Halcrow Group Limited with TSi Consultants

Transcription

1 RAVP Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Definition Phase Final Report on Ridership & Revenues January 2003 Halcrow Group Limited with TSi Consultants

2 RAVP Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Definition Phase Final Report on Ridership & Revenues January 2003 Halcrow Group Limited with TSi Consultants Halcrow Group Limited Vineyard House 44 Brook Green London W6 7BY Tel +44 (0) Fax +44 (0) Halcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions of their client, RAVP, for their sole and specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk. Halcrow Group Limited 2003

3 Halcrow Group Limited Vineyard House 44 Brook Green London W6 7BY Tel +44 (0) Fax +44 (0)

4 RAVP Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Definition Phase Final Report on Ridership & Revenues Contents Amendment Record This report has been issued and amended as follows: Issue Revision Description Date Signed

5 Doc No Rev: Date: January 2003 E:\Raymond\Records_Reports\F1 Halcrow\final-all-v6FF.doc

6 Contents 1 Introduction Background The Scheme Integration with Other Transit Services and Fares Study Approach The Regional Context The Database 12 2 Benchmarking Forecasts Introduction Strand 1: Existing Lines in Vancouver Strand 2: Comparable Systems in Canada, US and UK Combined Strand 1 and 2 forecast for Richmond-Vancouver section Strand 3: Existing Airport Rail Links Portland Airport Rail Link Employees and Other Non-Airport Passenger Markets Summary Airport Rail Links 42 3 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Introduction Base and Forecast Airport Demand Stated Preference Surveys Modelling Assumptions Revenue Optimization Base Forecasts Sensitivity Tests 69 4 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Purpose of Chapter Traffic Zones, Land Use and Cost Assumptions Road and Transit Networks AM and Midday EMME/2 Models 90 5 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts Options Description and Assumptions AM and Midday Ridership Forecasts Annual Ridership and Revenue Estimates 118 Doc No Rev: Date: January 2003 E:\Raymond\Records_Reports\F1 Halcrow\final-all-v6FF.doc

7 5.4 Sensitivity Analysis Base Case Forecasts & Risk Analysis Base Case Forecasts Reconciliation with Benchmark Forecasts Risk Analysis Conclusions 149 Appendix A Survey Questionnaires 151 Doc No Rev: Date: January 2003 E:\Raymond\Records_Reports\F1 Halcrow\final-all-v6FF.doc

8 Introduction 1 Introduction 1.1 Background A rapid transit link between Richmond and downtown Vancouver has been extensively studied over the past 20 years. Recent growth at Vancouver International Airport, located on Sea Island just to the east of the Richmond- Vancouver corridor, has widened the scope of earlier plans in order to include a connection with Sea Island and the airport. The rapid transit line is known as the Richmond/Airport /Vancouver Project or RAVP. In April 2002, several public sector agencies agreed to continue and support RAVP and appointed a project team for that purpose. This team appointed IBI Group in association with Delcan and TSi Consultants to refine earlier work on the costs and benefits of the project; their report is referenced below 1 - it included demand forecasts for RAVP with grade separated and at-grade options in downtown Vancouver. These demand forecasts were prepared by TSi and made use of the EMME-2 model that had been previously developed by TSi. No new surveys were undertaken for the study, and airport passenger forecasts using RAVP together with some of the model parameters were guestimated based on intelligent assessments. Subsequently in July 2002, the RAVP project team appointed Halcrow with TSi Consultants to prepare investment grade demand and revenue forecasts for RAVP. This report concludes that work. 1.2 The Scheme As currently envisaged, the scheme would provide either a fully grade separated or partially grade separated rail link between Waterfront in the north and Richmond in the south generally running along the Cambie/No. 3 Road corridors and with an east-west link onto Sea Island and the airport joining the main north-south line at Bridgeport Road - Figure 1.1. The existing Expo and Millennium lines are also shown in this diagram, along with the proposed alignment for the Western Extension between the Commercial and Broadway stations. 1 RAVP Rapid Transit Service Optimization Study, IBI Group in association with Delcan & TSi Consultants, June 2002 Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 1

9 Introduction Figure 1.1 RAVP Alignment and Station Locations Burrard Robson St Mainland Waterfront Granville Stadium Main Broadway St Western Ext. Commercial Millennium Rupert Renfrew Gilmour Brent King Edward St RAV Nanaimo 29th Ave Joyce 41st Ave 49th Ave Expo Patterson Metr Marine Dr YVR Terminal Jericho Rd Terminal 3 Sea Island East Bridgeport Rd Capstan Way Cambie Rd Alderbridge Way Westminster Hwy Cook Rd There would be 18 stations on the line, with a track length of 14.8 km from Waterfront to Richmond (Cook Road) and 15.1 km from Waterfront to the airport (YVR). YVR terminal to BridgePort is approximately 3.9 kilometres and Cook Road to BridgePort is 3.6 kilometres. A number of different operating plans for RAVP are under consideration the four main ones that have been tested for this study are summarised in Table 1.1. (Note that the first 2 options are tested with and without the Western Extension, while the last two have only been tested without the Western extension). Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 2

10 Introduction Table 1.1 RAVP Operating Scenarios Base Fully Grade Separated Base Partially Grade Separated Alternative Fully Grade Separated Alternative Partially Grade Separated With/Without Western extension With/Without Western Extension Without Western Extension Without Western Extension Waterfront Airport (Premium) Waterfront Airport (Regular) Bridegport Airport Waterfront Richmond Peak/Midday Headway Peak/Midday Headway Peak/Midday Headway Peak/Midday Headway 15 min/15 min 15 min/15 min 15 min/15 min 15 min/15 min 6 min/10 min 7.5 min/10 min None None None None 6 min/10 min 7.5 min/10 min 6 min/10 min 7.5 min/10 min 3 min/5 min 3.75 min/5 min The end-to-end travel times on RAVP are summarised in Table 1.2 for the Fully Grade Separated (FGS) and Partially Grade Separated (PGS) options. These travel times apply in all time periods throughout the day. Table 1.2 FGS and PGS Travel Times on RAVP Line Travel Time (mins) Line FGS PGS Difference Richmond Waterfront YVR Waterfront Integration with Other Transit Services and Fares It is assumed that RAVP will operate as part of TransLink s integrated transit services. As such, bus services in the corridor will be integrated with RAVP and effectively provide feeder services to stations rather than operating as a competitive mode. Table 1.3 highlights the RAV corridor bus route assumptions for each future time horizon for which ridership forecasts have been developed. Many of the existing bus routes are short-turned into the new stations or will be discontinued in order to maximise utilisation of the RAV line. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 3

11 Introduction Fares on RAVP would be part of the existing fare zone system covering all transit modes (both existing Skytrain lines, buses and SeaBus). The possibility of operating premium services and fares to the airport have been examined as part of this study. Table 1.3 Corridor Bus Route Assumptions AM Headway (mins) Midday Headway (mins) Routes Comments A. Richmond Local Bus Routes #401 One Road/ Garden City Route via Richmond Centre Station #402 Two Road/ Richmond Centre Terminates at Richmond Centre Station #403 Three Road/ Bridgeport Extend to Bridgeport via No. 3 Road #404 Ladner/ Bridgeport Extend to Bridgeport Station #405 Five Road/ Richmond Centre Terminate at Richmond Centre Station #407 Gilbert/ Bridgeport Terminate at Richmond Centre Station # nd Street/ Railway Route via Richmond Centre Station #424 Airport Shuttle Discontinue route #425 Airport South Shuttle Operate from Bridgeport Station B. Richmond Express Routes #301 Newton/ Scotts/BridgePort Route via Richmond Centre to Bridgeport #420 Richmond Centre/ Metrotown Route via Bridgeport to Richmond Centre #480 Richmond Centre/UBC Route from Richmond Centre to UBC #481 Steveston/ UBC Route directly from W. Richmond to UBC #482 Bridgeport/ UBC Route directly from Bridgeport to UBC #488 Garden City/ Vancouver n/a n/a n/a Discontinue route #490 Steveston/ Vancouver n/a n/a n/a Discontinue route #491 One Road/ Vancouver n/a n/a n/a Discontinue route #492 Two Road/ Vancouver n/a n/a n/a Discontinue route #496 Railway/ Vancouver n/a n/a n/a Discontinue route #499 Coquitlam Centre/ Surrey Ctr New route connecting town centres C. Other Modified Routes #3 Main/ Downtown Reduce frequency #8 Fraser/ Granville No change #15 Cambie/ Downtown Local service between Cambie stations #16 29 th Ave Station/ Arbutus No change #17 Oak/ Downtown Reduce frequency #311 Scottsdale/ Bridgeport n/a n/a n/a Terminate at Bridgeport Station #351 Crescent Beach/ Bridgeport Terminate at Bridgeport Station #352 White Rock/ Bridgeport n/a n/a n/a Terminate at Bridgeport Station #354 White Rock South/ Bridgeport n/a n/a n/a Terminate at Bridgeport Station #601 South Delta/ Bridgeport Terminate at Bridgeport Station #602 Tsawwassen/ Bridgeport n/a n/a n/a Terminate at Bridgeport Station #603 Beach Grove/ Bridgeport n/a n/a n/a Terminate at Bridgeport Station #604 English Bluff/ Bridgeport n/a n/a n/a Terminate at Bridgeport Station #620 Tsaww Ferry/ Bridgeport Direct route from Ferry to Bridgeport #98 B-Line Route discontinued # nd Street Station/ Bridgeport Route extended to Bridgeport Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 4

12 Introduction 1.4 Study Approach The potential ridership for RAVP comprises some distinct and very different market segments, including: regular commuters and school or college trips in the Richmond-Vancouver corridor; trips for other trip purposes in this corridor (e.g. shopping, personal business); airport employees, including locally based flight crews, airline staff, VIAA employees, and other workers on Sea Island, who live in areas which can conveniently make use of RAVP; airport passengers travelling to/from downtown Vancouver, and Richmond- Vancouver more generally; those cruiseship passengers who are travelling between the airport and Canada Place; and meeters and well-wishers for airport passengers. The overall approach to assessing the potential ridership was described in our proposal and Inception Report 2. It is summarised in Figure 1.2 and is based on the following four key elements: 1. an understanding of world-wide experience on existing urban metros and airport rail systems to ensure that any lessons that can be learned and which affect demand levels are explicitly incorporated in or excluded from the forecasting assumptions; 2. an independent (from the modelled forecasts) real-world assessment of what should be expected, by reference to operating metros and airport rail systems in Canada and other countries which have parallels with the proposed Vancouver system; 3. a modelling approach focusing on the need for good quality data for potential users and alternative modes and good understanding of behavioural 2 Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit, Ridership & Revenue Forecast, Inception Report (Final), Halcrow Group Ltd with TSi Consultants, September 2002 Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 5

13 Introduction parameters for the existing EMME-2 model by appropriate sub-market sector; and 4. an understanding of the main risks associated with the forecasts, through a programme of sensitivity tests and risk analysis. The study has been undertaken in two distinct phases: Phase 1 covered the benchmarking process and initial updates to the existing EMME-2 transport model and was undertaken between July and September 2002; Phase 2 included the collection of new data surveys on travellers in the corridor (see Section 1.6) and the development of both new and updated travel models with these data these tasks were undertaken between September to December The Regiona l Context The future land use scenario used for this analysis is based on the Regional Growth Management Scenario (GMS). The GMS has been developed by the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and local municipalities, and provides population and employment estimates for future years based on the Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP). Table 1.4 provides a summary of the municipal controls for population and employment in 2001, 2010 and Within the context of the above demographic forecasts, key baseline road and transit network assumptions for each horizon year are summarised in Table 1.5, which provides a summary of the future road projects and general transit fleet assumptions in each horizon year. The list of road assumptions has been used in several recent studies and reflects the current thinking by different levels of government. Approximate bus fleet size and operating assumptions for commuter rail and SeaBus are based on information provided by TransLink. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 6

14 Introduction Figure 1.2 Forecasting Approach Phase 1 Benchmarking Collate data on existing systems Develop benchmarking forecasts for RAVP Collate existing network data for the EMME/2 model Re-run am-peak EMME/2 model with revisions (excluding survey information) Interim Forecasts Phase 2 Develop Airport Passenger Model New surveys (OD, SP/RP, and station catchment areas) Enhance EMME/2 AM peak model Develop EMME/2 interpeak model Develop base scenario model forecasts RAVP line Reconcile benchmark and model forecasts Sensitivity tests risk analysis Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 7

15 Introduction Table 1.4 Modified GMS Population and Employment Estimates Total Population Pop 10 Municipality 2001 Est. GMS Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Pop21 GMS 2001 Est. Total Employment Emp 10 GMS Emp21 GMS Anmore 1,440 2,190 3, Belcarra Burnaby 191, , , , , ,480 Coquitlam 114, , ,260 38,000 57,300 84,440 Delta 101, , ,600 43,620 45,890 50,340 Langley City 24,420 27,710 31,940 13,980 18,490 24,110 Langley Township 91, , ,990 34,830 50,610 73,340 Lions Bay 1,420 1,450 1, Maple Ridge 63,000 77,890 95,960 18,800 25,390 33,640 New Westminster 54,950 68,120 82,650 29,250 34,760 42,420 North Vancouver 131, , ,070 54,550 60,930 70,670 Pitt Meadows 14,980 17,050 19,890 2,980 3,880 4,880 Port Coquitlam 52,090 64,300 79,250 15,530 21,600 29,300 Port Moody 24,590 33,500 45,730 6,070 7,780 9,900 Richmond 165, , , , , ,000 Surrey 344, , , , , ,980 Vancouver 566, , , , , ,310 West Vancouver 45,790 50,240 49,670 18,570 18,530 19,590 White Rock 17,420 19,170 19,300 6,840 8,750 11,300 Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) Abbotsford 115, , ,230 43,760 57,560 80,450 Chilliwack 66,770 88, ,050 24,990 35,310 47,250 Mission 32,320 41,270 52,820 9,180 12,890 17,480 Fraser North 14,580 20,440 24,840 3,440 5,390 7,360 Fraser South 13,640 13,220 13,570 4,230 5,790 7,660 GVRD 2,008,540 2,350,710 2,717,590 1,007,460 1,197,400 1,457,550 FVRD 243, , ,510 85, , ,200 TOTAL 2,251,720 2,657,980 3,097,100 1,093,060 1,314,340 1,617,750 Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 8

16 Introduction Table 1.5 Regional Road and Transit Network Assumptions Road Network Elements Upgrades 1. Massey Tunnel 3/1 3/1 4/2 Hwy 99 (Hwy 91 to Steveston) 3/2 3/2+1/1HOV 3/2+1/1HOV Hwy 99 (BridgePort to Westminster) NB Bus Lane NB Bus Lane 2. Alex Fraser 3/3 3/3 3/3 3. Hwy 1 (200th - 176th) 2/2 2/2 3/3 SOV+1/1 HOV Hwy 1 (176th to Port Mann) 2/2 2/2 3/3 SOV+1/1 HOV Hwy 1 (Port Mann) 2/2 + 1HOV EB 2/2+1HOV EB 3/3 SOV+1/1 HOV 4. River Road 1/1 2/2 2/2 5. Hwy 10 (Hwy 99 to Hwy 91) 1/1 2/2 2/2 Hwy 10 (Hwy 91 to Hwy 1) 1/1 2/2 2/2 6. Hwy 15 (Border to TCH) 1/1 2/2 2/2 7. Hwy 17 (56th to Causeway) 1 WB/2 EB 2/2 2/2 8. Interchange at 72nd and Hwy 91 Partial Full Full 9. Interchange at Blundell and Highway 99 None Full Full 10. Interchange at Ewen/Boyd and 91A Signal Full Full 11. Fraser Highway 1/1 2/2 2/2 New Facilities th Street Crossing No 3/3 3/3 13. River Way No 1/1 (Arterial/Collector) 1/1 (Arterial/Collector) 14. South Fraser Perimeter Road No 2/2 2/2 15. United Boulevard Extension No 2/2 2/ th Ave-Stormont/McBride Connector No 2/2 2/2 17. Sea Island Connector Yes Yes Yes Transit Network Approx. Bus Fleet Size (including spares) 1,200 1,600 1,800 SkyTrain frequency (AM peak) AM Lane Configuration Expo Line 2.7 min 2.25 min 2.25 min Millennium Line 5.45 min 4.5 min 4.5 min Commuter Rail frequency (AM peak) 30 min 30 min 30 min SeaBus frequency (AM peak) 15 min 10 min 10 min Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 9

17 Introduction Airport Passenger Forecast Data Forecasts for enplaning and deplaning passengers at Vancouver International Airport, post September 11 th 2001, have been provided by VIAA. Adjusted for September 11 th effects, the forecasts of passenger movements are 14.5 million for 2002, increasing to 28 million by 2020, with an anticipated low/high range of between 24 and 32 million. These are shown graphically in Figure 1.3 and further described in Chapter 3. Figure 1.3 Historical and Forecast Total Airport Passenger Movements Millions Enplaning & Deplaning (per annum Year Low Base High Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 10

18 Introduction Forecast air passenger movements by flight sector reflect historical trends, with a declining domestic market share (60% in 1990, 50% in 2002 and forecast to fall to 44% by 2020), corresponding with increasing market shares for both international and trans-border passenger movements (trans-border being 23% in 1990, 26% in 2002 and 29% by 2020; with international as 16% in 1990, 24% in 2002 and 27% by 2020). However, although the domestic market share is forecast to reduce, it continues to increase in size in absolute terms, from 6 million in 1990 to 7.3 million in 2002 and 12.2 million by 2010 Figure 1.4. Figure 1.4 Forecasts by Flight Sector (Base Case) Enplaning & Deplaning Passengers (millions per annum) International Transborder Domestic Year According to the customer satisfaction surveys, only 20% of passengers are connecting with other flights, 18% connecting on the same day and 2% connecting on another day. Although this figure is consistent across these surveys between 1999 and 2002, VIAA has other data from the Airport Improvement Fee that indicate a significantly higher transfer rate of 30% or more. We have agreed with VIAA to use an estimate of 30%, retaining the 2% estimate as connecting on another day. In terms of the potential market for RAVP, the forecast air passenger totals at VIA should therefore be reduced by 28%. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 11

19 Introduction 1.6 The Database Seven separate travel surveys have been undertaken during September and October 2002 to enhance the database available for the ridership and revenue study, as below. Airport Passenger Stated Preference Over 500 Stated Preference intercept interviews have been conducted with airport passengers in the departure lounges at YVR. Five target markets have been identified including: (i) resident-business; (ii) resident-leisure; (iii) non-residentbusiness; (iv) non-resident-leisure; and (v) cruise-ship passengers. Corridor Transit Passenger Stated Preference Over 250 Stated Preference intercept interviews have been conducted with passengers on Vancouver, Richmond and South Delta routes serving the corridor. Target markets include passengers travelling for work, post secondary school and other trip purposes (e.g., shopping, personal business). Corridor Auto User Stated Preference Over 270 Stated Preference surveys have been conducted with auto corridor users, using random telephone interviews with catchment area residents to determine if they had travelled in the corridor in the previous 24 hours. Qualifiers were asked to provide details of that day s automobile travel over the telephone and then asked to participate in a follow-up SP survey. SP surveys were mailed to their residences and telephone surveyors contacted them several days later to complete the SP survey on-line. Corridor Transit Passenger OD Approximate1y, 1,400 origindestination intercept surveys have been conducted with passengers on Vancouver, Richmond and South Delta routes. Surveys focussed on Granville routes, but also sampled local bus services on Oak and Cambie. Surveys were conducted on weekdays during the morning and midday periods. SkyTrain OD Approximately 1,400 origin-destination intercept surveys have been conducted on the existing Expo line. Surveys were conducted at the station platforms. As part of the SkyTrain OD survey, park and ride origin-destination intercept survey have also been conducted.. Surveys were conducted on weekdays during the morning and midday periods. Auto Corridor OD Over 800 origin-destination telephone surveys have been conducted with auto corridor users. This survey is integrated with the auto SP surveys, but qualifying individuals are only asked to describe their Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 12

20 Introduction daily auto travel. All auto trips on that weekday are recorded (including trips made outside the corridor). Auto Travel Times 30 journey time runs were made on 3 different routes in the RAV corridor covering weekday AM peak and inter-peak periods. The results were used as part of the validation for the EMME-2 transport model. Airport SP Survey Key Findings Personal intercept surveys were completed among 1,293 departing passengers at the Vancouver International Airport, resulting in 516 completed (in-scope) questionnaires. These surveys indicated that: excluding cruise passengers, approximately 50% of non-bc residents arrived at the airport from the Downtown CBD area; in comparison, Vancouver residents have a broader distribution of origins/destinations across the GVRD; 30% of all cruise ship passengers gave their origin as the Canada Place Cruise Terminal; 21% as the Ballantyne Cruise Terminal; and a further 30% came from other Downtown / CBD areas (hotels) rather than directly from the cruise terminal at Canada Place; over 60% of business passengers travelled to/from the airport by either taxi/limo (39%) or by car (21% rental by non-residents and 17% car parked by residents); cruise passengers are seldom found to travel alone (only 11%); BC residents travelling on business are predominantly flying unaccompanied (90%); and of the non-bc residents who are not on business, only 50% are travelling alone; over 90% of cruise ship passengers and non-bc residents travelling on business are not seen-off ; conversely, the majority of BC residents not travelling on business are seen-off (60%); business passengers are more likely to travel with just carry-on luggage (25% of cases reported), compared to only 12%-15% of passengers travelling on non-business purposes and almost no cruise passengers; Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 13

21 Introduction two thirds of cruise ship passengers interviewed described their luggage as requiring a trolley; with the exception of the non-bc residents not travelling on business, 70% described their luggage as (at worst) light & easily manoeuvrable. Transit SP and OD surveys Approximately 1,400 Origin-Destination surveys were carried out on bus passengers in the RAV corridor, from which a sample of 256 undertook the Stated Preference surveys. These surveys indicated that: average on-board trip length on the surveyed buses is 11.8 km on a total journey length of 14.4 km; outside peak periods, over two-thirds of the passengers do not have a car available for their trip; during the peaks, just under 60% of passengers do not have a car available; in a weekday, two-thirds of the trips are commuting or travelling to/from educational establishments; only a very small minority use transit for business trips (no more than 2%); over 60% of the passengers are using monthly passes or faresaver tickets, and around 30% pay cash, with other ticket types used by less than 10% of passengers; over half the passengers make the same journey at least 5 times a week, and less than 20% less than once week; in the AM peak, nearly 70% of the passengers walk to the bus stops and over 80% from the bus stops; over the whole day, over half the passengers walk to and/or from the bus stops, with up to one third of passengers requiring transfer to another bus. Auto SP and OD Surveys Over 820 Origin-Destination surveys were carried out on car users in the RAV corridor, from which a sample of 272 undertook the Stated Preference surveys. These surveys indicated that: the average trip length of qualifying trips (potential RAVP trips) is 9.6 km, lower than for transit trips in the corridor; Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 14

22 Introduction on average, respondents had 2 cars available per household; a significantly higher proportion of trips than on transit are not travelling to work or school more than 60% over a weekday are travelling for other reasons with around 5% on business trips. SkyTrain Expo Line OD Surveys Almost 1,400 Origin-Destination surveys were carried out on users of the Expo Line. These surveys indicated that: average on-board trip on the Expo line is 11.5 km on a total journey length of 17.4 km; 65% of passengers did not have a car available for their trip; more than 75% of trips are work or education related; 70% of passengers use a monthly pass and 25% pay cash; over 60% of passengers use SkyTrain 5 or more days a week and less than 10% on one day or less a week; most passengers walk or travel by bus to access SkyTrain; the average access walk distance is 0.7 km and average egress walk distance is 0.5 km. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 15

23 Benchmarking Forecasts 2 Benchmarking Forecasts 2.1 Introduction The benchmarking exercise aims to provide an estimate of the likely levels of ridership on the RAVP based on the experience of similar transit lines in Canada, the US and around the world. The benchmark forecasts are wholly independent of the modelling exercise and thus act as a common sense tool to ensure that the results of the model do not unwittingly lie outside the range of experience elsewhere. The benchmarking exercise has three separate strands, comparing the RAVP with: existing transit lines in Vancouver (Skytrain and B98 rapid bus route); comparable metro/lrt systems in Canada, the US and UK; airport rail links in the US, Australia and Europe. The first two strands will deal with the Richmond-Vancouver section of the proposed route, whilst the third strand will deal with the proposed link to the airport in isolation. 2.2 Strand 1: Existing Lines in Vancouver A good indication of the likely performance of proposed transit lines in Vancouver can be assessed from an examination of the relative performance of existing lines in the city, allowing for the different characteristics of the travel corridors of existing lines with those of the RAVP corridor. To this end, information was collated for the existing SkyTrain Expo line corridor, the recently opened SkyTrain Millennium line corridor, and the RAVP corridor including the B98 bus route which operates within the RAVP corridor. Transit Demand Considerations Demand for transit lines is driven by the socio-economic characteristics of the population in the corridor and the also the supply and quality of alternative modes (eg highway speeds). Table 2.1 describes some key characteristics of the three corridors for Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 16

24 Benchmarking Forecasts Table 2.1 Demand-Side Characteristics (1999) Corridor Variable 1 Variable 2 Variable 3 Variable 4 Variable 5 Population Employment Cars per Average Peak- Average Off-Peak Density (persons Density (jobs per Household Hour Traffic Traffic Speeds per hectare) hectare) Speeds (kph) (kph) Expo Line Millennium Line B98 (RAVP) Excluding CBD and Surrey 2 Excluding CBD and Airport Population and employment are the key generators and attractors of trips within a corridor. The reported densities of these two variables give a good impression of the overall level of demand for passenger transport in the corridor. The Table shows that the RAVP corridor is less densely populated than the Expo Line Corridor but has a greater density of employment than the Expo Line Corridor. Combining these two variables suggests that the overall level of transport demand in the RAVP corridor is similar to that in the Expo line corridor. Car ownership levels are a good barometer of the propensity of the population to use private cars for their travel needs, which in turn affects their propensity to use public transport. The higher the level of car ownership, then generally the higher usage of car and lower the usage of public transit. Out of the three corridors, the RAVP has the highest car ownership levels. The average RAVP figure of 1.36 cars per household is around 16% higher than the Expo Line corridor. Whilst average highway speeds are very similar in all three corridors during peak hours (around 23 kph), average off-peak speeds are significantly lower in the RAVP corridor (30kph compared to 35kph). This will have a counter-balancing effect of encouraging more people in the RAVP corridor to use public transit rather than their cars (especially if transit is grade-separated). Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 17

25 Benchmarking Forecasts System Type Overall, given the same level of transit supply, one would expect a slightly lower level of transit demand in the RAVP corridor than in the existing Expo Line Corridor. An estimate of the level of this deficit has been derived using a simple formula as follows: D= (v1+v2) * (1/v3) * 1/((v4+v5)/2) where D = demand, and v1 to v5 are the variables from Table 2.1. On this basis, transit demand on the RAVP would be expected to be about 5-6% lower than on the Expo Line. Transit Supply Considerations Operational details of the three existing lines and the RAVP are shown in Table 2.2, together with the current ridership levels (where known). Table 2.2 Supply-Side Characteristics and Ridership (2000) Length (km) Number of stations Stations per kilometre Average Speed (kph) Peak-Hour Frequency (headway in mins) Average Weekday Riders 1 Annual Ridership Expo Line Skytrain /3 150, Millennium Line Skytrain B98 Rapid Bus ,000 2 RAVP 4 (Base) RAVP (Alternative Case) Separated ALRT Partial Full Grade- Grade- Separated LRT Figures , Based on limited weekday counts, November 2000 (ridership has thought to have grown significantly since) 3 Estimated daily ridership Excluding Airport Link (MPA) MPA per km The SkyTrain system is a fully segregated and grade-separated intermediate capacity metro system. SkyTrain is mostly elevated, with 1.6 km of tunnel in Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 18

26 Benchmarking Forecasts Downtown Vancouver (Expo Line) featuring driverless, automatically controlled trains of 1-4 cars length. The B98 is a rapid bus line, with high frequency, limited stops, enhanced stops (known as stations), its own dedicated busway for a 5km stretch in Richmond town centre, and priority at 5 sets of signals on Granville Street (out of a total of approximately 10 automated sets between 70 th Avenue and Granville Bridge). The RAVP project Base Case assumes a fully grade-separated LRT system, either underground or elevated, whilst the alternative case assumes an at-grade LRT system with some segregated track and some on-street running in mixed traffic. With respect to the operational characteristics of the RAVP, one would expect a lower relative ridership compared to the existing SkyTrain lines, but higher than the B98 rapid bus route. 2.3 Strand 2: Comparable Systems in Canada, US and UK Restricting the benchmarking exercise to existing Vancouver lines alone would subject the analysis to uncertainties caused by possible unforeseen peculiarities of the situation in Vancouver and/or the RAVP corridor. For this reason, added comfort can be drawn by looking at comparable systems in the rest of Canada, the US and UK. Furthermore, the existing rapid transit lines in Vancouver are restricted to the fully segregated SkyTrain model or the B98 rapid bus model. It is possible that the final RAVP system could turn out to be somewhere in-between these two models, more akin to typical LRT systems found elsewhere. There are a huge number of LRT/metro systems around the world. For our analysis however, we have restricted the benchmark database to those systems that are most similar to Vancouver in terms of the type of city and the type of system. For these reasons, and reasons of cultural similarity, we have only looked at systems in the rest of Canada, the US and UK Some key statistics for LRT/metro systems in North America and the UK are shown below in Table 2.3. Systems for extremely large cities such as London or New York have been deliberately excluded. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 19

27 Benchmarking Forecasts Table 2.3 Comparison of Transit Systems in Canada, US and UK Country City System Length (km) Ridership (mpa) 1 Ridership / km Canada Montreal Metro Toronto Metro Vancouver Metro Calgary LRT Edmonton LRT US Washington Metro San Francisco Metro Atlanta Metro San Diego LRT Denver LRT Dallas LRT Portland LRT Sacramento LRT St Louis LRT UK Newcastle Metro Manchester LRT Croydon LRT Sheffield LRT Birmingham LRT figures apart from Vancouver and Calgary which are 2000 figures statistics for these two cities were artificially low because of periods of industrial action amongst transit staff. There are two clear of conclusions to be drawn from this Table. 1. Metro systems carry more passengers than Light Rail Systems 2. Canadian systems, both metro and LRT, perform significantly better than US systems, and also than UK systems in terms of ridership The average annual ridership per km for systems in the three countries is shown in the Table below, and graphically in Figure 2.1. Metro LRT Canada US UK 0.56* 0.42 *Based on one system alone (Tyne & Wear Metro) Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 20

28 Benchmarking Forecasts Figure 2.1 Average Riders per km in Canada, US and UK Metro LRT Canada US UK The low level of patronage on US systems can be attributed to a highly cardependent culture and a correspondingly low-density development pattern in cities (also see Figure 2.4 on this point). The relatively low patronage figures in the UK are thought to be a result of relatively high fares, a lack of integration with other modes, and a high degree of competition from buses. This last point is illustrated by the large fall in shorter trips on the Tyne & Wear Metro following bus deregulation in the UK in Previously, there was a high degree of integration between transit modes - for example all bus passengers south of the River Tyne were forced to transfer to the metro to access the CBD north of the Tyne (only 2 stops from the interchange). After de-regulation, buses could cross the Tyne and the total number of riders on the Metro fell by 24%, while total passenger kilometres fell by only 6%. Whatever the reasons may be for these differences, in terms of the benchmarking exercise there seems little point in comparing the RAVP with systems outside Canada. This is especially the case when it is thought that patronage levels on the B98 bus route are similar in terms of passengers per kilometre to those of US and UK LRT systems. Furthermore, the Montreal and Toronto systems are not directly comparable in terms of size and ridership, so the remainder of this strand of the benchmarking exercise will examine only the remaining systems from Table 2.3, that is those in Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton. Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton Details of the systems in these three cities are shown in Table 2.4. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 21

29 Benchmarking Forecasts System Type Table 2.4 Western Canada Rapid Transit System Details (I), 2000 Length Number Stations Average Peak Off-Peak Average Ridership (km) of per Speed Frequency Frequency Daily (MPA) stations kilometre (kph) (mins) (mins) Riders MPA per km Vancouver Skytrain , Calgary LRT , Edmonton LRT , The Vancouver SkyTrain system has been describe previously in this report. The Calgary system consists of three LRT arms converging on a single downtown section, 2km in length. In the downtown area, the LRT runs on street, sharing a transit only mall with buses. There is a free-fare zone covering the downtown area. Outside the downtown, the LRT runs on segregated tracks. On these sections, passengers are charged a flat fare of $1.75. The Edmonton system is a single line LRT system. Downtown, the line is underground with five stations. The line extends one stop south of the centre to the University of Alberta (also underground), and to the north east above ground but segregated from traffic. There are four suburban stations on the northeast section, including one at the Commonwealth Stadium. Downtown travel is free between 9am and 3pm weekdays, and 9am to 6pm on Saturdays. Elsewhere and at other times, a flat fare of $2.00 applies. Further details of the three systems are shown in Table 2.5. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 22

30 Benchmarking Forecasts Table 2.5 Western Canada Rapid Transit System Details (II), 2000 System/Section Alignment Length (km) Stops Daily Riders Daily Riders per suburban stop Annual Riders per Route km (mpa) Vancouver Underground 4 4 Downtown P&R Spaces Vancouver Eastern Arm Elevated Vancouver Total ,000 9, ,800 Calgary Downtown On-Street ,000 Calgary South Arm Segregated ,000 Calgary North East Segregated ,000 Calgary North West Segregated ,000 Calgary Total , , ,200 Edmonton Downtown Underground Edmonton North East Segregated Edmonton South Underground Edmonton Total ,000 7, n/a 2 1 Total figure excludes double counting of each individual arm 2 Total figure not confirmed, but believed to be similar to Vancouver Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 23

31 Benchmarking Forecasts The Table shows that total ridership on the Calgary system is similar but slightly lower than the Vancouver SkyTrain. Whilst the total line length of the two systems is also similar, at around 30km, there are three arms to the Calgary system as opposed to the single arm of the Vancouver SkyTrain (pre-millennium Line). The Edmonton system is much shorter at 12.3km and carries correspondingly fewer passengers. The distinguishing feature of the Edmonton system is the small number of suburban stations compared to downtown stations (5 versus 5), which lowers the passengers per kilometre statistic. The Calgary system provides a far greater number of park-and-ride spaces than the other two systems. In terms of total number of annual passengers per route kilometre, Vancouver and Calgary earn a similar score of 1.6 and 1.47 million passengers per kilometre respectively, whilst Edmonton lags somewhat behind at 0.88 million passengers per kilometre. In terms of the average daily ridership divided by the number of suburban stations, Calgary and Edmonton produce similar results, at 7,100 and 7,200 passengers per station respectively, whilst Vancouver comes out at 9,400 passengers per station. This is perhaps a better reflection of overall demand, showing a higher level of utilisation of the Vancouver SkyTrain than the lower capacity LRT systems in Calgary and Edmonton. Ridership indices for the Calgary and Edmonton systems are compared to Vancouver SkyTrain in Figure 2.2 below (Vancouver=1.0). Figure 2.2 Ridership Indices for Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton Vancouver Calgary Edmonton Pax per km Pax per station The different system characteristics and geographic layout of the three cities make it difficult to identify further reasons for variations in ridership between the three systems. Table 2.6 shows a comparison of the socio-economic profile of the three cities (1996 data). Calgary and Edmonton are compared graphically to Vancouver in Figure 2.3, with Vancouver statistics indexed to 1.0. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 24

32 Benchmarking Forecasts Table 2.6 Socio-Economic Profile Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton (1996) Population Population %jobs Average Cars per Road 24hour Density CBD Income 1000 Network Transit pop Speed Share $ Vancouver , Calgary , Edmonton , Source:UTI report, Millennium Cities Database Figure 2.3 Socio-Economic Profile - Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton: Vancouv Calgary Edmonto Population Population Density %jobs CBD Average Income Cars per 1000 Road Network Speed 24hour PT share The statistics describe three cities that share many characteristics. Vancouver is the largest of the three, with a population approaching 2 million, whilst the other two cities are close to one million. Vancouver and Calgary have similar population densities of people per hectare whilst Edmonton is less densely populated at Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 25

33 Benchmarking Forecasts around 14 persons per hectare. Calgary has a greater concentration of jobs in the CBD, but conversely a much higher level of car ownership than either Vancouver or Edmonton. All three cities have a similar overall public transit mode share (all trips, 24 hours) of between 9 and 11%. There is no particular evidence from these comparisons to suggest that a transit system in Vancouver would be significantly less successful at attracting passengers than a similar system in Edmonton or Calgary. A general conclusion to be drawn from this strand of the benchmarking exercise therefore is that an RAVP system with similar characteristics to the Edmonton or Calgary LRT systems would attract a similar level of patronage to those systems, but perhaps closer to Calgary than Edmonton given that the mix of station characteristics of the RAVP are more similar to Calgary than Edmonton. 2.4 Combined Strand 1 and 2 forecast for Richmond-Vancouver section The conclusion to be drawn from Strands 1 and 2 are: A full SkyTrain equivalent (i.e. ALRT) specification RAVP line is likely to attract slightly less passengers (relatively) than the existing Vancouver Expo line estimated to be around 5-6% fewer; An LRT type RAVP service is likely to attract similar levels of patronage to the Calgary and Edmonton systems, but perhaps closer to the Calgary system; The number of passengers per route kilometre is likely to be higher than the Edmonton system (because of the small number of suburban stations in Edmonton), and closer to the Calgary system; The number of passengers per station is likely to be less than the Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton systems because of the proposed closer spacing of stations on the RAVP. Strand 1 & 2 Forecasts The Strand 1 and 2 benchmark forecasts for the Richmond-Vancouver Line, should it have been open in 2001 and the market fully matured (i.e. no ramp-up considerations), are presented in Table 2.7. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 26

34 Benchmarking Forecasts Table 2.7 RAVP Benchmark Forecasts, Richmond-Vancouver Line only (Riders Million per Annum) Specification Forecast Source 2001 High Expo line pax per station (around 6% lower than) 30 Full ALRT Equivalent Central Expo line pax per km (around 6% lower than) 23 Low Central * High Calgary pax per station 23 LRT Central Weighted Average Calgary/Edmonton pax per km (weighted 60:40 to Calgary) 19 Low Edmonton pax per km Strand 3: Existing Airport Rail Links Overview of Existing Rail Mode Shares to Airports with Direct Rail links The percentage of passengers using rail as their main access mode for airports with direct rail links is shown in Table 2.8. The Table also shows the total number of passengers enplaning and deplaning annually 3 at each of those airports Figures where available Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 27

35 Benchmarking Forecasts Table 2.8 Current Rail Mode Shares for Airports with Direct Rail Links Region Airport Pax pa (m) Service Types* Rail Share (%) Europe Oslo 14 P 43 Zurich 23 E,L 35 London Stansted 12 P 28 Munich 23 L 28 Rome 26 L 28 Amsterdam 40 E,L 25 London Heathrow 60 P,T 25 Frankfurt 49 E,L 22 Paris CDG 48 E,L 24 London Gatwick 29 P,E 22 Brussels 22 L 18 Dusseldorf 16 L,E 16 Paris Orly 25 L 8 Barcelona 20 L 7 Vienna 12 L 7 Manchester 17 L 6 Average 21 Australia Sydney 22 L 7 USA Washington National 15 T 14 Atlanta 77 T 8 Chicago-Midway 13 T 8 Portland 12 Lrt 6 Chicago-O'Hare 72 T 4 St. Louis 30 Lrt 3 Cleveland 13 T 3 Philadelphia 23 L 2 Average 6 *P = Premium quality service (non-stop, dedicated downtown service) E = Express service (limited stops and/or inter-city services) L = Local heavy rail stopping service T = Transit (metro) service Lrt = Transit (light rail) service Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 28

36 Benchmarking Forecasts There are three immediate conclusions to draw from this Table: a) the rail mode share is much higher for European airports than for American airports; b) higher quality services attract a higher share of passengers than regular local or transit style services; c) the total number of passengers at each airport has no bearing on the rail mode share. Looking at European airports, the largest rail mode share is found at Oslo Airport (43%), and the lowest at Manchester (6%). The average rail mode share at the sixteen European airports is just over 20%. Looking at US airports, the largest rail mode share is found at Washington National Airport (14%), and the lowest at Philadelphia Airport (2%). The average rail mode share at the eight US airports is 6%. The sole Australian airport under investigation, Sydney, registers a figure very close to the US average - 7%. Premium services are found only in Europe, whilst transit style services are found only in America (excluding Piccadilly Line at Heathrow) Implications for the RAVP Airport Link The estimated rail mode share for passengers to YVR will be affected greatly by whether Vancouver and YVR can be considered to possess characteristics more akin to the American or European situation, and whether a premium service can be delivered. The first of those issues is dealt with in the following sections of this report. Prior to that however, a very simple initial calculation is made using US airport data alone. The current public transportation share for passengers at airports in the US without a direct rail link is around 8.4%. The current average public transportation (PT) share for passengers at airports in the US with a direct rail link is around 9.1%. Of those airports with direct rail links, the rail link itself captures on average 50-70% of the total PT market on average. Applying these figures to the current PT mode share at YVR, estimated to be around 16% (including all scheduled airport buses, hotel courtesy shuttles and transit, but excluding tour buses) we arrive at an estimated rail mode share of 9-12%. The steps are summarised below. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 29

37 Benchmarking Forecasts Current PT share for major US airports without direct rail link 8.4% Current PT share for major US airports with direct rail link 9.1% Factor Current rail share as percentage of total PT share at US airports 50-70% Current YVR transit share % Estimated YVR transit share with rail link 17.7% Estimated YVR rail share 9-12% Unfortunately there are not enough data to perform a similar analysis for European airports. This is because few major European airports do not have a direct rail link. Global Metropolitan Characteristics This section attempts to answer the question Should Vancouver be considered as comparable to a US city, a European City, or as something in between? For this part of the benchmarking exercise, extensive use was made of the Millennium Cites Database for Sustainable Transport. This database, produced by the UTIP and ISTP, compares 100 cities worldwide with respect to socio-economic indicators, public transport supply and demand and private transport supply and demand. The database contains three of the US cities with direct airport rail links, twelve of the European cities and Sydney. Some key indicators are shown in Table 2.9. The figures refer to a base year of Includes all scheduled airport buses, hotel courtesy shuttles and transit, but excludes tour buses. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 30

38 Benchmarking Forecasts Table 2.9 Key Background Indicators City Population Urban Density %Passenger- km by PT Cars per 000 pop Oslo Zurich London Munich Rome Amsterdam Frankfurt Paris Brussels Barcelona Vienna Manchester European Average Sydney Washington Atlanta Chicago US Average Greater Vancouver The Table shows that Vancouver lies in between the American and European models of city development, car dependency and public transport usage. This is illustrated graphically in Figure 2.4. The graphs show Vancouver and US average figures in relation to the European average figure (=1.0). Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 31

39 Benchmarking Forecasts Figure 2.4 Comparison of Key Indicators Europe Vancouver USA Population Density PT Share Car Ownership Geographic Positi on of the Airport A key factor in the potential rail mode share for an airport is the geographic position of the airport in relation to the metropolitan urban area. Common sense suggests that the more remote an airport is from the edge of the urban area, the greater potential there is for rail usage, because more of the urban area will fall within the rail corridor both in practical and psychological terms. To this end, the distance of the benchmark airports from their metropolitan city centre was compared to the distance from the city centre to the edge of the metropolitan built-up area 5. From this an isolation index was calculated, which is the distance from downtown to the airport divided by the distance from downtown to the edge of the urban area. Table 2.10 compares the resulting isolation indices with the current rail mode share. The same figures are shown graphically in Figure In many cases a convenient boundary is provided by an outer ring-roads (eg M25 London). In other cases the edge of the urban area has been estimated from studying maps Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 32

40 Benchmarking Forecasts Table 2.10 Airport Isolation Indices versus Rail Mode Share Airport Isolation Index Rail Share Oslo Zurich London Stansted Munich Rome Amsterdam London Heathrow Frankfurt Paris CDG London Gatwick Brussels Dusseldorf Paris Orly Barcelona Vienna Manchester Sydney Washington Nat Atlanta Chicago-Midway Portland Chicago-O'Hare St. Louis Cleveland Philadelphia Vancouver 0.60 Figure 2.5 shows that there is clearly some relationship between the isolation index and the percentage of passengers using rail, and that this is especially true for European airports. The data from the US airports are less clear-cut. The US airports have a much lower isolation index, as does Sydney airport in Australia. This is probably due to the rapid expansion of the metropolitan suburbs, which have engulfed existing airports. In Europe, tighter planning controls are generally in place (such as the green-belt policy in the UK) which have limited urban sprawl, or the airports are newer and have been deliberately located further from the city. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 33

41 Benchmarking Forecasts Figure 2.5 Airport Isolation Indices versus Rail mode share Rail Mode Share Isolation Index Implications for the RAVP Airport Link Vancouver Airport lies well within the boundary of the built-up area of Greater Vancouver. For this analysis, the edge of the built-up area was taken as the South Arm of the Fraser River Delta, giving YVR an isolation index of 0.6. This is a low score compared to other airports and does not favour a high mode share by rail. Using the regression formula derived form the entire data set, for this variable alone, a rail mode share of 5-7% is predicted for the RAVP Airport Link. Supply-Side Considerations Clearly, there are some supply-side characteristics that can be viewed as hurdles. Without clearing those hurdles, an airport rail link stands little chance of capturing a reasonable proportion of the passenger market. These characteristics can be summarised as being: ease of access to the railway station from the terminal no long walks; frequency a minimum of a half-hourly service (preferably every 15 minutes), but also the ratio of headway to journey time must be low; comfortable vehicles; competitive journey times; Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 34

42 Benchmarking Forecasts fares significantly lower than equivalent taxi fares. There is plenty of evidence to show that a premium quality service can attract a further slice of the passenger market, mostly at the expense of taxi and limousine services, and that this market is willing to pay significantly higher fares. A premium service is characterised by: dedicated, non-stop downtown service; high frequency, high-speed; specially built cars (extra luggage space etc); separately packaged and marketed; higher fares than regular services. Specific Variables Assuming that the hurdle criteria are met, a key variable in the mode share equation is the respective downtown journey times offered by the rail service compared with car / taxi. Perhaps surprisingly, when looking at existing airports, there is no relationship between fares charged for the rail service and the size of the market captured by rail. This is probably because air passengers generally have a high value of time, and even the highest rail fares currently charged are considerably lower than the equivalent taxi fares. Table 2.11 compares journey times by rail and taxi from the airport to the city centre at the benchmark airports. Total rail journey time is taken as in-vehicle time plus half headway. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 35

43 Benchmarking Forecasts Table 2.11 Travel Times between Downtown and Airport Rail Rail Total Rail Taxi Ratio Rail Airport Time Frequency Time Time Share Oslo Zurich London Stansted Munich Rome Amsterdam London Heathrow Frankfurt Paris CDG London Gatwick Brussels Dusseldorf Paris Orly Barcelona Vienna Manchester Sydney Washington Nat Atlanta Chicago-Midway Portland Chicago-O'Hare St. Louis Cleveland Philadelphia Vancouver ALRT Vancouver LRT The ratio of rail to taxi travel times is plotted against rail mode share in Figure 2.6. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 36

44 Benchmarking Forecasts Figure 2.6 Rail share versus travel time ratio Rail Mode Share Travel Time Ratio The graph shows that there is a relationship between the travel time ratio and the mode share by rail. Implications for the YVR Rail Link Applying the regression formula derived from this graph, for this variable alone, the estimated mode share by rail at YVR (given a travel time ratio of around in the Base Case) would be 8-10%. Demand-Side Considerations Thus far in the benchmarking exercise, we have only looked at socio-geographic and supply-side issues. We now turn to demand-side issues, or more specifically passenger characteristics. Unfortunately, this aspect presents the most problems in terms of comparisons with other airports, because it is reliant on the results of airport surveys. This leads to three problems: some airports do not undertake regular passenger surveys; there is no common format for airport surveys; some airports are reluctant to release the results of their surveys to third parties. Nevertheless, it was possible to obtain some useful data, mainly for US and UK airports. The key passenger characteristics analysed were: Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 37

45 Benchmarking Forecasts percent downtown origin / destination; percent business / non-business; percent resident / non-resident. Origin / Destination of Passengers Table 2.12 compares the percentage of passengers with a downtown origin or destination with the rail mode share of those airports for which data are available. Table 2.12 Origin/Destination Patterns Airport Downtown Passengers (%) Rail Share (%) London Heathrow London Gatwick Manchester 10 6 Washington National Atlanta 7 8 Chicago-Midway 20 8 Chicago-O'Hare 14 4 Philadelphia 14 2 Vancouver 35 Logically, there should be a strong correlation between these two variables. Figure 2.7 shows that there is a relationship, although it could be improved with a larger data set. Whilst the data for the UK airports follow a logical pattern, the US data are somewhat skewed by the rail mode share for Atlanta which looks high (by American standards) compared to the very low percentage of passengers with downtown origins / destinations. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 38

46 Benchmarking Forecasts Figure 2.7 Rail share versus % downtown origins Rail Mode Share % Downtown Origins 40 Implications for the YVR Rail Link YVR has a very high proportion of passengers with a downtown origin or destination. The statistics of 35% is the highest of any airport for which we have data and bode well for potential patronage on the YVR rail link. Applying the regression formula derived from this graph, for this variable alone, the estimated mode share by rail at YVR would be 20-28%. It should be noted however that roughly a third of all YVR passengers with a Downtown origin or destination are cruise ship passengers, and these passengers need to be successfully catered for if a high rail mode share is to be achieved. Business / Non-Business Split Table 2.13 compares the proportion of business passengers as a percentage of the total with the rail mode share of those airports for which data are available. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 39

47 Benchmarking Forecasts Table 2.13 Business Passengers at Airports Airport Business Passengers (%) Munich London Heathrow London Gatwick Manchester 20 6 Washington National Atlanta 66 8 Chicago-Midway 37 8 Chicago-O'Hare 50 4 Vancouver including mixed business/leisure trips Rail Share (%) The data are inconclusive there do not seem to be any relationship between the percentage of passengers defined as business travellers and the rail mode share. It does appear however that Washington National is a special case. The passenger profile at this airport is heavily skewed towards non-residents (see next section) on business visiting the CBD. This can be explained by a large number of people visiting federal government offices and institutions. Implications for the YVR Rail Link No conclusions can be drawn Non-Resident / Resident Table 2.14 compares the proportion of passengers that are non-resident (i.e. visitors rather than people for whom it is the home airport) with the rail mode share of those airports for which data are available. Table 2.14 Residency of Passengers Airport Non-Residents (%) London Heathrow London Gatwick Manchester 14 6 Washington National Atlanta 50 8 Chicago-O'Hare 46 4 Vancouver 55 Rail Share (%) Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 40

48 Benchmarking Forecasts Logically it would be expected that airports with a large percentage of nonresidents would attract a higher public transport and taxi mode share, as these people do not have access to their own cars. The data above bear this out, although the results for the UK and US airports are so disparate that it is not possible to perform any further regression analysis. Implications for the YVR Rail Link Looking at the US data alone, Washington National appears to be a special case as discussed previously. If YVR follows the American model, on the basis of this variable alone, we could expect 8-10% of passengers to use a rail link. Should YVR follow the European model however, we would expect a rail mode share as high as 25% or more. 2.6 Portland Airpor t Rai l Link The recently opened Portland Airport LRT link is of particular interest to the benchmarking exercise because of the similarities between the two cities and airports. Portland airport has 12 million passenger per year, compared to Vancouver s 15 million, but has fewer transfer passengers, thus giving similar ground-side passenger totals. Also, the type of service offered is similar to that assumed for the RAVP. An extension of the Portland LRT system (MAX) to the airport was opened on 10 th September The service offered is a regular LRT type service, taking 38 minutes from downtown at a fare of US$1.50. One year in, the airport station attracts around 2,500 passengers per day. Approximately 58% of these riders are airline passengers, 17% are employees and the remainder are meeters/greeters or other riders. The airline passengers using MAX represent 5.8% of the total air passenger market. In terms of other characteristics, 18% of the MAX riders are on business (including non-flyers), 22% had a downtown groundside origin or destination, and 25% were out of state (suggesting that around half of airline passenger MAX riders are non-resident). Implications for the YVR Rail Link We would expect the RAVP to perform significantly better than the Portland MAX service, because: overall transit usage is higher in Vancouver than Portland; and although both airports are a similar distance from their respective down-towns, the journey times offered by the RAVP will be significantly better than Portland Airport MAX. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 41

49 Benchmarking Forecasts Applying the Portland figures to the isolation index and travel time ratio regressions, a rail mode share of 6% and 5% is predicted respectively. This compares to the actual rail mode share of 5.8% Employees and Other Non-Airport Passenger Markets Strand 3 of the benchmarking exercise has concentrated on the airport passenger market. This is because less data are available for employee and other trip type mode splits. Portland is an exception, as relevant information is available. Based on this information and limited information from other US airports and Heathrow Airport, it can be estimated that for a non-premium service, airline passengers will form around 60% of the total ridership of the airport rail link. The other 40% will be made up of airport employees and other trip types. However, these ratios will alter if a premium service alone is offered with a correspondingly high premium fare. In this case, the numbers of non-flying passengers will reduce dramatically. Evidence from Heathrow Express suggests that the numbers of meeters/greeters using the service are insignificant, as meeting and greeting occurs at the downtown terminal rather than at the airport. Summary Airport Rail Links The results of the airport rail link benchmarking are summarised in the bullet points below. European airport rail links, on average, attract a far greater proportion of passengers than US airport rail links. European airport rail links are almost exclusively heavy rail, with many premium and express type services offered. By contrast, US airport rail links are almost exclusively transit type services. If the RAVP delivers a transit type service, we would expect the passenger mode share to be towards the top end of the US scale, given the greater level of transit usage in Canada compared to the US. If the RAVP can deliver a premium service, we would expect the passenger mode share to be towards the lower end of the European premium-express scale, or at best towards the middle of the overall European scale. Geographically, YVR compares less well than more remote airports, implying a low mode share for a rail link (on the basis of this criteria alone). On the supply-side, Vancouver scores reasonably well on comparison of rail times versus car / taxi times to downtown termini. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 42

50 Benchmarking Forecasts On the demand side, YVR performs very highly in terms of the percentage of passengers with a downtown origin or destination a key target for the rail link. It should be noted however that a large proportion of these passengers are cruise ship passengers. The estimates of potential rail mode share for passengers travelling to/from YVR, based on each of the criteria examined in the benchmarking exercise, are listed in Table Table 2.15 Benchmark Results Air Passengers using Vancouver Rail Link Criteria Low Central High Current Rail Mode Share, All Benchmark Airports 2% 43% Average US (Low) and Europe (High) 6% 20% Simple calculation based on current PT mode share at YVR and US experience Isolation Index Travel Time Ratio Percent Downtown Origins Percentage Non-Resident 9% 11% 12% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 20% 24% 28% 9% 25% Portland Comparison 6% 8% 10% Airport Link Benchmark Forecasts The market share achieved by an airport rail link is determined by a number of factors, most of which has been discussed in this chapter. Ideally multiple regression analysis would be undertaken to derive an overall predictive model, combining all the different variables. Unfortunately, this analysis can only be carried out if complete data are available for all variables, for all airports. Since this is not the case, we must make a more subjective estimate, based on the analyses of individual variables the results of which are summarised in Table Taking account of each of the key indicators in isolation, and then combined into a single forecast, the benchmarking exercise suggests the following range of likely rail mode shares of passengers travelling to/from YVR: Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 43

51 Benchmarking Forecasts Table 2.16 Proportion of Air Passengers using Rail Link in Vancouver Low Central High Partially-Grade separated LRT service 8% 10% 12% Fully Grade separated ALRT Equivalent 10% 12% 14% Service Premium Service 16% 20% 24% It is expected that a traditional transit type service would capture around 10-12% of the airport passenger market, placing Vancouver towards the high end of the American scale. A Premium service which offers significant benefits in terms of journey times and other benefits (special rolling stock, frequent service throughout day, luggage handling, good interchange etc) could capture a further 8% or so of the market, placing Vancouver at the lower end of the European premium scale, or close to the European average. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 44

52 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts 3 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts 3.1 Introduction This chapter describes the forecasts for air passengers predicted to use the new service together with any accompanying non-flying members of their party. Reliable forecasts require up-to-date, robust data to enable the current (base) market to be identified at the most disaggregate level. For this purpose, data have been assimilated from a variety of sources, analysed, and incorporated into the modelling process. Data sources include: 2001 and 2002 Quarterly YVR Customer Satisfaction Survey Data, 2002 Stated Preference Surveys, and July 2002 YVR Airport Passenger Forecasts. In preparing these forecasts, four distinct aspects have been addressed: developing an understanding of the base market its size, passenger profiles and landside spatial distribution, developing a diversion model to predict the demand diverted from other surface transport modes to the new rail link, applying the diversion model to the base market under an appropriate definition of the different travel characteristics (journey time, cost, etc. by mode), and projecting rail patronage forecasts into the future. These are described in detail, along with the forecasts in the remainder of this report. 3.2 Base and Forecast Airport Demand Enplaning and Deplaning Passengers Future airport passenger growth is based upon July 2002 YVR forecasts of enplaning and deplaning passengers. Explicit forecasts are provided for 2002 to 2020, as shown in Table 3.1. Forecasts for intermediate years are interpolated and, Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 45

53 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts for the period beyond 2020, forecasts are extrapolated assuming the same rate of growth per year as assumed between 2019 and Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show the predicted growth in air passenger movements through to Table 3.1 YVR Forecasts of Annual Air Passenger Movements (millions) Year Total Enplaning & Deplaning Passengers Domestic Transborder International Total Figure 3.1 Historical and forecast YVR air passenger movements Millions Enplaning & Deplaning (per annum) Low Base High Year Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 46

54 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Figure 3.2 YVR Air passenger forecasts by sector Enplaning & Deplaning Passengers (millions per annum) International Transborder Domestic Transferring Air Passengers Year The forecast air passenger movements include a significant proportion that are deemed to be transfer movements, i.e. using the airport as a hub, neither coming to the airport or leaving it by surface transport (car, taxi, bus etc). According to the YVR customer satisfaction survey data for 1999 through to 2001, the transfer rate has been close to 20%. Other data held by VIAA, in particular from the Airport Improvement Fee, indicate that this proportion is significantly higher. We have agreed with VIAA to use a figure of 30% as the overall transfer rate at YVR. Some of these passengers will be making land-side trips in Vancouver. In order to take account of these trips, we have assumed 28% of the forecast air passenger total at YVR do not make land-side journeys Spatial Distribution of Demand Out of the non-transferring air passengers (those arriving at or departing from the airport by a surface access mode of transport), some 14% came from outside the GVRD as shown in Table 3.2 (taken from the YVR customer satisfaction survey data). Further disaggregation of the demand data in order to assess the size of the potential market, (defined as those coming from within the catchment area of the rail link - see Figure 3.3 for the definition of the study area), revealed that out of Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 47

55 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts 982 respondents with a landside origin (non-transfers), 516 (53%) came from within the study area. Table 3.2 Landside distribution of surface access demand (%) Location Within GVRD Vancouver Downtown Other Vancouver Surrey/N. Delta/White Rock/Langley Richmond No. 3 Corridor Other Richmond North Shore Burnaby / New West Port Moody / Port / Coquitlam Other GVRD Not Stated Outside GVRD Not Stated Total Source: YVR Customer satisfaction surveys In-scope areas are Vancouver (Downtown and Other Vancouver), Richmond (No 3 corridor and Other Richmond), and part of North Shore. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 48

56 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Figure 3.3 Study Area Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 49

57 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts The zoning system used for modelling the air passenger demand is shown in Figure 3.4. The distribution of the demand has been based on the responses to the stated preference survey, in preference to the data from the YVR customer satisfaction survey data, which are restricted to residents and only presented at the 3-character postcode level. This spatial distribution, further disaggregated by market sector (residential status and trip purpose) as used in the modelling process, is presented in Working Paper 1, Survey Results. Figure 3.4 Spatial Distribution of Airport Passengers within the GVRD At a regional level, the distribution of origins of those departing airport passengers as a proportion within the study area is provided in summary in Table 3.3. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 50

58 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Table 3.3 Landside distribution of air passengers by target market sector (%) Non- Percentage of Air Passengers by Source of Origin Cruise Pax Business Resident Business Resident Non- Non- Business Resident Business Non- Resident Total CBD / Downtown Vancouver Richmond Sea Island West Vancouver North Vancouver City North Vancouver District Total Figures may not add to 100 owing to rounding Cruise Ship Passengers Vancouver has two cruise ship terminals, at Canada Place and Ballantyne. Canada Place is located in the CBD by Waterfront Station, whilst Ballantyne is to the east of the city centre. Both terminals are modern facilities catering for the Vancouver- Alaska cruise market, with Canada Place providing 3 berths (recently increased from 2), and Ballantyne Pier with 2 berths. In terms of the Canadian economy, the cruise business directly generates $228 million in GDP and $508 million in economic output. 6 In 2001, a total of 331 cruise ship sailings took place, carrying more than one million revenue passengers (a revenue passenger includes both passenger embarkation and dis-embarkation in Vancouver actual passengers are therefore half this total). By 2002, this increased to 342 sailings and 1,125,000 revenue passengers, representing an increase of 6% over From the stated preference survey, 30% of all cruise ship passengers gave their origin as the Canada Place Cruise Terminal; 21% as the Ballantyne Cruise Terminal; and a further 30% came from other Downtown / CBD areas (hotels) rather than directly from the cruise terminal at Canada Place. The remaining 19% were found to have origins / destinations in other parts of Vancouver. In terms of 6 Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 51

59 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts surface access mode, the market is largely split between taxi/limo and charter/tour bus, accounting for 80% of the cruise passenger market. 3.3 Stated Preference Surveys Survey Results In September 2002, a total of 1,293 air passengers were approached (non-refusals) in the secured departure lounges and at the departure gates of YVR, from which 516 completed (full in-scope ) Stated Preference interviews were obtained (questionnaire attached in Appendix A). Out of the 1,293 intercepts, 40% were transferring flights (in transit / not leaving the airport), and, of the remaining 777 (some 60% who had arrived at the airport by a surface access mode), 516 (66% of these) were from within the catchment area. (NB: the catchment area is as presented in the map in Figure 3.3.) In terms of location of the interviews, all airport sectors were surveyed according to a pre-planned time-based sampling method / interview work-plan, designed to generate an un-biased coverage of all time periods and terminals by day of week. Interviews were only conducted in the departure lounges. Questions regarding arrival mode were addressed, and in particular the existence and number of meeters & greeters as opposed to well-wishers. Arriving passengers were considered to be more difficult to capture, as they are in an environment less suitable to this type of interviewing. Interviews could not be conducted in airline business lounges. However, business passengers were nonetheless approached prior to boarding the aircraft. The SP survey was designed to generate as unbiased a sample as possible, with its focus on the characteristics and preferences of persons who could potentially choose the proposed rail link. Summary details of the interviewees are given in Table 3.4. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 52

60 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Table 3.4 Summary of Stated Preference Survey Results Percentage (%) Cruise Passengers Business Residents Business Non- Residents Non- Business Residents Non- Business Non- Residents By Age Under Over 60 By Gender Male Female Airport Access Taxi/Limo Airporter Bus Hotel Bus Charter/Tour Bus Public Transit Rented Car Car Parked Lift Park Lift Drop-Off Other Access Mode Decision Maker Respondent Other Person Person Paying Cost of Access Respondent Tour Organizer Accompanying Person Employer Other Flyer Self and Employer Party Size to YVR Bags Checked-in 1 or more 0 Luggage Description Hand Luggage Only Light & Easily Manoeuvred OK for Short Distances Requires a Trolley Meeters/Greeters Mean per passenger Figures may not add to 100 owing to rounding Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 53

61 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Model Parameters Beyond providing supplementary data for the spatial disaggregation of trips, the prime output of the Stated Preference surveys are the mathematical models upon which the diversion of air passenger demand from other surface access modes has been based. The surveys were designed to develop models for the following key markets: trip purpose (business, other), and passenger type (resident, non-resident), with further separate treatment of cruise ship passengers. Table 3.5 presents the key parameters or weightings derived from the analysis of the SP data. Table 3.5 Summary of Stated Preference Survey Results Parameter Estimate & (T-Statistic) Business Residents Business Non- Residents Non- Business Residents Non- Business Non- Residents In-Vehicle Time (6.6) Access Time (6.6) Fare (2.8) Frequency (3.7) Party Size -0.3 (1.8) Luggage (2.9) N/S = Non-Significant (4.4) (4.2) (6.6) (4.4) (4.2) (6.6) (3.3) (5.5) (7.0) (1.0) (2.3) (3.0) N/S N/S (3.4) N/S N/S (6.7) From these parameter values, attribute valuations can be derived, including the assumed values of time (VOT), as shown in Table 3.6. The values of time for air passengers in all the market sectors would be expected to be higher than for the population as a whole. Separate parameters could not be isolated between in-vehicle time and access time. Although the stated preference design allowed for such a possibility, the responses to the questionnaire are more focussed on access time than rail in-vehicle-time, reflecting the primary concern of air passengers. Consequently, a separate statistically significant parameter for rail in-vehicle-time was not forthcoming. This resulted in the analysis of the data utilising a generic parameter for both access time and in-vehicle time, which the SP analysis indicates can be combined. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 54

62 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Table 3.6 Summary of Stated Preference Survey Results Attribute Valuation Business Residents Business Non- Residents Non- Business Residents Non- Business Non- Residents Value of Travel/Access Time $41.65 $59.06 $13.46 $19.59 (VOT) C$ per hour Wait Time Weighting (relative to IVT) Equivalent minutes of In-Vehicle-Time Party Size > Luggage (heavy/difficult) Method A series of logistic, probabilistic, diversion models were developed using model parameters derived from the Stated Preference Survey along with associated network data to forecast diversion rates of air passengers by zone, current mode, trip purpose, and residential status. The logit model operates by comparing the utility of travel by each mode with the utility of the alternative the new rail link - at the most disaggregate level and returns a forecast mode share based upon the difference in utility. An example of the relationship between difference in utility and mode share is shown in Figure 3.5. The utility (or disutility) of travel is based on the conversion of the different aspects of the journey (travel time, waiting time, travel cost, etc.) into a standard unit to enable a direct comparison to be made across modes. For example, if all trip characteristics were to be converted into units of in-vehicle time, the comparison may be made, say, of a trip by car of 45 generalized minutes compared with a trip by rail of 60 generalized minutes, resulting in a forecast mode share. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 55

63 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Figure 3.5 Logit Curve Mode Share Utility Difference For each travelling passenger, there is also an assumption regarding the number of additional members in the party either who are also flying or who are not flying (well-wishers and meeters/greeters). The methods for quantifying this additional demand are described later. 3.4 Modelling Assumptions Travel Times Auto and transit times from each zone to the airport (and local stations for access to the rail link) were extracted from the EMME2 network model. Also extracted from the EMME/2 transport model were the access times to each new station site on a zone by zone basis Travel Costs Assumed average parking costs at the airport, for those who drive and park, are a total of $20 (or $10 per one-way trip). Car fuel costs are calculated on the basis of 9 cents/km. Taxi fares are calculated as $ $1.35 per km. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 56

64 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Values of Time Cruise Ship Passengers Values of time have been assumed to remain constant throughout the forecasting period. Any changes or perceived increases in values of time are likely to be reflected in a reduction in the sensitivity to costs combined with an increase in the sensitivity to travel time (and increased congestion). The sensitivity of the results to values of time are examined later in this section. Cruise ship revenue passengers are assumed to only consider use of the premium service. It is not anticipated or assumed that a normal service would attract any of this market. Based on past trends (but excluding the high growth in 2002 which may be related to fears about terrorism elsewhere in the world), growth of this market is assumed at 1% p.a. from 2002, and that the distribution of origins and destinations within the city, including choice of port, remains constant in future years Meeters & Well Wishers and Luggage The model disaggregates the base market into four further segments according to party size and check-in baggage. Separate parameter estimates have been derived according to whether or not the passenger is travelling to the airport alone or accompanied (either with other flying passengers or with well-wishers), and also dependent upon the type of luggage the passenger is travelling with. Analysis of the stated preference data revealed that for both resident business trips and for non-resident non-business trips, check-in baggage and travelling with others to the airport were significant factors in the decision choice as to whether or not to use the RAVP (see Section above). The four segments are therefore defined as: passengers travelling alone with hand luggage or luggage that is light & easily manoeuvrable; passengers travelling alone with baggage that either requires a trolley or is difficult over anything other than short distances; passengers travelling with someone else with hand luggage or luggage that is light & easily manoeuvrable; and passengers travelling with someone else with baggage that either requires a trolley or is difficult over anything other than short distances. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 57

65 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts The average number of well-wishers and greeters used in the forecasts was based upon information revealed from the analysis of the airport survey data conducted for this study (see section above). This enabled an assessment of mode choice by passengers and well-wishers by party size Explicitly Excluded Markets In the derivation of the air passenger rail forecasts, it has been explicitly assumed that there will be no transfer from hotel bus (but not including the Airporter Bus), tour bus (except Cruiseship passengers under some options) or rental car. Reasons for these assumptions are: those who currently travel to the airport by hotel bus are viewed as having a door-to-door service at a perceived zero cost; it has been assumed that those air passengers who rent a car for access to/from the airport have a requirement for that car for other journeys whilst in the province; Attracting the cruise ship passenger market onto RAVP presents particular difficulties for a number of reasons: cruise ship passengers are predominantly not travelling alone; in all cases, they are travelling with luggage that is neither light nor easily manageable; the majority have their transport arranged for them predominantly by tour bus / coach to ferry them between the airport and hotel or cruise ship terminal; and not least, without a remote check-in facility, there is a significant risk that the size of this market likely to use the rail service would be confined to some of those who additionally stay in Vancouver at the beginning and/or end of their cruise. Nonetheless, the size of this market can be directly influenced by YVR (through policies restricting access to the airport by coach), and the travel agents who market and sell package tours for this market, assuming remote check-in facilities and a through service for check-in baggage to deliver a service that is at the very least on a par with that provided by the tour coaches. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 58

66 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Alternative Rail Service Specification The assumptions for the base scenarios tested, relating to a Normal service, are as presented in Sections 1.2 and 5.1, and provide a running time of 23 minutes between Waterfront and YVR for the fully grade-separated service (25 minutes for the partially grade separated service). Standard fares for this Normal or regular service to/from the airport are $3 per trip; normal reductions (to $2 per trip) apply after 6pm and at weekends. In addition, a possible Premium service, providing rolling stock with enhanced baggage storage facilities, is assumed to run every 15 minutes with stops at: The airport (a single station); Bridgeport; Broadway; Robson and Waterfront. Running times for the Premium service are 20 minutes between Waterfront and YVR for the fully grade separated solution and 22 minutes between Waterfront and YVR for the partially grade separated solution. In addition, a premium fare of $12 is assumed in the base case for this service, irrespective of destination / alighting station with a free return trip applicable for well-wishers and meeters & greeters. The partially grade-separated proposal, in comparison with the fully grade separated solution, is reflected in the model through a longer running time together with a journey time reliability factor (a one minute generalised journey time penalty). The passenger demand model determines forecasts for mode choice to the airport from each zone using the probabilistic logit models for each market sector. As opposed to mode choice, the assignment of trips from / to stations in the model is deterministic (all or nothing), in that all forecast trips from a single zone are modelled as if everyone from within that zone went to the same station. Access to the station at YVR is assumed to take 5 minutes between departure from baggage collection & customs to arrival at the platform. However, it is also implicit in the modelling assumptions that the service is well sign-posted, aggressively marketed and visible. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 59

67 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Access fares/costs, where applicable, to or from RAVP stations are assumed to be incorporated within the Rail Link fare. RAVP operations are assumed to serve all possible airport passengers, i.e. all airline operating hours are covered. 3.5 Revenue Optimization Analysis of our SP survey results produces the broad bell-shaped revenue optimization curve shown in Figure 3.6. This suggests that the revenueoptimizing fare is at approximately $ Figure 3.6 Fare Revenue Curve Revenue Demand (000s) 18,000 1,800 16,000 1,600 14,000 1,400 Annual Revenue ($,000) 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 1,200 1, Annual Demand (000s) 4, , Fare ($) Within the context of revenue maximizing fares, the model parameters derived from the SP survey should be used as a tool to provide information and input to a partly subjective decision that establishes a fare that is both close to revenue optimal while also acceptable to the public (that is, the fare needs to reflect the price of close substitutes and be politically acceptable). We have concluded that the RAVP Premium fare should be no higher than that for the Airporter Bus ($12) and about half the equivalent taxi fare to / from downtown. The value of $12 (in 2002 prices) has been taken as the average fare paid by Premium passengers. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 60

68 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts 3.6 Base Forecasts Eight Base Cases have been examined: Scenario 1: Fully Grade Separated (with both a Premium plus a Normal service) Scenario 2: Partially Grade Separated (with both a Premium plus a Normal Service) Scenario 3a: Fully Grade Separated (with just a Premium service) Scenario 3b: Partially Grade Separated (with just a Premium service) Scenario 4a: Fully Grade Separated (with just a Normal Service) Scenario 4b: Partially Grade Separated (with just a Normal Service) Scenario 5: Fully Grade Separated (with a direct Premium service plus a shuttle Normal service operating between YVR and Bridgeport, where there would be a direct interchange with the Richmond-Vancouver FGS service) Scenario 6: Partially Grade Separated (with a direct Premium service plus a shuttle Normal service operating between YVR and Bridgeport, where there would be a direct interchange with the Richmond-Vancouver PGS service) Scenarios 1 and 2 cover the four main base options for RAVP (FGS and PGS, and with and without the Western Extension). Scenarios 5 and 6 cover the additional two base case options, involving a shuttle service between YVR and Bridgeport. Further specifications for these services in terms of journey times and levels of service are presented in Chapters 1 and 5 in this report and also summarised here. The Base Case forecasts represent our best estimates of the likely demand and revenues for the RAVP airport service. In assessing the forecasts presented in this chapter, the following should be borne in mind: the forecasts do not include allowances for demand and fare ramp-up (see Chapter 6); revenues for well-wishers / greeters on premium services have been discounted on the basis of only one standard $12 fare for both legs of their trip; Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 61

69 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts no account of fare evasion has been included (included in Chapter 6) Operating Assumptions The services offered under each scenario are summarised in Table 3.7. Table 3.7: Airport Rail Link - Operating Assumptions Scenario Travel Time (min) Service Headway (min) Premium Normal Premium Normal All day Peak Off-peak 1: FGS with Premium and Normal services 2: PGS with Premium and Normal services a: FGS Premium services only * * 3b: PGS Premium services only * * 4a: FGS Normal services only b: PGS Normal services only : FGS with Premium and Normal services shuttle YVR- Bridgeport 6: PGS with Premium and Normal services shuttle YVR- Bridgeport 20 4* * *Time to Bridgeport Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 62

70 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Rail Link Passenger & Revenue Forecasts Forecasts for annual passengers and associated trips using the rail link under each scenario in 2010 and 2021 are summarised in Table 3.8. Two assumptions have been made for Cruiseship passengers: Low which assumes that none of the Cruiseship passengers, travelling directly between the airport and their ship at Canada Place, use RAVP; High which assumes all the Cruiseship passengers, travelling directly between the airport and their ship at Canada Place, use RAVP. As a maximum and assuming the operation of both Premium and Normal services, RAVP captures 12-14% of the air passenger market who are making land-side trips (excluding meeters and wavers). This proportion falls to 9% if only Normal services are operated, and between 6-9% if only Premium services are run. In 2010 and depending on operating scenario, total demands by air passengers and related trips vary between mpa, increasing to an equivalent range in 2021 of mpa. Without a Premium service, the ranges narrow to mpa in 2010, increasing to mpa by Table 3.9 summarises the fare revenues for each scenario. Table 3.10 summarises the patronage and revenues for the Premium and Normal services. Without a Premium service, revenues from air passengers and related trips are around $4 mpa in 2010 (in 2002 prices), increasing to $5 mpa by A Premium service generates considerably more revenue, whether run alone or in combination with a Normal service. With both Premium and Normal services, total revenues in 2010 are in the range $10 16 mpa (2002 prices) increasing to $13 21 mpa by With Premium services alone, revenues would be in the range $13 18 mpa in 2010 (in 2002 prices) increasing to $18 23 mpa by Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 63

71 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Table 3.8a: RAVP Air Passenger (& related) Forecasts mpa Scenario Passenger type 2010 mpa 1: FGS Premium + Normal Air Passengers Meeters & Wavers Cruiseship Low Cruiseship High Total % of air pass market % 2021 mpa % 2: PGS Premium + Normal Air Passengers Meeters & Wavers Cruiseship Low Cruiseship High Total % of air pass market % % 3a: FGS Premium only Air Passengers Meeters & Wavers Cruiseship Low Cruiseship High Total % of air pass market % % 3b: PGS Premium only Air Passengers Meeters & Wavers Cruiseship Low Cruiseship High Total % of air pass market % % 4a: FGS Normal only Air Passengers Meeters & Wavers Cruiseship Low Cruiseship High Total % of air pass market % % NB: Excluding ramp-up Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 64

72 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Table 3.8b: RAVP Air Passenger (& related) Forecasts Scenario Passenger type b: PGS Normal only Air Passengers Meeters & Wavers Cruiseship Low Cruiseship High Total % of air pass market % % 5: FGS Premium + Normal; shuttle YVR Bridgeport Air Passengers Meeters & Wavers Cruiseship Low Cruiseship High Total % of air pass market % % 6: PGS Premium + Normal; shuttle YVR Bridgeport Air Passengers Meeters & Wavers Cruiseship Low Cruiseship High Total % of air pass market % % NB Excluding ramp-up Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 65

73 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Table 3.9: RAVP Air Passenger (& related) Revenues $mpa (2002 prices) Scenario Passenger type : FGS Premium + Normal Air Passengers Meeters & Wavers Cruiseship Total 2: PGS Premium + Normal Air Passengers Meeters & Wavers Cruiseship Total 3a: FGS Premium only Air Passengers Meeters & Wavers Cruiseship Total 3b: PGS Premium only Air Passengers Meeters & Wavers Cruiseship Total 4a: FGS Normal only Air Passengers Meeters & Wavers Cruiseship Total 4b: PGS Normal only Air Passengers Meeters & Wavers Cruiseship Total 5: FGS Premium + Normal; shuttle YVR Bridgeport 6: PGS Premium + Normal; shuttle YVR Bridgeport Air Passengers Meeters & Wavers Cruiseship Total Air Passengers Meeters & Wavers Cruiseship Total NB Excluding ramp-up and fare evasion Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 66

74 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Table 3.10: RAVP Demands & Revenues by Premium & Normal Services Scenario Service 2010 Demand Revenue Mpa $Mpa ($02) 1: FGS Premium + Normal Premium Normal Total Demand Revenue Mpa $Mpa ($02) : PGS Premium + Normal Premium Normal Total a: FGS Premium Service only Premium Normal Total b: PGS Premium Service only Premium Normal Total a: FGS Normal Service only Premium Normal Total b: PGS Normal Service only Premium Normal Total : FGS Premium + Normal Shuttle YVR-Bridgeport Premium Normal Total : PGS Premium + Normal Shuttle YVR-Bridgeport Premium Normal Total NB Excluding ramp-up and fare evasion Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 67

75 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts Analysis of the Scenario 1 users of the rail link reveals that in the absence of RAV, about two thirds would have used taxi and the remaining one third are divided almost equally between potential private auto users (whether drivers or passengers) and buses. In terms of the impact of RAVP on other modes, the modes that would be most affected are the Airporter and other buses which would lose over 80% of their passengers travelling in the RAV corridor, and taxis who would lose around half their in-scope passengers. These details are summarised in Table Table 3.11: Source of RAVP Airport Passenger Trips by Mode (Scenario 1) Mode used in absence of RAV As % of RAV trips As % of trips using other mode and travelling in RAV corridor Taxi 65% 49% Car (driver, passenger, hire) 17% 30% Bus transit 18% 82% Total 100% 28% For the same scenario, the proportion of RAV trips by passenger type and trip purpose, and the proportion of these trips that are travelling in the RAV corridor are summarised in Table The largest group using RAV are non-resident business trips. Business trips by residents and non-residents make up over 60% of RAV s passengers. However, RAV abstracts a higher proportion of the in-scope non-business trips (over 30%) whether by residents or non-residents. RAV has most difficulty attracting the resident business trip, with only 21% of the potential users choosing the rail link. Table 3.12: Source of RAVP Airport Passenger Trips by Passenger Type and Trip Purpose (Scenario 1) Passenger Type As % of RAV trips As % of total trips travelling in RAV corridor Non-Resident Business 37% 28% Non-Resident Non-Business 19% 34% Resident Non-Business 18% 35% Resident Business 26% 21% Total 100% 28% Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 68

76 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts RAV Station Forecasts Irrespective of operating scenario and future year, the proportions of air and related passengers on RAV using each station are broadly similar. These proportions are summarised in Table The forecasts in this table refer to the High option, that is including the direct Cruiseship passengers between the airport and Canada Place. Excluding these passengers, station usage would be very similar to that for the air passenger columns in Table Robson Street is used by just over half the air passengers, whilst (unsurprisingly) Waterfront is the main destination of Cruiseship passengers. The five stations identified in Table 3.13 cover around 90% of the Normal service passengers. The Premium service is assumed to only stop at four stations (excluding the airport). Table 3.13: Station Usage by Service and Passenger Type Station Premium Services Normal Services Total Air Pass Others (incl Cruiseship) Air Pass Others Air Pass Others (incl Cruiseship) Waterfront 24-25% 40 50% 18 22% 22-24% 21-25% 24-40% Robson St 51-56% 37 46% 33 37% 39-41% 37-44% 39-46% Mainland % 13-15% 0 14% 0-15% Broadway St 18-23% 12 14% 16 19% 18-22% 17-19% 13-19% Bridgeport 1-2% 1% 1-3% 1-3% 1 2% 1-2% Total 100% 100% 84 89% 100% % 100% 3.7 Sensitivity Tests A series of sensitivity tests have been carried out to assess the impact of changes in input assumptions on the demand and revenues relating to air passenger using the RAVP service. Separate operations (Premium only and Normal only services) have been tested to assess the impact of these tests as it is felt that running the sensitivity tests with a combined service (Premium plus Normal) may to some extent obscure the resulting impacts. Tests cover the following scenarios: changes in rail service travel times; different rail headways; Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 69

77 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts changes in time taken by rail passengers to access the rail system at YVR; different values of time; changes in rail fares. The results from these tests are highlighted in Figure 3.7 in terms of the changes from the 2010 base forecast. Figure 3.7: Sensitivity Tests on Air Passenger Patronage on RAVP Premium Service Normal Service 60% 40% In-Vehicle-Time Service Interval Access Time at YVR Value of Time $3 Fare ($) $5 20% -20% 5 minute 2 minutes -20% $10 0% -20% +20 % 10 minutes +20% 30 minute 20 minutes -40% $15-60% 60 minute $20 $25-80% Some conclusions from the sensitivity analysis are as follows: Service Frequency (Headway) is an important consideration to passengers. A possible interpretation is that frequency, as with service reliability, affects the stress level of the individual. With a high frequency and reliable service (and/or clock-face departure times), there is comfort in the knowledge that even if one train has just been missed, another will be along very soon. A commonly held view amongst transport professionals is that a minimum service requirement for an airport rail link service is one with no more than 15 minute headway between trains. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 70

78 RAVP Air Passenger Related Forecasts The importance of accessibility to the station at the airport may be conservatively represented in the modelling work carried out within this study. Whilst a 5 minute walk may not be initially perceived to be such an onerous task in accessing the station / platform, the location relative to the terminal building along with the need to negotiate stairs / escalators are likely to detract from the overall attraction of the system. In particular, the need to walk past taxi ranks and bus stops would be a further detraction to use of the RAVP which is not specifically taken into account by the forecasting model. The impact of changes to values of time and in-vehicle time are relatively modest. As either increases, some other modes become more attractive (for example, taxi which has less waiting and access time but comparable in-vehicle time). Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 71

79 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model 4 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model 4.1 Purpose of Chapter This chapter provides an overview of the AM peak and midday EMME/2 models developed for this study. These models focus on corridor travel mainly by residents, whereas the airport passenger market has been addressed using a separate set of models as described in Chapter 3. The EMME/2 models were calibrated using the survey data collected for this project as described in Working Paper No. 1 Travel Surveys. In particular, information from the Stated Preference (SP) surveys were analysed to derive new values of time for various travel time components (e.g., walk, wait and in-vehicle). Other important data sources included the 1999 Trip Diary survey, auto and transit passenger count data for the corridor, and boarding and alighting profiles for the Millennium SkyTrain line. This information was provided by the sponsoring agencies. This chapter is organized in four sections. Section 4.2 provides a discussion of the revised traffic zone system, land use inputs, treatment of special generators in the corridor and cost assumptions used in the model. Section 4.3 describes the modifications to the road and transit networks and base assumptions for the future model runs. Section 4.4 describes the AM peak and midday model structures and presents the model validation results. 4.2 Traffic Zones, Land Use and Cost Assumptions This section provides a description of the traffic zone refinements within the RAV corridor, the land use inputs, review of special generators and cost assumptions adopted by the models Refined Traffic Zone System For detailed modelling of the RAV corridor, it is necessary to refine the traffic zone system and centroid connectors to ensure a more realistic representation of the system. These refinements also ensure proper depiction of walk distances to the stations. In order to define appropriate traffic zone boundaries, the SkyTrain OD survey data were analysed to identify average walk distances to the existing Expo line stations. The SkyTrain OD survey indicated that average walk access trip lengths were 700 metres with a standard deviation of 500 metres, while average egress trip Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 72

80 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Land Use Inputs lengths were 500 metres with a standard deviation of 400 metres. Therefore, traffic zones adjacent to the RAV line were sized so that the average walk distance did not exceed 800 metres. This allowed for convenient zone boundaries at major north/south arterials, which are spaced on a half-mile grid (i.e., approx. 800 metres). Note that in downtown Vancouver and Richmond Town Centre area, traffic zones were disaggregated to a finer level of detail because of the high population and employment densities. In Richmond, traffic zone boundaries are consistent with the City of Richmond s EMME/2 sub-area model. As part of this exercise, centroid connectors were reviewed and updated to ensure accurate representation of walk distances to stations. Figure 4.1 shows the corridor traffic zone system and the proposed RAV line with the revised traffic zones shaded in grey. A key input to the EMME/2 model is current and future year land use estimates by traffic zone. These inputs include population by age category, labour force, post secondary enrolment and employment by industry type. For the purpose of the model calibration exercise, 2002 land use estimates were prepared based on the 1996 census and growth factors derived from BC Statistics municipal estimates (2001 census information was not available for this study). For the 2010 and 2021 horizon years, it was agreed to use a modified GVRD Growth Management Scenario (GMS) as the baseline land use. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 73

81 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan ,900 2,910 2,920 3,000 3,010 3,210 3,220 3,020 3,030 3,040 3,230 3,240 3,050 3,060 3,080 3,090 3,100 3,250 3,270 3,260, 2,040 2,100 2,050 2,120 2,140 Waterfront 2,060 2,070 2,150 3,420 2,080 2,162 2,180 2,220 3,430 2,192 Robson St 2,090 2,291 2,210 2,240 2,292 2,312 3,440 3,070 2,300 2,320 Mainland 3,450 2,332 3,110 3,150 3,280 3,290 3,301 3,120 3,130 3,140 3,170 3,302 3,180 3,190 3,311 3,312 3,321 3,322 3,160 Broadway 3,201 St 3,590 3,202 3,640 King Edward St 3,621 3,631 41st Ave 3,622 3,632 3,460 3,660 3,670 3,650 3,470 3,480 3,490 3,700 3,710 3,720 3,540 3,500 3,510 3,520 3,530 3,680 3,690 3,730 3,740 3,750 3,550 3,760 3,770 3,570 3,580 3,560 3,780 3,790 3,800 3,810 4,000 4,010 4,020 4,030 4,190 4,200 4,210 4,220 4,230 4,040 4,060 4,070 4,080 4,280 4,300 4,320 4,090 4,100 4,290 4,310 4,0 3,330 6,001 Terminal 3 YVR Terminal 3,831 3,841 3,851 Marine Dr 6,004 3,861 6,010 Jericho Rd 3,340 3,360 Sea Island East 6,031 3,350 6,002 6,003 6,022 6,021 6,032 6,190 3,371 3,372 3,381 3,382 3,391 3,392 3,400 6,292 3,410 6,401 6,402 6,291 Bridgeport Rd Capstan Way 6,294 Cambie Rd Alderbridge Way 49th Ave 6,311 6,312 3,832 3,842 3,852 3,862 6,403 6,412 6,421 6,390 6,431 6,433 6,422 3,870 3,880 3,890 6,432 6,434 6,442 6,441 3,900 3,910 3,920 6,461 3,930 3,940 3,950 6,462 3,820 3,960 3,980 3,990 3,970 4,240 4,250 4,330 4,340 4,350 4,260 4,270 4,410 6,463 4,360 4,370 4,380 4,390 4,400 4,420 6,480 6,040 6,050 6,110 6,120 6,180 6,201 6,313 6,314 6,315 6,320 6,203 Westminster 6,360Hwy 6,2116,212 6,361 Cook Rd 6,364 6,371 6,2136,214 6,352 6,363 6,231 6,232 6,366 6,222 6,369 6,372 6,2336,234 6,368 6,423 6,451 6,444 6,470 6,464 6,471 6,474 6,472 6,473 6,475 Figure 4.1 Corridor Traffic Zone System

82 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model The modified GMS was developed for the previous MAE Study 7 and increases the Richmond/Airport area employment from the GMS target of 150,000 to 175,000. The 2021 Airport employment is approximately 15,500 higher (up from 22,500 to 38,000), with an additional 9,500 jobs distributed to the rest of Richmond. Table 4.1 provides a summary of the municipal controls for population and employment in 2002, 2010 and 2021 for the modified GMS. Table 4.1 Modified GMS Population and Employment Estimates by Municipality Total Population Pop 10 Municipality 2002 Est. GMS Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Pop21 GMS 2002 Est. Emp 10 GMS Emp21 GMS Anmore 1,510 2,190 3, Belcarra Burnaby 195, , , , , ,480 Coquitlam 118, , ,260 39,980 57,300 84,440 Delta 102, , ,600 43,900 45,890 50,340 Langley City 24,770 27,710 31,940 14,450 18,490 24,110 Langley Township 94, , ,990 36,460 50,610 73,340 Lions Bay 1,430 1,450 1, Maple Ridge 64,560 77,890 95,960 19,490 25,390 33,640 New Westminster 56,340 68,120 82,650 29,830 34,760 42,420 North Vancouver 132, , ,070 55,250 60,930 70,670 Pitt Meadows 15,210 17,050 19,890 3,080 3,880 4,880 Port Coquitlam 53,370 64,300 79,250 16,160 21,600 29,300 Port Moody 25,520 33,500 45,730 6,250 7,780 9,900 Richmond 168, , , , , ,000 Surrey 354, , , , , ,980 Vancouver 572, , , , , ,310 West Vancouver 46,280 50,240 49,670 18,590 18,530 19,590 White Rock 17,620 19,170 19,300 7,040 8,750 11,300 Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) Total Employment Abbotsford 118, , ,230 45,200 57,560 80,450 Chilliwack 69,030 88, ,050 26,050 35,310 47,250 Mission 33,250 41,270 52,820 9,570 12,890 17,480 Fraser North 15,180 20,440 24,840 3,640 5,390 7,360 Fraser South 13,610 13,220 13,570 4,390 5,790 7,660 GVRD 2,045,130 2,350,710 2,717,590 1,027,670 1,197,400 1,457,550 FVRD 249, , ,510 88, , ,200 TOTAL 2,295,010 2,657,980 3,097,100 1,116,520 1,314,340 1,617,750 7 RAVP MAE Study - Technical Appendix, Ridership Forecasts, User Benefits and Emission Estimates, March Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 75

83 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Special Generators For the purpose of sensitivity testing, alternate land use scenarios were developed by an independent land use consultant. These scenarios are documented under separate cover 8. The RAV corridor includes several unique areas that warrant special attention. These areas include the Airport, post secondary institutions, hospitals, and shopping malls. Current land use information was compiled for these areas and information on future expansion plans was obtained where possible. Note that whilst the Airport passenger market is addressed separately (see Chapter 3), Airport employees are included in the EMME/2 models. As part of the trip generation calibration exercise, available trips rate information for the special generators were compared to the trip rates produced by the AM and Midday model equations. The following provides a summary of some of the key generator information. (i) Airport Employees Information from recent surveys conducted by YVR was used to refine the Airport employee sub-models. In May 2000, the Airport reported 23,600 full-time equivalent jobs, with 91 percent stationed on Sea Island. For 2002, the number of full-time equivalent jobs on Sea Island is estimated at 22,500. By 2021, the Airport estimates that employment on Sea Island will increase to 38,000. The resident population on Sea Island, albeit small in number, is not forecast to increase beyond current levels in the foreseeable future. Table 4.2 shows the distribution of population and employment in 2002 and 2021 by traffic zone. Table 4.2 YVR Demographics traffic Population Employment zone ,980 19, ,000 4, , , ,200 3, ,000 3, ,500 Total ,500 38,000 8 Land Use Risk Assessment Framework: Vancouver Richmond Rapid Transit Line, Urban Futures Incorporated, Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 76

84 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model YVR employee surveys also indicate a relatively high level of regular and rotating shift work. Assuming that rotating shift work is evenly distributed between regular and shift time periods, approximately 55 percent of the employees arrive during regular working hours. AM and Midday trip generation equations were adjusted to reflect these unique arrival and departure times. Finally, information on YVR employee resident locations, as shown in Figure 4.2, was used to verify the work trip distribution models. Note that approximately 50 percent of the employees live in Vancouver and Richmond, while another 25 percent reside in Surrey and Delta. The remaining 25 percent are located throughout the Lower Mainland. Figure 4.2 Airport Employees by Place of Residence Mission Pitt Meadow s Maple Ridge Port Moody Abbotsford West Vancouver Coquitlam White Rock Port Coquitlam Langley North Vancouver New Westminster Other Burnaby Delta Surrey Richmond Vancouver 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% (ii) Post Secondary Institutions In addition to the University of British Columbia (UBC), there are a number of smaller post secondary institutions located in downtown Vancouver, along the Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 77

85 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Cambie corridor, and in the Richmond Town Centre area that will potentially be served by the RAV line. These institutions were contacted for current day estimates of student enrolment. Post secondary trips are explicitly addressed by the RAV trip generation models, which have been updated with the new enrolment estimates. Table 4.3 provides a summary of the 2002 full-time equivalent (FTE) student enrolment by institution and location (highlighted cells represent institutions within the corridor catchment area). Table Post Secondary Enrolment Institution Address Zone FTE's UBC University Blvd., Vancouver 2,900 16,110 UBC University Blvd., Vancouver 2,910 16,110 SFU 515 Hastings Harbour Centre, Vancouver 2,170 1,380 SFU Burnaby Mtn. Campus 4,140 12,370 SFU 2400 Central City, King George Hwy, Surrey 7, BCIT 3700 Willingdon, Burnaby 4,300 9,590 BCIT 555 Seymour Street, Vancouver 2, BCIT 265 West Esplanade, North Vancouver 1, BCIT Vancouver International Airport, 5301 Airport Rd 6, Emily Carr 1399 Johnston, Vancouver 3, Capilano 2055 Purcell Way, N. Vancouver 1,640 4,630 Douglas 700 Royal, New West 4,770 5,280 Douglas 1250 Pinetree Way, Coquitlam 5, Fraser Valley Fletcher Ave., Mission 9, Fraser Valley King Rd., Abbotsford 9,520 1,690 Fraser Valley Yale Rd., Chilliwack 9, Kwantlen 8771 Lansdowne, Richmond 6,303 2,900 Kwantlen nd Ave, Surrey 7,570 2,900 Kwantlen Ave., Surrey - Newton 7, Kwantlen Langley By-Pass, Langley 8,310 1,580 VCC 250 W. Pender, Vancouver 2,200 1,540 VCC Langara Campus 100 W. 49th Ave., Vancouver 3,841 4,690 VCC King Edward Campus 3,640 1,660 Trinity Western 7600 Glover, Langley 8,590 1,580 Coquitlam College 516 Brookmere, Coquitlam 5, Columbia College 6037 Marlborough Ave., Burnaby 4, Dorset College 555 West 12th Ave., Vancouver 3, Total 92,220 Forecasts for student enrolment are based on historic growth rates between 1991 and In 2010, FTE student enrolment is estimated at approximately 100,000, increasing to 115,000 by Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 78

86 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model (iii) Hospitals Several hospitals are located within the RAV catchment area. These include VGH, BC Childrens, Grace, Shaugnessy, GF Strong Rehab and St. Vincents. Attempts were made to confirm employment data and obtain shift information. Additionally, trip rate information provided by the project office 9 was used to confirm the trip generation equations for the AM and Midday. Information on VGH is summarized in Table 4.4. In future years, growth in hospital trips is based on demographic changes within these traffic zones. Table 4.4 Vancouver General Hospital Trips Characteristics Vancouver General Hospital Employees Full-Time 3,390 Part-Time 1,080 Casual 1,035 Total 5,505 Vehicle Trip Generation AM Peak Hour 1,850 PM Peak Hour 1,760 AADT 22,170 Existing Mode Splits Auto 60.4% Transit 17.6% Walk 12.7% Bicycle 5.5% Other 3.8% Total 100% Current Transit Ridership Weekday Daily 4,350 Annual 1,425,000 Note that a plan for a biotechnology development of 750,000 ft 2 has been considered a few years ago by the VGH, which will require rezoning. In addition to this biotechnology facility, potential residential expansion of approximately 40,000 ft 2 is also planned. 9 Memo from P. Bunt and Associates on RAV corridor generators. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 79

87 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model (iv) Shopping Malls and Other Information on current employment, trip rates and transit mode split was obtained for the Oakridge Shopping Mall. Table 4.5 provides a summary of this information. These data were used to confirm the AM and Midday models for Oakridge and other shopping districts within the corridor. Table 4.5 Oakridge Shopping Centre Trips Characteristics Oakridge Shopping Centre Employees Retail 1,430 Office 500 Total 1,930 Vehicle Trip Generation Friday PM Peak Hour - April 2,850 Friday PM Peak Hour - December 2,910 Saturday Peak Hour - April 3,100 Saturday Peak Hour - December 4,300 AADT 19,600 Existing Mode Splits Auto 84% Transit 12% Other 4% Total 100% Current Transit Ridership Daily 2,800 Annual 1,022,000 Potential retail expansion of an additional 134,000 ft 2 has been approved for the Oakridge Shopping Centre. Other shopping centres along the corridor include City Square Shopping Centre, Pacific Centre, Landsdowne Park Shopping Centre, Richmond Centre, Arbutus Village Shopping Centre and a strip of other malls along the No. 3 Road corridor Auto and Transit Cost Assumptions Auto and transit costs are used in the AM and Midday models as part of the generalized cost formulations, which are used to determine trip length distributions and mode shares by trip purpose. These costs include average auto operating costs, parking charges and transit fares, and were updated based on the latest information. The 2001 CAA Driving Costs publication recommends a national average value of 12.5 cents/kilometre to reflect variable auto operating costs (e.g., fuel and oil, Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 80

88 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model maintenance and tires). Fixed operating costs (e.g., insurance, licence and registration fees, taxes, financing costs and depreciation) are not used in generalized cost formulations, as these are sunk costs that do not typically influence the decision to make a specific trip. Parking charge information provided by TransLink was reviewed and incorporated where appropriate. Parking charges used in the model reflect the average longterm parking rate converted to a daily parking charge and divided by two (as half of the cost of parking are allocated to the return trip). As this information reflects 1996 parking charge rates, these costs were increased by 10 percent to reflect inflation. Parking costs at activity centres within the RAV corridor (e.g., Oakridge, Broadway and Richmond centre) were reviewed and adjusted as necessary. Longterm downtown parking charges range from $4 to $10 per day (divided by 2 in the model). Along the RAV corridor and in Richmond Centre, long-term parking charges range from $1.5 to $5. As of April 2002, regular transit fares are $2 for a trip within one fare zone, $3 for two fare zones and $4 for three fare zones. These fares apply for travel made between the start of service in the morning to 6:30 p.m. in the evening and represent the regular cash fare. Although discounts are available for pre-paid mediums and concessions, the cash fare amounts were used for the calibration process. Note that the mode choice model coefficients are calibrated to observed mode shares and hence, the use of average fare values would simply result in slightly different coefficients producing the same mode shares. 4.3 Road and Transit Networks This section provides a summary of the refinements and validation of the 2002 AM road and transit networks and the development of the Midday networks. In addition, common assumptions used for the development of the future networks are highlighted Road Networks A road network inventory was conducted for major arterials within the RAV corridor that included identification of AM and Midday laning and intersection configuration. This information was used to update the existing AM network to 2002 (e.g., lanes and volume-delay functions) and to develop the 2002 Midday network. For areas outside the study area, the Midday network was based on the AM network, but included modifications to reversible facilities such as Lions Gate Bridge, Pitt River Bridge and Deas Tunnel. Note that parking restrictions on Cambie, Oak and Granville are removed during the Midday, resulting in fewer travel lanes on these major north-south arterials in the Midday model. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 81

89 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Information from the auto travel time surveys were used to verify the travel time produced by the AM and Midday models. The survey collected travel time information for the following routes: 1. Downtown Vancouver: YVR: Dunsmuir/Seymour crossing Granville Street Bridge Arthur Laing Bridge YVR Terminal; 2. Downtown Vancouver Richmond : Dunsmuir/Seymour crossing Granville Street Bridge Oak Street Oak Street Bridge Garden City Granville (and back via No 3 Road Garden City Road Westminster Highway Oak Street Bridge etc); 3. Downtown Vancouver Richmond : Howe/Smythe crossing Cambie Street Bridge Cambie Street Marine Drive Arthur Laing Bridge Sea Island Dinsmore Bridge Gilbert & Granville (and back via No 2 Road Bridge Russ Baker Way Arthur Laing Bridge etc). Table 4.6 provides a comparison of the high and low survey times versus the model times for both time periods. For the AM, it is appropriate to compare the model against the higher observed time as this reflects the peak hour vs. peak period. The AM comparison shows that the model times are slightly higher than observed, specifically for the Vancouver sections. For the Midday, the model times provide a reasonable fit to the observed. A decision was made not to modify the volume-delay functions as this would entail recalibrating the entire regional model based on observed travel time data for one sub-area. Instead, the existing functions and resulting travel times were used in the calibration of the distribution and mode split models for the corridor. As shown later in this report, this approach resulted in good fits between the model results and observed transit count data. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 82

90 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Table 4.6 Auto Travel Time Comparison Route 1 - Downtown (Dunsmuir/Seymour) to Airport via Granville and Arthur Laing Direction Road Segment AM Peak Period (N=2) Inter Peak Period (N=3) High Low Model High Low Model Outbound Downtown to 41st 0:10:59 0:10:28 0:12:37 0:12:58 0:11:12 0:13:56 41st to Arthur Laing 0:06:24 0:05:38 0:08:13 0:04:48 0:04:23 0:07:25 Arthur Laing to Airport 0:03:39 0:02:49 0:03:22 0:05:00 0:04:05 0:04:34 Total 0:21:02 0:18:55 0:24:12 0:22:46 0:19:40 0:25:55 Inbound Airport to Arthur Laing 0:04:49 0:03:29 0:03:35 0:04:18 0:03:12 0:04:37 Arthur Laing to 41st 0:08:05 0:07:12 0:12:02 0:07:30 0:06:10 0:9:07 41st to Downtown 0:10:34 0:08:13 0:12:37 0:13:04 0:10:55 0:11:31 Total 0:23:28 0:18:54 0:28:14 0:24:52 0:20:17 0:25:16 Route 2 - Downtown (Dunsmuir/Seymour) to Richmond (Granville/Garden City) via Oak and Garden City Direction Road Segment AM Peak Period (N=2) Inter Peak Period (N=3) High Low Model High Low Model Outbound Downtown to 41st 0:12:51 0:11:07 0:15:50 0:15:18 0:11:58 0:15:34 41st to N end of Oak St Bridge 0:04:32 0:03:25 0:07:01 0:10:47 0:04:16 0:06:09 Oak St Bridge to Richmond 0:06:42 0:06:09 0:08:37 0:08:23 0:06:02 0:08:08 Total 0:24:05 0:20:41 0:31:27 0:34:28 0:22:16 0:29:51 Inbound Richmond to S end of Oak St Bridge 0:12:11 0:08:48 0:08:07 0:12:27 0:09:09 0:07:35 Oak St Bridge to 41st 0:09:53 0:07:14 0:14:53 0:07:22 0:06:25 0:09:25 41st to Downtown 0:13:27 0:10:34 0:16:44 0:14:19 0:12:33 0:13:23 Total 0:35:31 0:26:36 0:39:44 0:34:08 0:28:07 0:30:23 Route 3 - Downtown (Howe/Smithe) to Richmond (Gilbert/Granville) via Cambie, Arthur Laing, No. 2 Bridge/Dinsmore Direction Road Segment AM Peak Period (N=2) Inter Peak Period (N=3) High Low Model High Low Model Outbound Downtown to 41st 0:10:03 0:09:08 0:12:31 0:10:25 0:08:16 0:12:41 41st to N end of Arthur Laing 0:06:05 0:05:20 0:10:05 0:06:24 0:04:49 0:08:13 Arthur Laing to Richmond 0:09:22 0:07:21 0:07:43 0:07:24 0:06:40 0:08:21 Total 0:25:30 0:21:49 0:30:19 0:24:13 0:19:45 0:29:15 Inbound Richmond to S end of Arthur Laing 0:16:22 0:09:51 0:13:31 0:06:00 0:05:07 0:08:39 Arthur Laing to 41st 0:12:35 0:09:29 0:14:06 0:09:13 0:07:07 0:10:01 41st to Downtown 0:10:39 0:09:04 0:15:07 0:10:10 0:07:56 0:11:53 Total 0:39:36 0:28:24 0:42:44 0:25:23 0:20:10 0:30:32 Following the validation of the 2002 base road network, future networks were developed for 2010 and Future road network assumptions can affect how travel is distributed throughout the region and the mode share between auto and transit. Table 4.7 provides a summary of the major road network elements that were modified in 2010 or This list of projects was reviewed and agreed to by the project team. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 83

91 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Table 4.7 Future Road Network Assumptions Road Network Elements Upgrades 1. Massey Tunnel 3/1 3/1 4/2 Hwy 99 (Hwy 91 to Steveston) 3/2 3/2+1/1HOV 3/2+1/1HOV Hwy 99 (BridgePort to Westminster) NB Bus Lane NB Bus Lane 2. Alex Fraser 3/3 3/3 3/3 3. Hwy 1 (200th - 176th) 2/2 2/2 3/3 SOV+1/1 HOV Hwy 1 (176th to Port Mann) 2/2 2/2 3/3 SOV+1/1 HOV Hwy 1 (Port Mann) 2/2 + 1HOV EB 2/2+1HOV EB 3/3 SOV+1/1 HOV 4. River Road 1/1 2/2 2/2 5. Hwy 10 (Hwy 99 to Hwy 91) 1/1 2/2 2/2 Hwy 10 (Hwy 91 to Hwy 1) 1/1 2/2 2/2 6. Hwy 15 (Border to TCH) 1/1 2/2 2/2 7. Hwy 17 (56th to Causeway) 1 WB/2 EB 2/2 2/2 8. Interchange at 72nd and Hwy 91 Partial Full Full 9. Interchange at Blundell and Highway 99 None Full Full 10. Interchange at Ewen/Boyd and 91A Signal Full Full 11. Fraser Highway 1/1 2/2 2/2 New Facilities th Street Crossing No 3/3 3/3 13. River Way No AM Lane Configuration 1/1 (Arterial/Collector) 1/1 (Arterial/Collector) 14. South Fraser Perimeter Road No 2/2 2/2 15. United Boulevard Extension No 2/2 2/ th Ave-Stormont/McBride Connector No 2/2 2/2 17. Sea Island Connector Yes Yes Yes Transit Network A transit route inventory was conducted within the study area and for the areas served by the Expo and Millennium lines. This was required as the base year model (2002) was validated against Expo and Millennium ridership data. For the Burnaby area, this involved significant revisions to many of the 100 series routes as they have been integrated with the new Millennium line. Within the RAV corridor, all operating routes were reviewed and updated and model line times were compared with the TransLink schedules. This was done for both the AM and Midday time periods. Table 4.8 provides a comparison between the model times and the TransLink schedules. In general, the AM line times are slightly higher than the schedule, which is consistent with the auto times produced by the AM model. For the Midday, the model times compare quite well with the schedule. Note that new transit time functions were developed for the Midday model. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 84

92 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Table 4.8 Bus Route Line Time Verification Route No. 008fr 008gv 098i 098o i 351i 351o 352i 354i 403i 403o i 491i 496i 601i 601o 602i 603i 604i i 492i 003x 2002 AM Results 2002 Midday Results Route Name Schedule Model Sc1000 Schedule Model Sc1050 Freq Time Freq Time Freq Time Freq Time Fraser CBD Granville CBD Richmond Centre / Vancouver CBD Vancouver CBD / Richmond Centre nd St Stn / Airport Stn Scottsdale / Vancouver n/a n/a n/a n/a Crescent Beach / Vancouver Vancouver / Cresent Beach Vancouver / White Rock Centre n/a n/a n/a n/a Vancouver / White Rock South n/a n/a n/a n/a Three Rd / Richmond Centre Richmond Centre / Three Rd Ladner Ex / Airport Stn / Rich Centre nd St Stn / Q'Boro / Railway Airport / Airport Stn Stevenston / Vancouver n/a n/a n/a n/a One Rd / Burrard Stn n/a n/a n/a n/a Railway / Burrard Stn n/a n/a n/a n/a South Delta / Vancouver Vancouver / South Delta Tswwassen Hts / Vancouver n/a n/a n/a n/a Beach Grove / Vancouver n/a n/a n/a n/a English Bluff / Vancouver n/a n/a n/a n/a Cambie / Downtown Oak / Downtown Garden City / Burrard Stn n/a n/a n/a n/a Two Rd / Burrard Stn n/a n/a n/a n/a Main / Downtown Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 85

93 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Another important modification to the base transit network was the implementation of walk access links to the existing SkyTrain lines and the RAV lines for the future model runs. This feature enables the model to reflect the inconvenience associated with elevated or underground stations versus at-grade stations. This required that the Expo and Millennium lines be recoded and access and egress links introduced with an appropriate access penalty. Access time surveys were conducted at a number of stations including all downtown stations to determine the average walk time from curbside to the station platform. Table 4.9 provides a summary of the average access times used for the existing and future stations. Note that the access times for the RAV stations are identical except for within Richmond where there is an option for at-grade stations under the current project definition. It was agreed by the project team to give the partially-grade separated (PGS) alternative a 60 second advantage through the Richmond section. Note that the access time assumptions can be modified to test alternative station configurations if required. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 86

94 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Table 4.9 Average Station Access Times Existing Stations Access time (sec) Future Stations Access time (sec) Expo Line RAV Line - FGS Waterfront 120 Cordova 150 Burrard 150 Robson 180 Granville 180 Pacific Blvd 150 Stadium 90 Broadway 120 Main Street 90 King Edward 90 Broadway 90 41st 90 Nanaimo 90 49th 90 29th Avenue 90 Marine 90 Joyce 90 Bridgeport 90 Patterson 90 Capstan 90 Metrotown 60 Cambie 90 Royal Oak 90 Alderbridge 90 Edmonds 90 Westminster 90 22nd Street 90 Cook 90 New Westminster 60 Sea Island east 90 Columbia 60 Jericho 90 Scott Road 90 YVR 90 Gateway 60 RAV Line - PGS Surrey City Centre 90 Cordova 150 King George 90 Robson 180 Millennium Line Pacific Blvd 150 Commercial 90 Broadway 120 Renfrew 60 King Edward 90 Rupert 60 41st 90 Gilmore 60 49th 90 Brentwood 120 Marine 90 Holdom 90 Bridgeport 90 Sperling 90 Capstan 30 Production Way 90 Cambie 30 Lougheed 120 Alderbridge 30 Braid 90 Westminster 30 Sapperton 90 Cook 30 Sea Island east 90 Jericho 90 YVR 90 Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 87

95 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model The access times were then converted to distances and implemented as a differential board penalty for rail-based transit. This involved the calibration of a new line specific board penalty for the existing system. Therefore, the new models are able to differentiate between at-grade and grade-separated stations and can be coded to reflect different access times. This feature was validated against the previous model and existing boarding and alighting data. A final modification was the introduction of network-based transit fare modelling. This feature allows for sophisticated fare scheme modelling such as variable linespecific fares, distance-based schemes, etc. The previous model utilized a transit fare matrix to implement the current TransLink fare zone system. The current fare system was implemented in the new models by allocating a one-zone fare to the distance on the outbound centroid connectors and using an incremental fare matrix for two and three zone trips. Care was taken to ensure that the modified centroid connector distance did not impact the auto mode. This feature was validated against the previous model and current travel survey data and count data. Following the refinements and validation of the 2002 transit network, future networks were developed for 2010 and Table 4.10 provides a summary of key assumptions with respect to future bus fleet size and operating frequencies for SkyTrain, Commuter Rail and SeaBus. Table 4.10 Future Transit Assumptions AM Lane Configuration Transit Network Approx. Bus Fleet Size (including spares) 1,200 1,600 1,800 SkyTrain frequency (AM peak) Expo Line 2.7 min 2.25 min 2.25 min Millennium Line 5.45 min 4.5 min 4.5 min Commuter Rail frequency (AM peak) 30 min 30 min 30 min SeaBus frequency (AM peak) 15 min 10 min 10 min Table 4.11 highlights the bus routes operating in the RAV corridor and shows the future frequencies and the integration assumptions. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 88

96 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Table 4.11 RAV Corridor Bus Route Assumptions AM Headway (mins) Midday Headway (mins) Routes Comments A. Richmond Local Bus Routes #401 One Road/ Garden City Route via Richmond Centre Station #402 Two Road/ Richmond Centre Terminates at Richmond Centre Station #403 Three Road/ Bridgeport Extend to Bridgeport via No. 3 Road #404 Ladner/ Bridgeport Extend to Bridgeport Station #405 Five Road/ Ri chmond Centre Terminate at Richmond Centre Station #407 Gilbert/ Bridge port Terminate at Richmond Centre Station # nd Street/ Railway Route via Richmond Centre Station #424 Airport Shuttle Discontinue route #425 Airport South Shuttle Operate from Bridgeport Station B. Richmond Express Routes #301 Newton/ Scotts/BridgePort Route via Richmond Centre to Bridgeport #420 Richmond Centre/ Metrotown Route via Bridgeport to Richmond Centre #480 Richmond Centre/UBC Route from Richmond Centre to UBC #481 Steveston/ UBC Route directly from W. Richmond to UBC #482 Bridgeport/ UBC Route directly from Bridgeport to UBC #488 Garden City/ Vancouver n/a n/a n/a Discontinue route #490 Steveston/ Vancouver n/a n/a n/a Discontinue route #491 One Road/ Vancouver n/a n/a n/a Discontinue route #492 Two Road/ Vancouver n/a n/a n/a Discontinue route #496 Railway/ Vancouver n/a n/a n/a Discontinue route #499 Coquitlam Centre/ Surrey Ctr New route connecting town centres C. Other Modified Routes #3 Main/ Downtown Reduce frequency #8 Fraser/ Granville No change #15 Cambie/ Downtown Local service between Cambie stations #16 29 th Ave Station/ Arbutus No change #17 Oak/ Downtown Reduce frequency #311 Scottsdale/ B ridgeport n/a n/a n/a Terminate at Bridgeport Station #351 Crescent Be ach/ Bridgeport Terminate at Bridgeport Station #352 White Rock/ B ridgeport n/a n/a n/a Terminate at Bridgeport Station #354 White Rock S outh/ Bridgeport n/a n/a n/a Terminate at Bridgeport Station #601 South Delta/ B ridgeport Terminate at Bridgeport Station #602 Tsawwassen/ Bridgeport n/a n/a n/a Terminate at Bridgeport Station #603 Beach Grove/ Bridgeport n/a n/a n/a Terminate at Bridgeport Station #604 English Bluff/ Bridgeport n/a n/a n/a Terminate at Bridgeport Station #620 Tsaww Ferry/ Bridgeport Direct route from Ferry to Bridgeport #98 B-Line Route discontinued # nd Street Station/ Bridgeport Route extended to Bridgeport Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 89

97 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model 4.4 AM and Midday EMME/2 Models This section describes the calibration and validation of the AM and Midday submodels. The RAVP sub-area AM peak hour model provided a starting point for the model development work. This model structure is based on the TransLink Regional Model, which has been in operation for more than two decades. Therefore, the AM modelling work focused on recalibrating the existing model to the latest survey data, with particular emphasis on the RAV corridor. Conversely, the Midday model represents an entirely new model developed specifically for this project. Therefore, considerable efforts were required to calibrate and validate the Midday model to regional and sub-area specifications Trip Generation Both the AM and Midday models are based on a standard four stage modelling procedure: (i) trip generation; (ii) trip distribution; (iii) mode choice and (iv) trip assignment. A decision was made at the beginning of the project to develop the Midday model using a similar structure as the AM model to ensure consistency between the models. Trip generation equations determine the number of trips produced and attracted by each traffic zone for the specified time period. While the AM peak hour trip purposes and time periods are well established, these issues had to be reviewed for the Midday model. Information from the 1999 Trip Diary survey was analysed to determine the appropriate trip purposes and time periods to model. Table 4.12 provides a summary of the average daily trips broken out by 12 detailed trip purposes and 5 time periods. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 90

98 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Table 4.12 Trip Purposes by Time Period Time Period Trip Purpose Total To Work 28, , ,850 53,290 35, ,170 From Work 12,610 8, , , , ,680 To Grade Sc - 266,050 54,920 5,100 6, ,010 From Grade Sc , ,680 9, ,380 To Post Sec ,270 60,890 6,130 8, ,830 From Post Sec ,330 50,200 34, ,260 Home Based Rec/Soc 14,040 28, , , , ,750 Home Based Other 13, , , , ,960 1,712,010 Non Home Based 3,760 28, , , , ,670 Business to Business , ,400 40,930 10, ,700 From home - Serve Pass - 84,170 8, ,330 From Serve Pass - Home ,020 38,360-48,380 Total 74,060 1,168,360 2,018,250 1,654,420 1,256,080 6,171,170 Percent 1.2% 18.9% 32.7% 26.8% 20.4% 100.0% Time Period Trip Purpose Total To Work 38.9% 46.1% 13.4% 3.2% 2.8% 15.0% From Work 17.0% 0.7% 8.1% 29.7% 17.8% 14.6% To Grade Sc 0.0% 22.8% 2.7% 0.3% 0.6% 5.4% From Grade Sc 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 12.6% 0.7% 5.1% To Post Sec 0.3% 4.9% 3.0% 0.4% 0.7% 2.2% From Post Sec 0.5% 0.1% 1.9% 3.0% 2.8% 2.0% Home Based Rec/Soc 19.0% 2.5% 8.0% 8.8% 29.6% 11.7% Home Based Other 18.6% 12.1% 34.1% 27.2% 33.4% 27.7% Non Home Based 5.1% 2.4% 17.2% 10.1% 10.8% 11.0% Business to Business 0.7% 1.2% 6.0% 2.5% 0.9% 3.0% From home - Serve Pass 0.0% 7.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% From Serve Pass - Home 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 2.3% 0.0% 0.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: figures may not add to totals due to rounding The AM peak period ( ) accounts for close to 20 percent of the daily trips, and is dominated by trips to work and grade school, and trips originating from home for a variety of reasons. Although post secondary trips represent only 5 percent of the travel in this time period, they are modelled as a unique trip purpose as they are highly concentrated in certain areas. The existing AM peak hour model focuses on the time period and models the following aggregate trip purposes (trip generation equations are divided by 1.9 to represent the peak hour): To work To grade school Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 91

99 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model To post secondary To other (all trip purposes) Based on our review of the survey results, the AM trip purposes and time period are appropriate. The Midday period ( ) accounts for more than 30 percent of daily travel and includes trips to/from work, business-related, home-based and non home-based trips. Note that this time period also captures a sizable percentage of grade school and post-secondary trips. Redefining the Midday time period to significantly reduces the proportion of schoolbased trips. Based on the new time period definition ( ), the following aggregate trip purpose categories were established for the Midday model: To/from work Business-related Home-based other Non home-based other Table 4.13 summarizes the AM ( ) and Midday ( ) trip totals by the aggregate trip purpose definitions. Table 4.13 AM and Midday Trip Totals by Purpose Purpose AM Period ( ) Trips Avg. Trip Length (km) to work 473, to grade school 363, to post secondary 57, to other 193, Total 1,087, Midday Period ( ) to/from work 252, business-related 86, home-based other 639, non home-based 281, Total 1,258, Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 92

100 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Based on these definitions and trip totals, trip generation equations were calibrated for the AM and Midday periods. Three different formulations were developed for the AM peak hour and compared with the existing AM equations. While the new formulations calibrated closely to the 1999 Trip Diary survey, they did not result in improved fits to the screenline counts (the screenline comparison was conducted after the distribution and mode split models were calibrated). Therefore, a decision was made to use the existing trip generation equations. An example of the AM work trip production and attraction equations for the CBD sub-area are presented below: Wrkprd = (.055EmpRet j i Wrkatt = (.503EmpRet j i +.032EmpOth +.627Elf ) / EmpOth ) / j i i Employed-labour force is the major producer of morning work trips, while employment (retail and other) are the main attractors. The employment terms in the work production equations represent chained trips (e.g., people stopping for breakfast and then going on to work). Retail employment has a lower attraction rate in the morning due to the later start times and higher proportion of shift work. Note that sub-area equations were developed for the airport for work and other trip purposes to reflect the unique characteristics of this special generator. These equations are based on survey data collected for this study and information provided by YVR. Owing to a high component of shift work, the attraction rates for work are lower, but the airport generates a higher rate of other trips (e.g., people dropping someone off). Wrkatt (. 239EmpRet +.350EmpOth ) / j = j j Othatt i (. 06EmpOth ) / = i For the Midday, new trip generation equations were developed based on the 1999 Trip Diary survey. These equations were then refined for the RAV Corridor based on the auto and transit survey data collected for this study. An example of the home-based production and attraction equations for the North Shore/CBD/Vancouver sub-area are presented below: HBprd = (.249Poptot j i HBatt = (.242Poptot j i +.995EmpRet ) / i EmpRet ) / j Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 93

101 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model As the home-based definition includes trips that either start or end at home, total population (a surrogate for households) is used in both the production and attraction equations. The majority of these trips either originate or are destined to stores, restaurants and other personal service. Therefore, retail employment is used as a surrogate for this land use category. The r-squared values for the Midday equations ranged between 0.95 and 0.98 when compared to the observed sub-area data. Note that the Midday equations are divided by 3.5 (as opposed to 4), in order to match the auto and transit survey data and the regional screenline count data Trip Distribution New trip distribution models were calibrated for both time periods based on the updated cost information and the new values of time and weights derived from the corridor Stated Preference (SP) surveys. Table 4.14 shows the values of time (VOT) and transit time weights used in the development of the AM and Midday models. Table 4.14 SP-Based Values of Time and Transit Weights Purpose AM Period ( ) VOT as % of Wage Rate In-vehicle Transit Weights Wait Walk Access to work to grade school to post secondary to other Midday Period ( ) to/from work business-related home-based other non home-based Note: avg. hourly wage rate assumed in the model is $ (Stats Canada). These parameters were incorporated into impedance (or generalized cost) formulations and AM and Midday gravity models were calibrated for each trip purpose. Impedances represent a combination of the travel time and out-ofpocket costs converted to time units. With the introduction of purpose-specific transit weights, an incremental transit assignment procedure is required (e.g., the Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 94

102 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model transit matrix is separated by purpose and the individual matrices are assigned to the network, resulting in unique transit travel time and generalized cost matrices). An example of the transit impedance formulation for Midday home-based other trips is presented below: 60 HBTrIpij = HBTrTmij + xtrfareij 0.5AvgWage HBTrTm = T ij inveh T wait + 2.0T i walk + 4.0Boards The transit impedance is a function of the transit time and the transit fare converted to time units. Note that part of the transit fare is now included in the transit time matrix as the one zone charge has been allocated to all outbound centroid connectors. The transit time is based on the in-vehicle time and perceived wait time, walk access time and boarding penalty. For home-based trips, transit passengers perceive the wait and walk access time to be 2.75 and 2.0 times more inconvenient than in-vehicle time. Additionally, a perceived penalty of 4 minutes is applied to each boarding to reflect the inconvenience of transferring. Note that the board penalty for SkyTrain and the proposed RAV line has been modified to reflect unique station access times and platform-to-platform exchanges. Auto and transit impedances were developed for each trip purpose for the AM and Midday models. These impedances were then used to calibrate gravity models for each trip purpose. Gravity models are used to distribute the production and attraction vectors between origin-destination pairs. An example of the gravity friction factor equation used for the home-based gravity model is presented below:. 093 ( HBAuIp ij.093 e e HBTrIp ij. + + e HBWlkIp ij) 093 HBFij = The friction factors take the form of a negative exponential and are calibrated to the trip length distribution (TLD) curves produced from the survey data. These formulations include the auto, transit and walk impedances as the accessibility for each of these modes can influence trip lengths. The beta coefficients (e.g., -.093) are calibrated to the TLD curves for each trip purpose. As these beta values become less negative, the average trip lengths increase as illustrated in Figure 4.3. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 95

103 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Figure 4.3 Example of Friction Factor Functions Beta=-0.1 Beta=-0.05 Fij Factor Combined Travel Impedance (min) Table 4.15 shows the calibrated beta values and compares the average trip lengths produced by the gravity models to the survey values. Note that the AM trip purposes have been calibrated to average distances produced by two regional travel surveys. Although the 1992 survey is dated, it featured a large sample size, which increases the statistical reliability. Trip purposes such as post secondary (which represent a small proportion of trips on a regional basis) were better represented in the 1992 survey. The 1992 survey focused on the AM peak period and did not provide information for the Midday. Table 4.15 Gravity Model Beta s and Average Trip Lengths Avg. Trip Length (km) Purpose Beta Model TD99 OD92 AM Period ( ) to work to grade school to post secondary to other Midday Period ( ) to/from work n.a. business-related n.a. home-based other n.a. non home-based n.a. TD Trip Diary Survey (0.04 percent household sample) OD Origin-Destination Survey (0.2 percent household sample) Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 96

104 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Mode Choice The AM mode split models were recalibrated based on the existing AM model structure as shown in Figure 4.4. Figure 4.4 AM Nested-Logit Mode Choice Model Structure All Trips Work Choice/Captive Post Secondary Grade School Other Choice Trips Work Post Secondary Grade School Other Captive Trips Walk/Bike/Transit Work Total Bike Work Choice/Captive Post Secondary Grade School Other Choice Auto Work Post Secondary Grade School Other Choice Transit Work Post Secondary Grade School Other Choice Walk Work Post Secondary Grade School Other Captive Walk Work Captive Transit Work Park and Ride (PnR) Transit Work Walk Access Transit Work Post Secondary Grade School Other Total Walk Work Choice/Captive Post Secondary Grade School Other Total Auto Work Choice/PnR Post Secondary Grade School Other SOV 2HOV 3HOV Auto Leg PnR Work Transit Leg PnR Work Total Transit Work Choice/Captive Post Secondary Grade School Other The AM trip distribution models produce five matrices that feed into the nestedlogit mode choice model: (i) transit/walk/bike captive work; (ii) choice work; (iii) post secondary; (iv) grade school; and (v) other. Captive trips are estimated at the trip generation stage based on origin zone density and distributed along with choice work trips to a single work attraction vector using the balmprod macro. 10 Due to data limitations, captive trips are only estimated for the work trip purpose. The first step in the AM mode choice model is the estimation of bike trips, which is based on a negative exponential function where distance is the independent variable. This approach has been adopted as the factors influencing the decision to 10 BALMPROD Heinz Spiess, EMME/2 Support Centre, CH-2558 Aegerten Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 97

105 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model bike are difficult to estimate and these trips only account for one percent of regional travel. The remaining captive work trips are split into walk and transit trips using a binomial-logit function, while the remaining choice trips are split into auto, transit and walk using a multi-nomial logit model. A general example of the AM mode split equations are presented below: Bike = Tot C e ij ij.13autdis ij Walk ij = 1+ e Tot Trnij = 1+ e ij.06( WlkIp AuIp + AMB w ) Bike Walk ij ij ij.06( TrIp AuIp + AMB t ) Tot Bike + e ij.06( WlkIp TrIp + TMB w ) Autp = Tot Bike Walk Trn ij ij ij ij ij The park and ride (PnR) model is applied to transit choice work trips to determine walk access and PnR trips. PnR is only applied to work trips as this sub-mode is insignificant for the other trip purposes. The PnR model produces two matrices: (i) the auto leg from the origin to the PnR parking lot; (ii) the transit leg from the PnR parking lot to the destination. These matrices are incorporated into the overall auto and transit choice matrices. The final step is the estimation of one person, two person and three or more person vehicle trips. The HOV model estimates these trips for work, post secondary and other trips using a multi-level logit formulation based on the difference in generalized-cost between the sub-modes. Grade school auto trips are split into the three categories based on average vehicle occupancies. These trips are then summed into the three vehicle matrices (e.g., SOV, 2 HOV, 3+ HOV). The three auto matrices are assigned using a generalized-cost multi-class assignment. In the new AM model, the four transit matrices are assigned using an incremental multi-path assignment algorithm (this is necessary because the VOT and transit weights vary by purpose). Walk and bike matrices are not assigned to the network. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 98

106 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Each of the AM mode choice sub-models was recalibrated for this study. Table 4.16 shows the calibrated AM mode bias parameters for each trip purpose. The mode bias parameters establish the proportion of trips that use a given mode for a specific purpose. Note that a positive mode bias indicates that one mode is preferred over another when the impedances are the same. For example, work choice trips show that walk has a 1-minute advantage over auto, transit has an 11- minute advantage over walk, and therefore, transit has a 12-minute advantage over auto. This may appear counter-intuitive as one would expect auto to be favoured all things being equal. However, because of the large weights that are applied to the walk and wait times, it is rare for the transit or walk impedance to be equal or less than the auto impedance (for a given OD pair). Therefore, in general, the auto mode bias terms are negative in order to calibrate the correct mode shares. Table 4.16 AM Mode Choice Calibration Parameters AM Mode Bias Purpose AMB walk TMB walk AMB transit AM Period ( ) work captive +17 work choice grade school post secondary other AMB - Auto Mode Bias, TMB - Transit Mode Bias Table 4.17 compares the model trip totals and average trip lengths with the 1992 and 1999 travel surveys. The new model favours the 1992 trip lengths and trip proportions as the survey sample size was much larger and the previous AM model (which was calibrated to the 1992 survey) produced a reasonable fit to screenline counts. Note that the average transit trip length is slightly lower than observed, but has been significantly improved over the previous model where the average trip length was 10.2 kilometres. Table 4.17 AM Mode Choice Model Results Purpose Trips AM Peak Hour ( )/ TD Survey 1992 OD Survey Avg. Trip Len (km) Trips Factored Trips x1.2 Avg. Trip Len (km) Model Results Trips Avg. Trip Len (km) auto driver 313, , , , auto passenger 107, , , , transit 66, ,860 56, , walk/bike 84, , , , Total 571, , , , Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan-03 99

107 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Information from the Expo SkyTrain survey was used to recalibrate the AM PnR sub-model. The focus of this recalibration was the Scott Road lot as a regional PnR lot is assumed at BridgePort to support the RAV line. Survey data for Scott Road PnR users indicate that they travel 10.8 kilometres on average between their residence and the lot (with a standard deviation of 10.2 kilometres). The revised model produces an average access trip length of 9.6 kilometres with a standard deviation of 7.2 kilometres for the Scott Road lot. The average trip length statistics from the survey were used as a guideline for developing the BridgePort catchment areas for the RAV line forecasts. Table 4.18 provides a comparison of the AM model PnR demand relative to usage data provided by TransLink for the fall of In general, the model provides a reasonable fit to observed lot usage. There appears to be a distributional problem between the Maple Meadows and Northeast Sector lots, but this is outside the study area and should have no influence on the RAV line forecasts. Note that sensitivity tests were conducted on the PnR model to examine the effect of introducing parking charges at a lot. This analysis showed that the model was very sensitive to price increases, and therefore, standard elasticity values were used to implement the $2 parking charge at the proposed BridgePort lot. For example, assuming one-half of the PnR parking charge applies to the morning trip, a standard transit fare elasticity of 0.3 is applied to adjust the PnR demand (e.g., the two zone trip fare increases from $3 to $4 or 33%, resulting in a 10% reduction in PnR demand). Table 4.18 Park and Ride Model Results (Survey vs. Model) Fall 2001 PnR Data Lot Name Zone Lot Cap Daily AM AM Peak Use Model PNE Phibbs Ex Gleneagles Park Royal Sexsmith Ladner S. Delta Ex E. Guildford Scott Rd ,411 1, ,057 KG-West KG-East S. Surrey Walnut Grove Coquitlam Centre Lougheed Port Moody Port Coquitlam Pitt Meadows Maple Meadows Mission Seabus Total 7,370 4,693 3,285 3,284 Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

108 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model The Midday mode choice sub-models are based on a similar, but simplified model structure to that of the AM. Transit trips are not separated into captive and choice markets as this information was not available on a regional basis. Additionally, PnR was not calibrated for the Midday as our surveys showed that most people are accessing the PnR lots in the morning and travelling for work and educational purposes (approximately 85% of users). Table 4.19 provides a summary of the calibrated Midday mode bias parameters. Table 4.19 Midday Mode Choice Calibration Parameters Midday Mode Bias Purpose AMB walk TMB walk AMB transit Midday Period ( ) to/from work business-related home-based other non home-based AMB - Auto Mode Bias, TMB - Transit Mode Bias Table 4.20 compares the model trip totals and average trip lengths with the 1999 Trip Diary Survey. Note that the auto trip totals in the model are higher than the survey as they have been adjusted upward to match the information obtained from the RAV corridor Auto OD survey. Table 4.20 Midday Mode Choice Model Results Purpose 1999 TD Survey Trips Midday Average Hour ( )/3.5 Avg. Trip Length Model Results Trips Avg. Trip Length auto driver 221, , auto passenger 59, , transit 28, , walk/bike 50, , Total 359, , Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

109 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Assignment Results and Validation Table 4.21 compares the auto and transit volumes for the AM and Midday models with observed auto and transit passenger counts. The AM model provides a reasonable fit with the observed auto counts and represents an improvement over the previous model. The Midday model also provides a reasonable fit to observed auto counts. With respect to transit passenger volumes, both the AM and Midday models are providing a high correlation with major screenlines and individual locations. This represents a significant improvement over the previous AM model. Table 4.21 AM and Midday Screenline Comparison AM Auto AM Transit Midday Auto Midday Transit Dir Location Obs Est. Diff Obs Est. Diff Obs Est. Diff Obs Est. Diff N Burrard Bridge 3,840 2, ,000 2,370 1, N Granville Bridge 2,860 2,910 3,350 3,400 1,850 2,010 1,620 1,650 N Cambie Bridge 2,930 2, ,940 1, ,630 7,840-19% 5,230 5,230 0% 6,160 5,340-13% 2,240 2,220-1% S Burrard Bridge 2,220 2, ,960 1, S Granville Bridge 1,650 2,760 1,300 1,310 1,710 2,500 1,180 1,190 S Cambie Bridge 2,090 1, ,930 1, ,960 6,810 14% 2,040 2,030 0% 5,600 5,980 7% 1,680 1,690 1% N Arthur Laing Bridge 4,040 3,390 1,100 1,050 2,380 2, N Oak Street Bridge 3,530 3,610 1,180 1,170 2,540 2, N Knight Street Bridge 3,970 3, ,730 2, N Queensborough Bridge 2,820 3, ,970 2, ,360 13,720-4% 2,590 2,570-1% 9,620 9,870 3% % S Arthur Laing Bridge 2,810 3, ,420 2, S Oak Street Bridge 2,860 2, ,370 2, S Knight Street Bridge 4,240 3, ,130 2, S Queensborough Bridge 2,840 3, ,910 1, ,750 13,170 3% % 9,830 9, 290-5% % S Dinsmore Bridge E Moray Bridge , S No. 2 Road Bridge ,040 2,010-1% % 2,530 2, % % N Dinsmore Bridge 1,220 1, W Airport connector 1,480 1, ,090 1, N No. 2 Road Bridge 1,470 1, ,170 4,670 12% 1,050 1,200 14% 2,640 2, 770 5% % N Deas Tunnel 5,670 5, ,360 2, N Alex Fraser Bridge 5,180 5, ,450 2, ,850 11,020 2% 990 1,000 1% 4,810 4, 570-5% % S Deas Tunnel 1,630 2, ,110 1, S Alex Fraser Bridge 2,440 1, ,230 1, ,070 3,860-5% % 4,340 3, % % Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

110 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Table 4.22 provides a detailed summary of the bus passenger volumes at key locations covered by the point check surveys conducted for this study. This illustrates that at an individual route level the model is providing a good fit with observed bus passenger counts. Note that the model compares quite closely with the 98 B-Line counts. Table 4.22 Bus Passenger Volume Comparison AM Peak ( /1.9) 1 Midday ( /3.5) 2 Location Dir Route # Obs. AM Mod Diff Obs. MID Mod Diff Granville St. NB (210) (100) (South of Broadway) (80) (70) (160) 601/ (10) TOTAL 2,490 2,690 (200) SB (30) (40) TOTAL Cambie St. NB (130) (N. of Broadway) (20) (90) TOTAL SB (20) (70) (20) 30 TOTAL Airport Station NB (70) TOTAL 1,060 1, (30) SB TOTAL (50) EB TOTAL (10) WB TOTAL The AM peak period volumes were factored by 1.9 to derive the AM peak hour volumes. 2 The Midday period volumes were factored by 3.5 to derive the Midday hourly volumes. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

111 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Table 4.23 compares the B-Line 98 origin-destination distribution from the AM model with the Bus OD survey results. The model results have been expanded to the AM peak period (i.e., ) to match the survey control. The OD cells with more than 200 passenger trips have been highlighted in the table. In general the AM model provides a good fit to the survey data. Note that the survey focused on weekday trips within the RAV corridor, and therefore, may not accurately reflect travel within Richmond or the CBD. Table 4.23 AM OD Comparison for B-Line 98 (Model vs. Bus Survey) A. AM Model Results expanded to Select Link B-Line 98 N.Shore CBD Rest Bby/N NE Delta/Sur YVR Rmd Vanc West Sector /Lang Total N.Shore CBD Rest Vanc ,500 Bby/N West NE Sector YVR Rmd ,080 Delta/Sur/Lang Total 60 1, ,160 B. Bus Survey OD Results ( ) - B-Line 98 N.Shore CBD Rest Bby/N NE Delta/Sur YVR Rmd Vanc West Sector /Lang Total N.Shore CBD Rest Vanc ,510 Bby/N West NE Sector YVR Rmd Delta/Sur/Lang Total 30 1,150 1, ,160 Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

112 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Table 4.24 provides a similar comparison for the Midday model results, which have been expanded to the Midday period (i.e., ). Again, OD cells with more than 200 passenger trips have been highlighted. The Midday model also produces a reasonable fit with the survey origin-destinations. Note that the survey focused on trips within the RAV corridor, and therefore, may not accurately reflect travel within Richmond or the CBD. Table 4.24 Midday OD Comparison for B-Line 98 (Model vs. Bus Survey) A. Midday Model Results expanded to Select Link B-Line 98 N.Shore CBD Rest Bby/N NE Delta/Sur YVR Rmd Vanc West Sector /Lang N.Shore CBD Rest Vanc , , Bby/N West NE Sector YVR Rmd , Delta/Sur/Lang Total 130 1,130 2, , Total , , ,650 B. Bus Survey OD Results ( ) - B-Line 98 N.Shore CBD Rest Bby/N NE Delta/Sur YVR Rmd Vanc West Sector /Lang N.Shore CBD Rest Vanc Bby/N West NE Sector YVR Rmd Delta/Sur/Lang Total 200 1,690 2, , Total 220 1,540 2, , ,650 Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

113 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Although these models have been calibrated for the RAV corridor, the existing Expo and Millennium lines were used to calibrate access penalties to rapid transit and received special attention during the calibration process. Table 4.25 shows how the AM and Midday models compare with observed counts taken in early September 2002 during the opening month for the Millennium Line. As the model reflects fully ramped-up ridership, the model results have been factored by 0.75 for comparison purposes (see Section for an explanation of the ramp-up factors). This demonstrates that both the AM and Midday models are producing reasonable fits with existing rapid transit in the Lower Mainland. Table 4.25 Millennium SkyTrain Boarding/Alighting Comparison Station AM Boards Sept 2002 Observed AM Alights Midday Boards Midday Alights AM Boards AM Alights Midday Boards Midday Alights Commercial 470 1, , Renfrew Rupert Gilmore Brentwood Holdom Sperling Production Way Lougheed 1, , Braid Sapperton Millennium Tota 3,080 3,360 2,020 2,020 3,320 2,900 2,090 1,950 1 Model includes ramp-up effect and has been factored down by 0.75 to simulate the opening day ridership for the Millennium line. Modelx Note that detailed ridership information was not available for the Expo line, but both models correspond closely to limited Expo passenger screenline data. Figure 4.5 shows the 2002 AM and Midday hourly volumes from the models for the Expo and Millennium lines. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

114 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model Figure 4.5 AM and Midday SkyTrain Passenger Volumes AM Model Midday Model Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

115 EMME-2 Regional Transport Model In summary, the models calibrate closely to the regional travel survey statistics and have been enhanced within the RAV corridor to match information collected from our survey program. Validation of the AM and Midday models to secondary data sources (e.g., passenger counts, origin-destination data) shows that the models are producing reliable estimates of transit ridership on individual bus routes and rapid transit lines. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

116 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts 5 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts 5.1 Options Description and Assumptions This chapter describes the RAV line options that were tested using the new EMME/2 models and presents the forecast ridership results for non-air passenger related travellers. Additionally, the methodology used to derive annual revenue estimates is presented along with the findings from the sensitivity analysis. For this study, six RAV line options were examined in different time horizons for both AM and Midday periods. These options include different assumptions on grade-separation, operating line configuration and the western extension of the Millennium line (between Commercial and Cambie) and are defined as follows: Option 1 Base Fully Grade-Separated (FGS) + Western Extension Option 2 Base FGS no Western Extension Option 3 Base Partial Grade-Separated (PGS) + Western Extension Option 4 Base PGS no Western Extension Option 5 Alternative FGS no Western Extension (YVR Spur) Option 6 Alternative PGS no Western Extension (YVR Spur) The operating lines and headways used for the Base and Alternative options are summarized in Table 5.1. The Base options would provide direct regular service between Richmond and Waterfront and between YVR and Waterfront. The Alternative options would also run direct regular service between Richmond and Waterfront, but only a spur line between YVR and BridgePort, resulting in a transfer for regular customers. Premium service would be provided between YVR and Waterfront in all options. Note that premium service ridership is estimated using a separate set of models and is excluded from the results presented here. Table 5.1 Base and Alternative Operating Assumptions BASE Hdwy (min) ALTERNATIVE Hdwy (min) FGS PGS FGS PGS Line AM Midday AM Midday AM Midday AM Midday Premium Service YVR-WF Regular Service Rich-WF YVR-WF n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. YVR-BridgePort n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a Combined Mainline Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

117 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts Each of the six options were analysed for the AM and Midday periods in 2010 and 2021 resulting in 24 scenarios. Additionally, a number of baseline runs were conducted for different purposes resulting in a total of 34 scenarios as defined in Table 5.2. Table 5.2 RAV EMME/2 Scenario Listing Year Option Scenario Description AM Pre-Millennium Mid Pre-Millennium AM AM FGS no Ext Mid Mid FGS no Ext AM (No RAV) AM FGS + West Ext AM FGS no Ext AM ALT FGS no Ext (YVR Spur) AM PGS + West Ext AM PGS no Ext AM ALT PGS no Ext (YVR Spur) Mid (No RAV) Mid FGS + West Ext Mid FGS no Ext Mid ALT FGS no Ext (YVR Spur) Mid PGS + West Ext Mid PGS no Ext Mid ALT PGS no Ext (YVR Spur) AM (No RAV) AM FGS + West Ext AM FGS no Ext AM ALT FGS no Ext (YVR Spur) AM PGS + West Ext AM PGS no Ext AM ALT PGS no Ext (YVR Spur) Mid (No RAV) Mid FGS + West Ext Mid FGS no Ext Mid ALT FGS no Ext (YVR Spur) Mid PGS + West Ext Mid PGS no Ext Mid ALT PGS no Ext (YVR Spur) Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

118 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts 5.2 AM and Midday Ridership Forecasts AM and Midday ridership forecasts were developed for each of the scenarios identified above. Table 5.3 summarizes the regional travel statistics for the AM peak hour. Between 2002 and 2010, AM peak hour travel is forecast to increase by 18 percent, while transit trips increase by approximately 30 percent (varies slightly by scenario). Under a no RAV scenario, transit mode share would increase from 10.2 percent to 11.2 percent, due largely to the significant bus fleet expansion. The implementation of the RAV line would further increase mode share to between 11.3 and 11.5 percent (depending on the scenario). By 2021, total AM peak hour travel is forecast to increase by 36 percent and transit trips by approximately 55 percent. Without the RAV line, transit mode share is estimated at 11.5 percent, but could increase to between 11.6 and 11.8 percent with the RAV line. For the RAV line scenarios, a 1,150 space Park and Ride lot is assumed at BridgePort with a $2 daily parking charge. AM peak hour usage is estimated at between 550 and 650 in either time horizon. Assuming 65 percent of the spaces are utilized during the AM peak hour (based on Scott Road survey data), this would translate to a daily demand for 850 to 1,000 spaces. Table 5.4 provides a comparison of the RAV line segment boardings and alightings, maximum loads and passenger-kilometre statistics in 2010 and Note that these results do not include airport passengers and assume fully mature (or ramped-up) ridership levels. The FGS options produce approximately 30 percent higher AM boardings for comparable PGS options. This is related to the faster line times and lower frequencies assumed for the FGS options. This analysis assumes faster walk access times to the Richmond PGS stations. Note that the Alternative Options (YVR Spur) result in double-boardings within the RAV system as passengers are forced to transfer at BridgePort when travelling to/from YVR. Owing to different operating line assumptions, the passenger-kilometre statistics is a better indicator of line utilization. Contrary to the preliminary analysis undertaken for RAVP, these results indicate that the western extension of the Millennium Line would have a notable impact on RAV line ridership (more than a 10 percent increase). This is related to the revised model parameters and the assumption that transferring passengers would have less than a one-minute walk between platforms. In both time horizons, the AM peak hour maximum load point would be located south of the Cambie Station in the northbound direction. For the FGS options, the maximum load would range between 4,800 and 5,100 pph by For the PGS options, the maximum load in 2021 would be between 3,700 and 4,000 pph. For the Richmond to BridgePort segment, the FGS maximum load would be 2,300 Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

119 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts to 2,700 pph, while the PGS maximum load would be 1,500 to 2,200 pph. The maximum load information for the Airport segment is incomplete, as the air passenger volumes need to be included. The passenger-kilometre statistics indicate that the FGS options would generate higher utilization than the PGS options. Based on these statistics, the average AM peak hour trip length on the line is approximately 7.5 kilometres. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

120 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts Table 5.3 AM Peak Hour Regional Summaries by Scenario AM Base Pre-Mill AM Base AM FGS no Ext AM No RAV AM FGS + Ext AM FGS no Ext Alt FGS no Ext + Spur AM PGS + Ext AM PGS no Ext Alt PGS no Ext + Spur AM No RAV AM FGS + Ext AM FGS no Ext Alt FGS no Ext + Spur AM PGS + Ext AM PGS no Ext Alt PGS no Ext + Spur Sc500 Sc1000 Sc1200 Sc2000 Sc2100 Sc2200 Sc2210 Sc2300 Sc2400 Sc2410 Sc3000 Sc3100 Sc3200 Sc3210 Sc3300 Sc3400 Sc3410 Travel Demand - AM Peak Total Trips 580, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,570 Auto Driver Trips 321, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,630 Auto Person Trips 425, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,300 Transit Trips 58,240 59,480 61,230 76,830 78,510 78,070 78,180 77,840 77,430 77,430 90,950 93,320 92,660 92,710 92,360 91,800 91,880 Walk/Bike Trips 97,240 96,990 96, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,390 Park n' Ride Statistics - AM Peak Park and Ride Trips 3,420 3,280 3,920 3,060 3,680 3,670 3,630 3,650 3,640 3,580 3,430 4,120 4,100 4,040 4,060 4,030 3,980 Richmond Lot Transit Statistics - AM Peak Total Boardings 94,750 99, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,880 Rapid Transit 14,890 20,060 27,280 25,920 37,010 34,400 35,530 35,030 32,390 33,360 31,390 45,710 41,950 43,210 42,300 39,460 40,680 Bus 76,300 75,770 72, ,360 97,270 98,340 98,250 97,440 98,320 98, , , , , , , ,210 SeaBus 1,240 1,230 1,320 1,630 1,740 1,760 1,760 1,710 1,710 1,700 1,920 2,060 2,090 2,100 2,020 2,060 2,050 Commuter Rail 2,320 1,940 2,040 2,390 2,430 2,510 2,500 2,410 2,480 2,480 3,790 3,940 3,980 3,970 3,870 3,940 3,940 Transit Mode Share 10.0% 10.2% 10.5% 11.2% 11.5% 11.4% 11.4% 11.4% 11.3% 11.3% 11.5% 11.8% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.6% 11.6% Avg. Board/Trip Passenger Km's 639, , , , , , , , , ,830 1,060,930 1,115,840 1,102,210 1,103,920 1,094,200 1,083,920 1,084,620 Passenger Hours 22,560 22,660 22,570 30,270 29,990 29,930 30,000 29,900 29,820 29,810 38,080 37,910 37,830 37,880 37,750 37,710 37,790 Total Bus Fleet 1,220 1,220 1,180 1,670 1,580 1,590 1,590 1,580 1,590 1,590 1,940 1,770 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 Auto Statistics - AM Peak Avg Auto Occupancy Avg Speed (kph) Note: figures may not add to totals due to rounding Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

121 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts Table 5.4 RAV Line AM Boardings, Maximum Loads and Pass-km Statistics AM FGS + Ext AM FGS no Ext Alt FGS no Ext + Spur AM PGS + Ext AM PGS no Ext Alt PGS no Ext + Spur AM FGS + Ext AM FGS no Ext Alt FGS no Ext + Spur AM PGS + Ext AM PGS no Ext Alt PGS no Ext + Spur Sc2100 Sc2200 Sc2210* Sc2300 Sc2400 Sc2410* Sc3100 Sc3200 Sc3210* Sc3300 Sc3400 Sc3410* AM Peak Segment Based Boardings RAV Total 9,950 8,980 10,100 7,520 6,840 7,800 12,050 10,750 12,190 9,110 8,200 9,560 Richmond South - Bridgeport 1,930 1,880 2,380 1,110 1,110 1,950 2,390 2,350 2,900 1,500 1,430 2,340 Airport - Bridgeport , , ,300 Bridgeport - Waterfront 7,530 6,600 6,620 6,000 5,310 4,990 8,990 7,710 7,690 7,060 6,210 5,920 AM Peak Segment Based Alightings RAV Total 9,940 8,980 10,100 7,510 6,830 7,800 12,050 10,750 12,190 9,110 8,200 9,550 Richmond South - Bridgeport 1, , ,100 1,260 1,120 1, ,300 Airport - Bridgeport 1,190 1,120 1,100 1, ,730 1,640 1,600 1,490 1,400 1,300 Bridgeport - Waterfront 7,750 6,960 7,580 5,940 5,380 5,840 9,060 7,990 8,890 6,910 6,170 6,950 AM Peak Segment Maximum Loads RAV Total 4,510 4,310 4,450 3,600 3,430 3,610 5,060 4,790 4,930 3,980 3,720 3,960 Richmond South - Bridgeport 1,870 1,830 2,170 1,100 1,100 1,810 2,340 2,300 2,690 1,500 1,430 2,220 Airport - Bridgeport 1,160 1, , ,690 1,600 1,450 1,460 1,370 1,190 Bridgeport - Waterfront 4,510 4,310 4,450 3,600 3,430 3,610 5,060 4,790 4,930 3,980 3,720 3,960 AM Peak Segment Based Pass-km RAV Total 74,320 69,900 72,690 57,110 53,900 57,040 90,250 84,850 87,550 70,060 65,350 69,660 Richmond South - Bridgeport 8,060 7,640 9,650 4,510 4,330 6,910 10,000 9,500 11,700 6,030 5,550 8,560 Airport - Bridgeport 4,180 3,950 3,520 3,570 3,370 2,750 6,020 5,720 5,140 5,190 4,900 4,200 Bridgeport - Waterfront 62,080 58,310 59,520 49,030 46,200 47,380 74,230 69,630 70,710 58,840 54,900 56,900 Note 1: the spur line operation results in double-boardings and hence higher boarding numbers as passengers are forced to transfer at BridgePort when travelling to/from YVR. The passenger-kilometre statistic provides a better indicator of line utilization. Note 2: figures may not add to totals due to rounding Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

122 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts Similar information was generated for the Midday with the newly developed model. Table 5.5 summarizes the regional travel statistics for an average hour during the Midday period (i.e., ). Between 2002 and 2010, midday travel is forecast to increase by 23 percent, while transit trips increase by more than 45 percent. Note that trips are growing faster during the midday than the AM peak hour. This is consistent with an aging population, resulting in lower labour force participation rates and more discretionary travel during the midday. By 2021, total Midday travel is forecast to increase by 50 percent and transit trips by more than 70 percent compared with Table 5.6 provides a comparison of the Midday RAV line segment boardings and alightings, maximum loads and passenger-kilometre statistics in 2010 and In general, midday boardings on the RAV options are approximately half of the AM peak hour boardings. During the midday, the FGS options produce approximately 25 percent higher boardings for comparable PGS options. For the midday, the FGS and PGS options operate at similar headways; therefore, the higher ridership is related to the faster line times. The midday results also indicate that the western extension would have a notable impact on RAV line ridership (more than a 10 percent increase). This is related to the revised model parameters and the assumption that transferring passengers would have less than a one-minute walk between platforms. In both time horizons, the midday maximum load point would be located south of the Cambie Station in the northbound direction. For the FGS options, the maximum load would range between 1,900 and 2,050 pph by For the PGS options, the maximum load in 2021 would be between 1,500 and 1,700 pph. For the Richmond to BridgePort segment, the FGS maximum load would be 900 to 1,350 pph, while the PGS maximum load would be 600 to 1,100 pph. The maximum load information for the Airport segment is incomplete, as the air passenger volumes need to be included. The passenger-kilometre statistics indicate that the FGS options would generate higher utilization than the PGS options. The average midday trip length would be approximately 7 kilometres, which is slightly lower than the AM peak hour trip length. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

123 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts Table 5.5 Midday Regional Summaries by Scenario MID Base Pre-Mill MID Base MID FGS no Ext MID Base MID FGS + Ext MID FGS no Ext MID FGS no Ext + Spur MID PGS + Ext MID PGS no Ext MID PGS no Ext + Spur MID Base MID FGS + Ext MID FGS with no Ext MID FGS no Ext + Spur MID PGS + Ext MID PGS with no Ext MID PGS no Ext + Spur Sc550 Sc1050 Sc1250 Sc2050 Sc2150 Sc2250 Sc2260 Sc2350 Sc2450 Sc2460 Sc3050 Sc3150 Sc3250 Sc3260 Sc3350 Sc3450 Sc3460 Travel Demand - Midday Total Trips 405, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,600 Auto Driver Trips 260, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,870 Auto Person Trips 328, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,380 Transit Trips 26,170 27,710 29,030 40,120 41,250 40,920 41,260 40,800 40,490 40,810 47,350 48,710 48,300 48,590 48,200 47,830 48, 100 Walk/Bike Trips 50,290 50,120 49,920 60,020 59,790 59,830 59,780 59,880 59,920 59,870 75,310 74,990 75,050 75,010 75,110 75,150 75, 120 Transit Statistics - Midday Total Boardings 44,560 48,830 51,530 73,820 75,980 75,340 76,310 74,940 74,360 75,150 86,400 89,000 88,160 89,130 87,820 87,050 87, 800 Rapid Transit 6,080 10,260 14,110 13,590 19,210 17,820 18,630 18,220 16,990 17,740 16,130 22,450 20,870 21,800 21,340 19,890 20, 770 Bus 37,680 37,710 36,510 59,210 55,690 56,440 56,600 55,650 56,310 56,340 69,130 65,350 66,090 66,130 65,300 65,980 65, 840 SeaBus ,020 1,080 1,080 1,080 1,070 1,060 1,070 1,140 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,180 1,180 1,190 Tr ansit Mode Share 6.5% 6.8% 7.2% 8.0% 8.3% 8.2% 8.3% 8.2% 8.1% 8.2% 7.8% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 7.9% 7.9% Avg. Board/Trip P assenger Km's 265, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,520 Passenger Hours 10,200 10,650 11,000 16,440 16,380 16,290 16,430 16,320 16,230 16,400 19,520 19,460 19,360 19,450 19,420 19,320 19, 440 Auto Statistics - Midday Av g Auto Occupancy Avg Speed (kph) Note: figures may not add to totals due to rounding Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

124 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts Table 5.6 RAV Line Midday Boardings, Maximum Loads and Pass-km Statistics MID FGS + Ext MID FGS no Ext Alt FGS no Ext + Spur MID PGS + Ext MID PGS no Ext Alt PGS no Ext + Spur MID FGS + Ext MID FGS no Ext Alt FGS no Ext + Spur MID PGS + Ext MID PGS no Ext Alt PGS no Ext + Spur Sc2150 Sc2250 Sc2260* Sc2350 Sc2450 Sc2460* Sc3150 Sc3250 Sc3260* Sc3350 Sc3450 Sc3460* Midday Segment Based Boardings RAV Total 4,990 4,510 5,300 4,050 3,650 4,390 5,630 5,090 6,030 4,550 4,080 4,980 Richmond South - Bridgeport , , , ,310 Airport - Bridgeport Bridgeport - Waterfront 3,850 3,410 3,560 3,220 2,860 2,960 4,220 3,740 3,950 3,530 3,100 3,270 Midday Segment Based Alightings RAV Total 4,990 4,510 5,310 4,040 3,650 4,390 5,630 5,100 6,040 4,530 4,080 4,980 Richmond South - Bridgeport , , , ,130 Airport - Bridgeport Bridgeport - Waterfront 3,990 3,550 3,730 3,340 2,980 3,080 4,460 3,980 4,180 3,730 3,310 3,450 Midday Segment Maximum Loads RAV Total 1,840 1,680 1,810 1,510 1,370 1,490 2,050 1,880 2,020 1,690 1,530 1,670 Richmond South - Bridgeport , , ,110 Airport - Bridgeport Bridgeport - Waterfront 1,840 1,680 1,810 1,510 1,370 1,490 2,050 1,880 2,020 1,690 1,530 1,670 Midday Segment Based Pass-km RAV Total 34,090 32,010 36,560 27,520 25,800 30,460 38,900 36,500 41,620 31,350 29,300 34,560 Richmond South - Bridgeport 3,930 3,740 6,070 2,650 2,520 5,000 4,570 4,350 7,010 2,980 2,820 5,760 Airport - Bridgeport 1,550 1,500 1,210 1,310 1, ,030 1,960 1,600 1,730 1,680 1,300 Bridgeport - Waterfront 28,610 26,770 29,280 23,560 22,020 24,480 32,300 30,190 33,010 26,640 24,800 27,500 Note 1: the spur line operation results in double-boardings and hence higher boarding numbers as passengers are forced to transfer at BridgePort when travelling to/from YVR. The passenger-kilometre statistic provides a better indicator of line utilization. Note 2: figures may not add to totals due to rounding Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

125 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts Table 5.7 shows the AM and Midday boardings and alightings by station for the FGS Option with no western extension in 2010 and Boarding and alighting activity at Capstan, Cambie and Alderbridge stations appear to be impacted by the frequent bus service that has been assumed along No. 3 Road between Cook and BridgePort (the No. 301, 403 and 404 are assumed to run between Richmond Centre and BridgePort providing a combined frequency of 3.5 minutes during peak periods). Table 5.7 RAV AM and Midday Station Boards and Alights AM FGS no Ext Sc2200 MID FGS no Ext Sc2250 AM FGS no Ext Sc3200 MID FGS no Ext Sc3250 Boards Alights Boards Alights Boards Alights Boards Alights RAV Line Cordova 870 2, ,360 2, Robson , Pacific Blvd Broadway 1,050 1, ,210 1, King Edward st th Marine Bridgeport 1, , Capstan Cambie Alderbridge Westminster Cook 1, , Sea Island east Air Canada Terminal Stns , Total 8,980 8,980 4,510 4,510 10,750 10,750 5,100 5,100 *excludes air passengers and related trips 5.3 Annual Ridership and Revenue Estimates Using the AM and Midday ridership results, annual estimates have been developed based on survey information and annual TransLink statistics. This section describes the approach used to estimate annual ridership and revenues, with the latter based on the current TransLink revenue allocation methodology (i.e., first board method). Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

126 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts Annual Expansion Factors In 2000, TransLink estimated a total of 46.3 million annual boards and 150,000 daily boards for the Expo line. Using the new EMME/2 models, pre-millennium scenarios were developed, which produced 14,890 AM peak hour boards and 6,080 average midday hourly boards for the Expo line. Previously, AM to annual factors were used to expand the AM model results. However, with the introduction of the Midday model, a refined factoring methodology is required. Assuming that the AM model is representative of the AM and PM peak periods and the Midday model typifies travel in other time periods, separate factors can be developed to expand the model results to daily estimates. Hourly boarding and alighting data for the new Millennium line was analysed to determine the equivalent number of AM peak hours during the AM and PM peak periods (note that hourly boarding information was not available for the Expo line). This analysis indicated that the AM peak period ( ) is equivalent to 2.1 AM peak hours ( ), while the PM peak period ( ) is equivalent to 2.9 AM peak hours. This suggests a factor of 5.0 can be used to expand the AM model results to represent travel during the peak periods. A factor of 12.4 was developed for the Midday based on the 2000 daily boarding estimate for Expo, the AM and midday model results and the peak period factor of 5 (e.g., 5x14, x6,080 = 150,000). B-Line 98 data were also reviewed but not used for factoring purposes as suburban express routes that only operate during the peaks influence the ridership profile of this route. Finally a daily factor of 310 (e.g., 46.3M/150,000) is recommended for expanding the daily results to annual estimates. This daily to annual factor accounts for weekend and holiday travel, which are included in the annual SkyTrain boarding statistic. Note that earlier analysis of the 1999 Trip Diary survey suggests that the RAV corridor may have a slightly higher AM to daily factor than the Expo corridor. However, the presence of rapid transit in a corridor tends to lead to a more concentrated peak for transit (owing to the higher capacity and greater reliability in travel times on grade-separated systems which are not affected by peak congestion). Therefore, the Expo line factors are recommended for this analysis. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

127 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts First Board Rate Estimates TransLink estimates SkyTrain boardings and fare revenue based on Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) sales and an ongoing Fare Audit Survey. The Fare Audit Survey provides a profile of the payment method for SkyTrain passengers (e.g., TVM, transfer, fare saver, monthly pass). Under the current (unofficial) method, fare revenues are allocated to the first vehicle boarded. For example, if a passenger first boards a bus and later transfers to SkyTrain, the fare would be allocated to the bus system. However, if a passenger walks to SkyTrain and later boards a bus, the revenue would be allocated to SkyTrain. Based on this revenue allocation method, SkyTrain boards and passenger-kilometres travelled (PkT) could increase at a faster rate than fare revenues if more people used the bus to access SkyTrain in the future. Conversely, SkyTrain fare revenue could increase faster than boardings or PkT if more people chose to walk or drive to their station. As such, this method is prone to inequitable revenue distribution, but is used for revenue estimation in this section in order to be consistent with current practice. In 2000, TransLink reported 25.9 million revenue rides for SkyTrain and 46.3 million boards, resulting in a first board rate of This compares closely with fare audit data survey data received from TransLink. With the introduction of the Millennium line and further expansion of the system, the first board rates are likely to change and may differ by line. In order to test the sensitivity of the first board rate, special modelling analysis was conducted to gauge how the board rate might vary in the future by individual line. The model results were normalized to the 2000 annual first board rate for Expo of Table 5.8 provides a summary of the first board rates for the Expo, Millennium and proposed RAV lines. Rates were calculated for the AM and Midday periods, by time horizon and for the RAV Base and Alternative options. Table 5.8 Estimated First Board Rates by Line Line Average ( ) AM MID AM MID AM MID AM MID AM MID Expo Millennium (no ext) RAV - Base RAV - Alternative Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

128 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts In 2000, the AM and Midday models produce the same first board rates for the Expo line. First board rates were developed for 2002, 2010 and 2021 for the base and alternative scenarios (without the Western Extension) by individual line. For the Expo line, the first board rates are similar in 2002, but drop in 2010 and 2021 owing to significant improvements in the bus feeder system. The Millennium line rates are quite a bit lower than Expo as it does not currently serve a major destination, forcing passengers to transfer to reach their ultimate destination. The RAV Base line is estimated to have a higher first board rate than Expo. This is a function of many factors including land use (e.g., downtown residents walk to the line for trips to the RAV corridor). The RAV Alternative scenario produces slightly lower rates due to the double-boards resulting from the YVR spur operation. As the rates do not vary significantly between 2010 and 2021, average values have been developed for revenue estimation. For the RAV Base scenarios, the recommended AM and Midday rates are 0.62 and 0.68, respectively. For the Alternative scenarios, the AM and Midday rates are 0.59 and Nominal Fare Rates by Line The nominal fare represents the average fare per ride after compensating for different payment mediums, concession fares, etc. In 2000, TransLink reported an average fare per boarded passenger of $ or $1.64 for every first board passenger (e.g., 0.92/0.56 = 1.64). Adjusting these numbers for the June 2000 and April 2002 fare increases results in values of $1.07 and $1.91 for the Expo line (without Millennium). The sensitivity of the SkyTrain nominal fare rate was examined using the AM and Midday models for the same scenarios as the first board rate analysis. Table 5.9 provides a summary of the nominal fare estimates based on first boards. As might be expected, the Expo line has the highest nominal fares as it traverses three fare zones. Nominal fares on the RAV line are approximately 10 percent lower than Expo as it only covers two fare zones. For the RAV Base scenarios, the recommended AM and Midday nominal fares per first board are $1.77 and $1.71, respectively. For the Alternative scenarios, the AM and Midday fare rates are $ GVTA Board Report, Transit Services Performance Report for Fourth Quarter 2000, March Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

129 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts and $1.73. Multiplying these estimates by the first board rates results in nominal fares per board of $1.10 and $1.16 for the AM and Midday Base Scenarios. For the Alternative Scenarios, the nominal fares per board are $1.05 and $1.16. Table 5.9 Nominal Fare per First Board by Line Line Average ( ) AM MID AM MID AM MID AM MID AM MID Expo Millennium (no ext) RAV - Base RAV - Alternative Annual Boarding and Revenue Estimates Based on the factors developed above, preliminary annual boarding and revenue estimates are presented in Table Note that these estimates exclude demand ramp-up factors and the air passenger markets. In 2010, annual boards are estimated between 24.6 and 36 million, with revenues ranging from $27.9 to $40.1 million. In 2021, annual boards are estimated between 28.4 and 42.1 million, with revenues ranging from $32 to $46.5 million. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

130 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts Table 5.10 Annual Boarding and Revenue Estimate (excluding ramp-up effects and air passengers) FGS + Ext FGS no Ext Alt FGS no Ext + Spur PGS + Ext PGS no Ext Alt PGS no Ext + Spur 2010 Boardings Opt 1 Opt 2 Opt 5 Opt 3 Opt 4 Opt 6 AM boards 9,950 8,980 10,100 7,520 6,840 7,800 Midday boards 4,990 4,510 5,300 4,050 3,650 4,390 Average daily boards 111, , ,220 87,820 79,460 93,440 Annual boards (M) Boardings AM boards 12,050 10,750 12,190 9,110 8,200 9,560 Midday boards 5,630 5,090 6,030 4,550 4,080 4,980 Average daily boards 130, , , ,970 91, ,550 Annual boards (M) Ridership Revenues ($M) 2010 $ 39.2 $ 35.4 $ 40.1 $ 30.9 $ 27.9 $ $ 45.4 $ 40.8 $ 46.5 $ 35.6 $ 32.0 $ 37.6 Note: boarding and revenue estimates have not been adjusted for ramp-up effects and do not include the air passenger market 5.4 Sensitivity Analysis The forecasts developed in the preceding sections are based on a wide range of assumptions. In order to better understand the potential variability of the base forecasts, a detailed sensitivity analysis has been prepared. For this analysis, Option 2 (Base FGS no Western Extension) was selected to evaluate the impact of the following changes in 2010 and 2021: Value of time (±20 percent) Demographic changes (RAV negative, RAV positive) RAV line headway (±20 percent) RAV line travel time (±20 percent) Walk link access time (±50 percent) Parallel bus route headway (±50 percent) Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

131 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts Table 5.11 provides a summary of the impact on AM peak hour boardings and PkT in 2010 and 2021 for each of the sensitivity runs. Additionally, ramp-up analysis was conducted to using the new models to confirm previous estimates. The following subsections provide a brief description of each sensitivity test. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

132 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts Table 5.11 Sensitivity Results (Boarding and PkT Impact) Sensitivity Scenarios A. AM Peak Hour Boarding Impacts Base (FGS no Ext) 8,980 10,750 Value of Time Demographics RAV Line Headway RAV Line Travel Time Walk Link Access Time Parallel Bus Route Headways Ramp-up Analysis B. AM Peak Hour Pass-km (PkT) Impacts -20% 10, % 12, % +20% 6, % 7, % DRS 8, % 10, % NCS 9, % 10, % -20% 9, % 11, % +20% 8, % 10, % -20% 10, % 12, % +20% 7, % 9, % -50% 10, % 12, % +50% 7, % 9, % -50% 7, % 9, % +50% 9, % 11, % Reroute only 6, % 8, % Reroute+MS 7, % 9, % Base (FGS no Ext) 69,900 84,840 Value of Time Demographics RAV Line Headway RAV Line Travel Time Walk Link Access Time Parallel Bus Route Headways Ramp-up Analysis DRS - Decentralizing Region Scenario NCS - Nodal Corridor Scenario 2010 % Change 2021 % Change -20% 83, % 101, % +20% 51, % 63, % DRS 67, % 80, % NCS 70, % 85, % -20% 73, % 89, % +20% 65, % 80, % -20% 82, % 99, % +20% 58, % 72, % -50% 76, % 92, % +50% 62, % 77, % -50% 65, % 79, % +50% 73, % 87, % Reroute only 49, % 56, % Reroute+MS 56, % 68, % Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

133 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts Value of Time The value of time sensitivity examined the impact of modifying the perceived value of times by ±20 percent. This sensitivity was applied to the entire transit system and therefore had a significant impact on overall transit ridership as well as ridership on the RAV line (note that auto value of time was held constant for this test). With a 20 percent reduction in the perceived value of time, boardings and PkT are forecast to increase by approximately 20 percent. A 20 percent increase in the perceived value of time would reduce boardings and PkT by more than 25 percent. Note that the boarding and PkT statistics are impacted to the same degree, which indicates all trip lengths are impacted equally Demographics The GMS land use was used as baseline for the ridership and revenue forecasts. To evaluate the impact of variations in land use on the RAV line, alternative scenarios were developed by Urban Futures Incorporated 12. For the sensitivity analysis, two of the land use scenarios were examined: Decentralizing Region Scenario (DRS) Nodal Corridor Scenario (NCS) The DRS is characterized by higher growth in the Fraser Valley, higher downtown population (+18 percent) and lower downtown employment (-15 percent) than the GMS land use. The NCS focused additional population and employment into six distinct areas along the RAV corridor, but maintained the GMS downtown controls. Under the DRS, RAV line boardings and PkT are estimated to drop by approximately 3 percent. Although downtown population is higher and jobs decline, reduced inbound travel is offset by higher reverse peak travel as many downtown residents would now use the line to access Central Broadway and the Cambie corridor. Note that the DRS scenario had a much greater impact on the 12 Land Use Risk Assessment Framework: Vancouver Richmond Rapid Transit Line, Urban Futures Incorporated, Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

134 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts RAV Line Headway RAV Line Travel Time Expo and Millennium lines (more than 10 percent reduction in boardings on these lines). The NCS, would have a small but positive impact on RAV line boardings and PkT in the range of 1 to 2 percent. The increase in both population and employment at activity nodes in the corridor, limits the need for longer distance travel. Increasing either the population or employment (and not both) would likely have a greater impact on RAV ridership. For the FGS options, a baseline AM peak hour headway of 6 minutes was assumed for the two operating lines. This results in a 3-minute headway on the mainline between BridgePort and Waterfront. For this sensitivity, the headways were varied by ±20 percent resulting in individual line headways of 4.8 or 7.2 minutes (2.4 or 3.6 minute mainline headways). A 20 percent reduction in the headway resulted in a 7 percent increase in boardings, while a 20 percent increase in the headway produced a 7 percent reduction in boardings. Impacts on PkT were in the range of +/- 6 percent, which would indicate that headway variations have more of an impact on shorter trips (as the wait time represents a larger proportion of the overall trip time). For the FGS options, the proposed line travel time for regular service is 23.7 minutes (Richmond to Waterfront) and 23 minutes (YVR to Waterfront). For this sensitivity, the line times were varied by ±20 percent resulting in travel times of 19 to 28.4 minutes for Richmond and 18.4 to 27.6 minutes for YVR. With a 20 percent reduction in line times, boardings are forecast to increase by approximately 15 percent, while a 20 percent increase in line time would reduce boardings by close to 15 percent. At first glance, this impact appears to be significantly higher than the headway impact, but the headway sensitivity results in less than a minute variation in the overall travel time, while the line time sensitivity could result in variation of close to 5 minutes (on average the variation would be approximately 2.5 minutes). Therefore, a unit variation in headway time (weighted) has a similar impact on boardings as a unit variation in line time. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

135 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts Walk Link Access Time For this sensitivity test, the PkT variation was higher than the boarding variation, which would indicate that line time fluctuations would be more important for longer distance trips. For this study, walk access links were coded into the EMME/2 models to represent the walk time required to reach the station platform from curbside. The average access time to an elevated SkyTrain station was estimated at 90 seconds, but varied between 60 and 180 seconds depending on the station. This sensitivity test examined the impact of varying these walk access times by ±50 percent. A 50 percent variation in the walk access link time resulted in approximately a 13 percent change in boardings (higher access times resulted in lower boardings and vice-versa). The PkT variation was approximately 9 percent, which indicates the walk access link time is more important for shorter trips Parallel Bus Route Headways Ramp-up Analysis While many of the bus routes have been integrated into the RAV stations, several parallel routes continue to operate along Granville, Oak, Cambie and Main providing local service. In order to determine the impact that these routes have on RAV line ridership, the headways on the No. 3, 8, 15, 16, and 17 were varied by ±50 percent. Reducing the headways by 50 percent (e.g., 10 minute headway becomes 5 minutes) resulted in a 12 percent reduction in RAV boardings. A corresponding 50 percent increase in the headways (e.g., 10 minute headway becomes 15 minutes) produced a 7 percent increase in boardings. Variability on PkT was lower indicating these routes are serving shorter distance trips. A new rapid transit line can draw ridership from various sources during the rampup period (typically 3 to 5 years after opening): Changes in transit route choice (existing transit passengers switch from bus to the new line) Mode shift (auto corridor users switch to the new line) Trip redistribution (previous non-corridor users substitute trips to the corridor because of improved accessibility). Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

136 RAVP Non-Air Passenger Forecasts Trip generation and development (new trips are induced by the new line that would not otherwise be made or trips to/from developments that would not otherwise occur). Demand derived from changes in transit route choice will occur immediately, while trip redistribution impacts can take several years to fully mature. Special model runs were conducted to estimate various stages of ramp-up. This analysis indicates that 75 to 77 percent of the RAV ridership would be current transit passengers switching from the bus. Including rerouting and mode split impacts, ridership would increase to 87 percent of mature demand. The model-based mature demand includes redistribution effects, but does not account for trip generation or development impacts. If these effects were included, there would be lower percentages for the first two impacts. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

137 Base Case Forecasts & Risk Analysis 6 Base Case Forecasts & Risk Analysis 6.1 Base Case Forecasts Main Options The overall Base Forecasts for RAVP comprise the Base forecasts for air passengers and associated trips from greeters and well-wishers, plus the forecasts for employees and non-air passenger travellers, as described in Chapters 3 and 5 respectively. As the final arrangements for station at the airport are not complete, the forecasts exclude internal trips between all the stations on Sea Island. As outlined in Chapter 3, owing to the special characteristics of Cruiseship passengers and their importance to overall revenues, two Base Case options are presented as follows: Low which assumes that none of the Cruiseship passengers, travelling directly between the airport and their ship at Canada Place, use RAVP; High which assumes all the Cruiseship passengers, travelling directly between the airport and their ship at Canada Place, use RAVP. The reason for these two options is that these passengers do not exercise an independent mode choice but follow external arrangements that are made for their travel between airport and ship. In terms of total RAVP passenger demands, the difference between these two scenarios is small (0.4 mpa or less than 1%). However, the difference to RAVP revenues can be significant (up to 10%). The Base Case demand and revenue forecasts are summarized in Table 6.1 for the six main options (fully and partially grade separated, with and without the Western extension, and the two additional options without a Western extension but with a shuttle operation on the spur to YVR) and the two scenarios for Cruiseship passengers. The associated revenue streams in all years are shown in Table 6.2. Real revenue growth after 2021 is assumed at 1.5% per annum, compared with a forecast growth of just over 1.6% pa just prior to Fares for passengers using the Premium service take cognisance of the revenue optimisation results described in chapter 3 but, for political and competition Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

138 Base Case Forecasts & Risk Analysis reasons, the Premium fare is set below revenue optimisation levels. Fares for Normal service passengers include the standard discounts that apply after 6 pm and at weekends. These fares are further discounted to allow for internal (to TransLink) revenue allocation on the First Board principle (note that all boarders at the airport are assumed to be first boarders). Including discounts and fare evasion, average fares for air passengers and meeters are assumed as follows: Premium air passengers: $11.5 per single trip Regular service air passengers: $2.3 per single trip Premium meeters/wavers: $11.5 return trip (i.e. half price) Regular service meeters/wavers: $2.3 per single trip Fares for non-air passengers are based on current (2002) TransLink fare zones and levels, and revenues are based on TransLink s revenue allocation methodology of first board. This translates (see Chapter 5) as an average revenue yield for RAVP (including fare discounts and fare evasion) of: $1.10 per boarding passenger in AM peak (FGS & PGS Main scenarios) $1.16 per boarding passenger in Midday (FGS & PGS Main scenarios) $1.05 per boarding passenger in AM peak (FGS & PGS Alternative scenarios) $1.16 per boarding passenger in Midday (FGS & PGS Alternative scenarios) All revenues in both these tables exclude allowances for demand and fare ramp-up, but include reductions for fare discounts (as observed on Expo Line for non-air passenger forecasts) and fare evasion/fraud (assumed as 4% off air passenger revenues, and as observed on Expo Line for non-air passenger forecasts). Fare discounts for air passenger related trips on RAVP are assumed to be incorporated in the core $12 fares for Premium services as these are not revenue maximising Other Scenarios (YVR Premium Service only and Normal Service Only) On the same basis, forecasts for other scenarios can be assembled from the results of Chapters 3 and 5. In particular, forecasts can be prepared assuming only Premium services run to the Airport and, alternatively, only Normal services to the Airport. These are summarised in Table 6.3. With Premium services only to the airport, the non-air passenger forecasts still include employee and other trips travelling to or from the airport. The forecasts for these scenarios should therefore be treated with caution. Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

139 Base Case Forecasts & Risk Analysis Table 6.1: RAVP Demand and Revenue Forecasts (Revenues in 2002 prices) LOW CASE FGS with W.Extension PGS with W.Extension FGS no W.Extension PGS no W.Extension Alt FGS No W.Extension Alt PGS No W.Extension Passenger demands mpa Non air passenger Premium air pax Regular service air pax Premium meeters & greeters Regular meeters & greeters Total demand mpa Total Regular service Total Premium service Passenger revenues $mpa 2002 prices Non air passengers $39.18 $45.64 $30.83 $35.77 $35.39 $41.06 $27.92 $32.17 $40.08 $46.76 $32.28 $37.75 Premium air pax $6.46 $8.92 $6.22 $8.01 $6.46 $8.92 $6.22 $8.01 $9.22 $12.27 $8.72 $11.60 Regular service air pax $3.11 $3.91 $2.67 $3.71 $3.11 $3.91 $2.67 $3.71 $1.75 $2.37 $1.66 $2.24 Premium meeters & greeters $0.17 $0.24 $0.17 $0.22 $0.17 $0.24 $0.17 $0.22 $0.19 $0.25 $0.18 $0.24 Regular meeters & greeters $0.26 $0.32 $0.20 $0.28 $0.26 $0.32 $0.20 $0.28 $0.18 $0.24 $0.17 $0.22 Total revenue $mpa $49.19 $59.02 $40.09 $48.00 $45.39 $54.44 $37.18 $44.39 $51.42 $61.88 $43.00 $52.06 Total Regular service $42.56 $49.87 $33.70 $39.76 $38.77 $45.29 $30.79 $36.16 $42.01 $49.37 $34.10 $40.22 Total Premium service $6.63 $9.15 $6.39 $8.23 $6.63 $9.15 $6.39 $8.23 $9.40 $12.51 $8.90 $11.84 HIGH CASE FGS with W.Extension PGS with W.Extension FGS no W.Extension PGS no W.Extension Alt FGS No W.Extension Alt PGS No W.Extension Passenger demands mpa Non air passenger Premium air pax Regular service air pax Premium meeters & greeters Regular meeters & greeters Total demand mpa Total Regular service Total Premium service Passenger revenues $mpa 2002 prices Non air passengers $39.18 $45.64 $30.83 $35.77 $35.39 $41.06 $27.92 $32.17 $40.08 $46.76 $32.28 $37.75 Premium air pax $10.68 $13.61 $10.44 $12.71 $10.68 $13.61 $10.44 $12.71 $13.43 $16.97 $12.94 $16.29 Regular service air pax $3.11 $3.91 $2.67 $3.71 $3.11 $3.91 $2.67 $3.71 $1.75 $2.37 $1.66 $2.24 Premium meeters & greeters $0.17 $0.24 $0.17 $0.22 $0.17 $0.24 $0.17 $0.22 $0.19 $0.25 $0.18 $0.24 Regular meeters & greeters $0.26 $0.32 $0.20 $0.28 $0.26 $0.32 $0.20 $0.28 $0.18 $0.24 $0.17 $0.22 Total revenue $mpa $53.40 $63.71 $44.31 $52.70 $49.61 $59.13 $41.40 $49.09 $55.63 $66.58 $47.22 $56.75 Total Regular service $42.56 $49.87 $33.70 $39.76 $38.77 $45.29 $30.79 $36.16 $42.01 $49.37 $34.10 $40.22 Total Premium service $10.84 $13.84 $10.60 $12.93 $10.84 $13.84 $10.60 $12.93 $13.62 $17.21 $13.11 $16.53 Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

140 Base Case Forecasts & Risk Analysis Table 6.2a: RAVP Revenue Streams (Revenues in $mpa in 2002 prices) LOW CASE: No Cruiseship Passengers directly travelling between airport and ship at Canada Place Year FGS + W. Ext PGS + W. Ext FGS no W. Ext PGS no W. Ext Alt FGS no W. Ext Alt PGS no W. Ext Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

141 Base Case Forecasts & Risk Analysis Table 6.2b: RAVP Revenue Streams (Revenues in $mpa in 2002 prices) HIGH CASE: Including Cruiseship Passengers directly travelling between airport and ship at Canada Place Year FGS + W. Ext PGS + W. Ext FGS no W. Ext PGS no W. Ext Alt FGS no W. Ext Alt PGS no W. Ext Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

142 Base Case Forecasts & Risk Analysis Table 6.3: Premium and Normal Services only to Airport LOW CASE Premium only FGS + W Premium only PGS + W FGS + W Normal S only FGS now Normal S only PGS + W Normal S only PGS now Normal S only Passenger demands mpa Non air passenger Premium air pax Regular service air pax Premium meeters & greeters Regular meeters & greeters Total demand mpa Total Regular service Total Premium service Passenger revenues $mpa 2002 prices Non air passengers $39.18 $45.64 $30.83 $35.77 $39.18 $45.64 $35.39 $41.06 $30.83 $35.77 $27.92 $32.17 Premium air pax $12.93 $17.20 $12.08 $16.54 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Regular service air pax $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3.56 $4.82 $3.56 $4.82 $3.25 $4.40 $3.25 $4.40 Premium meeters & greeters $0.23 $0.30 $0.22 $0.29 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Regular meeters & greeters $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.25 $0.34 $0.25 $0.34 $0.22 $0.30 $0.22 $0.30 Total revenue $mpa $52.34 $63.14 $43.13 $52.60 $43.00 $50.80 $39.20 $46.22 $34.30 $40.47 $31.39 $36.86 Total Regular service $39.18 $45.64 $30.83 $35.77 $43.00 $50.80 $39.20 $46.22 $34.30 $40.47 $31.39 $36.86 Total Premium service $13.16 $17.50 $12.30 $16.83 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 HIGH CASE Premium only FGS + W Premium only PGS + W Passenger demands mpa Non air passenger Premium air pax Regular service air pax Premium meeters & greeters Regular meeters & greeters Total demand mpa Total Regular service Total Premium service Passenger revenues $mpa 2002 prices Non air passengers $39.18 $45.64 $30.83 $35.77 Premium air pax $17.15 $21.89 $16.30 $21.24 Regular service air pax $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Premium meeters & greeters $0.23 $0.30 $0.22 $0.29 Regular meeters & greeters $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total revenue $mpa $56.56 $67.83 $47.35 $57.30 Total Regular service $39.18 $45.64 $30.83 $35.77 Total Premium service $17.37 $22.19 $16.51 $21.53 Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

143 Base Case Forecasts & Risk Analysis Induced Demand No allowance has been made for generated trips, that is trips that are not currently being made on any mode but may be generated by the improved travelling conditions in the RAVP corridor due to the RAV system. All the available evidence indicates that actual patronage on urban metros is usually over-estimated by model forecasts and often by a significant margin. Whilst the benchmarking exercise is designed to prevent this occurring for the forecasts presented here, it seems prudent to assume that there are no generated trips on RAV - (in this regard, it should also be noted that the model forecasts for local travellers are already above their benchmark central estimate with zero trip generation) Demand and Revenue Ramp-up Factors for RAVP Based on the EMME-2 model runs reported in Section 5.4 (assessing RAV patronage components due to re-routing, modal split and redistribution) and the actual Heathrow Express demand profile since opening, the ramp-up factors that should be applied to these forecasts, reflecting RAV s characteristics as both an urban metro line and airport rail link, are as shown in Table 6.4. Table 6.4: Ramp-Up Factors Ramp-Up Profiles Demand ramp-up Revenue ramp-up Opening year From 1-2 years after opening From 2-3 years after opening Maximum Peak Hour Loadings on RAV The maximum peak hour loadings on RAV in 2010 and 2021 for the option that gives the highest line loading (FGS with Western Extension) are shown in Figure 6.1. Two points are of particular interest: there is a significant out-of-town flow in the AM peak; and the Airport peak occurs at a different time (midday and after 6pm). Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan

144 Base Case Forecasts & Risk Analysis Figure 6.1: Maximum AM Peak Hour Loads on RAV 2010 AM 2021 AM Issue No:1 Rev: 0 Jan