Article Categories
Archives (2003-13)
Recent Articles
Recent Episodes
- Podcast
- Events
- Support
- About Viewpoint Vancouver
- City Elections 2022
- Climate Change
- COVID Place making
- The Livable Region
- Transportation
- Urbanism
- All The Livable Region
- Business & Economy
- Energy & Resources
- Governance & Politics
- Housing
- All Transportation
- Cycling
- Infrastructure
- Motordom
- Public Transit
- Walking & Mobility
- All Urbanism
- Architecture
- Art & Culture
- Design & Development
- History & Heritage
- Policy & Planning
- Nature & Public Spaces
- Podcast
- Events
- Support
- About Viewpoint Vancouver
- City Elections 2022
- Climate Change
- COVID Place making
- The Livable Region
- Transportation
- Urbanism
- All The Livable Region
- Business & Economy
- Energy & Resources
- Governance & Politics
- Housing
- All Transportation
- Cycling
- Infrastructure
- Motordom
- Public Transit
- Walking & Mobility
- All Urbanism
- Architecture
- Art & Culture
- Design & Development
- History & Heritage
- Policy & Planning
- Nature & Public Spaces
Lessons learned: “When you own the podium, you frame things any way you want”.
Some interesting factiods on the relative efficiency of transit: an analysis of traffic through the Massey Tunnel indicates that 1% of vehicles are buses, but the carry 28% of the people going through. A similar analysis of Lions Gate Bridge traffic a few years ago came up with a similar ratio; buses were 2% of traffic and carried 28% of people across.
Wasteful subsidy or a good ROI?
If transit carried 28% of people across in each case – then it’s clear that politicians appealling to the the “masses” (being the other 72%) would do what …..?
If transit carried 28% of people…
That could means 50,000 bus riders a day into the Massey tunnel…and we could have certainly noticed that if that was really happening.
Ken Hardie, you are guilty on 2 accounts:
* As a former Translink employee, you should know that the transit offer on the Hwy99, is nowhere near to be able to handle such numbers.
* As a former Communication director, you should know that the job of comunication people is to tweak number to fit their story telling.
The MOTi wants to convey the message that the Transit alternative is already a maxed out one- you will have hard time to find better modal split…what could sound a reasonable claim at 28%, but is not a receivable one when it is at 11%.
11% is by the way the much more realistic modal split in the tunnel, and it is below the target the Province fixed to itself (17% by 2020). here below are the real numbers, you can verify by yourself (all source provided):
http://voony.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/the-george-massey-tunnel-saga/
PS: By the way, the Transit share into the tunnel is twice less than on the Lion’s Gate bridge
The numbers I quoted fort the Massey Tunnel were out of the Vancouver Sun article on the proposed bridge, published a few days ago — I was counting on them to have reported the correct information. The ratio of vehicles to percentage of total people passing through was very similar to that calculated on the Lions Gate Bridge a few years ago. Given the load levels on the buses going through the tunnel next to the fact that most passenger vehicles are single-occupant only, the numbers are plausible.
BTW…where do you come up with 50,000 people on buses? The chart for the Massey Tunnel in your blog item notes about 92,000 vehicles use the tunnel per day. Most of those vehicles, as noted above, are single occupant. However, if the figures in your chart are correct (and I have no reason not to believe them) then I too have some questions about the Sun’s story, because there is no way that there are 920 bus trips through the tunnel per day,
Still, it makes one wonder how this number and the one from the Lions Gate Bridge four or five years ago ended up being so similar. Voodoo methodology?
Regardless, it seems evident that I owe all on this blog item an apology, if for no other reason than believing what I read in the paper. (I seem to remember someone had a rather famous quote about that….)
Further comments: I didn’t see in your link the source of the transit mode shares you cite, although the peak period shares are respectable..
Some rough calculations based on the six routes using the GMT indicate about 400 bus trips per day…works out to .44% of total traffic. Will really have to dig up that Sun item and circle back to the reporter
Out of left field question: How are you linked to all of this? A super-engaged/interested person or??? Just curious.
Check that…just saw the citations.
Digging into the citations (thanks for those) — the 28% mode share on the Lions Gate Bridge is noted in the IBI report.
You noted that the GMT mode share was calculated pre-Canada Line, and that’s important. With longer-haul bus trips terminating at Bridgeport Station instead of going all the way into downtown Vancouver, the service frequency through the tunnel increased.
Hi Ken,
some hopefully quick answers…
Where come from the 28% share in the tunnel
The number cited by the Sun and other media outlet are as provided by the MOTi.
(that is the “story telling”).
Alas, nowadays, journalist don’t do too much investigation…
and neither Translink, Metro, or other government organization challenged it
(Burnaby knew how to challenge the compass business case…)
Where come from the 50,000 number
The 50,000 number I provided is a ball pack one based on below assumptions
– tunnel daily traffic and assuming 1.2 person/vehicles (that is the MOT assumption, in line with industry to estimate number of people from number of vehicle (90,000 vehicle carrying ~110,000 people…)
-to have Transit having ~28% mode share suppose the bus carry ~45,000 people to have 155,000 people in the tunnel:
45,000 (transit)/155,0000(total people) = 29% modal split
OK, the 50,000 number was slightly exaggerated, but still, it left a huge number of people to move by bus.
Regarding the number of bus in the tunnel (and transit offer)
I don’t have the latest one, but when I counted (using 2011 data) they were around ~500 bus (in revenue service) crossing the tunnel…so it is 0.5% (and not 1% of the traffic…).
All of them are Hwy coach (Orion)…Max capacity 60 (translink number). except 404 (urban coach) and the 620 (artics) the later running once a hour…
so ball pack number, the transit capacity in the tunnel is (number of runs * cap):
100*77 (bus 404) +42*120 (bus 620) + 360*60 (all other buses)= 34340 …
.
For matter of comparison, on the Lion’s gate,
I counted ~550 bus/day
Most of them are urban coach (nova, new flyer)…max capacity 77 (translink number.
So, again ballpack number (257 is usually 60 artics too, ) transit capacity on the bridge is:
61*120 (bus 257) + 490*77 (all other buses) = 45050
That is the lion’s gate bridge has 33% more transit capacity offer, and 33% less traffic than in the tunnel…
Regarding the number of people effectively travelling by bus
daily ridership
As I report, in my blog, I used the 2011 Bus service Performance review(BSPR), and just counted the number of people, assuming all people boarding a bus heading to the tunnel, was effectively crossing the tunnel (so pretty conservative)…
That gives the daily ridership in the tunnel (you have to divide annual number by 330 to get an estimate of weekday daily ridership)…so computing the modal split is quite easy
To get the peak hour ridership…
I do like Translink does: I count all the bus in the peak hour, and multiply by the max cap of each bus (again a pretty conservative).
…and I have used the post Canada line number…(As I noticed, it has been no increase in number of bus in peak hour with the advent of the Canada line)
The 28% provided by the IBI study (Lion’s gate), is for the whole morning period…
if you narrow it on the peak hour (8 to 9am), you have ~2000pax on bus for ~3500 vehicle (from graphics)…that is much more than 28% … it is 36% (assuming 1.2 pers/vehicle)…
To answer your left question.
I am an interested person, and also a pretty curious one 😉
I didn’t have the pleasure to met you but I often attend some events here and there (plan to go to the Charles Marohn SFU lecture) , so numerous people in the urban/cycling communities have already met me in person…(I am easy to recognize/remember: I usually ride a bike without helmet, but have a french cap and a strong french accent)
I would like to be more engaged but may be lack of time…
Many thanks. Your analyses are every bit as valid as those on the ‘inside’ because much is extrapolated from sample measures.
The IBI report that quoted the 28% mode share for transit on the Lions Gate Bridge also noted that this result was basically for ‘the peak direction and peak hour’…not for the entire day; a point that I didn’t catch. I wonder if the Sun’s story of a 26% mode share for transit in the GMT isn’t similarly qualified…?
Back to my original point, though, transit done the right way on the right routes does have a positive ROI, contrary to the message in the cartoon.
This is precisely why I do not trust anybody’s conclusions published in newspapers or on the web. I prefer to see raw numbers and derive my own conclusions.Media tends to re-print and twist people’s statements to the point where very little they publish is meaningful.
The cartoonist inadvertently shows why the provincial government favours a bridge: it is the trucks. You can’t move goods on a bus. Roads aren’t just for commuters, they’re good for economic activity.
Re trucks – then we should concentrate on getting the car drivers out of their way onto buses to free up more space for the trucks to move quicker. By your logic that should be good for economic activity.