Taking place May 1-2, the theme for the 2015 QUAD Conference is “Investing in our Transportation Evolution“. Many trends are reshaping the transportation industry‘s landscape, such as social media, autonomous vehicles, and the shift towards active transportation. Discover the innovative ways that transportation professionals are leading this evolution, and how the public and private sectors are investing in this change.

Browse the schedule, register, and get involved.

Skate to where the puck is going to be — so that well-worn chestnut from a national hero goes. I’m not much of a hockey fan but I do know sound planning advice when I hear it.

So it goes for transit, too. At its heart, the referendum on a regional congestion-improvement sales tax is about making sure the region is there to get the puck to score our goals in the face of the coming challenges.

We know our population will grow — people already here will have children; people will seek opportunities that compel them to move here; some will choose to settle and feel secure enough to have their loved ones join them.

No more and no less than what we hear in the stories of our friends, co-workers and neighbours when we ask how they’ve come to be here.

Transit takes time to build; so do transit-friendly neighbourhoods. Hearing about the proposal for transit, walking and cycling improvements, it’s too easy to say: “Too much. What’s in it for me? When I could buy so much right now with the money ($135 or $258 per year, depending on who you ask) we’d pay to this tax?”

Two-hundred-and-fifty-eight dollars a year sounds like a lot of money when you compare it to the abstract idea of more bus service — especially if you never use the bus, feel like you can’t even if you did want to and don’t know anyone around you who does.

But it’s the wrong question. The question should be, “What will this tax buy us as a region that you won’t be able to for yourself in 10 or 20 years?”

More transit service throughout the region means more seniors (me, or my parents?) able to live in walkable neighbourhoods they are familiar with and have friends in, regardless of their driving or economic status.

It means young people gain independent movement to enrich their learning and civic engagement, freeing up their parents (a future me?) from time spent shuttling people around.

It means less space required for parking and more green spaces, public spaces and preserved or restored natural habitat (and cleaner air).

Imagine your household saves that $258 (just one guess) for the years until these projects are realized.

You could maybe buy one thing with equivalent benefits to those that I’ve listed. But not all of them, and not without moving.

A yes vote is a yes to all those things, and more, that transit enables. I was that teenager, I might be that parent and, with time, I’ll be that senior. And I’ll vote yes, because I will want to have those choices — and I think you should have them too.

—–

A version of this piece originally appeared in the Your Ride: Vancouver column for Metro News.

 [Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4]

A New Operations-Level Tool for Cost-Benefit Analysis of Transportation Projects

Although the unit rates illustrated in Table 1 (in Part 1) may be used to substantiate several interesting perspectives related to the topical issues in the region today, they can also serve as a ready operational-level tool for planning and engineering applications. As mentioned in the introduction, similar unit costs are already employed in many European countries to conduct cost-benefit analysis of transportation infrastructure programs. To this end, they can be used to monetize changes to travel time, congestion, safety statistics, environmental impacts and a series of other factors resulting from new infrastructure projects.

In the past, these applications have typically centered on evaluating traditional transportation infrastructure projects; anything to do with roads, bridges, tunnels, railways or various transit modes. However, unit costs have recently been put towards evaluating active transportation strategies. A cogent example can be drawn from the Danish city of Odense’s “Cycle City” program, which was a combined cycle infrastructure and promotional campaign. A subsequent analysis of cycling statistics following the implementation of the program revealed some significant results (pdf here):

• 35 million new cycling trips
• Mortality between the ages of 15-49 fell 20%
• Accidents reduced by 20%
• Half of new cycling trips are ex-motorists
• 500 more years of life added to the city
• 33 million DKK saved in health cost

On a more particular scale, unit costs can also be put towards analyzing individual active transportation infrastructure projects. An example of such an analysis is included in the report entitled“Samfundsøkonomiske analyser af cykeltiltag -metode og cases” (Socio-economic analysis of cycle initiatives -methods and cases) completed by COWI (2009) for the City of Copenhagen. This report discusses (among other projects) the reconstruction of the Gyldenløvesgade- Nørresøgade intersection, which is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Gyldenløvesgade- Nørresøgade Intersection Reconstruction

This intersection reconstruction provides an interesting parallel with a similar project much closer to home – the Vancouver downtown separated bike lanes. As discussed in “A Business Case for Active Transportation,” much has been about the appropriateness/utility of the change of space that was made on Hornby and Dunsmuir Streets. At present, the true impacts (both positive and negative) can only be speculated at (or are otherwise very preliminary) – a fact which I suspect plays no small part the continued uncertainty surrounding similar right-of-way redesigns.

In adding a bit of clarity to the issue, the unit costs illustrated in Table 1 could be used to establish a framework whereby a number of trade-offs can be accessed and monetized – which could go a long way in replacing speculation with analysis. After all, similar processes are already standard features in Denmark and other places when walking and cycle infrastructure projects are proposed.

I see implementing such procedures as beneficial to all parties:

• Such processes would help legitimize these projects in the eyes of the higher governments and the industry, which have at times been slow to adopt new engineering practices to suit modern planning contexts. This would be no different than the current processes that are commonplace (and in some cases required) for traditional infrastructure projects;
• These processes would help to assuage public skepticism that appropriate scrutiny has been paid to potential trade-offs when implementing such projects, and help to ensure the best options for implementation are selected;
• The outcome of such analyses could also potentially benefit municipal council’s efforts to promote further transportation demand management policies, and contribute more useful literature to the global base of best practices in active transportation planning.

To this end, I have proposed a preliminary framework for analyzing such projects using the Vancouver separated bike lanes as an example. This is illustrated in Figure 2. As can be seen, this project is an excellent example of the fact that infrastructure project in public right-of-ways are often couched within a framework that includes considerations beyond transportation impacts.

Figure 2: Potential Analysis Framework for Cost-Benefit Analysis of Vancouver Separated Bike Lanes

Understandably, capturing a complete list of tradeoffs requires substantial data inputs. In some regards this is complicated by the fact that many pathways and outcomes are not yet entirely clear and would benefit from more longitudinal data collected over many years. This is especially the case for business impacts such as retail sales and property values for businesses along the alignment of a greenway, separated bike way or the like.

In the meantime, however, unit costs would allow for more comprehensive transportation impacts to be calculated given the appropriate data and methodology. As can be seen from Figure 2, the calculation of transportation impacts is holistic; it considers any user who is affected by the changes in question. This includes both system users (i.e. cyclists who may be using the bike lanes) and non system users such as motorists, transit users or pedestrians travelling on adjacent or nearby streets. Furthermore, it consists of the totality of both internal and external cost/benefits which are derived as a result of this activity. In other words, it represents the total value or sum of the monetary tradeoffs that relate to transportation outcomes.

For example, a bicycle lane may decrease travel time, improve safety, result in health benefits for “X” number of cyclists (and for society), reduce pollution or reduce vehicle trips, yet increase travel time for “Y” amount of motorists. In the end, the magnitude of these trade-offs determines the total value of transportation impacts. With this in mind, we can make trial of a hypothetical example to demonstrate what part of this analysis might look like.

Referring to the bicycle counts on the separated bike lanes maintained by the City of Vancouver (details here), for present purposes we can make the assumption that total trips on the bike lanes (both Hornby and Dunsmuir) are equal to the total number on Dunsmuir plus 20 percent of those on Hornby (to minimize double counting). With this number, we can estimate total external benefits for system userswhich, as Figure 2 illustrates, are only a component of total transportation impacts. Making a further assumption that 40 percent of trips on the bike lanes are averted Passenger Vehicle trips, 50 percent are averted Transit Bus Trips, and 10 percent are averted Skytrain Trips, results are illustrated in Table 6.

Table 6: Hypothetical Yearly Savings Supported by Downtown Separated Bike Lanes ($ CAD 2012 Prices)

Of course, these results would need to be considered together with internal impacts to system users and total impacts to non-system users to round out the complete picture of transportation impacts. For this, more specific data would be required. However, provided this data is available (of which most would be readily attainable), it would be a relatively simple process to use unit costs to conduct estimates of comprehensive transportation impacts. These could potentially be used to generate estimates of impacts very similar to those determine for the City of Odense mentioned above. Taken together with business impacts (which hopefully will become more clear in the future), a fuller understanding of the impacts of right-of-way redesigns could become available in the future.

Although the above examples have discussed the potential application of unit costs to active transportation projects, they can be readily applied to monetize the transportation impacts of various infrastructure projects or transportation strategies across many different modes. This therefore makes them a very useful tool for practitioners and governments to add an additional and very important dimension to the analysis of such initiatives – especially since existing methods to monetize transportation impacts are so scarce.

George Poulos, EIT, MSCP. George is a transportation engineer-in-training as well as a recent Masters graduate of the School of Regional and Community Planning (SCARP) at UBC. He has previously worked for consulting engineers on a variety of transportation and municipal projects. Originally from Ontario, he currently lives in Vancouver.

 [Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3]

Transportation Equity and What it Means for Metro Vancouver

One of the primary outcomes of full-cost accounting studies is to demonstrate the true utility of and impact of various modes of transportation. As discussed previously, total costs include both internal and external components. The presence of so-called hidden or external costs often means there are misconceptions about the relative costs of various modes of transportation – both to the user, and their general expense to society. Indeed, these perceptions often influence public opinion and even government policy with regards to investments in transportation.

With that in mind, final unit costs illustrated in Table 1 may come as a surprise to some (although perhaps not to many others). Indeed, the resulting aggregate costs illustrated in Table 2 provide a more comprehensive picture of true transportation costs to society. In the interest of completeness, it should be mentioned that the list of cost items considered in my analysis (while checking many of the major boxes) are not exhaustive. A fuller assessment of transportation impacts in the future would consider such components as (though not limited to) parking costs, roadway and gas station land-value costs, water pollution and hydrological impacts (from roadway water runoff), and waste disposal costs. We should therefore consider present results to be highly conservative (even in the “high case” scenarios illustrated in Tables 1 and 2).

Even still, with the information at hand it is illustrative to compare the personal costs of transportation by mode in relation to their impacts to society. The applications of such a comparison, in addition to considering total aggregate costs, can be put towards understanding the concept of “transportation equity”. This is a broad term which is comprised of a series of indicators:

• Access to transportation alternatives – providing an equity of travel options
• Equity of investment – ensuring that various modes are allowed to develop
• User Equity – ensuring that users pay in proportion to their impacts

Taken together, these indicators are often strong predictors of transportation behaviours, statistics and impacts. Generally, the more “equitable,” the more likely there are to be well-developed travel options, balanced mode shares and reduced transportation impacts. The first of these two indicators can be gleaned on the basis of observation, government policy and public spending information. However, to understand “user equity,” total transportation costs such as those calculated in my analysis are required. A first approximation can be made by comparing the proportion of total costs that are absorbed by the user in relation to external costs. This can be done by dividing the internal and external cost component of unit rates by total costs. These are illustrated in Table 4. As can be seen from the table, fractions vary significantly between modes and a result of high or low external costs.

Table 4 Fraction of Internal and External Costs in Vancouver by Mode

Although telling, a more complete picture can be made by comparing the total impacts to society by mode (i.e. total external costs) to amounts contributed to society by users (i.e. total charges). In other words, this represents the amount paid directly to society by users to utilize each mode of transportation compared to the subsequent impacts of their activity. Charges vary by mode – transit modes considered fare box payment (or alternative payment option), while charges for passenger vehicles included PST on vehicle finance, license and registration costs (including PST), PST on maintenance and repair, PST on tire costs, fuel taxes (the dedicated motor fuel tax, provincial motor fuel tax, carbon tax), the federal air conditioner tax, and the BC tire tax. Note, there are additional sources of funding for transportation (among other things) in the way of general taxation, however these are paid by all and are not set in proportion to personal transportation behavior. Results are illustrated in Table 5.

Table 5.0 Comparison of External Charges to External Charges in Vancouver by Mode

Note: Total Yearly External Costs include Yearly Charges as a component of the total

As can be seen from the table, impacts versus charges are starkly contrasted. While Vancouver enjoys high transit ridership (which therefore makes these modes highly economical to society, and equitable owing to user payment), the very large external costs of driving are currently largely unremitted. This means that there is a large inequity with regards to user payment. This discrepancy has not been lost on economists, governments and industry professionals. In fact, it forms the very basis behind the notion of road pricing schemes, which have been proposed as a mechanism to promote transportation equity. While not a popular proposition in the eyes of many, the rationale behind road pricing schemes are sound:

• To redeem a part of the external costs of driving by internalizing them to the user (user equity);
• To price the use of roads commensurate with the utility it provides to users;
• To serve as a source of funding for high-quality transportation alternatives (equity of investment).

One can understand the function of road pricing acting through these three mechanisms as a cycle. By valuing the costs of driving in proportion to its impacts, user perception and behaviour would inevitably change. Ostensible, a personal vehicle would be used only for those trips which the user deemed to merit the cost. This can be expected to reduce overall vehicle use (VKT).

Taken together with further VKT reductions stemming from improved management of trips by alternative modes (which would be funded to great effect by road pricing schemes, thereby increasing their utility), the relative utility of roads would actually increase. Why? Because less traffic on the roads would enable road users to actually exercise the primary utility of an automobile – the ability to travel at relatively high average speeds towards a personalized destination (just like in the commercials). As it stands now, anyone who has driven through Metro Vancouver will attest to the fact that at times, a large part of “driving” involves dancing the slow waltz.

In the end, road users would be paying a commensurate fee for an efficient and fast mode of transportation (in the same way that transit users currently pay a fare to access a broad system of travel, or for the utility of riding along an exclusive corridor at high speed). The alternative to this proposition can be drawn from our present-day outlook– to retain roads that are highly variable, at times inoperable, continually degrading in level of service, yet ostensibly “free”.

All this considered, road-pricing schemes are still a very delicate proposition. After all, they are intended to ameliorate unsustainable transportation behaviuor and investment practices, not to be a punitive measure for individuals without other alternatives. In reality, these schemes are largely feasible and successful in reducing VKT in areas that have already achieved a requisite level of transportation diversity (or are planning for it). Meaning, other high-quality options are or will become available. This is why these schemes have been presently limited to city centres in many places.

Despite these considerations, it does not change the reality that driving has been made artificially cheap, and this has created a gap between costs and charges that is undeniable. Left unabated, this gap will presage an eventual reckoning of costs that the Metro Region would do very well to avoid. This can be understood through the concept of transportation equity and the three indicators mentioned above (i.e. options, funding and user payment). The reader can imagine this device acting as a self-repeating cycle fueled by transportation investment, subsequent demand and use, and ensuing impacts.

An inequitable and an equitable cycle can each be thought of as spinning in opposite directions – the former generating ever burgeoning costs, and the latter achieving stability in managing demand, user costs and societal impacts. This is achieved as an outcome of many of the planning issues which portend so greatly to the future of the region today (especially those places slated for development). These include the nature of transportation investments, the ability to secure funding for transit and future development policies.

What this looks like is no mystery. Sprawling developments naturally engender a single track of transportation investment and an over-reliance on the personal vehicle (investment equity↓). As a consequence, alternative modes are not developed (equity of options↓), demand is not managed effectively, and traffic operations inevitable tend towards failure and a deterioration of livability standards (among a number of undesirable outcomes). Once this cycle is established, it is a very difficult and long process to reverse. In fact using history as an indicator, past responses have been to double-down on the problem – wider roads and more diffuse development. This has always led to more VKT, less diversity, fewer effective travel options and an unmitigated growth in external costs (round the cycle we go). All the while, there is no incentive to reduce VKT or for road users to remunerate the cost of their impacts (user equity ↓).

A different spin can be taken from the example of high-density-mixed use developments, which make ideal candidates for alternative transportation modes (equity of options↑). The prudent response from authorities (an excellent example has been the City of Vancouver) would be to prioritize and invest in multi-modal transportation (investment equity↑). If these devices succeed, trip-making could be managed effectively and could allow the stabilizing effect of road-pricing schemes to be put into effect (user equity↑) and provide further funding for alternatives. The confluence of these events would not only further reduce per capita VKT, but would also proportionately reduce total transportation costs (both internal and external) across all modes.

In the face of many pressing planning issues, the concept of transportation equity represents yet another lens that we can use to evaluate the workings of the region’s transportation systems. In conjunction with the unit costs of transportation illustrated in Table 1, we can use the example of the City of Vancouver to gain an appreciation of what this looks like in numbers. To this end, we can place Vancouver in a cycle spinning in the right direction – yet along with the rest of the region, still beholden to the question of future “equity of investment”.

The above calculations also serve the important purpose of discussing the concept of road pricing – a topic which is still relatively new to the fore of regional discourse, already controversial and guaranteed to gain more traction in the future. It is important to contextualize this issue within the larger framework of transportation equity and what that means for the region. After all, given what we know about future transportation demands, if it means contributing towards delivering the transit the region will need to manage it, implementing select road-pricing schemes might not be as extreme as the consequences of not doing so.

Indeed, given the magnitude of yearly external costs contributed by passenger vehicles in Vancouver alone (see Table 2), one can only imagine how great this sum is across the entire region (likely several billion dollars). Even skimming across the top of this pot would provide a substantial yearly funding source that could mean the critical difference in securing the funding for the transit projects needed to keep the region moving.

George Poulos, EIT, MSCP. George is a transportation engineer-in-training as well as a recent Masters graduate of the School of Regional and Community Planning (SCARP) at UBC. He has previously worked for consulting engineers on a variety of transportation and municipal projects. Originally from Ontario, he currently lives in Vancouver.

 [Part 1] [Part 2]

The Business Case for Active Transportation

It would be safe to say that active transportation has begun to increasingly garner significant attention from many of the regions municipalities, health authorities and TransLink. It is also fast becoming somewhat of a polarizing topic – with advocates touting its benefits to health, the environment and livability standards, and detractors criticizing impacts to traffic, questioning the appropriate use of public space, and citing concerns for general comity among all users in shared spaces.

No matter how you feel about the issue, one thing is clear – that among other transportation and land-use priorities, many of the region’s municipalities have long-term plans to intensify their focus on active transportation. In particular, the City of Vancouver has distinguished itself by taking the early lead in establishing a strong foothold for active travel, and it is here again that we can make an appropriate case study for the region at large.

Indeed, according to the TransLink 2011 Trip Diary Survey, active modes constituted the fastest growing modes of transportation in the city. The rapid growth in active modes is in many ways indicative of a strong latent demand, and City authorities have responded by not only trying to satisfy existing demand but also by making efforts to increase active mode shares among potential users. Naturally, this has necessitated a greater investment in infrastructure, facilities and dedication of space.

A reasonable question can be asked as to how much spending and space should be allocated to satisfy demand for active modes, and if it is worth the investment. I would seek to approach this discussion by the numbers – on the basis of technical considerations that can be expressed using the unit costs illustrated in Table 1. Even a cursory review of these unit costs, and the aggregated sums illustrated in Table 2 would indicate that both walking and cycling impart tremendous benefits to both the individual user and to society.

The sources of these benefits are mostly linked to improved health, which can be monetized according to a number of different factors – I have considered savings to the health-care system (through reduced spending on diseases associated with physical inactivity), productivity gains (from reduced illness, etc.) and extended life benefits (through reduced all purpose mortality). All things considered, in the City of Vancouver in 2011, walking and cycling delivered savings to society of approximately $66 million, while at the same time adding approximately 3,000 collective years of life to individuals (an internal benefit valued at approximately $147 million).

To contextualize this level of savings, consider that it is estimated that physical inactivity costs the Province of BC approximately $590 million each year. This means that without the level of physical activity derived from active transportation in the City of Vancouver alone (corrected, of course, for existing levels of population physical activity), provincial health costs to this effect would have risen by approximately 10 percent. When stacking up those levels of yearly savings against the level of current investment in walking and cycling, it no doubt demonstrates that active transportation punches way above its weight.

Impressive as these results are, they still only form part of the overall benefits of active transportation. The health benefits thus described can be considered to be direct benefits – that is, the benefit that is derived from the very act of partaking in this activity. However, active transportation trips also have the tremendous potential to achieve “indirect benefits” which can be considered ancillary to the activity. In much the same the same way as the benefits of transit in Vancouver were calculated through averted costs, the same calculation can be made for active transportation. After all, a biking or a pedestrian trip could represent one less car off the road, or one less passenger on a crowded bus.

Although it would be incorrect to suppose that each active transportation trip acts as a substitute for a trip of another mode (a recreational trip or a short walk to the store would likely never be undertaken by other modes), a redistribution of “new” trips can be made between two different points in time according to changes in modal growth rates and mode shares. Such a comparison can be made by examining these figures as reported in the Translink Trip Diary Survey for the City of Vancouver in the years 2008 and 2011. Based upon the growth in active transportation trips between these years, total societal savings can be made on the basis of direct health benefits as well as savings resulting from averted costs. These are illustrated in Table 3.

As can be seen, the raw increase in walking and biking trips between 2008 and 2011 has resulted in direct societal savings of approximately $8.3 million. However, when secondary savings from averted costs are figured in, these savings total between approximately $18.7 and $25.6 million. Therefore, as impressive as the direct yearly savings from active transportation trips are, they are likely much higher owing to the fact that a fraction of those trips likely avert external costs of less economical modes .

Table 3: Societal Savings Resulting from Active Transportation Increases in Vancouver between 2008 and 2011 ($ CAD 2012 Prices)

Taken together, these results represent aggregate benefits derived from all active trips across all purposes. These include, for example, the morning commutes on foot, bike trips on painted cycle lanes, recreational trips on off-street trails, or those trips across the downtown separated bike lanes. Of course, the strong and upwards trending active mode shares in the City of Vancouver owes its existence to a confluence of events – density and mixed land uses along major centres of population and employment, a geography and scenery most suited to outdoor activity, and the provision of supporting infrastructure, amenities and space to the effect of making these modes convenient, desirable and safe.

Out of all of these considerations, it is the last that forms the only major point of contention – after all, it is very hard to complain about someone merely walking to work or enjoying a bike ride along an off-road trail. At the same time, such interventions represent one of the few mechanisms that municipals councils can exercise to influence the utility of active modes.

It is also true that implementing such facilities becomes more complex as the order or service increases (off street, on street, separated). More consideration and data certainly needs to be gathered to assess trade-offs and benefits under each circumstance. (See “A New Tool for Cost-Benefit Analysis of Transportation Projects.”) Regardless, these difficulties do not change the reality of the following observations:

• Active transportation is a natural extensions of the dense, mixed-use and walkable communities that have been suggested as the most sustainable use of the regions developable lands.
  • In such areas, and those to be developed in a similar way, demand for active travel will only increase.
• Active modes are ideal forms of transportation for the short-to-mid distance trips (under 5 km) which make up a significant fraction trips that take place in urban areas;
  • In many circumstances active travel is actually faster than motorized modes for trips of these distances;
  • Active travel is also highly compatible with transit that allows for the range of these trips to be extended.
• Active transportation is capable of uniquely satisfying sustainability, health, environmental and livability objectives in a time when society demands prudent action from governments on these issues;
  • Especially valid in the face of burgeoning healthcare costs due to physical inactivity.

Coupled with strong and growing demand not just in Vancouver but across the region, it should come as a surprise to no one that active transportation is being pursued with such vigor by many of the regions municipalities. Indeed, the health benefits calculated above for the City of Vancouver provide more than a compelling reason for municipalities to explore ways to increase active mode shares. Of course, this can take on different forms to suite circumstances and goals.

However, in pursuit of active mode share objectives municipalities can be expected to implement the solutions, and potentially the facilities that will enable these most beneficial outcomes to health, sustainability, and the overall management of trip growth. This will likely include strong consideration for higher order facilities such as cycle lanes, exclusive spaces and the like.

While that been difficult for some to accept in the past, it should not be said that these decisions are made without good cause or sound basis. Quite the contrary, if overseen diligently, investments in active transportation represent an incredible “bang for the buck” outcome and round out effective measures to manage transportation demand.

George Poulos, EIT, MSCP. George is a transportation engineer-in-training as well as a recent Masters graduate of the School of Regional and Community Planning (SCARP) at UBC. He has previously worked for consulting engineers on a variety of transportation and municipal projects. Originally from Ontario, he currently lives in Vancouver.

 [Part 1]

Investing in Transit is Imperative for Metro Vancouver

Undoubtedly one of the liveliest issues of debate within the region today is the future state of transit investment. In the past, this debate has often centered on one technology versus another, or in prioritizing future projects. However, a much more all-encompassing question can be found in the form of the impending transit referendum, which essentially asks the question of whether or not expanding transit services in the region merits the cost.

The answer that I would return is that not only would it be worth an investment in future transit expansion, but it is absolutely essential that transit capacity keep pace with growth in the region. In “British Columbia transit dreams” Bula correctly points out the risks in only meeting these commitments part way.

While it would be easy to imagine the subsequent logjams on our roads, the unit rates illustrated in Table 1 (here) allow us to put a price on this potential outcome. We can frame this calculation by using the City of Vancouver in the present day as an example. Owing to the tight geography, foresighted land use and transportation policies, and the fact that large-scale freeways were never implemented in the downtown peninsula, Vancouver enjoys a relatively balanced overall mode share. As one of many consequences, the overall demands on the city’s road network have not yet reached its “functional” capacity.

However, what would trip-making in present-day Vancouver look like had these decisions not been made? We can make a safe guess by considering what happens when a city’s trip-making activity outgrows the “functional” capacity of its roads. This doesn’t necessarily imply a “carmageddon” scenario, but it does mean that a city’s roads become as full as they will ever get, and the remainder of trips must be accommodated by alternatives. We can find proof of this in places such as Singapore, Manhattan island, or the old City of Toronto. Considering that in Vancouver in 2011, approximately 202,428,699 utilitarian (i.e. non recreational) trips were made by non-auto modes (accounting for approximately 38 percent of such trips), even a subset of these trips undertaken by car would mean plenty enough extra vehicle-kilometers travelled (VKT) to completely oversaturate Vancouver’s road network.

Indeed, historic trends in Vancouver indicate a continually decreasing rate of growth in total Vehicle Kilometers Travelled (VKT) (i.e. tending towards a flat line), while at the same time indicate steadily increasing growth rates in walking, cycling and transit use. This means that if these alternatives were not assuming the majority of new trips, the gross yearly increase in trip-making (which increases each year) would necessarily have found their way onto the roads and slowly filled them towards capacity.

That this does not happen is a credit to many factors. It also means we can make an estimate of how much money is saved by averting this otherwise certain eventuality. Consider what external transportation costs in the City of Vancouver would be if the roads had in fact reached the limits of their capacity over time (again, requiring only a fraction of those trips presently averted by other modes). Of course, under this scenario there would still be walking, cycling and transit options available, only that these modes would not be as well developed as a consequence of, for example, not investing in these alternatives to keep pace with growth. After making a correction for trips averted by walking and cycling, we can further isolate those savings derived by the bus system and SkyTrain ridership in Vancouver. This can be done using a “cost differential”, or the difference in external cost per passenger kilometer between passenger vehicles and each transit mode.

To this end, we can say that in 2011 in Vancouver, the bus and the SkyTrain system delivered savings to society of between approximately $412 million and $780 million. Put another way, without this reduction, total yearly external transportation costs in the City of Vancouver would have increased by 32 percent to 38 percent. These savings were derived from averted costs; accidents that didn’t happen, delay saved through reduced congestion, pollution that was never emitted, and the like. As high as these saving are, they are still limited to only those considered for the City of Vancouver. It can therefore be safely said that across the region, not only do Translinks present day operations (among other alternatives), keep the roads operable for all of us, but deliver savings to society well into the billionseach year.

In the interest of fairness, it would be too simple to give the credit entirely to the notion of good transit options itself. As is well known by many, land use and transportation cannot be divorced from one another, and these results must be considered together with the great efforts made to build areas of high density/mixed use in Vancouver and in many other places across the region.

Either way, it is in this relationship that the prime takeaways for the region can be gleaned. In a way, we can consider the present state of transportation activity in Vancouver (mode shares, preferences, amenities, etc.) to be a window into the future for other rapidly growing parts in the region (I’m looking at you “South of the Fraser”). In other words, Vancouver today may represent a potential future for those areas anticipated to accommodate much of the region’s growth over the future. On the one hand, it could end up that these areas plan their future communities around multimodal transportation and receive funding for all necessary transit services – in which case it would not be unreasonable to expect strong and trending growth in non-auto mode shares. On the other, they could find themselves falling behind the curve, unable to manage the inevitable growth in trip making through non-auto modes – all the while forfeiting substantial savings and tending towards road network failure, as well as a series of other unsustainable outcomes.

While the figures provided by this calculation demonstrate the tremendous benefits that transit services in Vancouver provide to society, the truer message has been to show that these benefits were only possible because the City of Vancouver was able to manage growth while it was happening by providing high-quality alternatives – which in many ways was the fulfilment of long-term transit planning recommendations. The lessons for decision-makers are therefore plain. The anticipated growth in the region will require not merely an investment in high-quality transit, but a timely one that is able to completely manage growth together with appropriate land-use practices. Failure to provide the requisite transit capacity will mean a cost to society of hundreds of millions of dollars (and counting) each year – a fact that also dispels the mistaken belief that withholding investments in transit will somehow save money.

George Poulos, EIT, MSCP. George is a transportation engineer-in-training as well as a recent Masters graduate of the School of Regional and Community Planning (SCARP) at UBC. He has previously worked for consulting engineers on a variety of transportation and municipal projects. Originally from Ontario, he currently lives in Vancouver.

We were recently alerted to George Poulos’ well-researched and comprehensive paper that aims to “develop a means to assess a wider scope of transportation impacts in Vancouver.” The impetus was to provide a more holistic view of transportation costs — health, congestion, considerations beyond dollars — so as to spark a nuanced dialogue around transportation costs and benefits in Metro Vancouver. George’s essays include “making a business case for active transportation, the merits of supporting continued investment in transit, and the math behind road pricing,” and will be posted weekly in five parts.

Moving Towards the Comprehensive Costs of Transportation in Vancouver

In March of 2013 Frances Bula wrote a wonderful and thought-provoking article entitled “British Columbia’s transit dreams”, which opened by imagining some very industrious changes in the region by the year 2020. Both the $1.8 billion Surrey LRT system and the $3 billion Broadway subway would have been completed, helping to see transit mode shares in the Metro Region rise well on their way to the target objective of 50 percent of all trips by 2040.

However, enabling such lofty prospects would not be without their difficulties. Leaving aside the questions surrounding the transit referendum (Frances forgot to tell us how that one ended up), completing not one but two major transit projects in quick succession would represent a great success in both the public and political realms. However, Bula suggests the real hurdle to this reality would come not from a political impediment, but as a matter of securing the necessary funding. According to Translink Vice President Bob Paddon, the magic number needed for every major transit project of the future is $23 billion, which Bula pegs at about $700 million dollars per year over the next 30 years.

No doubt a large sum of money will be required to keep the region healthy, moving and competitive into the future. But there are other costs we might consider: Total costs. Hidden costs. The cost of doing nothing, or even making an incomplete attempt at accommodating trip making growth in the region.

While this can be well personified by the stark contrast in image between clogged roads (or packed buses) and convenient, efficient transit options, the bigger picture extends beyond the fate of future transit plans. It has to do with long-standing public beliefs regarding user preferences, entitlements and future expectations, as well a willingness by governments to prioritize multimodal transportation and the land-use patterns which enable it.

We can understand this by considering the wider costs of transportation. It is well understood that everyday transportation imposes a variety of impacts on individuals, society, the environment and the economy. These may include congestion, air pollution, public transit costs and many others. Of course, these impacts may vary to considerable degrees when considering the particular mode of transportation. They may also vary as a matter of “perspective”.

As a general principle, costs (or benefits) may be interpreted as either internal or external to the consumer/user. Internal costs (also called personal costs) are those that are borne directly by the user in normal market transactions. These include transit fares, the price of gasoline or the cost of a bicycle. However, costs resulting from transportation activities that are not redeemed by the user are necessarily offloaded onto society. These are known as external (or societal costs). These can include the impacts of congestion, the effects of pollution, or the cost of maintaining infrastructure.

Understandably, it is internal costs that resonate more with the individual, and characterize their perception of the cost and relative utility of a mode of transportation (however even certain internal costs are not always apparent to the user). And yet, it is the external costs of transportation that impart the greatest (albeit hidden) significance on matters of regional, or long term transportation planning – at least, that’s the idea.

To say that the study of transportation externalities has been neglected in Canada would be an understatement. Barely a blip on the radar of Transport Canada, they can be largely considered the purview of academics, and do not figure as prominently as they could (or should in my opinion) in decision making processes. For a suitable look at a deeper pool of relevant literature, the inquisitive reader must be referred to our European counterparts (some good examples would be Germany, Denmark, Sweden, or the UK). Here, these metrics have been quite rightly put to good use as inputs into policy making, and in evaluating investments in major infrastructure projects.

Either way, it is in considering both internal and external costs that we can gain an appreciation of the true measure of transportation costs. It was towards this goal that I set about laying down a process to measure these costs in the City of Vancouver. This encompasses all purpose transportation according to five modes: passenger vehicles, transit buses, the Skytrain, as well as walking and cycling. In total, 12 different cost components were considered and include those typically associated with motorized travel (such as congestion, pollution, infrastructure costs, etc.), internal costs (such as travel time and operating expenses), as well as the health benefits of active transportation.

In the end, costs and benefits are presented as a unit rate of cost per passenger-kilometer ($/p-km), and represent average aggregate values across the entire City of Vancouver. Results are illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1: Internal and External Costs per Passenger-Kilometre by Mode in Vancouver ($/p-km 2012 CAD Prices)

As an extension of these results, unit rates can be combined with transportation statistics (in this case Vancouver’s share of data from the Translink 2011 Trip Diary Survey) to produce estimates of aggregated yearly external transportation costs and benefits for the City. These are illustrated in Table 2:

Table 2: Summary of Total Societal (External) Costs of Transportation in 2011 in Vancouver ($ 2012 CAD Prices)

Click to enlarge.

Of course, getting to the end results is only half the fun. Some of the best value I believe is in what these results portend. Although this analysis was confined to the City of Vancouver, it nonetheless provides many interesting takeaways germane to those issues at the forefront of today’s regional transportation context. Some of these will be discussed in the next posts.

George Poulos, EIT, MSCP. George is a transportation engineer-in-training as well as a recent Masters graduate of the School of Regional and Community Planning (SCARP) at UBC. He has previously worked for consulting engineers on a variety of transportation and municipal projects. Originally from Ontario, he currently lives in Vancouver.

Thursday November 17
7:00pm til late
Chapel Arts
304 Dunlevy St. Vancouver

The Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition is throwing a party in the name of keeping the bike love coming!

Music, art, and drink inspired dance moves. Become a member and for the love of self-propelled transportation! learn who bike-friendly candidates are in the upcoming elections and VOTE on November 19.

$2 entrance fee, $5 suggested donation –or better yet! become a VACC member.
There will be free valet bike parking

They’d LOVE to see you there!