From owner-city-centre-coalition-outgoing@lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca Wed Feb 4 14:39:39 2004 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i14Jdda23336 for city-centre-coalition-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:39:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx2.magma.ca (mx2.magma.ca [206.191.0.250]) by lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i14JdVI23330 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:39:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail4.magma.ca (mail4.magma.ca [206.191.0.222]) by mx2.magma.ca (Magma Relay Server) with ESMTP id i14JY7XJ014327; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:34:07 -0500 Received: from [206.191.1.154] (ottawa-dial-206-191-1-154.d-ip.magma.ca [206.191.1.154]) by mail4.magma.ca (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i14JY2SG014859; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:34:02 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:32:27 -0500 Subject: [CCC] Capital Standards Review for Public Works Infrastructure From: David Jeanes To: , CC: , , , , , , , , Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <65.21e562f0.2d5245cf@aol.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3158750042_3703989" Sender: owner-city-centre-coalition@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca Precedence: bulk > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3158750042_3703989 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Revised as presented to Transportation Committee on 4 February: This is at least the fifth report in the last year with major transportatio= n implications that is coming to Council with the statement that there has been no public consultation. Others include the Carling Avenue showcase, the diesel-electric hybrid bus plan, the Rapid Transit Priority Plan, and the North-South LRT Statement of Work. Previously in 2001-2002 the Interprovincial Study with the STO and the O-Train short-term improvement study also had no public consultation. The Alta Vista Evaluation of Transit Alternatives report had no public consultation, but has been used as the basis for excluding council-mandated transit-only alternatives from the current Transportation Corridor EA. This committee has now become the only place for the public to raise concerns. No Transportation Advisory Committee meetings, (for cycling, transit, pedestrian or roads), have been scheduled for January or February, (though the taxi and accessibility committees are meeting). If there was proper consultation first, your committee meetings would be more productive and shorter. With long waiting times to speak, this is not a viable forum for most of the general public. This report is proposing among other things that Transitway extensions recommended for bus should be designed to preclude ultimate conversion to rail. This actually has very serious implications for the future of Bus Rapid Transit. BRT has been accepted because design and operating standards are as much as possible equivalent to those used for light rail. If we adopt lower standards we are unlikely to achieve the high transit modal split which is the key objective of our Transportation Master Plan. Ottawa's Transitway has been an example to the world, one of the most often referenced and most often visited by transit planners. A principal feature that makes BRT acceptable as a substitute for LRT is that it can be converted to rail in the future, when high ridership warrants. The Ottawa Transitway was designed to permit conversion. This is even stated on the US government's Federal Transit Administration website on the BRT page, where the two key documents on BRT state that Ottawa's Transitway was designed to enable rail conversion. ( http://www.fta.dot.gov/brt/ ) The Rapid Transit Expansion Study also stated that "Conversion of the syste= m (from BRT to LRT) is feasible from a technical and operational perspective" but that "it is not considered cost-effective to convert the Transitway to LRT at this time", (Sec. 4.2 "Transitway Conversion to Rail" and Appendix D). Transport 2000 supports that analysis, noting the distinction between =B3at this time=B2 and =B3ultimately=B2. The six proposed extensions to our existing Transitway in the Rapid Transit Expansion Study are an average of 7 km, for a total of 42 Km. If Council votes that Transitway extensions be designed to preclude ultimate conversio= n to rail, Ottawa will send a signal to the rest of the world that BRT can no longer be viewed as a step towards implementing high-capacity rail transit. Such a decision on extensions would in effect apply to the entire existing transitway. There is no reason why lower standards should apply to bus. Curves any tighter than those existing already, (at Train or Pleasant Park stations), would mean unacceptable ride quality for bus passengers. LRT can climb the same grades or handle the same underpasses that are used for road vehicles. A double track LRT line actually requires less land than a bus Transitway. This committee should not give tacit approval in this way to such a fundamental change in our Transit planning direction. David Jeanes, P.Eng. President, Transport 2000 Phone 725 9484 Email david@jeanes.ca Notes: BRT Reference Guide ( http://www.fta.dot.gov/brt/guide/index.html ) "Busways and busway stations can be designed so that they can be converted to light or heavy rail if ridership increases to the point where buses can no longer accommodate the demand. Ottawa's transitway was designed to enable rail conversion." Issues in BRT ( http://www.fta.dot.gov/brt/issues/pt1.html ) "Ottawa, Ontario - Ottawa=B9s Transitway, built in stages from 1978 through 1996, is a 19-mile bus-only road leading to the central business district, where it connects to exclusive bus lanes on city streets. Over 75 percent of passenger bus trips are made using the Transitway. The Transitway was constructed largely on rail rights-of-way and was designed for possible conversion to rail should ridership warrant." Bus Transitway extensions in RTES: Woodroffe to Bayshore 4 km, Eagleson to Hazeldean 8 km, Sportsplex to Strandherd 10.3 km, Place D'Orleans to Trim 4 km, Baseline 7.7 km, Innes/Blair to Hurdman 8.5 km, (Total 42.5 km average 7.1 km). --B_3158750042_3703989 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Capital Standards Review for Public Works Infrastructure Revised as presented to Transportation Committee on 4 = February:

This is at least the fifth report in the last year with major transportatio= n implications that is coming to Council with the statement that there has b= een no public consultation.  Others include the Carling Avenue showcase= , the diesel-electric hybrid bus plan, the Rapid Transit Priority Plan, and = the North-South LRT Statement of Work.

Previously in 2001-2002 the Interprovincial Study with the STO and the O-Tr= ain short-term improvement study also had no public consultation.  The = Alta Vista Evaluation of Transit Alternatives report had no public consultat= ion, but has been used as the basis for excluding council-mandated transit-o= nly alternatives from the current Transportation Corridor EA.

This committee has now become the only place for the public to raise concer= ns.  No Transportation Advisory Committee meetings, (for cycling, trans= it, pedestrian or roads), have been scheduled for January or February, (thou= gh the taxi and accessibility committees are meeting).  If there was pr= oper consultation first, your committee meetings would be more productive an= d shorter.   With long waiting times to speak, this is not a viabl= e forum for most of the general public.    

This report is proposing among other things that Transitway extensions reco= mmended for bus should be designed to preclude ultimate conversion to rail. =  This actually has very serious implications for the future of Bus Rapi= d Transit.

BRT has been accepted because design and operating standards are as much as= possible equivalent to those used for light rail.  If we adopt lower s= tandards we are unlikely to achieve the high transit modal split which is th= e key objective of our Transportation Master Plan.

Ottawa's Transitway has been an example to the world, one of the most often= referenced and most often visited by transit planners.  A principal fe= ature that makes BRT acceptable as a substitute for LRT is that it can be co= nverted to rail in the future, when high ridership warrants.

The Ottawa Transitway was designed to permit conversion.  This is even= stated on the US government's Federal Transit Administration website on the= BRT page, where the two key documents on BRT state that Ottawa's Transitway= was designed to enable rail conversion. ( http://www.fta.dot.gov/brt/ )

The Rapid Transit Expansion Study also stated that "Conversion of the = system (from BRT to LRT) is feasible from a technical and operational perspe= ctive" but that "it is not considered cost-effective to convert th= e Transitway to LRT at this time", (Sec. 4.2 "Transitway Conversio= n to Rail" and Appendix D).  Transport 2000 supports that analysis= , noting the distinction between “at this time” and “ultim= ately”.

The six proposed extensions to our existing Transitway in the Rapid Transit= Expansion Study are an average of 7 km, for a total of 42 Km. If Council vo= tes that Transitway extensions be designed to preclude ultimate conversion t= o rail, Ottawa will send a signal to the rest of the world that BRT can no l= onger be viewed as a step towards implementing high-capacity rail transit. &= nbsp;Such a decision on extensions would in effect apply to the entire exist= ing transitway.

There is no reason why lower standards should apply to bus.  Curves an= y tighter than those existing already, (at Train or Pleasant Park stations),= would mean unacceptable ride quality for bus passengers.  LRT can clim= b the same grades or handle the same underpasses that are used for road vehi= cles.  A double track LRT line actually requires less land than a bus T= ransitway.

This committee should not give tacit approval in this way to such a fundame= ntal change in our Transit planning direction.

David Jeanes, P.Eng.
President, Transport 2000
Phone 725 9484
Email david@jeanes.ca

Notes:

BRT Reference Guide  ( http://www.fta.dot.gov/brt/guide/index.html )
"Busways and busway stations can be designed so that they can be conve= rted to light or heavy rail if ridership increases to the point where buses = can no longer accommodate the demand.  Ottawa's transitway was designed= to enable rail conversion."

Issues in BRT  ( http://www.fta.dot.gov/brt/issues/pt1.html )

"Ottawa, Ontario - Ottawa’s Transitway, built in stages from 197= 8 through 1996, is a 19-mile bus-only road leading to the central business d= istrict, where it connects to exclusive bus lanes on city streets.  Ove= r 75 percent of passenger bus trips are made using the Transitway.  The= Transitway was constructed largely on rail rights-of-way and was designed f= or possible conversion to rail should ridership warrant."

Bus Transitway extensions in RTES: Woodroffe to Bayshore 4 km, Eagleson to = Hazeldean 8 km, Sportsplex to Strandherd 10.3 km, Place D'Orleans to Trim 4 = km, Baseline 7.7 km, Innes/Blair to Hurdman 8.5 km, (Total 42.5 km average 7= .1 km).
 --B_3158750042_3703989-- - This is the city-centre-coalition@ox.org list. Email to city-centre-coalition-request@ox.org to unsubscribe.