It’s not very empty now, but, as I said, it could very well prove to be a blank canvas for better things than private cars in three or four years. Think of a land base equivalent to 1/3 of a typical municipality’s total area. That’s one big chunk of property, and it’s mostly owned by the people.

“I do see a willingness to take back the dominance of the public realm from the private automobile emerging in our midst. ”

Spot on! As I mentioned above, I think peak oil will force the issue. But there is a tremendous lack of knowledge about how the anticipated price spikes in fossil fuels will affect society. Portland wrote a report on it and is now acting on it. Metro Vancouver recently wrote a report on peak oil and so far only major Joe Trassolini (Port Moody) has spoken publicly about it (don’t have a link at hand at the moment). We really need to light a fire under the decision makers, otherwise we’ll all be caught unaware.

I believe we can use the public realm — and the potential to plan it with more care toward the human scale — as a negotiating tool with the private sector and between various levels of government. Cities may not have much money, and they are hamstrung (or should I say have the advantage?) that they cannot run deficits.

But one thing they do have a lot of is public land under the asphalt.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/when-horses-posed-a-public-health-hazard/

I don’t see the empty asphalt. It may be covered by bikes or something else.

I have long wondered in the Great Depression what role was played by the swift shift from horse drawn transportation to internal combustion engines. Think of the whole spectrum of infrastructure and supply lines that one day just went dead.

Think of the economic displacement of that. Sure the farmers were hit. Especially the ones supplying horses, horse feed, and stray to spread over the street to cover up the droppings until they could be shovelled away.

However, I do see a willingness to take back the dominance of the public realm from the private automobile emerging in our midst. And that is a “new” thing for me. Something I always felt was necessary, but something that has kind of snuck up on me with the “Olympic Miracle”.

“It is interesting that you did the comparison of bus pass to “minimum cost automobile” and came up short. Were you paying for parking at the other end? That is usually the deal breaker.”

In my case there was no pay parking at the other end. Of course someone who has to pay for parking will come up with a different set up numbers.

Designers do get it, Lewis. And yes, to the point our hair is set on fire with certain images of human scaled urbanism and beautiful architecture from Europe. We can learn much from that continent.

But the central thrust of Frances’s original post was transit FUNDING. It’s obvious that no amount of articulation, imagery and ideation about redesigning our cities for human beings has attracted the attention Gordon, Shirley and Steve. Moreover, they are distracted now by dubious structural and planned deficits for the next few years.

However, I believe the resiliency of our cities will be seriously put to the test when the cost of fuel skyrockets + collapses repeatedly, but generally trends way, way upwards over the next decade. No other issue will put our city-building precepts and economy on trial as severely.

I predict the issue of whether to build transit at much higher levels of long-term stable funding will then be forced, but only after much wailing and gnashing of teeth predominantly by Gordo’s and Steve’s suburban commuter supporters.

As much as we prefer our leaders to have vision and foresight, the reality is that they are followers of their lobbyists and are shackled by their ideology. Where is the national concensus-builder we need so desperately?

It may take $3 per litre gas and $300 fill ups to pump the demand for transit alternatives to overflowing. By then, though, much damage to the economy will have already been done, as evidenced by much higher unemployment levels, a stagnant marketplace, and even less government revenue.

It’s ironic that those who promoted and supported the Gateway project did so with the old saw that it will ‘improve the economy’. They did not do their research, or if they did they censored the results. Gateway’s feet of clay will crumble with escalating private vehicle operating costs and tolls. The debt charges on its $6 billion cost will just be settling in as the half-century act of commuting by single occupant car and all its attendant layers of public subsidy and suburban construction finally cracks and its folly is exposed.

Perhaps worse for the premier and the former minister of transport is that their supporters in the suburban real estate industry will suffer greatly.

It’s up to us to encourage decision makers at all levels to come to the table now, or barring that at least have a plan prepared for mid-decade. And that includes as a top priority a plethora of public transit options in all cities, and food and energy security.

And it’s also up to us as individuals, families and extended families to prepare for the possibility that in harder times many politicians who don’t get it, or who are ideologically bound to do nothing, will absent themselves from the responsibility to help society and the conglomerations we call cities evolve into more resilient forms.

I for one am looking forward to empty asphalt and see it as a blank canvas, a land base for better things, like transit, pedestrian streets, bike freeways, linear parks, allotment gardens, housing and a gigantic economic stimulus package. But I’m also worried about coping in the meantime. I’m hoping that my quartier ends up having everything I need within a 10-minute walk well into my 80s, or, as it may be, a 10-minute ride in a motorized wheelchair.

2015. That may be a seminal, paradigm-shifting year.

I am not a transportation expert. But, I don’t see adding LRT, then decreasing frequency of service. You may know something I do not. The BRT implementation is not just two bus lanes at the centre of the R.O.W., but also buses that trip the light signals. When they are taking up passengers, or off loading, the light is red. Every other time, the light is green for the BRT.

It is interesting that you did the comparison of bus pass to “minimum cost automobile” and came up short. Were you paying for parking at the other end? That is usually the deal breaker.

There is no doubt that having a home along Knight street. Is not as nice as having a home one block in (which is where I’m situated). And could Knight street have been better definitely.

When there was a “scare” of a toll being put on the Knight street bridge. I hate to say it but I was gung ho for the whole idea. Great make the suckers who don’t even live along Knight street pay to drive up it.

“I also agree with your cost for buying insurance by the year. However, I am supposing that if you had better service in the form of LRT, and you drove to work to a site within the transit network, once you had a monthly pass, you would use it for some evening and weekend trips, and still ensure your car year round.”

When I had my car which was an old junker. insured it with no collision, no theft and not comprehensive. Just the basic insurance and third party liability. I used it to go to work. I then want to see if I could put my insurance as pleasure only. What I found out was because I didn’t have those other categories. That pleasure use wasn’t any cheaper. That is when I discovered ok. So I own the car I only want it for pleasure. So when going to work. Even if I had a monthly pass. And I factored in the income tax non credit rebate for monthly passes. The cost of using that compared to putting fuel in my. It was cheaper just to drive the car. The only reason why I decide to drop the car was one it was starting to break down. Although I could have fixed it. But two on a personal level I was just tired of driving with all the other idiots out there. Either way it showed me how badly we need to make driving more expensive. I do feel the price of fuel needs to be up in the $2 – $2.50 range. Which would put it on par with Europe. But I also realize that I’m the exception to the rule. And most people just won’t get rid of their car.

“Note that we agree, I think, that BRT on the arterials should bring most of the LRT benefits provided the demand doesn’t exceed system capacity.”

And so once BRT goes past capacity at that point we then start to implement and LRT line of some sort. It is a logical progression. Do I think Knight street needs a LRT now. Probably not. On a personal level it would be nice. But for now a Bus only lane from 6AM to 9PM would do quite nicely. Although before that were to happen I would have the left turn bays at 57th installed first. That way you are guaranted 2 through lanes and one bus only lane.

“The “intensification” of Vancouver arterials that I am proposing—including Knight Street—would take place on a lot-by-lot basis. No land assembly required, construction could be by either small or large construction firms. The apartment zone between 63rd and the bridge we would assume might not redevelop because the profits would not be there.”

I was looking at the formshift designs. Not sure if you are the same person. But there was one by Simpson Villegas.

If your doing it lot by lot . Then it would be easier. Trying to get two or three lots together is a major pain. And most likely will never happen. Which is why we never suddenly saw a major densification of areas around 29th and nanaimo skytrain stations.

Also it would require a zoning change. In my area no house can be be at 3 full stories. It can be 2.5 stories. Although I do believe that might be changing and 3 stories might come about. Also there is of course the minimum distance a house must be from front side walk and back lane. So that would have to changed.

In some indirect way though they are starting to build multi dwelling units on a standard lot. There is a house 3 houses from mine being built. I’m guessing it is a standard 2,000 sqft home. Top level is one dwelling at 1,000 sqft Accessed by the front door. Bottom level is split into two separate 500 sqft dwellings. Both accessed by two separate doors at the back of the house. There is a 250 sqft laneway house as well. Or at least I’m estimating it is 250 sqft. So what was once just one dwelling has no become 4 dwellings. Because there is only now one parking garage in the back. Most will have to park in the front street. What I do see happening as more dwellings like this are built. People will have less space to park. And some will just give up on having a car. Which is why higher density brings great transit use.

“Frequency: “The 22 on knight during non peak comes ever 12-15 minutes”

“Olympic Line, running two trains on a single track had frequencies of about 6 mn and operators felt they could improve on it.”

What I’m saying is that if they do build an LRT line. They have to make sure the frequency of the LRT is very close to what the bus frequency was. To build an LRT which will have a greater capacity per train. And then drop the frequency because it isn’t needed. Is bringing worse service. Sure it might be a greater pphpd. But I’m having to wait longer.

High transit ridership is not necessarily a good thing:

you will see it in city like Calgary or Seattle, and the reason is that there, you have basically a single purpose CBD where noone live and shutting down at 5pm and , so every one go to a park and ride before heading to work…and don’t go to the city for other reason…that bring you a kind the urbanism we all know: Is it a good thing?

I think the goal of good urban planning is not to maximize transit ridership, but to minimize trip! and when those are necessary, have a spatial organization benefiting to transit…

So in that scheme, most of the people walk or bike for their trip, and barely use transit:

I think you will agree that France is not a land of disaster when come public transit, but still there, when you take the ~ 15 larger cities (outside Paris area), you get a transit share of ~12%, but car is 53% not 78%, because lot of people walk, and some other bike…
(I have linked source for those number on my page http://voony.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/subway-and-lrt-safety-in-france/ )

Amazingly enough, it is very similar number you will see in Vancouver DownTown…

and for the GVRD area, is is a quite large area, the size of one county or 2 in US, so to make fair comparison.

regarding 25% taking transit to go to work in the Paul neighborhood

To give a matter of comparison:
I think similar number for the Paris area with all this commuter trains, RER, subways, trams, buses are below 50%…

at the end in the statistic, some exhibit the total trip, while the other only the commuter trip, and between the both you can have a significant discrepancy (commuter transit share for GVRD is close to 17%, link to source is in my “gordon legacies” blog entry).

Well, here is a point worth discussing. And, Paul, since you represent local knowledge, we can probably get it right, giving a good feel for what we’ve been on-and-on about.

The “urban blight” is limited to the homes fronting Knight Street. The school (on 49th), and the businesses on 49th, 41st, and between King Ed and Kingsway, could be much better served by good urbanism applied to the design of the Knight Street R.O.W. (right of way).

A tram would do that. It would put a continuous double row of trees down the middle of the street on 5-foot medians that would act as “islands of safety” when it is safe to j-walk. Pedestrian crossing distances would be reduced, and the possibility of cars coming over the centre line for head-on collisions eliminated (nearly had one of those north of 27th).

The tram would occupy either 2 or 3 lanes of traffic, removing between 20,000 and 30,000 vehicles per day. This reduction would mostly take place at rush hour, when the neighbourhood blighting is really at a peak.

Knight would still be able to handle between 20,000 and 40,000 vpd, plus an additional 60,000 LRT rides.

So far, we have made a significant impact on the houses fronting (do you know any residents that live in units fronting Kinght, it would be interesting to hear back from them). And, by removing vehicular over-volume, impacted the local streets as well.

You report a 25% bus ridership. In your gut, does that go up with LRT? I think it might double!

Your reporting is excellent. Using the lower number, the 5,137 people per km2 factors to 2,600 per quartier, or 22 persons per acre. If we assume 2.2 people per unit we are at a gross density of 10 units/acre or duplex housing. My Formshift entry for the Vancouver Arterials (including Knight) would increase density on lots fronting Knight to 60 units per acre, or a 6x increase.

Perhaps a greater portion of that new population might use the service slipping along their front door. The FormShift street design also included local access lanes along both sides of the street, but we won’t get into detail with that.

The “intensification” of Vancouver arterials that I am proposing—including Knight Street—would take place on a lot-by-lot basis. No land assembly required, construction could be by either small or large construction firms. The apartment zone between 63rd and the bridge we would assume might not redevelop because the profits would not be there.

Your next point….

“with all that bus service. along Knight, Fraser, Victoria, 41st and 49th. Why is the transit usage still low. Or at least that is assuming 19-25% is low.”

I am assuming it is low at 25%. Perhaps others can enlighten us. And I agree that this shows that the 12% is probably my memory of a regional number published in the 1990s (I would guess about the time the HOV lanes were announced for the Freeway).

I also agree with your cost for buying insurance by the year. However, I am supposing that if you had better service in the form of LRT, and you drove to work to a site within the transit network, once you had a monthly pass, you would use it for some evening and weekend trips, and still ensure your car year round.

Depending on where you were going, signal activated LRT should beat the pants of getting to downtown Vancouver in a car during the rushes.

Note that we agree, I think, that BRT on the arterials should bring most of the LRT benefits provided the demand doesn’t exceed system capacity.

Frequency: “The 22 on knight during non peak comes ever 12-15 minutes”

Olympic Line, running two trains on a single track had frequencies of about 6 mn and operators felt they could improve on it.

“[to] change the look of the neighbourhood the homes all get knocked down and something else is built [fronting the arterials]”

[words in brackets are mine]

The whole idea of “good” urbanism is that we can do two things, maybe more, at the same time. Yes, Paul, this is the way to improve all of our neighbourhoods. Thanks for sharing you knowledge around your neighbourhood.

I hope we’ve mad a cool post.