Some more Translink statistic

That is a complement to one of our previous post:

Bus expenses and revenue per Translink region

Some comments on the above figure

• The property assesment value per Translink region is computed from the BC 2013 Assessment Roll Information

Property values assesment per Translink region

• Bus boarding per Translink region is estimated from the 2011 Translink’s Bus performance review. The revenue per boarding ($1.23) is estimated from [1][2]

Bus boarding per Translink region

• The number of revenue bus hour is estimated of the above too, but the cost per revenue bus hour is estimated at $180 (instead of $116), to match the finanical information as provided by [1][3]

Bus revenue hour per Translink region

---

[1] 2011 Statutory Annual Report, Translink 2011, Burnaby

[2] We estimate that the revenue per boarding is equivalent in all region, people travelling multi zone generating more boarding that people travelling into a single zone

[3] The discrepancy is eventually due to the fact that [1] doesn’t take account the deadend trip and other layover. Those are probably much more important in the outer suburb than in Vancouver proper. That is balanced by the fact that Vancouver region operate much articulated bus than other region. (see our previous post on it)

Port Mann bridge: Promises and deceptions

The port Mann bridge/Highway 1 was promised to be costing $1.5Billion, to be financed by toll:

• Price has skyrocketed at more than $3.3 Billion, while the government has divided per 2 the toll.
• The project has been initiated with forecast of 150,000 averaged daily trip. The Province has quietly revised its number to 120,000 as of today [2] , which is still greater than the current traffic seen on the bridge which is free!

It looks like the Toll revenue will not be even enough to cover the interest of the debt! [1]

The bike lanes or lack of:

The Province promised this [3]

At King Edward Street, there will be bike lanes on both sides of the road, as well as a multi-user path on the west side of King Edward Street and bike lanes on the new King Edward Street Overpass connecting Lougheed Highway to United Boulevard.

The Province delivered that:

According to the Province, there are bike lanes on both side of this street (King Edward, connecting to the Lougheed ones

In case of the benefit of doubt was buying Indulgence toward the Province. Pass a certain point, to believe a single word of the province require either an heavy dose of naivety or stupidity….and we can’t help on such beatitude toward the Province actions…and still…

Transit
The province promised this:

The Province had promised a rapid bus along the Highway one, with a transit hub at Carvolth, and another one in the vicinity of 160st

For the Surrey transit Hub, the Province delivered that:

The province delivered this in the Surrey backyard – Apparently, some people there believe it is suitable for a transit hub (???)

Thought that was happening in the Surrey backyard, Surrey transit advocates seem to have been surprised by the fact that Translink considers this HOV exit nearly useless [5]:

• Passenger can’t safely wait on those ramps, which have no sidewalks, and no room to stop a bus without blocking the traffic
• There is basically no decent connection with the rest of the network, no park&ride, no decent pedestrian access,…nothing

The Surrey Mayor, Diane Watts fainted to discover the problem (?) and was quick to put the onus of it on Translink. But Surrey just pay for its beatitude toward the Provincial government. Jeff Nagel has published a email from the BC transportation ministry [4]:

Q: Who decided not to build the park and ride/transit exchange at 156th Street? A: TransLink was in discussions with several partners including the provincial government, City of Surrey and private developers on an agreement for commercial and residential development in the 156th Street area; a transit exchange would have been part of this development. No agreement was reached and development plans did not materialize. The exchange was dependent on TransLink taking the lead position in acquiring necessary municipal and stakeholder approvals. Subsequently, TransLink intended to have the transit exchange as part of a proposed development… that did not proceed. Since that time TransLink has consulted extensively with elected officials, stakeholders and the public resulting in revisions to their plan. The Hwy 1 project provides ramps for transit and HOV vehicles that allows TransLink direct access to the transit/HOV lanes. We anticipate TransLink will continue improve transit services in the region. Q: How much money was saved by not building the transit exchange? A: The park and ride facility was never budgeted for, so there is no cost available. Q: How much did it cost to build the HOV lane at 156th Street – if there are no buses to use it, isn’t it a waste of money? The on-ramps provide access to HOV lanes for all vehicles that have a minimum of two people in the vehicle. Motorists at the 152nd Street interchange in Surrey experience extensive delays accessing Highway 1 during peak periods; the new interchange at 156th and the greater capacity of the Port Mann Bridge will ease that congestion. The 156th intersection cost between $25 and $30 million dollars and was a partnership between Port Mann Highway 1 project and the City of Surrey. It provides a new connection across the highway to serve this rapidly growing city, and will alleviate congestion at other intersections in the city. Q. Why does the TICorp website promote transit access via HOV lane if there isn’t going to be any transit? There will be transit buses using the 156th Street interchange. There will be a bus from Carvoth Park and Ride to the Surrey Central Station that will use the on-and-off HOV ramps at 156th Streets starting December 3. The #509 Walnut Grove and #590 Langley South buses access the 156 ramp.

In short:

A restaurant sell you a 3 courses menu, but you get only two courses. If you complain about it, the restaurant’s owner wwill direct you to the cook, because himself he never intend to deliver the menu anyway…That is what the Province says

Every aspect of the Port Mann bridge project seems rotten from the root

The concept of HOV lane is in itself backward – it says that a family going to vacation, is more important than timely goods delivery- that is a $3.3 Billion economic non-sense. HOV lanes make sense to optimize an existing road infrastructure, but on new one, it should be at minimum HOT lane, and more ideally a wholly tolled freeway, on the model of the Toronto’s ETR407 (where tolls are set to grant free flow).

In any case:

• who says HOV lanes, says car pooling.
• who says car pooling, says car-pool parkings

Where are those car-pool parkings?

May be facilitated by Internet, car pooling has gained serious steam lately in Europe, and when infrastructure is not there- that is basically everywhere-, you will see most of the European freeway interchange approaches, surrounding important cities, looking like below:

Toll freeway/high gas price encourage car pooling, But Car poolers, meeting near freeway interchanges, need room to park their cars ! (top France - left UK (M5 near Bristol), right Germany (A8 near Munich

In fact, anarchic car pool parking has became an endemic European problem, a problem the various level of authorities address, by developing parking solution gathering the car-pooler need:

to address car pooler need, “organized” car pool parking are currently developed about everywhere in Europe.

Needless to say, the Province seems to not have put a single thought on how to develop car-pooling here. There is some good reason to it:

The Province is not interested by measure able to reduce car traffic: it needs to justify a posteriori an over sized road infrastructure:

• car pooling is discouraged
• bare lip service is paid to transit

What is delivered is not what has been promised by the Provincial Government…and still cost twice more than announced: Should we be surprised?

---

I will eventually write a post on the bus #555: As a primer, I think the service is good, frequency seems more than appropriate, so there is little grief toward Translink on it.

---

[1] see also Port Mann tolls will “pay all costs” of $3.3 billion project, Fraseropolis, Feb 24, 20112

[2] Traffic Forecast Review, Steer Davies Gleave, September 2011

[3] www.pmh1project.com as retrieved on November 25, 2012

[4] No stops in Surrey for Port Mann express buses, Jeff Nagel, Surrey Leader, Nov 21, 2012.

[5] See Civic Surrey and Skytrain for Surrey

Improving bus service on Broadway… and elsewhere

Buses battling with Broadway traffic – credit photo (1)

Prologue

The lately adopted Vancouver Transport 2040 prescripts an underground Extension of the Millennium line along the Broadway alignment to address the transportation demand on this corridor. This left still open 2 questions:

• That probably is not coming in service before 2020 at best, What to do in the interim?
• The subway will probably stop short of UBC (Arbutus in the most optimistic case), leaving the demand unaddressed on western section section of the corridor: how to address it?

Translink is calling for an LRT, skytrain combination: If there is a good case to build the subway soon enough up to Arbutus as a regional priority, the case could be significantly weaker for the LRT part of the combo, especially in regard of competitive demand coming from the South of Fraser. That left the buses on Broadway, for the foreseeable future, and something need to be done now to handle the existing demand, which will only increase with the advent of the Evergreen line.

The answer is two prongs

Divert as much as demand on other corridors, mainly #84 and #41/#43.

The main drawback of those solutions, is that they are not servicing central Broadway. Due to weaker demand, frequency is less attractive than on Broadway, triggering a vicious circle. A way to address it is to offer a better level of service, on at least the route 84:
Double Decker buses are probably a solution worth to explore for this route. Beside it, real time information like on Main, can contribute to attract more rider on this line.



A 45ft double decker, with 2 stairs and 3 doors (here a Man Lion’s City DD in Berlin) can have tremendous capacity. Its appeal can eventually help to relieve Broadway overcrowding if deployed on parallel routes like the 84 – credit photo wikipedia


Increase capacity and efficiency of the buses

Bigger bus is part of the answer. Double Decker could be an answer – but

• It can be a self defeating answer due to its additional attractiveness (so such solution should be applied to relief line)
• One of the major reliability/efficiency problem of the B line is due the dwelling time, and that is known to be a potential weakness of the Double Decker

Longer articulated buses should be the answer. Not only longer, but with at least 4 doors per bus, since it both improves:

• The practical capacity of the bus, by better partitioning of the load
• The dwelling time

Should the bus be double articulated, that is 80feet long, or not?
A priori it is not a right step:

• Due to frequent Local service, the 99B bus performs a significant amount of weaving, operation becoming more complex with 2 articulations
• Proper alighting at bus stop could also be compromised by the above, affecting negatively the dwelling time
• It can be complicate to redeploy such buses on other routes. curb space at bus stop being not the least of the problems

A 65+ feet bus with 4 outside opening doors, and proper interior layout, can probably have 20% more practical capacity than the current 60 feet bus while overcoming the above drawback [2].

This Man Lion’s city GXL is 67ft long, and with 4 doors, it has vastly more capacity than a 60ft bus 3 doors, like currently operated on Broadway.

The buses presented above could not have the right to operate legally on BC roads, but it is a stroke of a pen to allow them. The Los Angeles Transit Agency, LACMTA, operates a fleet of 45 feet and 65 feet buses, showing a North American market for such bus size.

The bus lanes
The lack of bus lane in Vancouver is a shame:

• Bus lanes on Main between Broadway and Hasting should be a no-brainer,

Bus trip on Main between Hasting and Broadway are scheduled to be between 8 and 12mn, whether it is off peak or rush hour, and there is an excess of 800 daily bus trip on this portion of main used by some of the busiest bus lines of the network, #3, #8, #19 carrying a combined 20 millions of rider/years. Needless to say, not only the lack of bus lane increases significantly the operating cost of those route, but it also imposes a tremendous economic burden to the region in term of lost time



bus lane with traffic signal preemption – - credit photo (1)

• Bus lanes on Broadway

Matters are a bit more complex due to the weaving of local and express services, requiring the use of 2 lanes of traffic by buses, but clearly there is significant room to improve the efficiency and reliability of the route. Here is What we suggest for the Cambie#Broadway intersection:

transit priority improvement on Broadway at Cambie involving an half scramble intersection: right turn traffic proceed while pedestrian cross in diagonal. buses can move thru the intersection yielding to peds

The problem of this intersection is the heavy pedestrian traffic conflicting with the right turning cars movement which is heavy too. This is affecting the buses. Having an extra cycle for bus only doesn’t necessarily help the pedestrian flow, which is mainly oriented NW-SE (West bound bus stop – Cambie station). Because the bus can use 2 lanes of traffic, keeping general traffic moving is important too: that means right turning car shouldn’t block the through traffic. So the proposal is an extra cycle for:

• Right turning car only and buses, and pedestrian in diagonal only
• to allow quick “flushing” of right turning car , pedestrian E-W crossing is red
• right turn from Cambie shouldn’t be allowed on the extra cycle
• Because bus go through, they could conflict with the half scramble: a yield to pedestrian rule then apply to them: A carefully designed scramble allows a 40feet bus to yield in the middle of the intersection, and still allow car following him to do a right turn
• The next cycle is green through Broadway, to allow bus to clear intersection in case of blocked behind the scramble.

Due to the presence of the half scramble, regular pedestrian crossing are less used, allowing greater right turn movement on all corner at all other time …eventually improving the general output flow of the intersection, and in any case improving the general output flow of Broadway.

There is still some room to accommodate growing demand on Broadway. It could not be an excuse to not investigate longer term solutions like a subway, but the prospect of the later is not an excuse to do nothing now. Right answer is in the hand of Translink, but enabler are mainly the Province, to allow bigger bus on the road, and the City of Vancouver to allow more efficient operation on its street, this by starting by giving more consideration to buses and their rider than parked cars.

---

[1] Translink’s buzzer: Building a better transit line: how location and land use make or break good transit service, august 2, 2012

[2] see Bus capacity : some remarks , November 9, 2012

[3] see UBC line rapid transit act 2, April 5, 2011

Block 51 : Where’s the Transit?

I am a member from Transport Action British Columbia, an organization which has already addressed its concerns about the streets closure impacts on transit users, and more generally on the blatant lack of consideration for surface transit by the current city-council [1].

Those concerns have also being raised by other organization as mentioned by Kathy Roczkowskyj on the Stephen’ress blog:

“The closure of Robson is inconvenient for all transit users but is a real burden for seniors and disabled individuals. A number of organizations (BC Coalition of Disabled People, West End Seniors Network, etc.) sent letters to the Mayor and Council opposing the closure but their concerns have not moved the Mayor. In fact, even though the closure is supposed to be “temporary”, it was extended into the fall by the Mayor even though there is nothing going on on that block now. I attended a forum on October 26th at Gordon Neighbourhood House where the vast majority of the participants opposed the closure due to the difficulties they now had going to doctor’s appointments, etc. City staff who were present could not explain why the closure was continuing through the fall except to say that the Mayor had ordered it. And the City staffer present who was in favour of the closure’s main reason for the permanent closure was that they had discovered that the architect’s original plan from the 1970s for that area included a pedestrian walkway. What kind of reason is that??”

Kathy is right, an original plan is not a good reason [6], and even less relevant when the reading of the original intend is not correct![5]

On October 15th and October 17, It was a so called “public consultation” on block 51 – that includes Robson square- which could have confirmed the Kathy feeling. Transport action BC, has expressed its concerns on it as below:

October 31, 2012 To: Mayor Robertson and Vancouver City Council Re: Consultation on the permanent closure of Robson Street between Hornby and Howe Transport Action BC is concerned with the way the city has organized two “public consultations”, held on the evening of October 15th and 17th. Topics of these consultations included the permanent closure of Robson Street between Howe and Hornby, a proposal involving significant impacts on the transit network viability and attractiveness: Far to expose and address the different issues induced by such a proposal, the consultations focused only on the pedestrian experience of the space and largely ignored the impacts on the public transit network. Furthermore, we have been surprised that: * The public consultations were advertised as events titled “block 51”, a legal lot description name, which, could have been too esoteric to attract people beyond the already civically engaged circles. * We were asked to share personal information with a private corporation, Eventbrite, for the simple purpose of attending a public consultation * A public consultation was advertised as “sold-out”, but at the evening events, roughly two thirds of the seats were empty. * The public consultations appeared to be co-organized by an advocacy group, Vancouver Public Space network (VPSN), which has already a well-established and publicly known opinion on the use of Robson square. * They were no visible City of Vancouver staff available, with whom the public could have shared their concerns on the present and future use of the Robson square area. Though the October 15 and 17th events brought a valuable contribution to the vision of our public spaces, we take issue at having the city calling them “public consultations”, when we believe they were not. We urge you to revisit the public consultation process for the Robson square area: * with a format which can engage a large number of citizens, representative of the diversity of the city, and allow them to register their concerns; * and have this consultation organized by groups which are neither stakeholder, nor can be suspected of pre-conceived opinion on desired use of Robson square. We recommend that the public consultation should include information of how other cities have successfully dealt with the transit/pedestrian dilemma in the organization of their public realm. We also would like to point out that urban experience and accessibility are two keys and correlated elements of a vibrant city and one shouldn’t take precedence over the other. Beyond Robson square, we remark that the public demand for more pedestrian friendly streets coincides mainly with historic Vancouver transit routes and we suggest that the city should initiate a reflection on how both the transit and pedestrian experience can be improved in a public space which we ultimately need to share. Sincerely, Patrick Rault – VP Transport Action Britisch Columbia CC: Charles Gauthier – Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association; TransLink Board of Directors; Andrew Pask Vancouver Public Space Network

Councillor Andrea Reimer was seeming so embarrassed by how rigged was the consultation, that she feels the need to assert that “it is not a done deal” [7],…ah!

“Consultation” on October 15th: Picture taken during the panel debate with Bing Thom. The public had no opportunity to ask questions, just quietly listen. If you have not been alerted by Twitter or other similar medium, soon enough, there is little chance you could have attended this “consultation” which was “sold-out” – credit photo City Of Vancouver

It is worth to stress here that Transport action BC has no formed opinion on the future of Robson square. Numerous of its members seem to support the concept of pedestrian priority squares and streets, as outlined in the Vancouver Transport 2040 plan; and this on a public realm much more extended than Robson square; pedestrian priority being not equal to pedestrian only. But, this organization believes that ad hoc rerouting of bus routes, leading to a dysfunctional Transit network, this, to apparently fit an ideological agenda, is not an acceptable way to move forward. A definitive decision on Robson square can’t be done without assurance that the transit issue can be addressed in a satisfactory manner:

As of today, it is not the case

Rerouting is an option, not the only one, and not necessarily the one offering the best compromise [2][3]

Possibly in a damage control operation, a released city survey, on November 1st, has this opening page:

A Note on Transit and 800-block Robson Street The #5 Robson bus is an important transit route connecting the downtown and West End and people to key downtown destinations, such as transit hubs, the library, shopping and theatres. TransLink and the City recognize that an accessible, convenient, reliable and understandable transit route is what makes the # 5 Robson bus function well.  The current re-routing for the #5 Robson bus is challenging for many and regardless of Council’s decision on creating a permanent public space on 800-block Robson Street, TransLink is currently planning an improved re-routing to the #5 Robson bus.  TransLink will be conducting a service review of their entire downtown network that may help guide improved bus routes.  TransLink will work in partnership with the City on both the service review and the short-term re-routing improvements for the #5 Robson bus.

Beside noticing that the note’s author didn’t find relevant to include the VAG and the provincial Court House as Key downtown destination (sic), this note raises questions:

• If TransLink is currently planning an “improved” re-routing to the #5 Robson bus, what is so secret to this improvement it can’t be shared with the public?
• How Translink can plan an “improvment” without input of the public? …It could be a significant departure of their usual practice

Incidentally, it happens that Transport Action BC met with Translink representatives on October 4th in New Westminster. There, the question of “improved” bus route has been raised, and the then given Translink answer seems to contradict what the survey states and this for good reasons:

Translink will wait for the introduction of the Compass card to collect meaningful statistic on trip origin/destination, before considering route alignment change

No doubt that the city survey will find the public overwhelming supporting a very mysterious bus rerouting: here a typical question the public is asked (Answer choice is either A, B or C)

Based on your answers from the previous questions about what you would like to be doing, tell us how you think 800-block Robson Street needs to function in the future? A.  As a permanent public space:       i. Vehicle free every day year-round     ii. A flexible pedestrian space offering several ways for people to interact and enjoy a plaza space    iii. An improved permanent re-routing of #5 Robson bus   B. As a summertime public space:       i. Vehicle free every day in the summertime     ii. An inviting pedestrian space offering unique seasonal opportunities to enjoy the sun    iii. An improved re-routing of #5 Robson bus during the summer   C. As an occasional special event space:      i. Vehicles on the street every day year-round     ii. Street occasionally closed to cars and buses for special events    iii. An improved #5 Robson bus detour during special events

…Such a survey is beyond ludicrous and certainly doesn’t worth the trouble.

Whatever one own preference for the future of Robson square, one should feel embarrassed by the adamant lack of openness and transparency offered by the current “consultation” process, which is clearly nothing less than a masquerade:

Gratuitous attack on the Vancouver Transit network- credit photo (4)

---

[1] In term of transit, the only legacy of the Robertson’s administration, so far, has been policies having as consequence to reduce transit lane efficiencies, when not outright barring buses to use them (Granville)

[2] Example of how European cities routinely deal with pedestrian and transit: Transit as part of the urban fabric

[3] Price tags is “celebrating” two very relevant examples, very relevant because showing Transit has been integrated in the project in a smart way leading eventually to great space without compromising accessibility: That is a very significant departure from the Vancouver approach… and can explain why project like it move with less angst there

[4] twitter user REALTOR Blair Smith

[5] See our historical series on it.

[6] “Finding a good reason” was the object of the consultation held on October 15th and 17th.

[7] Verbatim of Andrea Reimer intervention at the Block51 event, a look forward, October 17th, 2012

Bus performance preliminaries

Prologue

Today, the province has released its surprise Translink audit [1]. Among other oddities, this audit is musing on the respective merits of different propulsion technologies for the buses. The audit’s finding is that natural gas bus are 20% cheaper to operate than diesel bus; and it goes as far as to suggest to replace the trolleybuses by such buses. That finding call a comment:

When, as the author of a report you arrive to such a finding – natural gas bus are cheaper to operate than diesel- you should ask yourself the following question:

• Why virtually no transit system around the world is operating gas natural powered bus?

The answer is either

• you are right against the rest of the world
• or, you draw wrong conclusion

We humbly suggest that the later option is more likely to apply to the Provincial audit. It is not to say that there is nothing worthy in this audit, and we will probably come back on it (but we can already vent out our opinion at the buzzer blog) as well as the Translink draft [4], this in a later post

Bus route performance

the following graph is a presentation of data extracted from the Translink library [4][5]

bus performance per route

The higher the ridership, the better,…the lower the operating cost the better too. A nice logarithmic trend appears, the routes above this trend can probably be considered as poor performers. Unsurprisingly, the route 99 is outperforming all others, but what this graph suggests is the the heavier route are expensive to operate, close if not more than 10 millions/year (the busiest route are often operated by artics, and their operating cost could be under-estimated [5]). For matter of comparisons, the Provincial audit suggests to eliminate the 22 lowest performing route, that is pruning 10% of the network, to achieve a mere saving of $3.6 millions, or less than 0.75% of the annual bus operating cost !!!

It is not to say that nothing needs to be done to improve the financial sheet of the lowest performing routes, but if someone want to find significant and sustainable saving, he should track inefficiency in the “heavy league” first.

Usually, in the “heavy league”, inefficiencies are due to sub-optimal average speed (those routes tend to operate in crowded corridors), and that can be addressed by a host of solution, among other:

• bus lane and signal preemption
• reducing number of bus stop and/or improving bus stop approach (bulge)
• relieving local service demand, by providing express service, it is the case we do for the route #410, which in despite to show overcrowding symptom, and is a relatively poor performer (cost per boarding $1.82)

and the beauty of it, is that this kind of optimization is able to increase the ridership, hence revenue, too. It is a win-win solution.

Operating cost per sector

bus routes	operating cost/year (in $M)	cost per boarding
1 to 84 and 99	$161.463	$1.245
100 to 199 and 97	$73.159	$1.718
300 to 399	$48.536	$1.976
400 to 499	$29.889	$2.011
500 to 599	$11.792	$2.451
600 to 699	$7.090	$2.996

Translink fare revenue per boarding is $1.2 [3]. Roughly, the Vancouver bus network, taken as a whole is about to break even. What is degrading the financial picture of Translink is the cost to serve the suburbs (we notice that people using multi-zone fare tend to do more transfer, so the revenue per boarding per zone is assumed about the same).

That was the original intend of this post, provide some firm numbers to substantiate various in discussion pitting suburbanite against Vancouver on the right amount of service each one is entitled to receive

---

[1] Review of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (Translink)BC Ministry of Finance, Oct 2012

[2] One of the major flaw of the audit in respect of the propulsion technologies comparison, is that it compare different bus, performing different duty. As an example the trolleybuses serve much more “punitive” route than other bus type

[3] 2013 Base plan-Draft for consultation, Translink 2012.

[4] 2011 BSPR Route Summaries 1 to 99, 2011 BSPR Route Summaries 100 to 199, 2011 BSPR Route Summaries 300 to 799. (part of a complete bus performance review)

[5] Those data assume that conventional bus cost ~$116/hr to operates. In fact it is probably not accurate enough to estimate the cost per route. Trolleybuses cost probably less to operate, and artics bus cost certainly more, may be 10% more, thought some suggest up to 25% more

freedom map with Broadway rapid transit

Not long time ago, Jarret Walker has written a post explaining the value of the isochrone maps, he presents as freedom maps: The freedom measure here is not that much about mobility than access: “how many new choices – jobs, shopping, schools, houses of worship or philosophy, sports facilities, and so on, are brought within a given travel time of how many people”-by a proposed project.

When it is time to build a new bridge across a river, this concept is usually clearly understood. When it is time to build a new transit line, it is far less the case, and eventually in Metro Vancouver it quickly boils down to who gonna get its fair share of rail tracks… that eventually dues to the fact that transit investments are not understood as transportation ones. Here below is an example of what additional freedom can be brought by a Broadway Skytrain (all isochrones are rough approximate and generated with mapnificent).

Approximation of how much more destination (in purple) can be reached in 15mn from Cambie#Broadway

What is also very important to understand is that a transit project is not necessarily reduced to serve the people living in its immediate vicinity:

30mn Isochrone from Richmond Brighouse, New Westminster, Lougheed and metrotown: in purple, approximation with the Broadway line

The isochrone maps above are with a commute time of 30mn on way (average commute time). As presented above, they carry little more value than improved mobility, in the term of how much more square km of area become more accessible: a good metric for urban sprawl, but not necessarily for economic value of the project and development sustainability

To measure how much the accessibility is improved for how many, integration of different density maps are needed:

metro population density map and vancouver job density map

All that and more give how much new opportunities are provided for how many people.
Translink certainly use the above datas to predict the ridership of any transit project, but the presentation of it under a “map of freedom”, can eventually allow a better visual grasp of the potential, influence, and sensitivity to land planning of the investment.

To be sure, you have to agree with the premise, that giving opportunities access to people is a good thing:

Compact development and constrained development

In some circles idealizing a certain past, people could tend to confound these 2 notions: A urban form constraining the opportunity options, be to learn, work… is per nature demanding to its residents to do some sacrifices. Conversely, an employer having access to a smaller labor pool will have less chance to find an adequate match. That provides in fine an economy not capitalizing on its talents, hence unable to perform as well as it should….and the purpose of any transport investment in history has been to improve the economy efficiency of the regions it connects.

A compact development can be achieved by constraint-i.e. lack of communication link- or by well designed communication links, where people want live at some specific nodes, because it is where they get the maximum freedom, in term of opportunity to work, learn, shop…It is eventually what the isochrones above represent: Some regional town centers become more attractive because a Broadway line gives them

• Better connection connection between each other, that is noticeably the case of Richmond and Lougheed (and beyond Tricities),
• Access to the central Broadway area, which is the second concentration of job in Metro Vancouver after Downtown.

The regional benefits of the Broadway line are undeniable, and probably are much greater than the local benefits, but can the served area accommodate further population/job growth?

Development potential

in those matter “land use” planning is key, and it is a common misconception that growth needs to be accommodated by further sprawl. The connected areas still have lot of reserve for infilling and densification, which can be leveraged on both potential future rapid transit stations and arterials serviced by local bus routes [1]- Not only in Vancouver, but also in the regional nodes benefiting of the Broadway line, as seen before

Broadway at Fraser;in bad need of revitalization; offers tremendous opportunities for densification among other

The question is hence more how to enable this potential, which need to be quantified, this to allow the best return on investment.

---

[1] In that respect, See also What Would It Take? Carbon Neutral Cities, Jeremy Falud, February 15, 2012 (and “key quotes” at pricetag ) and “Creating Places for People — The Melbourne Experiences“, Rob Adams, at SFU October 4, 2011

A letter to the Translink Commission

to:comments@translinkcommission.org

Dear Translink commissioner, Martin Crilly

you have inviting comments from the public on the proposed fare increase, and particularly on TransLink’s efficiency, hereafter are mines

prune irrelevant, because redundant and lightly used, bus route segments

In its 2005 Vancouver Transit area plan, Translink has identified several of those segments, noticeably in the Hasting corridor, and emitted recommendation on shortening of some route (like #3-Main and #20-Victoria), while consolidating others (like #16-Renfrew and #4-Powell). Those recommendation able to save significant operating cost haven’t been followed [1]. We suggest they should [2]…

Optimize route exploitation

• bus stop

Usually, bus stop are very closely spaced, and it is probable that Translink operation could be improved by increasing the bus stop spacing pretty often not greater than 250m in Vancouver. We note that in 2005 Translink has advised against a 99B stop at Fraser with good rational. Nevertheless this bus stop slowing the 99B operation has been implemented…

• schedule and interval management

We suggest that Translink explores an “interval” based operation management (maintain frequency interval between buses) rather than a “schedule” based one (maintained bus run on posted schedule) on certain very frequent route [3]

• Deviation of grid routing

Some bus routes are doing some detours (example route 49 at Champlain Mall): not only they increase the route operating cost, but they are a significant inconvenience slowing down the majority of rider. We recommend that Translink reviews those grid routing deviation which could have been justified at one time, but could not be anymore.

• bus lane and traffic signal preemption

It is our understanding that those device are under municipality control, which could have been reluctant to give up on parking revenue to improve bus route reliability, but it could be certainly helpful whether Translink could come with some strong recommendation on it (like cost to not do it).

Implement Express bus to address crowding

Translink communicates on “bus hours”, a measure certainly meaningful to the operator but not to the customer, for which a level of service could be better expressed in “bus kms”.

• A bus going twice faster could look like less “bus hour”, but it will provide the same service, and even better to the customer, while being cheaper to operate

We suggest that on some route, already offering a frequent service all day, and used as a regional connector;like the route 410 (New Westminster-Richmond); Translink addresses crowding not by adding more “slow” bus, but by doubling it by an express route [4].

On planning in general

Suburban bus routes’s productivity are usually very low, and that is largely due to urban planning choice of the concerned municipalities. It could be certainly useful to have Translink to evaluate and communicate the cost of serving current and proposed development in the suburbs, this toward a better efficiency of the system able to better preserve the interest of the taxpayer and liveability of the region.

On the fare increase

Should we understand it is necessary to compensate the revenue shortcoming of the Golden ears bridge? I have no specific opinion on it, beside the fact that I think the above suggestion should be implemented first, and secondly it is important to keep the system in state of good repair, and to address overcrowding.

Thank you for yours consideration on these matters,

Yours Sincerely

---

[1] route #3 has been shortened in 2005, but reexetended to downtown on December 29th 2008 (source cptdb.ca, see also Buzzer, December 5th, 2008, Translink

[2] See our route shortening suggestions proposal which me measure as able to save to Translink around 1% of total bus operating cost

[3] See some explanation in this post

[4] See our 410 express proposal

bus interval and schedule

Waiting for the bus on Robson, Broadway, or 41st, what is important to you: that the bus is “on time”, or that it arrives in the expected frequency interval?

bus operated on schedule

Ensuring scheduled runs, under unreliable traffic condition, can request significant leeway in the layover to absorb any delay at the bus terminus, what can lead to the picture below, which looks like as a poor utilization of bus resource:

buses laying over at Davie and Denman

Furthermore, to respect the schedule along long route, some timing point are necessary to allow adherence to it and to avoid bus bunching.

time point along route 41 (UBC-Joyce Station)

Whether those time points, either

• doesn’t provide enough leeway, and they become useless (the bus is still late on them)
• or provide too much lack- what is not only inefficient, but is frustrating for enroute rider

Normally you could expect that the buses are fairly distributed along the route – to provide a regular interval as built in the schedule, but the reality can be pretty much different:

snapshot of buses on route 41 on thursday Feb 9, 2012, around 2pm

…and bus bunching is still a reality of life:

A zoom on he route 41: 5 east bound bus are spotted here, 3 in the same block, 2 in the 9 others block... Is the bus driver the only one not knowing he is stepping on the back of another bus?

It must be a better way to operate a frequent bus route. When the frequency is supposed to be less than 10mn, do people really care about bus schedule?

bus operated on interval

That is typically, the way the buses in Paris inner city operate: no schedule at all is provided to the customer, just a frequency map. That gives lot of leeway for the operator to operate its bus according to the condition of the day:

• The operator bus schedule can vary according the day of the week, and week of the year
• The operator bus schedule can vary according presence of roadwork, and weather forecast

All that is used by the operator to plan the number of buses to operate on a route at a certain time of a certain day, and is not exposed to the customer, which just care about frequency – and generally understand that bus can’t move faster than traffic (unless bus lanes and other road priorities measure).

To avoid bus bunching, the Parisian RATP operator uses the Global positioning system to inform the bus drivers about spacing with buses in front and behind. The driver is supposed to regulate itself to maintain an optimal interval (so is not asked to adhere to a schedule per sei) [1]

That makes obsolete the time point mechanism, and eventually is from nature to

• increase the average bus speed
• lower the fleet requirement

The operation on an “interval” is not applied in the Paris suburbs, where bus operates on “schedule” but the operation on “interval” could apriori make sense for high frequency route, like the illustrated route 41…even in Vancouver

---

[1] Research result digest, October 1998, Transit Cooperative Research Program

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).

The future of Metro Vancouver lies in Chilliwack

Here is a map of the Vancouver region

vancouver region is the Lower mainland, and the future of the region will be shaped in the Fraser Valley (click for larger map)

Metro Vancouver, fate is largely depending on which future the Fraser valley will decide. If GVRD used to be distinct of the Lower mainland, nowadays and in the future, both form a single region with a common destiny

It is nice to see this fact recognized by the Metro vancouver director heading out of the regional district to have a retreat in Chilliwack Jan 26 and 27 — the first of the kind according to Frances Bula.

The Fraser valley- offering some of the world best agriculture lands-is a fairly linear and relatively narrow valley surrounded by pristine mountains-and the US border. Its topography is not dissimilar to the one found in Riverside (Inland Empire, in the Los Angeles area) or from some valley found in the Alpes, like in Switzerland.

The region is at an important crossing roads:

• Continue to follow the Riverside development model (LA region)
• Or follow a swiss model

The former is largely underway, much to the credit of the Campbell government which has clearly embarked the region on a “car oriented” sprawl road, this knowing the disastrous outcome of such a policy.

The risk, is not only to have the valley to become a Riverside North, but to have also Vancouver becoming a Santa Monica North, or a Venice in the middle of Phoenix:

• At Some point the Fraser Valley development model will acquire a critical Mass, which will cannibalize the Vancouver one, unless the later one retreat in splendid isolation, making it just a resort for tourist – “sun or historic heritage” not included.
• And as we can already see with Surrey, satisfying the mobility needs of a car oriented model will always require more road investment, while the attempt to provide public transit will prove a very costly, and largely inefficient proposition

Thought already lot of damages has been done by the development road taken in the Valley, some can be contained if not reversed, and it is not too late to take another direction:

The Swiss model.

• the freeways are generally tolled (via a once a time payment), but more importantly the Swisses have adopted, as soon as 1985, rail 2000, a very ambitious project indicative of a change of priority from the car oriented development to the revitalization of the public transit at first- but to also increase the competitiveness of the rail over the road for goods transportation.

Transportation choice is at the heart of this model, and it is grounded on an attractive public transit network, not only at local, but also at regional level. It is mostly achieved by train, but it is not a pre-requisite.

Transportation

There is no such thing as attractive public transportation in the Fraser valley. Example:

• Abbotsford-Vancouver : 70km, usually 1:50 hrs by Greyhound bus

…A non starter

Though some groups are advocating for the reopening of the Interurban between Surrey and Chilliwack and some other people are advocating for the extension of the Skytrain in the valley, there is not really an holistic vision of public transportation in the valley and how it integrates in the development model. Below is how such vision could starts from:

A first draft of Regional people transportation in the Valley

That is an important step, because, once agreed on the vision, which include the type of service, more noticeably speed and frequency level- the corridors can be identified, and then the development driven accordingly.

the future of the Region pass in Surrey

New Westminster has been the regional transportation node of the 19th century, but with the Fraser valley emergence, Surrey is called to be the one of the on-going century.

A wrong approach
Today the approach of transit in Surrey is a bottom-up one, basically involving 3 kind of players:

• The lobbyist groups wanting to put some train on the interurban track, which have good ear in City Hall (noticeabily with Marvin Hunt)
• The city wanting to see some streetcar to “foster” development
• Translink acting in the context of its mandate, which is to service its juridiction…

Thought only the Translink approach seems to care of the transit users, Translink is still facing the task to prioritize different corridor into Surrey, Guilford, King George and Fraser Highway. It doesn’t help to see this task from a local prism.

A Better approach
Once the Region, including the Fraser Valley, agreed on a regional network,
it becomes a corollary to connect it with the Rapid Transit network of Metro-Vancouver, and clearly at this moment one of the several option pursued by Translink in Surrey will take obvious precedence on others.

Some Challenges ahead
One of the main challenge is one of a governance one:

• How we can avoid that a city transportation plan, look likes the Surrey one [1]: an alignment of banality with not a single plan identifying future node or corridor, but with this sentence:
  advocate for good transit access to all economic lands, both existing and planned

  expressing the complete disconnection between land development and transit planning we have seen at play in this part of the region.

• How we can avoid that a jurisdiction, like the tsawwassen first nation develop its land with a massive mall, not accessible otherwise by car, in contradiction will all the aspiration of the region?
• More generally how we can avoid that parochialism take precedence on the general interest, and have a governance model driving vision going beyond municipalities boundary?

lot of good can be done by integrating Translink under the helm of Metro-Vancouver, but it is probably not good enough. Another part of the challenge is to integrate the Fraser Valley and metro Vancouver toward a common thinking for the future of the region.

We hope, all that will be discussed by the Metro vancouver in Chilliwack.

---

Transportation strategic plan, Surrey 2008