Recovering ridership: what Vancouver is doing right

The pandemic has changed the way we live, work and get around - pushing public transit ridership numbers down to historical lows. In some areas, projections show it will take some time for riders to return (source: NPR), however in other areas such as Vancouver, BC, rebounds have been much faster (source: BIV). What has enabled such areas to experience faster recovery?

Ridership recovery is affected by several factors, including whether the area in question is built around the concept of transit-oriented development and whether the transit network has been developed in a way to ensure ridership-oriented expansion. But perhaps one of the most critical factors is source of revenue – and how dependent the transit service is on farebox revenue. Adequate and consistent funding from multiple sources has been a crucial driver of TransLink’s success in attaining faster ridership recovery, as we will demonstrate in this article.

At Access, we have an extensive history of providing value in transportation planning and of working with public transit agencies, for instance, recently we contributed to a paper for the Transportation Association of Canada that laid out the range of funding tools that transit agencies could consider to create a more robust revenue generating portfolio. From our work, we have seen that TransLink in Metro Vancouver has been successful in regaining ridership for transit. The media has reported a similar story: Metro Vancouver’s ridership rebound of 75% in fall 2022 outpaced that of major metropolitan areas in not only Canada, but also the U.S., which only returned to roughly 48 per cent and 56 per cent of their pre-pandemic levels respectively (source: BIV).

So, what exactly is TransLink doing that is enabling better ridership recovery compared to other public agencies? The answers are multiple: fast, agile and concentrated transit recovery efforts, data-driven investigation into ridership trends that enables better policy decision-making, provincial commitment to sufficient funding ($2.4 billion for TransLink’s 2022 investment plan), and the use of promotional campaigns such as the ‘Ride On’ campaign in 2021 and the ‘Ride and Shine’ campaign in 2022, that encouraged the use of public transit over cars, and reliable, high frequency bus-service that has great coverage in the Metro Vancouver area. Importantly, service levels for transit were not cut in Vancouver during the pandemic, unlike in other jurisdictions, for example Toronto and Montreal, helping TransLink maintain ridership. Another factor  contributing to TransLink’s success is its focus on transit-oriented development (TOD) in its public transit efforts, which has made the Metro Vancouver area more resilient in the face of pandemic-induced ridership loss.

Perhaps the most important reason, however, is that compared to other agencies, TransLink is also in a better position to keep service levels robust because it does not have a heavy reliance on a singular source of revenue. Specifically, it relies less on farebox revenue, compared to other transit agencies in Canada. In fact, fare revenue only accounts for about one-third (33%) of TransLink’s annual operating revenue. The remaining proportion is made up by revenue from taxation (44%), government transfers (19%) and other (4%). Sources of taxation revenue include fuel and property tax, parking rights and the hydro levy. Federal and provincial government transfers enable the funding of major capital projects. This includes funds received from the Federal Gas Tax, Canada Line funding, Building Canada Fund, Public Transit Infrastructure Fund and other miscellaneous programs such as the City of Richmond contributions for Capstan Station (source: TransLink). Thus, TransLink has a dynamic funding model that helps to keep it resilient to shocks and uncertainties.

Source: TransLink

In an age of lower-than-normal levels of ridership in certain areas due to short-term behavioral shifts, transit agencies that rely on fare box revenue are going to be the most challenged to provide services at levels that make services competitive. Because of this, they are forced to cut service, which makes service even less competitive, thus being sucked into a ‘ridership death spiral’ (as mentioned by Harvard academic David Zipper, as well as other prominent figures in mobility debates). Agencies that have more robust and resilient funding frameworks, such as TransLink, are in a better position to withstand lower ridership and will be more amenable to adapting to meet demand. Other supporting measures like having transit supportive land use, also aid ridership recovery and can help with revenue resilience for public transit in the long term. Because of these measures, despite the fact that even TransLink required emergency funding from the government due to the ‘death spiral’ resulting from decreased ridership in recent years (source: CBC news), it has seen more success in ridership recovery, compared to other transit agencies.

It is important to note here that there is no one-size-fits-all model for agencies and that decisions about funding and governance will be dependent on a number of factors. At Access, we work with clients to map these context pieces out and help organize solutions around core values and objectives that are context sensitive.

How can we develop and maintain these ‘more robust and resilient funding frameworks’? In a future post, we will investigate how transit agencies across Canada use different funding models and what the implications of these models are for their financial success.

Key Questions on Transit Integration in the GTHA

In our previous post we noted the provincial government’s announcement regarding fare integration for transit services in the GTHA, including between GO Transit and the TTC. A fare-integrated transit network that connects local and regional transit systems makes commuting less complicated, more affordable and more convenient for transit users, and will attract more users to transit. Transit fare integration can be a relatively less costly method of increasing ridership as it doesn’t require expensive infrastructure upgrades.

Fare integration between GO and TTC is not a new concept in Toronto - previous efforts have included discounts on TTC-GO transit transfers, for example a $1.50 discount on TTC fares when transferring to the GO network, and a $60 monthly sticker giving access to sections of the GO network within Toronto (source: CTV News). These programs however have been temporary and hence provided limited ability to shift behavior. A question for a new program is will policy changes be sufficiently permanent to incentivize desired long term behaviour change?

Fare integration as general policy has been shown to have many benefits in multi-jurisdictional settings. However, it is important to critically consider the specific issues in the GTHA context, and in particular for Toronto transit users, since fare integration is most lagging between TTC and other services. Will the new policy provide equity for fares within municipal boundaries? As GO service expands to 2-way all-day service on more corridors in the City of Toronto, there will be more options for people to use GO to travel within Toronto. Will fare integration provide transit users making trips in Toronto with an affordable option if using GO is the fastest and most convenient way to get around? Will loyalty programs recognize transfers between GO and TTC? Will this include TTC connections to adjacent local services - DRT, YRT, or MiWay? There are many lower income communities along the municipal borders that access jobs on the opposite site – for example, residents in North Scarborough needing to access jobs or amenities north of Steeles, or vice versa. Currently, these transit riders need to pay both a TTC and YRT fare to make this trip. Will this policy enable these commuters to pay a single, as opposed to a double fare? The Toronto Region Board of Trade has published a report pointing out how a zone-based fare system can offer a single-fare experience that cuts costs for someone commuting for example, from north Scarborough to downtown. This is made possible by pricing a 2-zone journey the same as a journey within a zone.

Another question to consider is whether the policy change will impact service provision through additional costs of implementation. Will fare integration come at the cost of fare increases? And if so, will the overall benefit be reduced? Who will benefit the most and the least?

What is the impact of fare integration when analyzed using a critical equity lens? It depends on the method of fare integration. International experiences show that most approaches improve commuter convenience and quality of life, but different structures and programs can benefit some communities more than others. A distance-based fare integration system where fare cost is low when travelling shorter distances can make travel cheaper for those commuters connecting into the TTC from nearby areas such as Mississauga. Those travelling from slightly further out, however, may end up paying more. While distance-based fares can disincentivize long commutes, they also make downtown work-commute more expensive for people live further out due to high cost of living in central areas. When combined with the recent reduction in overall service and increase in cost for an adult fare for the TTC network that came into effect recently, a fare-by-distance based system could make such journeys significantly more costly for certain communities.

The Montreal region recently implemented an integrated transit fare system following a two-year comprehensive policy and engagement program. The Montreal region has moved from hundreds of fares to a new simplified zone-based system (link to a promotional video) What will be the opportunity for transit users to provide input on any new program for the GTHA?

Fare integration can solve some of the GTHA’s transit issues, but the way that it is implemented can have varying impacts on different communities and groups. Coordinating different transit agencies and unifying their fare payment systems can be a complicated process, but one which can be addressed through careful policy analysis and engagement.

Barriers to Active Transportation: Highway Crossings

Major highway crossings pose a significant risk to safety and comfort for cyclists and pedestrians. In general, many major highway or freeways have few crossings, and the crossings that exist are high-speed arterial roads. The arterial road crossings will frequently have on-ramps, forcing drivers to cross the path of any cyclist or pedestrian to the right at a high speed. For pedestrians, many sidewalks end at on-ramps and pedestrians are told to wait for traffic to pass. At the Brimley Road – 401 interchange for example, no dedicated bike lanes exist, and pedestrians are told to not use the east side to walk (despite the east side connecting homes with shops to the south).

Figure 1 – Brimley Road – 401 interchange (Source: Google Maps)

In the City of Toronto, there are only three Highway 401 crossings with dedicated cycling infrastructure: Conlins Road (a buffered cycle track that crosses no highway on-ramps), and crossings at Betty Sutherland Trail (as part of the Don Trail) and Humber River Recreational Trail.

Figure 2 – A map of Toronto with the three cycling-specific Highway 401 crossings marked

Figure 3 – Humber River Recreational Trail 401 crossing (source: Komoot)

Various infrastructural upgrades at such locations have improved quality of life for commuters engaging in active transport. For example, The City of Toronto improved the original bike lanes on Conlins Road between Ellesmere Road to Sheppard Avenue East, adding a combination of bicycle lanes and ‘cycle tracks’ (bicycle lanes that are physically separated from traffic) in 2019 (source: City of Toronto). Another example is the intersection of Danforth and the Don Valley on-ramp where the City of Toronto has installed a signalized active transportation crossing. Here, a dedicated traffic signal (in addition to the original car traffic signals) coordinates car and bike traffic, and a green-colored, unbroken bike lane that crosses the lane at the intersection helps cyclists maneuver the intersection safely.

Figure 4 - Danforth Ave and Don Valley Parkway on-ramp intersection in 2016, where cyclists are forced to merge across on-ramp traffic (source: Google Maps)

Figure 5 - Danforth Ave. intersection in 2021 after signalized crossing installation (source: Google Maps)

Figure 6 – Rendering of intersection treatment prior to installation (image source: Cycle Toronto via City of Toronto)

Upgrades such as these are examples of the kind of infrastructural improvements that can benefit active transport connectivity across Toronto’s major highways. But safety is paramount, and we could be doing even more. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) has published a list of intersection treatment design interventions that improve safety and comfort of cyclists and pedestrians when traversing highway crossings, which we can draw inspiration from. These include infrastructural upgrades such as bike boxes, intersection crossing markings, two-stage turn queue boxes, median refuge islands, through bike lanes and combined bike/turn lanes.

Figure 7 – Median Refuge Island (source: NACTO, via pedbikeimages.org – Dan Burden)

Active transportation still faces challenges in Toronto, but there have been improvements, as mentioned earlier. Pedestrians and cyclists experience highways as barriers in their communities, limiting access to amenities and opportunities. Access Planning has been involved in numerous active transportation projects and is committed to improving the infrastructure and transit design for pedestrians, cyclists, and other active transportation users.

Banner image source: National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)

Unlocking cities' full potential via networks of mobility hubs

Written by Sophie Belzil, Planning Analyst, and Pieter Agneessens, Managing Associate

Edited April 4, 2023

The mobility hub concept is not a new one. Areas around transit stations have long been acting as “natural mobility hubs”; attracting complementary modes, development, and services due to the high traffic levels that they generate. In recent years, however, the face of mobility has been changing with the arrival of new travel options like shared and on-demand mobility. The rise of remote work and its impact on movement patterns has also shifted perspectives on where to prioritize transit investments. These trends have reinforced the potential for hubs to position themselves as essential components of our mobility landscape, working to reduce solo-car trips and ultimately the need for motorization.

What are Mobility Hubs? 

Image credit: Credit: CoMo UK

Mobility hubs are a strategy to encourage sustainable travel that can be broadly defined as a physical location that gathers two or more sustainable travel options to increase convenience for users.

The suite of options located in mobility hubs usually includes shared services such as ride-hailing and bike-and-scooter in figure 1. Mobility hubs can also act as a “one-stop shop” by including complimentary services beyond just transportation. Services like package pick-up and drop-off spaces, meeting/gathering spaces, or vendors can be attractive to transit users juggling busy lives. 

Various actors can also work together to enhance customers' experience through public realm strategies (new green spaces, protected waiting areas, protected active transportation infrastructure, etc.) and placemaking. Hubs should be attractive places that integrate well with their surroundings.

The strength of hubs also lies in their distinctive branding and integrated information that make them well-recognized places with easy-to-find information. Figure 2 shows an example of the well-established Jelbi network in Germany. Jelbi’s success is supported by its strong branding and an app that groups all mobility providers’ services in one virtual space.

Image credit: Jelbi

Services in mobility hubs are typically perceived as a suite of options that is customizable according to the size and context of the space. As such a strong network will usually have hubs of various sizes that serve different functions in the system (local hubs, transit feeder hubs, etc.).

How can Mobility Hubs support a sustainable transportation system? 

There are many ways in which mobility hubs can help create strong networks in cities. For one, transportation and service planning can be complemented by mobility hubs. Because they can be installed quickly and efficiently, hubs can allow service providers to test certain areas. An example could be in a neighborhood in development that’s expected to grow. A temporary hub can support residents’ travel needs until transit options are solidified and at the same time it can allow planners to test how people travel around that area.

Hubs may help unlock equity benefits by providing mobility services to underserved areas. Indeed, areas of “transit poverty” offer some of the best potential for mobility hubs. Certain urban areas might be just far enough from rapid transit options that they discourage potential users from using their service. A mobility hub with a few additional options can bridge that gap and help rapid transit to expand its reach. These are only a few examples of how hubs' solutions can help achieve transportation goals; there are many more ways that hubs can help support a sustainable transportation network.

Mobility hubs – a governance problem?

Designing appealing and cohesive spaces to accommodate a variety of modal options calls for meaningful collaboration. Mobility hubs, which are often located in areas of high land value at the confluence of several agencies' jurisdictions, may find themselves in ‘messy’ multi-stakeholders environments.

Local governments, operators, and shared mobility providers are examples of stakeholders who need to often not only coordinate, but integrate their panning and implementation efforts. All these parties have their own goals and objectives, which might not always be in line with one another and if conflicts and trade-offs are not addressed, they may prevent the vision of the hub from reaching its potential.

Access has experience working in such similar ‘messy’ contexts and brings a strong ‘toolkit’ to assist clients to identify shared objectives and advance their implementation. We believe that facilitating early collaboration opportunities to identify shared objectives and trade-offs is key to Building alignment towards an effective implementation.

We are eager to tackle these challenges and support other clients in their work towards strong, diverse, agile, and reliable sustainable transportation hubs. 

---

Banner image credit: MobiHub

Cars in the bus lane: a governance problem?

by Brian Phillips, Senior Associate

Banner image credit: Spacing magazine; http://spacing.ca/atlantic/2014/09/08/transit-first-give-transit-priority/

Cars in the bus lane: a governance problem? 

You, and the drivers in the video, may be surprised to learn that the curb lane is reserved for buses. Anecdotally, many people don’t seem to realize that this is a bus lane. The problem with this bus lane stems from two sources: it’s a design problem, and it’s a governance problem. 

The Design Problem 

As shown in the image below, this bus lane has a diamond pavement marking and a sign on the side of the road, which is the legal minimum to make it an enforceable bus lane. However, based on my conversations with non-traffic engineers, many people think that the diamond just means an HOV lane. I suspect that I would have had the same misconception if it wasn’t part of my job to think about transit priority. 

The bus lane in question at Main Street and 5th Avenue, Vancouver. Source: Author 

Additional design features are used in other jurisdictions to make the rules clearer. This includes ‘bus only’ pavement markings, painting the whole lane red, and/or painting a solid lane line. These measures are relatively cheap, and make it clearer that the lane is for buses.  

Bus lane with enhanced design features: solid lane line, additional pavement markings, and red paint. Source: City of Toronto, RapidTO: In Action 

That seems easy, doesn’t it? If the problem and solution are straightforward, why does the problem persist? This question brings us to the next issue: 

The Governance Problem 

A key principle in governance is that an agency’s mandate needs to be matched to its authority and resource. An agency can’t be expected to fulfill a mandate with insufficient powers or resources, and an agency can’t be expected to expend resources solving a problem it is not mandated to solve.  

This bus lane is located at the intersection (excuse the pun) of several different government agencies. Each has their own powers and accountabilities, which are not necessarily optimized to design, build, maintain, and enforce bus lanes that are free of cars. 

TransLink, the regional transit authority, has a strong mandate to speeding up buses. They want to improve customer service through faster travel, and want to realize the operational cost savings associated with reduced travel times. They funded the bus lane and gave it the form it has today, but they don’t own the street and need approval from the City to make any changes.  

The City of Vancouver has direct jurisdiction over this street. They approve any design changes to the street. The City also has an interest in speeding up buses – many of the people in those buses are their constituents – but they also balance many other transportation goals, and much of the cost of maintenance. Extra design features such as red paint cost extra to maintain, which would be borne by the City*.  

While the City and TransLink have the biggest interest in the design problem, enforcement could supplement better design as a solution to the problem, though it is not a substitute for good design. However, enforcement brings in another tranche of agencies.  

Vancouver police of course has many competing priorities, with speeding up buses likely not at the top of that list. Metro Vancouver Transit Police can also do bus lane enforcement, and they occasionally do. However, given the magnitude of the problem, and the growing spread of bus priority measures in the region, they just can’t pull everyone over. Anecdotally, I have heard that when Transit Police do enforce this bus lane, violators often claim ignorance of the bus lane.  

Due to the structure of the Police Act in BC, neither TransLink nor the City of Vancouver have much say in the operational priorities of their respective police agencies. Thus, the agencies with the greatest interest in keeping cars out of the bus lane have little to no control over enforcement. 

A third party has has the ability to practice enforcement: the Province of British Columbia could deploy static photo-enforcement. That is, they could install fixed cameras to record driver violations, but it would be complicated. The Province has only recently legalized photo enforcement after it was banned in 2001. It has slowly rolled out speed enforcement in limited areas, focused on improved safety, not efficiency or fairness. 

 On-vehicle camera system for enforcing bus lanes in New York City. Source: vision systems magazine 

Towards better alignment 

So what is the solution? I believe that design improvements should take precedence over enforcement, which would point towards red paint or other enhanced design features. TransLink is likely willing to fund the paint, as it has elsewhere, but someone needs to take on the maintenance costs.   

It is important to notice that the governance solution need not be a legal change. A mandate is a flexible concept – in my experience different municipalities in Metro Vancouver have different ideas of their role in transit priority despite being governed by essentially the same legal framework. Similarly, TransLink’s involvement in different aspects of mobility has evolved over time, independent of its formal governing framework. The governance fix probably lies at this sub-legislative level- the level of culture, staff direction, and council/board policy. 

*: TransLink does provide funding for maintenance of the Major Road Network, of which Main Street is a part. However, this funding is indexed to the number of lane-kilometers, not the actual cost of the infrastructure. If the addition of red paint makes this street more expensive to maintain, that cost is borne by the City. 

Can Canada Still Build Big? We’re going to find out.

by Michael Himmel, Managing Associate

Large investments in transit and transportation infrastructure are being made all across the country at the moment, but our collective track record on delivering these projects is spotty. Last month at the CCPPP annual conference I attended a panel that asked a provocative question: “Can we still build big?” The success of numerous large projects depends on the answer to that question being “yes!” 

It’s easy to understand why the question would be top-of-mind. Projects like High Frequency Rail, Calgary Green Line, Broadway Subway, Ontario Line, GO Expansion and many others are still in their early stages and facing challenges like market capacity and inflation that are making project risk managers nervous. Additionally, the nation-shaping projects of our past such as the Canadian Pacific Railway, the St. Lawrence Seaway and Confederation Bridge seem altogether unachievable in today’s environment of scarce labour, high inflation, and reduced market appetite for risky projects. (Not to mention the impact of the essential safety, labour and planning reforms that have helped to reduce negative social and environmental impacts of large infrastructure projects). 

The conference panel included Metrolinx CEO, Phil Verster, who answered the question directly. Mr. Verster is overseeing two enormous transit/rail programs (GO Expansion and Subways) that will exceed $50B of spending over the next 10 years or so, and accordingly responded with an unequivocal “yes” to the question. Unquestionably, these projects count as “Big”. But many of these projects are in early stages of development and contracting to complete them is still being sorted through. Completion is years away and Metrolinx will need to navigate significant hurdles to get them built. As if we needed another test of whether we can build big, there is an even larger project looming on the horizon that will challenge our nation’s project delivery capacity. 

Later in the CCPPP conference, a panel updated the attendees on the status of High Frequency Rail – the Federal Government’s initiative to build faster, more reliable, and electrified rail service in the Windsor-Toronto-Ottawa-Montréal-Québec City Corridor. This corridor stretches more than 1000 km and contains ~60% of the country’s population and GDP. Although incomplete, rail service exists today, it is plagued by slow travel times, (relatively) high emissions, infrequent service, and repeated delays due to its reliance on diesel locomotives and shared rights-of-way with freight trains. In the past when I’ve travelled to Montréal or Ottawa, I found it difficult to choose rail instead of air or car because of slow travel times and uncertainty of when I would arrive. It seems obvious to me that High Frequency Rail could bring massive benefits by shifting interregional travellers to a more sustainable mode of transport, and relieving congestion on our roads and at our airports. 

When asked how much a project like High Frequency Rail would cost, the panellists had to step around this hard-to-answer question or risk setting expectations too soon. They opted to point to the long-term nature and significant benefits of such a project, which tells me it definitely won’t be cheap. That non-answer made me curious as to what the cost might be. It is of course difficult to answer, with the scope and route not yet clearly defined. But if you consider that 1000km of rail needs to be electrified, including new track in substantial portions of the alignment and new rights of way, you can start to imagine the scale of the project. Using California High Speed Rail or High-Speed Rail 2 (UK) as references, Canada’s High Frequency Rail project could easily cost more than $100B. The actual cost will depend on numerous factors including scope decisions, train speed, planned frequency, and alignment choices, among others, that could put the cost higher or lower. But it’s clear that this project counts as BIG. 

The case for the project is still being developed, but High Frequency Rail holds the potential to bring enormous benefits to millions of Canadians and shape the identity of our country in a way that some of the iconic megaprojects of the past did. My hope is that the Federal government approaches this project with a good appreciation for its scale, complexity, and challenges so that it can be managed effectively from the start. That will mean: 

• Creating effective project governance to ensure decision-making is decisive, the voice of partners and stakeholders is heard, and enabling activities like utilities relocation and permitting do not hit roadblocks. 

• Working with colleges, unions and the Ministry of Immigration, Refugees & Citizenship to ensure enough talented and trained people are available to perform the required work (something critical for work all across the country) 

• Developing a delivery model that reflects the current market realities and includes appropriate incentive structures and risk sharing/transfer mechanisms for effective delivery. 

• Communicating the opportunity of the project with the public to build support and momentum. 

If we want to prove we can build big, we will need to act with intention to navigate the new and recurring challenges brought on by the current market conditions and which regularly plague megaproject delivery.  

How ideas around minimum residential parking requirements are changing

Understanding zoning and land use regulations is important because these laws truly shape the spaces that we spend our lives in, and our perception of these spaces. And of all these laws, the ones related to cars and parking have had perhaps the most significant impact on the way we live and how we engage and interact with the environment around us.

I grew up in a car-dependent city – Karachi, Pakistan, where car traffic, vehicular pollution, and lack of alternative commuting options defined my urban experience; an experience that would involve hours of being stuck in car traffic at times. This left with me a lasting aversion to car traffic, as well as a sensitivity to and awareness of the societal costs of a car-dependent city, and the equity issues surrounding this more individualistic and costly method of transportation. It also shaped my perception of what a ‘city’ is supposed to look like. My experience in Toronto has been different – but also similar in many ways. Here, I can conveniently take the subway or ride publicly shared bikes inside the city to avoid car traffic, but car traffic still exists both within the city as well as outside, on the network of highways that connect the city’s suburban peripherals.

Needless to say, Karachi isn’t the only city that is designed primarily for cars over people. In Canada and the US, much of the built infrastructure is devoted solely to cars – roads, highways and parking, and has even led us to conceptualize the city as a car-based space. Cars do serve a role in our lives, and for some, are essential in meeting everyday needs. Designing our living spaces excessively around them, however, can result not just in substantial societal costs and adversity, but may have altered our perception of living spaces themselves. Continuing to devote these spaces to car infrastructure perpetuates our dependence on cars.  

One important aspect of car-focused urban design is parking; in particular, minimum parking requirements, which were drafted in the 19th and 20th centuries, but exist to this day in many major American and Canadian cities. For Toronto specifically, these minimum requirements have contributed to costly, excess parking spaces that are sitting unused in many underground parking structures across downtown Toronto.  According to the Residential Construction Council of Ontario (RESCON), data shows that in new condo projects, an average of 33% of parking stalls have been left unsold. One builder, according to RESCON, had 90% still available for sale as a building neared construction. Parking spaces, especially those that come ‘bundled’ (are sold with) homes, contribute to maintaining car-dependent infrastructure and lifestyles.

Realizing the costs (one underground parking space can cost between $48,000 to $160,000 to develop, according to the City of Toronto) and consequences of building excess parking in Toronto, the city council revised its parking requirements in by-law 569-2013 in December 2021, abolishing parking minimum requirements, and replacing them with parking maximums for certain housing types. This amendment was driven by the city’s vision for a more livable, sustainable, transit-oriented city, that is less dependent on cars, as stated in its Official Plan. The policy revision was also motivated by comments from developers (received in public meetings hosted by the City in 2021 on the issue) pointing towards the mismatch of supply and demand of parking resulting from the previously mandatory parking minimums, leading to unsold parking spaces being bundled off with residential units, thus increasing rent and purchase cost of homes in the city. This is backed by a report published in 2019 by the Ryerson Urban Analytics Institute for the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario (RCCAO), which provides pertinent data on parking supply and demand, impacts on housing affordability, vehicle ownership rates and other relevant components of the issue.

An empty parking garage; Source: Pexels 

While the regulation of traffic and parking on streets has existed since the 1800’s, off-street parking requirements for the automobile first appeared in North America at the beginning of the 20th century, with the rise of the motorcar and the ideas, implications and industries that came with it (Segrave, Banning Begins, 2012). The first minimum parking requirement specifically was established in 1923 in Columbus, Ohio, USA (Nichols, 2019). Today, however, especially in cities where strong public transportation infrastructure such as subways, busses and light rail rapid transit systems exist, and active transportation such as cycling and walking is making a resurgence, minimum parking requirements have been increasingly falling under public scrutiny (Engel-Yan & Passmore, 2010), and their existence and usefulness is being questioned by urban planners, politicians and members of the public alike, often resulting in by-law revisions such as the one Toronto enacted last year (Nichols, 2019); (Shoup, et al., 2020).

Toronto is not alone in abolishing the aging and archaic set of rules in the zoning bylaws that mandate minimum parking for new developments. Several major Canadian and American cities have already fully or partially eliminated minimum parking requirements from their bylaws and have placed maximums instead (Shoup, 2011); (Strong Towns, 2019). Edmonton became the first major Canadian city to abolish parking minimums in 2020 (City of Edmonton, 2020), and several major cities in the US have already fully or partially removed parking minimums, such as San Francisco, Portland and New York City (Strong Towns, 2021). 

Toronto’s parking requirements by-law revision is a step in the right direction, but how much impact will it truly have towards achieving the City’s goals of improving sustainability, livability and affordability? By abolishing parking minimum requirements and setting up location-sensitive parking maximums instead, the City hopes to support land- and cost-efficient forms of development, encourage transportation alternatives to the automobile, ensure sufficient parking to meet equity needs, and make housing construction less costly to developers (City of Toronto, 2021). The by-law revision can help developers and other stakeholders through cost savings due to less (unneeded) parking construction, and it will help reduce the proportion of unused parking spaces for the future. However, it may require other complimentary policy changes in order to have a significant impact on reducing car dependence in the city overall, in encouraging people to shift to healthier and more sustainable methods of transportation, and in making housing more accessible to the city’s residents. Toronto’s transition out of car-dependence and housing unaffordability may still be some distance away, but this by-law change was certainly an important step in laying the foundations for such a transformation.

Featured image source: Pexels

Three little things to take away from Copenhagen

Michelle Kearns, MScPl, RPP, Planning Associate 

Copenhagen is known for being a progressive bastion of urbanism in the western world. It conjures up thoughts of smiling people on bikes, interactive and whimsical public parks, and colourful buildings lining canals in the city centre. Like other European capitals now regarded as best-in-practice for reducing trips taken by private car, Copenhagen wasn’t always the Copenhagen we know now. The city has gradually shifted away from the mid-century car dominance that similarly overwhelmed North American cities, through purposeful leadership, creative approaches to governance, and strategic investments in infrastructure.  

 Figure 1 - Gammeltorv-Nytorv before 1962; via Copenhagenize’s Master Class  

Figure 2 - Gammeltorv-Nytorv, present day, via VisitCopenhagen  

In June, I had the chance to visit Copenhagen for the Cycling Master Class, presented by Copenhagenize. Through a mix of tours, presentations from local planners and municipal staff, and simply exploring by bike, I got to understand the strategies used in the city and surrounding region to encourage greater cycling mode share.   

Copenhagen plans to become “the world’s best bicycle city” and to achieve carbon-neutrality by 2025. They have set a goal to increase the percent of work and school trips made by bike from 35% in 2010 to 50% by 2025. 

Can North American cities be similarly ambitious? Below are three things North American cities should consider. Some are small, more on the scale of a municipal plan and budget. Others require a paradigm shift and the development of new governance models and approaches. All are impactful and innovative:  

1. User Experience as a Cyclist: How can municipal efforts make cycling a better experience overall?  

Given that the majority of Copenhagen is easily and safely accessible by bike, the City of Copenhagen has set its sights on encouraging cycling by further improving service levels for cyclists. Looking to make trips by bike more efficient and manage bike traffic, Copenhagen’s ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) technologies have been deployed to reduce travel time on certain corridors as well as the number of stops at intersections for cyclists by 10%.

In North America, car-oriented “level of service” guidelines (i.e., how fast can cars move through an intersection) are the backbone of traffic planning. Only very recently has the industry begun to develop a multi-modal level of service concept to challenge this traditional method of prioritizing vehicular movement in urban centres. The City of Copenhagen, on the other hand, has recognized the need for integrating priority for cyclists in traffic management, and through this, has provided a refreshing level of respect, efficiency and joy for people getting around by bike each day.  

2. Connecting our Suburbs: Longer distances are no challenge with the right infrastructure  

The regional network of Cycling Superhighways in Copenhagen covers 850km and traverses through 31 municipalities. What’s impressive, beyond the commitment to continuous infrastructure designed with cyclists in mind (no being unexpectedly thrown into live traffic, consistent branding and wayfinding, and no steep climbs to cross a road at-grade), is the governance model that made this possible.  

The Capital Region of Denmark and its 29 municipalities established a secretariat in order to plan, build, and manage a consistently branded series of cycling routes that connect the region. Each municipality has agreed to fund and build their portions of the routes, often with co-financing by the state. The municipalities have agreed on a conceptual strategy and definition of cycling superhighway and a plan to be built by 2045.  

For the 8 existing cycle superhighways, cycling has increased by 23% pre- and post-installation, an impressive number given the region’s already high baseline for cycling. Given that traffic doesn’t respect local boundaries, and that our cities and regions are increasingly becoming intertwined, a planning and governance mechanism to develop continuous infrastructure is an innovative solution to effective cross-boundary implementation. Bringing this back to North America, we see challenges with the City of Toronto’s borders and continuous cycling infrastructure – for example, Mississauga’s Burnhamthorpe Road multi-use path ends immediately at the City of Toronto border, turning into a pedestrian-only sidewalk. Continuous infrastructure is critical for supporting cycling for transportation.   

Figure 3 - The Ishoj route to the south of Copenhagen (source: Michelle Kearns)

Figure 4 - Overview of existing cycling superhighways in the Capital Region

3. Construction Impact Mitigation: prioritizing maintaining safe cycling routes

Recognizing cycling infrastructure as an essential part of the transportation network means ensuring continuous safe access and marked and safe detours when routes are impacted by construction projects. It means construction sites are required to provide continuous cycling connections through their project sites and to deliver on this consistently. Cyclists should not be running into roadblocks or closed routes on a daily basis, and construction crews should have the training to properly implement safe and user-friendly solutions. Instead, in North America we often see construction crews park vehicles in bike lanes, bike lane closures with “walk your bike” signs (not allowed in the City of Toronto, but nonetheless, many are used), or “share the lane” signs that suddenly appear with little warning as cyclists are unexpectedly forced together with high-speed vehicular traffic.

Steps to ensure consistency of available cycling infrastructure will help to build confidence of newer riders and those who prefer to take only separated routes.

Figure 5 - Construction impacts are mitigated and easy to follow for cyclists (source: Michelle Kearns)

Figure 6 - Access staff Karen and Michelle riding around a construction barricade placed at the end of an otherwise open bike lane in Montreal; via Tamim Raad

The City of Copenhagen is not a far-off utopia, unattainable for North American cities. Through consistent small changes and iterative strategies, North American cities can continue to cultivate cycling as a primary mode of transportation. Doing so is particularly important as cities strive to reduce their carbon footprints in the face of our climate crisis.

Transit accessibility in Toronto: how can user experience be improved?

By Ahmed Abdul Aziz, Planning Analyst

Learning from users

Toronto’s major public transit agencies have made substantial progress in recent years towards offering accessible transit options to commuters, retrofitting older inaccessible stations with elevators and procuring low-floor streetcars, for example. These agencies advertise several options to riders who require special assistance whether it be someone travelling with a stroller who needs an elevator, a person with vision impairment who cannot read signage from afar, or someone using a mobility device. But what is the user experience really like?

To find out, I started by learning more about the experience of my colleague, Lisa Salsberg. She generously shared her story of what using Toronto’s transit system was like after she was injured in August 2019. A regular user of public transit, Lisa used a combination of GO train and TTC subway transit to get to her place of work in downtown Toronto. After breaking her foot and undergoing surgery, she had to use an electric kneeling mobility scooter, and later crutches, to get to and from transit stations, and observed that certain features of station design sometimes made for a rocky experience. Her experiences may be telling of some of the challenges that transit users with disabilities experience on a regular basis.

Elevator access

While providing elevators is a necessary step towards improving transit accessibility at stations, access to the elevators is a critical consideration as well. Whilst many transit stations do have elevators, Lisa found it difficult in some stations, such as Union GO and Yonge/Bloor TTC, to get to the train itself from the elevators and the station entry/exit points. Elevator location and access is a core aspect of station accessibility design, and it is crucial that when designing features such as these, the use of unique mobility devices such as electric scooters or wheelchairs be kept in mind.

“Accessibility features need to be located as close to each other as possible to make the experience for the end-user smooth and seamless.”

The design of certain walkways, slopes, and pathways can be problematic. For example, the angle and gradient of a slope leading to where the elevator is located, or the number of turns a mobility user experiences in their path, may present challenges. The location of the elevator itself is also very important. For example, Lisa faced difficulty during her commute at Danforth GO station since the station elevator is situated far from the accessibility train-car platform, requiring a long walk or roll down the platform. Accessibility features need to be located as close to each other as possible to make the experience for the end-user smooth and seamless; otherwise, the effectiveness of these features is severely hampered.

Pavement and station surface design

Surface design is integral to providing for a smooth and comfortable experience for people using mobility devices. The paved surfaces leading into a subway station and those inside aren’t always adequately considered in station design. Lisa’s mobility scooter would often bump against the pavement surfaces of certain stations, putting pressure on her knee and making the ride uncomfortable.

So, while some surface treatments might assist commuters who need navigational assistance, they might at the same time be an impediment to those riding mobility vehicles such as scooters or wheelchairs. Separate paths for these different users may help mitigate conflicts and enhance the user experience for all. This is even more critical in context of rush hour where busier platforms may complicate movement amongst dense crowds by mobility device users. Consistency in the provision of these services throughout stations is also key: Lisa noted that in some areas of Union station she had a better, smoother experience compared to others.

Information sharing and awareness

Station elevators and escalators can sometimes be temporarily closed due to malfunction, repairs or routine maintenance. The TTC, like most transit agencies, has methods of alerting commuters to these closures. Updates on the operating status of TTC elevators are available on the TTC accessibility webpage.  But how many people are aware of or think to regularly check these service alerts?

After her injury, Lisa would sometimes get off at a station only to find the elevator inoperable. Raising awareness through different channels such as electronic media, signage and posters inside transit stations can vastly improve the overall experience for transit users. This can involve sharing information about what accessibility features are present on busses and streetcars, which subway stations have centre platforms, and providing information on other accessibility-related offerings such as the Community Bus and the Please Offer Me a Seat Program.  Service disruption alerts and live updates, if integrated with popular transit/navigation apps such as Google Maps, can also prove incredibly useful and result in a more seamless, user-friendly experience.

Available staff at stations

Machines may bring benefits in some aspects of public transit services such as ticketing, but transit agencies need to ensure that staff are consistently present to help those who need assistance. As any user can tell you, when an unexpected problem is encountered, machines cannot replace humans.

“As any user can tell you, when an unexpected problem is encountered, machines cannot replace humans. ”

When faced with an out of service elevator at Union Station, staff came to Lisa’s aid. They offered a creative solution to her problem, guiding her through the compartment of another railcar in order to reach her destination without having to use stairs. Lisa noted that in general, having station staff nearby has been extremely useful when she was faced with accessibility-related problems in stations.

Communication access and connectivity

While not having the cell service when travelling underground on the subway is an inconvenience for many commuters, for those who require assistance it can be a serious problem. Commuters with accessibility-needs often depend on first and last mile solutions to get to and from transit stations. With no cell service, contacting someone outside to coordinate a trip can become impossible. While stations offer Wi-Fi, it isn’t available inside the subway tunnels. Furthermore, connecting to it requires an authorization step, which can be a time-consuming or difficult process for some users to navigate. Having internet connectivity onboard trains would be extremely helpful to all commuters, but especially to those who need to coordinate with people outside the station.

Room for improvement

Lisa’s experience shows us that while public transit is providing a variety of accessibility options today, there is still room for improvement. Continuously learning from the diversity of commuters and incorporating new ideas and standards into station design will only improve the system and transit experience for all. Most often, the best insights and ideas come from those who use the service. Lisa’s appreciation of the in-person help she received at certain transit stations is telling of how an inclusive ecosystem, one that connects commuters and transit developers and providers, can ultimately create the most user-friendly experience for all riders.