Alternatives Evaluation

Evaluating the Alternatives

Each alternative was evaluated across seven different accounts to identify its range of benefits and impacts, using planning tools such as transportation demand forecasting, real estate forecasting, financial models and qualitative assessments.

For each account, we compared each alternative against a "business as usual" scenario that assumes significant transit improvements according to recent trends and the South of Fraser Area Transit Plan, but no rapid transit improvements. Several criteria within each account were considered. Within each account, each alternative was rated on a five-point scale for each criterion. The results were summarized into a single score for each alternative for that account (shown above).

No weighting was applied, but we emphasized criteria that helped to differentiate between alternatives. This table summarizes the preliminary evaluation results. The fullness of a circle shows how the alternative performed in an account compared to "business as usual." This ranges from an empty circle (worse) to a full circle (better). We want your input to ensure that we have captured the full range of benefits and impacts. Using your input, we will finalize the results and present them to decision makers later this year.

Preliminary Conclusions and Next Steps

• None of the 10 alternatives have been excluded at this point.
• The alternatives differ by extent and technology; the preliminary results provide an indication of the incremental costs, impacts and benefits of these differences.
• Alternatives with rapid transit on Fraser Highway have many more transportation benefits (attract more riders and save them more time).
• RRT 1 is the fastest and saves the most travel time along the Fraser Highway corridor, but at high cost.
• BRT and LRT along Fraser Highway provide similar travel time savings and generate similar ridership.
• Alternatives with rapid transit south between Newton and White Rock cost more and have more construction challenges and potential environmental risks because they cross the floodplain twice but don’t generate many more benefits.
• The preliminary designs will be updated based on public input and further technical work, and the evaluation would be updated accordingly.
• Refinements to population and employment growth assumptions may be made during further technical analysis, which may affect ridership forecasts and evaluation results.

Economic Development Account At A Glance

Objectives:

• rapid transit supports economic development by improving transit access to urban centres and employment concentrations, and
• rapid transit is compatible with the economic needs of the region, including goods movement

Benefits and Impacts considered: The economic benefits generated by construction activity, impact on tax revenues and goods movement.

Summary results: Alternatives with higher capital costs and that minimize impacts on traffic lanes (LRT 1, RRT 1 and RRT 3) tend to perform better in this account.

Environment Account At A Glance

Objectives:

• rapid transit service contributes towards achieving emission reduction targets and objectives by positively affecting travel choices, and
• rapid transit is sensitive to natural resources, protected lands, food-producing lands and watercourses

Benefits and Impacts considered: The natural environment, including emissions reduction (greenhouse gases (GHG) and criteria air contaminants (CACs)), noise and vibration, biodiversity, water environment, parks and open space, and agriculture resources.

Summary results: All of the alternatives have a similar effect on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as “business as usual” over the 30-year study period. Alternatives with the greatest extent (BRT 1, LRT 1, and LRT 2) pose more risks as they cross agricultural lands and floodplains along both King George Boulevard and Fraser Highway, and so are rated worse in this account.

Environment Account At A Glance

Objectives:

• Rapid transit and the supporting transit network are cost-effective in meeting travel demands and shaping land use in multiple corridors.

Benefits and Impacts considered: Capital and operating costs, as well cost-effectiveness.

Summary results: There is a large range of capital costs, from $250 million for Best Bus to $2.1 billion for LRT 1. When cost-effectiveness is considered, this variation increases since the less costly alternatives tend to generate similar levels of benefits as the more costly alternatives. BRT 2, which generates medium-to-high transportation and land use benefits at lower cost, is the most cost-effective alternative.

Social and Community Account At A Glance

Objectives:

• rapid transit and the supporting transit network provide benefits to and do not disproportionately impact disadvantaged groups, and
• rapid transit is safe, accessible and secure

Benefits and Impacts considered: Operational safety, personal security, low income population served by rapid transit, as well as impacts on community connectivity, heritage and archaeology.

Summary results: Street-level alternatives with the greatest extent (BRT 1, LRT 1 and LRT 2) perform best in this account, by improving operational safety and access to low income populations better than other alternatives. Their design through use of visible street-level stations, also maintains personal security, and improves pedestrian and cyclist crossings by increasing pedestrian refuges.

Transportation Account At A Glance

Objectives:

• rapid transit is fast, frequent, reliable and attractive to all users
• rapid transit and the supporting transit network meet current and future travel demand efficiently for multiple destinations, increasing transit mode shares and reducing vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT)
• rapid transit service is integrated with the regional and local transit system, and
• walking and cycling modes are integrated with the rapid transit service

Benefits and Impacts considered: The region’s transportation network users, including transit users, car drivers, passengers, pedestrians and cyclists.

Summary results: The fastest and most extensive alternatives (BRT 1, LRT 1 and 2, and RRT 1 and 2) perform better in this account, providing faster travel times, more reliable service and attracting more riders than the other alternatives. LRT and BRT alternatives reduce road capacity in some locations, resulting in some negative impacts on travel time for other road users. Rail-based alternatives provide the greatest increase in transit capacity, and have the greatest ability to meet future demand in all locations.

Urban Development Account At A Glance

Objectives:

• rapid transit is supported by land use planning that promotes density and diversity of uses, as outlined in regional and local land use plans
• rapid transit supports city shaping by encouraging municipalities to focus development at urban centres and at other nodes along frequent transit development corridors
• rapid transit is supported by integration of the station areas and surrounding neighbourhoods through community land use plans that incorporate transit-oriented development guidelines and high quality urban design, and
• rapid transit encourages appropriate levels of development around stations

Benefits and Impacts considered: Local land uses and the urban environment, including connections to key activity centres, the likelihood of development near stations, impacts on properties along the alignment and urban design potential.

Summary results: Alternatives with the greatest extent connect to more urban and activity centres, and access more development capacity. However all alternatives generate similar amounts of development demand over the next 30 years. For RRT alternatives, urban development benefits are offset by negative urban design impacts from elevated guideways.

Deliverability Account At A Glance

Objectives:

• the rapid transit service is constructible and operable, and avoids "show-stopper" constraints
• the rapid transit service allows phasing flexibility and is scalable
• the rapid transit service is supported at all levels of government, and
• rapid transit is compatible with local, regional and provincial transportation, environmental and land use targets and objectives

Benefits and Impacts considered: Potential issues associated with delivering or implementing the alternative such as technical or engineering challenges, likely construction impacts, level of public and stakeholder acceptance funding requirements, time to deliver and potential phasing of implementation.

Summary results: Based on the initial evaluation, all the alternatives are deliverable, subject to funding. A summary score has not been provided for the deliverability account because the acceptability criterion has not yet been assessed. It will be assessed based on public input in Phase 2.