Inside Access: Meet Brian

“The key to developing a functioning facility involved understanding the complex ways that people use the space around them. I learned that often the hard part of problem solving is asking the right question – once you have that, the answer is usually easy. ”

Why Transportation Planning?

Transportation infrastructure is often thought of as the blood of a city, but I think of it more as its bones. It is the fundamental force that shapes a city and how we experience it. A huge amount of our experience of being in public is tied to our need to travel.

My Professional Trajectory

I first became interested in transportation as a civil engineering undergraduate. In my first intro to transportation course I learned about the paradoxes involved in trying to plan a system that is defined by human behaviour. This was different from other areas of civil engineering, where soil, water, and steel tend to behave in relatively predictable ways.

After graduation, I eventually had the pleasure of working for a small strategic and facilities planning firm, Cornerstone Planning Group. There, I helped plan facilities such as hospitals, schools, public works facilities, recreational facilities, courthouses, and one paleontology research station. While not transportation, it was also very human-focused. The key to developing a functioning facility involved understanding the complex ways that people use the space around them. I learned that often the hard part of problem solving is asking the right question – once you have that, the answer is usually easy.

As much as I loved that work, I was still fascinated by transportation, so I left to do my Masters at University College London in England.

Afterwards, I spent four years at TransLink, working on the Surrey LRT and RapidBus projects. There, I was able to apply the human-centered, question-first approach I learned at Cornerstone to transit projects. I found that the technical problems were often secondary to the planning and small-p political problems in getting a project done.

Both projects, and particularly the RapidBus, required close work with municipal partners. In that context building trust, working collaboratively, and developing mutual understanding were key to project success.

I moved to Access Planning to get wider exposure to transportation in different cities. It’s been fascinating to see that something taken for granted in one city can be mind-blowingly new in a different one. Every place that I’ve worked in has something to teach the world about transportation. I’ve enjoyed bringing the considerable lessons TransLink has to offer the world to other places, and bring lessons from elsewhere home to TransLink.

How I Move Around

I’ve been cycling in Vancouver as my main mode of transportation since my undergrad days, and it has been a pleasure to see the growth of its cycling facilities (though not fast enough!). For longer trips, I take transit. The signature sound of the Skytrain accelerating is a comforting sign that I am home.

I recently got an ebike to help me move my large instruments to gigs and rehearsals. Its great to be able to play a tuba or a massive drum without needing to own a car to haul them around.

When I must drive, I use car sharing. I have been a member of every car sharing service that’s ever existed in Vancouver. I have the fortune to live in the epicenter of car sharing in the car sharing capital of North America.

What I Do When I’m Not Planning

My two favourite things to do outside of planning are music and surfing.

On the music side, I mostly play in brass bands. My current group is Balkan Shmalkan, where I play the davul, a bass drum common to the Balkans. I also play the sousaphone, piccolo, guitar, mandolin, a variety of drums, and make electronic music. My favourite thing about playing music is doing it with other people! I love brass band music because you have a large team pulling together to make something wonderful.

Most of my surf time is spent in Tofino with my partner. Learning to surf in BC has meant embracing a wide array of conditions. I have surfed in snow, sleet, and freezing rain.

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.

School’s out! Transportation Planning at UBC

by Andrew Devlin, Managing Associate

Access Planning’s Tamim Raad and Andrew Devlin returned to their alma mater this past term to co-teach “Transportation Planning for Good Cities and Regions” at UBC’s School of Community and Regional Planning.   

The class introduced students to the fundamentals of urban and regional transportation planning, what goes into developing transportation megaprojects, policies, strategies, and actions, and the critical role of values, objectives, and priorities in helping to keep cities and regions focused on what matters most. Students learned through the first-hand experience of an incredible group of practicing planners and engineers who shared their best advice and ideas to create equitable, just, and sustainable transportation systems and cities. 

Throughout the term, students leveraged this insight to develop ideas and proposals for implementing some of the key actions and strategies in Transport 2050 – Metro Vancouver’s regional transportation strategy. These included advancing a regional bus rapid transit network, developing a regionally integrated shared micro-mobility system, delivering interregional transit along the Sea-to-Sky corridor, and developing new ways to fund and deliver a robust regional bike network.  

A very big thank you to the guest speakers who shared their experiences, perspectives, and ideas as practicing planners helping advance some of Canada’s most complex transportation and mobility projects and initiatives. James Stiver Caitlin Cooper Nick Lovett Ingrid Hawkins Fearghal King Tessa Forrest Natalie Corbo Blair Underhill Justin Hall Joanna Clark Lisa Parker Michael Himmel Graham Cavanagh 

We can’t wait to see what this creative, thoughtful, and passionate generation of planners, designers, and engineers do next! Fumika Noguchi Caroline Dunaux Yiyang Wang Sayani Mandal Rahul Shahi Julianna Neudorf Rajpreet Sidhu Reyhan Cuming Alex Heilmann Khelen Upadhyay Kathryn Wu Stephanie Grondin Molly Barkowsky 

Developing TransLink’s Transit Service and HandyDART Service Performance Review

The Transit Service Performance Review (TSPR) and HandyDART Service Performance Review (HDSPR) are published annually by TransLink. The TSPR provides detailed insights into ridership trends across the entire TransLink transit system (SkyTrain, bus, West Cost Express, and HandyDART), while the HDSPR focuses on the performance of the HandyDART system, which is TransLink’s door-to-door, shared-ride service for people who need assistance to navigate the conventional public transit system. Both documents provide statistics on the recent year of transit service – valuable information for decision-making and providing public transparency on the TransLink system.  

Source: TransLink

Access Planning played a lead role in drafting and producing the 2020 HDSPR, as well as the 2021 and 2022 editions of both the TSPR and HDSPR. Our team completed extensive data analysis including preliminary and final calculations, advising on the most pertinent metrics to include, and visualizing relevant data in meaningful ways. We helped to sift through detailed ridership data to build the report’s narrative around the region’s annual ridership trends.  

The TSPR provides information on metrics such as busiest routes and stations; boardings by time of the day; average daily boardings per mode and more. The HDSPR includes data on demand and registration, service reliability and customer satisfaction. Given the significant impact that the COVID-19 pandemic had on transit ridership in 2020 and 2021, as well as in 2022, both documents also provide some information on “ridership recovery” – a comparison of transit ridership with the “pre-COVID” state in 2019, as well as in later years. The 2022 TSPR notes that TransLink’s system-wide ridership recovery in fall of 2022 reached 80% of pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels from fall 2019. In fact, according to the review, TransLink’s ridership recovery exceeded the average recovery rate across major Canadian and American transit agencies in this period. The 2022 review of the HDSPR similarly shows that the demand for HandyDART trips grew as public health restrictions were eased in early 2022. According to the review, 22% more new customers registered for HandyDART services compared to 2021 levels. 

Other key findings of the 2022 TSPR include: 

• Annual journeys across the system totalled 193.6 million in 2022, a 48% increase over 2021 and over 70% of levels in 2019. 

• TransLink was the first transit agency in Canada and the United States to reach 80% ridership recovery (in fall 2022). 

• TransLink ranked 5th in Canada and the United States in total transit boardings in 2022, despite being 24th in regional population. 

• Ridership continued to return slightly more on weekends than on weekdays. 

• Overcrowding on the bus system approached pre-pandemic levels through 2022 (approximately 8.2% in October 2022 compared to 10% pre-pandemic). 

Other key findings of the 2022 edition of HDSPR include: 

• In total, 964,800 HandyDART trips were delivered in 2022, up 39% from 2021. 

• HandyDART customer registrations grew by 22% in 2022, with 6,500 customers registering compared to 5,300 in 2021. 

• Customer ratings for both HandyDART and Supplemental Taxi scored high in overall service, on-time performance, and ease of booking a trip. 

For further information, please visit the TransLink website. 

Access is always ready to help clients translate complex data and information into compelling reports and materials to support policymaking and evidence-based decisions. Reach out to us to learn more and explore if this is something we can help you with.  

Inside Access: Meet Alexi

“Many of my students rightfully complained about how inaccessible city life is: transit systems that are not fully accessible, housing that is overpriced and physically inaccessible, and the design of public spaces all served as barriers to full participation in the mosaic of city life. I didn’t realize it at the time, but many of these concerns ended up informing my decision to go into planning.”

Why Transportation Planning? 

Short answer? Because buses, trains, and bikes are the best ways to get around cities, and it’s a blast to work on some of North America’s most interesting and challenging transportation problems.  

Medium answer? Transportation is a field that really touches on so much: regional governance and planning, equity and inclusion, food security, housing, among other parts of the urban system (and beyond). Interventions into transportation systems can be far reaching and deeply impactful in the lives of residents. As such, working in transportation is a way to have a major impact on both the transition to a more sustainable climate, and working to increase equity through better access to the world outside one’s immediate area (and all the opportunities that spring from that). At its best, transportation planning can serve as a means to empower residents by providing them with autonomy and choices on how they move around. 

My Professional Trajectory 

I started my career and education in Philosophy at Mount Allison University and was fully committed to pursuing a joint masters and doctorate degree studying the intersection of the philosophy of science and critical theory. However, I had a bit of a crisis of purpose at the end of my bachelor’s degree and realized I wanted to pursue people focused work after 4 years of thinking through abstractions. The possibility of thinking deeply and thoroughly about a problem or a topic is both philosophy’s biggest strength and weakness – thought without action feels empty.  

I spent a lot of my time in this period trying to figure out what “people focused work” looked like. I moved back to Montreal and worked in communications and marketing for a little bit while founding and running a micro-publishing house for a couple of years. I also had the opportunity to work 1-on-1 with students with disabilities to help them navigate university bureaucracies as well as work on time management and other skills. Many of my students rightfully complained about how inaccessible city life is: transit systems that are not fully accessible, housing that is overpriced and physically inaccessible, and the design of public spaces all served as barriers to full participation in the mosaic of city life. I didn’t realize it at the time, but many of these concerns ended up informing my decision to go into planning. 

Despite knowing many family friends who were engineers and architects, I’d never heard of urban planning as a career until about 4 months before applying for a masters in planning. I’d never realized you could study and work as someone who gets to think more systematically about city and regional issues. I quickly learned, too, that urban planning would be a good avenue to continue to have a diverse but complementary series of interests. I was able to wander from topic to topic without losing sense of a “larger”, systemic picture.  

Throughout, and after my masters, I’ve worked on projects that touched on everything from food justice and food security planning, accessible and inclusive design for public and para-public spaces, climate change mitigation, and urban planning in the context of commercial real estate. I’ve been lucky to have the opportunity to have my feet in the non-profit, academic, and private sectors over the past 5+ years. When I was first starting out in planning, many of the project I worked on were site and detail specific: how do you redesign a particular museum gallery for accessibility? How do you assess the walkability of a para-public mall space? What’s the highest and best use for a particular industrial/semi-commercial building? Since joining Access, I’ve relished applying many of the skills I’ve picked up over the years to systemic, regional transportation problems. 

How I Move Around 

In the spring, summer, and beginning of autumn, I try to bike around as much as possible. The rest of the time, I use a mix of Montreal’s bus and metro systems. I am an enormous fan of the bus – there is nothing like reading a book or watching the city go by. Every intersection is like a little world you explore as you move around the city.  

What I Do When I’m Not Planning 

I’m currently working on completing a PhD in engineering that examines the relationship between governance structures and decarbonization in Central and Eastern Canada’s road-freight system. I am passionate about food security and sit as a board member for Montreal’s the Depot: Community Food Centre.  

I spend much of my leisure time being a pretty big nerd: I read a lot of science fiction and fantasy novels and playing Dungeons and Dragons with a small group of friends. I’m just finishing up the last Jeff Vandermeer novel I hadn’t had a chance to read yet (Veniss Underground). I also love going to different parts of the city and taking all the sights and sounds in (and enjoying a good coffee and pastry).  

My most recent hobby is woodcarving. I wanted to do something with my hands when I’m not in the mood to read. I’ve finished a wonky spoon and am about half-way through a very sad looking fox. 

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.

Better Transit Integration in the GTHA

The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area’s transit network is undergoing significant expansion, with projects such as the Hazel McCallion LRT (formerly Hurontario LRT) in Mississauga, the Scarborough Subway Extension in Toronto, and the Durham-Scarborough BRT bridging Oshawa, Whitby, Ajax, Pickering and Scarborough all in various stages of development.

However, local bus connections within the network rely on localized transit systems that set their own schedules and separate fares. For example, transit riders in Mississauga are served by MiWay, a local transit agency, whereas in Toronto, transit riders pay fares to the TTC.

Currently, whilst some of these services are integrated, others are not, and may even compete. A passenger transiting from a Mississauga bus to a Toronto bus, for example, will pay an extra fare, whereas someone connecting from a Brampton bus to York Region transit, will not.

This may change with the government’s new fare integration program planned to start at the end of 2023, which includes the TTC network and adjoining areas (source: CTV News), an exciting development that could open opportunities for cheaper and easier transit rides.

Access Planning has worked on projects involving fare integration in the Toronto area and the San Francisco Bay Area, and looks forward to contributing to the future of fare integration planning in the GTHA.

Access will be discussing further thoughts and questions on this issue in the following days - stay tuned for updates!

Mentoring the next generation of planners

Grade 11 student Costello Arbuckle worked with Access Planning for a week in late February as part of an experiential learning component of his high school program.  

Senior Associate Brian Phillips mentored Costello, working with him to develop transit connection ideas for Granville Island in the heart of the City of Vancouver. This work is close to home for the Vancouver Access Planning team. We recently started doing some thinking about how Granville Island can transform access for residents and visitors to advance its vision for 2050. 

Getting to Granville Island, especially from Downtown Vancouver, can take some time and effort if walking, biking, or using transit – it involves crossing a bridge that goes over the island rather than directly to it, increasing the total travel time and distance of the trip. Costello was challenged to look for ways to improve Granville Island’s connectivity, making it easier to access the Island without a car. 

After some direction from Brian, Costello brainstormed and designed ideas for alternative modes of transport and connections to the island, leading with a gondola concept transporting visitors over False Creek. Over the course of the week, Costello explored the island on foot, conducted desktop research and developed and sketched ideas to improve connectivity to Granville Island. Costello attributes part of his interest in planning to playing city-building video games, which inspired him to look at city planning as ‘…a puzzle that has no wrong answers, just less wrong ones”.  

In addition to getting youth interested in planning, this was also a chance for Access Planning to learn from one youth’s perspective. Costello’s work drew on physical site visits, Google Earth, online research, and his own experience as a Vancouverite.  

Digging into a real-world challenge in his home city, Costello reported that he felt inspired to become a planner in the future. He believes that planning is more fun when one is unencumbered by restraints and boundaries, and that having that freedom when problem-solving leads to the creation of successful ideas. He described the work he did with Access as a mix of creative thinking and technical problem solving, and appreciates how planning work employs diverse skillsets.  

Access is committed to providing positive impact, whether it’s shaping the way we move, teaching, mentoring or learning from the next generation of thinkers. 

by Ahmed Abdul Aziz, Planning Analyst

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)

Access Planning in the UK

Earlier this month, Access Planning staff Andrew Devlin and Tamim Raad were thrilled to work with the UK Department for Business and Trade to support and facilitate a delegation of senior Canadian transportation professionals visiting London for the Future Cities and Net Zero Programme.

Access had the privilege of leading a seminar on Canada’s mobility landscape at the beautiful and historic Canada House, and the opportunity to meet with colleagues at Transport for London, the UK Department for Transport (DfT), Oxfordshire County Council, Network Rail, as well as numerous vendors and service providers to learn about the diverse actions and initiatives they are advancing to  decarbonize cities and prepare for new mobility systems and modes through innovation, cooperation, and collaboration. We also promoted the programs, initiatives, and interests of Canada's major urban transit and transportation agencies like TransLink, Metrolinx, Agence de mobilité durable, Autorité régionale de transport métropolitain, Toronto Parking Authority, and City of Vancouver.

Other highlights included taking in the release of the new ‘Decarbonising Transport’ report during a breakfast at the London Transport Museum, being given an amazing tour of the Paddington Elizabeth Line Station by station architects Christian Bocci and Alex Kirkwood of Weston Williamson + Partners.

All in all, it was an amazing 5-day trip, with exceptional mutual learning, exchange of ideas and networking. The ideas and discussions born out of this event will be fruitful to the future of transit and planning in both regions. Many thanks to the Department for Business and Trade, for putting together a great programme, and to Global Affairs Canada, for inviting Access Planning to support leading this delegation.

Inside Access: Meet Sophie

“I grew up in a relatively car-oriented suburb of Montreal where first/last mile options to get to bus stops were not ideal.

The closest bus stop to my house was only 200 meters away but there were no sidewalks, heavy car circulation, and limited street lighting. At certain times of the day, it would become too dangerous to walk so I would ask family members to pick me up at the stop (defeats the purpose!).

Experiences like this made me question how different modes and users are being prioritized in city planning. ”

Why Transportation Planning?

To me, the beauty of planning is that it marries a lot of different fields! This was a significant pull factor for my undecided younger self who had a lot of different interests but wasn’t ready to let go of any of them.  

Planning also came from a deep love of urban spaces. As far as I can remember I have always been fascinated by the hustle and bustle of the “big city”. I liked the rich cultural makeup, the many mobility options, and the fascinating history behind different neighborhoods.  

My interest in transportation specifically - like many “transpo” planners - grew in reaction to my good and bad experiences using transit. I grew up in a relatively car-oriented suburb of Montreal where first/last mile options to get to bus stops were not ideal. The closest bus stop to my house was only 200 meters away but there were no sidewalks, heavy car circulation, and limited street lighting. At certain times of the day, it would become too dangerous to walk so I would ask family members to pick me up at the stop (defeats the purpose!). Experiences like this made me question how different modes and users are being prioritized in city planning. 

My Professional Trajectory

I am one of those unusual cases who entered the planning field at a very young age (I was only 19 years old!). As a result, I have already explored a lot of different facets of the job despite still being at the beginning of my career.  

My work experience started in land use planning. I worked for a few summers as a bylaw inspector and plan examiner for cities in the Montreal area. From there, I moved into the real estate sector and worked as a consultant helping developers with city bureaucracy and planning processes. When I moved to the West Coast to pursue my master’s degree, I got interested in the green building field and conducted research on energy efficiency and adaptive reuse.  

How I Move Around

My current home, Hamilton, has an efficient bike-share system as well as a growing cycling infrastructure. When the weather permits, bike sharing is hands down my favourite way to move around; it’s cheap, convenient, and the most fun! 

I am also a frequent GO Train user as I often travel to downtown Toronto for work and social activities. I really value how comfortable and easy to use it is. The GO is the mode of choice to knock down your reading challenges. 

What I Do When I’m Not Planning

I am a big “wanderer”. It is not rare to find me in a local bookshop, a record store or a vintage market looking around and taking my time. I find the experience of getting lost in places like that very relaxing.I have also recently been getting more into outdoor activities. My latest favourite is back-country camping and canoeing.  

Access Planning at the 2023 Toronto Region Board of Trade’s Gateway to Growth Summit

Last week, Access Planning staff Lisa Salsberg, Tamim Raad, and Michael Himmel attended the Toronto Region Board of Trade’s (TRBOT) Gateway to Growth Summit focused on the Pearson Economic Zone. With Toronto Pearson sitting at the centre of the country’s second-largest employment centre (after downtown Toronto), the ability for people and goods to move efficiently around this economic hub is critical to the future of the Greater Toronto Area. 

Principal Tamim Raad participated on a panel exploring the untapped potential of transit in the Pearson Economic Zone, highlighting the challenges and opportunities for transit integration, regional coordination, and governance, drawing on his past experience as Director of the Transit Project Management Office for the GTAA and his multi-decade experience in regional transportation planning. 

Our team appreciated the thoughtful sharing of ideas and we’re looking forward to continuing to be involved in this exciting initiative. Special thanks to Phinjo Gombu at TRBOT for including us on the panel. 

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

Déjà un an d’Access Planning au Québec

Par : Pieter Agneessens, gestionnaire associé 

Depuis mon établissement comme premier employé d’Access au Québec, en janvier 2022, nous sommes maintenant une équipe de trois, avec mes collègues Alexi Katsanis et Michael Wexler. Nous nous sommes d’ailleurs installés dans notre propre espace bureau dans le Mile-End à Montréal depuis l’été dernier : un signe de croissance! 

En continuité avec le rôle qu’Access a déjà joué dans le développement stratégique d’agences dans le Grand Montréal, nous avons eu l’occasion, en 2022, d’entamer de nouveaux mandats qui avanceront la structuration et l’intégration des modes de mobilité durable dans les milieux de vie de la métropole. 

Grace à notre approche collaborative et intégrée à travers nos trois places d’affaires au Canada, l’expertise de nos collègues à Toronto et à Vancouver est activement mise à contribution dans nos projets au Québec.  Cette même approche s’applique aux membres de l’équipe de Montréal qui dirigent et participent à des mandats avec des clients à travers le Canada et sur la côte ouest des États-Unis, notamment en lien avec des stratégies pour encadrer : 

• L’intégration de projets structurants de transport collectif dans l’espace public et les développements axés sur les transports en commun (TOD); 

• La réalisation des bénéfices de l’expérience client dans les infrastructures de transport collectif; 

• La planification du déploiement de services de micromobilité ainsi que 

• L’optimisation de l’accessibilité universelle et de l’expérience client pour le transport adapté.  

Lors de cette première année, j’ai eu le plaisir de retrouver mes anciens collègues de TransLink, Brian Phillips et Andrew Devlin, qui se sont joint au bureau d’Access Planning de Vancouver et contribuent à notre équipe par leur maitrise du fonctionnement internes d’agences régionales et municipales.  Je suis aussi reconnaissant d’avoir reconnecté avec des partenaires d’affaires d’Access en Europe avec lesquels j’ai travaillé au début de ma carrière. 

Une des principales leçons que je tire de cette première année est de voir comment des thèmes similaires se manifestent auprès de clients qui se trouvent dans des juridictions différentes.  Un des aspects les plus stimulants de notre travail est de pouvoir apporter des perspectives provenant d’autres contextes et de créer des liens entre nos clients et leurs réalités respectives.   

L’intérêt que toute ‘la gang’ d’Access a pour le Québec s’est manifestée par la tenue de notre ‘Lac à l’Épaule’ corporatif à Montréal (https://accessplanning.ca/ideasblog/2022/12/7/wheels-of-change-access-fall-retreat-2022). Notre participation au congrès de l’Association Québécoise des Transports (AQTR) en juin où ma collègue Lisa Salsberg et moi avons parlé de l’importance des partenariats dans des projets majeurs et notre présence à la conférence de l’Association Canadienne du Transport Urbain (ACTU) à Montréal avec mes collègues Andrew Devlin et Tamim Raad ont été des moments forts qui ont favorisé les échanges avec des clients, anciens collègues et partenaires d’affaires.   

2022 a aussi été l’année du premier contenu francophone sur le site web d’Access et de la création du blogue que vous êtes en train de lire qui illustre, encore une fois, notre volonté d’en faire plus.    

En 2023 nous prévoyons continuer sur notre élan pour appuyer des clients dans les grands centres urbains du Québec dans leurs démarches pour créer de villes meilleures, tout en gardant notre regard en mode ‘grand angle’. De même, nous continuerons à partager ce qui se fait de bon au Québec avec nos clients et contacts ailleurs.   

Merci à nos clients, partenaires et interlocuteurs pour une première année stimulante pour Access au Québec et au plaisir de continuer à collaborer pour créer des collectivités où il fait bon vivre.   

#créonsdesvillesmeilleures 

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

Access Fall retreat 2022

By Ahmed Abdul Aziz, Planning Analyst

Change was in the air amidst vibrant autumn leaves as the Access team gathered beneath a rainy Montreal sky in October. Purpose of the rendezvous? To discuss the future of Access Planning, brainstorm goals and ambitions moving forward, look back on recent achievements, and to have a blast in a city of quaint balconies, twisting terraces, labyrinthine alleyways, and dedicated bike lanes.

Access Planning gathers twice a year for retreats such as these; as a new member to the team, this was my first. And after working remotely with colleagues across Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, it was great to finally meet the whole team in-person. In the boardroom, we discussed Access, our values, past achievements, core offerings, and future planning, and out in the streets of Montreal, we biked on Bixis (as part of our planned ‘Montreal Mobility Tour’), staying true to our philosophy of living our values. Our ‘Mobility Tour’ weaved through key transportation and mobility infrastructure, services, and public spaces in Downtown Montreal. Everything went fantastically smooth – well, almost everything. I made the mistake of choosing an e-bike on the downhill portion of the trip and a conventional bike on the uphill portion. Of course, this did mean that the trip made for a great workout as well!

Access ‘Montreal Mobility Tour’

On the second day of the retreat, we discussed Access’s impact and our past work; sharing stories about what’s worked well, less well, and tips on how to talk about our company and work in different contexts. Building on our conversation around company values and our unique service offerings from the first day, we outlined the future of Access in a world experiencing evolving societal values and ideas. What new ideas and areas of work should we explore for the future? How can we lead positive values transformation whilst doing so?

How we do it

It’s hard to pick one favorite memory from the Fall retreat, given how consistent the fun and bonding experience was, whether it was the game of Jenga that I recklessly joined right at the end when the tower of blocks was already near toppling, the team dinner that we had at a French restaurant where I couldn’t make head or tails of the menu and had to enlist the help of my French-speaking colleagues (who had to consult Google Translate as well), or simply the pleasure of being given a friendly hug by a person whom I’d remotely worked with in a high-stakes project but never met in-person before.

A game of Jenga

Two things I will remember most from the gathering and our discussions and bonding, however, is one, just how important connection is to us humans, and two, the philosophy of living one’s values is central and critical not just to the field of planning, but also to our own selves at a personal and professional level.

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.