Course:GEOG350/2024/Vancouver's road to smarter transportation

From UBC Wiki

By Ryan Law (98176969)

Introduction

What is a smart city? Is it a city filled with autopilot cars, or a city filled with robots that complete all the annoying tasks for us? The idea of smart city could be explained in many different ways. Batty et.al (2012) suggest that they are cities utilizing newly developed digital technologies to integrate ICT with infrastructures[1]. Currently, cities around the world are using a wide range of technologies to support citizens, buildings, traffic systems, and to analyze data for city planning, with the aim to improve quality of life[1]. Municipal planning policies, therefore, are actively being modified to accommodate for these advancements. Transitioning into smart cities, however, might also create and intensify existing problems in urban areas. Many are concerned that smart city technologies could increase income inequality, reducing job opportunities, negatively affect democracy, and invade privacy through collection of personal information[2]. With difficulties on balancing the positive and negative impacts smart technologies could inflict, it is therefore important to study how incorporating highly advanced technologies into cities would affect the social, economic and political aspects of urban areas, and explore how cities may proceed in transitioning to smart cities.

So how is Vancouver using these newly developed technologies? Vancouver and surrounding municipalities in the region, are actively exploring how the utilization of various smart technologies in cities could improve quality of life, tackle environmental issues, and reducing inequality. One contemporary issue that cities in Metro Vancouver are trying to improve is traffic congestion. According to Tomtom traffic index ranking in 2023, Vancouver ranked 32nd in average travel time per 10 km out of 387 cities included, and 4th in North America, with an average travel time per 10 km of 23 minutes and 10 seconds. This is a concerning 30s increase from 2022[3]. With the British Columbia provincial government aiming to further densify areas near transit hubs[4], municipalities in the province must strengthen transportation systems to tackle current congestion problems and also to accommodate for new developments. This chapter will focus on what Metro Vancouver is doing to incorporate technologies into improving transportation systems, by analyzing Translink’s RideLink mobile app pilot program. According to Translink, RideLink is a multi-modal smartphone app, is currently tested together with Modo, Evo, and Mobi by Rogers, and aims to integrate public transportation and shared mobility services in one place[5]. The following sections will give an overview of traffic congestion issue in Metro Vancouver, and discuss how the digital app RideLink connects to the social, economic and political aspects of the region.

Overview of issue/focus

Areas that suffer from serious traffic congestion problems are usually densely populated urban areas with high car ownerships, where road capacity is incapable of supporting traffic[6]. This is a daily problem in Metro Vancouver, affecting many people in getting around the region. In 2015, the estimated economic costs of congestion for residents in Metro Vancouver were $500 million per year, with an estimation to grow to 1 billion per year by 2045[7]. These included costs due to traffic delays and accidents. Dachis (2015) suggests that hidden costs including workers forgoing job opportunities and companies unable to recruit suitable candidates should also be considered, and estimate the hidden costs to be similar to or more than the visible economic costs[7]. Traffic congestion may also produce environmental problems. It is a main contributor of CO2 emissions, with traffic delays associated with it reducing productive activity of vehicles[8]. Improving transportation strategies to reduce traffic congestion is therefore crucial to improve economic productivity and environmental problems. On top of dealing with the ongoing traffic problems, municipalities in Metro Vancouver also need to account for the rapidly growing, large-scale developments in the region. The British Columbia provincial government published the Provincial Policy Manual: Transit Oriented Areas on May 29, 2024. The document was published to support local governments in complying with the amendments made in the Local Government Act and Vancouver Charter. The amendments were to establish Transit-Oriented Areas (TOAs), densifying areas adjacent to major transit hubs. The manual indicates that creating TOAs could provide alternatives in transportation modes, and help with integrating different transportation modes[4]. These new requirements from the provincial government further stresses the need to improve transportation to accommodate for new developments.

Translink historic ridership trend[9]

The issue of traffic congestion is not local to Metro Vancouver. Major cities around the world such as London, Stockholm and Singapore also face traffic congestion issues every single day[6]. Multiple methods are being implemented by these cities aiming to address traffic congestions, including congestion charging[6]. In the case of London, congestion charging initially returned decent results in reducing traffic delays. However, this decrease did not last, and congestion levels started growing again in the following years[6]. Metro Vancouver also studied congestion charging, with an independent committee assembled to evaluate different congestion charging scenarios in 2017[10]. The committee suggests that congestion charging on certain roads or time periods may eventually shift congestion patterns to other areas. The analysis on the charging scenarios also indicates the inequality that congestion charging may pose. All scenarios showed that congestion charges would take a higher percentage of annual income for lower income classes than higher income classes, even though the absolute charge would be lower for lower income classes[10]. Even in cities with good public transportation, such as Hong Kong and Singapore, where public transportation systems have extremely high usage rates and account for 90% and 67% of all motorized trips respectively, face traffic congestions[11]. Both cities also rely on high ownership costs and parking control to reduce car traffic congestions. Traffic congestion is therefore a problem many urban areas around the world face, and is an issue that is extremely difficult to address.

Although integrating good public transportation with micromobility options alone could not solve traffic congestion, it may be an effective way to mitigate traffic congestion by offering alternative methods for people to get to places, and also providing a solution for the first and last mile problem that public transit usually faces. Translink, Metro Vancouver’s primary public transportation operator, plays an important role in tackling these traffic issues. Translink reported 451.4 million boardings in 2019, and 390.3 million boardings in 2023[12]. This decrease may be largely connected to the COVID-19 pandemic, but may also hint at the preferential use of personal vehicles in Metro Vancouver. In order to encourage more people to choose public transit over personal vehicles, Translink has been testing new, innovative technologies to improve mobility in Metro Vancouver, including AI bus prediction pilot which uses artificial intelligence to predict bus departure and arrival times by calculating many different factors, and shared mobility programs such as the RideLink mobile app pilot. Translink’s shared mobility guidelines stated that shared mobility services could support people in completing their trips from public transit stations without the use of personal vehicles[13]. There are currently multiple mobility options including bikeshare and carshare available in Metro Vancouver, and the plan to incorporate digital technologies like the new RideLink app could connect these mobility options with public transit, by integrating payment, navigation and real time information into one single app. This may promote the use of multi-modal journeys and provide an efficient way to travel beside the use of personal vehicles. To support the pilot program, Kevin Quinn, Translink’s CEO, said that this app may be helpful in reducing personal vehicle reliance. Quinn also said that this app could assist to provide multi modal experiences in a more seamless way than now[5]. If this technology is deemed successful and officially implemented following the pilot program, then usage of public transit and shared mobility services may increase, and more infrastructures supporting this increase would be needed. Developers may be tempted to build around shared mobility services, or to negotiate with shared mobility companies to include stations near their developments. This may create a positive feedback loop, causing more and more people to opt for public transit and micromobility options instead of their high cost, high maintenance personal vehicles. However, implementation of this smart technology to improve traffic congestion problem could face many challenges, including population displacement, inequality, and policy restrictions.

To understand how smart technologies, specifically the digital app RideLink, could help Vancouver mitigate traffic congestions and transition to smarter transportation, a more detailed study of the technology and the Metro Vancouver region is required.

Case Study of the issue

The City of Vancouver states that expanding the city’s cycling network is crucial in their vision of sustainability and reducing traffic congestion[14]. Better cycling networks would provide good connections to major transit stations, and allow cyclists to reach public transit more conveniently. There are currently over 200,000 registered users of bikeshare and carshare in Metro Vancouver[5], and may continue to increase. 50% of Lime e-scooter users used the service to get to public transit stations, and Liu & Miller (2022) found that dockless e-scooters increases public transit accessibility in Columbus, Ohio[15]. These show that shared mobility options could be effective in complementing the use of public transit.  Through incorporating smart technologies like the RideLink app, Translink is looking to provide convenient, seamless way to switch between mobility options, in order to encourage multi modal transit use. The current RideLink mobile app pilot includes approximately 1300 participants, and will run for 12 months. Participants will provide feedbacks to Translink, before Translink plan for upgrades and consider permanent public usage[16]. Since this is currently ongoing, no data is available to public as of now. However, looking back at Translink’s Shared Mobility Pilot in 2019, which involved integrated billing through compass card to access carshare and bikeshare services, Translink reported that 60% of participants reduced personal vehicle use for business related travels with public transit, bikeshare or carshare, and 56% tried a new mode of transportation and/or started combining different transportation modes. Translink also reported that 6 out of 10 participants preferred to have an app for trip tracking, planning or booking[17]. This data may suggest that the Ridelink app could tackle this issue in the Shared Mobility Pilot, and potentially encourage more people to integrate public transit with shared mobility services.

The Social Aspect

If the RideLink app is successful in attracting people in Metro Vancouver to integrate public transit with shared mobility services, then more people may give up on their personal vehicles, changing the habits of a lot of people in the relatively car-oriented Metro Vancouver. People may be more active as they would walk more than when driving, and may affect how people interact with their surroundings. Areas close to bikeways, bike and carshare service stations may become more attractive for developers, as they may attract buyers that use transit and shared mobility service. Increasing amounts of developments surrounding these locations may lead to gentrification. Leszczynski and Kong (2023) suggest that platform bikeshare infrastructures connect to gentrification by theorizing that bike share stations visually appear to people as processes of urban space restructuring in Vancouver[18]. Leszczynski and Kong (2023) also supported their argument by pointing out that many bike sharing infrastructures in Vancouver are located in close proximity of multiple new developments and proposed redevelopments[18]. Gentrification of these areas may introduce new businesses and population into these areas, further complementing the usage of public transit and shared mobility services, creating positive feedback. However, this may also lead to displacement of population. Leszczynski and Kong (2023), referring to Falstreau (2017), report that a Latino community in San Francisco was against the installation of bike sharing stations as they believe that these may increase gentrification and cause Latinx residents to be displaced[18]. This might be applicable to Metro Vancouver, with the region famous for being multi-cultural. This technology and the infrastructures associated with it may increase accessibility to public transit, and by improving public transit access, they could also improve access to different opportunities and services. However, they may benefit certain groups of people more than others. In Zurich, Switzerland, shared micromobility users tend to be well educated young male adults that are employed full time[19]. Assuming similar user demographics in Metro Vancouver, people with disabilities who could not use shared mobility services, older population that are unable to use newly developed technologies may not be able to benefit from smart technologies like the RideLink app as much as others, thus potentially impact their opportunities and create a problem of social inequality. The potentially uneven spatial distribution of various mobility options may also increase spatial inequality. Furthermore, this may invade privacy as personal information and travel patterns could be collected, like in Google Maps. Sensitive information could easily be exposed if security is not done well.

The Economic Aspect

Successful implementation of the RideLink app may encourage both public transit use and shared mobility services use. This could positively impact the public transportation sector and bring in huge profits for companies offering shared mobility services in the region. Increased usage of micromobility options and walking may also cause people to explore and purchase from local stores more often than when drivers travel to their destination without ever discovering what is around them. Developers might be able to profit from the success of this technology as well. Areas with bike and carshare stations within TOAs may be particularly attractive to developers, as municipal governments can no longer require residential off-street parking within TOAs as stated in the Provincial Policy Manual: Transit-Oriented Areas. The manual indicates that residential off-street parking can increase costs for developers and thus reduce affordability of residential units. Developers may be attracted by lower building costs due to no longer being required to build residential parking, and by proximity to bike and car share stations providing good transit connections. Lower building costs encourage developers to invest in Metro Vancouver, and developers might be able reduce costs to attract more buyers, making residential units more affordable than now. All these may bring in investments and job opportunities, and drive economic prosperity of the region. However, utilization of this technology may also produce economic inequalities. Many scholars claim that smart city technologies would increase income inequality as these technologies often involve large ICT companies cooperating with municipalities, putting small companies into further disadvantage[2]. There’s not a lot of information on the developers of the RideLink app though, so whether or not this is the case for this app will require further research. The inclusion of only a few mobility services in RideLink app may also put other mobility service companies such as Lime and Neuron into disadvantages, affecting their operations in the region. Shared mobility services are often expensive to use, which may cause these services to privilege the higher income population more than lower income population, discouraging lower income population to use these services[15]. However, several research indicate that smart city may not affect income inequality in the way that the critics suggest. Caragliu & Del Bo (2022) found that higher levels of smart technologies in urban areas are linked with lower income inequality[2]. Yang et.al (2024) studied the association between smart city constructions and inequality in China, and found that smart city constructions have a positive effect in reducing urban inequality[20].

The Political Aspect

Policies in British Columbia produce huge challenges for multi modal transit integration. The effectiveness of RideLink app to provide seamless services would highly depend on the politics around the region. Currently in British Columbia, municipalities have the authority to negotiate with shared mobility service operators and select which companies, if any, are allowed to operate within the municipalities. Municipalities planning to incorporate shared mobility services allow contractors to submit proposals and evaluate which companies best fit the municipality. The regional council, Translink, and the provincial government would not interfere with the municipality’s decision. This is the reason why Evo car share did not allow users to end their trip in Burnaby until early 2024, when the City of Burnaby finally made amendments to their bylaw to permit car sharing companies such as Evo and Modo to operate[21]. Many other municipalities in Metro Vancouver are in similar situation as Burnaby. Richmond does not allow Evo vehicles, and West Vancouver only allows car share users to end their trips in certain zones. Several factors might influence each municipality’s decision on permitting car share, such as parking spaces, resident concerns etc. Micromobility services also face similar problems, where municipalities have the authority to allow or deny certain micromobility services from entering. This is the reason why Lime is operating only in 5 municipalities in Metro Vancouver, and Neuron only in Coquitlam. Municipalities also have different policies on e-bikes and e-scooters, with some municipalities such as West Vancouver, City of North Vancouver, and District of North Vancouver only allowing Lime e-bikes to operate, but not Lime e-scooters, while Coquitlam and Richmond allow Lime e-scooter use. North shore municipalities such as West Vancouver have to consider the safety concerns of riding e-scooters on steep roads due to their landscapes, therefore not permitting Lime e-scooter use as of now.

So how would these decision-making policies affect the RideLink app, and vice versa? To create a truly seamless multi modal network in Metro Vancouver via the RideLink app, the app would need to incorporate all mobility services into the app, not just the companies that are currently included. Mobi by Rogers only operate in Vancouver, and car sharing companies have no parking zones, this would cause poor multi modal connection outside of Vancouver, not only discouraging people outside of Vancouver to use the app, but also defeating the purpose of this app. Second, not all mobility service companies are allowed in each city. If one city approves a certain operator to operate e-scooters, and the neighboring city only allows another, then it would create a disconnection. Lime services are only allowed in the town centre area of Coquitlam[22], and the e-scooters would stop running if you cross the boundaries or enter “no go zones”[23]. Users may not be able to get to their destinations because of this restriction. The app could only be seamless if users are able to select their preferred mode of mobility services to get to every destination, so having these disconnections due to municipal decisions would reduce the effectiveness of the RideLink app. Thirdly, many municipalities are only allowing shared mobility operators to enter for a period of time. Municipalities sign contracts with operators to allow them to operate throughout the contract length to test out the effectiveness of their services. Municipalities would evaluate their services and decide if they would continue with the same operator, or switch operators. This again, may cause disconnection in the multi modal network. Different operators may set up their stations or dockless growths differently, and frequent change in operators would create inconvenience for users. The new operators may or may not be a part of the RideLink app, and the mobility network in the RideLink app may be destroyed as a result. Inconsistency in municipal decision making may arise from personnel changes, resident concerns etc., and might make or break the usefulness of the RideLink app.

If the RideLink app were to achieve huge success and popularity, then it might affect municipal decision making. The app’s convenience may cause shared mobility users to pressure municipal governments to improve infrastructures and connectivity to accommodate shared mobility services. Municipal governments may then give priorities to shared mobility services that are included in the RideLink app.

Lesson learned

The huge amount of both positive and negative effects that the RideLink app could have on the social, economic and political aspects of Metro Vancouver highlight the difficulties of smart city constructions. Smart city technologies are more likely to cause lower level of urban inequality in Metro Vancouver if implemented well, as several studies found positive impacts of smart city constructions on inequality. An app like RideLink could be a good way to improve this long-standing problem of traffic congestion for urban centers around the world. It is therefore very important for levels of governments to consider conducting studies and adjusting policies to ensure that smart transportation technologies could mitigate traffic congestion while limiting inequalities that they may cause.

Social Considerations

Translink would need to ensure security of the app to avoid personal information to fall under wrong hands. Translink could integrate HandyDart services with other mobility options to reduce inconvenience for people with disabilities, providing information and guidance on multi modal transit at transit stations for seniors to limit the inequality that RideLink app could produce.

Economic Considerations

With the contrasting ideas and findings on the economic impacts smart technologies could have, authorities in Metro Vancouver would need to be cautious of the economic impacts when implementing smart technologies like the RideLink app. Translink should negotiate with all shared mobility service operators and convince them to join the RideLink app. Most mobility operators already have their own digital apps, and whether they would agree to join the app may depend on the costs they could save on app maintenance and the amount of customers they could gain from RideLink. Metro Vancouver may consider strategies to actively engage grassroot communities and vulnerable groups[20] to use shared mobility services and the RideLink app, such as providing different cost options in RideLink for users, allowing users to select their mode of transportation based on the fees needed. This may also be effective in creating competition between shared mobility companies, and encourage these companies to provide competitive prices for their services in order to attract users.

Political Considerations

The impacts of the policies on the success of the app are highly hypothetical, yet should be paid serious attention to. Different levels of governments should consider the best way to create a seamless multi modal services. Although extremely unlikely to happen, decision on shared mobility operators should at least be made on a regional level instead of municipal level, in order to better connection to different destinations. Translink might be a good organization for this type of decision making as they run most of the region’s public transportation. Municipalities would also need to be consistent in the modes of mobility allowed, to increase convenience. Consistency of multi modal transportation in the region is the key for smart transportation technologies like the RideLink app to succeed.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Batty, Michael, et al. "Smart cities of the future." The European Physical Journal Special Topics 214 (2012): 481-518.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Caragliu, Andrea, and Chiara F. Del Bo. "Smart cities and urban inequality." Regional Studies 56.7 (2022): 1097-1112.
  3. ↑ “Traffic Index Ranking: Tomtom Traffic Index.” Traffic Index Ranking | TomTom Traffic Index, 18 Apr. 2024, www.tomtom.com/traffic-index/ranking/.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Provincial Policy Manual: Transit Oriented Areas - Gov.Bc.Ca, www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/tools-for-government/local-governments-and-housing/toa_provincial_policy_manual.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2024.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 “TransLink Testing New Multi-Modal Smartphone App.” Home, www.translink.ca/news/2024/february/translink%20testing%20new%20multi-modal%20smartphone%20app. Accessed 2 June 2024.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Metz, David. "Tackling urban traffic congestion: The experience of London, Stockholm and Singapore." Case Studies on Transport Policy 6.4 (2018): 494-498.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Dachis, Benjamin. "Tackling traffic: The economic cost of congestion in metro Vancouver." CD Howe Institute eBrief 206 (2015).
  8. ↑ Chin, Anthony TH. "Containing air pollution and traffic congestion: transport policy and the environment in Singapore." Atmospheric Environment 30.5 (1996): 787-801.
  9. ↑ “Ridership.” TransLink, www.translink.ca/plans-and-projects/data-and-information/accountability-centre/ridership#historic-ridership-trend. Accessed 24 June 2024.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 King, Fearghal, TransLink Adrian Lightstone, and W. S. P. Toronto. "Innovative Methods Towards Building and Evaluating Congestion Charging Scenarios: The Case of Metro Vancouver." Canadian Transportation Research Forum 54th Annual Conference-Change, Disruption and Innovation in Canadian Transportation: Navigating the New Normal//Changements, perturbations et innovations dans les transports au Canada: Sur la voie de la nouvelle no. 2019.
  11. ↑ Luk, James, and Piotr Olszewski. "Integrated public transport in Singapore and Hong Kong." Road & Transport Research 12.4 (2003): 41.
  12. ↑ “Ridership.” TransLink, www.translink.ca/plans-and-projects/data-and-information/accountability-centre/ridership. Accessed 2 June 2024.
  13. ↑ Shared Micromobility Guidelines - Vancouver, www.translink.ca/-/media/translink/documents/plans-and-projects/programs-and-studies/translink-tomorrow/shared_micromobility_guidelines.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2024.
  14. ↑ Vancouver, City of. “Cycling in Vancouver.” City of Vancouver, vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/biking.aspx. Accessed 24 June 2024.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Liu, Luyu, and Harvey J. Miller. "Measuring the impacts of dockless micro-mobility services on public transit accessibility." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 98 (2022): 101885.
  16. ↑ “Translink Tomorrow.” TransLink, www.translink.ca/plans-and-projects/programs-and-studies/translink-tomorrow. Accessed 24 June 2024.
  17. ↑ “Shared Mobility Pilot Final Report.” TransLink, www.translink.ca/resources/translink/plans%20and%20projects/programs%20and%20studies/translink%20tomorrow/shared_mobility_pilot_final_report_2021_01_27. Accessed 2 June 2024.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Leszczynski, Agnieszka, and Vivian Kong. “Walking (with) the platform: Bikesharing and the aesthetics of gentrification in Vancouver.” Urban Geography, vol. 44, no. 4, 2023, pp. 773–795, https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2022.2036926.
  19. ↑ Reck, Daniel J., and Kay W. Axhausen. "Who uses shared micro-mobility services? Empirical evidence from Zurich, Switzerland." Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 94 (2021): 102803.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Yang, Zhen, et al. "Aggravating or alleviating? Smart city construction and urban inequality in China." Technology in Society 77 (2024): 102562.
  21. ↑ “Burnaby Paves the Way for Car Sharing in the Community.” Burnaby Paves the Way for Car Sharing in the Community | City of Burnaby, www.burnaby.ca/our-city/news/2023-11-17/burnaby-paves-way-car-sharing-community. Accessed 24 June 2024.
  22. ↑ “E-Scooter Pilot Project.” E-Scooter Pilot Project | Coquitlam, BC, www.coquitlam.ca/1229/E-Scooter-Pilot-Project. Accessed 24 June 2024.
  23. ↑ Navigating Riding and Parking Zones, help.li.me/hc/en-gb/articles/360040206933-Navigating-riding-and-parking-zones. Accessed 25 June 2024.
This resource was created by Ryan Law.



Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:GEOG350/2024/Vancouver%27s_road_to_smarter_transportation&oldid=841183"