|
CITY OF VANCOUVER
|
MEMORANDUM April 13th, 2004
TO: |
Mayor and Council |
COPY: |
Syd Baxter, City Clerk
|
FROM: |
Dave Rudberg, General Manager of Engineering Services |
SUBJECT: |
NORTHEAST SECTOR RAPID TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES PROJECT |
The purpose of this memo is to update Council on the most recent technical work and next steps for the Northeast Sector Rapid Transit Alternatives Project. At the next GVTA Board Meeting on April 16th, 2004, TransLink staff will be presenting the key findings of the consultant's report on rapid transit options to serve the Northeast Sector and to seek board approval for broad municipal, public and stakeholder review of the alternatives identified in the report.
Much technical work has been completed by the consultant team since TransLink presented Council with an update on the project at its Standing Committee on Transportation and Traffic meeting on January 13th, 2004. The range of rapid transit technologies and alignments has been further examined in terms of ridership, costs, travel time and a comprehensive multiple account evaluation was carried out. This analysis is summarized in the consultant's final report.
PROJECT OVERSIGHT
Given the possibility that a new Northeast Sector service on the CPR tracks could also extend along Kent Avenue to connect to the RAV line, Vancouver staff have been involved as part of a municipal, GVRD, and GVTA staff Technical Steering Committee to provide technical input into the project.
However, it should be noted that given the wide diversity of municipal perspectives on many of the issues a complete agreement on every matter could not be achieved. Nonetheless, as a part of the recommended consultation process, it will be possible to further review any unresolved municipality-specific issues on which complete agreement could not be achieved.
COMPARISON OF RAPID TRANSIT RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES
While the report shows much detail, it should be noted that the figures such as ridership estimates are order-of-magnitude and best interpreted for comparative purposes between options. Preparation of much more detailed forecasts would be required as part of the development of a business case for any preferred option. This work would have to involve a detailed assessment of the following major assumptions:
· LAND USE: The ridership estimates are heavily dependent on achieving the projected growth targets for municipal Official Community Plan (OCP) populations, densities and employment locations (The stations in the Coquitlam Regional Town centre account for about 70% of the lines projected ridership).
· TRANSIT HEADWAYS: The ridership estimates assumed most favourable headways to match the modelled demand (less than or equal to 3.0 minutes), not operationally realistic headways respective to each technology and corridor.
· PARK'N'RIDE: For the Southeast Corridor options, the ridership estimates are significantly dependent on the provision of new Park'n'Ride facilities strategically situated along the Lougheed Highway and Highway 1.
· WEST COAST EXPRESS: The forecasting in the report suggests that there is a significant shift in existing and projected new riders from West Coast Express (WCE) to the proposed more frequent rapid transit services. However, the `premium service' aspects of the WCE service may result in greater rider retention than the computer simulation suggests.
KEY FINDINGS
The rapid transit alternatives study offers a number of key findings regarding the performance of the rapid transit technologies and the strengths and weaknesses of the various options. A number of different options and routes appear to be feasible for serving the NorthEast Sector, with resulting variations in cost and ridership. The report itself, however, does not form definitive conclusions, as this is something to be completed after the consultation process.
As a consequence, the report does not apply weightings to the relative importance of each of the multiple accounts. This is something that each reader will need to decide. For example, some agencies or individuals may consider that adhering to a particular corridor is of paramount consideration. Others may place a higher rating on factors such as cost or ridership.
Particular to the City of Vancouver are the key findings related to (i) the proposed self-propelled diesel rail based rapid transit service (DMU) along the CP Rail corridor to the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver (RAV) line, and (ii) other rapid transit options that affect either existing or future SkyTrain or WCE transit service levels to/from Vancouver.
NORTH FRASER CORRIDOR
This corridor would be an extension of service from the Southeast Corridor to the planned RAV line on the CP Rail corridor along Kent Avenue. This rail connection would benefit the City by providing new transit service to existing neighbourhoods and by supporting the East Fraser Lands as a sustainable and transit-oriented development.
The technical work concludes that the DMU technology would need double track to provide rapid transit headways that are less than 10 minutes. As such, it incurs high capital cost and therefore yields the lowest benefit/cost ratio of all the options evaluated. Being diesel powered, it is also noisier and a source of air pollution.
WEST COAST EXPRESS
While expansion of WCE is outside the direct scope of the study, the report's sensitivity analysis notes that the greatest number of new transit riders by 2021 would be attracted by a Southeast option combined with expanded frequency of WCE trains (i.e. reduce headways from 30 minutes to 15 or 20 minutes). During the morning peak period, 50% of transit riders originating from the Northeast Sector are destined to the Downtown Peninsula. Higher ridership on the WCE results in less transit passenger congestion at the Broadway/Commercial SkyTrain station.
This information strongly supports further work on optimizing the WCE service levels and preferred NES rapid transit alternatives to achieve the greatest amount of new and daily transit riders for the least capital and operating costs. At a minimum, existing WCE service levels should be confirmed as a complementary commuter option, serving the needs of the Northeast Sector and the overall regional rapid transit network.
PROPOSED CONSULTATION PLAN
Beginning April 19th, 2004, TransLink staff will be conducting a consultation process including the following elements:
· Presentations to municipal councils: TransLink staff is scheduled to present in Vancouver at Council's May 4th Standing Committee on Transportation & Traffic.
· Open Houses: A series of open houses are planned for the Northeast Sector and surrounding municipalities. Sites with high pedestrian traffic are being chosen.
· Community Leaders Panel: A Community Leaders Panel consisting of non-partisan community and business leaders will be created to provide feedback on routing and technology choice and reach a consensus on a recommendation.
· Peer Panel: A `Peer Panel' of experts from elsewhere (i.e. Calgary, Seattle and Portland) will be established to review and comment on the work to date.
· Media: Beginning the week of April 12th, a proactive media strategy will be undertaken to inform the public of the technology and route options under consideration.
Feedback will be summarized in a consultation report that will be presented to the GVTA Board and copied to the affected municipalities. TransLink staff expects to be able to report back to the Board in September 2004 with a recommended approach to providing rapid transit to the Northeast Sector.
TransLink staff will be available on May 4th to answer any questions following their presentation at Council's Standing Committee on Transportation and Traffic meeting. To know more about the process or the City's involvement, please feel free to contact Dale Bracewell of our Strategic Transportation Planning Branch at 604-871-6440.
D.H. Rudberg, P. Eng.
General Manager of Engineering Services
DJB/ab
P:\ALL_ENGINEERING_STAFF\Dale Bracewell\TT-May04 Council Memo.doc
* * * * *
