Cities Are Building TOD Why Not BOD?
As a pedestrian there is no doubt, at least for me, that walking along Fort and Pandora in downtown Victoria is immeasurably better since the bike lanes were put in. I think that Wharf Street could have been better but overall bike lanes improve the pedestrian experience. While I have ridden in the bike lanes a fair bit I am not a regular user mostly because I walk to work rather than ride, and while there is a growing amount of use in the morning and afternoons, for the large part of the day the lanes are quiet and I think this is too bad, especially considering how nice a street they have created.
One thing that you will often hear people say is that we simply need more people to ride their bike rather than drive and that number will go up, but there is another element that is not touched on too much (though I did discuss it in the piece I wrote for the Capital) and that is where the bikes are coming from there is just not that large a population to draw on. The problem is that as we extend the bike lanes into Fairfield, Fernwood and Oaklands we heading into lower and lower population density neighbourhoods. I know that there are a lot of committed cyclists in those neighbourhoods, likely a much higher percentage of the population than in many others, but as we get into areas dominated by the single family home there is simply less people to fill the bike lanes. There is a solution to this though.
Over the last many decades, as cities have built out their rapid transit infrastructure we have seen a focus on zoning around the new stations to include what is called Transit Oriented Development or TOD. This usually consists of high density areas around the station with appropriate commercial and recreational space included as well. That is why we have been seeing the transformation along the Canada Line in Vancouver over the last few years. The benefit of TOD is that you are creating population centres that will use the transit while also creating new high density nodes around a city. This provides benefits to the users while also complementing the infrastructure spending done for the transit line.
Interestingly, from a history perspective, many of Victoria’s favourite village centres outside of downtown are the result of an early form of TOD around the old street car lines including Fernwood, Cook Street Village and even those cool old buildings along May Street.
So what if we applied the same thought process to the bike lanes? Here we are making a very significant public investment into a transportation system that makes it easier for anyone to move in around the city, why not encourage its use through some Bicycle Oriented Development or BOD. This is not a new idea and has been discussed and used in many cities already including Portland (of course!) and many others (Here, Here and Here). What I am thinking about really comes down to focusing on two things, what types of development and where?
BOD Buildings
This is the easier piece to come up with but will certainly be the focal point of dissension when it comes to where. To encourage bike lane use, you want to have buildings that are attractive to active cyclists and at the same time make it easy to use a bike for potential new residents that would be new to the bike transportation life. The key elements for the buildings I think are high density, mixed use (residential /commercial) buildings with zero parking for cars and include substantial secure parking for bicycles. I would also likely throw in significant dedicated space for the residents to maintain their bicycles in a common area. The central complaint when any building like this will be proposed will be that despite the purpose, the residents will still all have cars but they will park them all over the neighbourhood causing traffic and parking nightmares. While if any of this is true it could be solved with enforcement, I think that it is more likely that people considering living in a place like this will just not have a car. We actually have a great potential example in the proposed Northern Junk Building from Reliance Properties. This is a heritage renovation and there is really not an option for a car garage plus the project is sitting along Wharf Street next to the new bike lanes so the developer is proposing a rental building with only bicycle parking. As you likely know, I am hoping that it gets built.
BOD Locations
I think we should thinking about how we zone across the city and look to lower parking requirements in general, and most of you are aware of my opinion on raising densities in general. However, to support BOD in particular I think that we should look at some very specific areas. The downtown core is a given for BOD type density especially now that we have the three AAA routes and soon a fourth one, Beyond that, we need to look at encouraging BOD at least along the corridors that have been designated as cycle routes. In areas where there are two nearby cycle routes creating a high density area in between the areas would also be beneficial. In the map above I have indicated the areas that I think would be best to first look at for increasing the densities. Most of them are along fairly busy routes already and the higher density proprieties would compliment the addition of the bike lanes. Some of the routes do currently have a significant amount of single family dwellings and this would be a change, it wouldn’t impact the current single family areas behind the corridors. An additional bonus is that so long as the new zoning encouraged a combination of residential and commercial it would provide services for all of the nearby residents and possibly decreasing car use even beyond the new residents in the BOD. I recognise that this is a big change for some areas, however unless we want to continue to push density out to car dependent suburbs, this additional space needs to be built closer to downtown and along these new bicycle routes. Once you move past the opposition, I think that new high-density corridors that support the cycling infrastructure will be an amazing addition to the areas and likely well loved by nearby residents whether they live in the new buildings or old.
Affordability Bonus
One final additional bonus to this idea is that turning single family zoned areas to more intensive density, especially buildings that don’t require parking will mean that there is more affordable housing stock. Buildings without car parking requirements can be built cheaper and the land prices outside of the downtown core is already going to have a slight discount over the land downtown. While not an entire solution to the housing crisis it is one more part of the solution.
So what do you think? Imagine being able to walk and bike along cycling corridors outside of downtown, with little cafes, restaurants and shops. It sounds great but I am sure that there are lots of pieces that I have not thought about. Let me know in the comments what are some of the pieces that I have missed or if you share this vision for the city.