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.

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.

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.

Grumpy Old Man - One Side Please

Making My Way... Out of the Elevator

I'm not coming out of the closet, but sometimes it can be difficult to come out of the elevator. ...bus, or rapid transit train. For some reason people can't grasp the concept that things move smoother if you give folks a chance to exit the "vehicle" before you enter.

An elevator is a confined space without much room to move around in. It is difficult to squeeze around people in the elevator and much easier to move around inside if you let the folks who are trying to get out -- get out -- before you try to enter the car. Standing nose against the door waiting for the elevator to arrive really doesn't help either. You don't really get onto the elevator any faster and if there are people trying to get off, you are simply getting in each other's way. If you merely step back a step or two from the doors while you wait, the people can get out and you can easily step in.

The same goes for getting on and off buses if the doorway is used for both entering and exiting. Here the front door is intended only for entering the bus with the exception of people who are in mobility aids; the elderly; and people otherwise who would have problems making their way to the back of the bus. During crowded times this can include people who simply are at the front of the bus and can not make their way through the standing crowds in the aisles to the rear exit doors.

Our rapid transit trains, the SkyTrain, has doors similar to those on elevators although larger amounts of people might be flowing through at any one time. If people only stand back a little bit from the train as the doors open, then people can exit simply and quickly and others can enter the train just as simply and quickly. Otherwise it is a packed jumble and people might even get caught on the train unable to exit before the train leaves the station. It gets even more complicated if people are trying to exit with a stroller, wheelchair, or mobility aid.

I have seen people with strollers and baby carriages line up with the front of the battering ram... I mean stroller nearly against the door so that nobody can get out and even make room so that same stroller pusher can get into the SkyTrain car.

So if people just stand back a couple steps when the doors open and allow people out, there will be room to slip into the elevator, bus, or train easily. So one side please, make room.

Later!
~ Darrell

108.

Grumpy Old Man - On the Buses

Front Seating, Invisible Disabilities, Elderly, Whippersnappers

The intrepid author has witnessed far too often, problems on the transit system when it comes to how the disabled and elderly are treated. The transit staff are not what I am talking about, I find they do a pretty good job and I find that things are constantly improving in regards to services within Metro Vancouver and I would hope in other cities as well. What I am referring to is the regard many citizens have for the seating set aside for people who may be disabled or otherwise have problems standing or walking on a moving bus.

I have watched young people taking up the front seats of the bus which are labelled for disabled or elderly passengers with no regard for those who might need them. The drivers can only do so much for them when the bus is full and they can barely see past the people standing in the aisles. It is okay for able bodied people to use those seats when they aren't needed, but the signs say they must be given up when the area is needed by the disabled, elderly, or when people in wheelchairs or mobility aids are riding on the bus.

I am not sure just what is up with these otherwise clean cut individuals. They just do not seem to care and they act like they are entitled to the seating - they payed their fare, they were there first, they get the seats.

...or that is what I thought until yesterday when after getting off a crowded bus I watched a couple of guys having taken up two of those front seats -- even while people with canes were standing with difficulty on the crowded bus -- literally dancing at the transit exchange.

After the fact I was wondering if they were even enjoying that they had taken up those seats? Perhaps they had other reasons that they were dancing and perhaps they were "ignorant" that they were doing anything wrong in the first place. I still would like to think that.

I realized something on the bus. There are many people with invisible handicaps and if you do see someone not getting up for someone else and giving up their seat -- they might be invisibly handicapped. I am not sure how appropriate it might be to ask someone who looks able if they are and using those seats unless you actually are the person in need of one of those seats... or you are asking for someone in need. When someone is entering the bus in a wheelchair or mobility scooter it is pretty obvious that those front bench seats will need to be folded up. I am not sure but I figure that any reasonable person who is fit would give up another seat for an elderly person who has to give up one of those seats for a wheel chair. But I am a bit steamed over totally fit young people who take up those seats without regard for others who need them.

I also know that often the people who need those "handicapped" seats are also those less likely to speak up and ask for them. They tend not to want to make a fuss and just want to go through life quietly. I know that is a generalization and it comes from anecdotal observational evidence, but it is what I have seen to be the case.

Somehow I think that when they refer to seating for disabled people they don't mean morally disabled or morally handicapped....

Later!
~ Darrell

105.

Ferret Better or Worst

Service and Assist Animals on Transit

To Assist or Not to Assist, That is the Question.

Gyno lost his transit pass last April for reasons that still haven't been made clear. Gyno (pronounced Gino - "JEE-no") is Frances Woodard's albino ferret. I nearly said "pet ferret" but Gyno (image to right being held by Ms Woodard -- image from Ottawa Citizen) is a working ferret that Ms Woodard uses to give her freedom of movement.

Gyno's duties are not those of a Guide Dog that most are probably familiar with or even another service animal such as might be seen leading a person in a wheel chair by helping to pull it or by opening doors for someone physically disabled. Gyno is the sort of assist animal whose work is a bit more invisible like a number of disabilities and handicaps also tend to be.

Here is a list* of the many types of service animals:

• Guide dogs (or dog guides) for persons who have visual impairments.
• Service animals (e.g., dogs, cats, monkeys, pigs) for persons who have physical disabilities.
• Hearing and signal animals (e.g., dogs and cats) for persons who are deaf or have hearing impairments.
• Seizure-response/alert animals (e.g., dogs, cats, birds) that alert individuals with seizure disorders to oncoming seizures and/or help the individual during and following the seizure.
• Emotional support animals (e.g., dogs and cats) that provide assistance for persons with severe emotional impairments or mental disabilities.

Dogs are by far the most common type of service animal. However, cats, pot bellied pigs, monkeys, and birds also are trained as service animals. Some dogs also are cross-trained to provide a combination of assistance, such as guiding a visually impaired person while pulling his or her wheelchair.

Granted that list is from the US, but it is a functional one rather than a legal one and so I think it is useful here. The ferret fits into the "Emotional support animals" category in that it provides emotional support to Ms Woodard when she is out of the comfort zone of her home. Having the ferret to focus on allows her to cope with the panic attacks of anxiety she would suffer. Petting and stroking it calms her down. The ferret is kept in a harness intended for the purpose and intended to be escape proof for a ferret and the ferret is to be kept in its carrying bag at all times while on the bus.

Ms Woodard went and got the proper pass to allow her to take the ferret on public transit last fall as a working animal. She has a note from her psychiatrist stating that "an assistance animal, specifically a ferret should accompany her at all times when she is in public, especially on transportation."** Ms Woodard also "had Gyno assessed by an animal-behaviour consultant in May and has a letter from that says Gyno is well-behaved and could not possibly escape from the harness he's put in when he's on the bus."**

The reason given for having given the pass was that it was at the discretion of the issuing officer based on her assessing on what was done in other jurisdictions across Canada while the reason given for taking it away states that what was done in other jurisdictions does not apply in Ottawa and that having the animal on public transit could pose a danger to passengers and driver for the reason of precautions that Ms Woodard had accepted as provision for her being able to use transit. IE if the driver or any passengers were allergic she would get off and wait for the next bus or train; the ferret would have to remain on the special harness for the whole journey and would have to remain in its special carrying bag.***.

Now considering that in other jurisdictions of cities the size of Ottawa and larger which allow animals -- and not even service or assist animals but simply pets -- on public transit as long as they are in appropriate cage or kennel that can sit on the patron's lap or at their feet -- without worry or concern for their drivers, why should this be such a problem in Ottawa?

This is from Vancouver's Translink's FAQ page on Using the System and whether you can bring an pet on public transit:****

Q Can I bring my pet on transit?

A Yes, in most cases. Pets including dogs, cats, rabbits and small fur-bearing or feathered pets are allowed, as long as they are in small hand-held cages. The container must fit on your lap or at your feet. We suggest off-peak times are best for travelling with your pet. The bus operator, at his or her discretion, may not permit your pet on board if there is a concern for the safety or comfort of your fellow passengers.

I wonder how much of the taking away of the pass has to do with a statement by the president of the union that represents the bus drivers, André Cornellier who said he doesn't think ferrets should count as service animals?

"Seeing-eye dogs and hearing-impaired dogs are recognized under the law, but I don't think a ferret is considered under the human-rights code," he said.

Personally I do not think that the driver's union should be steering this decision much but I suspect there is some weight behind that statement.

I also wonder if there is any connection to another article I read from Ottawa Sun News Columnist, Susan Sherring, "Pet issue dogs public transit" July 22, 2008? "There is a movement to allow dogs, cats, and other small animals on public transit."*****

The plan has the support of Mayor Larry O'Brien and is being put forward by the local chapter of the Responsible Dog Owners of Canada. The point they make is that if guide dogs are allowed on public transit, he can't see any reason "...that domestic pets should not be allowed on public transit under the right conditions"*****

I suspect that the bus drivers' union is not happy with other domestic animals being allowed on the buses in addition to the allowed guide dogs and this is being connected with assistance animals of sorts other than the traditional guide dog for the blind being allowed on the buses.

Of course that is being quite cynical about things. There are legitimate concerns about people with allergies and dangers to toddlers sticking fingers too close to snapping dogs or ferrets. There are moves being made to ban strong perfumes and colognes from public transit too for there are passengers and drivers with sensitivities to them... but wait... these are things to allow people with hidden disabilities -- allergies and asthma -- to ride public transit safely. Perfume and cologne are not aides to disabled people. Assist and service animals should have higher priority. There are times when someone with an assist animal might be asked to take the next bus perhaps due to driver allergy just as when the spaces reserved for movement aides are all in use.

In the U.S. you are not required to have certificate of training and in fact people can not ask you to produce it before providing service to you if you have an assist animal just as they can not ask you for paperwork proving whether you are disabled or not. That is regardless of whether or not the State has certification programs. Now we do have different laws, but there are reasons behind the American ones*. They do make some sense. There is reason to have certification for some sorts of service and assist animals, but others do not need the same sort of training. Some like the ferret in question mostly just need to be of good nature and in good harness. Their job isn't to look out for stray cars or missing stairways -- their job is just to help assure the bearer that all is all right. I hate to think what the stress of all this is doing to Ms Woodard.

Later!
~ Darrell

98.

__________
*"Assisting Passengers" RITA U.S. Department of Transportation | Research and Innovative Technology Administration -- National Transportation Library

**"Ottawa transit refuses to reinstate pet ferret's bus pass" Laura Drake -- Ottawa Citizen, July 23, 2008

"Ferret barred from Ottawa buses; disabled owner files complaint" CBC News, July 23, 2008.

***Link to a PDF file of the Letter from OC Transpo to Frances Woodard on May 6, 2008 on the CBC.ca site.

****"Can I bring my pet on transit?" Using The System, Frequently Asked Questions -- TransLink - South Coast British Coliumbia Transit Authority

*****"Pet issue dogs public transit" Susan Sherring, News Columnists -- Ottawa Sun, July 22, 2008

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.

Toot Toot - Make Way!

Make Way - Make Way!

Wow those electric bikes are neat! A fairly inexpensive one might cost $750 (CDN) and it would have a range of 30-40 km carrying around 91 kg at up to 25 km/h. (200lbs at 16 mph). You can charge it in 6-8 hours (6-8 hours ;-) ) for pennies and you can pedal to assist the range and enhance the performance. I was taking specs off of one sold by Daymak. It is their "Paris" model (on the left). That is a very bicycle looking electric bike. You could possibly put its 40-43 kg weight on one of our transit bus bike racks and take it with you on board public transit to extend its useful range - especially useful if there is a freeway bridge between you and destination even if it is well within your 30 km range. I am pretty sure there'd be little problem taking it onto our automated light rail tranport - SkyTrain - considering it is electric and little different in that aspect from an electric scooter or wheelchair.

They have ones that look more like Vespas and other scooters as well which I am a bit more intrigued by. The Smart E-Bike (on the right) is one I really like the looks of. The Smart E-Bike has the advantage of not only looking smarter, but it also has a braking system that puts energy back into the battery so that when you are coming to a stop at a traffic light or cruising down a hill you are not only saving power you are regaining some. There are trade-offs of course - the battery alone weighs 26 kg. I suspect there might be greater problems with getting permission to put the E-Bike on the bike rack of the public transit bus. It might still be possible to take it onto the SkyTrain, but there might be problems with that since it looks so much like its cousin, the gas powered Motor Scooter. It does travel a bit fster at 32 km/h (20 mph) and has a larger range of 80-100 km (50-60mi) so there is less need to drag it onto public transit... but still it wouldn't be allowed on a freeway and would you really want to be on it on a freeway?

Which brings me to the point of this all.

I was nearly run down this afternoon by someone walking their mountain bike down the apartment hallway. While they weren't riding it, between their elbows and the wide handlebars, there wasn't a lot of room for passing. That is what got me thinking, just where do alternate methods of transportation belong in our cities?

I frequently commute to and from the museum I volunteer at on foot. I walk the kilometre to and from it walking along the sidewalks and over an overpass that crosses the Canadian Pacific Railway mainline. The overpass is a bit older and so the sidewalks perhaps are not as wide as current ones tend to be, so when someone comes down it on bike or skateboard it can be a bit of a squeeze. It is an issue too if someone is running, pushing a stroller, using a mobility scooter, wheelchair, or even a walker. There is a need for people to be able to get from point-A to point-B and that means particularly people with strollers, baby carriages, mobility scooters, and wheelchairs. But there is also a need for ways for people on bicycles to travel safely and more of a need for folks with things like skateboards and roller blades because people are actually using these as modes of transportation.

Some of these things have had to play with cars for years. Many cities have had laws forbidding cyclists from using bikes on sidewalks with exceptions only for paperboys making deliveries and for small children's bikes. Many cities had bans on skateboards from both road and sidewalk to the consternation of boarders over the decades. It seems to me that a lot of those laws are not being enforced now or at least don't seem to be. I am often nearly forced to stand aside when I am crossing that railway overpass for cyclists, skateboarders, roller bladers, and runners. On wider sidewalks it is not so much an issue though some of the quicker traffic on the sidewalk don't seem to realize that they really don't fit in. As a driver I know how difficult it is to make allowances for someone coming down the sidewalk at roadway speeds. You can yield to a pedestrian easily enough, but you don't have time enough to yield to a hurtling bike or boarder. There are reasons why hedges and obsticals like them have to be a certain distance away from the corner. That is so you can see the quicker moving cars approaching. Slower moving pedestrians you don't need quite so much room to see so it is okay for bushes and such to be a bit closer to the sidewalk than the street.

So, where do alternate forms of transportation belong?

Many cities are putting together special bike routes to divide bikes from cars and some walking paths are being split to separate cycles from pedestrians. I think that in the natural order of things boarders and bladers have opted for the cycle side of things and strollers and carriages are on the pedestrian side. Electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters stick on the pedestrian side, though I have noted that some scooter users run their scooters in high gear which gives them a very high speed and they seem to expect special treatment on the sidewalk with everyone jumping to the side as they approach.

How many strata will future roads have? Today we have road and sidewalk with perhaps a sidewalk on both sides a parking lane on both sides with 2+ lanes of traffic. In future... two lanes for cycles might be added? Would boarders be welcome? What about electric bikes? What about low powered electric scooters? Some areas allow low power electric cars, essentially golf cart sorts of vehicles modified for street use with proper headlights and tail lights.

What about the Segway PT (on the left) and those two wheeled Razer scooters (on the right) and Razor Electric Scooters (on the right - green) and relatives of the earlier foot powered ones? (on the left - red) I imagine that some of the pedal powered vehicles like recumbent bikes would travel in bike lanes.

There are many forms of alternate transportation, but I think we shall have to think of just where they will fit in. I wonder if there is room for horse drawn chariots in this world? Make Way!

Later!
~ Darrell

61.

Metro-Vancouver Transportation

West Coast Express Train Ridership Up*

This year ridership on the commuter rail West Coast Express Train has been increasing rapidly. The commuter rail service that runs from Mission all the way in to Vancouver on week days is quite comfortable and relaxing. Compared with a daily driving commute – fighting traffic with the increased costs involved with record priced gasoline prices; the additional insurance; and the wear and tear on both vehicle and nerves – it is a pleasant alternative. It does cost more than the normal public transit system, but people find the trip which eventually ends up in down town Vancouver preferable.

The West Coast Express is run by Translink, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority and there are eight stops including the Vancouver Waterfront station. Five trains run into Vancouver from Mission in the morning and five trains run back from Vancouver to Mission. There is an additional run with a bus through the West Coast Express stations after the fifth train has left. There are stations in Vancouver, Port Moody, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows, Port Haney, and Mission City. Parking is available near or at the stations. Travel from Mission to Vancouver takes around 1 hour 10 minutes and from Port Moody to Vancouver in around 25 minutes which is very favourable if compared with rush hour traffic.

Later!
~ Darrell

__________
* I wrote this article a year ago for a paper and they decided not to use my work. I spent all day in the hospital with kidney stone problem and the night a day or o before under the weather because of it and so decided to post from my stock of articles. I hope to feel up to writing something fresh on the 'morrow.

50.

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.

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