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 and financial models, and qualitative assessments.

For each account, we compared each alternative against a "business as usual" scenario that considers only anticipated transit improvements according to past trends and no rapid transit in the corridor. Several criteria within each account were considered. We then scored each alternative 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 is a summary of the preliminary evaluation results.  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. The fullness of a circle shows how the alternative performed in an account, ranging from an empty circle (very poor) to a full circle (very good). Click through the tabs to learn more about each account and the benefits and impacts considered. You can also read more in the Evaluation Summary.

Preliminary Conclusions and Next Steps

• None of the alternatives have been excluded at this point.
• BRT does not have sufficient capacity to meet projected demand over the long-term.
• Option B of the RRT Alternatives, which extends the Millennium Line and serves Great Northern Way, attracts more riders and is more promising than Option A.
• Options A and B of the LRT Alternatives still need more work to determine which is stronger.
• Before the evaluation is finalized, the design concepts will be optimized and as the design assumptions change, the evaluation will be updated. For example, BRT and LRT have street impacts that affect other road users; refining designs may help reduce some of these impacts.
• Refinements to population, employment and student growth assumptions may be made during further technical analysis, which may affect ridership forecasts and evaluation results.
• Alternatives generating the most benefits also tend to cost the most, and the trade-offs between benefits and costs need to be considered.

Public consultation is underway to help us finalize the evaluation results.  

Economic Development Account At A Glance

Objective: A service that encourages economic development by improving access to existing and future major regional destinations and local businesses by transit while continuing to facilitate goods movement.
Benefits and Impacts Considered: The economic benefits generated by construction activity, impact on taxes and goods movement.
Summary Results: Alternatives with higher capital costs and longer construction periods, such as RRT, tend to perform best in this account due to the employment opportunities generated by construction.

Environment Account At A Glance

Objective: A service that contributes to meeting wider environmental sustainability targets and objectives by attracting new riders, supporting changes to land use and reducing vehicle kilometres travelled.
Benefits and Impacts Considered: The natural environment, including emissions reduction (greenhouse gases (GHG) and criteria air contaminants (CACs), noise and vibration, biodiversity, water environment, and parks and open space.
Summary Results: The RRT Alternative Option B and Combination Alternative 1 are most effective at getting people to switch from driving to transit, leading to the greatest reduction in vehicle emissions. The Best Bus Alternative increases emissions because it introduces additional diesel buses without reducing driving enough to offset the impact.

Social/Community Account At A Glance

Objective: A safe, secure and fully accessible service that also improves access to rapid transit for all and brings benefits to the surrounding communities.
Benefits and Impacts Considered: Health effects associated with active living, how well low-income and transit dependent groups are served, safety and security, community cohesion and heritage and archaeology.
Summary Results: To varying degrees, all alternatives benefit active living and improved safety and security. The RRT Alternative is primarily tunnelled, resulting in lower impact on community cohesion than the other alternatives, which operate on the street.

Financial Account At A Glance

Objective: An affordable and cost-effective service.
Benefits and Impacts Considered: Capital and operating costs as well as cost-effectiveness.
Summary Results: There is a large variation in capital cost, from $325 million for the Best Bus Alternative to $3.2 billion for the RRT Alternative, Option A. When cost-effectiveness is considered, this variation decreases since more costly alternatives tend to also generate more benefits. The Best Bus Alternative, which generates strong ridership at low cost, is the most cost-effective.

Transportation Account At A Glance

Objective: A fast, reliable and efficient service that meets current and future capacity needs and integrates with the regional transit network and other modes.
Benefits and Impacts Considered: The region’s transportation network users, including transit users, car drivers, passengers, pedestrians and cyclists.
Summary Results: The LRT 1 and 2, RRT, and Combination 1 and 2 alternatives perform the best in this account, providing faster travel times, more reliable service and attracting more riders that the other alternatives. The LRT and BRT alternatives reduce road capacity, resulting in some negative impacts on travel time for other road users. The BRT Alternative does not have the capacity to meet forecast demand and has received the lowest rating in this account.

Urban Development Account At A Glance

Objective: A service that supports current and future land use development along the corridor and at UBC and integrates with the surrounding neighbourhoods through high quality urban design.
Benefits and Impacts Considered: Local land uses and the urban environment.
Summary Results: All alternatives connect current and future major activity centres and areas of growth; the longer routes (LRT Alternative 2, Combination Alternative 1) connect more areas and have greater potential urban development benefits.

Deliverability Account At A Glance

Objective: A service that is constructible and operable.
Benefits and Impacts Considered: Potential issues associated with implementing an alternative, including the ease with which it can be constructed, construction impacts, funding requirements and public acceptability.
Summary Results: Based on the initial evaluation, all the alternatives are deliverable, subject to funding. The public acceptance criterion will be completed following public consultation, and will consider input received from stakeholders and the public.