Some Translink Service Optimization in Vancouver

As you probably know, The Translink commission is inviting comments from the public on the proposed fare increase, and particularly on TransLink’s efficiency (The deadline for sending them is February 15, 2012). This post is part of my contribution toward it, and I encourage you to share yours too.

optimize the network by pruning irrelevant, because redundant and lightly used, route segments

Translink has published a Transit plan for Vancouver in 2005 [1]. While many recommendations of it have been implemented, especially the good integration of the bus system with the Canada line, some others aiming at making the system more efficient have not been followed so far:

• short turning of the route 3 (Main) at Main and hasting
• short turning of alternate trip of route 20 (Victoria) at Commercial and Powell (instead to go thru Downtown)

The saving can be very dramatic, and in the case of route #3, it could have allowed a 30% reduction of the bus fleet.

One of the reason for that is expressed by the average speed diagram below.

Average operating speed of Transit(2)

Due to relatively low operating speed on the Hasting and Downtown segment, the buses tend to spend a considerable amount of time there. Below is an estimate of it (from 2010 Translink timetable)-and a recent reduction of posted speed on Hasting makes the matter only worse:

route	number of runs	fleet requirement	total service hour	hr on hasting/Downtown	% of service hr on Hasting/Downtown
3	280	14	197	41	21%
8	317	16	196	34	17%
20	332	20	250	75	30%

This fact makes also for a low reliability route. The additional observation that most customers transfer to/from SkyTrain for downtown access and ridership in downtown and Hasting is pretty light-an observation corroborated by Translink ridership analysis [1]- complete the justification of the short turning of those routes South of Hasting (instead to head toward downtown).

Those route could then operate on a nearly pure grid system- Hasting street being served by route 14,16 and 135 among others on nearby parallel corridors. The lack of direct service to downtown is largely compensated by the Skytrain access: In that matter, those routes could not be treated more differently than the suburban bus routes (which have been short-turned with the advent of the canda line for similar reasons). Furthermore It is also worth to note the route 19 still ensures a direct connection between downtown and Main, north of Broadway.

Since we are talking of frequent route operated by 60 foot trolleybuses, the saving can be massive, not only in operating hours but also in bus fleet requirement, which can be also reduced significantly. Part of it can be redeployed to improve the network connectivity, on a model as below:

Toward a Vancouver network better connected to the South of Fraser one

The main idea, is to connect as much as possible Vancouver N/S bus routes at either Marine Drive or Knight bridge:

suggestion for bus route 3,16,8,20 and 100, orange colored route (10,15,17 and 22) rest unchanged

The knight bridge Hub

This Hub allows connection with the Richmond network -route 405,407 and 430- [3], which legitimates the extension of route 8 and 20 toward it. Since there is no bus loop, and the number of runs on route 8 and 20 are roughly equivalent, the buses of route 8 could continue on route 20 in the same manner as buses operates on route 5/6.

• Notice that the bus queue jumper on Knight bridge provide a natural advantage to the Richmond’s bus which could be more leveraged by providing a decent scope of connection on the Vancouver side from this Bridge
• The Harison loop (bus 20), is then retired (and can be sold)

The Marine drive hub

• All the runs of route 3 go to Marine drive: This is to encourage contra-flow riding, hence lowering the pressure on main flow
• Observing that very few customers stay on the bus at Marine drive, route 100 is replaced by route 16 West of marine drive. Both route have similar number of runs, so it is roughly equivalent in term of operating cost but
  • It increases the number of destination accessible from Marine Drive
  • It replaces a diesel bus by a trolley can’t be bad!
  • It allows to retire the route 16 bus loop-as well as Marpole loop-which can be sold (what can probably pay all the work required for other operation suggested in this post).

Summary

The short turning of the routes at Hasting largely pays for the extension of all the 3,8 and 20 bus runs at either Knight bridge or Marine Drive:

route	number of run	cur fleet requirement	cur total service hour	proposed total service hour	proposal bus requirement	% hr saved
3	280	14	197	161	12	13.5%
8	317	16	196	178	15	9%
20	332	20	250	186	16	25%

While, the proposal improves significantly the connectivity of the network, the average daily operating hour saving-120hrs- could be still around 18% , what is probably worth $5 millions/years (assuming operating cost of $120 per vehicle.hr), leaving significant room to improve other part of the system.

It could be interesting to understand why Translink has chosen to not implement its own efficiency recommendation as stated in [1], but it occurs that it could be a good time to proceed forward on it

---

[1] Vancouver/UBC Area Transit Plan , Translink, July 2005.

[2] Planning of Vancouver’s Transit Network with an
Operations-Based Model, Ian Fisher (translink), Wolfgang Scherr and Kean Lew (PTV), 2009 ITE Quad Conference, Vancouver, 1 May

[3] See also our suggested Transit plan for Richmond (September 2, 2011).

A Scramble intersection in Steveston (Richmond)

The scramble intersection has been officially opened with much fanfare on November 15th, by Mayor Malcolm Brodie [3]

The pedestrian scramble sit at Moncton and Number 1 intersection, in Steveston

But, the real story is not so much the pedestrian scramble than the new traffic light which will have certainly consummed the bulk of the $600,000 budget allocated to this intersection “improvement” [1].

The good

• It is a raised intersection, usually signalling to the motorist it is entering in a pedestrian oriented environment
• The treatment of the crosswalks and bollards shows careful attention intended to rise the profile of this intersection

Good attention has been given to some details. Notice the ropes as the main theme for the treatment of the improvments

The Bad

Not much consideration has been given to Wheelchairs and strollers, and the implementation of the traffic signals impedes seriously their movement on the sidewalk

The opportunity to improve the pedestrian experience, this by installing bulges, narrowing the roadway has not been taken.

When come the signal to reduce the motorist "confusion", all the good intentions are lost, and here it is basically not really possible for a wheelchair to stay on the sidewalk (left picture). The pedestrian realm could have extended on the parking lane (using a bulge): it didn't (right)

The real story
Before the traffic light, and its adjoined pedestrian scramble, it was a 4 ways stop:

• both pedestrian and vehicular traffic could become fairly heavy in some summers week-end, but nothing comparable to what we can witness in Granville Island at anytime.
• And like in Granville Island, most of the vehicular traffic is generated by parking lookers, and so most of the traffic is turning either right or left at the intersection…

The consequence of the last observation is that right and left turn traffic can be impeded by the pedestrian traffic…The Richmond traffic engineers will have found, that blocking all pedestrians movement during vehicular movement was the best thing to do…and here is the rational for the scramble.

It is sold to the public as follow: The previous configuration (4 ways stop), where politeness’rules applied (i.e. like in Granville island), was judged “confusing” by the Richmond traffic engineers [1].

Conclusion

If you believe that the lack of rules for pedestrian is creating congestion in Granville and makes it unsafe, you will cheer for the Richmond’s “traffic improvement” as a step in the right direction.

…On the other side, if you believe in the shared space concept followed by a growing number of European towns, noticeably because “When you don’t exactly know who has right of way, you tend to seek eye contact with other road users” and “You automatically reduce your speed, you have contact with other people and you take greater care” [2], you will eventualy consider that the roadwork at Number 1 and Moncton, is much closer to a 600K waste than an improvement…

---

[1] No.1 Road and Moncton Street Intersection and Surrounding pedestrian crosswalk improvments Victor Wei, Transportation department, April 21, 2011, Richmond CA. Notice that this lst reference states that “based on the pedestrians and vehicles traffic volumes, a a traffic signal is warranted at this intersection” without substanciating those “volumes”. A reference is done to a mysterious study (Stevenson Village Traffic and parking improvement, Victor Wei, Transportation department, August 31, 2009) which didn’t provide any substance either.
Pedestrian Crosswalk Improvement Project, Communication from Richmond CityHall, 2011.

[2]European Towns Remove Traffic Signs to Make Streets Safer, Deutsche Welle, August 27, 2006

[3] Beside numerous news report, there is generally a strong advocacy for scramble interest in some circle, like at vpsn, and, eventually via spacing Vancouver, you will find some opinion in the Vancouver Openfile blog (which in our viewpoint is misleaded by the fact it seems to fail to make the difference between Yonge and Dundas in Toronto center and the “Steveston village” context in Richmond) or InSteveston and a more critical appreciation by a Richmond’s blogger

.

A Richmond transit plan: the local view

The Richmond picture

Thought number date of 2000, there are still good enough to illustrate the market potential for Transit in Richmond. a city characterized by a high ratio job/population source. (1)

Translink, had drafted a transit area plan in 2000 for Richmond [1] and most of the ideas proposed in this plan have been implemented in the subsequent years. As mentioned in a previous post, the advent of the Canada line has left relatively untouched the local transit network in Richmond, even when some route, touted as express, like the 430 are now slower than other options using the Canada line. The short cutting of the 480 (terminus at Bridgeport instead of Brighouse) is the only noticeable exception.

here after is some proposed improvements, which are budget neutral from a revenue operating hours perspective

A suggested new bus network for Richmond

To summarize

• 401: no change
• 402, ~90 runs are extended to Knight Bridge: that is a 50% service improvement on the 407

It allows a service every 30mn, instead of every hour midday, which more than compensate the lost of route 430. the route 402 is preferred to route 407, because it doesn’t need to make a detour to serve Brighouse

• 403 terminate at Steveston instead of Riverport

That is part of a terminus swapping with route 407. It also apriori allows 403 to travel denser part of Steveston Hwy, making better usage of its high frequency along this corridor.

• 404, ~40 runs are extended to the airport
• 405, Terminate at Brighouse instead of Knight Bridge (could be transformed in shuttle route)
• 407, Terminate at Landsowne instead of Knight Bridge and start at Steveston instead of Riverport

The route followed by 407 along Westminster Hwy allows it to connect with all other local routes, as well as route 301,411 so it doesn’t need to loop at Brighouse. We then prefer Landsowne since it increases the transit covered area.

• 410, Along Railway to Moncton, instead of Garypoint
• C92, no change
• C93, no change
• C94, no change
• C96, Knight Bridge, Number 5, Cambie East, Number 6, Brighouse

So doing, the route C96 can offer a quick access to Number 6 road from Brighouse (10mn instead, of 23mn by the 410 or current C96) and able to contribute to relieve more efficiently the 410 (in association with the redesigned route 301 and 411).

Some general principle leading the change

Local Hub vs Regional Hub

Most, if not all, of the Local Bus routes should be connected to a regional hub

Richmond presents some challenges since we have to compose with a

• An international hub, the airport
• A regional hub, Bridgeport
• A local hub, Brighouse

To ensure a good connectivity between the regional and local hub, you would like merge the both, but that is also done at the expense of a good local inter-connectivity which occur in the center of Richmond. That said, a good connectivity of the local network with the regional one can be achieved by capitalizing on secondary hubs:

Riverside hub

A good connectivity of the local network with the regional one can be achieved by connecting as much as possible local route with the Hwy99 bus stop at Steveston: that is Riverside, a new hub Richmond has to capitalize on. It motivates the connection of route 401,404,405 407 and C93 to this hub

Notice that the current Steveston interchange design doesn’t allow the buses to U turn. The loop at RiverPort costs 4mn returns, which can amount to a significant expense (30hrs if all the route named terminate at RiverPort instead of Riverside) so some roadwork improvements could be required here.

Knight bridge hub

At this time, it connects Richmond with Vancouver routes 22 and 100. The connectivity could be much better by extending Fraser route 8 and Victoria route 20 to Knight Bridge, but that involves numerous challenge, so at this time it is a secondary hub in waiting to be developed.

A Grid oriented network
For each major axis, one bus route.

Cambie is mainly serviced by route 410, but a significant portion of the corridor is also cuurently serviced by routes 405 and C96

While Route 405 connects Cambie with Knight Bridge, we can consider it is not the most efficient way to provide the connection due to the high level of redundancy between route 405 and 410 on Cambie, both going to Brighouse. The idea is to suppress the route 405 north of Brighouse – that translate in a saving estimated at 31hrs. The redesigned routes 301 and 411 addresses potential crowding problem on current route 410. A revamped C96 addresses the connectivity issue between the Cambie area, and more generally North Richmond and Knight Bridge.

Railway is mainly serviced by route 410…but not south of Williams where it is then by the C93

South of Williams, route 410 made a detour to service the residences at Garypoint. One has to consider that the cost of this detour by the very frequent route 410 has become prohibitive in regard of the served market. Also, so doing, the route 410 avoids the recently developed and now much more populous area along Moncton street, between Railway and route Number 1. That is the reason why we prefer to keep The route 410 along Railway down to Moncton- that translates in a saving of 7hrs. A slightly less frequent bus, 403, can still serve Garypoint.

Garden city (North of Westminster Hwy) is mainly serviced by the bus 407.

The useless detour to the disused Sexsmith Park&Ride is suppressed, the corridor is then serviced by route 402 for reasons previously stated

Bridgeport mainly serviced by the bus 407

The service on this corridor is pretty poor, with a bus 407 per hour most of the day, this in despite of an high job density along a corridor anchored by Bridgeport station. This corridor is serviced by route 402 for reasons previously stated. the detour along Vulcan becomes the main route, this to allow a connection with the route 630 (Ladner-Metrotown).

Westminster Hwy mainly serviced by “no” bus East of Number 3

That is kind of odd, since it is a main axis in Richmond. It becomes serviced by route 405 and 407.

Steveston Hwy

Today, it is partially serviced. East West travel along it is not really possible due to a “missing link” between number 3 and Gilbert. C93 along Williams provides the East-West connector in South Richmond. A swapping of terminus, between routes 403 and 407, provides a Transit continuity for people traveling along Steveston Hwy, and could call for a reduction of the C93 service if necessary, if not the complete discontinuing of this route. The swapping makes the route 407 a bit longer (+1mn per run), but the route 403 a bit shorter (-1mn per run): because the route 407 is less frequent that the route 403, it results in a total net operating saving.

Connecting the local and regional Center of Interest

The Airport

It is one of the major weakness of the current local network: Richmonites can’t easily access the airport, a major source of employment for locals. To correct it, some runs of the route 404 are extended to the airport. One could have considered extending route 301 or 411 could have been more judicious since airport is also a regional destination, but here the route addresses also a local market (Bukerville access).

The Hospital

It is best serviced by route 407, this route hence is redesigned to serve primarily high density residential area, and so, loop in Richmond downtown to connect. Other route like 401 and an extended route 404 provide also good service to the hospital

North Richmond businesses park (Crestwood)

They are not well connected to Bridgeport, either the service is very poor like on Bridgeport, or requires 2 transfer from Bridgeport to access the Cambie corridor, which is oddly enough almost better connected to Knight bridge. Especially for the Bridgeport corridor, there is an untapped customer pool, which can be enticed by a better service, that is a bus route every 30mn all the day at minimum along Bridgeport

The suppression of Cambie with a direct connection to Knight Bridge (405), is compensated by a revamped route C96 which service is increased to match the one of the current 405 – that supposes the adding of 8:30 hours service. We estimate that the high frequency of the route 410 along Cambie make the transfer less painfull here than elsewhere

At the end, a better servicing of North Richmond motivates a rerouting of the 301 on Westminster Hwy (instead of Alderbridge)- this because it uses the exit of Hwy 91 at road number 6 (3mn per run, or 3hrs per day)- in order to connect it with local route C96 and 410. (proposed bus 411 follow same route)

Steveston

This area is very well connected to Brighouse, with a bus every 2-3mn in peak hours, but does this high level of service is visible to the transit rider?

Nope… and that illustrates the problem already raised with the 699B: it is more often a lack of visibility of the level of service that a lack of service itself people will complain of, and in Steveston it is storytelling:

4 bus routes connect it to Brighouse. That translates in 4 different bus stops in different directions along Chatham: here there is lot of room for improvement. A single bus stop -on the model of Marine Drive loop- is the obvious first step. A better location than Chatham for the bus terminus is the second step…

operation
The tabulation of operating hour transfer is given below

route	runs	hours	removed hrs	added hrs
401	181	123:21
402	138	52:56		45
403	184	114:33	3:00
404	100	50:41		15:00
405	69	51:44	31:00
407	106	71:23	30:00	1:46
410	200	211:51	7:00
430	78	64:23	64:23
C92	68	16:59
C93	62	28:31
C94	48	11:25
C96	41	17:53		8:30
630	78			64:23

Notice that route 699B, and 411 have been previously discussed

Political acceptance

Modifying a bus network is always gonna to hurt some sensibilities, and the few riders affected by a bus change will always be more vocal than the more numerous new customers. That has been verified by the pruning of route 601 at Bridgeport, but it is not something undo-able.

The Lyon transit agency in France did it this year, and one could argue that the budget neutral network reorganization is something sensible to do in time of fiscal restraint.

• It helps the public to accept that not anything can be done and some thought choice need to be done
• It helps also to prepare the network for future growth

In the example, above, the efficiency found on some route like 410, are in direct relationship with bus frequency:
The more frequent is the bus route, the more relevant is the route reorganization, but the more complex it becomes since the more customer habit it can hurt, so it is better to be done sooner than later.

---

[1] Richmond Area Transit Plan Summary Report, Translink, September 2000

A Richmond Transit plan: The regional view

Richmond local transit routes have seen little change with the advent of he canada Line. The network is essentialy geared toward the commuter traffic from Richmond to Vancouver. Richmond is not thought as a destination in itself in despite of its high level of jobs. As an incidence:

• the Business parks along Knight Street remain generally inaccessible by people arriving from the South Fraser community (be by buses 351, 301, 601…)
• For a Richomnite, it can be a challenge to get to the airport, involving in most of the case not less than 2 transfers (typically one at Brighouse and one at Bridgeport).

The network could also take a more decisive advantage of the choke points surrounding Lulu Island. The proposition hereafter aims at correcting those issues, and we examine in this post the regional view first.

In addition of the existing service, 301 and 351 (which are slightly altered to take the shortest route), the map below introduces the bus service already discussed in this blog

• route 699B which has been previously discussed
• route 411 which as also been previously discussed

and a new one,

The route 630: Ladner Exchange-Metrotown

• This route replace the route 430 (Richmond Brighouse-Metrotown)

The rational for it, is that since the advent of the Canada line, it is always faster to board on the Canada line and transfer along the way toward Metrotown, than to use the 430 from Brighouse. So it is reasonable to retire an “express route” which has been made obsolete by recent transit improvement (which is eventually illustrated by a relatively poor ridership). Nevertheless, if the route originate from Ladner, (or Riverside), it can offer a definitive advantage for rider travelling toward Metrotown or Knight street area:

route option	Ladner Exchange -> Metrotown travel time
601+430	20+30mn
630	est. 40mn

The retiring of the 430 pay for the introduction of the 630, and a similar number of run per day can be proposed since, in despite of a longer route, the bus travel it at higher speed

• The 630, starts at Ladner park and ride exchange, to connect with local shuttle route here, and proposes the service as an alternative to alleviate traffic queuing at the George massey Tunnel.
• The 630 stops at Riverside (Hwy99 at Steveston Hwy), providing a good connection with the South East richmond network (401, 403, 404, 405 and C93), and also at Crestwood, where it offers potential connection with regional route 301 and 411 as well as local route 410, and C96, opening new access for people coming from south of the tunnel.
• In Vancouver the route is identic to the one currently followed by the 430

One would like to see the 630 service provided by highway coaches, since the patrons boarding this service are still aiming at a relative long journey.

Proposed and existing regional Express Bus line (solid thin line) and existing and potential B line (in red dashed lines). Skytrain network in thick yellow line

To summarize the service level on selected route segment

route	frequency	Travel time
699B Ladner-Bridgeport	15mn	20mn
301 Newton-Brighouse	20mn	20mn
411 22nd Station-Brighouse	20mn	45mn
630 Ladner-Metrotown	20mn	40mn

One will also notice that the combination of route 301 and 411 can provide an express service between Queensborough (Fraserwood) and Richmond every 10mn.

bus 410 Express

…or how to do more with less

the bus route 410 in red, and a suggested express route, 411 in yellow

The route 410 linking New Westminster (22nd station) to Richmond is one of the most popular suburban route [2]. That is, it achieves several goals in addition to link two suburban communities:

• provide service to largely residential area of Queensborough neighborhood
• provide service Along Cambie road in Richmond, mixed residential and industrial areas
• provide service Along Railway to Stevenson in Richmond

Thanks to its patronage, the route has seen an increase in service which is as frequent as 7/8mn weekday, much better than other local bus routes in Richmond. Since the route is quite long, average trip length is 1h03mn, with numerous stop, and the vehicle requirement is quite high [1].

number of bus 410 on the street according to the time of the day (1)

Obviously, the local service, thought useful, makes the more regional New Westminster-Richmond center connection painfully slow.
The table below gives you an idea of how much longer time it can take between the Hwy 91 exit at Westminster highway in Queensborough and Richmond Brighouse (number from Translink for an arrival at 9am weekday at Brighouse), consider you have good chance to have to do the ride in a standing room only 410 bus!

route
bus 410										40mn
bus 301										22mn
car										15-20mn

Not only, the current option makes for a long and unappealing trip for the rider, it makes also for a low productivity route!

As the frequency of other local Richmond bus route suggest, the enhanced service on 410 is mostly justified by regional transit…that is boarding per operating hour is probably nothing to celebrate.

The 411 Express

What we suggest is an express route between New Westminster and Richmond, let’s name it the route 411, marked in yellow on the map above (it is an express route stopping only at selected stop suggested in white circle).

• The route could follow the route 301 (dashed yellow line), but we could prefer the solid yellow line thru road number 6 and westminster highway, since the exit of Highway 91 at Road 6, allows the route to connect with the eastearn part of Richmond (current route 410, and C96) with no real significant penalty time, considering the final destination
• Like the 301, The route 411 stop at Westminster highway in Queensborough, to provide connection with this community
• We assume the route above involve a ~30mn trip versus 50mn with the current bus 410

That is a 411 run could be 30mn versus 1h03 with the 410. In clear:

• for the cost of one 410 run, you could have 2 411 runs.

The strength of the proposition:

Considering that

• the most busy locals route in Richmond have in the vicinity of 165 runs weekday,
• and that a frequency of 7/8mn (as currently on 410) versus 10mn will make no noticeable difference in term of user experience.

A redeployment of some runs from the 410 toward a 411 could not affect adversely the local bus service be in Richmond or Queensborough, but indeed could dramatically improve the regional connection.

without adding on operating cost, you could dramatically improve the New Westminster-Richmond connection in term of speed and offered seat, and de facto increase the buses productivity

We suggest a 411 peak hour express route, running every 20mn during peak hour:

• that is 3 run per hour, requiring 4 vehicles

That can apriori be bought by reduction of service on route 410 from 8 run/hour (7-8mn frequency) to 6 run/hour (10mn frequency) per direction.

In fact, with 211 runs versus 184 runs for the second most frequent 400 serie bus route (route403), around 54 hours of operating hours could be redeployed to a route #411, and still keeping the route 410 at decent frequency standard. That could be enough to provide a full day 20mn frequency rapid transit service between Richmond and New Westminster:

It is not necessarily the tradeoff we recommend but it illustrates that there is lot of room for an express route funded by reallocation of bus 410 operating hour, this without compromising the integrity of the later:

The Suggested 410 and 411 route service

An express route, even if peak hour only – like the route 44 used to be – could be enough to attract new choice customer and make happier current one, this on a route able to relieve Queensborough bridge congestion, and more generally congestion in New Westminster.

Below is the suggested timetable for the 2 bus routes, 410 and 411 operating without increase in operating bus hour compared to the current situation (410 only)

bus 410 – 22nd station → Brighouse → Railway

22nd station → Brighouse travel time 35mn to 55mn
5h	6h	7h	8h	9h	10h	11h	12h	13h	14h	15h	16h	17h	18h	19h	20h	21h	22h	23h	0h
31	03	03	03	03	05	05	05	05	05	03	03	03	03	03	03	03	16	16	49
51	13	13	13	17	17	17	17	17	17	13	13	13	18	18	18	18	46	46
	23	23	23	29	29	29	29	29	29	23	23	23	33	33	33	46
	33	33	33	41	41	41	41	41	41	33	33	33	48	48	48
	43	43	43	53	53	53	53	53	53	43	43	43
	53	53	53							53	53	53

bus 411 – 22nd station → Brighouse

22nd station → Brighouse travel time 30mn
5h	6h	7h	8h	9h	10h	11h	12h	13h	14h	15h	16h	17h	18h	19h	20h	21h	22h	23h	0h
40	00	00	00								00	00	00
	20	20	20								20	20
	40	40								40	40	40

The exercise shows there is significant room for bus service improvement, even in financial restraint time…

---

[1] Compiled from Translink gtfs data weekday, April 2010

[2] According TransLink’s Regional Transit Model, Final Model Development Report – Phase B: 2007 and 2011, PTV America Inc. and Translink. vancouver December 2008: bus 410 were carrying more than 11,000 riders/day in 2007, second only to route 135 and 106 in suburban area, and noticeably more patronized than B line 97.

BC first 6 storey building end up in ash

BC building code has been changed in 2009 to go over 4 storey building, and Remy builder was taking advantage of it to build a 6 storey woodframe buildings complex along Cambie in Richmond [1]

Remy Condominium under construction at Cambie in Richmond

Was the Campbell government move to support the BC forestry industry done a the expense of the public safety?
Richmond fire department had expressed concerns, Campbell had dismissed them…

Still, tuesday night the yet to complete buildings were on fire…

the 6 storey Remy Condominium development was under fire tuesday night

…raising lot of questions.

what left of the development the morning after

---

[1] Timber line reaches new height with wood condos VancouverSun, march 24, 2011.

Canada line Ticket validation

The vancouversun has a story about a man claiming it is not clear enough to where you have to validate your ticket. He could have a point:

Brighouse station: ticket vending machines are easy to spot, but where are the ticket validators machines?

Whether you are a bit distracted, it can be very easy to find yourself without properly validated ticket on the train. Not only nowhere there is a physical line reminding you to validate your ticket, but ticket validators are rather hidden in some stations. without going to turnstiles, that doesn’t need to be as I have already mentioned here

.

smartcard access to the subway of Rennes, France, is done without turnstile. Nevertheless, notice how the smartcard readers are placed in proeminent position on the farepaid zone line. credit photo wikipedia

Bridge Traffic

For purpose of illustration, below is a map overlaid with the traffic volume on the main bridges of the Vancouver area.

Traffic on the Main bridges of the greater Vancouver area (click on the map for more detail)

Some comments on it:

Traffic

• Traffic volume distribution is hourly, for weekday, and estimated when data is not available [3]
• truck traffic on Knight bridge is estimated at 15% of the overall traffic
• Red line indicate the capacity of the bridge, assuming a 1400 vehicle/hr capacity per lane
• For bridge over the Fraser, A suggested Congestion pricing toll [5] has been added in yellow

below is the tabulaton of weekday daily traffic, and source for the considered bridge

Bridge	Juridiction	Lanes	Traffic
Arthur Laing Bridge	YVR	4	84,000 [2]
Oak Bridge	Province	4	80,700 [1][4]
Knight Bridge	Translink	4	99,500 [2]
QueensBorough Bridge	Province	4	84,000 [2]
George Massey Tunnel	Province	4	89,500 [1]
Alex Fraser Bridge	Province	6	117,500 [1]
Pattullo Bridge	Translink	4	74,500 [2]
Port Mann Bridge	Province	5	116,000 [1]
Iron Workers Bridge	Province	6	127,400 [1]
Lions gate Bridge	Province	3	63,000 [1]

Comments on the Congestion pricing data

They come from the thesis of Peter Wightman [5], which is the most complete work I have uncovered on the topic applied on the Vancouver area, but still limited on the Fraser crossing bridges.

• toll is applied once the traffic volume exceed the road capacity
• Price elasticity demand is assumed at -0.2 peak hours, and -0.25 off peak, That is pricing evaluation has been done in 2006, assuming the transit option of the time, i.e. no Canada line and no transit over Port Mann bridge. Another study suggests a price elasticity demand closer to 0.35, in case of improved transit (i.e. Congestion regulation could be achieved with significant lower toll that those envisioned by [5], and revenue of congestion pricing too)

For information, below are the estimated revenue of congestion pricing, in the case of all bridge crossing the Fraser tolled (this assuming the 2006 situation, and a relatively low elasticity of -0.2 peak, and -0.25 off peak period) according to [5].

Bridge	daily revenue (South dir)	daily revenue (North dir)
George Massey Tunnel	89,600	64,400
Alex Fraser Bridge	126,000	67,200
Pattullo Bridge	35,000	21,000
Port Mann Bridge	271,600	90,300
Total (daily)	765,100
Total Annual	191,275,000

It is worth to note that congestion pricing could apply only when bridge reach capacity. At the exception of the Port Mann bridge West bound, that is an average of only 4 hours per bridge (or put in other way, crossing a bridge could be free 20hours per day),… but still generating close to 200 millions of annual revenue only on the bridge crossing the Fraser river.

it is also worth to notice that under a congestion pricing scheme as proposed by [5], the Port Mann bridge toll could have been lower than the one considered by the province (in green on the map above) most of the time…and the Pattullo bridge needs to be tolled less than 3hrs per day (per direction).

---

[1] Number from BC MOT as of Sept 2010 (weekday average on the month

[2] Number from Bridging the Infrastructure Gap, Get Moving BC, Sept 2008. Data are mostly from 2006

[3] I got hourly distribution only for BC MOT bridge, hourly distribution is estimated for other bridge to provide an idea of level of congestion on them (and eventually pricing level/period). While data Provincial bidge are from 2010, and other bridge from 2006, it has been no noticeable increase in traffic in the interim, what is consistent with a longer trend already exhibited in a gateway program definition report of january 2006

[4] There is a discrepancy with number from the MovingBC report[2] eventually due to the fact, that the authors of this report overlooked the fact that the traffic counter is installed south of the Sea Island exit ramp on the Highway 99 south bound. That explains why there is a traffic increase on that bridge

[5] From Freeway to feeway: Congestion pricing policies for BC’s Fraser River crossing, Peter Wightman, Simon Fraser University, 2008

[6] Estimating Commuter Mode choice: A discrete choice Analysis impact of road pricing and parking charge, Washbrook, Haider and Jaccard, Transportation, 2006.

[7] Toll for new Port Mann Bridge will be $5.15 for casual users, Damian Inwood, The province, June 2010.

bike errand in Lulu Island…

…or a bike commuting adventure in Richmond

Richmond with its flat land should be a paradise for cyclists, and indeed it offers interesting trails on the dykes and elsewhere. Stephen Rees has extensively covered them and others Richmond related cycling issues in a serie of posts [sr1][sr2][sr4], so here is another view focusing more on utility cycling, that is basically cycling to go to work/study. Below is a snapshot of what makes such cycling an adventurous proposition in Richmond

The bike lanes or lack of…

A B&W sign seems to indicate a bike lane, motorists have a different opinion. A green sign indicates direction against common sense that cyclists also rightfully ignore.

It is not the least advantage of a cycle lane to behave like a legal, safe, and comfortable queue jumper, avoiding inhalation of polluted air by cyclists on congested road, and making this mode more competitive with other commuting choice.

It makes little sense to promote cycling by asking cyclist to breath car exhaust in middle of traffic congestion [5]

… But Richmond replaces the bike lanes when it is most needed, by one of its avatar, the sharrow, as seen below:

horizontal Chevron marking is usually reserved for shared road, carrying calmed or low level of traffic. In Richmond, they are also found on main axis, with predictable effect

As explained by New York City DOT engineers [3], when there is not enough right of way to implement a dedicated lane or traffic is light and calm enough to justify a shared street, a chevron marking (also called sharrow) could be used raise awareness of motorist…Richmond still has to learn how to use appropriate horizontal marking for bike facilities

The network or lack of…

Richmond city provides a cycling map, where the simple fact to draw a bike on a road, seems to justify the classification of it as a bike lane. A ground survey of the bike lane could lead to the more realistic map below:

The richmond bike lanes network has lot of critical missing links

basically, the Richmond city center is serviced by a a backbone of 2 bike lanes, the north-south bike lane,along the path of the former interurban (gardencity, Granville and railway) and on the east of Garden city by an East-West bike lane along Westmintser hwy.
In despite of some commendable effort in the right direction, like the raised bike lane on the road 3, bike lanes are still fairly disconnected and basically don’t provide much needed connections to the Canada line or the Kwantlen college.

Connection to the Bridgeport station

Nevertheless, Bridgeport station is reachable by a bike lane connected to the rest of the network… at least up to a certain point:

bicycle access to the Bridgeport station doesn't seem to have been well considered

Connection to the Canada line bridge

A recent addition to the bike lanes netwok has been the connection of the Canada line bridge to the rest of the bike network through Van Horne road in an industrial precinct…but probably that the 12 meters wide road was judged still on the narrow side, so a bike lane takes place in only one direction! (opposite direction is a shared path).

Notice that in general cyclists use an alternative and more pleasant route via Riverport road.

The 12 meters wide road was judged a bit too narrow to put 2 bike lanes in addition of 2 general traffic ones, so one of them end up on the sidewalk! Notice how the shared path sign is hiding the stop...and which path is shared?

Better to ignore the signage

At Great Canadian way and Sea island way intersection, cyclists are the object of less care than the landscaping, and a cyclist following sign could put himself in an uncomfortable if not outright unsafe spot.

First a satellite view of the situation

the great canadian Way and Sea Island way interstection from satellite or how the cyclist can evolve from West to East?

The cyclist travelling from West to East on Sea island Way will encounter a suite of sign designed to his attention. A first sign suggest he will have to do a right tun where the on ramp lane merge. The sign indicates that the cyclist should be still on the road:

Right at the intersection, the sign tell you that you will have to tun right where the lane merge, but to stay on the road for the time being

A second sign seems to disagree with the first one, since it assumes that the cyclist should be on the sidewalk, and then suggest a very strange procedure to the cyclist obeying to the first one:

after proceeding to where the lanes merge, the sign tell you to turn right to take the bike path, but how the bike is expected to do it

Law abiding cyclist need to be lucky…

or prepared to spend very very long time…at ever red light. This is due to the fact that most of the secondary roads have traffic light activated by induction loop…not triggered by bike

this traffic light goes green only if a car approach it, if you are a cyclist, you have to count on luck, and be prepared to waste tremendous amount of time...for sure another option exist!

The right turn lane…
…or how to make a cyclist like a pin in the middle of a bowling lane

Richmond bike lanes disposition put cyclist in treacherous spot in most of the city intersection

As the above picture illustrates, advanced right turn lane gives way to probably the most disconcerting disposition of bike lanes, de facto defeating the purpose of those bike lanes, which is to provide a secure environment to the cyclist.

Motorists seems unsure on the way to negotiate a right turn with a bike lane in the middle of the road: some will pass a cyclist on the right… some others on the left before tail gating the bike….

In Richmond, yield to cyclist is definitely not an option!

Needless to say, intersections in BC (most of them arranged as above), are especially treacherous for cyclist, where more than 60% of the accidents happen, and going straight seems the most dangerous proposition for a cyclist [4]

Obviously, there is some better way to implement bike lane with advanced right turn lane, and generally, they are implemented like below in Europe

the cyclist doesn't need to be in the middle of traffic to cross an intersection. bike lane is protected by horizontal yielding marking giving priority to the cyclist (what is the law in most of European juridiction)...In North America, additional signage as seen in Portland, OR or Vancouver, BC could be necessary (right)

because the “yield to cyclist” could be not obvious to the BC motorist [1] and horizontal “yield” marking less frequent here than in Europe could be not as well understood [2], additional vertical sign, nowadays rarely seen in Europe, could be required here

.

In cyclist friendly jurisdictions, Yield to cyclist is the only option!

…and not surprisingly, those jurisdictions have usually much safer road safety record than BC.

Conclusion

Richmond BC, is like a child learning to bike. It seems to be full of good intention, but lack of understanding and method. European cities was not much different a quarter century ago, it is just that Richmond needs to work much harder in order to not fall behind.

---

[1] While, it is generally the law to yield to cyclist, like to pedestrian, on a right turn in Europe, law seems to be far less consistent across North american jurisdictions which usually don’t treat cyclist as a vulnerable user of the road, see bike lane and right turn difference in Oregon and California or, for a more awkward regulation, the Ontario MTO explicitly indicates that right turning vehicles have priority on cyclists.

[2] European countries, and more generally country adopting the Vienna convention road signage, use thick dashed lane as a horizontal “yield line” marking, the equivalent in North america is usually a line of triangle, used in New York City as illustrated in the video of the NYC DOT[3].

[3] NYC DOT explains Bike Lanes in the Big Apple

[4] number from www.bikesense.bc.ca

[5] It is what is required by the BC motor vehicle act section 158

A bus stop on the Hwy 99

updated September 3rd

At the 99 interchange with Steveston Hwy, you can catch one of the suburban bus running on the Hwy 99. It can be a traumatizing experience, especially in the south direction:

While there is a bus shelter, a luxury rarely spotted in Richmond, no one has really thought that people could walk to it!

Eventually to improve the waiting experience, the MOT has installed a 46” screen, on a lamppost, providing residual light at night for the bus stop (to be sure the purpose of the original lamppost is to provide light to the road)

It is part of a pilot project, supposed to give real time information to the transit user [1]. In fact the later one will often see the messages illustrated below.

the route 620 and 404 being not operated by suburban bus Orion V, the transit rider will get no information, real time or not, for them. Notice that the map, apparently a Google road map, display the route covered by the real time system, but no bus routes are displayed at all! Notice also the “quick and dirty” look of the installation: it is really a pilot project

for other bus routes, the system doesn’t give any information, when no bus are present on the route covered by the system, i.e. Bridgeport to Steveston Hwy. To relieve your patience, you can watch the real time video of the bus stop you are waiting at

Imagine,a departure screen at the airport, which warms as some flights are not displayed at all, and giving no information on some other flights because their plane is not en route!

That is what the MOT pilot project is doing for the bus information. We are relieved it is still a “pilot” project, because there is certainly lot of room for improvement.

This project, while looking a nice intention, raises lot of questions:

• Why a pilot project? is real time bus information such a breakthrough technology, requiring “pilot” project those days?
• The project, technologically different of the Main street one, rely on a private network:
  Why use a private network, when there is no lack of 3G providers covering not only the freeway corridor but all the metro area, able to provide communication link between the buses and a data processing center?

but the big question is:

• Why it is a project from the province and not Translink, which could be expected to be the relevant agency to drive such project?

The Hwy 99 bus stop premises being probably under MOT jurisdiction, why the MOT is not trying to improve it first?

An interchange doesn’t need to be dull, as the picture below can witness. More than that, studies could tend to correlate beautifully landscaped highway with safer highway [2].

this nicely landscaped plot is the Highway 10 and 210 interchange in Redlands, CA. and there is no bus stop here, so it is only for motorist to enjoy the view (credit photo zIDEAz)

the information pilot project come in addition of an HOV lane currently under construction on the Hwy 99 North bound and the extension of the southbound one, north of Westminster bridge.
There is no doubt that significant dollars are spent to improve ths bus experience on the Hwy 99 north of the George Massey Tunnel, and there is no doubt that improvement are needed

the Highway 99 at Westminster Road (left) and Blundell (right) around 1pm weekdays. Westminster road bridge is currently a bottle neck, since the HOV southbound start only south of the bridge. The extension of it north of the bridge will be a welcome relieve… the buses share the current HOV lane with vehicle of 2 occupants or more. According to the MOT, that has no effect on the buses operations [3] : on the picture, the traffic on the HOV lane move at around 40km/h for a posted limit of 80km/h…

Transit advocates should apriori applaude such initiatives, but they left a sour taste: Why?

From the Highway 99, we are seeing erected components which could raise the hwy 99 as a corridor for a BRT or for buses with a high level of service. Unfortunately those initiatives lacking of coordination, starting by the apparent non implication of the transit agency, Translink, will probably provide a result inferior to what it could have been, whether a more integrated goal could have been followed, for the same overall budget

---

[1] B.C. pilots dynamic transit display, Jennifer Kavur, 09 Aug 2010, ComputerWorld Canada

[2] Landscape improvement impacts on roadside safety in Texas, J. H. Moka, H. C. Landphair b, and J. R. Naderi, Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) pp263–274.

[3] Southbound Hwy 99 HOV lane opens to more commuters, Press release, AUg 29, 2008, BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure