You are on page 1of 14

Conclusions gathered

Modal shift rates on all proposed Surrey Rapid Transit options clearly inferior to Vancouver achievements Surrey-wide achievements after 20 years of rapid transit completely inferior to what Vancouver has achieved after 20 years Auto use to remain dominant in the City of Surrey while Vancouver has already met goals and other cities with SkyTrain rapid transit will follow. Vehicles entering/within Surrey will increase with population and jobs, and the city will require millions of dollars to address this issue as a tradeoff for not enough investment in rapid transit

Assessing the impacts


Comparing the planned impact of the Surrey Rapid Transit alternatives vs. what rapid transit has done in Vancouver

Scroll down for more info

Modal shift in Vancouver 1996-2006


During this period, the Millennium Line SkyTrain line as well as the 99 and 98 B-Lines were introduced. As well, Mark II train service was initiated on the Expo Line to improve service and ride quality.

Source: Vancouver Transportation Plan Update


http://www.tac-atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2012/docs/session18/krueger.pdf

Modal shift in Vancouver 1996-2006


During this period, the 99 B-Line, 98 B-Line and Millennium Line SkyTrain line were introduced. As well, Mark II train service was initiated on the Expo Line to improve service.

Source: Vancouver Transportation Plan Update


http://www.tac-atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2012/docs/session18/krueger.pdf

Study area mode share (to/from/within) 2021 (opening year) to 2041


Mode share in 2021 (opening day) 16.00% Mode share in 2041

Study area modal shift 2021 (opening year) to 2041


Additional mode share captured in %

4
3.5 3 2.5 2 BRT network LRT to Langley + BRT Full LRT network RRT to Langley + BRT

3.18

3.28

3.21

3.17

Surrey rapid transit modal shift expectation 2021-2041

14.00% 12.00%

10.00%
8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 30% 28% 26% 24% 22% 20%

Study area modal shift 2021 (opening year) to 2041


Mode-share growth 26.72%
27.80% 27.20%

25.77%

0.00%
BRT network LRT to Langley + BRT Full LRT network RRT to Langley + BRT

BRT network

Source: Final Analysis PDF page 342-344

LRT to Langley + BRT

Full LRT network

RRT to Langley + BRT

Expected modal shift to transit


Additional transit mode-share captured in % 3.5 3.18 3.28 3.21 3.17

3.01
3

2.5

Comparison 1 Surrey 2021-2041 vs Vancouver 1996-2006

1.5

Vancouver has attracted a comparable modal shift in 10 years compared to what is expected in Surrey in approx. 20 years after opening date of any rapid transit line

0.5

0 Vancouver 1996-2006 Surrey 20212041, BRT1 Surrey 20212041, LRT5a Surrey 20212041, LRT1 Surrey 20212041, RRT1

Sources: Final Analysis PDF page 342-344, Vancouver Transportation Plan Update

TDM adjustments are not included in this comparison as such measures had not been implemented up to at least 2002 in the City of Vancouver. See report: Assessing the potential for road and parking charges to reduce demand for single occupancy vehicle commuting in the Greater Vancouver region, page 9 - http://research.rem.sfu.ca/theses/WashbrookKevin_2002_MRM298.pdf

Average yearly modal shift to transit


Average yearly additional transit mode-share captured in % 0.35 0.3

0.3

0.25

Comparison 2 Surrey 2021-2041 vs Vancouver 1996-2006

0.2

0.159
0.15

0.164

0.1605

0.1585

0.1

Previous Vancouver transit mode-share capture rate is almost twice the expected annual modal shift to transit with all proposed Surrey rapid transit options

0.05

0
Vancouver 1996-2006 Surrey 2021- Surrey 2021- Surrey 2021- Surrey 20212041, BRT1 2041, LRT5a 2041, LRT1 2041, RRT1

Sources: Final Analysis PDF page 342-344, Vancouver Transportation Plan Update

TDM adjustments are not included in this comparison as such measures had not been implemented up to at least 2002 in the City of Vancouver. See report: Assessing the potential for road and parking charges to reduce demand for single occupancy vehicle commuting in the Greater Vancouver region, page 9 - http://research.rem.sfu.ca/theses/WashbrookKevin_2002_MRM298.pdf

Average yearly modal shift


Average yearly transit mode share growth 2.00% 1.80% 1.60% 1.40% 1.34% 1.39% 1.36% 1.73%

Comparison 3 Surrey 2021-2041 vs Vancouver 1996-2006

1.29%

1.20%

1.00%
0.80% 0.60% 0.40% 0.20% 0.00% Vancouver 1996-2006 Surrey 2021- Surrey 2021- Surrey 2021- Surrey 20212041, BRT1 2041, LRT5a 2041, LRT1 2041, RRT1

Surrey to see slower annual modal shift with all proposed rapid transit options than Vancouver has already seen previously before Canada Line was built

Sources: Final Analysis PDF page 342-344, Vancouver Transportation Plan Update

TDM adjustments are not included in this comparison as such measures had not been implemented up to at least 2002 in the City of Vancouver. See report: Assessing the potential for road and parking charges to reduce demand for single occupancy vehicle commuting in the Greater Vancouver region, page 9 - http://research.rem.sfu.ca/theses/WashbrookKevin_2002_MRM298.pdf

Transit mode-shares for study sub-areas


with BRT network
30.00%

with LRT to Langley + BRT

with full LRT network

with RRT to Langley + BRT

25.00%

20.00%

Sub-area transit mode-shares in Surrey and Langley

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

Source: Final Analysis PDF page 87

Modal shift in Downtown Vancouver 1996-2006

Vancouver has successfully reduced amount of vehicles entering downtown core by 20% in 15 years, despite significant population and job growth Opened in this period: Millennium Line + Canada Line SkyTrain, 99 and 97 B-Lines, 98 BLine up until introduction of Canada Line

Source: Vancouver Transportation Plan Update


http://www.tac-atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2012/docs/session18/krueger.pdf

Modal shift in Downtown Vancouver 1996-2006

Source: Vancouver Transportation Plan Update


http://www.tac-atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2012/docs/session18/krueger.pdf

Measurement of transit mode-share


Transit mode share* (see note) 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 41.28%

Comparison 4
Downtown Surrey 2041 vs Downtown Vancouver 2006
Both cases are measurements 20 years after rapid transit

30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00%

26.60%

26.60%

26.50%

26.90%

Downtown Surrey poised to have much lower transit mode-share than Downtown Vancouver

Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Vancouver Surrey 2041 Surrey 2041 Surrey 2041 Surrey 2041 2006 with BRT1 with LRT5a with LRT1 with RRT1

* Downtown Surrey estimates consider trips leaving City Centre (i.e. on the Expo Line towards Burnaby and Downtown Vancouver, or reverse commutes), whereas Downtown Vancouver numbers do not. Downtown Vancouver numbers average to/within trip mode share.

Most pedestrian friendly city in Canada

These are the results of good transit and reduction of auto use

Vancouver is the most pedestrian-friendly city in Canada (WalkScore, 2013)


Of all neighbourhoods, downtown is the most pedestrian-friendly neighbourhood in Vancouver

Comparison 5
Proposed Surrey bus network vs. 2006 Vancouver network (bus networks after 20 years of rapid transit)

All rapid transit alternatives to be complemented with BAU transit network


Source: Final Analysis PDF page 242-245

Surrey 2041 bus network proposed to be far more established than Vancouvers 2006 bus network. All routes to maintain peak hour service within 15 minutes in Surrey/SOF after 20 years of rapid transit.
Busy Vancouver bus routes not part of frequent transit network before 2006 (i.e. 20 years of SkyTrain) included: 17, 25, 41, 49. Vancouver bus routes 33 and 84 did not exist before 2006.

Comparison 5
Proposed Surrey bus network vs. 2006 Vancouver network (bus networks after 20 years of rapid transit)

Many Vancouver routes today (27 years after rapid transit) that do not provide service within 15 mins during peak hour (26, 27, 28, 29, etc)
Mode share goals already met by Vancouver for intra-Vancouver trips in 2006 are not met in Surrey after 20 years of rapid transit despite this more established bus network.

Source: Final Analysis PDF page 242-245, TransLink 2008 press release CPTDB Wiki on CMBC bus routes

Full tables on final analysis PDF page 242-245

You might also like