VOLUME 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

Transcription

1 VICTORIA REGIONAL RAPID TRANSIT Victoria / West Shore Link VOLUME 5 Technology and Option Evaluation August 2011 Prepared for BC Transit by SNC-Lavalin Inc McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd

2 Errata 1. Figures ES.1 on page 3 and 3.11 on page 24 have been corrected. The initial release displayed old data not used in the analysis. The illustrative graphs have been corrected to reflect the data used in completing the analysis. 2. Figure 3.8 on page 22 has been corrected. The initial release displayed old data not used in the analysis. The illustrative graph has been corrected to reflect the data for the BAU option used in completing the analysis. 3. Table 3.6 on page 24 has been corrected. The initial release displayed old data (in columns 3 and 4 for the BAU option) not used in the analysis. The table has been corrected to reflect the data used in completing the analysis. 4. Appendix 3 on page 142 and 143 has been corrected. The initial release displayed old data not used in the analysis. The table has been corrected to reflect the data for the BAU option used in completing the analysis. 5. The MAE model results provided in Appendix 2 present the results for BRT based on high BRT ridership estimates. Results for the BAU and LRT option are based on the mean of the low and high ridership estimates. The MAE model results for the mean value of the low and high ridership estimates for BRT are attached. 6. Table A4.4 on page 149 presented a duplication of Table A4.2. The correct table has been inserted.

3 MAE results - Mean ridership estimates BRT Incremental Summary Statistics (Over BAU) (Primary Discount Rate) Summary Statistics (Primary Discount Rate) A Conventional Bus on Transitway B Full BRT C LRT to Uptown D LRT to 6 Mile E LRT to JDF F Full LRT A Conventional Bus on Transitway B Full BRT C LRT to Uptown D LRT to 6 Mile E LRT to JDF F Full LRT Financial Financial Net Present Value $mil $903 $952 $1,037 $953 $973 $1,046 Total Costs $mil $684 $503 $654 $722 $910 $1,025 $1,068 Total Incremental Benefits $mil $2,313 $2,852 $3,326 $3,513 $3,833 $4,117 Total Capital Cost $mil $451 $413 $587 $584 $738 $807 $844 Total Incremental Benefits, PV $mil $844 $1,013 $1,160 $1,223 $1,327 $1,432 Total Operating Cost $mil $233 $90 $67 $138 $172 $219 $224 Total Incremental Costs $mil $181 $30 $39 $227 $342 $385 Total Costs, PV $mil $408 $349 $469 $531 $677 $762 $794 Total Incremental Capital Cost $mil $38 $137 $134 $287 $356 $393 Total Capital Cost, PV $mil $310 $319 $448 $479 $610 $673 $703 Total Incremental Operating Cost $mil $143 $166 $95 $61 $15 $9 Total Operating Cost, PV $mil $98 $30 $21 $52 $67 $89 $92 Total Incremental Costs, PV $mil $59 $61 $123 $269 $354 $386 Non Incremental Benefit/Cost Ratio, PV Benefit / Cost Total Incremental Capital Cost, PV $mil $9 $138 $168 $300 $363 $392 PV Cost per Passenger Kilometre ($) Cost / Total Project PKT $0.3 $0.2 $0.3 $0.3 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 Total Incremental Operating Cost, PV $mil $68 $77 $45 $30 $9 $6 Operating & Maintenance Cost per Passenger O&M Cost / Total Ridership $1.5 $0.5 $0.3 $0.6 $0.8 $1.0 $1.0 Benefit/Cost Ratio, PV Inc. Benefit / Inc. Cost N/A Operating & Maintenance Cost per Passenger, PV O&M Cost / Total Ridership $0.6 $0.2 $0.1 $0.2 $0.3 $0.4 $0.4 Incremental PV Cost per Hour of Travel Saved ($) Inc. Cost / Hour of Travel Saved $0.3 $0.2 $0.4 $0.7 $0.8 $0.7 Transportation PV Cost per New Rider Inc. Cost / Increased Ridership $1.9 $1.3 $2.3 $4.4 $5.1 $5.1 Total Ridership / Boardings Total Ridership Over Project Life 159,764, ,285, ,527, ,449, ,651, ,823, ,019,882 Incremental Operating Cost per Passenger Inc. O&M Cost / Total Ridership $4.5 $3.6 $1.7 $1.0 $0.2 $0.1 Total Passenger Kilometres Total PKT Over Project Life 1,357,996,184 1,625,928,369 1,746,984,675 1,822,820,731 1,875,535,176 1,953,498,805 2,006,168,998 Incremental Operating Cost per Passenger, PV Inc. O&M Cost / Total Ridership $2.1 $1.7 $0.8 $0.5 $0.1 $0.1 Transit Share % of Corridor PKT 8% 10% 10% 12% 12% 13% 14% Transportation Non Transit Share % of Corridor PKT 92% 90% 90% 88% 88% 87% 86% Average Travel Time Benefit per Rider, Undiscounted $ / Total Ridership $1.2 $1.1 $0.4 $0.2 $0.2 $0.4 Travel Time Walking Avg. Minutes per Trip, Walking only Average Travel Time Benefit per Rider, PV $ / Total Ridership $0.4 $0.4 $0.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 Travel Time Waiting Avg. Minutes per Trip, Waiting only Increased Ridership # of Total Riders 31,521,434 45,763,352 54,685,241 60,886,940 70,059,132 76,255,625 Travel Time On Transit Avg. Minutes per Trip, On Transit only Increased Passenger Kilometres # of PKT 267,932, ,988, ,824, ,538, ,502, ,172,814 Door to door Trip Time Avg. Minutes per Trip, Door to Door Trip Travel Time Competitiveness Reduction in Walking Time Reduced Avg. Minutes per Trip, Walking Only Vehicle Collisions # of Collisions Over Project Life 25,091 22,653 22,543 21,568 21,276 20,842 20,542 Travel Time Competitiveness Reduction in Waiting Time Reduced Avg. Minutes per Waiting Only Environment Travel Time Competitiveness Reduction in On Transit Time Reduced Avg. Minutes per Trip, Vehicle Only VOC Emissions tonnes 1,496 1,355 1,317 1,296 1,278 1,254 1,235 Travel Time Competitiveness Reduction in Trip Time Reduced Avg. Minutes per Door to Door Trip CO Emissions tonnes 40,311 36,313 35,226 34,596 34,107 33,400 32,879 Reduction in Vehicle Collisions # of Collisions 2,438 2,549 3,523 3,816 4,249 4,549 NOx Emissions tonnes 1,343 1,234 1,196 1,186 1,162 1,140 1,120 Environment SO2 Emissions tonnes Reduction in VOC Emissions tonnes PM10 Emissions tonnes Reduction in CO Emissions tonnes 3,998 5,085 5,716 6,205 6,912 7,432 PM2.5 Emissions tonnes Reduction in NOx Emissions tonnes CO2e (GHG) Emissions tonnes 2,132,052 1,929,743 1,839,724 1,826,277 1,773,167 1,726,810 1,684,933 Reduction in SO2 Emissions tonnes CAC Cost $ 34,996,645 31,637,221 30,578,226 30,118,955 29,570,663 28,927,959 28,416,358 Reduction in PM10 Emissions tonnes GHG Cost $ 79,572,379 71,501,050 67,937,687 67,226,918 65,127,995 63,242,701 61,604,477 Reduction in PM2.5 Emissions tonnes Area of Parkland or Public Open Space Gained Reduction in CO2e (GHG) Emissions tonnes 202, , , , , ,120 Monetized Accounts, UNDISCOUNTED CAC Reduction Benefits, undiscounted $ $3,359,424 $4,418,418 $4,877,690 $5,425,982 $6,068,686 $6,580,286 Vehicle Operating Cost Total VOC Costs, $mil $3,057 $2,721 $2,612 $2,558 $2,518 $2,460 $2,418 GHG Reduction Benefits, undiscounted $ $8,071,329 $11,634,692 $12,345,461 $14,444,384 $16,329,679 $17,967,902 Accident Cost Total Accident Costs, $mil $6,628 $5,972 $5,960 $5,696 $5,616 $5,503 $5,417 Area of Parkland or Public Open Space Gained Average Travel Time Cost, Users Walking Avg. Value of Walking Time / Trip $0.82 $0.82 $1.02 $1.08 $1.18 $1.21 $1.21 Monetized Accounts, UNDISCOUNTED Average Travel Time Cost, Users Waiting Avg. Value of Waiting Time / Trip $1.02 $0.75 $0.72 $1.11 $1.27 $1.27 $1.29 Land Use & Urban Development Benefit $mil $256 $261 $436 $453 $472 $499 Average Travel Time Cost, Users On Transit Avg. Value of On Transit Time / Trip $4.31 $3.40 $3.25 $3.53 $3.45 $3.43 $3.24 Residential Benefit $mil $97 $104 $135 $149 $159 $175 Average Travel Time Cost, Users Avg. Value of Time / Trip $6.14 $4.96 $4.99 $5.73 $5.90 $5.91 $5.74 Commercial Benefit $mil $159 $157 $301 $304 $313 $324 Travel Time Cost, Non Users Total Non User Travel Time Cost, $mil $6,552 $5,720 $5,321 $5,200 $5,116 $4,991 $4,904 Transportation Benefit $mil $2,045 $2,575 $2,873 $3,041 $3,339 $3,594 Environmental Cost $mil $115 $103 $99 $97 $95 $92 $90 Vehicle Operating Benefit $mil $336 $445 $500 $539 $598 $639 Safety Benefit $mil $657 $668 $932 $1,012 $1,125 $1,211 Travel Time Benefit, Users $mil $220 $232 $89 $54 $55 $96 Travel Time Benefit, Non Users $mil $832 $1,230 $1,352 $1,436 $1,561 $1,648 Social & Community Benefit $mil $26 $30 $30 $31 $35 $42 Environmental Benefit $mil $11 $16 $17 $20 $22 $25 Monetized Accounts, PRESENT VALUE Land Use & Urban Development Benefit $mil $98 $95 $159 $165 $172 $182 Residential Benefit $mil $37 $38 $49 $55 $58 $64 Commercial Benefit $mil $61 $57 $109 $110 $114 $ Transportation Benefit $mil $741 $912 $996 $1,051 $1,148 $1,242 Vehicle Operating Benefit $mil $122 $159 $174 $188 $207 $222 Safety Benefit $mil $243 $235 $329 $357 $395 $427 Travel Time Benefit, Users $mil $80 $76 $19 $5 $4 $19 Travel Time Benefit, Non Users $mil $297 $441 $473 $502 $542 $573 Social & Community Benefit $mil $10 $11 $10 $11 $12 $14 Environmental Benefit $mil $4 $6 $6 $7 $8 $9 $3,359 $4,418 $4,878 $5,426 $6,069 $6,580 $8,071 $11,635 $12,345 $14,444 $16,330 $17,968 Page 1 HDR-Victoria Transit MAE Staging Model b

4 MAE results - Mean ridership estimates BRT Incremental Summary Statistics (Over BAU) (Secondary Discount Rate) Summary Statistics (Secondary Discount Rate) A Conventional Bus on Transitway B Full BRT C LRT to Uptown D LRT to 6 Mile E LRT to JDF F Full LRT A Conventional Bus on Transitway B Full BRT C LRT to Uptown D LRT to 6 Mile E LRT to JDF F Full LRT Financial Financial Net Present Value $mil $507 $486 $505 $411 $393 $425 Total Costs $mil $684 $503 $654 $722 $910 $1,025 $1,068 Total Incremental Benefits $mil $2,313 $2,852 $3,326 $3,513 $3,833 $4,117 Total Capital Cost $mil $451 $413 $587 $584 $738 $807 $844 Total Incremental Benefits, PV $mil $482 $563 $638 $671 $726 $786 Total Operating Cost $mil $233 $90 $67 $138 $172 $219 $224 Total Incremental Costs $mil $181 $30 $39 $227 $342 $385 Total Costs, PV $mil $326 $301 $402 $459 $586 $659 $687 Total Incremental Capital Cost $mil $38 $137 $134 $287 $356 $393 Total Capital Cost, PV $mil $265 $285 $392 $428 $547 $605 $631 Total Incremental Operating Cost $mil $143 $166 $95 $61 $15 $9 Total Operating Cost, PV $mil $60 $16 $10 $30 $40 $54 $56 Total Incremental Costs, PV $mil $25 $76 $133 $261 $333 $361 Non Incremental Benefit/Cost Ratio, PV Benefit / Cost Total Incremental Capital Cost, PV $mil $20 $127 $127 $127 $127 $365 PV Cost per Passenger Kilometre ($) Cost / Total Project PKT $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 Total Incremental Operating Cost, PV $mil $45 $50 $6 $134 $206 $5 Operating & Maintenance Cost per Passenger O&M Cost / Total Ridership $1.5 $0.5 $0.3 $0.6 $0.8 $1.0 $1.0 Benefit/Cost Ratio, PV Inc. Benefit / Inc. Cost N/A Operating & Maintenance Cost per Passenger, PV O&M Cost / Total Ridership $0.4 $0.1 $0.0 $0.1 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 Incremental PV Cost per Hour of Travel Saved ($) Inc. Cost / Hour of Travel Saved $0.1 $0.2 $0.5 $0.7 $0.8 $0.7 Transportation PV Cost per New Rider Inc. Cost / Increased Ridership $5.7 $0.6 $0.7 $3.7 $4.9 $5.0 Total Ridership / Boardings Total Ridership Over Project Life 159,764, ,285, ,527, ,449, ,651, ,823, ,019,882 Operating & Maintenance Cost per Passenger Inc. O&M Cost / Total Ridership $4.5 $3.6 $1.7 $1.0 $0.2 $0.1 Total Passenger Kilometres Total PKT Over Project Life 1,357,996,184 1,625,928,369 1,746,984,675 1,822,820,731 1,875,535,176 1,953,498,805 2,006,168,998 Operating & Maintenance Cost per Passenger, PV Inc. O&M Cost / Total Ridership $1.4 $1.1 $0.1 $2.2 $2.9 $0.1 Transit Share % of Corridor PKT 8% 10% 10% 12% 12% 13% 14% Transportation Non Transit Share % of Corridor PKT 92% 90% 90% 88% 88% 87% 86% Average Travel Time Benefit per Rider, Undiscounted $ / Total Ridership $1.2 $1.1 $0.4 $0.2 $0.2 $0.4 Travel Time Walking Avg. Minutes per Trip, Walking only Average Travel Time Benefit per Rider, PV $ / Total Ridership $0.2 $0.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Travel Time Waiting Avg. Minutes per Trip, Waiting only Increased Ridership # of Total Riders 31,521,434 45,763,352 54,685,241 60,886,940 70,059,132 76,255,625 Travel Time On Transit Avg. Minutes per Trip, On Transit only Increased Passenger Kilometres # of PKT 267,932, ,988, ,824, ,538, ,502, ,172,814 Door to door Trip Time Avg. Minutes per Trip, Door to Door Trip Travel Time Competitiveness Reduction in Walking Time Reduced Avg. Minutes per Trip, Walking Only Vehicle Collisions # of Collisions Over Project Life 25,091 22,653 22,543 21,568 21,276 20,842 20,542 Travel Time Competitiveness Reduction in Waiting Time Reduced Avg. Minutes per Waiting Only Environment Travel Time Competitiveness Reduction in On Transit Time Reduced Avg. Minutes per Trip, Vehicle Only VOC Emissions tonnes 1,496 1,355 1,317 1,296 1,278 1,254 1,235 Travel Time Competitiveness Reduction in Trip Time Reduced Avg. Minutes per Door to Door Trip CO Emissions tonnes 40,311 36,313 35,226 34,596 34,107 33,400 32,879 Reduction in Vehicle Collisions # of Collisions 2,438 2,549 3,523 3,816 4,249 4,549 NOx Emissions tonnes 1,343 1,234 1,196 1,186 1,162 1,140 1,120 Environment SO2 Emissions tonnes Reduction in VOC Emissions tonnes PM10 Emissions tonnes Reduction in CO Emissions tonnes 3,998 5,085 5,716 6,205 6,912 7,432 PM2.5 Emissions tonnes Reduction in NOx Emissions tonnes CO2e Emissions tonnes 2,132,052 1,929,743 1,839,724 1,826,277 1,773,167 1,726,810 1,684,933 Reduction in SO2 Emissions tonnes CAC Cost $ 34,996,645 31,637,221 30,578,226 30,118,955 29,570,663 28,927,959 28,416,358 Reduction in PM10 Emissions tonnes GHG Cost $ 79,572,379 71,501,050 67,937,687 67,226,918 65,127,995 63,242,701 61,604,477 Reduction in PM2.5 Emissions tonnes Area of Parkland or Public Open Space Gained Reduction in CO2e (GHG) Emissions tonnes 202, , , , , ,120 Monetized Accounts, UNDISCOUNTED CAC Reduction Benefits, undiscounted $ $3,359,424 $4,418,418 $4,877,690 $5,425,982 $6,068,686 $6,580,286 Vehicle Operating Cost Total VOC Costs, $mil $3,057 $2,721 $2,612 $2,558 $2,518 $2,460 $2,418 GHG Reduction Benefits, undiscounted $ $8,071,329 $11,634,692 $12,345,461 $14,444,384 $16,329,679 $17,967,902 Accident Cost Total Accident Costs, $mil $6,628 $5,972 $5,960 $5,696 $5,616 $5,503 $5,417 Area of Parkland or Public Open Space Gained Average Travel Time Cost, Users Walking Avg. Value of Walking Time / Trip $0.82 $0.82 $1.02 $1.08 $1.18 $1.21 $1.21 Monetized Accounts, UNDISCOUNTED Average Travel Time Cost, Users Waiting Avg. Value of Waiting Time / Trip $1.02 $0.75 $0.72 $1.11 $1.27 $1.27 $1.29 Land Use & Urban Development Benefit $mil $256 $261 $436 $453 $472 $499 Average Travel Time Cost, Users On Transit Avg. Value of On Transit Time / Trip $4.31 $3.40 $3.25 $3.53 $3.45 $3.43 $3.24 Residential Benefit $mil $97 $104 $135 $149 $159 $175 Average Travel Time Cost, Users Avg. Value of Time / Trip $6.14 $4.96 $4.99 $5.73 $5.90 $5.91 $5.74 Commercial Benefit $mil $159 $157 $301 $304 $313 $324 Travel Time Cost, Non Users Total Non User Travel Time Cost, $mil $6,552 $5,720 $5,321 $5,200 $5,116 $4,991 $4,904 Transportation Benefit $mil $2,045 $2,575 $2,873 $3,041 $3,339 $3,594 Environmental Cost $mil $115 $103 $99 $97 $95 $92 $90 Vehicle Operating Benefit $mil $336 $445 $500 $539 $598 $639 Safety Benefit $mil $657 $668 $932 $1,012 $1,125 $1,211 Travel Time Benefit, Users $mil $220 $232 $89 $54 $55 $96 Travel Time Benefit, Non Users $mil $832 $1,230 $1,352 $1,436 $1,561 $1,648 Social & Community Benefit $mil $26 $30 $30 $31 $35 $42 Environmental Benefit $mil $11 $16 $17 $20 $22 $25 Monetized Accounts, PRESENT VALUE Land Use & Urban Development Benefit $mil $58 $54 $90 $93 $97 $103 Residential Benefit $mil $22 $22 $28 $31 $33 $36 Commercial Benefit $mil $36 $32 $62 $62 $64 $67 Transportation Benefit $mil $421 $506 $545 $574 $625 $679 Vehicle Operating Benefit $mil $69 $89 $96 $103 $113 $122 Safety Benefit $mil $140 $129 $182 $198 $218 $237 Travel Time Benefit, Users $mil $45 $39 $5 $4 $5 $3 Travel Time Benefit, Non Users $mil $168 $248 $262 $277 $298 $316 Social & Community Benefit $mil $5 $6 $6 $6 $7 $8 Environmental Benefit $mil $2 $3 $3 $4 $4 $5 Page 2 HDR-Victoria Transit MAE Staging Model b

5 MAE results - Mean ridership estimates BRT Incremental Economic Development Statistics (Over BAU) Economic Development Statistics A Conventional Bus on Transitway B Full BRT C LRT to Uptown D LRT to 6 Mile E LRT to JDF F Full LRT A Conventional Bus on Transitway B Full BRT C LRT to Uptown D LRT to 6 Mile E LRT to JDF F Full LRT Economic Development CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS, CUMULATIVE OVER PROJECT LIFE Economic Development CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS, CUMULATIVE OVER PROJECT LIFE Incremental Increased Employment, Cumulative Job years 2,140 3,052 4,081 5,862 6,554 7,615 Increased Employment, Cumulative Job years 1,616 3,756 4,668 5,697 7,477 8,170 9,231 Incremental Increased Income, Cumulative $mil $ $ $ $ $ $ Increased Income, Cumulative $mil $75.88 $ $ $ $ $ $ Incremental Increased GDP, Cumulative $mil $ $ $ $ $ $ Increased GDP, Cumulative $mil $98.21 $ $ $ $ $ $ Incremental Increased Employment, Annual Average Job years ,061 1,235 1,500 Increased Employment, Annual Average Job years 808 1,252 1,167 1,424 1,869 2,043 2,308 Incremental Increased Income, Annual Average $mil $22.90 $18.34 $31.06 $52.50 $60.84 $73.23 Increased Income, Annual Average $mil $37.94 $60.84 $56.28 $69.00 $90.44 $98.78 $ Incremental Increased GDP, Annual Average $mil $28.11 $23.19 $38.89 $66.49 $77.23 $93.95 Increased GDP, Annual Average $mil $49.11 $77.22 $72.29 $88.00 $ $ $ Incremental Effect on Federal Tax Base, Cumulative $mil $10.50 $15.08 $20.03 $28.78 $32.19 $37.52 Effect on Federal Tax Base, Cumulative $mil $7.83 $18.32 $22.91 $27.86 $36.61 $40.01 $45.35 Incremental Effect on Provincial Tax Base, Cumulative $mil $9.86 $15.53 $20.33 $29.94 $33.67 $40.26 Effect on Provincial Tax Base, Cumulative $mil $9.48 $19.34 $25.01 $29.81 $39.42 $43.15 $49.74 Incremental Effect on Federal Tax Base, Annual Avg. $mil $2.19 $1.81 $3.05 $5.24 $6.09 $7.42 Effect on Federal Tax Base, Annual Average $mil $3.91 $6.11 $5.73 $6.96 $9.15 $10.00 $11.34 Incremental Effect on Provincial Tax Base, Annual Avg. $mil $1.71 $1.51 $2.71 $5.11 $6.05 $7.69 Effect on Provincial Tax Base, Annual Average $mil $4.74 $6.45 $6.25 $7.45 $9.85 $10.79 $12.43 A B C D E F BAU A B C D E F Economic Development O&M IMPACTS, FIRST YEAR OF BENEFITS Economic Development O&M IMPACTS, FIRST YEAR OF BENEFITS Incremental Increased Employment, Cumulative Job years Employment, Cumulative Job years Incremental Increased Income, Cumulative $mil $2.15 $1.67 $3.69 $4.59 $5.35 $5.77 Income, Cumulative $mil $4.36 $6.51 $6.03 $8.05 $8.95 $9.71 $10.12 Incremental Increased GDP, Cumulative $mil $3.54 $2.75 $6.07 $7.54 $8.79 $9.48 GDP, Cumulative $mil $7.16 $10.70 $9.91 $13.22 $14.70 $15.95 $16.63 Incremental Effect on Federal Tax Base, Cumulative $mil $0.33 $0.26 $0.57 $0.71 $0.83 $0.26 Effect on Federal Tax Base, Cumulative $mil $0.67 $1.01 $0.93 $1.25 $1.39 $1.50 $0.93 Incremental Effect on Provincial Tax Base, Cumulative $mil $0.31 $0.24 $0.54 $0.67 $0.78 $0.24 Effect on Provincial Tax Base, Cumulative $mil $0.63 $0.95 $0.88 $1.17 $1.30 $1.41 $0.88 A B C D E F BAU A B C D E F Economic Development O&M IMPACTS, LAST YEAR OF BENEFITS Economic Development O&M IMPACTS, FIRST YEAR OF BENEFITS Incremental Increased Employment, Cumulative Job years Employment, Cumulative Job years Incremental Increased Income, Cumulative $mil $4.45 $3.83 $5.08 $5.77 $6.10 $7.01 Income, Cumulative $mil $5.93 $10.37 $9.76 $11.01 $11.69 $12.03 $12.93 Incremental Increased GDP, Cumulative $mil $7.30 $6.29 $8.35 $9.47 $10.02 $11.51 GDP, Cumulative $mil $9.74 $17.04 $16.03 $18.09 $19.21 $19.76 $21.25 Incremental Effect on Federal Tax Base, Cumulative $mil $0.69 $0.59 $0.79 $0.89 $0.94 $1.08 Effect on Federal Tax Base, Cumulative $mil $0.92 $1.61 $1.51 $1.71 $1.81 $1.86 $2.00 Incremental Effect on Provincial Tax Base, Cumulative $mil $0.65 $0.56 $0.74 $0.84 $0.89 $1.02 Effect on Provincial Tax Base, Cumulative $mil $0.86 $1.51 $1.42 $1.60 $1.70 $1.75 $1.88 Page 3 HDR-Victoria Transit MAE Staging Model b

6 VICTORIA REGIONAL RAPID TRANSIT Victoria / West Shore Link Volume Overview Preface Executive Summary Volume 1 Regional Data and Traffic Information Volume 2 Corridor Evaluation Volume 3 Development and Evaluation of Alignment Configuration Volume 4 Functional Alignment Report Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation Volume 6 Communication and Consultation

7 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation Table of Contents Executive Summary for Volume Vehicle Technology Options Introduction Bus-Based Technology Rail-Based Technology Typical Vehicle Technology Options Project Options Introduction Business as Usual Bus Rapid Transit Light Rail Transit Option Summary Ridership Forecasts Introduction Travel Time Land Use (Walk Proximity) Parking Auto and Rapid Transit Travel Time Latent Demand Projected Population Victoria Region Historical Ridership Trends Ridership Trends observed in other Transit Systems Latent Demand: Annual Ridership Growth Rate: Transit Mode Share Ridership Forecast Ridership Forecast Methodology Forecast Latent Demand Forecast Annual Growth Rates Ridership Forecast Model Results Comparative Analysis B-line / Canada Line Project in Vancouver Transit Corridor Capacity Capacity Constraints Service Schedule Requirements to meet Ridership Demand Business As Usual (BAU) Option Bus Rapid Transit Light Rail Transit (LRT) Conceptual Cost Estimates Introduction Capital Cost Estimates Construction Cost Contracting Strategy Basis of Construction Cost Estimate Other Capital Cost Elements Capital Cost of Alternative 1 - Business as Usual Option Capital Cost of Alternative 2 - Bus Rapid Transit Option Capital Cost of Alternative 3 - Light Rail Transit Option Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate Business as Usual Bus Rapid Transit Light Rail Transit Total Life Cycle Cost Estimate Life cycle cash flow profile Multiple Account Evaluations Introduction Multiple Account Framework MAE Results Overall MAE Results MAE Results by Account Results by MAE Account Land Use / Urban Development Account Transportation Account Financial Account Deliverability Account Economic Development Account Social / Community Account Environment Account Key Findings and Recommendations...56 Appendix 1: Appendix 2: Appendix 3: Appendix 4: Victoria Transit Multiple Account Evaluation of Rapid Transit Options MAE Model Results Ridership Estimates Conceptual Cost Schedules / Basis Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

8 Table of Contents List of Tables Table ES.1 - Project Option Characteristics...1 Table ES.2 - Summary of Project Options...2 Table ES.3 - Total Life Cycle Costs...3 Table ES.4 - Overall Benefit Cost Raito and Net Present Value of Options...4 Table Features of BRT and LRT Technologies...7 Table Project Options Key Characteristics...11 Table Historical Annual Transit Ridership for the Victoria Region...15 Table Observed Latent Demand for BRT systems in North America...18 Table Observed Latent Demand for LRT systems in North America...18 Table Average Annual Growth Rates of other Rapid Transit Systems...19 Table North American Cities with 12% Transit Mode Share...19 Table Projected Ridership Forecast...24 Table 3.7 Long term Population & Ridership Growth Rates...25 Table Annual Ridership...25 Table Comparing 98B-Line BRT to Victoria RT corridor ridership...26 Table Capacity Estimate for Rapid Corridor Options...27 Table Opening Day and 2038 BAU Annual Service Requirements...29 Table Opening Day Service for BRT...29 Table Service for BRT (Low Ridership Growth Scenario)...30 Table Service for BRT (High Ridership Growth Scenario)...30 Table Opening Day Service for LRT...30 Table Service for LRT (Low Ridership Growth Scenario)...30 Table Service for LRT (High Ridership Growth Scenario)...30 Table Scope breakdowns (cost element) of each contract package type Table Construction cost elements...34 Table Summary Capital Costs Business as Usual Alternative...36 Table Construction Costs - BAU...36 Table Summary Capital Cost Estimate BRT Alternative...36 Table Construction Costs BRT Alternative...37 Table Summary Capital Cost Estimate LRT Alternative...37 Table Construction Costs LRT Alternative...38 Table Bus Routes Operating on Rapid Transit Corridor...38 Table BC Transit O&M Cost per Service Hour (Victoria Conventional)...38 Table Incremental O&M Costs BAU Alternative...39 Table Annual Incremental O&M Cost BRT Alternative...40 Table LRT O&M cost categories...41 Table LRT O&M Cost Breakdown...41 Table Annual Incremental O&M Costs LRT Alternative...42 Table Total Life Cycle Costs...43 Table Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Project Multiple Account Evaluation Framework...48 Table Overall Benefit Cost Raito and Net Present Value of Options...51 Table Land Use / Urban Development Account Results...52 Table Transportation Account Results...53 Table Financial Account Results...53 Table Deliverability account results...53 Table Economic Development Account Results...54 Table Social / Community Account Results...54 Table Environment Account Result...55 Table Overall summary of Account Result...57 List of Figures Figure ES.1 - Ridership Forecasts...3 Figure ES.2 - Rapid Transit Capacity Ranges...3 Figure ES.2 - Present Value of Total Costs and Benefits...4 Figure Travel Speed and Capacity Ranges...8 Figure Travel Time...14 Figure CRD Population and Annual Growth Rate...15 Figure Historical Population...16 Figure Population by Sub-Region in the CRD...16 Figure Service and passengers West Shore to Urban Core...16 Figure Trend line for Ridership Growth for the Victoria Regional System...17 Figure USA National Population vs. Transit Technology Ridership Trends...20 Figure BAU ridership annual growth rates...22 Figure BRT annual ridership growth rates...23 Figure LRT annual ridership growth rates...23 Figure Rapid Corridor Ridership Forecast for BAU, BRT and LRT...24 Figure Capacity Estimate for Rapid Corridor Options...27 Figure Transit Corridor Capacity Comparison to Published Values...27 Figure BAU Peak Hour Ridership Projection...28 Figure BRT Peak Hour Ridership Projection...28 Figure LRT Peak Hour Ridership Projection...28 Figure O&M Cost per Rider BAU Alternative...39 Figure O&M Cost per rider BRT Alternative...40 Figure Cost per rider LRT Alternative...42 Figure Cost per rider High ridership (left) Low ridership (right)...42 Figure Lifecycle cost components LRT...44 Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

9 Executive Summary Figure Lifecycle cost components - BRT...44 Figure Lifecycle cost components - BAU...44 Figure Cash Flow Profile LRT Alternative...45 Figure Cash Flow Profile BRT Alternative...45 Figure Cash Flow Profile BAU Alternative...45 Figure Present Value of Total Costs and Benefits...51 Figure Present Value of Costs and Monetized Accounts...52 Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

10 Executive Summary for Volume 5 The selection of rapid transit vehicle technology has significant impact on the overall success of the rapid transit service. It can impact the travel times achieved by the system and will be a primary determinant of the people moving capacity of the rapid transit system. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is defined as a bus based transit system providing fast, cost effective transit services based on the provision of a segregated right-of-way infrastructure and frequent operations. BRT systems can use standard buses or specialized BRT vehicles. The system runs at surface sometimes utilizing grade separations to provide separation at intersections Light Rail Transit (LRT) refers to electric, rail based technology operating either as a single car or a short train of cars typically operating in an exclusive right-of-way at surface level. The key operational characteristics of BRT and LRT vehicles used as the basis for the analysis of potential options are summarized on table ES-1below. Table ES.1 - Project Option Characteristics LRT BRT Speed 50 kph in-street operations maximum / kph maximum Vehicle Length m 20 m Vehicle Width 2.6 m 2.6 m 3.5 m Preferred Vehicle Lane 3.3 m Constrained Width 3.0 Stations for Precision Docking Capacity people 120 people Propulsion Electric Electric (600 Volts) Hybrid Diesel / Electric Diesel Accessibility Low floor and fully accessible Level floor boarding 2. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 3. Light Rail Transit (LRT) Business as Usual refers to the base project option and is based on continuing to follow BC Transit s historical approach to increase ridership by growing service hours and adding conventional vehicles to the fleet. The BAU scenario assumes peak hour bus lanes on Douglas Street and bus on shoulder lanes along the Trans-Canada Highway (TCH). It includes the addition of approximately 224,000 service hours requiring the addition of 90 new vehicles to the fleet. The additional service hours are based on a 1.5 minute peak headway on Douglas Street from downtown to Uptown and a 4 minute peak headway on the TCH to West Shore section. The fleet requirements will be provided by a mix of standard 40-foot diesel buses and double-decker buses. The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) option includes: i. The construction of the exclusive alignment and stations as described in Volume 4 Functional alignment report. ii. The deployment of BRT vehicles similar to the vehicles outlined in section 2 iii. The provision of transit priority for rapid transit vehicles at signalized intersections The Light Rail Transit (LRT) option includes: i. The construction of the exclusive alignment and stations as described in Volume 4 Functional alignment report. ii. The deployment of LRT vehicles similar to the vehicles outlined in section 2 iii. Transit priority for rapid transit vehicles at signalized intersections It is important to note that a vital characteristic of BRT and LRT systems is the operation of the vehicles in an exclusive right-of-way. A summary of the central features of the three project options is provided on table ES-2 below. The project options refer to the combination of vehicle technology and alignment configuration that comprise proposed solutions to achieve the project s objectives Three options were analyzed: 1. Business as Usual (BAU) Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 1 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

11 Executive Summary Description Running Way & Operational Characteristics Vehicle type and capacity Peak hour capacity per direction Potential earliest opening date for full system Travel time from downtown to West Shore - Opening Day Travel time from downtown to West Shore Table ES.2 - Summary of Project Options Business As Usual (BAU) Expansion of service hours along the alignment corridor using conventional bus fleet Peak hour bus lanes on Douglas St. between downtown and Uptown Bus on Shoulder lanes along TCH between Uptown and Six Mile interchange Transit priority measures at intersections On-board fare payment Conventional fleet employing a mix of standard and doubledecker buses. Vehicle capacity of approximately 80 passengers seating and standing reflecting a blended rate of standard and double-decker buses Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Rapid transit service operating in an exclusive, dedicated transit right-of-way employing specialized bus rapid transit vehicles Exclusive transit right-of-way as specified in Volume 4 functional Alignment report Off-board fare payment All door boarding and alighting Improved stations and shelters with enhanced boarding Specialized +/- 20 m articulate bus with diesel hybrid propulsion system Vehicle capacity of approximately 120 passengers seating and standing Light Rail Transit (LRT) 60 minutes 40 minutes 40 minutes 95 minutes 45 minutes 45 minutes Rapid transit service operating in an exclusive, dedicated transit right-of-way employing light rail vehicles Exclusive transit right-of-way as specified in Volume 4 functional Alignment report Off-board fare payment All door boarding and alighting Improved stations and shelters with level boarding Light rail vehicle in +/- 40m configuration with electric motor propulsion Vehicle capacity of approximately 230 passengers seating and standing 1) Customer travel time The travel time differential between the transit service and other modes of transportation. 2) Transit oriented land use policies (walk proximity). The vast majority of all transit trips begin and end with a walk trip. It is generally accepted that five minutes is the most that people are likely to walk for a local bus serv ice and a ten minute walk is the maximum time a person is likely to walk to a rapid transit service. - The results is a direct relation ship between the land use density around each transit station and expected ridership 3) Parking availability and price - In urbanized downtown areas parking is often in limited supply and can represent a decision making factor in choice of travel mode. Transit ridership and abundant, low cost parking have an inverse relationship 4) Latent demand - Latent demand i s the potential for additional ridership that can be realize d through transit system improvements. 5) Population growth - Th e strong correlation between population growt h and tran sit ridership is expected to generate a growth in t ransit ridership of approximately th e same magnitude and profile as the projected population growth. A ridership forecast model based on trend analysis projecting the ridership for the rapid transit corridor was developed by the project team. The model took into account various factors including: a. The historical transit ridership trends along the recommended rapid transit corridor and region; b. Capacity constraints consistent with the alignment configuration and the vehicle technology c. Projected regional population growth and settlement trends d. The estimated travel time trend of the automobile compared to that of the proposed Rapid Transit system The forecasted ridership on the proposed rapid transit corridor for each of the three project options are illustrated on Figure ES.1 below. Forecasting transit ridership is complicated by the interplay between numerous factors that influence an individual s decision to take transit or choose another mode of transportation. There are many factors that affect the level of ridership achieved on a transit system including, among others: Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

12 Executive Summary Figure ES.1 - Ridership Forecasts Figure ES.2 - Rapid Transit Capacity Ranges Capital and operating cost estimates were developed for the three potential options covering the 27 year planning horizon for the project. Operating and maintenance cost estimates for the bus based options were developed based upon BC Transit's knowledge and experience with operating bus based systems. The operating and maintenance cost estimate for the rail based option was developed on an elemental basis using the forecast fleet and operating service hour estimates for the LRT alternative. Since 1991, average annual system-wide ridership growth in Victoria has been 2.6% per year while over the past decade the growth rate for transit in the corridor between the West Shore and the Core has grown at an annual rate of 8.5% per year outpacing the growth of the region wide system by a factor of 3. Under the business as usual option, annual ridership is forecast to reach between 6.4 million and 7.5 million annual rides, from the base year ridership of 5.4 million rides. Annual ridership for the BRT option is forecast to reach between 8.7 million to 9.0 million annual rides by the end of the project timeframe. Annual ridership for the LRT option is forecast to reach between 10.4 million and 13.3 million rides. The passenger carrying capacity of a transit corridor will act as a constraint to ridership growth once efficient operating parameters are exceeded. The system capacity is typically expressed in terms of passengers per hour in the peak direction. Figure ES.2 below shows the estimated capacities for each project option compared with the range of capacities from the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual 1. In each instance the projected hourly capacity falls within the typical range. 1 TCRP Report 100, Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual 2 nd Edition, 2003 Table ES.3 below summarized the total life cycle costs for the 3 options including the cost to construct the system, the sustaining capital required for fleet growth and replacement, and the on-going operational and maintenance costs. Table ES.3 - Total Life Cycle Costs (all figures in 2010 $) Cost BAU BRT LRT $ - Capital cost to construct $ 250,000,000 $ 520,000,000 $ 950,000,000 Capital cost for vehicle growth & replacement $ 207,000,000 $ 136,000,000 $ 48,000,000 Operating & Maintenance cost $ 229,000,000 $ 91,000,000 $ 229,000,000 $ - Total lifecycle costs ( ) $ 686,000,000 $ 747,000,000 $1,227,000,000 Both the BRT and the LRT alternatives incur a larger capital cost to construct than the BAU alternative. However, the long term operating and maintenance costs and sustaining capital costs are significantly decreased as a result of the initial capital investment. The LRT alternative in particular requires a very low sustaining capital investment because of the long service life of the vehicles. The BRT alternative also realizes a significantly lower sustaining capital investment compared to BAU because of the improvement Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

13 Executive Summary in capacity. Total lifecycle costs for the BRT option are $61 million greater than the BAU option and total lifecycle costs for the LRT option are $541 Million greater than the BAU option. A Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) was conducted on the project alternatives to develop a recommendation for the rapid transit system. Multiple account evaluation supplements the quantitative information obtained through cost benefit analysis with additional quantitative or qualitative information The Victoria Regional Rapid Transit MAE framework includes the 5 accounts recommended by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and adds two additional accounts to address project specific aspects. The accounts analyzed for the Victoria Regional Rapid Transit MAE include: i. Land Use / Urban Development; ii. iii. iv. Transportation; Financial; Deliverability; v. Economic Development; vi. vii. Social Community; and, Environment. A summary of the total monetized benefits and total costs is presented Figure ES.2 below. The benefit and cost figures presented are in present value terms. LRT provides the greatest return in present value of benefits. Slightly less than $1.5 billion of total benefits are realized with the LRT option. The largest portion of the total benefits realized is derived from the transportation benefits which include savings in: i. time ii. iii. vehicle operating costs reduced collisions and accidents The overall benefit to cost ratio for the LRT option is 1.8 and the benefit to cost ratio for the BRT option is 2.2 when the 6% discount rate is used. Both options have benefit to cost ratios greater than 1.0 indicating the benefits delivered by the project are higher than the costs over the project life. Table ES.4 presents the benefit to cost ratio, net present value and the present value of the total benefits for the BRT and LRT options under the 2 discount rate scenarios. Table ES.4 - Overall Benefit Cost Raito and Net Present Value of Options LRT BRT MAE Result Discount Rate Discount Rate 6% 10% 6% 10% PV Cost or Benefit ($M) $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $ $(500) $(1,000) Figure ES.2 - Present Value of Total Costs and Benefits (6% discount rate) Total Benefits $1,033 Total Benefits $1,427 BAU BRT LRT Total Costs $408 Total Costs $469 Total Costs $794 Benefit Cost Ratio Present Value - Total Benefits ($Mil) $ 1,427 $ 784 $ 1,033 $ 576 Net Present Value ($ Mil) $ 1,040 $ 423 $ 972 $ 500 Results of the multiple account evaluation show: 1. Both the BRT and the LRT options achieve a positive benefit to cost ratio indicating that both options generate greater benefits than the cost of the project over its lifecycle. 2. Over the project lifecycle, the LRT option returns a higher value of benefits than the BRT option at a 6% discount rate. 3. The LRT options ranked higher than the BRT option in 8 of the 16 sub-accounts. The BRT option ranked higher in 4 of the 16 sub-accounts. The options were ranked as equivalent in 4 of the subaccounts 4. The Net present value of the LRT option is greater than the BRT option ($1,040 million vs $972 million). 5. The value of benefits returned by the options and the NPV of the options are sensitive to the discount rate applied. 6. The BRT option can not deliver the ridership levels required to meet the project goals. The capacity of the BRT option is surpassed on the downtown to Uptown segment within years of commencing service. Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

14 Executive Summary 7. The LRT option is expected to deliver above-average benefits in five out of the seven monetized benefit accounts. In fact, it is expected to create the maximum benefit in these categories relative to the other options. The LRT option as demonstrated by the multiple account evaluation delivers a superior level of benefits compared to the BAU and BRT options. The capacity limitations of the BRT option result in it not delivering the ridership capacity goals of the project. Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

15 This page intentionally left blank Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

16 1. Vehicle Technology Options 1.1 Introduction The selection of rapid transit vehicle technology has significant impact on the overall success of the rapid transit service. It can impact the travel times achieved by the system and will be a primary determinant of the people moving capacity of the rapid transit system. Additionally, the choice of rapid transit vehicle technology will have a significant influence on the development of the community s urban form and thereby impact on the quality of life for its inhabitants 2. There is a spectrum of transit technology options available from standard bus services to elevated rail or subway. There is no single right or wrong technology and the selection of the most appropriate technology depends on the local circumstances and constraints. 1.4 Typical Vehicle Technology Options The key operational characteristics of BRT and LRT vehicles used as the basis for the option analysis are outlined on Table 1.1. It is important to note that a vital characteristic of BRT and LRT systems highlighted in sections 1.2 and 1.3 above is the operation of the vehicles in an exclusive right-of-way. Table Features of BRT and LRT Technologies LRT BRT 1.2 Bus-Based Technology Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is defined as a high quality bus based transit system that delivers fast, comfortable and cost effective urban mobility through the provision of segregated right-of-way infrastructure, rapid and frequent operations and excellence in marketing and customer service. 3. BRT systems can use standard buses or specialized BRT vehicles. The system runs at surface sometimes utilizing grade separations to provide separation at intersections. Specialized BRT vehicles typically have the following characteristics; 1. Sleek modern design 2. Higher capacity (articulated vehicles) 3. Low floor vehicles 4. Multiple doorways, double wide 1.3 Rail-Based Technology Light Rail Transit (LRT) refers to electric, rail based technology operating either as a single car or a short train of cars typically operating in an exclusive right-of-way at surface level typically with overhead electrical power supply 4. 2 Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide. Institute for Transportation & Development Policy Example Photo Speed 50 kph in-street operations maximum / kph maximum Grades 6% Desirable Maximum / 7% Maximum Vehicle Length m 20 m Vehicle Width 2.6 m 2.6 m Minimum Turning Radius 20 m 20 m Lane Width 3.5 m Preferred / 3.3 m Constrained / 3.0 Stations for Precision Docking Capacity people 120 people Boarding Doors Both Sides Doors Both Sides Propulsion Electric (600 Volts) Electric Hybrid Diesel / Electric (600 or 750 Volts) Diesel Station Accessibility Low floor and fully accessible / 350mm high station platforms for level floor boarding Station Size 40 m x 3.5 Side Platform Station / 40m x 5m Center Platform Station Figure 1.1 outlines the system speed and passenger capacity for various transit technologies and system configurations. The system speed refers to the overall speed achieved in travel taking into account stop spacing, dwell time at stops, route geometry, traffic congestion and other factors. 3 ibid 4 ibid Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 7 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

17 Vehicle Technology Options Figure 1.1presents the average travel speed and capacity ranges for various transit technologies. The capacity range of LRT systems in at grade exclusive rights-of-way (red shaded zone) is significantly greater than the range for BRT in exclusive lanes (green shaded zone). LRT systems have the potential to provide capacity up to 15,000 passengers per hour per direction compared to the upper range BRT capacity of just under 4,000 passengers per hour per direction. Figure Travel Speed and Capacity Ranges Both BRT and LRT technologies are compatible with the functional alignment design, detailed in Volume 4 - Functional Alignment Report, for the rapid transit connection between Victoria and the West Shore. Capacity for the Victoria system will be dependant on the system speed attained, the degree of segregation provided at intersections, and the degree of exclusivity provided to the alignment particularly in the downtown to Uptown segment of the alignment. Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

18 Vehicle Technology Options This page intentionally left blank Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 9

19 2. Project Options 2.1 Introduction The project options refer to the combination of vehicle technology and alignment configuration that comprise proposed solutions to achieve the project s objectives, namely: As indicated above the BAU case outlines the actions that would be implemented in the absence of implementing one of the proposed rapid transit options. The base option sets the benchmark against which the other proposed options are compared. The BAU option includes the addition of service hours on the corridor in two segments: Increase Transit s market share in Victoria in order to meet the Provincial Transit Plan s target of 9.5% by 2020 and 12% by 2030 through: o o o o Developing transit options that offer an alternative to the single occupancy vehicle Make transit attractive and easy to use Link Regional Growth Centres and encourage Transit oriented development Support an integrated transit network 1. Douglas St. downtown to Uptown; and, 2. From Uptown to Station Ave. up to a level where the operation is sustainable. The BAU scenario assumes peak hour bus lanes on Douglas Street and bus on shoulder lanes along the Trans-Canada Highway (TCH). It includes the addition of approximately 224,000 service hours requiring the addition of 90 new vehicles to the fleet. The additional service hours are based on a 1.5 minute peak headway on Douglas Street from downtown to Uptown and a 4 minute peak headway on the TCH to West Shore section. The fleet requirements will be provided by a mix of standard 40-foot diesel buses and double-decker buses. o Develop and environmentally responsible solution in support of reducing greenhouse gas emissions The project did not consider a do nothing option. In the absence of implementing a rapid transit system, the alternative to take no action was deemed to be untenable. As a base case, actions would be taken to improve transit priority aimed at improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the Victoria Regional Transit system operations as well as generating increases in ridership. Three options were analyzed,: 1. Business as Usual (BAU) 2. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 3. Light Rail Transit (LRT) For each the three options, detailed estimates of ridership, capital costs and life cycle operating, maintenance and sustaining capital costs were developed. These three options were then evaluated against each other employing a multiple account analysis framework. 2.2 Business as Usual Business as Usual refers to the base project option. The name Business As Usual refers to continuing to follow BC Transit s historical approach to increase ridership by growing service hours and adding conventional vehicles to the fleet. 2.3 Bus Rapid Transit The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) option includes: 1. The construction of the exclusive alignment and stations as described in Volume 4 Functional alignment report. 2. The deployment of BRT vehicles similar to the vehicles outlined in section 1 3. Transit priority for rapid transit vehicles at signalized intersections 2.4 Light Rail Transit The Light Rail Transit (LRT) option includes: 1. The construction of the exclusive alignment and stations as described in Volume 4 Functional alignment report. 2. The deployment of LRT vehicles similar to the vehicles outlined in section 1 3. Transit priority for rapid transit vehicles at signalized intersections Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 10 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

20 Project Options 2.5 Option Summary Table 2.1 provides a summary of the key characteristics of the three project options. Table Project Options Key Characteristics Business As Usual (BAU) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Description Expansion of service hours along the alignment corridor using conventional bus fleet Rapid transit service operating in an exclusive, dedicated transit right-of-way employing specialized bus rapid transit vehicles Rapid transit service operating in an exclusive, dedicated transit right-of-way employing light rail vehicles Running Way & Operational Characteristics Peak hour bus lanes on Douglas St. between downtown and Uptown Exclusive transit right-of-way as specified in Volume 4 functional Alignment report Exclusive transit right-of-way as specified in Volume 4 functional Alignment report Bus on Shoulder lanes along TCH between Uptown and Six Mile interchange Transit priority measures at intersections Off-board fare payment All door boarding and alighting Improved stations and shelters with enhanced boarding Off-board fare payment All door boarding and alighting Improved stations and shelters with level boarding On-board fare payment Vehicle type and capacity Conventional fleet employing a mix of standard and double-decker buses. Specialized +/- 20 m articulate bus with diesel hybrid propulsion system Light rail vehicle in +/- 40m configuration with electric motor propulsion Vehicle capacity of approximately 80 passengers seating and standing reflecting a blended rate of standard and double-decker buses Vehicle capacity of approximately 120 passengers seating and standing Vehicle capacity of approximately 230 passengers seating and standing Peak hour capacity per direction Potential earliest opening date for full system Travel time from downtown to West Shore - Opening Day Travel time from downtown to West Shore minutes 40 minutes 40 minutes 95 minutes 45 minutes 45 minutes Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 11

21 Project Options This page intentionally left blank Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

22 3. Ridership Forecasts 3.1 Introduction Forecasting transit ridership is a complicated activity made so by the interplay between the numerous factors that influences an individual s decision to take transit or choose another mode of transportation on any given day. Notwithstanding the complexity of developing ridership estimates, forecasting the ridership trend on a proposed transit system is a key piece of information needed for the decision making process. Ridership estimates determine many aspects of the system, including the level of service (i.e. schedule), fleet size and supporting facility requirements, among others. There are many factors that affect the level of ridership achieved on a transit system. Those factors include but are not limited to: 1) Measures that improve customer travel time 2) Strong transit oriented land use policies (walk proximity) 3) Parking 4) Travel time competitiveness to the automobile 5) Latent demand 6) Projected population Travel Time A significant factor affecting transit ridership is the overall passenger travel time to and from his / her destination. The inability of a transit user to conveniently and efficiently get to a destination is a substantial barrier to use of transit. Transit travel time cannot be examined in isolation, but rather needs to be measured against competing travel modes. In communities such as the CRD, where the automobile is the dominant travel mode, transit travel time should be compared to vehicle travel time taking a similar route. It is worth noting that a transit trip includes additional components compared to an automobile trip that need to be accounted for when it comes to overall trip time. Where travel time for an automobile will generally only consist of the total drive time, a comparable transit trip might include one or all of the following: Walk from trip origin/destination to transit stop Auto trip to transit park n ride Land Use (Walk Proximity) In examining the typical components of a transit trip, it is critical to note that the vast majority of all transit trips begin and end with a walk trip. Understanding this we can see why land use density and walk distance are so closely tied with forecasting ridership of a transit system. It is generally accepted that five minutes is the most that people are likely to walk for a local bus service and a ten minute walk is the maximum time a person is likely to walk to a rapid system 5. At typical walking speeds, the five and ten minute walks roughly correspond with a 400 m and 800 m walk distance. Therefore, as land use density at a transit station increases, so does the number of transit patrons within the service coverage area of the station. What this ultimately means for the transit system is that there is a direct relationship between the land use density around each transit station and expected ridership. One complicating factor with respect to the relationship between land use and ridership is that transit agencies do not normally have any control over land use around stations. This is why coordination and cooperation between regional and municipal partners is essential to increase ridership over the long term Parking In urbanized downtown areas parking is often in limited supply and can represent a decision making factor in choice of travel mode. Transit ridership and abundant, low cost parking have an inverse relationship. The greater the hassle, cost and scarcity of parking will result in an increase in the level of transit ridership. The City of Victoria is losing existing parking in their Downtown area due primarily to conversion of private parking garages to more economically productive uses 6. As this trend continues, it is expected that the parking supply in Downtown Victoria will become scarcer and parking prices will ultimately rise in response to reduced supply. Park and ride access to the Rapid Transit system can help to alleviate some of the pressure on parking in Downtown Victoria by providing an alternative for customers wishing to travel to Downtown Auto and Rapid Transit Travel Time In 2010 the CRD completed travel time surveys for the calibration of the regional transportation planning model (TransCAD). Based on the information collected by those surveys, it takes about 40 minutes during rush hour to travel via car from the West Shore to Downtown Victoria. Taking the bus takes about 1 hour. However, this time on the bus does not include the beginning and end of the trip, which for most people means walking to a local bus stop to catch the bus and walking to their final destination once they get off the bus. Thus, transit generally has added walk time on both ends of the trip which further diminishes its attractiveness relative to auto travel. Wait time at the transit stop Travel on transit vehicle Transfer wait time (if trip requires an additional transit connection) 5 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2 nd Edition, Part 3, Chapter 2, Page Urban Systems. City of Victoria Downtown Victoria Parking Assessment. April 2007 Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 13 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

23 Ridership Forecasts As road congestion gets worse in the region, travel time between Victoria and the West Shore will continue to grow. Even with road improvements within the region, travel time is expected to increase dramatically over the next 30 years. By 2040 it is expected that the 40 minute travel time between the West Shore and Victoria, will extend to 75 minutes 7 ; almost doubling travel time. Travel times for conventional bus service will increase at the same rate, as the bus is stuck in traffic along with the auto traffic. By 2040, bus travel times are projected to grow from 60 minutes to 95 minutes Latent Demand Latent demand is a way of categorizing short term improvements in ridership growth. More specifically, it represents the potential for additional ridership that can be realized through transit system improvements. The types of system improvements that are usually associated with latent demand are those which have a dramatic improvement in service speed and quality over a short period of time. Examples include: Improved passenger ride comfort as a result of an upgrade in vehicle technology from standard bus to BRT or Rail Significant travel time savings as a result of implementation of upgrade to exclusive-use right of way for transit services, or implementation of traffic priority measures Upgraded passenger comfort items such as improved station amenities and facilities Substantial increase in service frequency, which thereby adds more capacity, and shorter wait times Figure 3.1 illustrates the relationship between the ratio of transit travel time to general purpose (GP) travel time (auto), and transit mode share (% Travel by Transit) along a given travel corridor. This graphic illustrates how implementing an exclusive-use BRT or LRT system can provide a substantial ridership increase in a short period of time. As transit travel speed improves due to exclusivity, the Transit to GP travel time ratio reduces moving the position on the red line from right to left. Notice that as you move to the left along the red line, percent travel by transit (transit mode share) increases. Also notice that as you move to the left along the red line the red line becomes steeper, thus providing more incremental benefit for each increase in transit travel time ratio. Figure Travel Time For example, a system that currently has a travel time ratio of 1.5 would carry about 12% of commuters via transit. If transit travel time were to improve, such that transit now took the same time as auto travel (ratio of 1.0) transit mode share would increase to 18%. This represents a 50% improvement in mode share along the corridor. 7 The estimate is based upon a report by Urban Systems titled Hwy 1 Corridor Long Term Strategic Options, April 23, 2007 which estimated delays would increase by 25 minutes on the corridor by the year This forecast was further confirmed during the summer of 2010 when approximately 600 vehicles per hour were diverted onto the Trans Canada Highway due to construction on Island Hwy/Craigflower Road. Informal surveys conducted during this time period indicated rush hour travel times of 75 minutes were a common occurrence. Typical rush hour traffic volume on the TCH is about 4,200 vph. A dramatic improvement in transit travel time ratio such as in the example above is generally only possible with the type of major infrastructure improvements associated with moving from a conventional bus system, to a rapid transit system. It is worth noting, that once an exclusive right of way transit system is implemented, mode share will generally continue to increase over time as traffic congestion will continue to extend auto travel time, while transit service is unaffected. It is the initial jump in ridership that is usually realized within the first few years of opening a rapid service that is categorized as latent demand. Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

24 Ridership Forecasts Projected Population As described in Volume 1 Regional Population and Travel Data, population growth in the CRD is expected to average 0.9 % over the next three decades, averaging slightly over 1 percent for the next two decades before declining to a low of 0.6 percent by 2038 (refer to Figure 4.2 below). Figure CRD Population and Annual Growth Rate 8 Based on the strong correlation between population growth and transit ridership, the forecast population growth is expected to generate a growth in transit ridership of approximately the same magnitude and profile as the projected population growth. This is sometimes referred to as "natural" growth. 3.2 Victoria Region Historical Ridership Trends Over the last 20 years (1991 to 2010) transit ridership in the Victoria Region has experienced an average annual growth rate of 2.6%. Table 3.1 presents the annual transit system ridership for the Victoria Regional Transit System (VRTS) and the CRD population over the period Year Table Historical Annual Transit Ridership for the Victoria Region CRD Population Annual % Change in Population VRTS Annual Ridership Annual % Change in Ridership , % 15,623, % , % 15,923, % , % 15,996, % , % 16,872, % , % 17,016, % , % 17,336, % , % 17,674, % , % 17,080, % , % 17,666, % , % 18,738, % , % 17,937, % , % 19,197, % , % 19,349, % , % 19,612, % , % 21,054, % , % 21,844, % , % 22,386, % , % 23,715, % , % 24,847, % , % 25,251, % Average Annual % Change in Ridership 2.6% Average Annual % Change in Population 0.97% Over the last 20 years ( ) annual transit system ridership has expanded from approximately 15.6 million trips to over 25 million trips. Over the same time period the CRD population has expanded from 313,891 to 372,949. Ridership has grown 62% in a period when regional population has grown 18%. To accommodate the increased ridership, the Victoria transit fleet has more than doubled, from 125 to over 260 buses. Despite this growth in service and ridership total transit mode share has remained relatively flat at a level of 6% to 7% of regional trips. Figure 3.3 presents the historical growth in CRD population and the historical growth in ridership for the Victoria Regional Transit System over the last 20 years. 8 A Context for Change Management in the Capital Regional District Final Report, Urban Futures / City Spaces, August 2009 Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 15

25 Ridership Forecasts Figure Population by Sub-Region in the CRD Over the past decade, BC Transit has responded to increasing population and travel demand within the West Shore by increasing service hours along the primary bus routes from the West Shore to Urban Core. Ridership has responded in the past decade, increasing from about 4,500 daily passenger boardings to over 9,000 on the primary bus routes between the West Shore and Urban Core (Routes 50/61) as shown in Figure 3.5. The 13 bus routes that would be replaced by the rapid transit project experiences 17,200 riders a day in 2010 similar passenger volumes to what the 98B-Line bus route in Vancouver was experiencing when the Canada Line was announced to replace it. Figure Historical Population Within the CRD, the West Shore has experienced the most rapid population and transit demand growth. The average annual population growth rate in the West Shore over the period was 1.5% compared to 0.6% in the Urban Core and Saanich Peninsula. Figure Service and passengers West Shore to Urban Core Despite the fact that travel time for transit has been increasing due to traffic congestion along the corridor, the West Shore ridership growth has substantially outpaced growth of the other transit corridors in the remainder of the region. This demonstrates a strong underlying latent demand for transit service along the proposed rapid transit corridor. Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

26 Ridership Forecasts Table 3.1 shows that in the past 20 years, since 1991, average annual system-wide ridership growth has been 2.6%, while the 50/61 routes have grown at an annual rate of 8.5%. The growth rate for transit in the corridor between the West Shore and the Core has significantly outpaced the overall growth of the regional transit system by a factor of 3. Figure 3.6 shows the historical and projected trend for annual transit ridership in Victoria based on projecting the historical ridership growth trend into the future. Also shown are the PTP 2020 and 2030 mode share targets plotted as annual ridership levels. It is clear from the projected trendline that transit will need to break the current ridership trend and accelerate ridership growth to achieve the PTP targets. Figure Trend line for Ridership Growth for the Victoria Regional System (Projected trend of ridership Growth from ) Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 17

27 Ridership Forecasts 3.3 Ridership Trends observed in other Transit Systems A number of North American communities have implemented rapid transit systems. The ridership experience of a number of these communities was reviewed in order to determine the characteristics of the ridership increases. In particular the review focused on comparative information related to changes in: Based on the experience of other systems, the initial increase in ridership realized with the introduction of a BRT system ranged from 18% up to as high as 134%. The average increase of the systems reviewed was 46% and the median value was 31%. The general trend observed for the realized latent demand is BRT systems that: Latent Demand have alignments comprised of both mixed use and exclusive sections Long term annual ridership growth rate have alignments that are primarily HOV configurations and Transit mode share have transit priority measures Latent Demand: The latent demand captured with a new or improved transit line is difficult to estimate as it depends on a large variety of factors including; land-use density surrounding proposed stations, existing transit service in the area, available excess capacity on the transit service, the type transit service improvement implemented, relative travel time savings, relative travel costs and connection of transit service to desired locations and the remainder of the network. A summary of initial ridership increases observed with implementation of BRT systems and LRT systems are presented on Tables 3.2 and 3.3, respectively. These initial ridership increases represent the realized latent demand for those transit systems. The data presented on Tables 3.2 and 3.3 are listed from lowest to highest. The values for latent demand can vary widely and are influenced by a number of factors (running way, transit vehicle and many other variables not shown in the tables). It is important to note that the time period over which the initial jump in ridership reported by the Transit Agencies occurs is not consistent or fixed but is realized within the first few years of the rapid transit system being implemented. Tend to cluster at the lower end of the observed increases (18% - 34%). Fully exclusive alignments are observed to experience higher initial ridership increases (47% - 134%). There is a more limited data set for LRT systems as presented on Table 3.3. As with BRT systems, the alignment configuration is an important parameter influencing the initial ridership increase with the introduction of an LRT service, although not the only influencing factor. Table Observed Latent Demand for LRT systems in North America City Line Transit Vehicle Running Way Latent Demand Calgary C Train LRT Exclusive at Grade 15% - 20% Minneapolis Hiawatha/Central LRT Exclusive at Grade 30% Vancouver Millennium Line Skytrain LRT Exclusive Grade Separated 32% Vancouver Canada Line Skytrain LRT Exclusive Grade Separated 80% Charlotte LYNX LRT Exclusive at Grade 110% Table Observed Latent Demand for BRT systems in North America City Line Transit Vehicle Running Way Initial Las Vegas Max BRT Mixed Use with Priority Measures 18% Los Angleas Orange Line BRT Exclusive At-Grade 24% Miami 95 Express BRT Shared HOV 25% Boston Silver Line BRT Exclusive At-Grade 25% Vancouver 98 B Line BRT Exclusive & Mixed Used 28% Eugene EMX Line BRT Exclusive & Mixed Used 34% Cleveland Health Line BRT Exclusive At-Grade 47% Orlando Lynx Limo BRT Mixed Use with Priority Measures 59% AC Transit BRT Exclusive At-Grade 65% Pittsburg West Busway BRT Exclusive At-Grade 134% Based on the experience of other systems, the initial increase in ridership realized with the introduction of an LRT system ranged from 15% up to as high as 110%. The average increase of the systems reviewed was 53% and the median value was 32%. Based on the data presented in table 4.3, the observed initial increases for at grade LRT systems in exclusive running ways is typically 30% or lower. Fully grade separated systems (e.g. skytrain) tend to have a higher initial ridership increase Annual Ridership Growth Rate: As with latent demand, the ridership growth of a system >20 years into the future is difficult to estimate. Table 3.4 presents the observed longer term annual ridership growth experience of other North American cities. The data presented in Table 3.4 presents observed annual growth rates in the 5 to 20 year time horizon. The entries are listed from lowest to highest observed annual growth rate. Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

28 Ridership Forecasts Table Average Annual Growth Rates of other Rapid Transit Systems City Line Transit Vehicle Running Way Annual Growth Rate 5 to 20 Yr Horizon Salt Lake City LRT Exclusive At-Grade 0.2% Boston, MA BRT 0.4% Eugene, Or BRT 3.0% Edmonton LRT LRT Exclusive 1.3% Minneapolis LRT Exclusive At-Grade 1.3% Ottawa BRT 1.8% Calgary LRT LRT Exclusive At-Grade 2.1% Portland Max LRT Exclusive At-Grade 2.1% Vancouver B-Line Services` BRT Partial Exclusive At-grade, mixed use 2.3% Salt Lake City, York Region LRT 3.0% Vancouver Westcoast Express Commuter Rail Exclusive At-Grade 4.0% Vancouver Canada Line ALRT Exclusive 10% (first 3 years) Based on the experience of other systems, the annual growth rate in ridership for rapid transit system ranged from 0.2% up to as high as 3%. The average annual growth rate of the systems reviewed was 1.75% and the median value was 1.95%. The last two entries in Table 3.4, West coast express commuter rail service and Canada line ALRT are presented to indicate local experience with rail based rapid transit service, however those two services are distinctly different from the options being examined for the Victoria region. The annual growth rates for the Westcoast Express and the Canada Line were not included in calculating the average and median values for annual growth rate. Examining the data points for BRT systems, the observed annual growth rates ranged from 0.4% to 3%. The average for the four systems is 1.9% and the median is 2.1%. For LRT systems, the annual growth rates ranged from 0.2% to 3% with an average for the six systems of 1.7% and a median annual growth rate of 1.7%. Table North American Cities with 12% Transit Mode Share City / Region Transit Mode Share RT System Vancouver Region, BC 12% (2007) Expo SkyTrain Millennium SkyTrain Canada Line Calgary, Alberta 12% 201 Line LRT 202 Line - LRT Ottawa, Ontario 12% Multiple busways Portland, Oregon 12.6% Red Max LRT Green Max LRT Yellow Max LRT Blue Max LRT Cleveland, Ohio 12.2% Blue Line LRT Green Line LRT Health BRT Miami, Florida 12.2% Miami South Dade BRT Metro Rail Vancouver, for example, has a transit mode share of 12%. It has three grade separated ALRT systems. Portland, Oregon, which has a transit mode share of 12.6%, has four at grade, exclusive alignment LRT lines (Max LRT) integrated with its downtown streetcar system. Portland has also implemented strong Transit Oriented Development (TOD) land use policies. Figure 3.7 illustrates the observed trends in the United States over the past three decades in annual transit ridership. It compares the ridership growth rate of bus, light rail and commuter rail based systems vs. population growth trends Transit Mode Share Table 3.5 summarizes the reported transit mode share values for various cities in North America for which reported data was available. It is important to note that in completing the research no city that was able to achieve a 12% mode share that did not have at least one rapid transit system operating on an exclusive transitway fully segregated from traffic was identified. The data also show that the majority of transit systems with greater than 12% all day mode share have some form of rail based rapid transit service. Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 19

29 Ridership Forecasts Figure USA National Population vs. Transit Technology Ridership Trends The important observations to note on a USA-national level are: The ridership growth of bus based systems is relatively flat and not keeping pace with population growth, The growth rate of Commuter Rail Transit is marginally greater than population growth, and The growth rate of Light Rail Transit ridership significantly outpaces population growth. These trends provide strong evidence that, on a national scale that investments in light rail systems experience a stronger likelihood of significant increase in ridership compared to other transit modes. Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

30 Ridership Forecasts 3.4 Ridership Forecast Forecasting transit ridership is complicated by the interplay between the numerous factors that affect an individual s decision to take transit or choose another mode of transportation on any given day. This notwithstanding, a reliable projection of the ridership expected on a proposed transit system is a key piece of information as it informs many aspects of the system, including required service, future revenue generation, and fleet size among others 3.5 Ridership Forecast Methodology The Capital Regional District has maintained a regional transportation planning model since Since that time, the regional model has undergone various updates and calibrations, generally in conjunction with updated data from the Canadian Census and CRD s travel survey program. In 2007 a substantial recalibration and long term model projection was completed. This calibration included a 2006 base year scenario, as well as a 2036 model projection. As part of the 2007 update, the model was converted from the Emme/2 software platform to TransCAD platform. Upon initiation of the VRRT Project in 2009, the CRD engaged Caliper Corporation, the developer of the TransCAD model, to incorporate improved transit network features that would allow for modeling of the proposed Rapid Transit system. A detailed review to refine the Capital Regional District s (CRD) Planning Sub-area Model for Victoria was completed in The objectives of this review included: Review current model setup and assumptions, and validate the Model Test various transit alternatives and extract impacts in terms of volumes, auto travel-times, transit travel times, transit mode share and transit peak hour ridership Develop the Model in appropriate detail so the output could be used in subsequent VISSIM microsimulation and capacity analyses in SYNCHRO; the ridership to be used for transit planning and emissions analyses. Although the TransCAD model predicts gains in transit mode share and ridership, the overall measure of the reliability of the model (Root Mean Squared Error or RMSE) was above the acceptable threshold of 35%. Based on the concerns with the estimates for ridership generated by the TransCAD model the project team developed an empirical ridership forecast model. The ridership forecast model is a trend based analysis projecting the ridership for the rapid transit corridor based on the following methodology: 1. The daily ridership for the corridor was determined from 2010 BC Transit ridership data. This figure set the base corridor ridership and was the starting point for the forecasting calculations. 2. The latent demand captured along the corridor for each of the project options was determined and applied to the base corridor ridership 3. The long term ridership growth trend for the VRTS and other transit systems that have implemented a BRT or LRT service was analyzed and used to establish a high and low estimate for the future ridership growth scenarios for the three project options. 4. The long tern growth trends were reviewed and adjusted to reflect the impacts of additional factors including: a. The historical transit ridership trends along the corridor and region; b. Capacity constraints consistent with the alignment configuration and the vehicle technology c. CRD projected regional population growth and settlement trends d. Parking availability and supply trends in the core area with a particular emphasis on downtown Victoria e. Land use development trends f. The estimated travel time trend of the automobile compared to that of the proposed Rapid Transit system Forecast Latent Demand The BRT and LRT options show an initial jump in ridership upon initiation of the new rapid transit service. This initial jump in demand is the projected latent demand that will be realized with the provision of a higher order service in the region. While it is difficult to quantify precisely all the factors which cause this initial jump, it is largely the result of drawing new riders to the system who were previously not transit users who are attracted to use the system as a result of the higher quality of service offered by rapid transit As discussed in section 3.3, latent demand realized in other BRT systems ranged between 18% and 134%. The ridership forecast model for the Victoria rapid transit system employed a latent demand factor of 20% for the BRT option. The 20% figure is at the low end of the range of observed values for BRT systems (see Table 3.2 in section 3.3) and is also at the low end of the range for BRT systems that do not have fully exclusive alignments (18% - 34%). The estimated latent demand increase is therefore expected to be conservative. Aspects of the proposed Victoria alignment supporting a lower latent demand factor include: The alignment along portions Goldstream Avenue is not exclusive resulting in transit operating in mixed traffic The high number of driveways, minor roads and other accesses crossing over the alignment creating friction points that will slow the system and lessen its reliability. The latent demand realized in other LRT systems ranged between 15% and 110%. The ridership forecast model for the Victoria rapid transit system employed a latent demand factor of 30% for the LRT option. The latent demand factor of 30% used for the LRT options is in-line with the observed initial increases for at grade LRT systems in exclusive running ways. As indicated in Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 21

31 Ridership Forecasts Section latent demand for at grade, exclusive running way LRT systems is typically 30% or lower. For the business as usual option, no initial gain in ridership as a result of capturing latent demand is included in the ridership forecast. Under the BAU option the change to the service is not significant enough to bring new choice riders onto the system. 3.50% Figure BAU ridership annual growth rates BAU Annual Ridership Growth Rates Forecast Annual Growth Rates For each project option a range annual growth rates were forecast between an upper and lower bound. The high and low scenarios represent likely limits of growth rates for each option. The further into the future that each option is forecast, the greater the variance between the high end and low end of the ridership range to account for the greater variability in the various factors that influence ridership. For example, TOD land use policies implemented in the early years of the project will have a limited immediate impact on corridor ridership, but have potential to greatly influence ridership over the long term. BAU According to the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual 9 the typical maximum capacity for a conventional bus service is 2,000 people per hour per direction. The highest observed capacity in North America is approximately 2,400 people per hour per direction. The Douglas Street portion of the corridor already experiences a peak hour demand of approximately 1,600 passengers per hour per direction. As ridership demand approaches the maximum capacity, a declining growth rate is experienced. Figure 3.8 presents the annual ridership growth rates used in the BAU ridership forecast model. Annual Ridership Growth Rate (%) 3.00% 2.50% % 1.50% % 0.50% 0.00% Year Long Term Avg. Annual Growth rate BAU Low BAU High The BAU ridership projection has a high growth rate of 2.6% and a low growth rate of 1.3% in the opening year.over the life of the project the growth rate declines each year through to the end of the project timeline (year 27). The initial growth rate for the high scenario is equivalent to the long term average growth rate for the VRTS (2.6%) continuing the historical experience. The opening year low growth rate is one half of the high rate. The declining growth rate reflects the fact that the demand is close to the maximum capacity of the system. BRT The annual growth rates used in forecasting the ridership for the BRT option are presented on Figure 3.9. The initial BRT projected annual growth rates varied from a low figure of 1.9% to a high rate of 3.0%. Within approximately 5 years of initiating service, peak hour system capacity becomes constrained resulting in slowing ridership growth. System capacity for the BRT option is reached approximately 15 years after service initiation at which point the ridership growth rate has declined to a nominal level. 9 TRRP Report 100, Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual 2 nd Edition, 2003, Exhibit 1 6 Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

32 Ridership Forecasts Figure BRT annual ridership growth rates Figure LRT annual ridership growth rates BRT Annual Ridership Growth Rates LRT Annual Ridership Growth Rates 3.50% 3.50% 3.4 Annual Ridership Growth Rate (%) 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% Annual Ridership Growth Rate (%) 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% % Year Long Term Avg. Annual Growth rate BRT Low BRT High 0.00% Year Long Term Avg. Annual Growth rate LRT Low LRT High The initial annual growth rate of 1.9% for the BRT option is comparable to other North American BRT systems. The 3.0% high range is at the upper end compared to other BRT systems. Given that the Victoria Regional Transit System has experienced a sustained 2.6% annual ridership growth on the entire regional bus system over the period an initial annual growth rate of 3% for the high ridership scenario upon the introduction of a new, higher quality and higher capacity transit service is reasonable. In addition, as highlighted in Section 3.2, the annual ridership growth rate along the corridor between the West Shore and the core area has grown by 8.5% per year since 1996, significantly higher than the forecast initial growth rate of 3% employed in the ridership forecast model. LRT Annual ridership growth rates for the LRT option used in developing the ridership forecasts are presented on Figure The initial annual growth rates for the LRT system varied from a low value of 1.9% to a high value of 3.4%. The growth rates for LRT used in the forecast model are marginally higher than the rates for the BRT option which is to be expected, as rail based systems have been shown to attract more riders than BRT system in North America. The LRT growth rate begins to reduce marginally after 10 to 15 years. This reduction coincides with the projected reduction in regional population growth rate; so that the forecast transit ridership trends are consistent with the expected population trend for the region. The initial annual growth rates for the LRT option are at the high range of what has been experienced in other cities. Given that the VRTS ridership growth rate has been sustained at 2.6% annually for a standard bus service with no significant improvements in infrastructure, an initial growth rate of 3.4% is considered achievable. Moreover, bus routes along the proposed rapid corridor have experienced an 8.5% annual growth rate in recent years. As such, it is reasonable to expect that LRT ridership on this fast growing corridor would outpace the long term system wide ridership growth trend as the conventional bus service has. Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 23

33 Ridership Forecasts 3.6 Ridership Forecast Model Results The ridership forecast model for the three project options is presented in Appendix 1. Figure 3.11 below shows the historical trend in ridership for the Victoria Regional Transit System and the forecast ridership on the proposed rapid transit corridor for each of the three project options. Table 3.6 presents the forecasted annual ridership figures (high and low) for each of the options. Figure Rapid Corridor Ridership Forecast for BAU, BRT and LRT Project Calendar BAU BRT LRT Year Year Low High Low High Low High ,366,400 5,366, ,433,587 5,500, ,499,008 5,632, ,562,576 5,762,123 6,489,600 6,489,600 6,976,300 6,976, ,624,210 5,888,889 6,612,900 6,684,300 7,108,900 7,213, ,683,826 6,012,556 6,738,500 6,884,800 7,243,900 7,458, ,741,347 6,132,807 6,866,600 7,091,400 7,381,600 7,712, ,796,693 6,169,604 6,997,000 7,304,100 7,521,800 7,974, ,825,677 6,175,774 7,130,000 7,508,600 7,664,700 8,245, ,831,502 6,181,949 7,265,500 7,703,800 7,810,400 8,526, ,837,334 6,188,131 7,403,500 7,888,700 7,958,800 8,816, ,843,171 6,194,319 7,544,200 8,062,300 8,110,000 9,115, ,849,014 6,200,514 7,687,500 8,223,500 8,264,100 9,425, ,854,863 6,206,714 7,833,600 8,371,600 8,421,100 9,736, ,860,718 6,212,921 7,982,400 8,505,500 8,581,100 10,048, ,866,579 6,219,134 8,134,100 8,624,600 8,744,100 10,359, ,872,445 6,225,353 8,272,400 8,728,100 8,910,300 10,670, ,878,318 6,231,578 8,396,400 8,815,400 9,076,000 10,980, ,884,196 6,237,810 8,505,600 8,885,900 9,241,200 11,287, ,890,080 6,244,048 8,590,600 8,939,200 9,405,700 11,592, ,895,970 6,250,292 8,633,600 8,974,900 9,569,300 11,893, ,901,866 6,256,542 8,642,200 8,992,900 9,732,000 12,190, ,907,768 6,262,799 8,650,900 9,001,900 9,893,600 12,483, ,913,676 6,269,061 8,659,500 9,010,900 10,053,800 12,770, ,919,590 6,275,331 8,668,200 9,019,900 10,212,700 13,051, ,925,509 6,281,606 8,676,900 9,028,900 10,370,000 13,325,700 Table Projected Ridership Forecast Annual ridership for the BRT option is forecast to reach between 8.7 million to 9.0 million annual rides by the end of the project timeframe. This represents a total growth over the project life of between 61% and 68%. Annual ridership for the LRT option is forecast to reach between 10.4 million and 13.3 million rides. This represents a total growth over the project horizon of between 93% and 148%. The LRT ridership in year 27 is between 20% (low range) and 48% (high range) greater than the level achieved with the BRT option. Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

34 Ridership Forecasts Under the business as usual option, annual ridership is forecast to reach between 5.9 million and 6.3 million annual rides, a total growth of between 10% and 17% over the project life. The total growth forecast for the BRT and LRT options include the effect of both the initial increase in ridership (realized latent demand) and the compounded effect of the annual ridership growth over the project life. For the BAU option no initial increase (realized latent demand) is included. Light Rail Line Table Annual Ridership Annual Ridership (,000s) Population (,000s) Rides Per Capita As discussed in section 3.2, strong ridership growth has been realized by the Victoria Regional Transit System since Table 3.7 presents the CRD population and VRTS ridership growth rates in 20 year increments over the timeframe 1980 through to Year 20 Year CRD Population Growth rate 20 Year Ridership Growth rate % 32.8% % 32.2% % 24.2% % 34.8% % 97.4% % 49.7% % 72.5% % 51.0% % 63.2% % 63.8% % 62.0% % 61.6% Table 3.7 Long term Population & Ridership Growth Rates Calgary (2010) 86,112 1, Victoria to West Shore* (2038) 13, Waterloo, ON* (2031) 17, Edmonton (2010) 23,400 1, Victoria to West Shore*(opening year) 6, Portland MAX (2010) 40,173 2, Waterloo, ON* (opening year) 8, Sacramento, CA (2010) 3,177 1, Portland Streetcar (2010) 3, Santa Clara, CA (2010) 9,758 1, Seattle (2010) 7,864 2, The average 20 year growth for transit ridership is 54% with a maximum of 97%. * in development Comparative Analysis In order to provide a context within which to view the projected ridership, the opening day and 27 year ridership projections were compared against other LRT and streetcar systems in North America. Table 3.8 below compares both the annual ridership and annual ridership per capita for various LRT systems. Metro area populations are shown to give some indication of the scale of the various cities. The systems are listed in order of the highest to lowest rides per capita. The data in Table 3.8 show that in the opening year the Victoria to West Shore LRT system will have higher rides per capita when compared to other systems under development in Canada as well as Portland s TriMet Max lines. The rides per capita figures show that Victoria has sufficient ridership demand along the corridor even though its population is lower than other urban centres that have implemented LRT. Once Victoria s system is matured it exceeds the performance of established systems such as Edmonton and is close to doubling Portland s system in rides per capita. Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 25

35 Ridership Forecasts B-line / Canada Line Project in Vancouver The existing corridor along the proposed rapid transit alignment between the West Shore and Victoria has some similar elements to the 98 B-Line that once existed on the Granville Corridor (prior to the Canada Line). Both systems are about km in length and connect sub-urban communities to downtown core of the region. The existing bus ridership along Victoria-West Shore Corridor is already higher than what was achieved on opening day of the 98B-line BRT corridor as shown on Table 3.9 Table Comparing 98B-Line BRT to Victoria RT corridor ridership Transit Line Bus Ridership BRT Ridership Vancouver-Richmond 14,000 (2001) 18,000 (2003) Victoria to West Shore 16,000 (2010) 20,800 (2015 estimate) The 98B-Line was very successful in increasing ridership. However, system capacity was reached within 6 years of opening, causing service, safety and operational problems. For the Victoria to the West Shore corridor a BRT system is anticipated to increase ridership relatively quickly; however capacity and operational problems would begin to occur within years. Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

36 Ridership Forecasts 3.7 Transit Corridor Capacity The passenger carrying capacity of a transit corridor will act as a constraint to ridership growth once efficient operating parameters are exceeded. The system capacity is typically expressed in terms of passengers per hour per direction and is dependent on the transit vehicle headway as well as the individual passenger capacity of each vehicle. The parameters used to define the capacity of each vehicle technology are listed in Table 3.10 and capacities are presented graphically in Figure The capacities for each technology have three different zones as indicated in Figure The green zone for a given vehicle technology represents peak hour ridership under which the system can function normally and at which there is no resistance to adding additional capacity. The orange zone represents a transitional zone wherein the system is nearing its capacity limit with the system beginning to experience operational and service inefficiencies. While additional capacity can be added through the orange zone to accommodate additional peak hour ridership, doing so requires operating the system outside the ideal and efficient norms of the technology. For example, to add additional capacity through the orange zone using a conventional bus technology (BAU), additional buses can be added into service, reducing bus headways. This will provide additional passenger carrying capacity, however, the system operating efficiency can degrade resulting in a decrease in actual system throughput. Reduction of bus headways to intervals of less than 3 minutes will cause increased frequency of buses bunching at stations. In such instances, the trailing bus is often unable to get to the curb effectively, and there will be delays in loading and unloading passengers. The consequence of this is an overall reduction in service speed yielding in lower throughput of passengers. Figure Capacity Estimate for Rapid Corridor Options Figure 4.13 shows the estimated capacities for each vehicle technology in comparison to the published typical capacities from the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual 10 (TCQSM). In each instance the projected hourly capacity falls within the typical range from TCQSM. Finally, the red zone represents the point at which maximum corridor capacity is reached and very little, if any, additional capacity can be added Table Capacity Estimate for Rapid Corridor Options Technology Vehicle Length Vehicle Capacity Ideal Headway Max Headway Ideal Capacity Max Capacity BAU 12m ,300 2,000 BRT 20m ,800 2,400 LRT 40m ,450 4,600 Figure Transit Corridor Capacity Comparison to Published Values 10 TCRP Report 100, Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual 2 nd Edition, 2003 Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 27

37 Ridership Forecasts There are various factors which could contribute to achieving a higher potential maximum capacity as published in the TCQSM. Some of these factors include: improved signal priority/signal pre-emption allowing for reduced headways longer block lengths in Central Business District larger/higher capacity vehicles acceptance of higher crush loading during peak hour consolidation of intersections driveway access restrictions 3.8 Capacity Constraints A peak hour system capacity analysis was performed to check long term ridership forecasts for each option against peak hour capacity constraints. For the purpose of this analysis, peak hour ridership is expected to grow at the same rate as estimated annual system ridership. The analysis was completed on the Downtown Victoria section of the Douglas Corridor, which is the highest ridership corridor in the system. The resulting Peak hour ridership growth profiles for BAU, BRT and LRT are shown in Figures 3.14 through 3.16 respectively. The capacity constraint zones for each system are depicted for each option as described in section above. Figure BRT Peak Hour Ridership Projection System capacity reached Figure BAU Peak Hour Ridership Projection Figure LRT Peak Hour Ridership Projection Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

38 Ridership Forecasts The capacity analysis reveals several key points that distinguish the BAU, BRT, and LRT scenarios; 1. The conventional bus system (BAU) on Douglas is already operating in the orange zone. The system is operating outside of desirable operating parameters and achieving additional capacity out of the system will be difficult and will degrade the system performance. 2. The BRT system s efficient operating range of up to 1,800 passengers per hour is quickly filled by the latent demand that is realized through implementation of the new service. Within about 15 years of implementation, the maximum capacity of the BRT system is reached causing future ridership growth to stagnate. 3. The LRT system is able to absorb substantial latent demand and does not encounter capacity constraints to ridership growth until 20 years out. 3.9 Service Schedule Requirements to meet Ridership Demand This section outlines the development of a preliminary service schedule for the rapid transit options that would be required to match the ridership demand identified in previous sections of this report Business As Usual (BAU) Option In order for the BAU option to match the ridership demand forecast discussed in previous sections, a broad set of operating parameters for maintaining traditional bus service was assessed. The BAU option would continue to begin service around 5am to 6am in the morning and end at 12pm to 1am in the late evening, as it does today depending on the bus route and day of the week. On opening day, the +18 bus routes that use the corridor would continue to interlace with other bus routes mainly terminating in downtown area. The approximate annual service hours, number of buses and frequency of service at peak periods for the corridor are shown for opening day and 2038 in Table Opening Day Annual Service Hours Table Opening Day and 2038 BAU Annual Service Requirements Estimated Number of Traditional and Double Decker Buses including spares Peak Period Frequency 120, min. along Douglas Street Segment 4-5 min along Trans Canada Highway , < 1min along Douglas Street Segment 1-2 min along Trans Canada Highway Note that the peak period frequency nearly doubles from opening day to 2038 on Douglas Street and triples on the Trans Canada Highway. This reflects the substantial increase in service required to the West Shore Bus Rapid Transit A broad set of service operations are required to accommodate the BRT ridership projections described in the previous section. Table 3.12 illustrates the approximate opening day BRT service schedule. Route Station Avenue to Uptown Uptown to Downtown 5am- 7am Table Opening Day Service for BRT 7am- 9am Frequency 9am- 3pm- 3pm 6pm 6pm- 9pm 9pm- 1am Number of Vehicles including spares It is important to note that at peak periods of 7 to 9am and 3 to 6pm along the segment between Uptown and Downtown the frequency of BRT service is estimated to be 3 minutes. This is the shortest scheduled frequency to maintain efficient operations for in-street application of rapid bus. Greater people moving capacity is theoretically possible with frequencies less than 3 minutes; however, it is not ideal nor does it increase capacity efficiently. The rationale for this is that transit operating in-street should not have a frequency less than two times a typical traffic signal cycle. Traffic signal cycles in the capital region range from 1 to 1.5 minutes. Transit frequency at 2 times a traffic signal cycle allows transit vehicles to be spaced evenly and synchronized along the transit route. There is always variability in transit schedules even when operating in an exclusive transitway because of numerous factors including but not limited to the following: Boarding and alighting times of buses with changing passenger loads, Variability in signal cycles, Traffic congestion delaying a BRT vehicle, Traffic accident, Construction, Emergency incident onboard the BRT vehicle, 23 Malfunction of elements of the BRT vehicle, and Emergency response vehicles (police, fire or ambulance) delaying the service. Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 29

39 Ridership Forecasts Even with the latest technology and all reasonable efforts made to maintain and operate consistent and reliable BRT frequencies, experience indicates variability of up to 3 minutes is not unusual with BRT service, particularly for peak periods. When the BRT system is operated with 3 minute frequencies, it is likely that a second bus will catch up to a leading bus creating a bunching of BRT vehicles. Bunching of transit vehicles at stations is not ideal or safe because in most cases the station is designed to accommodate one vehicle at a time. While some features have been incorporated into the functional design of the proposed stations to accommodate potential bunching of BRT vehicles, pass-ups of passengers and other poor operating conditions would begin to occur. Thus, as frequencies less than 3 minutes are instituted to increase capacity, the BRT system becomes less efficient and poor service conditions will occur more frequently with greater severity, limiting actual throughput capacity compared to theoretical capacity. Tables 3.14 and 3.15 show the service requirements to accommodate the low and high ridership range of BRT respectively in Table Service for BRT (Low Ridership Growth Scenario) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Table 3.16 illustrates the approximate opening day service requirements for the LRT option. Route Station Avenue to Uptown Uptown to Downtown 5am- 7am 7am- 9am Table Opening Day Service for LRT Frequency 9am- 3pm- 3pm 6pm 6pm- 9pm 9pm- 1am Number of Vehicles including spares Tables 4.17 and 4.18 show the service requirements to accommodate the low and high ridership range of LRT respectively in Route Station Avenue to Uptown Uptown to Downtown 5am- 7am 7am- 9am Frequency 9am- 3pm- 3pm 6pm 6pm- 9pm 9pm- 1am Number of Vehicles including spares Table Service for BRT (High Ridership Growth Scenario) 35 Route Station Avenue to Uptown Uptown to Downtown 5am- 7am Table Service for LRT (Low Ridership Growth Scenario) 7am- 9am Frequency 9am- 3pm 3pm- 6pm 6pm- 9pm 9pm- 1am Number of Vehicles including spares 17 Route Station Avenue to Uptown Uptown to Downtown 5am- 7am 7am- 9am Frequency 9am- 3pm- 3pm 6pm 6pm- 9pm 9pm- 1am Number of Vehicles including spares The BRT is expected to operate less efficient as scheduled vehicle frequencies are reduced to 1.5 minutes by 2038 in order to try and provide the required capacity to meet demand. The 1-2 minute frequency levels required in 2038 cannot deliver the theoretical capacity requirements and, may actually only provide a portion of the theoretical capacity. This condition is most acute for the proposed BRT option under the high ridership scenario where the estimated service and fleet requirements are forecast to grow by 100% from opening day to 2038 while the forecast ridership increases by just under 70%. Therefore the BRT is expected to result in poor operating service as the bunching of buses and the passing up of passengers will likely occur at stations during most periods of the day by year The high ridership scenario is expected to experience poor operating conditions more frequently and with greater severity than the low ridership scenario. 50 Route Station Avenue to Uptown Uptown to Downtown 5am- 7am Table Service for LRT (High Ridership Growth Scenario) 7am- 9am Frequency 9am- 3pm- 3pm 6pm 6pm- 9pm 9pm- 1am Number of Vehicles including spares For the opening year and the 2038 low ridership growth scenario, the estimated frequency of service does not reach 3 minutes. The proposed LRT system is expected to provide reliable operations while meeting ridership demands with a relatively small LRT vehicle fleet throughout the project horizon. Under the high ridership scenario the LRT system may begin to approach the upper limit of the ideal operational capacity range near the end of the project design horizon in the segment between Uptown and Downtown. 21 Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

40 4. Conceptual Cost Estimates 4.1 Introduction Capital and operating cost estimates were developed for the three potential options covering the 27 year planning horizon for the project of Capital costs for the construction of the recommended configuration were developed based upon the functional requirements design outlined in Volume 4 Functional Alignment Report. Operating and maintenance cost estimates for the bus based options were developed based upon BC Transit's knowledge and experience with operating bus based systems. The operating and maintenance cost estimate for the rail based option was developed on an elemental basis using the forecast fleet and operating service hour estimates for the LRT alternative. Protrans BC, operator of the Canada Line ALRT service in Vancouver, assisted with development of the operating and maintenance costs for the LRT option. Capital requirements for sustaining the operations and accommodating forecast growth in ridership and fleet were also estimated over the project lifecycle The cost estimates developed at this conceptual stage of the project have enabled the establishment of a realistic budget and provided meaningful input into the Multiple Account Analysis. The costs identified in this section have been derived from a conceptual analysis to compare various alternatives and to establish a budget for moving forward into future design phases. It is important to note that costs as the design advances or the contracting strategy changes updated cost estimates will be required. 4.2 Capital Cost Estimates Capital costs addressed in this section are the cost required to design construct commission and open a fully functioning, or opening day, rapid transit system. Other lifecycle capital costs estimated to be incurred over the life of the project are addressed in Section 4.4. For comparison purposes the costs have been estimated with the following criteria: a. Construction cost: The construction cost is the estimated contract cost for labour and materials to build and deliver the physical infrastructure. b. Vehicles: The cost required to procure the rapid transit vehicles to be deployed on the alignment. Cost includes shipping, duties and fit out to BC Transit standards. c. Indirect Costs: Indirect costs include the costs for: i. Preliminary and detailed engineering design and associated studies ii. Geotechnical engineering and surveying iii. Project and construction management iv. Procurement v. Temporary works, facilities and services vi. BC Transit s project administration and management vii. Start-up and commissioning viii. Legal, permits, approvals d. Escalation: Allowance for the potential increase in construction costs that may occur over the forecast construction period. e. Contingencies: Allowance to address unknowns in the project scope based on its conceptual level of design. At the conceptual stage of design a significant level of risk is inherent. On this basis a contingency amount of 20% of the construction and indirect costs is included. A lower contingency level of 5% was applied to the vehicle purchase given the lower level of risk associated with this aspect of the work. f. Interest During Construction: Interest costs on funds borrowed to finance the construction are charged to the project and are determined based on the financial model BC Transit applies to capital infrastructure projects Construction Cost The construction costs were estimated based on the functional design detailed in Volume 4. Construction costs include contract cost for labour and materials to build and deliver the physical infrastructure Contracting Strategy An important determinant of the cost of major infrastructure project is the form of contractual arrangement entered into between the owner of the project and the contractor. A number of contractual relationship structures are applicable to the VRRTP and the evaluation, analysis and selection of the form of contract will be completed by BC Transit at future date as part of its procurement analysis phase. The following procurement models could be considered: 1. Design Bid Build (DBB) 2. Design Build (DB) 3. Design Build Finance (DBF) 4. Design Build Finance Maintain (DBFM) 5. Design Build Finance Operate Maintain (DBFOM) These options represent a spectrum with increasing participation by the private sector from (1) DBB to (5) DBFOM. Options (3) DBF to (5) DBFOM are considered to be Partnership structures. Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 32 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

41 Ridership Forecasts For the purposes of developing the capital cost estimates, a Design - Bid - Build (DBB) contract structure was assumed. Given the level of risk inherent with a conceptual level cost estimate, practice is to use the DBB structure as the basis for developing cost estimates. The conceptual cost estimate developed for the Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Project divided the overall project into 4 major contract packages. Table 4.1 (next page) shows the broad scope for each of the four contract packages used in developing the estimate. Contract Package 1 Competitively Tendered Segment A & B not including proposed Uptown Exchange Contract Package 2 Competitively tendered - Segment C including Uptown Exchange Contract Package 3 Competitively tendered - All segments and exchanges and park and rides Contract Package 4 Competitively tendered - Project wide 1. Roadway Removals & Site Work 2. Earthworks 3. Drainage 4. Roadway Works Guideway 5. Traffic Control & Traffic Management 6. Barriers, Guardrail & Fencing 7. Signing & Marking 8. Lighting and Traffic Signalling 9. Transit Stations 10. Landscaping and Aesthetic Treatment 11. Bridges and Underpass Structures 12. Retaining Walls 13. Environmental Works 14. Utilities 1. Roadway Removals & Site Work 2. Earthworks 3. Drainage 4. Roadway Works & Guideway 5. Traffic Control & Traffic Management 6. Barriers, Guardrail & Fencing 7. Signing & Marking 8. Lighting and Traffic Signalling 9. Transit Stations 10. Landscaping and Aesthetic Treatment 11. Bridges and Underpass Structures 12. Retaining Walls 13. Environmental Works 14. Utilities 15. Track Work 16. Signalling 17. Communication Systems 18. Ticketing Machines 19. O&M Facility 20. Traction Power and Substations 21. Bus / Train Purchase 22. Spare parts Table Scope breakdowns (cost element) of each contract package type. Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 33

42 Conceptual Cost Estimate Basis of Construction Cost Estimate The basis for development of the capital costs are outlined on Table 4.2 below. Conceptual level quantities were estimated from the conceptual design drawings for the recommended side running configuration. Trackwork design was based on a typical track configuration (Riems, France). All trackwork is embedded track. A preliminary loadflow study was completed and developed preliminary design requirements for rectifier stations, transformers and power supply and distribution including the overhead catenary system. Table Construction cost elements Cost element Description / Inclusions Basis or Standard Cost element Description / Inclusions Basis or Standard 1. Roadway Removals Removal of existing pavement including & Site Work roadway shoulders and medians Milling of existing pavement for asphalt overlay Removal of existing curb and gutter Removal of existing sidewalk. 2. Earthworks Strip topsoil Excavate and place suitable material to embankments Excavate, haul and place material on site or disposal Rock excavation and disposal Import suitable material on site or off site Supply and place bridge end Excavate soil, GBC, etc. for guide way construction Borrow soil for road median construction 3. Drainage Relocate, and modify existing drainage system such as manholes, catch-basins, culverts etc. Allowance for parking area drainage construction Allowance for rail guide way drainage construction Allowance for general drainage work, incl. manholes, catch basins etc. Allowance for identified large culvert extensions Allowance for drainage system for parking area Allowance for drainage system of trail 4. Raodway Works & Guideway 5. Traffic Control & Traffic Management Compact and grade sub-grade soil after excavation Compact and grade SGBC and GBC Asphalt pavement (Bus based options) Construct curb and gutter Concrete works for sidewalk and median Overlay existing traffic lanes using asphalt pavement Mill existing pavement Supply and install vibration reduction system Concrete works for rail base slab Allowance for maintaining traffic control Allowance for detour construction The quantities and items have been developed according to the design facilities taking into account site specific conditions The earthwork quantities in Segment B have been estimated using 3D terrain models based on the alignment. The quantities in Segment A and C are based on the profile of the alignment following the existing road, and are limited to the new pavement box The quantities have been developed based on following: Selected granular base course 300mm deep Granular base course 350mm deep Primer coat Tack coat Asphalt pavement 200mm deep Asphalt pavement overly 100mm deep Track concrete base slab 290mm thick for Segment C and 190mm thick for Segment A & B 6. Barriers, guardrail and fencing Supply and install precast concrete barriers along bus/tram guide way Allowance for fencing work 7. Signing and marking Relocate, remove and install signs and sign structures / supports Pavement markings 8. Lighting and traffic signaling Remove existing street lighting system Install new street lighting system at new position incl. trench, cable, pole and foundation etc. Install new traffic signal systems at required intersections Install new lighting system incl. trench, cable, pole and foundation etc. where required Modify existing traffic signal system where required 9. Transit stations Concrete platform Passenger shelters and accessories Allowance for stairs for transit stations 10. Landscape & Aesthetic treatment Allowance for landscaping works Quantities are based on the conceptual design drawings Basis is street lighting systems will be relocated and retrofitted along the lines, and quantities have been developed based on the experience on similar projects. Traffic signaling has been broken down into individual intersection. Transit stations have been quantified according to platform area and number of shelters Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 34 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

43 Ridership Forecasts Table Construction cost elements (continued) Cost element Description / Inclusions Basis or Standard Cost element Description / Inclusions Basis or Standard 11. Bridges & Widening Parsons bridge 81M(Span)X7.4M(Wide) Underpass structures Construction of bridge over Craigflower creek 23M(Span) X 16.8M(Wide) Construction of bridge over Burnside Road West 70M(Span)X16.8M(Wide) Construction of underpass under Helmcken Road 46M(Long)X16.8M (Span) Construction of underpass under Mckenzie Avenue 29.75M(Long)X16.8M (Span) Construction of bridge over Interurban Road 90M(Span)X11M(Wide) Construction of bridge over Tillicum Road 68M(Span)X16.8M(Wide) Widening the bridge over Interurban Road 90M(Span)X8.3M(Wide) for Bus-on-Shoulder option Removal & construction of new relocated Galloping Goose Trail Overpass at Uptown Exchange Widening the bridge over Carey Road New underpass entrance to the Uptown shopping mall New underpass crossing extension of Ravine Way Allowance for modification of TCH EB Bridge AB slope protection 12. Retaining walls Construction of MSE walls for bridge abutment Construction of MSE walls for road embankment fill Construction of cast-in-place concrete walls Construction of soil nailed wall 13. Environmental Allowance for environmental works works Constriction of noise walls 14. Utilities Allowance for relocation of power lines Allowance for relocation or protection of gas lines Allowance for relocation or protection of fibre lines Allowance for relocation or protection of water main Allowance for relocation or protection of storm sewer Allowance for relocation or protection of sanitary sewer 15. Track work Supply and place ballast Supply and place second stage concrete Supply and install rail and rail fasteners Supply and install special track-work, etc 16. Signalling Supply signaling systems Install signaling systems Quantities of new bridges and underpass structures have been developed based on the typical design and engineering sketches as well as benchmark data from recent projects General quantities have been estimated based on the conceptual design Quantities are based on linear meter of track Quantities are based on conceptual design for the project 17. Communication systems CCTV, On-board Video surveillance system, On-board Audio Surveillance system Real-Time Passenger Information System, Public Address System, Help telephone system, Video Wall display system Automatic Vehicle Location System, Remote Vehicle Disable System, Incident Management System, Incident Detection System Traffic Signal Priority System 18. Ticket Machines Supply and Install ticket machines Integrated ticketing system 19. Operation and maintenance facility 20. Traction power and substations Hard & soft landscaping Site development work O&M building including finishing, FF&E and building services Construction of substation buildings including building services Supply and install transformers and other equipments Supply and install pole foundations, poles, insulation, wire and bonds Supply and installation of overhead catenary system including arms, terminations, midpoints, feeders and misc. assemblies Quantities are based on conceptual design for the project Quantities are based on conceptual design for the project Based on quantities and conceptual design from load flow study Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 35

44 Conceptual Cost Estimate Other Capital Cost Elements Capital cost elements addressed in this section include: a. Vehicles b. Indirect Costs c. Escalation d. Contingencies e. Interest During Construction These elements are added to the construction cost estimate to provide the total capital to deliver the system Capital Cost of Alternative 1 - Business as Usual Option Estimated total capital costs for the Business as Usual option are summarized on Table 4.3. The cost estimate presented in Table 4.3 is the cost to deliver the opening day system. cost including delivery and fit-out to BC Transit requirements. Projected lead time for vehicle procurement was 1 year. The initial vehicle purchase included sufficient vehicles to accommodate growth in demand and fleet requirements for 3 years. Section 4.4 presents the project cash flow profile for the entire lifecycle of the project. Table 4.4 presents a breakdown of the components of the construction cost Table Construction Costs - BAU Item Amount % of Total Construction % of Total Capital Cost Right of Way Construction - Segment A 0% 0% Right of Way Construction - Segment B $ 66,000,000 60% 26% Right of Way Construction - Segment C $ 15,000,000 14% 6% Trackwork $ - 0% 0% Signaling, Comm, Ticketing $ - 0% 0% Traction Power & Substations 0% 0% Land Purchases $ 9,000,000 8% 4% Maintenance Centre $ 20,000,000 18% 8% Other Costs (EAA, Haz Mat Mgmt) $ - 0% 0% Total $ 110,000, % 44% Table Summary Capital Costs Business as Usual Alternative Item Amount % of Total Construction $ 110,000,000 44% Vehicles $ 36,000,000 14% Indirect costs $ 47,000,000 19% Escalation $ 7,000,000 3% Contingency $ 33,000,000 13% IDC $ 17,000,000 7% Total $ 250,000, % The construction cost includes Bus on Shoulder lanes along the Trans Canada Highway (TCH) and peak hour bus lanes along Douglas Street from Uptown to downtown. It also includes the cost for an additional operations and maintenance centre to accommodate the expanded bus fleet. The estimated cost to purchase land for the additional operations and maintenance facility is also included. Additional details on the construction costs are provided on Table Capital Cost of Alternative 2 - Bus Rapid Transit Option Estimated total capital costs for the BRT option are summarized on Table 4.5. The cost estimate presented in Table 4.5 is the cost to deliver the opening day system. Table Summary Capital Cost Estimate BRT Alternative Item Amount % of Total Construction $ 238,000,000 46% Vehicles $ 60,000,000 12% Indirect costs $ 57,000,000 11% Escalation $ 38,000,000 7% Contingency $ 71,000,000 14% IDC $ 56,000,000 11% Total $ 520,000, % The initial vehicle purchase is 65 vehicles including 50 standard 40 ft buses and 15 double decker buses. The ratio of standard buses to double decker buses was based on the mix in BC Transit s 2010 fleet. The vehicle cost estimate is based on BC Transit s experience and reflects the total Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 36 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

45 Ridership Forecasts The construction cost is estimated at $238 million or 46% of the capital cost estimate and includes the running way, stations, operations and maintenance centre and information systems. It also includes the estimated cost to purchase land for the facilities. Additional details on the construction costs are provided on Table 4.6. The initial vehicle purchase is 30 vehicles. A number of potential vehicle suppliers were asked to provide indicative pricing for specialized BRT vehicles. Information was only obtained from one (1) supplier. The cost per vehicle is based on an articulated, low flow diesel hybrid drive BRT vehicle similar to the Wright Group Streetcar RTV or the Phileas from Advanced Public Transport Systems (APTS). The vehicle cost estimate includes duties, shipping and spares. Projected lead time for vehicle procurement was 1 year. The initial vehicle purchase included sufficient vehicles to accommodate growth in demand and fleet requirements for 7 years. Section 4.4 presents the project cash flow profile for the entire lifecycle of the project. Contingencies are included and address unknowns in the project scope based on its conceptual level of design. In terms of the overall project cost, total contingency amounts to $71 million or 14% of the total capital cost of the BRT option. The Interest during construction (IDC) costs for the BRT alternative are estimated at $56 million Capital Cost of Alternative 3 - Light Rail Transit Option Estimated total capital costs for the LRT option are summarized on Table 4.7. The cost estimate presented in Table 4.7 is the cost to deliver the opening day system. Table Summary Capital Cost Estimate LRT Alternative Item Amount % of Total Construction $ 457,000,000 48% Vehicles $ 90,000,000 9% Indirect costs $ 117,000,000 12% Escalation $ 72,000,000 8% Contingency $ 118,000,000 12% IDC $ 96,000,000 10% Total $ 950,000, % Table 4.6 presents a breakdown of the various elements of the estimated construction costs. Table Construction Costs BRT Alternative Item Amount % of Total Construction % of Total Capital Cost Right of Way Construction - Segment A $ 43,000,000 18% 8% Right of Way Construction - Segment B $ 81,000,000 34% 16% Right of Way Construction - Segment C $ 38,000,000 16% 8% Trackwork $ - 0% 0% Signaling, Comm, Ticketing $ 15,800,000 7% 3% Traction Power & Substations $ - 0% 0% Land Purchases $ 17,700,000 7% 3% Maintenance Centre $ 22,000,000 9% 4% Other Costs (EAA, Haz Mat Mgmt) $ 20,500,000 9% 4% Total $ 238,000, % 46% The construction cost is the estimated at $457 million and includes the labour and materials to build and deliver the physical infrastructure including, electrical systems, running way, stations, operations and maintenance centre, information and control systems to operate the system. It also includes the estimated cost to purchase land for the facilities. Additional detail on the construction costs are provided on Table 4.8. The initial vehicle purchase is 15 vehicles. Indicative pricing was obtained for LRT vehicles from five (5) suppliers. The cost per vehicle is based on a nominal 40 m vehicle and it includes duties, shipping and spares. Projected lead time for vehicle procurement was 2 years. The initial vehicle purchase included sufficient vehicles to accommodate growth in demand and fleet requirements for 7 years. Section 4.4 presents the project cash flow profile for the entire lifecycle of the project. Contingencies are estimated at $118 million. In terms of the overall project cost, total contingency amounts to 12% of the total capital cost of the LRT option. The Interest during construction (IDC) costs for the LRT alternative is estimated at $96 million. Table 4.8 presents a breakdown of the various elements of the estimated construction costs Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 37

46 Conceptual Cost Estimate Table Construction Costs LRT Alternative Item Amount % of Total Construction % of Total Capital Cost Right of Way Construction - Segment A $ 48,800,000 11% 5% Right of Way Construction - Segment B $ 82,900,000 18% 9% Right of Way Construction - Segment C $ 46,600,000 10% 5% Trackwork $ 103,900,000 23% 11% Signaling, Comm, Ticketing $ 36,000,000 8% 4% Traction Power & Substations $ 64,600,000 14% 7% Land Purchases $ 18,000,000 4% 2% Maintenance Centre $ 35,700,000 8% 4% Other Costs (EAA, Haz Mat Mgmt) $ 20,500,000 4% 2% Total $ 457,000, % 48% 4.3 Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate Operating and maintenance costs are typically quantified and monitored on the basis of a cost per service hour for the transit service multiplied by the number of service hours expended on a particular route or service. In 2010 there were thirteen (13) bus routes operating at some point along the approved alignment between downtown Victoria and Langford. These include the following routes: Table Bus Routes Operating on Rapid Transit Corridor Routes Operating along Rapid Transit Alignment 4 - UVic/Downtown 21 - Interurban/Downtown 22 - Vic General/Mayfair 31 - Glanford 30 - Carey 31 - James Bay 50 - Dockyard Westshore 51 - Dockyard UVic 61 - Sooke/Downtown 71 - Sidney/Downtown 72 - Swartz Bay/Downtown via Fifth 73 - Swartz Bay/Downtown via West Sidney 75 - Saanichton/Royal Oak/Downtown In 2010 there were 99,000 service hours expended by the 13 routes identified in Table 4.9 along the rapid transit alignment. A final in-service date for rapid transit service between downtown Victoria and the West Shore has been established. On the basis of the project lifecycle plan, the earliest date a service could be implemented is forecast to be on the basis of a project initiation in Applying the historical growth rate over the previous 10 years for growth in service hours, the service hours expended along the downtown to West Shore alignment was forecast to be 120,000 by This figure was used as the baseline for determining the increment in operating costs. The operating cost per service hour is presented on Table This cost is the fully loaded cost for delivery of an hour of transit service based on the conventional bus fleet technology. Table BC Transit O&M Cost per Service Hour (Victoria Conventional) Cost Item Sub-Category Amount (2011/12) % Operations Labour $ 40,308,737 51% Fuel $ 9,617,500 12% Material $ 2,802,681 4% Maintenance $ 17,506,971 22% Admin $ 8,726,720 11% Total Operating Costs $ 78,962, % Service Hours $ 795,000 Operating Cost/Hr $ A rounded figure of $100 per service hour was employed to determine the baseline operations and maintenance costs for operating the conventional bus service along the rapid transit corridor. A total baseline operating and maintenance cost for the conventional service of $12,000,000 annually (120,000 x $100) was deducted from the estimated operating costs for the three project alternatives to calculate the incremental operating and maintenance cost Business as Usual The total number of service hours required for the BAU scenario is outlined in Section 3 - Ridership Estimates. The increase in service hours over the base figure represents the incremental cost of operating the service as outlined for the business as usual alternative. Incremental operations and maintenance costs for the BAU alternative are presented in Table Over the life of the project, total additional operations and maintenance costs for the BAU alternative ranges from $229 million at the low ridership estimate to $238 million at the high ridership estimate. Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

47 Ridership Forecasts Table Incremental O&M Costs BAU Alternative Project Year Calendar Year Incremental Cost - Low ridership Incremental Cost - High ridership $ 1,484,615 $ 1,988, $ 2,969,231 $ 3,976, $ 4,453,846 $ 5,964, $ 5,938,462 $ 7,952, $ 7,423,077 $ 9,940, $ 8,907,692 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,308 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392, $ 10,392,300 $ 10,392,300 Total $ 228,630,631 $ 237,666,000 Cost per rider varies between $2.54 per rider and $3.56 per rider under the high ridership forecast and between $2.48 per rider and $3.78 per rider with a low ridership forecast. Over the project life, cost per rider for the BAU alternative increases significantly in the first five years of operation and then levels off reflecting the levelling off of additional service hours. $ / Ride Figure O&M Cost per Rider BAU Alternative $4.50 $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $ Bus Rapid Transit BAU O&M Cost per Ride Low Ridership Year High Ridership Operations and maintenance costs for the BRT alternative are based on a 50% increase in BC Transit s standard operating cost per hour or a rate of $150 per service hour. The 50% increase accounts for the differences in the vehicle technology that would be deployed for the BRT service. Based on the BRT rate per service hour, estimated annual incremental operating and maintenance costs are presented in Table The annual incremental O&M cost under the BRT alternative is the lowest of the three alternative options. Over the project life, total O&M costs for the BRT alternative range between $44 million under a low ridership level to $92 million under a high ridership level. Operations and Maintenance costs per rider for the BAU alternative is presented in Figure 4.1. Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 39

48 Conceptual Cost Estimate Table Annual Incremental O&M Cost BRT Alternative Project Year Calendar Year Incremental Cost - Low ridership Incremental Cost - High ridership $ 218, $ 64,336 $ 633, $ 289,223 $ 1,047, $ 514,110 $ 1,461, $ 738,997 $ 1,876, $ 963,884 $ 2,290, $ 1,188,771 $ 2,705, $ 1,413,658 $ 3,119, $ 1,638,545 $ 3,534, $ 1,863,432 $ 3,948, $ 2,088,320 $ 4,363, $ 2,313,207 $ 4,777, $ 2,538,094 $ 5,191, $ 2,762,981 $ 5,606, $ 2,987,868 $ 6,020, $ 3,212,755 $ 6,435, $ 3,437,642 $ 6,849, $ 3,662,529 $ 7,264, $ 3,887,416 $ 7,678, $ 4,112,303 $ 8,093, $ 4,337,191 $ 8,507,453 Total $ 44,015,262 $ 91,623,175 Operations and Maintenance costs per rider are calculated by dividing the total annual operating and maintenance cost by the forecast annual ridership. The cost per rider for the BRT alternative is presented in Figure 4.2. Cost per rider varies between $1.76 and $2.27 under a high ridership forecast and between $1.76 and $1.88 with a low ridership forecast. Over the project life, cost per rider for the BRT alternative increases under both the low and high ridership forecast. $ / Ride Figure O&M Cost per rider BRT Alternative $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $ BRT O&M Cost per Ride Low Ridership Year High Ridership A review of operating costs for BRT vs. LRT determined that as peak hour demand increases, LRT systems become significantly less costly to operate than bus or BRT systems 11. The original study 12 found that LRT systems have a lower marginal cost than bus or BRT systems and that LRT is less costly at a ridership demand greater than 1,556 passengers per hour. It also found that LRT is more cost effective to operate as service headways decrease to increase capacity making LRT more advantages if ridership is expected to increase in the future or is higher than projected. The operating a maintenance cost estimates for BRT forecast that cost per rider increases as ridership increases over the project life cycle. This is driven by two major factors; a. Adding additional vehicles into service to service the additional demand requiring drivers, maintenance staff, etc. b. Running the frequency at higher levels to service the additional demand resulting in inefficient operation of the network as vehicles are delayed at signalized intersections and platoon at stations. 11 City of Hamilton. Rapid Transit Operating Costs Fact Sheet. February Eric Bruun. Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail: Comparing Operating Costs with a Parametric Cost Model. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Vol 1927, 2005 Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

49 Ridership Forecasts Light Rail Transit Operations and maintenance costs for the LRT option were developed on an elemental basis using the estimated service hours and fleet size for the LRT alternative. The cost items included in the cost estimate are summarized on Table O&M Cost Category Table LRT O&M cost categories Cost items Staffing Costs Drivers Transit Supervisors Control Staff Vehicle maintenance staff Track / Power maintenance staff Electronics Building Services Management and Administration Administration Costs Administration General Operations Control room Customer service Training Insurance Fuel / Lubricants IT Consulting services Contract services Power Traction power for operation of LRT vehicles Maintenance Vehicle maintenance Station maintenance Infrastructure / running way maintenance Operations and maintenance centre maintenance Table LRT O&M Cost Breakdown O&M Cost Category Staffing Costs 43% 41% Admin Costs 15% 12% Power 19% 24% Maintenance 23% 23% A review of the operating cost per service hour for LRT system in North America in 2002 found the median cost to be $310 per hour. 13 The median operating cost over the project lifecycle ranges between $309 and $334 per service hour for the low and high ridership estimates, respectively. Annual incremental O&M costs for the LRT option over the project life are presented on Table Over the project life, total O&M costs for the LRT alternative ranges between $219 million under a low ridership level to $229 million under a high ridership level. Annual incremental costs are higher than the costs for the BRT alternative but lower than the costs for the BAU alternative. A review of operating costs for BRT vs. LRT determined that as peak hour demand increases, LRT systems become significantly less costly to operate than bus or BRT systems 14. The original study 15 found that LRT systems have a lower marginal cost than bus or BRT systems and that LRT is less costly at a ridership demand greater than 1,556 passengers per hour. It also found that LRT is more cost effective to operate as service headways decrease to increase capacity making LRT more advantages if ridership is expected to increase in the future or is higher than projected. Operations and maintenance cost per hour ranged from $314 per service hour to $358 per service hour under a low ridership scenario and from $279 per service hour to $353 per service hour under a high ridership scenario. Over the project lifecycle, the average operating cost per service hour was $335 per hour (low ridership) to $311 per service hour (high ridership) a difference of 7% between the low and high ridership estimates. The breakdown of the operations and maintenance costs between the cost categories for the first year of operation and the last year of the planning horizon are presented on Table Staffing costs represent just over 40% of the total followed by maintenance, power and administration costs. A detailed breakdown of the estimated O&M costs for the LRT option is provided in Appendix Calgary Transit, City of Hamilton. Rapid Transit Operating Costs Fact Sheet. February Eric Bruun. Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail: Comparing Operating Costs with a Parametric Cost Model. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Vol 1927, 2005 Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 41

50 Conceptual Cost Estimate Table Annual Incremental O&M Costs LRT Alternative Project Year Calendar Year Incremental Cost - Low ridership Incremental Cost - High ridership $ 8,282,207 $ 8,027, $ 8,405,033 $ 8,211, $ 8,527,857 $ 8,395, $ 8,650,683 $ 8,578, $ 8,773,509 $ 8,762, $ 8,896,334 $ 8,946, $ 9,019,159 $ 9,129, $ 9,080,484 $ 9,254, $ 9,203,310 $ 9,438, $ 9,326,134 $ 9,621, $ 9,448,960 $ 9,805, $ 9,571,785 $ 9,989, $ 9,694,611 $ 10,172, $ 9,755,936 $ 10,297, $ 9,878,761 $ 10,481, $ 10,001,587 $ 10,664, $ 10,124,411 $ 10,848, $ 10,185,737 $ 10,973, $ 10,308,562 $ 11,157, $ 10,431,388 $ 11,340, $ 10,554,212 $ 11,524, $ 10,628,198 $ 11,659, $ 10,689,524 $ 11,783,857 Total $ 219,438,382 $ 229,066,266 $ / Ride $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $ Figure Cost per rider LRT Alternative LRT O&M Cost per Ride Low Ridership Year High Ridership Overall, the BRT alternative is estimated to have the lowest total operations and maintenance (O&M) costs over the project lifecycle. The O&M cost for the LRT alternative is equivalent to the O&M cost for the BAU alternative, however the BAU alternative provides minimal increase in capacity and has the highest cost per rider. The cost per rider for the LRT alternative shows a significant downward trend in keeping with the research and is forecast to be less than the cost per rider for the BRT alternative after approximately years of operation under a high ridership scenario and near the end of the project lifecycle under a low ridership scenario as indicated on Figure 4.4. Figure Cost per rider High ridership (left) Low ridership (right) Cost per rider for the LRT alternative is presented on Figure 4.3. The cost per rider varies between $1.78 and $2.87 under a high ridership forecast and between $2.19 and $2.91 with a low ridership forecast. Over the project life, cost per rider for the LRT alternative exhibits a strong downward trend illustrating the better performance of LRT in terms of marginal cost per rider. LRT has a much lower marginal cost per rider because of its larger capacity. The cost per rider exhibits a greater decrease under a high ridership scenario clearly demonstrating the long term system capacity achieved with the LRT alternative. Operating cost per rider $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $ Operating cost per rider $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $ LRT BRT BAU BAU Full BRT Full LRT Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

51 Ridership Forecasts 4.4 Total Life Cycle Cost Estimate Project life cycle cost is comprised of three (3) elements: a. Capital cost to construct b. Annual operations and maintenance costs c. Capital requirements for sustaining and service growth The previous two sections provided detail on the capital cost to construct and the operations and maintenance costs, the first two elements of the life cycle cost. This section describes the sustaining capital requirements for each of the three alternatives and details the project lifecycle costs and projected cash flow profiles. All costs in this section are in 2010 dollars. The multiple account analysis detailed in section 7 examines the alternatives on a present value basis to compare the various alternatives to each other. The project planning horizon used for the lifecycle analysis was The end date of 2038 was selected because the population estimates used in the foundation analyses of population and employment growth and future travel demand estimates described in Volume 1 Regional Data and Traffic Information, provided projections out to The planning horizon for this analysis was set to coincide with those previous studies. Capital requirements for vehicle replacement, major vehicle maintenance and service/fleet growth include the following costs that are forecast to occur over the life of the project: a. New vehicle purchases to accommodate forecast growth in ridership b. Replacement of vehicles that have reached the end of their service life c. Mid-life refit of LRT vehicles The life cycle costs for the three alternatives are presented in Figure 4.5 to 4.7. The LRT alternative requires the lowest capital investment for vehicle growth and replacement at $48 million over the 27 year project lifecycle. This represents 4% of the total lifecycle cost. The long operational life of the LRT vehicles results in no vehicle replacement over the project lifecycle. The total vehicle requirement over the project lifecycle for LRT is 21. The initial capital investment included 15 LRT vehicles requiring the purchase of 6 additional vehicles over the project life cycle to accommodate projected ridership growth. A mid-life refit of the 15 LRT vehicles purchased as part of the construction is included in the capital cost for vehicle growth and replacement. Lifecycle operations and maintenance cost, as detailed in section 4.4 is estimated at $229 million over the 27 year project life and represents 19% of the total lifecycle cost. The BRT alternative requires $136 million in capital investment over the operating life of the project for vehicle replacement and growth. The initial capital investment includes 30 BRT vehicles. BC Transit s current operational life for a diesel bus is 13 years and this figure was applied to the BRT vehicles. Over the project lifecycle an additional 85 vehicles are required for fleet expansion and replacement. Capital cost for vehicle growth and replacement represents 18% of total lifecycle costs. Lifecycle operations and maintenance costs for the BRT alternative are $91 million or 12% of total lifecycle costs. It should be noted that a major vehicle replacement cycle for the BRT fleet would occur in 2039 requiring a capital investment of $75 million, however that cost is outside the project planning horizon and is not included in the evaluations. The life cycle calculations did not account for any salvage value of vehicles at the end of the project lifecycle period. Under the BAU alternative $207 million or 30% of total lifecycle costs is attributable to capital for vehicle growth and replacement. The initial fleet purchase is 65 vehicles and a total of 265 vehicles are required to be purchased over the project lifecycle. Lifecycle O&M cost for the BAU alternative are $229 million or 33% of total project lifecycle costs. A comparison of the components of total project lifecycle costs for all three project alternatives are presented in Figures 4.5 to 4.7 Table Total Life Cycle Costs (all figures in 2010 $) Cost BAU BRT LRT $ - Capital cost to construct $ 250,000,000 $ 520,000,000 $ 950,000,000 Capital cost for vehicle growth & replacement $ 207,000,000 $ 136,000,000 $ 48,000,000 Operating & Maintenance cost $ 229,000,000 $ 91,000,000 $ 229,000,000 $ - Total lifecycle costs ( ) $ 686,000,000 $ 747,000,000 $1,227,000,000 Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 43

52 Conceptual Cost Estimate Figure Lifecycle cost components LRT Figure Lifecycle cost components - BAU 19% 4% Capital cost to construct 33% Capital cost to construct 37% Capital cost for vehicle growth & replacement Capital cost for vehicle growth & replacement 77% Operating & Maintenance cost Operating & Maintenance cost 30% Figure Lifecycle cost components - BRT 12% Both the BRT and the LRT alternatives incur a larger capital cost to construct than the BAU alternative. However, the long term operating and maintenance costs and sustaining capital costs are significantly decreased as a result of the initial capital investment. The LRT alternative in particular requires a very low sustaining capital investment because of the long service life of the vehicles. The BRT alternative also realizes a significantly lower sustaining capital investment compared to BAU because of the improvement in capacity. 18% 70% Capital cost to construct Capital cost for vehicle growth & replacement Operating & Maintenance cost Life cycle cash flow profile The forecast cash flow profile for capital and operating and maintenance costs for the three project alternatives are presented on Figures Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

53 Ridership Forecasts Figure Cash Flow Profile LRT Alternative Figure Cash Flow Profile BAU Alternative Cost (2010 $) 340,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,000 80,000,000 60,000,000 40,000,000 20,000, Year Figure Cash Flow Profile BRT Alternative O&M Capital Cost (2010 $) 180,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,000 80,000,000 60,000,000 40,000,000 20,000, Year 180,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,000 80,000,000 60,000,000 40,000,000 20,000, O&M Capital Cost (2010 $) O&M Capital Year Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 45

54 Conceptual Cost Estimate This page intentionally left blank Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 46 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

55 5. Multiple Account Evaluations 5.1 Introduction Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) is a multi-criterion decision support tool employed to inform and support investment decisions with respect to recommending projects for approval, or for advancing projects through the various stages of review and approval. The criteria to be used in assessing the project are divided in groups or accounts. A core aspect of multiple account evaluation is cost benefit analysis. Multiple account evaluation supplements the quantitative information obtained through cost benefit analysis with additional quantitative or qualitative information. This additional information enables MAE to 16 : v. Economic The Victoria Regional Rapid Transit MAE framework includes the 5 accounts recommended by the Ministry and adds two additional accounts to address project specific aspects. The accounts analyzed for the Victoria Regional Rapid Transit MAE include: i. Land Use / Urban Development; ii. Transportation; i. Provide a more balance view of the potential impacts and benefits of a project iii. Financial; ii. Compare the various options within a project iv. Deliverability; iii. Compare other projects for priority ranking v. Economic Development; iv. Compare to other program areas vi. Social Community; and, vii. Environment. The MAE for the Victoria Regional Rapid Transit project was conducted by HDR Decision Economics. This section summarizes the results and finding of the multiple account evaluation of the Victoria Regional Rapid Transit project. Appendix 1 presents the complete report on the multiple account evaluation by HDR and the output tables from the MAE model. 5.2 Multiple Account Framework The multiple account framework refers to the structure of the criterion used to complete the evaluation of the project. Five core accounts are recommended by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for multiple account evaluation 17 including: i. Financial ii. iii. iv. Customer Service Social / Community Environmental 16 Guidelines for Preparing MoT Business Cases Appendix 2 Multiple Account Evaluation Guidelines. BC Ministry of The Transportation account is equivalent to the Customer Service account in the Ministry framework. The additional accounts added for the Victoria Regional Rapid Transit MAE were the Land Use / Urban Development account and the Deliverability account. Each of the 7 accounts was divided into a number of sub-accounts which characterized specific aspects of the account and were linked to a specific measurement/metric that was quantifiable or criteria that could be evaluated qualitatively. The various accounts, sub-accounts and criteria were developed through multiple working sessions with the project working committee. Feedback and comments on the proposed accounts received from stakeholders, including the project s Community Liaison Committee and the Municipal planners and engineers committee, was incorporated into the account framework. In addition, a review of multiple account evaluations being undertaken for other rapid transit projects was completed to ensure a consistent approach for evaluation across the different projects while maintaining the flexibility to address local requirements. Each account is evaluated using a combination of quantitative and qualitative assessment methods and the analyses are then consolidated to provide an overall evaluation of the rapid transit project options. Table 5.1 presents the account framework and provides a description of the sub-accounts and the metrics or criteria used in the evaluation. The guiding principles were described in an earlier volume and to ensure consistency with the previous evaluations completed as part of the project, all MAE accounts were directly linked to the guiding principles. Transportation ibid Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 47 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

56 Table Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Project Multiple Account Evaluation Framework Guiding Principle MAE Account Sub-Account Description / MAE Role Qualitative / Quantitative Metric Link Regional Growth Centres that Encourage Transit Oriented Development Land Use / Urban Development Land Use Potential Property Value Uplift Various rapid transit options may have a greater potential for more valuable land use. Rapid transit options generally lead to increased property values Qualitative / Quantitative Quantitative / Qualitative Subjective scoring of alternatives relative to BAU Area of mixed use floor space within 400m (5 min walk) of the alignment. Dollar value of likely uplift along each segment A,B,C Subjective scoring of alternatives relative to BAU Transportation Efficiency (users) Ridership, travel time savings and transit mode share all contribute to transit efficiency for transit users. Quantitative Average travel time benefit per rider Travel time competitiveness (BAU vs. BRT vs. LRT vs. auto) Transit and non-transit mode share Total ridership and passenger-km Make Transit More Attractive and Convenient Develop Transit Options that Offer an Alternative to the Single Occupancy Vehicle Transportation Transportation Efficiency (Nonusers) Service Reliability Connections to Regional Network Describes how the proposed rapid transit project affects non-transit users How flexible is each technology in dealing with potential service disruption issues. Ease of future expansion of proposed rapid transit system. Quantitative Qualitative Qualitative Vehicle operating cost changes Potential number of street closures Reduction in street parking inventory Travel time (dis)benefits for road users Traffic volumes diverted to other roadways Change in vehicle collisions Subjective scoring of alternatives relative to BAU Subjective scoring of alternatives relative to BAU Capacity Utilization Ability to easily match supply to demand. Quantitative Utilization rate (ridership / capacity) User Comfort and Ease of Use Qualitative assessment of user comfort and safety. Qualitative Subjective scoring of alternatives as it pertains to user comfort and perception of safety Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 48 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

57 Multiple Account Evaluations Table Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Project Multiple Account Evaluation Framework (continued) Guiding Principle MAE Account Sub-Account Description / MAE Role Qualitative / Quantitative Metric Total Capital Cost Construction cost estimate prepared on the basis of conceptual design drawings. Includes all costs causal to construction. Contingency amounts are included. Quantitative Capital cost estimate (nominal and present value) Financial Total Operating Cost Operating cost of the full transit network including savings from the reduction / elimination of other services and fare revenue. Quantitative Net operating cost estimate (nominal and present value) Cost Effectiveness Benefit-cost ratio for the project reflecting the capture and monetization of social, environmental and development benefits (as per transdec outputs) Quantitative Benefit-Cost Ratio Cost per new rider Cost per passenger km Cost per hour of travel saved Design a Sustainable and Affordable Solution Deliverability Constructability Qualitative assessment of impacts during construction including such aspects as physical constraints, system expandability, traffic diversions etc. that would make the building and operation of the system more complex. Qualitative Subjective scoring of alternatives relative to BAU Acceptability Qualitative assessment based on the public and stakeholder engagement process. Qualitative Subjective scoring of alternatives relative to BAU Economic Impact of Construction Construction of alternatives will bring about economic impacts in terms of employment and income Quantitative Employment Income Output (GDP) for Direct, Indirect and Induced impacts Economic Development Economic Impact of Operations Operation of transit alternatives will bring about economic impacts in terms of employment and income Quantitative Employment Income Output (GDP) for Direct, Indirect and Induced impacts Tax effect of the construction and operation on the federal and provincial tax base Employment income and the purchase of goods provides tax revenue to provincial and federal government. Quantitative Increased provincial and federal taxes Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 49

58 Multiple Account Evaluations Table Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Project Multiple Account Evaluation Framework (continued) Guiding Principle MAE Account Sub-Account Description / MAE Role Qualitative / Quantitative Metric Health effects Qualitative assessment of the support of the service to the pedestrian and cycling networks. Qualitative Subjective scoring of alternatives relative to BAU Support an Integrated Transportation Network Social / Community Community Barrier Perception Equity Qualitative assessment of the community perception of RT barriers Quantitative - Catchment analysis for low income groups / minority census tract within 400m / 800m OR Qualitative assessment of benefits of one group over another (e.g. business benefits over local residents) Qualitative Qualitative / Quantitative Subjective scoring of alternatives relative to BAU Qualitative assessment of benefits of one group over another (e.g. business benefits over local residents) Quantitative - Catchment analysis for low income groups / minority census tract within 400m / 800m Emission Reduction through reductions in VKT and including changes in transit emissions Reduction in GHG emissions (tonnes) Reduction in CAC emissions (tonnes) Quantitative Reductions in VKT Net change in GHG emissions Net change in CAC emissions Design an Environmentally Responsible Solution Environment Noise & vibration impacts during construction and operation Qualitative assessment based on number of residences and businesses adjacent to the system and the potential impact during construction and operation. Qualitative Subjective scoring of alternatives relative to BAU Potential effects on vegetation/parks/gree n space Potential to enhance urban landscape or improve green spaces along alignment Area of parkland or public open space lost / gained Qualitative / Quantitative Subjective scoring of alternatives relative to BAU Total hectares of parks or public open space lost / gained Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

59 Multiple Account Evaluations 5.3 MAE Results Figure Present Value of Total Costs and Benefits (6% discount rate) Detailed information on the results of the MAE is provided in HDR Decision Economics report attached as Appendix 1. In addition the results of the quantitative accounts form the MAE model that were evaluated on a monetized basis are presented in Appendix 1. The MAE model is an open spreadsheet form of the TransDec model developed by HDR itrans for Transport Canada for use in conducting cost benefit analysis of transportation projects. The spreadsheet model also includes the economic impact analysis of the rapid transit project options. The Business as Usual (BAU) case represents the baseline against which the project options are evaluated. The baseline represents what would be carried out in the absence of the proposed capital project. As described in section 3, a do-nothing option was not seen as feasible for evaluation of the rapid transit project options. In the absence of developing a rapid transit connection to the West Shore, BC Transit would continue to work on improving or modifying the conventional services to achieve improvements in travel time and convenience in an effort to control operational costs and increase ridership. The MAE report and model provide quantitative results for a suite of implementation staging options. These staging options represent alternatives for implementation of the project to address affordability and level of funding available by managing the level of capital outlay required. Staging options are reviewed after the discussion of the MAE results for the full BRT and LRT options. As outlined in the Ministry s guidelines, the analysis should consider two discount rates, 6% and 10%. Results for both discount rates are provided by the MAE spreadsheet model Overall MAE Results The MAE provides a variety of quantitative metrics and qualitative assessment in order to provide a wide range of evaluation criteria for the Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Project. Many account benefits were monetized, showing the benefit or cost a facet of the project delivers. A summary of the total monetized benefits and total costs is presented Figure 5.1. The benefit and cost figures presented are in present value terms. LRT provides the greatest return in present value of benefits generated by the system. Slightly less than $1.5 billion of total benefits are realized with the LRT option. The largest portion of the total benefits realized is derived from the transportation benefits which include savings in: i. time ii. iii. vehicle operating costs reduced collisions and accidents PV Cost or Benefit ($M) $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $ MAE Results by Account $ $(500) $(1,000) Total Benefits $1,033 BAU BRT LRT Total Costs $408 Total Costs $469 The overall benefit to cost ratio for the LRT option is 1.8 and the benefit to cost ratio for the BRT option is 2.2 when the 6% discount rate is used. Both options have benefit to cost ratios greater than 1.0 indicating the benefits delivered by the project are higher than the costs over the project life. Table 5.2 presents the benefit to cost ratio, net present value and the present value of the total benefits for the BRT and LRT options under the 2 discount rate scenarios. Table Overall Benefit Cost Raito and Net Present Value of Options Total Benefits $1,427 Total Costs $794 LRT BRT MAE Result Discount Rate Discount Rate 6% 10% 6% 10% Benefit Cost Ratio Present Value - Total Benefits ($Mil) $ 1,427 $ 784 $ 1,033 $ 576 Net Present Value ($ Mil) $ 1,040 $ 423 $ 972 $ 500 Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 51 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

60 Multiple Account Evaluations As mentioned above, the benefit cost ratio of both options is favourable (i.e. >1.0) under both discount rates. The LRT option generates a higher NPV of $1,040 Million versus $972 million for the BRT option Results by MAE Account Each MAE account was evaluated using a combination of quantitative and qualitative assessment methods. The analyses are then consolidated to provide an overall evaluation of rapid transit options. Figure 5.2 present the present value for the four accounts that were monetized, namely: i. Land Use / Urban Development ii. iii. Transportation Social and Community The largest benefits realized are from transportation benefits and Land use and Urban Development benefits. Significant lower benefits are delivered by the Social and Community and Environmental accounts. A summary of each of the results of each of the accounts is provided below. Complete details on each account and the MAE analysis are provided in HDR s report in Appendix 1 and the results of the MAE spreadsheet model provided in Appendix Land Use / Urban Development Account This account examines land use potential and property uplift due to transit oriented development (TOD) that results from the implementation of the rapid transit system. To measure the quantitative benefits of transit-oriented urban development, the increase in value of commercial and residential properties resulting from the transit improvement was monenetized. The measure property value uplift is that resulting only from the implementation of the rapid transit project. Real property value growth expected to occur because of forces other than transit improvements are not included. Results of the evaluation are presented in Table 5.3. iv. Environment The deliverability account was a qualitative account and was not monetized. Table Land Use / Urban Development Account Results The economic development account measures the impact of the project in terms of direct, indirect, and induced impacts and in terms of incremental business revenue, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), jobs, employment income, and tax revenues within the provincial economy. The direct, indirect and induced economic impacts are not part of the benefit cost analysis. Metric Unit Property Value Uplift (TOTAL) $M Option B Full BRT Option F Full LRT $95 $182 The financial account examines various measures of efficiency using the costs and benefits associated with the other accounts and is not a direct, benefit producing account in of itself The measures calculated in the financial account include metrics such as the benefit cost ratio, the NPV and the cost per rider. Figure Present Value of Costs and Monetized Accounts Land Use Potential Qualitative The property value uplift benefit ranged from $95M for BRT to $182M for the LRT option. The LRT option was qualitatively assessed to have an increased impact on land use potential than BRT based on evidence from other communities where rapid transit systems have been implemented. LRT has been demonstrated to spur greater land used development than BRT systems Transportation Account The Transportation account contained both quantitative and qualitative subaccounts. Transit user and non-user benefits realized through travel time savings, vehicle operating cost savings and safety improvements were quantified and monetized. Other factors were qualitatively assessed including the reliability of service, supply and demand characteristics, ease of future expansion, the connection with the larger regional network, and the comfort and safety of passengers. Table 5.4 summarizes the monetized results and the qualitative results. Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

61 Multiple Account Evaluations Table Transportation Account Results presented relative to the time saving and increased ridership the option is expected to deliver. Table 5.5 summarizes the results of the financial account. Table Financial Account Results Metric Transportation Benefit (Total) Vehicle Operating Benefit Safety Benefit Unit $M $M $M Option B Full BRT Option F Full LRT $933 $1,237 $164 $221 $243 $425 Travel Time Benefit, Users $M $76 $19 Metric Net Present Value Unit $M Total Incremental Benefits, PV $M Total Incremental Costs, PV $M Option B Full BRT Option F Full LRT $972 $1,040 $1,033 $1,427 $61 $386 Travel Time Benefit, Non- Users $M $450 $571 Incremental Benefit/Cost Ratio, PV Benefit / Cost Reliability Qualitative Non-Incremental Benefit/Cost Ratio, PV Benefit / Cost Connections to Regional Network Qualitative User Comfort and Ease of Use Qualitative Total quantified transportation benefits range from a present value (PV) of $933M for BRT to $1,237M for LRT. The largest component benefit of the transportation benefits is travel time benefits for non-users of the system and safety benefits. Transportation benefits for non users of the system estimates the time savings accruing to non-transit users as a result of few vehicles on the corridor. That benefit represents 46% of the total transportation benefits for the LRT option and 48% of total transportation benefits for the BRT option. The safety benefit represents 34% of the total transportation benefit for the LRT option but only 26% for the BRT option. LRT has been shown to experience fewer collisions and therefore delivers a significantly larger benefit in terms of safety. Qualitative assessments of reliability and user comfort ranked LRT slightly higher than BRT. Since the alignment and station locations are fixed there is no appreciable difference in potential connections to the regional network between the two options Financial Account The Financial account evaluates the monetized project benefits and costs in the form of a Cost- Benefit Analysis. Total monetized cost and benefits are calculated for each option relative to the Business as Usual case, and are contrasted against one another using traditional project evaluation metrics such as Net Present Value and Benefit to Cost ratio. Project costs are also The full LRT option has the largest Net Present Value, with a value of $1,040M. Although its costs are the greatest among the options, its high projected ridership propels its high total benefit value, which goes beyond the additional cost. The BRT option has an NPV $972M. Capital costs comprise a far greater share of total financial costs than O&M costs as detailed in section 4.4 on life cycle costs. Capital and operating and maintenance costs generally increase as technology shifts from conventional bus to rail. However, the cost per rider decreases with the LRT option Deliverability Account The deliverability account describes how easily each alternative will be to implement. The subaccounts evaluated are constructability and acceptability. Both were assessed qualitatively. Constructability considers the ease of construction and impacts to other stakeholders during the construction phase. Acceptability examines the willingness of the public to implement the proposed option. Table 5.6 summarizes the results for the deliverability account. Metric Table Deliverability account results Unit Option B Full BRT Option F Full LRT Constructability Qualitative Acceptability Qualitative Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 53

62 Multiple Account Evaluations Both BRT and LRT were considered acceptable to the community; however, the feedback from the community exhibited a strong preference for LRT technology over BRT technology. LRT was evaluated higher than BRT in terms of acceptability. The LRT option was evaluated as less favourable in terms of constructability based on the additional complexity of installing the trackwork and the electrical supply and distribution systems Economic Development Account The economic impacts of an investment project are estimated as direct, indirect, and induced impacts and in terms of incremental business revenue, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), jobs, employment income, and tax revenues within the provincial economy. Table 5.7 summarizes the results of the economic development account. The values are estimated by applying common multipliers to the construction and operation and maintenance costs for the options. Metric Table Economic Development Account Results Incremental Increased Employment, Cumulative Incremental Increased Income, Cumulative Incremental Increased GDP, Cumulative Incremental Increased Employment, Annual Average Incremental Increased Income, Annual Average Incremental Increased GDP, Annual Average Unit Option B Full BRT Option F Full LRT Job years 3,052 7,615 $M $149 $369 $M $191 $474 Job years 359 1,500 $M $18 $73 $M $23 $ Social / Community Account This account analyzes the expected impacts that the rapid transit project will have on low-income riders, health, and the local communities. Low-income benefit is a subset of the user benefits evaluated in the Transportation account. It looks to monetize the surplus gained by low income riders who have better access to faster and affordable transit. Health Effects qualitatively evaluates the health benefits a user receives from walking and/or cycling to and from the rapid transit system stop. Finally, Community Barrier Perception evaluates what impacts the installation of a rapid transit system may create in terms of aesthetic or physical barriers in the communities it passes through. Table 5.8 summarizes the results for the social / community account. Table Social / Community Account Results Metric Unit Low-Income Rider Benefits $M Option B Full BRT Option F Full LRT $11 $14 Health Effects Qualitative Community Barrier Perception Qualitative With a present value of $21M, the estimated benefit to low-income riders is greater for the BRT option than for the LRT option. Although the on-vehicle travel time for the BRT and LRT options are equivalent, the larger capture zone for passengers associated with LRT results in longer walk to transit times for the LRT option. In addition, because of the larger per vehicle passenger capacity of the LRT vehicles, the frequency for the LRT service providing the same ridership capacity is longer than for BRT. Both these factors are calculated in the MAE model as producing a longer door to door trip time. The longer door to door trip time detracts from the benefits calculated for the LRT system relative to the BRT system. Incremental Effect on Federal Tax Base, Cumulative Incremental Effect on Provincial Tax Base, Cumulative Incremental Effect on Federal Tax Base, Annual Avg. Incremental Effect on Provincial Tax Base, Annual Avg. $M $15 $38 $M $16 $40 $M $2 $7 $M $2 $8 The Health Effects benefit is more or less equal between BRT and LRT options. Both options have greater ridership than BAU which is expected to lead to additional active transportation as these new users walk or cycle to access the rapid transit service. BRT does not differ from BAU greatly in terms of Community Barrier Perception and is evaluated as neutral for this subaccount. The visual protrusions caused by the LRT system causes the LRT option to perform worse than BAU in this category Environment Account This account quantitatively evaluates the reductions in GHG and CAC emissions and qualitatively addresses the effects of noise and vibration during construction and operation, and any impacts on green space. Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

63 Multiple Account Evaluations Table Environment Account Result Metric Unit Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Option F CAC Reduction Benefits, undiscounted $000 $138 $182 $199 $216 $241 $259 GHG Reduction Benefits, undiscounted Environmental Benefit, PV Noise and Vibration Impacts during Construction and Operation Potential Effects on Vegetation $000 $3,919 $5,199 $5,690 $6,181 $6,894 $7,390 $M $4 $6 $6 $7 $8 $9 Qualitative Qualitative Emission reductions increase across the opt ions as the proportion of rapid transit served by rail increase s impacting ridership. LRT is particularly effective in reducing CAC and GHG emissions becau se ridership and average vehicle o ccupancy is greater, diverting mo re vehicles off the road, and beca use the LR T vehicles themselves emit fewer pollutants. Both the BRT a nd LRT option are expe cted to cause greater noise and vibration impacts and have a worse effect on vegetation than the BAU option. Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 55

64 Multiple Account Evaluations 5.4 Key Findings and Recommendations An overall summary of the accounts and how the LRT options compares against the BRT is presented on Table 5.11 (see next page). Results of the multiple account evaluation show: 1. Both the BRT and the LRT options achieve a positive benefit to cost ratio indicating that both options generate greater benefits that the cost of the project over its lifecycle. 2. Over the project lifecycle, the LRT option returns a higher value of benefits than the BRT option at a 6% discount rate. 3. The LRT options ranked higher than the BRT option in 8 of the 16 sub-accounts as summarized on table The BRT option ranked higher in 4 of the 16 sub-accounts. The options were ranked as equivalent in 4 of the sub-accounts 4. The Net present value of the LRT option is greater than the BRT option ($1,033 million vs $972 million). 5. The value of benefits returned by the options and the NPV of the options are sensitive to the discount rate applied. LRT advantages Delivery of Provincial Transit Plan Targets Table 5.10 Summary of Advantages for LRT option Description Only LRT has the capacity to achieve the Plan s ridership goals LRT will deliver the greatest reduction of green house gas at 480,000 tonnes, or 10% of the Provincial Transportation Plan target (145,000 tonnes more than BRT) Greatest Ridership Growth LRT is forecast to generate 13.3 million annual rides by 2038, 45% more than BRT and 110% more than BAU Long Term Solution LRT will be able to accommodate the ridership growth forecast for the busy Douglas Street Corridor, whereas a BRT solution would reach its capacity limits within years 6. The BRT option can not deliver the ridership levels required to meet the project goals. The capacity of the BRT option is surpassed on the downtown to Uptown segment within years of commencing service. 7. The LRT option is expected to deliver above-average benefits in five out of the seven monetized benefit accounts. In fact, it is expected to create the maximum benefit in these categories relative to the other options. Long Term Operating & Maintenance Costs With its high capacity and ability to provide expanded, higher quality services, the operating cost per passenger for LRT will decrease over time. It is common for LRT vehicles to remain in service for years; unlike a bus-based solution, no replacement of LRT vehicles will be required over the life of the project. These costs are estimated at $230M (2010$) until 2038 LRT option as demonstrated by the multiple account evaluation delivers superior benefits compared to the BAU and BRT options. The capacity limitations of the BRT option result in it not delivering the ridership capacity goals of the project Improved Shaping of Urban Development LRT provides the best support for the CRD s emphasis on transitoriented development and delivers $85 million more land development benefits than would BRT A summary of the advantages of the LRT option is provided on Table Highest Return on Investment LRT has a positive benefit cost ratio and the highest transportation benefits ($1 billion more than BRT over 27 years) Job Creation LRT will generate 4,500 more job years of employment Page iv Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

65 Multiple Account Evaluations Table Overall summary of Account Result MAE Account Aspect or sub-account BRT LRT Comments Land Use and Land Use and Urban LRT will generate greater increase in property values and create more incentive for new development along the alignment than BRT. This is Urban Development Development Benefits consistent with experience in many other communities where rapid transit systems have been built. Transportation Benefits The increased ridership attracted to LRT results in significantly more transportation benefits than BRT. Transportation benefits include items like travel time savings, reduced accidents, lower costs for operating and maintaining vehicles and roadways. Reliability Reliability is the ability of the systems to maintain the service schedule day in, day out avoiding service interruptions. Both BRT and LRT are considered significantly more reliable than BAU given the exclusive transitway. Transportation Connections to the Regional Network User Comfort & Ease of Use Both BRT and LRT follow the same alignment and the connections to the regional network are the same. The revised regional network including rapid transit is an improvement over the existing. LRT provides a more comfortable travel experience than BRT because of the superior quality of its ride in terms of quietness and smoothness. LRT has a higher passenger capacity resulting in lower crowding on the vehicles than BRT, improving the environment for the passengers. Financial Deliverability Economic Development Total capital and operating costs Total lifecycle capital and operating costs of BRT are lower than LRT. Benefit Cost Ratio Constructability Both BRT and LRT have positive benefit cost ratios, well over 1.0. Over the life time assessed the ratio of benefits to costs for BRT is higher than the ratio for LRT. Because LRT requires the additional construction associated with the electrical power systems to drive the LRT vehicles it is considered more complex to construct than BRT. Acceptability Feedback from the extensive consultation has indicated a consistent preference for LRT over BRT. Economic Development LRT generates significantly more jobs and income for the region than BRT. Safety benefits There is a significantly greater reduction in collisions with LRT than BRT resulting in a much higher savings in accidents costs. Social / Community Environment Health Effects Increased use of transit is associated with increased walking and cycling. It has been demonstrated that a small increase in the amount of physical activity (as little as 30 min. per day) yield health benefits. Because LRT generates significantly more trips to be made using transit, LRT generates significantly more beneficial health effects than BRT. Community Barrier Perception The requirement for an overhead cable system to power the LRT system created more of a visual barrier than the BRT. Reduction of GHG and CAC LRT results in significantly greater reductions of greenhouse gases and criterion air contaminant than BRT. emissions Noise and vibration impacts The construction impacts of building a BRT or LRT system are seen as worse than the BAU alternative. during construction and operation Potential effects on vegetation The alignment for both BRT and LRT is the same. Although both options result in the need to acquire some land that is green space, the amount required is small; however, more than BAU that does not require any acquisition. Symbol Legend ( ) significant improvement compared to BAU ( ) improvement compared to BAU ( ) no significant change or neutral compared to BAU ( ) worse / higher compared to BAU ( ) significantly worse / higher compared to BAU Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 57 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

66 Multiple Account Evaluations This page intentionally left blank Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 58 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

67 Appendix 1 Victoria Transit Multiple Account Evaluation of Rapid Transit Options Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 59 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

68 Multiple Account Evaluation This page intentionally left blank Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 60

69 Multiple Account Evaluation o Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 61

70 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 62

71 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 63

72 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 64

73 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 65

74 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 66

75 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 67

76 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 68

77 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 69

78 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 70

79 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 71

80 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 72

81 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 73

82 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 74

83 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 75

84 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 76

85 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 77

86 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 78

87 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 79

88 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 80

89 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 81

90 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 82

91 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 83

92 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 84

93 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 85

94 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 86

95 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 87

96 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 88

97 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 89

98 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 90

99 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 91

100 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 92

101 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 93

102 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 94

103 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 95

104 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 96

105 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 97

106 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 98

107 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 99

108 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 100

109 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 101

110 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 102

111 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 103

112 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 104

113 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 105

114 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 106

115 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 107

116 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 108

117 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 109

118 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 110

119 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 111

120 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 112

121 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 113

122 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 114

123 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 115

124 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 116

125 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 117

126 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 118

127 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 119

128 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 120

129 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 121

130 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 122

131 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 123

132 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 124

133 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 125

134 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 126

135 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 127

136 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 128

137 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 129

138 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 130

139 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 131

140 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 132

141 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 133

142 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 134

143 Appendix 2 MAE Model Results Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 135 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

144 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 136

145 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 137

146 Multiple Account Evaluation Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 138

147 Multiple Account Evaluation This page intentionally left blank Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 139

148 Appendix 3 Ridership Estimates Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 140 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

149 Ridership Estimates This page intentionally left blank Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 141

150 Ridership Estimates Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 142

151 Ridership Estimates Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 143

152 Appendix 4 Conceptual Cost Schedules Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 144 Volume 5 Technology and Option Evaluation

153 Conceptual Cost Schedules This page intentionally left blank Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 145

154 Conceptual Cost Schedules Table A4.1 - Preliminary Capital Costs Cash Flow - LRT ( ) Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 146

155 Conceptual Cost Schedules Table A4.2 - Preliminary Capital Costs Cash Flow - LRT ( ) Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 147

156 Conceptual Cost Schedules Table A4.3 - Preliminary Capital Costs Cash Flow - BRT ( ) Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 148

157 Conceptual Cost Schedules Table A4.4 - Preliminary Capital Costs Cash Flow - BRT ( ) Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Victoria / West Shore Link Page 149