BIKEABILITY
A PLANNING TOOL TO SUPPORT CITY DESIGN FOR HEALTHY TRAVEL IN METRO VANCOUVER
Meghan Winters Michael Brauer Eleanor Setton Kay Teschke
School of Population and Public Health University of British Columbia Department of Geography University of Victoria Poster Design: Kevin Jingyi Zhang
Background
What is “bikeability”?
Findings
The built environment – the urban form in which we live, work, and commute – has been found to correlate with travel behavior and physical activity. To date, research has focused on walking or general physical activity. Walkability and sprawl indices developed by planners and health researchers have been useful in predicting physical inactivity, obesity, air pollution, and chronic diseases.
There has been little effort to use existing data and knowledge to define and map bikeability. Moreover, there are likely to be important differences between walkability and bikeability. For example, whereas sidewalks may be important to walking, bicycle facilities and flat terrain might be key factors for cyclists.
The bikeability index was comprised of four factors that consistently influenced cycling: topography; bicycle facilities; street connectivity and land use. For mapping purposes we used GIS to create corresponding metrics: slope; density of bicycle facilities; connectivity of roads suited to cycling (local streets and off-street paths); and density of destination locations.
Compared with walking, cycling allows for faster travel and longer trips distances and may be a more desirable mode substitute for car trips. At present, cycling rates in Canadian cities are low compared to certain European cities (2% modal share, compared with 15-30%), a disparity explained in part by differences in urban form and cycling infrastructure. These trends suggest that changes to our urban design may create environments more suitable for cycling.
To define our bikeability index we relied on empirical data from the Cycling in Cities opinion survey, focus groups, travel behavior data, and insights from walkability research. Our goal was to build a flexible planning tool to identify areas that are more and less conducive to cycling, based on the on-the-ground conditions.
Funding and Acknowledgments This research was funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation.
Topography (slope)
Bike route density
(m of bike route in surrounding 400m buffer)
By combining data layers of these metrics we generated a highresolution bikeability surface (Figure 1) for the region, where green depicts bike-friendly areas and red depicts areas where cycling conditions need to be improved. An evaluation of the scores for individual component layers can guide strategies to improve biking conditions. For example, certain areas in the region have high scores for topography (i.e., no hills), and a reasonably high density of shops and other destinations, but score low in terms of the density of bicycle facilities. Such areas could be prioritized for new bicycle routes in order to promote bicycle travel.
Connectivity of local streets and bike paths
(# of intersections in surrounding 400m buffer)
Bikeability
Destinations for cyclists (# of parcels of small commercial, education, office, entertainment land use in surrounding 400m buffer)
L ow bik eability L ow bikeability = topography + bike route density + connectivity + destination density
low
Policy Implications Mapping bikeability provides a powerful visual aid to identify zones that need improvement to support healthy travel choices. It is an evidence-based tool that presents data in a user-friendly way for planners and policy makers, and one that is scaleable to look at specific municipalities or neighbourhoods. The overall bikeability score and its four component scores can guide local action to stimulate changes in cycling rates. A key strength of the system we designed is that it relies on empirical evidence about factors influencing cycling and uses widely available data types, thus facilitating easy application in other cities. Furthermore, the flexible parameters and weighting scheme enable users elsewhere to tailor it to evidence about local preferences and conditions.
www.cher.ubc.ca/cyclingincities
H igh bik eability H igh bikeability
high
BACKGROUND
Metropolitan Atlanta Walkability Surface
2
Climate change and obesity represent a dual policy challenge. Daily household travel generates nearly one-third of total US greenhouse gas emissions. One-third of US adults are obese and two-thirds are overweight. Statistically significant associations between urban form and travel, physical activity, and GHG emissions have been established. This study sought to determine whether one set of strategies can address two urgent policy matters. We assessed whether compact, walkable, and regionally connected neighbourhood design strategies yield mutually positive benefits for improving health and reducing travel-related GHG emission levels in Metropolitan Atlanta.
1
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSPORT ENERGY INDEX
1
“On 350 calories, one apple or a “special” slice of Ray’s Pizza, a cyclist can travel 10 miles, a pedestrian 3.5 miles and an automobile 100 feet.” Source: Transportation Alternatives, NYC Bicycle Blueprint, 1999)
• Limited Fuel Consumption / • Active Lifestyle (Energy Index = -4.66) • Res. Density = 7.43 units/acre • Land Use Mix = 0.35 • Intersection Density = 36.83 int/km2 • Distance to Bus = 1.10 miles • Distance to Rail = 3.25 miles • Travel Time by Car • to Centers = 42.34 mins.
CARBONLESS FOOTPRINTS Promoting Health and Climate Stabilization Through Active Transportation
2
• Fuel consumptive / Sedentary • Lifestyle (Energy Index = -10.94) • Res. Density = 3.11 units/acre • Land Use Mix = 0.20 • Intersection Density = 22.77 int/km2 • Distance to Bus = 5.35 miles • Distance to Rail = 11.30 miles • Travel Time by Car • to Centers = 67.43 mins.
Dr. Lawrence D. Frank,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC
Dr. Michael J. Greenwald,
Urban Design 4 Health, Inc., Seattle WA
Steve Winkelman,
Center for Clean Air Policy, Seattle WA
James Chapman,
Urban Design 4 Health, Inc., Seattle WA
Sarah Kavage,
Urban Design 4 Health, Inc., Seattle WA Poster Design: Kevin Jingyi Zhang
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK It’s all about energy. Increased energy for travel from fossil fuelpowered modes produces health and environmental costs (high GHG emissions/low physical activity levels). Increased energy for travel by human powered modes yields health and environmental benefits (low GHG emissions/high physical activity levels).
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS
Mean Transport Energy Index by Daily Energy Quadrant
Mean Transport Energy Index by Urban Form Measure Quartile
Mean Urban Form Characteristics Per Daily Energy Quadrant
An active lifestyle with relatively limited daily fuel consumption performs best on Transport Energy Index. Defined by individuals who were at or below daily per-capita kilocalories from walking (0) and 5% below the median daily per-capita kilocalories from motorized transport.
Per-capita Transport Energy Index varies across built environment types. Individuals in most compact, mixed use and connected neighborhoods (4th quartiles) were estimated to have a smaller energy ratio. Individuals in neighborhoods with the longest travel times by car to activity centers and situated well- away from transit stops (1st quartiles) were observed to have the largest energy ratio.
Moderate changes to urban form and significant increases in regional access may yield increased health and environ- mental benefits. Action to promote compact development, improve transit access and increase connection to regional activity centers should be encouraged.
CONCLUSIONS RESEARCH DESIGN APPROACH Document linkages between energy used for active and motorized transportation modes in Metro Atlanta and empirically evaluate the degree to which modifiable features of the built environment are associated with a ratio between energy used for active versus motorized forms of travel (the “Transport Energy Index”). DATA SOURCES Daily per-capita travel and socioeconomic data obtained from 2002 AtlantaSMARTRAQ two-day travel survey. Countywide, parcel-based assessment data, regional land use mapping and digital aerial photography, street network data, and census data were spatially integrated within a Geographic Information System (GIS) to measure nearby urban form elements for each household location buffer (measured within 200-meter grid cell system; household location cell + surrounding cells (7 x 7 cell buffer)). Example of 200-meter Walkability Surface
Central areas with high levels of accessibility to regional centers that are compact and highly walkable promote both health and climate stabilization. It is possible to have high levels of vehicle energy use and related CO2 emissions and high levels of physical activity in outlying areas with long commutes. This is not a “win-win” situation. Combining climate change and health-related aspects of daily transportation into a single energy-based metric offers a conceptually strong method to help decision-makers understand and identify possible “win-win” initiatives from transportation investment and land development decisions and those whose benefits are limited.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Future research may include (i) additional definition of what constitutes specific urban form and transport characteristics of “win-win” neighborhoods, (ii) assess the extent to which increased energy for vehicle travel supplants energy for non-motorized travel, (iii) objectively measure a wider range of travel patterns, physical activity levels, stated travel/residential preferences, and SES factors across four energy quadrants, i.e. high walk/low drive, low walk/ high drive, etc, (iv) capturing energy use from transit in “motorized transport energy” metric, (v) capturing bicycle use in “active transport energy” metric, (vi) capture walking-to-transit in “active transport energy” metric.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was funded by Active Living Research, a program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The data used for this study were funded by the Georgia Department of Transportation and the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority. Poster design courtesy of Kevin Zhang and Andrew Devlin at the University of British Columbia.
For Additional Information Frank LD, Greenwald MG, Winkelman S, Chapman J, Kavage S. 2009. Carbonless footprints: promoting health and climate stabilization through active transportation. Preventive Medicine 50 (S1), S99-S105.
CROSS MODE COMPARISON
PURPOSE: The purpose of this poster is to compare streetcars with other urban transportation modes, namely buses, LRT and heavy rail. Definitions and specifications aim at clarifying streetcar operations characteristics versus those of other modes. METHODOLGY AND FOCUS: The data presented below was taken from various sources, namely from APTA reports and from various transit agencies. Since technical specification vary from vehicles to vehicles, we remind you that the numbers displayed in tables and figures below are approximative and give a general idea of streetcar performances versus other modes.
Simon L’Allier
School of Community and Regional Planning University of British Columbia Poster Design: Kevin Jingyi Zhang
STREET CAR
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT
HEAVY RAIL
COMMUTER RAIL
Streetcars, or tramway, service is a type of light rail service with frequent stops with nearly the entire route operated in streets. It is usually in denser, high-traffic areas, and the vehicles are designed for lower speeds and to allow quick boarding and alighting by passengers.
Light Rail is a mode of transit service (also called streetcar, tramway, or trolley) operating passenger rail cars singly (or in short, usually two-car or threecar, trains) on fixed rails in right-of-way that is often separated from other traffic for part or much of the way.
Heavy Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metro, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail) operating on an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic. Heavy rail service provides the greatest pasvsenger capacity of any transit mode.
Commuter Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metropolitan rail, regional rail, or suburban rail) characterized by an electric or diesel propelled railway for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburbs.
CHARACTERISTICS - Mostly on-street operation - Slightly lighter vehicles than LRV
CHARACTERISTICS - Electrical power source, generally being drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph - Operator driven; - Have either high or low platform loading
CHARACTERISTICS - High speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails; - Separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded; sophisticated signaling,and high platform loading.
CHARACTERISTICS - Use of either locomotive hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars - Railroad employment practices - Usually only one or two stations in the central business district - Most service is provided on routes of current or former freight railroads
Transportation modes comparison Transportation Modes
Shorter Streetcar/ Tram
Longer
Motorbus Autobus
Articulated motorbus
LRT Heavy Rail
6-car train
Vehicles Dimensions (m) Power Source Length ± 20
± 32
± 12
Width 2.4
2.6
2.6
Height)
Weight
3.4
> 17 tons < 60 tons
3.4
3.4
40 tons (empty) 56 tons (full) 15 tons
Carrying Capacity (ppl)
Expected Lifespan (years)
81 Overhead or Underground wire
Diesel Engine
Cost per vehicle
Maximum Speed (km/h)
Urban Circulator
30
194
$2 mil. to $4 mil.
30
51
Average Speed (km/h)
15
$400,000
Loading Facility
16 - 24
Right-of-Way
Mixed-traffic 200 m to 500 m
Enhanced Local Service
24 - 40
Priority Service
32 - 56
± 80-90
Mixed Traffic
12 - 20
± 200 m
20 - 30
> 500 m
20 - 40
500 m - 2 km
High/Low Platform
Segregated
500 m - 1-2 km
Segregated
High Platform
± 70
± 18
2.5
3.1
27 tons
Diesel Engine
112
15
$800,000
± 70-80
Dedicated ROW
± 28
2.6
3.9
± 50 tons
Overhead wire
133
30 - 35
$3 - 4 mil.
± 60 - 80
All
115
2.9
± 3.5
> 50 tons
Electrified rails
152
35-40 years
$1.4 mil. (nonarticulated)
± 80
All
Multimodal Transit Service Illustration
Stop Spacing
±40
"Curbside stops Median stops"
Dedicated Segregated
"Curbside stops Low platform"
Mixed-Traffic Dedicated
Transportation Modes Speed And Average Trip Length
Figure 3: Transportation modes speed and average
This flexibility in streetcar uses in displayed in Figure 2, which clearly illustrate the wide range of transit service type that can be offered by streetcars, depending mainly on the right-of-way and stop spacing.
Figure 3 shows the typical uses of different transportation modes. Streetcar would be situated somewhere between the trolleybus and the light rail, depending on the operation characteristics chosen.
18 20 82 15
46 17 30 98
% of all passengers surveyed were riding for work or school. % of those surveyed had taken the streetcar ten or more times. % of those surveyed live in the Greater Vancouver region. There was little difference between Olympic and NonOlympic periods.
% did not even get off the streetcar – they were just taking it for a ride!
METHODOLOGY
60 18 96 78
% of riders took the streetcar because it was more convenient or quicker than taking another mode. % of passengers used an automobile to get to or from the streetcar.
% of riders would not have made their trip if the streetcar did not exist.
% of passengers who had ridden the streetcar more than 10 times had a very positive overall impression of the streetcar.
“
% of passengers were traveling with at least one other person. The median party size was two.
The survey took less than 5 minutes to complete, so the interview finished before arriving at the platform. Very few individuals refused participation, producing an estimated response rate of over 90%.
% of all passengers had a positive impression of the streetcar. The more an individual rode the streetcar, the more positive the impression.
Day
Date
Start
End
Staff 1
Staff 2
Sun
14-Feb
12:30
14:30
Joanna
Alisha
Mon
15-Feb
8:00
12:30
Joanna
Stacy
Thu
18-Feb
16:30
20:30
Alisha
Stacy
Sat
20-Feb
15:00
17:00
Joanna
Stacy
Sun
7-Mar
9:00
13:00
Alisha
Silas
Thu
18-Mar
6:30
8:30
Alisha
Silas
Thu
18-Mar
16:00*
19:00*
Joanna
Silas
Fri
19-Mar
13:45
16:45
Joanna
Alisha
*Note: Power was out for 25 minutes during which the streetcar could not run.
Silas Archambault,
School of Community and Regional Planning University of British Columbia
”
The survey was designed to get a good sample of riders at various times of day, and different days of the week. Transit services are used in different ways throughout the week, and this can have profound effects on demand patterns. To illustrate, weekday peak period travel, weekday off-peak travel, and weekend travel are compared. As we can see, the weekday peak-period is frequented by individuals using the streetcar for more utilitarian purposes. They are more likely to be traveling alone, headed to work or school, and to have taken the streetcar several times already.
However, these trends are complicated by the effects of the Olympics and Paralympics on transportation demand. As we can see, there seem to be variations in use patterns due to these events. As surveys were not collected at the same time of day and day of week between the Olympic, Transition, and Paralympic periods, the data is not directly comparable. Because of this, only tentative conclusions may be drawn about the effects of these events.
Poster Design: Kevin Jingyi Zhang
EXPERIENCE In order to attract people away from automobile use, transit has to be safe, reliable, convenient and comfortable. Some individuals will not take a conventional bus or the skytrain, but will nevertheless take a streetcar. The comfortable leather seats, easy access, and quiet ride are potential draws for individuals who would otherwise drive. These diverted automobile trips depend upon the positive experience of riding the streetcar. The experience of taking the streetcar relative to other modes will determine its success as an attractive mode. Certainly the speed, frequency and accessibility of a transit mode are important characteristics. However, if passengers simply do not like riding, they will look for another way to get to their destination.
REGION No response TransLink service area BC Canada United States Other Total
Valid Weekend
Olympic
Transition
Paralympic
75
69
47
Taken the streetcar before
52
64
76
37
19
10
Taken 10 or more trips on the Streetcar
7
23
38
27
51
61
On a leisure trip
58
46
33
25
34
35
Would not make trip if streetcar did not exist.
29
34
33
31
24
23
Did not know about the streetcar until they saw it
18
30
33
39
48
74
Traveling with other adults
73
51
33
9
14
31
Traveling with Children
21
31
10
51
48
44
Live in the City of Vancouver
37
63
54
Frequency 3 374 21 23 22 12 455
Percent .7 82.2 4.6 5.1 4.8 2.6 100.0
CONNECTING MODE
While interesting to examine, it is difficult to isolate and control for the effects of either of these phenomena. They must therefore be seen and noted as limitations of the data.
DATA TRENDS Weekday OffWeekday Peak peak
automobile trips prevented during the 60 day demonstration.
% of those taking the streetcar for the first time said that the experience was their main reason for taking it rather than another mode.
OLYMPIC STREETCAR SURVEY
COMPARISON
Table 1 – Data Collection Time Segments
stroller for every trip of the streetcar.
% of parties had children with them.
Little segments like this enable the use of the rest of the system. Two thumbs up! I would go to Granville Island less frequently without it. I have no car. I would like to see it expanded.
Teams of two staff members collected survey data on 20 variables. Over 150 surveys were collected in 8 periods throughout the 60 day demonstration period. The survey collected Questions ranged from purpose of trip, transportation modes used, to demographics.
44 1 27,000 % of all passengers said that the experience of riding the streetcar was their main reason for taking it.
Automobile Auto and Transit Transit Nonmotorized Other Total
Frequency 35 32 254 127 7 455
Percent 7.7 7.0 55.8 27.9 1.5 100.0
ALTERNATE MODE*
Valid
No trip Automobile Auto and Transit Transit Nonmotorized Other Total
Frequency 137 66 11 165 65 11 455
Percent 30.1 14.5 2.4 36.3 14.3 2.4 100.0
* If No Streetcar
MODES USED WITHOUT THE STREETCAR
Other Nonmotorized Transit Auto and Transit Auto None
Purpose:
Simon L’Allier
This poster is based on a report titled “Streetcars in Contexts What roles could streetcars play for Vancouver’s metropolitan transportation?”, which was produced for the Bombardier Chair in Sustainable Transportation at UBC in preparation for the symposium “Streetcars: The Missing Link?”. Its main purpose is to present an original perspective on streetcar uses in other metropolitan areas in a way that can help stimulate debates and feed discussions on streetcar applications in Vancouver.
WHAT
Poster Design: Kevin Jingyi Zhang
ROLE
Two types of network scale Extensive Streetcar Network
COULD STREETCARS
Methodology and Research Criteria: In order to provide a diverse range of examples in which streetcars perform different roles, five cities over three continents were chosen: Brussels, Melbourne, Toronto, Seattle, and Portland. Although these five cities do not reflect the entire spectrum of streetcar uses around the world, their streetcar systems display important differences and comparing those helps to present a diversity of roles that can be fulfilled by streetcars. Based on publicly available data, this research focused on the cities and how their streetcar is used amongst other public transit modes. The data collected concerned cities size and density, transit modal share, transit and streetcar systems (length, rolling stock, operations, etc.)
PLAY
0.45 Toronto, 3972.4, 0.344, 2503281
Brussels, 6196, 0.36, 999899
0.4% 90%
0.3
Brussels
0.25 0.2
Toronto
Melbourne, 1566, 0.145, 3900000
80%
70%
0.15
Portland , 1655, 0.13, 582530
Seattle, 2842.1, 0.1, 617334
Seattle
1000
2000
3000 4000 5000 2 People per km
6000
7000
8000
Notwithstanding the fact that such comparison remains imperfect due to the uniqueness of each cities, Figure 1 echoes the general relationship between density and transit modal share.
40%
30%
It is not ours to decide what role 11.0% streetcar will play in Vancouver. Considering the 16.9% importance of the Skytrain, it is difficult to foresee streetcar playing a predominant role in the region. Achieving 31.5% results as those of Melbourne or Brussels will probably take decades if we do not embrace a radical change in transportation priorities for our future. 37.0%
6.4 km
26.3% 36.3%
Brussels and Toronto total yearly KMT and ridership Streetcar/Tram
20%
0%
Seattle Streetcar 50
Streetcar carrying share in their respective transit system
Melbourne Streetcar
45
Vienna Streetcar Portland Streetcar
40
100% 0.4%
3.9%
Buffalo MetroRail
11.0%
35
16.9%
26.3%
Paris T3
36.3%
30
31.5%
Denver,RTD
25
37.0%
Orleans Streetcar 20
?
45.9%
79.0%
27.8%
Toronto
20.3% 45.9%
15
Heavy Rail (Rail Rapid Transit) Trolley Buses
Dublin Streetcar
79.0% 10
Buses 61.9%
30%
Edmonton LRT
5
50.0% 43.4%
20%
San Diego Trolley
0
0
20
40
27.8%
60
80
0.3%
0% Seattle
Portland
Calgary C-Train
Commuter rail
Toronto
Construction Costs ( $ mil./km )
Brussels
Melbourne
100
Dallas, DART Los Angeles Green
Its trams, there for more than a century carry significantly more o MetroRail people than its buses, hence playing a predominant role in surface T3 transportation.
nd Streetcar
er,RTD
Support role: Toronto’s trams carry significantly less passengers than those of Melbourne or Brussels, they are not the backbone of urgh n Streetcar the system per se. They do however play an important role for public y C-Train transit, stretching from side to side of the city, operating in major nton LRT arterials and providing access to commercial areas. In this sense, they ego Trolley provide a support role of cross-town transit services; not quite as , DART important as backbone lines, but certainly more than simple urban ngeles Green circulators.
ns Streetcar
Marginal role: Portland and Seattle streetcar networks, both limited in scope (6.4 and 2.1 km respectively), carry a marginal share of the system passenger load. Portland’s streetcar is a text book definition of an urban circulator: it is centrally located and links important transit hubs and trip generators (Hospital, University etc.). Seattle’s streetcar also belongs to this category, but does not appear to be as successful as Portland’s. It is shorter and doesn’t link as many trip generators.
Numerous corridors in Vancouver and the region (Broadway, Kingsway, Marine Drive, etc.) could benefit from a streetcar line that would improve transit service quality and attract high ridership. Patrick Condon, amongst others, have presented trams network options that would provide a much wider coverage than a single Skytrain line to UBC, in which trams could very possibly play an important support role in the system. One thing is sure, trams has the potential to play more than a marginal role in the region. By using the appropriate right-of-way, rolling stock and operational specifications, streetcars can be used for a wide range of transit service types. It has the ability to provide services ranging from slow, capillary service, to fast high-capacity regional service. These transit services would otherwise be provided by other transportation modes that do not possess the same city building potential as streetcars do.
Heavy Rail (Rail Rapid Transit) Trolley Buses
0.3
90% Melbourne
Buses
Brussels Brussels and Toronto,
0.25
0.15
Brussels
30%
20%
10%
Trams and LRT constructions costs and commercial speed
FUTURE
0%
Seattle Streetcar 50
Melbourne Streetcar 45
Vienna Streetcar
40
Portland Streetcar Buffalo MetroRail
35
Paris T3
30
Denver,RTD
25
Orleans Streetcar 20
Pittsburgh 15
Dublin Streetcar
10
Calgary C-Train
5
Edmonton LRT
0
San Diego Trolley 0
20
40
60
80
100
Dallas, DART Los Angeles Green
Construction Costs ( $ mil./km )
Los Angeles, Blue St. Louis MetroLink
Condon, P. M., et al. . (2008). “The Case for the Tram: Learning from Portland”. Foundational Research Bulletin. No. 6
Amongst the various systems presented above, Melbourne, Portland, Seattle would stand at the bottome of the speed ranking. Brussels’ trams speed is close to its performance targets of 20 km/h. What does it tell us?
IN VANCOUVER’S
80%
Portland Streetcars are in between both modes, and although Brussels’ trams 43.4% Seattle, 2842.1, 0.1, 0.1 Portland , 1655, 0.13,than those 60% 617334 of Toronto, proportionally they must travel carry more people 582530 Seattle more. The Canadian metropolis heavy rail system (1/1 ratio) is not as 0.05 relatively efficient as for its European counterpart (3.5/1), but both its 50% 0 streetcars (1.9/1) and buses (0.9/1) have better8000 ratio. Brussels has a 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 People per km more balanced profile in that its surface transit patronage is almost 40% perfectly shared between its buses and trams; its subway system carries almost half of its passengers, quite efficient compared with the Melbourne other modes.
Streetcar/Tram
LRT (excludingPittsburgh tram)
Brussels, 6196, 0.36, 999899
2
0.3%
Portland
Toronto, 3972.4, 0.344, 2503281
0.4
100%
Data obtained on two systems, and Commuter rail those of illustrates the shares of total kilometre travelled (KMT) and ridership for 0.2 Melbourne, 1566, Toronto 70% heavy rail, trams0.145, and3900000 buses.
61.9%
Seattle
LRT (excluding tram)
0.35
50.0%
10%
The way cities are built is more important than their overall size when it comes to implement transit services. Similarly, denser urban areas are generally more suitable for streetcars. Mixed-used commercial streets are indeed their predilection habitat.
Commercial Speed (km/h)
Portland, USA
3.9%
Transit to work modal share
50%
Our five cities display significant differences in regards to their built environment, population density, transit network sizes, etc. Figure 1 plots our five cities according to their transit to work modal share (y axis), population density (x axis), and total population (bubble size).
uis MetroLink
2.1 km
20.3%
* The data presented for Melbourne are for the Greater Geographic Area. Presenting the data this way is coherent with the reality of Melbourne transit system operation, which is regionally operated and goes much beyond the immediate City of Melbourne located at the heart of the urban area.
10%
Seattle, USA
0.45
0
40%
250 km
60%
0
50%
Melbourne, Australia
Portland
0.05
60%
215 km
Compared to Melbourne, Toronto and Brussels, which have quite extensive streetcar networks, Portland and Seattle have very limited ones. In fact, Melbourne has the world’s largest streetcar network!
Commercial Speed (km/h)
Transit to work modal share Transit to work modal share
Melbourne
0.1
70%
Brussels, Belgium
Portland and Seattle both implemented modern streetcar recently, whereas Toronto, Brussels and Melbourne never got rid of their original systems, which explains how they can afford much larger streetcar networks.
0.35
80%
150 km
100%
0.4
90%
Toronto, Canada
Limited Streetcar Network / Urban Circulator Streetcars
Population density, modal share, total population*
Los Angeles, Blue Predominant role: Melbourne, even more so than Brussels, have e Streetcar St. Louis MetroLink trams play a predominant role in urban public transit. For Melbourne, ourne Streetcar trams are literally forming the backbones of the transit system. a Streetcar
ngeles, Blue
School of Community and Regional Planning University of British Columbia
More expensive constructions do not guarantee faster operating speed! Faster operating speed can be achieved at lower costs!
SEATTLE
PORTLAND
TORONTO
BRUSSELS
MELBOURNE
• The construction of the South Union Lake began in July 2006, and was completed by mid-autumn 2007. The total cost of the project is reported to be $52.1 million, which comes down to not quite $29 million per kilometre (double track).
• Capital construction costs: $103 million, or $12.9 million per track-mile
• The Toronto Transit City Plan calls for more than $6 billion in streetcar-related investment.
• The longest streetcar network in the world.
• Very important development attraction along the line
• Major work was done on St-Clair Route, which recently saw its track replaced and put in a median dedicated right-of-way.
• Brussels’s STIB ridership has grown by 69% from 1999 to 2006 which has put great pressure on the existing system.
Historically, the city’s development was greatly influenced by streetcar lines opening in the late 19th century. Indeed, a dozen lines in all were installed to provide access to booming neighborhoods, rape for development as men industriously filling and flattening steep slopes, bogs and tideflats (Anderson, 2001).
• Innovative funding streams • Low construction costs $12.9 mil. per track mile, due in part to the lightweight of the vehicles.
As for most North American cities, Seattle did not keep its original network. It abandoned its last streetcar line in 1941 (Lightrailnow.org, 2007), but the city saw the return of streetcar into its downtown core after almost of 70 years of absence, as the 2.1 km (double track, standard gage) South Lake Union line opened in December 2007.
• 386 newer Bombardier, low-floor vehicles have been ordered by the TTC for $1.6 billion. They are expected in 2011 and will increase capacity and accessibility.
St. Clair median ROW
• The surface network is the backbone of the system, making trams and buses essential transit services.
TTC currently operate 11 streetcar lines and plans to add eight more routes in the future. Portland Streetcar Phase I-II Clearly stated in the executive summary of the Portland Streetcar Loop Environmental Assessment, the purpose of the project is to “Provide a Central City transit circulator to address the transportation needs of the residents, workers and visitors traveling within the Portland Central City and achieve additional economic development, all in a way that gains strong public support ” (FTA, 2008b).
• Vancouver’s Olympic Line was using vehicles borrowed from Brussels! The Société des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles (STIB) is the largest public transit agency in Belgium, and serves the 19 communes of the region and 11 surrounding communes. It operates four subway lines, 20 streetcar lines, 50 bus routes and 17 night bus routes. Over the past ten years, STIB ridership increased by almost 80%, a spectacular progression which is almost unique in Europe (STIB, 2009).
Portland Streetcar Yearly Development relative to Streetcar alignment Ridership Since its first year of operation in 2001 until the financial year 2008-2009, Portland’s Streetcar ridership (or patronage) has been increasing at an average growth rate of 16.2% annually, for a total growth of 186.7%, with its ridership record of 4 million annual boarding. 8/23/2010 5:09 PM
Seattle Streetcar operated almost entirely in onstreet right-of-way The current streetcar line carries around 1,400 people per day, which amount to almost half a million passenger per year. This is considerably lower than what can be expected from trams, which makes it fairly expensive to operate. The system’s annual operating and maintenance costs are expected to be around $1.7 million yearly. Technically, a bus service could have performed this service, but the urban development impacts of the streetcar seem to play a more important role than the mere ridership figure. As many streetcar advocates argue, streetcars are more than just useful to move people around; they literally shape the development of the city, in a way bus service could never do.
C ity
Melbourne
B rus s els
Toronto
Melbourne trams rolling stock variety A wide range of vehicles are used across the system, from historical streetcars operating on heritage routes, to modern low-floor vehicles.
TTC CLRV (left) and ALRV (right) Stops are frequent, similarly to buses, and most of the operations are in mixed traffic. Most streetcar routes link downtown to other neighborhoods, providing local and cross-town transit services.
Brussels’ surface network, made of trams and buses, carries more than half of the total system ridership. To keep the commercial speed and service reliability to acceptable standard, the program “Vicom” was undertake in early 1990’s. It is similar to what Toronto is doing with St. Clair route and Melbourne on its trams network, which includes providing more dedicated right-of-ways, priority signals and improved stops. Approximately half of Brussels streetcar tracks are either dedicated or segregated from automobile traffic. There are great variations in performances between routes: 40% have a “very slow” commercial speed” under 16km/h; 30% have a medium commercial speed between 16km/h and 18km/h; 30% have a “satisfying” commercial speed over 18km/h (STIB, 2007: 15). In comparison, their metro system has a commercial speed of 30 km/h, and most new streetcar lines built in France achieve commercial speed over 20km/h.
Toronto’s streetcar network is just over 150 km and counts almost 250 vehicles. 195 of these vehicles are CLRV built between 1977 and 1981, and 52 higher-capacity ALRV of a younger generation (19871989)(see Figure 20).
1
• Retrofitting trams stations to provide better accessibility is challenging, expensive and slow.
Trams operation improvement:
It must be noted that historic streetcars, imported from Melbourne, ran along the waterfront right-ofway beginning in 1982. These historic vehicles aren’t -Streetcar-Stops112007.gif (GIF Image, 787x1140 pixels) - Scaled ... currently in service as the line hashttp://www.seattlestreetcar.org/img/SLU-Streetcar-Stops112007.gif been suspended for various reasons.
South Lake Union
• One of the busiest tram routes in the world: 40,000 people ride the St. Kilda Road & Swanston St. line every day!
Just as for Melbourne, reliability is also a very challenging issue for Toronto. As headway reliability has been identified as one of the most important factors influencing customer satisfaction, improving and maintaining higher reliability is crucial to keep people onto transit system.
Melbourne Tram Network Most routes converge on the CBD providing crosstown services that play a predominant role, to the point that streetcars are part of the entire system’s backbone. Distances between stops vary along each route, ranging from 200m to 500m. Stops close to each other increase access, but reduce operating speed, which is particularly challenging in the CBD, were vehicles achieve a mere 11km/h. As most lines operate on-street, in shared right-ofways, curb lanes stops are being improved to provide universal access, but the high number of stops (more than 1800) make this retrofitting slow and costly.
STIB Ridership 1996-2006
As shown by significant operation and ridership impacts resulting from the work on the Spadina right-of-way, a dedicated ROW is the only mode of operation that realistically “gives streetcars the speed, safety and time advantage necessary to compete effectively with the automobile and shift commuters to transit.” (Gormick, 2004)
Portland Streetcar phase 1 funding streams Most of the funds used during the phase 1 were raised through a bond system backed by the city parking revenue and a one-time taxation on property owners along the route.
Melbourne Tram Ridership 1946-2007
One study often cited, done by E.D. Hovee & Company, shows the importance of the streetcar as a catalyst for urban development in central Portland. Figure 19 shows the growing concentration of new development along the streetcar alignment by comparing developments before 1997 and between 1997 and 2005. There are two projects currently underway, the Portland Streetcar Loop and Lake Oswego. The most advanced project is the Portland Streetcar Loop (which will be a 3.3 mile extension of the existing system, running on the East side of the Willamette River. The Lake Oswego project would link Lake Oswego, located some 5 miles South of Portland and use the existing Willamette Shore Line rightof-way, on which now operates an historic streetcar providing scenic rides on the 6 miles trip.
O peration
Transit Agency is Metlink, operating trams is the subsidiary company Yarra Tram
STIB
TTC
Number of s treetc ar lines c urrently in operation
Simon L’Allier
School of Community and Regional Planning University of British Columbia Poster Design: Kevin Jingyi Zhang
STREETCAR NETWORKS COMPARISON
Total s treetc ar network length (km)
Total number of s treetc ar vehic les
Average S peed (km/h) S pec ific ation Total average
28
19
11
Melbourne Trams registered a record 179.1 million boarding for 2009. Ridership on the tram has been increasing steadily since 1992-1993. As for Melbourne commuter trains and trams are regularly overcrowded and new higher-capacity vehicles have been ordered to address the situation.
Brussels transit system map
249
215
152.9
km/h
R ight of Way (R O W) Dedic ated/S e gregated R OW ± 20%
16
332
248
Average
11 15.8 16.5 19.2
15
Mixed traffic
± 80% Shared on-street operations Exclusive right of way operations Segregated in road median operations Segregated on-street operations.
501 In the Central Business District Peak hour Off-peak Evenings
The EWLNA reports contains an interesting remarks regarding tram usages in Melbourne: “The fact that tram patronage continues to grow in the inner city despite these problems may indicate a latent demand for tram use, and result in stronger growth in tram patronage once these issues are resolved” (Eddington, 2007: 85).
53.9%
46.0%
9%
91%
Transit priority signals on all streetcar routes. Median ROW for Queens Quay West and Spadian Ave. St-Clair Ave. median dedicated ROW underway
P ortland
Owned by the City of Portland, Operated by TriMet
1
6.4
10
Average
16
5% 95% Most of the tracks are on-steet, single track, running sometime in the left, sometimes the right lane
S eattle
Owned by the City of Seattle, operated thought contract by King County Metro (Metro Transit)
1
2.1
3
Average
13
In Mixed Traffic
Dr. Lawrence D. Frank,
School of Environment Health / School of Community and Regional Planning University of British Columbia
Andrew Devlin,
Active Transportation Laboratory, University of British Columbia
Josh van Loon,
School of Community and Regional Planning University of British Columbia Poster Design: Kevin Jingyi Zhang
WHAT’S YOUR ’HOOD? Neighbourhood Walkability Across Metro Vancouver
Neighbourhood Walkability
Characteristics of the built environment have important links to the behaviour and health of communities and their residences. Tools and methods are needed to add conceptual and methodological precision to analyses of environment-behaviour relationships that have potential for significant urban land use and transportation policy implications. The Metro Vancouver Walkability Index is a Geographic Information System (GIS) instrument that enables an objective assessment of the neighbourhood-scale built environment attributes across the entire region. Using travel, activity and health data, the Walkability Index has helped local planners and researchers understand how travel and activity patterns vary by neighbourhood types, what built environment characteristics encourage transit use, and to what degree travel-related air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are influenced by urban design, among others.
A 1-kilometer neighbourhood buffer along the street network was created around each postal code in the Metro Vancouver region. Local built environment characteristics related to neighbourhood proximity and connectivity are measured within this buffer using a variety of census data, municipal assessment data, and road network data. Compared to crow-fly buffers, network buffers are better able to capture what people can actually access around their home, and therefore constitutes a more accurate approach to measuring the physical environment unique to a resident’s home location. A 1-kilometer distance is generally considered to be the distance most persons are willing to walk for transportation.
MEASURED
NOT MEASURED
Residential Density relates with travel behaviour by affecting distances between destinations and the portion of destinations that can be reached by active transportation. Densely populated and compact neighbourhoods widen the range and diversity of services that can be supported in an area and make transit feasible and appropriate. Residential density is measured as the number of dwelling units per net acre of residential land within each 1-kilometer network buffer.
Commercial Density is a measure of how compactly built an area is, but looks specifically at the amount of shops, services, and offices in that area. Commercial density is measured as the amount of area of commercial land use, using a ratio of commercial floor area to commercial land area. Multiple building stories make it important to measure floor area instead of land area to get an accurate picture. Higher ratio numbers indicate higher commercial density.
Connectivity considers the pattern of streets and walkways in our neighbourhoods and whether they provide direct routes to nearby destinations. Connectivity is measured by the number of intersections per 1-kilometre network buffer. The number of intersections influences the ability to walk because most people will only walk short distances and use fairly direct routes, so a higher level of connectivity facilitates more walking. Typical suburban neighbourhoods with few through-streets have lower connectivity, while grid street patterns have greater connectivity.
WALKABILITY AND POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
Langley District Municipality Langely City Surrey White Rock Delta Richmond Vancouver Burnaby New Westminster Coquitlam Anmore Port Coquitlam Port Moody N. Vancouver District Municipality North Vancouver City Pitt Meadows West Vancouver Maple Ridge
Low
APPROACH
BACKGROUND
Municipality
Medium
High
Land use mix relates to the number and diversity of nearby destinations. A mixed-use neighbourhood includes not just homes but also offices, stores, parks and other land uses all within close proximity to one another. People who live nearby multiple and diverse retail opportunities tend to make more frequent, more specialized, and shorter shopping trips, many by walking. We measure land use mix within each 1-kilometer network buffer using an entropy scale, with zero (0) representing a single-use area, and one (1) representing an area with a perfectly even balance of homes, shops, offices, and institutions.
Micro-scale design and topography are not included in the current version of the Walkability Index. Benches, lighting, sidewalks, surface treatments, and signage (to name a few) have been demonstrated to influence active transportation. However, information on these and other attributes are not consistently collected across municipal or regional data sets. Transit accessibility is not directly integrated into the Walkability Index but it is always assessed in all studies and research undertaken.
APPLICATIONS OF WALKABILITY INDEX
Average Walkability Index
Percentage of Neighbourhood Buffers in Lowest Quartile of Walkability
Percentage of Population Residing in Lowest Walkability Quartile
2001 Census Population
-3.76 -1.99 -2.21 1.55 -1.11 -1.26 4.29 -0.35 3.41 -1.36 -0.27 -0.58 -0.58 -1.58 1.09 -1.89 -2.23 -2.50
76.8% 51.7% 48.2% 1.0% 22.7% 19.6% 1.1% 14.5% 8.4% 38.1% 10.1% 10.1% 20.0% 36.8% 11.0% 56.0% 51.2% 58.3%
51.2% 37.8% 32.9% 0.5% 14.8% 8.5% 0.7% 7.2% 4.1% 28.3% 100.0% 5.6% 11.7% 30.5% 14.9% 25.7% 45.7% 39.1%
86,896 23,643 347,825 18,250 96,950 164,345 545,671 193,954 54,656 112,890 1,344 51,257 23,816 82,310 44,303 41,421 14,670 63,169
CONTRASTING TWO NEIGHBOURHOODS Net Residential Density (dwelling units/acre)
Mixed Use Index (range 0-1)
Intersection Density (per square km)
Retail Floor Area Ratio
6.79
0.21
30.0
0.21
17.4
0.68
74.4
7.38
Fleetwood Centre
Riley Park
Walkability and the Elderly: Elderly populations are often limited in their mobility options. Compact, walkable neighbourhoods with a diversity of nearby destinations and easy access to transit facilities may help to maintain the independence and activities of this age cohort. While small proportions of elderly characterize most low walkability areas in Metro Vancouver, there are many exceptions to this (1). Understanding this distribution may enable better resource allocation for senior mobility and healthy aging plans at the local level. Walking and Transit Use: Synergies exist between walkable and transit-supportive neighbourhoods. Compact, well-connected places with a greater mix of land uses provide the critical mass to support transit service and make it a viable option for regional trips such as going to school or work. The odds of an adult taking a home-based transit trip doubled in neighbourhoods located in the highest quartiles of net residential and commercial densities, street connectivity and land use mix compared to those in the lowest quartiles of the variables (2). Walkability and Air Pollution Exposure: Local research (3) has shown that the most walkable neighbourhoods in Metro Vancouver have the greatest concentrations of nitric oxide. However, “sweet-spot” neighbourhoods – those where neighbourhood walkability is highest but air pollution concentrations are lowest – do exist. These areas are located approximately 4-8km from downtown Vancouver. These “sweet spot” neighbourhoods are of great value for future research directed at understanding how we can best design neighbourhoods limit pollution exposure but maximize walkability.