Agenda Index City of Vancouver

City of Vancouver

Inter-Office Correspondence

ENGINEERING SERVICES File No. 130-606 (5001)

CC File No: 5559

DATE: July 28, 1998

MEMO TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: Dave Rudberg, General Manager of Engineering Services

COPY TO: Ken Dobell, City Manager

Bruce Chambers, Vancouver Police Chief

SUBJECT: VANCOUVER RICHMOND RAPID BUS

A number of questions and comments that require additional clarification have been raised at the recent delegation hearings on the above matter. The purpose of this memo is to provide you with information that may be helpful when you begin considering the staff report on the Rapid bus priority measures. There is a great deal of additional information also available on these issues. I will be present at the Council meeting to address your concerns on these matters, along with the Medical Officer of Health, a Vancouver Police Department representative, BC Transit representatives, and City staff from Planning and Engineering Services.

The attached data is focussed on several key issues:

1. Do the new, clean diesels proposed for rapid bus emit fine but dangerous particulates?

The Medical Health Officer will be present to respond to this issue. In essence:

- the new buses emit approximately 1/5th the pollutants of the buses they would replace. Even with improvements in frequency, there should be a net decrease in pollution.

- each new-technology bus emits as much pollution as 2 cars in particulate's hydrocarbons. Since the bus may carry 90 passengers and two cars would typically carry 3 people, there is only 1/30th the pollution of an equivalent number of automobiles. For hydrocarbons, the ratio is even more favourable for the buses.

- the issue raised by the delegations was whether newer diesel engines emit finer particles which would be more hazardous to public health than the larger particles emitted by older engines. Attachment 1 (all attachments are on file in the Office of the City Clerk) is an e-mail from Stephen Rees of BC Transit on this point. The data was from a comparison of a single 1991 engine and a single 1988 diesel engine, when operated without emission control equipment. The study found that newer engines have a much better level of combustion. The larger particles are burned away leaving only smaller particles. (The newer engine produced a lower volume of particulates, but because the particles were smaller, they were more numerous.) Not a lot of scientific work has been done on understanding these small particles, how they are formed (both naturally and as emission particles from engines), but they are known to be harmful.

- The alternatives to using these industry-standard diesel engines would be natural gas (not available in articulated buses), Ballard fuel cells (likely not practical until the next generation of buses) or trolleys (adding new trolley wire to Richmond, and on Granville to allow passing, would add roughly $5 million to the project cost. The other alternatives of continuing to use older-type diesels or allowing unchecked increases in the use of the automobile are, as well, not effective in reducing emissions.

2. Is Granville carrying inordinately high traffic volumes?

Traffic volumes on all City streets have increased markedly, in line with population growth. As the City Transportation Plan found, these volumes have reached the limits of capacity and compatibility. Future increases in travel should be accommodated by transit, not by adding automobile capacity. Available data would suggest that increases on Granville have been similar to other streets, and that north-south traffic is split approximately evenly among Granville, Oak and Cambie.

Attachment 2 contains 30 year historical traffic volumes on Granville, Oak and Cambie. Attachment 3 contains, for comparison purposes, 2 way 24 hour traffic volumes for several other arterials, most of which have residental frontage. Granville, Oak and Cambie are all truck and bus routes, and all carry similar numbers of trucks. Although no recent counts are available, Cambie does carry the largest number of trucks, while Granville carries the largest number of buses. In addition to BC Transit vehicles, Granville carries buses to the Airport, Oak typically carries most buses originating from the freeway, and Cambie carries the service to Victoria.

3. Is safety being reduced on Granville Street? Are speeds excessive? Are pedestrians unable to cross Granville?

Attachment 4 shows the accident totals on Granville and several other corridors. The rate on Granville is typical of most such corridors. As attachment 5 indicates, most accidents occur at intersections, and rates are highest at those locations without left-turn bays. Because both Granville and Knight streets are deficient in turning bays, they tend to be over-represented in any listing of high-accident locations.

It continues to be a City priority to reduce these accident rates. The City has an ongoing program with ICBC to retrofit corridors with higher-visibility stop lights, better signage and similar measures to improve safety. This was found to reduce accidents by more than 20% in the Knight corridor. Staff are currently discussing with ICBC a similar program on Granville Street, which could be approved shortly. There is also a safety plan in place for each school in the City, coordinated by the Police, Engineering Services and School Board. The Annual Signal Program is a program to installand upgrade signals at accident-prone locations. ICBC has extensive programs of education, training and driver licensing. All of these programs, and others, are operated with the intention of producing safer streets.

Speeds appear to have increased on roads throughout the region, and indeed, throughout North America. Measures are needed to address this problem. To date, the Province's Photo Radar Program has not met its objectives, although ICBC continues to examine its potential. The Chief Constable is preparing a specific enforcement program for Granville Street, in conjunction with ICBC, and will be available to address this issue.

Another issue is the ability of pedestrians to cross Granville Street safely. In the South Granville area there are 7 protected pedestrian crossing locations (at 5th, 7th, Broadway, 10th, 12th, 14th and 16th) and in Marpole there are 5 (at 63rd, 64th, 67/68th, 70th and 72nd), with one proposed to be added at 71st. In these shopping areas, no-one need walk more than one minute to reach a signalized crossing. In the intervening residential section, there are 9 further signals; normal City practice would be to provide one each quarter mile, so that no-one need walk more than 2 minutes, with special attention to school locations. In order to achieve this practice, 2 locations will be reviewed for upcoming Signal Programs (Matthews, and 29th).

4. The conclusions contained in the 1994 Delcan Report ("Review of Intermediate Capacity Transit Systems") that Granville Street needed to be widened, and reversible bus lanes were required as future rapid bus priority measures.

This report was one of three prepared for BC Transit on the viability and cost of different Intermediate Capacity Transit Systems (ICTS) in the three corridors: Vancouver-Richmond, Coquitlam-New Westminster, and Broadway-Lougheed. The reports focussed on proven rapid transit technologies including conventional light rail transit, automated rail transit (SkyTrain) and express bus. In part, these documents formed the technical background that supported conventional light rail along Broadway to Coquitlam and to New Westminster. As has been seen on Broadway, they do not represent a commitment by the Province to any specific technology.

Attachment 6 is a copy of the first page of the "Summary of Intermediate Capacity Transit System Studies". This document summarizes the three technical studies referred to above. Also attached is a copy of the first two pages of the 1994 Delcan report, including the context and scope of the study.
Many aspects of the 1994 report were problematic, and the report was not adopted. Accordingly, the proposal to widen Granville Street was not pursued.

- Are our streets are too narrow for buses?

Vancouver, like most well established cities, has streets that were built to older standards. As a result, the lanes of most major streets are narrow. For example, curb lane widths on Granville range from 2.9m (114 inches) north of 29th Ave to 3.0m (118 inches) north of 14th Ave. These lane widths are similar to many other arterials in the City, including parts of Oak and Cambie, as shown in the following table:

Lane Widths

 

Granville

Oak
N/___

Cambie
N of King Ed.

Modern
Standard

curb lane

2.8 to 3.0m

3.0m

2.9m

3.7m

second lane

2.8m

2.8m

2.8m

3.5m

Note: bus is 2.6m, plus 0.3m for mirrors, total 2.9 metres

While these narrow streets are less comfortable to drive and may have more minor accidents than wider streets, they are also more urban in style, use less land, and are shorter to cross. Thus, there are trade-offs in the decision of optimum street widths. The new articulated buses are the same width as existing buses in the City, 2.6m (102 inches) (plus about .3m for mirrors). As a result, there is little clearance between lanes, and mirrors are at risk. Large trucks are the same width. Nevertheless, the public, BC Transit, the trucking industry and other transit operators (tour buses, Greyhound, etc) co-exist on these streets. These are normal driving practices in an urban environment that the driving public becomes accustomed to. It would be unaffordable and unacceptable to adopt a policy to widen all major streets in the City to current standards.

Accidents along Granville (like all streets) are concentrated at intersections. Accidents where narrow lane width is a contributing factor include sideswipes and clipping fixed objects like a street light. For BC Transit, these accidents often only mean the loss of a side mirror. This type of accident is an extremely small percentage of the total number of accidents along any major street, including Granville.

- Could the new GVTA standards require the City to widen its streets?

Attachment 7 shows an excerpt from the legislation enabling the GVTA. Some delegations are concerned the new Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority could adopt standards and/or make decisions that could require the City to widen its arterial streets, or could over-ride Council and implement priority measures such as reversible bus lanes, that might be unacceptable to City Council. In fact the GVTA will not have that authority.

The GVTA standards are only for maintenance of roads, as opposed to design standards. With regard to width, the legislation requires only that people-moving capacity not be reduced. There is no provision in legislation to require that capacity or width be increased. Reports this week to Council on the GVTA Legislation and Major Road Network will address this issue in more detail.

5. Are the existing express buses running half empty? Will the service fail to attract new
riders? Will rapid buses be full entering Vancouver?

These three issues indicate a wide range of concerns over potential ridership, and the success or failure of the system to serve commuters. The table below provides information on existing and expected ridership patterns. Representatives from BC Transit will be available to provide further details as necessary. In summary, the existing buses are running near capacity. Some trips have standing-room loads, while others have empty seats. The new buses will provide a large number of additional seats. Projections indicate that some of these seats will be filled by new riders from Richmond. Other seats will be available for Vancouver riders. As passengers leave the buses at intermediate stops, more space will become available for Vancouver riders. On the return trip from downtown, all riders will have an equal chance of obtaining a seat. This is an unavoidable dilemma that faces all managers of well used transit systems.The problem can be resolved, similar to the Broadway #99 B-line, by "short turning" buses or by feeding empty rapid buses into the system at Marpole as is done with SkyTrain. Standing loads entering the City should not be a problem during the midday. In the afternoon rush hour, Vancouver and Richmond residents have equal opportunities to access rapid bus in the downtown.

To deal with the 3 issues in sequence:

- Are the existing buses running half empty? The current services provide 1400 (50 x 28) seats from Richmond in the peak hour. Ridership is currently 1200 passengers, of whom 29% leave the service before downtown. This leaves 200 empty seats at the Fraser River, and about 550 empty seats when the buses reach downtown. Under current rules, Vancouver residents cannot occupy those empty seats. So on average, the service is over 80% full entering the City, and 60% full entering downtown. Some trips have standing loads, while other specific trips could be half-empty. On their return to Richmond for more passengers, most buses would be empty, or nearly so.

- Will the service attract new riders? Projections indicate that the new service will attract 1500 Richmond passengers on opening day, because of increased frequency and strengthened local transit routes. This is an increase of 300 riders, representing 250 fewer cars on the road. Clearly, the prediction of behaviour is qualitative. One public survey (by Marktrend) indicates little interest in the new service, while another (by RSMI/Angus Reid) indicates strong interest.

Ridership estimates have been generated through application of the existing Regional commuter model. The longer-term (2006) ridership is estimated to be 4350 in the AM peak hour, peak direction at Broadway. This is an increase of 60% from the existing number and may be constrained by the limited availability of buses. This is in the absence of transportation demand management (TDM) measures such as bridge tolling, increased gas tax and parking charges etc. The peak hour ridership could increase substantially (as high as 9800) if TDM measures were implemented and additional buses purchased. With respect to attracting commuters from their cars, experience on the 99 B-line suggests an increase in the order of 25% from new riders who previously drove along the corridor. This is consistent with the projections for Richmond.

- Will there be seats for Vancouver residents? With 1840 seats on the new service and 1500 Richmond riders, there will be at least 340 seats for Vancouver riders. As 29% of the Richmond riders leave at intermediate stops, this will free up an additional 435 seats into downtown. Should the service be so successful in attracting new riders that sufficient space is not available, this couldbe considered a measure of success. More buses could be added, or buses could be short-turned at Marpole to provide more Vancouver seats.

 

Existing Service

Rapid Bus

Seats:

    

28 buses x 50 seats

1400

  

24 articulated @ 60 seats

  

1440

8 buses @ 50 seats

  

400
1840

riders from Richmond

1200

1500

empty seats @ River

300

340

riders leave the service at intermediate stops (29%)

350

435

empty seats @ downtown

650

775

 

Note: These seats must remain empty because buses cannot pick up Vancouver passengers

Note: These seats are available for Vancouver passengers

6. Is this a bandaid solution? Is it at odds with the regional plan and the City Transportation Plan? Why not put the $75 million cost of rapid bus towards building rapid transit on Cambie or Arbutus?

Attachment illustrates relevant excerpts from the regional transportation plan, Transport 2021, which is an element of the Livable Region Strategy, and from the City's Transportation Plan, which is an element of CityPlan. All of these indicate that increases in commuter travel should be accommodated in public transit, instead of by private automobiles. The plans agree that rail transit will be needed to Richmond in the longer-term, with Arbutus and Cambie listed as the principal corridor for service. Because rail transit is expensive, and will not be available in the short-term, the plans suggest using express bus service as an interim measure to develop patronage in advance of rail. The CityPlan contains a specific reference in this regard:

The introduction of the #99 B-Line express bus on Broadway was a similar element of these plans; as noted above, it has been successful in attracting riders from their cars. This is helping to build ridership for the planned rail service in this corridor Thus, express bus service is a vital part of both Transport 2021 and the City Transportation Plan.

The estimated cost of constructing rapid transit to Richmond via Cambie (tunnel from downtown Vancouver to somewhere north of Marine Drive) would likely be in the order of $1.5 billion. There are simply no funds available to do this. Certainly, the 10 year financial analysis for the GVTA does not contemplate sharing 40% of this capital cost. Transport 2021 and the Livable Region Strategy suggest that express bus service be used as an introductory service prior to rail transit (similar to the #99 on Broadway).

The three major cost elements of rapid bus are $ 25 million for new articulated buses, $25 million for a new transit operating centre in Richmond, and $25 million for right-of-way improvements, primarly on No. 3 Road in Richmond. Many of these system-wide improvements would be of value when rapid transit is introduced. Buses are in short supply and the new buses would have to be purchased anyway. Similarly, the existing Oakridge Transit Centre is at capacity and a new Centre is needed in Richmond for service south of the Fraser River.

8. Are we sacrificing Vancouver Streets for the benefit of Richmond commuters?

The primary beneficiaries of the improved service are not Richmond residents, but rather Vancouver residents. Richmond residents already have express service, which Vancouverites are denied access to.

- according to the recent census, there are more Vancouver residents working in Richmond than vice-versa. (18940 Vancouver residents working in Richmond vs. 13220 Richmond residents.) (see Attachment 9)
- Richmond residents would gain 6 minutes per trip from the priority measures, while Marpole residents would benefit 8-10 minutes from the access to express buses.
- according to projections, 65% of total ridership on Rapid Bus will be by Vancouver residents.
- the improved bus capacity is the equivalent in person-carrying capacity of about 8,000 cars per day on City streets.

As noted in the previous report, the priority measures required are much less than the original proposals:

- the original proposal would have eliminated about 300 parking stalls in the commercial areas for a portion of the day, and 750 rarely-used stalls in the residential area for the full day. This has been reduced to 37 commercial stalls for varying portions of the day, all of which have identified replacements.
- the original proposal had reserved bus lanes all day throughout the residential area. This has been deleted.

Many of the other concerns over priority measures appear to be based on misunderstandings of the operation. For example:

- the reference to faster bus operation is through application of priority measures and elimination of the downtown layover. The actual running speeds do not increase.

- the reference to a 5 second adjustment in signal timings could not be achieved by shortening pedestrian crossing times. National Standards require that pedestrians have adequate time to cross the street, and the signal controllers would not allow this standard to be compromised. This aspect would be controlled by the City's signal management system, not by individual bus drivers.

- The 5 second extension of green time at a signal will be subtle and not noticeable by motorists on Granville. It may not even by apparent by a bus driver. It is unlikely motorists will collect behind buses with the expectation they will be able to "surf" through green lights as they drive along Granville, particularly since the buses will stop immediately after most major signals.

9. Should Alternative Corridors be used (i.e. Cambie or Oak)?

Demographic information presented in Table A suggests that either Granville or Cambie would serve a similar market, in terms of population and employment. However, Table B, which shows transit ridership on each of the existing transit routes, tells a different story. However, because of its traditional role as a transit corridor, with supportive forms of development, transit ridership on each of the existing routes tells a different story. Granville is the most heavily used Transit Corridor, and Cambie and Oak routes generate much lower ridership. The other corridors, and Cambie in particular, typically have post-war development, with commercial space buffered from the street by ample parking. This does not produce a conducive environment for transit.

Service levels are quite comparable on all routes. Granville services 275 bus trips per day in both directions, while Cambie and Oak each provide about 230 trips. Certainly, all streets are potential routes for improvement with express bus service, as described in the Transportation Plan. This could be done independently of the current Rapid Bus proposal.

The travel time studies have shown that while gross times between Arthur Laing Bridge and the Downtown are similar for Granville and Cambie, Oak street carries a time penalty of 4 minutes. However, the introduction of priority measures would certainly be more difficult on Cambie than on Granville.

Here are some problem locations:

1. The left-turn from Marine to Cambie

2. Cambie has no peak-hour regulations south of 49th Avenue. New regulations would be required on both sides for approximately 20 blocks, affecting 3-400 parking stalls.

3. Cambie and 41st

4. Commercial Impacts

5. Cambie Street Bridge

The remainder of this binder contains additional material on the public process, specifications, Richmond Council discussion, etc. In the limited time available, I have not been able to cross-reference all of this for you, but have enclosed it for your information. You may also wish to see this binder to centralize other material on the topic.

Please call me or Rob Hodgins at 873-7345 if you require further assistance.

WNP/
rb2

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver