Going the Extra Mile - Accessible Often Means Roundabout

The Long Way Around

While sometimes a person might complain when there are no accessible facilities available, it can seem like you are looking a gift horse in the mouth with you complain about the facilities that exist. It can be rough to miss a connection on a bus because you were taking the extra fifty or even hundred metres required to reach an elevator or ramp.

True, a person might say "you should have started out earlier" which might have some truth to it --  but when connecting from one service to the next, you only have a certain amount of time to travel from one mode to another whether it be from bus to train or train to bus or even bus to bus or train to train. When service is every 3-5 minutes it is not so bad, but when service is less frequent than every 15 minutes it can make a large difference.

When you can't run for a bus it can be very frustrating for one to leave when you are so very close at hand -- travelling from one place to another within the station or terminal.

Some places just aren't designed well for people who aren't travelling well on foot. It is like the designers don't actually have a clue what it is to use these facilities if you need the accessible facilities. Perhaps this is just the case. Perhaps they really do need people who use the facilities to be a part of the design and not just part of town hall meetings and open houses on getting building permits approved.

(image to right from Wikipedia)

I know that there is the issue of keeping wheelchair friendly ramps at a slope that is safe and without too long straight lengths and such forth. But sometimes thing should be planned out better. I hope that things are getting better. I also hope that there is planning included for (in no particular order and not inclusive) people with babies in strollers and carriages; people with other impairments such as visual; people with luggage; people with small children; and so many other situations other than a business person on the way to work with a brief case and maybe an umbrella... for that matter... rainy days can sure be a problem with people not having a thing they can do with a wet umbrella.

An example of bad design is a "Skytrain" station built in the late 80's or early 90's which straddles a major highway interchange and bridge entrance ramp system. The station does have escalators and an elevator to take people up to the elevated track level -- but -- the elevator is on the side of the highway interchange the "Park & Ride" is on while the Transit Loop for catching buses is on the far side. The work-around is to call for a "Handi-dart" bus to come and transfer you from one side of the interchange to the other. Handi-dart is the part of the local transit system that picks up disabled people who are typically unable to ride normal public transit.

The station should have had an elevator designed into both sides. It is not a matter of there not being room. It might have meant a couple fewer parking stalls in the design of the "Park & Ride". I guess nobody on the design team considered that a person who would require the elevator might be taking the bus to continue their journey? It is good that the stations can be built elevated so that they can be above roads and thus make a smaller footprint on the urban groundspace -- But the disabled are often the folk on the low incomes that use the transit system most... perhaps not in a wheelchair, but sometimes a person who gets around with a cane or walking stick has problems with stairs and escalators?

We need more than work-arounds!

Later!
~ Darrell

142.

Tub Needs a Plug!

Ships in Harbour a Source of Air Pollution -- To be Plugged... In.

Commerce and tourism are two important parts of the economy of many communities and MetroVancouver¹ is one of those places where it plays a very important role. With that importance comes a price and there are prices in polution to be paid to do with the port.

Something many people might not consider -- when looking at the powerful freighters moored in the harbour or docked at the term; or watching the graceful cruise ship sailing under Lions Gate Bridge (image to left -- image from Dubman Tours) to dock at the passenger terminals --  is that those ship while parked keep engines running the whole time in order to run generators for electral works and other systems on the ship the whole time in port. Undoubtedly they aren't running their main engines and producing the same amount of exhaust as they would at sea, but they do produce a substantial ammount. I was surprised recently reading how substantial it is and on a percentage basis how much it might become.

The Vancouver Sun²:

Collectively, ship exhaust emissions comprise one of the biggest sources of air pollution in the Metro-Fraser Valley region - port electrification would allow marine vessels to switch off their engines
and plug into the grid instead.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer³:

But the image also has a less obvious, troubling aspect. For every day it's in the harbor, the ship's smokestacks may be spewing as much nitrogen oxide into the city's air as 12,500 cars, as much as an oil refinery.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer³:

A 2003 British Columbia study said marine vessels have produced more than a million tons of pollutants in a year, more than half the total there. The Greater Vancouver Regional District, which put together the study, predicts the marine industry will produce a growing percentage of key pollutants in that region as ship traffic grows and auto pollution is reduced.

A partial solution is to provide some sort of method for ships to connect to the electrical grid of the port that they are docked at. Metro Vancouver is towards implementing that. Port Metro Vancouver wants to see cruise ships plugged in for the 2009 summer cruise season. One of the large issues is a lack of federal money. There is a need for $4 million needed to add to contributions from Metro Vancouver port authority, the region, the marine industry, and the province.²

The system of providing shore power to cruise ships is something that was first implemented on the West Coast at Juno Alaska in 2002 and since then Seattle has provided shore power plugs to tow of their three berths. In  Long Beach, San Pedro, San Francisco and San Diego there are plans to do so as well.⁴

In addition to ports providing the infrastructure to allow ships to plug in to shore power there must also be provision for the ships to be able to take advantage of this as well. Holland America and Princess Cruise ships are able to plug-in in Seattle.⁴

Power provided by the shore electrical grid costs about the same as that generated by diesel on the ship if you discount the investment for a transformer on the ship required to plug-in to the grid.

The cruise ship industry has been a first step because it is in the public eye seem to be more willing to comply with requests. Two container terminals in the inner harbour -- I am assuming that is referring to Coal Harbour or elsewhere on Burrard Inlet between First and Second Narrows -- have the infrastructure in place for wiring to go to the dockside. The new third berth at Deltaport on Robert's Bank will have that infrastructure when it is completed.⁵

There are some hurdles to do with BC Hydro and the BC Utilities Commision in order to develop pricing schems for these customers. The port authority has formally applied to BC Hydro for the interconnecting service.

(image to left, 2005 registration of merchant ships - image from Wikipedia⁶)

There are greater difficulties in dealing with pollution issues in the shipping industry as most of the oceangoing ships are "foreign-flagged" so reducing emissions takes significant amounts of time.³ This action would help with emission issues for when the ships are travelling in and out of harbour -- and of course at sea -- as well as if they have to be running engines for power at anchor. But acting on merchant shipping is something that has to be initiated on an international level -- the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency.³ When regulations are put into effect by the IMO they would be enforced by individual nations and ports. The IMO was looking at revising their 1997 regulations in 2006.⁷

(image to right from Wikipedia⁶)

Plugging into shore power will solve problems of idling ships which are docked, but for ones at anchor in the harbour... Personally I wonder what solutions might there be other than improved air-pollution standards internationally. Somehow I think that providing docking stations in the harbour at anchorages so that ships could plug in would be prohibitive in cost. Perhaps tenders or barges with huge hydrogen fuel cells might provide these plug-ins? They'd be refuelled and moved where needed. Perhaps in future ships might have hydrogen fuel cells or solar panels for in port and other needs on their own? Perhaps a power barge might have fuel cells, solar panels, wind turbines, and wave power generators all in one? (I can really be a dreamer.)

Perhaps someday there might be solutions for ships at sea, but for now while we think globally we have to act locally and work on the pollution on more local selfish levels like the increase to pollution burdens in our cities.

Later!
~ Darrell

137

__________
¹Metro Vancouver is the name of what was once known as the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) or colloquially as Greater Vancouver and which Statistics Canada defines as "Vancouver CMA" (Census Metropolitan Area) "having perfectly coterminal boundaries with Metro Vancover" -- Metro Vancouver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

² "Plug-in power a key to cleaner air" Scott Simpson, Sept 4, 2008; Vancouver Sun.

³  "Air pollution from cargo ships stirs growing concern" Larry Lange, January 20, 2004; Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

⁴ John Hansen, President of the NorthWest CruiseShip Association - Vancouver Sun "Plug-in power a key to cleaner air" Sept 4, 2008

⁵ Darryl Desjardins,  Environmental programs director for Port Metro Vancouver - Vancouver Sun "Plug-in power a key to cleaner air" Sept 4, 2008

⁶ "Ship transport" Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⁷ "Plan May Ease Air Pollution at Ports" Dan Weikel, July 6, 2006; Los Angeles Times

Unattributed images from Image*After.

Undisabling -- Maintaining Accessability II

Doing More Than Minimum

A few years ago a new "super store" was opened locally and it was a great success in most ways. They did follow some new design ideas that are being incorporated more often now for the environment. They also probably help the bottom line...

One in particular is the incorporation of parking under the grocery store. A "super store" basically is a grocery store expanded to include much of a department store -- and in fact a department store and grocery store to rival a warehouse store or big box store. They are reminiscent to me of the old department stores that included a grocery store which rivalled any grocery store chain's store.

In this case of this new store's opening, that is one of the things that people were critical about. It wasn't that valuable space was saved in putting parking under the store, but rather that access to the store was made by ramps.

Other stores of near identical design had been built in Metro-Vancouver without so much complaint, but this one had a small difference -- this one did not also have elevators. The other stores all had elevators in addition to the ramps. The ramps are fairly gradual in slope and not too much effort for an able bodied person to climb. I think perhaps people with health issues might find them a bit taxing though. There are also stairs, I believe, though it has been a little while since I was there. People wanted to know why elevators were not included in this store and the reason given by the chain: "City bylaws did not require us to have elevators so we did not include them."

I think that it might be very important for municipalities, provinces, countries and other levels of government to have laws establishing minimum levels of compliance for such things as whether a building has elevators or what degree of slope an access ramp might have, but even if these might differ from area to area, certainly what should also be looked at is function. I can understand that having or not having an elevator does change the cost of a building, but especially when we are talking about a chain that has designs already made for the same or similar store with elevators, why not include an elevator simply to make the store more functional?

The cynic in me can think of reasons/excuses why not to put one in. One that comes to mind is that if you put one in, then you are liable for any accidental injury that it will cause. Of course you could always counter that with how many accidental injuries might be caused by not having it. I'm not a lawyer so I am probably naive in that counter argument.

What reminded me of this was a situation of someone I know who has been sick and in the hospital for a while. They have been doing fairly well with their artificial leg, but after recent surgery just are not up to climbing stairs or long ramps. Normally they use canes but for the moment they are using a walker. They aren't going out much but they have to go to the Doctor from time to time -- of course Doctors just don't make house-calls. The issue is that to get from the "Handicapped Parking" stalls to the door, a person has to negotiate either a long ramp or stairs.

This is not a building which has been retrofitted to allow for the handicapped parking. The building was designed as a medical-detal-legal office building from the start. In the designing didn't anyone anticipate that people who might be going in and out of such a building might actually be disabled and so it might be handy if there weren't major changes in elevation between the parking and the elevator lobby?

Probably the whole design does fit in with the Civic Bylaws and all the minimum standards set by the different levels of government with perhaps a few amendments which were applied for and granted in exchange for other accommodation. But the if the minimum is the bar that people aim for all the time, perhaps the bar has to be raised? -- at least for new buildings.

I can understand that when retrofitting existing structures minimum standards might be what is aimed for -- if at all possible -- but not for new structures. There might of course also be standards for voluntary compliance perhaps?

I am starting to consider if I might change my shopping patterns with a bias toward the more accessable locations. After all, if they are more willing to accomodate people with accessability issues, they probably also will do right by all of their customers.

Later!
~ Darrell

131.

__________
Handicapped signage image from Image*After.

Undisabling -- Maintaining Accessability

Getting Rid of Unnecessary Barriers

Their are probably many barriers that people simply do not think about and would not until they are faced by them. Perhaps they note them as being a nuisance if they are able bodied and grumble a bit, but they don't consider how much of a barrier they might be to someone who is not able bodied.

Disabled need not mean a person is in a wheelchair either -- it need not even be something that is long term -- except perhaps for the determination of some benefits from government bodies or insurance companies. Some things are pretty obvious: a set of stairs with no reasonable alternate route to access some facility or place; a narrow doorway or passage; an exceptionally rough patch of rocky path or walkway; and others that you can probably add to this list yourself. There are some people who do sports in wheelchairs for sure, and can nearly climb stairs in them -- they can climb simple curbs, I have seen.

But getting on to the less obvious things.

...like the wheelchair symbol to the right of the rather imposing doors... (image to right - image from Image*After)

I know someone who has problems getting around. She uses a mobility scooter for anything outside the apartment. The building has an elevator and the rear door exits to the parking area under the building. The parking is open on one side and there is easy, fairly open access to the lane behind the building. Luckily there is a shopping centre that is fairly well lit there so that it isn't too much like going into a scary dungeon at night and onto a dark alley.

I was surprised to hear that my friend didn't use the bus stop that is just across the street from that shopping centre. Metro Vancouver is pretty progressive and has been replacing nearly 100% of its fleet with low floor buses that can kneel. (image to left - image from buses world news) But why did my friend travel 1 km to the next stop? At the stop close to her building she told me; there was no room between the curb and a steep drop-off into a parking lot adjacent the stop for her to manoeuvre her scooter onto the ramp into the bus! Perhaps a chair with a near zero turning radius could do the manoeuvre simply, or maybe a smaller scooter. But this my friend could not use a smaller scooter.

When they set up the stops for Translink's buses there were no considerations for wheel chair ramps. They placed the stop well up the hill from the controlled intersection to avoid the driveways, and this placed the stop adjacent to a sharp drop-off into a parking lot. I told my friend that she should make sure to talk to the drivers about the problem and perhaps email or telephone the transit company to tell them the situation. The 1km distance might sound excessive, but it is an express bus with limited stops. I took it upon myself to write to Translink as they are open to such things and have people whose job is to listen to such problems and try find solutions. Since then, I have heard that the solution is that the bus merely pulls up about 4 feet further along the street where there is more room for someone to manoeuvre onto the extended ramp.

Recently I was invited to an open house for the development of a new shopping centre. I asked -- with regards to their landscaping on the sidewalk and boulevard -- if they had taken into account such things as room for people to manoeuvre scooters and wheelchairs in and out of the buses that would be stopping outside their centre. This was important to them actually because the anchor for the shopping centre was a major pharmacy chain. They wanted to draw customers who would likely include many who would be using chairs, scooters, walkers and similar aids on the transit system.

(image of Translink bus to right from buses world news)

With all the new construction going on, it can be difficult for any pedestrian to get around. It seems that many concessions are made for getting motor vehicle traffic through the construction zones -- but little is done for the pedestrian and great hurdles might be set into place for anyone who is not able.

This can include simple issues such as doubling the distance someone has to walk on their travels. (image to left from Image*After) This can simply be the closing of a sidewalk on one side of the road blocking it for 9 metres (30 ft approx) so that a person has to backtrack to a crosswalk cross the street, travel a block or two to the next crosswalk and then walk back. With some longish blocks and streets that are just too busy to cross at uncontrolled intersections, this can add up substantially. Such a diversion would not mean very much for a driver, but heavy metal plates might be placed over excavations so that they could be driven over. I have also seen construction debris cover half of sidewalks making them impassible except for people who are light of foot.

Many people do not realize just how impeding ice and snow (or even rain soaked leaves) can be if they do not clean their walks. A narrow swept path can still be impassible for someone in a chair or scooter. Ice and snow might be far to dangerous for someone with brittle bones even if they do walk with only a walking stick. A person with balance problems or lack of feeling in the feet can have great problems on snow. Even if the sidewalks are clear, the city and province have this nasty habit of plowing snow up against the curb making a person have to climb over it to reach the street at intersections in order to cross.

A lot of these barriers could be dealt with simply, without having to change the infrastructure much. Simply being aware and actually clearing snow, planning a bit, and remembering that some people rely on wheels... even babies in carriages -- and you don't want to force them out into traffic or to have to travel a kilometre past the closest bus stop..

Later!
~ Darrell

128.

Eco-Green -- Eco Blues 2

Too Good is Too Bad?

While Metro Vancouver is trying to travel a path for a "zero waste"¹ situation -- where nothing goes into a landfill to be "buried and forgotten" -- there are odd issues that come up en route.

En route, one hurdle is that not everything is simply recycled: Some items are contaminated and technology to reasonably decontaminate them to return them to the standard recycling stream do not exist. These can be things like paper that is contaminated with food waste. Some items are ones that there are no reasonable recycling stream for -- at the moment or very near future. Some items are made of complicated combinations of materials which would be difficult to separate to go into their individual recycling streams even while other seemingly difficult ones such as those tetra-brick packages already can be.

One solution to those problem materials is to use plasma-based technology to break the materials up into more elemental components. One municipality in Metro Vancouver -- the one I live in, Port Moody -- is seriously looking at some fairly new technology offered by a company called Plasco Energy Group². (image to left for illustration purpose only -- image from Zero Waste Vancouver)² Their solution uses the plasma-based technology to reduce the waste to its composite materials. It creates a number of byproducts including a bio-gas which is burned to fuel the plasma torch and generate "megawatts" of energy in the process. It does generate some carbon dioxide in the process, but reduces carbon emissions by two tonnes for every tonne of waste through the process with this energy production.

I can't say for sure how good the Plasco Energy Group process is, but if it is as good as they lead us to believe it introduces another rather obscure hurdle...

Will people -- if they know that anything not put into their recycling or compost bins but into their garbage bins will be plasma-torched -- stop sorting and simply toss things out into the general garbage and not other with the environmental "Three Rs" of "Reduce, Re-use, or Recycle"? (image to right from Chris Chen dot See Eh!)

I have heard one view that if we are able to generate net energy wouldn't we be better off to convert as much of our waste as possible to electrical energy and that smaller amount of "construction aggregate, salt, sulphur and clean water"² that the process produces in addition to the "synthetic fuel gas"²?

I would imagine it matters what goal you are looking at. If you look at a purpose of reducing waste of land you might see one thing. if you look at financial cost you might see another. Still others might look at ecological balance. I know of many who will not recycle because they have seen shows on TV which showed some recycling programs where much of the material sent to the program simply gets dumped into the landfill and they assume all recycling programs are the same. I know others who don't separate their recycling the way their municipality asks them to because somewhere else they did it different or they saw some show which showed it all getting mixed together anyway or they see how it all gets dumped into one truck. They don't realize the trucks have separate sections or that different municipalities might have different handling facilities or companies which do the sorting and recycling.

I must admit to be disappointed that the glass being recycled does not get recycled into new bottles and jars. I figured that would be a simple thing, just as recycling aluminum, steel, copper, or other metals to new metal products is. I do understand how each time paper is recycled it is degraded and how plastic might not be chemically reclaimable to be the same plastic... at least not easily.

Still they are for the most part made into useful products.

I guess energy is a useful product, especially if it reduces dependence on another source that might create greater cost and problem.

But the issue of one good program detracting from others is a new hurdle that I hadn't heard of before.

Later!
~ Darrell

121.

__________
¹Recycling 101: The Zero Waste Challenge in Metro Vancouver | Chris Chen dot See Eh!

² Zero Waste Vancouver -- About PlascoEnergy Group.

What Happened to the Creamy Filling?

What Happens When the Filling Disappears?

Will Cities Become Shells?

Did you know that houses have a lifespan?

There is a lifespan for buildings. They are built to last a given number of years on average. Perhaps it is 75 years, perhaps 50, perhaps 100, but they do have a lifespan. I am not sure about the lifespan of current residential construction, but I suspect many residences built since the Second World War were built with a 75 year lifespan. I am not sure what happens when a building exceeds this lifespan.

I know that there are buildings aging with grace and good upkeep that have become heritage buildings. But I know others don't and have been torn down or rebuilt. However, since WWII there have been huge residential districts where the whole district has been built over a period of perhaps 5 years. What happens to those districts when nearly all the houses reach the end of their functional lifespan at the same time?

I don't have any solutions of course and haven't heard too much of it being a problem. Perhaps it isn't one and something that takes care of itself?

I just remember hearing how houses had a lifespan and was surprised -- thinking they were immortal for some reason. I guess it might be because of all the heritage homes I have seen. The only "falling down" sorts of houses I have seen were abandoned ones.

I do imagine if you own a house you might come upon walls with studs that need replacement because they have rotted, or plumbing that needs to be redone. You might renovate and replace whole walls already and know what is within. Foundations might need to be re-poured. I think that buildings once lasted longer and districts were not built up all at once. Neighbourhoods maybe grew a bit at a time?

We do see apartment blocks come down in groups, but that is because it is time to replace them with newer construction -- the old ones are no longer viable. That works with rental buildings, but what of the more modern idea of strata-condo buildings where each owner might have to be bought out before a building comes down?

So you have a city growing outwards and the core is gradually a cluster of uninhabitable buildings destined for destruction, and whole neighbourhoods might be ready for wrecking ball... what will replace them? I have seen some whole blocks replaced with "monster houses" -- houses that are outsized to the lots -- built to the maximum outmoded bylaws might allow -- which don't suite the character of the neighbourhood at all.

I know that cities that do plan, are working on actual bylaws that fight things like those "monster houses". At the same time they work to solve problems of increased population, transportation, and other pressures by intelligently increasing population density while keeping neighbourhood character.

I don't think that some neighbourhoods will end up like a hollow left if you squeezed the filling out of a doughnut when the houses have reached retirement ages. Land is far too valuable... still the transition will be... is interesting.

Later!
~ Darrell

109.

All day I face the barren waste without the taste of water*

Cool Water -- What if Water Drives City Growth?

I used to live in Calgary, Alberta, Canada and our drinking water came from the Glenmore Reservoir which was fed by the glacier fed Elbow River. I used to figure the water supply pretty secure as the glaciers had been their for tens of thousands of years as opposed to aquifer supplied ground water in areas where the water tables seemed to be dropping regularly as consumption exceeded local rainfall or areas where river fed systems were reliant on winter snowfall and rainfall in watersheds.

But now with glaciers shrinking at what I am led to believe are alarming rates it makes me wonder...

While it is true we might get desalination plants running economically and at scales where it is useful to supply cities with and conservation efforts would make huge differences -- perhaps many cities in some areas of the World might have populations slowly shrink while others would gain based on the availability of water?

Coastal cities may grow at much larger rates than projected and landlocked cities while not shrinking might stay at current sizes -- shrinking relatively speaking.

Of course in a sense over decades you might move a city's population, but what about food production? Perhaps the bread baskets of the world might simply shift north or south a number of degrees latitude which will make some farms boom while others bust, but it might be more drastic. I just watched a news piece on grape harvest in Spain having problems. You see they are at the southern-warmest-driest limits for wine grapes and with weather getting hotter and drier the varieties of grapes they have been growing traditionally have started producing less well. For instance there is increased activity of pests associated with the grape vines and the picking is happening days and weeks earlier in the season. Growers are starting to plant new vineyards higher up the slopes of the mountains than ever before because it is cooler up there. Northern producers of wine are having excellent crops though with the weather improving for them.

I am sure that some varieties of some foods might be a problem.

However how will this effect the cities of our World? In addition to populations perhaps moving to places where there is more water -- and perhaps that being where salt water might be desalinated -- those might also be the areas more prone to problems of storm surges and flooding with any rise in world sea levels?

It makes you think.

Later!
~ Darrell

96.

__________
*Lyrics to Cool Water -- Sons of the Pioneers is on CowboyLyrics.com

Tickets Please - Fair Transit Fares

Fair Transit Fares

Transit fares are a subject that can bring about much discussion around the dinner table... or any other table... or park bench or field or...

Most people who live in a city have some idea on what would be a fair sort of fare or way to figure out what that fare should be for people making use of the public transit system or for that matter not making use of it. Some discussions can get quite heated.

There are many points of view with some having firm belief in a user pay the whole way system where like the airlines or inter city bus lines the total revenue of the system should be born by the traveller, perhaps subsidized slightly by freight or something. Other people just as firmly believe that a public transit system should be a part of the city infrastructure just as water, sewer, and indeed the sidewalks, roads, and bridges are. In between and perhaps included are those who believe there should be incentives to get motorists out of their cars and commuting by public transit.

On a recent survey one question had to do with the possible introduction of "smart cards" for transit users which would calculate the fare based on how long the passenger was using the service. The question involved whether the metropolitan area should continue to use a three zone system where you paid a larger amount for crossing more zones. You could buy 1, 2, and 3 zone fares and passes.

Some people figured this to be fare and others unfair. Many citing it as unfair spoke of the short trips that just happened to cross a zone boundary and there are a number of places where this might happen. Some people who thought the three zone system should be dropped for a single zone system and others thought the smart card system should be brought in.

Arguments were varied but some were:

o People travelling from the extreme areas of the city travel far longer on the transit system and should pay more than those in the more central areas who are just making 5, 10, or 15 minute trips.

o Multiple Zones create complexity in administering fares.

o Smart Cards would mean people having to remember to swipe off the bus as well as on and it would be possible to track people's travels.

o People living in the suburbs get much less frequent service and the routes cover less of the area and so they shouldn't have to pay as much.

o People downtown have a better transit network and so should have to pay more for their service.

o In order to encourage people to get out of their cars for the long commute on bus into the city, lower fares should be tolerated on the longer runs.

o The longer the trip the more fuel burnt and the more driver hours spent so the higher the fare should be.

There is logic to what was said and I have only included a bit over a handful of the answers I saw in the survey results here - not having the survey for reference. I thought I might write about my own views which I came up with after having done the survey and having read the results and comments on it.

I think that they should do away with the Zone System for public transit and go to a simple fare structure. I think this simple fare structure should encourage frequent users. I think a smart card should be looked at, but not as a matter of clocking how many miles a person rides, but rather as a way to make it simpler for passengers.

The passenger would be able to pay for their fares from home or store or even cellphone or to be able to cancel their card if stolen or lost and replace them even to the point of entering their Name, Some ID number, and a PIN at a machine and having a duplicate issued even while rendering the stolen or lost one invalid. In this way if someone had left their card at home or work -- perhaps not knowing they would need it -- they could still access the card. Perhaps it is a fantasy idea and it only would work because a computer could cancel the old card at the instant the new one is activated hence nobody could be easily giving their friend a card and using the replacement.

My reasoning behind the single fare rate is that the people who live in the core areas have the best service. They have in effect a premium service with more frequent buses and routes that are closer together -- perhaps even having to chose between routes because they are a block on either side of their destination or one goes closer to the front door and another closer to the back. Their trips are shorter, but they might be more inclined to just hop on the bus for a short trip because the bus actually is convenient and they don't even have to plan their route.

When you get farther out, the buses become less frequent and the routes are spaced farther apart. You have to walk further to a route and stop and when you get there, the bus doesn't go by as often. The destinations might be a bit farther away as well so when you do get on the bus you are on it a bit longer.

When you get yet farther out again, the buses become much less frequent and stop running sometimes early in the evening or not in the evening at all. They may or may not run Saturday or Sunday or are very restricted on some routes. The routes of course are farther apart and rather than counting blocks to the bus you are counting kilometres. When you do get onto a bus you likely will be on it for a much longer trip because places are farther away.

I am thinking that the increase in service would balance the increase in distance travelled somewhere in the scheme of things. If the buses in the suburbs came as frequently as in the core and the routes were as convenient then perhaps the length of trip might be an indication of a higher price. But as things look to me, the longer trips are the more arduous and come from the areas with poorer service.

It is just a different way to look at it and perhaps when the structure of our cities change so that people will be working closer to where they live and thus we will have multiple cores, then it would make more sense to have more zones. But when large chunks of the population live in poorer serviced areas, then I think the poorer service balances the longer distances. Isn't that in part why the service is poorer in the first place? The people in the outlying areas shouldn't be burdened twice to take public transit. They should have to pay more for less service while the people in the core pay less for more service.

I do think in future there will be better transportation systems and it will be easier to get around without a car. I do think there is a need to encourage folk to take transit to work rather than drive. I think this regardless of the price of a barrel of crude.

Anyhow I think those single zone fares would be fair.

Later!
~ Darrell

86.

Jailing Ourselves

Do Bars a Prison Feel - Should We Allow Public Safety to Make Us Feel Like We Are in Prison?

I recently took a survey for our public transit system that had its theme security on the system. They asked questions on what people thought might make patrons feel safer on the ALRT - Automated Light Rail Transit* - System. They also asked about issues of fare evasion. Currently when you get to our ALRT stations on the SkyTrain system (image on left - image from Wikipedia) there are no ticket takers, gates, or turnstiles to pass through on the way into the stations and up to the trains.

Many people get very grumbly about it thinking that there are too many people taking advantage of this and getting a free ride. In the survey results it seems that people think that out of every 100 people on the train at least 20 of them are fare evaders. Even when given the information that 80% of the people getting onto the train to ride are using some form of prepaid fare - either prepaid monthly passes, university passes (paid for by students through their fees), company passes paid through their employer or an employee payment plan, or by simple bus transfers from the buses of the transit system when the passengers switch over from bus to train - people still think that 20% or more are fare evaders. Go figure...

So one priority on many people's minds is some sort of gate or turnstile system to rebuff the freeloaders. Some reasons given are to save the lost revenue from so many fare evaders and others point out that criminal elements are simply walking onto the train to travel from point to point in the city and that putting up the gates and turnstiles will decrease this problem - after all no self respecting hoodlum or vandal will pay a transit fare to ride the train will they. (He writes sarcastically parroting what he has heard many times)

For me one of the great things about the SkyTrain was being able to embark from a bus walk without much in the way of obstruction into the station and up - or down - onto the platform to catch a train. To me it felt like being a part of the future. There were terminals to purchase your transit fare and there was a requirement to keep your fare receipt in case you would have to prove payment, but since most already had either payed on the bus they were transferring in from or were being dropped off by a spouse or coming in from the commuter parking with their passes, most did not require to pay at the machines.

They were starting on one very heavily travelled route in Vancouver that ran the articulated buses to allow entry and exit from all three sets of doors on the long bus coaches. It made for much quicker loading and unloading and shorter times at the busy stops on that route rather than restricing entry to the front door only.

But, given that people want to have some sort of gate, and all...

On the survey they showed 4 choices. (4 images below are from the survey for Translink done by Vision Critical)

Regular waist-high turnstile
This is what I am used to seeing at fairgrounds and that sort of thing. I have always found them a bit awkward to get through. I thought they would be a choice that disabled people wouldn't like, but according to the survey they have little problem with them. I am not sure though, perhaps it is because there is always a section with a chain across and an attendant to let them through? I don't know. I wouldn't want to pass through these with crutches or a wheel chair or while maneuvering a stroller, two wheeled grocery cart, or even suitcases or backpack through... or a fussing 2-year-old.

Paddle style gate
I am used to seeing this sort of thing, at least a one sided one at libraries, though this is more modern and I take it bidirectional and of course controlled by the ticket reading machine. I think it easier to get through with strollers, 2-year-olds, and so forth, but of course they would create bottlenecks like any of the options would during rush hour.

Bi-parting leaf gate/turnstile
This is a new take on that regular turnstile - I think - and perhaps easier to go through. Still I wonder how easy it would be for people who are not just travelling empty handed through the gate.

Floor-to-ceiling
I have seen these at some fairs and zoos. They are a bit like the revolving doors in large buildings and I know the benefit in the large buildings is that they let people go in and out quickly without allowing either the warm air out in winter or the cool air out in summer. They always make me think they are dangerous... sort of like people-strainers. I think I watched too many violent cartoons in my childhood.

Of course these gates would be in place with the ticket readers just for people coming in, though there would also have to be one-way gates on the exits to keep folks from sneaking in the back way.

I can see negatives to these gates. One of them is that with transportation - aren't we trying to reduce bottlenecks? It is the places like bridges and tunnels where traffic backs up as well of course as accidents. Isn't creating additional bottlenecks for the people using "rapid"transit a bit counterproductive? Especially when trying to lure drivers out of their cars.

But that aside, and aside the discussion on whether it is necessary to catch the actual less than 7% who are fare evaders. There are the issues about whether the actual evaders will not simply jump the waist high gates or duck under them. That leaves the more intrusive floor to ceiling ones that should be a lot more restrictive.

I look at the floor-to-ceiling option and wonder if it just wouldn't give a cold "you are entering prison" feeling - and not the softer newer prison either. A lot of how people feel in the city has to do with impressions like this which lead to issues of pride and that leads to things like levels of graffiti and littering and indeed to that of increasing or decreasing crime. Some people think that such security gates will increase safety, but I have read that the career pickpockets who work in groups all have paid fare receipts in places such as Paris and London where they have such gates in place. That lineups created by bottlenecks are places which are just great for criminals for doing things like picking pockets. I imagine that someone who intends something serious like terrorism would surely be willing to spring for a one way bus ticket.

I think there probably better ways to cope with fare evaders than the gates - though they also are speaking about smart cards which I am not so sure on either. With the smart cards you would scan your card both entering and exiting both train and bus which seems a bit counter-productive to me.

Later!
~ Darrell

__________
* No, our SkyTrain ALRT system isn't pulled by steam engines like the Hudson Class 4-6-4 CPR Empress, I just like to somehow tie my portrait for the articles with the theme of the article somehow. Our SkyTrain uses linear induction motors where the stator is built into the track and for the most part is elevated substantially above the ground. There are some stretches at grade and a tunnel and one underground section downtown. The newest line built in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics uses more conventional electric motors, but the next will be going for the linear induction motors. It also will have another long stretch underground.

77.

Space the Travelling Frontier

Who Should Foot the Bill?

When we travel around this world, we expect to pay our way, or if we are lucky have someone else pay it for us, but it does get paid for us one way or another. What about situations when a person needs special provisions for travel? Who should pay for those special provisions? Should those special provisions be accounted for in modes of transportation and at whose cost?

Let's take a very simple example - a person in a wheelchair. Our public transit buses have provisions for wheelchairs. The newer buses have low floors and can extend a ramp to the curb with little slope at all. There are two bench seats which fold up against the interior side of the bus and the first forward facing seats fold up for the wheelchair to be strapped in and anchored facing forward. It does mean in the best case that if there is one person in a wheel chair, they take up the same seat space as 4 or 5 passengers would and these also are the courtesy seats for the elderly or disabled. They also request that if in use that the front 10 feet of the aisle not be used for standing passengers and this would be room that perhaps 5 or 6 people might stand.

Do not get me wrong. I am not an ogre who thinks this is wrong or inappropriate. I am proud that our transit system makes allowance for people who are travelling in wheelchairs and in mobility scooters or with walkers. I am proud that there are buses designed to make it easier for the disabled and elderly to get on board whether they are using mobility aids or not. It is a welcome bonus that the same features make it so that strollers and baby carriages can be taken onto the buses easily - not to mention those two wheeled grocery carts and wheeled suit cases. People who do not have cars and can't afford cabs need to carry goods as well as themselves too. The level floor must also make things easier for those with arthritis and who are visually impaired*. (We also have on nearly all our buses bike racks that can be used at least during daylight hours. They allow increased range for those who wish to cycle.)

But I have sometimes wondered, and worried, especially when I was much larger than I am today - what about when I need to take up more than one seat. Do people think I should pay for two fares? I used to be large enough that it would be uncomfortable for others to share a two person bus seat with. I always tried to travel only in off-peak hours for that reason.

That line of thought continues for me when I go to get groceries. I have this two wheeled grocery cart. It allows me to carry groceries that would be too bulky and heavy for me to carry otherwise. But I really can't take it down the aisle of the bus and would have to sit in the front seats - the very same front seats that fold up for a wheel chair. I guess I feel guilty about it. I end up taking 2-3 seats.

Anyway that is something that happens and is a need for people who rely on transit.

Getting around town is something that most people would agree is a necessity. What about getting around the country or from country to country?

Do the disabled and elderly have a right to travel? Of course in many countries nobody actually has a "right" to travel and must get the proper documents to do so, but in those forward thinking countries that allow people to travel, should the disabled and elderly have the same right and should they be held back for financial reasons?

Let's consider travelling from one part of a country or large state or province to another. It might not even be a matter of a vacation sort of trip, but perhaps something of a legal nature? Perhaps flying to the capital for some reason. I am not going to make up a reason - let's just say the person in question has to be there and it is not a matter of being invited or requested by the government or a company so it can't be argued to be on their dime. For a person who needs a cane or walker, they have transporter chairs to get you in and out of a plane with little problem. I imagine for most who even require more extensive mobility aids short of respirators it would just be the logistics of making sure their chair is shipped safely to the destination or there are aides to take care of pushing them at the destination if they can not ship their chair.

That is good for short flights at least of up to an hour or two, or even three - but there is the call of nature. Even if they have a transporter chair they can take up the aisle of the plane to the washroom, most - to my knowledge - are not disability friendly. Do they have "handicapped" toilets on planes? Would a person have to rely on adult diapers and catheter for the flight?

Now flight attendants can do a lot and I imagine they are trained to handle a lot of contingencies. I know that whole rows can be converted for people who are essentially in hospital beds. I wonder who pays the extra cost for all the seats and for the conversion if it isn't a matter of using the plane as an impromptu air ambulance?

My question is, should the disabled passenger? Should the government? Should health insurance? Should the carrier as a part of civic duty and "cost of doing business"?

I can't answer that myself really. I do know that often it is the elderly and disabled that are on the lowest incomes and that they have the higher medical bills to begin with if those bills are not being paid for by health insurance or government plans.

There are a lot of things that can get complicated if you become disabled or always have been. I just was thinking about this one.

I am proud to live somewhere where they are trying to see towards transportation needs of all of us and where there is not a huge fight when the city wants to put in curbs at corners that a wheel chair can get up or audible pedestrian signals for the visually impaired.

Just food for thought.

Later!
~ Darrell

45

__________
*Apologies if I am not using the correct terminology.

Life On a Fragile Planet

Life - Elsewhere?

From time to time I hear fairly educated people talking about the importance of space travel and one part of there argument goes that right now we have all of our eggs in one basket - the Earth - and if there were to be a global catastrophe human life would disappear from the universe. They go on to say that with global warming that catastrophe may be coming and that we could be looking at "terraforming" Mars or Venus for mankind to call homes and thus avert this possible catastrophe.

Maybe I have just read too much, but I see some flaws in this. The first and biggest one is that the "terraforming" of Mars or Venus is a project many orders of magnitude greater than actually controlling any problems of global warming that we might have created unintentionally or that might be happening naturally and that with the Earth we are starting with something a lot closer to what we want to end up with than where we would be starting with Mars or Venus. That being said, it only speaks to the issue of space exploration in order to escape from the damages caused by global warming. Meaning that if we can terraform Mars or Venus - then surely we can cure the problems of global warming on the Earth.

Granted at some time in the future, we might want to spread our wings and spread humankind into space in the Earth-Moon system and beyond. Mars is a obvious candidate for we could with our current technology probably figure out ways to survive there. Venus might take a bit more for it would be like trying to set up camp in hell. I think the atmospheric pressures on Venus are like that of being deep undersea and the temperatures enough to melt lead in an atmosphere with enough of a sulphuric acid content to etch any metal you might have in your kitchen.

It would be simpler to create some sort of space colony than to live on Venus probably. Of course that is compared with converting the whole planet into another Earth. There is also a concept where you start by covering an area with a kilometre high dome and creating your biosphere under it and then gradually in a modular fashion expanding the area covered until potentially the whole planet is covered. That is called Paraterraforming or the "worldhouse" concept. Perhaps not with Venus, but perhaps Mars or even the Moon.

It does lead to questions like do we want to do something like convert Luna into another Earth? No longer would we have that creamy white or silvery white orb shining down on us, but would have a much brighter white and blue one potentially. We lose something to gain something. We do that every time a city expands.

Cities - which are most often built in a location where the farming was best - expand and most often cover up the adjacet farmland. You lose farmland when you gain residential and commercial land.

That is a lot like that expansion of mankind to a "New Earth" on the Moon. We lose the Moon and gain a New Earth.

The near future Moon missions planned by a number of countries of the world might lead to permanent colonies on the Moon which might in turn lead to thoughts on Paraterraforming the Moon. How much change to the appearance of the Moon are we going to be expected to accept? Should the general "man on the street"* have any say in it?

What of other places? How about "Earth Orbit"? The International Space Station is very visible from the surface of the Earth and in fact you can find charts and tables telling you when and where you might spot it flying overhead. I'm not sure but an observant person with a good set of eyes or binoculars might be able to even spot it during the daytime?

Will there be a time when the sky might be visually "crowded" where there will always be a number of objects flinging across the night sky - not unlike being near a major international airport at night? I rather enjoy watching planes go by, but there might be a time when there will be no place on Earth that one might escape that aspect of civilization without benefit of a cave or very steep mountain valley.

I don't know if we'll ever build cities in space - large rotating colonies where people can live in a shirt-sleeve environment essentially as if they were on the Earth. If they are in Earth-orbit they will be very visible. I wonder how safe we would ever be able to make them?

I wonder if we will have colonies on the Moon, Mars, and other Terrestrial and Ice Bodies of the Solar System? Will we have interstellar space colonies - which are travelling off to other stars where it will only be the decedents of the people who start off who reach them, and who essentially in the meantime are dwellers of the space between the stars?

I think that before we have the technology to terraform other planets, that same technology would allow us to save the Earth from any sort of runaway ecological disaster. But in the meantime I know we have to take care of our fragile planet. It is the only one we have.

Later!
~ Darrell

44.

__________
* Yes I mean the gender neutral "man" and in "humans" or "mankind".

Home

A Man's Home is His Castle! Right?

Isn't a man's, or a woman's home their castle? Shouldn't they be able to say what goes on in their home - within the laws of the country they reside in of course. I am not talking about them molesting children or even animals, or luring the postman in for tea and an evening of murder.

But what if the man, woman, or couple heterosexual or homosexual or asexual wish to actually build a small castle on that city lot next to yours?

Should they be allowed to build stone-by-stone a small castle complete with drawbridge and towers, just so long as it stays the requisite distance from the property line and doesn't endanger anyone by nature of being a fire hazard or anything along those lines. For argument's sake let's say the structure has electricity to code and proper plumbing - no oubliette, or dungeons for a WC or waste removal - but something approximately the size of the houses around it. Albeit with a crenellated walkway around the edge of a roof at the same height of the peaks of the surrounding homes affording a grand view of the scenery for miles around. Perhaps it might have a tower even higher.

In any case, should the neighbours have a say in whether such a structure could be built as a single family dwelling in their residential neighbourhood?

It sort of fits in with the idea about whether someone should be able to park an RV in their driveway in the front of their home or for that matter in the back if there is lane way access to the back yard. Or how about how many cars they can have or what percentage of the yard might be paved for parking cars.

It might be understandable if there is so much junk and clutter that it attracts rats, raccoons, and small bears, but if it were clean, organized and vermin free, what then?

Is someone's home their castle?

...perhaps, as long as they pay taxes and follow bylaws... stop paying taxes and discover who truly owns the land.

Later,

~ Darrell

City of Tomorrow

Living in the City of Tomorrow

Can you live in the "City of Tomorrow"?

I might ask this a few times in coming blog columns or articles or whatever you would call these. But today I think I will be focusing on living space and how you will be getting places to do the things you do every day.

Where will you be living in the city of tomorrow... well I can't speak for everyone so I will talk about many of the average people out there who will be either renting or buying lower priced living spaces. I am also going to use the City of Port Moody where I live here in British Columbia as an example. Your mileage may vary.

Here they are looking strongly at "densification" and doing so in ways that are controlled and in the ways that won't detract from living here. Densification means increasing the number of people living in an area without increasing the amount of area they take up.

Here it means a number of things based on what is important to the people. For one thing Heritage is important to the people of Port Moody so they wish to preserve the heritage features of Port Moody Centre. Port Moody Centre encompasses much of the original settlement of Port Moody from the time when the first Canadian Trans Continental Railway was completed with Port Moody being the Western Terminus. That means there are residential neighbourhoods and commercial neighbourhoods that are to be considered in the "Heritage Zone" to be protected in some manner.

There is also a residential development spreading up Eagle Mountain to the North called "Heritage Mountain" and "Newport Village" at the head of Burrard Inlet where the Civic Centre and a major density core has been developed. In addition there is "College Park" at the foot of Burnaby Mountain where Simon Fraser University is and "Ioco" another heritage site across the inlet.

Areas between the Civic Centre & Newport Village and Port Moody Centre's Heritage Zone will be filled with a combination of residential and retail construction. At the Civic Centre area in the east there will be a mix of High-rise and Mid-rise apartment buildings with commercial property and parking beneath them. Spreading westward along the south edge of the inlet and north of the railroad tracks, which were a major part of Port Moody's early growth, will be 3 - 5 story low-rise apartment buildings with commercial property at ground level. This follows the main arterial through the city. This continues with some older residential property to the south running up to a nature preserve running along the escarpment which marks the south edge of the city rising up to the city of Coquitlam. This older residential neighbourhood has some heritage quaility, but is not in the preserved zone it is contiguous with it though blending into to it to the west.

There we run into the Heritage Zone proper and many older homes on the heritage register. Between there and the railroad tracks are the commercial heritage buildings marking the original commercial centre of Port Moody. A bit further west and we reach the hillside running up first to College Park and then up Burnaby Mountain proper.

That gives a bit of background...

There will be some continued development up Eagle Mountain, but they don't want to just plough down the 100 - 300 foot tall Douglas Fir and Red Cedar growing on the mountain and ruining the natural ecology. The Heritage mountain development for the most part is single family dwellings. Newport Village is a combination of high-rises and mid-rises as mentioned and blends into more like I said reaching towards where a proposed rapid transit station is to be. The areas of single family dwellings off Heritage Mountain neighbourhood will be increased in density by allowing for secondary suites and for "Carriage Houses" in the yards off the lanes. Carriage Houses are garages and similar buildings built with secondary suites on a second floor or sometimes on the main floor too forgoing the garage aspect. It doubles the density of the property without sprawling it to additional property.

There will be incentive too for people subdividing larger property, but keeping in mind for some neighbourhoods that it is the very spacing of houses and trees between them that gives the feel to the neighbourhood.

So where will people be living? Many will still live in single family dwellings that they own. A much larger percentage will live in strata property like low, mid, and high-rise buildings - that is owning a part of that property like a condo or townhouse even. Some of those units will be put up for rent of course where allowed. But there also still will be rental apartments as well as those secondary suites in houses and carriage houses.

So for many they will get up in the morning in their cozy condo take an elevator down to the lobby and walk a few blocks to a transit station where they will travel by automated light rail transit to a location either near their work or a short bus ride from it.

Others will leave their home on the mountain and grab a community shuttle down to the transit station where they will meet up with the other travellers and continue on their journey.

There will be still others who will take there car in to work. Hopefully it will be fewer than has been and the improvements to the roads will help reduce travel times and thus reduce their fuel consumption in the ever more fue frugal vehicles.

I have heard that the suites in the high-rises are rather tiny compared to single family dwellings or even your typical townhouse. There is a price for living in the sky. My parent's townhouse is huge! It is quite functional, though perhaps larger than what they need right now.

I am not sure if the mid and low-rise buildings are the same for suite size?

I have been in a nice coach house in nearby Vancouver... of course this was a real coach house and you could still see the fittings for the posts that were used to tie the horses to. But it was a very nice sized cozy one-bedroom home. in the back of a Victorian house. I guess a hundred years ago most people at a certain level of affluence had their own horses and carriage. I guess I am meaning a bit over a hundred years, like pre-1905.

A friend of mine had a large property in what was to become the heritage area. He renovated a heritage house and converted it to suites to rent. He then built a garage with a 2 bedroom suite above and actually two commercial shops on the main level. Even as he was completing the commercial shops, he purchased and moved another one story heritage house from another lot - the house was slated to be destroyed so the now commercial property could be developed - onto that lot he was developing. He put in a new basement with a commercial space and rented the house as commercial property.

The city was happy to have two heritage buildings renovated - one saved from demolition - and four commercial properties added in addition. the property was underused and still has the great trees on it that were there from the beginning and a nice yard and room for lawns and gardens. My friend gets the revenue from the suites in the house and "barn" as wel as the commercial properties. It doesn't change the nature of the neighbourhood either as the property is on the edge of the commercial and residential area of the now Heritage zone.

People in the Heritage Zone will be for a large part within walking distance of a rapid transit station as well or on a short ride from a community shuttle to one.

For schooling, they are encouraging walking pools where a parent supervises groups of children walking to school rather than each parent driving their kid the short distance. (I still don't understand how kids can no longer walk to school?)

The commercial properties I kept mentioning on the lower floors of the buildings will have many functions including things like grocery stores. That means that people will be able to get many things they need by simply taking the elevator down and walking a block or two if that.

But... can you live without sitting in your car for between one and three hours a day? Now of course simply swapping sitting in a car for sitting in a train or bus is hardly so much of a bargain... But if you can get a chance to work in a commercial property within 15 minutes of home by public transit or walking? ... !

I think I might have too much to say and perhaps have tried to say too much here. I might try to speak a bit more directly to different points on this subject in future. For instance there are many who ar enot happy about the automated light rail transit coming through town.

Later!
~ Darrell