Implementing Walking and Cycling Policy in Ontario · Active Transportation Complete Streets 2005-...

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

Implementing Walking and Cycling Policy in Ontario

Neluka Leanage

Planner/Designer + PhD Student

Study Results and Directions

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

Outline

• Overview of Research Project

• Key Findings

• Implications

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

Project Overview

• Dr. Pierre Filion: leading expert, professor • Canadian cities

• urban form

• land use-transportation patterns

• Ontario Smart Growth Panel (pre-Places to Grow; nodes and corridors)

• Neluka Leanage: consultant, PhD student • policy, plans, designs, behaviour shift strategies

• active transportation, trails, parks, recreation

• engagement, user experience

• TCAT Steering Committee, 2008-2012

• 2 Other Grad Students

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

Project Overview

New Urbanism Smart Growth 1990s-

1970s-‘80s-

Late 1990s- Traditional Neighbourhood Design

Transit-Oriented Development

Active Transportation

Complete Streets

2005-

Planning Policies + Movements (Alternatives to Automobile-Dependency)

2010-

Active Environments (Public Health-Planning)

Pedestrian/Walking

Cycling

U.S.A.

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

Project Overview

Ontario Places to Grow and growth planning

Walking and cycling or active transportation (AT)

Institutional Policies

Planning Practices

Case studies Ontario, GGH Regions, municipalities 75+ in-depth interviews Planners, Decision-makers

Obstacles Failures

Successes Catalysts

Conditions

Do Things Better

Policies not translating into implementation • automobile-dependent planning and design = dominant

• alternatives = slow, inconsistent or lacking

Our Study:

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

Project Overview 7 Upper Tier Municipalities 18 Lower Tier Municipalities

5 GTHA Regions 3 Outer GTHA Regions/Counties

Source: Places to Grow, Ontario Government

Today: Toronto & GTA Municipalities

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

Key Findings: City of Toronto

Places to Grow/Provincial Growth Plan & AT? X Provincial policy not a factor or impetus • Not a necessary or sufficient condition in Toronto case • Provincial policy not doing enough; AT = afterthought

• Specific challenges with MTO

• Federal government absent

• Developers participating case-by-case

People, advocacy groups, private sector “ahead” of governments and policies

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

Key Findings: City of Toronto

Most needed to advance AT? • infrastructure • transit integration • political will • make it feel safe • education • supportive staff environment • supportive land use & street design (not ranked)

Approach/Status Quo/Lack of

Consideration

29%

Lack of Awareness/Training

18% Physical

Environment

11%

Funding 7%

Electoral Politics 7%

Transit funding & AT integration

7%

Other 21%

(multiple, single answers)

Obstacles to AT Implementation

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

Key Findings: Toronto Successes

Approach St. George Street approach and road diet

Priority Yonge-Dundas scramble (with caveats)

Transit Integration Finch bike station (vs. Downsview)

Neighbourhood New Urbanist design, Cornell, Markham

Street Dundas Street East road diet & bike lanes

Parcels Developer: pedestrian link instead of density incentive

Connection Waterfront pedestrian access at Jarvis-Sugar Beach

Safe Experience Waterfront Trail/Martin Goodman Trail

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

Key Findings: Toronto Conditions for Success

• Pre-war urban form = enabling environment

• Integrate AT at outset & with transit

• Pilot projects to get something going (but may be temporary)

• Leadership at political & senior bureaucratic levels

• Designating pedestrian & cycling priority areas

• Implement with supportive councillors & wards (follow the “yes”)

• “Right” staff & supportive staff environment

• Collaboration & flexibility (citizens, private, public, non-profit)

• Building new easier than retrofitting

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

Key Findings: GTA Municipalities

Places to Grow/Provincial Growth Plan & AT?

Provincial policy was a factor or impetus

• Provincial policy insufficient condition Federal Government absent Regional Government: significant tensions Developers respond if clear Local municipalities trying, policy helps, few supportive mechanisms to implement, challenged on all fronts

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

Key Findings: GTA Municipalities

Obstacles

• Regional municipality transportation planning

• Inter-regional economy & jobs

• Lack of transit connecting local to regional/network

• Physical environment & land use

• Piecemeal approach – reacting to funding, lobby

• Public acceptance/resistance

• Standards impeding professional & bureaucratic change

• Poor local level mechanisms & tools

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

Key Findings: GTA Successes

Awareness & Options • Smart Commute & Clean Air Commute • Downtown parking charges • Pilot seasonal shuttle services between

business park & restaurants

Transit Viva

Transit Integration Bike racks on buses

Neighbourhood New Urbanist design, Cornell, Markham

Safe Experience • Tom Taylor Trail & highway underpass • Other trails

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

Key Findings: GTA Successes

Conditions Places to Grow/Growth Plan directions

Being an Urban Growth Centre e.g., Brampton Queen St. Corridor

Provincial funding (e.g., Smart Commute, bus bike racks)

Regional transit development (with caveats)

Local strategies, official plans, master plans aligned with provincial policy

Local capacity to influence Regional Municipality

Benefits derived from alternative development e.g., Cornell value – example, infrastructure, taxes

Political champion e.g., Ajax mayor

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

Implications

Toronto • Early adopter of smart growth principles

• AT implementation & advancements prior to Places to Grow

• Outdated thinking still an obstacle at all levels, professions

• Needs levers & tools at different scales

GTA Municipalities & Suburban Areas • Smart growth principles (& Places to Grow) most relevant & helpful

• AT will be altered with land use change, transit & economy

• Tensions between local & regional municipalities need attention

• Local municipalities need more supports, mechanisms & tools

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

Implications

Policy Needs

• “lens” for systematic consideration with horizontal-to-vertical integration

• Departmental & bureaucratic standard in absence of relevant/despite existing road, fire, public works standards

• Scale- & context-appropriate transportation-planning direction

• Guidance at parcel-to-street-to-neighbourhood-to-network levels

• Incentives to deliver contextual, complete solutions (land use-transit/transportation)

• Carrots and sticks may be needed by province

• collaboration incentives

• Provincial teeth? (for lack of progress & accountability)

© 2014 Neluka Leanage

For More Information

• Neluka Leanage

• www.groundshift.ca

• Email: neluka.leanage@gmail.com

• Pierre Filion

• https://uwaterloo.ca/planning/people-profiles/pierre-filion

• Email: pfilion@uwaterloo.ca

• Places to Grow

• www.placestogrow.ca