The Bus Exchange at McTavish Road and Highway #17 - Is it a White Elephant?

With the build of the overpass at McTavish and Highway #17 BC Transit built the McTavish bus exchange and park and ride.  

I have never had to use it for transit, though I have been on the #72 as it passes through there.   What strikes me is how large it is but underused.

There is space for four full sized buses to be here at the same time but one of the spaces is not in use.  The exchange also includes stops on the on/off ramps of the highway making for six spots where buses could stop, this is a large scale transit exchange.  The bus loop part of the exchange takes up close to an acre of land.   The bus loop looks like it was constructed to be able to have five more buses stop there.  

So why is it so big?   There are not that many buses that come through here at any given time.   Right now only six bus routes use this interchange of which four of them use the small community buses.  

Total number of trips of each bus that passes through McTavish Exchange on weekdays
#70 58 total trips - 29 to Swartz Bay, 29 to Downtown
#72 80 total trips - 41 to Swartz Bay, 39 to Downtown
#81 32 total trips - 15 to Saanichton/Brentwood, 17 to Sidney/Swartz Bay
#83 16 total trips - 8 to Sidney 8 to Royal Oak
#86  4 total trips - 2 to Deep Cove, 2 arriving at McTavish
#88 46 total trips - 23 to Sidney, 23 to the Airport

This is a total of 236 buses arriving at the exchange over 18 hours, which is an average of only 13.1 per hour.  What this means is that is very rare for more than one bus to be at the exchange at any given time.   If the exchange was a route end there could be the need for buses to sit there for a longer period as the drivers take their break, but almost all of the buses going through McTavish are on their way to another destination and only stop there long enough to let passengers off and on.

The idea of an exchange is for people to transfer from one bus to another bus.   In the case of the McTavish Exchange I do not see this demand being high.   The community buses only have a maximum capacity of just over 20 passengers.   Even with the low capacity of these community buses these routes have very low use.  Routes #81, #83, #86 and #88 move a total of about 800 people per weekday, that is 400 round trips total.  If all these people were going to McTavish to change to the #70 or #72, this would only represent 9% of the traffic on those routes.   If more realistically half of those people were transferring at McTavish each weekday, this is only about 50 people per peak hour using the exchange.

McTavish has the largest park and ride facility in Greater Victoria which I find very surprising given the much higher population and more transit on the Westshore.  There is space for 177 cars to park there, though according to people I have asked it is not heavily used, half full at best.   With roughly 90 spots used and an average occupancy of 1.1 people per car, this only represents 100 transit passengers a day, just enough to fill one double decker bus.   Why build it so large if the demand is not there?   Where does BC Transit think the demand will come from?   There is no realistic expectation of large population increases on the north end of the peninsula. and if anything the number of commuters is likely to fall over time.

The park and ride facility does not allow you to park there and then take the bus to the airport of the ferry because you are not allowed to park overnight.   Given the very high prices the airport and BC Ferries charge for parking, it would be nice to be able to park somewhere near to them for free.   It would also generate more traffic for BC Transit.   They have the space and it is not being used so why not let people park overnight, they could charge a small fee for overnight parking and limit it to only the back half of the parking lot.   80 spots available for overnight parking that cost $5 a night could bring in $90,000 to $140,000 a year for BC Transit.  The extra bus fares from making this parking available could worth another extra $90,000 to $140,000 a year.   That is enough income to allow for seven to eight more transit service hours per weekday.

The location is not a very useful one because there is no destination there.  Part of the problem is that Highway #17 was not constructed close to the airport terminal or the core of the population in Central Saanich.  The other exchanges in Victoria like UVic, Saanichton, Langford, Western, and Royal Oak all have significant development around them and reasons for people to travel to them.  All McTavish has is the airport but BC Transit has never really embraced the airport as a core destination.  

Now for a digression about transit and the airport:
Few people are going to want to transfer when going to the airport with luggage which means the small community buses that take you to McTavish from the airport are acting as a disincentive to transit use.   I think it should be possible to change the routing of the #70 and #72 into three routes, one being the #70 express from the ferry to downtown, a second being the #72 but only once an hour from the ferry and a third that starts in Sidney but runs via the airport.   Creating this third route would effectively make the #88 redundant.

Is there demand for transit to and from the airport?  Among local people that are flying somewhere there is clearly a demand especially those aged 18 to 30.   You people travelling are seeking a cheaper alternative than a taxi or the tourist airport shuttle.   One only has to look at the high demand for BC Transit service to the ferry.  One nice aspect for transit to and from the airport is that it is not like the ferry where everyone arrives at the same time.  The smaller capacity of airplanes and the constant flow of passenger which means there would be a consistent flow of people going to and from the airport.  

With around 3,000 people per day travelling through YYJ there should be enough demand to fill a regular single deck bus especially if it is a route that services Sidney as well.  This would be augmented by the people using transit to get to the airport for work.   YYJ is a significant sized employer but has not easy connection for commuters to get to work.  I would be very surprised if transit use by people working YYJ was not lower than the average.

Back to the McTavish Exchange, it seems to be much larger than is needed and located where it is not needed.   I think BC Transit made a mistake spending their money on building it.
____________________________________________________

Here is the list of all 38 buses passing through McTavish Exchange weekdays between 7:00 am and 8:59 am, the busiest time of the day for transit.  Bold are full size buses, red are southbound, underlined are the buses that stop outside of the bus loop at the exchange.
7:00 #70 to Downtown
7:00 #72 to Downtown
7:10 #81 from Keating headed to Sidney
7:12 #83 from Sidney headed to Brentwood and Royal Oak
7:15 #70 to Downtown
7:20 #70 to Swartz Bay
7:21 #86 from Deep Cove terminating at McTavish - normally has only one or two passengers
7:22 #81 from Sidney going to Keating
7:24 #72 to Sidney/Swartz Bay
7:27 #72 to Downtown
7:30 #70 to Downtown
7:38 #88 from Sidney headed to Airport
7:40 #72 to Downtown
7:42 #88 to Sidney (starting at McTavish)
7:44 #72 to Sidney/Swartz Bay starting at Saanichton
7:45 #70 to Downtown
7:47 #81 from Sidney going to West Saanich and Wallace
7:47 #88 from Airport headed to Sidney
7:49 #81 from Keating headed to Sidney
7:51 #72 to Sidney/Swartz Bay
7:53 #70 to Swartz Bay
8:01 #72 to Downtown
8:09 #83 from Sidney headed to Brentwood and Royal Oak
8:13 #88 from Sidney headed to Airport
8:15 #70 to Downtown
8:20 #81 from Sidney headed to Keating
8:22 #88 from Airport terminating at McTavish
8:23 #70 to Swartz Bay
8:24 #81 from West Saanich and Wallace headed to Sidney
8:31 #72 to Downtown
8:32 #88 from Sidney headed to Airport
8:32 #83 from Royal Oak and Brentwood headed to Sidney
8:41 #88 from Airport headed to Sidney
8:45 #70 to Downtown
8:51 #72 to Sidney/Swartz Bay
8:53 #70 to Swartz Bay
8:54 #83 from Royal Oak and Brentwood headed to Sidney

Is the LRT idea dead?

It has been almost three years since the release of the recommendation for an LRT and everything has gone very quiet.    From the spring to the fall of 2011 there was a lot of talk about about the proposed LRT running from Downtown to the Westshore but since then very little has happened.  The very website is getting dated and elements of it are no longer available.

I am relatively happy to see the proposed idea fade away because it was a bad idea for this region, too expensive to operate and not designed to meet the needs of the people in Victoria.   It does bother me that so much time, money and energy went into a plan that was not supportable by the evidence available.  It means that work on improving transit in this region was delayed because of the focus on a dumb idea.

There are simple improvements that could have been done and I believe would have been funded by the province which have not happened.   The addition of a few sections of bus only lanes on Douglas/TCH between Mayfair Mall and Mackenzie would speed up transit and keep it competitive with respect to time.   There does not need to be continuous lanes because each section would allow buses to get ahead of the rest of the traffic.

What has also not been happening is any consideration of what slows down some bus routes.   The BLines buses in Vancouver show what can be done to move buses faster.    There are two major factors why the BLines move so quickly and both relate to the primary reason buses are slower than cars, the need to stop for passengers.  

The first is limiting the number of stops, which is an obvious one.  Even a quick stop means the bus sits still for 20 to 30 seconds.   Taking a route from 25 stops to 12 stops saves about six minutes in stopping time alone.  It also saves the time the bus is slowing down and speeding up from the bus stop.

BLine buses require you to buy your fare before you board, this alone saves time at each stop.  Also important is that you can board a BLine bus through any door and they tend to have three doors.   It means a BLine bus only needs to stop at a busy bus stop for a minute.  Even though this only saves between 30 and 90 seconds at busy stops, over four to eight of them on a route, this saves around another six minutes of travel time.

These changes have not happened because of the distraction of the LRT proposal.  Maybe now that the LRT idea seems to be dead in the water, BC Transit will focus on less sexy but much more useful improvements to transit in Victoria.

2013 Peninsula Co-op Rebate

I have posted our rebate details for our rebate from Peninsula Co-op each year since 2009/10.   In 2012/13 we got a voucher for $27.00 on $1,054.99 in purchases.   This is 2.56% of our purchases from April 1 2012 to March 31 2013 which is a rise from last year.

I use the term rebate instead of formal term patronage allocation because rebate means more to people and is shorter.

Year    Purchases  Rebate  Rebate  Rebate Pay out Current Coop
           Apr 1-Mar 31    paid out rate   rate  Share Holding 
2008/09 $1,241.89   $65.82  $32.91  5.30%  2.50%    $29.32
2009/10 $2,155.55  $109.93  $59.00  5.10%  2.74%    $95.14
2010/11 $1,823.96   $85.73  $47.13  4.70%  2.58%   $138.01
2011/12 $2,138.11   $90.60  $49.85  4.20%  2.31%   $183.31
2012/13 $1,054.99   $44.84  $27.00  4.25%  2.56%   $203.49
The pay out rate also includes GST rebates (HST in past years) which boosts the overall pay out percentage a bit.

The total rebate rate is slightly higher this year than last year but an change this year is the split between common and preferred shares.  In the past the split was 50/50 in the rebate and the common shares were paid out right away.   This year the split is 55/45 common/preferred.   This means the pay out this year was $2.24 higher than it would have been with the past split.

At the 2.5% range the rebate pay out from Coop is one of the better loyalty programs out there other than the coffee programs.   In three years, when we start to get the rebate of the preferred shares, the amount rebated will rise.

Changing from the truck to the car has saved us close to $1000 a year in fuel.  In the past we drove a pickup, now we drive a four door sedan.  I do not think we are driving many fewer kilometers it is just an indication of how much we saved moving to a more fuel efficient vehicle.  We went from about 1800 litres bought at Co-op to about 900 litres a year.   I think this may under estimate the savings because we are not buying much fuel at Costco any longer.

Our first refund voucher was for $32.91 but we lost it.   Since then it has been noted as part of our ownership of Peninsula Co-op, I am not sure how to get it paid out.  I wonder how many of the patronage allocations have not been redeemed each year?    I wonder what happens if someone dies and no one informs the Co-op?   What is someone moves and forgets to inform the Co-op?   How are long term unredeemed patronage allocations accounted for?

I have never seen any financial returns for the Co-op.  I do not know how much revenue it has and how large the retained earnings are, especially the ones that have been issued as patronage allocations.   I wonder about this because I think at a certain point Peninsula Co-op will become large enough that de-mutualizing will make financial sense for the members.

Our 2012/13 Report

New Roundabout at UVic partially complete October 16th 2013

I thought it would interesting to make a short video of the traffic through the partially complete roundabout at Finnerty and Sinclair so that I can compare it to the finished one.

I did this at noon on Wednesday.   The traffic was light but did back up.  In part this is because the construction was delaying people though not all of it.   Roundabouts make the most sense as a replacement for traffic lights for low levels of traffic.  I am not certain this is the best location for a roundabout.




Details about the project can be found on the Saanich website

The planned roundabout

A short slide show of maps showing where many of the railways were on Vancouver Island

For links to the JPGs of the maps, try this link

Time for business cases for bus routes?

Should BC Transit in Victoria be driven by the bottom line and set financial targets for routes?  
Should there be a business case for each route?

I know that BC Transit tracks data on the various routes but we never see a report that shows us which routes make money and which ones need the highest subsidy.    We know that the hourly cost to run a bus in Victoria is just under $100 per hour.  

If 40 cash customers board this bus in one hour the bus is cost effective.   For monthly passes an average commuter will spend 40 to 45 hours on buses in a month for an average of almost $2 revenue per hour of use.   This works out to about $1.75 per trip or 57 monthly pass holder boardings per hour.  With a mix of these two, 1/3 cash and 2/3s monthly pass holders, 51 boardings per hour.

My calculations do not account for the U-Pass program, which costs $78.50 per semester - $19.63 a month.   I do not know how to measure the use of the U-Pass versus the revenues it brings in, but based on the scale of bus traffic to UVic it does seem to be used a lot but there seems to be little interest in offering more service because it would not bring in any extra revenues.

There is also the Youth Pass which costs $35 a month and non-transferable and you have to get it for at least six months.   Their use has an impact on the cost effectiveness of routes.

So back to seeing if the routes are cost effective or not.   If I can get a handle on what it would take for a route to be cost effective, it only makes sense that BC Transit could do the same.   They should have exact data of who is boarding the bus and a measure of where the passengers alight.   They should be able to track if a bus pass holder is transferring or not.  They should be able to assign specific revenues to ever bus run.

It is this data that would allow the Greater Victoria Transit Commission the ability to better plan what routes are the most effective and what routes really do not make sense.   To ask the GVTC to make decisions on levels of service without this sort of data makes no sense.

The reality is that we can not offer unlimited transit to everywhere in the region.  Without good business cases for the routes we are going to spend more for a transit system that offers us less service than we deserve.

Commuter Ferry from the Westshore?

The Westshore Chamber of Commerce is researching the demand for a commuter ferry from the Westshore to downtown.

The planned route would be about 9.5 kilometers, at a speed of 25 kmh this would take 23 minutes, the length of the trip is not unreasonable but there are considerations that people do not seem to be talking about.

• How often will winter weather cancel the service?  I know that even in the sheltered waters of Esquimalt Harbour that the old Blue Boat service was cancelled due to weather at times.  The proposed route I suspect will lead to many cancelled savings from October to April.
• How will the service be paid for?  I assume like all transit will need a subsidy, how much and from whom?  If it is part of BC Transit, they would have raise what they collect in property taxes or cut bus services somewhere to make this service work.
• What sort of capacity are we talking about?   A single boat carrying 40-50 people would have almost no impact as it could only do one trip per hour at best.   The capacity of the SeaBus in Vancouver is 385 but those ships do not strike me as appropriate for the conditions in this area.
• The location of the terminal in the Westshore does not seem to be very close to anyone, it would mean taking the bus or driving to the terminal to get to the boat going downtown, this seems less than ideal.
• What will it cost to operate this service?   Without knowing a lot more details about the costs of the proposed service it is very hard to know if the idea makes any sense at all.   My suspicion is that the cost of running a boat that is capable of traversing these waters will be expensive on a per passenger basis.

I suspect this idea is not going to go anywhere because the economics of the idea are not affordable and the scale of demand is not enough to have a significant on traffic congestion.

One way we could speed up the buses in Victoria

At certain locations in Greater Victoria there are almost always large numbers of people wanting to board buses and this slows down the time for the buses to get through their route.    Places like along Douglas Street downtown have numerous stops that are not at the end of the route but experience high demand.    When you need to have 10 to 20 people enter a bus at a stop like at Douglas between Yates and Johnson the time it takes for everyone to board the bus has a noticeable impact on the time for the bus to complete the route.   There is an answer - install fare payment stations at the major bus stops.  

There has been some studying done on this idea which was presented in a paper at the Canadian Transportation Research Forum 47th Annual Conference held in June in Calgary.  Leila Dianat and Yousef Shafahi presented a paper called: “A Practical Model for Minimizing Waiting Time in a Transit Network”.

The idea is that people would buy their ticket at the bus stop before boarding or swipe their passes at the bus stop.   They would then be able to enter the bus at both the front and back doors.  It is the multiple entry points coupled with no slowing down at the farebox that speeds up time it takes for the bus to get going.  

The paper indicates that at busy bus stops the bus dwell time is reduced by 77% by this idea for buses with two doors.   This is the model currently used in Vancouver by the BLine buses and is one of the reasons they move much faster than traditional buses.   The BLine buses have an advantage over ours here in having three doors to allow people to board the bus through.

An average northbound bus on Douglas has about three to four major bus stops that slow it down.   This system would allow for the most time savings during the busiest time of day.    At the moment it takes about 90 seconds for a bus to deal with a busy bus stop.   If this were to drop to 30 seconds that saves about 3-4 minutes on a trip.  

This may not sound like a lot, but with close to 90 buses passing through Yates northbound on Douglas during the peak hour in the afternoon, this would be just over five hours of bus operation time - that is a savings of $500 to $600 during that one hour of operation.  It means that BC Transit effectively increases their peak time fleet capacity 3-5% without adding any new buses.  

The small time savings would also make buses that more desirable for the public.  Saving a total of 7 minutes a day on your commute of about 90 minutes round trip sounds like very little but does mean your commute is  close to 8% faster, enough time to have a cup of coffee.   Over a year it is 26 hours of your time.  Slightly faster buses mean an increase in use which means more revenues.

The E&N - there are some questions not answered

Yesterday the fourth of the five regional districts voted to fund the request by the Island Corridor Foundation.   The only one that remains now is the Comox Valley Regional District to vote in favour.  

I have often had concerns about publicly funded projects because of the ongoing track record of them costing more and taking longer than expected during the process in which the funding was sought.   The reality is there is a high probability there will be a cost over run and how that over run will be funded is important to know.   When a government directly takes on a project the answer of where more funding will come from is the government, but in the case of the E&N there is no clarity who would fund the cost over run.   Realistically I think there will be a second request of the regional districts - will they come through if asked again in a year or two?   No one knows for certain.

Qualicum is the first local government to express concerns about the costs of the E&N, I doubt they will be the last if there is a second request for money.   Qualicum council directed their member on the Regional District of Nanaimo to vote against the ICF request.

Here is a piece written by Jim Sturgill about the ICF request for money:

Call For Railway Cash Needs Scrutiny
The Island Corridor Foundation, the nonprofit organization that owns the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway, recently started asking regional districts up and down Vancouver Island for $3.2 million to repair bridges along the route. 

So far, Alberni-Clayoquot has agreed to contribute $115,000, and the Cowichan Valley district has pledged $488,100. Last week, the CRD’s Finance Committee approved $1.2 million for the ICF, pending approval of the CRD board. 

CRD and all Island taxpayers need to be concerned. A CRD staff report stated the $3.2 million won’t cover the upgrades needed for commuter and freight rail services. Worse yet, the ICF has not obtained any commitment from VIA Rail to resume basic passenger service. 

Regional districts should think twice about handing over funds without asking hard questions about how the ICF will spend the money -- and how the ICF is governed.
The ICF is already getting over $400,000 a year in property tax exemptions from the very regional districts who are being asked to fund the $3.2 million, and these exemptions were approved based on the ICF not asking them for more financial aid. 

First of all, the ICF’s claim that it will cost only $3.2 million to get all 48 bridges and trestles up to basic operational level strains credibility. A February 2012 report conducted for the Ministry of Transportation said it would cost at least $8.7 million to get the bridges operational and operating for 10 years. The ICF’s recent renovation of the Nanaimo station alone cost $2.4 million. It's not even clear if the ICF has received cost estimates from contractors for the bridge work. 

The ICF has also said they require $5.4 million for the bridge repairs and have stated they will raise the balance through fundraising and borrowing, but they have not shown any plan for how they plan to do that either. Regional districts can’t put money into a project that is not only being underestimated, but already underfunded by $2.2 million. 

Where is the ICF’s business plan for this work and their financial statements? It seems the ICF has decided that only its board members and employees need to know what its plan is for this money. The public is supposed to provide cash, and not ask any questions -- even though serious questions need asking. 

VIA Rail provided the railway with an annual subsidy of $1.2 million when it ran the passenger service. The ICF also receives $340,000 annually from Telus for telecommunications lines that run along its right-of-way. What happened to all those funds? Why has the ICF performed practically no maintenance to the railway? 

I have been a member of the ICF’s rail operations committee for several years after it acquired the E&N from Canadian Pacific in 2006. In 2010, our committee began questioning the poor condition and overall safety of the railway, but were told by ICF Chief Operating Officer Graham Bruce that this was none of our concern. In January 2011, Graham Bruce told our committee that it was no longer needed, but never explained why. Two months later, VIA stopped passenger service due to the poor condition of the track. 

What concerns me is that safety violations had to be brought to VIA’s attention before anything was done to stop the train from operating. 

The ICF was not happy about this. ICF board Co-chair Mary Ashley told a member of our committee soon afterward that VIA had decided to halt service on the basis of “inaccurate information”. 

Now the ICF admits that it needs millions to bring that track up to basic operational safety -- effectively admitting that the track was unsafe when passenger service stopped. 

In its pitch to regional districts, the ICF has given the impression that the bridge repairs were unexpected. But the problems have been known for some time: in October 2010, a different consultant submitted a report about the state of the E&N’s bridges. That report, however, has remained a closely guarded secret. The ICF refused to provide the report to our operations committee, and Southern Railway of Vancouver Island (SVI), the current operator, has tried to block media freedom of information requests for it, claiming its disclosure would “unnecessarily diminish public confidence”. What don’t they want the public to see? 

The 2012 Ministry of Transportation report covers some of these issues, but regional districts need to see the October 2010 report too, and ask why the ICF is claiming that the bridges only need $3.2 million for the next decade. The ICF seems to be basing its request on what it can get away with, instead of what the railway actually needs. Let's not forget, that the ICF's first funding request was for $103.8 million just four years ago in 2008, when there was a detailed plan presented.
Southern Railway of Vancouver Island also needs to be stepping up to the plate and investing ahead of the taxpayer with a large up-front investment, if they feel there is an opportunity to make profits operating the E&N. 

Even though the ICF has been committed $15 million in conditional federal and provincial cash, there is still no detailed plan that shows that will be enough to repair the track component either. 

I want to see railway service return. However, I believe the regional districts should refuse the funding request until the ICF has a new executive, a transparent board, and a realistic plan.  

Jim Sturgill is a railway consultant, a former E&N locomotive engineer, and a member of the E&N Railway Action Group.

Island Corridor Foundation has 2 of 5 regional districts on board

The Island Corridor Foundation managed to get $15,000,000 in funding from the Federal and Provincial governments for needed repairs to the rail line but they need another $3,200,000 from local governments to make it happen.

There are five regional districts that would need to contribute and their populations in 2011:

• Capital Regional District - 359,991
• Regional District of Nanaimo - 146,574
• Cowichan Valley Regional District - 80,332
• Comox Valley Regional District - 63,538
• Alberni Clayoquot Regional District - 31,061

The contribution they are looking for is $0.43 per $100,000 of assessed value per year for five years.   For a $600,000 house in Victoria this is $2.58 per year for a total bill of $12.90.

So far the Alberni-Clayoquot and Cowichan Valley regional districts have approved the tax, 16.3% of the population and likely representing less than 10% of the assessed value.   The bulk of the contribution will come from the Capital Regional District.  

The CRD has the highest assessed values and 52.8% of the population.  The buy in by the CRD is crucial.  

Should all five regional districts agree the ICF will then have $20,900,000 to work with which includes $500,000 from Southern Railway of Vancouver Island and debt or fundraising of $2,200,000 by the ICF.    The question then is who pays if there are cost overruns?  

The investment is clearly needed to ensure that the tracks can be used, but the odds of a 20-30% cost overrun is very likely given the track record of transportation infrastructure projects.   Where would that  $4,200,000 to $6,300,000 come from?

I am not trying to be negative about the E&N but it worries me when the planning does not seem to be fully thought out.   There has to be a clear plan to raise extra money because you can almost plan on there being cost overruns. To pretend that they will not occur means someone will be asked to come up with the shortfall because a crisis point is reached.    I suspect that it will be the local governments that will have to come to the rescue.

To get this phase of the rail line work completed is going to likely need all the regional districts to approve a second round of taxes twice as much per $100,000 of assessed value as is being asked for now.   I am not sure from where else the money could come from unless a new government in Victoria next May grants the ICF another $7,500,000.

CRD Taxpayers’ Association alarmed at proposed Transit Tax Hike

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 19 2012 – Victoria
Victoria – CRD Taxpayers’ Association alarmed at proposed Transit Tax Hike

Proposed transit tax hike three times higher than increase in expenses

At its December meeting, the Victoria Transit Commission will be considering recommendations for a three year transit service plan that includes transit tax hikes and transit fare increases. According to the BC Transit report presented to the Victoria Transit Commission on September 11th, the expected increase in transit costs at current service levels is 8.7% over the next three year period but the proposed transit tax hike under consideration is over three times higher, or 29% over the next three years.

Since the Provincial transit subsidy increases with increased operating costs, the disproportionate impact on transit property taxes is currently unexplained. The Committee report did not include corresponding projections for transit passenger, advertising or fuel tax revenues or an explanation of any variance in the regulated 31.7% in Provincial subsidy revenues.

In a separate section of the September report, four transit fare increase options were outlined with basic fare increases ranging from 25 cents to 50 cents per fare including an option to raise senior and youth fares to the current $2.50 level.

The three year transit tax hike for current transit services would result in a three year transit property tax increase of $34.75 for a residential property with a 2011 assessed value of $536,000. For commercial properties, the three year increase is estimated by the Association to be $ 315 based on a 2011 assessment of $ 1 million.

BC Transit also placed service expansion options before the Commission which could result in three year increases in transit taxes of up to $49.75 for a residential property and $450 (estimated) for a commercial property with an assessed value of one $1 million. BC Transit offered up no service changes or reductions to offset these large residential and commercial tax increases even though previous reports to the Commission have identified poorly performing routes and inefficient services as candidates for cost-savings.
Even with transit fare increases, the three year transit property tax increase could still be between $28.70 and $43.70 for residential properties and between $260 and $395 for commercial properties depending on the fare increase option selected.

The transit service expansions from 2005 to 2011 have resulted in no increase in transit market share and instead have resulted in a decline in the number of passengers carried per service hour. These are clear indications that the “If you build it they will come” business model is not working and that increasing transit service hours should not be undertaken without a serious look at underperforming routes and services. The Victoria Transit Commission needs to revisit transit services that are ineffective and inefficient. Buses carrying few or no passengers are needlessly contributing to operating losses and greenhouse gases.

“The Association believes that it is the Victoria Transit Commission’s responsibility to obtain a comprehensive explanation from BC Transit as to why transit taxes are rising at three times the increased cost of providing the service and seriously consider looking at all the options to minimize tax increases” remarks Bev Highton, the Chair of the CRD Taxpayers’ Association.

* For additional information, contact:
Bev Highton, Chair, CRD Business & Residential Taxpayers’ Association
Tel: 250 361-8411

Transit Fare Review

BC Transit is doing a review of the fares for the Victoria Regional Transit and has decided to consult with the public after creating four options as opposed to getting public input before creating the options.

One of the problems with BC Transit in this region is that they tend to come to the public with complete ideas fait a compli and not really look for new ideas from the public.   As a public engagement process, this is less than ideal.

A good public engagement process involves the public early on in the process and keeps the public well informed during the process and how the input was used.

From the International Association of for Public Participation:

Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation

• Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process.
• Public participation includes the promise that the public's contribution will influence the decision. 
• Public participation promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing and communicating the needs and interests of all participants, including decision makers. 
• Public participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision. 
• Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate. 
• Public participation provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way. 
• Public participation communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.

I read through these values and I do not see how they are applied in the current Fare Review.

• There is nothing on the buses to indicate this is happening.  You would think the people that would be effected would be keep in the loop.
• There have been no updates in over five weeks
• There are no public meetings
• The online survey is not well structured and will effectively be a popularity contest within very tight confines
• BC Transit is not giving the public any idea what the scope of input they are looking for in the process
• There has been no scope for input by the public to suggest options.  All the options include fare increases and property tax increases.  In the case of the property tax increase, it is projected to be about three times the rate of inflation.
• I get no sense there will be a process in which the public will be able to see how their input was used
• The timeframe between the end of fare review and the decision by the commission is very short, the final date for input is Friday November 9th with the commission to make a decision on Tuesday December 4th.   This is a very short timeframe to collate and analyse the input if there is meaningful public participation. 

This reminds me of their process looking at Local Funding Options for the LRT - the process and report did little or nothing to engage the public and then did not reflect back the input they received.

Commission Report Tariff Strategy

Three year service and financial strategy presentation

September 11, 2012 Victoria Regional Transit Financial and Performance Review

CD 2011 Origin-Destination Household Travel Survey

A few changes to the #11 Bus route that could save BC Transit time and money

Many of our bus routes have remained more or less the same for long periods of time, maybe it is time to question this and see if there are ways to improve the use of current buses and reduce costs?

I live in the Gorge part of the city and one of the bus routes in this area is the #11.  For a long time I have wondered about the strange jog it does at the end of it's route in this part of the town.  If you are going to Tillicum Mall you are better off getting off at Gorge and Tillicum and walking about 600 meters than staying on the bus.

I can understand the desire to have the #11 bus go along Gorge Road to Admirals and then via Cowper and Obed to get to Tillicum Mall but does it have to do so going to and coming from the mall?   The time it takes to make that loop through the neighbourhood takes about 12 minutes leaving Tillicum Mall and 10 minutes going to Tillicum Mall.   That is a significant amount of time and it strikes me that it should be possible to improve this by only going through the Gorge neighbourhood one way and not both ways.

If one were eliminate the outbound trip through the neighbourhood and have the #11 go down Tillicum Road and then turn left onto Gorge Road, this would save BC Transit about 3600 to 4000 service hours per year.   At about $100 per hour that would be a savings of around $360,000 to $400,000 a year.

Why might this not work?  I assume that the stop at Tillicum Mall is a rest stop for the bus drivers.  With a one way loop on a route it is is not ideal stop for a rest for the drivers within the loop.   For the idea of a one way loop to work there would have to be continuous service on the route to ensure everyone can still get on a bus and get to their destination.   For people along the route this would add some time to their daily commute.

I do not think this has to be an insurmountable barrier to making some sort of change to keep service the same but reduce operating hours.   One possible solution I can think of off the top of my head would be to alter the route of the #22 a bit and have it go via Tillicum Mall then to Obed and Cowper to get to Admirals so it can run north through to Burnside again.

Another improvement that could be made at Tillicum Mall to reduce travel times would be to allow buses to use Bodega to get into and out of the mall from Obed.   The route via Bodega is shorter than the current route.  The change also has benefits because it avoids the short section of Tillicum Road that is reasonably busy.

Leaving the mall the current #11 only needs to make right hand turns and is not held up for too long though the light at Tillicum Road and Maddock/Arena will often cause a wait.   Going to the mall is where more time is saved.  The bus has a left hand turn from Obed onto Tillicum and then a left hand from Tillicum Road onto Maddock/Arena Road - these left hand turns take time.

Even if there were no other changes to the #11 route, making this change at Bodega should save several minutes per trip and that alone could save about 1000 service hours a year.

Blue is the current route of the #11, Red is what it would be with access via Bodega

Time for residential parking permits

Right now councils throughout this region are providing free parking spaces for homes with secondary suites.      We have secondary suites through out our region and councils everywhere turn a blind eye to them but because of this, thought is not given to the impact of more people living in a house than planned.   One of those impacts is that the councils provide the illegal suites with a location to park and charge nothing for it.

The unlimited parking people can do in front of their homes also makes it cheaper for the wealthiest in our society to defray some of the costs of owning a car onto to the general public purse.  Effectively the municipality is extending the usable property of a house by an extra 2 meters onto the street.

I think the time has come for municipalities in this region to require parking permits for residents to park in front of their homes on an ongoing basis.   The first permit for a residence would be relatively cheap, say $100 a year, but it is the second and third permits that should be significantly more expensive.  The second one $600 and the third one $1800.

Since many families have two cars but with a secondary suite they need space for three, it is almost a certainty that all the homes with secondary suites will have to buy at least one if not two street parking permits.   These parking permits would shift some of the cost from property taxes and onto users as is only right.   At the moment the municipalities do not collect anything extra to cover the costs of secondary suites, this is one of the few methods I can think of that would most closely target secondary suites.

If I were to estimate how much this would bring in for income to the City of Victoria based on the rates I suggested, my estimate is $2 to $3 million a year.   This is not a huge amount in the overall scheme of things, but it would allow property tax increases to rise a bit slower.  

I think this should be done in Victoria, Oak Bay, Saanich, Esquimalt, View Royal, Colwood, Sidney and Langford.

Time for a Vancouver Island Transportation Authority?

Transportation is very important on Vancouver Island because we are the largest ferry dependent population in North America.  We have a unique set of issues and constraints when it comes to our transportation because of the geography of this Island is not very friendly to moving around.

At the moment we have a plethora of governments and agencies that are responsible for some aspect of transportation and none of them are coordinated with each other.    I think we would benefit from the creation of a Vancouver Island Transportation governed by local governments but with guaranteed funding from the federal and provincial governments.   Any local authority should also control all of the gas tax money raised on the island.

Who all is involved with transportation on the island?

• Ministry of Transportation deals with the highways
• We have municipalities responsible for many roads, but in unorganized areas this is handled by the Ministry of Transportation
• Resource roads, mainly forest service roads, are built by industry but are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.  These roads matter for the public because there communities on the island that only have access over forest service roads.
• BC Ferries provides most of the ferry services by we have Black Ball offering the Coho, Washington State Ferries offering a ferry between Anacortes and Sidney for part of the year.   We also have private ferry services on the westcoast of the island providing service to remote communities such as the Uchuck.
• ICF owns the E&N line but it is operated by the Southern Railway of BC
• We have a number of airports on the island that provide regular passenger service but are not under the control of the local people in any proper manner.   We have YWH - Victoria Harbour, YYJ - Victoria International, YQQ - Comox,  YCD - Nanaimo, YBL - Campbell River Municipal Airport, YAZ - Tofino, YZT - Port Hardy

We have eight transit systems that are all differently owned and operated.

• Campbell River Transit System is jointly funded by the City of Campbell River and BC Transit and operated by Watson and Ash Transportation Company (as far north as north Campbell River and as far south as Oyster River)
• Comox Valley Transit System is cost shared between the CVRD and BC Transit and operated by Watson and Ash Transportation Ltd.  (goes as far north as Oyster River and south as Fanny Bay)
• Cowichan Valley Regional Transit System is cost shared between the CVRD and BC Transit and operated by First Canada ULC.  HandyDart is operated by Volunteer Cowichan and finally the Honeymoon Bay and Youbou connectors are operated by the Cowichan Lake Community Services Society (as far north as Chemainus and as far south as Victoria)
• Mount Waddington Regional Transit - funded by RDMW, three First Nations and passenger fares, it is operated by North Island Community Services Society.
• Port Albeni/Clayoquot Transit System - regular bus service is a City of Port Alberni/BC Transit service and HandyDart is a partnership of RDAC and BC Tranist
• RDN Transit is cost shared between the RDN and BC Transit, the system is operated by the Transportation Service Department of the RDN.  (as far north as Qualicum Beach and south as Cedar)
• Saltspring Island Transit System is cost shared between the CRD and BC Transit with decisions made by the Saltspring Island Transportation Commission and operated by Ganges Faerie Minishuttle
• Victoria Regional Transit System is cost shared between the Greater Victoria Transit Commission and BC Transit it is operated by BC Transit

Not all of Vancouver Island is covered by transit, Ladysmith has no transit, neither does Tofino or Ucluelet.  We have no transit connection from Duncan to the Nanaimo area, and given the number of VIU students living in the Cowichan Valley but going to school in Nanaimo, I would have thought there was enough demand.   There is also no transit to connect the Comox Valley or Port Alberni to the Nanaimo area.

We have a lot of people thinking about some aspect of transportation but with such a dramatic number of agencies involved we have no unified approach on the issue.  No one takes a proper overview to see what resources are needed where and what the future should look like.

With the creation of Translink, the provincial government has clearly set up one example of devolving power to the local level to deal with broader transport issues.

Higher BC Ferry Fares - what do the prices look like?

If BC Ferries applies the full increases they are allowed what would fares look like from Swartz Bay?  The possible increases are 4.1% on April 1 2013, 4% on April 1 2014 and 3.9% on April 1 2015.

Fare      Current  Apr 1 2013 Apr 1 2014 Apr 1 2015 Apr 2008
To Tsawwassen
Adult       $14.85    $15.45     $16.05    $16.70    $13.00
Child        $7.45     $7.75      $8.05     $8.40     $6.50
Car         $49.25    $51.25     $53.30    $55.40    $43.00
Family of 4 $93.85    $97.65    $101.50   $105.60    $82.00
To Fulford Harbour
Adult       $10.90    $11.35     $11.80    $12.25     $8.70
Car         $32.25    $33.55     $34.90    $36.25    $24.85
To other Gulf Islands
Adult       $11.45    $11.90     $12.40    $12.90     $9.00
Car         $36.25    $37.75     $39.25    $40.75    $27.75

The increases are above the current rate of inflation in Canada including projections out to 2015.   The total increase is 12.5% over the three years.  I have also listed the fares as they were five years ago, the 2008 fares are off peak fares which show us we had about a 14.2% over five years or an average of 2.7% per year which is in line with inflation.   From April 1 2008 to April 1 2015 it looks like we will see close to a 29% increase.

I do not think the increased fares will improve traffic levels on the ferries and I have no idea what this means for the finances of BC Ferries.

For comparison, the current fares on the Coho to Port Angles cost $17.00 for an adult and $44.50 for the car.  

The current fare for the Washington State ferry from Sidney to Anacortes is $18.00 for an adult and $29.90 for the car.  They have a different youth fare structure, $14.45 for ages 6-18.  They also offer a discount for short vehicles

Ranking Victoria bus routes shows how under serviced UVic is

This is based on data from the fall of 2011.

Victoria has 52 bus routes with average weekday boardings of 94,585 of which 37,569 are on routes going to UVic.   UVic routes are 23.08% of the routes but 39.72% of the boardings

Most boardings per day, top 25 routes - UVic routes in blue:

      Route        weekday boardings

1.  6 10969
2. 14  8993
3. 27/28  8337
4. 30/31  7223
5. 50  6883
6. 11  6519
7.  4     6465
8. 26     4627
9.  7     3338
10. 72     2661
11. 15     2483
12. 21     2229
13. 22     2052
14. 61     1954
15. 39     1892
16.  2     1817
17. 16     1741
18. 70     1726
19. 75     1675
20.  3     1613
21.  8     1494
22. 25     1098
23. 24      897
24. 10      798
25. 52      705

UVic routes represent almost half of the top 17 busiest routes in the city.

Based on boardings per revenue hour - UVic routes in blue:

1. 19 74.2
2. 26    70.1
3.  4 69.0
4. 29 67.5
5. 18 67.4
6. 76 65.3
7.  6 64.6
8. 16 61.9
9. 17 61.7
10. 27/28 61.5
11. 51    59.0
12. 12 58.3
13. 15 57.6
14. 30/31 55.1
15.  7 54.7
16. 50 54.6
17. 33 54.5
18. 14 52.5
19. 11 52.4
20. 21 46.7
21. 39 45.9
22.  8 42.4
23.  2 41.5
24.  3 39.1
25. 22 37.0

You can see from this second table that 11 of 12 UVic routes are on it and they are 11 of the top 19.  #17, #18, and #19 in the top ten are routes that run only once or twice a day to serve schools.

All of the UVic routes achieve an average of over 50 boardings per revenue hour.

There are 20 routes that can not manage 200 boardings per weekday, 7 of them only run a limited number of times per day so they do achieve a reasonable amount of boardings per revenue hour, but the other 13 should really be considered for scrapping.   The #86 is clearly not working

1. 86   5 -  3.9 per hour
2. 63  19 -  8.6 per hour
3. 49  21 - 15.0 per hour
4. 18  29 - 67.4 per hour
5. 17  33 - 61.7 per hour
6. 29  56 - 67.5 per hour
7. 19  69 - 74.3 per hour
8. 64  71 -  7.2 per hour
9. 85  73 - 18.4 per hour
10. 55  81 - 11.9 per hour
11. 76  98 - 65.3 per hour
12. 54 116 - 12.3 per hour
13. 13 119 - 30.7 per hour
14. 53 132 - 13.6 per hour
15. 58 138 - 19.9 per hour
16. 88 147 - 16.6 per hour
17.  1 165 - 20.5 per hour
18. 33 170 - 54.5 per hour
19. 59 192 - 19.4 per hour
20. 56 198 - 14.7 per hour

From the 13 underpreforming routes there would seem to be more than enough fat to cut to provide better service for UVic.

Some sanity in Victoria Transit thinking - rush hour bus only lanes on Douglas?

The Victoria Regional Transit Commission has seen the light and wants to have rush hour bus lanes on Douglas Street.   This is something that should have happened a decade ago.   The cost is minimal and it will speed up transit meaning the existing fleet will be able to move more traffic.  It seems so obvious, but is it really a great idea?

Just by having the bus lanes from about Hillside to Saanich Road should improve the travel times of buses outbound but by how much?  If we look to the #30 and see how it does from Douglas and Pandora to Saanich and Vernon, it is 16 to 17 minutes mid day and 19 minutes at peak time.   The bus lanes might improve the trip time by three minutes.  

 Westshore commuting is the worst in this region so how does the #50 do?  According to the newest schedule, mid day headed out of town the #50 takes 19 minutes to get from Government and Superior to Douglas and Saanich, at the worst time during the peak hours this takes 21 minutes.  The bus lanes would seem to save you about two minutes.   End to end the route takes 47 minutes during non peak times and 56 for the worst trips in the afternoon.   The majority of the delay are the waits at Tillicum and at McKenzie and not Douglas itself.

I am assuming the BC Transit current schedule is accurate on the website reflecting real travel times.  If it is not, we should be told how often the traffic causes the buses to be late on the run.

Painting these lines to make the bus lanes does not seem to offer much in savings so why do it all?  It seems to me the real savings comes in speed in connection to Tillicum and McKenzie.

The province could step up and take part by making some new bus lanes on highway #1.   There is enough space between Saanich road and McKenzie/Admirals to allow for an outbound bus lane all of the way except where it crosses Interurban, that would take another land of bridge to be constructed which would really add to the expense.   This should improve trip times by five to seven minutes.

What about looking at Blanshard which is far from overused even at peak times.  If BC Transit were to shift the Westshore buses to run up Blanshard I think the traffic there may be light enough and fast enough to allow for some savings, but looking at the schedules I can not be sure.  What I do see is that the #70x is faster than the #72 by about three minutes in getting from  Government and Superior to Douglas and Kings which I put down to fewer stops downtown but not faster after that.  The Blanshard times seem to be broadly similar to the Douglas times but i can not be certain.

In the end, are the bus lanes worth it on Douglas is the potential savings is only likely to be 2 minutes?  Is it worth the expense and hassles?

B lines in Greater Victoria

In Vancouver there have been some very successful bus routes called B-Lines that in one case carries more passengers than most LRTs.   T

• 97 B-Line - 6,000 passenger per day  11 km and 22 stops
• 98 B-Line - 18,000 passenger per day  16 km and 22 stops - no longer operating replaced by Canada Line
• 99 B-Line - 50,000 passengers per day 13 km and 13 stops

The 97 B-Line is not really like the others, they use traditional buses and stop every 500 metres which reduces the speed.

The 98 B-Line was replaced by the Canada Line.   The Canada Line took over the Richmond commuter traffic from the 98 B-Line but also all the traffic from 10 suburban routes from Delta and South Surrey/White Rock representing about 10,000 other passengers.

The line that impresses me is the 99 B-Line.  The 99 B-Line is very successful.  It carries the most passenger per day of any bus route in North America

I lived near Broadway for a number of years in the early 1990s.  I took the #9 bus from Kits to get to Commercial Drive a few times and it was an insanely long trip.  A friend figured out it was faster to take a bus downtown then take the SkyTrain.   This is no longer nessecary becuase of how much faster the 99 B-Line is.   The 99 B-Line route overlaps with the #9 for a significant amount of distance.   In the morning rush the #9 tales 56 minutes to get from Rupert to Alma, the 99 B-Line does the same trip in 29 minutes which is almost twice as fast.

The reason it is faster is because it stops on average only every 1000 meters.   They use an articulated bus which can carry about 120 people and have three doors for people to enter and exit.   As long as you have a transfer or transit pass you can enter through any of the doors and this speeds up how long the bus is at any given stop.  The only thing that would increase the speed further would be to provide machines to sell tickets at the bus stops.

We have a few so called express routes in Victoria.  The #15x follows much of the same route as the #14 between downtown and UVic and the #16x follows a similar route as the #26 route from UpTown to UVic.

The #14 takes 27 minutes during the morning rush to get from Downtown to UVic, that is an average speed of 18 kmh.   The #15, which does not do go up Richmond, does the trip in 22 minutes which is a speed of only 22 kmh.  The #15x has fewer stops but there are still 12 stops over 8 kilometers.

The #26 takes 25 minutes to get from UpTown to UVic during the morning rush, this is a speed of 17 kmh.  The #16 does a similar trip in 22 minutes which is a speed of 19 kmh.  The #16x only has five stops so it does address the issue of limited stops.  The increased speed of the #16 seems to mainly come from not using Saanich Road between UpTown and McKenzie.

BC Transit should look to using the same buses as Vancouver and allow people to get on and off through all three doors to allow for a faster unloading/loading at each stop.   Based on watching buses at busy stops, it can take 60 to 90 seconds for the bus to unload and load.  If you can reduce that to 30 seconds you can save a few minutes on each trip.

Also helpful would be some bus lane areas along the routes where the traffic holds up everyone.  That said, one of the worst areas is McKenzie near Quadra and I have no idea where you could add some form of bus lane advantage in that area.

Even slightly faster buses would add capacity to the system because the bus in use can service more passengers in one hour than otherwise.  It would help a lot with the problem of lack of capacity for students.

Island Corridor Foundation Looking for $5.4 million from local governments

The ICF managed to get $15 million in federal and provincial funding for track improvements but this does not cover a $5.4 million cost for bridge upgrades.   The ICF has asked local governments to fund this portion of the project.   It seems mid island local governments have said no to this idea.

The ICF is not a very open organization, I have no idea what their finances look like and if it is currently sustainable.   The operating budget seems to be in the mid hundreds of thousands per year, this seems to be dramatically out of sync with the tens of millions involved with track repair costs.   You can see some details about their finances at CRA.   The value of capital assets of the ICF is $355,500,000 or so as of 2010.

Without the work on the bridges it seems to me that any other track upgrades seem pointless.   But when I look at the details of the report, the actual costs needed to upgrade the bridges for passenger service between Victoria and Nanaimo is only $1,119,800 this decade.  The Nanaimo to Courtney section requires $1,290,500 to allow for passenger service till 2021.   I am not sure where the quoted $5.4 million comes from as the total is only $2.4 million that I can see.  This is $3 million less than the $5.4 million number quoted.

The $2.4 million is not a huge amount to share between the municipalities and First Nations that are members of the ICF.   The sooner some sort of passenger rail service is back in operation the better for the whole ICF vision.  To put this in context, this is about the same amount that has gone into the new Nanaimo station building.

The cost per resident is minimal for this fix, only about $3.50 per person in the partner local governments or First Nations.   I can understand the desire of local governments to avoid becoming financially responsible for the costs of the line, but they sort of stepped up for that in 2004 when they created the ICF in the first place.

Clearly the lack of money for the bridge upgrade is going to delay the start on the track upgrades.   The Feds and Province came up with $15 million, asking local governments to come up with $2.4 million does not seem unreasonable, it is not even 1/3 of the costs.  Even if it was $5.4 million it would still only be 1/4 of the costs.