Marke Andrews did a nice piece for the Vancouver Sun on the 2006 transportation and workplace data just released by Census Canada. He picked up on the most significant indicator:
In 2006, 67.3 per cent of workers in the Vancouver census metropolitan area drove to work, down almost five percentage points from the 72.2 per cent who drove to work in 2001….
Use of public transit among the same working populace increased five percentage points, from 11.5 per cent in 2001 to 16.5 per cent in 2006.
Those figures cover the entire Vancouver region – or CMA, as it’s called. And they indicate a trend - transit use rising, car use dropping – that is likely to continue as transit service improves. Indeed, we’re already seeing the results of commitments to transit and more compact development made in the 1990s.
So what explains this:
Walking and cycling, however, decreased, with 6.3 per cent of workers walking in 2006 (down from 6.5 per cent in 2001) and 1.7 per cent riding a bicycle (down from 1.9 per cent in 2001).
My comments in the article in fact assume an increase in walking:
My experience of living down (in Yaletown) for five years was, ‘What’s the point of driving?’ You walk, partly because it’s close, but mainly because it’s part of the experience of living in the neighbourhood….
“I think this proves the theory that if you create a more dense residential area close to where people work, you provide transit and make the walking and cycling experience safe and comfortable, people will do that,” Price said.
And that’s true – but only to those parts of the region where the right combination of density, mix and proximity creates the right conditions for walking. In the central core of Vancouver, we’ve seen a stready drop in auto use (down 13 percent between 1994 and 1999) and a dramatic increase in walking (up 55 percent). But that’s not true throughout the region, or CMA, as a whole – hence the census data.
My interpretation is that, to some degree, people have substituted transit for some walking and cycling trips. Car use has remained equal to the growth in population and transit has grown substantially, so possibly some of the latter is the result of trip substitution. I’m open to other possibilities.
Still, in the end, good news:
“We’re making some real progress here,” said (Metro planner Chris) DeMarco, who has other statistics that reinforce what the census revealed.
For example, between 1996 and 2006, short trips to work (less than five kilometres) in the Lower Mainland region increased by 55,945 trips, but long trips (more than 25 kilometres) increased by only 6,825.
Another telling statistic is that in the past 10 years, population growth in the region has been 15.3 per cent, with a matching growth in car use (15 per cent). However, transit use increased by 40 per cent.
Don’t forget that the last census took place during a bus strike, so the real increase in transit use between 2001 & 2006 may not have been as dramatic as the numbers would indicate…
A 40% increase is way more optimistic than I’ve read about so far.
The reduction in walking and biking could reflect the bulk of regional population growth in the outer municipalities where those two options are not feasible (but where transit is still feasible, so the reduction was not reflected in transit usage)
Quote:
“TransLink says overcrowding is SkyTrain’s biggest weakness.”
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20080403_171549_5984
I’m always surprised that one issue rarely talked about is SkyTrain’s Dinky Toy feel. I make a point of taking public transit (especially rail) just about everywhere I travel and it seems to me that SkyTrain’s carriages are a whole lot smaller than systems such as BART or those in Singapore or London. I’m wondering if others share my feeling—and also if the lack of space will be a real deterrent to trying to negotiate the Canada Line to and from the airport with baggage.
Correction:
From Wiki…
“Current SkyTrains cannot be used on the Canada Line and vice versa as the Canada Line uses conventional-railway technology as opposed to SkyTrain’s linear-motor technology. Furthermore, Canada Line trains are wider than SkyTrains.”
yes – why is no one mentioning the fact that the 2001 census data (for transit) is skewed by the strike? Shouldn’t these news articles all have huge disclaimers on their 2001 data?
Tim P.:
I’ve travelled in a few metro systems around the world, primarily Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing, Tokyo, San Francisco, Montreal, and Toronto. And by far, I think Vancouver’s SkyTrain is definitely the narrowest, unless you count our Scarborough cousin, the Scarborough RT (with its god-awful faux-wood panels…).
SkyTrain is a really a glorified mini-metro. It’s the size of an LRT, but with the cost comparable to a Heavy Metro system.
Thankfully, Canada Line trains are conventional technology, not an expensive Bombardier Linear-Induction Motor system. They will be wider, but I’m concerned about the shorter length of the stations.
Back to what the article is about, though. After living overseas for a year and visiting many Asian cities, I love travelling around a city by public transport. I hate the stress and financial burden of a car. Unfortunately, it all boils back down to how our cities are arranged. The post-war North American model of cities is based on the car and it’s tough to get people to accept change in their cities. It’s a large paradigm shift.