Fare changes at TransLink: Employer Pass Program to be killed

If you haven’t heard already, yesterday TransLink announced that it was changing some of its fare products. As TransLink is shifting to the Compass Card system, it makes sense that starting in 2014 FareSaver tickets will be discontinued in favour of providing purchase discounts for fares put on the Compass Card. This is similar to other transit agencies. For example in San Francisco on the BART network, when you buy $45 dollars in fare, you receive $48 on your card.

Another thing that makes sense is bringing the West Coast Express fare options in-line with the rest of the system. That means the 7 day pass for West Coast Express will be gone as will the $1 fee for bring a bike on the WCE. Also in January, the 28 day pass will be replaced with a monthly pass.

Another thing that is disappearing next year is the perk that allowed free travel for family members of monthly pass holders on Sundays and holidays. I can imagine that this was a promotion from back in the day when people didn’t do much but attend church on Sunday.

I know that TransLink says that these changes are about making fares fairer, but I think that one of the main reasons is to simplify the roll-out of the Compass Card system. It would be pretty hard for a faregate to tell when a family was going through it on Sunday for example.

The biggest shocker for me was that TransLink decided to get rid of the Employer Pass Program. The program gave a 15% discount on monthly passes for companies that could sign up 25 employees and have them commit to purchasing at least a years’ worth of transit.

I actually fought hard to get the Employer Pass Program in my workplace. When the program finally came in, it actually helped people make the choice to use transit. A co-worker of mine who loves his big truck actually switched to taking the West Coast Express from Maple Ridge to work.

In Donald Shoup's book “The High Cost of Free Parking”, he makes the case for programs like the Employer Pass Program. Since parking is a major expense and is bundled in with most employment in the region, it becomes “free”. The Employer Pass Program is similar. When you have transit as part of your paycheque deductions, it becomes bundled like parking; transit becomes “free”. Given the choice between free parking and free transit, many people will choose “free” transit especially when factoring in the cost of gas and now tolls in some areas.

I was going to actually write a post about how I didn’t think TransLink’s TravelSmart program was terribly effective. TravelSmart is basically a marketing program to get people to take transit. While marketing transit is a good idea, I don’t think that TransLink has the resources needed to promote the TravelSmart program at a scale that would really impact travel mode choice. One of the suggestions that I was going to make was for the TravelSmart program to push the Employer Pass Program more.

When people make a decision to walk, cycle, take transit, or drive, they are balancing two things: cost and convenience. Research has shown that people are actually pretty bad a making cost comparisons, only seeing upfront costs. This is why I liked the Employer Pass Program; it actually helped put transit and driving on an equal footing by embedded the cost of taking transit into your employment package. With new road infrastructure in our region making driving faster than taking transit, many people will only compare the cost of a toll to a transit ticket. They will wrongfully determine that driving is “cheaper” and decide to drive.

Sadly, the pending execution of the Employer Pass Program is just the latest victim of “service efficiencies” brought about by a Provincial government that doesn’t seem to want to give our region the ability to use new revenue sources needed to expand transit service. Let's hope the U-Pass program isn't the next program to get cut.

More single-family housing coming to the ALR in Langley

Back in 2010 —when I published a report on the Agricultural Land Reserve— I noticed a disturbing trend of not excluding land from the ALR, but allowing urban residential development within the ALR. This makes it appear on paper that the ALR is intact while in reality, it is becoming urbanized.

The most infamous example of this is the Wall Corporation single-family housing development which is part of the controversial University District, but there are other examples in the Township of Langley.

In 1993, 2003 and 2009, attempts were made to exclude 11 acres of land along the southern edge of Murrayville from the ALR. The request was denied three times by the Agricultural Land Commission. In 2010, Alan Hendricks was granted the permission to develop this land within the ALR by the ALC under the guise that he provide a buffer between urban Murrayville and agricultural lands. Part of this development will include a 15 meter planted buffer along the south side of the project.

Site of 21 single-family houses in the ALR. Near 44th Avenue and 216th Street in Murrayville.

I remember being at the Sustainability by Design Conference back in 2009 where the topic of urban/rural buffers came up. While some planners thought that buffers like the proposed Murrayville buffer were needed, may people who actually lived at urban/rural interfaces noted that it was a solution looking for a problem. Also, many people questioned why the buffer had to be in the ALR instead of non-ALR land around the reserve. It seems like the urban/rural interface in the Murrayville project is just the excuse needed to allow for the development of 21 housing on half-acre lots within the ALR.

Last Monday night, Township Council heard the final reading of the bylaw to approve this project, and change the rural plan to make it easier to develop housing within the ALR in the future.

Section 5.8 of the Rural Plan will be renamed from “Comprehensive Rural Estates” to “Rural Residential” with the following wording removed:

Lands designated for Comprehensive Rural Estates purposes shall not be located within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR).

What is really disappointing is that Township Council has a history of approving single-family housing projects within the Agricultural Land Reserve, yet compromises plans in urban parts of community that would help the Township become more accessible and sustainable.

Old BC Transit Guide on Transit and Land-Use

This weekend, I stumbled upon an old document from BC Transit —created back when it used to run the transit system in Metro Vancouver— called Transit & Land Use Planning. The document appears to have come out of the mid-1990s, and explains how even small changes to one project can have a large impact on the provisioning of transit service.

The main argument in the document is that land-use and transportation need to be more tightly integrated together. While some parts of the region and some levels of government are doing a better job of integrating land-use and transportation than others, it is interesting that +15 years since this document came out, we are still having the same discussion in Metro Vancouver. Take the following graphic for example:

Example of auto-oriented, transit-accommodating, and accessible building siting. Click image to enlarge.

It shows how the same project could be auto-oriented, or transit and pedestrian-oriented with just a simple change in siting. The guide doesn't mention that transit and pedestrian-oriented projects require less parking too, but research wasn't solidify on that point when this document was created. What is really frustrating for me is that the region has been talking about how to make development projects more accessible with simple siting changes for years, yet we still have auto-oriented developments in corridors that would be well suited for transit.

In Langley, I’ve been posting for years about how some auto-oriented projects could be made more accessible, but it still seems that even some +15 years later some planners and councillors have not received the memo on transit-oriented design.

The BC Transit document also talks about benefits of shifting back to a grid network of wide arterial streets and narrow local streets for drivers, transit-users, and pedestrians. It is good to see that the curvilinear road network that is common in areas like Walnut Grove is being replaced with tighter grid networks in newer areas like Willoughby. This is a change for the better.

The document also talks about implementing transit-priority measures on arterials to improve transit service. This includes queue bypasses and bus lanes. When this report first came out, transit priority measures were not common. Today there are bus only lanes on Highway 99 and in Vancouver, and queue bypass lanes throughout the region including in Surrey and Langley. Still, much could be done to improve reliability on corridors like Fraser Highway where a bus trip from Langley City to the SkyTrain can take between 30 minutes and an hour depending on the time of day.

One of the other interesting sections in the report is on how to stage new development projects for transit. While the section is an interesting read, I think the larger issue revolves around funding for transit today.

All in all, it is amazing how relevant this BC Transit guide is, even today, and how much positive change there has been in the region, though it is a bit disappointing to see that some municipalities are still struggling so much when it comes to making auto-oriented commercial projects more accessible.

$50.4 million Aldergrove Community Centre

Earlier this year, I posted about the preferred concept for the Aldergrove Community Centre which had a preliminary cost of $35.5 million. The Centre included the following features:

Indoor Aquatic
-Leisure Pool
-Lap Pool, ramp entry, 6 lane 25m
-Sauna & Steam Rooms
-Hot Pool

Community and Recreation Space
-Food Services
-Fitness Room
-Two Multipurpose Rooms
-Library
-Walking Track

Single Sheet Arena
-NHL ice sheet
-Skate Shop

In April, Township of Langley Council directly Township Staff to commission an Aquatic Needs Assessment to solidify the aquatic requirements for the community centre. The assessment noted that the pool should be reduced to one four lane, 25m lap tank and a leisure pool.

In June, Council decided to maintain a six lane, 25m lap pool and a leisure pool as originally envisioned. Council than directed Staff to commission a proposed budget and financial plan for the facility.

Council received this report on Monday. The cost of the facility is now pegged at $50.4 million which is significantly more than the preliminary cost.

One of the interesting thing that I found in the Staff report on the facility was that the Township of Langley had a goal to reduce its corporate GHG emissions (from its facilities and operations) to 10% below 2000 level in 2010. The Township hasn’t succeeded in that goal and has instead seen an 8.5% increase.

In ordered to minimize GHG emissions, Staff has recommended that the proposed Aldergrove Community Centre include internal energy sharing between the ice and pool mechanical systems, geo-exchange heating and cooling, and solar thermal heating. These measures would reduce the building's GHG footprint by 93% compared to if it was built with traditional energy systems. Staff is also recommending entering a long-term agreement with FortisBC Alternative Energy Services who would provide, operate, and maintain the 100% renewable energy system for the facility.

The next step for this potential facility will be to see how and if the Township will fund it. I think the Township will be looking for funding from the Province or the Feds to help offset some of the cost of this facility.