UBC Graduate Research

Lessons from the Olympic Line Archambault, Silas Jun 15, 2010

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


310-SCARP_2010_gradproject_Archambault.pdf [ 4.59MB ]
JSON: 310-1.0102502.json
JSON-LD: 310-1.0102502-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 310-1.0102502-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 310-1.0102502-rdf.json
Turtle: 310-1.0102502-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 310-1.0102502-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 310-1.0102502-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Lessons from the Olympic Line  by  Silas Paul Archambault  B.A.(Hons), The University of New Hampshire, 2008  A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS (PLANNING)  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  School of Community and Regional Planning  We accept this project as conforming to the required standard  ......................................................  .....................................................   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 2010 © Silas Paul Archambault, 2010  Executive Summary  For a sixty day period, the Olympic Line – Vancouver’s 2010 Streetcar, carried passengers between the Canada Line Olympic Station and Granville Island.  The demonstration presented a unique opportunity to find out who was taking the streetcar, why, and where they were going.  Seizing upon this opportunity, we surveyed four hundred and fifty five riders. The results are analyzed according to several planning objectives: passenger experience, sustainability and health, connectivity, and accessibility.  In some ways, the results confirm previously held assumptions.  However, there are some key surprises.  The ability of the streetcar to draw individuals out of their cars and the overall positive impression of the mode are positive signs. Though not suitable to all contexts, streetcars may yet be a missing link of the comprehensive transit service.  The technology may help the greater Vancouver region meet municipal and regional planning objectives.  Key Findings  1) Eighteen percent of all passengers surveyed were riding for work or school. 2) Over twenty percent of those surveyed had taken the streetcar ten or more times. 3) Eighty two percent of those surveyed live in the Greater Vancouver region.  There was little difference between Olympic and Non-Olympic periods. 4) Forty six percent of riders took the streetcar because it was more convenient or quicker than taking another mode. 5) Only seventeen percent of passengers used an automobile to get to or from the streetcar. 6) Thirty percent of riders would not have made their trip if the streetcar did not exist. 7) Sixty percent of passengers were traveling with at least one other person.  The median party size was two. 8) Nearly eighteen percent of parties had children with them. 9) Ninety six percent of all passengers had a positive impression of the streetcar.  The more an individual rode the streetcar, the more positive the impression. 10)  The sixty day demonstration prevented 27,000 automobile trips.   Streetcars make sense for Vancouver.  They have helped to shape the city in the past, and contributed to the legacy of a dense, vibrant and livable city.  The ability of streetcar technology to integrate with the built environment and the greater transit network is perhaps unparalleled by any other mode.  Facing a future of energy insecurity, climate change, and other contextualizing factors, streetcars represent a pragmatic and idyllic investment for the Greater Vancouver Region.     Table of Contents   I.  Introduction      1 II. Context      3 A. Historical Context    3 B. Streetcar Technology   5 B. Planning Context    7 C. Olympics Context    10 III. Methodology     13 IV. Analysis      16 A. Who was Riding: Descriptive Statistics 16 B. Comparison of Olympic,  Transition and Paralympic Periods  23 C. The Streetcar Experience   25 D. Contributing to Regional Sustainability and Health     28 E. Improving Connections and Efficiency 31 F. Comprehensive Accessibility   34 V. Conclusion      37 VI. References      40   Appendix A: Survey Instrument    43 Appendix B: Survey Instructions   44 Appendix C: Residential Location Maps (2)  47 Appendix D: Ridership Count Data from the City  49              Acknowledgements  I would like to thank Dr. Lawrence Frank for your support and guidance with this project and others we have worked on together.  Thanks also to Eric Mital for your helpful comments and feedback.        Report Completed June 9, 2010.     With questions or comments, contact:  Silas Archambault 2-1993 West 12th Avenue Vancouver, BC V6J 2G1 Silas.paul.arch@gmail.com        I. Introduction  From January 21st to March 21st 2010, residents and visitors of the Vancouver region were able to experience a modern streetcar. Over 500,000 passengers experienced a fast, convenient, comfortable and fun way to get between Granville Island and the Olympic Village Canada Line station.  Though just 1.8 kilometres and 60 days long, the Olympic Line – Vancouver’s 2010 Streetcar left an image of the future in the minds of those who rode it.  Bringing the demonstration was no small feat.  The streetcar equipment was provided by Bombardier Transportation Corporation to the Olympic city on loan from Brussels.  Proud to be contributing to the Olympic Legacy, a lively event in Belgium celebrated the send-off of the vehicles.  The vehicles traveled thousands of kilometres by container ship, and arrived at long last in the Port of Tacoma, Washington.  It must have been quite a commotion getting two full sets of modern street car equipment across the border into Canada!  On the receiving end, the city of Vancouver and Bombardier Transportation were busily preparing for the arrival of the equipment.  With Council approval, the city spent $8.5 million upgrading infrastructure along South False Creek.  This effort built upon previous planning and investment in a downtown streetcar.  In the long-term interest of bringing modern streetcar to the downtown core, the city purchased this land and right-of-way from the Canadian Pacific Railway in the 1995. Until the track upgrading, the Downtown Historic Railway operated antique equipment along the route.  The equipment, former interurban cars, were restored in order provide this service.  Running from Science world to Granville Island, for two dollars the DHR transported passengers to a time when streetcars proudly roamed the Vancouver landscape.  Operated by TRAMS, the transit museum society, friendly conductors whisked passengers along the tracks since 1999.  Riding the modern streetcar during the Olympics, an older streetcar could be seen, a reminder of past years and the tenacity of the city and others to keep the memory of the city shaping tool alive. The Olympic Line was certainly a departure from history. The two sets of equipment – Bombardier Flexity vehicles – are top of the line and strikingly beautiful.  Panoramic windows on both sides invite passengers to reflect on the city as they move quietly towards their destination.  The soft leather seats enable passengers to sit and chat – frequently in the groups they travel with.  LCD screens hanging from the ceiling could display upcoming stop and transfer opportunities and maybe even important news and event notifications.  Wide aisles and        Figure 1.  Delivery of streetcars (Courtesy of citycaucus.com)  1 dedicated open areas welcome those with wheelchairs, bicycles and strollers; visibly reminding passengers that the Olympic Line was to be shared by every one – local and visitor alike. This was indeed a special experience. Before the streetcars were again strapped to a flatbed railcar and returned to Brussels, we were able to coordinate a survey of those starry- eyed streetcar passengers.  In pairs, we surveyed passengers for a total of 24 hours throughout the 60 day Demonstration.  We asked 18 questions, gathered demographic data, and wrote down dozens of comments – many of which focused on keeping and expanding the streetcar.  In addition, the city of Vancouver conducted daily passenger counts which included bikes, wheelchairs and strollers. Using the data from the Olympic Streetcar survey and passenger counts, this report answers the question: What can we learn from the Olympic Streetcar Demonstration?  The Demonstration was a significant investment by the city and Bombardier Corporation.  Certainly the experiential learning opportunity for passengers was important – people are much more likely to support something they understand and have experienced.  However, the demonstration also represented a learning opportunity for those who made it happen. Before delving into the results of the survey, several areas of study are discussed to contextualize the findings.  The historical context discusses the role of streetcars and other transportation investments in the development of the greater Vancouver region.  The planning context looks forward to the future of the region and the goals, plans, and projects which are to come.  Finally, the Olympic context explores the implications of the Olympic movement for all host cities and the specific challenges and opportunities presented for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics. Lessons from the Olympic Streetcar Demonstration are presented in several sections.  First, we look at basic descriptive statistics in Who Rode the Streetcar? The section summarizes what we were able to learn about who was riding, why, and their other transportation choices.  Next, we explore a Comparison of Olympic, Transition and Paralympic Periods.  The Olympic Games significantly impacted transportation patterns in the region, and this section illustrates the consistencies and differences in how passengers used the streetcar across survey periods.  The Streetcar Experience ruminates on the comments, impressions, and preferences of streetcar passengers to understand the relative attractiveness of the mode compared to other options.  Contribution to Regional Sustainability and Health examines the benefits to passengers and the environment brought by the short demonstration project.  Improving Connections and Efficiency explores the role of the Olympic Line in the greater transit system and the potential to tie the transportation network together.  Finally, Comprehensive Accessibility addresses the elements of physical and social accessibility of the streetcar system The discussion and conclusion revisits the major lessons raised in the analyses.  Limitations of the study design and practical limitations of the circumstances surrounding the streetcar demonstration stand as a counterbalance to the findings. Future research directions and knowledge gaps are identified. Finally, visiting the costs and benefits of streetcar investments, an equally pragmatic and idealistic case for streetcars in the future of the greater Vancouver region is presented.  2 II. Context  A. Historical Context  Vancouver and the surrounding municipalities have grown very quickly in the past 120 years.  Transportation investments have played a major role in the form development has taken.  The city rose with the Canadian Pacific Railway which came to town in 1887 (Kelly, 1990).  By 1892, Vancouver had grown from a few hundred residents to over 15,000.  The first decade of the 1900’s saw a further quadrupling of population. The arrival of the transcanadian railroad in Vancouver spurred many smaller-scale rail projects in the city and in the region to support the exponential residential and economic development opportunities (Ewert, 1986).  From the introduction of the first line in 1889, private electric companies ran the streetcar system.  In addition the first interurban rail lines from New Westminster to Vancouver was introduced in 1891.  In 1897, the bankrupt streetcar and interurban services for Vancouver and Victoria were amalgamated into the BC Electric Railway Company (BCERC).  This large company continued to expand the system, bringing streetcar service to North Vancouver in 1906.  In subsequent years, the BCERC began constructing their own streetcars in New Westminster so that they would not have to purchase equipment from other companies. The system continued to grow with new lines and new equipment until the Second World War. Vancouver was formed by and built around streetcars which played a major role in the development of Vancouver and opened new land up for development outside of the downtown area, such as along Main Street and 4 the surrounding municipalities (Condon, 2010).  Streetcar routes th Avenue.  Homes and businesses were constructed within close distance to a streetcar route to provide easy access and connection to the rest of the city. Living along a streetcar route enabled families to own their own home and yet still have access to the city centre. The competition with automobiles challenged BCERC almost from the beginning.  For a brief period from 1916-18, motorized Jitneys competed with and ate into the profits of the    Figure 2. Streetcar routes in 1940 (Courtesy of Gabor Sandi)  3 streetcars.  Jitney service was somewhere between modern bus and taxi services, with no fixed route but yet carrying upwards of a dozen passengers.  Jitneys were banned in 1918, but this did not protect streetcars from automobiles.  In the subsequent years, higher rates of automobile ownership resulted in a shrinking mode share for streetcars.  In fact, automobiles began to shape the built environment, and whole communities were built to be accessible by automobile alone.  As a benefit for bringing rail service to Vancouver, the Canadian Pacific Railway company was granted land in Point Grey.  The company developed residential areas, most notably the neighborhood now known as Shaughnessy (Fischer, 2010). Perhaps ironic, the CPR Company was not interested in having streetcar service within their built communities.  In fact, the winding roads of Shaughnessy prevented the introduction of streetcars altogether.  This and other neighborhoods were part of separate municipality known as Point Grey, which was marketed to elites and a growing upper-middle class population.  The depression forced an amalgamation of the adjacent communities of Vancouver, Pt. Grey, and South Vancouver in 1929. However, the urban form of Shaughnessy, designed for automobiles, continues to struggle to support transit even today.  Maintaining streetcar tracks was difficult and expensive, and was complicated by the fact that they were privately owned but on public right-of-way.  Illustrating this, Granville Street Bridge was never built with streetcar tracks – a symbolic message that streetcars were not part of the future.  With support from Vancouver and other municipalities, BCERC began converting the streetcar routes to electric trolley buses.  In 1958, the last streetcar was taken out of service.  By this point, the automobile was the dominant transportation mode, and land use and transportation infrastructure were increasingly designed to accommodate it.  By converting the public transportation system to buses, the system could be more flexible and create less conflict with other moving traffic.  In 1962 the transit system was finally made public when the Province took over the hydroelectric power company which owned BCERC.  The history of transit does not end with streetcars.  The provincialized transit system, BC Transit, underwent several round of expansion.  From 1973 to 1975, BC transit doubled the service area, reaching outlying municipalities and formerly unserved areas in Richmond and Burnaby.  This was necessary, as previously rural areas were developing rapidly.  In the 1980’s there was another expansion, reaching into the Fraser Valley.  No longer the dominant source of mobility, transit service had to be brought to automobile-oriented parts of the region.  Since 1962, the public transit system has been reorganized several times to become what is now known as TransLink.    While the electric trolley buses continue to run in Vancouver proper, the subsequent service expansions into outlying municipalities have been by diesel bus.  The lower residential densities and long distances made the infrastructure related costs of streetcars or electric trolley buses unattractive and often unviable.  However, this was not the case in the city of Vancouver, which maintained high residential densities and transit ridership.  In the 1970’s, the city began planning a light rail (modern streetcar) system, although it was never built.  Since 1999, the City of Vancouver has again been planning a modern streetcar system for the downtown area.  To build such a system, the challenges of funding and operation must be overcome. Despite their absence for over 60 years, the legacy of the streetcars and interurbans remains.  The characteristic linear  4 commercial districts such as West Broadway, Robson, and Main Street in Vancouver are former streetcar routes.  These old streetcar routes continue to have high transit ridership today.  In fact, Main Street was one of the first streetcar routes, and was recently the first to be upgraded to articulated electric trolley buses for extra capacity (Fisher, 2010).  The SkyTrain lines are built upon old right of way for interurbans.  The Burnaby Lake Line has become the Millennium line, and the New West line has become the Expo line. It is clear that the transportation investments of the past have determined the development patterns we have today.  Auto- oriented development in Surrey boomed in the 1970s when the Port Mann Bridge was built.  The low-density and sprawling urban form of Surrey seen today is the result of that rapid and automobile-oriented development.  Certainly, the areas around Scott Road and Newton have higher densities more amenable to transit, but this is along a former interurban rail line! Surrey is one of the fastest growing municipalities in the lower mainland, set to become the most populous by 2040 (RGS, 2009).  Plans are gaining momentum for Surrey to strengthen its core and become more transit oriented.  As Surrey redevelops, it must contend with the form set by past investments and choose new transportation investments which will encourage desirable development patterns.  Much of Surrey is built on a grid pattern supportive of walking and transit trips, however the large scale of that grid is a challenge. Most of the city has wide streets, wide blocks, and wide lots.  Yet, the ample space provides an opportunity for streetcars: it is relatively easy to rededicate road space, and large land parcels can be redeveloped into higher density.  B. Streetcar Technology  It is important to distinguish between the concept of streetcar and regional light rail.  Modern Light Rail Technology (LRT) is quite adaptable.  At a local level, it can serve as a streetcar, with frequent stops, and a high level of integration with the street.  At a regional level, the technology can serve as at- grade rapid transit, with high speeds and limited stops.  In the Portland MAX system, the light rail operates like a streetcar when in the city centre, with slower speeds and closer stops. Outside the centre, the lines have fewer crossings, higher speeds, and further distance between stops.  Though it is easy to conflate streetcars and regional LRT, it can be differentiated by station design, alignment, and function in the overall transit network.  As both streetcars and LRT are being considered for in the greater Vancouver region, this distinction is important to make. The current regional transit system uses different technologies to satisfy transportation demands.  In some instances, such as West Coast Express and the SeaBus, a technology serves a specific purpose.  In both of these cases, the services move many passengers between the Downtown and surrounding communities.  The Canada Line, the Millenium Line, and the Expo Line likewise move many people, although passengers use SkyTrain to access a greater variety of destinations. Of course, passengers traveling without automobiles still need ways to get around for shorter distances.  Community shuttles and local buses are able to serve trips within municipalities as well as connect passengers to regional services to travel longer distances.   These services have more frequent  5 stops and generally a lower capacity than regional services. There are some notable exceptions, where articulated buses provide higher capacity, and express buses (such as the 99 B- Line) have fewer stops and thus faster speeds.  The ability to use different technologies in a variety of settings is what makes a strong and adaptable transit system which meets the needs of the region it serves.  Comparison of Transit Services1  Max. Capacity Min. Stop Distance (Metres) Min. Peak Frequency Community Shuttle 20 flexible 90 min Bus 60 250 30 min Express Bus 85 500- 1500 10 min Streetcar 178 flexible flexible Skytrain 260-650 1000- 4000 5 min  Light rail technology has been discussed as another technology which could meet certain needs of the region.  In a dense urban context, streetcars may be able to perform better than buses or SkyTrain.  Particularly, streetcars have the ability to move many individuals over short distances.  Streetcars can be well integrated into the urban fabric, so that stops are close to major destinations.  They are highly accessible, and are attractive to many individuals.  Modern streetcars can encourage people to  1 (Bombardier, 2008; TransLink, 2004) leave their cars at home who would not otherwise use transit if they had to take a bus or the SkyTrain.  Their ability to serve local trips and connect to the regional network presents a great opportunity.  Existing studies show higher real estate values in areas served by light rail transit, indicating more demand for transit- oriented properties (Weinberger, 2001; Cervero and Duncan, 2002).  The potential for development along streetcar routes is essential.  Unlike regional rapid transit which encourages nodal development, the frequent stops of streetcars can encourage linear development.  This development type enables more local trips, as individuals do not need to travel long distances to access opportunities not present in their ‘node’. Certainly, streetcar technology is not the answer for all of the local and regional transportation needs.  Local buses with frequent stops serve the need for short-distance trips.  The low infrastructural cost of buses makes service to these areas possible. Likewise, there are destinations and corridors with very high transit demand, where the limited speeds and capacity of buses and even streetcars are insufficient.  Rapid transit investment is more appropriate for moving many people over longer distances. Between the existing technologies, however, is a gap in service. There are areas, such as was demonstrated by the Olympic Line, which are best served by streetcar.         6 C. Planning Context  In order to understand what is important to learn from the streetcar demonstration, we must understand the potential role of streetcars in the transportation system and overall development and redevelopment of the greater Vancouver region.  Part of this has been explored through a historical lens: streetcars played an important role to the development of the region for the first half of the 20th century.  However, we must also look forward to the future. Plans and resulting projects are now being considered which will shape the future.  Long-range planning considers demographic trends, economic opportunities, and regional and local goals.  These planning processes look to find appropriate solutions to the challenges and opportunities of the future.  In some cases, such as Vancouver’s Downtown Streetcar plan and TransLink’s UBC and Surrey rapid transit studies, Light Rail Technology is considered directly.  However, in other cases, streetcars are implicated indirectly where they have the potential to meet planning goals and objectives.  1. Vancouver Downtown Streetcar Project In 1995, the city of Vancouver purchased the right-of- way from Canada Pacific for the downtown historic railway running from Main Street station to Granville Island.  In 1999, the city approved a concept plan which identified several alignments for future streetcar investment.  In 2004, the city updated the streetcar plan, and commissioned four technical studies regarding streetcars.  Most recently, in 2008 council approved an investment of $8.5 million dollars to improve the infrastructure for the Downtown Historic Railway.  This project included upgrades which supported the Olympic Line and the future Downtown Streetcar project (City of Vancouver, 2010).  The streetcar plan identifies potential alignments for several other streetcar lines in the Downtown core (IBI Group, 2005).  Alignments are along Pacific Boulevard between Quebec Stanley Park and Waterfront station, and a full extended line from Granville Island around False Creek up to Gastown.  These Street and Granville Street, along West Georgia/ Pender between     Figure 3. Future alignment of the Downtown Streetcar (City of Vancouver)  7 alignments represent likely investments if funds for streetcar infrastructure and equipment become available in the future. Altogether, these studies and council reports indicate a strong and growing interest in streetcars for the city, by the city2.  These investments are significant.  The land assembled in the form of a continuous right of way constitutes the most expensive and difficult part of the transportation system to obtain.  2. Regional Growth Strategy  In 2008, the Metro Vancouver regional government began the process of updating the regional growth strategy, previously known as the Livable Region Strategic Plan.  Now in its second draft, the Metro Vancouver 2040 Plan looks to coordinate growth and redevelopment in the region to achieve several regional goals.  Particularly relevant for transportation and streetcar technology specifically, the regional growth strategy calls for development in regional city centers (cores) and along frequent transit development corridors.  The regional government has been in close discussions with TransLink in the development of this concept.  Strategies for transit provision should support this development type, and LRT may be able to contribute.  Streetcars have the potential to support movement in the city centres. Regional light rail transit, with faster speeds and fewer stops, can support movement between the city centres along frequent transit corridors. This draft of the Regional Growth Strategy presents a change from the current Livable Region plan which does not  2 These reports and studies can be found online at < http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/streetcar/update.htm>  Last Accessed May 19, 2010. recognize and prioritize corridor development (Condon, 2010). Once the plan is approved and adopted, every member municipality in the Metro Vancouver region will write a regional context statement which relates their Official Community Plan with the goals of the Regional Growth Strategy.  Because the draft plan is undergoing additional revision and has yet to be adopted, further discussion is not warranted.  3. Surrey Rapid Transit Study  TransLink defines rapid transit as transit service which is “fast, frequent and reliable”.  Beyond these key criteria, the organization should have no bias towards planning, funding, and building any one transportation technology over another.  The Surrey Rapid Transit Study is a multi-phased planning project which will identify technology and alignment alternatives for the South of Fraser [river] region (TransLink, 2010).  Light rail technology is being considered as an option.  As Surrey and the surrounding communities of Langley, White Rock, and Delta are some of the fastest growing municipalities in the greater Vancouver region, the technologies and alignments chosen will significantly impact the location, density, and form of development.  Both the Surrey Rapid Transit Study and the UBC Rapid Transit Study were enabled by a cost-sharing agreement between the provincial government and TransLink for conceptual planning.  Both projects are included in the provincial transit plan which earmarks $14 billion for public transit infrastructure investments throughout BC.  4. UBC Rapid Transit Study  Much like the Surrey Rapid Transit Study, the UBC Line Study considers alignment and technology.  The UBC line is  8 planned to extend from Commercial drive station out to UBC. Unlike the Surrey Rapid Transit Study which is still in the stakeholder consultation stage, the UBC line study has moved on to public consultation.  In the public feedback sessions, TransLink staff present six viable alternatives which combine alignment and technologies.  After completing public consultation, the consultants hired by TransLink will compare each alternative through a six-category multiple account evaluation.  This evaluation will result in a recommendation for technology and alignment.  With approval, the detailed UBC Rapid Transit Plan which will be ready to build when funding becomes available3.  5. Transport 2040  The long-range plan developed by TransLink for the Greater Vancouver regional transportation system identifies six goals which are part of the Transport 2040 vision.  As was mentioned, regional light rail transit is being considered as an investment which could help meet these goals.  However, the local application of streetcars may be also help the region reach these goals.  With streetcars in mind, questions arise from Transport 2040 which helped inform the design of the survey. Below are each of the six goals, and specific ways investment in streetcar technology may be able to address the goals.  In some ways, streetcars provide benefits which cannot be obtained by other transit investments such as diesel bus or skytrain technology.  Other benefits are shared by all transit investments,  3 Public consultation documents can be found online at < http://www.translink.ca/en/Get-Involved/Be-Part-of-the-Plan.aspx> Last accessed May 19, 2010. but may be maximized by streetcars if they can attract new riders who would not ride any other transit mode. Goal 1 Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation are aggressively reduced, in support of federal, provincial and regional targets. Streetcars run on electric power- and hydropower is one of the cleanest power sources in the world (Condon, 2010).  If individuals choose the streetcar rather than an automobile for their trip, greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources can be reduced. Goal 2 Most trips are by transit, walking and cycling. Even if a streetcar does not serve both the origin and destination of an individual’s desired trip, connections can be made easily with walking or cycling.  As an appealing mode, streetcars may also attract riders who would not otherwise use transit. Goal 3 The majority of jobs and housing in the region are located along the Frequent Transit Network (frequent, reliable services on designated corridors throughout the day, every day).  Streetcars are particularly supportive of linear development, and could contribute to the development of a sustainable Frequent Transit Network complementing regional services. Goal 4 Traveling in the region is safe, secure, and accessible for everyone. If the streetcar can attract groups that are sensitive to safety concerns, such as seniors and parents with children, it can  9 be understood as a truly socially (and physically) accessible mode. Goal 5 Economic growth and efficient goods movement are facilitated through effective management of the transportation network. By taking passenger vehicles off the road, streetcars could reduce congestion.  In addition, tracks could also potentially support freight train traffic. Goal 6 Funding for TransLink is stable, sufficient, appropriate and influences transportation choices. Streetcar technology may attract new paying customers to public transit, and high capacity means greater operational cost recovery.  Although it is not explored here, streetcar investment also stimulates development along the route, value which could be captured by TransLink.            D. Olympics Context  Major infrastructure and urban renewal projects are often catalyzed by international events, such as the world fair and the Olympics (Chalkey and Essex, 1999).  There is a seven year period between when a city bids to host the Olympic Games and when the games are actually held in the city (Cashman, 2002). This allows cities to push ahead existing infrastructure plans, or to propose bold new facilities (Chalkey and Essex, 1999).  This also allows cities to anticipate the influx of competitors, media, and spectators which will place stress on the city services such as housing, sewers, and transportation.  Particularly for transportation, investment in infrastructure and the use of demand management has grown as the size of the games has grown. Since the 1960's, the Olympics have heralded urban development beyond just new sporting facilities (Chalkey and Essex, 1999).  This has included transportation infrastructure as well as housing and public spaces.  Interestingly, the 1936 games in Berlin was the first to have an Olympic village.  The Melbourne games in 1956 were notable for the construction of facilities that were not used after the games and were thus demolished.  The 1960 Olympics in Rome were the first to see significant investment in transportation.  The 1968 games in Mexico City had very little investment, and severely stressed housing and transportation in the city.  This illustrated what can happen if the games are not anticipated.  The Seoul games of 1988 brought major public transportation investments as well as transportation demand management. For the North American context, Guiliano (1988) discusses the successful management of the transportation system during the 1984 Los Angeles summer Olympics.  With 26,000  10 competitors, the 1984 summer games were roughly 10 times larger than the 2010 winter Olympics.  Traffic conditions actually improved during the games.  This illustrated that demand management works - though Guiliano raises the important question of whether it can be effective without a major incentive like the Olympics which threatens to shut down the transportation system without behavioral change. The 1996 Olympics in Atlanta were also paired with an aggressive transportation demand management program (Friedman et al., 2001).  During the Atlanta games, public transportation use increased over 200%.  Traffic congestion improved during this period, a stark contrast to the experience in Mexico City in 1968.  The program even reduced environmental ozone and significantly reduced hospital admission rates for acute asthma compared to the normal situation in Atlanta.  Research by Friedman et al. demonstrated the potential of the Olympics to act as a transportation laboratory, and the value of thorough research to track the lessons. The public nature and success of previous Olympic transportation Plans left a legacy that continued on to the 2010 games in Vancouver.  1. The 2010 Olympics  Winning the bid for the 2010 Olympics enabled the construction of several infrastructure projects.  The Richmond Olympic Oval and the Olympic Village in Southeast False Creek attracted the investment necessary to be built.  The Olympics also ensured funding for existing planned projects such as the Canada rapid transit line.  Originally called the RAV line, the project was fast-tracked, with funding from the Federal Government (Fischer, 2010).  The Canada line was the only permanent transportation infrastructure that can be clearly tied to the Olympics.  For equipment, TransLink, the regional transportation planning agency, had purchased hundreds of new buses in the years leading up to the games (TransLink, 2008), no doubt in partial anticipation of the Olympic Games.  However, rather than supply of new services and infrastructure, the greatest emphasis for transportation during the 2010 games was on demand management. The Olympic period was a special time for the Lower Mainland.  An influx of tourists, athletes, media, security personnel, and performers put strain on the transportation network.  VANOC, the City of Vancouver, and TransLink were prepared for this, however.  A collaborative Olympic Transportation Plan sought several interventions to ease the movement of people and goods during the games (OPTT, 2010). Interventions included:  Road closures and restricted access- Because of Olympic security needs, several roads were closed during the Olympics. This reduced accessibility by automobiles, thus encouraging the use of alternative modes. Pedestrian and bike corridors- Especially in the downtown core, several corridors were reserved for non-motorized transportation. This allowed people to safely and conveniently travel between venues and to enjoy temporary art installations, such as was found on Granville Street. Olympic Lanes- On-street parking was restricted on several key routes such as the Broadway corridor to decrease travel times and increase reliability.  Use of the Olympic Lanes was restricted to transit and specially-designated Olympic vehicles.  11 Enhanced Wayfinding and Signage- Information posts were installed throughout the area which contained information about Olympic venues, major attractions, and transit access. Volunteers- Many volunteers, municipal staff, and TransLink employees were stationed around the transit network to assist with wayfinding and answer other questions.  Some members of TransLink’s Employer Pass Program even wore buttons that said “Ask Me!” so that they could act as ambassadors for new users of the transit system.  These volunteers were a friendly, smiling face of transit that helped people unfamiliar with the system find their way. Expanded hours and frequency of service- In anticipation of the Olympics, TransLink increased service to operate more frequently and later at night.  For example, a third SeaBus operated, dramatically increasing ridership and providing a frequent 10 minute service. Olympic Bus Services- In addition to the existing TransLink system, an Olympic Bus Network shuttled spectators between venues.  Separate Olympic vehicles also moved athletes, media and volunteers between venues. TravelSmart Campaign - A strong Transportation Demand Management outreach campaign was initiated long before the start of the Olympics.  Businesses and employees were warned about the additional transportation demands that the Olympics would bring.  Telework and alternative modes such as transit use and nonmotorized transportation were promoted heavily.  The Olympic Period saw record levels of transit use. The region saw an impressive shift towards transit use and non- motorized transportation.  Ridership on the transit system doubled, and single occupancy vehicle trips to the downtown core were reduced at least 35% (OPTT, 2010).  No doubt, the experience was due to the interventions discussed above.  Many individuals who live in the lower mainland and had never or infrequently taken transit learned about the transit system.  Some were surprised at how comfortable and convenient it could be. The Olympics provided an opportunity for individuals to learn how to use transit and to experience it firsthand.  In the coming months, we will see the long-term impacts of the Olympic experience.  It is reasonable to expect that a positive experience of transit use will encourage more use in the future.  While this report is focused on the experience of the Olympic Streetcar Demonstration, we cannot understand the lessons without the context of the Olympics and implementation of the Olympic Transportation Plan.  The Olympic Streetcar Demonstration was one of a suite of temporary changes and opportunities that encouraged individuals to travel in different ways – and to different destinations – than they had before. Despite this, initial comparison of survey responses between Olympic and non-Olympic periods suggests that the differences are not as great as one would imagine. However, we cannot draw conclusions from this basic analysis.  Given the special context, we cannot accurately project future transportation demands for a future streetcar system. This report summarizes some of what we are able to learn from the demonstration.  There are many useful lessons that can be drawn from the study.  Specifically, we can tell four stories about the streetcar: experience, sustainability and health, connectivity, and accessibility.  Through this survey of passengers, we learned who took the streetcar and why.    12 III. Methodology  A. Instrument design The opportunity and need for a survey of Olympic Line riders was identified in a planning meeting for the upcoming Shifting Gears symposium Streetcars: The Missing Link4.  In attendance were representatives from the TransLink planning department, the City of Vancouver engineering department, as well as transportation and planning academics from both Simon Fraser University and the University of British Columbia.  The city would be collecting ridership counts, but would not be collecting qualitative ridership data.  The need for a ridership survey was identified, and I offered to conduct the research on behalf of the Active Transportation Collaboratory at UBC.  The group discussed data needs and priorities.  Several research questions were posed, including: -Who is riding? -Where did they come from? -How did they get there? -Where are they going? -Why are they riding?  Soon after the meeting, a draft survey instrument was designed which sought to collect data for each of these questions. The draft was distributed by electronic communication for review and comments.  After receiving suggestions and additional questions, a second draft of the instrument was created.  This  4 This event will bring together 150 decisionmakers, planners, and citizens to discuss the potential role of streetcars in helping to achieve regional sustainability and livability goals.  The event will be held the end of September, 2010. draft instrument was then administered to three volunteers, who were consulted as a focus group to identify confusing questions and logical discrepancies.  The focus group enabled a significant simplification and condensation of questions.  This process was very important, as the volunteers identified technical jargon and suggested, such as asking “where are you going?” rather than “What is your final destination?” The Focus group was also helpful in eliminating ambiguity, as in this same example, “final destination” can have a morbid meaning!  The instrument was designed to take no more than four minutes, so that participants could answer while waiting on the platform for the next streetcar.  In creating the third and final draft of the instrument (see appendix A), several questions had to be dropped from the survey.  The final draft consisted of 18 self- report variables, as well as two variables of gender and age group, for which the surveyor would categorize the participant. Finally, each instrument also contains fields for date, time, weather conditions, and direction of the departing streetcar.  B. Data collection  Survey staff members were trained using a uniform script to maintain consistency (See appendix B).  Staff members were instructed to approach the nearest rider and invite them to participate.  Very few individuals refused participation, producing an estimated response rate of over 90%.  Analysis of the results confirms internal validity of the data across survey staff.  Where 45% of respondents were identified as male, the range between survey staff was 43%-48%. In order to reduce bias for time or day of the week, data collection was scheduled to include eight weekday hours and four weekend hours, both during and after the Olympics.  Data  13 collection time segments were also distributed across operation hours.  Unfortunately, the collection periods were not designed to obtain comparable samples between Olympic and non-Olympic periods, which was later identified as important to isolate differing travel patterns.  Despite this, we did get a one-day sample of use during the transition period which enabled the high-level comparison presented in the analysis section.  Table 1 – Data Collection Time Segments  Day Date Start End Staff 1 Staff 2 Sun 14-Feb 12:30 14:30 Joanna Alisha Mon 15-Feb 8:00 12:30 Joanna Stacy Thu 18-Feb 16:30 20:30 Alisha Stacy Sat 20-Feb 15:00 17:00 Joanna Stacy Sun 7-Mar 9:00 13:00 Alisha Silas Thu 18-Mar 6:30 8:30 Alisha Silas Thu 18-Mar 16:00* 19:00* Joanna Silas Fri 19-Mar 13:45 16:45 Joanna Alisha *Note: Power was out for 25 minutes during which the streetcar could not run.  Although the original methodology called for survey collection on the platforms, we soon learned that conducting the survey on the streetcar itself was easy.  This minimized disruption, and improved the comfort of respondents as they could sit while answering questions.  It is not expected that this change in methodology had any effect on the quality of responses, but it certainly improved the quantity as we did not have to wait for passengers to arrive on the platform.  The survey data is also supported and compared to streetcar ridership counts conducted by the City of Vancouver. Streetcar attendants counted ambulatory passengers, bicycles, individuals in wheelchairs and strollers.  Average daily ridership by period (pre Olympic, Olympic, Transition, and Paralympic) are provided in appendix D.  C. Data entry and cleaning  Data was entered into SPSS 17.0.  Most questions were entered as one variable.  However, the potential for multiple responses to some questions (such as question nine: “How did you get to the streetcar? List all modes.”) required up to three variables. Observations for most variables fit into one of the pre- determined categories, which enabled numerical coding.  After the initial round of data entry and cleaning, some additional variables were added as simplifications of existing variables.  For example, all six variables associated with questions nine and ten were recoded into a single variable “modes used”.  This is discussed in further detail in the descriptive statistics analysis section. Several variables had nonresponses, and were thus coded as ‘N/A’ or 0.  In these cases, the assumption was made that a nonresponse meant ‘none’ or ‘not applicable’.  This was to simplify the data and increase the number of valid responses. However, there is a slight possibility that nonresponse may reflect question refusal.  For example, a nonresponse for the question “How many other adults are you traveling with?” could mean they were traveling alone (none), or that they did not want to share the information with the survey staff despite traveling with other passengers.   14 D. Analysis  Because of the small sample size and simplicity of the questions, most analysis of the survey data consists of simple statistics.  As was discussed previously, it is not possible to test hypotheses about transportation demand for the region with this data, considering the special circumstances and location of the demonstration.  In order to support the analyses which are suitable to the data, tables and summaries were exported from SPSS for this report.  In some cases, graphs were created in Microsoft Excel.  Using ArcGIS 9.0, postal codes for participants with a residence in BC were geocoded.  For responses which did not correspond with an existing British Columbia postal code, the closest match was chosen.  In many cases, a match could be found by consulting the responses for the origin, destination, and city questions (4, 5, 16) for additional information.  This geocoding enables the visual representation of responses to all questions for most participants (excluded those with primary residences outside of British Columbia).  Though just two maps were created for this report, potential for further visual and spatial analysis remains.  While attempting to modeling future transportation demand based on this data is impractical, the effects of the streetcar on transportation demand of passengers during the demonstration period can be estimated.  Using Google Maps, routes were drawn for a sample of 47 respondents.  These 47 respondents did not drive as part of their trip, but would only drive to their destination if the streetcar did not exist.  Distance between trip origin and trip destination was measured for all members of this sample population.  This information is subsequently used to estimate kilometres traveled and emissions savings from SOV trips which were prevented by the streetcar.                         15 IV. Analysis  A. Who was Riding: Descriptive Statistics The following tables summarize the data related to each question on the survey.  In some cases the results are simplified or represent multiple questions.  For the survey instrument and the script, please see Appendices A and C.  1. Weather  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Clear 295 64.8 64.8 64.8 Cloudy 132 29.0 29.0 93.8 Rainy 28 6.2 6.2 100.0 Valid Total 455 100.0 100.0  Weather during the survey periods was generally good.  There were some instances of rain, but in general, weather was fair.  It is likely that inclement weather would impact travel choices, however, due to the small sample of surveys taken in the rain and without a baseline of travel behavior which may not include a connection to the streetcar, we could not extrapolate the effects of weather on travel behavior.      2. Direction  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulativ e Percent Eastbound 231 50.8 52.7 52.7 Westbound 207 45.5 47.3 100.0 Valid Total 438 96.3 100.0 Missing System 17 3.7 Total 455 100.0  We attempted to get an even sample of individuals traveling East and West.  3. Date (Binned)  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Olympics 210 46.2 46.2 46.2 Transition 70 15.4 15.4 61.5 Paralympics 175 38.5 38.5 100.0 Valid Total 455 100.0 100.0  This is a simplified version of the days on which we collected surveys.  The total number of surveys for each period is reflective of the amount of time spent collecting data rather than transportation demand for each period.  As long as there was at  16 least one person on each streetcar trip, we were able to collect a sample.  As can be seen, a small sample of 70 was collected during the transition period, which is hypothesized to more accurately reflect local demand for the Olympic Line, as it should be less impacted by visitors or special trips due to the Olympics or Paralympics.  4. Time (Binned)  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent <= 6:59 8 1.8 1.8 1.8 7:00 - 8:59 40 8.8 8.8 10.5 9:00 - 11:59 98 21.5 21.5 32.1 12:00 - 13:59 68 14.9 14.9 47.0 14:00 - 15:59 78 17.1 17.1 64.2 16:00 - 17:59 119 26.2 26.2 90.3 18:00 - 19:59 36 7.9 7.9 98.2 20:00+ 8 1.8 1.8 100.0 Valid Total 455 100.0 100.0  This represents the time of each survey.  We scheduled survey periods to get responses for all times of the day.  Once again, this is reflective of the times chosen for data collection, not of the relative levels of ridership.  5. Gender and Age Group Gender  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Male 198 43.5 44.7 44.7 Female 242 53.2 54.6 99.3 Unidentifiable 3 .7 .7 100.0 Valid Total 443 97.4 100.0 Missing System 12 2.6 Total 455 100.0  Agegroup  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Young 125 27.5 30.3 30.3 Middle 185 40.7 44.8 75.1 Old 103 22.6 24.9 100.0 Valid Total 413 90.8 100.0 Missing System 42 9.2 Total 455 100.0    17 The age group and gender were estimated by the survey staff, so the results are based on appearance. For age, the ‘young’ category includes anyone who appears to be younger than 30, and the ‘old’ category captures anyone who appears to be 50 or older. Perhaps due to ambiguity, staff did not record age and gender for 42 participants. Of those participants that were recorded, there seems to be a bell curve with age, and a consistently higher ridership by women across all age categories. In fact, 55% of riders were identified as female.  This may be because the shops and services at Granville Island are more attractive to women.  Regardless, this speaks to the perceived safety of the transit mode, an issue that is typically felt more acutely by women than by men.  This is explored in further detail in the section on Accessibility.  6. Participated  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent no 451 99.1 99.1 99.1 yes 4 .9 .9 100.0 Valid Total 455 100.0 100.0  Only 4 of those surveyed had participated in the survey before. Considering that our sample was just .1% of all trips taken during the streetcar demonstration, any repeat surveys are impressive. This illustrates the repeat ridership experienced during the demonstration.   7. Previous trips on the Streetcar [Before and Trips (Binned)] Before  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 167 36.7 36.7 36.7 yes 288 63.3 63.3 100.0 Valid Total 455 100.0 100.0  Trips (Binned)  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 0 171 37.6 37.6 37.6 1 82 18.0 18.0 55.6 2-4 70 15.4 15.4 71.0 5-9 35 7.7 7.7 78.7 10-49 67 14.7 14.7 93.4 50+ 30 6.6 6.6 100.0 Valid Total 455 100.0 100.0  Nearly two thirds of those surveyed had ridden the streetcar at least once before.  Over 20% have ridden it 10 or more times. This illustrates that a dedicated rider base was created for the two month demonstration period.  18 8. Purpose of trip [Whytrip]  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent home 85 18.7 18.7 18.7 personal 30 6.6 6.6 25.3 work 67 14.7 14.8 40.1 school 15 3.3 3.3 43.4 leisure 212 46.6 46.7 90.1 shopping 30 6.6 6.6 96.7 other 7 1.5 1.5 98.2 Olympics 8 1.8 1.8 100.0 Valid Total 454 99.8 100.0 Missing System 1 .2 Total 455 100.0  As can be seen, there are a variety of reasons an individual might be making the trip.  Leisure trips, with 47% of responses, was the most common trip type.  Unfortunately, this question does not address the purpose of the most recent trip.  That is, if we caught someone on their way home from Granville Island, their trip purpose was 'to go home' which constituted 19% of our sample. We do not know why they made the trip to Granville Island. Regardless, 18% of those surveyed were taking the streetcar on their way to work or school.  This is perhaps surprising considering number of visitors who tried the Olympic Line and that many locals were not working during the Olympics.  9. Reason  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Cost 23 5.1 5.3 5.3 Experience 187 41.1 43.5 48.8 Time 144 31.6 33.5 82.3 Weather 6 1.3 1.4 83.7 Parking 4 .9 .9 84.7 Convenience 54 11.9 12.6 97.2 Other: 12 2.6 2.8 100.0 Valid Total 430 94.5 100.0 Missing System 25 5.5 Total 455 100.0  Nearly half (46%) of those surveyed stated that their main reason for taking the streetcar rather than another mode was because it saved time or because it was more convenient.  Most other riders (44%) were riding the streetcar because it provided a nice experience.  It is conceivable that for some, the purpose of the trip was precisely to experience the streetcar. A small number of people took the streetcar because it was free [cost], because of the weather, or other reasons.  19 10. Holding fare for the TransLink system  Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent regular 91 20.0 20.0 faresaver 44 9.7 29.7 day pass 20 4.4 34.1 olympic 17 3.7 37.8 monthly 87 19.1 56.9 student 26 5.7 62.6 Valid Other Pass 8 1.8 64.4 Missing No fare 162 35.6 100.0 Total 455 100.0  Almost two thirds of those surveyed were holding valid fare for the TransLink system.  Of those with transit fare, nearly 30% had a pass good for unlimited riding, such as a student U-Pass, a monthly fare card, or a community pass.  11. Modes used to connect with the streetcar  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Automobile 35 7.7 7.7 7.7 Auto and Transit 32 7.0 7.0 14.7 Transit 254 55.8 55.8 70.5 Nonmotorized 127 27.9 27.9 98.5 Other 7 1.5 1.5 100.0 Valid Total 455 100.0 100.0  Participants were able to indicate up to three modes used to connect to the streetcar on both ends5  This included modes used to get to the streetcar, and modes the passenger expected to use to get to their destination.  This created six variables in the dataset, which was unwieldy to present.  Further, we gathered surveys of both Eastbound and Westbound passengers.  To simplify this data, a new variable of modes used was created.  This variable indicates the dominant modes utilized as part of the trip.  The data was recoded into the following values: Nonmotorized – If individuals connected to the streetcar only by nonmotorized modes such as walking, biking, and skateboarding. Use of any other mode forced reclassification into another value. Auto and Transit – If individuals connected to the streetcar with both automobile and transit as part of their trip.  This value includes at least one response of auto driver, auto passenger, or taxi and at least one response of sea bus, SkyTrain/Canada line, and bus.  Individuals may have also used nonmotorized modes and/or additional modes. Transit – If individuals connected to the streetcar with transit and did not use an automobile for any part of their trip.  This value includes at least one response of sea bus, SkyTrain/Canada line, and bus.  Individuals may have also used nonmotorized modes and/or additional modes. Other - If individuals connected to the streetcar via another mode and did not use transit or an automobile for any part of their trip. Most “other” connections were by False Creek Ferries or AquaBus.  Individuals may have also used nonmotorized modes.   5 See the survey instrument and script for more explanation.  20 28% of those riding the streetcar walked, biked, or skateboarded for the rest of their trip without connecting to transit or riding in an automobile.  Most others (63%) connected to the regional transit system, with some (7%) also using a vehicle for a portion of their trip.  A small number (8%) used an automobile alone to connect to the streetcar.  12. Modes that would be used if the streetcar did not exist [Alternatemode]  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No trip 137 30.1 30.1 30.1 Automobile 66 14.5 14.5 44.6 Auto and Transit 11 2.4 2.4 47.0 Transit 165 36.3 36.3 83.3 Nonmotorized 65 14.3 14.3 97.6 Other 11 2.4 2.4 100.0 Valid Total 455 100.0 100.0  The alternative mode variable was summarized and recoded in the same way as the ‘modes used’ variable.  This table shows the modes which would be used to make the trip if the streetcar did not exist, if individuals would be making the trip at all.  Almost a third of those riding the streetcar would not have made their trip if the streetcar did not exist.  In addition, 15% of those surveyed would otherwise drive to their destination, many of whom did not drive as part of the trip surveyed.  The implications of this are explored later in the discussion on sustainability.  Half of the respondents would take transit and/or use nonmotorized transportation if the option of the streetcar did not exist.  13. How they found out  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Friend 69 15.2 15.4 15.4 Advertisement 200 44.0 44.6 60.0 Saw it 115 25.3 25.7 85.7 Other 64 14.0 14.3 87.9 Total 448 98.5 100.0 Valid Missing 7 1.5  Many participants had difficulty remembering how they first found out about the streetcar, as they had known about it for a while, and received information from multiple sources.  At least 15% of those who took the streetcar found out about it from a friend or family member, indicating that many people were talking about it.       21 14. Traveling in Groups [Groupsize, Children, Adults]     Adults     0 1 2 3 4 Total 0 180 145 29 12 5 371 1 25 23 3 4 0 55 2 3 12 1 1 5 22 3 0 3 1 0 0 4 Children 4 0 1 2 0 0 3 Total 208 184 36 17 10 455  Groupsize  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 180 39.6 39.6 39.6 2 170 37.4 37.4 76.9 3 55 12.1 12.1 89.0 4 27 5.9 5.9 94.9 5 13 2.9 2.9 97.8 6 3 .7 .7 98.5 7 7 1.5 1.5 100.0 Valid Total 455 100.0 100.0  Most (60%) of those surveyed were traveling with at least one other person.  More than half of those traveling were accompanied by another adult, and nearly 20% had children with them. 15. Overall Impression     Frequency Percent Cum. Percent Somewhat Negative 2 .4 .4 Neutral 21 4.7 4.7 Somewhat Positive 59 13.0 18.1 Valid Very Positive 373 82.0 100.0 Total 455 100.0 Most riders had a positive impression of the streetcar.  This is explored in the section on rider experience.  16. Those living in the Greater Vancouver Region [TransLink]  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Local 373 82.0 82.2 82.2 Visitor 81 17.8 17.8 100.0 Valid Total 454 99.8 100.0 Missing System 1 .2 Total 455 100.0 Most of those surveyed (82%) live in the greater Vancouver region served by TransLink.  Despite most of the surveys being collected during the Olympic and Paralympic games, relatively few of those riding the Olympic streetcar were visitors as is discussed in the next section.  22 B. Comparison of Olympic, Transition and Paralympic Periods  In order to understand the effects of the Olympics on ridership of the Olympic Streetcar, we must compare the survey responses during the Olympics, during the Paralympics, and the time between the two.  Unfortunately, the sample for the transition period was not designed to be comparable based on time of day and day of week with the Olympic and Paralympic periods.  With 70 responses, the sample from the transition period is not large enough for a rigorous and statistically significant comparison.  In any case, this section discusses the some of the similarities and the differences between responses during the Olympic and non- Olympic periods.  This analysis is more useful in identifying what did not change between the Olympic and NonOlympic periods that what did change.  1. Visitors              As the survey period progressed, more and more of the riders of the streetcar were locals.  During the Paralympics, over 90% of those riding were from the Greater Vancouver area.  We would expect the number of visitors to be lowest during the transition period; however, this is clearly not the case.  2. Modes Used 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Olympics Transition Paralympics Automobile Auto & Transit Transit Non motorized Other  157 52 57 13 159 16 0% 50% 100% Olympics Transition Paralympics D a t e  ( B i n n e d ) Modes used to connect to the streetcar are fairly consistent for passengers surveyed during all time periods.  Interestingly, the share of those connecting by nonmotorized modes almost doubles during the transition period.  However, this may be because the one day surveyed during the transition period was on a Sunday. TransLink Local TransLink Visit or  23 4. Use of alternative modes if the streetcar did not exist  0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Olympics Transition Paralympics No trip Automobile Auto & Transit Transit Non motorized Other   Across all survey periods, roughly one third of all passengers would not be making their trip if the streetcar did not exist.  The use of alternative modes are quite similar as well, although those surveyed during the transition period would be less likely to use transit and more likely to use nonmotorized modes only.     3. Traveling in a group 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Olympics Transition Paralympics 1 2 3 4 5 +  Perhaps surprising, most people surveyed during the Paralympics were traveling alone.  Again, this may be due to the specific times we surveyed – during peak hours on Thursday, and mid day on Friday. By looking at these four variables, we can see that although there are some differences between responses during the Olympics, the Paralympics, and the time in between, responses remain quite consistent.  Certainly, daily ridership was higher during the Olympics and the Paralympics than non-Olympic periods, but who was riding and their reasons for riding are surprisingly similar.   24 C. The Streetcar Experience        Figure 4: Comfortable seats (Courtesy of Michael Francis McCarty)    In order to attract people away from automobile use, transit has to be safe, reliable, convenient and comfortable. Travel by automobile is often a pleasant experience. The driver is able to personally engineer their soundscape with an iPod, matching their music (and perhaps their driving) to their mood. The seats are comfortable – well cushioned and now increasingly 'warmed' with heaters.  The climate is well-controlled with air conditioning and heating – and a sunroof can be opened for those who want their hair tousled by the wind.  The driver chooses their traveling companions, if any.  They also choose the pace, route, and destination.  There are many factors which contribute to making driving an automobile quite a positive experience (Dant, 2004).  For many, the space of the private automobile is important and cherished.  For example, recent research examines the automobile as a place of play and socialization for young children (Barker, 2009). Some individuals will not take a conventional bus or the skytrain, but will nevertheless take a streetcar.  The comfortable leather seats, easy access, and quiet ride are potential draws for individuals who would otherwise drive.  These diverted automobile trips depend upon the positive experience of riding the streetcar.  While the reported experiences on the streetcar are overwhelmingly positive, the study only captured individuals who chose to ride.  The opinions and impressions are not representative of everyone in the greater Vancouver area. Regardless, the experience of taking the streetcar relative to other modes will determine its success as an attractive mode.  Certainly the speed, frequency and accessibility of a transit mode are important characteristics.  However, if passengers simply do not like riding, they will look for another way to get to their destination.  1. Round Trip Many individuals were taking the streetcar round trip, alighting on the same platform for which they boarded without ever getting off the streetcar at the other end.  Individuals who took the Streetcar round trip were clearly taking it just for the experience, rather than to get to a particular destination.  Unfortunately we did not ask about this type of trip, and therefore do not have a direct count.  However, least 15% of riders were doing a round  25 trip in this way, as this many reported using the Canada Line or SkyTrain to connect to the streetcar on the particular trip, despite heading east (towards the Canada Line) when surveyed6.  2. Impression Im pression of Streetcar 1 1 0 0 0 0 16 0 1 1 33 13 8 3 2 119 67 61 31 67 28 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 1 2-4 5-9 10-49 50+ Trips Taken Somewhat Negative Neutral Somewhat Positive Very positive  Ninety six percent of passengers surveyed had a somewhat or very positive impression of the streetcar.  As can be seen, the overall impression of the streetcar improves with frequency of use.  This tells us two things.  First, the few individuals who were  6 For illustration, please see the graph in section D.1.  unsatisfied or feeling neutral about the streetcar were unlikely to ride again.  Second, this tells us that the streetcar was very pleasant and convenient for a group of people who could easily become a dedicated rider base if the streetcar line were made permanent.   Of the 21% of passengers who have ridden the streetcar more than 10 times, nearly all (98%) had a very positive impression of the service.  3. Novelty 44% of those surveyed were taking the streetcar for the experience rather than taking another mode. Of this group, over 50% stated that the purpose of their trip was leisure.  In addition, 78% of who were taking the streetcar for the experience were taking it for the first time or had taken it only once before.  This illustrates that many of the riders of the streetcar simply wanted to experience it and had little reason to take it otherwise.  While this is not encouraging for sustainable ridership projections, what this does tell us is that the streetcar is an enjoyable and novel mode that people are talking about.   4. Willingness to Pay Only 5% of riders felt that the fact that the streetcar was free was their main reason for taking it rather than another mode. Regardless, most of these riders also held fare for the regular transit system.  Two passengers offered comments illustrating their willingness to pay, with “I hope it will stay, don't mind paying!” and “I would take even if it wasn't free.”   As these were unsolicited comments, passengers were clearly aware of the need to fund the system in the long term.  26 Sixty four percent of riders were holding fare for the regular transit system.  If the streetcar was integrated with a common fare, these individuals would effectively be paying fare holders.  5. Repeat trips 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 14.2.10 15.2.10 18.2.10 20.2.10 07.3.10 18.3.10 19.3.10 Date surveyed Frequency of riding 50+ 10-49 5-9 2-4 1 0   It is difficult to estimate the frequency with which individuals were riding the streetcar.  However, over the course of the Streetcar Demonstration, the average number of trips taken by passengers surveyed rose. By the final two days of surveying, over half of participants had taken two or more trips on the streetcar. This illustrates the formation of what could be a dedicated rider base.  Over 20% of the participants had made 10 or more trips on the streetcar.  Four of those surveyed had actually been surveyed previously.  Considering that this survey captured less than .1% of all trips during the demonstration period, this illustrates the fact that many individuals used the streetcar regularly.  6. Calls to Keep the Streetcar Although comments were not an official part of the survey, 109 passengers offered questions, advice, and kudos to the survey team about the Olympic Line.  Notable are the 50 individuals who voiced the opinion that we should be keeping the streetcar and 20 of those passengers who called for expansion of the system.  Some comments focused on routing, such as “[the streetcar] should go to science world and down Broadway to UBC”.  Another 36 individuals expressed a positive impression – either about the streetcar itself, or the streetcar staff and volunteers. Residents of Vancouver were particularly vocal, as many were aware that the streetcar would only be running for the 60 day period. Notable comments include:  “It enables more use of the transit system.” - Male Resident, Vancouver BC. “[It provides a] nice connection to shopping area at Cambie.” - Female Resident, Vancouver BC. “The people who run it are amazing.” – Male Resident, Vancouver BC. “This was a factor in booking my hotel. I can use transit, no need for a car while in Vancouver.” – Female Visitor, Naramata BC.     27 D. Contributing to Regional Sustainability and Health  In the regional and municipal policies and plans for the Greater Vancouver region, the issue of sustainability is raised repeatedly.  It is easy to problematize any definition, but for the purposes here, sustainability refers to the relative level of degradation of the natural environment.  In the context of streetcars, our concern is for how the built form and travel behavior create or mitigate pollution and destruction of ecosystem services.  Particularly, we are concerned with use of automobiles and their release of emissions into the atmosphere.  Emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have multiple negative impacts, few of which are shared by the individual who produces them.  Perhaps the best known are the contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to climate change.  For each litre of petrol burnt, 2.4 kg of CO2 is released into the atmosphere (NRCAN, 2009).  Gases like CO2 trap solar radiation, which has the potential to change various climatological processes.  In turn, the stress of the shifting climate is changing ecological processes in ways we are only beginning to understand (Pachauri and Reisinger, 2007).  These changes are cause for major concern, as we rely on ecosystem services for food, clean water, and clean air.  In addition, sea level rise from melting icecaps further threaten the viability of many of our coastal habitats (Van Aalst, 2006). In the greater Vancouver region, transportation contributes to 30% of GHG emissions (Metro, 2007).  Considering that 77% of all trips in the greater Vancouver region are by automobile, there is potential for significant reductions (TransLink, 2008).      Figure 5.  Electrical lines for the streetcar (Courtesy of Susan Gittins) The BC Government has set a target of a 33% reduction in GHG emissions below the 2007 levels.  In turn, TransLink, Metro Vancouver, and the City of Vancouver have adopted goals and targets to reduce automobile use and GHG emissions. Streetcars run on electricity, which in the greater Vancouver region is primarily hydroelectricity.  The electric trolleybuses and skytrain already use this form of power.  Relative efficiency of each electrified mode depends on ridership.  However, emissions from electric streetcars are indirect and a fraction of that of diesel buses or automobiles (Condon, 2010).   28  Perhaps less well-known than climate change impacts are the direct and long-term health impacts of our travel behavior. Current research focuses on two major impacts to our health: exposure to air pollution and meeting daily physical activity levels through active transportation.  Air pollution caused by automobile emissions can precipitate cardiovascular disease, stroke, asthma, as well as general respiratory problems (Kim et al., 2004; Frumkin et al., 2004).  The obesity epidemic sweeping the United States and Canada is indicative of the low activity levels of modern life. Automobile transportation often means that individuals are driving from place to place, with very little active transportation. In order to avoid negative health outcomes, individuals should get a minimum of 30 minutes of moderate activity every day (CDC, 1996).  Walking and cycling can contribute to achieving this target.  By studying transit users, Besser and Dannenberg (2005) found that individuals who used transit were more likely to meet the daily activity target.  This is important, as transit use can be understood as extending a walk or cycling trip.  For transit users, use of services like streetcar may result in a significant amount of exercise.  1. Avoiding Car Trips  Only 17% of riders included driving as part of their trip. This means that most individuals walked and took transit from end to end of their trip.  However, we need to know if this low rate of automobile use was encouraged by the streetcar itself.  In the absence of the streetcar, 10% of individuals who did not use an automobile for any part of their trip would use a car only to reach their destination. The streetcar contributed to keeping over 27,000 automobile trips off the roads in the Greater Vancouver region7.  Because of the streetcar, these individuals and groups were still able to reach their destination without the use of an automobile.  2. Mitigating Emissions Based on the calculation below, the streetcar mitigated the release of 20,277 Kg of carbon dioxide by preventing automobile trips8. This seems, and is indeed, quite a small amount.  The median trip length of those who would otherwise take a car is just 3.7 kilometres from origin to destination.  The streetcar seems to be enabling individuals to travel relatively short distances of just a few kilometers without having to take an automobile. However, these numbers do not tell the whole story.  CO2 is not the only emission of concern.  These short trips would likely be cold starts – trips driven with an automobile which has not had  7 (550,200/2.03)(46/455)= 27,402 cars off the road in the 60 day demonstration period. Total riders divided by average group size multiplied by the percent of participants who did not drive as part of their trip but would have only driven if the streetcar did not exist. 8 [(3.7/12)(2.4)](27402)= 20,277 Kg of CO2 Average trip length divided by the distance possible with one litre of gasoline in a 2009 Chevy Cobalt LT, multiplied by the CO2 emissions from one litre of gasoline, multiplied by the number of cars taken off the road during the demonstration period equals Kg of CO2 mitigated. The median trip length for those who did not drive but would only drive if the streetcar did not exist is 3.7 (N=46, 1.1-229). The emissions are estimated based on the fuel efficiency of a 2009 Chevy Cobalt LT, which gets 12 Km/litre (CAA, 2009).  Each litre of gasoline releases 2.4 Kg of CO2 (NRCAN, 2009).   29 time to warm up.  The carbon monoxide, Volatile Organic Compound, fine particulates, and NOx emission from cold-start trips are much higher than average per-kilometre emissions, because the engine is not hot enough to burn the fuel efficiently (Weilenmann et al., 2005).  Likewise, even with a short distance trip, accommodations must be made for parking the vehicles.  These 24,900 car trips during the 60 day demonstration would need an average of 415 parking spots per day to accommodate them.  3. Reducing exposure to air pollution The streetcar seems to be helping individuals avoid short trips by automobile.  Although CO2 emissions would not be any higher per kilometer for these short trips, emissions of other harmful gases are much higher.  The emissions from cold start trips are quite harmful to health as exposure to fine particulates has been tied to several deleterious health outcomes (Pope et al., 2000).  High density areas where many individuals are making short trips in automobiles poses a particular health risk.  In addition, ozone created by automobile emissions combined with heat can aggravate asthma (Friedman, 1998). Therefore, all automobile trips avoided, but especially short trips, improve public health.  3. Active Transportation 28% of those surveyed walked and cycled to and from the streetcar.  An additional 56% used transit to connect to the streetcar.  Even those who drove as part of their trip included some walking, as the destination of Granville Island requires some walking to and from the streetcar.  Because of the generality of origins and destinations, no feasible estimate for distance or energy used in active transportatation can be calculated.  4. Summary Altogether, it seems that investment in streetcar technology would contribute to regional sustainability goals, and improve public health.  Future research on this topic is needed.  If a streetcar line is brought in to the region, travel behavior and health impacts can be measured against a baseline.  Longitudinal evidence of this sort would provide solid evidence that streetcar technology is good for the health of individuals and the environment.  For now, the preliminary results of this study can only illustrate a general trend towards improvement.                 30 E. Improving Connections and Efficiency   The connectivity of the comprehensive transit network is important so that passengers are able to conveniently and efficiently reach their destination.  The TransLink Transit Service Guidelines state that passengers should not have to make more than one transfer to reach the downtown core (TransLink, 2004). In addition, 95% of trips to regional destinations (such as Granville Island) should be accommodated with two or fewer transfers.  Though short, the Olympic Streetcar provided a direct connection between Granville Island and the Canada Line at Olympic Village.  Without this connection, the trip between the two points can be difficult.  Several buses which run along west 4th Avenue can transport passengers; however it is not clear where the stop is for Granville Island or how to get there.  The #50 bus also runs through the South False Creek neighborhoods, but its route is windy and only known by locals.  Further, the location of Granville Island – under the Granville Street Bridge – makes it hard to find.  The Canada line service is frequent enough that one does not need to consult a schedule to find the next departure time. Likewise, the Olympic Line was running on frequent intervals, ensuring that passengers did not have to wait too long until the next streetcar arrived.  Frequent service facilitates transfers, as individuals do not have to worry about long waits.      1. Connection with other modes 0 100 200 300 400 w alk skytrain bus Auto seabus bike aquabus Other w est platform east platform  Note: Some passengers took the streetcar round trip.  This explains why some passengers were able to use the SkyTrain/Canada Line to reach the streetcar, even though they were headed east (towards the Canada Line) when they were surveyed.  The graph above compares the modes passengers used to connect to the streetcar at each platform.  Many riders connected with up to three other modes prior to boarding the streetcar, or directly after departing.  Nineteen percent of passengers used more than one mode to get to the streetcar. It is also helpful to combine the modes used as part of the complete trip.  65% of the riders connected with the Canada line  31 or SkyTrain as part of their trip.  23% connected with the bus or SeaBus. Finally, almost all passengers heading to or from Granville Island were walking as part of their trip.  We are clearly seeing some underreporting of walking, as it can be difficult for participants to determine what constitutes ‘walking’ as basically every trip has a walking component.  4. Residential location of passengers  Region   Frequency Percent No response 3 .7 TransLink service area 374 82.2 BC 21 4.6 Canada 23 5.1 United States 22 4.8 Other 12 2.6 Total 455 100.0   The day-to-day transit connections that the streetcar would enable are important.  Most of those who used the streetcar live in the TransLink service area.  However, the streetcar was also ridden by some visitors from outside of the Greater Vancouver region.  In this way, the streetcar can be understood as being connected to much larger national and international transportation systems – namely air travel.  In fact, the streetcar is just one Canada line trip away from Vancouver International Airport.   2. Efficiency and Convenience For many passengers (46%), the streetcar saved them time or was more convenient compared to taking another mode.  This speaks to the ability of the streetcar to improve regional connectivity.  3. Connection with false creek ferries Three percent of passengers connected to the AquaBus or False Creek Ferries.  As was explained by some participants, the streetcar enabled a loop where individuals are able to take the Canada line, the streetcar, and then the ferries to downtown. While this opportunity was not taken by many of those surveyed, it still provides an interesting connection which was not available before.  5. Mapping Modal Connections  In order to illustrate the spatial patterns of modal connections, two maps are presented (Appendix C).  These maps show us two things: • The location of the partipant’s primary residence (Both maps), • The modes used on the trip surveyed (Map 1), and • The modes that would be used to reach their destination if the streetcar did not exist.  (Map 2) While these maps are based on residential location, they do NOT necessarily represent trips to and from residences.  Not all individuals were traveling to or from their residence on the particular trip they were surveyed.  The maps are designed in this manner because of difficulty geocoding the origins and destinations cited by each participant.  Regardless, many individuals would be traveling to or from home, and the residential location will certainly impact the modes chosen  32 throughout the day.  That is, if an individual leaves the car at home, they will not be driving for any of their trips throughout the day. For example, lets take a hypothetical situation where an individual is not traveling to or from their residence on the trip surveyed. Jenny lives in North Vancouver and drives to Downtown Vancouver (trip one).  She shops in Downtown Vancouver, then takes the Canada line and the streetcar to Granville Island (trip two).  Jenny is surveyed during this second trip.  Thus, this trip is coded as having used transit (which includes non-motorized transportation). On her third trip to go home after visiting Granville Island, Jenny will use the streetcar, the Canada line, and her automobile.  On these maps, we would see a green transit symbol in North Vancouver because the participant only took transit for the second trip when Jenny was surveyed.  As can be seen on the first map, many of those who live close to the Downtown core only walked or biked in addition to taking the streetcar on the trip surveyed.  Many of those living in other parts of the Greater Vancouver region also connected to transit as part of their trip.  Several auto only and auto/transit combinations can also be seen throughout the region.  Overall, this map shows that individuals from throughout the Greater Vancouver Region who tried the streetcar are comfortable navigating the transit system.  In map 2, we see that many individuals would not make the trip if the streetcar did not exist.  This phenomenon seems to be evenly distributed across the region, with a concentration in the Tri-Cities area as only one person out of six would still make the trip.  We can also see that many individuals would change their modes used.  Particularly interesting are the individuals  living in close proximity to the streetcar route that would otherwise drive if the streetcar did not exist.  Many of these passengers were using only nonmotorized modes to connect to the streetcar.  Since the end of the Olympic Streetcar Demonstration has ended, it is likely that these individuals have since gone back to using cars.     Figure 6: Jenny’s Trips  33 F. Comprehensive Accessibility  Here accessibility is used as an umbrella term which includes both physical accessibility and social accessibility.  An example of physical accessibility are the at-grade platforms which allow easy access by wheel chairs, strollers and walkers. An example of social accessibility is the perception of safety, which could prevent an individual from taking a particular transportation mode. The ability of transit to enable individuals to access opportunities in the city is an important contribution to the service provided to residents.  Many transit users have alternatives such as a bicycle or an automobile.  Although for some, the transit system represents their only means of reaching their destination.  In the greater Vancouver region, transit service is provided to areas which meet the criteria set out in the TransLink Transit Service Guidelines.  Therefore, most places are technically accessible by transit.  However, the quality of stations and stops, the number of transfers and total travel time can be major barriers to travel.  Physical accessibility of the transit system itself is an important consideration.  Individuals with mobility assistive devices such as walkers, canes, and wheel chairs may have trouble using transit which is not designed to be accessible. Stops and stations should be raised so that passengers can step or roll onto the transit vehicle in a smooth, even transfer.  For many seniors or individuals with mobility or sensory disabilities, the fear of falling can be a major inhibitor (Lachman et al., 1998). Paths to and from transit stops should also be smooth and level, as just the smallest uneven crack in the pavement can deter some individuals from making a trip altogether (Ward-Griffin et al., 2004). Therefore, it is important to understand physical accessibility as a spectrum, which is mediated by perception of safety.  The issue of safety extends far beyond the fear of falling. Perception of safety on SkyTrain and in/around SkyTrain stations is a perennial issue.  In a 2008 “TransLink Listens” survey (N=2,695), feelings of personal security on the SkyTrain system were rated an average of 6.2 out of 10.  Older riders and women tended to feel less secure with the system.  In addition, the highly visible and busy stations were rated as safer than the more remote and secluded stations.  This survey only captured responses TransLink’s online advisor program.  It is likely that many of those who fear the public transit system – particularly elderly individuals –have low computer literacy and thus did not participate in the safety survey. While the Olympic streetcar survey did not ask about perceptions of safety, we can infer that it was be perceived as a safe mode.  First, the platforms and the alignment are at-grade which means the system is highly visible and woven into the busy urban fabric.  Second, our survey shows that people of all ages and genders were riding the streetcar.  By looking at who rode the streetcar, we can infer who could access it.  Of course, it is important to note that stations were staffed with more individuals than would be the case in a permanent system.  The extra staffing likely boosted perceptions of safety.        34 3. Strollers Perhaps one of the greatest lessons we can learn is that streetcars are great for families.  An estimated 10,359 strollers rolled onto the Streetcar in the 60 day period.  That is nearly one for every one of the 12,000 trips the streetcar made!  Of those surveyed, 18% had children with them, and over a third of those traveling with kids had more than one child with them.       Figure 7. Strollers on the streetcar (Courtesy of Oran Viryincy)    1. Bicycles One percent of those surveyed biked to or from the Streetcar, with some leaving the bicycles locked up at the station.  A daily average of 16 individuals took bicycles on the streetcar.  Because of the short distance of the Olympic Streetcar line, this is not surprising.  Individuals on a cycling trip would be likely to just travel through rather than wait for the streetcar to arrive.   2. Wheel chairs A daily average of 17 individuals boarded the streetcar with a wheelchair.  The streetcar was fully accessible with raised platforms and low-floor streetcar equipment.  Of course, local individuals with disabilities have access to the HandyDart service, which provides door-to-door transportation in the Greater Vancouver region.  Additionally, Granville Island may not be a frequent destination for those with disabilities.  Sidewalks to and on the island are uneven, and often pedestrians have to mix with automobile traffic.   4. Group travel Sixty percent of individuals surveyed were traveling with at least one other person.  Including those traveling alone, the median group size was two, and the mean group size was just over two (2.03).  This echoes the findings of the tourist and recreational survey (Mustel Group, 2004) which found that most individuals who would take a streetcar would be traveling with others.  The number groups on the streetcar may be due to a several circumstances.  First, the high number of leisure riders tells us that many of these groups were out to enjoy their day.  The  35 second circumstance is the design of the streetcar itself, which facilitated group travel by easily seating people traveling together.  Finally, the destination of Granville Island holds many shopping and cultural opportunities, which are often enjoyed in groups.  5. Trips that would not otherwise happen Thirty percent of those surveyed would not have made their trip if the streetcar did not exist.  Certainly, some of these trips would also not have been made if the Olympics were not taking place. However, for many, the difficulty of getting to Granville Island would prevent them from making the trip without the Streetcar connection.  We did not ask about access to an automobile, though this is an important factor in being able to reach a destination.  As is discussed in the sustainability section, 10% of passengers would otherwise use an automobile to get to their destination.  Of the 30% who would not make the trip without the streetcar, many are likely to lack access to an automobile.                                     36 V. Conclusion   To conclude, streetcars make sense for Vancouver. They have helped to shape the city in the past, and contributed to the legacy of a dense, vibrant and livable city.  The ability of streetcar technology to integrate with the built environment and the greater transit network is perhaps unparalleled by any other mode.  Facing a future of energy insecurity, climate change, and other contextualizing factors, streetcars represent a pragmatic and idyllic investment for the Greater Vancouver Region. This study produced results which confirm much of the existing understanding of transportation demand for the region, such as the importance of transit connections.  Overall, it seems that streetcars could fill a gap left by current transit investments, attracting new riders and linking key destinations. While the special circumstances of the Olympics limit our ability to estimate normal transportation behavior with the data collected, we were nonetheless able to glean many valuable lessons from the demonstration.  We also learned many surprising features of the Olympic Line.  Despite significantly different daily ridership averages between Olympic and Non-Olympic periods, ridership patterns seem to be quite consistent.  Particularly, most riders of the streetcar were locals – both during and outside of the Olympic periods.  It seems that while the Olympics were an opportunity for the World to see Vancouver, the Olympic Streetcar Demonstration was an opportunity for Vancouver to see the streetcar.  This was a wonderful opportunity, as many cities are now investing in modern streetcar technology. Almost all  passengers were impressed with the streetcar, with many making unsolicited comments requesting the preservation and expansion of the 1.8 kilometre line.  Despite the short time it was available, many passengers took the streetcar frequently, indicating the potential for a dedicated rider base in a long-term scenario.  For most, the streetcar saved time or was simply more convenient than taking another mode.  For at least 10% of the riders, the streetcar enabled them to avoid using an automobile altogether.  As can be seen on the maps, the streetcar served many individuals who lived in close proximity.  The ability of the streetcar to serve   Figure 8. Message on the Olympic Line (Courtesy of Michael Francis McCarty)  37 local trips, and thus avoid climate and health-hazardous cold-start automobile trips, should not be understated.  The streetcar was truly a demonstration open to all people.  Though low in numbers, passengers with bicycles and wheelchairs were present every day.  The potential contribution of low-floor streetcar technology to improving physical access and mobility to opportunities in the city should not be overlooked.  Perhaps the greatest success story, however, is the ability of the streetcar to attract families and groups.  Most passengers on the streetcar were traveling with at least one other person, and nearly 20% were accompanying children.  There was nearly one stroller for every streetcar trip during the entire demonstration.  The barriers of navigating the bus and streetcar system with a stroller and young children are apparently not an issue with streetcars.  This shows great potential for the Vancouver region, as the path to parenthood is often tied with the transition to an automobile household.  This report summarizes what we learned from the Olympic Streetcar Demonstration in a broad way.  However, the potential exists to use the data for a more detailed analysis. Origin and destination information was collected for each participant, and could be used to map travel routes.  This could tell us more about travel behavior which included the streetcar. In addition, the data could be compared to regional demographic data to examine a spatial relationship between residential location, demographics, and use of the streetcar.  Certainly, there are other possible uses of the data beyond what has been listed here.  Despite future research potential, the lessons we are able to learn from the Demonstration and this survey study are limited by several factors.  The Olympics and the event-based transportation demand management effort produced a significant shift from normal travel behavior for locals and visitors alike. Even though our analysis here did not identify any major differences in use of the streetcar, the effects on the wider transportation network cannot be ignored9.  The relatively small sample size also limits our ability to conduct any detailed analyses, as the subsample size can quickly reduce below a level of significance.  Finally, the limited geographic distance and timeframe of the demonstration line precludes our ability to measure impacts on transportation behavior and development patterns which can take months and years to change, respectively. Examining and understanding the long-term benefits associated with streetcar investment is crucial. A longitudinal analysis of the impacts of the streetcar on physical health, transportation behavior, and/or local development patterns would illustrate the real benefits of such an investment.  Obtaining a set of before – and – after samples could tell us how people change their behavior when presented with the opportunity to use streetcar technology.  There is no doubt that better information is needed about the costs and benefits of our transportation investments. For example, health costs and benefits of transportation investment are typically omitted or “hidden” from cost benefit calculations which underpin funding decisions (UD4H,  2010).  Streetcars can help serve local trips and discourage nodal development can improve public health, and thus may represent an ideal transit investment for the region. However, the cost of doing nothing - and allowing the further proliferation of automobile dependent communities it the  9 During the Olympics, car traffic to the downtown core was reduced by 30%.  38 Greater Vancouver region - is great.  The relative benefits of various public transportation technologies come out in the wash when compared to the base case of no transit investment at all. Any technology that provides an appealing and functional alternative to automobile ownership is valuable.  As can be seen by the variety of modes currently part of the greater Vancouver transit system, different technologies can work together to meet regional transportation needs.  The greatest risk is missing the opportunity to shape development with an attractive and efficient transit system.                                                      39  VI. References  Urban Design 4 Health (2010)  The Hidden Health Costs of Transportation Agency Report prepared for the American Public Health Association. <http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/F84640FD-13CF- 47EA-8267- E767A1099239/0/HiddenHealthCostsofTransportationShort Final.pdf> Accessed June 7, 2010  Barker, John. 2009. ‘Driven to Distraction?': Children's Experiences of Car Travel Mobilities 4(1):59 -76  Besser, Lilah and Andrew Dannenberg (2005). Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations American Journal of Preventative Medicine 29(4): 273-280  Bombardier Transportation (2008) The Olympic Line: Vancouver’s 2010 Streetcar.  Informational Brochure.  < http://www.bombardier.com/files/en/supporting_docs/Vanco uvers_2010_Streetcar.pdf> Accessed June 7, 2010.  Canadian Automobile Association (2009) Driving Costs Brochure. <http://www.caa.ca/documents/DrivingCostsBrochure- jan09-eng-v3.pdf>  Accessed May 27, 2010.  Cashman, Richard (2002): Impact of the Games on Olympic host cities: university lecture on the Olympics [online article]. Barcelona: Centre d’Estudis Olímpics (UAB). International Chair in Olympism (IOC-UAB). [Date consulted: 12/05/10]<http://olympicstudies.uab.es/lec tures/web/pdf/cashman.pdf>  Center for Disease Control (1996) Physical Activity and Health CDC: Atlanta  Cervero, Robert and Michael Duncan (2002) Land Value Impacts of Rail Transit Services in San Diego County. Report prepared for the National Association of Realtors Urban Land Institute.  Chalkley, Brian and Stephen Essex (1999) 'Urban development through hosting international events: a history of the Olympic Games', Planning Perspectives, 14(4):369- 394  Dant, Tim. 2004. The Driver-Car Theory, Culture & Society 21( 4-5): 61-79.  Ewert, Henry (1986) The Story of the B.C. Electric Railway Company. Whitecap Books: North Vancouver.  Fischer, Ian.  Senior Transportation Planner, TransLink. Personal Interview.  April 28, 2010.  Friedman, Michael S.; Kenneth E. Powell; Lori Hutwagner; et al. (2001) Impact of Changes in Transportation and  40 Commuting Behaviors During the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta on Air Quality and Childhood Asthma. JAMA 285(7): 897-905.  Giuliano, Genevieve (1988) Testing the limits of TSM: the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics Transportation 15:143-161.  Halcrow Group Limited (2005) City of Vancouver Downtown Streetcar Benchmarking Report.  Agency report.  IBI Group (2005) City of Vancouver Downtown Streetcar Design, Layout & Ridership Study.  Agency report.  Kelly, Brian (1990).  Transit in British Columbia: The First Hundred Years. Harbour: BC.  Kim et al. (2004). Traffic-related air pollution near busy roads: the East Bay Children's Respiratory Health Study American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 170(5):520.  Lachman, Margie, Jonathan Howland, Sharon Tennstedt, Alan Jette, Susan Assmann, Elizabeth Peterson (1998) Fear of Falling and Activity Restriction: The Survey of Activities and Fear of Falling in the Elderly (SAFE) J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 53B(1): P43-50.  Metro Vancouver (2009)  Regional Growth Strategy November 2009 Draft.  Metro Vancouver (2007) 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory S-8 & Forecast and Backcast Executive Summary.  Agency Report.  Mustel Group (2004) Tourist and Recreational Usage of Proposed Downtown Streetcar.  Agency report for the city of Vancouver.  Natural Resources Canada (2009) Fuel Consumption Calculator.<http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/trans portation/fuel-calculator/index.cfm>  Accessed May 19, 2010.  Olympic and Paralympic Transportation Team (2010). 2010 Olympic transportation Plan a Success. <http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic- news/n/news/2010-olympic-transportation-plan-a- success_303738sk.html> Accessed May 12, 2010.  Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (2007) Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.  Pope, C., Burnett, R., Thun, M., Calle, E., Krewski, D., Ito, K., et al. (2000). Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 287(9):1132–1141.  TransLink (2010) Surrey Rapid Transit Study FAQS. Burnaby, BC. < http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Docum ents/Get%20Involved/Public%20Consultation/Surrey%20R  41 apid%20Transit/FAQ%20and%20Info%20Sheets/Surrey% 20Rapid%20Transit%20Study%20FAQ.ashx>  Accessed May 19, 2010.  TransLink (2008) Transport 2040.  Burnaby, BC.  TransLink (2008) Skytrain Security Perceptions.  Agency Report.  Burnaby, BC.  TransLink (2004) TransLink Transit Service Guidelines Public Summary Report.  Agency Report.  Burnaby, BC.  Van Aalst, Maarten (2006) “The impacts of climate change on the risk of natural disasters” Disasters 30(1):5-18.  Ward-Griffin, Catherine, Sandra Hobson, Pauline Melles, Marita Kloseck, Anthony Vandervoort, Richard Crilly (2004) Falls and Fear of Falling among Community- Dwelling Seniors: The Dynamic Tension between Exercising Precaution and Striving for Independence Canadian Journal on Aging 23(4): 307-318.  Weinberger, Rachel (2001) Light Rail Proximity: Benefit or Detriment in the Case of Santa Clara County, California? Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1747: 104- 113.  Weilenmann, Martin, Patrik Soltic, Christian Saxer, Anna- Maria Forss and Norbert Heeb (2005) Regulated and nonregulated diesel and gasoline cold start emissions at different temperatures Atmospheric Environment 39(13):2433-41.     42 Survey Instrument Page 1 ID #                      Date                                   Time:                          Sun/Cloud/Rain           Eastbound/Westbound 1 Before? 2 Participated? a)yes                   b)no 3 Trips? 4 Destination? 5 Origin? 6 Why trip? a)Home   b)Personal       c) Work   d)School      e)Leisure      f)Shopping      g)other: 7 No streetcar? 8 Alternate mode? 9 Board? 10 Alight? 11 Reason? a)Cost     b)Experience    c)Time    d)Weather    e)Other: 12 Hold fare? 13 Fare type? f)Olympic ticket                         g)6 week Olympic                   h)other: 14 Accompanying? Children #                   Adult # 15 Find out? a)Friend        b)Advertisement     c)Saw it          d)Other: 16 City? 17 Postal code? 18 Impression? Very +         Somewhat +          Neutral           Somewhat -             Very - 19 Gender a)Male        b)Female      c)Unidentifiable 20 Age group a)Young      b)Mid           c)Old a)yes                   b)no    → skip to q. 4 a)yes                  b)no   → skip to q. 9 a)Drive    b)Passenger     c)Taxi     d)Seabus     e)Skytrain     f)Bus     g)Walk      h)Bike      I)Other: a)Drive    b)Passenger     c)Taxi     d)Seabus     e)Skytrain     f)Bus     g)Walk      h)Bike      I)Other: a)Drive    b)Passenger     c)Taxi     d)Seabus     e)Skytrain     f)Bus     g)Walk      h)Bike      I)Other: a)yes                  b)no   → skip to q. 14 a)regular        b)concession        c)faresaver       d)Monthly        e)Student General instructions • Questions and statements are in “quotes”.  Asking questions in a consistent way is important. • For questions with multiple possible answers, list the answers for the participant. • If a participant needs clarification, explain with the information in italics. • Enter answers to questions in the corresponding field on the survey instrument in [bold]. • Record the date, time, weather, and platform (east/west). The ID # will be assigned later. • Give participants a copy of the consent information. • If participants are concerned about privacy, remind them that no personally identifying information will be collected, and information about where they are going and coming cannot be traced back to them. • Refer to the map for assistance with [Origin] and [Destination] questions.  Mark the origin with a circle, and the destination with a X.  If the location is not on the map, or they are not sure, record just the verbal description.  Try to get at least the city, but the more specific, the better. • Speak slowly and clearly.  Make eye contact, and treat participants respectfully. • Remember participants may be tourists and may not know the area.  Prepare to be helpful.  Introduction and consent: “Hi, I am ________  and I am conducting a survey to find out more about why people are taking the streetcar.  The survey is being conducted through the University of British Columbia, and contains 18 questions.  We should be able to finish it in less than five minutes, before the next streetcar arrives.  Here is a consent information sheet which explains details of the study.  Would you like to participate?” • If unsure or no, answer “Have a good trip.” • If yes, answer:  “Great.  If you have any questions or need me to explain a question in another way, let me know. Lets get started. ”  Survey questions: 1) [before?]  “Have you taken this streetcar before?” (If No, skip to question 4) Having taken a streetcar in another city or the electric trolley buses in Vancouver does not count.  2) [participated?]  “Have you participated in this survey already?” If they have participated already, they can still participate again. We just want to know.  3) [Trips?]  “How many one-way trips have you taken on the streetcar?” For example, if you have taken the streetcar to granville island and back, that would count as two trips.  4) [Destination?]  “Where are you going right now?  Lets mark your destination with an X.”  What building, cross street, or area are you traveling to right now?  If you are stopping over on your way to another place, consider that stop the final destination for this trip.  5) [Origin?]  “Where did you just come from?  Lets mark your origin with a circle.“  Where was the last place you were?  For example, if you got off one bus and waited for another, please tell me where your trip Version date:02/07/10 Olympic Streetcar Survey – Instructions and Script 1 began.  6) [Why trip?]  “Are you going to [destination] to (list choices)?” For more explanation:  If you are making a stop on the way to another destination, please think of why you are making that stop only.  Let me list the options [list].  You can choose more than one. If you have a reason which does not fit into one of the categories, please state it and we will record it.  Going Home Going straight home or to where you are staying (hotel)  from your last destination School Travel to school or a library to take a class, have a meeting, or study Work  Travel to work, or making a trip as part of your job Personal Appointment Meetings or appointments Leisure Entertainment or recreational travel or destinations Shopping or Dining Traveling to stores, cafes or restaurants  7) [No streetcar?]  “Would you be going to [destination] if you could not take the streetcar?” (If no, skip to q. 9) Would you be making this trip if you had to get to your destination another way?  8) [Alternate mode?]  “If you weren't taking the streetcar, what other transportation mode(s) would you use to get to [destination]? Include all the modes, such as walking to a bus stop, then taking the bus.” Would you get to [destination] by driving, as a passenger, by bus, seabus, taxi, walking, or cycling?  9) [Board?]  “How did you get from [begin] to here?  List all the modes.” If you drove to the Canada Line, then took the Canada line here, list both of the modes.  10) [Alight]  “How will you get from the streetcar to [destination]? List all the modes.” If you are using more than one mode, list all the modes.  11) [Reason] “Are you taking the streetcar today: because it is free, to experience the streetcar, because it saves time compared to another mode, because of the weather, or another reason?  Please choose the main reason.” I am asking about your reason for taking the streetcar rather than an alternate mode, or not making the trip at all.  12) [Hold fare?] “The streetcar is free.  Are you holding fare ticket or pass for rest of the transit system?” (If no, skip to question 14) TransLink operates the buses, seabus, and skytrain for the Greater Vancouver Region.  TransLink does not operate the ferries.  13) [Fare type?] “What type of fare are you holding?” If you are unsure, show me the fare ticket or pass, and I will record the type.  14) [Accompanying?]  “Is anyone taking the streetcar with you?” Please respond only with individuals who will be on the streetcar with you.  15) [find out?]   “How did you find out about the streetcar?” Please explain how you first heard about the streetcar.  Was it through a friend, from an advertisement, or did you see it?  If it was another way, please state it.  16) [City?]  “What city or town do you live in?” If you are visiting or on vacation here for two months or less, please state the last city or town you lived in. Version date:02/07/10 Olympic Streetcar Survey – Instructions and Script 2  17) [Postal code?]  “If you live in the United States or Canada, what is your postal code?” If they do not want to share it: Can you at least give me the first 3 digits of the postal code?  18) [Impression]  “What is your overall impression of the streetcar?  Very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, or very negative?” If you are unsure, respond with neutral.  Demographics (based on appearances):  19) [Gender] • If appears male, circle Male • If appears female, circle Female • If unsure, circle unidentifiable.   20) [Age Group] • If appears young (19-29), circle young • If appears middle aged (30-49), circle mid • If appears older (50+), circle old • If unsure, mark as mid.   Version date:02/07/10 Olympic Streetcar Survey – Instructions and Script 3 Inset Residential location of riders and modes used to connect to Streetcar Inset Residential location of riders and alternative modes if streetcar did not exist 	 
   !    "   # $%% The Olympic Line – Vancouver’s 2010 Streetcar: Ridership Summary  Notes:  Data is based on the total number of train departures counted by the City of Vancouver’s Olympic Line Host City Team. Generally, this included: • PreGames  - Daily counting from 08:00 to 20:00 (12 hrs), Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Sunday    - Daily counting from 6:30 to 00:30 (18 hrs), Wednesday and Saturday • Olympics   - Daily counting from 06:30 to 00:30 (18 hrs), 7 days a week • Transition   - Daily counting starting between 06:30 and 10:00 ending at 00:30 (14 to 18 hrs) , 7 days a week • Paralympics - Daily counting from 06:30 to 00:30 (18 hrs), 7 days a week  Total number of trains (and respective ridership) counted in these periods = 12,000 trains   Totals PreGames Olympics Transition Paralympics Total Recorded Ridership 550,200 138,700 316,300 37,800 57,400 Days 60 22 17 11 10 Average Daily Ridership 9,200 6,300 18,600 3,400 5,700 Average Daily Weekday Ridership 8,400 5,200 17,800 3,100 5,000 Average Daily Weekend Ridership 11,200 9,300 20,200 5,000 6,800 Peak-Day Ridership - 15,200 25,400 6,700 9,700   Average Peak-Hour Peak-Day Peak-Hour  PreGames 800 2,100 Olympics 2,000 2,500 Transition 400 1,000 Paralympics 750 1,400   Totals Daily Average  Bikes 907 16 Wheelchairs 957 17 Strollers 10359 182 	 
$   !    "   # $%% Total Ridership of 550,000 by Hour of Day 7 0 0 2 , 3 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 1 2 , 6 0 0 2 9 , 4 0 0 4 1 , 8 0 0 5 1 , 0 0 0 5 9 , 7 0 0 6 2 , 4 0 0 6 4 , 0 0 0 5 7 , 0 0 0 4 7 , 2 0 0 3 3 , 2 0 0 2 7 , 1 0 0 1 6 , 8 0 0 1 7 , 2 0 0 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , 9 0 0 1 , 6 0 0 8% 9% 11% 11% 12% 10% 9% 6% 5% 3% 3% 2% 1% 5% 2% 1% 0%0%. 0% 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 6 : 0 0  A M 7 : 0 0  A M 8 : 0 0  A M 9 : 0 0  A M 1 0 : 0 0  A M 1 1 : 0 0  A M 1 2 : 0 0  P M 1 : 0 0  P M 2 : 0 0  P M 3 : 0 0  P M 4 : 0 0  P M 5 : 0 0  P M 6 : 0 0  P M 7 : 0 0  P M 8 : 0 0  P M 9 : 0 0  P M 1 0 : 0 0  P M 1 1 : 0 0  P M 1 2 : 0 0  A M 	 
&   !    "   # $%% Average Hourly Ridership 814 2,012 445 750 2,529 1,427 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 6 : 0 0  A M 7 : 0 0  A M 8 : 0 0  A M 9 : 0 0  A M 1 0 : 0 0  A M 1 1 : 0 0  A M 1 2 : 0 0  P M 1 : 0 0  P M 2 : 0 0  P M 3 : 0 0  P M 4 : 0 0  P M 5 : 0 0  P M 6 : 0 0  P M 7 : 0 0  P M 8 : 0 0  P M 9 : 0 0  P M 1 0 : 0 0  P M 1 1 : 0 0  P M 1 2 : 0 0  A M PreGames Olympics Transition Paralympics Olympics Peak-Day Paralympics Peak-Day  	 
   !    "   # $%% 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items