Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Electrifying Change : An Analysis of Streetlight Electric Vehicle Charging Around Multi-Family Residential… Haw, Justin; Chen, Edmond; Wang, Xizhen; Loveland, Matthew 2021-04-14

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


52966-Haw_J_et_al_ENVR_400_Electrifying_change_2021.pdf [ 18.21MB ]
JSON: 52966-1.0397011.json
JSON-LD: 52966-1.0397011-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52966-1.0397011-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52966-1.0397011-rdf.json
Turtle: 52966-1.0397011-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52966-1.0397011-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52966-1.0397011-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Electrifying Change: An Analysis of Streetlight Electric Vehicle Charging AroundMulti-Family Residential Units in VancouverPrepared for 2 Degrees InstituteJustin HawEdmond ChenXizhen WangMatthew LovelandFinal Report - April 14thTable of ContentsAbstract...…………………………………………………………………………………………2Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………2Methods.…………………………………………………………………………………………16Results.…………………………………………………………………………………………..28Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………….35Budget…………………………………………………………………………………………...40Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………42Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………………44References……………………………………………………………………………………….45Appendix A - Team Biographies ...……………………………………………………………..49Appendix B - Remaining Local Area Analysis ………………………………....…………….50Appendix C……………………………………………………………………………………...621Final Report - April 14thI. AbstractMaximizing the percentage of people who can use an electric vehicle is crucial to achieving fullelectric transportation. Residents living in older multi-family dwellings without access to apersonal charging station do not have the facilities to join this electricity powered movement.Public accessible, street-light charging is identified as a solution to this issue. The world ismoving towards full electric transportation, however, the emissions from traditional combustionengine vehicles are still contributing to global warming. An increase in electric vehicle usagewill lower the carbon footprint of the transportation sector. Geographic Information System(GIS) research determined the ideal street-light electric vehicle charging locations throughout theCity of Vancouver by assigning importance weights to areas such as high population density,parking spots, multi-family dwellings, and proximity to public transit. A number of street lightswere chosen as the most ideal locations to install level 2 and level 3 electric chargers. Kitsilanoand Downtown are representative case studies due to their high population density and electricalinfrastructure. A cost estimate of implementing street-light charging stations in Kitsilano andDowntown was determined. The results of this research presents itself as an option forstakeholders to consider when they decide to upgrade the electric transportation infrastructure.Implementing street-light charging stations removes a barrier which has prevented drivers fromgoing electric in the past. Electric vehicle users contribute to the fight against global warming.II. IntroductionThe 2 Degrees Institute and the City of Vancouver (Vancouver) have aligning goals when itcomes to tackling climate change. While the 2 Degrees Institute aims to tackle climate change by“empowering people to make the behavioural and lifestyle changes needed to keep globalwarming below 2 degrees celsius from pre-industrial levels”, Vancouver sets climate changegoals through municipal directives and policies that are approved by the city council (28). Bothorganizations recognize that the transportation sector is a major source of carbon pollution. OnNovember 17, 2020, Vancouver city council approved the Climate Emergency Action Plan(CEAP) to reduce the amount of carbon pollution by 50% before 2030 (Horne, 2020). Carbon2Final Report - April 14thpollution from the transportation sector was recognized as the 2nd largest source of carbonemissions within the City (Horne, 2020). By 2030, the overarching goal is to have over 50% ofthe kilometers driven on Vancouver roads to be from zero emission vehicles. The CEAPspecifically mentions the need to increase the electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructurearound Vancouver to support more EVs. Therefore, increasing the EV charging infrastructure isboth relevant and aligns with the goals of the 2 Degrees Institute and Vancouver.Vancouver set a goal in 2011 to become the greenest city in the world by 2020 as outlined in the2020 Greenest City Action Plan (City of Vancouver, 2012). While the achievement of this goalhas not yet come into fruition, Vancouver remains positioned to be the greenest city in the worldif EV adoption is increased. Considering that 93% of the electricity in Vancouver comes fromhydroelectricity, Vancouver has a distinction of being one of the few cities in the world that cantruly power an EV society with fully renewable sources (Smith, 2019).Previous research has shown that a major barrier in determining EV ownership is the availabilityof charging stations to those who do not have access to off-street parking (Premji, 2020). ForVancouver residents who live in a single family house, this is not an issue, as EV charging can bedone at home in the garage. However, more than 62% of all occupied dwelling units in the Cityare apartments (City of Vancouver, 2017). In addition, many older multi-family residences do nothave parking spaces that support EV charging. Therefore, many current and future Vancouverresidents who live in multifamily housing units will likely not have reliable access to off-streetparking and will have to rely on on-street charging if they choose to own an EV. Vancouver citycouncil has plans to create “a neighbourhood charging strategy for vehicles and electric bikes,with a focus on providing charging in areas of the city where residents do not have access tooff-street home charging. Possible locations include on-street, such as light-pole charging; andlower-use parking areas, such as parks and schools, particularly where overnight access ispossible” (Horne, 2020). The main goal of this study is to determine the feasibility of installinglight-pole charging stations as a pilot project in certain neighbourhoods to support the eventualmass adoption of EVs in Vancouver.3Final Report - April 14thI. BackgroundStreet light chargers are the best solutions to solve the problem of mass EV charging for severalreasons. Vancouver has street lights on every block and only a few electrical infrastructureupgrades are needed for most to be compatible with EV charging. In response to the anticipatedfuture demand for EV charging, Vancouver has considered street light charging as a costeffective way of making EV charging accessible for everyone (Horne, 2020).II. Street Light Charging OverviewStreet light charging, also known as pole-mounted EV chargers (PMEVCs), are third-partydevices that install directly onto existing city wide lighting infrastructure.Figure 1: A PMEVCs in New Westminster, BC.Vancouver is a perfect candidate to have PMEVCs installed for several reasons:● Vancouver has plans to change every street light from sodium based bulbs to LEDs forgreater energy savings (Berman, 2020). In other cities that have switched fromconventional to LED street light bulbs like Los Angeles for example, they have managedto install hundreds of pole-mounted EV chargers due to the energy savings from the LEDbulbs (Berman, 2020).● The Canadian Electrical Code allows for the installation of EV charging equipment on abranch supplying another load as long as the total demand of the circuit is not exceeded.4Final Report - April 14thCurrently, two charging solutions hold the most potential for Vancouver:- FloFigure 2: Flo CoRe+ charger mounted on a street light pole (Flo, n.d.)The Flo CoRe+ is a Level 2 charging station that includes a number of innovations which makesit suitable for EV charging applications in Vancouver. According to its product website, Flochargers support proprietary PowerSharing Technology and PowerLimiting Technology, both ofwhich help mitigate the electrical load issues that are usually encountered with mass EVcharging implementation. The PowerSharing and PowerLimiting Technology mitigates electricalload issues by limiting peak power demand and sharing any remaining electricity with allchargers (Flo, n.d.).Flo states that the CoRe+ charger is constructed to withstand rainy climates and includes a 25foot charging cable to accommodate EV charging at various distances and positions (Plugzio,n.d.). The cost to install a Flo charger is around $4000 CAD.5Final Report - April 14th- PlugzioFigure 3: A Plugzio outlet in use in a Vancouver shopping mall. (Plugzio, n.d.)Instead of offering an entire Level 2 charger, the Plugzio charger works by only allowing theflow of electricity if a user authenticates it (Plugzio, n.d.). The user would start the flow ofelectricity through its proprietary app and the user would get billed based on the amount ofelectricity drawn from the outlet (Plugzio, n.d.). The main difference between the Plugzio andthe Flo CoRe+ is the permanent presence of a cable. Therefore, it is necessary for EV users whouse the Plugzio charger to provide their own cable. This is not an issue as every EV sold inCanada comes with a charging cable. The lack of a charging cable also deters the attention oftheft, as nothing is to be gained from the plugzio charger except electrical parts. The Plugziowould be installed on both sides of a light pole to achieve the same functionality as the FloCoRe+. Due to its simpler construction, the Plugzio costs $1000 CAD to install. Plugzio is astrong contender for the mass implementation of PMEVCs because of its simpler design andcheaper costs.Both Flo and Plugzio are Canadian companies, adding a level of convenience and public trustshould any customer issues or installation difficulties arise (Alnia et al, 2019).6Final Report - April 14thIII. Electric Vehicle Charging OptionsThree levels of EV charging exist currently.● Level 1, commonly known as Slow charge (metroEV, 2020).● Level 2, commonly known as Fast charge (metroEV, 2020).● Level 3, commonly known as Rapid charge (metroEV, 2020).Level 1 charging is the simplest method of charging, as all you need is a wall socket (Table 1).All EV’s which are sold in Canada are capable of using this method of charging. Level 2charging is the most practical and economical charging method (Table 1). Level 2 is compatiblewith all EV’s. Level 3 is the fastest type of charging method, and uses DC power unlike level 1and 2, which use AC power (Table 1). Rapid charging is not currently compatible with allavailable EV’s. The capacity and design of batteries installed inside the vehicles determine thecompatibility with charging methods. An outlier are the Tesla supercharger stations, which areTesla-specific. Level 2 chargers are the most practical option for streetlight charging based onthe desirable speed of charging, complete vehicle compatibility, and power requirements.Charging Type Power Supply Charge Power Time to fullycharge a 24kWh battery(Nissan Leaf)Distance addedper hour ofcharging(Nissan Leaf)Level 1(Slow Charge)115Vsingle-phaseAC.1.8 KWmaximum24 hours 5.4 kmLevel 2(Fast Charge)208 - 230Vmulti-phase AC7.7 - 22 KWmaximum3.6 hours 35.9 kmLevel 3(Rapid Charge)400 - 850V DC 25 - 350 KWmaximum< 30 minutes for80% charge130.7 kmTable 1: A table containing data on the three non-car-specific types of charging availablecurrently, in relation to a Nissan Leaf 24KwH vehicle. Data provided by Charge BC.7Final Report - April 14thIV. Charging Option ChoiceLevel 2 chargers are the most practical option for streetlight charging based on the desirablespeed of charging, complete vehicle compatibility, and power requirements. Firstly, the powersupply at a streetlight is not strong enough to power level 3 charging, which rules it out as anoption. Secondly, the charging infrastructure should be available to all EV users for it to besuccessful, this means the charging outlet must be universally compatible with all EV vehicles.Level 3 is not yet compatible with many EV’s, further ruling it out as an option. Level 1 and 2are compatible with all EV’s sold in Canada today (BC Hydro, n.d.), making these two charginglevels the options with the most usability. Finally, users must be getting a reasonable amount ofdistance added per hour of charging for it to make sense. The distance per hour of charging isvery low when using level 1 charging, which rules it out as an option. Therefore, level 2 is themost practical option for streetlight charging. It goes without saying that level 3 is the mostdesirable option of charging, providing users with rapid 80% charge times, however currently,this is not implementable in the City, as it would require a complete overhaul of the electricalinfrastructure, as well as universal compatibility with all EV’s.V. New Westminster EV Charging ImplementationFortunately, Vancouver does not need to look far for examples of successful PMEVCs. NewWestminster, a city in British Columbia, has successfully implemented PMEVCs as a pilotproject. Here are the key findings of PMEVCs in New Westminster and what can be learnedfrom its implementations.- New Westminster, BC, CanadaSituated about 20 kilometers east of Vancouver, the City of New Westminster has similarcharacteristics with Vancouver. For instance, New Westminster has one of the highest populationdensities in Canada. A high population density is important for PMEVCs mass implementationas there is a high probability the charging stations will be used frequently enough to recuperateinstallation costs, and generate profit into the future. Unlike Vancouver, which is still in theplanning phase, New Westminster partnered with the British Columbia Institute of Technology tocollaborate on a pilot project which installed 15 EV charging stations on existing streetlight8Final Report - April 14thinfrastructure. Survey data along with geographic information system (GIS) analysis were usedto determine the best locations for EV charging placement.Figure 4: A heat map prepared by the British Columbia Institute of Technology for the City ofNew Westminster. The heat map determines the most optimal PMEVCs locations. Red spotsindicate chargers that are likely to be used more frequently and green spots indicate chargers thatare less likely to be used frequently. (Howey, 2018)The City of New Westminster encountered several roadblocks with their light pole chargerimplementations. Most of the street lights in New Westminster are either 240V or 208V, whichcan support level 2 EV charging (BCIT, 2017). However, most of their street lights used metalhalide or high pressure sodium bulbs. Only the streetlights that were retrofitted with LED’s couldbe used, as the energy savings from LED bulbs allows for another electrical load to be used. Todeter people from overusing the charging, they also picked street light locations that had parkingmeters in their proximity. As seen in Figure 5, this could be problematic if the street light isn’tmounted equally between the parking meters. Flo and Clipper Creek were the EV chargersinstalled onto the appropriate streetlights at a cost of about $4000 CAD per charger.9Final Report - April 14thFigure 5: A schematic that demonstrates a problematic placement of a PMEVCs and parkingmeters. (Howey, 2018)Vancouver can learn a lot from New Westminster’s PMEVCs pilot project. Every streetlightwithin Vancouver will have to be changed to LEDs. In addition, Vancouver would have to use240V street lights to supply enough electricity for Level 2 charging. Vancouver would also haveto implement a parking strategy to manage the needs between business, EV charging and generalparking.Figure 6: A PMEVCs in New Westminster. (Howey, 2018)10Final Report - April 14thVI. At-Work ChargingAt-work charging has been put forward as a potential solution to the problem that EV usersliving in high density areas may encounter. The premise is straightforward; encourage companiesto install EV charging stations at the work site to promote and accommodate EV usage for theiremployees. The workplace has been identified as the second most important zone for placing anEV charging station, however, it does not completely solve the issue at hand. A stand aloneat-work charging strategy may function as well as an at-home charging strategy if the EV userhas a predictable home to work to home commuting pattern, as put forward by Huang et. al in2015 (Huang, 2015). Based on several complications, an at-work charging strategy cannot standon its own as a viable solution for users who do not have their own charging station. This realityfurther supports the need for optimized public charging stations.Figure 10: A zonal analysis of the possible 8km median commute distance originating fromDowntown Vancouver.11Final Report - April 14thFigure 11: A zonal analysis of the possible 24km median commute distance originating fromDowntown Vancouver.Figures 10 and 11 show a region in which commuters are able to reach based on two mediancommute distance values from the 2016 Canadian Census report. Commercial workspaces thatlie in these zones could support a transition to mass EV implementation for DowntownVancouver if they choose to add at-work charging stations. The takeaway from at-work chargingis: to support the transition to full EV implementation in a small area requires installation ofat-work charging stations in a much larger area.12Final Report - April 14thVII. Areas of FocusThere are certain criteria that must be met for EV charging locations to make sense. Previouspapers have suggested charging stations be placed in locations that mitigate any commonconcerns with EV ownership such as range anxiety (Wei et al, 2018). Other papers havesuggested that since the main constraint is the charging capacity, charging locations should bepaired with features like charging reservation slots or parking enforcement measures to ensurefair access to chargers during peak charging times (Wei et al, 2018). Most papers, however, seemto conclude that high population density and infrastructure readiness and availability are two ofthe most important criteria that need to be met to ensure a cost effective implementation of thistechnology (Kelly et al, 2019). Vancouver is likely to deploy PMEVCs as a pilot project incertain neighbourhoods before implementing it city wide (Wei et al, 2018).- Criteria selectionNeighbourhoods were considered good candidates to support PMEVCs if over 60% of thezoning categories were for two family, multi-family or comprehensive developments. Table 2summarizes the best neighbourhoods to implement a PMEVCs pilot project in because theyrepresent high density regions where many people live in multi family dwellings. In addition,high voltage transmission lines are present allowing for Level 2 charging in these areas.Neighbourhoods Population Density(persons/km^2)Zoning Majority ElectricalInfrastructureGrandview-Woodland 6,556.1798 Multi-FamilyDwellings and LightIndustrial Zones480/240VTransmission LineDowntown 16,764.865 ComprehensiveDevelopment120/240/480VTransmission LineWest End 23,838.384 Multi-FamilyDwellings240V TransmissionLineFairview 10,281.346 Multi-FamilyDwellings andComprehensiveDevelopment120/240VTransmission Line13Final Report - April 14thMount Pleasant 9,004.0984 Multi-FamilyDwellings andIndustrial Zones120/240VTransmission LineMarpole 4,375.6708 Large cluster ofMulti-FamilyDwellings aroundCanada Line stations120/240/480VTransmission LineKitsilano 7,883.6996 Multi-Family andTwo-FamilyDwellings120/240VTransmission LineKingsway Corridor 6,553.2073(higher along thecorridor itself)Multi-Family andTwo-FamilyDwellingsN/ATable 2: The neighbourhoods with the highest population densities and major electricaltransmission in Vancouver.- Neighbourhood DistinctionsSome distinct characteristics arise between different neighbourhoods. These distinctionsinfluence the placements of the EV charging locations. Downtown Vancouver for example hasparking meters already uniformly placed across most of its streets. Downtown Vancouver alreadyhas the infrastructure in place to solve the major issue of EV streetside charging and parkingconflicts (Zhou et al, 2020). The only upgrades Downtown Vancouver would need would be toits street light infrastructure and electrical grid to support PMEVCs.14Final Report - April 14thFigure 7: A typical street in Downtown Vancouver. Downtown Vancouver is characterized byunidirectional streets and an abundance of parking meters. (Google Maps)Neighbourhoods outside of Downtown Vancouver like Kitsilano or Grandview-Woodland poseother challenges to EV charging. Many residential streets outside of Downtown Vancouverregulate their parking through the use of permits which would be ineffective at managing the useof EV chargers as they operate on a first-come first-serve model which is different from permitpossessions. In some other neighbourhoods like Grandview-Woodland, the trees release a saplike substance which leaves surfaces sticky and grimy (Robinson, 2017). Therefore, it isreasonable to assume charging stations placed near trees will require more frequent upkeep toensure constant use. These implications suggest EV chargers placed outside of Downtown willnot be spaced as equally and additional costs will be incurred through the installation of parkingregulating devices. For a detailed description of each neighbourhood in Table 2, refer to Resultsand Appendix B.15Final Report - April 14thFigure 8: A typical street in Kitsilano. (Google Maps)Figure 9: A typical street in the Grandview-Woodland neighbourhood. The presence of streetlined trees pose unique challenges for EV chargers. (Google Maps)III. MethodsThe main objectives of this study are:A. To determine and create a feasible infrastructure plan for street light EV charging in oraround multi-residential units in VancouverB. To determine the ideal street light EV charging locations throughout the city of Vancouverby assigning importance weights to areas such as high population density, parking spots,multi-family dwellings, and proximity to public transit.GIS was determined to be the best method for the analysis of streetlight charging locations due tothe availability of relevant data in the shapefile format, ease of access, and team experience.16Final Report - April 14thUsing a weighting standard (Table 3), a gradient was determined for the placement of Level 3chargers around areas of high use. Level 2 chargers were then placed on each block in areaswithout charging access to improve charging equity. Through this method, analysis wasconducted on the City of Vancouver, and the seven focus areas listed in Table 2. All data wasfound at the City of Vancouver Open Data Portal (Open Data Portal, 2021) and all topographybasemaps are a product of ESRI and built into ArcGIS. The following maps were created foranalysis:1. Current EV Charging Stations2. Electrical Transmission Lines3. Population4. Population Density5. Seven analysis maps (7 neighbourhoods)6. Seven maps showing locations of new EV charging stations (7 neighbourhoods)7. Final MapA. Current EV Charging StationsData for EV charging stations, Local Area Boundaries, parks, and city zoning were used tocomplete Figure 20. This data was visualized against a GIS topography map of the City ofVancouver (this basemap was used for all maps) and labels were shown to name each Local Areawithin the city. Transparency of the zoning layer was set at 50%, so streets and other definingfeatures could be recognized.17Final Report - April 14thB. Electrical Transmission LinesData for electrical transmission lines was found on iMapBC (iMapBC, 2021). Since this data wasnot able to be exported, a new polyline was traced for each transmission line within the City ofVancouver and new shapefiles were created.Figure 12: Electrical Transmission Lines in the City of Vancouver based on voltage.18Final Report - April 14thC. PopulationData for the population map was found on Census Local Area Profiles 2016, which included thedistribution of the population in 22 local areas in the City of Vancouver (Government of Canada,2016). Data was added to ArcMap in a spreadsheet form, and it was joined with the Local AreaBoundaries in order to give each category (names) a quantity (numbers of people). Then, thepopulation for each local area was visualized using 10 colour gradients, and the range for eachlevel is 5000 people. Empirically, an area with a larger population was drawn in darker colour.Figure 13: A gradient map showing the population of 22 local areas in Vancouver.19Final Report - April 14thD. Population DensityThe population density map was made under the same procedure as the population map. Thepopulation was divided by the area in square kilometers for each district. It is worth noting thatthe gradient was no longer continuous in this map, because the population densities forDowntown and West End were high compared to the other neighbourhoods. In order todistinguish the colour of areas with lower population density (less than 11000 people per squarekilometer), the range became larger after 11000 (person/km2).Figure 14: A gradient map showing the population density of 22 local areas in Vancouver.20Final Report - April 14thE. Eight analysis mapsThe GIS basemap was zoomed in to the seven focus Local Areas mentioned in Table 2. Thecurrent EV charging stations data was then added. Using this new map, the transmission linelayer was added, followed by data for zoning, community centres, SkyTrain stations, and streetlighting poles. The data for street lighting poles was taken in subsections, by Local AreaBoundary, from the Open Data Portal, and applied in GIS. For maps such as Kingsway Corridor,where more than one Local Area is displayed, the Merge tool was used to merge two datasets ofstreet lighting poles into one. An example map from Mount Pleasant is shown below.Figure 15: Analysis map of Mount Pleasant with all data layers present.21Final Report - April 14thF. A weighting standard for data analysisThis weighting standard was enlightened and supported by Multi-Criteria Decision Making(MCDM), which introduced an integration of GIS techniques and MCDM methods in order tofind suitable locations of electric vehicle fast charging stations in urban areas (Guler &Yomralioglu, 2020; Zhou et al., 2020). In order to find these locations, the weights of differentcriteria were calculated by the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP), which provided areference for the formula in the weighting systems in the report (Guler & Yomralioglu, 2020).Another potential method also included the combination of GIS with the MCDM method to findideal placement of photovoltaic power generation stations. The Technique for Order Preferenceby Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) was also used in the report to rank different standardsand give a suitable score for each criterion (Zhou et al., 2020). TOPSIS is based on the conceptthat the optimal locations should have the longest geometric distance from the negative feedbackfactors (existing charging stations in this report) and shortest geometric distance from the idealsolution.22Final Report - April 14thElectricalTransmissionLinesDistance(km) Scores Zoning type Scores0 3 Commercial 00.2 2.5ComprehensiveDevelopment 30.4 2 Industrial 00.6 1.5 Light Industrial 00.8 1 Multi-Family Dwelling 31 0.5 One-Family Dwelling 0>1 0 Other 0Skytrain Stations 0 1.5 Two-Family Dwelling 1.50.2 10.4 0.5>0.4 0CommunityCentres 0 1.5Distance to existingcharging stations (km) Scores0.2 1 0 -100.4 0.5 2000/population density -7>0.4 0 4000/population density -4Parks 0 3 6000/population density -1>0 0 >6000/population density 0Table 3: A weighting standard used to score each evaluation point in the GIS data analysis23Final Report - April 14thA weighting standard focusing on location suitability for chargers was designed for the dataanalysis. It focuses on the following criteria:1. Distance to existing charging stations2. Distance to SkyTrain stations3. Distance to community centres4. Zoning type5. Proximity to parks6. Proximity to electrical transmission linesElectrical transmission lines and parks earn higher marks (total score of 3) than skytrain stationsand community centres. The former two are considered to be more essential for determining thelocations of new charging stations, because they provided power and spatial supply respectively.Specifically, the categories of different electric transmission lines shown on Figure 12 alsodetermines the types of charger (level 1, level 2 and fast chargers); Parks provide lower-useparking areas, where overnight access is possible. Rather than thinking about the distance ofcharging stations away from parks, people care more about whether the charging station was inthe park or not. For this reason, the distance for evaluation parks has only two choices (in theparks or not). By contrast, skytrain stations and community centres are only additionaladvantages but not decisive factors because they only relate to people’s convenience. The scoringof zoning type reflects on the focus of the report: high-density neighborhoods, and that is whyComprehensive Development and Multi-Family Dwelling are given 3 points, and Two-FamilyDwelling is worth 1.5 points. Unlike the other standards, the scoring of the negative feedbackfactor, distance to existing charging stations is dependent on the population density in each localarea but not a constant in the whole city. This setting is based on the consideration of preventingthe overuse of charging stations and energy conservation. For instance, an area with a relativelylower population density, like Marpole, will construct the new charging stations in a less denseway under the population-density-related model, which establishes a connection between thesupply and the demand.24Final Report - April 14thG. Eight maps showing locations of new EV charging stationsThe optimization of the new Level 3 charging stations was solved using the “network analysis”function in ArcGIS. Street lighting poles were set as evaluation points for possible locations ofcharging stations. In order to collect the distance information and zoning type for each evaluationpoint, the map was converted to raster data. The distances from a street lighting pole to skytrainstations, current EV charging stations and community centres were obtained by the “Buffer”function which created a buffer zone in a circle shape, and the point-to-point distance was shownas radius. The “Merge” function was used to project the electric transmission lines on the samelayer of the evaluation point, and the point-to-line distance was also collected by the “Buffer”.The “Erase” and “Merge” functions were used to determine which zoning types a point wasplaced at and if that point was located in a park. After collecting all the useful information, thecalculation for each evaluation point was done in an exported spreadsheet. An examplespreadsheet for Kitsilano will be shown in Appendix C (Table 8). The score for each variablewas calculated based on the weighting standard, and the total score  was the sum of all scoresfrom individual variables.In order to prevent distraction from the evaluation points with lower scores and emphasize theidealized locations for new charging stations, only evaluation points with the top ~20% scoreswere shown on each map. By setting the cut-off percentage, only points with total scores higherthan that cut-off score were added and shown in gradient colour, and higher scores were drawn indarker red. In order to emphasize the colour gradient, the transparency of the background zoningtypes has been increased to 80%. As shown in Table 5, the cut-off percentage could be slightlyvaried among different areas, because the actual cut-off depends on the scores. An accurate 20%would result in loss of data points. For example, the cut-off score for Downtown was 9 (onlyshowing points with scores larger than or equal to 9), and the percentage was actually 19.7%.The cut-off percentage was derived from reverse derivation, which means that it was not fullydecided before the analysis map was completed. The selection of the scoring standard wascarried out simultaneously with the GIS analysis. A tentative score would be tested in theanalysis map to find out if distraction from points with lower scores were prevented and theidealized locations were emphasized, and then about 20% was set as the limit after multiple testson different local areas. In addition to satisfying the visual perception on the maps, the cut-off25Final Report - April 14thpercentage also needed to be speculative and well-founded, so the audience could easily find thepattern from the minimum displaying scores for each area. For example, the cut-off score forDowntown was set to be 9. According to Table 3, a score of 9 (3*3) could be achieved bymeeting 3-4 standards (e.g., Comprehensive Development + Parks + Transmission Lines orComprehensive Development + Parks + Community Centres + Skytrain Stations). According toFigure 16, known that most of the area in Downtown is categorized as ComprehensiveDevelopment, it would be fairly easy to meet another two standards, because skytrain stations,power line and parks are also widely distributed in this area, which explains why a cut-off scoreof 9 would be reasonable for Downtown local area.Even with the selection of the locations of Level 3 charging stations, there are still quite a fewareas left unserviced by PMEVCs. In addition to the chargers assessed through the methodabove, Level 2 chargers were placed on every block to ensure equitable and convenient access tocharging throughout Multi-Family Residential neighborhoods. It was determined that each Level2 charger in Downtown Vancouver would service 81 people, and the Level 2 chargers inKitsilano would each serve 41 people. These numbers were determined by a function ofpopulation density and number of blocks (Table 4).Local Area Number of Blocks Number of People Servedby Each ChargerDowntown Vancouver 206 81Kitsilano 192 41Table 4: Number of people served by each Level 2 charger in each blockH. Final MapThe final map (Figure 21) was made by adding evaluation points higher than the cut-off scoresfrom all eight local areas. “Joins and Relates” function was used to combine eight attribute tablesinto a single one, and a colour gradient was added based on the range of the total score for allpoints.26Final Report - April 14thIV. ResultsIn order for the City of Vancouver to notice the potential benefits of this GIS model, a case studyconsisting of two Local Areas were decided upon as representative of an average Vancouverhigh-density neighborhood: Downtown and Kitsilano. Vancouver’s city-wide EV chargingnetwork would start in these Local Areas and expand based on public reception and demand.Please refer to Appendix B to see the analysis for the remaining six Local Areas.According to the ~20% assumption, 4,932 out of 24,010 (20.54%) street lighting poles (SLP)were selected from the total 8 local areas in Vancouver. However, due to the fact that there aretwo chargers placed per SLP, the number of selected SLPs was divided by two. This leavesenough parking spaces for cars that don’t need charging in areas of selected SLPs and helps saveon budget. This halving method is only a recommendation used for this study. Any amount canbe used as long as the upgraded SLPs do not go over the amount of selected SLPs.Local Areas Total SLPs Selected SLPs Percentage Used SLPsDowntown 4,960 978 19.72% 489Kitsilano 2,893 723 24.46% 361Fairview 2,627 581 22.12% 290Mount Pleasant 2,704 721 26.66% 360Grandview-Woodland 2,459 521 21.19% 260West End 1,508 306 20.79% 153Marpole 2,544 507 19.93% 253Kingsway Corridor 4,252 595 13.96% 297Total Number/Percentage 24,010 4,932 20.54% 2,463Table 5: A table showing the number and the percentage of the selected street lighting poles(SLPs) over the total SLPs in all 8 representative local areas.27Final Report - April 14thA. DowntownThe Downtown Local Area is a cluster of high-density living arrangements, paired withcommercial establishments, shown by “Comprehensive Development” in Table 3. A majorreason why this area was chosen for the case study is that there is a high density of SkyTrainstations, with eight stations serving this Local Area’s population: 62,030 people, the highestamong the 8 selected areas in Vancouver. This area is also one of the most densely packed areasin all of Vancouver, with a population density of 16,764.865 persons/km^2, which ranks thesecond (just below West End). Downtown also has a high count of parks and current EVcharging stations, as shown in Figure 16.Figure 17 shows the suggested locations of new charging stations in red dots which representsindividual street lighting poles or evaluation points in Downtown. A dot with brighter colourcorresponds to a higher score. In the whole area of Downtown, total 4,960 street lighting poleswere evaluated, and the scores ranged from -1 to 11.5. Only points with a score higher than orequal to 9 points are shown on Figure 17. In Downtown, according to Table 5, there were 978points that have a score of 9 and above, which were 19.7% of the total evaluation points. Sixteenpoints with the highest score, 11.5, were selected, and they were all located at the Southeastcorner of the Downtown local area boundary (around the Pacific Central skytrain station). Of the978 SLPs chosen, 489 were chosen for upgrade to a PMEVC.28Final Report - April 14thFigure 16: Analysis Map of the Downtown Local Area, displaying all potential street lightingpoles and their proximity to other features of interest.29Final Report - April 14thFigure 17: Analysis map of the Downtown local area displaying the suggested locations of newcharging stations.B. KitsilanoThe Kitsilano Local Area had a relatively large population of 43,045 persons, and its populationdensity (7,883.6996 persons/km^2) ranked the fifth among the 8 selected areas. This Local Areais about 80% comprised of Multi-Family Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings, and ComprehensiveDevelopment, with the remaining area belonging to Single-Family Residences. Kitsilano is alsolacking in current EV charging station capacity, and has no access to SkyTrain stations,something which is plaguing a majority of Vancouver Local Areas. The Connaught Park and theKitsilano Community Centre is located at the centre of the local area. This information isdisplayed in Figure 18.30Final Report - April 14thFigure 19 shows the distribution of suggested locations of building new charging stations inKitsilano. 2,956 street lighting poles were evaluated, and according to the ~20% cut-off criterion,723 of them with a score higher than or equal to 3 points were selected, which took up 24.46% ofthe total street lighting poles according to Table 19. The scores range from -2.5 to 7.5. Mostselected dots are located on the Southeast corner of the Kitsilano local area, which is close to apark and a community centre and away from the only existing charging station at the northeastcorner. The recommended area is also passed through by two electric transmission lines. Of the723 selected SLP’s, 361 were chosen for upgrade to a PMEVC.Figure 18: Analysis Map of Kitsilano, displaying all potential street lighting poles and theirproximity to other features of interest.31Final Report - April 14thFigure 19: Analysis map of the Kitsilano local area displaying the suggested locations of newcharging stations.32Final Report - April 14thC. Before/After Comparison Maps of EV Charging Stations for theCity of VancouverBefore GIS Model:Figure 20: Map of current EV charging stations in the City of Vancouver against a backgroundof city zoning districts. It can be seen that most of the current chargers service areas ofComprehensive Development and Multi-Family Dwellings.33Final Report - April 14thAfter GIS Model:Figure 21: Map of current EV charging stations and areas of suggested street pole chargingthroughout all focus Local Areas in the City of Vancouver. This map demonstrates the analysisfor Level 3 chargers only.34Final Report - April 14thV. DiscussionI.        The Choice of Two Case StudiesDowntown was decided upon due to its high population and population density. Most of the landin Downtown is categorized as Comprehensive Development, and skytrain stations, electrictransmission lines and parks are scattered throughout the whole area. These elements make theDowntown Local Area the most competitive place to build new charging stations. However, theexisting charging stations in Downtown are also the most in all 8 selected areas. Therefore, themain purpose of choosing Downtown as a case study is to investigate the effects of existingcharging stations on building new streetlight chargers when other conditions are superior. Thisdoes not mean that it would be better to build a new station that is farther away from the existingcharging stations, because other situations have to be weighed. As a result, the optimal distanceby which the maximum profit could be obtained would become the focus of the Downtown casestudy and serve as a reference for investigating other areas with many existing charging stations.By contrast, Kitsilano Local Area does not have a very large population and population density.Unlike the Comprehensive Development in the Downtown, Kitsilano is a typical residential area.Almost all the area is covered by dwelling types (except a small area of ComprehensiveDevelopment). About ¾ of the dwelling area comprises Multi-Family Dwellings andTwo-Family Dwellings, which are also considered to be an advantage of building new chargingstations. Kitsilano is also featured by the lack of existing charging stations; the only one islocated at the upper right corner of the local area. Therefore, contrary to the Downtown casestudy, the study of Kitsilano mainly focuses on the trade-offs between other standards, like parks,community centres and transmission lines, (ignoring the effects of existing charging stations) andthe impact of different dwelling types on the site selection.II.        Advantages and Trade-offs of Recommended AreasFour recommended areas in Downtown are shown in Figure 17. The first area is located aroundGranville Street, and it is between the Vancouver City Centre Station and the Gathering PlaceCommunity Centre. The 120 V Transmission Line also goes along Seymour Street, which is onlyone block away from Granville Street. Although there were some existing charging stations35Final Report - April 14tharound this area, the favourable surrounding landmarks still make this area very competitive. Thesecond suggested area is around the David Lam Park and the Pacific Boulevard. Parks,community centres, skytrain stations and far away from the existing charging stations have allbecome advantageous factors in this area. The only disadvantage is that this area is relatively farfrom the transmission lines. The third area was around the Stadium-Chinatown Station. Similarto the areas described above, this area also satisfied three out of four favourable conditions, andthe only deficiency was the lack of community centres. The best location with the highest score11.5 was located around the Pacific Central Station. All conditions were met, which made it themost competitive area of building new EV charging stations in the Downtown. Looking back atthose areas that are not recommended in Downtown, such as the Robson Street and the GoalHarbour, too many existing charging stations are the main reason for low scores.As for Kitsilano, most of the recommended charging stations are concentrated in the Southeastcorner of the local area. The major contributions are the two transmission lines running throughthe lower right corner, parks and the Kitsilano Community Centre. Considering that Kitsilanodoes not have a skytrain station and only has one relatively remote existing charging stationlocated around the upper right boundary, the influence of these two factors can be ignored. In thisrecommended area, the street lighting poles around the Arbutus Greenway Park earn the highestmarks (6.5-7.5), which demonstrate the importance of the convenience of parking for the siteselection.III.        LimitationsAs mentioned in the explanation of the weighting standard, two limitations must be declared.The weighting standard only provides a guideline for location-dependent demands for buildingnew EV charging stations without including the time-dependent requirement. In fact, thecommuting time mentioned in the Introduction is an important time-dependent factor todetermine the demands of building charging stations, but it is unable to be assessed for GISanalysis due to the lack of shape file data. Another limitation is the lack of analysis of economicfactors other than geographical information. These include the land price, cost of constructionand energy charge. In addition, consideration of convenience should also be evaluated in thefuture studies (probably in different forms, like surveys other than GIS analysis). The36Final Report - April 14thconvenience includes transportation and people-related decisions, like the subjective opinions ofwhether a charging should be built in their neighbourhood.In addition, it is impossible to build EV street lighting chargers on every recommended locationshown in Table 5. Budgets and electricity supply must be taken into consideration for furtherdecision making. Therefore, it is not possible to compare the specific scores of individualevaluation points and tell which street light pole is better. The eight analysis maps are moreinclined to give recommendations for general areas of building new charging stations (especiallyLevel 3), and the numbers provided in Table 5 can be used as the upper limit of all possibleconstruction sites if only geographical information is considered.IV. Electrical Infrastructure ChallengesCurrently, Vancouver does not have enough upgrades to its street light infrastructure to supportLevel 2 EV charging on a city wide scale. Several challenges are identified as roadblocks to massEV charging implementation.- Lighting FixturesVancouver divides its street lights into 4 categories: street lighting, lane lighting, park lightingand other lighting (City of Vancouver, 2018). 68% of street lights use high pressure sodium bulbsfor a combined total power consumption of 5.6 million watts (Puentes, 2019). The currentproblem is that metal halide and high pressure sodium bulbs cannot be used in conjunction withPMEVCs because these bulbs draw too much current, resulting in an overload of its electricalservice panel (Puentes, 2019). However, it appears that Vancouver may soon change all of itsbulbs from high pressure sodium or metal halide to LEDs (City of Vancouver, 2018). IfVancouver commits to this change, it represents a potential energy savings of 2.8 million wattswhich translates into more than 840 Level 2 EV chargers or over 2500 EV Level 1 chargers(Puentes, 2019).- Service Panels and kiosksBoth service panels and kiosks control the distribution of electricity, kiosks contain meteringdevices while service panels do not. This distinction is important because the installation of37Final Report - April 14thPMEVCs requires the installation of metering devices so the consumer is accurately charged forthe service. Vancouver remains woefully behind on the needed upgrades to this particular type ofinfrastructure to support PMEVCs. For instance, out of the 1288 total service panels and kiosksin the city, over 90% are service panels (Puentes, 2019). Only 20% of the panels have beenupgraded over the past 2 decades and over 99% of all distribution devices are not metered(Puentes, 2019).V. Sources of FundingGiven the high costs of installing such a comprehensive EV Charging network, multiple sourcesof funding must be available to help offset the costs of electricity and charger installation.1. EV Charging Rebates2. Owners pay a fee to charge3. EV Owner tax4. Blanket tax● EV RebatesThe federal government and the province of BC offers to pay $8000 towards the cost of a newEV (B.C.'s electric CAR Rebates, n.d). If there are more EVs on the road, more people will payfor EV charging taxes which will help fund the installation of  current and future EV chargers.● Owners pay a fee to chargeThis choice is a popular option among many current EV charging companies, such asChargepoint and Tesla. Currently, these companies charge a standard rate per kWh, $0.18 inCanada (Energy Hub, 2021). In order to fund the EV charging network, a fee must be added, perkWh, on top of the base electricity rate. When looking at British Columbia’s gas tax, the currentrate is about 1/25 the price of a liter of fuel, on top of the cost per litre (Ministry of Finance,2019). When looking at this rate, it makes sense to charge $0.19/kWh for EV charging to coverthe costs of electricity and installation.38Final Report - April 14th● EV Owner taxA tax is applied to individuals who purchase EVs to aid in the funding of current and futurePMEVCs. EV owners would still have to pay for each kWh used to charge their vehicles.● Blanket taxThe 2 Degrees Institute has proposed that all residents in Vancouver be subject to a tax that helpscover all related labour and charging costs. This tax is the most aggressive but it expedites theconstruction of more PMEVCs.The funding methods above differ in their payment strategies but ultimately aim to cover theinstallation and usage costs of PMEVCs. Research suggests a pay-per-use model or taxes areviable methods to fund the costs associated with PMEVCs (Nelder et al, 2019). The blanket taxsuggested by The 2 Degrees Institute may prove to be unpopular with the majority of Vancouverresidents but it might be needed to reach the CEAP goals.VI.          Parking ImplicationsOne of the challenges identified with the implementation of PMEVCs is the potential conflictbetween residential parking, business parking, and EV charging. In one of the representativeneighbourhoods that was analyzed, Downtown Vancouver, this challenge is especially prevalentbecause the demand for parking often far exceeds the supply in this region (Graham et al, 2020).Previous research has suggested that EV owners are less incentivized to move their vehicle afterit is done charging because the appearance of a charging cable is enough to dissuade parkingenforcement officers from taking action since it appears charging is still ongoing (Chen et al,2013). Considering that the transition from fossil fuel powered vehicles to EVs will be a gradualprocess, the street side parking and charging needs between the two will need to be balanced.Potential solutions could involve additional by-law enforcement of street side chargers,additional charges for overstaying a space after a vehicle has fully charged, or theimplementation of more parking meters.Determining when an EV is finished charging would be relatively simple. All EVs automaticallystop charging once full battery capacity is reached. In addition, every PMEVCs would beconnected to a metering apparatus that would detect when the flow of electricity is stopped.39Final Report - April 14thTherefore, smart charging technologies like Plugzio’s smart phone app could notify users ofwhen their EV finished charging and give them a time buffer to move their EV before a parkingsurcharge starts. This model, known as the time-of-use pricing, has been shown to effectivelydiscourage users from overusing a charger (Horne, 2020).To manage overnight streetside charging however, a scheduling system would have to be used toeffectively distribute this resource. Previous research suggests an online based scheduling systemworks the best (Alinia et al, 2019). However, charging and parking enforcement would have tostart as soon as the overnight time slot ends.VI. BudgetCost analysisFlo and Plugzio represent two PMEVCs. With each charging solution, there are direct andindirect costs associated with each installation. The most important direct and indirect costs aresummarized in the table below.Direct Costs Indirect CostsLED bulb upgrades BC Hydro electrical permit feeService panel upgrades/installation City Of Vancouver overhead expenseLabour costsSpecial Equipment CostsTaxesTable 6: Direct and indirect costs of modifying every incompatible streetlight into an EVcompatible charging station.The most expensive direct costs are the LED bulb upgrades and labour costs (Puentes, 2019).Conservative estimates put the cost to upgrade each street light at around $30,000 CAD and thisis excluding the costs of either a Flo or a Plugzio charger (Puentes, 2019).40Final Report - April 14thLocal Area Number of L3compatiblestreetlightsNumber of L2compatiblestreetlightsTotal cost to install(millions of CAD)DowntownVancouver489 199 $20.6Kitsilano 361 241 $18.0Table 7: A summary of the number of street light poles that will best serve the charging needs inthe selected Local Areas based on the evaluation criteria.As was identified through the GIS analysis, there are 688 street light poles in DowntownVancouver and 602 street light poles in Kitsilano which hold the most potential to be convertedinto EV chargers based on population density and existing infrastructure, as shown in Table 5.However, the costs are relatively significant. Even at a conservative estimate of the top 20% ofstreet light poles that are eligible to be converted, the estimated costs of doing so are nearly$38.6 million dollars for only two neighbourhoods, as shown in Table 7. How quickly Vancouverrecuperates these installation costs depends heavily on the demand of street side EV charging.However, research suggests as supply and demand economics lowers the overall costs of EVs,PMEVCs will be used frequently so all installation costs will be recuperated (Puentes, 2019).VII. ConclusionPole mounted EV chargers are solutions that can solve the issues with mass EV charging. Asoutlined in the CEAP, there is an urgent need for more EV chargers and GIS analysis hasidentified the best placements of PMEVCs in the neighbourhoods of Kitsilano and DowntownVancouver which represents high density, multi-family neighbourhoods. In DowntownVancouver and Kitsilano, Level 3 chargers are identified as best placed in locations of high usagewhile Level 2 chargers can be placed on every streetlight on every block. This report highlightsthe feasibility of such an implementation and it is believed Vancouver has the resources and theinterests to advance with this project.With climate change being an impending threat, it is necessary to start looking for solutions toreduce reliance on carbon based energy in the transportation sector at a city wide scale. The41Final Report - April 14thresults of this study can be used by stakeholders to improve the electric vehicle charginginfrastructure around Vancouver. The methods used in this study can also be duplicated andreplicated in other cities throughout the Lower Mainland. It is crucial to recognize that othercities will weigh the parameters differently, however, the framework of the methodology isapplicable and universal. This is an important first step in the EV transportations sector, asVancouver is a major population center, and can be used as an example to other major populationcenters around the world. This study can be used to create the groundwork for a system thatpromotes electric car usage, no matter where the driver lives. Based on the analysis conductedwith the weighting standard determined above (Table 3), it was found that the installation of therecommended EV Charger infrastructure would cost around $9.4 million for Kitsilano and $10.8million for Downtown Vancouver.It is hoped this report will help the 2 Degrees Institute tackle one of their goals of empoweringpeople to make greener personal mobility choices. As previous research has found, one of thebiggest challenges to the mass adoption of EVs is the lack of charging infrastructure and the GISanalysis done on Vancouver reaffirms this notion. However, Vancouver remains invested inbecoming the greenest city in the world and one of the long term municipal goals is the massimplementation of street side chargers. Street light charging was identified as the best option forstreet side charging. Kitsilano and Downtown Vancouver were identified as two potentialneighbourhoods where a pilot project could be started as these two possess the necessarycharacteristics like population density and the electrical infrastructure to make EV charginghappen. However, it is hoped that when mass EV adoption becomes a reality, this document willhelp streamline the process of mass EV PMEVCs.42Final Report - April 14thVIII. AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank the following people for all their help and assistance in the completion ofthis project:1. Ryan Logtenberg - Community Partner/Director of 2 Degrees Institute2. Elizabeth Lytviak - Community Partner/Director of 2 Degrees Institute3. Tara Ivanochko - Course Instructor4. Michael Lipsen - Course Instructor5. Rebecca Beutel - Course TA6. Daphnee Tuzlak - Course TA/GIS Instructor43Final Report - April 14thIX. ReferencesAlinia, B., Hajiesmaili, M. H., & Crespi, N. (2019). Online ev charging scheduling withon-arrival commitment. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 20(12),4524-4537. doi:10.1109/tits.2018.2887194B.C.'s electric CAR Rebates, ev Charger Rebates. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2021, from, B. (2020, March 1). LA adds hundreds of EV chargers to streetlights, giving renters aplace to plug in. Electrek., T. D., Kockelman, K. M., & Khan, M. (2013). Locating electric vehicle charging stations.Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2385(1),28-36. doi:10.3141/2385-04City Of Vancouver Housing Characteristics Fact Sheet [PDF]. (2017, April 30). Vancouver: Cityof Vancouver.City of Vancouver Open Data Portal. (n.d.). Retrieved January 26, 2021, from FLO. Electric Vehicle Charging stations for EV drivers. (n.d.)., Q., Weng, Y., & Tan, C. (2019). Electric vehicle charging Station PLACEMENT method forurban areas. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 10(6), 6552-6565.doi:10.1109/tsg.2019.2907262Curbside Electrical Vehicle Supply Equipment Pilot Program Guidelines [PDF]. (2018, October30). Vancouver: City of Vancouver.44Final Report - April 14thEmpowering people to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. The 2 Degrees Institute.(n.d.)., H., Hensley, R., Knupfer, S., & Sahdev, S. (2018, October). Charging Ahead:Electric-Vehicle Infrastructure Demand [PDF]. McKinsey Center for Future Mobility.Government of Canada, S. C. (2017, March 30). Table 1 The 10 highest population densitiesamong municipalities (census subdivisions) with 5,000 residents or more, Canada, 2016 .The 10 highest population densities among municipalities (census subdivisions) with5,000 residents or more, Canada, 2016., D., Sarraf, S. S., Lundy, T., Mehr, A. M., Uppal, S., Lee, T., . . . Leyton-Brown, K.(2020, July 16). Smarter Parking: Using AI to Identify Parking Inefficiencies in Vancouver[PDF]. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Greenest City 2020 Action Plan - the City's Sustainability Plan [PDF]. (2012). Vancouver: Cityof Vancouver.Guler, D., & Yomralioglu, T. (2020). Suitable location selection for the electric vehicle fastcharging station With AHP and fuzzy Ahp methods using GIS. Annals of GIS, 26(2),169-189. doi:10.1080/19475683.2020.1737226Horne, M. (2020). Report - Climate Emergency Action Plan (pp. 1-371, Rep. No. 08-2000-20).Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver.Howey, C. (2018, February 22). Innovations in Electric Vehicle Charging [PDF]. Burnaby:British Columbia Institute of Technology.Huang, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2015). An optimization framework for workplace charging strategies.Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 52, 144-155. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2015.01.022IMapBC. (n.d.). Retrieved February 9, 2021, from Report - April 14thKelly, K. L., Noblet, S., & Brown, A. (2019). Best Practices for Electric Vehicle SupplyEquipment Installations in the National Parks: Challenges, Lessons Learned, InstallationBest Practices, and Recommendations for the National Park Service.doi:10.2172/1581497Kong, F., Xiang, Q., Kong, L., & Liu, X. (2016). On-line event-driven scheduling for electricvehicle charging via park-and-charge. 2016 IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS).doi:10.1109/rtss.2016.016Level 2 vs Level 3 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. metroEV. (2020, April 24)., C., & Rogers, E. (2019). Reducing EV Charging Infrastructure Costs [PDF]. RockyMountain Institute.Outdoor Lighting Strategy Consultation Paper [PDF]. (2018, May). Vancouver: City ofVancouver.Palomino, A., & Parvania, M. (2019). Advanced charging infrastructure for enabling electrifiedtransportation. The Electricity Journal, 32(4), 21-26. doi:10.1016/j.tej.2019.03.003Plugzio integrated Outlet: Affordable EV Charging. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2021, from, Z. (2020, September 14). Vancouver councillor wants city to ditch minimum parkingrequirements for new buildings | CBC News. CBCnews., A. (2019, August). On-Street Electric Vehicle Charging from Light Poles [PDF].Vancouver: Greenest City Scholars Program.46Final Report - April 14thRobinson, M. (2017, July 27). South Vancouver residents up in arms over hungry, messy aphids.Vancouver Sun., M. (2014). Schedule E - GMF Reporting - Submissions Study Completion Report andChecklist [PDF]. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.Smith, C. (2019, April 25). City of Vancouver report reveals how tenants get short-circuited onelectric vehicle recharging stations. The Georgia Straight. Rates on Fuels [PDF]. (2021, April). Victoria: Ministry of Finance.Urban, R. (2020, February 14). Electricity prices in Canada (updated 2021). Retrieved April 15,2021, from, C. of. (0AD). Zoning and land use document library. City of Vancouver., Z., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., & Cai, L. (2018). Intelligent parking garage ev charging schedulingconsidering battery charging characteristic. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,65(3), 2806-2816. doi:10.1109/tie.2017.274083Yaropud, T., Gilmore, J., & LaRochelle-Coté, S. (2016). Results from the 2016 census. Insightson Canadian Society. Statistics Canada., J., Wu, Y., Wu, C., He, F., Zhang, B., & Liu, F. (2020). A geographical information systemBASED multi-criteria DECISION-MAKING approach for location analysis andevaluation of urban Photovoltaic charging Station: A case study in Beijing. EnergyConversion and Management, 205, 112340. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2019.11234047Final Report - April 14thX. Appendix ATeam BiographiesA. Justin Haw is currently a fourth year Atmospheric Science student at UBC. He has twosummers of research experience working under Professor Roland Stull and has taken manycourses related to instrumentation, research techniques, computer programming, and climatechange. He also has some experience with GIS.B. Matthew Loveland is a fourth year Environmental Science student at UBC. His backgroundwork experience is in data analysis, GIS mapping, coding, and research papers on variousenvironmental issues.C. Edmond Chen is a fourth year Environmental Science student at UBC. His previousexperience includes working with data analysis models using Java and an extensive backgroundin research papers.D. Xizhen Wang is a fourth year Environmental Science student at UBC. During hisundergraduate study, he established a solid foundation of data analysis and using instruments tomeasure climate change. He also had internship experience in research institutes and awastewater treatment plant.48Final Report - April 14thXI. Appendix BData Analysis for Remaining Local Areas1. FairviewThe Fairview Local Area represents one of Vancouver’s most densely populated areas outside ofthe Downtown peninsula. This Local Area is about 80% comprised of Multi-Family Dwellings,and Comprehensive Development, with the remaining area belonging to Light Industrial orCommercial applications. This trend is further shown with the area’s population density of10,281.346 persons/km^2, relatively high for the City of Vancouver. Fairview is also lacking incurrent EV charging station capacity, and has limited access to SkyTrain stations, somethingwhich is plaguing a majority of Vancouver Local Areas.Figure 22: Analysis Map of Fairview, displaying the present locations of EV Charging Stations.49Final Report - April 14th581 out of 2627 points (22.12%) are chosen in the Fairview local area. The scores for allevaluation points range from 1 to 8, and the cut-off score is 6.Figure 23: Analysis map of the Fairview local area displaying the suggested locations of newcharging stations.50Final Report - April 14th2. Mount PleasantThe Mount Pleasant Local Area was chosen due its representation of a standard non-highrise, butstill high-density neighborhood in Vancouver. This Local Area is about 60% comprised ofMulti-Family Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings, and Comprehensive Development, with theremaining area belonging to Light Industrial and Commercial zones. This trend is further shownwith the area’s population density of 9,004.0984 persons/km^2, relatively high for the City ofVancouver. Mount Pleasant is also lacking in widespread access to current EV charging stationcapacity, and has limited access to SkyTrain stations, something which is plaguing a majority ofVancouver Local Areas.Figure 24: Analysis Map of Mount Pleasant, displaying the present locations of EV ChargingStations.51Final Report - April 14th721 out of 2704 points (26.66%) are chosen in the Mount Pleasant local area. The scores for allevaluation points range from -0.5 to 9.5, and the cut-off score is 4.Figure 25: Analysis map of the Mount Pleasant local area displaying the suggested locations ofnew charging stations.52Final Report - April 14th3. Grandview-WoodlandThe Grandview-Woodland Local Area was chosen due its good mix of high-density residentialzoning and proximity to SkyTrain stations. This Local Area is about 80% comprised ofMulti-Family Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings, and Comprehensive Development, with theremaining area belonging to Industrial and Light Industrial. This trend is further shown with thearea’s population density of 6,556.1798 persons/km^2, relatively average for the City ofVancouver. Grandview-Woodland is also lacking in widespread current EV charging stationcapacity, and only the southern portion of the Local Area has access to SkyTrain stations, bothissues which are plaguing Vancouver Local Areas.Figure 26: Analysis Map of Grandview-Woodland, displaying the present locations of EVCharging Stations.53Final Report - April 14th521 out of 2459 points (21.19%) are chosen in the Grandview-Woodland local area. The scoresfor all evaluation points range from 0 to 6, and the cut-off score is 3.5.Figure 27: Analysis map of the Grandview-Woodland local area displaying the suggestedlocations of new charging stations.54Final Report - April 14th4. West EndThe West End Local Area is the most densely populated area in Vancouver. This Local Area isabout 90% comprised of Multi-Family Dwellings and Comprehensive Development, with theremaining area belonging to Commercial. This trend is further shown with the area’s populationdensity of 23,838.384 persons/km^2, the highest in the City of Vancouver as there are noOne-Family Dwellings in this area. The West End is also lacking in current EV charging stationcapacity for its residential sectors, and has no direct access to SkyTrain stations within thecommunity itself, something which is plaguing a majority of Vancouver Local Areas.Figure 28: Analysis Map of the West End, displaying the present locations of EV ChargingStations.55Final Report - April 14th306 out of 1508 points (20.79%) are chosen in the West End local area. The scores for allevaluation points range from -2 to 6, and the cut-off score is 3.Figure 29: Analysis map of the West End local area displaying the suggested locations of newcharging stations.56Final Report - April 14th5. MarpoleThe Marpole Local Area is an area consisting of a variety of industrial facilities, surrounded byhigh-density housing. This Local Area is about 40% comprised of Multi-Family Dwellings andTwo-Family Dwellings, with the remaining area belonging to One-Family Dwellings, Industrial,and Light Industrial. This trend is further shown with the area’s population density of 4,375.6708persons/km^2, relatively low for the City of Vancouver, due to the amount of One-FamilyDwellings and large areas dedicated to industry. In addition, Marpole has good access toSkyTrain stations, and decent, but limited, access to EV charging stations, which can beimproved upon.Figure 30: Analysis Map of Marpole, displaying the present locations of EV Charging Stations.57Final Report - April 14th507 out of 2544 points (19.93%) are chosen in the Marpole local area. The scores for allevaluation points range from 1 to 7.5, and the cut-off score is 3.5.Figure 31: Analysis map of the Marpole local area displaying the suggested locations of newcharging stations.58Final Report - April 14th6. Kingsway CorridorThe Kingsway Corridor Local Area was chosen due its representation of a non-standard sliver ofhigh-density living arrangements in Vancouver. It also passes through two Local Areas,Kensington-Cedar College and Renfrew-Collingwood. This sliver of Multi-Family Dwellingsand Two-Family Dwellings uniquely follows the path of the Kingsway Thoroughfare, butchanges over to Single-Family Dwellings away from the road. As such, these Local Areas areabout 80% comprised of One-Family Dwellings, with the remaining area belonging toMulti-Family Residences, Two-Family Residences, and Light Industrial. This trend is furthershown with the area’s population density of 6,553.2073 persons/km^2 (much higher around theKingsway Corridor of analysis), relatively average for the City of Vancouver. The KingswayCorridor is also lacking in current EV charging station capacity, and has no access to SkyTrainstations, something which is plaguing a majority of Vancouver Local Areas.Figure 32: Analysis Map of the Kingsway Corridor, displaying the present locations of EVCharging Stations.59Final Report - April 14th595 out of 4262 points (13.96%) are chosen in the Kingsway Corridor. The scores for allevaluation points range from -1.5 to 5, and the cut-off score is 2.Figure 33: Analysis map of the Kingsway Corridor local area displaying the suggested locationsof new charging stations.60Final Report - April 14thXII. Appendix CCalculation SpreadsheetTable 8: An example of a part of the analysis spreadsheet for Kitsilano including the weightingstandard and the total scores.61


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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


Related Items