north shore area transit plan · 2012-11-01 · the north shore area transit plan will establish a...

North Shore Area Transit Plan

North Shore Area Transit Plan – Phase 3 Consultation Report

Contents 1 Overview of the North Shore Area Transit Plan ...............................................................1 2 Phase 3 Consultation ......................................................................................................1 3 Phase 3, Stage 1: Confirming the Evaluation Framework .................................................2

3.1 Consultation Activities ........................................................................................................ 2 3.1.1 Formal Consultation ............................................................................................. 2

3.1.1.1 Community Workshops ....................................................................................... 2

3.1.1.2 Feedback Forms ................................................................................................... 2

3.1.1.3 Meetings .............................................................................................................. 3

3.1.2 Informal Consultation ........................................................................................... 3 3.1.3 Promotions/Advertising ....................................................................................... 3

3.2 What We Heard .................................................................................................................. 5 3.2.1 Draft Multiple Account Evaluation Criteria .......................................................... 5

3.2.1.1 Input from Feedback Forms ................................................................................ 5

3.2.1.2 Input from Community Workshops ..................................................................... 6

3.2.1.3 Input from Informal Consultation ....................................................................... 7

3.2.2 Projects Under Early Evaluation ........................................................................... 7 3.2.2.1 Input from Feedback Forms ................................................................................ 8

3.2.2.2 Input from Community Workshops ................................................................... 14

3.2.2.3 Input from Informal Consultation ..................................................................... 19

3.2.3 Suggestions for Other Projects ...........................................................................19 4 Phase 3, Stage 2: Confirming the High Priority Projects ................................................. 22

4.1 Consultation Activities ...................................................................................................... 22 4.1.1 Formal Consultation ...........................................................................................22

4.1.1.1 Community Events ............................................................................................. 22

4.1.1.2 Feedback Forms ................................................................................................. 23

4.1.1.3 TransLink Listens ................................................................................................ 23

4.1.2 Informal Consultation .........................................................................................23 4.1.3 Promotions/Advertising .....................................................................................24

4.2 What We Heard ................................................................................................................ 25 4.2.1 Draft High Priority Projects (Level of Agreement) ..............................................27

4.2.1.1 Input from Feedback Forms .............................................................................. 27

4.2.1.2 Input from Community Events .......................................................................... 35

4.2.1.3 Input from Transit Centre Events ...................................................................... 35

4.2.1.4 Input from ‘TransLink Listens’ ........................................................................... 36

4.2.1.5 Input from Informal Consultation ..................................................................... 36

4.2.2 Suggestions for Other Projects ...........................................................................37 5 Supporting Documents ................................................................................................. 39

A. Draft Multiple Account Evaluation Framework 40 B. Project Information Summaries, Stage 1 41 C. Feedback Form, Stage 1 (printed version) 51 D. Ad for Community Workshops, Stage 1 60 E. TransLink’s Social Media Posts, Stage 1 61 F. Media Release, Stage 1 62 G. Stakeholder E-newsletter, Stage 1 63 H. Stakeholder List 65 I. Feedback Form Respondents’ Profile, Stage 1 68 J. Feedback Themes 69 K. Final Multiple Account Evaluation Framework 70 L. Proposed High Priority Project Maps 71 M. Feedback Form, Stage 2 (printed version) 81 N. Ad for Community Events, Stage 2 84 O. Media Release, Stage 2 85 P. Stakeholders E-newsletter, Stage 2 86 Q. Feedback Form Respondents’ Profile, Stage 2 87 R. North Shore Area Transit Plan, Phase 3, Stage 2 Study 88

1

1 Overview of the North Shore Area Transit Plan

TransLink has an Area Transit Plan for each of the seven sub-regions in Metro Vancouver, including the North Shore. These plans are important for achieving the goals of TransLink’s Transport 2040 long-range transportation strategy for the region and for supporting municipal Official Community Plans.

More about Area Transit Plans: www.translink.ca/Area-Transit-Plans

The North Shore Area Transit Plan will establish a long-term (30-year) vision for the transit network and will identify near-term (up to 10-year) transit service and infrastructure priorities to begin achieving that vision. TransLink’s goal is to make the transit network more efficient and more effective, and to increase transit use. This plan serves as a key input to TransLink’s annual three-year funded plan and outlook for the following seven years to identify specific direction, funding and timing for North Shore investments.

The North Shore Area Transit Plan is a four-phase program that started in 2010.

Phase 1, September–December 2010: Analyse the current network

Phase 2, January–June 2011: Develop long-term (30-year) vision

Phase 3, February–Summer 2012: Identify near-term (up to 10-year) priorities

Phase 4, ongoing: Monitoring and reporting

2 Phase 3 Consultation

In this phase, TransLink sought input from the general public, stakeholders, and municipal partners about which North Shore transit service and infrastructure projects they felt were priorities for the next 10 years, based on the long-term vision developed in Phase 2. Phase 3 consultation involved two stages:

Stage 1, Confirming the Evaluation Framework (February 6–March 9, 2012) o Confirm the proposed Multiple Account Evaluation framework (see Supporting

Document A). o Receive feedback on 10 potential projects used as a sample to test the draft

framework (see Supporting Document B for information about the 10 projects). o Identify any additional projects for evaluation.

www.translink.ca/Area-Transit-Plans

2

Stage 2, Confirming the High Priority Projects (May 18–June 15, 2012) o Confirm if the near-term transit priorities identified are acceptable, and if not,

why and what could be improved to make the project more acceptable. o Identify any additional projects that were not included in the evaluation.

Using a variety of online, face-to-face and written consultation methods, TransLink received input from more than 1,300 people: 361 people in Stage 1 and 952 people in Stage 2. The significantly higher number of respondents in Stage 2 can be attributed to a larger number of community and staff events as well as a TransLink Listens survey, which were specific to Stage 2.

3 Phase 3, Stage 1: Confirming the Evaluation Framework

3.1 Consultation Activities

3.1.1 Formal Consultation

3.1.1.1 Community Workshops

February 9, West Vancouver Seniors Activity Centre: 15 members of the public attended

February 15, Pinnacle Hotel, North Vancouver: 45 members of the public attended

The community workshops ran from 6 pm-9 pm. Following a presentation by TransLink staff, the participants took part in small group discussions with facilitators. Input was gathered about: 1) the Multiple Account Evaluation criteria, 2) the 10 early evaluation projects used to test the draft criteria, and 3) potential additional projects. Following a report-back to the larger group, participants took part in an activity where they could place one or more of five dots on project display boards to indicate their support for the particular project. The workshops concluded with a question and answer session.

The presentation and minutes from the Community Workshops are available at: www.translink.ca/nsatp

3.1.1.2 Feedback Forms

A questionnaire was available online from February 6-March 9, 2012 and at both community workshops. The 10-page feedback form asked multiple-choice and open-ended questions in four areas:

www.translink.ca/nsatp

3

I. Draft Evaluation Criteria II. All Projects Under Evaluation III. 10 Projects Under Early Evaluation

IV. Consultation Questions: demographics and transit use

The printed version of the feedback form (which was available at the workshops) can be found in Supporting Document C. The online feedback form was essentially the same content but presented in interactive web format.

Members of the public completed 267 feedback forms. These included:

249 online feedback forms

15 feedback forms from the community workshops:

six from the February 9th workshop in West Vancouver

nine from the February 16th workshop in North Vancouver

3 feedback forms were submitted to TransLink by mail

3.1.1.3 Meetings

Meeting with and presentation to North Shore elected officials: MLAs, MP, Mayor/Councils and invitations to local First Nations representatives.

Meetings with TransLink’s Technical Advisory Committee, Public Advisory Committee and the Area Transit Plan Executive Advisory Committee.

3.1.2 Informal Consultation

During the consultation period, 34 people provided comments directly to TransLink by email or phone. There were 12 comments about the consultation on the Buzzer blog and 4 Facebook comments.

3.1.3 Promotions/Advertising

TransLink promoted the consultation through social and traditional media, municipal websites and ads in public places.

Website: The North Shore Area Transit Plan page on the TransLink website (translink.ca/nsatp) was updated with a Phase 3 section titled “Near-Term Priorities”. This web page provided information about the Multiple Account Evaluation, the potential transit projects for evaluation and other background information. The “Get Involved” section of the web page was

http://www.translink.ca/nsatp

4

also updated to provide access to the online feedback form, information on consultation opportunities, and general contact information. Over the February 6-March 9 consultation period, these web pages received 3,406 page views.

Advertising: The community workshops and online consultation were promoted by two full-page ads in the North Shore News, ads on the SeaBus and SkyTrain station televisions. Ads were sent to the five North Shore municipalities, libraries and community centres. A copy of the ad is in Supporting Document D.

Municipal websites: The City of North Vancouver, District of North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Village of Lion’s Bay and Bowen Island Municipality posted information about the consultation on their websites.

Social media: TransLink promoted the consultation through posts on the Buzzer blog (January 27), Facebook (February 6 and 8) and Twitter (February 6 and 16). TransLink’s social media posts are in Supporting Document E.

Traditional Media: TransLink issued a media release on February 1st, 2012, which provided details about the Phase 3 consultation. News stories about the Phase 3 consultation ran in the North Shore News, North Shore Outlook, Squamish Chief, openfile.ca, Global TV, CKNW Radio and News 1130. The media release is in Supporting Document F.

Stakeholder communication: TransLink also issued an e-newsletter to stakeholders and emailed information about consultation activities to a North Shore Area Transit Plan database. This database includes any member of the public who had previously been in contact with TransLink’s consultation staff regarding a North Shore transit issue, and indicated when asked that they wished to be added to the general contacts list. The stakeholder e-newsletter and the list of stakeholders can be found in Supporting Documents G and H.

5

3.2 What We Heard

The consultation sought public feedback in three areas:

1) Agreement with the Multiple Account Evaluation framework.

2) Feedback on 10 early evaluation projects (used as a sample to test the draft framework).

3) Identify any additional projects for evaluation.

For each area, input was gathered from “formal consultation” (community workshops and feedback forms) and “informal consultation” (direct feedback to TransLink and via social media). Responses that were not relevant to the questions or that provide comments beyond the scope of the Area Transit Plan were noted and redirected to the appropriate authority where possible. These responses are not included in the tallies. The majority of the feedback was received through the feedback forms. Most respondents (63%) are residents of the North Shore and more than half (52%) use transit four times or more per week. The “Feedback Form Respondents’ Profile” can be found in Supporting Document I.

3.2.1 Draft Multiple Account Evaluation Criteria

While the specific question about the draft Multiple Account Evaluation criteria varied slightly between the feedback forms (online and workshop version) and the workshop discussions, the general question was the same – whether the draft criteria were acceptable for confirming North Shore transit priorities.

The public was invited to suggest changes to the Multiple Account Evaluation (see Supporting Document A). The comments offered as suggestions were categorized as “Modify the existing Multiple Account Evaluation”, “Other considerations”, “New criteria” or not relevant (N/A).

3.2.1.1 Input from Feedback Forms

The feedback form asked, “Do you think the draft Multiple Account Evaluation criteria are the correct criteria for determining North Shore transit priorities?” Respondents could answer “Yes”, “No” or “Possibly, with the following suggestions”.

Of the 237 responses:

150 respondents (63%) answered “Yes”.

24 (10%) said “No”.

63 (27%) answered “Possibly, with the following suggestions.”

6

Of the 63 people who answered “Possibly”, 50 provided suggestions.

26 of the 50 suggestions (52%) were not relevant to the question or the consultation, or were beyond the scope of the North Shore Area Transit Plan.

11 comments included suggestions to “Modify the existing Multiple Account Evaluation”. Sample comments:

Setting "weights" for each category to reflect importance.

Need to better reflect effect on customer service. Adding a transfer or lengthening a bus ride would decrease the satisfaction for everyone.

Under “Transportation”, *I + would emphasize frequency and speed as well as reliability (could be covered by "convenient")

13 comments suggested “Other considerations”, such as the aging population, the environmental impact of construction, and regional inclusion.

3.2.1.2 Input from Community Workshops

Participants at the two community workshops discussed the draft Multiple Account Evaluation criteria in their table discussions. 43 comments related to the Multiple Account Evaluation were recorded at the workshops, with the following breakdown:

15 comments (35%) were not applicable to the questions or the consultation.

7

13 comments suggested “Modify the existing Multiple Account Evaluation”, mostly related to Route Performance and Transit Customer Experience.

Travel time considerations and competitiveness with autos; this was not apparent and should be made more clear in project evaluation.

Social and community – the human factors, the need for washrooms.

10 comments suggested “Other considerations”, such as concern over weighting of criteria and support for the transparency of the process.

5 comments suggested “New criteria” such as accessibility and integration with other modes of transportation (cycling infrastructure).

3.2.1.3 Input from Informal Consultation

None of the responses received through the Buzzer blog, Facebook or direct phone calls and emails to TransLink provided input about the Multiple Account Evaluation.

3.2.2 Projects Under Early Evaluation

To provide an example of how the draft Multiple Account Evaluation was applied, 10 projects were selected for early evaluation (see Supporting Document B). These projects had high public interest, social or neighbourhood impacts, or were representative of other projects. They were not identified as higher priority than other projects; rather, they provided an opportunity to confirm the Multiple Account Evaluation and community response. For each of the 10 projects under early evaluation, the feedback form asked respondents to rate the project on a scale of 1 to 6:

1= Very Acceptable 2= Somewhat Acceptable 3= Neither 4= Somewhat Unacceptable 5= Very Unacceptable 6= Don’t Know

Respondents were then asked to identify any potential impacts, benefits or improvements. These comments, as well as comments about the 10 projects raised during the workshop discussions, were categorized under three main headings: Customer/Community Experience, Service Quality and Network Design. Each of those categories has a number of sub-category themes. These comments could be applied to the broad range of projects that were identified and evaluated, with potential to improve a project to gain community acceptance.

8

The complete list of themes can be found in Supporting Documents J. Each comment was assigned a theme, and the comments were tallied by theme.


Project Acceptability Ratings - Overall Findings

Of the 267 feedback forms completed, varying numbers of people responded to each question. The fewest responses received by any single project was 187, and the most received by any one project was 210 responses. The ratings are expressed as percentages below.

Two projects received significantly more “Acceptable” ratings than the others: “Increase SeaBus frequency during peak hours” and “Inter-regional Sea-to-Sky service”.

The SeaBus project received the most “Very Acceptable” ratings; 62% of respondents (121 of 195 responses).

The Sea-to-Sky project received 57% “Very Acceptable” ratings (120 of 210 responses*).

* The number of responses varies for each question because not all respondents answered each question.

“Improvements to Park Royal Exchange” and “Improvements to Phibbs Exchange” also received significant positive ratings from feedback form respondents:

“Improvements to Phibbs Exchange” was rated “Very Acceptable” by 47% (92 of 195 responses).

“Improvements to Park Royal Exchange” was rated “Very Acceptable” by 37% (71 of 193 responses).

None of the projects received a significant number of “Very Unacceptable” ratings. The highest percentage of “Very Unacceptable” ratings was 6% for four projects: “Redesign Queens Road, Mathers Service in West Vancouver”, Redesign Lynn Valley service”, Inter-regional Sea-to-Sky service” and “Redesign Westmount, Caulfeild service in West Vancouver”.

Several projects got a high number of “Don’t Know” ratings. More than half (56%) of respondents answered “Don’t Know” about the “Redesign Westmount, Caulfeild service in West Vancouver” project. Other projects that got significant “Don’t Know” responses are “Redesign Lynn Valley service” (47%), “Redesign Queens Road, Mathers Avenue service in West Vancouver” (43%) and “New route via 29th Street, Queens Road” (38%).

The SeaBus and Sea-to-Sky service projects received the lowest number of “Don’t Know” responses at 15% and 14% respectively.

9

Project Acceptability Ratings - Findings by Project

The following is a tally of the quantitative ratings for each project.

Project Very

Acceptable Somewhat Acceptable

Neither Somewhat

Unacceptable Very

Unacceptable Don’t Know

Redesign Queens Road, Mathers Avenue service in West Vancouver (#251, 252)

19% 26% 4% 4% 6% 4%

New Marine Drive, 3rd Street, Cotton Drive B-Line

35% 21% 2% 2% 4% 36%

Redesign Lynn Valley service (#210, 299)

19% 19% 5% 4% 6% 47%

New route via 29th Street, Queens Road (Lynn Valley Town Centre – Park Royal)

32% 21% 5% 1% 3% 4%

Increase SeaBus frequency during peak hours

62% 13% 4% 3% 3% 15%

Inter-regional Sea-to-Sky service

57% 21% 4% 3% 6% 14%

New Highway 1 service

31% 18% 6% 5% 5% 36%

Redesign Westmount, Caulfeild service in West Vancouver (#253, C12)

11% 17% 8% 2% 6% 56%

Improvements to Phibbs Exchange

47% 12% 3% 2% 3% 33%

Improvements to Park Royal Exchange

37% 26% 5% 3% 5% 24%

10

Project Comments – General Comments A separate question on the feedback form asked people if they had comments or suggestions on the existing projects under evaluation. Ten of the 164 comments (6%) were not relevant or out of scope. Of the 154 relevant responses, comments emphasized two themes:

1. Coverage (the addition of service on road network which previously lacked any service): 59 (38%) of the 154 relevant responses referred to Coverage. Almost all of them (54 of 59) expressed support for transit service on the Sea-to-Sky corridor.

2. Transfers (number of transfers required to travel between origin and destination): 44 (29%) of the relevant responses referred to

Transfers. Many expressed opposition to cancellation of the 258 express service from the North Shore to UBC. Frequency of transit service and travel time between origin and destination were also common themes when discussing existing projects under evaluation. Project Comments - Findings by Project This table summarizes ratings and common themes expressed in the feedback form comments for each project. Note that “Common Theme” percentages are based on the total number of relevant comments only.

Project Ratings of Note Common Themes Sample Comments

Redesign Queens Road, Mathers Avenue service in

West Vancouver (#251, 252)

45% “Very Acceptable” or “Somewhat Acceptable” 9% “Very Unacceptable” or “Somewhat Unacceptable”

Transfers (27%) Capacity (19%)

People want a DIRECT bus from Downtown Vancouver. NO TRANSFERS! Community shuttles don't carry as many people as conventional bus - concerns about ridership growth in the future.

11




Travel time (56%) Frequency (15%)

B-Line on Marine Drive is desperately needed for quick access from North Van to Park Royal. Should be every 15 mins as much as possible. Every 10 mins during peak periods. I think more people will use transit to get to Park Royal if it was faster. Right now buses stop every corner and it takes too long!! Less stops on a B-line route makes for more effective 'express' service. Try to limit the stops along the route to 12 or less.


38% “Very Acceptable” or “Somewhat Acceptable” 10% “Very Unacceptable” or “Somewhat Unacceptable” Almost half (47%) “Don’t Know”

Capacity (38%) Frequency (21%)

Community shuttle capacity very limited and unacceptable. You need way more frequent service between Lynn Valley Center and Phibbs Exchange. It’s horrible currently.



Transfers (25%) Efficiency (20%) Travel time (20%)

New school at Balmoral site opening soon...it would be so helpful to travel direct from Lynn Valley onto Queens...no transfers on Lonsdale. Please hurry!!!

12


Increase SeaBus frequency during peak hours

Most “Very Acceptable” (62%) 75% “Very Acceptable” and “Somewhat Acceptable” 6% “Very Unacceptable” or “Somewhat Unacceptable”

Frequency (65%) Please extended 15 min service past 6:45pm from Waterfront M-F. 6:45 is still rush-hour for commuters, and every 30mins is unacceptable. Increase frequency on Sundays as well. SeaBus is always packed, you can never have too much SeaBus. I think it should be running every 10 minutes from start of service till 6:30 pm. It happened during the Olympics.


Most “Very Acceptable” and Somewhat Acceptable”: 85% 9% “Very Unacceptable” or “Somewhat Unacceptable”

Capacity (36%) Frequency (17%)

Good idea but how many people will actually use this? Could be a hassle for people to get back home, they would rather drive. Should add some weekend and evening service. You would lose a lot of customers if the hours are so limited.



Travel time (35%) Customer safety/security (14%) Efficiency (14%)

Sunshine Coast residents (like me) would use transit much, much more with quicker access to the city. Would the stops be on the highway? How safely could I walk to the stop from off the highway? I don't really see the benefit of this route -- i.e., ending up at Brentwood and needing to make connections from there. It would better to still have the 250 or 251 express go downtown with much better options for connecting to SkyTrain or buses.

13



Lowest for “Very Acceptable” or “Somewhat Acceptable”: 28% Highest for “Don’t Know”: 56%

Travel time (31%) This would lengthen the time of my commute from Lions Bay, I highly oppose changing the C12 route to go along Marine Dr.



Customer comfort (63%) Customer safety/security (27%)

Shelter, lighting, retail would all help make this more welcome as a hub. Pay parking and bike lockers would be useful here too. Better lighting, security, some 'safe places' required. Lot of hanging out youth terrify older transit users, legitimately or not.



Customer comfort (59%) Simple network (21%)

More seating. More important thing is all the bus schedule to be posted at Park Royal and updated frequently.

14

3.2.2.2 Input from Community Workshops

February 9, 2012 - West Vancouver

A total of 79 comments related to the projects under evaluation were recorded at the community workshop at the West Vancouver Seniors Activity Centre. 26 of those comments (33%) were out of scope or not relevant. The remaining 53 comments are spread across 10 projects, resulting in very small sample sizes. As a result, common themes are identified, but not expressed as a percentage of responses.

It should be noted that some of the participants also submitted feedback forms, resulting in some repetition of comments.

Project Common Themes Sample Comments


Frequency Increase capacity and service during rush hours

New Marine Drive, 3rd Street, Cotton Drive B-Line Travel time Coverage

Great for rapid service to Lonsdale Quay Extend to Cap U

Redesign Lynn Valley service (#210, 229) Frequency Good for increasing frequency on 229 up Lonsdale


No dominant themes

Increase SeaBus frequency during peak hours Frequency Earlier am and later pm


Community Impacts Efficiency

Would motivate people to switch from car to transit – environmental More cost-effective than our evaluation

15


New Highway 1 service Coverage Travel time

Add a stop at Lynn Valley Good for moving people east - west


Travel time Will impact Lions Bay service to Caulfeild (less direct) – longer

Improvements to Phibbs Exchange Customer safety/security

Lighting important – improve safety

Improvements to Park Royal Exchange Simple network Improve park & rides/signage (wayfinding)

February 15, 2012 - North Vancouver

A total of 167 comments related to the projects under evaluation were recorded at the community workshop at the Pinnacle Hotel in North Vancouver. 41 of those comments (25%) are out of scope or not relevant to the question being asked. Similar to the other community workshop, the 126 remaining comments are spread across 10 projects, resulting in a small sample size. The common themes are identified but not quantified.

It should be noted that some of the participants also completed feedback forms, resulting in some repetition of comments. It is also notable that a high number of out of scope/irrelevant comments (11 of the 41 out of scope or irrelevant comments) in this community workshop were related to the Sea-to-Sky project.


Redesign Queens Road, Mathers Avenue service

in West Vancouver (#251, 252)

Frequency Travel time

Increase service to Park Royal Faster service on main road (Marine and Mathers)

16



Travel time Coverage Capacity

Like limited stop aspect of B-line Must be a stop at Cap Mall Would take off load from other buses and increase connectivity


Coverage Efficiency Travel time

Doesn’t serve Lynn Valley tourist market (ex. to Lynn Valley) More agreeable to conversions (and transfer) if resources reinvested into better, more frequent service on the 210. The transfer from SeaBus to 229 would be discouraging – less direct route to get to Lynn Valley Park


Efficiency Some question of whether this new route is needed and who would use it.

Increase SeaBus frequency during peak hours Efficiency Frequency

Seems questionable benefit for significant cost increases Need to start earlier and later at night


Community Impacts Efficiency Travel time

Would relieve traffic on North Shore and Lions Gate Bridge Nice to do but is it economically viable? Could be attractive if efficient (limited stops) and not too expensive

17



Accessibility Customer safety/security Efficiency

Areas for exchanges are not very pedestrian friendly Highway crossing, safety issues Density is not in the upper levels, not sure if route is justified


Frequency Travel time

Worry the added distance will affect frequency and travel time Will make it longer for people to travel from Lions Bay to Caulfeild – people will go in their cars – time factor is important


Customer comfort Customer safety/security

Need coffee shops; more welcoming and protected environment Safety is very important


Efficiency Accessibility

This project is low priority (useful but not necessary) Prefer a bus loop exchange rather than on-street

18

Rating of Projects in Community Workshops In both community workshops, participants were given five dots that they could place on one or more of the proposed projects to indicate their support for the project(s). Participants were free to distribute their dots amongst five separate projects, or if preferred, to place multiple dots on one or more projects. The message communicated to participants was that the intent was not to vote on the “best” project(s), but rather to provide a general gauge of support levels for the 10 evaluation test projects.

Project Number of Dots

Feb 9 Number of Dots

Feb 15


2 5

New Marine Drive, 3rd Street, Cotton Drive B-Line 12 28

Redesign Lynn Valley service (#210, 299) 3 10


8 16

Increase SeaBus frequency during peak hours 12 20

Inter-regional Sea-to-Sky service 10 47

New Highway 1 service 10 25


3 1

Improvements to Phibbs Exchange 9 35

Improvements to Park Royal Exchange 5 8

19


Members of the public provided 34 comments to TransLink via phone messages or email. The most common issues expressed in these comments are:

Transfers (number of transfers required to travel between origin and destination): 8 comments

Frequency (need to increase or decrease service frequency): 7 comments

Capacity (wait times, on-board crowding, customer pass-ups): 7 comments

Travel time (between origin and destination): 5 comments

7 comments were beyond the scope of this consultation

Social Media: The Buzzer blog entry on January 27 included details about the North Shore Area Transit Plan and an interview with TransLink’s Manager for the Area Transit Plan program. The post generated 12 comments from seven people. Most comments referred to Frequency (2 comments), New Connections (2 comments) and Travel time (2 comments).

TransLink’s Facebook posts on February 6 and 8 generated 4 comments from three people about how well this consultation was promoted and about replacing the Lions Gate Bridge. There were no comments that referred to any of the projects under evaluation.

There were no comments about TransLink’s Twitter posts on February 6 and 16, which promoted the community workshops and online feedback forms. Retweets were not tracked.

3.2.3 Suggestions for Other Projects

Members of the public had the opportunity to suggest additional service and/or infrastructure projects for TransLink to evaluate. Of 243 project suggestions received through the feedback forms, community workshops and informal consultation:

115 comments (47%) were beyond the scope of this consultation or not aligned with the North Shore Area Transit Plan vision.

9 comments (4%) referred to service or infrastructure projects that are being addressed by TransLink’s ongoing Rapid Transit Studies.

103 comments (42%) referred to the 10 transit improvement projects under evaluation.

3 (1%) were duplicate suggestions.

20

17 (7%) of the potential new project suggestions are consistent with the Area Transit Plan long-term vision and therefore meet TransLink’s criteria for further evaluation. They are listed below, along with the source of the suggestion (community workshop, feedback form, Buzzer blog or phone message).

TransLink has identified an additional four new project suggestions based on feedback from the consultation. The source of those suggestions is listed below as “Consultation feedback”.

Additional Project Type Source(s) of Suggestion

New limited stop #130, terminate #28 at Kootenay Loop

Service Buzzer blog

Revise #239 routing to and from Lonsdale Quay

Service Buzzer blog

New route to Whytecliffe Park in West Vancouver

Service Phone message (Informal Consultation)

New NightBus Joyce to Lynn Valley via Boundary, Phibbs

Service Community workshop, February 9, and online feedback form

New route Deep Cove to Park Royal via Mt Seymour, 3rd, Marine.

Service Community workshop, February 9

New route Downtown Vancouver / Grouse Mtn via Lions Gate, Capilano, Nancy Greene,

all day/all week. Service

Community workshop, February 9

Increase SeaBus frequency to every 10 minutes all day, weekdays.


Revise existing project (ID#1: Sea to Sky) to include midday service to Park Royal only.

Service Community workshop, February 9.

New route Lonsdale Quay to Capilano University via Keith Rd, Phibbs Exchange


New route from Downtown Vancouver to Capilano University, bypassing Phibbs

Exchange Service

Community workshop, February 15

New Community Shuttle route on Lonsdale Ave, 23 St, St. Georges Ave.


21

Additional Project Type Source(s) of Suggestion

New route Capilano University to Deep Cove (direct, not via Phibbs)

Service Online feedback form

Modifications to Marine Drive, Westmount services to provide two-way service (#253)

Service Consultation feedback

Revised stopping pattern on #258 to UBC Service Consultation feedback

New Bowen Island route to Cowans Point Service Online feedback form

New Bowen Island route to Taylor Point Service Phone message (Informal Consultation)

New Marine Drive, 3rd Street, Cotton Drive B-line


New route Park Royal to Phibbs Exchange via Edgemont and Lynn Valley


Add northbound bus stop at Sunset Beach (Hwy 99 @ Lawrence) for C12/259

Infrastructure Online feedback form

Transit priority on Cotton and Main St Infrastructure Online feedback form

Improved transit priority between 2nd Narrows Bridge and downtown Vancouver

Infrastructure Online feedback form

These additional new projects will be evaluated using the Multiple Account Evaluation framework to determine their relative priority for consideration of near-term implementation.

22

4 Phase 3, Stage 2: Confirming the High Priority Projects

Based on feedback from the Phase 3, Stage 1 consultation, TransLink made revisions to both the Multiple Account Evaluation framework and the list of potential projects for evaluation (i.e. those aligned with the North Shore Area Transit Plan long-term vision and within scope of the Plan). This list included the 10 sample projects that were examined in detail in Stage 1, as they were used to confirm the draft Multiple Account Evaluation framework. The draft Multiple Account Evaluation framework and project list were revised to reflect the input from Stage 1 consultation. See Supporting Document K for the final Multiple Account Evaluation framework. Revisions to the project list included both changes to some previous projects, as well as the addition of new projects. See Supporting Document L for the Proposed High Priority Project Maps. Once the revisions were complete, all the potential projects were then evaluated using the finalized Multiple Account Evaluation framework. Based on this evaluation, 13 “high priority projects” were proposed as the North Shore transit projects that would be the first to be considered for implementation, along with all other regional priorities, as funding becomes available. The Phase 3, Stage 2 consultation then focused on receiving feedback from the public and from transit operators on those 13 draft high priority projects.

4.1 Consultation Activities

4.1.1 Formal Consultation

4.1.1.1 Community Events

TransLink sought to reach a broad spectrum of the general public and operations staff by hosting booths at 10 different events and locations during the consultation period. Staff members were on hand to provide information about the North Shore Area Transit Plan, answer questions, record comments and direct people to the online feedback form.

TransLink hosted booths at several North Shore community events:

Civic Plaza Farmers Market, North Vancouver, May 23

Lynn Valley Days, North Vancouver, May 26

Centennial Day Celebration, West Vancouver, June 2

TransLink also set up staffed booths in central locations (not associated with a community event) that have high pedestrian traffic and are accessible to the public:

Snug Cove grocery store, Bowen Island, May 19

General store and café, Lions Bay, June 7

SeaBus terminal, North Vancouver, June 9

23

In total, an estimated 250 people directly engaged TransLink staff about the North Shore Area Transit Plan at the events.

Staffed booths were also set up at four locations to engage Coast Mountain Bus Company and West Vancouver Transit staff:

North Vancouver Transit Centre, May 22

West Vancouver Transit Centre, May 29

SeaBus Operations, May 31

Burnaby Transit Centre, June 8

In total, an estimated 40 front-line transit staff spoke directly with TransLink staff about the North Shore Area Transit Plan.

4.1.1.2 Feedback Forms

A questionnaire was available at the community events and in the North Shore Area Transit Plan section of the TransLink website from May 18-June 15, 2012. The feedback form asked for opinions about the 13 draft high priority projects, as well as suggestions for any projects not already considered. The Stage 2 feedback form can be found in Supporting Document M. Note that while this version of the form, which was available in print copy at the community events, varies slightly from the version posted on the website, the differences were very minor and mainly related to web design layout.

Members of the public completed 245 feedback forms.

4.1.1.3 TransLink Listens

TransLink regularly consults with members of the public who volunteer to take part in the TransLink Listens Online Advisory Panel. TransLink conducted a survey about potential changes to transit on the North Shore with TransLink Listens participants from May 22-31, 2012. The same survey was also extended to the Angus Reid Forum online panel from June 1-6, to further increase participant numbers. In total, 373 panelists completed the online survey.

4.1.2 Informal Consultation

During the consultation period, 44 people provided comments directly to TransLink by email, phone or Facebook. TransLink Twitter posts (tweets) during the consultation period were retweeted at least 15 times (it wasn’t possible to track all retweets) and generated two responses from members of the public. There was a blog post on the Buzzer Blog on May 16 which did not receive any feedback.

24

4.1.3 Promotions/Advertising

As with Stage 1, TransLink promoted the consultation through social and traditional media, municipal websites, advertising and stakeholder communication.

Website: The North Shore Area Transit Plan web page was updated with current information about the 13 draft high priority projects. The “Get Involved” section of the web page was also updated to provide access to the online feedback form, information on community events and general contact information. Over the May 18- June 15 consultation period, these web pages received 3,603 page views.

Advertising: The community events and online consultation were promoted by three full-page ads in the North Shore News, one ad in the Bowen Undercurrent, and ads on the SeaBus and SkyTrain station televisions. The community events were also listed in the North Shore News community bulletin board. Ads were also sent to libraries, senior centres and community centres. A copy of the ad is in Supporting Document N.

Municipal websites: The City of North Vancouver, District of North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Village of Lion’s Bay and Bowen Island Municipality posted information about the consultation on their websites.

Social media: TransLink promoted the consultation through posts on the Buzzer blog (May 16), Facebook (May 16, May 25, June 6 and June 8) and Twitter (posts between May 16 and June 15).

Traditional media: TransLink issued a media release on May 15th, 2012, which provided details about the consultation. News stories about the Phase 3 – Stage 2 consultation ran in the North Shore News and the Bowen Undercurrent. The media release is in Supporting Document O.

Stakeholder communication: TransLink also issued an e-newsletter to stakeholders and emailed information about consultation activities to a North Shore Area Transit Plan database. The stakeholder list is in Supporting Document H. The Stage 2 stakeholder e-newsletter is in Supporting Document P.

25

4.2 What We Heard

The Stage 2 consultation sought public feedback in two areas:

Feedback on the 13 draft high priority projects identified from the Multiple Account Evaluation, and

Suggestions for any additional projects not included in the overall list of potential projects for evaluation.

Input was gathered from formal consultation (community events, feedback forms and TransLink Listens) and informal consultation (feedback to TransLink via phone, email, and/or social media). Similar to Stage 1, responses that were not relevant to the questions or that provide comments beyond the scope of the Area Transit Plan were noted and redirected to the appropriate authority where possible. These responses are not included in the tallies. The majority of the feedback was received through the feedback forms. Most respondents (63%) are residents of the North Shore and more than half (52%) use transit four times or more per week. The Feedback Form Respondents’ Profile can be found in Supporting Document Q.

The 13 draft high priority projects, based on overall scores in the Multiple Account Evaluation, are as follows (not listed in any sort of order or rank):

1. New service to connect Park Royal and Lynn Valley Town Centre

via Capilano Rd, Queens Rd, 29th St: Improves east west

connections and convenience, via Edgemont with 30 minute

frequency daily using community shuttle.

2. Extended Georgia St transit priority lane hours, increases speed

and reliability, to 7 pm daily.

3. Redesigning Queens Rd, Mathers Ave services (#251, #252) to introduce two-way service: Two-way community shuttle route replaces one-way #251 / 252 loop between Dundarave and Park Royal improves convenience and flexibility for passengers. Connects to more frequent service on Marine Dr.

4. Redesigning British Properties, Chartwell local services (#254,

#256) to provide two-way service: Two-way community shuttle

route replaces one-way #254 / 256 loop between Dundarave and

Park Royal, connects to more frequent service on Marine Dr.

5. Redesigning Caulfeild Dr, Westmount Rd service (#253) to

provide two-way service: Modified #253 route provides two-way

26

service and improves convenience and flexibility via Marine Dr

and Westmount.

6. Modifications to #258 to allow stops through Downtown Vancouver and 4th Ave: #258 stopping pattern to UBC would follow existing #44 route allows boarding and alighting at #44 stops, while maintaining existing frequency.

7. Capacity and frequency increases on #230 and #240, discontinue

#241.

8. Modifications to Lynn Valley local service (#210, #229): Redesigned Lynn Valley services replaces #210 / 229 Upper Lynn service with a new community shuttle route from Lynn Valley town centre to Phibbs exchange. Meets ridership capacity demand, operating at 30-minute frequency.

9. New connections on N24 NightBus to Lynn Valley Town Centre:

Redesigned N24 NightBus between Downtown Vancouver and

Lynn Valley town centre improves connections while maintaining

frequency via Lonsdale Ave and 29th St.

10. Extend #240 service to Lynn Valley Town Centre: Extended #240

service improves connections and maintains frequency between

Downtown Vancouver and Lynn Valley town centre via Grand Blvd

and Lynn Valley Rd.

11. Phibbs Exchange passenger and transit improvements: Redesigned Phibbs exchange, passenger facility, and end-of-trip facility improves customer comfort, safety, and usability.

12. Lonsdale Quay Exchange passenger and transit improvements:

Improved Lonsdale Quay Transit Facility to meet increased travel

demands and improve customer comfort, safety, and usability.

13. Park Royal Exchange passenger and transit improvements: New or redesigned Park Royal exchange, passenger facility, and end-of-trip facility improves customer comfort, safety, and usability.

See Supporting Document L for the Proposed High Priority Project Maps.

During the Stage 1 consultation, 10 projects were examined as sample projects intended to confirm the draft Multiple Account Evaluation framework. Some of those 10 projects received vocal support from members of the public during Stage 1 but were not later included in the 13 draft high priority projects in Stage 2. The 13 draft high priority projects were the ones that performed the strongest overall when measured against all evaluation criteria. While public acceptability was a criteria

27

measure within the Multiple Account Evaluation framework, it was only one of the criteria used in the evaluation. Projects that received favourable public feedback in Stage 1 did not always evaluate well against other criteria such as cost and/or land use, to name just two examples, and were therefore not necessarily included in the 13 draft high priority projects. (See Supporting Document K for the final Multiple Account Evaluation framework.)

Of the 10 sample projects considered during Stage 1 consultation, six were included in the 13 draft high priority projects in Stage 2:

Redesigning Queens Rd, Mathers Ave services (#251, #252) to introduce two-way service

Modifications to Lynn Valley local service (#210, #229)

New service to connect Park Royal and Lynn Valley Town Centre via Capilano Rd, Queens Rd, 29th St.

Redesigning Caulfeild Dr, Westmount Rd service (#253) to provide two-way service (modified from Stage 1)

Phibbs Exchange passenger and transit improvements

Park Royal Exchange passenger and transit improvements

4.2.1 Draft High Priority Projects (Level of Agreement)

The Stage 2 consultation sought feedback about the level of agreement with assigning high priority status to each of the 13 draft projects.


The feedback form asked “Do you agree that the following should be considered a high priority transit project for the North Shore?” For each of the 13 projects, respondents could indicate whether they Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Strongly Disagree or Don’t Know. The Stage 2 feedback form (printed version) can be found in Supporting Document M. The “Don’t Know” responses were as high as 39% for one of the projects (Redesigning British Properties, Chartwell local services (#254, #256) to provide two-way service). The “Don’t Know” responses have been excluded from the survey results reported below.

Some of the key findings include:

The projects with the highest level of agreement are: o “Extended Georgia St. Transit Priority lane hours, increases speed and

reliability, to 7 pm daily”: 41% strongly agree

28

o “New service to connect Park Royal and Lynn Valley Town Centre via Capilano Rd, Queens Rd, 29th St.”: 40% strongly agree

Combining “Strongly Agree” and “Somewhat Agree”, the projects with the highest ratings are:

o “Phibbs Exchange passenger and transit improvements”: 73% o “New service to connect Park Royal and Lynn Valley Town Centre via

Capilano Rd, Queens Rd, 29th St.”: 73% o “Lonsdale Quay Exchange passenger and transit improvements”: 72% o “Extended Georgia St. Transit priority lane hours, increases speed and

reliability, to 7 pm daily”: 71% o “Extend #240 service to Lynn Valley Town Centre”: 68%

Most projects had less than 10% of respondents “Strongly Disagree”. The notable exception is “Modifications to Lynn Valley local service (#210, #229)”, which had 58% strongly disagree.

16% strongly disagreed with “Capacity and frequency increases on #230 and #240, discontinue #241”.

11% strongly disagreed with “Modifications to #258 to allow stops through Downtown Vancouver and 4th Ave”.

The project with the highest percentage of “Neither Agree nor Disagree” was “Redesigning Caulfeild Dr, Westmount Rd service (#253) to provide two-way service”, with 71% offering no opinion.

29

NSATP Stage 2 Level of Agreement Survey Results

Project Names Strongly

Agree Somewhat

Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

New service to connect Park Royal and Lynn Valley Town Centre via Capilano Rd, Queens Rd, 29

th St.

40% 33% 22% 4% 2%

Extended Georgia Street transit priority lane hours, increases speed and reliability, to 7 pm daily

41% 30% 24% 2% 2%

Redesigning Queens Rd, Mathers Ave services (#251, #252) to provide two-way service

12% 22% 57% 6% 2%

Redesigning British Properties, Chartwell local services (#254, #256) to provide two-way service

12% 17% 65% 5% 1%

Redesigning Caulfeild Dr, Westmount service (#253) to provide two-way service

9% 14% 71% 3% 3%

Modifications to #258 to allow stops through Downtown Vancouver and 4

th

Ave

19% 26% 38% 5% 11%

Capacity and frequency increases on #230 and #240, discontinue #241

29% 32% 21% 3% 16%


14% 14% 10% 4% 58%

New connections on N24 NightBus to Lynn Valley Town Centre

31% 30% 31% 3% 5%

Extend #240 service to Lynn Valley Town Centre

38% 30% 24% 6% 3%


38% 35% 18% 5% 3%

Lonsdale Quay Exchange passenger and transit improvements

38% 34% 18% 6% 4%


32% 30% 27% 6% 5%

30

Feedback form respondents were invited to describe their concerns and/or suggestions for any projects where they noted “Somewhat disagree” or “Strongly disagree”. This generated 351 comments spanning all 13 high priority projects. These comments were assigned the same themes as the Stage 1 feedback form comments. Those themes, described in detail in Supporting Document J, fall under three general areas:

1. Customer/Community Experience

Customer comfort

Customer safety/security

Accessibility

Simple network

Community impacts

2. Service Quality

Frequency

Capacity

Travel time

Reliability

Efficiency

3. Network Design

Transfers

New connections

Coverage

Other modal connections

Of the total 351 comments received, 66 (19%) were designated not applicable (N/A) because they were out of scope or didn’t clearly outline concerns or suggestions. These comments were recorded and redirected to the appropriate department where possible, but have not been included in tallies of themes expressed in the feedback form comments. A complete overview is in the table below. Some of the key findings include:

The “Modifications to Lynn Valley local service (#210, #229)” project generated the most comments (150 total, or 43% of all comments received). Most of the comments expressed concern about increased travel time and suggested that the current #210 route is often at capacity and therefore should not be replaced by a community shuttle.

Travel time was the primary theme in comments for six of the high priority projects.

There are strong concerns about increased travel time for UBC students as a result of the “Modifications to #258 to allow stops through Downtown Vancouver and 4th Ave”, which proposes a revised stopping pattern for the #258 bus.

31

The other three West Vancouver projects generated a high percentage of comments related to efficiency – questioning whether the proposed changes are warranted in areas of low ridership.

There was notable opposition expressed to changes in the “Capacity and frequency increases on #230 and #240, discontinue #241” project in North Vancouver with increased travel time being the primary concern.

Several comments supported improving customer safety/security and comfort at Phibbs Exchange. Proposed improvements to Lonsdale Quay and Park Royal Exchanges generated more comments about the financial efficiency of directing resources to these projects, rather than other potential needs.

32

Project Total

comments

Dominant themes (number of comments)

Sample comments

New service to connect Park Royal and Lynn Valley Town

Centre via Capilano Rd, Queens Rd, 29th St.

16 Travel time (5) Yes, I would be extremely happy if you did this because then I wouldn't have to take two buses to get to work.

Extended Georgia St. transit priority lane hours, increases

speed and reliability 7 Travel time (3)

There would be more time savings if we went back to no pickups or drop-offs on Georgia Street, especially in the summer when the bus has access to Stanley Park. Let's keep the busses available for the North Shore residents who pay more to use them.

Redesigning Queens Rd, Mathers Ave services (#251, #252) to introduce two-way service

7 Efficiency (4) The bus has a low demand in this area. Funds can be better used in areas where the demand to bus services is higher.

Redesigning British Properties, Chartwell local services (#254,

#256) to provide two-way service

9

Frequency (4) Efficiency (3)

Service should be more frequent than 30 minutes, especially in rush hour. I don't think there is much use for bus service to the British properties, except perhaps for people's nannies to get to work. Low density area, high income.

Redesigning Caulfeild Dr, Westmount Rd service (#253) to

provide two-way service 7 Efficiency (4)

The new modified routes of the 251, 252, 253 mean that more buses are required to serve the same area. That means double the cost required, and with below profitable ridership, it doesn't make sense for there to be a 2 way, more expensive service in that low density region of West Vancouver.

Modifications to #258 to allow stops through Downtown

Vancouver and 4th Ave 25 Travel time (18)

The point is that this is an express bus, it doesn't stop. This will just make people in West Van have to be at the stop earlier in the morning. I would like to keep it an express, it's faster. There are plenty of 44 buses that come; there's no need for another bus to stop at those stops. The time spent to board passengers will result in delays to classes for UBC students and will defeat the purpose of a West Van express bus to UBC. The current system should be maintained for the convenience of North Shore UBC students in terms of time.

33

Capacity and frequency increases

on #230 and #240, discontinue

#241 32

Travel time (19) Coverage (6) Capacity (5)

The 241 is a convenient and quick way to get to downtown in the morning from Upper Lonsdale. It is nuts how long it takes to bus, SeaBus, SkyTrain and walk to work. No wonder everyone drives, which I certainly will do as well. We live above Braemar and the 241 is the only bus we can take. If it is discontinued we have no other alternative. Please do not discontinue the 241. I use this bus every day. It only runs during peak hours. If I have to take the 230 and the sea bus, my commute will increase by over 30 minutes a day. The 241 bus is always busy, so clearly it is used.


150

Travel time (73) Capacity (53)

I think the 210 is a valuable route. Heading to downtown, if people all have to get off a packed community shuttle and then transfer to some other bus at Phibbs, I think this would slow down the process and be much more inconvenient. The route would put an unneeded inconvenience on students coming from Upper Lynn Valley going to Argyle as they would have to leave from home much earlier to make it to school on time. Students going to university such as UBC or SFU would add another leg of the route and increase travel time. There is nothing wrong with the 210 route as it is, it is very convenient as it connects the whole of Lynn Valley and brings you to a central location downtown. It's essential to have fast, direct service from Lynn Valley to Downtown. The full size 210 during am and pm rush is packed. It shouldn't get replaced by a Community Shuttle. If anything, there should be more full size buses during rush hour between Lynn Valley and Downtown. I ride the 210 every day during the morning and evening rush hour and there needs to be more capacity on this route. Most days it is standing room only.

34

New connections on N24 NightBus to Lynn Valley Town

Centre 15

Coverage (8) New connections (7)

It's a long walk up the hill to my house in the 4200 block of St. Marys Ave. from 29th street. We have kids who are just starting to be old enough to go out at night and I was counting on them being able to use the night bus. If we don't want people to drink and drive they need options. My teens and young adults have a tough time getting home from downtown late at night, so a night bus service to Lynn Valley would be awesome!

Extend #240 service to Lynn Valley Town Centre

24 Travel time (11)

Taking the 240 from Lynn Valley to downtown would take much longer to downtown - how would that improve connection to downtown? Keep and improve the 210, that is the one that gets you to downtown faster during rush hour, and it is packed in the morning and evening already.


27

Customer safety/security (9) Customer comfort (6) Efficiency (6)

Passenger safety has always been a concern here - good idea to address it. It's a desert, alienated from anything that would keep people occupied or entertained when they miss their connection -- this happens to me regularly -- and not a particularly inviting place to wait, especially at night. I don't tend to feel unsafe there, just bored. I agree it could be spruced up a bit, but from an urban planning perspective, I wouldn't waste too much energy on making it into something that has amenities, etc. It is only a functional place, it is a connector and that is all. No amount of effort to improve the look of it is going to change how much I want to be there. It is not a place to hang out and congregate. It isn't now and never will be.

Lonsdale Quay passenger and transit improvements

21

Efficiency (9) Customer comfort (7)

The facility is not uncomfortably busy. And when it is, only very briefly. I'd rather the money be spent on improving transit routes to/from the Quay. It is very dingy there. Maybe better lighting would help, also better shelter at the stops.


13 Efficiency (9) Not required, spend funds elsewhere. Not a budget priority - seems fine to me.

35

4.2.1.2 Input from Community Events

TransLink staff kept note of comments made at the six community events. A number of the comments were out of the scope of this consultation. Of those that were relevant, travel time and frequency were common themes, which is consistent with findings from the feedback form comments. The following is a summary of the key themes expressed in these comments.

Theme Sample Feedback

Travel time

Supportive of new east-west route along East 29th and

Queens Rd. noting the number of connections and long

travel time required for some trips between destinations

along that corridor today

Frequency Several inquiries about SeaBus frequency improvements

Coverage New route support for 1st / Welch, especially with the new

Seaspan jobs, proposed bus service from North Vancouver

to Horseshoe Bay

Capacity #229 – seasonal, sometimes 40 people at Lynn Valley, too

many for community shuttle

Efficiency Acceptance for minibuses to serve lower demand routes

4.2.1.3 Input from Transit Centre Events

TransLink staff tracked comments from operations staff at open houses at four transit centres: the North Vancouver Transit Centre, West Vancouver Transit Centre, SeaBus Operations and Burnaby Transit Centre. Many comments were out of scope for the consultation questions. The comments that were in scope focused on four themes:

Theme Sample Feedback

Travel time

Extend transit priority lanes later in the evenings and

weekends

Reliability Issues about reliability with long routes operating on a

congested corridor [Marine Drive]

Capacity #210 – many half full buses by Lynn Valley

Simple network

Suggestions to include real-time transit information similar

to Main St. in Vancouver at Park Royal and other hubs

36

4.2.1.4 Input from ‘TransLink Listens’

A total of 373 surveys were completed for the North Shore Area Transit Plan Phase 3 (Stage 2) questionnaire. The report, “North Shore Area Transit Plan, Phase 3, Stage 2 Study”, can be found in Supporting Document R. The strong opposition received in the feedback form comments in response to proposed changes to bus routes #210, #241 and #258 was not as evident in the TransLink Listens survey results. Feedback on changes to North Shore transit exchanges was consistent with levels of agreement from the feedback forms; in both, changes to Phibbs Exchange receives the highest level of agreement, followed by Lonsdale Quay and Park Royal.

Key findings from this research include:

• Changes to North Vancouver transit service: Respondents have the

highest level of agreement that “Extend #240 service to Lynn Valley Town Centre” (60% strongly or somewhat agree) and “New connections on N24 NightBus to Lynn Valley Town Centre” (56% strongly or somewhat agree) should be considered high priority projects. This is significantly higher than the agreement levels for “Modifications to Lynn Valley local services (#210, #229)” and “Capacity and frequency increases on #230 and #240, discontinue #241” (42% and 48% respectively).

• Changes to West Vancouver transit service: Respondents have the highest level of agreement that “Modifications to #258 to allow stops through Downtown Vancouver and 4th Ave” (46% strongly or somewhat agree) should be considered a high priority project. However, this agreement is not significantly higher than the agreement levels for the other proposed modifications.

• Changes to North Shore transit exchanges: Respondents have the highest level of agreement that “Phibbs Exchange passenger and transit improvements” (72% somewhat or strongly agree) should be considered a high priority project for the North Shore. This is significantly higher the agreement levels for changes to Lonsdale Quay (64%) and Park Royal (64%).


The 44 informal consultation comments consisted of 17 email messages, 12 comments made to TransLink’s Customer Service department, 11 phone calls and 4 Facebook comments.

All the comments were about North Shore bus routes. Almost half of the comments (20 of 44) expressed opposition to the elimination of the #241 bus route (the “Capacity and frequency increases on #230 and #240,

37

discontinue #241” project), and 14 people opposed changes to the #210 bus route (“Modifications to Lynn Valley local service (#210, #229)”. This could have been influenced by information circulated by members of the public, including on-board transit vehicles, urging opposition to proposed #210 and #241 route changes.

The main themes addressed were capacity (13 comments), transfer time (12 comments), frequency (6 comments), coverage (5 comments) and travel time (2 comments). Thirteen comments were not specific enough to be assigned a theme.

Two Twitter responses from members of the public noted the absence of a SeaBus project among the high priority projects, suggesting that they felt it should have been included.

4.2.2 Suggestions for Other Projects

The Stage 2 consultation elicited 10 additional service project suggestions that are within scope and aligned with the long-term vision of the North Shore Area Transit Plan.

Additional project Description Source of project

New service to connect Riverside Dr. and Phibbs Exchange

New Community Shuttle route connecting Riverside Dr and Phibbs Exchange. Provides expanded coverage and new connections in Seymour River area. Introductory 30 minute service all week.

Stage 2 Consultation/ public suggestion (letter)

Revised Pemberton Heights, British Properties service to extend coverage to Rabbit Ln., Moyne Dr.

New Community Shuttle route expands service coverage in Sentinel Hill and British Properties. Introductory 30 minute service all week.

Stage 2 Consultation/ public suggestion (letter)

New community shuttle route Lonsdale Quay to Edgemont via Fell Ave.

New Community Shuttle route expands service coverage and connections between Lonsdale Quay and Edgemont area. Introductory 30 minute service all week.

Stage 2 TransLink Listens

Terminate all North Shore buses at Phibbs. Connect to frequent service to across Ironworkers Memorial Bridge

Redesigned #28 / #130 / #210 / #211 / #214 terminate at Phibbs Exchange and replaced with frequent connecting service across Ironworkers Memorial Bridge to increase efficiency.

Stage 2 TransLink Listens

New route Upper Lonsdale to Capilano University via Lonsdale, 3rd St.

New route connecting upper Lonsdale with Capilano University via Lonsdale Ave, 3rd St. Introductory 30 minute service all week.

Stage 2 Angus Reid Forum

38

New Highway 1 service between Capilano University and Park Royal via Taylor Way, PEAK ONLY

New route connecting Park Royal and Capilano University. Improves convenience and connections via Taylor Way, Highway 1. Peak-only weekday service, every 30 minutes.

Stage 2 Online feedback form

Redesigning #255 service to make connections at Phibbs Exchange

Redesign #255 to connect with other services at Phibbs Exchange. Existing service levels maintained.


New route Lonsdale Quay to Capilano University via Keith Rd.

New route connecting Lonsdale Quay to Capilano University via Lonsdale Ave, Keith Rd. Introductory 30 minute service all week.


Redesigning #230 service to route via Montroyal Blvd. to Grouse Mountain every second trip

Redesigned #230 connects Lonsdale Ave with Grouse Mtn via Montroyal Blvd. Alternates trips with existing service on Osborne, Princess, Braemar.


Modifications to Lynn Valley local service (#229)

Redesigns Lynn Valley service, replaces #229 Lynn Valley service with a new Community Shuttle route from Lynn Valley Town Centre to Phibbs Exchange. Maintains existing frequencies and connections to Lonsdale Quay.

Revised project based on consultation feedback, additional analysis

As with previous project suggestions within the plan’s scope and aligned with the long-term vision, these additional new projects were then evaluated using the Multiple Account Evaluation framework to determine their priority for consideration of near-term implementation.

39

5 Supporting Documents

A. Draft Multiple Account Evaluation Framework

B. Project Information Summaries, Stage 1

C. Feedback Form, Stage 1 (printed version)

D. Ad for Community Workshops, Stage 1

E. TransLink’s Social Media Posts, Stage 1

F. Media Release, Stage 1

G. Stakeholder E-newsletter, Stage 1

H. Stakeholder List

I. Feedback Form Respondents’ Profile, Stage 1

J. Feedback Themes

K. Final Multiple Account Evaluation Framework

L. Proposed High Priority Project Maps

M. Feedback Form, Stage 2 (printed version)

N. Ad for Community Events, Stage 2

O. Media Release, Stage 2

P. Stakeholders E-newsletter, Stage 2

Q. Feedback Form Respondents’ Profile, Stage 2

R. North Shore Area Transit Plan, Phase 3, Stage 2 Study