Transit Fantasies

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Huh. So they did. Guess that's why there's a RapidBus and a future SkyTrain extension to Port Coq.

Kinda like there's also a community larger than Aldergrove in between too, further justifying said Rapidbus. So in the ~15km that that Rapidbus covers, you've got PoCo (62k), Pitt Meadows (19k), and Maple Ridge (90k) for.... drum roll... 171k! More than 13 Aldergroves combined!

Pop Quiz, how far is Aldergrove from Langley City Centre approximately?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yet the CNV alone has added 10k new residents in the past decade, while all of Delta combined hasn’t, nor Port Coq or Maple Ridge, let alone Aldergrove; don’t get growth rate (which favours smaller towns that jump from, let's say, 2k to 4k, which works out to 100% growth) confused with actual population increase.

And the SeaBus, 130 and R2 are the 11th, 26th and 38th busiest non-train lines in the metro, while the 503’s ridership effectively falls off a cliff east of Langley. I’ve made the “build for the future” argument before, but the North Shore has both present and future demand. Aldergrove doesn’t.



That’s what the Newton-Guildford BRT upgrade is for. LRT and BRT are effectively one and the same when on-road, so RRT1a gets you equal or better service than LRT1 for the same cost.

Another reason why it died was that there’s more to train service than a line on a map through a catchment. Remember that an urban tram has to slow down to a urban tram speed; too fast, and it becomes a road hazard. Surrey’s light rail was planned for 22 km/h on average, so if you’ve got the interurban running down the street from Aldergrove to Cloverdale:



Long story short, the 35% of Valley commuters going to Langley are evenly split between the two options, but most of the 22% going to Surrey would prefer the REM... as would the 36% going across the Fraser, and the 37% of Metro Vancouverites going to Abbotsford or Chilliwack (yes, for sanity’s sake, this one adds up to 137%).

A Valley Express needs every commuter it can get in order to justify the cost. Sure, you win the riders trying to get from Cloverdale to Langley and Newton, but the loss outweighs the gain; run a RapidBus from one end to the other and give up on trying to make the train be a local service AND a regional service at the same time.

I said "other than Lonsdale" (ie. NOT the CNV.)
That's fine for SeaBus, but a Marine Dr. SkyTrain (ie. what is being assumed for the NS SkyTrain) needs demand from Ambleside and DNV.


Otherwise, you can just keep increasing bus service in the CNV itself to 2 min frequencies (as well as SeaBus) (as you pointed out yourself) and have similar amounts of service to a NS SkyTrain.

R-Bus =/= BRT.
RapidBus instantly fails the BRT Standard.
https://www.itdp.org/library/standards-and-guides/the-bus-rapid-transit-standard/what-is-brt/
At bare minimum, it needs:
1. Full, dedicated stations with payment off-bus
2. Center/physically road-separated busway (ie. no side lane HOV)
3. Intersection priority of some sort.
R-Buses fail on all 3 counts.

All this require road widening, or at least completely redesigning the road.

This is why I'm so against expanding the R-bus network beyond the 5-year priority.
None of the R-buses get even close to BRT.


I dunno.
The reason I chose trams for this one is because there are large segments where grade-separation isn't needed for fast service (and thus a waste of money)- and even if it doesn't, the network can be upgraded over time for grade-separation more easily than BRT.

Then again, you'd need more transfers to get anywhere you want, and low frequencies are the bigger concern over lower capacity.

Note that the Surrey LRT NPV for LRT 1 was double for BRT 1 (which have pretty much the same route but with different technologies) with double the capital costs.
I guess the benefit for BRT is that you can have other buses on the same corridor, sharing the ROW, but you also don't have the capacity to have a 'grid' spoke system like on SkyTrain.

Also, note that the price tag for BRT 1 is way higher than any R-bus so far.

I guess frequencies are probably the killer, though, so the NPV for a line with a more spread-out demand profile with a longer length is probably worse.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by mcj

Kinda like there's also a community larger than Aldergrove in between too, further justifying said Rapidbus. So in the ~15km that that Rapidbus covers, you've got PoCo (62k), Pitt Meadows (19k), and Maple Ridge (90k) for.... drum roll... 171k! More than 13 Aldergroves combined!

Pop Quiz, how far is Aldergrove from Langley City Centre approximately?

If you're going to join in, maybe:
1. Don't be a dick and be more respectful.
2. Go back and lurk more, then come back. I already noted the distance problem and proposed solutions/things that would make it less of a concern.

All you're doing is retreading old ground on a discussion that I've basically conceded already.
You're not adding anything meaningful.

TLDR: Maple Ridge will have to get SkyTrain (and a freeway) if they ever go in the direction Langley's probably going in terms of industrial development between Aldergrove and Murrayville east of 128 St (which they've held off on due to the lack of infrastructure that far out.)

[mcj]

Originally Posted by fredinno

If you're going to join in, maybe:
1. Don't be a dick and be more respectful.
2. Go back and lurk more, then come back. I already noted the distance problem and proposed solutions/things that would make it less of a concern.

Noted. My apologies for having some fun counting numbers.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by mcj

Noted. My apologies for having some fun counting numbers.

Thanks.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The DNV also grew faster than Aldergrove and Port Coq, and they’re getting better at density such as Lower Lynn. West Van is West Van - we're only trying to connect Park Royal (and maybe Ambleside or Dunderave later); forget the rest.

And Langley Township and Cloverdale aren’t next to downtown, nor do they only have two ways to access the rest of the city; as with Broadway or Hastings, two-minute bus service in most of the North Shore would just lead to bunching and delays, but congestion or passenger demand on 56th is nowhere near bad enough to warrant bus lanes or signal priority in the foreseeable future.

That's capital cost; you’ll find with a quick search that LRT1 actually had a negative cost-benefit ratio of 0.69; BRT and RRT each scored 1.30 and 1.45. Again, with street-running light rail, you’re buying a train and getting a bus.
Frequencies aren’t really the problem for a tram; short-turning somewhere past Langley would cut unused capacity for the rural half while maintaining service for the urban half. The bigger problems are that reliability takes a hit every time an accident shuts down the road (and therefore train service), scaring away potential riders... and that as more and more trains run through the urban sections, you lose walkability.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The DNV also grew faster than Aldergrove and Port Coq, and they’re getting better at density such as Lower Lynn. West Van is West Van - we're only trying to connect Park Royal (and maybe Ambleside or Dunderave later); forget the rest.

And Langley Township and Cloverdale aren’t next to downtown, nor do they only have two ways to access the rest of the city; as with Broadway or Hastings, two-minute bus service in most of the North Shore would just lead to bunching and delays, but congestion or passenger demand on 56th is nowhere near bad enough to warrant bus lanes or signal priority in the foreseeable future.

That's capital cost; you’ll find with a quick search that LRT1 actually had a negative cost-benefit ratio of 0.69; BRT and RRT each scored 1.30 and 1.45. Again, with street-running light rail, you’re buying a train and getting a bus.
Frequencies aren’t really the problem for a tram; short-turning somewhere past Langley would cut unused capacity for the rural half while maintaining service for the urban half. The bigger problems are that reliability takes a hit every time an accident shuts down the road (and therefore train service), scaring away potential riders... and that as more and more trains run through the urban sections, you lose walkability.

That's not really a fair comparison, since DNV's splitting between 3 FTDA/town centers, so you need more line to hit most of the demand.
I'm using Metro Van Town Centers as a the growth comparison.

Though, even putting that into consideration, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Metro_Vancouver
DNV had the lowest historical growth rate from 2011 to 2016 (except Port Moody, which seems like a aberration.)

http://www.metrovancouver.org/metro2040/urban-area/grow/growth-ftda/Pages/default.aspx
Most areas without areas to sprawl into (eg. New Westminister, PoCo) have growth rates of ~43% projected from 2011 to 2050 [on the lower end - (eg. PoCo)].
Richmond is 54%.
Langley (to provide an unfair comparison) is at 216%.

DNV will get 37% in the same time period, despite having a town center and 2 FTDAs.
(Also, DNV does actually have some land to sprawl into (Maplewood and Deep Cove), even excluding the CMHC Forest, so that's not really a fair comparison.)

West Vancouver is surprisingly higher, but that's probably mostly just sprawl.


The only other major municipality to get similar growth rates is Delta, which has 1 town center (Ladner) and is trying to push most of its development on the Scott Road corridor, which it shares with Surrey.
It has extremely strict development limits in Lander T. Center (3 stories max on most of it).


Yes, 'low growth rates' is a true statement for the North Shore.
If they can't beat Delta, they're doing something wrong.



Aldergrove and Cloverdale are lower, but they're also not connected to anything.

Ladner is similar to Aldergrove and Cloverdale and has a higher growth rate than every NV center but Lonsdale (Ladner is also fairly big in geographical size, but still, it has very strict self-imposed limits on growth) because it actually has connectivity.


The NV centers do have connectively (the Upper Levels is congested, but so is George Massey), and still can't beat out Ladner.


Yes, NV is closer- but actual distance to the core doesn't seem to be a deciding factor when building new transit lines so far.

So the main argument is congestion- which...yeah, you're right on that point, especially on the Lions Gate.
There's not much congestion on Hwy 10 + Fraser vs Upper Levels.

---
No, that report you linked me earlier, which I referred to, was an older report.
It DOES account for maintenance costs (which are higher on BRT- that's one of the big advantages of using LRT, and is why cities tend not to have 30,000 pphpd BRT systems - LRT is actually cheaper at that point).

Something changed in between that and the newer one (which I can't find the link of) that completely changed the cost-benefit ratio, but I can't find the original report, which means I have no idea why the CBR is 0.6.

So... dunno.
---
Again, the concept is that you'd grade-separate as demand increases.



The main problem I see is that you'd have to create bypass tracks to keep service while grade-separating (like a cut+cover or rail trench), and thus it'd be overall more expensive than grade-separating all at once, but it allows you to build demand to actually make the initial construction costs more economically viable.

Right now, the benefits from grade-separation is lower due to faster road speeds.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Again, stop using growth rate - it's inherently biased towards smaller populations, so the numbers lie. If a town of 1,000 adds 4,000 residents over forty years, that's 400%, but if a city of 200,000 adds 20,000 (4x as many), that's only 10%.

Want proof? Ladner's actual growth from 2011-21 was ~800 people... probably because they keep rejecting anything higher than two floors. Tsawwassen's growth during that period was 1,500, so not that much faster. Virtually all Delta's actual population uptake is in North Delta, which is effectively Surrey, so of course that's growing.

If we're talking town centres though, the DNV's Lower Lynn alone is set to house 8k new residents, Moodyville to the west is adding 2,000 new units, and Maplewood to the east (if it ever gets approved) will be much the same. Not seeing anything like that in Ladner, Port Coq or Maple Ridge. Even Port Moody's getting in on the action with Woodland Park.

Meanwhile, Aldergrove struggled to attract a thousand new residents over the same ten years - those are express bus numbers at best.

---

Nothing changed - RRT's savings over LRT justify the upfront capital cost, but LRT's over BRT don't.

Building an LRT and then turning it into an RRT means you've effectively bought both - you're getting one for the price of two. So if you're going to grade-separate anyway, it's much more cost-effective over the long run to just suck it up and do it to begin with.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Again, stop using growth rate - it's inherently biased towards smaller populations, so the numbers lie. If a town of 1,000 adds 4,000 residents over forty years, that's 400%, but if a city of 200,000 adds 20,000 (4x as many), that's only 10%.

Want proof? Ladner's actual growth from 2011-21 was ~800 people... probably because they keep rejecting anything higher than two floors. Tsawwassen's growth during that period was 1,500, so not that much faster. Virtually all Delta's actual population uptake is in North Delta, which is effectively Surrey, so of course that's growing.

If we're talking town centres though, the DNV's Lower Lynn alone is set to house 8k new residents, Moodyville to the west is adding 2,000 new units, and Maplewood to the east (if it ever gets approved) will be much the same. Not seeing anything like that in Ladner, Port Coq or Maple Ridge. Even Port Moody's getting in on the action with Woodland Park.

Meanwhile, Aldergrove struggled to attract a thousand new residents over the same ten years - those are express bus numbers at best.

---

Nothing changed - RRT's savings over LRT justify the upfront capital cost, but LRT's over BRT don't.

Building an LRT and then turning it into an RRT means you've effectively bought both - you're getting one for the price of two. So if you're going to grade-separate anyway, it's much more cost-effective over the long run to just suck it up and do it to begin with.

North Delta isn't particularly development-happy either, though- if you accuse Burnaby of doing 'grand bargain', Delta really does 'grand bargain'. The entire development area is the block of strip malls off Scott Road.

Metro 2040 says 4,300 new residents in Ladner from 2006-2016. Not sure where the 800 number is from.
But, fair enough.
That changes you from the 'very low' tier to just the 'low' tier.


DNV and Delta project the same population growth (~30k) over the same amount of time (2011-2051).

Even using absolute numbers, projected population growth in DNV is still low.


---

Do you have the original report still? It would be interesting to see, and I can't find it. I'm probably going to have to email TransLink directly.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Never said North Delta was good at development: I said they were better than the rest of Delta. They've got their own NIMBYs, just less than Ladner. But seeing as practically all that ~30k growth is probably going to be there as well, and they're getting the R6 (which itself is being speculated on upgrading to RRT), it's fair to say rapid transit for the lower DNV is an actual need and not a political one.

Yours is '06-16, not '11-21... given the timestamps, I guess Ladner's already slowing down?

I think you're mistaking NPV for BCR; the 2012 report has the former, the 2018 one has the latter.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Never said North Delta was good at development: I said they were better than the rest of Delta. They've got their own NIMBYs, just less than Ladner. But seeing as practically all that ~30k growth is probably going to be there as well, and they're getting the R6 (which is being speculated on upgrading to RRT), it's fair to say rapid transit for the lower DNV is an actual need and not a political one.

Yours is '06-16, not '11-21... given the timestamps, I guess Ladner's already slowing down?


I think you're mistaking NPV for BCR; the 2012 report has the former, the 2018 one has the latter.

Scott Road isn't on the current list of future RRT projects to 2050.
So clearly NS is being pushed up the list for political reasons.


---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit%E2%80%93cost_ratio

In practice, the ratio of present value (PV) of future net benefits to expenditure is expressed as a BCR. (NPV-to-investment is net BCR.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value

NPV is determined by calculating the costs (negative cash flows) and benefits (positive cash flows) for each period of an investment. After the cash flow for each period is calculated, the present value (PV) of each one is achieved by discounting its future value (see Formula) at a periodic rate of return (the rate of return dictated by the market). NPV is the sum of all the discounted future cash flows.

If the BCR was <1, the NPV should be <0.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Scott Road isn't on the current list of future RRT projects to 2050.
So clearly NS is being pushed up the list for political reasons.

Nope, for reality reasons. Rapid transit on the North Shore is needed now, it's been needed for quite a while.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The entire North Shore put together outnumbers North Delta three times over, to say nothing of Hastings or Willingdon. Of course SkyTrain is being pushed there first.

Originally Posted by fredinno

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit%E2%80%93cost_ratio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value


If the BCR was <1, the NPV should be <0.

Looks like the NPV dropped to -$316 million four years after the study. Pretty sure that was the same time we found out that it'd only move 2,040 pphpd when it opened.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Scott Road isn't on the current list of future RRT projects to 2050.
So clearly NS is being pushed up the list for political reasons.

Scott Road is probably the most under-rated corridor in terms of the attention it gets vs. the ridership, I think in part because it has grown really quickly so the narrative hasn't had a chance to catch up with the reality, in part because, I guess, the people who live in that part of town don't have a lot of wealth or connections, and in part because it doesn't line up with any planned 'town centres' and is in fact divided between two municipalities.

Here is a nice map created by Brendan Dawe which is a good reference for visualizing transit routes that might make sense.

It is a few years old, so it underrates the Surrey routes a bit, especially Scott Road, but gives you a sense. Based on this, corridors that would make sense for rapid transit are probably:

Out to UBC on Broadway (duh)
41/49 corridor
Netwon - Surrey Centre - Guildford (should have been done by now, in my opinion)
Scott Road
North Shore Loop via Park Royal/Lower Lonsdale/Phibbs
Hastings St.
Willingdon Corridor
Victoria/Commercial (Route 20)

So maybe it is partly political for North Shore, but not as much as Tri-Cities was, and not too far out of line with what the ridership would tell you to do.

The map doesn't extend to Abbotsford, since it isn't part of Translink (another thing that should have been sorted out by now) so it doesn't show the real value of a route out that way, but you can see how tiny the current ridership through Murrayville and Aldergrove is.

Lots of other corridors that do and will continue to get higher ridership, including:

King George to Semihamoo
Richmond/NW (Route 410)
NW-Brentwood (Via Canada Way)
Coq Centre to Maple Ridge
Richmond Centre to Steveston
etc.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GMD

Here is a nice map created by Brendan Dawe which is a good reference for visualizing transit routes that might make sense.

All this map tells me is the North Shore should have come before the SLS.

[madog222]

Or just about every arterial in Vancouver; taking bus ridership over a corridor shouldn't be used to justify Rail Rapid Transit.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by madog222

Or just about every arterial in Vancouver; taking bus ridership over a corridor shouldn't be used to justify Rail Rapid Transit.

Obviously there is more to consider than just existing ridership, proximity to other lines for example, which is why I just mentioned the main corridors in Vancouver. But existing ridership is still probably the #1 thing to consider in planning a rapid transit line.

And yes, there are a number of routes that should have come before the Skytrain to Langley, including North Shore, but realistically we take what we can get, and that route isn't terrible in terms of the potential for future ridership growth and linking up with areas further out. Biggest weakness is the lack of potential 'drainage' into the route from either side of the route - the same factor that makes the ridership so low on the Port Moody stations despite decent residential/commercial around the stations themselves.

That is the big reason why skytrain down King George would have been so much better. Like the Cambie line, it could have absorbed a lot of east-west traffic into a single north-south route.

[madog222]

Yeah I think we got a little mixed around with RT including BRT and specifically RRT.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GMD

...That is the big reason why skytrain down King George would have been so much better. Like the Cambie line, it could have absorbed a lot of east-west traffic into a single north-south route.

It's more than just existing patterns, though. A diagonal line through the entire region can anchor a proper N-S and E-W bus grid across the whole region, allowing for the drainage you're looking for; we're already seeing plans for a RapidBus along 152nd to Newton and through a TOD hub at Fleetwood. A King George line covers Newton-Whalley and pretty much nothing else.

[madog222]

Yup, ultimately RRT as the backbone of a transit system should primality serve regional connectivity.