How do Modes of Transportation Decision-Making vary across

Distance, Commute Time, and Accessibility to Downtown, Vancouver ?

Sarah Hooker & Ping Na Huang

Introduction Urban sprawl is a common problem many urban cities currently face. Urban sprawl is a

force that causes individuals to move into regions further away from the city’s urban core. While

urban developments bring many positive attributes, there are also a lot of local challenges

created as well such as high-density living arrangements, increase in population density, and

emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). Typically, the communities that are removed from the

urban core become car dependent and have less access or incentive to use other modes of

transportation that can emit less GHGs such as walking, biking, or taking public transportation.

However, growing demands for accessibility and comfort force cities to raise the

competitiveness of other modes of transportation within urban communities (Poudnex, 2008).

Aside from lower GHG emissions, choosing other modes of transportations such as

walking, biking, or public transportation can have many other positive effects on the overall

health of an individual and the city. A recent study has shown that cities that encourage residents

to choose walking or non-motorized individual transportation tend to have positive effects on the

overall health of the city (Frank et al., 2015). Public transportation allows a growing urban area

to develop a diverse and active lifestyle that is accessible to a greater number of individuals at a

time (Vuchic, 2002). Increases in physical activity have shown potential for improving the health

of populations specifically for obesity and diabetes in cities such as Calgary and Toronto (Frank

et al., 2015). Furthermore, in regions where walking or biking is a less viable option, studies

have shown that the use of public transit has still proven to have positive effects on the health of

a city, as the usage of public transit will still require an individual to engage in some physical

activity (Lachapelle et al., 2011). The distance from an individual’s home, place of work, and

transit location will require an individual to either walk or bike forcing an increase in their

physical activity (Lachapelle et al., 2011). Driving does not allow for this added activity and

positive results.

Drawing on this further, social dynamics have become a large factor when considering

the sustainability of a city (Hannam et al., 2006). The mode of transportation chosen by an

individual can affect their social well-being and connectedness to the community and city. Nixon

(2014) found that transportation technologies can have an effect on the senses of social

connectivity a commuter may feel in the city of Vancouver. For instance, modes of

transportation that isolates an individual, such as driving, will lessen their connection to their

surround environments, leaving the commuter with a sense of “alienation” (Nixon, 2014). A

sense of belonging and connectedness are important factors to consider while building a

sustainable and healthy city.

With the deadline of being the Greenest City in the world by 2020, the City of Vancouver

(COV) are focusing on goals that reduce GHG emissions, improve the walkability and design of

neighbourhoods, and increases the use of ‘green’ transportations such as walking, biking, and

public transportation (Vancouver (B.C.), 2012). As urban sprawl is not an exception to

Vancouver, the city’s rapidly growing population and greater areas being redeveloped for high-

density living, the need to improve the public transportation system, traffic congestion and roads,

and walkability of neighbourhoods are at their tipping points. It was reported in the Greenest

City Action Plan, 37% of Vancouver’s GHG emissions are from transportation (Vancouver

(B.C.), 2012). This number was found to be alarming to many of Vancouver’s planners, which

pushed the improvement and redevelopment of green transportation within the city.

According to the Greenest City Action Plan, Vancouver has created goals to make

walking, cycling and public transit make up over 50% of trips taken (Vancouver (B.C.), 2012).

Vancouver acknowledges that these alternate forms of green transportation needs to become

safer, more accessible, affordable, and enjoyable for the communities (Vancouver (B.C.), 2012).

In 1997, 62% of Lower Mainland residents believed that the transportation system in the Lower

Mainland is going to get worse (Lim, 1997). Studies have shown that safety is a large factor that

contributes to an individual's decision to walk (Macdonald, 2007). It was reported that 60% of

individuals in Vancouver admitted to be more willing to use public transportation oppose to

driving if there were improved services (Vancouver (B.C.), 2012). Smaller, yet equally

significant, advancements towards sustainable transportation involve recent developments in

bike route planners. Online bike route planners assist planners to find where development of bike

routes need to occur for more efficient routes for bike users (Su et al., 2010). Moreover,

Lachapelle et al. (2011) found that in many areas, socio-demographics, income, car availability,

walkability and overall neighborhood design are significant factors that influences the decisions

of commuters.

Currently, there is limited data in the scientific field regarding these factors the influence

a commuter’s choice of mode of transportation. While data regarding preferences of

transportation within Canada are somewhat limited, we will use COV census data and Google

Maps in hopes to answer the following questions: “What is the most common mode of

transportation chosen in Vancouver neighbourhoods and how does that vary across commute

times?” and “How does accessibility and distance to public transportation and bikeways affect

their decision-making?”. We will investigate the possible relationship between Vancouverites’

choice of transportation to work and their commute times with other alternative transportation

methods, as well as, whether greater accessibility to public transportation and bikeways will lead

to greater number of individuals taking these alternative transportation options.

Data & Methods Study Site

Our analysis is in Vancouver, British Columbia with the focus on neighbourhoods set out

by the City of Vancouver. These neighbourhoods are defined as the 22 local planning areas in

the City of Vancouver, where individual neighbourhoods are acknowledged for their distinct

culture and character such that each local planning area would have its own page on the COV

website with community-specific information on local services and amenities, new projects and

initiatives, and a calendar of events (Vancouver (B.C.), 2014). The process of analyzing all local

planning areas provides great variations in income, ethnicity, age demographics, occupations,

mode of transportation choices, and connections to bikeways. For our analysis, we will be

focusing on the last three subjects: occupation, mode of transportation choices, and connections

to bikeways. These 22 local planning areas are: Arbutus-Ridge, Downtown, Dunbar-Southlands,

Fairview, Grandview-Woodland, Hastings-Sunrise, Kensington-Cedar Cottage, Kerrisdale,

Killarney, Kitsilano, Marpole, Mount Pleasant, Oakridge, Renfrew-Collingwood, Riley Park,

Shaughnessy, South Cambie, Strathcona, Sunset, Victoria-Fraserview, West End, and West Point

Grey (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Map showcasing Vancouver's 22 Local Planning Areas.

Data Sources

Data sources for our analysis was acquired from Statistics Canada of COV Local Areas

2006 retrieved from the COV’s website. From the excel data file, we were able to retrieve only

the necessary data for our analysis which included: the total labour force 15 years and over, the

distribution of occupations of the labour force 15 years and over, the total employed labour force

15 years and over by mode of transportation, and the distribution of the various modes of

transportation of total employed labour force 15 years and over. Furthermore, we acquired

shapefile data of the boundaries of the 22 local planning areas, bikeways, rapid transit routes and

the major skytrain stops from the COV Open Data catalogue. We collected commute times and

distances of driving, biking, walking, and taking public transit and from Google Maps of the

various 22 local planning areas to Downtown Vancouver and their distance to the nearest

skytrain station from each local planning area.

Analyses

After retrieving the necessary data we began our analysis by converting the raw data from

the 2006 census to a double field type for it to be compatible for mathematical analyses in

ArcMap. We joined the attribute tables of the shapefile of the local planning areas’ boundaries

with the 2006 census table. We then created new fields in ArcMap for calculations to determine

the percentage of those who drove, biked, walked, took public transportation, or other modes of

transportation to work corresponding to each individual local planning areas. To synthesize our

raw data, we grouped individuals that took motorcycle, taxicab, and other methods as our ‘other

modes of transportation’. Not only that, we grouped together individuals that was the driver in a

car, truck or van and those that were a passenger in a car, truck, or van as our ‘drivers’. The

percentages were computed by dividing the mode of transportation choice by the total employed

labour force of 15 years and over and multiplying by 100. This was done across all local

planning areas. In addition, we calculated the mean and variance across all local planning areas

in Vancouver for each mode of transportation to investigate a possible trend in commute times.

Next, we wanted to know which local planning areas contained the most business-related

occupations. Our criteria for a business-related occupation were those that held management

occupations, business, finance, and administration occupations, education and government

services occupations. We computed the percentage of business-related occupations by dividing

business-related occupations by the total labour force of ages 15 years and over and multiplying

by 100. This was done for all 22 local planning areas.

Lastly, we wanted to determine the total area of bikeways within each boundary of the

local planning areas. This was completed through a spatial join between the shapefiles of the

bikeways and the boundaries of the local planning areas, where the sum of the bikeway line

features were computed for each local planning area.

After all computations were done, we are able create maps by overlaying the boundaries of the

local planning areas with the rapid transit routes and stops, along with new fields of computed

data: percentages of individuals who drove, biked, walked, took public transportation, or other

modes of transportation to work, the percentages of business-related occupations in each local

planning area, and the total area of bikeways present in each local planning area.

Results Car

From analyzing the percentage of individuals that drive to work in Vancouver

neighbourhoods, we found that the greatest percentages were in: Dunbar Southlands 76%,

Shaughnessy 76%, Arbutus Ridge 77%, Kerrisdale 75%, and Oakridge 75% (See Figure 2).

These neighbourhoods tend to be further away from Skytrain stations, meaning their access to a

rapid transit route is more limited. For example, Dunbar Southlands is 5.8 km away from the

nearest Skytrain Station and Kerrisdale and Arbutus Ridge is 3.5 km away from the nearest

Skytrain Station. However, from analyzing driving and public transit commute times to

Downtown at 8am for work, both commute times were relatively close with public transit being

4 minutes longer. For example, it takes 14 minutes to drive to Downtown from Arbutus Ridge,

while public transportation takes 18 minutes.

Figure 2. Percentages of Vancouver Labour Force Choosing Driving as their Mode Of

Transportation to Work. The darker the red colour, the higher the percentage of those choosing

to drive to work. These neighbourhoods include Dunbar Southlands, Shaughnessy, Arbutus

Ridge, Kerrisdale, and Oakridge.

Public Transportation

When observing the usages of public transportation we also analyzed the location and

routes of the rapid public transportation. Usage of public transportation was highest in regions

that were within a close vicinity of major public transportation routes and the sky train.

Examples of this trend are Mount Pleasant, Grandview-Woodland, Downtown, Strathcona and

Renfrew-Collingwood (See Figure 3). Within each of these regions the commute times of

vehicles compared public transportation differ by a maximum of 10 minutes. Renfrew and

Collingwood is the only exception where public transportation is a fast commute option. This

could be due to the fact there are five Skytrain stations within that particular region of the city.

Figure 3. Percentages of Vancouver Labour Force Choosing Public Transportation as their Mode

Of Transportation to Work. The different shades of orange within this map display the ranges of

individuals who choose to use public transportation as a main mode of transportation to work.

The darkest regions represent the areas with the highest usages of public transport. These areas

include Mount Pleasant, Renfrew-Collingwood, Strathcona, and Grandview Woodland. The

lightest regions display areas with less individuals using this method.

Bike

From our analysis of individuals choosing bike as their mode of transportation to work,

we found that majority of Vancouver neighbourhoods do not bike to work, with all percentages

of biking to work being under 10% (See Figure 4). The areas that had the highest bike ridership

to work were Mount Pleasant 10.62%, West Point Grey with 9.61%, and Kitsilano with 7.12%.

We found that areas with the least amount of bike ridership also had the greatest bike commute

time to Downtown. We also wanted to examine a relationship between high area of bikeways

and greater number of individuals choosing to bike to work. We found that there was not a

significant linear trend in having greater area of bikeways affecting people’s decision-making to

bike to work (See Figure 6). For example, in the Mount Pleasant neighbourhood, there were

10.62% of bikers but only 27.14km2 of bikeways present in the neighbourhood, as opposed to

the Downtown neighbourhood, where only 1.96% of individuals bike to work but the

neighbourhood contains 81 km2 of bikeways, the highest density of bikeways.

Figure 4. Percentage of Bikers to Work in Vancouver Neighbourhoods. Across all

neighbourhoods, bike ridership is fairly low. The greatest bike ridership neighbourhoods are

Kitsilano, West Point Grey, and South Cambie.

Figure 5. Graph of the percentage of bikers in 22 Vancouver neighbourhoods vs. the total area of

bikeways present in each of those neighbourhoods, with a linear trend line. It was found that

there was no significant linear trend for the increase in total bikeways in a neighbourhood to

increase the bike ridership in that neighbourhood.

Walk

Based on the census data, residents who chose to walk to work were typically living

closest to the downtown core (See Figure 6). 38-40% of individuals living in the West End,

Downtown and Downtown Eastside consistently choose to walk to work. It can be concluded

that the social organization within the local areas are designed to encourage walking and have

superior design for walking compared to neighborhoods such as Killarney or Dunbar Southlands.

Figure 6. Map showcasing the percentages of labour force choosing to walk to work. Most

concentration of walking to work is located near the Downtown Core. These neighbourhoods

include: West End, Downtown, and Strathcona.

Other Modes of Transportation

From our analysis, using other modes of transportation in getting to work is not very

prevalent in Vancouver neighbourhoods. The top neighbourhoods that use other modes of

transportation, like taxi-cabs, car sharing applications, and motorcycles, in getting to work were

Downtown, Strathcona, Shaughnessy, and Grandview-Woodland, all below 2.5% (See Figure 7).

These neighbourhoods were located very close to the Downtown core, except for the

neighbourhood of Shaughnessy being an outlier.

Figure 7. The neighbourhoods where the labour force chooses other modes of transportation to

get to work is concentrated in the Downtown Core, with the exception of Shaughnessy. Other

modes of transportation include taxi cabs, motorcycles, and car sharing applications.

Business-Related Neighbourhoods

To further understand the social dynamics of certain regions within COV we analyzed the

distribution of transportation usage within neighborhoods of different occupations. We

specifically chose neighborhoods with the highest number of business related occupations. A

business-related occupation was defined in the census as a business financial, administrative or

service position, lawyer, judge or professions involved with education. Shaughnessy, Oakridge,

Kerrisdale, and Marpole had the highest number of individuals with business occupations. We

assumed many of these individuals would commute downtown. Data displayed that these

neighborhoods were also the neighborhoods with an average of 76% of individuals choosing to

drive to work. These locations had the highest number of drivers compared to other

neighborhood such as the West End with a 31% driving ratio. These business neighborhoods live

within a maximum distance of 5.8 km of a Skytrain station. Therefore in many circumstances

using public transportation could be a viable option of transportation. Commute times from these

locations were also compared. Between all locations the maximum time difference was 10

minutes and a minimum difference of 4 minutes. Using these comparisons it is observable that

using public transit is a possible option for many individuals in these locations.

“Greener” Neighbourhoods

The neighbourhoods that we found to be “greener” neighbourhoods were those that had

less than 50% of individuals choosing a car as their mode of transportation to work. These

neighbourhoods were Fairview 50%, Grandview-Woodlands 49%, Mount Pleasant 45%,

Strathcona 36%, and West End 31%. These neighbourhoods are all closely located to the

Downtown core. We also found that, without the dominance of driving in these neighbourhoods,

other modes of transportation like walking and taking public transit to work were evenly

distributed and sometimes higher than driving. For example, in the West End, 40% of individuals

walked to work, and 24% took public transportation, compared to 31% choosing to drive. In

addition, when comparing the commute times the different modes of transportation within these

neighbourhoods to Downtown, all modes of transportation were close in commute times with a

difference of 3 minutes. Biking was found to have a shorter commute time than taking public

transportation in these neighbourhoods.

Comparing mean commute times

In computing the mean commute times of Vancouver neighbourhoods for the different

modes of transportation available, we found that driving still provides the shortest commute time

across all neighbourhoods at 17.41 minutes and walking provides the longest commute time

averaging at 75.64 minutes (See Figure 8). However, the public transportation system is very

much similar in commute times at 22.09 minutes, with the difference between commute times of

4.68 minutes. Walking was found to have the greatest standard deviation of 31.15 as

neighbourhoods that are located further out from the Downtown core will have much longer

commute times in getting to work by walking than in a neighbourhood like West End, which is

located very close to the Downtown core. Biking as a mode of transportation to work at 8am was

not found to a significant player in having the slowest or fastest commute time.

Figure 8. Computed mean commute times of the various different modes of transportation across

22 Vancouver neighbourhoods at 8AM to Downtown Vancouver. Driving was found to have the

shortest commute time with 17.41 minutes, with public transportation being close at 22.09

minutes. Walking was found to be less ideal mode of transportation when travelling to

Downtown Vancouver as it takes an average of 75.64 minutes, and dependent on the

neighborhood's location to Downtown Vancouver.

Comparing Commute Time and Distances to Downtown across Vancouver Neighbourhoods

Since we had determined the commute times for driving and public transportation in

many different scenarios, we wanted to determine the relationship between the commute time to

downtown Vancouver and distance to downtown Vancouver. Figure 9 clearly displays a positive

trend for all modes of transportation (walk, car, public transportation and bike). In neighborhood

with a short distance to downtown of 1.2km-4km there appears to be a lot of different modes of

transportation being used. This could be a result of the dense organization of the city in regions

such as the West End, Downtown, Yaletown, Gastown and Mount Pleasant. Within these regions

there is a chance that certain modes of transportation such as walking and biking may be more

convenient due to the short distances. In these circumstances it may be valuable to consider

increases in the safety and number of walkways and bikeways of those regions. Some outliers

within Figure 9 are Kitsilano and West Point Grey. These regions have a shorter commute time

despite their longer distance. This could be a result of higher efficiency in transportation

organization for all modes of transportation. After analyzing all modes of transportation,

commuting by car is still the most time efficient method. However, public transportation offers

competitive commutes times as well.

Figure 9. When comparing commute time of each mode of transportation to distance to

Downtown Vancouver across all 22 neighbourhoods, there is a positive linear trend for all modes

of transportations. This means commute time will be longer the further away the neighbourhood

is located to Downtown. However, we can see there are many overlap across taking public

transportation, biking, or driving in neighbourhoods at distances of 1.2 km to 7 km, being

especially pronounced at distances of 1.2 km to 4 km. Choosing between multiple modes of

transportation with the same amount of commute time is possible in neighborhoods closely

situated to Downtown Vancouver.

Discussion Car

From our analysis, the neighbourhoods with the greatest number of individuals that drive

to work are located further outside the urban Downtown core and have longer commute times to

Downtown. This is an effect of urban sprawl as populations are pushed further out of the core

and can be more reliant on cars as their most common mode of transportation. However, since

public transit and driving times were not that much different in overall commute times,

improving the public transportation system in Vancouver could increase the usage of it in ways

of getting to work to Downtown and encourage and persuade individuals that live outside the

urban core to take public transportation to work.

Public Transportation

The results regarding public transportation displayed that in the regions there was high

accessibility to rapid transportation such as the Skytrain, there were also high numbers of

individuals who chose to optimize the services of public transportation. Renfrew-Collingwood

and Mount Pleasant are both good examples of this relationship. Mount Pleasant has the highest

public transportation user percentage of 36%. Neighborhoods such as Downtown, and

Downtown Eastside are both exceptions to this relationship. Both of these neighborhoods have

relatively low public transportation usage of 16%. This could be a result of the fact these regions

are quite close to the downtown core and individuals in those regions may be able to optimize

the opportunity to walk or bike to work. These regions may also use methods not analyzed

within this study such as motorcycles, taxi’s, and or car-sharing programs for their methods of

transportation.

Bike

Since we found that majority of all neighbourhoods in Vancouver do not choose biking as

a common mode of transportation to work, interconnectedness and efficiency of bikeways could

be a factor. Not only that, we would have to consider Vancouver’s weather as majority of the

time, rain is not the ideal weather conditions to be biking in, resulting in lower bike ridership.

For the case of Downtown, where there is extremely high density of bikeways but not many

individuals choosing to bike, this could be possibly related to high traffic density and safety of

biking Downtown, as well as other modes like walking and driving could be more efficient in

getting to work Downtown. Our results showed that there was not a significant trend between

total area of bikeways and greater bike ridership, this might implicate that people choose to bike

to work depending on where they live (on the location) and the biking distance and commute,

rather than basing their decision on the access to bikeways.

Walk

Based on our analysis of the individuals who chose it walk to work it is obvious that

specific neighborhoods are much more prone to walking than others. The neighborhoods of the

West End, Downtown and Downtown Eastside have the highest percentages of 40%, 35% and

40% respectively of individuals who choose to walk to work on a daily basis. This type of result

could be due to the fact they have such short distances to the downtown core and potentially

have roads with a better sidewalks or other walking spaces ensuring a system that safe for

walkers. Regions such as the Dunbar Southlands have a much lower walking percentage of 4%.

This low walking rate could be due to the far distance to downtown.

Other

With the possibility of other applications, like car sharing companies expanding into

Vancouver in the future, other modes of transportations can increase if these companies were to

establish successfully. This may cause a decrease in the number of individuals choosing to walk,

bike, or take public transportation to work and can cause an increase traffic congestion, as well

as the number of individuals in a car. Martin & Shaheen (2011) found that car-sharing

applications decreased the ridership of public transportation, however car-sharing increased

travel by walking, biking, and carpooling.

Business-Related Neighbourhoods

Based on the results of the business-related neighborhood analysis it is found that the

areas obtaining the most business occupations also obtain a significant number of individuals

who drive to work. In many of these neighborhoods the driving is the preferred mode of

transportation by a large majority. For example in Arbutus ridge 77% of employees drive to

work, 14% use public transportation, 5% walk, 3% bike and 1% use other modes of

transportation that were not analyzed. Due to the fact Arbutus Ridge is 3.5km away from the

closest Skytrain station many may feel less inclined to use public transportation. Also due to the

fact that this neighborhood is 5.4km away from the downtown core there are very few people

who find walking to work to be an effective mode of transportation. This situation applies

similarly to the other business related neighborhoods aside from Oakridge. Oakridge is

exceptionally closer to the sky trains compared to other locations but is still quite far from

downtown for walking.

“Greener” Neighbourhoods

Since all the “greener” neighbourhoods we found were located close by to the Downtown

core, this indicates that the closer you live to Downtown, the less likely you’ll drive to work.

These neighbourhoods also had an even distribution of individuals taking other modes of

transportation like walking, biking, and public transportation. This could mean that improving

the public transportation or increasing the walkability of neighbourhoods would increase the

usage of these modes of transportation. Furthermore, since biking was found to be more time

efficient when going to Downtown, this indicates that bikeways are well established and

connected the closer the neighbourhood is to Downtown. By improving the interconnectedness

of bikeways in neighbourhoods further out from the Downtown core, biking to work could result

in a faster commute time than public transportation and therefore, encourage and promote the use

of bikeways as opposed to cars or public transportation as a means to get to work.

Comparing mean commute times

With the commute time of public transportation not being greatly longer than driving,

public transportation can be a contender for a mode of transportation to work at 8am. This could

cause a decrease in car usage with the increase in public transportation usage, and actually

decrease traffic and road congestion and improve overall commute time by car. Moreover,

walking was found not to be an ideal mode of transportation in getting to work at 8am to the

Downtown core for most neighbourhoods, except for neighbourhoods that are located very close

to Downtown.

Comparing Commute Time and Distances to Downtown across Vancouver Neighbourhoods

Within Figure 9 there are several neighborhoods that are within a distance range of 1.2km

– 4km. These regions include the West End, Downtown, Yaletown, Gastown and Mount

Pleasant. These regions include relatively even proportions of different modes of transportations.

Transportation decisions within these specific regions may be affected by a denser urban

development than in other neighborhoods such as Killarney. Living within a neighborhood that is

much closer to the downtown core of Vancouver may increase the willingness of individuals to

walk, bike or optimize public transportation due to the short amount of travel distance and tired

required. In these regions biking commute times are within the time ranges of 4 to 10 minutes

while driving is at an equivalent of 4 to 9 minutes. Figure 9 displays that there are a few

exceptions within the commute time and distance relationship. Kitsilano has a distance of 3.6km

to downtown Vancouver while West Point Grey has a distance of 7.8km. However, despite these

distances both locations have a faster or similar commute time to other regions of similar

distances such as the Downtown Eastside or Dunbar Southlands. Potential implications for this

result are superior planning and organization of bikeways, and roads used for main transportation

routes.

Limitations

There were multiple limitations in our study of commute times in various modes of

transportation and its effect on deciding how Vancouverites get to work. The census data used in

this study from Statistics Canada were from 2006, which is not the most up-to-date and

therefore, may have some discrepancies in accuracy of the present commuters in Vancouver

neighbourhoods. Also, we made an assumption that all business-related occupations would be

heading to Downtown Vancouver for work, while business-related occupations and offices are

located all over the city and in the tri-cities as well. Due to time constraints of our study, we did

not consider other factors that may impact decision-making such as: wealth and income,

enjoyment and comfort in own personal vehicle, car ownership, neighbourhood design and

walkability test, and other responsibilities such as children drop off and running errands.

Working Towards Resilience and Sustainability Current State

Based on the cycle of adaptive change we have concluded that the current transit system

within Vancouver is in a “Late K” state. The “K” phase of the cycle corresponds to conservation

involving short to long periods of accumulation and transformation of information and resources

(Holling, 2001). In certain scenarios the Late K phase may involve high levels of efficiency with

no need for adjustments. However, due to constant growths within Vancouver and a lack of

change within the city we feel that Vancouver is in a negative form of Late K. Resilience has

become a common method used understand the dynamics of social ecological systems (Folke,

2006). Social resilience in many circumstances can be measured in the ability of social groups to

adapt to change (Adger, 2000). Social resilience heavily applies to Vancouver with regards to

changes in transportation system. Vancouver’s public transit system faces resistance to

innovative change by the public and a current lack of efficiency within the system itself. The

COV has begun to make significant efforts to implement positive changes towards transportation

such as improving the quality and quantity of bikeways within the city. However, without

support of the city towards these changes the system will only begin to deteriorate.

Metro Vancouver has recently introduced the “Transportation and Transit Referendum

2015” allowing its citizens to vote on the opportunity to designate government funding

specifically towards improvements in transportation routes and the public transportation system

(Translink, 2015). The referendum plans to implement a more affordable and efficient transit

system. Increases in system efficiency will ultimately result in a reduction in road congestion,

and commute times (Translink, 2015). Data on provided by Translink (2015) displays

approximately 480 bus routes within the COV, many of which may also extend into neighboring

municipalities such as Richmond or Burnaby. Despite the number of busses in the system many

individuals argue that the effectiveness of routes is not equivalent in all neighborhoods (Collins

et al., 2009). Thomas (2010) found that individuals living within Metro Vancouver expressed

frustration when travelling around the area, but seem committed to using public transit for

affordability and environmental reasons. An increase of interconnectedness within public transit

systems, bikeways, main roads and social organization much increase for transportation systems

as a whole to increase efficiency.

The City of Vancouver’s recent “Transportation 2040” plan includes goals towards

“Green Transportation” within the city. Many of these goals are directed towards eliminating

driving individual vehicles as a main form of transportation resulting in lower GHG emissions

within the city core. However, eliminating certain modes of transportation may not be the best

strategy to improve transportation issues within the city. In fact, the improvement and

competitiveness of other modes of transportation may be a better solution to strengthen

transportation methods within Vancouver (Poudenx, 2008).

New Phase

In Resilience Thinking, the Reorganization Phase is dominated by chaotic release,

reorganization, and renewal (Walker et al., 2006). Since during this stage, small, novelty events

can take the opportunity to grow and shape the future of the system, this is the ideal stage that

Vancouver’s transportation system should head towards.This may occur due to the collapse of

the previously degraded system or rethinking and restructuring details of the previous system.

New local social groups may appear and have the opportunity to seize control and introduce

contemporary ideas. This phase allows for the greatest invention, experimentation, and

reorganization of structure and order in the system (Walker et al., 2006). Small, new ideas of

improvements and ideas in the changes of the transportation system that were previously

suppressed and overlooked, now have the chance to flourish and take light in Vancouver’s transit

system.

As suggested in the Greenest City Action Plan, Vancouverites adopting public

transportation, biking, and walking as their main modes of transportation throughout their day,

whether it may be for work or not, may lead to a better sustainable system and a healthier

lifestyle for individuals (Vancouver (B.C.), 2012). By rethinking neighbourhood design and

planning, increasing the walkability of Vancouver neighbourhoods could lead to increases in

individuals choosing walking as an appropriate alternative transportation method. However,

looking at resiliency of Vancouver’s transportation, other strategies and systems should be

focused on. It is important to note that increasing resources within Vancouver may not actually

increase the resiliency of the system, but tackling problems of interconnectedness of the different

modes of transportation may prove to be a better strategy. For example, efficiency can increase

with greater coverage of bus routes and bikeways. Not only that, regular maintenance and

updates on technological system efficiencies are another example in increasing the resiliency of

Vancouver’s transportation system.

At the end of the Reorganization Phase is the new beginning of a Rapid Growth Phase

where efficiencies can be improved greatly, and new innovation systems are marked by a new

identity and players in the dynamics of the system. If new players have entered and seize control

through restructuring and reorganization, the goals of Vancouver’s Greenest City Action Plan

and the Transportation 2040, can be within reach. With Vancouver’s transportation system

heading into a new regime and beginning, increased resiliency of the overall transportation

system, sustainable green living, and long-term healthier lifestyles can be achieved in the

Greenest City of Vancouver.

References

Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related?. Progress in human

geography, 24(3), 347-364.

Collins, P. A., Hayes, M. V., & Oliver, L. N. (2009). Neighbourhood quality and self-rated

health: A survey of eight suburban neighbourhoods in the Vancouver Census

Metropolitan Area. Health & Place, 15, 156-164. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.03.008

Frank, L. D., Kershaw, S. K., Chapman, J. F., Campbell, M., & Swinkels, H. M. (2015). The

unmet demand for walkability: Disparities between preferences and actual choices for

residential environments in Toronto and Vancouver. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC

HEALTH, 106(1), s12-s20.

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems

analyses. Global environmental change, 16(3),

253-267.

Hannam, K., Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). Editorial: Mobilities, Immobilities and Moorings.

Mobilities, 1(1), 1-22. doi:10.1080/17450100500489189

Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social

Systems. Ecosystems, 4, 390-405. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5

Lachapelle, U., Frank, L., Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., & Conway, T. L. (2011). Commuting by

Public Transit and Physical Activity: Where You Live, Where You Work, and How You

Get There. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 572-582.

Lim, C. C. (1997). The status of transportation demand management in Greater Vancouver and

energy implications. Energy Policy, 25, 1193-1202.

Macdonald, E. (2007). Urban waterfront promenades and physical activity by older adults: The

case of Vancouver. Journal of

Architectural and Planning Research, 181-198.

Martin, E., & Shaheen, S. (2011). The Impact of Carsharing on Public Transit and

Non-Motorized Travel: An Exploration of North American Carsharing Survey

Data.Energies, 4, 2094-2114. doi:10.3390

Nixon, D. V. (2014). Speeding capsules of alienation? Social (dis)connections amongst drivers,

cyclists and pedestrians in Vancouver, BC. Geoforums, 54, 91-102.

Poudenx, P. (2008). The effect of transportation policies on energy consumption and greenhouse

gas emission from urban passenger transportation. Transportation Research Part A-

policy and Practice, 42, 901-909. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2008.01.013

Statistics Canada. (2006). Census Local Area Profiles 2006. Retrieved from City of Vancouver

website: http://data.vancouver.ca/datacatalogue/index.htm

Su, J. G., Winters, M., Nunes, M., & Brauer, M. (2010). Designing a route planner to facilitate

and promote cycling in Metro Vancouver, Canada. Transportation Research Part A-

policy and Practice, 44, 495-505. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2010.03.015

Thomas, R. (2010). "Why can't we get around?" Travelling under constraints in Metro

Vancouver. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 19(1), 89-110.

Bus Loop & Exchange Maps. (2015, January). In Translink . Retrieved April 19, 2015.

Vancouver (B.C.). (2012). Greenest city: 2020 action plan. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.

Vancouver (B.C.). (2012). Transportation 2040. City of Vancouver.

Vancouver (B.C.). (2014). Open Data Catalogue. Retrieved from City of Vancouver website:

CensusLocalAreaProfiles2006

Vancouver (B.C.). (2014, May 15). City of Vancouver: Areas of the City. Retrieved from

http://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/areas-of-the-city.aspx

Vuchic, V. R. (2002). Urban public transportation systems. στο TS Kim (επιμ.),

Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, UNESCO.

Walker, B. H., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a

changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Yu, C. Y., & Lin, H. C. (2014). Transit-Related Walking to Work in Promoting Physical

Activity. Journal of Physical Activity & Health. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2013-0342