How to Know the Benefit of a Transportation Project

[njaohnt]

People keep arguing about whether a project should go through. However, you can just use math to figure this out.
YUSO=Years until system overhaul
AMSPT=Average minutes saved per trip
TVPH=Time value per hour(average amount of money someone is willing to pay for an hour of saved time)

((YUSO*annual ridership*(AMSPT/60)*TVPH)+(Current annual cost*YUSO))-(Initial Cost+(cost per year*YUSO))

The number must be above 0 to be worth it.

Stage 2 of the Southwest Rapid Transitway doesn't seem to be worth it.

((50?*3 600 000?*(2/60)*15?)+(1 000 000?*50?))-(590 000 000+(2 000 000?*50?))

-550 000 000

The southwest transitway will only save enough time to be worth $40 million dollars. The 161 takes 11 minutes, so there is no way that the transitway will save more than 2 minutes.

A better idea is to add off-board fare collection, and transit priority signals to save 1 minute, that could be done for a few million.

[esquire]

^ Your formula doesn't take into account the value of providing better-quality transit so as to encourage transit-oriented development, particularly within older parts of the city. Rapid transit is not just a transportation issue, there is a city planning element that goes along with it.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Your formula doesn't take into account the value of providing better-quality transit so as to encourage transit-oriented development, particularly within older parts of the city. Rapid transit is not just a transportation issue, there is a city planning element that goes along with it.

This is a fair point, except that most places that have attempted to develop densely around transit hubs have failed. For what reasons, I couldn't tell you. And there are certainly examples around Vancouver and its outer suburbs where this has proven semi-successful. But by and large, TOD is kind of a myth because those areas often end up as large parking lots for the cars that drive to the stations.

The math is a little simplistic, but I like the concept. It does just enough to point out just what little time differential we're on relying upon to make this system so attractive it ultimately punts us from our cars...

[scryer]

This is a fair point, except that most places that have attempted to develop densely around transit hubs have failed. For what reasons, I couldn't tell you. And there are certainly examples around Vancouver and its outer suburbs where this has proven semi-successful. But by and large, TOD is kind of a myth because those areas often end up as large parking lots for the cars that drive to the stations.

I am curious about which ones you think are semi-successful... Metrotown, Surrey Central, Gateway, Joyce Collingwood, Brentwood, Bridgeport, Lougheed (and various other locations along the Evergreen line that's under construction) are a few examples that have very successful transit hub oriented developments IMO. And almost all of the above have a few more proposals or buildings u/c that includes malls, mixed-use, and residential buildings so I'm a little confused about what constitutes semi-successful developments in this regard?

The only station that I can really think of is Scott Road station being the only large Park and Ride. But Scott Road itself is a huge collection road for Delta and Surrey. And there are also lots of examples of Edmonton getting residential developments around their LRT as well.

BACK ON TOPIC: Real Rapid transit does raise the value of properties and the surrounding areas when it's done RIGHT. I think that Winnipeg totally painted BRT with a bad reputation because the "phase 1" lacks functionality. And the fact that these phase 1 stations aren't creating any transit oriented developments really emphasizes how useless the current system is.

[esquire]

Phase 1 has led to plans for TOD by the Winter Club and work has already begun at the Fort Rouge site. Obviously the incomplete nature of the line built to date is not helping to get people to consider a transit lifestyle, though. Phase 2 includes plans for a big TOD on the Parker lands so it is inaccurate to say that there is no TOD. One big project under construction with two in the works is not bad considering what a half-assed little stub of a line constitutes rapid transit in this city.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by scryer

I am curious about which ones you think are semi-successful... Metrotown, Surrey Central, Gateway, Joyce Collingwood, Brentwood, Bridgeport, Lougheed (and various other locations along the Evergreen line that's under construction) are a few examples that have very successful transit hub oriented developments IMO. And almost all of the above have a few more proposals or buildings u/c that includes malls, mixed-use, and residential buildings so I'm a little confused about what constitutes semi-successful developments in this regard?

The only station that I can really think of is Scott Road station being the only large Park and Ride. But Scott Road itself is a huge collection road for Delta and Surrey. And there are also lots of examples of Edmonton getting residential developments around their LRT as well.

BACK ON TOPIC: Real Rapid transit does raise the value of properties and the surrounding areas when it's done RIGHT. I think that Winnipeg totally painted BRT with a bad reputation because the "phase 1" lacks functionality. And the fact that these phase 1 stations aren't creating any transit oriented developments really emphasizes how useless the current system is.

The reason I refer to them as semi-successful is because Vancouver is a very different place than most others. It's a world class city and it tends to attract world-class real estate investment. Based on what we see in that market, it's likely that had no rapid transit of any sort been planned and built you likely would have seen the same sort of dense development because of land values. So, yeah, it's successful, but is it only related to transit? Not really. The globe and mail actually did a piece on this not too far back. What was shown was that the values weren't really that affected at all because some people actually see being that proximal to a transit terminal as a bad thing. Taken in the aggregate, values were about the same. They even went so far as to average out the distances from the station and there wasn't any real statistical effect even within largely accepted transit-distance sweet spots.

Anyway, I'm just raising the point. Go into Ottawa or Toronto and you'll see the issues they're having with development around the stations. For whatever reason, it's just never really taken hold.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

Phase 1 has led to plans for TOD by the Winter Club and work has already begun at the Fort Rouge site. Obviously the incomplete nature of the line built to date is not helping to get people to consider a transit lifestyle, though. Phase 2 includes plans for a big TOD on the Parker lands so it is inaccurate to say that there is no TOD. One big project under construction with two in the works is not bad considering what a half-assed little stub of a line constitutes rapid transit in this city.

Well, I think we need to be a little more considerate of all the risk still attached to these projects. For one, that Winter Club site first belonged to a group of investors who were working with Akman. They couldn't make the project work, so they sold the land to Globe (The Morantz Family). They rezoned it RMU and quickly put it up for sale knowing that they also couldn't make it work, so that project is still just an old Tennis court and likely will be for a long time.

The Ft. Rouge Yards? There's so much conjecture coming from that development nobody knows where it truly stands. The most rosy outlook had them breaking ground this year. That's obviously not going to happen at this rate. And there are 900 units to sell over all. A pre-sale phase this long for the first phase does not portend well. Streetside has their rezoning and is about to start pre-sales, but they're going to have a hell of a time in this market.

Parker isn't going to be any easier. It's also the same developer which makes things even more complicated. If Marquess can't unload Ft. Rouge in a timely fashion, he won't be able to access financing for Parker. And he's not going to cannibalize his existing sales by giving the purchaser more options. If it pays him to, he'll sit on the land for the next fifteen years until he's comfortable developing it, because you can bet he won't be selling it.

I'm just looking at this TOD from a rational standpoint. It isn't going to be developed at the rate the public wants; it's going to be developed at the rate the developer wants and his interests run totally opposite to the city's...

[esquire]

^ But having a successful transit line is the first step in encouraging TOD. Edmonton had a LRT line for years before meaningful TOD began to take shape. Many buildings have gone up near ETS LRT stations over the past decade. And those aren't all immediately adjacent to stations either - there are definitely spinoff effects into the surrounding neighbourhood.

Speaking from personal experience, I lived in downtown Edmonton a couple blocks away from a station. However, I and many of my neighbours relied on the LRT and probably wouldn't have lived there if it was not available as an amenity. So the number of units being built right at the station isn't the only measure of success.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ But having a successful transit line is the first step in encouraging TOD. Edmonton had a LRT line for years before meaningful TOD began to take shape. Many buildings have gone up near ETS LRT stations over the past decade. And those aren't all immediately adjacent to stations either - there are definitely spinoff effects into the surrounding neighbourhood.

Speaking from personal experience, I lived in downtown Edmonton a couple blocks away from a station. However, I and many of my neighbours relied on the LRT and probably wouldn't have lived there if it was not available as an amenity. So the number of units being built right at the station isn't the only measure of success.

Yup. You're making a very good case for why it should have run down Pembina if it had to run somewhere...

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

This is a fair point, except that most places that have attempted to develop densely around transit hubs have failed. For what reasons, I couldn't tell you. And there are certainly examples around Vancouver and its outer suburbs where this has proven semi-successful.

The Evergreen Line will be very successful, not semi-successful. It takes 45 minutes to go on the 97 B-line, but only 15 on the Evergreen line.

(50*21 900 000*(30/60)*17?)+(5 000 000?*50)-(1 600 000 000+(14 000 000?*50))

7 257 500 000!! This is worth it (though the UBC line should have been done first, because it will save over $13 billion in time). I'm sure Winnipeg has places that could save a lot of time for a lot of people, too, which would save billions in time.

The southwest transitway doesn't save enough time. Rapid transit without the rapid part is just transit. I get that it is a part of city planning, but it is a waste of money. The point of rapid transit is to get people places faster, and the SW transitway stage 2 will not do that well.

If it costs more than the time it saves, it is not worth it. Simple. My calculation is just money saved - money spent

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by njaohnt

The Evergreen Line will be very successful, not semi-successful. It takes 45 minutes to go on the 97 B-line, but only 15 on the Evergreen line.

(50*21 900 000*(30/60)*17?)+(5 000 000?*50)-(1 600 000 000+(14 000 000?*50))

7 257 500 000!! This is worth it (though the UBC line should have been done first, because it will save over $13 billion in time). I'm sure Winnipeg has places that could save a lot of time for a lot of people, too, which would save billions in time.

The southwest transitway doesn't save enough time. Rapid transit without the rapid part is just transit. I get that it is a part of city planning, but it is a waste of money. The point of rapid transit is to get people places faster, and the SW transitway stage 2 will not do that well.

If it costs more than the time it saves, it is not worth it. Simple. My calculation is just money saved - money spent

Don't get me wrong, I love the analysis. My only comment about it refers to the simplicity with which you're valuing time. Time is only that value to some people. To others, it's not. And to more yet, they're valuing it in their own subjective capacity, so it has a value we have a very difficult time deriving.

But hell yeah, keep this stuff coming. I think it's a great addition to the forum...

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by njaohnt

People keep arguing about whether a project should go through. However, you can just use math to figure this out.
YUSO=Years until system overhaul
AMSPT=Average minutes saved per trip
TVPH=Time value per hour(average amount of money someone is willing to pay for an hour of saved time)

Time savings is never equal to money. Sure, people will save time, but that time savings will never expand the economy enough to pay for the maintenance.

Your equation is off.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Time savings is never equal to money. Sure, people will save time, but that time savings will never expand the economy enough to pay for the maintenance.

Your equation is off.

Time saving gives people more time to work. How does that not expand the economy.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Time savings is never equal to money. Sure, people will save time, but that time savings will never expand the economy enough to pay for the maintenance.

Your equation is off.

So, what does that have to do with whether a project should go through or not?

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by njaohnt

Time saving gives people more time to work. How does that not expand the economy.

Most studies with regard to time in transit show that a project that gives time savings doesn't actually increase economic output. To put it in lay terms, if the City did a project that "saved" me 5 minutes in my commute, I would leave my house (and sleep) 5 minutes later. This is a social time saving, but it in no way effects the economy.

Originally Posted by njaohnt

So, what does that have to do with whether a project should go through or not?

We can't pay for infrastructure with the time saved by everyone who uses it. We pay for infrastructure in dollars -- tax dollars to be exact. A project needs to bring in sufficient tax dollars or else we will just go further into debt.

EDIT: I suppose the other possibility would be for our taxes to go up, but luck convincing people that is a good idea.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Most studies with regard to time in transit show that a project that gives time savings doesn't actually increase economic output. To put it in lay terms, if the City did a project that "saved" me 5 minutes in my commute, I would leave my house (and sleep) 5 minutes later. This is a social time saving, but it in no way effects the economy.



We can't pay for infrastructure with the time saved by everyone who uses it. We pay for infrastructure in dollars -- tax dollars to be exact. A project needs to bring in sufficient tax dollars or else we will just go further into debt.

EDIT: I suppose the other possibility would be for our taxes to go up, but luck convincing people that is a good idea.

Saving time results in a higher quality of life. The value of time is how much someone is willing to pay for it. If you won't spend a cent to save 5 minutes of your time, then the time is worthless and the project shouldn't go through. However most people would pay to save time. I used 15, but a poll should be taken. The SW rapid transitway would need people to pay ~$155 per hour, which means it is far from adding value. If there are other variables to add in, add them in.

The thing is that most RT projects save 20, 30, 40 minutes or more per trip for 50 000+ people everyday. The SW transitway stage 2 will save 2 minutes for no more than 12 000 trips per day.

Anyway, like I said, if we can save 1 minute, then we will have a few million for off-board fare collection, transit priority signal, etc.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by njaohnt

Saving time results in a higher quality of life. The value of time is how much someone is willing to pay for it. If you won't spend a cent to save 5 minutes of your time, then the time is worthless and the project shouldn't go through. However most people would pay to save time. I used 15, but a poll should be taken. The SW rapid transitway would need people to pay ~$155 per hour, which means it is far from adding value. If there are other variables to add in, add them in.

The thing is that most RT projects save 20, 30, 40 minutes or more per trip for 50 000+ people everyday. The SW transitway stage 2 will save 2 minutes for no more than 12 000 trips per day.

Anyway, like I said, if we can save 1 minute, then we will have a few million for off-board fare collection, transit priority signal, etc.

I understand what you are getting at -- I think my problem is the word "willing". People may be willing to pay that amount, but they won't have to, so we still will be left with the burden of the on going maintenance. Putting a liability on the books without increasing actual revenue will make us go insolvent.

And if you are certain that people would be "willing" to pay for this time savings then you don't know Winnipeggers. Any mention of a toll road and/or a congestion charge and you will be killed.

EDIT: Let's just look at it for the case of Plessis Road Underpass. Do you think people would be willing to pay even just $1.00 to go under it, or would they use the free alternative of taking Regent (I am willing to bet the latter). So, here I repeat, we will not be able to pay for this infrastructure with "time saved".

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I understand what you are getting at -- I think my problem is the word "willing". People may be willing to pay that amount, but they won't have to, so we still will be left with the burden of the on going maintenance. Putting a liability on the books without increasing actual revenue will make us go insolvent.

And if you are certain that people would be "willing" to pay for this time savings then you don't know Winnipeggers. Any mention of a toll road and/or a congestion charge and you will be killed.

EDIT: Let's just look at it for the case of Plessis Road Underpass. Do you think people would be willing to pay even just $1.00 to go under it, or would they use the free alternative of taking Regent (I am willing to bet the latter). So, here I repeat, we will not be able to pay for this infrastructure with "time saved".

I don't see why you would take Regent to avoid Plessis.

Now, not everyone is going to pay $15 to save an hour, but I think most people would. Some more, and some less. If you had to take a toll road that takes 5 minutes instead of a detour that takes 1 hour and 5 minutes, how much would you pay for the toll?

Anyway, the point is that stage 2 for the SW transitway is far from being worth it.

[CoryB]

Something to keep in mind is that the south-west transitway is effectively reducing congestion on Pembina as a secondary goal. This benefits non-transit traffic travelling that route without the even more expensive cost of adding lanes and the related expropriation of prime commercial properties.

The plans for the east and north-east sections are to mainly use land reserves the City currently owns. When those are completed commute times from Transcona, EK, NK and Elmwood to the U of M/IGF will be reduced more significantly than "five minutes".

Another factor that needs to be accounted for is that new or expanded roads and additional parking lots were not created for IGF as it has one of its four entry gates dedicated to a rapid transit station, the currently underused "gate 2".

The formula in the first post fails to account for all these impacts. If you factor in their costs Phase 2 of rapid transit is a bargain in comparison.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Something to keep in mind is that the south-west transitway is effectively reducing congestion on Pembina as a secondary goal. This benefits non-transit traffic travelling that route without the even more expensive cost of adding lanes and the related expropriation of prime commercial properties.

The plans for the east and north-east sections are to mainly use land reserves the City currently owns. When those are completed commute times from Transcona, EK, NK and Elmwood to the U of M/IGF will be reduced more significantly than "five minutes".

Another factor that needs to be accounted for is that new or expanded roads and additional parking lots were not created for IGF as it has one of its four entry gates dedicated to a rapid transit station, the currently underused "gate 2".

The formula in the first post fails to account for all these impacts. If you factor in their costs Phase 2 of rapid transit is a bargain in comparison.

The problem is that while buses are taken off the road, there is no way they could save people $550 million in time.