Rethinking Malahat Solutions

You are welcome and encouraged to copy, distribute, share and excerpt this document and its ideas, provided

the author is given attribution. Please send your corrections, comments and suggestions for improvement.

www.vtpi.org

[email protected]

250-508-5150

Rethinking Malahat Solutions

Or, Why Spend Billions if Million-Dollar Solutions are Better Overall?

31 July 2024

Todd Litman

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

The Malahat Highway can be difficult and dangerous to drive due to heavy traffic volumes and

adverse weather. There is currently minimal public transit service on the corridor.

Abstract

This report evaluates possible ways to improve travel over the Malahat Highway

including roadway expansions, new bypass and bridges, reestablishing rail, and

improved bus service. This analysis indicates that frequent and affordable bus service,

with transportation demand management incentives, could attract 10-30% of trips,

providing large reductions in traffic congestion, crashes, user costs and pollution on

that corridor, and downstream. It is significantly cheaper and provides more benefits

than alternatives. Frequent and affordable transit helps achieve social equity goals. In

contrast, highway expansions are inherently unfair and regressive; they provide little

benefit to non-drivers, and by inducing more vehicle travel they increase downstream

traffic problems. More comprehensive analysis is needed to evaluate the full benefits

of multimodal solutions such as frequent and affordable public transit.

Rethinking Malahat Solutions

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Figure 1 Malahat Highway

The Malahat Highway is a

busy, narrow, steep and

windy 25-kilometer stretch

of the Trans-Canada

Highway 1, along the west

side of Saanich Inlet. It is a

congested and dangerous

bottleneck between

Victoria and areas north on

Vancouver Island. There are

frequent calls to expand

the roadway, create bypass

routes, and apply targeted

safety strategies.

Those solutions provide

limited benefits. At best,

they can improve traffic

conditions on that stretch

of road, but do nothing to

increase affordability or

improve mobility options

for non-drivers, and by

inducing additional vehicle

travel, they could increase

traffic problems on other

roads.

An alternative solution is to

provide frequent and

affordable bus service

between Victoria,

Nanaimo, with TDM

incentives for motorists to

shift to transit. This is far

cheaper than other options

provides a broader range of

benefits to users and other

travellers.

A new organization, Better Island Transit (https://betterislandtransit.ca) is now working to

advocate for multimodal solutions to Malahat traffic problems.

Malahat

Highway

Rethinking Malahat Solutions

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Introduction

The Malahat is a busy, narrow and steep 25-kilometer stretch of highway between Victoria and

Duncan. It is often congested, and averages about 50 crashes and 12 closures annually (Leyne

2019). As a result, there is considerable interest in improving travel conditions on this corridor.

This report evaluates potential Malahat corridor improvement options, such as those described

in the recent South Island Transportation Strategy (MoTH 2020), including expanded or new

highway routes, new bridges across the Saanich Inlet, and new rail service, plus one overlooked

option: frequent and affordable bus service, with transportation demand management (TDM)

incentives, such as those listed in the box below.

Box 1 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Incentives (CARB 2014; Litman and Pan 2023)

• Bus and station amenities

• Commute trip reduction

programs

• Bus/HOV priority

• Improved transit payment systems

• Walking and bicycling

improvements

• Mobility management marketing

• Efficient parking pricing

• Transit-oriented development

• Transit fare incentives

• Pay-as-you-drive insurance pricing

This corridor currently has minimal public transit service. Four commuter buses depart Duncan

between 5:30 and 6:30 am, and return between 3:15 and 5:15 pm weekdays. There is no

reverse-commute or evening service, and only three weekend trips. The fare is $10 each way.

Service between Victoria and Nanaimo is even worse. The Island Link bus makes from one to

five daily trips (except Sunday), depending on season, with $40 one-way fares (Island Link 2023).

This combination of poor service and high prices explains why transit serves less than 0.1% of

trips over the Malahat (MoTH 2020c, pp. 8 & 9).

Experience elsewhere indicates that many interregional travellers will choose transit if it is

convenient and affordable. For example, 12% of total trips and 22% of peak-period trips

between Sooke and Victoria are by transit (CRD 2017, p. 118). The #61 bus makes 43 daily round

trips between 6:00 am and midnight, including peak-period express service. Fares are just $2.50

one-way or $5.00 for an unlimited-use daily pass. Similarly, 20-40% of weekday trips between

Fraser Valley towns, such as Langley and Pitt Meadows, and Vancouver, are by public transit

(Translink 2011, p. 66, 71 and 76). Service is frequent and fares are just $3-12 one way.

Figure 2 Seattle Commute Mode Share Trends (https://bit.ly/2u2FGDL)

Between 2000 and 2017, downtown

Seattle’s public transit mode share

increased from 29% to 48%, and

single-occupant vehicle (SOV) mode

share declined from 50% to 25%, due

to a combination of transit service

improvements and TDM incentives

(WSDOT 2020).

Rethinking Malahat Solutions

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

By improving travel options and implementing TDM incentives, Seattle and Vancouver

significantly reduced vehicle travel and increased transit mode shares (McElhanney 2019;

Peterson 2017), as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 3 Vehicle-Kilometers per Vehicle and per Capita (Vancouver 2021)

Between 2014 and 2019,

vehicle kilometers per capita

and per vehicle declined 16%

and 12% respectively.

These result from local and

regional TDM strategies

including active and public

transport improvements, and

more compact development.

Although few motorists want to forego driving altogether, surveys indicate that many would

prefer to drive less and rely more on alternatives, provided they are convenient, comfortable

and affordable (MNP 2023; NAR 2017; Pembina 2014). Current demographic and economic

trends (aging population, changing consumer preferences, and growing affordability, health and

environmental concerns) are increasing non-auto travel demands. In response, many

jurisdictions are implementing multimodal planning and mode shift targets (FHWA 2012; Sriraj,

et al. 2017). For example, Victoria’s Climate Action Leadership Plan has a 25% transit mode

share target, and the Capital Regional District and Cowichan Valley transport plans have 15%

transit mode share targets (MoTI 2020). Provincial goals also support multi-modal transport

(Horgan 2017). Achieving these targets can provide many benefits, as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Frequent and Affordable Public Transit Benefits

Improved Transit

Service

Increased Transit

Travel

Reduced

Automobile Travel

Transit-Oriented

Development

• Improved passenger

comfort, convenience and

productivity.

• Affordability (savings to

lower-income households).

• Equity (benefits

disadvantaged people).

• Operating efficiencies (e.g.

from bus lanes).

• Improved security.

• Mobility benefits to

new users.

• Increased fare

revenue.

• Public fitness and

health (since most

transit trips include

walking and cycling).

• Increased security as

law-abiding citizens

ride transit.

• Reduced traffic

congestion.

• Road and parking

facility cost savings.

• Consumer savings.

• Reduced chauffeuring

burdens.

• Increased traffic safety.

• Energy conservation.

• Reduced pollution.

• Additional vehicle

travel reductions

(“leverage effects”).

• Improved accessibility,

particularly for non-

drivers.

• More efficient

development (lower

infrastructure costs).

• Farmland and habitat

preservation.

Public transit can provide numerous benefits, some of which tend to be undervalued by conventional planning.

Rethinking Malahat Solutions

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Because frequent and affordable transit services tend to attract peak-period, higher risk and

high polluting motorists, it can provide particularly large savings and benefits. For example,

commuters and seniors who dislike driving on high-speed highways, impaired or fatigued

travellers, and motorists who own older cars that are less reliable and inefficient are particularly

likely to choose convenient and affordable bus trips. Many traffic safety strategies (graduated

licenses, senior driver tests, anti-impaired and distracted driving campaigns, etc.) discourage

higher-risk driving; their effectiveness depends on travellers having viable alternatives to driving

(UIITP 2020; USDOT 2017). This explains why traffic crash rates tend to decline as transit

ridership increases (Litman 2019; Stimpson, et al. 2014), as illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Traffic Fatalities Versus Transit Trips (FTA and NHTSA data)

U.S. data indicate that, as transit

travel increases in a region, total

traffic fatalities (including pedestrian,

bicyclist, automobile occupant and

transit passenger) tend to decline.

Cities with more than 50 annual transit

trips per capita average about half the

traffic fatality rate as regions with less

than 20 annual trips, indicating that

relatively modest increases in transit

travel are associated with large traffic

safety gains.

These effects are likely to occur on the Malahat corridor: frequent and affordable transit service

is likely to attract many peak-period, higher risk, high polluting and lower-income travelers,

providing proportionately large reductions in driver stress, congestion, crashes, emissions and

user costs, as discussed in detail later in this report.

Analysis

The South Island Transportation Strategy (MoTH 2020) evaluates various Malahat improvement

options, including new or expanded highways, new Saanich Inlet bridges, and rail services, but

transit improvements between Victoria and the West Shore, plus mobility hubs and TDM

incentives, and the Vancouver Island Rail Initial Business Case (ICF 2022), proposes a cheaper rail

option, but provides no independent analysis so it’s estimates are unreliable. Neither consider a

frequent and affordable bus service option. This analysis fills that gap.

As previously described, there is probably significant latent demand for frequent and affordable

public transit service on the Malahat corridor by people who cannot drive, and by motorists who

want less stressful and cheaper alternatives to driving on a narrow, congested highway.

Experience on similar corridors, such as Sooke-to-Victoria and Fraser Valley-to-Vancouver,

indicate that convenient and affordable interregional bus transit can attract 10-30% of trips, and

more if integrated with strong TDM incentives, as in Seattle.

Rethinking Malahat Solutions

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Currently, about 25,000 vehicles and 30,000 people travel over the Malahat each day, and these

are projected to increase 24% by 2038 (MoTH 2020c), although those predictions are probably

exaggerated. Vehicle traffic has hardly grown during the last decade (Figure 5), and current

trends – aging population, rising fuel prices, improved alternatives (such as telecommuting), and

rising environmental and health concerns – are reducing automobile travel demand and

increasing demand for alternatives.

Figure 5 Malahat Vehicle Traffic Trends (https://tradas.th.gov.bc.ca)

During the last decade

Malahat vehicle traffic

volumes have hardly grown,

suggesting that projected

increases are exaggerated.

Current demographic and

economic trends are reducing

automobile demand and

increasing demand for

alternatives, including bus

transit.

Of course, actual future traffic will depend on travel conditions. Traffic congestion tends to

maintain equilibrium: traffic volumes increase until delays discourage some potential vehicle

trips. If roadway capacity expands, total vehicle trips are likely to increase as some travellers

take advantage of the added capacity. This is called induced travel (Handy and Boarnet 2014).

Public transit improvements can increase passenger trips but reduce vehicle trips.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) can significantly increase public transit ridership

and reduce automobile travel. On major corridors frequent and affordable transit will typically

serve 10-30% of trips, and more with TDM incentives (Sriraj, et al. 2017; TTI 214). For example,

in 2017, 22% of peak-period trips on the similar Sooke-to-Victoria corridor were by transit bus

(CRD 2017). There were 32 daily buses and fares were an affordable $2.50 per trip, but the

corridor lacked transit priority, commute trip reduction programs or financial incentives for

commuters to use transit, so an even higher mode share is possible. To increase transit use

local, regional and provincial governments could provide commute trip reduction programs for

their employees and required them for large employers, as in Washington State (Peterson 2017;

WDOT 2020; CRD 2018; Horgan 2017; MoTH 2020).

Figure 6 compares estimated Duncan-to-Victoria travel times for various modes. According to

Google Maps, driving takes 54 minutes during uncongested periods and 74 minutes under

congested conditions. According to the South Island Transportation Strategy, the proposed

Northern Crossing (a new highway and floating bridge across the Saanich Inlet, costing $2.7

billion) would reduce auto travel times by 8-16 minutes. With major track improvements, trains

could travel between Duncan and Victoria in 65 minutes, with a cost over $1.0 billion. The Island

Corridor Foundation claims that these costs could be reduced (ICF 2022), but their analysis is

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Average Daily Vehicles at

Malahat Summit

Rethinking Malahat Solutions

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

incomplete and unverified, and so should be treated with caution. Route 66 buses are scheduled

to take 70 minutes during off-peak and 77 minutes during peak periods, which if often faster

than driving due to the new Victoria-to-Langford bus lanes. Although public transit requires

additional time to access stops and wait for buses and trains, under favorable conditions

(pleasant walking and waiting conditions, comfortable vehicles, and amenities such as on-board

wifi) passengers can rest or work while travelling, so their travel time unit costs (dollars per

hour) are lower than driving on congested roads. As a result, many passengers will choose a bus

or train trip even if it takes longer than driving.

Figure 6 Victoria to Duncan Travel Times (Google Maps, MoTH 2020c)

This graph

compares

Duncan-to-

Victoria

travel times

for various

modes.

Table 2 estimates the costs of providing 43 daily bus trips between Duncan and Victoria, which is

the current service frequency between Sooke and Victoria.

Table 2 Frequent and Affordable Duncan-to-Victoria Bus Service

Daily round-trips

Average hours per one-way trip (assuming 70-80 minute trips with 20-30 minute layover).

Annual bus-hours (86 x 365 x 2)

62,780

Cost per bus-hour (BC Transit 2020/2021 Service Plan, p. 13)

$120

Total annual operating costs (62,780 x $120)

$7,533,600

Cost recovery rate (15%)

$1,130,040

Annual subsidy required

$6,403,560

Providing frequent and affordable bus service between Duncan and Victoria would require about

$6.4 million dollars in annual subsidy.

This analysis assumes that bus services will require about $10 million infrastructure

improvements, such as improved bus stops and stations. Table 3 summarizes and compares per-

trip public infrastructure costs for this bus service with other Malahat improvement options

described in the South Island Transportation Strategy Technical Report.

Current Auto Auto with New

Saanich Bridge

Train Bus

Minutes per One

-Way Trip

Uncongested

Congested

Rethinking Malahat Solutions

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Table 3 Public Infrastructure Costs Compared (MoTH 2020c)

Malahat Improvement

Option

Capital Cost

(Millions)

Annual Pmt.

(Million/Yr.)

Operation

(Million/Yr.)

2038 Daily

Users

Cost Per

Trip

Transit and TDM

$10

$0.5

$6.4

2,500

$10

Malahat Highway Widening

$561

$41

$28

33,000

Malahat Highway Realignment

$967

$70

$48

33,000

$10

Saanich Inlet Ferry

$122

$8.9

$6.10

960

$43

North Saanich Inlet Bridge

$2,250

$163

$113

10,000

$76

South Saanich Inlet Bridge

$2,740

$199

$137

11,000

$84

Victoria to Courtenay Rail

$1,007

$73

$50

1,610

$210

This table calculates and compares costs per trip for various Malahat improvement options.

Travelling the 60 kilometers between Victoria and Duncan costs users about $20 by either car

(for fuel and depreciation) or rail (for fares), and car trips impose about $5 per day parking

costs at destinations, paid either by users, governments or businesses. Saanich Inlet Ferry

fares are about $20 per vehicle trip. Bus travel is significantly cheaper. Figure 7 compares

Duncan to Victoria infrastructure costs plus user expenses. This indicates that frequent and

affordable bus service with TDM incentives is by far the most cost-effective option overall.

Figure 7 Estimated Duncan to Victoria Infrastructure and User Costs

This figure compares infrastructure and user costs of a one-way trip assuming $5 bus fares, $20 Victoria-Duncan

vehicle expenses, $5 daily parking costs, $20 Saanich Inlet ferry fare, and $20 Victoria-Duncan rail fares.

Frequent and affordable bus service provides additional benefits. Compared with congested

highway driving, transit travel is less stressful and allows passengers to rest or work.

Frequent and affordable transit provides independent mobility for non-drivers, which helps

achieve social equity goals: it ensures that non-drivers can access economic and social

opportunities, and receive their fair share of provincial transportation spending.

Column A and D are based on MoTH 2020c. Column B estimates annual depreciation, using the BC standard of 6%

interest over 25 years (MoTI 2014). Column C assumes annual maintenance and operating expenses average 4% of

capital costs. Column E sums column B and C, and divides that by column D times 365.

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

Frequent Bus

Service

Highway

Widening

Highway

Realignment

Saanich Inlet

Bridges

Saanich Inlet

Ferry

Victoria-

Courtenay Rail

Cost Per Trip

User Costs

Public Costs

Rethinking Malahat Solutions

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

How would these options affect total vehicle traffic? Roadway expansions tend to induce

additional vehicle travel. Adding a lane on a congested highway typically induces 4,000-8,000

daily vehicle trips (CALTRANS 2020; Litman 2001). In contrast, high quality transit reduces

vehicle travel. Figure 8 compares these impacts. It assumes that highway widening adds one

lane that induces 5,000 daily vehicle trips; a highway bypass or Saanich Inlet bridge adds two

lanes that induce 10,000 daily vehicle trips; rail service attract 2,030 passengers, of which

two thirds (1,352) would substitute for an auto trip; and frequent and affordable bus service

would carry 2,500 daily passengers of which two-thirds would substitute for an auto trip.

Figure 8 Malahat Traffic Impacts of Proposed Improvements

This graph

compares the

changes in

vehicle traffic

caused by

various Malahat

improvement

options.

In 2017 the CRD had 1.1 million daily trips, of which approximately 620,000 is by automobile

(CRD 2017). Total travel is expected to increase 24% during the next 18 years, resulting in

approximately 750,000 daily vehicle trips in 2038. By inducing 10,000 additional vehicle trips a

bypass highway or new bridge would increase total regional vehicle traffic 1.3%; in contrast,

frequent and affordable public transit would reduce vehicle trips by 0.7%, with particularly large

reductions in major activity centers such as downtown. If a quarter of the 10,000 additional

vehicle trips induced by a highway bypass or bridge travel to downtown, this would increase

downtown traffic volumes by 20%.

How much could frequent and affordable bus service with TDM reduce congestion? Travellers

who shift from driving to transit experience less congestion, and high quality transit reduces the

intensity of congestion on parallel roadways (Aftabuzzaman, Currie and Sarvi 2011). Congestion

does not disappear but is less severe than would otherwise occur. Shifting 10-30% of Malahat

travel from automobiles to buses could significantly reduce congestion on that highway, and

reduce congestion on urban streets. Expanding the Malahat Highway may reduce congestion on

that length of roadway, but will increase downstream congestion.

-2,500

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

Highway

Widening

Bypass Highway

or Bridge

Rail Bus

Change in Average Daily

Vehicle Trips

Rethinking Malahat Solutions

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

How much could bus improvements and TDM

incentives reduce crashes? Shifts from

automobile to transit tend to provide

proportionately larger crash reductions, so each

1% vehicle travel reduction reduces crashes

more than 1% (Litman 2019; Small 2018;

Stimpson, et al. 2014). Two factors contribute to

this effect. First, higher risk drivers are

particularly likely to shift mode. For example; a

senior who finds high-speed highway driving

difficult, a lower-income motorist with an old

unreliable car, and a celebrant returning from

drinking, is particularly likely to shift from

driving to public transit. Second, since about

70% of casualty crashes involve multiple

vehicles, vehicle travel reductions reduce risks

to both the motorists who drive less and to

other road users. According to one study, a 10%

reduction in vehicle mileage reduces total

crashes by 14% or more (Edlin and Karaca-

Mandic 2006).

This suggests that, if public transit reduces Malahat traffic by 20%, crashes on the entire corridor

should decline by more than 20%. This provides much larger total crash reductions than safety

strategies that only apply on the Malahat (Figure 9). For example, point-to-point speed cameras

might reduce Malahat crashes 10-20% (assuming speed-related crashes decline by half, which

represent 25-30% of all casualty crashes). Similarly, grade-separation might reduce Malahat

Highway crashes by 30-50%, but by inducing additional vehicle traffic is likely to increase

downstream crash risk, including risks to pedestrians and bicyclists.

What about rail transit? Rail is considered more comfortable and prestigious than bus travel, so

some people argue it would attract more passengers, but bus transit has other advantages:

• Proposed bus service is far more frequent than rail, providing 43 daily departures in each

direction, compared with one to two daily train departures proposed in the South Island

Transportation Strategy, and two to four daily departures proposed by the Island Corridor

Foundation (ICF 2022).

• Buses would be faster than rail for most trips. Buses can operate at 80-100 kilometers per

hour (kph) on the Malahat, and bus lanes allow buses to avoid congestion between Victoria

and the West Shore. Trains would operate at 38-55 kph between Victoria and Shawnigan

Lake, and 50-90 kph from Shawnigan Lake to Courtenay (WSP 2020, p. 49).

• Buses can serve more destinations and routes, for example, providing direct service from

downtown Victoria, UVic and Langford to Shawnigan Lake, Duncan and Nanaimo. A train

would stop at four stations north of the Malahat, and five south, and terminate in Vic-West,

requiring passengers to transfer to buses to most destinations (MoTH 2020c, pp. 23, 28).

• Bus fares are much cheaper than rail. Interregional bus fares would be no more than $5

between Victoria and Nanaimo, compared with $20-30 one-way fares proposed for rail.

Figure 9 Malahat Corridor

Crashes (https://tabsoft.co/2Zo4gNE)

Only a small portion of crashes on the Victoria

to Duncan corridor occur on the Malahat.

Rethinking Malahat Solutions

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

As a result, frequent and affordable bus service is likely to be more efficient for most trips and

attract more total passengers than rail (Walker 2011). Based on experience in other similar

travel corridors, it should attract far more daily commuters than rail, which tends to attract

more tourists. Of course, it is possible to develop both transit modes: rail may be justified to

carry large peak period volumes and tourist travel, but frequent and affordable bus service is

still needed for off-peak and reverse commute services.

Roadway expansions displace greenspace directly, and indirectly by encouraging vehicle

travel and sprawl. For example, proposed Malahat Highway expansions would disrupt parts

of Goldstream Park, and allow more Victoria-area workers to live in the Cowichan Valley,

stimulating more low-density development. As a result, these projects face significant

community opposition (Leyne 2019). Rail improvements displace less greenspace, and buses

use exiting roadways which requires no additional pavement. High quality transit reduces

total vehicle trips, and therefore road and parking pavement area, and encourages more

compact development, which protects greenspace.

Major highway and rail projects generally require years for planning, approval and

construction, and are inflexible. Frequent and affordable bus service can be operating in a

few months, and can easily change to accommodate changing needs and conditions.

Table 4 evaluates four Malahat improvement options according to ten impacts. Although all

options can reduce Malahat Highway traffic congestion, public transit improvements with

TDM provide a wider range of benefits.

Table 4 Comparing Malahat Improvement Options

Impacts

Widen Highway

New Highway

Rail Service

Bus and TDM

Infrastructure costs

High

Very High

High

Low

User savings

No significant savings. Requires automobile

travel.

No savings due to high

fares.

Large savings due to

low fares

User stress and

productivity

No change. Requires driving.

Passengers can rest or

work.

Passengers can rest or

work.

Mobility for non-

drivers

No benefit. Requires driving.

Moderate, due to limited

service and high fares.

Large due to frequent

service and low fares.

Traffic congestion

Reduced until new capacity fills with induced

traffic. Increases downstream congestion.

Small reduction.

Small to moderate

reduction.

Traffic safety

Depends on design: grade separation may

reduce crashes. More downstream crashes.

Small crash reductions.

Moderate to large

crash reductions

Pollution emissions

Increased due to induced vehicle travel.

Small reductions.

Moderate reductions

Parking costs

Large increase due to induced vehicle travel.

Small reduction

Moderate reductions

Greenspace

Moderate losses

Large losses

Small losses

No losses

Land development

Encourages sprawl

Encourages compact development.

Project speed and

flexibility

Projects take many years for planning, approval and construction, and

once built are inflexible.

Fast and flexible.

This table summarizes various impacts. By providing an alternative to driving and reducing total vehicle travel,

public transit improvements provide a wider range of benefits than highway expansions.

Rethinking Malahat Solutions

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Comment: Regardless of rail plans, Vancouver

Island needs frequent, affordable bus service

Public transit service north of the Malahat is terrible.

By Todd Litman, Times Colonist, 22 Feb. 2023

(https://tinyurl.com/33xfe7r4)

Vancouver Island badly needs convenient and

affordable public transportation. This provides basic

mobility for travellers who cannot, should not, or

prefer not to drive, and high-quality transit helps to

reduce traffic and parking congestion, crashes and

pollution emissions.

Even people who don’t use transit benefit when it

reduces their chauffeuring burdens and traffic

problems.

A few Island corridors have good transit services. New

bus lanes save 13 to 20 minutes between the West

Shore and Victoria, making buses faster than private

-vehicles on that route. Between Sooke and Victoria

there are 32 daily buses with $2.50 one-way fares.

This frequent and affordable transit service carries 22

per cent of peak-period trips, reducing traffic

congestion and emissions on that corridor. Sooke

residents benefit from independence, cost savings and

reduced stress.

However, north of the Malahat, transit service is

terrible. Between Duncan and Victoria there are just

four weekday buses and three Saturday buses, with

$10 one-way fares. Between Nanaimo and Victoria

there are only three weekly buses with $40 one-way

fares.

As a result of this poor service and these high prices,

transit serves an insignificant portion of travel on this

corridor. This is unfair and inefficient. People who

don’t drive lack basic mobility, and a lack of efficient

travel options increases congestion, crashes and

-pollution.

Next month the federal government will decide

whether to re-establish rail service on the E&N

corridor. That would be nice, but I hope that

everybody involved understands the high costs and

limitations of that -service.

Contrary to what some optimists claim, rail

service would not be convenient or affordable,

and so is unlikely to attract significant ridership.

We need more than rail can provide.

The Island Corridor Foundation claims that

rebuilding E&N rail infrastructure would only cost

$431 million, but construction costs are rising and

the service will require operating subsidies, so

total costs are likely to be much higher.

That investment would only finance two to four

daily passenger trains operating at 30 kilometres

an hour. It will take at least 92 minutes to travel

between Duncan and Vic West, where most

passengers would transfer to another bus to

reach their destinations. The current proposal

assumes $19 one-way fares, which is more

expensive than driving for most trips.

As a result, rail would provide limited benefits. It

may attract affluent tourists who have plenty of

time and money but few local residents with busy

schedules and limited budgets.

The proposed rail service would not be fast or

frequent enough to serve most commuters, would

not operate late enough to serve evening

-travellers, and would be expensive.

Even if rail service is re‑established we will also

need high quality bus service for off-peak, reverse

commute, and evening travel. Coach buses with

on-board washrooms, bucket seats and free wifi

can provide comfortable service with direct

connections to multiple destinations: downtown,

Uptown and UVic.

Even if federal and provincial governments decide

to rebuild the E&N rail line, it will be years before

rail service begins operation. Frequent, affordable

bus service could be established in months and

start building transit ridership on this critical

corridor.

Regardless of the federal government’s decision

on the E&N rail, we need frequent and affordable

bus service between Nanaimo and Victoria. There

is no reason to delay.

Rethinking Malahat Solutions

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

To be useful and maximize ridership public transit must be convenient, frequent and affordable,

and supported with TDM incentives (Walker 2011). Conventional planning tends to overlook and

undervalue many of these factors. For example, the South Island Transportation Strategy’s

evaluation framework (MoTH 2020c) considers travel speed but not service frequency. It

identifies affordability and social equity as general goals but does not consider them when

evaluating specific options. It recognizes the benefits of “redundancy” (i.e., additional routes)

for motorists, but not the redundancy benefits of increasing non-auto travel options. The

analysis only considers impacts on the Malahat Highway itself, ignoring downstream impacts,

such as the additional traffic problems that result if Malahat Highway expansions induce

additional vehicle travel, and the additional benefits that occur if public transit improvements

with TDM incentives reduce total vehicle travel and therefore downstream traffic impacts.

Figure 10 Malahat Corridor (MoTH 2020c)

Analysis for the South Island

Transportation Strategy only

considered impacts on the

Malahat Highway itself. It

ignored downstream impacts,

such as the additional

congestion, parking costs,

crashes and pollution that result

when highway expansions

induce additional vehicle travel.

High quality transit with TDM

incentives reduces traffic

problems along the entire

corridor.

Conventional planning practices

exaggerate highway expansion

benefits and undervalue

frequent and affordable public

transit with TDM incentives.

This analysis is challenging because some future costs are difficult to predict. The South Island

Transportation Strategy compares the various options’ estimated capital costs but ignores

future maintenance and operating costs. This analysis assumes that these costs will average 4%

of capital costs annually, which may be too high for highway expansions, but is probably low for

new highways, major new bridges, and especially for new rail services that will require both

track maintenance and operating subsidies.

Malahat

Rethinking Malahat Solutions

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Critique of the Island Corridor Foundation’s Vancouver Island Rail Initial Business Case

In 2020 the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) published the South Island

Transportation Strategy (MoTI 2020) which included detailed cost estimates for various Malahat

improvement options. It estimated that reestablishing rail service between Victoria and

Courtenay would require $1,007 million in capital costs, plus ongoing infrastructure

maintenance and operating expenses.

In 2022 the Island Corridor Foundation (ICF) published the Vancouver Island Rail Initial Business

Case which estimated a much lower total capital costs of $431 million to operate two daily

trains between Courtney and Victoria, plus two daily trains between Victoria and Duncan (ICF

2022). It estimated that, with one-way fares of $11 between Duncan and Victoria, and $20 fares

between Courtney and Victoria, it would attract 8-20% of travel over the Malahat. There are

good reasons to be skeptical of these estimates. The ICF study:

• Ignores the impacts that infrequent service, with only two to four daily trains over the

Malahat, and high proposed fares, two to four times higher than local transit fares, would

have on ridership and automobile traffic reductions, particularly by commuters and other

utilitarian travellers.

• Included just $5 million contingency funding for project engineering and supervision,

compared with $111 million estimated by the MoTI. Rebuilding tracks, 40 bridges and

numerous road crossings that have not been used or maintained for more than a decade is

likely to present many engineering and construction problems that will require significant

additional funding.

• Only includes $3 million to rebuild twelve station platforms, and no funding for station

amenities such as washrooms and vehicle parking. The MoTI study included $81 million for

stations.

• Estimates travel times to “Victoria,” referring to the Vic West terminal. In fact, most trips will

require an additional 10 to 30 minutes to reach common destinations such as downtown,

Uptown and UVic. This will make rail significantly slower than automobile travel or buses

with direct service routes.

• Includes no funds negotiating First Nations land rights. The MoTI study included $42 million

for this activity.

• Included no funding for a maintenance and storage facility, transit hub, or improved level

crossing signals. The MoTI included $241 million for these activities.

• Includes no funding for safe walking and bicycling paths along the corridors.

• Uses unrealistic emission reduction estimates. In fact, diesel trains would only reduce

emissions if they have very high load factors, and most of the projected freight traffic would

be between Port Alberni and Nanaimo, to be barged to Vancouver. There would be little

reduction in truck traffic over the Malahat.

• Claims that rail would provide a practical alternative when the highway is closed, although

rail service could accommodate less than 5% the 30,000 passengers who travel over the

Malahat each day. Most travellers would taking the Mill Bay ferry, driving Highway 14 to

Lake Cowichan, or waiting for the Malahat to reopen.

Rethinking Malahat Solutions

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Conclusions

The Malahat Highway is a significant bottleneck on a major travel corridor. There are frequent

calls for improvements to reduce driver stress, congestion delays and crashes. This report

evaluates various options, including highway expansions, new rail services, plus frequent and

affordable bus transit with TDM incentives.

Expanding the highway with more lanes, bypass routes or bridges would cost hundreds of

millions of dollars, and by inducing more vehicle travel would exacerbate downstream

congestion, parking costs, crashes and pollution problems. Reintroducing rail service is also

costly and would provide limited service, just two to six daily trips and stop in Vic West,

requiring transfers to most destinations. Major highway expansions and rail service would also

incur many millions of dollars in additional annual maintenance and operating costs.

This analysis indicates that frequent and affordable bus service with TDM incentives is the most

cost-effective and beneficial option. This service could start small and expand as demand

increases. A basic program could provide 43 daily trips between Duncan and Victoria, as

between Sooke and Victoria, with one-way fares less than $5. As demand grows, service could

expand to include more routes that connect to more destinations. Experience elsewhere

indicates that this could attract 10-30% of corridor travel, and more during peak periods.

Proposed highway expansions would induce as many as 10,000 additional vehicle trips on the

corridor, increasing regional traffic volumes 1.3%, and up to 20% in major commercial centers.

Frequent and affordable bus service could reduce regional traffic 0.7%, with larger reductions in

major centers. This service should be particularly attractive to higher-risk and higher-cost

motorists, such as those who find high-speed highway driving stressful, are fatigued or impaired,

or have unreliable or inefficient car. As a result, each 1% of automobile travel shifted to transit

should reduce congestion, crashes, emissions, and user costs more than 1%.

Convenient and affordable transit service provides a wider range of benefits than other Malahat

improvement options, including user savings and benefits, social equity goals, safety, and

emission reductions, as summarized in Table 6. Highway expansions may reduce congestion and

crashes on that stretch of roadway, but increase downstream traffic problems.

Table 6 Comparing Benefits

Planning Objectives

Roadway Expansion

Commuter Rail

Bus and TDM

Reduced stress and increased productivity

✓

Independent mobility for non-drivers

✓

Reduced congestion

✓

Infrastructure savings



✓

Parking cost savings



✓

Consumer savings and affordability



✓

Traffic safety

✓/

✓

Energy savings and emission reductions



✓

Physical fitness and health

✓

Encourage more compact development



✓

Roadway expansions provide few benefits (

✓

) and contradicts other objectives (



). At best they reduce

congestion and crash rates on that roadway, but these benefit decline as induced traffic fills the added

capacity and increases downstream traffic problems. Transit with TDM provides more diverse benefits.

Rethinking Malahat Solutions

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Some people favor rail over bus transit because they consider it more comfortable, prestigious

and reliable, but bus service would be more frequent, direct, affordable, and faster door-to-door

for most trips. As a result, bus transit is likely to attract more passengers and provide more total

benefits. Bus service improvements can be implemented more quickly than alternatives, and

can respond quickly to changing needs. Rail and bus are not mutually exclusive: even with rail,

many travellers will want frequent and affordable bus transit for reverse commuting, evening

and weekend service.

The South Island Transportation Strategy overlooks many of these impacts. It considers capital

but not future operating costs. It assumes that highway expansions would reduce congestion,

crashes and pollution, ignoring induced travel effects. It considers the redundancy benefits of

increased highway routes but not from increased modes. Similarly, the Vancouver Island Rail

Initial Business Case makes optimistic and unjustified claims concerning the rail network

reconstruction costs, travel speeds, and ridership levels. Highway expansions are inherently

unfair and regressive; they provide minimal benefits to non-drivers and contradict the

province’s goals to encourage active travel, increase affordability, and reduce emissions. In

contrast, frequent and low fare transit improves mobility for non-drivers, increases affordability

and reduces traffic problems on local streets, including delay and risks that vehicle traffic

imposes on pedestrians and bicyclists, which helps achieve community goals.

Current demographic and economic, including aging populations, changing consumer

preferences, plus increasing health and environmental concerns are increasing demand for

convenient and affordable public transit, and transit-oriented development on this corridor. In

the past, provincial transportation planning ignored these demands; previous Malahat studies

evaluated public transit based only on its ability to reduce motor vehicle congestion and crash

risks on that link, ignoring other community goals. The recent South Island Transportation

Strategy represents significant but incomplete progress towards the new paradigm. It considers

some non-auto modes, but ignores frequent and affordable interregional bus services. It

considers a wider variety of impacts than previous studies, but still ignores many costs of

highway expansions and many benefits of frequent and affordable public transit.

This analysis is not anti-car. Motorists have every reason to support frequent and affordable

public transit because it is generally the fastest and most cost effective way to reduce their

congestion, crash risk, and chauffeuring burdens.

This is an important and timely issue. Many Vancouver Island residents and communities want

better mobility options in order to help achieve various economic, social and environmental

goals. The South Island Transportation Strategy identifies various Malahat corridor mobility

improvements, but overlooks the best. This analysis indicates that frequent and affordable bus

service is the most cost efficient and beneficial way to achieve our community goals.

A new organization, Better Island Transit (https://betterislandtransit.ca) is now working to

advocate for multimodal solutions to Malahat traffic problems.

  Rethinking Malahat Solutions   
Victoria Transport Policy Institute 
16 
References 
 
Md Aftabuzzaman, Graham Currie and Majid Sarvi (2011), “Exploring the Underlying Dimensions of 
Elements Affecting Traffic Congestion Relief Impact of Transit,” Cities, Vo. 28/1 
(www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02642751), pp. 36-44.  
 
Robert Barron (2022), “New Transit Route Between Nanaimo and Cowichan Expected,” Nanaimo 
Bulletin (www.nanaimobulletin.com); at https://bit.ly/35tLjk8.  
 
BC Transit (2023), Schedules and Fares, (www.bctransit.com).    
 
BIT (2024), Frequent and Affordable Vancouver Island Bus Service: Why and How to Provide 
Convenient and Inexpensive Public Transit Connecting Central and South Vancouver Island, Better 
Island Transit (https://betterislandtransit.ca); at https://betterislandtransit.ca/report.  
 
Nicholas Dagen Bloom (2023), Why the Humble City Bus is the Key to Improving US Public Transit, The 
Conversation (https://theconversation.com); at https://tinyurl.com/2mjn6utr. 
 
CARB (2010-2014), Research on Impacts of Transportation and Land Use-Related Policies, California 
Air Resources Board (http://arb.ca.gov); at http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm. 
 
CRD (2017), 2017 Capital Reginal District Origin Destination Household Travel Survey, Capital 
Regional District (www.crd.bc.ca); at https://bit.ly/2qn1O9Z.  
 
CRD (2018), Regional Transportation, Capital Regional District (www.crd.bc.ca); at https://bit.ly/3HDmuCv.  
 
Aaron Edlin and Pena Karaca-Mandic (2006), “The Accident Externality from Driving,” Journal of 
Political Economy, Vol. 114, No. 5, pp. 931-955; at https://bit.ly/2TzGwXK.  
 
FHWA (2012), Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process, FHWA-
HOP-12-035, Federal Highway Administration (www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov); at https://bit.ly/2Yz6Wd1. 
 
Halcrow Consulting (2006), Malahat Travel Demand Study; Assessment of Inter-Regional Transit 
Options, Ministry of Transportation and BC Transit (www2.gov.bc.ca); at https://bit.ly/2u3IYXb.   
 
Susan Handy and Marlon G. Boarnet (2014), Impact of Highway Capacity and Induced Travel on 
Passenger Vehicle Use, California Air Resources Board (www.arb.ca.gov); at https://bit.ly/3lrcW0u.  
 
John Horgan (2017), Ministry of Transportation Mandate Letter, Office of the Premier 
(www.gov.bc.ca), at https://bit.ly/2TEjU8n.  
 
ICBC (2018), Crash Maps: Vancouver Island Crashes 2013-2017, Insurance Corporation of British 
Columbia (www.icbc.com); at www.icbc.com/about-icbc/newsroom/Pages/Statistics.aspx. 
 
ICF (2022), Vancouver Island Rail Initial Business Case, Island Corridor Foundation 
(www.islandrail.ca); at https://bit.ly/3GByvqn.  
 
Island Link Bus (https://www.islandlinkbus.com).  
 

  Rethinking Malahat Solutions   
Victoria Transport Policy Institute 
17 
Les Leyne (2019), “Malahat Bypass Routes are Full of Constraints,” Times Colonist; at 
https://bit.ly/2J7Z2BO.  
 
Todd Litman (2001), “Generated Traffic; Implications for Transport Planning,” ITE Journal, Vol. 71, 
No. 4, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org), pp. 38-47; at www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf.  
 
Todd Litman (2013), “The New Transportation Planning Paradigm,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vo. 83, 
No. 6, pp. 20-28; at www.vtpi.org/paradigm. 
 
Todd Litman (2017), Public Transportation’s Impact on Rural and Small Towns: A Vital Mobility Link, 
American Public Transportation Association (www.apta.com); at www.apta.com/rural. 
 
Todd Litman (2019), “Toward More Comprehensive Evaluation of Traffic Risks and Safety Strategies,” 
Research in Transportation Business & Management (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2019.01.003); 
also see A New Traffic Safety Paradigm, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org/ntsp).   
 
Todd Litman (2023), “Regardless of Rail Plans, Vancouver Island Needs Frequent and Affordable Bus 
Service,” Times Colonist (www.timescolonist.com), 22 Feb. 2023; at https://tinyurl.com/33xfe7r4.   
 
Todd Litman (2024), Frequent and Affordable Duncan-Victoria Bus Service, Victoria Transport Policy 
Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/dvbs.pdf.    
 
Todd Litman and Melrose Pan (2023), TDM Success Stories, Victoria Transport Policy Institute 
(www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tdmss.pdf. 
 
Todd Litman and Alastair Craighead (2021), “An Unglamorous Malahat Congestion Solution: 
Frequent, Low-Cost Bus Service, Times Colonist; at https://lnkd.in/gUBzBEFU. Also see “Better Bus 
Service is Needed to Fill the Malahat Gaps” (https://bit.ly/3mouZa3). 
 
Jeremy Mattson (2012), Travel Behavior and Mobility of Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations, 
Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute; at www.ugpti.org/pubs/pdf/DP258.pdf. 
 
McElhanney (2019), 2018 Annual Transportation Panel Survey, City of Vancouver 
(https://vancouver.ca); at https://lnkd.in/gJwu2in.  
 
Arlene Tigar McLaren (2015), Moving Beyond the Car. Families and Transportation in Vancouver, BC, 
Centre for Policy Alternatives (www.policyalternatives.ca); at https://bit.ly/38qvx9n. 
 
MNP (2023), Island Coastal Inter-Community Transportation Study, Island Coastal Trust 
(https://islandcoastaltrust.ca); at https://bit.ly/403c2Mz. 
 
MoTH (2007), Malahat Corridor Study, British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Highways 
(www2.gov.bc.ca); at https://bit.ly/2fx00oB; Appendix K at https://bit.ly/2UOSxJq.  
 
MoTH (2014), Benefit Cost Analysis Guidebook, BC Ministry of Transportation and Highways 
(www2.gov.bc.ca); at https://bit.ly/32fkkVb.  
 
MoTI (2018), Traffic Data Program, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 
(www.th.gov.bc.ca); at www.th.gov.bc.ca/trafficData/tradas/tradas.asp?loc=P-11-900NS. 
 

  Rethinking Malahat Solutions   
Victoria Transport Policy Institute 
18 
MoTI (2020), South Island Transportation Strategy, Ministry of Transportation and Highways 
(www.gov.bc.ca); at https://bit.ly/3kDlQYt. Includes South Island Transportation Strategy; Technical 
Report No. 1 (https://bit.ly/2Jqk3YJ) and 2 (https://bit.ly/387dJQq). 
 
NAR (2017), National Community Preference Surveys, National Association of Realtors 
(www.realtor.org); at www.nar.realtor/reports/nar-2017-community-preference-survey. 
 
Pembina (2014), Home Location Preference Survey, Royal Bank of Canada (www.rbc.com) and the 
Pembina Institute (www.pembina.org); at https://bit.ly/1DMB6IW.   
 
Sarah Jo Peterson (2017), Seattle’s Transportation Transformation, Urban Land Institute 
(http://urbanland.uli.org); at https://bit.ly/2oyo5OD.  
 
Andrew Small (2018), Dangerous Streets? Take the Bus, City Lab (www.citylab.com); at 
https://bit.ly/2O7ELdC. 
 
P. S. Sriraj, et al. (2017), Mobility Case Studies: Where Integrated Corridor Management has Worked 
and Why, National Center for Transit Research (www.nctr.usf.edu) at https://bit.ly/2BOt0Hu.  
 
Jim P. Stimpson, et al. (2014), “Share of Mass Transit Miles Traveled and Reduced Motor Vehicle 
Fatalities,” Journal of Urban Health, (doi:10.1007/s11524-014-9880-9); at https://bit.ly/2OdnW1b. 
 
Translink (2011), Metro Vancouver Regional Trip Diary Survey (www.translink.ca); at 
https://bit.ly/362LmkE.  
 
UITP (2020), Promoting Safe and Sustainable Cities with Public Transportation, International 
Association of Public Transport (www.uitp.org); at https://bit.ly/3Ryabe3. 
 
USDOT (2017), Transportation Planner's Safety Desk Reference, US Department of Transportation 
(www.usdot.gov); at www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/158452.aspx.  
 
Victoria (2018), Climate Leadership Plan, City of Victoria (www.victoria.ca); at 
https://bit.ly/2GpVUR6.  
 
Jerrett Walker (2011), How Frequent is Freedom, Human Transit (https://humantransit.org); at 
https://humantransit.org/2011/12/how-frequent-is-freedom.html.  
 
WSDOT (2020), Commute Trip Reduction, Washington State Department of Transportation 
(https://wsdot.wa.gov); at https://wsdot.wa.gov/transit/ctr/home.  
 
WSP (2020), Island Rail Corridor Condition Assessment: Summary Report, BC Ministry of 
Transportation and Infrastructure (www.th.gov.bc.ca); at https://bit.ly/2W7Dzfv. 
 
 
 
www.vtpi.org/malahat.pdf 