Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by TransitFreak

In a 4 train cycle, you'd have Richmond, YVR, Richmond, YVR. Is it now Bridgeport, YVR, Bridgeport, YVR, or something else? Anyone noticed the scheduling?

YVR, YVR, YVR, YVR...

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by jhausner

There's some crazy people in this thread.

The only real point I want to make is that (it's probably been mentioned but I don't want to sift through 369 pages) in general, transportation backbones which the Skytrain lines qualify as, are not built just for density especially residential. They are also built for the 'working man' trying to go to work. So you can't simply say:

"Well the Broadway cooridor is high density so it should have a Skytrain line." This is why project studies aren't done in 2 days like some people would like them to be done in. When you are looking for new lines and planning transit maps out you have to look at the entire picture including the destination, route, and where the origin is.

So the UBC line wouldn't be built for the Broadway cooridor, it would instead make sense to go along that route to help out and or give alternatives to people living there. The reason it would be built though is to get the workers and students to and from UBC from other parts of Metro Vancouver much like the line out to YVR is meant to help the 20,000+ workers that commute there every day even though Sea Island has a residential population of next to nothing.

For UBC alone you'd have to correctly sit down and look at where the student and worker populations originate from. If for example you have 20,000 students at UBC but 10,000 live on campus, then you can't say "look they have 20,000 students!" when it comes to transit, you have to take the lesser number because those living on campus students will spend most time there and don't fully qualify against the equation. Same with workers. If you simply go 20,000 people work on campus you have to figure out where most originate from. If 10,000 live south of the fraser and you build a line that links UBC to North Vancouver (as has been mentioned), will that help? Probably not. Same deal if you build a skytrain extension but for those people living south of fraser there is no effective way for them to get to skytrain in the first place, then again you aren't solving anything. If it turns out 75% of the people at UBC live on the broadway cooridor then there is a good argument. Not to mention you don't have a solution that involves telling people "Well move closer to Vancouver" since the bulk of people in Metro Van live 'out of town in the burbs' so those living 'in town' are actually the minority here.

Same thing building a line anywhere. Would you build a high end line down a road cooridor with a lot of restaurants? Or would you build one down a cooridor with a lot of destination stores and office locations? Even if there are way more restaurants on the first road? I mean the map may show more businesses and jobs there. But they are restaurants so the commuting footprint is far different than office space.

Again this is why transit studies take years and you can't just look at a single table of numbers of a fancy colored map of metro vancouver with population densities.

UBC is a major destination, South of Fraser including Langley is a major Origin as is Coquitlam. That means while UBC is important it isn't for sure more important or less important of those other links getting transit alternatives. Is Skytrain the solution? I don't know for all.

I do think though UBC needs a rapid transit link that aren't busses. Makes sense. But I think 1 can't happen without finally getting that bloody Evergreen line done AND increased transit options for people South of Fraser. Not to mention more focus on better densification and people not needing to commute 60km to and from work.

But yah don't just say "WE NEED X CUZ HIGH DENSITY LAWL." because that's just silly and missing the big picture.

I do agree that just because a corridor has a high residential density it may not even warrant building something like skytrain. But with Broadway not only do you have a higher residential density you also have a high job density is as well.

[golog]

for jhausner and everyone else that noticed my giant post ranking a broadway line above a surrey line in terms of precedence

I apologize for any arrogance in the tone, but it was already long enough without me making more considerate arguments. My opinion is not simply categorized as pursuing self-interest or aimed at encouraging municipal rivalries.

Surrey first needs better bus service, or LRT if you think the line will be used long enough to pay for the increased capital investment.

This will allow ridership to experimentally demonstrate demand. No more guessing who will switch out of their cars, what role potential feeder routes play, who will walk further or transfer to use an express route, where the trip destinations are, where the trip sources are, and what times are popular.

An expanded bus network in Surrey is important because it would provide both feeder routes to saturate rail capacity AND because it provides a fallback redundancy in case of problems on the train line.

At the same time, transportation shapes the communities around them. Having frequent service come first in a broad way will enable Surrey to organically grow neighbourhood centres. There's no reason why we should presume and then artificially stifle the possibility that Surrey becomes a major destination.


Minimum frequency transit service between 7am - 7pm
source: nname, Transit Statistics Thread

Commuting from further and further away is a losing proposition; while distance rises linearly, congestion/time of commute or the alternative cost for network capacity expansion will probably increase exponentially to at least the power of 2. That's why cities that tried building only around the car in a suburban-sprawl model have never been able to build their way out.

How much time would be saved by commuters riding skytrain the whole way instead of catching an express bus to the existing terminus? I think we can do better in terms of $s per travel time reduction.

By first moving to increase transit frequency in Surrey, you increase the opportunity of and eventually actual transit trips within Surrey which lowers the cost per trip of Translink.

Furthermore when increasing bus, or LRT, service is no longer even an option due to congestion then there are votes on record by way of ridership for upgrading to grade separated transit with a strong business case in hand.


Total Daily Boarding of Bus Routes, circa 2007
source: nname, Transit Statistics Thread

The reason for a transit study is that it's a minor cost when the cost of failure would be measured in the millions or billions. Using either a theoretical model or experimental data will show that the two corridors are not in the same league and won't be for decades, a comparative study would be a formality.

I'm not saying we should never forge ahead in a "build it and they will come" way, Metrotown in Burnaby is a pretty good argument for the validity of that argument. Actually even a bunch of neighbourhood centres in Vancouver were separate towns until ca. 1929 as they had sprouted up at stops on the interurban line. In this case I think triaging transportation based on need, allowing citizens of Surrey to take the lead in shaping their communities, and having a more resilient transit network is the way to go.

Maybe it would help to think about this in terms of roads. You could build a highway and place suburbs at every exit which purely offload their own traffic onto the highway. That leaves a congested highway, no alternate routes in case of accident, and a price tag for highway expansion that the suburbs' residents cannot afford (it would have been cheaper to buy closer to their commuting destination) -- the worst of all worlds. It really is important to take things one step at a time, growing many cross-supporting layers, and having a continuous spectrum of options responding to economic needs/wants. The same logic would apply if Vancouver never had any viewcones, and the downtown peninsula was occupied by 6 1000m skyscrapers and a bunch of single family homes.

[golog]

CityCaucus story on BC's Comptroller General's report on the future of Translink, as a citation to the cost of suburban routes. Although nname's data was amazing, boards/revenue-hr doesn't track a buses' exact share of the passenger fare -- we'll have to wait for smartcards to find that out -- but it does a pretty darn good job of showing where the demand/profit is and where Translink is losing enough money to provide free cab rides instead.

from the report

Also, TransLink‟s operating cost per rider-kilometer has increased 19% from
2005 to 2008, well above the general inflation rate. An increase in the
number of available and unfilled seats would contribute to a higher cost per
rider kilometer.
The following productivity measures indicate that TransLink is a high cost
operator compared to other transit systems:
• cost per rider – TransLink‟s cost per rider is $3.44 (other operators‟
costs ranged from $2.11 to $2.70 per rider) This is relatively high,
likely due to lower ridership levels; and
• cost per rider-kilometre TransLink‟s cost is $0.29 per Km (other
operators‟ costs ranged from $0.19 to $0.29 per Km). This is likely
an indicator of relatively low ridership levels over the distance.
We found that TransLink was a relatively efficient operator in terms of
operating costs per vehicle hour and per kilometer, based on a comparison
with other Canadian transit service providers. This efficiency was at least in
part due to TransLink being a lower cost user of fuel and energy to operate
its vehicles.

Commuter style busses that have passengers who travel long distances, have reduced capacity due to no standing, usually have to travel empty half the time, and cannot stop to pickup passengers when below capacity in order to keep the time down are the most expensive. Also the busses with infrequent service, few supporting or alternate routes, and even lower ridership.

Will smart cards, and perhaps a network of license plate tracking cameras on arterial route, be the solution to Metro Vancouver's transportation planning problems? Right now there isn't a link between Translink's revenue and spending, it's only about the politics among the mayors and the province -- that's why there is so much squabbling, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. see: Port Moody's Trasolini or Burnaby's Corrigan

p.s.
VanCity Buzz quotes Ken Hardie saying Translink has noticed congestion from Broadway transit overflowing to routes on 4th, 41st and 49th resulting in buses bunching up (named routes including 84, 25, 43, 49. probably includes 33, 41, 44, 480 and other buses along those east-west routes), in addition to the ones already congested on Broadway like 99, 9, 16, 17, ...
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2010/10/bus-crowding-growth-olympic-effect.html
what the heck, let's delay a broadway line another 30 years, and then divide it up into phases -- because only solving the problem for half the length won't make it even worse, and it won't cost a dime more -- based on the recommendation of people who don't know the area or are oblivious to existing ridership.

[usog]

I always wonder why translink has never considered medium-sized buses. The idea of moving routes to shuttle status is definitely a step in the right direction, but there needs to be something in between imo. This applies to a lot of the routes in Surrey too I'd say. Is it too expensive/not worth it or what? I know a few systems in the states have them, and new flyer does have a 30-foot model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midibus

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by golog

VanCity Buzz quotes Ken Hardie saying Translink has noticed congestion from Broadway transit...

That's a very interesting article. Transit ridership sustained about a 10% increase after the Olympics - that's pretty amazing!

[golog]

Originally Posted by usog

I always wonder why translink has never considered medium-sized buses. The idea of moving routes to shuttle status is definitely a step in the right direction, but there needs to be something in between imo. This applies to a lot of the routes in Surrey too I'd say. Is it too expensive/not worth it or what? I know a few systems in the states have them, and new flyer does have a 30-foot model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midibus

There was a story recently about Translink sending old busses to the scrap yard, and Ken Hardie I believe said the capital costs of a bus is only 20% of its lifetime costs including operating and maintenance. If the midbuses cost half as much, that's a good start but I think they would also need the maintenance costs to be lower as well to come close with breaking even.

In the studies the city of Ottawa did, the advantage skytrain had by being driven automatically versus a traditional subway or streetcar was a huge advantage -- like 60% lower operating costs -- which allows them to break even at ~$1.12 per trip not including capital costs. That suggests something like half of a bus' lifetime cost is in the cost of a driver

The catch was Ottawa already had a right of way used only by busses and were just adding a tunnel under downtown to avoid congestion, and they were anticipating a demand of ~5,000 passengers per hour per direction. So with the space available, lower demand, low anticipated growth, and inability to use diesel buses in the tunnel they went with LRT.

Whatever the solution is, I think the key is to offer frequent service so that one doesn't have to worry about planning the trip or getting to the stop extra early to avoid missing it.

I don't think there is anything in wrong in making communities wait until a potential service is within the realm of possibility for breaking even. I like your idea of suggesting a smaller bus to make that happen sooner. I even agree with Zwei to the extent that a Westcoast express type option should be possible and able to take care of itself in elsewhere in the Valley. But at the end of the day, until we find new solutions along those lines, I wouldn't expect Translink to come and serve me if I moved to Langley unless it was a service that I would consider starting up out of my own pocket. Offering more park & rides along a denser network of frequent service is another option to sustainably extend the margins of the system; the land is cheap and operating costs are low.

I'm willing to accept that sometimes they'll push the envelope for other legitimate reasons, but I think the Evergreen line is a mess. Port Moody threatening to block the line, Port Coquitlam furious there isn't a short branch to their downtown, South of Fraser in a temper that it's their turn in line next if Port Moody is being served first, and when a Surrey line has a single proposed alignment there will be even more people that are more upset. That's why I think Translink needs to be more principle driven with its capital expenditure planning; stepping outside of offering service at a breakeven and you'll have arguments about regional fairness, encourage development that is ever more expensive to serve, employees and administrators that see no fundamental barrier to 10% annual pay increases, and no restraint on debt issuance until finances are a total disaster.

[CLC]

Lots of transit news on newspaper recently, here 's Province report on West Coast Express:
http://www.theprovince.com/Train+costs+drop+still+pricey/3781353/story.html

Train costs drop, still pricey to run
Most expensive per passenger in TransLink's stable but riders love it

By Frank Luba, The Province November 5, 2010
Costs of running the West Coast Express have gone down appreciably after 15 years and 30 million riders, but the commuter train still costs TransLink more to operate than any other service.

There are five trains in the morning from Mission to downtown Vancouver and five trains doing the return trip in the afternoon, with special "train-bus" service emulating the route for people who miss the train or have to leave later.

The operating cost per boarded passenger was $6.70 in 2009, according to TransLink.

The total compares to $1.17 cost per boarded passenger on SkyTrain, the $1.64 on SeaBus or $2.37 on conventional bus.

But, in 1996, the cost was $24, when the capital budget was higher than expected and ridership was lower than projected.

The West Coast Express was a creation of B.C. Transit under the previous NDP provincial government. Train costs were reduced when debt-servicing costs were picked up by the province in 1999 with the creation of TransLink.

TransLink vice-president Doug Kelsey said Thursday that another big piece of cost reduction came about when the contract to rent track space from Canadian Pacific was renegotiated downward in 2002.

Kelsey also pointed to cost cutting by West Coast Express.

Despite its hefty tab, Kelsey defended a service that only recovered 37 per cent of its operating cost in 2002.

"Now our operating-cost recovery is almost up to 90 per cent," he said.

"On a commuter rail system you probably get about 50 to 60 per cent [cost recovery] on a mature system like this.

"We're doing very, very well." Passengers certainly like what they get. Ravinder Rhakra, who won a yearlong

transit pass this past week as the 30-millionth rider on the train, has been taking the West Coast Express for 14 years.

"I love riding the train," said Rhakra, who uses the trip to nap or catch up on her email to and from her home in Maple Ridge.

She said she would "never" return to driving into town regularly.

"Make sure we never lose this train," she said.

[Mac Write]

THey need to add reverse service from Vancouver to Mission in the AM and return in the P.M. I would love to do a day trip on the West Coast Express and explore mission, or just do the full journey, but that isn't realistic right now with the run and dash one bus route to get back if you take the 3:50 train.

[CLC]

Originally Posted by golog

p.s.
VanCity Buzz quotes Ken Hardie saying Translink has noticed congestion from Broadway transit overflowing to routes on 4th, 41st and 49th resulting in buses bunching up (named routes including 84, 25, 43, 49. probably includes 33, 41, 44, 480 and other buses along those east-west routes), in addition to the ones already congested on Broadway like 99, 9, 16, 17, ...
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2010/10/bus-crowding-growth-olympic-effect.html
what the heck, let's delay a broadway line another 30 years, and then divide it up into phases -- because only solving the problem for half the length won't make it even worse, and it won't cost a dime more -- based on the recommendation of people who don't know the area or are oblivious to existing ridership.

It has been posted and discussed a month ago.

A major reason of the surge of ridership on 41st and 49st Avenue is Canada Line transfer, and for #49 the effect of Langara Upass+record enrollment is phenomenal. In most cases, taking #41 and #49 makes logical sense for those (assumed majority of) riders living in Southern side of Vancouver. It is not exactly caused by "Broadway transit overflowing" as you said (The article did not mention Hardie has said so). It is arguably #49 has been more overcrowded than #99-b during mid-day and weekends.

An additional notice about #49: is it just my false observation or Translink is now using 60ft buses even more often on this route. The overcrowded situation seems eased.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by golog

There was a story recently about Translink sending old busses to the scrap yard, and Ken Hardie I believe said the capital costs of a bus is only 20% of its lifetime costs including operating and maintenance. If the midbuses cost half as much, that's a good start but I think they would also need the maintenance costs to be lower as well to come close with breaking even.

In the studies the city of Ottawa did, the advantage skytrain had by being driven automatically versus a traditional subway or streetcar was a huge advantage -- like 60% lower operating costs -- which allows them to break even at ~$1.12 per trip not including capital costs. That suggests something like half of a bus' lifetime cost is in the cost of a driver

The catch was Ottawa already had a right of way used only by busses and were just adding a tunnel under downtown to avoid congestion, and they were anticipating a demand of ~5,000 passengers per hour per direction. So with the space available, lower demand, low anticipated growth, and inability to use diesel buses in the tunnel they went with LRT.

Whatever the solution is, I think the key is to offer frequent service so that one doesn't have to worry about planning the trip or getting to the stop extra early to avoid missing it.

I don't think there is anything in wrong in making communities wait until a potential service is within the realm of possibility for breaking even. I like your idea of suggesting a smaller bus to make that happen sooner. I even agree with Zwei to the extent that a Westcoast express type option should be possible and able to take care of itself in elsewhere in the Valley. But at the end of the day, until we find new solutions along those lines, I wouldn't expect Translink to come and serve me if I moved to Langley unless it was a service that I would consider starting up out of my own pocket. Offering more park & rides along a denser network of frequent service is another option to sustainably extend the margins of the system; the land is cheap and operating costs are low.

I'm willing to accept that sometimes they'll push the envelope for other legitimate reasons, but I think the Evergreen line is a mess. Port Moody threatening to block the line, Port Coquitlam furious there isn't a short branch to their downtown, South of Fraser in a temper that it's their turn in line next if Port Moody is being served first, and when a Surrey line has a single proposed alignment there will be even more people that are more upset. That's why I think Translink needs to be more principle driven with its capital expenditure planning; stepping outside of offering service at a breakeven and you'll have arguments about regional fairness, encourage development that is ever more expensive to serve, employees and administrators that see no fundamental barrier to 10% annual pay increases, and no restraint on debt issuance until finances are a total disaster.

A main reason a lot of companies use mini buses is to save on the operating cost. A properly built mini bus could weigh almost half as much as the full size buses we have. Less weight equals less fuel needed. It's also easier on electric motors if you go hybrid (the batteries last long because when they accelerate the lighter bus as they don't need as much current, meaning smaller and longer lasting batteries).

I don't know if mini buses are the answer, but there are a few shuttle like routes, that are Cxx branded, that use the tiny buses we have, that with their volume could use something bigger like a mini bus. And there are some routes that use full size buses that I've never seen full, that could save some serious money if they had better fuel economy.

I remember when I lived in Coquitlam, the C24 would always leave more than full, because if the 97 was full, it was the only other choice to get you up to Clarke. It also stopped at a few more stops along Clarke and North, making it a popular choice. That route could have used a mini bus instead of the truck-bus it had.

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by CLC

It has been posted and discussed a month ago.

A major reason of the surge of ridership on 41st and 49st Avenue is Canada Line transfer, and for #49 the effect of Langara Upass+record enrollment is phenomenal. In most cases, taking #41 and #49 makes logical sense for those (assumed majority of) riders living in Southern side of Vancouver. It is not exactly caused by "Broadway transit overflowing" as you said (The article did not mention Hardie has said so). It is arguably #49 has been more overcrowded than #99-b during mid-day and weekends.

An additional notice about #49: is it just my false observation or Translink is now using 60ft buses even more often on this route. The overcrowded situation seems eased.

The thing with the 49 route is that the timing is inconsistent, you never really know when the bus will come. I take it everyday from Metrotown at 7 and from Oak at 3:30 and the bus is full, but not with that many UBC students, most of the riders like you said use the 19 and the Canada line for transfers, but many also get off at the other popular stops like Victoria, Fraser, ect.
Oh and the 49 bus always does the bunching up. once it was three articulated in a row! 1 full, 1 empty and one halfempty/halffull.

[Spork]

Translink had, or was piloting, mini busses around 2001, I would say. There was a route in front of my old house in White Rock that had them that was converted to community shuttles when those were introduced. I think that the operating costs on those mini busses weren't much better than diesel (something like $60/hr vs. the full $80/hr).

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by SpikePhanta

The thing with the 49 route is that the timing is inconsistent, you never really know when the bus will come. I take it everyday from Metrotown at 7 and from Oak at 3:30 and the bus is full, but not with that many UBC students, most of the riders like you said use the 19 and the Canada line for transfers, but many also get off at the other popular stops like Victoria, Fraser, ect.
Oh and the 49 bus always does the bunching up. once it was three articulated in a row! 1 full, 1 empty and one halfempty/halffull.

Although I could be wrong, I do feel that if every major cross intersection was a timed stop. That the buses would not bunch up so easily. The biggest problem is the front bus gets over crowded thus slowing it down. The bus behind catches up because it doesn't have to stop so often and doesn't take as long at each stop. If the front bus got to every intersection and it was at or behind schedule then it would carry on. The bus behind it being ahead of schedule would be forced to wait at each intersection before it could leave that stop. While there are designated timed stops on every route. I feel that at where two routes cross there should be a timed stop for both routes.

[worldwide]

Originally Posted by Spork

Translink had, or was piloting, mini busses around 2001, I would say. There was a route in front of my old house in White Rock that had them that was converted to community shuttles when those were introduced. I think that the operating costs on those mini busses weren't much better than diesel (something like $60/hr vs. the full $80/hr).

that's 25%, interestingly enough the 30 foot bus is 25% smaller than a 40 foot bus.

just imagine giving yourself a 25% pay raise. doesn't sound like that much but times it out by 2000 hours plus a year, its a lot.

[CLC]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Although I could be wrong, I do feel that if every major cross intersection was a timed stop. That the buses would not bunch up so easily. The biggest problem is the front bus gets over crowded thus slowing it down. The bus behind catches up because it doesn't have to stop so often and doesn't take as long at each stop. If the front bus got to every intersection and it was at or behind schedule then it would carry on. The bus behind it being ahead of schedule would be forced to wait at each intersection before it could leave that stop. While there are designated timed stops on every route. I feel that at where two routes cross there should be a timed stop for both routes.

More scheduled "timed-stops" will force a bus route to further slow down, if bus drivers have to strictly obey them.
In peak service periods, the bus driver of several east-west routes (which are not trolleys) always use discretion to pass a overcrowded bus. Use #49 as example when Langara in session, between 4-5pm there are about 13 scheduled run eastward between C-Line and Metrotown, I can bet money that in most days the buses do not arrive in order when they reach Metrotown.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by CLC

More scheduled "timed-stops" will force a bus route to further slow down, if bus drivers have to strictly obey them.
In peak service periods, the bus driver of several east-west routes (which are not trolleys) always use discretion to pass a overcrowded bus. Use #49 as example when Langara in session, between 4-5pm there are about 13 scheduled run eastward between C-Line and Metrotown, I can bet money that in most days the buses do not arrive in order when they reach Metrotown.

A bus driver is supposed to obey the schedule. Driving ahead of the schedule means that the driver is getting to a stop and leaving before they are supposed to. It is one thing to be behind schedule but being ahead of schedule is worse.

Yes I realize that on non-trolley routes that the buses do skip past each other at times.

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by cabotp

A bus driver is supposed to obey the schedule. Driving ahead of the schedule means that the driver is getting to a stop and leaving before they are supposed to. It is one thing to be behind schedule but being ahead of schedule is worse.

Yes I realize that on non-trolley routes that the buses do skip past each other at times.

The 49 bus drivers when ahead of schedule do wait at the bus stop. Like normally when I take the bus, the driver if ahead waits at Kerr near the strip mall, and chester. Oh and the Canada line.

[satishreddy]

Originally Posted by jhausner

There's some crazy people in this thread.

The only real point I want to make is that (it's probably been mentioned but I don't want to sift through 369 pages) in general, transportation backbones which the Skytrain lines qualify as, are not built just for density especially residential. They are also built for the 'working man' trying to go to work. So you can't simply say:

"Well the Broadway cooridor is high density so it should have a Skytrain line." This is why project studies aren't done in 2 days like some people would like them to be done in. When you are looking for new lines and planning transit maps out you have to look at the entire picture including the destination, route, and where the origin is.

So the UBC line wouldn't be built for the Broadway cooridor, it would instead make sense to go along that route to help out and or give alternatives to people living there. The reason it would be built though is to get the workers and students to and from UBC from other parts of Metro Vancouver much like the line out to YVR is meant to help the 20,000+ workers that commute there every day even though Sea Island has a residential population of next to nothing.

For UBC alone you'd have to correctly sit down and look at where the student and worker populations originate from. If for example you have 20,000 students at UBC but 10,000 live on campus, then you can't say "look they have 20,000 students!" when it comes to transit, you have to take the lesser number because those living on campus students will spend most time there and don't fully qualify against the equation. Same with workers. If you simply go 20,000 people work on campus you have to figure out where most originate from. If 10,000 live south of the fraser and you build a line that links UBC to North Vancouver (as has been mentioned), will that help? Probably not. Same deal if you build a skytrain extension but for those people living south of fraser there is no effective way for them to get to skytrain in the first place, then again you aren't solving anything. If it turns out 75% of the people at UBC live on the broadway cooridor then there is a good argument. Not to mention you don't have a solution that involves telling people "Well move closer to Vancouver" since the bulk of people in Metro Van live 'out of town in the burbs' so those living 'in town' are actually the minority here.

Same thing building a line anywhere. Would you build a high end line down a road cooridor with a lot of restaurants? Or would you build one down a cooridor with a lot of destination stores and office locations? Even if there are way more restaurants on the first road? I mean the map may show more businesses and jobs there. But they are restaurants so the commuting footprint is far different than office space.

Again this is why transit studies take years and you can't just look at a single table of numbers of a fancy colored map of metro vancouver with population densities.

UBC is a major destination, South of Fraser including Langley is a major Origin as is Coquitlam. That means while UBC is important it isn't for sure more important or less important of those other links getting transit alternatives. Is Skytrain the solution? I don't know for all.

I do think though UBC needs a rapid transit link that aren't busses. Makes sense. But I think 1 can't happen without finally getting that bloody Evergreen line done AND increased transit options for people South of Fraser. Not to mention more focus on better densification and people not needing to commute 60km to and from work.

But yah don't just say "WE NEED X CUZ HIGH DENSITY LAWL." because that's just silly and missing the big picture.

Given the high capital costs, one needs a large ridership to justify building a rapid transit system. High population density and job density are necessary but not sufficient conditions for high transit ridership.

The reason that I and others advocate rapid transit along Broadway to UBC is that that particular route already has the highest number of transit riders. It is not because there are x number of students and y number of workers at UBC. Look at the statistics in the post by golog on page 371.

Actually the post by golog on page 371 shows 2 interesting images. First, look at the map of frequency of routes - I would say frequency of routes is highly correlated to density. Based on the 2006 census, Vancouver had a population of 578,000 and a density of over 13000 per square mile. If one excludes the population of downtown, which is about 80,000, the density is still over 11,000 per square mile. The density of Surrey is less that 4000 per square mile. The density of Coquitlam is around 2000 per square mile.

Second, at the scatter plot of ridership by route. The top 10 routes in terms of ridership are

99 - Vancouver - B line Broadway station to UBC
20 - Vancouver - trolley bus along Victoria/Commercial/Hastings/Dowtown
9 - Vancouver - trolley bus along Broadway/10th Boundary to UBC
98 -Vancouver/Richmond - B line from Richmond to downtown (no longer exists)
41 - Vancouver - Diesel bus along 41st from Joyce station to UBC
3 - Vancouver - trolley bus along Main/Hastings/Downtown
22 - Vancouver - Diesel bus along Knight/Dowtown/MacDonald
8 - Vancouver - trolley bus along Fraser/Kingsway/Main/Dowtown
17 - Vancouver - trolley bus Oak/Dowtown/Granville/Broadway/10th/UBC
16 - Vancouver - trolley bus Arbutus/Dowtown/Hastings/Renfrew/29th Street Station

It's not a coincidence why all these routes are in Vancouver - it has the highest average population density of any city in Metro Vancouver - in most cases by a significant amount. Additionally, it is by far the largest destination for jobs and school.

Regarding building transit to help the "working man", I'm all for it. However, given limited resources, I cannot justify spending billions to put rapid transit into regions of low density. In the 2009 report finances of BC Ferries and Translink, it was reported that one of the main reasons for Translink's structural deficit was because it was expanding service in regions of low density.

In my opinion, based on ridership statistics, the highest priority for rapid transit (skytrain) should be the UBC line. In my opinion, there is little or no justification for the Evergreen line or skytrain extension in Surrey/Langley. Build up transit ridership in these areas by slowly increasing bus service, as demand warrants, just as was done for the 99 route.

[aberdeen5698]

I understand that the Broadway bus routes are among the very few non-Skytrain routes that actually pay for their operating costs. And they do that with one driver per 100-or-so passengers.

I'm pretty sure that an automated rapid transit link would reduce operating costs and increase passengers. So it would actually start contributing to Translink's bottom line.

The big question is whether or not the net revenue from the operation of the line would be sufficient to pay the interest on the construction costs. I wonder what the math on that would look like?