Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[racc]

Originally Posted by satishreddy

Given the ridership figures for various bus routes, is there any logical reason for building the Evergreen line before extending the Millenium line west to UBC?

Yes. The Evergreen Line will be ready for construction in a year or so. There is a lot of planning and design work that needs to be done before construction could start on the UBC Line. Then there is finding the money to pay for it. Even if the process was fast tracked, it would be at least 2 or 3 years before construction could start. By then, the Evergreen Line would be almost finished.

[squeezied]

well I like to think of it this way: if the evergreen line with its relatively lower ridership is built as skytrain first, then when it's time to consider the millennium line it makes it even more painfully obvious it has to be skytrain.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by satishreddy

A political decision was made to appease the people of Coquitlam/Port Moody with Skytrain. I realize that. It doesn't make the decision logical or a good use of money. One implication of this decision is that it will make it harder for the case to be made for rapid transit in regions that really deserve it based on ridership.

It's not just a political decision (i.e. to score voters) - it's a planning decision at the regional level to encourage and shape growth. It only became a political issue because of years and years of delay and failure to build out the LRSP network. Arguably, the UBC Line could be a move to score beleagured transit riders who complain of overcrowding.

The Evergreen Line is intended to be the counterpoint to the Expo Line
so that population growth develops evenly on both the north and the south sides of the Fraser River.

If you look at the LRSP map you'll see the "T-Line" which allows commuting from Coquitlam to Surrey (it looks like a sideways "T") - that is intended to shape growth by providing suburb to suburb rapid transit access to the Surrey core (Central City) and reducing commuting distances. As built, that route would be Evergreen Line -> M-Line -> Expo Line to Surrey.
Originally, there was to be fewer transfers with a through routing from Coquitlam to Columbia, but the M-Line as-built re-oriented the Lougheed station to an east-west station rather than a north-south station.

[satishreddy]

People:

My argument for where to build rapid transit (or transit in general) is based on density of population and density of jobs. We can argue forever about whether to put rapid transit where ridership already warrants it or to use rapid transit to encourage density. Which comes first: the chicken (rapid transit) or the egg (density)? In this case, I believe that the egg (density) comes first.

The City of Vancouver (COV) has a density of about 13.5K people per square mile, additionally many more people come to the COV for their jobs than leave the city. That is why most of the bus routes with high ridership are in the COV.

Burnaby has a density about 6K people per square mile. Richmond has density of about 3K people per square mile. New West has a density of close to 10K people per square mile. Coquitlam has a density of less than 2K people per square mile. Surrey has a density of about 3K people per square mile. Langely city has a density of about 5K per square mile. Langley township has a density of about 1K per square mile. We can go on.


The idea of building the Evergreen line now or extending the Expo line to Langley in the near future makes absolutely no sense to me given the existing density today. There simply isn't the density to warrant the capital/operating expenditure.

Let me throw more numbers at you. Look at the following website which gives boardings for Expo/Millenium line stations.

http://www.paulhillsdon.com/?p=550

Building rapid transit does not guarantee density increase or transit oriented development. Consider the Millenium line, completed 8 years ago. Some buildings have come up at Gilmore, Brentwood, and Lougheed. Production Way is now a major transfer point to SFU. My guess is that only a small proportion of the riders at Production Way live or work near that station. Braid is a transfer point. What development has occurred near this or other stations? Look at Lake City, Sperling, Holdum (I believe that there is one high rise near the station), Sapperton. According to the website, the boardings at these stations are extremely small compared to other stations.

Given the huge costs involved, it is my belief that rapid transit (Skytrain) should be built in areas of high density (people and jobs). That is why I believe that Millenium Line should be extended to UBC. That particular route goes through areas of high population and job density. Given the lower costs of rapid bus and light rail, they should be used to develop ridership in areas of lower density.

In my opinion, the Policy Decision/Political Decision to build the Evergreen line with Skytrain is wrong. I have given my reason. I realize, at this point my opinion regardng this matter is basically irrelevant. The train has already left the station. I have new mission: make the argument for the Skytrain extension to UBC.

Satish Reddy

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Dude, we have been over this before, this exact conversation. While you may be right that the M-line would bring in more riders, you missed the boat by about a decade to sway that decision.

Here are the main points to start:

1) The 97B line should not even be called a B line, it is slow and zig zags all over the place that one can not compare it to the direct link B-line of the 99, which is likely a major factor keeping its number so low, among others.

2) We have just gone through the Cambie street fiasco, maybe we should give the area some breathing room before we propose placing another line under peoples feet along Broadway (it would be political suicide right now and the media would have a field day reprinting all of the C-line problems, shelling out doom and gloom propaganda articles left and right)

3) There is a heavy resistance against such a project down Broadway currently (again, somewhat attributed to the fresh memories of Cambie street) and the Tri-city areas have generally been begging for a skytrain link for decades now. Local public support is an important factor in a project actually seeing the light of day. In fact the tri-cities have even began zoning and building around their anticipated rapid transit line.

Those are all very important things to consider in the system we have. Should the M-line extension be built first, probably, will it, hell no.

So should we — about the Evergreen Line being built, nope. Instead we should learn from it and start encouraging people at UBC and along Broadway to start campaigning as the Tri-cities have.

If you are so concerned about the Evergreen Line being built before the M-line extension, than you should be going door to door along Broadway informing them on the benefits of skytrain and writing to the media as i am currently attempting to do.

Before this project is ever off the ground, the people along the corridor have to be convinced. That is the true job.

I agree with you, but I do caution with the reverse happening....if Evergreen ridership does not materialize quickly enough during its first few years of operations, it could potentially affect the SkyTrain technology decision for Broadway. There's a much higher risk with ridership on the Evergreen, it isn't exactly the shoe-in ridership success that we've long predicted for the Canada Line.

I personally think the best that Evergreen can do during its first year is 40,000.

[officedweller]

There's also the political problem that TransLink is funded by all municipalities in the region - and Vancouver getting the lion's share of rapid transit (when jobs are not concentrated as heavily in the CBD as other cities (i.e. Toronto or Calgary)) is not viewed as fair (i.e. the UBC line wouldn't be funded without the suburban muncipalties' money).

Add to that the problem that the westside of the City of Vancouver may have less growth potential (beyond existing levels) than suburban muncipalities because of its limits on zoning and density (Ecodensity backlash -> laneway housing, not apartment blocks).

Originally Posted by satishreddy

Building rapid transit does not guarantee density increase or transit oriented development. Consider the Millenium line, completed 8 years ago. Some buildings have come up at Gilmore, Brentwood, and Lougheed. Production Way is now a major transfer point to SFU. My guess is that only a small proportion of the riders at Production Way live or work near that station. Braid is a transfer point. What development has occurred near this or other stations? Look at Lake City, Sperling, Holdum (I believe that there is one high rise near the station), Sapperton. According to the website, the boardings at these stations are extremely small compared to other stations.

Development around the M-Line hasn't been too bad - Burnaby has been doing a decent job of densifying (i.e. compared to the City of Vancouver's policies around the much older Expo Line).

Rupert & Renfrew in Vancouver are in a light industrial area rezoned for high tech. It will not be rezoned for highrise residential (nor highrise office). bentall has its Broadway Office Park and the Art Institute has moved into the renovated former Real Canadian Wholesale building (with the developer proposing additional office park phases on the site)
Gilmore has seen some condos built along Brentwood's pedestrian street (Dawson) - the station site will eventually (when a market develops) have office blocks interconnected at the mezzanine level.
Brentwood has seen a number of condos built in the area including a couple of smaller office blocks. The largest sites at Lougheed & Willingdon will hopefully include taller office towers when a market develops.
Holdom has seen a couple of condo towers - it's a bit of a secondary site and will probably lag in development behind the official municipal town centre at Brentwood. Sperling is also an odd site (placed for bus connections, I think) and probably won't be developed until Dairyland leaves its site (if ever).
Lake City and Production Way fall into the same category as Rupert & Renfrew in Vancouver - light industrial / high tech space - you won't see any highrise condos or offices there.
Lougheed - another municipal town centre with a number of towers and midrises built since the M-Line was built.
Braid - supposed to have been a major transit interchange (one proposal had a co-located Greyhound terminal there). Residential development will await the light industrial / warehouse users leaving their sites.
Sapperton - one condo has been built adjacent to the station plaza and the former Labatt's brewery site is slated to be developed with highrises, offices and retail.

Remember that the M-Line is incomplete - neither end (Broadway corridor, nor Evergreen Line) has been built.

[nname]

Originally Posted by satishreddy

I have seen a prediction of about 25000 per day riding the Evergreen line when it initially opens. The line is about 11km long, which is about 7 miles. Hence, there will be about 3,500 riders per mile. The figure for the Expo/Millenium line is between 8,000 and 9,000. The Canada line is about 20km, which 12.5 miles. Ridership is reported to be close to be 90,000 - 100,000 per day, which is about 7000 - 8000 mile.

The Evergreen Line is going to replace these routes completely:
97: 10000 riders
169: about 4000 riders

And the Evergreen Line is going to pull some riders off these routes:
WCE: The estimate was around 3000 riders/day
110: If Cameron station is built...
135: People from Como Lake area actually doing the 143/145/135 transfer since its sometime faster..
143: It would be faster to take skytrain from Lincoln or Westwood Plateau to SFU
145: Alternate skytrain connection at Burquitlam, reduce some load off Production
150: White Pine Beach special can drop people off at Ioco
151: Regular rider usually take the 151 from Coquitlam to Lougheed since its much faster
152: Same as 151
156: Now transfer at Burquitlam instead of Lougheed
159: Get on the skytrain at Coquitlam would be 15min faster compared to Braid
160: No longer go to downtown, so people would have to take skytrain (and its 20min faster too)
179: Douglas college students
190: Same as 160 (and this route will be cancelled completely)
791: Same as 159
C24: Same as 156
C26: Buntzen Lake Speckal, same as 150
C28: Same as 179

Or this way, from the 2007 data, the total 2 zones trip originating from TC/RM is 7,900 and 3 zones is 8,100 (so 32,000 trips in total, not counting the 9,000 from WCE). Other than some trips to SFU and Westridge (North Burnaby near SFU), and the trips from Maillardville and United Blvd, everything else would be funneled to Evergreen Line.. so that's easily 25,000 to 30,000 trips there. Note that trips only to Lougheed Mall is not included since it is 1 zone. So, there is no reason that the ridership couldn't be higher than 35,000.

[satishreddy]

The reason why a large fraction of the rapid transit resources and transit resources are in the city of Vancouver is because the stations and the routes are where people live or work or want to go. Now these stations and routes are not the sole preserve of the people who reside in Vancouver. People from other municipalities can use these facilities too!

I don't have the statistics, but I would bet a large amount of money that most people getting off the Millenium line and Expo line at Broadway/Commercial and transferring to the 99B to travel along Broadway and to UBC live outside of Vancouver.

I work in downtown. I don't take Skytrain to get to work. Every once in a while, I get on the Expo line or the Canada line to "observe the Skytrain in action". From my anectodal experience during afternoon rush hour, on both lines, the trains are filled before leaving downtown. For the most part, most people get off outside of Vancouver. This is based on my observations not a scientific study.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by mr.x

I agree with you, but I do caution with the reverse happening....if Evergreen ridership does not materialize quickly enough during its first few years of operations, it could potentially affect the SkyTrain technology decision for Broadway. There's a much higher risk with ridership on the Evergreen, it isn't exactly the shoe-in ridership success that we've long predicted for the Canada Line.

I personally think the best that Evergreen can do during its first year is 40,000.

Build them both at once as the same project. Problem solved.

[Zassk]

Vancouver getting the "lion's share of rapid transit" is a little misleading. Only a third of Expo Line, a quarter of Millennium Line, and about half of Canada Line lie within the City of Vancouver. If any jurisdiction has received generous rapid transit relative to its population and jobs, it is Burnaby, and one could also point a finger at New West, although New West's driving infrastructure is so awful that one could easily justify an investment in transit there. My point is, we cannot say that the City of Vancouver has received an unfair amount of km-of-rapid-transit-per-capita. It is just one out of many privileged jurisdictions in the Metro area.

[satishreddy]

I live in Vancouver. I am not advocating investing in transit infrastructure in Vancouver because it benefits me directly. Put resources where there is a need based on ridership. If ridership demand warrants building skytrain to Lion's Bay, then I will advocate for it.

I support extending the Millenium to UBC because ridership warrants it. After downtown, the 2nd and 3rd most popular transit destinations are Central Broadway and UBC (can't remember which is 2nd and 3rd.)

Putting transit facilities in Vancouver is not just for the people of Vancouver. The university at the western tip of Vancouver, a major transit destination in this area, is not the U of Point Grey, or the U of West Side of Vancouver, or the U of Vancouver. It is UBC and faculty and students commute there each day from the entire Metro area.

[NetMapel]

I too support skytrain extension all the way to UBC, but I just want a Surrey LRT to be the next priority. Ideally, I would hope for Evergreen and a Surrey LRT to be built at around the same time. Then, after those are done, start the M-line extension to UBC. Perhaps after those, we can consider interurban (WCE for the South of Fraser region) and Canada Line station/car expansion.

[officedweller]

As you've mentioned, it boils down to the classic debate over building to serve growth or building to shape growth. It's really just about prioritizing the projects. If you always build where there's existng ridership (i.e. always follow one theory), you may end up with sprawling suburbs like the 905 around Toronto. The streetcar suburbs of Kitsilano, etc. are all "shaped" growth resulting from streetcar lines built further into the woods and allowing people to cummute farther distances.

But nowadays, you need to provide a business case for projects to justify it on an economic basis - but I don't necessarily think that all projects should be measured that way (i.e. I don't know if the night bus would pay for itself, but it serves a useful function), as I do see utility in building out the rapid transit backbone to link all of the major regional town centres to aid in their development. At the time that the Expo Line was bult to Surrey, there may well have been higher potential ridership in areas within the City of Vancouver (especially with the destination of Whalley at the time) - the line was taken up the hill from Scott Road with the prospect of building the regional town centre (otherwise, it may well just have stopped across the river at Scott Road).

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by officedweller

It's not just a political decision (i.e. to score voters) - it's a planning decision at the regional level to encourage and shape growth. It only became a political issue because of years and years of delay and failure to build out the LRSP network. Arguably, the UBC Line could be a move to score beleagured transit riders who complain of overcrowding.

The Evergreen Line is intended to be the counterpoint to the Expo Line
so that population growth develops evenly on both the north and the south sides of the Fraser River.

If you look at the LRSP map you'll see the "T-Line" which allows commuting from Coquitlam to Surrey (it looks like a sideways "T") - that is intended to shape growth by providing suburb to suburb rapid transit access to the Surrey core (Central City) and reducing commuting distances. As built, that route would be Evergreen Line -> M-Line -> Expo Line to Surrey.
Originally, there was to be fewer transfers with a through routing from Coquitlam to Columbia, but the M-Line as-built re-oriented the Lougheed station to an east-west station rather than a north-south station.

I totally understand what you are saying. It is important to shape growth by using transit.

The problem is doing it only at one end doesn't help. If you want to build transit at one end to encourage people to take it, it needs to go somewhere.

It's like saying we want to encourage growth in Penticton and Vernon so we will build some rail transit between the two cities... on the West side of the lake.

Would anyone ride the WCE if the terminus was in Northern Burnaby or Hastings Park or even Main&Powell? Would Skytrain have influenced the growth and density in New Westminster and Surrey if the terminus was Stadium and didn't go through to the business district?

Central Broadway, South Granville, Kits, and UBC are huge destinations. 49% of commuters drive into downtown, 49% take transit. Central Broadway is at over 70% drivers, and the B-Line is full. We can build all the transit we want in the burbs, more people aren't going to ride it because there isn't room on the B-line for them.

The best way to increase ridership on Skytrain in places where Evergreen will go and on the Millennium line would be to offer more places they want to go.

I could understand leaving Broadway the way it is if it was all people coming from CoV into downtown, but Broadway itself is a major destination, second largest in the region, and it's on the same corridor as the number 3 destination at UBC. It's where people in the burbs, who want LRT or Skytrain in their neck of the woods, want to go once they get on the trains.

They won't ride it at their end if it doesn't go to the established areas they want to go to.

UBC might not be in the LRSP, but Central Broadway is. It's a major destination for regional travelers, and having it on the network will encourage growth and density in other areas along existing and planned Skytrain.

If you work on Broadway or go to/work at UBC, it doesn't mater where in the boonies they build Skytrain, it still doesn't go where you want it to go, so it won't influence your move (in fact you will live as far away from it as possible because it drives up home prices, why pay for it if you don't need it).


But you are right that at the end of the day, Evergreen line is already well ahead of Broadway. Even if Broadway were fast tracked to the extreme, by the time shovels hit the ground, Evergreen would be almost complete if it goes ahead as planned. And it's not like we are going to put this money set aside for Evergreen (except the $200 million we are short) into a savings account, it's mostly there and needs to be spent on something ready to build, like Evergreen Line. And even though a lot of it will be borrowed, it's cheaper to borrow it now than in the future.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by satishreddy

People:

My argument for where to build rapid transit (or transit in general) is based on density of population and density of jobs. We can argue forever about whether to put rapid transit where ridership already warrants it or to use rapid transit to encourage density. Which comes first: the chicken (rapid transit) or the egg (density)? In this case, I believe that the egg (density) comes first.

The City of Vancouver (COV) has a density of about 13.5K people per square mile, additionally many more people come to the COV for their jobs than leave the city. That is why most of the bus routes with high ridership are in the COV.

Burnaby has a density about 6K people per square mile. Richmond has density of about 3K people per square mile. New West has a density of close to 10K people per square mile. Coquitlam has a density of less than 2K people per square mile. Surrey has a density of about 3K people per square mile. Langely city has a density of about 5K per square mile. Langley township has a density of about 1K per square mile. We can go on.


The idea of building the Evergreen line now or extending the Expo line to Langley in the near future makes absolutely no sense to me given the existing density today. There simply isn't the density to warrant the capital/operating expenditure.

Let me throw more numbers at you. Look at the following website which gives boardings for Expo/Millenium line stations.

http://www.paulhillsdon.com/?p=550

Building rapid transit does not guarantee density increase or transit oriented development. Consider the Millenium line, completed 8 years ago. Some buildings have come up at Gilmore, Brentwood, and Lougheed. Production Way is now a major transfer point to SFU. My guess is that only a small proportion of the riders at Production Way live or work near that station. Braid is a transfer point. What development has occurred near this or other stations? Look at Lake City, Sperling, Holdum (I believe that there is one high rise near the station), Sapperton. According to the website, the boardings at these stations are extremely small compared to other stations.

Given the huge costs involved, it is my belief that rapid transit (Skytrain) should be built in areas of high density (people and jobs). That is why I believe that Millenium Line should be extended to UBC. That particular route goes through areas of high population and job density. Given the lower costs of rapid bus and light rail, they should be used to develop ridership in areas of lower density.

In my opinion, the Policy Decision/Political Decision to build the Evergreen line with Skytrain is wrong. I have given my reason. I realize, at this point my opinion regardng this matter is basically irrelevant. The train has already left the station. I have new mission: make the argument for the Skytrain extension to UBC.

Satish Reddy

I do agree that the UBC extension would be a bigger success right from the start then the Evergreen line.

But I also realize that most of the paper work has been completed for the Evergreen line and in fact the only major stopping block is a lack of funds. But with the UBC extension there is still a lot of paper work that needs to be completed.

In the end both lines are needed and so which ever line gets started first doesn't matter. What matter is getting them started as soon as possible. So start with the line that is ready to be started and not with the line that isn't ready at this point. Hopefully when the Evergreen line is done the UBC line can be started.

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by mr.x

I agree with you, but I do caution with the reverse happening....if Evergreen ridership does not materialize quickly enough during its first few years of operations, it could potentially affect the SkyTrain technology decision for Broadway. There's a much higher risk with ridership on the Evergreen, it isn't exactly the shoe-in ridership success that we've long predicted for the Canada Line.

I personally think the best that Evergreen can do during its first year is 40,000.

It could go higher than 40,000 if the M-Line were extended to Cambie in conjunction with the opening of the Evergreen Line.

[Zassk]

In an ideal world, they would use their TBM for the Evergreen Line tunnels in 2011-2012, and then immediately transport the TBM over to VCC-Clark and start tunnelling westward. Dig a "phase 1 extraction pit" at either Cambie or Arbutus, depending on how much funding is available at the time, and bring that part of the Broadway line into service by 2016. Then start the legwork on the remaining stretch to UBC for 2020.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by officedweller

It's enshrined in the Livable Region Strategic Plan - required by law - to shape growth.

Classic debate - build to shape future growth or to serve existing growth?

The Broadway extension of the M-Line is only in the Livable Region Strategic Plan up to either Granville or Arbutus. An amendment to the plan (a revised, updated version is currently being drafted - the "Regional Growth Strategy") requires the unanimous consent of all Metro Vancouver municipalities.

Here's the Rapid Transit System under the Livable Region Strategic Plan (1996, updated 1999)
Arguably, a Guilfdord<-> Newton LRT or rapid bus line should get priority over the UBC Skytrain according to the LRSP.



Proposed Rapid Transit System under draft Regional Growth Strategy:

I wouldn't bet a dime on the LRSP. It literally screwed up on the predictions of Richmond's growth. Remember that Richmond wasn't EVEN on LRSP? But when the C-line was built, it had 80,000-90,000 ridership per day right from the get go and now starting to hit 122,000? And I blame (for a significant role) LRSP to the C-Line being underbuilt. It's SO painfully obvious. The YVR is in Richmond's jurisdiction and Richmond itself has numerous malls along No.3 Rd (there's A LOT of ridership on the C-Line esp on the weekends as well, which isn't really the case on M/E-Lines). The failure of LRSP to see this is just outright ridiculous.

LRSP itself is epic fail and is a perfect example of politically-motivated regional planning.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by satishreddy

Given the ridership figures for various bus routes, is there any logical reason for building the Evergreen line before extending the Millenium line west to UBC?
The 97B line doesn't even make the top 20 routes.

Ridership on a transit system depends on density of population and density of jobs. Do the following experiment: take a drive or the bus between Broadway/Commercial station and UBC on Broadway/10th Ave and compare that to a trip between Lougheed Mall and Coquitlam Mall on North Road, Clarke, and Barnet Highway. Look for population density, job density, places people go daily. Other than 2 or 3 patches of buildings along the route in Coquitlam/Port Moody, there is little or no density.

This is an example of a politically motivated decision that wastes money and limits resources for where they are actually needed.

I have seen a prediction of about 25000 per day riding the Evergreen line when it initially opens. The line is about 11km long, which is about 7 miles. Hence, there will be about 3,500 riders per mile. The figure for the Expo/Millenium line is between 8,000 and 9,000. The Canada line is about 20km, which 12.5 miles. Ridership is reported to be close to be 90,000 - 100,000 per day, which is about 7000 - 8000 mile.

I use the riders per mile figure, because it makes easy comparison to figures for other North American systems given in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_light_rail_systems_by_ridership

Even if the Evergreen line hits 35,000 riders per day on opening day, it will still have only 5000 riders per mile.

The Millenium line extension using Skytrain to UBC is about 12km, which is about 7.5 miles. It will easily reach the 8 - 9000 riders per mile per day average for the Expo/Millenium line on opening day given the existing ridership on the 9, 17, 99 buses which run along the route to UBC.

In terms of bang for the buck - Broadway wins with and estimated 200,000 riders per day and more. It is sorely needed and probably should be the first priority.

In terms of shaping land use, Evergreen. There is a lot of development potential in that area and Evergreen will lead to transit oriented development. But, we're only looking at around 30,000 riders per day on that, so it will be expensive, but it will grow faster than Broadway, but probably never get to 200,000.

[DKaz]

I expect only a very small number of people, less than 1000 people, to switch from the WCE to the Evergreen Line. If you consider it costs $136 (soon going up) for a 3 zone bus pass and the Skytrain ride will take about 45 minutes, vs. $161 for a WCE pass and the ride will take 25 minutes, if $25 is worth saving to take an extra 20 minutes to get to work and get home each day, hey all the power to you. For fast trax students, this is a bigger difference, $69 for a 1 zone + FastTrax vs. $121.50 WCE + Fasttrax... $52.50 is 25 boxes of mac and cheese, four cartons of milk and a jug of margarine required to make that mac and cheese with money to spare for a 6 pack of beer.

But seeing how WCE is absolutely standing room only past Coquitlam Station... I counted 30 standees on my car... we won't mind offloading a few passengers onto Skytrain. And that loss of 1000 passengers per day past Coquitlam will be made up by an extra passengers per day from the east who find that they can go from Mission to Brentwood in 70 minutes (it's currently close to 90 minutes), to Metrotown in 75 minutes (currently 95ish), most importantly without stepping on a bus. And every year, ridership is growing. There are way more standees this year than last year. The new cars can't arrive soon enough this autumn.