Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Beyond Distance : Exploring the availability of Metro Vancouver’s bus system and who can access it Chow, Laura 2020-08

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
42591-Chow_Laura_PLAN_528A_Captone_Beyond_distance_2020.pdf [ 60.97MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 42591-1.0394799.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0394799-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0394799-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0394799-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0394799-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0394799-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0394799-source.json
Full Text
42591-1.0394799-fulltext.txt
Citation
42591-1.0394799.ris

Full Text

Beyond Distance Exploring the availability of Metro Vancouver’s bus system and who can access itLaura ChowAugust 2020PLAN 528A - CapstoneThis capstone project was submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Community and Regional Planning (MCRP), School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia.Image (above): The 701 bus travelling westbound at the Lougheed Highway and Shaughessy street overpass bus stop.iEXECUTIVE SUMMARYIn recent years, public transit agencies have ex-pressed an interest in finding ways to address ineq-uities in the transportation system. Unlike the inclu-sion of a high-level health lens (which would simply support increased investment in public transportation, cycling, and walking infrastructure), addressing inequities requires a thorough understanding of social justice, local economics and job creation, health, and transportation.The purpose of this project is to consider a way to look at how well the public transportation system serves populations most in need. While it uses a mea-sure of income to identify Census tracts of interest, it is recognized that equity impacts are felt across a variety of spectrums and a more fulsome measure may be required for future analyses. Therefore, this project does not provide any conclusive recommenda-tions to changes to the public transportation system, but rather suggests a way to incorporate a measure of equity to public transportation evaluation.Because this project looked to investigate transit availability for some of society’s most vulnerable, only bus service was considered in the evaluation. This is because bus service is most likely to be used by those with the lowest incomes and bus service is also most likely used for local travel, assisting with trips within a municipality or last-mile travel.This project considered transit availability using three measures: spatial access, span of service, and frequency of service. The project used TransLink’s General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) data from March 6 to generate a series of maps that repre-sent the entire Lower Mainland. Though the maps were summarized at a regional level, a more specif-ic look at the equitable distribution of service was incorporated by identifying the communities with higher prevalence of Low-Income Cut Off-After Tax (LICO-AT) (more than 20% prevalence) and higher residential densities (more than 30 people per hect-are – sufficient for at least basic or standard service as per TransLink’s own guidelines).Spatial access was measured using both a circular buffer around each bus stop and a 400m walking buf-fer. The circular buffers over-estimate accessibility as they assume that individuals are able to walk through areas that may not actually be pedestrian-accessible. The areas with lower income outside of the City of Vancouver’s downtown core had larger gaps in their spatial accessibility than other areas of the Lower Mainland.Span of service was evaluated as per the 2013 Tran-sit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. Routes were evaluated based on their service provision. Generally, routes with reduced spans of service were Night Buses that mirrored existing routes, or appeared to provide one-way rush hour service for Monday to Friday service only. However, on both Saturdays and Sundays, many routes had reduced service span which could affect travel for the tran-sit-dependent or transportation-cost-burdened, espe-cially if they have jobs where service provision is not much different from weekdays (e.g. grocery and retail jobs). In general, few lower-income Census tracts were more negatively impacted by reduced service span compared to other areas of the Lower Mainland. The frequency of transit service can provide individ-uals with their access to a variety of opportunities. At a regional level, the City of Vancouver’s higher density downtown and grid-like network appears to support higher frequency transit across all hours of the day and all days of the week. The suburbs of Metro Van-couver – particularly those found further south and east – see much less service frequency. Interestingly, many of these communities are also more likely to be automobile-dependent. This particular situation presents an interesting “chicken-or-egg” question, where improved transit service may incentivize transit use, but transit service may only be improved if the demand is present. This is particularly challeng-ing where areas that have high transit mode share also see overcrowding, which can support continued investment in these areas.As the City of Vancouver is home to a larger propor-tion of individuals living with higher prevalence of LI-CO-AT, much of these areas have bus service across all times of the day, and a variety of travel options. Some of the other Census tracts investigated more deeply have frequencies that mirror their more afflu-ent neighbouring Census tracts. This said, however, these communities may face additional transportation cost burden, particularly when compared to the City of Vancouver residents.The findings of this report highlight the need to better understand who Metro Vancouver’s transit-dependent population is and what their travel needs are. This will help gain a better understanding of their travel patterns and reasons for travel. It also highlights the need to investigate forced-car ownership more deeply to better understand transportation cost burdens.Recommendations following this project include establishing a more fulsome measure of equity beyond the LICO-AT, and obtaining a more localized understanding of the findings to better understand the needs of these particular Census tracts.Half-page copies of all maps shown in this project are found in the project’s Appendix.iiACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis project was completed to fulfill the requirement of the University of British Columbia’s Master of Commu-nity and Regional Planning (MCRP) degree program. I would like to acknowledge that the education for the MCRP degree program occurred on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the xwməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam) people. I am thankful for the opportunity to have learned more about the land and planning’s impacts on Indigenous people over the last two years. This project assesses public transportation use and the people living on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territories of the Hwlitsum, Katzie, Kwantlen, Kwikwetlem, Matsqui, Musqueam, Qayqayt, Semiahmoo, Squa-mish, Tsawwassen, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations. I would also like to acknowledge the following groups and individuals for their support over the last two years:• Dr. Alex Bigazzi, Academic Advisor – Thanks for three great classes, a few good conversations, a couple of group beers, and fantastic support.• Vancouver Coastal Health’s Health Protection Management Team – Thanks for the laptop loan and supporting me in my pursuit of further education.• Danielle DeVries, TransLink, Transit Planner – Thank you for all of the support, long conversations, mentorship and assistance in helping with this project over the last year.• Claire Gram, Vancouver Coastal Health, Health Policy and Project Lead – Thank you for pushing me to apply to the program and accept the offer.• Vancouver Coastal Health’s Built Environment and Population Health Teams – Thank you for supporting my search for further education, and holding great conversations.• Alex Kwan, Fraser Health, Built Environment Team – Thanks for being an anchor and enabling my lengthy thought bubbles through great conversation.• Janet Lam, SCARP Graduate Administrator - Thanks for being an ear and cheering me on when I needed it most.• My SCARP classmates – It has been a ride; I wish everyone much success as we move forward into the big, unknown world.• My friends, coworkers, and family whom I have ignored over the last two years – Thank you for understanding all of the cancelled or postponed coffees and beers and my inability to accurately estimate my time to get work done. I am back now!• May, Greg, Jonathan, and Davis Chow, and Christal Nieman – Thank you for all of the support, meals, cheerleading, and understanding for missed family time. And to those whom I missed – I would not be here without my previous experience and education, hearing your stories, and learning from you. I am thankful for the role you have played in this pursuit and my own learning about my perspectives and approaches.Image (above): Buses servicing Port Coquitlam at Shaughnessy and Lougheed Highway.CONTENTSINTRODUCTION .....................................................................vLITERATURE REVIEW  ............................................................3Current Patterns in Public Transportation Modelling and Decision-Making .......................................... 4Public Transportation Access ................................................................................................................... 5Describing Transit Users ...........................................................................................................................7The Impact of Poor Public Transit Access and Availability ..................................................................... 8Who Uses Public Transit ........................................................................................................................... 9Equity and Public Transportation: Transportation Poverty .................................................................... 10Populations with the Highest Need ..........................................................................................................11Metro Vancouver: Transit Use, Housing, and Income ............................................................................. 12METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 13Spatial Access .......................................................................................................................................... 14Span of Service ........................................................................................................................................ 15Frequency of Service ............................................................................................................................... 15Layering Equity ......................................................................................................................................... 15RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................... 16Spatial Access- A Regional Look ............................................................................................................. 17Spatial Access - Looking at Low-Income & Higher Density Census Tracts ......................................... 18Span of Service - A Regional Look ......................................................................................................... 19Span of Service - Looking at Low-Income & Higher Density Census Tracts .......................................20Frequency - A Regional Look .................................................................................................................. 21Frequency - Looking at Low-Income & Higher Density Census Tracts ................................................24Overarching Findings ...............................................................................................................................27LIMITATIONS ........................................................................ 28NEXT STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. 30CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 32WORKS CITED ...................................................................... 34APPENDICES ........................................................................ 37ivThe Covid-19 pandemic has severely impacted the public transportation system in Metro Vancouver (1). After seeing a record number of boardings in 2019, the pandemic saw boardings decreased by approx-imately 85% across the system; though there has been some recovery in recent months, ridership is a fraction of its pre-Covid numbers (2,3).Though TransLink has expressed interest in exploring how its transportation system impacts equity, the pandemic has identified the gaps in the system for those who experience transport poverty (4). This was particularly apparent when TransLink was forced to cut services due to the extreme changes in ridership and to reduce the negative impacts of revenue losses (1). The service cuts, though necessary, not only im-pacted healthcare workers, but also those working in service industries who are not only highly dependent on transit, but have also been considered essential workers through the pandemic (4–6).An early-impacts study on the effects of Covid-19 on transit in the City of Vancouver was conducted in May 2020 by Palm et al (7). They found that of the 59% of respondents ceased riding transit, they were more likely to be female, able-bodied, have incomes over $40,000, be under the age of 50 and identified as either White, or of Southeast Asian or East Asian (7). On the other hand, respondents who continued to use public transit services were more likely to be male, disabled, have lower incomes (under $40,000), be over the age of 50, and identified as either Black, West Asian, Filipino, Latin American, South Asian, or Middle Eastern (7).This study found that Vancouver neighbourhoods also experienced different impacts across the pandemic, where some were more likely to continue taking tran-sit, others had also lost their jobs, and some shifted to automobile use rather than transit (7). Employees working in the retail trade (including grocery stores), construction, manufacturing, waste management, and remediation made up 78% of the transit commut-ers still travelling by transit (7). In addition to those working in essential jobs, respondents across all age groups identified the grocery store as their most important destination, though many found that the changes to the transit system challenged their ability to access healthcare and their work (7).This project wants to acknowledge the undeniable impact that the Covid-19 pandemic has had on Metro Vancouver’s public transit system; however, the data used in the project was downloaded prior to the pan-demic’s impacts to public transit. This was intentional to reflect the maximum service delivery across the region. Recognizing that the impacts of the pandemic on transit may be felt for years to come (2), the find-ings from this project are looking to provide a frame-work to evaluate how well the bus system serves the most vulnerable rather than provide any concrete conclusions. In addition, this project uses income as a proxy for equity, however, it is recognized that there are issues with this assumption and it is recommend-ed that a more fulsome measure of equity be used in future analyses.COVID-19 AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS IN METRO VANCOUVERFigure 1 (above). The #8 Fraser bus travelling along Kingsway in Vancouver.1INTRODUCTIONImage (above). The #99 B-Line bus at Broadway and Cambie..2The concept of integrating equity into planning has become a hot topic over the last decade, with an increase in social justice movements, increased research in equity and planning, and the development of several best practice documents for planners, local governments, and government bodies to explore doing so (8–11). The interest in equity has stemmed from an understanding that urban planning policies have had disproportionate effects on certain segments of the population (12).The processes involved in transportation planning are very well established; however, while there has been general acceptance that these methods have con-tributed to the car-dominated society we see today (13,14), there has been a general lack of acceptance and acknowledgement of transportation planning’s contribution to social injustice (15). Transportation networks provide us all with opportunity – giving us the chance to participate in public life by going to jobs, education, and essential services (15). Howev-er, while providing us with opportunity, inequitable transportation networks can also exacerbate the lack of opportunities for those who may be disadvantaged as a result of their social or built environment (16).In Metro Vancouver, TransLink (the local public trans-portation authority) is in the process of updating its regional transportation plan (Transport 2050). In this process, the agency has expressed a keen interest in identifying ways to incorporate equity into transpor-tation planning, not only in this process, but taking the opportunity as a RailVolution conference organizer to incorporate equity into the program (17). To date, TransLink has considered its engagement strategies in the development of their long-range transporta-tion plan, identifying their levels of engagement with marginalized populations (e.g. Indigenous individuals, new Canadians, youth, seniors, and individuals living with a disability) (18). Though TransLink is actively seeking input from traditionally marginalized popu-lations, they may be challenged in ensuring that the needs for these individuals are met.Availability of public transportation for fixed-route travel is measured based on: frequency, service span, and physical access (19). These measures can influence ridership and are a reflection of the quality of transit service provided.This project will explore the availability of bus service provided by TransLink to establish a form of evalua-tion to consider service provision for those who will need the services most. Bus service is typically used for local service and is the connector to higher quality transit service, and is associated with a negative connotation and a lower social status (20–22). It will also examine bus service delivery for those who are most likely to be transit-dependent or impacted by poor quality bus service delivery using the 2016 Canadian Census Low-Income Cut-Off (After Tax) (LICO-AT). LICO-AT is selected as a measure because it is not only one of the greatest social determinants of health, but it disproportionately impacts immi-grant and racialized households, and the unemployed (23–25). Figure 2 (above). The #17 bus travelling on Cambie Street in Vancouver.3RESEARCH QUESTIONSThis project investigates the availability of bus service provided by Metro Vancouver’s public transit provider TransLink. It seeks to determine:• Which Metro Vancouver municipalities have  poorer bus service availability?• Over which periods of time in a day (across weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays) is poor bus service availability experienced?• Do these time periods facilitate availability of transit for the transit-dependent?• Of the areas serviced by low-quality avail-ability, which neighbourhoods also experi-ence income disparities?The purpose of this project is to consider a way to look at how well the public transportation system serves populations most in need. While it uses a mea-sure of income to identify Census tracts of interest, it is recognized that equity impacts are felt across a variety of spectrums and a more fulsome measure may be required for future analyses.Figure 3 (above). The #9 bus picking up passengers on Broadway in Vancouver.4LITERATURE REVIEW Image (above). Sign for TransLink bus stop number 58501 (Bay 4 for the 99 B-Line and N9 Downtown).5Current Patterns in Public Transportation Modelling and Decision-MakingTransportation modelling is an essential tool that helps guide decisions and provide some concrete hypotheses with respect to local travel patterns over time. This said, all models are imperfect, and public transportation decisions are rarely based off of mod-els alone. For example, TransLink does not determine level of transit service based on individuals, but large-ly land use layouts and characteristics (26).Public transit service may be provided to meet the demand for service, or based on area coverage. Area coverage may include, the number of kilometers of transit provision per square kilometre (route cov-erage) or the percentage of the area or population served (geographic or population coverage) (19). In Metro Vancouver, TransLink uses its Transit Service Guidelines to determine where service should be provided, the appropriate service levels, and minimum levels of service performance (27). TransLink’s primary objective is to maximize rider-ship, which means focusing on improving service for routes with high ridership or overcrowding, or where high ridership is anticipated as a result of land use (26). This said, TransLink also looks to provide transit service for those who are transit-dependent through the provision of basic-low-frequency transit service (26).The 2017 Metro Vancouver Regional Trip Diary methodology is not publicly available; however, it is reasonable to assume a similar method to the 2011 was used for consistency and ease of comparison. In 2011, households were selected using random selec-tion to obtain a 2% geographical representation (30). It includes consideration of population, employment, income, and automobile ownership (29).Current transportation models have an inherent focus Modelling Transportation in Metro VancouverData2017 Metro Vancouver Regional Trip Diary Survey (28)MethodologyRegional Transportation Model (RTM) - a four-step transportation model that estimates 24-hour travel demand (29)Outputs (29)High-level estimate of regional auto, truck, and transit demand over morning peak and midday time periods24-hour estimation of multiple modeson peak period usage, often benefiting the 9-5 worker (22). Peaking demand patterns tend to coincide with 9-5 commuting and school schedules, generally be-tween 06:30 and 09:00 and 15:00 and 18:00 (19).Icon 1 (above). Icon of hands holding a tablet, appears to complete a survey.Icon 2 (above). Icon of a machine-method process. Icon 3 (above). Icon of a magnifying glass looking at a document with graphs.6Public Transportation AccessAccess to public transportation can not only influence mode share and improve commute times, but it also increases employment rates, provides better opportu-nities for more civic and public participation, and can play a role in fostering social inclusion and reducing social isolation (31,32). Research coming from the mid 90’s illustrated the influence that accessibility to regional activities, den-sity, and employment have travel patterns and transit ridership, stressing the need to better align transpor-tation and land use planning (33–35). Today, we un-derstand that accessible transit not only helps develop strong ridership, but it also provides people with the freedom to choose their activities and participate in public life (15).In the last decade, Metro Vancouver has embraced the “transit-oriented community” model with TransLink developing a guideline to help local governments develop more walkable, bikeable, and transit-orient-ed communities (36). The “6 D’s of Transit Oriented Communities” are central to this guideline, and is used today by TransLink to describe priority transit investment areas (36).The freedom of choice, however, can make it quite challenging to measure accessibility. Accessibility in transportation planning and modelling is not well-in-tegrated, largely because accessibility is particularly challenging to define, is difficult to measure, and is highly contextual (37). Current definitions of acces-sible transit include the “30-minute commute” or “distance to transit stop”, however, Miller argues that these measures fail to reflect reality and are faulty in their theory (37).According to Miller, accessibility in public transport (37): • “Varies from point to point in space.• Is activity (trip purpose specific).• Combines the concept of travel impedance (i.e., the ease/difficulty to reach or interact with different points in space) with that of attractiveness and/or magnitude of oppor-tunities (i.e., the desirability of/opportunities for interaction at a given point).• Is a measure of the potential to interact. Mobility, on the other hand, is the realisation of this potential in terms of actual travel through the transportation system.• Involves the integration or summation over the space of opportunities, weighted by the ease of interaction. If there are many attrac-tive stores near my home, my accessibility for shopping clearly is higher than if there only a limited number of stores available that are of poor quality and/or located very far away.• Given the needs/wants-based nature of travel, the concept of ‘interaction potential’ (i.e., accessibility) is clearly tied closely to that of travel demand, as well as the location choices of households and firms.”In Metro Vancouver, TransLink and the Mayors’ Coun-cil consider access as the number of jobs that are reachable by transit for the average person, and one’s proximity to transit (38). The objective is to prioritize ridership within 400m of existing or potential future bus tops and the major road network, especially if they align to the frequent transit network (38). Three factors are used to measure transit availability: spatial access, span of service, and frequency (19).6 Ds of Transit-Oriented Communities (36)Demand Management: transporta-tion demand management (TDM) strategies to promote walking, cycling, and transit useDiversity: mixture of land uses around transit systems to ensure transit use throughout the dayDensity: concentration of activi-ties in areas that are near frequent transit areasDesign: providing for people’s needs while making transit acces-sibile, with a comfortable, safe, enjoyable, and inviting public realmDistance: well-connected street networks that enables easy con-nection between destinations and transitDestinations: coordinated land use and transportation, with destinations at key areas along the frequent transit networkIcons 4-9 (above, in order). 4) Icon of a grocery cart. 5) Icon of two locations joined by a connecting route. 6) Icon of a person waiting at a bus shelter). 7) Icon of six tall towers to represent a downtown core. 8) Icon of three buildings, two residential-like towers and a store at the forefront. 9) Icon of a parking metre.7FrequencyFrequency heavily influences rider satisfaction (19). Improved transit frequency can increase ridership, and significantly improve one’s freedom and access to opportunity (15,19).Infrequent service (generally headways of 15minutes or more) requires passengers to plan their day around the transit schedule, working to reduce their waiting time and ensure they do not miss buses that leave earlier than scheduled or arriving at their destina-tion much earlier than desired (19,41). Kramer and Goldstein describe ideal, equitable networks would operate with headways of 10 minutes or less, though a network may be equitable with 15 minute headways (22). This said, frequency plays a significant role costs, increasing operational and capital demands due to staffing and ensuring there is sufficient equipment to meet the schedules (19).At headways of 5minutes or better, passengers have substantial flexibility, while headways of 60 minutes generally represent baseline minimal service coverage for most transit agencies (19). Headways of 15min-utes is generally the maximum time that passen-gers will wait for missed public transit services, as passengers tend to consult schedules if frequencies fall between 16-30minutes to minimize their wait time (19). Little work has been done to explore off-peak service delivery and its impacts to ridership (42).Spatial AccessSpatial access to public transit can be measured either in distance or in time, though they are generally considered to be equivalent to one another. Regard-less of the measure, they provide travellers with a sense of the time and effort required to begin their trip to their destination (37).It is generally accepted that people will walk no more than 5-6 minutes or 400m to a local bus stop and 800m for rapid rail stations (19,36). Individuals may adopt the rapid rail access distance for TransLink’s B-Line or Rapid Bus routes, but this project has accepted a 400m distance as these services are still bus service and not rail (19).While it is relatively simple to provide transit service within 400m of a bus stop as the crow flies, the true walking distance may reflect a much shorter distance than the radius from a stop (19,39). This is because individuals cannot travel through areas that are not paved or designated for travel. This said, while the distance is important, it is also important to note the significance of the built environment (19). High quality pedestrian environments can improve the experience of walking to transit, therefore, for localized analy-ses, it is important to consider topography and street design features (e.g. street crossings) as this may influence individuals’ desire to walk to their nearest bus stop (19).Service SpanSpan of service is the number of hours that service is provided, from four hours or less (providing one or two single round-trips) to 24 hour service, enabling the full range of trip purposes for transit users (19)Span of service can be difficult to manage because while longer spans enables increased flexibility and freedom, it can be very costly to operate (19). Span of service is just as important a factor as frequency and service coverage, particularly in that longer service can serve a greater number of trip needs, for example giving more mode choice for different work or school schedules from the 9-5 schedule (19).TransLink classifies late-night boardings as boardings occurring between the hours of 23:59 and 05:00 (40). The agency provides late-night service on 40% of its daytime services daily with 30 minute head-ways or less, but sees significant reductions in rid-ership after 11pm (40). TransLink sees only 1% of its total daily boardings between the hours of 00:00 and 04:00, with the greatest demand seen on Friday and Saturday nights (40). TransLink’s NightBus service is in line with other cities in North America, including Toronto, Montreal, Seattle, and Portland (40).Figure 4 (above), Higher density residential development serviced by one community shuttle bus in Port Coquitlam.Figure 5 (above). Different service spans for the 171 bus route in Port Coquitlam compared to the 99 bus route in Vancouver.Figure 6 (above). Automated sign displaying arrival of the next bus on Main Street.8In 2019, TransLink investigated late-night servicing in response to public requests to extend SkyTrain oper-ating hours and to improve service delivery to support the late-night operating businesses in the Downtown Vancouver entertainment district (40).Following the conclusion of its late-night service report, TransLink provided six key objectives when evaluating bus alternatives (40):1. Maximize usefulness to customers2. Maximize attractive features such as speed and legibility3. Minimize financial impacts4. Minimize community impacts and increase perceived security5. Implement in a reasonable timeframe6. Maximize ridershipThe concluding actions of TransLink’s late-night ser-vice report related to the bus are to (40):• Maintain the NightBus hub as a permanent feature in service, as well as expand market-ing and awareness campaigns through 2019• Implement the planned night bus expansion, which will see a 58% rise in bus service overnight from 2016-2020• Discuss “shadow bus” service with TransLink Board and policy makers, as part of conversations regarding next investment plan• Continue advocating for Ride Hailing and improved taxi service in the lower mainland• Continue to engage the Late Night Stakehold-er committee on other future issues impact-ing the late-night economyDescribing Transit UsersPublic transportation users are often placed into one of two categories: choice riders or transit-dependent riders (19).Choice riders: individuals who choose to take tran-sit though they have more than the one travel mode available to them (19)Transit-dependent riders: individuals who have no other means of transportation available to them other than transit (19)Choice riders are often made up of a wide variation in demographics, while the transit-dependent (also known as “captive” riders) typically includes margin-alized population groups (43). Choice riders are much more sensitive to changes that affect service quality because they have an alternative transportation mode they may use alternatively (43). Comparatively, the transit-dependent have an inelastic demand for bus service, meaning that they will tolerate fare increas-es, crowded buses, and poorly maintained bus stops because they still have a need to travel (44).Choice (or discretionary) riders may be drawn to transit as a travel mode for a number of reasons, but they are a large influence on transportation decision-making, particularly with respect to the increased appeal of rapid rail transit systems, such as Metro Vancouver’s SkyTrain system (32). Choice riders tend to travel during peak periods for work and guide peak transit demand directionality in their travel to major employment centres (19).Comparatively, the transit-dependent include individ-uals that are unable to drive due to age (too young or too old), disability (physical, cognitive, vision, hear-ing, or otherwise), socio-economic status (unable to afford the expense of a vehicle), and those who lack of access to a vehicle (19). Approximately 30% of Canadians do not hold a valid drivers’ license (45,46); this means that these individuals rely on others to get them from place to place either as a passenger, by walking, cycling, or via transit. Transit-dependent riders are more likely to travel locally and during off-peak hours, resulting in them often paying more to travel than their wealthier counterparts (32). Image (above). Cover of TransLink’s 2019 Late Night Service Report..9The Impact of Poor Public Transit Access and AvailabilityThe reasons behind our trips vary. We travel rou-tinely to get to work or school, and then we have our non-routine trips that include essential trips like shopping and banking, or non-essential visits with family and friends, recreation, and leisure trips (47). Our routine trips are generally well serviced, meeting the 9-5 work schedule; however, all of the trips that fall outside of those hours can hamper one’s access to opportunities, affecting their ability to maintain or seek employment, attend school, or even run errands (19,47). In Australia, Delbosc and Currie found that individuals living in the outskirts of Melbourne were less likely to travel as a result of having transportation challenges, and thus were also less likely to partic-ipate in activities (47). This reminds us that while a number of parameters can be used to measure quality of service, it is ultimately the user’s experience that reflects the true quality of transit service (19). It is important to recognize that those who are pre-cariously employed are particularly impacted by poor quality transit – they may struggle to get to interviews and maintain employment, in part that they also have much less flexibility in their schedules (15,22,31). Long wait times, poor connectivity, and unreliable services can result in insufficient transportation op-tions, forcing these individuals to purchase a vehicle to better meet their transportation needs (15,47–49). This means that owning a car may be a sign of depra-vation rather than affluence, as these individuals may have the freedom to travel as they wish with a vehi-cle, but they may spend a disproportionate amount of their earnings on transportation costs, leaving less money for other necessities (47). In addition to impacting individuals’ access to oppor-tunity, poor quality transit can also contribute to so-cial exclusion (48). This can ultimately reduce quality of life and engagement in community (44,47). This is further exacerbated when the built environment does not have supportive infrastructure to support walk-ing or cycling, requiring individuals to travel longer distances with poor infrastructure (49).How transportation systems contribute to exclusion of different population groups (50)Space: physical barriers or prop-erty makes facilities inaccessibleTime: individuals spend more “free” time travelling, leaving little time for other commitments (fami-ly, errands, other)Economic: the cost of travel is high, making it unaffordable for someSpatial / Land Use: essential fa-cilities (e.g. shops, schools, health-care) are not centrally located or easily accessibleGeographic: rural or peripherally urban areas have reduced or no transit accessPhysical: design or structure of the system prevents access (e.g. vehicle design, lack of facilities, poor timetable information)Figure 7. The R3 Rapid Bus running along Lougheed Highway in Maple Ridge.Icons 10-15 (above, in order). 10) Icon of a person in a wheelchair in front of a set of stairs. 11) Icon of two homes at a distance from each other across a farm. 12) Icon of a treasure map. 13) Icon of coins with a dollar sign on the first. 14) Icon of a timing watch. 15) Icon of a hand to indicate “stop do not enter.”10Who Uses Public TransitIn general, factors that influence transit ridership include the proportion of individuals living with low incomes in suburban areas, college students, prev-alence of poverty, average income, and ethnic and immigrant make up (51). The United States’ 2009 National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS) revealed that male riders, individuals aged 16 to 24 years old, those who are employed, and households with no car access were most likely to take transit (19). However, this only reflects current transit users, and not those who need transit.To truly understand incorporate equity into trans-portation planning, Delbosc and Currie stress that there must be data provided at a disaggregate level, enabling conclusion to be made around individual out-comes, rather than the population at large (47). Cur-rent data on transit users in Metro Vancouver comes from the Federal Census (2016) and TransLink’s trip diary (2017). The Census focuses solely on individu-als’ mode share to and from work or school, therefore failing to capture transit usage for other types of trips (52). TransLink’s trip diary provides additional infor-mation with respect to the variety of trips, however, the methodology for data collection is unclear, and explores only age, gender, and income demographics (28).Since the beginning of the millennium, TransLink has benefitted from a general upward trend in its ridership (53). The opening of the Millennium Line (January 2002), Canada Line (August 2009), and Evergreen Extension (December 2016) have no doubt contributed to the increase in ridership (54). Continu-ing to increase transit ridership in Metro Vancouver is a key priority over the next 10 years for the Mayors’ Council, aiming to reduce reliance on the single-oc-cupancy vehicle and increase walking, cycling, and public transportation mode share (55). However, at the same time, there has been a growing interest in the exacerbation of social and health inequities by transportation systems; resulting in calls to move toward people-focused and needs-based social policy approach to transportation systems (48).While TransLink’s ridership success across Metro Vancouver should be applauded, when incorpo-rating an equity lens to the current transportation network, the question one might ask is who is us-ing the transit system, or rather, who is benefitting from the transit system?TransLink’s 2017 Trip Diary illustrates that there are some differences in transit users based on key demographics (e.g. gender, age, and income if household income is below $50k) (28). The results of the 2017 Trip Diary show that individuals aged 19-34 years of age, women, and households making more than $100k per year are most likely to make transit trips (28). The data also illustrates that the greater household income, the more number of trips gener-ated for the household (28). Of households making less than $50,000 per year, 48.8% of them drive as their primary source of transportation, but also make up the smallest proportion of trip generators in the region (28). Women also make more trips than men, generating more shopping and escort trips, though men make more work or university-based trips (28).In 2015, Andy Yan (then part of Bing Thom Archi-tects) examined occupations most likely to take transit in Metro Vancouver (Figure 8) (5). In Metro Van-couver, transit users have a wider range of incomes than in other cities, and are most likely to be women and people under the age of 40 (Figure) (5). With respect to occupation, retail workers make up the greatest proportion of transit commuters, followed by those who work in finance and real estate, business services, public administration, education, and health care and social services (Figure 8) (5).Though this data is almost a decade old, its findings are likely to hold true today, particularly as the 2016 Census illustrated that 28% of individuals working in sales and service were transit commuters (4). It should also be noted that the occupations with the greatest transit mode share often work irregular shifts, generally not falling into the peak 9-5 hours seen in other sectors (6). These individuals are also likely to be those who are paid closer to minimum wage and may experience additional barriers in meet-ing their transportation needs (56).Figure 8. Work completed by Andy Yan in 2015 to explore which employ-ment sectors are most dependent on transit (5).11Equity and Public Transportation: Transportation PovertyTraditional transportation planning has often failed to address the needs of individuals of society’s – the working-class, minority populations, and refugees– who are most susceptible to changes to the public transportation system (15). An estimated one million urban Canadians experience transport poverty (31). Measuring transport poverty is particularly challeng-ing because it is measured at the individual level rather than the household level, where most data is generally collected (49).Transport poverty: when transport disadvantage compounds with other forms of potential social disadvantage (57)Transport poverty generally results due to transport or social disadvantage, though it is recognized that there are many contributing factors that contribute to this, including poor land use planning, and zoning (49,58). Those faced with transport disadvantage do not have access to a vehicle or have poor public transportation options, while those with social disad-vantage may be unemployed, or live with low income, disability or poor health (58). Transport poverty is the intersection of the transport and socially disadvan-taged (48).Populations most likely to face transport poverty are society’s most vulnerable - often the poorest and most socially disadvantaged (48). They include minority groups, recent immigrants, single-parent families, specific age cohorts (children, youth, stu-dents, and older people), gender (females and gender non-conforming), wages and income level, education level, individuals with disabilities, and individuals who do not have access to a private vehicle (22,31,57,59). These individuals are often underrepresented in transport policy appraisals, though they are often the ones who suffer the most when there are changes to the public transportation system (57). The “under-class hypothesis” was rejected in the 1970’s, but we are now coming to understand how the transportation system has built upon systemic biases (44). We are gaining an understanding of historic transit funding that has discriminated against minority riders by serving primarily  privileged communities (16,44). Even today, transit improvements often provide the most benefit to the wealthy, even if the improvements were intended to alleviate poverty (15,57). For exam-ple, higher quality transit systems (e.g. commuter rail) tend to serve Caucasian and higher income residents in the United States, while poorer quality transit (e.g. buses) are more likely to serve non-Caucasian and lower-income residents (44).Consequences of transport poverty:• Reduced travel and fewer trips made, regard-less of car ownership (48)• Increased cost to reach destinations (31)• Reduced participation in activities (31)• Increased social exclusion due to inability to reach desired destinations (31,49,60)• Threatened housing security (16)• Limited access to employment opportunities, goods, services, and affordable housing (16)Five conditions of transport poverty (49)Transportation options are unable to meet the needs of one’s  physi-cal condition and capabilitiesTravel conditions are dangerous, unsafe or unhealthyAn excessive amount of time is spent travelling, leading to time poverty or social isolationSpending money on transportation results in one living with income below the official poverty lineTransport options do not allow one to reach essential destinations that would allow them to maintain a reasonable quality of lifeIcons 16-20 (above, in order). 16) Icon of a person in a wheelchair in front of a set of stairs. 17) Icon of a treasure map. 18) Icon of a piggy bank with a coin. 5) Icon of a timing watch. 6) Icon of a a person slipping and falling.12Populations with the Highest NeedIn the United States, populations that are more likely to use transit and be transit-dependent include women, racialized populations, immigrants, non-ve-hicle owners, and low-income populations (61). Characteristics of those who live with low-income tend to include: children (especially those in a female single-parent family), single parents, single people aged 45-64, recent immigrants, Indigenous people living off reserve, and people with disabilities (62). In particular, low-income families face greater challeng-es for a variety of reasons. They often lack flexibility in their work, can only work when their children are in childcare, and often cannot access well-paying jobs due to spatial mismatch and poor access to public transportation (63).Individuals working lower paying jobs also have a tendency to have less full-time work, more seasonal work and less post-secondary education than the average worker (63). Those working for low wages tend to work in wholesale trade, leisure and hospi-tality, armed services or unspecified, or construction (63). These employment types become only more prevalent for low-wage workers at 200% below the federal poverty line and for those with children in the family (63). In the United States, 17% of its workforce works “late-shift jobs,” reporting to work between 21:00 and 05:00 (64). Like those who work for low wages, late-shift workers tend to have less formal education, often need private vehicles to access their work, and are paid less than daytime employees (64). Compar-atively, almost 30% of employed Canadians work a non-standard work schedule (65). Individuals may also work multiple jobs where they work weekends, between the hours of 17:00 and 07:00, and often have more work travel time (66). These sectors may meet their employment needs using part-time workers, usually in include healthcare and protective services, and service-providing jobs like retail sales, grocery stores, manufacturing, and accommodation and food services (hospitality) (6,65,67). They often work nonstandard hours with long hours of operation, seven days a week (6). Like those living with low in-come, these individuals are more likely to be women, parents, racialized and recent immigrants, Indigenous, and have less formal education than those working with standard employment hours (65). In Metro Van-couver, immigrant populations are more likely to work in retail-trade or accommodation and food service occupations (68). From a transit servicing stance, reducing ridership demand during peak service hours may be desirable, but this can place undue burden on these individuals who not only have less flexibility in the scheduling of their shifts, but may work shifts, weekends, split shifts, or irregular and rotating schedules that may start or end at any time of the day (22,56,67), These individuals may have increased transportation-cost burdens as they are more likely to drive than full-time workers and public transit does not meet their needs (64,69). The availability of public transportation has been shown to reduce employee turnover for late-shift workers, leading to a large savings for employers (64). Though they make up a small proportion of pub-lic transit riders, they carry a significant impact to the economy, largely sitting in manufacturing jobs (64).Figure 9. Empty bus seats can make it costly for a transit agency to run service, especially when there is demand for transit in other areas.13Metro Vancouver: Transit Use, Housing, and IncomeIn Metro Vancouver, TransLink provides service with the West Coast Express, SkyTrain (rapid rail transit), SeaBus, HandyDart (custom transit service deliv-ery), and a bus network. Though generally seen as a less desirable mode of public transport, bus service is essential to serve local transit routes and provide last mile travel (20–22). Unfortunately, the public call for expensive rail transit services has often led to an unequal distribution of resources with poorer and less wealthy communities served by these “lesser” services around the world (20–22).Though Metro Vancouver has seen a growing fas-cination with transit-oriented developments to help create the density necessary to justify increasing transit service (Figure 10), many of these develop-ments have failed to generate affordable housing options (27,70). In 2016, Metro Vancouver identified a clear connection between affordable housing and transit in its Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (71). They found that renter households are more likely to be transit-dependent, especially if they earn less than $50,000 a year (71). Though home buyers have complained greatly about Metro Vancouver’s real estate market (72), the market has resulted in the displacement of many transit-dependent populations (73). This has influenced the transportation burden for these households, having them move further away from easily accessible public transportation, potential-ly placing them in positions of forced car-ownership, and increasing their disparity (50,73). Early find-ings of their Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rental Housing Study support a hypothesis that providing a mixture of tenures and incomes in transit-accessible communities could significantly increase the number of transit trips made per year (74). In Metro Vancouver, almost 14% of the population lives with low-income (less than $39,092 for a family of four, or $20,675 for a single person, using the low-income cut offs, after tax (LITO-AT), while 19% of households made less than $30,000 per year (52,75,76). Lone-parent families experience the highest prevalence of low-income at 29.4% (75). However, other populations with higher prevalence of low-income include persons not in Census families*, young adults, children, older adults, and immigrant populations (68,75). Within these populations, there are additional consid-erations and concerns for the needs of subgroup pop-ulations. For example, recent immigrants are event more risk of living with low-income (68), while single parents and individuals living alone are at most risk of working poverty (78). Older adults (especially single seniors) also experience challenges in obtaining and maintaining affordable housing (79). In 2012, 61% of the working poor were between the ages of 30 and 54, and 42% had dependent children (78). Similarly, women are not only more likely to work part-time than men, but they also tend to make less than their male partners in hetero-partnerships (75,80).Across Canada, there has been an increase in the number of part-time workers (both voluntary and involuntary) and multiple-job holders (80–82). Part-time workers tend to include women and temporary workers and often hold multiple jobs (80,82). They tend to be between the ages of 20-29 and work more hours per week than single job holders in the health-care and social assistance; educational services; information, culture and recreation; agriculture; and accommodation and food services sectors (82). The more someone earns, the less likely they are to hold multiple jobs (82).Regionally at a high level, the City of Vancouver has a disproportionate representation of individuals living with LICO-AT, but also features the most concen-trated density in the region (Figure 11) (83). Most notably, is the City’s Downtown Eastside that has a prevalence of LICO-AT of over 65% (83). This said, with 71 or the 468 Census tracts in the Lower Main-land having a prevalence of LICO-AT of over 20% they exist across the region (83). Unfortunately, these neighbourhoods do not always support development of transit service because the residential densities are low (Figure) (83).While low-income status ought to be a consideration with respect to the provision of transit service, we must also understand the travel needs for those living with low-income. Their needs should not be com-promised by virtue of living in a less densely popu-lated area. This is particularly important as it can be cost-prohibitive to live near well-serviced transit in Metro Vancouver (71,73).*a married or common law couple and children belonging to at least one of the partner, if any; or a lone-parent of any marital status living with at least one child (77)Figure 10. Prevalence of LICO-AT in the Lower Mainland. Darker blue areas represent areas with more than 20% prevalence LICO-AT.Figure 11. Residential densities represented as people per hectare. The darkest Census tracts have densities greater than 70 people per hectare. The lightest Census tracts have residential densities of less than 10 people per hectare.14METHODOLOGYImage (above). Two #722 community shuttle buses waiting in front of Superstore in PItt Meadows.15This project considered TransLink’s maximum service delivery pre-Covid-19 pandemic. General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) data from March 6 was used to assess bus service (including night bus and RapidBus service) (84). The project prioritized bus movement to capture localized travel and the mode most likely to be used by underprivileged groups (20–22). It did not consider rapid rail transit (SkyTrain and West Coast Express) or specialized services (HandyDART and SeaBus).Esri’s materials from a pre-conference workshop guided map development, enabling the development of a network dataset, improved bus buffers, and deter-mination of bus departures by stop (39,88,89).In order to use TransLink’s GTFS data and determine bus frequencies, a network dataset had to be cre-ated. Census 2016 road network data–downloaded from UBC’s Abacus Dataverse Network–provided digital road line coverage for all of Canada (86). The data categorized roads based on: location, rank (i.e. Trans-Canada Highway, National Highway System), and street classifications (e.g. Highway, Expressway, Primary Highway, Road, Arterial, Local, etc) (86). Metro Vancouver’s municipal boundary files served as the local boundary to generate a road network reflective of TransLink’s service delivery. Identifying pedestrian restricted roads (i.e. determining where pedestrian travel is prohibited or inaccessible due to there being no sidewalks) enabled a better reflection of pedestrian accessibility to bus stops. Pedestrian restricted roads included Highways, Expressways, Primary Highways, and Secondary Highways. Con-nectors (e.g. overpasses and on-ramps) were eval-uated on a case-by-case basis; pedestrian restricted connectors had no sidewalks or connected to other pedestrian restricted roads. All other roads (Roads, Arterials, Collectors, Local, Alley / Lane / Utility) were pedestrian accessible.Data used:• TransLink’s GTFS data from March 6, 2020 (84)• TransLink public timetables (85)• Statistics Canada Road Network File, Census Year 2016 (86)• Metro Vancouver, Municipal Boundaries, November 22, 2017 (87)• Statistics Canada LICO-AT data by Cen-sus block (83)Tools used:• ArcGIS 10.8• ArcGIS’s Network Analyst• Using GTFS in ArcGIS Workshop Materi-als (88):• AddGTFStoaNetworkDataset_0_5_4_0• DisplayGTFSInArcGIS_2.0.2• BetterBusBuffers_0.11.0.2• Count Trips at Stops ToolSpatial AccessOftentimes, a 400m circular buffer around all transit stops is used to establish spatial accessibility to tran-sit (90–92). At a localized, experiential level, how-ever, a circular buffer does not reflect true walking distance to a bus stop. Individuals are often limited to the travel along permitted walkways, whether they be along sidewalks or paths. Therefore, this project used Esri’s BetterBusBuffer tool to illustrate the true 400m walking distance to all bus stops (88). The 400m BetterBusBuffer was compared to the 400m circu-lar buffer to see if there was a difference in spatial access when using the two different measures. This project accepted the 400m buffer tolerance for all bus stops across all times; however, it recognizes that there may be a difference transit riders’ toler-ance for distance to bus stops during the evenings or weekends when services are reduced from weekday peak travel.Figure 12. The Coquitlam Centre bus loop, adjacent to rapid transit access, shops, services, and residences. 16TransLink’s Next Bus PDF Public TimeTables from April 6, 2020 provided the start and end times of route operations, enabling an evaluation of span of service (85). While the schedules do not coincide directly with the GTFS data, span of service does not appear to fluctuate dramatically season over season. Spans were categorized as per the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM) (Table 1) (19). Schedules were obtained for 218 of the 237 bus routes for which there was GTFS data; of these routes, 13 had no data (i.e. no start or end time for the weekdays, Saturdays, or Sundays). These were removed from the analysis to prevent any misrepre-sentation in the maps.Span of ServiceHours of ServiceDescription of Service>18 hours Enables a wide variety of trip purposes and can replace other modes of trans-portation, though it may come at a cost for the transit operator for operations12-18 hoursFacilitates a broad range of trip purposes and more than sufficiently covers work trips, enabling flexibility for arrival and departure time and facilitating trips for retail and industrial employees, as well as outings outside of 9-5 work hours6-12 hoursDoes not provide sufficient service for traditional 9-5 work hours and does not provide any flexibility for trips out-side of commuting hours4-6 hours Provides peak-service provision only, but facilitates some flexibility for choice of departure time≤4h hours Basic serviceFrequency of ServiceWeekday, Sautrday, and Sunday frequency of ser-vice was measured using Esri’s “Count Trips at Stops Tool” (88). Stops were evaluated based on the number of trips per hour departing the stop, matching TransLink’s descriptions of service frequency (Table 2) (27). As frequency of service changes depending on the time of day, frequency was evaluated across three-hour blocks of time, enabling analysis outside of the rush-hour or peak-travel times (06:00-09:00 and 15:00-18:00). Providing an evaluation every three hours also enabled some evaluation of the availability of transit travel for individuals needing service out-side of the 9-5 work week. A high-level search on Workopolis, LinkedIn, and Indeed.ca showed that many minimum or low-paying job openings required staff to work Saturdays and Sundays, or odd hours. For example, grocery stores opening at 07:00 or closing 23:00 on Saturdays and Sundays. As a result, Saturdays and Sundays were also evaluated similarly to weekdays. Trips per HourDescription of Service0 trips No service0-1 trips One bus, once per hour1-2 trips One bus, every 30 minutes2-4 trips One bus every 15-30 minutes4-6 trips One bus, every 10-15 minutes, or two bus routes every 30 mintues6+ trips One bus every 10 minutes or better, or multiple bus routes serving the stopLayering EquityThis project considered only a variable of income as a layer of equity. The Low-Income Cut Off-After Tax (LICO-AT) was used as a proxy for other variables of inequity. This said, it is well understood that LI-CO-AT is an imperfect measurement of equity. Future evaluations should consider utilize a more fulsome approach that considers race, housing tenure, em-ployment type, education, and age. This is particularly important as well-established areas of privilege (e.g. UBC Endowment Lands and Ambleside in West Van-couver), but have significant prevalence of LICO-AT (i.e. over 20%).Keeping a realistic evaluation of transit service deliv-ery by cost in mind, the project isolated Census tracts with at least 20% prevalence of LICO-AT and resi-dential density of greater than 30-people per hectare (i.e. appropriate for standard or basic service as per TransLink’s Service Guidelines (27)). One should note, however, that TransLink’s Service Guidelines consider both employment and residential density (27), while this project solely looks at residential density. These areas were isolated on each of the Span of Service, Span of Service, and Frequency of Service maps to determine gaps in the transit service delivery for these areas.“Frequency is freedom.” - Jarret Walker (93)Table 1. Desription of service for the number of hours of service provided by a transit agency (19). Table 2. Desription of service for the number trips provided per hour for a bus stop(19). 17RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONImage (above). The back of the #9 bus at Main and Broadway in Vancouver traveling eastbound.18Spatial Access- A Regional LookFigure 14. Spatial accessibility shown as a 400m walking distance from bus stops. The white areas display the areas that are more heavily populated (i.e. residential densities of greater than 30 people per hectare).Figure 13.. Spatial accessibility shown as a 400m circular buffer around all bus stops. The white areas display the areas that are more heavily populated (i.e. residential densities of greater than 30 people per hectare).Using a traditional 400m radial buffer around each bus stop, the majority of the most populated areas (density over 10 people per hectare) within the Metro Vancouver area are served by buses (Figure 13). This analysis largely analysis holds true, even when the analysis is changed to 400m walk areas (Figure 14). While there are residences that would fall outside of the 400m walk area, areas that are more densely populated appear to have decent physical access to transit. The most significant difference is observed in Surrey, Langley, and Maple Ridge where walk areas do not meet in the more densely populated areas (see the white spaces visible in Figure 14). This might indicate that there are areas of density that are unable to ac-cess higher quality transit and may actually discour-age its use. It may help provide insight to less than optimal transit usage for these areas.Further analysis at a neighbourhood-specific level for these communities would better identify mode share for these neighbourhoods and help identify ways to incentivize their transit mode share. For example, urban design interventions that may be considered by the municipality to improve the walking experience, or use of midblock pathways might reduce the pedestri-an travel distance to bus stops.When considering the distribution of transit mode share and the densities across the region, the City of New Westminster has both a dense core and high transit mode share at 19.7% of its trips completed by transit (28). Similarly, the City of Vancouver has a transit mode share of 17.9% (28). Both of these cities have high density cores that help support transit use. This is seen also in their physical accessibility to bus stops, with much of their municipal boundary within a 400m walk of a bus stop.While there may be other qualities in the City of Van-couver or City of New Westminster that contribute to higher transit ridership (e.g. the City of Vancouver’s notable grid-like street network), other areas of the Lower Mainland appear to lack in transit accessibility. For example, the cities of Richmond, Burnaby, and Surrey have some areas that are comparatively as dense as South Vancouver, but residents appear to have walk further to the bus, which is likely to dis-courage transit usage.19Spatial Access - Looking at Low-Income & Higher Density Census TractsFigure 15. Spatial accessibility shown as a 400m walking distance from bus stops in areas with greater prevalence of LICO-AT and resudentuak densities of greater than 30 people per hectare.Using a 400m walking buffer, but looking at the Census tracts with the lowest incomes (i.e. greater than 20% prevalence of LICO-AT) and residential densities greater than 30-people per hectare, again, most areas are fairly well covered. Vancouver has a disproportionate number of Census tracts with higher prevalence of LICO-AT than other municipalities, and – as seen previously – has good spatial coverage in its downtown core where the majority of its poorest citizens leave. This said, spatial coverage gaps appear in the follow-ing neighbourhoods (Figure 15):• Broadmoor / Garden City (Richmond)• West Cambie (Richmond)• Metrotown (Burnaby)• City Centre (Coquitlam) • Guildford (Surrey)Each of these neighbourhoods has a density of over 100 people per hectare, and are also adjacent to large shopping malls, which may mean that these areas do not have as high a need for bus service because their needs (shops, services, and employment) may already be within walking distance. Some of the neighbourhoods may also have access to higher quality transit like a SkyTrain, which – though more expensive – could provide them with more frequent service for long-route commuting. Establishing an alignment of housing costs with these particular neighbourhoods may provide better insight on their transportation-cost burdens and assist in prioritizing areas for affordable and rental housing for those who are most dependent on transit (71,74).Looking at the Census tracts where prevalence of LICO-AT is greater greater than 20%, but residen-tial densities are not as supportive of more frequent transit (i.e. less than 100 people per hectare, but more than 30), there are also areas that have reduced spatial accessibility. Census tracts in Richmond, New Westminster, Surrey, and Coquitlam that have large gaps between the 400m walking distance to transit within the Census tract borders (Figure 15). Though these Census tracts may not have optimal residential densities to support all-day frequent transit service, the fact that one in five lives with LICO-AT war-rants further exploration into the travel needs of the individuals living in these areas. Unlike the Census tracts listed with densities of more than 100 people per hectare, these Census tracts may not have the same ease of access to their daily needs (e.g. shops, services, and employment), and therefore may face a higher transportation cost burden than those men-tioned previously. It should be noted that the Census tracts are not rep-resentative of the locations of the buildings, therefore, the walkable road network may be sufficient in these areas. However, further investigation into these spe-cific Census tracts with respect to the ease of transit access as well as the surrounding land use may provide a better understanding of the needs of these lower income areas and will ensure that they are not underserved.20Span of Service - A Regional LookWeekday Span of ServiceSaturday Span of ServiceSunday Span of ServiceFigure 16. Route span of service on weekdays. Red lines indicate that there is no service provided. The darker the lines, the more hours provided.Figure 17. Route span of service on Saturdays. Red lines indicate that there is no service provided. The darker the lines, the more hours provided.Figure 18. Route span of service on Sundays. Red lines indicate that there is no service provided. The darker the lines, the more hours provided..The majority of bus routes provide at least 12-hour service span across weekdays and weekends (Table 3). The broad span of service enables riders to par-take in a variety of activities. In addition, most routes with a span of four hour or less often mirror other bus or transit routes (e.g. follow the SkyTrain lines), thus providing some areas with 24-hour service.Across all days, Night Buses make up the majority of the bus routes that provide 4 hours of service or less (Appendix D). Other bus routes with less than 4 hours of service run on weekdays and tend to provide service in one direction in the morning or afternoon. These bus routes are likely intended to serve the commuting population with rush hour service only.The most obvious gap in service provision are buses where there is no service provided across the entire day (Table 3). This is most apparent on Saturdays and Sundays. Unlike Night Bus service, the routes without service on weekends do not have parallel routes. The weekend-cancelled routes are largely in Surrey / White Rock and the Port Coquitlam / Pitt Meadows / Maple Ridge areas. These routes tend to be located in less densely populated areas (Appendix D), though the buses cancelled in Surrey’s Walley neighbourhood serve as exceptions. Interestingly, many of these routes run for a minimum of 12-hours on weekdays. This inconsistency may discourage transit usage as individuals may need a vehicle for weekend travel.Many of the routes that provide between 6-12 hours of service provide over 9 hours of service, making them conducive to serve the commuting populations or day-trip outings as needed. This span of service, in theory, would provide most individuals with the opportunity to fulfill their daily needs, but can make commuting to and from work, or conducting other errands difficult. Many of the routes that provide less than 6 hours of service generally have complemen-tary routes, meaning that individuals could use an alternate route to get to their destination, though it may not be their preferred route.Most of the routes with the greatest span of ser-vice are located along the major road network. This enables individuals to get to a central location, but challenges last-mile travel. Though it is expected that last-mile travel would serve a smaller subset of the population because the travel purposes are more specific (e.g. going home), a lack of support in bus frequency or service span to service last-mile travel may make it challenging for individuals to justify tran-sit as a preferred travel mode.In addition to spans of service, bus route start and end times can influence usability of the transit system. Though many routes start later on Satur-days than weekdays, Sundays are more dramatically impacted with many routes starting much later and ending earlier compared to weekday service. As some weekend jobs have similar hours to weekdays, the later start times can eliminate transit as a travel option because individuals may not be able to get to their destinations on time. This also limits travel options for transit-dependent individuals earlier in the morning on Sundays. This said, the vast majority of buses still provide more than 12 hours of service on Sundays, which gives transit riders opportunities to travel to a number of destinations over the day.Span of Service Hours# Bus RoutesWeekdays# Bus RoutesSaturdays# Bus RoutesSundays>18 hours 100 75 5312-18 hours 95 86 956-12 hours 10 24 314-6 hours 0 2 0≤4 hours 12 8 80 hours 1 23 31Table 3. Number of bus routes running weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays over spans of service as described in the TQSM (19).21Span of Service - Looking at Low-Income & Higher Density Census TractsWeekday Span of Service Saturday Span of Service Sunday Span of ServiceFigure 19. Route span of service on weekdays with emphasis on areas with high prevalence of LICO-AT and higher density. Red lines indicate that there is no service provided. The darker the lines, the more hours provided..Figure 20. Route span of service on Saturdays with emphasis on areas with high prevalence of LICO-AT and higher density. Red lines indicate that there is no service provided. The darker the lines, the more hours provided..Figure 21. Route span of service on Sundays with emphasis on areas with high prevalence of LICO-AT and higher density. Red lines indicate that there is no service provided. The darker the lines, the more hours provided..When considering the span of bus service for the Census tracts with more than 20% prevalence of LICO-AT and residential densities of more than 30 people per hectare, the regional findings tend to hold true. Service for most of the Census tracts in ques-tion does not vary much day over day, with areas with longer service hours having similar service on the weekend days as what is provided on weekdays. The notable exceptions are on Sundays in Richmond and Surrey where two routes do not have service, and do not appear to have any duplication of service. These areas also have higher densities and a higher prevalence of individuals living with LICO-AT than their surrounding areas. This begs the question as to why individuals may not use transit for all of their needs. It may be that while individuals may still ac-cess their destinations, their travel time may be great-ly impacted with an increase in transfers and likely longer waiting times due to reduced frequencies. These conditions may discourage transit usage and result in individuals thinking they may need to buy a car to reduce the transportation burden because transit is too inconvenient. Though these findings are speculative, it would be interesting to take a more explorative look at forced-car-ownership in these areas and explore peoples’ transportation needs in these areas.Having a better understanding of the transportation needs for individuals living in these communities (e.g. do people work weekends or irregular hours; what is their trip like with transfers) as well as the location of jobs (specifically lower paying jobs that may be done more locally) would help to ensure that the transit system is accessible and usable for those who may need it most. Reductions in service hours and changes to the start and end times of service can make it difficult for some individuals to meet all of their needs on public transit – particularly if they work early in the morning (e.g. 07:00 or 08:00), or have less flexibility in their schedule day-over-day because they work multiple jobs or have other responsibilities on top of working. These situations can make it difficult for individuals to justify taking transit and may result the purchase of a vehicle to make these trips more easily accessible. This can make it increasingly challenging to convince these individuals to take transit as they already have the convenience of access to a vehicle, especially if transit is more inconvenient for them (94,95).22Frequency - A Regional LookWeekday Frequency00:00-02:59 03:00-05:59 06:00-08:59 09:00-11:5912:00-14:59 15:00-17:59 18:00-20:59 21:00-23:59On any given day, bus frequency is reduced between the hours of 00:00 and 05:59. Service provided before peak hours in the morning (i.e. before 06:00) is limited, with most stops serving only one trip per hour. Metro Vancouver’s suburbs see the most reduc-tion in service delivery, with many routes providing no service particularly between the hours of 03:00 and 05:59 on weekends. Generally, service in the early morning hours is reduced in Census tracts with low-density and less prevalence of LICO-AT. Having a better understanding of the job demand on off-peak hours – particularly early-morning demand –  could facilitate serving individuals working off-peak hours and convince individuals to use transit as a primary mode of transport.Stops found along the Major Road Network appear to have the most frequent service. These stops also see the most consistent level of service across peak and non-peak hours. On weekdays, peak hour travel provides the most frequent service, as expected. However, some areas in Delta, Tsawwassen, Langley, Maple Ridge, and Pitt Meadows have limited service, with some stops receiving service only once or twice per hour, even in peak travel hours. This can disin-Figure 22. Departure frequency on weekdays in three-hour blocks of time. Red stops indicate that there is no service provided, while dark blue stops show that there is service provision at least every 10 minutes. Teal and lighter blue stops indicate more frequent service at two to six trips per hour.centivize travel via transit as trip transfers must align perfectly to prevent waiting for the next bus. The lack of frequency during peak hours can also limit the types of trips that individuals can make, making them more likely to reject travel by transit and use automo-biles.During the week, service provided after the peak afternoon rush still provides substantial frequency to most stops (with most seeing at least two to four trips per hour). However, after 9pm, frequency even in the most populated areas of Metro Vancouver slows substantially. Though this service aligns with 23Saturday Frequency00:00-02:59 03:00-05:59 06:00-08:59 09:00-11:5912:00-14:59 15:00-17:59 18:00-20:59 21:00-23:59Figure 23. Departure frequency on Saturdays in three-hour blocks of time. Red stops indicate that there is no service provided, while dark blue stops show that there is service provision at least every 10 minutes. Teal and lighter blue stops indicate more frequent service at two to six trips per hour.peak travel demand, some routes stop running by or before 21:00 (Appendix D), which can make return trips challenging for individuals who must commute outside of the 9-5 work day. Depending on individ-uals’ travel distances and needs to transfer, this can place significant transportation burden on riders and may disincentivize transit use as transit fails to meet their needs.On all days of the week, service increases substan-tially after 06:00. On Sundays, though there is an in-crease in service at 06:00, the increase in service is more evenly spread across the region between 09:00 and 11:00. This may make travel by transit particularly challenging for individuals who may need to get to work for earlier morning Sunday shifts. In general, the Downtown Vancouver is the area of Metro Vancouver that sees the most frequent service, even in very off-peak hours (e.g. 00:00-02:59). As will be seen with other transit availability measures, though the Downtown core is disproportionately favoured for quality transit frequency, it has many factors that other areas of the Metro Vancouver region do not. Downton Vancouver has the density, road network, and lifestyle to not only support good transit use, but also justify placement of service from an operations perspective.The City of Vancouver and its closest suburbs (Burnaby, New Westminster, the south side of North Vancouver, and the north side of Richmond) see the most service frequency, with at least one trip made every 10 minutes or better at each bus stop through-out the middle of the day. This may mean that there is at least one bus travelling along these routes every 10 minutes, or that there are several buses stop-ping at the bus stop – either way, this increases the travel opportunity for transit-users. Comparatively, suburban areas that are often considered to be more car-dependent have reduced frequencies and service is less available throughout the day as illustrated in Span of Service.Transit frequency in the suburb cities of West Van-couver, Pitt Meadows, Langley, and Delta / Tsawwas-sen are consistently less well served regardless of the time of day. These municipalities also have very low transit mode share (28). They also serve a less 24Sunday Frequency00:00-02:59 03:00-05:59 06:00-08:59 09:00-11:5912:00-14:59 15:00-17:59 18:00-20:59 21:00-23:59Figure 24. Departure frequency on Sundays in three-hour blocks of time. Red stops indicate that there is no service provided, while dark blue stops show that there is service provision at least every 10 minutes. Teal and lighter blue stops indicate more frequent service at two to six trips per hour.dense residential population, and have less preva-lence of LICO-AT. Generally, the higher density areas of the Lower Mainland are relatively well-served by transit, with at least two to four trips provided at each stop per hour. This said, however, many will argue that a frequency of every 15-30 minutes may be insufficient to make transit an appealing travel option (96). This is im-portant too as the less frequent services are located further away from the Frequent Transit Network, and appear to serve last-mile travel. A lack of service in the form of frequency and span may disincentivize transit travel, or at minimum for more localized trips. This can also increase the transportation burden for those who may work locally.The particular challenge that these observations pose is whether or not it is feasible to increase service to attract riders, when there is pent up demand in other areas. Having a better understanding of people’s travel needs in the suburban communities and under-standing what would be needed to convince them to reduce their vehicle use will be important, especially for those who are in positions of forced-car owner-ship.25Frequency - Looking at Low-Income & Higher Density Census TractsWeekday Frequency00:00-02:5903:00-05:5906:00-08:5909:00-11:5912:00-14:5915:00-17:5918:00-20:5921:00-23:59Figure 25.. Departure frequency on weekdays in three-hour blocks of time, focusing on communities with higher prevalence of LICO-AT and residential density greater than 30 people per hectare. Red stops indicate that there is no service provided, while dark blue stops show that there is service provision at least every 10 minutes.When considering other areas of the region that have at least one-in-five residents living with LICO-AT and having residential densities of at least 30 people per hectare, some are not as well serviced, especially outside of peak travel hours. This said, however, many of these communities are not serviced differ-ently than the unexamined areas (i.e. these areas follow the regional trends). Though most of the Census tracts are supported by bus travel at least once every 30 minutes during the day (between 09:00 and 20:59) for every day of the week, there are notable gaps in service in Richmond and Langley’s City Centre. These commu-nities are less well-served by transit with one to two trips conducted per hour even in the middle of the day from 09:00-15:00. This frequency of transit can limit travellers’ flexibility in travel, especially if they need to transfer at a location that also has a reduced frequency. While it is recognized that these areas are also generally considered to be quite car-dependent as per the 2017 Trip Diary (28), their transportation cost-burden may be higher than others in the region.Most of the other areas that have a higher proportion of residents living with low income in higher density areas are serviced by their neighbourhood bus stop at least every 15-30 minutes in the middle of the day. Though this is not necessarily the ideal time period for individuals to have “freedom” in their travels, they are provided with some degree of reasonable service. The frequency of bus service may challenge some in-dividuals in reaching their destinations, particularly if their work hours are outside of the 9-5 work sched-ule. These individuals may need to add considerable travel time to their trip, which may result in substan-tial transportation burden, where they may prefer to justify their transportation burden in the form of a 26Saturday Frequency00:00-02:5903:00-05:5906:00-08:5909:00-11:5912:00-14:5915:00-17:5918:00-20:5921:00-23:59Figure 26. Departure frequency on Saturdays in three-hour blocks of time, focusing on communities with higher prevalence of LICO-AT and residential density greater than 30 people per hectare. Red stops indicate that there is no service provided, while dark blue stops show that there is service provision at least every 10 minutes.more expensive mode of transport (i.e. single-occu-pancy vehicle) rather than the time spent commuting.This is even more important when considering one’s round-trip. For example, individuals who work off-peak hours may need to travel to work between the hours of 10:00 an 14:00 hours, but may then not complete their shift until 18:00 or 20:00. When service frequency drops at 18:00, this can make the travel home for these individuals quite challenging and may add substantial travel and wait time to their trip. In the high-level search for hours worked in mini-mum-wage paying jobs, it was noted that some po-sitions start between the hours of 05:00 and 07:00. While this project does not explicitly capture the start and end times of the spans of service, the fact that there is very little service provided on all days of the week before 06:00 can make it very challenging for these individuals to get to work without the use of a private vehicle.Similarly, service frequency can challenge individuals’ last-mile trips, especially if they are needing to travel longer distances or have several transfers in their trip. It is well recognized that individuals dislike wait-ing for transit and often over-estimate the amount of time spent waiting for transit (97). When trips fail to align with connecting trips, riders may become frus-trated with the system and choose to increase their travel flexibility by investing in a car rather that wait for a bus to complete their final trip to their intended destination.The reduction in transit frequencies can also pose a problem when riders are unable to board a bus due to overcrowding. If buses are run only every 15 to 30 minutes and a rider is unable to board their bus, they must wait for the next bus. Again, this may increase rider frustration and result in the purchase of a vehicle to meet their transportation needs. Areas like 27Sunday Frequency00:00-02:5903:00-05:5906:00-08:5909:00-11:5912:00-14:5915:00-17:5918:00-20:5921:00-23:59Figure 27. Departure frequency on Sundays in three-hour blocks of time, focusing on communities with higher prevalence of LICO-AT and residential density greater than 30 people per hectare. Red stops indicate that there is no service provided, while dark blue stops show that there is service provision at least every 10 minutes.the southwest corner of Coquitlam bordering Burnaby may be faced with this issue as its non-peak service only sees trips one to two times per hour.Having a better understanding of the transportation needs for individuals – particularly those living in the neighbourhoods with higher prevalence of LICO-AT and higher density – and their target destinations may help in prioritizing transit service for residents who may be more transit-dependent. The changes in frequency seen in the early morning hours (before 06:00), later evening (after 21:00), and on Saturdays and Sundays can make it particularly challenging for the transit-depending to reach their desired destina-tions. Ensuring that these populations are well repre-sented in the trip diary is essential so their needs can be met appropriately.28Overarching FindingsConsistently across all three measures of tran-sit availability, the City of Vancouver is the most well-serviced by the bus system provided by TransLink. As the City of Vancouver is also home to a disproportionate number of residents living with LICO-AT, the service provision based on the factors evaluated in this project, appears to reasonably meet the needs of most individuals who may be transit-de-pendent within the city. In addition to the service provided, the City of Vancouver also has a number of additional favourable conditions that increase the feasibility of providing higher quality transit service (e.g. grid-like network, higher density) than in other municipalities across the region. While there are many areas outside of the City of Vancouver that also have long spans of service (i.e. greater than 12 hours), it is evident that the City also gains in transit frequencies across all times of day and all days of the week, and physical access to bus stops.Communities that are subject to poorer bus availabil-ity include the cities of Delta, Tsawwassen, Langley, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. When considering all three measures of transit availability, these commu-nities experience several factors that make transit a less appealing option for travel. Their walk to the bus stop may be longer than 400m, the bus may not oper-ate when they need it to, and the wait for the next bus may just provide too much frustration to make it worthwhile, especially if one’s work schedule varies from the 9-5, Monday to Friday work week. This said, these areas largely do not have a large proportion of their population that lives with low-income. Providing increased service to these areas may not serve the populations with the greatest transit-dependency; however, additional work should be done to have a more complete understanding of the transit-equity needs in these communities, especially given the number of demographic, housing, and development changes that have occurred since the 2016 Census.Though Vancouver has the greatest number of indi-viduals living with LICO-AT and living in more densely populated Census tracts, individuals fitting these characteristics also call other areas of the region home. Other communities that have Census tracts where one in five live with LICO-AT and have higher density are: Richmond, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Surrey, Langley, and the North Shore. To truly understand the impacts of the poorer quality transit seen in these areas, a better understanding of individuals’ transportation patterns is needed. For example, how many of these individuals living with LICO-AT work minimum-wage jobs and where are the jobs located; what is their current transportation cost burden, and would improving bus service reduce their transporta-tion cost burden? In general, these communities are serviced by bus service that should provide them with some degree of flexibility; however, there are several factors (as seen at the region-wide level) that may make taking transit unfavourable.Figure 28. A lack of amenities and residential buildings can make it challenging to provide service in more industrial areas, such as the above in Port Coquitlam.29LIMITATIONSImage (above). People boarding the R1 at Guildford Town Centre.30As with any project or study, while substantial data used to seek answers to the research questions, there are limitations with respect to the data and the meth-ods that must be acknowledged:• The data used for this project is somewhat aged – the Census data is from 2016 and the GTFS data represents pre-Covid-19 Pandem-ic peak service• Though used as a proxy measure, LICO-AT is an imperfect measure and should not be used as a sole measure of equity. • This project is limited by the data used in its evaluation, but also a lack of informa-tion around the types of jobs and roles that individuals who live with low-income play in society. This meant that it was challenging to understand their travel patterns and there-fore assumptions were made on their travel needs. • Frequencies are represented based on the assumption that there is only one bus stopping at each stop, therefore this does not consider bus stops that serve multiple bus routes, and therefore does not provide a scope of directionality, nor the number of places an individual might be able to access from a given point.• The maps presented provide a perspective across a 24-hour period in three hour blocks to try to provide a picture of who is able to access bus transit operations during these given time periods; however, having a better understanding of travel patterns for com-monly-associated minimum wage, nonstan-dard work hours would have provided a clearer window of time for evaluation.• This project only considered residential density, and is therefore not a reflection of work-related travel the impacts of non-stan-dard work schedules to determine if service provision might be improved for non-stan-dard workers or if public policy may be im-plemented to help bring coordination across different employment sectors (67).• The maps used to represent walking distance to and from bus stops, but does not consider the built environment or design that could increase or decrease one’s tolerance to walk to a bus stop.• This project does not consider one’s need to transfer to complete their trip, but rather is a reflection only of service provided at individ-ual bus stops. Figure 29. Bus servicing Surrey’s Guildford area.31NEXT STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONSImage (above). The #320 bus travelling along 152nd in Surrey.32This work can be continued in a variety of ways; however it is clear that a better understanding of localized travel and travel needs of the transit-depen-dent is needed. This might continue in the following ways:• Conduct a similar analysis in the future with a more robust measure of equity as well as capturing the impacts of Covid on the trans-portation system, and changes in residential development since 2015. This may provide an evaluation that could provide recommen-dations on changes to public transit delivery to ensure that the less privileged in the community are able to participate in the com-munity. This might include a more fulsome analysis of the baseline equity measure that includes race, housing tenure, employment type, education, and age to obtain an im-proved reflection of the true impact of transit availability to disadvantaged populations. Methods may include conducting a social needs assessment as developed by Currie (98), or one that is currently being explored at the City of Vancouver using an approach developed by one of the City’s Transportation Planners, Tim Douglas (99).• Collect data that can be disaggregated, particularly for characteristics of those who are most vulnerable. This will help get a better sense of how well the transportation system works for these individuals (47). This includes identifying current public transpor-tation users not only by age, sex, and income level, but also by occupation and employment status and ethnicity (100). This may include further analysis to existing trip diary infor-mation to better understand trip chaining by public transit. A way to accomplish this might be through the next iteration of the TransLink Trip Diary, with the added goal of seeking more representative sampling from tran-sit-dependent populations and those who are in positions of forced car ownership.• Improve the capture of the pockets of density and low-income that exist within Metro Van-couver’s suburbs. This might include specific analysis of neighbourhoods or municipalities, gaining a better understanding of where the minimum-wage and less-than-living-wage jobs are located within the Lower Mainland and who works in these positions. This might provide a more appropriate evaluation of potential transit-users and improve targeted messaging to permit mode shift.• Conduct a localized evaluation of the transit experience within a neighbourhood that is particularly underserviced by public transit. This might provide insight to development and design potential to improve the built en-vironment in ways that may increase or im-prove the appeal of taking transit (19). It may also include capturing the rider experience for both short- and long-distance commutes to understand the impacts of missed buses due to overcrowding, shifting commuter de-mand to off-peak hours, and trip transfers.Figure 30. One of the R3 RapidBus bus stops in Maple Ridge.33CONCLUSIONImage (above). People waiting for the bus on Austin Avenue in Coquitlam.34TransLink’s desire to incorporate equity into its approach to planning is timely, especially as the world struggles with the long-term impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. The transit-dependent are often recognized as marginalized populations including women, racialized populations, immigrants, non-vehi-cle owners, and low-income populations (61). Paired with Metro Vancouver’s work on affordable housing, it may be that finding ways to improve transit quality of service for communities with a large proportion of households making under $50,000 per year may maximize transit ridership and provide the greatest value for money with respect to transit and housing investments (101).The findings of this project align with some of the work done previously by Nazari Adli et al., and Bok and Kwon who considered job accessibility in the morning weekday peak (07:00-09:00) (15) or the number of departures per stop during weekday working hours (06:00-20:00) (102). Nazari Adli et al. found that lower socio-economic status residents (based on income) have had higher transit accessi-bility, possibly due to being more centrally located to jobs in the downtown core (15). Bok and Kwon described a very small percentage (4.1%) of the Metro Vancouver area has low or medium service between the hours of 06:00-20:00 (102).While there is alignment with work done by other researchers, it is important to recognize that the service experienced by the Census tracts with high prevalence of LICO-AT and higher density seen in this project are greatly impacted by their surrounding Census tracts. In general, it would be unfair to state that the lower income, high density Census tracts are discriminated against in the Lower Mainland as they tend to experience similar service to the neighbouring higher income, lower density neighbourhoods. This said, identifying the travel needs of these communi-ties is essential to ensure that they have the service needed so they do not face more substantial trans-portation cost burden than is necessary.To meet the needs of these communities, more work is needed to understand their transportation needs. Work may be done with the local governments to generate transit-supportive land use around these Census tracts to improve the transit provision, es-pecially in the suburban communities where transit mode share is low. This may also include working with local governments to develop more transit-sup-portive communities, that may also work to reduce transportation burdens. Additional work may be done by the regional authorities to better develop a mea-sure of equity to understand which communities may be more transit-dependent than others and ensure the system works for them.Developing a more equitable public transit network will require further analyses and understanding of these communities to allow these individuals to par-ticipate more fully in their communities and thrive in their personal lives.Figure 31. A double-decker bus during a lay-over at Lougheed Town Centre’s bus loop.35WORKS CITED1. Saltman J. COVID-19: Service reductions, layoffs, executive pay cuts at TransLink | Vancouver Sun. Vancouver Sun [Internet]. 2020 Apr 21 [cited 2020 Jul 21]; Available from: https://vancouversun.com/news/covid-19-ser-vice-reductions-layoffs-executive-pay-cuts-begin-this-week-at-translink2. Saltman J. Future of post-pandemic transit in Metro Vancouver un-certain. Vancouver Sun [Internet]. 2020 Jun 3 [cited 2020 Aug 9]; Available from: https://www.healthing.ca/news/future-of-post-pandemic-tran-sit-in-metro-vancouver-uncertain3. CBC News. TransLink reached record boardings in 2019 before ridership plunged during pandemic, data shows [Internet]. CBC News. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-co-lumbia/translink-record-boardings-2019-covid-19-impact-1.56674714. Saltman J. Transit cuts will hit frontline workers, low-income residents hardest | Vancouver Sun. Vancouver Sun [Internet]. 2020 Apr 15 [cited 2020 Jul 21]; Available from: https://vancouversun.com/news/covid-19-transit-cuts-will-hit-frontline-workers-low-income-residents-hardest5. St. Denis J. Who takes transit to work in Metro Vancouver? (with infographic) - Transportation | Business in Vancouver. Business in Vancouver (BIV) [Internet]. 2015 Mar 20 [cited 2020 Jul 16]; Available from: https://biv.com/article/2015/03/who-takes-transit-work-metro-vancouver-info-graphi6. Carré FJ, Ucla CT, Carré F, Tilly C. Work Hours in Retail: Room for Improvement [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2020 Jul 22]. Report No.: 2012–012. Available from: https://research.upjohn.org/up_policypapers7. Palm M, Farber S, Allen J, Zhang Y, Widner M, Howell N. Public Transit and COVID-19 Survey : Results from the City of Vancouver Final Report [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xrHpwTg-1fEuwAlLqJd-5N_Ouy89HYN4p/view8. ChangeLab Solutions. Long-Range Planning for Health, Equity and Prosperity [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 21]. Available from: https://www.changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/CLS-BG217-Long_Range_Planning_Primer_FINAL_20200115.pdf9. Gardner B. Health Equity Into Action: Planning and Other Resources for LHINs [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2020 Jul 21]. Available from: http://www.wellesleyinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Health_Equity_Resourc-es_for_LHINs_1.pdf10. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Equity in Building Resilience in Adaptation Planning [Internet]. [cited 2020 Jul 21]. Available from: https://www.naacp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Equity_in_Resilience_Building_Climate_Adaptation_Indicators_FINAL.pdf11. Manaugh K, Badami M, El-Geneidy AM. Integrating Social Equity into Urban Transportation Planning: A Critical Evaluation of Equity Objectives and MEasures in Transportation Plans in North America. 2015 [cited 2020 Jul 21];(37):167–76. Available from: https://tram.mcgill.ca/Research/Publications/Equity_planning.pdf12. UN Habitat. The Widening Urban Divide [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 Jul 21]. Available from: http://wcr.unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Chapter4-WCR-2016.pdf13. Litman T. Prioritizing Transportation [Internet]. Online TDM Encyclo-pedia. 2017 [cited 2020 Jul 21]. Available from: https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm110.htm14. Litman T. Automobile Dependency in Action [Internet]. Planetizen. 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 21]. Available from: https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/104747-automobile-dependency-action15. Nazari Adli S, Chowdhury S, Shiftan Y. Justice in public transport sys-tems: A comparative study of Auckland, Brisbane, Perth and Vancouver. Cities [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Apr 29];90(May 2018):88–99. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.03116. Grieco M. Poverty mapping and sustainable transport: A neglected dimension. Res Transp Econ [Internet]. 2015;51:3–9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2015.07.00217. RailVolution. Learn About Our Mission and Values | Rail~Volution [Inter-net]. 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 2]. Available from: https://railvolution.org/about/18. Translink. Shaping Our Transportation Future , Together Thank you. 2019; Available from: https://view.publitas.com/translink/transport-2050-phase-1-report-stakeholders/page/119. Transportation Research Board. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Third Edition [Internet]. 3rd ed. Kittelson & Associates Inc, Parsons Brinckerhoff, KFH Group I, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, ARUP, editors. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2013. Available from: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/169437.aspx20. Ashmore DP, Pojani D, Thoreau R, Christie N, Tyler NA. Gauging differ-ences in public transport symbolism across national cultures: implications for policy development and transfer. J Transp Geogr. 2019;77(April):26–38. 21. Hess A. Race, Class, and the Stigma of Riding the Bus in America - Bloomberg [Internet]. City Lab. 2012 [cited 2020 Jul 14]. Available from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-07-10/race-class-and-the-stigma-of-riding-the-bus-in-america22. Kramer A, Goldstein A. Meeting the Public’s Need for Transit Options : Characteristics of Socially Equitable Transit Networks [Internet]. 2015. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292398342_Meet-ing_the_Public%27s_Need_for_Transit_Options_Characteristics_of_Social-ly_Equitable_Transit_Networks23. Mental Health Commission of Canada. Immigrant, refugee, ethnocultural and racialized populations and the social determinants of health: A Review of 2016 Census Data [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 21]. Available from: https://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/sites/default/files/2019-03/irer_re-port_mar_2019_eng.pdf24. Mikkonen J, Raphael D. Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2020 Jul 21]. Available from: https://thecanadian-facts.org/The_Canadian_Facts.pdf25. National Council of Welfare. Poverty Profile: Special Edition [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2020 Jul 21]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/esdc-edsc/migration/documents/eng/communities/reports/poverty_pro-file/snapshot.pdf26. TransLink. Managing the Transit Network: A Primer on Key Concepts [In-ternet]. 2012. Available from: https://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/plans_and_projects/managing_the_transit_network/managing_the_net-work_primer.ashx27. TransLink. Transit Service Guidelines 2018 [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 Jan 13]. Available from: https://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/plans_and_projects/transit_service_guideline/transit services guidelines public summary.ashx28. TransLink. Trip_Diary_2017 - TransLink | Tableau Public [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 2]. Available from: https://public.tableau.com/profile/translink#!/vizhome/Trip_Diary_2017/TripDiary201729. TransLink. TransLink Regional Transportation Model User’s Guide. 2015;(March). 30. Ipsos Reid. 2011 Metro Vancouver Regional Trip Diary Survey: Final Methodology Report [Internet]. Vancouver; 2012 [cited 2020 Jul 21]. Avail-able from: https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/customer_info/translink_listens/customer_surveys/trip_diaries/2011_Metro_Vancouver_Re-gional_Trip_Diary_Methodological_Report_December 2012.pdf31. Allen J, Farber S. Sizing up transport poverty: A national scale account-ing of low-income households suffering from inaccessibility in Canada, and what to do about it. Transp Policy [Internet]. 2019;74(June 2018):214–23. Available from: https://jamaps.github.io/docs/allen_farber_2019_trans-port_poverty.pdf3632. Taylor BD, Morris EA. Public transportation objectives and rider demo-graphics: are transit’s priorities poor public policy? Transportation (Amst) [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2020 Jul 21];42(2):347–67. Available from: https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/content/pdf/10.1007/s11116-014-9547-0.pdf33. Barnes G. The Importance of Trip Destination in Determining Transit Share [Internet]. Vol. 8, Journal of Public Transportation. 2005 [cited 2020 Jul 15]. Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?-doi=10.1.1.440.5116&rep=rep1&type=pdf34. Ewing R. Beyond Density, Mode Choice, and Single-Purpose Trips. Transp Q [Internet]. 1995;49(4):15–24. Available from: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.c104685905&view=1up&seq=46335. Reconnecting America and the Center for Transit-Oriented Development. Transit and Employment: Increasing Transit’s Share of the Commute Trip [Internet]. Oakland; 2008 [cited 2020 Jul 15]. Available from: http://ctod.org/portal/sites/default/files/employment202.pdf36. TransLink. Transit-Oriented Communities Design Guidelines Creating more livable places around transit in Metro Vancouver [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2020 Apr 28]. Available from: https://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/plans_and_projects/transit_oriented_communities/transit_oriented_communi-ties_design_guidelines.ashx37. Miller EJ. Accessibility: measurement and application in transportation planning. Transp Rev [Internet]. 2018;38(5):551–5. Available from: https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/full/10.1080/01441647.2018.149277838. Mayors’ Council. Regional Transportation Investments a Vision for Metro Vancouver APPENDICES [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2020 Jul 21]. Available from: https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/about_translink/governance_and_board/mayors_vision/mayors_council_vision_appendices_june_2014.pdf39. Morang M, Esri Transit Working Group. Lecture 1 - Public Transit in ArcGIS Story Map - YouTube [Internet]. YouTube; 2017 [cited 2020 Jul 16]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe-dycALa2w40. TransLink. Late Night Service Report [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/about_translink/me-dia/2019/2019-Late-Night-Service-Report.pdf41. Poirier V. Bus Transit Service: The Impact of Schedule Media Type on Users’ Waiting Time [Internet]. Montreal; 2015 [cited 2020 Jul 9]. Available from: https://tram.mcgill.ca/Teaching/srp/documents/Vincent.pdf42. Totten JC, Levinson DM. Cross-Elasticities in Frequencies and Ridership for Urban Local Routes [Internet]. Vol. 19, Journal of Public Transportation. 2016 [cited 2020 Jul 9]. Available from: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jpt/vol19/iss3/7/43. Krizek KJ, El-Geneidy A. Segmenting Preferences and Habits of Transit Users and Non-Users. J Public Transp [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2020 Jul 21];10(3):71–94. Available from: http://tram.mcgill.ca/Research/Publications/segmenting_prefernce.pdf44. Wells K, Thill JC. Do transit-dependent neighborhoods receive inferior bus access? A neighborhood analysis in four U.S. cities. J Urban Aff [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2020 Jun 19];34(1):43–63. Available from: https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2011.00575.x45. Statistics Canada. Population estimates, quarterly [Internet]. Table: 17-10-0009-01. 2020 [cited 2020 May 5]. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=171000090146. Wagner I. Canada: number of licensed drivers [Internet]. Statista.com. 2020 [cited 2020 May 5]. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statis-tics/448557/number-of-licensed-drivers-in-canada/47. Delbosc A, Currie G. The spatial context of transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well-being. J Transp Geogr [Internet]. 2011;19(6):1130–7. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.04.00548. Lucas K. Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transp Policy [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2020 Apr 29];20:105–13. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/science/article/pii/S0967070X1200014549. Lucas K, Mattioli G, Verlinghieri E, Guzman A. Transport poverty and its adverse social consequences. Proc Inst Civ Eng Transp [Internet]. 2016;169(6):353–65. Available from: https://www-icevirtuallibrary-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/10.1680/jtran.15.0007350. Church A, Frost M, Sullivan K. Transport and social exclusion in London. Transp Policy [Internet]. 2000;7:195–205. Available from: https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/science/article/pii/S0967070X0000024X51. Miller EJ, Shalaby A, Diab E, Kasraian D. Canadian Transit Ridership Trends Study Final Report Prepared for distribution by CUTA [Internet]. Toron-to; 2018 [cited 2020 Jul 9]. Available from: https://cutaactu.ca/sites/default/files/cuta_ridership_report_final_october_2018_en.pdf52. Statistics Canada. Census Profile, 2016 Census - Greater Vancouver, Regional district [Census division], British Columbia and British Columbia [Province] [Internet]. Census Profile. 2017 [cited 2020 Jul 16]. Available from: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CD&Code1=5915&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&-Data=Count&SearchText=greater vancouver&SearchType=Begins&Search-PR=01&B1=All&TABID=153. TransLink. Ridership [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Apr 28]. Available from: https://www.translink.ca/Plans-and-Projects/Accountability-Centre/Ridership.aspx54. TransLink. History of SkyTrain [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Apr 28]. Available from: https://www.translink.ca/About-Us/Corporate-Overview/Oper-ating-Companies/BCRTC/History-of-SkyTrain.aspx55. Moore G, Mussatto D, Robertson G, Steele B, Stewart R, Watts D, et al. Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation Subcommittee on Transportation Investment [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2020 Jul 22]. Available from: https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/about_translink/governance_and_board/council_minutes_and_reports/2014/june/Regional_Transportation_Invest-ments_a_Vision_for_Metro_Vancouver.pdf56. Henly JR, Shaefer HL, Waxman E. Nonstandard Work Schedules: Em-ployer-and Employee-Driven Flexibility in Retail Jobs [Internet]. Social Service Review. 2006 [cited 2020 Jul 22]. Available from: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c57. Lucas K, Jones P. Social impacts and equity issues in transport: An introduction. J Transp Geogr [Internet]. 2012;21:1–3. Available from: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/96472/2/Guest editorial 2.pdf58. Allen JJ. Mapping Inequalities of Access to Employment and Quantifying Transport Poverty in Canadian Cities. ProQuest Diss Theses [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 Apr 29];121. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/docview/2138702557?accountid=13042%0Ahttp://oxfordsfx.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/oxford?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev-:mtx:dissertation&genre=dissertations+%26+theses&sid=ProQ:ProQuest+Dis-sertations+%26+Theses+G59. Viry G, Kaufmann V, Widmer ED. Social integration faced with commut-ing: More widespread and less dense support networks. In: Maksim H, Berg-man MM, editors. Mobilities and Inequality. 1st ed. London, United Kingdom: Routledge; 2016. p. 121–43. 60. Litman T. Transportation affordability [Internet]. Vol. 250, Transportation. Victoria; 2020. Available from: https://www.vtpi.org/affordability.pdf61. City of Edmonton. Complete Streets Design and Construction Standards [Internet]. Edmonton; 2018 [cited 2019 Sep 16]. Available from: https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/PDF/CompleteStreets_Design-Standards_Sept2018.pdf62. Government of Canada. A Backgrounder on Poverty in Canada [Internet]. Statistics. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of CAnada; 2016. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/pover-ty-reduction/backgrounder.html63. Acs G, Nichols A. Low-Income Workers and Their Employers: Charateristics and Challanges. Urban Inst [Internet]. 2007; Available from: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/46656/411532-Low-In-come-Workers-and-Their-Employers.PDF64. American Public Transportation Association (APTA). Supporting Late-Shift Workers: Their Transportation Needs and the Economy [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2019. Available from: https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA_Late-Shift_Report.pdf65. Lero DS, Prentice S, Friendly M, Richardson B, Fraser L. NON-STAN-DARD WORK AND CHILD CARE IN CANADA | Non-standard work and child care in Canada: A challenge for parents, policy makers, and child care provi-sion Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication. 2019. 66. Marucci-Wellman HR, Lin TC, Willetts JL, Brennan MJ, Verma SK. Differ-ences in time use and activity patterns when adding a second job: Implications for health and safety in the united states. Am J Public Health [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2020 Jul 22];104(8):1488–500. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4103243/67. Wen E. The Overlooked Consequences of Nonstandard Work Schedules [Internet]. Shared Justice. 2018 [cited 2020 Jul 22]. Available from: http://www.sharedjustice.org/most-recent/2018/11/6/the-overlooked-consequenc-es-of-nonstandard-work-schedules-6wf7p-bps6268. NewToBC. Immigrant Demographics: Vancouver, BC [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 Jul 22]. Available from: https://newtobc.ca/wp-content/up-loads/2013/07/Vancouver-Immigrant-Demographic-Profile-2018.pdf69. Mercado RG, Paez A, Farber S, Roorda MJ, Morency C. Explaining trans-port mode use of low-income persons for journey to work in urban areas: a case study of Ontario and Quebec. 2011 [cited 2020 Jul 22]; Available from: https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/full/10.1080/18128602.2010.5394133770. Chan K. 21 huge developments near SkyTrain shaping Metro Vancouver’s future. Urbanized2 [Internet]. 2019 May 27 [cited 2020 Aug 7]; Available from: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/metro-vancouver-transit-oriented-develop-ments-skytrain-201971. Metro Vancouver. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 Jul 16]. Available from: metrovancouver.org/services/region-al-planning/PlanningPublications/RegionalAffordableHousingStrategy2016.pdf#search=%22transit mixed income%2272. Campbell C. Metro Vancouver home buyers paying way over assessed value near SkyTrain - Vancouver Is Awesome. Vancouver Is Awesome [Internet]. 2020 Jul 16 [cited 2020 Jul 16]; Available from: https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/vancouver-news/home-buyers-paying-over-as-sessed-value-near-skytrain-vancouver-bc-256838873. Jones CE. Transit-Oriented Development and Gentrification in Metro Vancouver’s Low-Income SkyTrain Corridor. In 2015 [cited 2020 Jul 23]. Available from: http://neighbourhoodchange.ca74. Eberle M. Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rental Housing Study - Transit Ridership. In: Housing Central Conference [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://bcnpha.ca/wp_bcnpha/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/W02-MV-Hous-ing-Central-MITORH-Nov-23-2016-Activity-2.pdf75. Statistics Canada. Focus on Geography Series, 2016 Census - Census metropolitan area of Vancouver [Internet]. Statistics Canada Catalogue no.98-404-X2016001. 2017 [cited 2020 Jul 22]. Available from: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-CMA-Eng.cfm?TOPIC=6&LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=93376. Statistics Canada. Low income cut-offs (LICOs) before and after tax by community size and family size, in current dollars [Internet]. Table 11-10-0241-01. 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 21]. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=111002410177. Statistics Canada. Census family [Internet]. Definitions, data sources and methods; Statistical units. 2015 [cited 2020 Jul 22]. Available from: https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3Var.pl?Function=Unit&Id=3274678. Ivanova I. Working Poverty in Metro Vancouver [Internet]. Vancouver; 2016 [cited 2020 Jul 22]. Available from: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC Office/2016/06/CCPA_Work-ing_poverty_full.pdf79. SPARC BC, United Way Lower Mainland (UWLM). B.C. Seniors’ Poverty Report Card [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 Jul 22]. Available from: https://www.uwlm.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/B.C.-Seniors-Poverty-Report-Card.pdf80. Patterson M. Who works part time and why? [Internet]. Labour Statistics at a Glance. 2018 [cited 2020 Jul 22]. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-222-x/71-222-x2018002-eng.htm81. Brouillette D, Gribbin K, Guénette J-D, Ketcheson J, Kostyshyna O, Lachaine J, et al. A Canada-US Comparison of Labour Market Conditions [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Jul 22]. Available from: www.bank-banque-can-ada.ca82. Fulford M, Patterson M. Multiple jobholders in Canada [Internet]. Labour Statistics at a Glance. 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 22]. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-222-x/71-222-x2019003-eng.htm83. Canadian Census Analyser (CHASS). 2016 Census [Internet]. 2016 [cit-ed 2020 Jul 22]. Available from: http://datacentre.chass.utoronto.ca.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/census/2016/displayCensus.cgi?year=2016&geo=cmaca84. TransLink. General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) [Internet]. TransLink Open API. 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 12]. Available from: https://devel-oper.translink.ca/servicesgtfs/gtfsdata85. TransLink. Next Bus - Public Timetables [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 22]. Available from: https://tripplanning.translink.ca/#/app/nextdepartures86. Statistics Canada [Distributor]. [Census of Canada.] Road Network File, Census Year, 2016 V1 [Version] [Internet]. 2017. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/11272/1043887. àMetro Vancouver. Municipal Boundaries [Internet]. Open Data Cata-logue. 2017 [cited 2020 Jul 22]. Available from: http://www.metrovancouver.org/data88. Morang M. Using GTFS in ArcGIS Workshop Materials [Internet]. Esri ArcGIS Pre-Conference Workshop. 2018 [cited 2020 Jul 28]. Available from: http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=784c9bc2aa1f474a9d5a2c6a8d-91dcc789. Esri ArcGIS Pro. Create and use a network dataset with public transit data—ArcGIS Pro | Documentation [Internet]. Network Analyst Tutorials. [cited 2020 Jul 28]. Available from: https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/help/analy-sis/networks/create-and-use-a-network-dataset-with-public-transit-data.htm90. Meakes A, Wong C, Dhariwal R, Tooke R, Tan W. Vancouver Transit Ac-cessibility: Frequency, Capacity, and Service [Internet]. Geography 471. 2007 [cited 2020 Aug 11]. Available from: https://ibis.geog.ubc.ca/courses/geob479/classof07/transit/Methodology.html91. Metro Vancouver. Urban Centres FTDAs Walkshed Buffers FTN [Inter-net]. 2019 [cited 2020 Aug 11]. Available from: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/UrbanCentresFTDAs-WalkshedBuffersFTN.pdf92. Leung E, Shigeta K, Tam S, Tse F. Proposed SkyTrain Extension Routes to UBC Under Four Scenarios [Internet]. GEOB270 Final Project Report. 2017 [cited 2020 Aug 11]. Available from: https://blogs.ubc.ca/sukieportfolio/93. Walker J, Walker J. Frequency Is Freedom. In: Human Transit [Internet]. Island Press/Center for Resource Economics; 2012 [cited 2020 Aug 11]. p. 85–96. Available from: https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/chapter/10.5822/978-1-61091-174-0_794. Yang J, Liu AA, Qin P, Linn J. The Effect of Owning a Car on Travel Behavior: Evidence from the Beijing License Plate Lottery. SSRN Electron J [Internet]. 2016 Jun 8 [cited 2020 Jul 29]; Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=278982495. Kristal A, Whillans A. Why It’s So Hard to Change People’s Commuting Behavior [Internet]. Harvard Business Review. 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 29]. Available from: https://hbr.org/2019/12/why-its-so-hard-to-change-peoples-commuting-behavior96. Levy A. Buses in Brooklyn: Frequency is Freedom, but 15 Minutes isn’t Frequency [Internet]. Pedestrian Observations. 2018 [cited 2020 Aug 12]. Available from: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/04/12/buses-in-brooklyn-frequency-is-freedom-but-15-minutes-isnt-frequency/97. Fan Y, Guthrie A, Levinson D. Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Trans-portation Research Part A: Policy and Practice Manuscript Draft Title: Percep-tion of Waiting Time at Transit Stops and Stations PERCEPTION OF WAITING TIME AT TRANSIT STOPS AND STATIONS [Internet]. [cited 2020 Aug 12]. Available from: https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/1_Fan-et-al-Perception-of-Waiting-Time-at-Transit-Stops-and-Stations_2015.pdf98. Currie G. Quantifying spatial gaps in public transport supply based on social needs. J Transp Geogr [Internet]. 2010;18(1):31–41. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.12.00299. Douglas T. Planning public space improvements with vulnerable com-munities in mind [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Jul 28]. Available from: https://kinder.rice.edu/sites/g/files/bxs1676/f/documents/FinalReport_Kinder-2_1.pdf100. American Public Transportation Association (APTA). Who rides public transportation. 2017;1–86. Available from: https://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Who-Rides-Public-Transporta-tion-2017.pdf101. Eberle M. Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rental Housing Study. In: Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rental Housing Study [Internet]. Vancou-ver; 2017 [cited 2020 Jul 16]. Available from: https://council.vancouver.ca/20170125/documents/pspc2-MVPresentation.pdf102. Bok J, Kwon Y. Comparable Measures of Accessibility to Public Trans-port Using the General Transit Feed Specification. Sustainability [Internet]. 2016;8(224). Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/3/22438ICONS USED1. “Survey free icon” by Freepik, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/survey_3135663.2. “Algorithm free icon” by Eucalyp, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/algorithm_2329027.3. “Research free icon” by Freepik, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/research_1162302.4. “Grocery Cart free icon” by Iconixar, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/grocery-cart_3081900.5. “Destination free icon” by Fjstudio, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/destination_3203005.6. “Station free icon” by Smashicons, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/bus-stop_1137948.7. “Buildings free icon” by Eucalyp, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/buildings_2942076.8. “Skyline free icon” by Freepik, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/buildings_553909.9. “Parking Meter free icon” by Freepik, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/parking-meter_659651.10. “Disability free icon” by Freepik, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/stairs_2445992.11. “Village free icon” by Good Ware, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/house_2431812.12. “Map free icon” by Freepik, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/map_2893216.13. “Expensive free icon” by Srip, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/expensive_962825.14. “Chronometer free icon” by Freepik, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/chronometer_851011.15. “No Entry free icon” by Freepik, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/no-entry_631798.16. “Poor free icon” by Freepik, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/piggy-bank_2767420.17. “Accident free icon” by Freepik, from https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/accident_130175.39APPENDICESImage (above). The rear of the #701 bus traveling along Lougheed Highway in Port Coquitlam.40APPENDIX A: CENSUS TRACTS WHERE LOW-INCOME CUT OFF - AFTER TAX IS GREATER THAN 20%Municipality Neighbourhood Census TractPrevalence LICODensity (pop/hectare)BurnabyLyndhurst 9330235.03 29.6% 93.18Malborough 9330226.04 25.6% 90.435Maywood 9330226.03 33.0% 104.616Maywood 9330226.02 20.5% 29.038Maywood 9330227.01 32.5% 190.699Maywood 9330228.03 27.4% 139.335Metrotown 9330225.02 20.4% 45.905Middlegate 9330224.01 25.7% 141.933Middlegate 9330224.02 28.1% 70.927Sussex-Nelson 9330221.04 20.8% 41.251UniverCity 9330243.02 22.0% 6.375City of LangleyLangley City 9330503.07 29.3% 54.112CoquitlamCoquitlam Centre 9330287.09 31.9% 104.931Heritage Woods 9330287.13 20.9% 38.379Noons Creek 9330287.06 20.2% 38.778Sullivan Heights 9330284.01 20.7% 33.33Burquitlan Lougheed9330283.00 21.0% 35.843Maillardville 9330285.01 22.9% 50.629River Springs 9330287.16 20.3% 50.369New West Uptown 9330205.01 20.4% 85.52North         VancouverCentral Lonsdale 9330101.04 21.4% 149.123RichmondBridgeport / West Cambie9330148.00 33.5% 40.662Bridgeport / West Cambie9330151.07 32.6% 12.009Brighouse South / McLennan North9330145.01 22.3% 33.009Broadmoor 9330143.03 24.0% 35.729Broadmoor / Garden City9330147.05 23.2% 138.179Granville 9330149.05 22.9% 33.694Lackner / Wood-wards9330143.02 26.6% 35.953McLennan 9330147.01 23.3% 40.871Saunders 9330144.05 21.8% 40.774Terra Nova 9330149.06 22.6% 29.562West Cambie 9330147.07 35.4% 126.037West Cambie 9330147.08 23.6% 132.337SurreyGateway District 9330190.05 21.6% 29.491Guildford 9330189.08 31.1% 103.975Whalley 9330190.01 21.2% 61.182Whalley 9330191.06 22.7% 53.912Whalley 9330191.07 25.4% 54.156Whalley 9330191.04 24.2% 52.145Municipality Neighbourhood Census TractPrevalence LICODensity (pop/hectare)VancouverArbutus Ridge 9330027.02 26.7% 36.756Arbutus Ridge 9330022.00 23.9% 95.927Downtown 9330065.00 24.7% 296.556Downtown 9330066.00 22.3% 163.339Downtown 9330059.09 24.7% 346.242Downtown 9330059.11 24.2% 92.966Downtown 9330059.06 38.6% 125.674Downtown 9330060.02 23.0% 258.463Downtown 9330064.00 22.7% 194.895Downtown Eastside9330058.00 65.0% 37.093Grandview Woodlands9330050.02 22.8% 91.56Grandview Woodlands9330055.02 20.5% 67.152Grandview Woodlands9330056.01 29.7% 36.713Kerrisdale 9330009.00 21.7% 42.666Marpole 9330005.00 23.8% 53.001Marpole 9330006.02 20.2% 47.851Mount Pleasant 9330050.04 24.0% 102.641Oakridge 9330010.01 23.3% 37.815Oakridge 9330010.02 23.4% 34.037Renfrew Colling-wood9330016.06 21.7% 394.911Renfrew Colling-wood9330052.01 20.5% 48.481Strathcona 9330057.01 44.2% 133.42Strathcona 9330057.02 33.7% 30.629Sunset 9330004.01 20.1% 31.639UBC 9330069.01 34.8% 19.867UBC 9330069.02 40.7% 5.607West End 9330067.01 26.9% 202.469West End 9330067.02 21.3% 202.761West End 9330060.01 20.3% 210.654West Point Grey 9330043.01 21.2% 56.797Grandview Woodlands9330056.02 20.0% 68.141West       Vancouver Ambleside 9330130.03 24.2% 32.53541APPENDIX B: 2016 CENSUS LOW-INCOME AND DENSITY DATAFigure B1: Prevalence of households living at the low-income cut off-after tax (LICO) in Metro VancouverFigure B2: Population density per hectare across Metro Vancouverno data 0-10 people per hectare10-30 people per hectare30-60 people per hectare60-70 people per hectare70-80 people per hectare80-100 people per hectare>100 people per hectareno data 0-5% prevalence LICO-AT>5-10% prevalence LICO-AT>10-15% prevalence LICO-AT>15-20% prevalence LICO-AT>20% prevalence LICO-AT42APPENDIX C: SPATIAL ACCESS TO TRANSIT Figure C1: Spatial coverage with a 400m radial buffer around each bus stop in Metro VancouverFigure C2. Esri’s BetterBusBuffer 400m walking buffer from each bus stop in Metro Vancouver43APPENDIX C: SPATIAL ACCESS TO TRANSIT Figure C3. Circular, 400m buffer areas around bus stops provided across Metro Vancouver in higher density areasFigure C4. Esri’s BetterBusBuffer, 400m walking buffers areas around bus stops provided across Metro Vancouver in higher density areas White areas of the map represent reseidential densities of greater than 30 people per hectare.White areas of the map represent reseidential densities of greater than 30 people per hectare.44APPENDIX C: SPATIAL ACCESS TO TRANSIT Figure C5: A comparison of a 400m radial buffer compared to ta 400m walking buffer.45APPENDIX C: SPATIAL ACCESS TO TRANSIT Figure C6: Esri’s 400m walking buffer and Metro Vancouver’s Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-ATFigure C7: Esri’s 400m walking buffer and Metro Vancouver’s Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT and more than 30 residents per hectareWhite areas of the map represent Census tracts with more than 20% prevalence of LICO-AT.46APPENDIX D: SPAN OF SERVICEMonday to Friday Saturday SundayBus Route # Start time End time Span of Service Start time End time Span of Service Start time End time Span of ServiceR4 5:50 1:01 19:11 5:48 1:01 19:13 5:48 1:01 19:13002 5:05 1:15 20:10 5:42 0:57 19:15 6:14 1:12 18:58003 4:50 1:30 20:40 4:59 0:52 19:53 4:57 0:57 20:00004 5:14 23:50 18:36 5:30 0:14 18:44 6:10 0:14 18:04005 5:24 1:22 19:58 5:43 1:20 19:37 6:32 1:23 18:51006 5:27 2:03 20:36 5:34 2:00 20:26 6:18 1:45 19:27007 5:14 1:22 20:08 5:51 1:10 19:19 5:46 0:38 18:52008 4:58 2:43 21:45 5:03 2:21 21:18 5:57 2:35 20:38009 5:11 2:22 21:11 5:14 2:24 21:10 5:17 2:35 21:18010 4:03 0:51 20:48 4:33 0:54 20:21 5:20 0:55 19:35014 3:00 2:25 23:25 3:00 2:15 23:15 3:00 2:20 23:20015 4:45 1:24 20:39 4:47 1:16 20:29 4:50 1:09 20:19016 5:21 0:46 19:25 5:57 1:43 19:46 6:00 0:41 18:41017 5:12 0:58 19:46 5:19 1:03 19:44 4:53 1:20 20:27019 4:50 2:24 21:34 4:43 2:14 21:31 4:54 1:51 20:57020 4:52 2:35 21:43 5:01 2:27 21:26 5:02 2:33 21:31022 4:54 1:28 20:34 5:34 1:27 19:53 6:32 2:16 19:44023 6:04 0:10 18:06 7:50 0:10 16:20 7:50 0:10 16:20025 5:12 0:36 19:24 5:40 0:34 18:54 5:48 0:20 18:32026 5:15 1:24 20:09 5:37 1:26 19:49 6:42 0:34 17:52027 5:17 0:55 19:38 5:33 0:58 19:25 6:39 23:56 17:17028 4:59 1:05 20:06 6:17 1:06 18:49 6:23 1:04 18:41029 5:59 0:57 18:58 6:15 0:55 18:40 7:13 0:07 16:54031 6:14 21:59 15:45 7:09 22:09 15:00 8:05 22:09 14:04032 0:00 0:00 0:00033 6:01 22:59 16:58 7:00 22:57 15:57 8:00 23:00 15:00041 4:35 1:57 21:22 4:40 1:56 21:16 4:40 1:56 21:16042 0:00 0:00 0:00044 6:33 19:03 12:30 0:00 0:00049 5:46 0:12 18:26 6:20 23:56 17:36 6:23 0:08 17:45050 5:02 1:42 20:40 5:04 1:32 20:28 5:04 1:27 20:23068 7:00 0:30 17:30 8:00 0:30 16:30 8:00 0:30 16:30084 6:00 22:33 16:33 7:16 21:16 14:00 8:16 19:46 11:30099 5:41 1:52 20:11 5:39 1:52 20:13 6:55 1:52 18:57100 4:18 1:00 20:42 4:41 1:25 20:44 4:40 1:25 20:45R5 5:04 0:51 19:47 5:12 1:17 20:05 5:15 1:17 20:02101 4:52 1:33 20:41 6:19 1:25 19:06 7:20 1:23 18:03103 6:15 0:06 17:51 7:00 0:05 17:05 8:45 0:05 15:20104 5:25 0:37 19:12 6:12 0:37 18:25 8:11 0:35 16:24105 6:10 23:39 17:29 8:10 23:40 15:30 9:10 23:40 14:30106 5:04 1:53 20:49 5:12 1:49 20:37 5:47 1:17 19:30109 5:35 1:30 19:55 5:35 1:35 20:00 6:35 0:30 17:55110 4:52 1:33 20:41 6:19 1:25 19:06 7:20 1:23 18:03112 5:11 1:20 20:09 5:38 1:21 19:43 6:55 0:28 17:33116 5:35 22:05 16:30 7:30 22:00 14:30 9:30 22:00 12:30119 5:11 2:15 21:04 5:09 2:05 20:56 5:42 2:10 20:28Table D1: Start and end times, and span of service for Metro Vancouver bus routes as of April 6, 202047Monday to Friday Saturday SundayBus Route # Start time End time Span of Service Start time End time Span of Service Start time End time Span of Service123 5:33 2:12 20:39 6:01 1:49 19:48 6:01 0:45 18:44128 5:42 1:38 19:56 5:55 1:51 19:56 8:55 0:30 15:35129 5:30 0:00 18:30 6:02 0:00 17:58 7:00 0:02 17:02130 5:30 1:05 19:35 5:45 0:59 19:14 6:05 0:56 18:51131 6:00 21:30 15:30 7:30 21:30 14:00 9:30 21:30 12:00132 6:10 21:42 15:32 7:40 21:40 14:00 8:42 21:40 12:58133 5:42 0:23 18:41 6:17 0:22 18:05 7:17 23:52 16:35134 5:19 0:09 18:50 6:08 0:14 18:06 7:08 0:14 17:06136 5:32 23:56 18:24 6:00 23:44 17:44 6:35 0:35 18:00143 0:00 0:00 0:00144 5:38 0:40 19:02 6:44 0:28 17:44 7:40 0:48 17:08145 5:58 1:08 19:10 6:59 0:39 17:40 8:04 0:36 16:32146 6:05 0:05 18:00 8:35 22:35 14:00 8:35 22:35 14:00147 5:45 23:50 18:05 7:50 22:20 14:30 8:50 22:20 13:30148 5:35 0:00 18:25 8:00 22:00 14:00 9:00 22:00 13:00155 6:10 0:01 17:51 6:40 0:00 17:20 8:40 0:00 15:20R3 5:05 0:05 19:00 5:00 0:00 19:00 5:00 0:00 19:00150 0:00 0:00 0:00151 4:47 1:35 20:48 5:52 1:32 19:40 6:53 0:31 17:38152 5:20 23:42 18:22 6:32 23:55 17:23 7:02 23:55 16:53153 5:40 22:05 16:25 6:05 22:35 16:30 7:35 22:35 15:00156 6:02 0:30 18:28 6:07 0:33 18:26 7:14 0:32 17:18157 5:30 23:03 17:33 5:35 23:01 17:26 7:05 23:00 15:55159 5:08 0:45 19:37 7:20 1:20 18:00 6:52 23:54 17:02160 4:35 1:10 20:35 5:43 1:10 19:27 6:53 0:10 17:17169 5:45 2:00 20:15 6:00 2:03 20:03 6:00 0:00 18:00170 5:40 23:52 18:12 6:21 23:51 17:30 7:21 23:51 16:30171 4:53 0:00 19:07 7:10 0:00 16:50 7:01 0:01 17:00172 4:58 0:35 19:37 6:25 0:30 18:05 6:30 23:30 17:00173 4:59 0:30 19:31 6:45 23:30 16:45 6:36 23:36 17:00174 4:55 0:09 19:14 6:01 23:59 17:58 6:01 0:00 17:59175 5:51 17:31 11:40 N/A N/A 0:00 N/A N/A 0:00179 0:00 0:00 0:00180 4:42 0:02 19:20 6:05 23:05 17:00 7:05 23:05 16:00181 6:13 23:44 17:31 7:35 13:42 6:07 8:35 23:42 15:07182 5:30 21:09 15:39 8:42 20:46 12:04 8:45 20:50 12:05183 4:40 1:40 21:00 5:02 1:20 20:18 5:20 0:50 19:30184 5:30 23:06 17:36 7:20 23:20 16:00 8:20 21:20 13:00185 5:30 23:45 18:15 7:15 23:45 16:30 7:45 21:45 14:00186 5:35 23:00 17:25 5:35 23:00 17:25 6:35 23:00 16:25187 4:30 23:15 18:45 5:45 23:15 17:30 6:45 21:15 14:30188 4:30 1:45 21:15 5:41 1:08 19:27 6:35 0:38 18:03189 5:42 23:30 17:48 6:55 22:20 15:25 6:55 21:25 14:30191 5:20 21:30 16:10 6:12 21:47 15:35 7:20 21:22 14:02R2 0:00 0:00 0:00209 7:28 1:41 18:13 7:26 1:42 18:16 7:27 1:39 18:12210 5:28 18:59 13:31 6:17 19:27 13:10 6:47 19:17 12:30211 5:20 2:01 20:41 6:21 2:10 19:49 7:22 2:07 18:45212 6:26 0:00 17:34 6:57 23:51 16:54 8:56 23:08 14:12APPENDIX D: SPAN OF SERVICE48APPENDIX D: SPAN OF SERVICEMonday to Friday Saturday SundayBus Route # Start time End time Span of Service Start time End time Span of Service Start time End time Span of Service214 6:00 23:04 17:04 6:03 23:03 17:00 8:03 23:03 15:00215 6:35 22:45 16:10 7:05 22:47 15:42 8:35 22:47 14:12222 0:00 0:00 0:00227 5:47 18:47 13:00 6:17 18:47 12:30 7:47 18:47 11:00228 5:17 2:04 20:47 5:33 1:02 19:29 7:02 23:59 16:57229 5:37 0:36 18:59 7:05 1:06 18:01 8:04 0:02 15:58230 5:36 0:40 19:04 5:47 0:42 18:55 7:56 0:41 16:45231 7:19 16:32 9:13 0:00 0:00232 5:25 21:48 16:23 6:47 21:48 15:01 7:17 21:50 14:33236 6:35 0:02 17:27 6:32 0:02 17:30 8:05 23:04 14:59240 5:10 0:08 18:58 5:54 0:10 18:16 6:05 23:00 16:55241 6:41 20:34 13:53 0:00 0:00245 0:00 0:00 0:00246 5:39 2:02 20:23 6:16 2:03 19:47 5:55 0:23 18:28247 6:34 18:14 11:40 0:00 0:00249 5:24 1:47 20:23 6:02 1:48 19:46 6:06 0:36 18:30250 5:16 1:25 20:09 5:16 1:25 20:09 6:24 1:25 19:01251 6:20 22:50 16:30 8:40 23:40 15:00 10:40 23:40 13:00252 6:40 23:46 17:06 8:10 23:10 15:00 10:10 23:10 13:00253 6:36 22:48 16:12 7:39 22:50 15:11 8:41 22:50 14:09254 6:53 22:57 16:04 7:27 22:57 15:30 9:27 22:27 13:00255 5:40 1:00 19:20 5:40 1:00 19:20 6:30 1:00 18:30256 6:05 21:05 15:00 7:05 21:05 14:00 9:05 20:05 11:00257 5:00 23:05 18:05 4:55 22:01 17:06 5:00 22:01 17:01258 0:00 0:00 0:00262 6:27 23:04 16:37 9:18 22:48 13:30 10:18 18:13 7:55280 4:45 19:55 15:10 7:55 18:40 10:45 7:55 18:40 10:45281 4:55 19:55 15:00 8:50 17:20 8:30 8:05 17:20 9:15282 0:00 9:05 17:35 8:30 9:05 17:35 8:30R1 5:05 0:54 19:49 5:07 0:57 19:50 5:03 0:56 19:53301 4:23 20:35 16:12 6:00 19:30 13:30 6:00 19:30 13:30310 6:30 18:30 12:00 7:25 18:25 11:00 7:55 18:25 10:30311 4:45 20:05 15:20 0:00 0:00312 5:24 1:06 19:42 7:08 1:04 17:56 8:00 0:02 16:02314 5:24 0:19 18:55 7:01 0:15 17:14 7:50 23:50 16:00316 5:02 22:07 17:05 6:34 22:10 15:36 8:35 22:35 14:00319 4:31 1:34 21:03 5:15 1:25 20:10 5:51 0:18 18:27320 4:35 0:50 20:15 6:10 1:15 19:05 6:15 23:50 17:35321 4:16 0:23 20:07 5:39 0:34 18:55 6:09 1:35 19:26322 5:40 21:10 15:30 8:30 21:00 12:30 8:30 21:00 12:30323 4:55 0:55 20:00 5:48 1:00 19:12 5:50 0:00 18:10324 5:46 21:32 15:46 5:45 21:14 15:29 6:31 21:45 15:14325 5:35 23:55 18:20 6:22 0:18 17:56 6:22 22:50 16:28326 5:31 21:16 15:45 8:01 20:58 12:57 11:06 21:06 10:00329 7:07 17:54 10:47 9:00 17:00 8:00 0:00335 5:14 1:12 19:58 6:15 1:15 19:00 8:15 23:50 15:35337 5:15 23:00 17:45 5:52 22:52 17:00 5:52 21:18 15:26340 4:48 0:33 19:45 5:11 0:30 19:19 5:50 0:02 18:12341 4:56 21:25 16:29 7:17 20:55 13:38 7:20 20:49 13:2949APPENDIX D: SPAN OF SERVICEMonday to Friday Saturday SundayBus Route # Start time End time Span of Service Start time End time Span of Service Start time End time Span of Service342 5:02 21:18 16:16 7:15 20:45 13:30 7:07 21:05 13:58345 6:00 21:05 15:05 0:00 0:00351 4:17 1:07 20:50 4:17 23:48 19:31 4:17 23:48 19:31352 4:39 19:00 14:21 0:00 0:00354 5:15 18:00 12:45 0:00 0:00360 6:35 19:35 13:00 8:05 20:05 12:00 8:05 19:05 11:00361 5:05 18:58 13:53 7:30 20:30 13:00 8:29 18:33 10:04362 9:30 23:30 14:00 7:59 23:30 15:31 8:31 21:30 12:59363 5:30 22:30 17:00 7:00 22:30 15:30 7:00 21:30 14:30364 6:05 21:05 15:00 7:04 19:35 12:31 8:00 19:30 11:30370 6:00 20:30 14:30 8:30 20:30 12:00 8:30 20:30 12:00371 6:05 23:11 17:06 8:10 23:05 14:55 9:10 21:10 12:00372 6:10 21:40 15:30 7:10 20:40 13:30 8:10 20:40 12:30373 5:20 22:33 17:13 8:45 23:00 14:15 9:15 21:15 12:00375 6:18 22:48 16:30 6:20 22:51 16:31 6:50 20:50 14:00388 5:25 18:28 13:03 0:00 0:00391 5:21 18:07 12:46 0:00 0:00393 5:58 18:39 12:41 0:00 0:00394 5:21 18:33 13:12 0:00 0:00395 5:19 19:06 13:47 0:00 0:00401 4:41 1:24 20:43 5:04 1:26 20:22 5:14 1:25 20:11402 4:36 1:05 20:29 6:32 0:29 17:57 6:16 0:21 18:05403 5:05 1:43 20:38 5:05 1:41 20:36 5:05 1:40 20:35404 4:47 1:37 20:50 5:14 0:03 18:49 6:28 1:38 19:10405 5:29 20:30 15:01 6:20 23:12 16:52 7:48 23:12 15:24406 4:39 0:27 19:48 4:40 1:03 20:23 4:40 1:56 21:16407 4:41 0:50 20:09 6:50 0:52 18:02 7:32 0:50 17:18408 4:59 1:42 20:43 5:26 1:50 20:24 5:32 1:50 20:18410 5:01 1:36 20:35 5:00 1:50 20:50 5:00 2:10 21:10412 6:25 19:03 12:38 8:55 18:55 10:00 0:00413 8:40 23:00 14:20 9:10 23:00 13:50 11:10 19:10 8:00414 9:10 20:50 11:40 9:10 20:15 11:05 0:00416 6:03 18:35 12:32 0:00 0:00418 5:37 19:01 13:24 0:00 0:00430 5:09 21:13 16:04 6:54 20:56 14:02 8:01 20:30 12:29480 0:00 0:00 0:00501 5:03 0:10 19:07 6:10 0:05 17:55 5:52 22:50 16:58502 4:30 1:40 21:10 6:00 1:30 19:30 6:00 23:15 17:15503 5:29 0:19 18:50 6:44 0:21 17:37 6:44 0:22 17:38509 5:26 18:10 12:44 0:00 0:00531 5:45 20:45 15:00 5:50 20:50 15:00 5:50 20:50 15:00555 4:58 22:40 17:42 6:44 22:44 16:00 7:40 22:40 15:00560 6:35 22:35 16:00 7:35 22:35 15:00 8:35 21:35 13:00561 6:05 23:05 17:00 7:05 23:05 16:00 8:05 22:05 14:00562 4:55 23:15 18:20 8:05 23:15 15:10 8:15 18:15 10:00563 5:30 22:30 17:00 8:30 22:30 14:00 9:30 17:30 8:00564 7:00 21:00 14:00 9:00 21:00 12:00 9:00 18:00 9:00595 5:22 22:01 16:39 6:55 21:25 14:30 6:45 21:25 14:40601 4:16 2:33 22:17 4:20 2:33 22:13 4:22 2:27 22:0550APPENDIX D: SPAN OF SERVICEMonday to Friday Saturday SundayBus Route # Start time End time Span of Service Start time End time Span of Service Start time End time Span of Service602 5:43 18:05 12:22 0:00 0:00603 5:21 19:21 14:00 0:00 0:00604 5:58 19:08 13:10 0:00 0:00606 16:40 19:00 2:20 0:00 0:00608 5:35 7:32 1:57 0:00 0:00609 5:10 22:10 17:00 6:00 21:00 15:00 7:00 20:00 13:00614 9:35 21:40 12:05 9:30 20:30 11:00 9:30 19:30 10:00616 7:45 18:42 10:57 8:45 18:45 10:00 8:47 18:45 9:58617 6:25 18:55 12:30 8:55 18:25 9:30 9:25 18:25 9:00618 8:07 19:10 11:03 9:10 19:10 10:00 9:45 18:45 9:00619 9:10 21:10 12:00 9:05 21:05 12:00 9:05 20:05 11:00620 7:00 23:00 16:00 7:00 23:12 16:12 7:00 23:00 16:00640 6:09 23:30 17:21 7:25 23:25 16:00 7:26 23:25 15:59701 4:05 1:15 21:10 5:17 1:13 19:56 6:18 12:56 6:38719 7:57 19:05 11:08 8:11 18:10 9:59 0:00722 5:23 19:18 13:55 9:15 19:15 10:00 0:00733 5:01 20:52 15:51 6:57 21:11 14:14 7:42 21:11 13:29741 5:01 20:57 15:56 6:56 21:11 14:15 7:41 21:16 13:35743 5:20 22:40 17:20 8:00 19:00 11:00 7:45 18:45 11:00744 5:20 22:10 16:50 7:30 19:30 12:00 0:00745 5:02 20:41 15:39 8:05 18:05 10:00 8:00 18:00 10:00746 5:30 21:11 15:41 9:05 19:00 9:55 9:00 19:00 10:00748 5:45 18:20 12:35 8:00 17:57 9:57 0:00749 6:49 19:48 12:59 8:55 18:55 10:00 0:00791 4:25 18:25 14:00 0:00 0:00840 0:00 0:00 0:00848 0:00 0:00 0:00855 0:00 0:00 0:00861 0:00 0:00 0:00863 0:00 0:00 0:00864 0:00 0:00 0:00865 0:00 0:00 0:00880 0:00 0:00 0:00881 0:00 0:00 0:00N8 2:09 5:09 3:00 2:09 5:09 3:00 2:09 3:09 1:00N9 2:15 4:32 2:17 1:50 4:32 2:42 1:08 4:37 3:29N10 1:16 4:55 3:39 2:09 4:39 2:30 2:09 4:39 2:30N15 2:09 3:09 1:00 2:09 3:09 1:00 2:09 3:09 1:00N17 2:09 3:19 1:10 2:09 3:19 1:10 2:09 3:09 1:00N19 1:39 4:17 2:38 1:47 6:09 4:22 0:39 7:09 6:30N20 2:09 5:09 3:00 2:09 5:09 3:00 2:09 3:09 1:00N22 2:09 3:09 1:00 2:09 3:09 1:00 2:09 3:09 1:00N24 1:00 3:30 2:30 1:04 5:15 4:11 23:33 8:29 8:56N35 2:13 5:15 3:02 2:14 5:09 2:55 2:09 5:10 3:0151APPENDIX D: SPAN OF SERVICEFigure D1: Regional span of service Monday to FridayFigure D2: Span of service Monday to Friday in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 hours >0 to 4 hours >4-6 hours >6-12 hours >12-18 hours >18 hours0 hours >0 to 4 hours >4-6 hours >6-12 hours >12-18 hours >18 hours52APPENDIX D: SPAN OF SERVICEFigure D3: Regional span of service SaturdaysFigure D4: Span of service Saturdays in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 hours >0 to 4 hours >4-6 hours >6-12 hours >12-18 hours >18 hours0 hours >0 to 4 hours >4-6 hours >6-12 hours >12-18 hours >18 hours53APPENDIX D: SPAN OF SERVICEFigure D5: Regional span of service SundaysFigure D6: Span of service Sundays in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 hours >0 to 4 hours >4-6 hours >6-12 hours >12-18 hours >18 hours0 hours >0 to 4 hours >4-6 hours >6-12 hours >12-18 hours >18 hours54APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E1: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Monday thru Fridays, 00:00-02:59Figure E2: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Monday thru Fridays, 00:00-02:59 in Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour55APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E3: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Monday thru Fridays, 03:00-05:59Figure E4: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Monday thru Fridays, 03:00-05:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour56APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E5: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Monday thru Fridays, 06:00-08:59Figure E6: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Monday thru Fridays, 06:00-08:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour57APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E7: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Monday thru Fridays, 09:00-11:59Figure E8: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Monday thru Fridays, 09:00-11:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour58APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E9: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Monday thru Fridays, 12:00-14:59Figure E10: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Monday thru Fridays, 12:00-14:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour59APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E11: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Monday thru Fridays, 15:00-17:59Figure E12: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Monday thru Fridays, 15:00-17:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour60APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E13: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Monday thru Fridays, 18:00-20:59Figure E14: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Monday thru Fridays, 18:00-20:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour61APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYAppendix E15: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Monday thru Fridays, 21:00-23:59Figure E16: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Monday thru Fridays, 21:00-23:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour62APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E17: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Saturdays, 00:00-02:59Figure E18: Bus frequencies departing each stop,Saturdays, 00:00-02:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour63APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E19: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Saturdays, 03:00-05:59Figure E20: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Saturdays, 03:00-05:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour64APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E21: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Saturdays, 06:00-08:59Figure E22: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Saturdays, 06:00-08:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour65APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E23: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Saturdays, 09:00-11:59Figure E24: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Saturdays, 09:00-11:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour66APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E25: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Saturdays, 12:00-14:59Figure E26: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Saturdays, 12:00-14:59. in the Census tracts wih greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour67APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E27: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Saturdays 15:00-1759Figure E28: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Saturdays, 15:00-17:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour68APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E29: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Saturdays, 18:00-20:59Figure E30: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Saturdays, 18:00-20:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour69APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E31: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Saturdays, 21:00-23:59Figure E32: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Saturdays, 21:00-23:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour70APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E33: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Sundays, 00:00-02:59Figure E34: Bus frequencies departing each stop,Sundays, 00:00-02:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour71APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E35: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Sundays, 03:00-05:59Figure E36: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Sundays, 03:00-05:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour72APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E37: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Sundays, 06:00-08:59Figure E38: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Sundays, 06:00-08:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour73APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E39: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Sundays, 09:00-11:59Figure E40: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Sundays, 09:00-11:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour74APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E41: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Sunday, 12:00-14:59Figure E42: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Sundays, 12:00-14:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour75APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E43: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Sundays 15:00-17:59Figure E44: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Sundays, 15:00-17:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour76APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E45: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Sundays, 18:00-20:59Figure E46: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Sundays, 18:00-20:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour77APPENDIX E: FREQUENCYFigure E47: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Sundays, 21:00-23:59Figure E48: Bus frequencies departing each stop, Sundays, 21:00-23:59. in the Census tracts with greater than 20% LICO-AT prevanlence and more than 30 residents per hectare0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour0 trips >0 to 1 trip per hour >1 to 2 trips per hour >2 to 4 trips per hour >4 to 6 trips per hour >6 trips per hour

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.42591.1-0394799/manifest

Comment

Related Items