Welcome. Rapid Transit Project: Victoria to the West Shore

Transcription

1 Welcome Rapid Project: Victoria to the West Shore The Victoria Regional Rapid Project team welcomes you to Stage 3 of the project The purpose of this open house is to present the recommended technology for rapid transit between Victoria and the West Shore and to summarize how we reached our conclusions The feedback you provide today will be used to finalize the submission to seek approvals from senior government TRANSIT Linking Communities, Businesses & Lifestyles

2 Review Why we re here Victoria PTP Targets Travel Modes All Day The 2008 Provincial Plan (PTP) calls for the Victoria Regional System to: Increase market share from 7% to 12% by 2030, nearly doubling ridership to 55 million passengers per year Contribute to the Provincial target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air contaminants from cars by 47 million tonnes cumulatively by % Automobile 12% 15% Walking 5% Bicycle?? 2% Other To achieve these objectives, we need a transit solution that: Reduces our reliance on cars Provides a travel time advantage Is convenient, comfortable, efficient and reliable Has the capacity to carry much greater numbers of passengers This situation is tailor-made for rapid transit, which features: Comfortable, high-capacity vehicles Frequent, reliable service, every 5-7 minutes all day, every day An exclusive right-of-way that bypasses traffic The best place to start is the most congested zone: between the Capital Region s core area and the rapidly-growing West Shore Source: Provincial Plan, 2008 Travel Choices Strategy, 2005 Rapid can bypass and mitigate growing congestion on Highway 1 TRANSIT

3 Jenkins Belmont Sec Sch Royal Roads University Juan de Fuca Rec Centre Wallace Stellys Sec Sch Victoria General Hospital DND TransCanada Hwy McTavish Panorama Rec Centre Stellys Rd O ldfie ld Camosun College Keeting Rd DND Parkland Sec Sch Mt Newton Rd Esquimalt Rec Centre Resthaven Saanich Peninsula Hospital Spectrum Community Sch Esquimalt Malaview C e ntra l S a a nic h R d DND Pearkes Arena Esquimalt Sec Sch Saanich Commonwealth Place McKenzie Claremont Sec Sch Royal Oak B e lle ville Reynolds Sec Sch F a Yates Fort ld Crystal Pool Bay Pandora Victoria High McKenzie S he lbou rne F a Lambrick Park Sec Sch Gordon Head Rec Centre Feltham Lansdowne Oak Bay Ave Mt Douglas High Camosun College B a y R d Royal Jubilee Hospital Oak Bay High Oak Bay Rec Centre UVic Monterey Rec Centre Henderson Rec Centre TRANSIT The Big Picture Future The 25-Year Plan ona ld D P c a M rk Swartz Bay Ferry Terminal The rapid transit connection to the West Shore is one part of the 25-year Future plan for the Capital Region The Future plan addresses regional travel patterns, and considers various studies and initiatives, including: C Regional Growth and Travel Choices Strategy Municipal land use and transportation plans West Saanich Rd Victoria International Airport Saanichton Pat Bay Hwy Lochside F ifth Future uses four layers of service to tailor different types of transit to community needs: Rapid transit Frequent transit Local and community transit Targeted transit Elk Lake Victoria Region 25 Year Network Primary Network Rapid Network: Exclusive Corridor Priority Corridor Frequent Network: Frequent Corridor E&N Transportation Corridor: Regional Growth Centres Educational Institutions CFB Esquimalt Park Exchange Park & Ride (Existing) Park & Ride (Planned) While our priority is developing rapid transit to the West Shore, we are working on other improvements in the region as well, including: New express services on rapid transit lines Reconfiguration of existing transit routes to reflect the Future network and better match service to demand Developing a new, larger transit exchange at UVIC Constructing an expanded park and ride and exchange at McTavish Investments in new transit shelters To date, the Future plan has been endorsed by 12 of the 13 municipalities in the Capital Region Happy Valley Jacklin Peatt m e o M s ria n ra l te Ve P a rk wa y Millstream Latoria Metchosin Goldstream Sooke Rd Tra ns C a na da H wy Victoria to West Shore Rapid Connection Island Hwy Helmcken Helmcken Helmcken Admirals Admirals Craigflower Interurban Markham Wilkinson Lampson W Saanich Tillicum Glanford Burnside Pat Bay Hwy Gorge Pat Bay Hwy Quadra A Tattersall D ou gla s Quadra irfie B Cook Hillside Johnson Cordova Bay Rd Shelbourne irfie ld R ic hm on d F ou l Tyndall Gordon Head Henderson

4 Process We ve Followed STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 Data Collection Identify & Confirm Regional Corridors Develop for West Shore to Core Area Preliminary Screening of Detailed Screening of Shortlisted Approval of Preferred Technology Evaluation COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE CURRENT PUBLIC CONSULTATION & FEEDBACK SESSIONS MARCH 2009 JUNE 2009 OCTOB 2009 JUNE 2010 OCTOB 2010 MAY 2011

5 Consultation Activities Consultation has been the foundation of this project Consultation with the community has been extensive A Community Liaison Committee (CLC) has met regularly since December 2008 to provide input and report back to their respective committees Acting as a sounding board for the project team, the CLC includes 36 representatives from communities, the business sector, transportation groups, schools, cycling and other groups In addition, information has been shared and input received in over 100 meetings and information sessions with business organizations, municipalities, community associations and other interest groups and the general public, including: 5 rounds of public open houses at 10 locations, attracting nearly 1,200 visitors Travelling displays on the Future bus, attracting 4,200 visitors More than 40 meetings with municipal and C representatives, including staff and councils of all 13 Capital Region municipalities Regular updates to the Victoria Regional Commission Accessible Transportation Advisory Committee (ATAC) The Community Liaison Committee, which included business, municipal, institutional and public representatives, met 18 times to review project progress and provide ongoing input Nearly 1,200 visitors have attended public open houses in Victoria and the West Shore Recurring Themes in Feedback Received There is strong support for rapid transit, and especially for a rail-based solution Many participants (up to 25%) are currently not regular users of transit, but most would be more likely to use public transit if rapid transit were available Input incorporated into the evaluation process has included comments on service convenience and frequency, safety and maintaining a balanced transportation network that supports the various modes available Most common comment: Get on with it

6 Consultation Activities Business concerns are being listened to In July 2010, BC undertook a major consultation effort to better understand the implications for businesses of establishing a rapid transit alignment on Douglas Street A survey was developed in cooperation with the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, Association of Douglas Street Businesses, Downtown Victoria Business Association and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business All business and property owners along the Uptown to Downtown section of the rapid transit corridor were invited to participate More than 500 responded, and the views of more than 400 customers were also obtained The survey confirmed strong support for a rapid transit system providing high-frequency, all-day, every day service to help meet high travel demand between Victoria, Uptown and the West Shore And businesses highlighted several factors to be considered in implementing such a system, including the need to recognize a continuing role for the automobile Customer responses suggested that the overall impact of rapid transit on the Douglas Street corridor would be positive Overall Support for Development of a Rapid System Supportive Neutral Unsupportive 86% 117% 44% 156% 727% 870% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Customers Business/Property Owners Overall Perceived Effect of a Rapid Corridor on Customer Volume/Visits Increased Likelihood/Volume No Effect Decreased Likelihood/Volume 0% 74% 210% 317% 472% 454% 473% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Customers Business/Property Owners

7 Stage 1 Findings Where we go, now and in the STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 Data Identify & Develop Preliminary Detailed Approval of Technology Collection Confirm Screening of Screening of Preferred Evaluation Regional for Shortlisted West Shore Corridors to Core Area The population of the C is forecast to increase by 31% from 364,000 in 2008 to 475,000 in 2038 Swartz Bay Ferry Terminal The West Shore will experience the fastest population growth in the C growing from 65,000 residents in 2008 to 122,000 residents by 2038, an 88% increase CV/N 36,200 North Saanich 61,200 Sidney Central Saanich By 2038, travel between the West Shore and the core is forecast to increase by 69% Only 14% of trips between the West Shore and the core area have downtown Victoria as the destination Saanich, Oak Bay and Victoria outside of downtown represent the largest number of trips Demand for transit will continue to grow throughout the day Already approximately 50% of all trips are made outside of the AM and PM peak period Sooke/JDF 31,200 Langford/ Highlands 25,250 View Royal 70,350 27,000 46,350 19,050 Colwood Metchosin 115,915 81,500 Saanich 20,940 29,085 55, ,940 35,545 Esquimalt Victoria Daily Weekday Person Trips (2006) 70,485 Oak Bay Line Widths Reflect Travel Volumes Circle Sizes Reflect Number of Trips Within Municipalities (See table below for details) Colwood Langford/Highlands Metchosin Sooke/JDF Central Saanich North Saanich Sidney Victoria Saanich Oak Bay Esquimalt View Royal 17,600 41,300 2,900 40,600 32,800 11,600 15, , ,800 29,200 14,800 6,100

8 Stage 2 Findings How was the alignment selected? STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 Data Identify & Develop Preliminary Detailed Approval of Technology Collection Confirm Screening of Screening of Preferred Evaluation Regional for Shortlisted West Shore Corridors to Core Area 14 alignment options for the rapid transit corridor were identified Saan Two rounds of evaluation were performed assessing the options against a range of considerations including: Ability to maximize people movement (existing and ) Ability to create an efficient, integrated and balanced system Connection to regional growth centres Serving all four trip purposes (work, shopping, education and personal) Maximizing connectivity to other modes (cycling, walking & driving) Mitigating impacts to green space Creating an urban form (pedestrian friendly) Cost to construct Amount of property acquisition required Number of at-grade crossings and new bridges required Impact during construction Highlands Langford Trans Canada Hwy E & N RR Galloping Goose Trail Island Hwy Colwood SEGMENT A Goldstream Ave Royal Roads University View Royal SEGMENT B Victoria General Hospital Regional Growth Centres Educational Institutions Hospitals CFB Esquimalt DND IR Galloping Goose Trail Trans Canada Hwy CFB Camosun College Craigfl ower Rd E & N RR Esquimalt Esquimalt Rd DND Saanich McKenzie Ave Gorge Rd Lochside Trail Douglas St Blanshard St Government St SEGMENT C Victoria Jubilee Hospital University of Victoria Camosun College Oak Bay

9 Stage 2 Findings STAGE 1 Data Collection STAGE 2 Identify & Confirm Regional Corridors The Rapid Develop for West Shore to Core Area D W SID RN BU Y A-BAY HW PATRICI EN CK LM HE N RBA U INT VIEW ROYAL SAANICH UM LIC TIL HIGH REA VIEW ROYAL ESQUIMALT FLO WE ESKINE D W GOR GE RR D BU RN SID D E ESQUIMALT VICTORIA N ST LAMPSO EMORIAL PK W Y AVE BAY ST PANDORA AVE FORT ST RIO RS T ZIES PE MEN SU ST NS M VET A HILLSIDE GOVNMENT ST FOR COLW D OOD S ST LANG N ST FINLAYSO GLA GO RG D E COLVILLE ESQUIMALT VE EA AL VE CLO L SID BO RN DOU JUAN DE FUCA TRANSIT ECHANGE BU SAA NIC H ESQ UIM ALT CR AIG ST MA VE UPTOWN TRANSIT ECHANGE SHA DST AD M L IRA SA VIC ANIC TO H RIA HW ND WY D SR DH BLAN GOL SAANICH WAY 1 AN ISLA ISL W STATION AVE TMINUS STATION AVE AVE SI MILE TRANSIT PARK-N-RIDE Y AL OY W R VIE NGFO LA H HIG MC HIGHWAY 1 IE NZ KE Y1 WA DOWNTOWN TMINUS Preliminary Screening of Detailed Screening of Shortlisted STAGE 3 Approval of Preferred Technology Evaluation The rapid transit alignment follows Douglas Street between downtown Victoria and Uptown in Saanich, then runs parallel to the Trans-Canada Highway and the Galloping Goose Trail to Six Mile/Colwood Interchange, along the Island Highway to Juan de Fuca, then into Station Avenue in Langford via Goldstream Avenue In 2010, all municipalities along the corridor endorsed the alignment TRANSIT

10 Stage 3 Technology Evaluation Three Alternatives Considered STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 Data Identify & Develop Preliminary Detailed Approval of Technology Collection Confirm Screening of Screening of Preferred Evaluation Regional for Shortlisted West Shore Corridors to Core Area Business as Usual (BAU) Bus Rapid (BRT) Light Rail (LRT) Description Continues the use of existing conventional bus service, increasing service on routes along the alignment A rapid transit system with road-based technology using specialized buses on an exclusive right-of-way from Downtown to the West Shore A rapid transit system using rail-based technology on an exclusive right-of-way from Downtown to the West Shore Running way and operational characteristics priority measures such as bus lanes, bus on shoulder and signal priority where feasible On-board fare collection Scheduled service at regular bus stops Operates on exclusive right-of-way, segregated from other traffic Off-board fare collection High-frequency service does not require knowledge of schedule Stops at stations with enhanced boarding Operates on exclusive right-of-way, segregated from other traffic Off-board fare collection High-frequency service does not require knowledge of schedule Stops at stations with level boarding Vehicle type and capacity 12m Conventional Bus (80 passengers); system capacity is limited by bus size and number of vehicles able to operate on congested roadway and at bus stops 20m Articulated Diesel Hybrid Bus (120 passengers); increases system peak-hour carrying capacity by 20% over conventional bus 40m Electric Light Rail vehicle (230 passengers); more than doubles the system peak-hour carrying capacity of conventional bus

11 Stage 3 Technology Evaluation How did we evaluate the three alternatives? STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 Data Identify & Develop Preliminary Detailed Approval of Technology Collection Confirm Screening of Screening of Preferred Evaluation Regional for Shortlisted West Shore Corridors to Core Area A multiple account evaluation or MAE was used to evaluate the alternatives MAE is a detailed benefit/cost analysis method to help reach an all things considered decision on the best solution The MAE compared BRT and LRT to BAU which is considered the base case or what would be done in the absence of carrying out the project A multiple account evaluation is required by senior levels of government in developing a business case for projects seeking approvals MAE Account Land use and urban development Transportation Deliverability Economic development Social / Community Environment Financial Aspects Evaluated Property value, land development Travel time savings, vehicle accident savings, vehicle operating cost savings, ridership, capacity utilization Constructability, community support Economic impact of construction and operations Access equity, safety, community barrier Emissions reductions, impact on parkland and green space, noise and vibration Capital and operating costs, benefit/cost ratio, cost effectiveness

12 Stage 3 Technology Evaluation Core inputs to the MAE describing the alternatives STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 Data Identify & Develop Preliminary Detailed Approval of Technology Collection Confirm Screening of Screening of Preferred Evaluation Regional for Shortlisted West Shore Corridors to Core Area Business as Usual (BAU) Bus Rapid (BRT) Light Rail (LRT) Full system opening year fleet requirement at start-up (vehicles) Opening year ridership increase 5% 20-30% 30-40% Peak hour capacity (passengers/hour) 2,000 2,400 4,600 Ridership (2038) estimated 63 Million 90 Million 133 Million Cost Cost to construct $250M $520M $950M Total lifecycle costs (capital & operating) $700M $750M $12B Operating cost per passenger Opening day $284 $177 $ $356 $240 $172 Travel time (West Shore to Downtown) Opening day (compared to 40 minutes by car) 2038 (compared to 75 minutes by car) 60 minutes 40 minutes 40 minutes 95 minutes 45 minutes 45 minutes

13 Stage 3 Technology Evaluation Comparing BRT and LRT to BAU STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 Data Identify & Develop Preliminary Detailed Approval of Technology Collection Confirm Screening of Screening of Preferred Evaluation Regional for Shortlisted West Shore Corridors to Core Area MAE Account Aspect or Sub-account BRT LRT Comments Land use and urban development Transportation Land use and urban development benefits Transportation benefits LRT will generate greater increases in property values and create more incentive for new development along the alignment than BRT This is consistent with experience in many other communities where rapid transit systems have been built The increased ridership attracted to LRT results in significantly more transportation benefits than BRT Transportation benefits include such items as travel time savings, reduced accidents, lower costs for operating and maintaining vehicles and roadways Reliability Reliability is the ability of the systems to maintain the service schedule day-in/day-out, avoiding service interruptions Both BRT and LRT are considered significantly more reliable than BAU given the exclusive transitway Financial Connections to the regional network User comfort and ease of use Total capital and operating costs Both BRT and LRT follow the same alignment and the connections to the regional network are the same The revised regional network including rapid transit is an improvement over the existing LRT provides a more comfortable travel experience than BRT because it gives a smoother, quieter ride LRT has a higher passenger capacity, resulting in less crowding on the vehicles than BRT, improving the environment for the passengers Total lifecycle capital and operating costs of BRT are lower than LRT Benefit/cost ratio Both BRT and LRT have positive benefit/cost ratios, well over 10 Over the lifetime assessed, the ratio of benefits to costs for BRT is higher than the ratio for LRT Deliverability Constructability Because LRT requires the additional construction associated with the electrical power systems to drive the LRT vehicles it is considered more complex to construct than BRT Acceptability Feedback from the extensive consultation has indicated a consistent preference for LRT over BRT Symbol Legend () significant improvement compared to BAU () improvement compared to BAU ( ) no significant change or neutral compared to BAU () worse / higher compared to BAU ( ) significantly worse / higher compared to BAU

14 Stage 3 Technology Evaluation Comparing BRT and LRT to BAU (continued) STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 Data Identify & Develop Preliminary Detailed Approval of Technology Collection Confirm Screening of Screening of Preferred Evaluation Regional for Shortlisted West Shore Corridors to Core Area MAE Account Economic development Aspect or Sub-account BRT LRT Comments Economic development LRT generates significantly more jobs and income for the region than BRT Social / Community Safety benefits There is a significantly greater reduction in collisions with LRT than BRT, resulting in a much higher savings in accident costs Health effects Increased use of transit is associated with increased walking and cycling It has been demonstrated that a small increase in the amount of physical activity (as little as 30 min per day) yields health benefits Because LRT generates more trips made using transit, it generates more beneficial health effects than BRT Community barrier The requirement for overhead cables to power the LRT system creates more of a visual barrier perception than the BRT Environment Reduction of GHG and CAC emissions Noise and vibration impacts during construction Potential effects on vegetation LRT results in a much greater reduction in emissions than BRT The construction impacts of building a BRT or LRT system are seen as worse than the BAU alternative The alignment for both BRT and LRT is the same Although both options result in the need to acquire some land that is green space, the amount required is small BAU, however, does not require any acquisition Symbol Legend () significant improvement compared to BAU () improvement compared to BAU ( ) no significant change or neutral compared to BAU () worse / higher compared to BAU ( ) significantly worse / higher compared to BAU

15 Stage 3 Technology Evaluation Overall Results The graph below shows the overall costs and benefits for each of the options The business as usual (BAU) option provides no additional benefit for its additional costs, as it just maintains the status quo PV Cost or Benefit ($M) Benefits BAU BRT LRT Costs LRT BRT Data Collection STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 Identify & Confirm Regional Corridors Develop for West Shore to Core Area Benefit/cost ratio of 190 Provides the highest overall level of benefits Higher level of community support Delivers sufficient capacity to achieve ridership targets Highest total cost 4 to 5 years to deliver Preliminary Screening of Detailed Screening of Shortlisted Approval of Preferred Benefit/cost ratio of 242 Lower total costs than LRT Lower level of community support Technology Evaluation Capacity reached in years and does not provide capacity to achieve ridership targets Future conversion to LRT would be costly and disrupt service

16 Stage 3 Technology Evaluation Explaining the results Provincial Plan LRT will give the transit system the capacity needed to achieve our PTP ridership goals LRT will deliver the greatest reduction of greenhouse gases at 480,000 tonnes, or 10% of the PTP target Greatest ridership growth LRT is forecast to generate 133 million annual rides by 2038, 45% more than BRT and 3 times more than BAU Experience from other communities has shown initial ridership gains of 30% to 40% with LRT A solution for the long term LRT will be able to accommodate the ridership growth forecast for the busy Douglas Street corridor, whereas a BRT solution would reach its capacity limits within years With its high capacity and ability to provide expanded, higher quality services, the operating cost per passenger for LRT will actually become lower over time It is common for LRT vehicles to remain in service for years; unlike a bus-based solution, no replacement of LRT vehicles will be required over the life of the project Total System Capacity Growth in Annual Ridership 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 Data Collection STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 Identify & Confirm Regional Corridors With LRT With BRT With BAU PTP Target BRT Develop for West Shore to Core Area Preliminary Screening of LRT Detailed Screening of Shortlisted BAU Approval of Preferred Victoria West Shore Corridor Ridership Growth Forecast for Each Option Technology Evaluation Total Capital Region System Capacity (2038)

17 Stage 3 Technology Evaluation The Recommendation: LRT STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 Data Identify & Develop Preliminary Detailed Approval of Technology Collection Confirm Screening of Screening of Preferred Evaluation Regional for Shortlisted West Shore Corridors to Core Area LRT is recommended as the vehicle technology for the rapid transit system Top ten reasons to choose LRT: 1 The only technology with the capacity to achieve Provincial Plan ridership targets 2 Will attract the most ridership 3 Provides the greatest comfort and safety 4 Has the highest community support 5 Will be most effective at reducing roadway congestion 6 Provides the best support for the Capital Region s emphasis on transit-oriented development, and delivers $85 million more land development benefits than BRT 7 Provides the longest service life and is the only technology where cost per passenger is reduced over time 8 Has a positive benefit/cost ratio and the highest transportation benefits ($1 billion more than BRT over 27 years) 9 Will create 4500 more job-years of employment 10 Will result in the greatest reduction of greenhouse gases, by 145,000 tonnes more than BRT

18 Implementation Should we build it all at once? Recognizing the significant investment required, the rapid transit system can be built in stages that enable expansion over time, spread the capital investment and best match capacity to demand LRT staging options Option 1: Downtown to Station Avenue Option 2: Downtown to Juan de Fuca Option 3: Downtown to Six Mile Matching capacity to demand Segment % LRT capacity used (opening day) % LRT capacity used (2038) Downtown to Uptown 60% 75% Uptown to Six Mile 40% 60% Six Mile to Juan de Fuca 30% 50% Juan de Fuca to Station Ave 10% 25% Staging considerations Making the end point an exchange or destination Affordability Proposed location for rail maintenance centre $1,000 Ability to create a transit network that reduces number of transfers $800 $600 $950 M $860 M $770 M Affordability $400 Matching capacity to demand $200 Potential land use development $0 Option 1: Downtown to Station Avenue Option 2: Downtown to Juan de Fuca Option 3: Downtown to Six Mile

19 Implementation SID RN BU EN CK LM HE Y A-BAY HW PATRICI D W The Arguments in Favour N RBA U INT VIEW ROYAL SAANICH Option 1: Full LRT from Downtown to Station Ave ESKINE SID D W GOR GE BU RR D RN SID D E GO RG D E ESQUIMALT VICTORIA HILLSIDE AVE BAY ST PANDORA AVE The Arguments Against Highest cost to construct ($950M) from Juan de Fuca to Station Ave includes portions in mixed use traffic which impacts system reliability Low capacity utilization (50%) between Six Mile and Juan de Fuca Very low capacity utilization between Juan de Fuca and Station Ave (<25%) PE RIO RS T DOWNTOWN TMINUS ZIES SU ST FORT ST MEN N ST N ST FINLAYSO GOVNMENT ST LAMPSO VE EA AL VE CLO S ST NS M EMORIAL PK W Y Connects all regional growth centres GLA VET A Highest stimulus for land use development RN DOU FLO WE ESQUIMALT FOR COLW D OOD UM BU SAA NIC H ESQ UIM ALT CR AIG L AD UPTOWN TRANSIT ECHANGE COLVILLE LANG Fully integrates West Shore into rapid transit network by taking service to Station Ave exchange in Langford ST AVE VIEW ROYAL ESQUIMALT LS A MIR BO WY SA VIC ANIC TO H RIA HW ND DH ISLA EAM Sufficient capacity to achieve PTP targets SHA STR STATION AVE JUAN DE FUCA TRANSIT ECHANGE SAANICH WAY 1 AN BLAN GOLD Provides best service and benefits TIL HIGH ISL W STATION AVE TMINUS LIC SI MILE TRANSIT PARK-N-RIDE Y AL OY W R VIE NGFO LA H HIG MC HIGHWAY 1 IE NZ KE Y1 WA AVE TRANSIT

20 Implementation SID RN BU EN CK LM HE Y A-BAY HW PATRICI D W The Arguments in Favour N RBA U INT VIEW ROYAL SAANICH Option 2: LRT Downtown to Juan de Fuca VIEW ROYAL ESQUIMALT FLO WE RN ESKINE SID D W GOR GE RR D BU RN SID D E GO RG D E ESQUIMALT VICTORIA The Arguments Against HILLSIDE AVE Second-highest cost to construct ($860M) Does not integrate West Shore into rapid transit network as much as a Station Ave terminus Higher reliance on efficient conventional bus network to service major West Shore arteries Low capacity utilization (50%) between Six Mile and Juan de Fuca BAY ST PANDORA AVE RIO RS T ZIES PE ST FORT ST SU DOWNTOWN TMINUS MEN N ST LAMPSO N ST FINLAYSO GOVNMENT ST NS M EMORIAL PK W Y S ST VET A VE EA AL GLA ESQUIMALT FOR COLW D OOD Excellent stimulus for land use development VE CLO L BU SAA NIC H ESQ UIM ALT CR AIG BO AL DOU JUAN DE FUCA TRANSIT ECHANGE MIR AD SA VIC ANIC TO H RIA HW WY ISLA ND DH UPTOWN TRANSIT ECHANGE D SR COLVILLE LANG Terminates at a major West Shore destination ST AVE Sufficient capacity to achieve PTP targets SHA STATION AVE EAM SAANICH WAY 1 AN BLAN STR Provides excellent service and benefits HIGH ISL W GOLD UM TIL LIC SI MILE TRANSIT PARK-N-RIDE Y AL OY W R VIE NGFO LA H HIG MC HIGHWAY 1 IE NZ KE Y1 WA AVE TRANSIT

21 Implementation SID RN BU EN CK LM HE Y A-BAY HW PATRICI D W The Arguments in Favour N RBA U INT VIEW ROYAL SAANICH Option 3: LRT Downtown to Six Mile; conventional bus on exclusive transit way from Six Mile to Juan de Fuca HIGH BU SAA NIC H ESQ UIM ALT CR AIG ESKINE SID D W GOR GE RR BU D RN SID D E GO RG D E ESQUIMALT VICTORIA Capable of achieving PTP targets Very good capacity utilization between downtown and uptown (75%) HILLSIDE AVE Good capacity utilization between Uptown and Six Mile (60%) BAY ST PANDORA AVE PE RIO RS T ZIES SU ST FORT ST MEN N ST LAMPSO N ST FINLAYSO GOVNMENT ST NS M EMORIAL PK W Y S ST VET A VE EA GLA ESQUIMALT FOR COLW D OOD Terminus is located at multi-modal exchange point (E&N, Trans-Canada highway, Island Highway, Galloping Goose) AL VE CLO DOU FLO WE RN COLVILLE LANG Services areas of highest demand ST AVE SHA EAM D SR AL BLAN STR STATION AVE JUAN DE FUCA TRANSIT ECHANGE VIEW ROYAL ESQUIMALT MIR AD L WY UPTOWN TRANSIT ECHANGE BO DH SA VIC ANIC TO H RIA HW ND AN ISLA ISL SAANICH WAY 1 W GOLD Lowest cost to construct of LRT ($770M) staging options UM TIL LIC SI MILE TRANSIT PARK-N-RIDE Y AL OY W R VIE NGFO LA HIG MC HIGHWAY 1 IE NZ KE 1 AY HW AVE DOWNTOWN TMINUS The Arguments Against High reliance on conventional bus network to service the West Shore Limited stimulus for increased land development in the West Shore May require many users to transfer twice TRANSIT

22 Implementation Today, how is transit funded in Victoria? Victoria Regional Funding Split (2010/11) Fares 38% Local Share re Fuel Tax Revenue 115% Advertising 05% How is the local share of capital projects funded? The local share is financed like a mortgage The cost is recovered annually over the useful life of the asset Traditionally, capital projects are funded between the Province and the Victoria Regional Commission Where eligible, an application can be made to secure federal funding for major transit projects Provincial Share 30% Property Tax Revenue 20% Can we secure Provincial & Federal Funding? The Federal and Provincial governments will be approached to develop a costsharing agreement Fuel tax: 35 cents per litre Average residential property tax is $121

23 Implementation What are the potential implications on property taxes? The actual increase in property tax cannot be confirmed until a funding agreement is developed Without rapid transit, the impact of business as usual on this corridor (with minimal additional benefits) would be approximately $100 for residential and $1,000 for businesses To give an order of magnitude, two local funding scenarios have been created: Scenario 1: Local funding required for 68% of costs (traditional funding formula) Scenario 2: Local funding required for 40% of costs (assumes additional funding partners are secured) $300 $250 $265 Residential Tax Increase (Average 2011 Assessed Value of $536,000) $245 $3,000 $2,500 $2,650 Business Tax Increase (Average 2011 Assessed Value of $1,000,000) $2,450 $200 $210 $2,000 $2,100 $150 $160 $150 $130 $1,500 $1,600 $1,500 $1,300 $100 Option 1: LRT to Station Ave Option 2: LRT to Juan de Fuca Option 3: LRT to Six Mile $1,000 Option 1: LRT to Station Ave Option 2: LRT to Juan de Fuca Option 3: LRT to Six Mile

24 Implementation Alternative Local Funding Reducing the local share funded through property taxes might be achieved through alternative funding sources For example, a $10 reduction in property taxes requires $2 million to be generated through other means Many of these options require legislative changes and /or provincial government approval Local Fuel Tax Community Pass Parking Tax Capital Reserve Vehicle Levy This tax on fuel is collected at the pump at all gas stations in Victoria Currently, Victoria Regional receives 35 cents per litre For every additional cent per litre fuel surcharge, approximately $3 million could be generated Each household could receive an annual transit pass Each household is charged approximately ½ of the cost of an annual pass ($565) as part of their property taxes This could generate approximately $10 to 30 million annually A parking tax could be used to offset transit costs It acts as an incentive to decrease parking demand, which in turn can make transit more attractive A portion of property taxes could be put aside each year while the rapid transit system is being built For example, a $20 increase in residential property taxes would increase the reserve by $4 million annually An annual vehicle levy could be collected when vehicle insurance is renewed A $30 vehicle levy could generate approximately $6 million

25 Conclusion We cannot build our way out of the traffic problems Building new or bigger roads won t solve congestion it just attracts more cars Forecast traffic demand along the highway 1 corridor is greater than the capacity of the highway even if it were expanded to 6 lanes We need to implement forward-thinking and creative land use and transportation policies to promote public transit and re-urbanization As traffic congestion increases, rapid transit on dedicated lanes will provide more reliable travel times Rapid is required to achieve 12% transit mode share LRT is the only rapid transit system that can meet our needs over the long term and achieve the goal of doubling ridership by 2030 Studies of other North American cities show that a rapid transit system is required to achieve 12% transit mode share Victoria has the ridership to warrant a LRT system Our ridership forecasts are within the range of other LRT systems Population is not the only determining factor The population density and geographical constraints of Victoria are important factors contributing to the success of rapid transit Light Rail Line Annual Ridership (,000 s) Population (,000 s) Rides Per Capita Calgary (2010) 86,112 1, Victoria to West Shore* (2038) 13, Waterloo, ON* (2031) 17, Edmonton (2010) 23,400 1, Victoria to West Shore* (opening year) 6, Portland MA (2010) 40,173 2, Waterloo, ON* (opening year) Sacramento, CA (2010) Portland Streetcar (2010) Santa Clara, CA (2010) 8, ,177 1, , ,758 1, Seattle (2010) 7,864 2, * In development