordination should  exist. The case study  between planners  the case  decision  making  conclusion  be accomplished but only that it should this discussion of theory  studies  of Greater  coordination  by  Vancouver  in relation  addressing  display any  to transportation  LAND facilities? form  Furthermore,  U S E AND  TRANSPORTATION  if coordination is displayed, what  form  PLANNING does  and  should it take? These questions are specific to the Greater Vancouver  study but the answers can provide insights beyond region.  the geographic  / 42 what case  extent of the  III.  In  TRANSPORTATION  PLANNING  IN  VANCOUVER:  HISTORY  the introduction to Planning Canadian Communities, Hodge (1986) reminds us  that  the planner  physical  "works  form". The  with  a  legacy  metropolitan  social structures which already  of past  planner  decisions  must  about a  contend with  exist. Transportation  community's  the physical  facilities represent  and  the single  largest use of land within  a metropolitan  area and embody a monumental legacy  for  planning.  providing  current  and  transportation  future  planning  within  By  Greater  Vancouver,  transportation  legacy  This  addresses this purpose with four  chapter  how  transportation  it relates  analyzes  plan  to the  the evolution  devised  prevailing  between public  of transportation  with  a  chapter  planning  is taking in Greater Vancouver.  discussion  REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION  Vancouver  sections. The  1956  policy  and  outlines  first  to serve  describes  with  emphasis  day.  The  third  of the between  Transportation  of  future  1959  and  released  directions  the daily-use  needs  on  section  1989  while  in 1989. This  that  transportation  PLANNING  Task  Force  (GVTTF,  1989b) states  local geography allows the region to serve three special transportation  ~  of the  1959  To Move" documents  concludes  Greater  main  planning  chapter  The  this  background  in transportation terms. The second investigates the  the fourth investigates the "Freedom  A.  historical  or context within which planners of today must work.  the Greater Vancouver region regional  a  of people 43  and  goods  travelling  that  functions:  within  TRANSPORTATION  PLANNING  IN V A N C O U V E R : H I S T O R Y / 44  the region.  In  -- to function as Canada's Pacific gateway for imports  and exports.  -- to act as the key link in the provincial highway the mainland and Vancouver Island.  system  serving  these  functions, transportation planning  modes used for personal the  SkyTrain,  cater to the numerous  mobility (electric and diesel buses, automobiles, bicycles,  the SeaBus, trains,  airplanes and walking) and goods  (small and large trucks, trains, ships no  must  between  mention of the complexities  and airplanes). This  list  movement  of modes makes  inherent in moving certain goods (hazardous) and  people (disabled).  The  numerous  responsible  jurisdictions  divide  their  transportation  responsibilities in terms of mode and geography. The Federal after  airports,  governed The  planning left  and  by the Provincial  regional  leaves  railways  only  governments the  Highways,  Government. Local have  Provincial  no  direct  Government  ferries  and  governments  planning with  Government public  transit are  manage  responsibilities  the jurisdictional  looks  local  roads.  at all. This mandate for  in a regional transportation context, yet intra-regional facilities are often  to member  discontinuous  at  municipalities. The municipal  classification or standard"  A  ports.  planning  regional  for the  municipalities  within  boundaries,  "municipal  either  in  networks  terms  of  are sometimes their  existence,  (GVTTF, 1989a).  transportation  municipalities  result,  authority  limited  the  GVRD  could  public need  help  funds "a  eliminate  available. co-ordinated,  competition  Instead targeted  of  between competing,  approach  to  TRANSPORTATION transportation  improvement  PLANNING  ... to  ensure  IN V A N C O U V E R : H I S T O R Y / 45  effective  spending  of transportation  dollars" (Development Services, 1989). It is uncertain  whether such a  targeted  structure  approach  coordination type  could  between  of coordination  result  from  existing planning between  T H E 1956  This  plan,  «  1959  by  the  regional  structures. However,  the various  aspects of transportation planning  B.  a  agencies  or  from  the need  responsible  coordinated better  for some  for the different  is apparent.  PLAN  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 six  volumes  efficient,  as part  and  two in 1959. The objective  flexible  transportation  development strategy of the area"  1.  for the resulting study, released in  plan  was  that  to produce  was  an adequate,  "consistent  with  the  (TCMHP, 1956).  Context  The  terms  location  of proposed  construction these  of reference  terms  dates  charged  arterial  (TCMHP,  of reference  the committee  roads,  approximate  1956). By asking  restricted  to address construction  transportation costs  and  needs, required  for the location of arterial roads,  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  V A N C O U V E R : H I S T O R Y / 46  These restrictive terms of reference were a product of  thinking.  The  1950's  and  1960's  was  an  throughout North America. Urban America was highways, and as  American  Vancouver, with  defined &  such  as  Mills,  1952,  low  with  the  than  Social  power (table 3), saw the  population  "express buses on 1959), rather  thought  was  of that time's dominant  era  of  prevalent  densities, the  only  vehicles on  Credit Party  under  separate  building  into a maze of  in Canada. In  cities  such  viable rapid transit  was  freeways, expressways and as  freeway  being transformed  major streets" (Sutcliffe  rights of way.  W.A.C. Bennett's  the advent of the highway age  1956/59 plan was  great  way  The  leadership  in British  year  gaining  Columbia. Thus,  produced when highway promotion dominated transportation  planning.  The  studj' area  areas and  based  area  The  on  internal  Port  comprised  study  population  area  plan  was  implicit  with  included  Port  Moody  twelve municipalities and  in  projected to reach a  area  Coquitlam,  area of over 300  population  1956/59  travel patterns  density. The  Coquitlam,  an  for the  then  into internal  current  levels  and  of development  Vancouver, Burnaby, New and  Richmond  three  while  electoral areas  external  Westminster,  the  overall  study  (table 4) covering  square miles (TCMHP, 1956).  the  study  area  1,241,000 by  population  of the  divided  increase  external  within the internal area.  area  1976  (table  was  (Sutcliffe &  of nearly to  4)  increase  87%. by  665,100 Mills, The  201%,  in  1955  1959). This  and  represented  projections called compared  to  was  for the  about  60%  TRANSPORTATION  PLANNING  IN V A N C O U V E R : 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 -- " r a i l s to rubber". 1956 TCMHP begins work. 1959 Proposed freeways with bus rapid t r a n s i t (TCMHP Report). 1962 Study concludes no passenger demand in Vancouver for r a i l rapid transit before 1980. 1963 Study l i n k s Vancouver central business d i s t r i c t (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 F i r s t routes for r a i l rapid t r a n s i t proposed. 1969 Expressway plan, "Swan Wooster Report". 1970 Review of a l l rapid t r a n s i t systems being developed, emphasis on heavy r a i l . 1971 F i r s t 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 i n i t i a t e d . 1974 BTS issues LRT plan. 1975 GVRD loses control of transportation planning to BTS, transportation planning now p r o v i n c i a l funct ion. 1976 Jack V o l r i c h elected Vancouver mayor on LRT platform. 1976 Livable Region Plan introduced by GVRD. 1978 $300000 GVRD study of LRT i n i t i a t e d . (Kopystynski &  Pawlowski, 1980)  TRANSPORTATION  Table  PLANNING  4: Population Forecast  1955 To 1976  Population 1955  Location  365 3 83 1 31 26 20 26 21 4 2 49 8 19 1 665  Vancouver U.E.L. Burnaby D.L. 172 New Westminster Richmond North Vancouver City North Vancouver D i s t r i c t Coquitlam Port Coquitlam Port Moody Surrey Delta West Vancouver Unorgan ized Total  (Sutcliffe &  The  IN V A N C O U V E R : H I S T O R Y / 48  Population Forecast 1976 463 000 1 5 000 1 69 000 2 000 38 000 96 000 35 000 76 000 56 000 1 5000 1 1 000 180 000 44 000 41 000  800 000 700 400 700 000 000 300 000 600 700 400 800 200 500 100  1 241 000  Mills, 1959)  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  growth. Their  plan  plan  had no  was  reason  developed  to expect  with  anything  but continued  the following expectations:  traffic  that vehicle  traffic would increase threefold by 1976, that transit usage would decrease from 18%  to  11%  of personal  trips  and  that  streets would double by 1976 (City Planning, plan  was  written in the context  total  vehicle  on  Vancouver  1959a). The 1956/59 transportation  of rapid population  an era of transportation megaprojects.  mileage  and traffic  growth, and in  TRANSPORTATION  PLANNING  IN V A N C O U V E R : H I S T O R Y / 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 defined access  5) be built as an  major  access-controlled expressway  to or from  interchanges  at a cost of $465 million  abutting property  (TCMHP,  streets  were  1959). Although to be  continuous  (TCMHP, no  cross  and connection  only  no  with  1959). A  cross  across  traffic  traffic  freeway at grade,  at specially  at grade  the freeways  (City  was  was no  designed planned,  Engineering,  TRANSPORTATION 1959b).  The  planners  felt  PLANNING  that  minimum freeway requirements  the  IN  V A N C O U V E R : H I S T O R Y / 50  proposed  system  represented  needed to serve the expected  1976  only  the  traffic volumes  (City Planning, 1959b).  The  plan  form  displayed bias  of  freeway  transit  can  system"  favouring  be  devised  (TCMHP,  provided led the authors uneconomical not  the  private automobile  which  1959). A  will  be  realization  to recommend  that  freeways.  need in certain local areas for separate lanes and Mills, 1959).  3.  Transportation  inherently  by  The  that  "no  substitute for  the  public transit  had  to  be  system, since it would be plan  also recognized  the  even roads for buses (Sutcliffe  Policy  Government transportation policy can actions taken  stating  realistic  a freeway bus  to utilize the developed  &  a  by  be  defined as the guiding rationale for the  government in relation to transportation. Like planning, policy is  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 effects upon  other  externalities. During United  States  (Kopystynski was  aspects the  coupled &  of planning. Transportation policy  era  of the  "extensive  Pawlowski,  1956/59  freeway  1980).  In  to facilitate the urban form impacts  should  unintended  reflect  plan, transportation policy  development  Greater  and  ... with  Vancouver,  urban  these in the  renewal"  transportation policy  that policies of other departments were  TRANSPORTATION exerting  upon  the region.  The  planned  as a  low density  PLANNING plan  area"  IN V A N C O U V E R : HISTORY / 51  referred  (Sutcliffe  to Greater  &  Mills,  freeway system was the way to service dispersed  This  1956/59 plan  mode  for personal  provincially apparent on  reflects  and  congested  central  on  in the following central  business  The road  quote  city  district  1959) to argue  highway building  which  streets:  age  saw  platforms.  addressed  that the  automobile as the  politicians Such  a  both  emphasis is  buses were having  of vehicle  to be  elected  policy  the trouble  "the elimination  ... is not considered  as "being  transportation needs.  a policy of promoting the private  mobility.  locally  Vancouver  traffic  practical  from the  proposition for  Vancouver" (TCMHP, 1959).  C. E V O L U T I O N - 1959 T O  1989  Table  planning  3  Greater  lists  transportation  Vancouver.  planning  centred  preceding  World  1967  stress  Exposition, three  Livable  Region  the  which  which  themes  1967  expressway  important  of SkyTrain,  outlines  chronology  around  transit. The most building  This  that  illustrates  a  Great schemes  corresponded  used  the regional  major  while  event with  transportation to this  occurred  Freeway  transportation  important  Program,  events  shift  Debate. those  in recent  Vancouver's  change  to  The  table  afterwards years hosting  in transportation planning  1978 in  in transportation  as its theme. This  transportation  movement from highways to rapid transit.  prior  entries  emphasize  has been the of the 1986 section  briefly  planning: the  function,  and the  TRANSPORTATION 1. The Livable Region  In  1975, the Livable  GVRD  (GVRD,  was  strength  -  greatly as  Region  Program  1975a). The L R P  protect  and  (Stevenson,  as environmental  3) by the  a series of regional town centres for of the region. The  Greater  Vancouver's  1989). Such  a plan  has the potential to  if the regional town centres  is still  concerns  (table  enhance  influence transportation planning  region  introduced  decentralize the economic activity  to "preserve,  its livability"  (LRP) was  proposed  hubs for rapid transit. The L R P  the  IN V A N C O U V E R : H I S T O R Y / 52  Program  future development to help strategy  PLANNING  an important  continue  planning  to prevail  upon  greatest  are viewed document in  all aspects of  planning.  The  L R P illustrates a shift from the dominant planning  era. It embodies planning  subordination  Transportation  Planning  by the Provincial  powers were granted granting those  and other  land use  Function  the 1959 and the 1989 regional transportation reports, the G V R D had  aspects of the transportation planning them  of transportation  elements to environmental factors.  2. T h e Regional  Between  a growing  paradigm of the 1956/59  of power  powers  early 1980s.  was  Government. As table  to the region  was  function both given  recommended  a prelude  to and rescinded  3 reveals, transportation  in 1968 and rescinded  to rescinding  all regional  planning  in 1975. This  in the 1959 plan. The  from  1968  1975 rescinding of  planning  powers  in the  TRANSPORTATION Between this granting  PLANNING  IN V A N C O U V E R : HISTORY / 53  and rescinding, public transit was emphasized in numerous  policy statements. For example, the G V R D  (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 roads and highways.  A  second  system  volume  (GVRD,  occurred  from  contrast  to the  devised 1989  report  of the same 1971b).  catering  which  investment  1959  will  These  report  made  points  help  to the personal report,  which  be a realistic  recognized  that  can reduce  first  the requirements for  mention  to define  of utilizing  the shift  automobile to providing stated  that  "no form  substitute" for freeways  provision  of public  transit  an  LRT  in policy  that  rapid  transit. In  of transit  (TCMHP,  could  can be  1959), the  reduce  road and  highway requirements (GVTTF, 1989a).  3. F r o m Highways to  This  shift  negative  from  other  provision of highways to transit occurred  externalities  externalities  included  factors  Transit  may  which both  have  freeways  aesthetic helped  In  and community  influence  widespread public resistance to accepting  The  exert.  this  the  partly because of the Vancouver  disruption  change  case,  these  concerns. Although  in transportation  focus,  these externalities was the catalyst.  Great Freeway Debate (table 3) resulted from a 1967 plan to build a radial  TRANSPORTATION freeway  network  included  a freeway through the heart  for  the  forced  centred  "grassroots  Vancouver  outcome  of  extensive  the  on  the  PLANNING CBD  resistance"  Council 'Great  of  being  V A N C O U V E R : HISTORY / 54  endorsed  the  Chinatown approval  D.  REPORT  TO  MOVE"  This regional transportation report was Vancouver  Transportation  modes  of  personal  report.  These  mandate  and  five  Task  mobility volumes  thus are  Force  and  limited  (GVTTF).  The  Owners  the  Association  in early  1968.  discussion  first routes  in July of 1989 Five  movement  only  to short-term  the long-term strategies of the region will be  1.  plan  The of  an  for rail  Pawlowski, 1980).  released  goods  represent  council. The  serious  in 1968,  &  "FREEDOM  plan  ended  rapid transit were proposed (Kopystynski  1989  city  Property  of the  Debate' finally  freeway system for Vancouver. Later  THE  by  of Chinatown. Overwhelming public support  to withdraw Freeway  IN  the  separate  comprise  first  stage  by  the  volumes this  of  Greater covering  comprehensive  the  task  transportation needs. The  force's  report  on  released in the future.  Context  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 The  study's  encouraged  PLANNING  objective was to develop "orderly  economic  for  one mode  Vancouver  18  another.  Transportation  transportation  The  over  an integrated transportation strategy  development"  concept of a Livable Region (GVTTF, Even  Task  IN V A N C O U V E R : H I S T O R Y / 55  while  remaining  consistent  with the  1989a). Such a scope does not imply the name  Force)  given  suggests  the commission  an  unbiased  that  bias  (Greater  approach  to  planning.  municipalities and  three  electoral  areas  in the study  area  had a  combined  1986 population of 1,336,000, equal to 4 6 % of the provincial population  (GVTTF,  1989a). This  2011  (GVRD,  population  1989). Recent  is forecast to reach  years  have  regional economy", including reduced  witnessed  unemployment  2,005,000  "major  by the year  improvement  (BCTransit,  in the  1989a). Suburban  employment growth is expected to continue. However, 4 0 % of employment growth is  expected  to occur  in centrally-located communities  increase in commuter traffic (GVTTF,  resulting  in a  predicted  1989b).  The proportion of senior citizens is expected to increase from 14% of the regional population special regional  in 1986 to 1 6 % in 1996, thus increasing the demand for this sectors  transportation  needs  (Development  transportation in Greater  Services,  Vancouver  face  1989).  similar  Other  elements of  trends. Such forecasts  include: a 3 5 % increase in the number of commuters by 2001 (GVTTF, an  increase in rail  (GVTTF,  and heavy  truck traffic  1989e) and a continued  of recent years  moving  1989b),  goods to and from the port  increase in transit ridership mirroring the trend  (BCTransit, 1989a).  2. The  TRANSPORTATION  PLANNING  variety  term  IN  V A N C O U V E R : H I S T O R Y / 56  Report  Although  a  recommendations  of  short  made, the  projects  predominant  are  purpose  is to gain  the regional transportation problems facing Greater consistent with the discussed  terms of reference  here relate to three  and  transit.  The  report  highlights  given  discussed  and  understanding  projects  the task force. The  which  about  Vancouver. Such a purpose is recommendations  themes: capital projects, related land use  capital  related  the  province  strategies  and  member  municipalities are currently committed to (table 5). These projects display transit's recent importance as a planning use  of transit vehicles. These projects are  examined  by  generated  by  scheme was a  issue, with two  the the  task task  force.  A  list  force working  and  task  impact one  500  with  the  candidate  11  of transit vehicles (GVTTF, 1989b). The then  force  virtually  explicitly  neglects  recognizes  the that  capital  theme  of  projects  priority  recommended  (total cost $1.21  exclusive  "candidate projects"  municipalities. A  then used to filter this list down to 58  exclusive use  The  excluded from the  of  total cost of $2.45 billion), of which  mentions  capital projects for the  was  ranking  projects  billion) are  (with  for the  "Freedom to Move" report related  transportation  and  land  use  land  use  strategies. strategies  another, but then never pursues this point.  Apparent throughout the recommendations on capital projects. The  report is the  theme of transit promotion. Their  this theme relate to both institutional frameworks and Committee calls for a  specific actual  regional body to manage transit  and  TRANSPORTATION for the Provincial  Government  equivalent of provincial Committed to  near  vehicles  1990  that  and  bottlenecks;  to  1996  rapid  transit systems  arterial highways" for funding purposes (GVTTF, include: rapid  are the 1989a).  transit extensions  Coquitlam; provisions for bus lanes on major arterials  numerous  purchase of a minimum years  to "recognize  IN V A N C O U V E R : HISTORY / 57  and recommended capital improvements  Surrey, Richmond  and  PLANNING  park  and  of 20 articulated  (inclusive)  being retired (GVTTF,  over and  1989a).  ride  lots;  and  the  recommended  and 20 standard buses in each of the above  those  buses  needed  to replace  TRANSPORTATION  PLANNING  IN V A N C O U V E R : HISTORY / 58  Table 5: Committed Capital Projects in 1989 Exclusively Capital Project Transit (*) 1) A l e x F r a s e r B r i d g e w i d e n i n g t o 6 l a n e s . 2) B r a e m a r - D e m p s e y Connector (North Vancouver). 3) B r o a d w a y w i d e n i n g t o f o u r l a n e s b e t w e e n N o r t h R o a d a n d G a g l a r d i Way (Burnaby). 4) C a s s i a r C o n n e c t o r ( H i g h w a y 1 ) . 5) G e o r g e M a s s e y T u n n e l - - b u s a c c e s s t o p o r t a l . * 6 ) H i g h w a y 17 C a u s e w a y w i d e n i n g (Delta). 7 ) H i g h w a y 9 1 / H i g h w a y 91A i n t e r c h a n g e g r a d e separation. 8) L o n s d a l e a n d W e s t v i e w i n t e r c h a n g e s ( H i g h w a y 1 ) . 9) M a r i n e r W a y / J o h n s t o n S t r e e t o v e r p a s s ( C o q u i t l a m ) . 10) M a r i n e r Way - 1 0 t h A v e n u e C o n n e c t i o n ( B u r n a b y ) . 11) M a r y H i l l B y - p a s s w i d e n i n g t o f o u r l a n e s f r o m Lougheed ( C o q u i t l a m ) . 12) N o r d e l Way e x t e n s i o n t o 1 1 6 t h S t r e e t (Delta). 13) R i c h m o n d E x p r e s s w a y c o m p l e t i o n b e t w e e n H i g h w a y s 91 and 99. 14) R o y a l A v e n u e w i d e n i n g t o f o u r l a n e s b e t w e e n Columbia a n d E i g h t h S t r e e t s (New W e s t m i n s t e r ) . 15) S c o t t R o a d w i d e n i n g t o f o u r l a n e s b e t w e e n Y a l e a n d G r a c e a n d b e t w e e n 8 0 t h A v e n u e a n d H i g h w a y 10 (Surrey/Delta). 16) S e a t o S k y H i g h w a y . 17) S h e l l R o a d e x t e n s i o n f r o m A l d e r b r i d g e Way t o W e s t m i n s t e r Highway (Richmond). 18) S k y T r a i n e x t e n s i o n t o S c o t t R o a d a n d t h e n W h a l l e y . * 19) No. 2 R o a d B r i d g e a c r o s s t h e F r a s e r R i v e r M i d d l e Arm (Richmond). 2 0 ) 2 0 0 t h S t r e e t w i d e n i n g t o f o u r l a n e s f r o m H i g h w a y 10 t o H i g h w a y 1.  (GVTTF,  3. Transportation  The  1989a)  Policy  1959 and the 1989 reports promote policies which  differ markedly  both in  terms of scope and recommendations. The "Freedom to Move" documents promote  TRANSPORTATION the  coordination  of all aspects  PLANNING  IN  of transportation  V A N C O U V E R : HISTORY / 59 planning,  encourage  transit  and  even mention the importance of livability.  The  first  transportation  coordinate force's  the  diverse  mandate  complete,  the  automobile  policy  apparent  in  the  aspects of transportation  makes short  this  and  owners, and  policy  long  1989  report  planning.  The  apparent.  term  When  the  transportation  goods movement by  rail,  desire  scope of the two  needs  truck,  is the  ship  part  of and  task  study  transit  to  is  users,  airplane, will  have been examined.  The  second transportation  policy and the  the  to  is the  promotion of public transit.  the environmental reasons for it represent  transportation  early  policy evident  mid  SkyTrain  policy of thirty  1980s, along service  with  referred  years the  to  ago.  within  a fundamental change from  The  committed the  This  building of SkyTrain  and  recommended  current  report  in  the  extensions  of  (GVTTF,  1989a)  illustrate this policy.  The  third  policy  environment environmental  evident  grows,  is  the  it becomes  protection  as  tantamount  policy. The  this issue in two  ways. First, a  upon  environmental  impact  maintaining assessment  International given  Airport  (EIA)  promotion  of  (GVTTF,  to  livability. political  "Freedom  number  to  report  capacity  1989a) and  asks  As  suicide Move"  of planning  quality. The proposed  of  concern  for  not  promote  to  report  underscores  recommendations calls  for  an  improvements that  are  built  environmental at  "appropriate  to "environmental effects" when improving regional roads  the  Vancouver weight"  (GVTTF,  be  1989b).  TRANSPORTATION  PLANNING  Second, other policy directions mentioned policy. For example, promoting and  transit  IN V A N C O U V E R : H I S T O R Y / 60  above seem predicated by environmental is a means  of increasing  fuel  efficiency  reducing air pollution.  E. CONCLUSION  Regional transportation policy has evolved over the last thirty to the shifting and  roles of citizen  to changing  Region  and the current predominance  evolution can be illustrated  The  in the planning process  perceptions of environmental issues as evidenced b3' the Livable  strategy  promoting  and expert participation  years in response  by the policy  of environmental  shift  from  catering  concerns. This  to automobiles to  transit.  1959 plan proposed  a substantial freeway  system  for the region, neglected  other aspects of transportation planning and concluded that transit could only be provided then  economically if it utilized  and  1968, virtually  incorporating  transit  was  every  the freeway  official  needed  study  almost  immediately  policy  evolution  the  Livable  Region  toward Strategy  rapid  that  Pawlowski,  Pawlowski,  transit  in late  1959).  Between  a freeway  system  1980).  'Great  The  transit. The radial freeway  replaced by discussion  which began in 1968 (Kopystynski &  The  (TCMHP,  1968 was the major citizen participation  catalyst in the evolution of policy toward was  concluded  (Kopystynski &  Freeway Debate' of late 1967 and early  Vancouver  system  was  of rail  system for  rapid  transit  1980).  strengthened  1975. Although  with  lacking  a  the release of transportation  TRANSPORTATION planning  function,  (Stevenson, 1989) The  result  promoting  of  the and  this  transit  GVRD  focus  all aspects  evolution  apparent  PLANNING became  of planning  is the  in the  current  IN  V A N C O U V E R : H I S T O R Y / 61  maintaining  a  were focused  on  underlying  recommendations  "region  in  this livability goal.  transportation  of the  nature"  "Freedom  policy of To  Move"  reports.  This  historical  discussion  between transportation and The  recent  land  use  planning,  relationships  except in relation  allow  the  barrier to  'experts' in each planning  common  goals.  However,  this  regional  body  responsible  for  hurdle  discusses  setting up  field  to work  must  transportation  coordination between existing authorities.  land  be  use  that  exist  to externalities.  of  strong  report  the  externalities rather than in relation to coordination. This traditional separation is a  Move"  mentioned  to  duties  to  hardly  relation  planning  "Freedom  has  only  institutional  in  structures  more closely together  overcome, either by planning  or  by  which toward  creating  providing  a  better  IV.  In  1975,  the  THE  Greater  LIVABLE  Vancouver  metropolitan development strategy LRP  is an  advisory strategy  REGION  Regional  called  of what  the  designed  strategy  was  discussions of what both livability is examined  and  then  the five  and  District  the Livable to  regional goal of enhanced livability. The discussion  PROGRAM  LRP  guide  Program  a  general  (LRP).  The  achieving the  is presented in this chapter with a  the LRP LRP  Region  planning toward  responding  specific  introduced  to. This are. The  is followed by  brief  LRP's relevance today  strategies which  are used  here  as  criteria for the case study in chapter five are introduced.  A.  LRP  In  1971,  maintain  AS  the  RESPONSE  GVRD  board  established  or enhance the livability  of the Region"  1975a). The  subsequent  an  migration destination and  attractive  LRP  managing  recognized Greater  doubling of population between 1974  "growth as  a  and  change  so  major objective  Vancouver's  popular  as to (GVRD,  appeal  as  expressed concern over a projected virtual  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 The to  LRP  LRP  growth,  but  rather  a  strategy  Vancouver is constrained  seeks to incorporate  by  to  the  LRP  -is the  transportation  idea  growth within  will  reduce  sensitive ecological and  The  LRP  strategy  physical  this limited  in  nature".  but may and  be  difficult  of  an  the  time  and  strategy  allows  the  LRP  choices  assumes  that need be  than  attainment  Livability outlined document  IS  States.  of The  protecting those the heart of  jobs, housing  and  popular  avoid  of  the  desire  setting. The  the  and  pressure  on  retain  the  to  Technical  Advisory  is to develop a  context  "region  of retaining livability  opposing ideals -economic growth  balancing  made seem  is better than the promotion of one  WHAT  a  goal of the LRP  However, recognition of both realms in a  B.  of  growth within  sustainability. Rather  while  frustration  natural  states that one  area  United  extent  (GVRD, 1980).  expression region's  and  / 63  a means  spatial  location of new  viewed as a hopeful bid to achieve  ecologic  another,  the  agricultural areas"  1987)  The  ... travel  it. The  attractive place to live. At  "coordinating  is also  attractiveness  Committee (TAC,  that  manage  mountains, sea  features of the region which make it an the  REGION PROGRAM  is then a response to such rapid projected growth. It is not  slow  Greater  LIVABLE  these  best  missing strategy  two  that  forces  against  one  can  offer.  The  within  the  LRP.  each  or trivialized  to guide regional development  to the exclusion of the other.  LIVABILITY?  means "livability (GVRD,  many  different  things  to  different  people.  issues" without itself defining what livability 1975 a)  identified  the  following  eight  The  1975  meant. The  livability  issues  LRP LRP as  THE  LIVABLE  REGION PROGRAM  / 64  apparent from public meetings:  -- To avoid disruption to the lives accompanies rapid population growth.  of the citizens  - To avoid ruining the clean air and water which makes the region attractive. - To bring a broader range of community citizens live. -- To preserve  services near to where the  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 allow residents to rely less on automobiles.  seems to evoke amenities.  definition, the G V R D  is because  simple  which  will  aspects  these  a meaningless  the livability  issues blanket  into  with  one definition  statement. Without  concept is readily understood  relate to the concept  of Greater  Vancouver.  understanding or vision of Greater Six years  eight  a region  the best is clearly a working  was still able to develop a strategy based upon livability.  definition. People  positive  statements on how to create  Combining  absurd, resulting in only  This  public transit  To increase participation in government decisions.  Livability possible  often  or shattering the quiet  -  -  which  individually,  However,  there  but too subtle for highlighting different is some  "collective  Vancouver as a livable region" (GVRD, 1981).  after the release of the first livable region strategy, subsequent reports  still defined issues similar to those discussed  - "which develops in a manner the aspirations of its residents"  above. The livable region is one:  unique  to its setting, economy and  THE  L I V A B L E REGION PROGRAM  "in which the natural environment accessible part of the region's fabric"  is  - "where the problems of getting around play are not overwhelming" -  "which has  retained  to  and  work, to  forms  shop  buoyant a economy within which people can  an  and  to  prosper"  -- "where the urban area plays its role as a source of creativity innovation"  and  - "in which government action is coordinated of tax dollars"  and  use  ~ "in which the (GVRD, 1981).  pleasure  residents have a pride and  / 65  makes the best  in their region"  These seven points are basically rewritten versions of the eight listed earlier.  Thus, the  concept of livability  number seven above ~ (GVRD,  1981)  is not  a region  -provides  a  one  which  requires  strict  definition. Point  "in which residents have a pride and  summary  of  livability  by  emphasizing  pleasure" resident  acceptance. Such acceptance is important since regional livability in its most basic sense is the  ability  livability is the  to live safely and  peacefully within the  idea of retaining healthy  living  conditions and  region. Beyond this, the natural scenic  beauty of the region.  C.  THE  The  LIVABLE  LRP  District  should  feels should  illustration other  be  of the  words,  the  REGION  PROGRAM  viewed as be  followed  expected LRP  an  "expression  in order  results  is a  guide,  to achieve  of those not  of the policies which the  a  the  policies" rigid  'livable region', and  (Peat  plan,  Regional  to  an  Marwick,  1975). In  achieving  livability.  THE Furthermore, planning  the L R P  is advisory  LIVABLE  in nature  powers. The municipalities are under  the  edicts of the LRP. The success  the  hands  "of municipalities, private  or failure  since  REGION PROGRAM the G V R D  has no actual  no obligation to accept in meeting  / 66  or follow  L R P objectives is  individuals and groups,  and many  in  small  public and private organisations" (Peat Marwick, 1975).  The  L R P 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  "promote region" -  residential growth targets in each part of the region" a  balance  of jobs  to population  in each  part  of the  "create regional town centres"  - "provide a transit oriented transportation system areas, regional town centres and major work areas"  linking  residential  -- "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  connected  points  points  transportation Similarly,  of a  strategy  the outside  relationship. The area which area  impacts  within  and is impacted  represents  the similar  strategies have with the regional open spaces strategy.  these  three  depicts the  by the other strategies. relationships  that  these  THE  LIVABLE  REGION PROGRAM  / 67  Figure 6: Interaction of L R P 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 and  in both population  the economy are accommodated. Focusing growth in certain areas is proposed  through  the connection of job and housing  concept.  Promotion  represented  of efficient  targets to the regional town centres  transportation  by areas to illustrate  and  regional  the extensive and complex  open  spaces are  relationships these  strategies have with the other three.  The figure  L R P concept 6. Although  G V R D board  is not completely the livable  (see Appendix  represented  by the schematic  region recommendations  1) do evolve from  adopted  diagram in  in 1975 by the  these strategies, there is a strong  underlying belief in public participation apparent within the L R P 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 regional  board  committee (GVRD,  support  to  carry  the  out  1975c). The  mandate  a  to  continuing  LRP  is a  which recommends continued  --  escalating region  remains housing  in respect  spaces and  program  concerns  1979,  1980;  over  to  TAC,  regional  past  15  goals.  This  and  through  of  strategies planned  the  increasing  the  LRP.  The  traffic  LRP  has  1987). These listed  areas of interest of the the  information  developed  social, recreational and  whenever  region  This  LRP.  years,  the  five  part  indicates how and  discusses  each  each will be  advisory  feedback  program"  public  participation  concerns  congestion, consumer  LRP  been  of  Although remains  strategy  used  the as  decision making in the region.  of  with  urban  imbalances  within  labour force have been the (GVRD,  region has  the  provides  preeminent a  the  services, insufficient open  reviewed  the  one  sprawl,  1978a,  1978b,  problems reflect concerns surrounding  FIVE STRATEGIES OF T H E  section  program  in coordination  general  planning within the region in terms of regional impacts and  D. T H E  / 68  public consultation.  focus  prices,  REGION PROGRAM  livable  a need to geographically balance jobs and  major  five  the  the  public  This basic concept -- five interrelated another  LIVABLE  the  grown and  changed  document  defining  basis  for  planning  analyzing  coordination.  LRP  five  strategies  depicted  criteria for analyzing  in  figure  transportation  6  and  planning  THE 1. A c h i e v i n g  The  REGION PROGRAM  / 69  Residential Growth Targets  first of the LRP's strategies is to achieve residential growth targets in each  part  of the region  based  another. Basically, there among  be  achieving  asked  set by municipalities in concert  (GVRD,  1975a).  measures  This  means  to adjust  areas  more  capable  of handling  municipality based  growth  based  on factors  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.  of growth  planning  transportation  provision  targets  using  these  and should  can  contribute  four  plans should strategies.  use planning  therefore  on a regional  reflect this growth target  to  strategies.  plans of regional significance. If transportation of land  (GVRD,  included:  -  achievement  on  and coordination. It  as existing infrastructure and ecological sensitivity. The LRP's list  transportation  types  each  of growth  consultation  1975a) of distinct strategies for attaining this goal  The  that  its rate  of parity through municipal  to promote  with one  was a call to manage growth and make it more even  to take  some form  meant  such  on targets  the municipalities  would  is  LIVABLE  be  strategy  These  incorporated  planning  scale  the  within  as well  assessment four  of  impact  in transportation  is coordinated the GVRD,  with other then  such  as the other four L R P  THE 2.  Promoting a  The in  Balance of  Jobs to  LIVABLE  REGION PROGRAM  / 70  Population  second of the LRP's strategies is to promote a balance of jobs to population each  part  of the  municipalities  within  region the  (GVRD,  GVRD  1975a). This  more  strategy  equatable  region  is  share  limited  of  by  industrial  the  call  to  make  self-contained, thus overcoming the results  of job imbalances such as commuting (GVRD, 1975a). The more  is a  and  specialised  commercial locational  objective of creating a  employment  requirements  throughout of  many  the jobs.  Economic agglomeration factors, for example, result in many office buildings being located in the other  CBD.  metropolitan  Although good accessibility and locations, many offices may  services may  be  still locate in a CBD  available in for reasons  of prestige.  The  LRP  strategy  the  region  can  of promoting a balance of jobs be  used  to  assess  to population  transportation  planning  accessibility. Although not the only concern, accessibility is an element  for both  employers  and  part of the region is used as improve  both  Transportation recognised  local  and  planning  residents. Balancing  by  analysis  of  important locational  to population  in each  a criterion to judge if transportation developments  regional cannot  jobs  in each part of  accessibility  achieve  as part of a coordinated  such  a  planning effort.  to  local  balance  employment itself  and  nodes.  must  be  THE 3.  Creation  The  of Regional  Town  LIVABLE  REGION PROGRAM  / 71  Centres  third of the LRP's strategies is to create a number of regional town centres  (GVRD, spread  1975a). the  This  availability  opportunities to the the  strategy  CBD.  selected centres  Second,  LRP  where  people  achieve  two  of regional services and  this  strategy  commuters, shoppers and suburbs  could  users  live.  major  activities as  rather than  continuing  could  to  lead  achieve  the  First,  well as  it could  employment  their concentration in  shorter  of regional services by  To  goals.  trip  distances  for  bringing facilities into the  regional town  centres  strategy,  the  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  Metrotown area an  undisclosed  designated  the  following areas to be  of Burnaby, New centre  within the  Westminster, the northeast  regional town centres: the  Whalley  area  of Surrej' and  sector (the Coquitlam, Port  Coquitlam,  Port Moody area) (GVRD, 1975a).  Planning  for such  ways. First, transportation  the  a  strategy  areas  is related to transportation planning  designated  infrastructure to  population. Second, regional access order  to attract office and  must  serve  have  the  or  resident  to the designated  construct and  necessary  peripherally  centres  residential development. These two  relation to the regional town centres strategy to evaluate  the  in two  must be  major local  dependant  adequate in  criteria are used in  transportation planning.  THE 4.  Provision of  The  LIVABLE  a Transit Oriented Transportation  fourth of the LRP's strategies is to provide  REGION PROGRAM  / 72  System  a transit oriented transportation  system linking residential areas, regional town centres and work areas. This is to be  achieved  mainly through growth  and the construction of new remembered neglect  that  of  many  emphasizes  a  the provision of a  regional  accessibility. Such  As  facilities where required transit  of the automobile. Although stating  backbone  since  management, better  development"  (GVRD,  (GVRD, 1975a). It must be  oriented that  use of existing facilities  system  "a good  1975a),  the  does  transit LRP  not constitute system  stresses  is the regional  accessibility must include providing adequate automobile capacity  in the  region  do  not  or  cannot  utilise  public  transit.  The  LRP  transit but seeks to attain a balance of modal options.  result  of this  strategy,  actual transportation planning.  different  interpretations can  as detrimental.  decision can be evaluated accessibility  within  the  Second, and  in terms of how region.  used  to  evaluate  First, transportation facilities which contribute to a  transit oriented system can be viewed as promoting the LRP can be viewed  be  This  while other  more realistically, each  systems  transportation  it contributes to the modal choice  second  point  provides  a  more  and  appropriate  focus for this thesis in relation to this strategy.  5.  The  Protecting and  fifth  Developing Regional Open  Spaces  of the LRP's strategies is to protect and  (GVRD, 1975a). The LRP  (GVRD, 1975a) states:  develop regional open spaces  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  By  increasing  pressures  to  recreational perceived The  open  accessibility,  bear  upon  value  by  and  those  space  transportation planning  transportation  open does  facilities  space. However, lack not  inhabitants  strategy  and  contribute  who  is used  cannot as  a  to  the  take  criterion  The  developmental  accessibility  livability  of  the  region  as  the  of the  to evaluate  reduces  how  open the  space.  examined  open spaces.  CONCLUSION  five  mutually  supportive  strategies  analyzing transportation planning process of public consultation regional planning. in  of  bring  advantage  transportation facilities promote the goal of developing  E.  can  is not obvious.  some  public  way,  transit.  The  five  whether  and  These  five  transportation planning  and  the  LRP  are  adequate  criteria  within the region since they are derived from therefore  strategies are  through  of  land  strategies  public views  each related to transportation  use are  (arguably) represent  relationships or used  as  criteria  direct for  decision making examples in the next  a on  planning  promotion evaluating  chapter.  for  of the  V.  This  GREATER  thesis has  other  examined  aspects of land  which  illustrated  planning the  VANCOUVER  use  the  aspects  two  complexity  highlighted  within  revealed  this  an  chapter  dominant within Greater  to  3  other. A  reveal  the  process  of  five  should  participation  within  planning  are regionally coordinated, LRP.  To  of  region.  complete  LRP  such  as  transportation  interviews  This  conclusion  coordinated  coordination.  this  historical  that  is based  The  upon  Greater  case  inclination  the  studies is  still  If transportation  this  decisions  major transportation decisions  criteria. The  seemingly  reflects and  they should  discussed.  public  resulted  from  attitudes  elements  reflect and  for and  The  LRP  other  analysis, interviews  planners from selected agencies responsible the  diagram  brief transportation history of  whether  and  planning  the  the  be  a  and  Vancouver.  strategies of the  public  STUDY  presented  relationships. The  figure  lack  in chapter 2  accomplish this, the case study analyzes two  utilizing  of  such  in this  CASE  relationships between transportation  Figure  of  historical  seek  way  planning.  impacts each have upon the  Vancouver  To  the  TRANSPORTATION  of  a  toward  land  use  promote the strategies  were  conducted  with  staff  the municipalities impacted  questionnaires  by  which  structured  by  these  are presented in appendix 2.  chapter  begins  with  decisions examined: the  a  brief overview  Alex Fraser  of  Bridge and  the  two  transportation  planning  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 analysis  planning  is based  is coordinated  upon  the  outlined in the previous  A. T H E  CASE  The  two  case  The  Alex  while  the  (AFB)  rapid  Similarities  markedly  Transit  do  exist  represent  between  significant  (Marinakis,  the  in a  1986)  figure 8). It is important  LRP  since transportation planning describes  what  two.  inner metropolitan  (see  briefly  evaluation  Extension  capital  This  criteria  number  as  of ways.  already been  (CRTE)  while  the  to study  these  Both  area  and  is  a  future  CRTE  will  cost  AFB  two  from  the route chosen  decisions in relation  transportation  system  anywhere  involves more than catering to one  these  major  rapidly growing  The  depending on  two  represent  the  expenditures.  $417,000,000 to $524,000,000 (B.C. Transit, 1986)  section  as  Program.  caters to the automobile while the C R T E is a mode of light  also  $440,000,000  differ  Rapid  transportation links between the  cost  Region  is a fairly recent decision that has  Coquitlam  AFB  suburbs. Both  Livable  strategies used  decisions discussed  possibility. The transit.  LRP  the  S T U D Y / 75  EXAMPLES  Fraser Bridge  constructed  with  CASE  chapter.  STUDY  study  five  TRANSPORTATION  decisions  to  the  mode. This represent  in  terms of regional infrastructure.  1.  The  The  AFB  Alex  Fraser  is the  development  built  announced in 1980  key in  Bridge  element within the  early  to  the mid  Annacis  system  1980s.  that the bridge would be built and  The  (figure 7) of highway provincial  government  construction began in  GREATER  VANCOUVER  TRANSPORTATION  Figure 7: The Annacis System  Highway  CASE STUDY  / 76  Development  (Sun, 1986a)  1983  (Parkes, 1990). Opened  kilometres of new  highways,  on 22 September  16 kilometres of new  overpasses and two 154 metre actual include  AFB  component  and improved  contains 32.5 connectors, 37  bridge towers. Including the approach  of the system  the Annacis Highway  1986, the system  is 2.5 kilometres long. Other  south of the Fraser  into Richmond, connections such  as Marine  Way  spans, the components  River, an east/west highway  to the north of the river and  GREATER VANCOUVER  TRANSPORTATION  C A S E S T U D Y / 77  access into Delta (Sun, 1986a).  2.  The  The  Coquitlam Rapid Transit  Coquitlam  Rapid  Transit  Extension  Extension  (CRTE)  planning  and  future decision  making. It must  province  has  not  itself  Current  commitments  Lougheed  Mall and  (1986) studied (figure on  committed call  for rapid  Richmond  numerous  to  by  extending transit  1995  Whalley  (Leicester, of  example  stated at the SkyTrain  to  possible extensions  an  to  Coquitlam  by  1993  1990). A SkyTrain  stations  as  areas, the  lowest cost per  new  report recommended  Station only (figure 8b) with Coquitlam  case  Coquitlam actually planning  study  is concerned  with  rider the  B.C. to  built.  for the  This  is not  Coquitlam  (figure 9; Tiessen, 1990).  an  Town  the  Centre served by  possible extension  unreasonable Centre  then  ongoing  and  Centre. to  both  Transit report  Coquitlam  Centre  Station. Based  development of potential  Edmonds/Cariboo  regional town centre. It is assumed be  and  of  outset that the  8) but made route recommendations only to the Lougheed  factors such  This  be  is  route  suburban  of rapid  that such  assumption  to Lougheed buses.  transit an  to  incorporates SkyTrain  into  the  extension  will  make  since the  in its designs  GREATER  VANCOUVER  TRANSPORTATION  CASE STUDY  Figure 8: Route Options For Coquitlam Rapid Transit (A) Extension From New Westminster  / 78  GREATER  VANCOUVER  TRANSPORTATION  (B) Extension From  Edmonds  (B.C. Transit, 1986)  CASE STUDY  / 79  GREATER B.  VANCOUVER  TRANSPORTATION  CASE STUDY  / 80  INTERVIEWS  Appendix case  2 lists  the questions  of staff planners  in relation  to the two  studies. There are two questionnaires displayed in appendix 2. These reflect  the  differences in wording  needed  However, the two separate open and as  asked  nature  a means  August  to generate  of 1990. This questions.  listed  here.  Table  interviewee's  GVRD  case  allow  studies  ask the same  on  two  fourteen  studies.  questions. The  a flexible structure for the interviews took  place  during  given  6  summarizes  at the end of section  are senior planners  case  for collection of a wide range of opinions  section outlines the responses 5.2  working with  July and  by interviewee's to the responses  either the municipalities, the  responsible for transportation facility planning. Their  the assumption  being  interviews  discussion. A l l interviews  or provincial agencies  positions  allowed  The questionnaire provided  these  The  questionnaires  of the questions  responses.  to conduct  that they  examined. It must  have  considerable knowledge  be noted  that  these  people  about the  represent  a  limited sample with conflicting views and diverse loyalties. The analysis recognizes the biases involved and displayed within the interview results.  Eight Bridge  planners case  was Eleanor  were interviewed  study  for this thesis. In relation  specifically, the following three  Atienza, a senior planner  people  in the Planning  to the Alex  Fraser  were interviewed. First  and Development Services  department of the District of Surrey. Second was Gerrard Ferry, the director of  GREATER  VANCOUVER  TRANSPORTATION  Figure 9: Coquitlam Town Centre Design  (District of Coquitlam)  CASE STUDY  / 81  GREATER VANCOUVER  TRANSPORTATION  C A S E S T U D Y / 82  the GVRD's Department of Planning during the planning and construction of the Alex for  Fraser Bridge. Third was the  Vancouver  branch  of  Derek Parkes,  the regional manager of planning  the  of  Ministry  Transportation  and  Highways  (MOTH).  In relation  to the Coquitlam  rapid  transit  extension  following two people were interviewed. First was Transit's Vancouver planning office. Second was  case  study  specifically, the  Gordon Chen, a planner in B.C. Eric Tiessen, currently the acting  director of Department of Planning for the District of Coquitlam.  The  final three people  relation  to both  case  interviewed were chosen for the knowledge studies. First  was  Robert  they  have in  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  Planning for the City of New  1. Questions  These  Scheving,  a  planner  in the  Department  of  Westminster.  1 Through 8  questions  are designed  the two case study of the LRP. The between  Steven  the given  to elicit the interviewee's immediate perceptions of  projects before explicitly referring to the five main  first case  question asks study's  strategies  if the interviewee perceives any relationship  decision making  process  and  the LRP.  to this question provides direct insight into the coordination with L R P  Response  strategies.  GREATER VANCOUVER Respondents  did  not  perceive  such  a  TRANSPORTATION relationship  in  the  C A S E S T U D Y / 83 AFB  example.  Two  different reasons were given for this. First, Peterson and  Atienza stated that the  decision  impacted.  and  was  Parkes  opposite  to  provincially argued and  made and  that the  thus  not  imposed  decision  upon  to build  coordinated  with  LRP  not to perceive a relationship between the C R T E LRP.  Peterson, Tiessen and  itself  may  reflect  those impacted.  LRP  goals, the  perceived as being coordinated with LRP  The by  second decision  question asked makers  and  recommended by  The  respondents  the LRP  and to  goals. Respondents  also  was tended  future decision process and  Although  hidden  the  they conceded that the  provincial  case  study  process  examples. The  (see recommendation 20  was  not  answers  here  referred  in appendix 1).  question (Atienza, Ferry, Parkes, Peterson) described as  a provincial decision with little of no  consultative, citing  SkyBridge  the process of decision making compares to that followed  to this A F B  however  before  ideals.  to the  the provincial government's process  (Parkes)  AFB  the interviewees to briefly explain the process followed  in relation  provide insight into how  the  Second, Ferry  Glover described the decision as following a provincial  political process, separated from decision  those  to  the  cooperation with  nonconsultative. The input from  subsequent  process  those impacted. planning  government agencies  of  the  was  One  seen  as  respondent  alignment  (Fisheries, Coast  as  Guard)  those municipalities which approached the Ministry of Highways. Respondents the  CRTE  question  (Peterson, Scheving,  making process as non-consultative. The  Tiessen)  also  described the  provincial government was  decision  recognized  as  the major player with the power to make the decision irregardless of local input.  GREATER VANCOUVER The  third  question  asks about coordination  agencies involved  in or  policy formulation  and  impacted  by  the  are  existing structures in place  with  the  GVRD  (hence  with  the  felt that this has  allowing  (i.e. the project  committees are  question  and  refers to  to examine whether or not  Respondents  within the region  discussed  a  lack  of  and such  and  Ministry of Highways  Highways.  to such coordination  decision and  thus the  in the  CRTE  policy is a provincial  above. Peterson, however, contended that existing structures  VRTS; boards which steering  decision. This  coordination  in relation  stated that the  function imposed from  various jurisdictions  since changed, with the  difference of opinion  case study. Tiessen  the  C A S E S T U D Y / 84  example (Atienza, Parkes, Peterson, Scheving)  becoming the Ministry of Transportation  a  given  LRP).  coordination in relation to the A F B  There was  between  decision making. It is intended  there  although many  TRANSPORTATION  committees)  oversee B.C. reflect  typically made up  such  Transit, B.C. policy  of officials  Rail  and  coordination.  from the  B.C.  These  various  Ferries;  boards  municipalities  and and  agencies involved in a project or decision.  The  fourth  making  question  processes.  participation  asks  The  which  how  LRP  public  is a  recommends  participation fits  strategy further  responses here provide  insight into how  incorporate  ideals. Responses  were help all  basic  LRP  similar. Some mitigate  the  respondents  responded  that  developed through public  this  question  two  decision  a process of public in  planning.  The  these decision making processes strive to to both  public input  stated  these  participation  the  a  lack  AFB  is heeded  impacts of transportation planning to  into  of  and by  CRTE  questions  local planners to  (Atienza, Tiessen). However, public  participation in  the  GREATER VANCOUVER  TRANSPORTATION  C A S E S T U D Y / 85  provincial decision (Atienza, Parkes, Peterson, Tiessen).  The for the  fifth  question asked  the  interviewee to list the  building the project, while the sixth asked high  capital  expenditures.  would reflect the LRP  These  were  important  reasons/arguments  if these reasons/arguments justified  asked  to determine  if reasons  strategies. Reasons for constructing the A F B  1) a decline in traffic service quality on crossings (Ferry, Parkes, Peterson); 2) a good central access point on into Vancouver (Atienza); and  the  included:  the pre-existing Fraser River  river  for an  additional  3) a need to improve access to Vancouver to make potential developments south of the Fraser more viable (Ferry).  No  one  would  expenditure.  speculate  Reasons  given  on  whether  for extending  given  these rapid  reasons transit  justified  into  the  route  housing  the  capital  Coquitlam  centre include:  1) rail transit has better developmental represent a provincial commitment to the (Glover, Tiessen);  impacts since development of  2) rail fits LRP ideals of transit environmental friendliness (Tiessen);  orientation  3) that Coquitlam is a rapidly growing Lower Mainland (Peterson, Tiessen); 4) other modes cannot handle in congestion (Tiessen); and  the  area  necessary  at  the  it would the area  (Glover)  centre  volumes and  thus  and  of the  result  5) geographical difficulties do not allow the improvement of the current poor road connections to/from the area to increase vehicular capacities (Peterson).  town  GREATER VANCOUVER Glover the five  and  use  Peterson  favour  high  TRANSPORTATION  occupancy  vehicle lanes on  of Superbuses (articulated) to service Coquitlam.  reasons  do  not justify  However, Tiessen  argues  the  capital  that SkyTrain  C A S E S T U D Y / 86  expenditure will be  existing  roads  and  This implies that these  needed  to  cheaper than  extend  SkyTrain.  catering to other  modes in the long run.  The  seventh  question  the  projects  fit  asked  into  how  the  the  growth  regional  of suburban  strategies  and  areas  subsequently  transportation decision fits into such growth. This question was determine if the growth promoted follows from general  consensus  that  (Atienza, Ferry, Parkes, the  bridge  while  the  (Ferry, Parkes). The allowing  this  regional town  growth centre  the  AFB  promoted  Peterson). The  actual growth northeast  LRP  is seen  the  LRP  of this  to occur  by  at  growth  low  the  of the  CRTE  it within  CRTE  may  by  bridge  is seen a  a  densities  is impacted  irrespective  focusing  (Peterson, Tiessen). Building the  concentrating growth in an  how  asked in order to  growth  sector is growing rapidly. The  to fit into  ends of  ideals or not. There was  residential  location  at the  as  designated  also result in  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  slightly different focus. The agencies  while  this  a  third question discussed coordination between planning  question  seeks  information  planning aspects (i.e. transportation planning and  on  the  coordination  land use planning).  between  GREATER VANCOUVER The  interviewees responded  AFB  CASE STUDY  / 87  that no such coordination occurred in relation to the  (Ferry, Parkes). A t the time of building, concern was for the movement of  cars, with With  TRANSPORTATION  the people or impact  relation  aspect of planning seemingly  to the CRTE, some  coordination  was  neglected (Ferry).  apparent  at the provincial  agency level. Although  Chen  stated that B.C. Transit is a transportation agency  with  with  land  nothing  coordination Coquitlam their  to  do  between  B.C. Transit  planning department  with help from  indicated  and the Coquitlam  is including alignments  planning of the Coquitlam  determined  use, Tiessen  Town  Centre  a  small  degree  planning department. and A L R T  (figure 9). These  of The  stations within alignments  were  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  criteria. Question fourteen asks  LRP  strategies  which  are used  here  as  those interviewed in relation to one of the case  studies if they could provide any insights in relating the five L R P 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 L R P 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 A F B example. Glover stated a neutral position: the A F B helps accommodate growth without impacting such growth either positively or negatively.  GREATER VANCOUVER Atienza  and  Peterson  both  strategy  by  allowing  increased  Scheving answered no growth  away  from  stated, the LRP  stated  TRANSPORTATION  that  the  housing  bridge  starts  helps  in  C A S E S T U D Y / 88 to  Surre}'.  achieve  Ferry,  the  LRP  Parkes  and  to this question. These three stated that the bridge draws the  concentrated  areas  that  the  LRP  seeks.  targeted growth with density while the A F B  As  Scheving  promotes automobile  oriented residential growth at lower densities.  The  respondents  growth there  targets is no  felt  that  strategy  problem  obviously  want  supported  by  to  tenth  in reaching live  CRTE  question  LRP  strategy  there.  by  decentralization  answered  This  LRP  the  There that the  growth  targets  development  and  the  residential states that  areas since people  strategy growth  would at  interviewees  region  four  thus  locations  how  the  case  to population  study  relates  and  others  did not  stated  that  thus  promotes  (Atienza,  promote a  the  Ferry,  AFB a  supports balance  Parkes,  balance of jobs  promotion  of  lower  density  housing  the  in each part of the  of  example. industrial jobs  Peterson)  to population.  1) the A F B could strengthen the "bedroom community" status of municipalities south of the Fraser River by reducing commuting time to Vancouver (Atienza); the  and  to  reasons included:  2)  be  targets.  Scheving)  the  were AFB  promote  a difference of opinion in relation to the A F B  (Glover,  within  would  Scheving, Tiessen). Glover  for promoting a balance of jobs  respondents  population.  example  growth targets in suburban  focusing  asked  region. Again, there was Two  CRTE  (Glover, Peterson,  densities in accordance with  The  the  necessarily  means  that  to who  Their  GREATER VANCOUVER housing  TRANSPORTATION  C A S E S T U D Y / 89  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 A F B promotes residential growth in areas an excess population to jobs (Peterson).  There was  The  (Glover, Peterson,  that  create an  concentrating  Scheving,  residential  Tiessen). The  have  development  The  voiced concern  a  further  that  ALRT  belief  that  cannot  of jobs to  answers tended to reflect  around  urban situation that could attract investors and  respondents  immediate.  already  a unanimous belief that the C R T E could promote a balance  population belief  which  such  promote  ALRT  stations  a  would  thus office development.  a  balance  industrial  may  not  development  be may  restrict the ability of the C R T E to balance jobs with population (Glover).  The LRP  eleventh  question  asked  the interviewees  strategy for creating a  (Ferr}', impartial  Peterson) to  the  stated  that  development  number the of  how  designated  regional  town  case study  AFB  regional  decision town  centre  at  was  uncoordinated  centres.  promotes the  development of the  Two  other  respondents with  and  respondents  draws development away from  Whalley-Guildford.  Scheving) voiced a similar concern about Whalley-Guildford AFB  relates to the  of regional town centres. Two  (Atienza, Parkes) voiced the concern that the A F B the  the  Metrotown and  New  Two while  others  (Glover,  stating that the  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 All  respondents  Peterson, promote  the  Scheving, the  development Glover,  to  regional  felt  town  help  Scheving) felt town  aspect  Tiessen)  would  Metrotown  CRTE  the  this  that  the  prove  Although  of  C A S E S T U D Y / 90  (Atienza,  construction  town  promotion  would  question  strategy.  Coquitlam  that  centres  of  centres  the  TRANSPORTATION  of  the  all  stated  centre,  three  either  the  greater  Ferry,  depending  Glover,  CRTE that  respondents  New on  would such (Ferry,  Westminster where  the  or  CRTE  branches off the main line.  The  twelfth  LRP  question  strategy  remembered  of providing here  that  respondents to the build  asked  reflected  a  the a  the  AFB  transit LRP  lack  of  not  elements  contradict of  Tiessen), the This  the  livability. CRTE  reflection  LRP, As  does not  accessibility  with  this  since by  obviously  necessarily  modal three  mean  that  the  relate  to  the  LRP  strategy  of  Four respondents (Ferry, Glover, is neutral neither  interviewees  protecting  and  and  the  how  nor  detracts  the  this  strategy.  be Two  decision to these  two  automobile bridge  accessibility (Peterson,  are  both  Scheving,  of transit promotion.  the  decision to build  case  study  regional  Parkes, Scheving) stated that the  from  the  transit.  However,  political  developing  as  that  strategy  to this strategy. These respondents believe the  promotes  well  respondents  reflects the  The  asked  as  relates to  system. It must  strategy.  choice  ideals (Scheving).  question  study  transportation  C R T E will be based upon LRP  thirteenth  case  Parkes state that building an  stated  example  the  (Atienza, Peterson) stated  coordination and  how  oriented  stressed  example  respondents as well as Ferry does  interviewees  existence  Atienza  and  examples  open AFB  a  spaces. decision  of the  AFB  Peterson  both  GREATER expressed  ways  preservation.  in  The  VANCOUVER  which  open  the  space  TRANSPORTATION  AFB  vistas  actively  and  C A S E S T U D Y / 91  promotes  mountain  views  development  that  and  accompany the  AFB  can promote the maintenance of open spaces. It is important to remember  that  this  LRP  preservation.  strategy  Also,  states  the  view  AFB  preservation  promotes  open  as one aspect spaces  b}'  of open  providing  space  improved  accessibility to regional parks.  The  C R T E example is seen by most to have no relation to regional open spaces  (Glover, there  Peterson,  Scheving,  are a number  Tiessen).  of ways  that  prove regionally significant. Two  ~ in Burnaby, (Glover) and  However, on  ALRT  the local  can promote  open  municipal  scene,  spaces  that  bicycle  path  may  examples are:  the A L R T  alignment  — in New Westminster, the A L R T of the once industrial waterfront  is utilized  as  a  has helped promote the conversion into park land and residential areas  (Scheving).  The  CRTE  could  However, such  have  the same  impacts reflect  impact  a municipal  upon  open  desire  responses  respondents. interviews.  discussed  Table  6  are  below  quite provides  varied a  within  for enhancing  than provincial or regional coordination with this L R P  The  spaces  and  summary  Coquitlam.  livability  rather  strategy.  often  contradictory  of the  responses  between to the  GREATER VANCOUVER  C A S E S T U D Y I 92  TRANSPORTATION  Table 6: Summary of Interview Responses NO CRTE Respons AFB From 2 0 Yes 0 Yes 4 No 3 No From 1 Both d e s c r i b e d as » n o n - c o n s u l t a t i v e provincial processes. From 3 1 Yes 0 Yes 1 No 4 No From 4 0 Yes 0 Yes 4 No 4 No  Quest ion 1) L i n k a g e s b e t w e e n d e c i s i o n m a k i n g a n d LRP? 2) D e c i s i o n m a k i n g p r o c e s s ?  3) 4)  C o o r d i n a t i o n between planning agencies? Public participation?  * Reasons/arguments f o r facility? 6) R e a s o n s / a r g u m e n t s justify expendi tures? 7) D e c i s i o n a f f e c t g r o w t h ? Promotes non-LRP growth 0 Yes 8) I n t e g r a t i o n o f p l a n n i n g 2 No aspects? r e s i d e n t i a l growth 2 Yes 9) S u p p o r t 3 No targets? 1 Neutral balance of jobs 2 Yes 10) S u p p o r t to population? 4 No 0 Yes r e g i o n a l town 1 1 ) Support 4 No centres? 2 Neutral 12) S u p p o r t 0 Yes transit orientation? 2 No 2 Neutral 2 Yes 13) S u p p o r t regional 0 No open spaces? 4 Neutral  **  5)  From  8  Promotes LRP g r o w t h 1 1 4 0  Yes No Yes No  From  4  From  1  4 0 6 0  Yes No Yes No  From  1  From  1  3 Yes 0 No  From  1  From 0 Yes 0 No 4 Neutral  1  * Reasons given in relation to A F B were: decline in traffic service quality; good access point location; aid potential of housing developments south of Fraser River. ** Reasons given in relation to C R T E were: rail represents provincial commitment to area's development; rail fits L R P ideals; Coquitlam is rapidly growing; other modes inadequate; geographical difficulties for road development.  GREATER VANCOUVER C.  responses to the  fourteen  of transportation planning input  in  for the  following  each  case  and  second with  examines  and  and  five  nine  LRP  perceived  1. Relationships With L R P  criteria.  process  perceptions  LRP.  Both  to an  region. The  about the  impact  that  increase  However,  they  developments  nor  the  areas.  do  for  promotion The  of  AFB  Peterson).  reflect  into  two  subsections.  therefore  of the  discusses  interview making  mainly  the  questionnaires.  The  and  its coordination the  use.  of  strategy of achieving residential growth various  AFB  these  This  residential  the  could  interviewees have  promotes this  AFB,  are  in  promoting  District  many Low  centres  does  not  this  of  density of  the  density  accessible to  within  opposite LRP  argue that it has  low  targets.  development  therefore,  expressed  strategy  contradicts  growth  development  on  starts in the  starts  reason  residential  residential  development  It  of housing  that  promoting  does not  the  number  recognize  (Atienza,  methods  development  believe the in the  impacts  Strategies  of the  who  and  sections contribute to understanding  land  part  strategy. Those  processes  is divided  of decision  criterion is based upon the LRP  targets in each  stated  analysis  through fourteen  relationship to the  first  refer to both the  physical relationships between the infrastructure  relationships between transportation and  led  93  decision making. These responses provide the major  perceived  the  the  questions  analysis. This  first examines the  responses to questions  The  CASE STUDY /  ANALYSIS  The  The  TRANSPORTATION  or  Surrey. housing LRP's housing  public transit, existing urban  contribute  to  the  GREATER VANCOUVER  TRANSPORTATION  C A S E S T U D Y / 94  attainment of the residential growth targets strategy.  There was targets  a general  strategy.  transportation  feeling that the  These  positive  methods the  development  would  town  if the  centre  be  LRP  congested  responses  are  consistent  to  public  transit  and  is built. Furthermore, the  minimize travel time and already  does promote this residential growth with  the  specific  mentions for promoting this strategy. Residential  accessible  CRTE  CRTE  inconvenience by  arteries within  the  not  focused CRTE  upon  would  a  regional  also help  contributing more vehicles to  northeast  to the  sector. Thus, development of the  C R T E would contribute to the promotion of the growth targets strategy.  The  second criterion is based upon the  jobs  to population  that  the  AFB  in each  would  this impact would be trucking  access  part  impact  such  as  of the  this  across  region.  goal, but  the  Fraser  River  malls  Respondents  expressed  may.  also  provides  in Delta  (Sun, as  latter  argument  was  directly  (Parkes) that stated the A F B employment balance  in  of jobs  regional to  manufacturing  facilities  since  such  and  is supported by  the  of  the  AFB  nodes since  locations of such facilities.  by  may  plants  1986b). Employment result  one  works against this LRP  shopping  population  opposed  a  as  belief  argument that the bridge allows  difference  the  whether  which  develop  displayed  to  automobile oriented access promotes the dispersed  This  of promoting a balance of  southern municipalities (Glover)  Tilbury industrial area  shopping  strategy  positive or negative. The  warehouses to locate in the growth of the  LRP  the  four  strategy. The  not  facilities  of  contribute  tend  not  to  to  respondents promotion of achieving  create  a  a  large  GREATER VANCOUVER  TRANSPORTATION  C A S E S T U D Y / 95  number of full time or "bread winning" jobs. Other arguments included the case that the A F B  promoted residential growth in an  that already had  All  respondents  employment crux  an  the  River)  excess of population to jobs.  seem  to  believe  location. Which  that  the  of these  AFB  potential to both  promote  influences both  is influenced to the  of their different opinions. Therefore,  has  area (south of the Fraser  and  the  residential  greater  extent  and  is the  conclusion here is that the  discourage  a  better balance  AFB  of jobs  to  population.  AH  respondents  eventual Glover  to  the  development and  CRTE  may  Tiessen's  aspect  promote  argument  of a  that  question  greater the  ten  displayed  balance  ALRT  can  of  jobs  be  a  a  belief  to  that  population.  locational  factor  providing a focus for office as well as residential development is reflected in both table  7  and  figure 10.  1989). This multipliers  7 is from  table relates over over  fifteen  alignment. Although absurd  Table  (Coal  billion  the  Harbour  five  and  billion  dollars  inclusion Pacific  a  of a  to  B.C.  Transit sponsored study  dollars the  number  Place), the  of development  existence of these  of  and  the  (Egby,  economic  main  ALRT  developments is clearly  location of other  entries such  as  the Intercon development are clearly related to ALRT.  Figure  10  displays the  Burnaby, Vancouver As 1987  evident  in Figure  percentage  and 10,  the the  change  in total  GVRD, for the Burnaby  periods  office  space  development for  1977-1982 and  rate of office growth between  (89.38%) dwarfed those of Vancouver and  the G V R D  (40.01% and  1982-1987. 1982  and  52.08%  GREATER  VANCOUVER  TRANSPORTATION  Table 7: Development  Around Transit  Development W a t e r f r o n t Tower (Marathon) (1) (Marathon) (2) C o a l H a r b o u r (3) R o y a l C e n t r e Building (4) B u r r a r d (5) P a c i f i c C e n t r e (6) Adams P r o p e r t i e s (7) P a c i f i c P l a c e ( E x p o l a n d s ) (8) S c i e n c e W o r l d (9) T e r m i n a l / M a i n / Q u e b e c Commercial) 10) I n t e r c o n ( B r o a d w a y a n d 1 1 ) Metrotown Square 12) S t a t i o n 13) E a t o n C e n t r e 14) B o n s o r P a r k 15) R e s o u r c e L i b r a r y 16) B u r n a b y 2 0 0 0 S c h o o l 17) E d m o n d s Town C e n t r e 18) New W e s t m i n s t e r Q u a y Place 19) F i r s t C a p i t a l 20) W e s t m i n s t e r P i e r 21 ) C o l u m b i a S q u a r e 22) C o l u m b i a C e n t r e 2 3 ) New W e s t m i n s t e r C o u r t h o u s e 24) C o l u m b i a S t a t i o n C o n d o m i n i u m s 25) R i c a r d o N o r d e l l i 2 6 ) New W e s t m i n s t e r Q u a y I I 27) C r e s s y ' s 2 8 ) S k y T r a i n ( p h a s e 2) 29) S c o t t R o a d I n t e r c h a n g e Project 30) E d g e w a t e r Total  (Egby,  C A S E S T U D Y / 96  1989)  Construction Cost m. $ 200 1 b. 10 m. 12 m. 1 00 m. 100 m. 2 b. 17. 3 m. 350 m. 20 m. 100 m. m. 90 1 30 m. 9 m. 18 m. 16 m. m. 180 1 00 m. m. 75 1 25 m. m. 20 16. 9 m. 1 . 6 m. 16 m. 1 . 2 m. m. 215 13. 2 m. 1 79 m. 20 m. m. 20 $ 5 1 4 5 . 2 m.  GREATER VANCOUVER  Figure  10DSS  -,  '.  Vancouver  * Change 0977-82}  (Vv]  (data in Hutton &  respectively).  This  Metrotown, but and  may  does  be  coincidental  suggest  some  the promotion of a balance  jobs to population. The  GVRO  ctat&f)  Davis,  with  1985)  the  building the  of ALRT  to  development  of jobs to population in each part of the region.  has  the potential to promote a balance  in the  long run  further promoted  through  of  promote a  depending upon whether or not  regional town centre is achieved. Office development will probably unless  SkyTrain  conclusion here is that C R T E development may  of jobs to population  result of A L R T  .  % Change C13B2-B7)  relationship between  This discussion shows that the A L R T  balance  C A S E S T U D Y / 97  10: Percentage Change In Total Municipal Office Space (1977-1987)  Burnaoy  V/\  TRANSPORTATION  not occur  as  a a  visible government actions such  GREATER VANCOUVER  TRANSPORTATION  C A S E S T U D Y / 98  as movement of government offices into the Coquitlam regional town centre.  The  third  regional the  criterion  town  is based  centres. With  decision did not  upon  the  reference  LRP to the  it promoted  the  encouragement  of low  compete  the  with  AFB,  of creating  two  Metrotown density  and  centre and  New  housing in the  development  of  the  two  of the  does not  promote nor  centres.  Whalley-Guildford LRP  town  detract from  the  The  AFB's  is perceived centre.  to  However,  only tries to focus growth in conclusion here is that  regional town centres  strategy  LRP.  All  six C R T E  the  regional  respondents stated that development would promote the creation of town  regional town New  of  (of these four) stated  District of Surrey  the regional town centres, not to forbid it elsewhere. The AFB  number  respondents stated that  Westminster  this argument is somewhat tenuous since the  the  a  impact this goal either positively or negatively, four stated  that it detracted from the Whalley-Guildford that  strategy  centre  Westminster  conclusion  that  centres would  or  the  strategy. be  promoted  Coquitlam.  CRTE  There  would  was  debate  most by  such  However, promote  this the  expressed  which  development: Metrotown,  debate LRP  about  is  strategy  irrelevant of  to  the  developing  a  number of regional town centres.  The  fourth  criterion  is based  upon  oriented transportation system. The  the  LRP  LRP  strategy  of  promoting  a  transit  (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 bringing greater numbers of into busy downtown streets.  This the  may  automatically  LRP.  However, the  relation to the A F B by  increasing  lead  C A S E S T U D Y / 99  through  neighbourhoods  cars  to the  four  TRANSPORTATION  conclusion  interviewees  Vancouver  that the  that  AFB  discussed  decision contradicts  this  stated that the building of the bridge may  accessibility  across  the  Fraser  River  and  by  LRP  strategy  in  promote livability increasing  modal  choice.  Although the focus of this LRP  strategy is accessibility by  transit, there  must  a recognition of the need for regional road access. Goods cannot move by so  truck  access to all areas of the  people will continue to drive so some degree. Even  on  such  region  their choice  accessibility  Rather than managing growth, the A F B  The  original LRP  oriented  has  transportation  existing facilities and (GVRD,  three  provide  It  new  grounds, the has  strategy  facilities if the  transportation  development,  facilities  CRTE  are  the  being  CRTE  AFB  accommodated  opposes LRP  to  ideals.  allowed growth to sprawl randomly.  proposed  that  transit,  maintained. Also, manj'  of mode must be  for achieving to:  manage  mainly CRTE  would  an  be  over-utilized and  fully  public transit ~  as  transit utilize needed  should  occur, it  helping to focus  residential  managing are  growth. Existing  congested  would contribute to their better utilization by  some automobile commuters into transit vehicles.  improved  growth,  development  in accordance with each of these points. By  employment  hours. The  point  system.  1975a). It is obvious  would be and  a  needs to be  be  during  peak  possibly drawing  GREATER  VANCOUVER  TRANSPORTATION  CASE STUDY  / 100  However, this does not mean that A L R T is the only possible transit service that can  help  alleviate  the  congestion  problems  of  the  northeast  sector.  possibilities include commuter rail on existing heavy rail lines, SeaBuses between  Port  Moody  articulated) service Whichever  of  and  to an  these  fifth  this  LRP  opposition  Vancouver  terminus  spaces. Most  separately  upon the L R P  or  Mall  (high  capacity  (Leicester, 1990).  in combination,  strategy  respondents felt  strategy.  The  argument  land uses and urban sprawl was disputed but did not cause such dispersed  Two  FastBus  at Lougheed  the  of protecting and  the A F B  strategy. There were no concerns voiced to this  and  operating  transit  the ideals of the LRP.  criterion is based  regional open  ALRT  is provided,  orientation does favour  The  downtown  Other  that  decision  was  developing  impartial to  alluding that the A F B  the A F B  promotes  is  in  low density  by those who feel the A F B  accelerated  development.  respondents argued that the A F B decision actually promotes the conservation  of open spaces. Their maintaining  arguments reflect the importance of public attitudes toward  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 A F B does not contradict the open spaces strategy, if it is assumed that dispersed of the Fraser  River  would have occurred  development occurring south  regardless. The conclusion  here is that  the A F B development is consistent with the open spaces strategy.  All  four respondents felt that the C R T E  has no role in promoting the strategy  GREATER of  protecting  has been utilized  open The  promote  regional  Although  transit  utilizing  spaces. Two  respondents  only  way  in which  open  spaces  the parks  transit  is by  vehicles may  did mention  by municipal planning departments to promote  spaces. However, the regional significance of such  limited.  for  C A S E S T U D Y / 101  TRANSPORTATION  and developing regional open  that the A L R T municipal  VANCOUVER  facilities  such  open space is  as the C R T E  not providing good  access  to these  travel to regional parks, the necessary  (i.e. barbecues,  backpacks) are not easy  transit. The conclusion is that the C R T E  fail to areas.  equipment  to transport on  does not have the potential to greatly  impact the protection or development of regional open spaces.  2.  Coordination  The  previous  With L R P Goals  section  analyzed  the case  study  transportation  terms of the perceived relationships to the five L R P concerned  with  analyzing  whether  coordinated with these L R P  the  process  infrastructure in  strategies. This section is  of transportation  planning is  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  infrastructure would seem to indicate that the A F B goals  while  supportive spaces).  the C R T E of the L R P  The  CRTE  by  is. This only  is evidenced  by  is not coordinated with the A F B  in one of five strategies  contrast was  contradictory to the fifth (also promotion  perceived  to the transportation  being  LRP  perceived as  (the promotion  of open  as supportive of four  and not  of open spaces). However, these findings  GREATER do  VANCOUVER  TRANSPORTATION  CASE  S T U D Y / 102  not reflect the planning processes for the two cases. In neither the A F B nor  the  CRTE  case  was  the planning  process  perceived  to be coordinated  with the  ideals of the LRP.  All respondents  to the A F B  coordination with  the L R P  case stated (for question one) that they perceived no in the planning process. The L R P  stresses public consultation while top-down  with  no  jurisdictions being no  formal  the planning for the A F B  public participation.  coordinated with  There  was  is a program that was perceived to be  also no  perception of  this planning process. Furthermore, there  perception of coordinating the bridge decision with  other  aspects  was  of land use  planning within the municipalities impacted.  The  CRTE  because  the C R T E  promotion Transit  promotion  of most of the L R P  is a  of transit.  This  from  CRTE  emanating between perception  interview from  B.C.  a  pursuing  that  and  is not surprising. This is  of the  the promotion  strategies  results from  both  is the  by  B.C.  the L R P and  the goal of transit ridership. The view that  The  the  five  of the L R P  not be coordinated with  nonconsultative  that B.C. Transit  with land use.  may  responses.  Transit  and one  one, but one which  planning process  the  mode  suggests  is not a conscious  B.C. Transit independently the  transit  strategies  LRP  CRTE  is seen  as  process.  Although  some  Coquitlam  planning  department,  is a transportation agency  a  goals is apparent provincial  decision  coordination  occurs  there  is a  that has nothing  to do  GREATER VANCOUVER D.  TRANSPORTATION  CASE STUDY /  103  CONCLUSION  It is concluded five LRP are  that the  based  on  the  coordinated  in relation  would  responsible  support  with  LRP  notion  AFB  that  better  formulation,  the  that the  goals. The  Transit's support  for policy  did not  process  result of the  coordination  change in a slower and might otherwise be  could  is  decision making  more acceptable  possible" (GVRD,  transportation planning  either case,  of transportation that the  the  planning  CRTE  LRP's promotion  needed and  a way,  growth  between  planning  can  play  of transit  strategy  by  actors  transportation  "which  psychologically and  1975a). If the  those  of transportation  impacted  brings  financially,  growth strategy  were to become better coordinated,  would result. Braham  conclusions  LRP.  coordination  allow  four of the  These  decisions. In  potential support  for the  support  all but one.  those responsible for areas serviced and  Better  of questions  the  ramifications of  strategies seems a  indicate  systems and facilities.  perceived  to LRP  rather than B.C.  This  the  strategies while the C R T E would support  analysis does not was  decision to build  on than  (LRP)  and  then a whole new  set  (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.  The  A N D CONCLUSION  purpose of this thesis was to examine transportation planning  making  in terms  objective  was  metropolitan the  SUMMARY  LRP  GVRD.  of coordination  to  examine  other  transportation  The L R P  for analyzing  is neither  regional planning  solely  aspects  of land  decisions  plan. The case study of Greater  as criteria  represents  with  regional  in  and decision  use. A  light  of  related  a  general  Vancouver utilized the strategies of transportation  nor specifically  a  decisions  within the  transportation  plan, but  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  planning  defined  between  as a process  transportation for addressing  and land societal  use. Transportation concerns  while  attempting  was  to meet  the demands for transport made by the populace. It was concluded that although the  technical  disciplinary  aspects  Chapters three  planning  can  use coordination  be  achieved  is appropriate  through within  and decision making stages.  and four provided  case studies presented  five LRP  transportation  isolation, transportation / land  the policy, planning  Greater  of  in chapter  the background necessary for understanding the five.  Chapter five presented  the case study of  Vancouver. It was concluded that the A F B did not support strategies while  four of the  the C R T E example supported all but one. Furthermore,  104  SUMMARY the  analysis supported the notion  decision The  making  processes  CRTE's support  displayed  coordination  The  with  L R P strategies.  reflecting the LRP.  CONCLUSION  conclusion  planning  and  planning  goals  of this  support  within  of regional  result from  rather  agencies.  Therefore,  planning  as  planning  Greater  no coordination  of regional Vancouver.  facilities,  Several  transportation  planning  goals  by  these  major  transportation  and  regional decisions  than  from  rigorous  the benefits in chapter  if attained,  coordination  of coordinating II may  appear  facilities  appears to  exclusive objectives within of planning transportation  not be  to be  attainable  incidental  results  different  between and  land  in the of  those use  Greater  uncoordinated  and implementation.  However, this conclusion is based upon a perceptual of interview planning  between the  upon the region by the provincial government. Promotion and  reviewed  and  is apparent  transportation  similar independent and mutually  agencies  Vancouver  thesis is that  implementation  have been imposed  respondents. Nevertheless,  analysis of a limited sample  it is indicative  of the current  state of  and coordination within the region, especially considering that all of the  respondents have been and are major players and  / 105  was seen as a result of the LRP's promotion  of transit rather than B.C. Transit's decision process  B.  CONCLUSION  that neither of the transportation planning and  examined  of the L R P  AND  regional planning.  and professionals in transportation  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Atienza, E. 1990. Senior Planner, Planning Surrey. Personal communication. B.C.  Transit. 1986. "SkyTrain Summary report".  .  July 1989a. "1990/91 Transit System."  extension  Annual  and  to  Coquitlam.  Service  August 1989b. "Vancouver/Richmond reference: technology/alignment selection". Braham, D. Chen,  08/12/89. "Learn  G. 1990. Planner, communication.  Development Services, District of  Plan  for  rapid  the  transit  Vancouver  project.  Regional  Terms  of  Department  Personal  of  Planning,  B.C.  Transit.  urban mobility". Transportation Research Record,  "Congestion, growth, and  and  innovation at its best".  public choices". Berkeley Planning Journal, 3  City Engineering Department, Vancouver. 1959a. "A Study on Arterial Street and Highway Deficiencies for 1976." Technical Committee for Metropolitan Highway Planning.  Highway Planning. Prepared for the  1959b. "A Study of Highway Planning. Geometric Design Capacities for Freeways." Prepared for the Technical Metropolitan Highway Planning.  .  study.  Sun.  1986b. "Urban transit in Canada: integration Transportation Quarterly, X L (3): 293-316.  City  planning  to manage transit, G V R D told". Vancouver  Cervero, R. 1986a. "Safeguarding 1079: 16-23.  . 1988. (2).  Transit  Standards Committee  and for  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 station areas".  for the community  .  for the  1983b. "Planning study".  community  106  and  and  rapid  rapid  transit: Nanaimo  transit: A L R T  -  and  29th  a  noise  / 107 1983c. "Planning for the community for A L R T development". Department of Planning, District Coquitlam town centre".  of  and rapid  Coquitlam.  transit: A n overall  "Urban  Development Services Department, GVRD. 1989a. Transportation Planning for Greater Vancouver." -—.  design  context  guidelines,  "Bulletin:  Cooperative  1989b. "Greater Vancouver key facts" (draft).  Droettboom, T. 1980. "Planning for Rapid Transit." Quarterly Review (Vancouver Planning Department), January 1980. Egby,  R. 1989. "SkyTrain: Transit".  a  catalyst  for development".  Prepared  for B.C.  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. L e a Associates (former Director of Planning, Department of Planning, GVRD). Personal communication. Glover, R. 1990. Transportation Planner, Planning District of Burnaby. Personal communication.  and Building  Department,  Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). 1971a. "Regional Transportation as a G V R D Function. The Transportation Function: A Policy Statement." 1971b. "Regional Propositions."  Transportation  as  a  GVRD  Function.  Fundamental  . 1975a. "The Livable Region 1976/1986 -Proposals to manage the growth of Greater Vancouver". 1975b. "The Livable Region 1976/1986. Decisions taken by the G V R D Board of Directors on further actions to implement the Livable Region proposals to manage the growth of Greater Vancouver". 1975c. Notes 1976/1986". .  -—.  from  the G V R D  Board  1976. "LRP: the first year". Status strategies. 1978a. "The L R P Department.  after  2  years".  meeting  on  report on G V R D  Prepared  by  "the Livable  growth  Region  management  the G V R D  Planning  / 1978b. "The . 1979. -—.  "The  1980. "The  108  Livable Region Program public events", (pamphlet). Livable Region Program calender", (pamphlet). Livable Region from the 70s to the 80s".  . 1981. "Effectiveness: a discussion paper". September 1989. "Regional Household Demand, Population Forecast Technical Memorandum".  Municipal Households  and  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 (VRTS)". (Notes from a lecture given on February 17, 1990). Levinson, H.S. 1986. "Streets X L (4): 503-520.  for people and transit". Transportation  System  Quarterly,  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 Decision-Oriented Approach, McGraw-Hill Book Company: New Mitchell, G. May 1982. "Building boom Trade and Commerce Magazine .  Planning: York.  continues, Coquitlam, British  A  Columbia".  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, C E . 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, X L I (4): 457-476. .  1989. "A 34-36.  realistic  appraisal of traffic  congestion".  Urban  Land,  October:  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. Personal Pill,  1990. Administrator, communication.  Development  Services  Department,  GVRD.  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 for Paris". R T A C News, 14 (5). 1989. "Transit funding News, 15 (1).  shortfalls  outlined  (RTAC).  1988. "A  in new  RTAC  car subway  report".  RTAC  / 111 Sandaas, R. 1986. "Downtown (11): 36-38.  traffic  Scheving, S. 1990. Planner, Department Personal communication.  goes  down  under". Civil  of Planning, City  Engineering, 56  of New  Westminster.  Schonfeld, P.M. & H.S. Chadda. 1985. "An assessment of urban travel reduction options". Transportation Quarterly, X X X I X (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: A n Economic Vision and Action Plan for the Livable Region." Prepared for the GVRD. Sutcliffe, E.D. Railway Planning Highway  (Western Development and Power Ltd.) & D.W. Mills (B.C. Electric Co. Ltd.). 1959. "A Study on Highway Planning. The Transit Study." Prepared for the Technical Committee for Metropolitan Planning.  Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). 1987. "Challenges for a contemporary statement of the Livable Region strategy: a working paper". Prepared for G V R D Development Services. Technical Committee for Metropolitan Highway Planning Study on Highway Planning for the Metropolitan Mainland of British Columbia." . 1959. "A Study on Highway Planning. Freeways  (TCMHP). 1956. "A Area of the Lower  With Rapid Transit."  Tiessen, E. 1990. Acting Planning Director, Department Coquitlam. Personal communication.  of Planning, District of  Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). 1987. "Individual and community public transit services and facilities".  benefits of  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 A L R T development". Quarterly  Review.  Zakaria, T. 1986. "Traffic trends and emerging transportation planning issues in the Delaware Valley Region". Transportation Quarterly, X L (2): 171-188.  APPENDIX 1: L I V A B L E 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  / work program, budget and  114  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 budget, and appropriate responsibility for this investigation. -Approved.  the work program,  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 regional town centre plans with the municipalities concerned. -Approved.  in preparation  of  / Recommendation 8: The regional board direct staff to prepare an for regional town centre development including the following:  115  action program  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 and budget for preparation of the action program ser out above. -Approved.  Recommendation 9: The  work program  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 G V R D 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 G V R D 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 G V R D 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  LRT  Case Study  2: C A S E  STUDY  INTERVIEW  QUESTIONS  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 L R P and this specific decisionmaking process?  2) Can you example?  briefly  explain  the  process  decision-makers  are  following  in  this  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 Explain.  6) Do  are  the  important  reasons/arguments  for this  rapid  transit  extension?  these reasons justify the high capital expenditure?  7) How does Coquitlam and its growth fit into transit extension fit into this growth?  the region? How  8) Does the current decision-making structure integrate with other types of planning? How or why not?  119  does a  transportation  rapid  planning  / 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 wh3 not? r  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 L R P and this specific decisionmaking process?  / 2) Can you example?  briefly  explain  the  process  decision-makers  were  following  121  in this  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 Alex Fraser Bridge?  6)  the important  reasons/arguments  for the building of the  Did these reasons justify the high capital expenditure?  7) How does the existence of the growth of the region?  Alex  Fraser  Bridge fit into  8) Did this historical decision-making process integrate with other types of the region? How or why not?  or  transportation  affect  the  planning  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-  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items