A transitway detour Q&A
Deputy city manager discusses residents’ concerns about the number of buses that will be travelling down Scott Street during light-rail construction
By Joanne Chianello, Ottawa citizen January 28, 2014
OTTAWA — Residents of the Scott and Albert street areas braved frigid temperatures last week to protest what they characterize as an unfair city plan to run all the transitway buses on the road between Tunneys and LeBreton stations during light-rail construction. The detour will put 2,400 buses on the road every weekday starting in 2016, including more than 200 during certain peak hours.
Critics of the plan want at least some of those buses to use Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway. But deputy city manager Nancy Schepers says that it’s not that easy. In a sit-down interview with the Citizen’s Joanne Chianello, Schepers discusses how the detour decision was made and what the city is planning to do to make what she recognizes will be a tough experience as bearable as possible.
Q: I’m going to start with a boring process question, because people have been caught off guard by the finality of the city’s decision to put all the transitway buses between Tunneys and LeBreton on Scott. When was the first time this plan was mentioned?
A: So, 2009 is the first time it appears is in the 10-year tactical plan (which) already identified the Scott Street detour during the core construction because the detour was going to be introducing additional costs. Then in January 2010, council directed staff to begin the EA (environmental assessment) process, which included looking at route options for the BRT (bus rapid transit, a.k.a. transitway system) and various routes were identified — Highway 417, Carling Avenue, Scott Street and the parkway. So that’s when (council) did say, ‘Look to see if we can use the parkway as a detour as much as possible.’
Q: And did the city do that?
A: Of course. There was a lot of public consultation associated with the EA process and it removed the 417 and Carling as options immediately because they don’t provide service where you need it. They just don’t bring people where they want to go.
Q: So then the city was down to two options — Scott or the parkway, or a combination of the two. What happened then?
A: The council direction to try to maximize the use of the parkway is what instigated the study McCormick Rankin did in 2011 to look at the feasibility of the parkway as an alternative. And it basically said that it just can’t serve this purpose either because it really does create problems for connectivity and there is an additional impact in terms of time for a lot of passengers.
Q: Speaking of the two-year-old McCormick Rankin study, some community leaders have complained that it wasn’t made public until very recently, but was given to the three shortlisted project consortiums. And because the report points out that using Scott is the easiest and cheapest option, critics say that, in some ways, the fix was in for Scott. Can you explain why the study wasn’t released?
A: It was done as background work based on council’s direction. We fed that report into Rideau Transit Group (the successful bidder for the LRT contract) because they could have, in their proposal, come up with something different in terms of not using Scott and using the alternative. At that point, until we had their proposal in front of us, we really didn’t know where they would go. It was background information. If in fact the outcome had been different, we may have approached the RFP differently and really picked up our game in terms of talking to the National Capital Commission about what the conditions of that would be. The report wasn’t shared because there hadn’t been a decision until we got to December 2012. And I did not receive a request for that report.
Q: Fair enough, although it’s a bit difficult to ask for a report if you don’t know it has been commissioned. But let’s move on to what most people want to discuss — why can’t some buses use the parkway, even if the connections cost more or the rides take a little extra time?
A: There are costs associated (with using the parkway), but the biggest driver of the decision is the seamless connectivity with the existing stations along the corridor. I don’t think (the buses) could stop at Bayview, which was a challenge. Bayview is the O-Train — so that’s Carleton, people coming up from the south. Don’t’ forget we’re investing $59 million in the O-Train so that during the construction we can try to have more people use it. That was a very deliberate action on our part and it speaks to the importance of (Bayview) station being fully functional and ease of transfer.
Q: Some have suggested that express routes be detoured to the parkway. That’s even one of the scenarios in the McCormick Rankin report, although not the preferred one. Why wouldn’t that work?
A: When I listen to people talk about the detours, it’s almost as if they think people are getting on in Kanata and just going downtown, as if it’s very much a commuter route from one place to the other. And that’s simply not true. The transit system is very complicated and interconnected, and there are major employment nodes and transfer points within that corridor that need to be serviced because, for example, people are going to Carleton University, so they’re transferring onto the O-Train. And within that corridor, there’s a lot of people who get on, whether they’re in Westboro or whether they’re at Tunney’s or Bayview. So there’s a lot of interaction within the local community as well.
Q: Could you have half the buses running straight downtown and the other half using Scott?
A: Then you’re reducing service to the customer. Say I’m a passenger who picks up my express on Merivale and I’m going to Carleton. Now, it’s only every second bus that is available to me. So it actually reduces my service and it’s frustrating because instead of being able to catch the bus every 20 minutes, I’m now every 40 minutes. As OC Transpo will tell you, you’re just going to lose riders if you do that.
Q: Anywhere from a few to almost 30 out-of-service buses use that section of the transitway per hour. Will these be rerouted?
A: That’s one of the things OC Transpo is considering. It’s more a question of, “Where are those buses going? Does the parkway make sense?” Perhaps another road makes sense. Those buses are governed by where they’re picking up their next run or whether they’re going back to the maintenance facility. The reality is, we are looking at removing some buses, but I just have to say, it’s not going to be a lot.
Q: How many buses would you have to take off Scott and Albert to make a noticeable difference?
A: If I take 10 per cent off, you’re not going to notice it. There really are so many — that’s the reality. So really, how much is going to make a big difference? I want to focus on the mitigation measures to make sure that we create pedestrian and cycling safety, create that buffer (between the road and the sidewalk). Maybe there’s something we can do for the houses right on Scott — we’re looking at that. We really do need to focus on how we can minimize the direct impact.
Q: You’ve spoken recently about mitigation measures the city is considering. Can you talk about the plans to make an inevitably inconvenient experience a little more bearable?
A: When I was at the showcases before council made its decision (pre-December 2012), I was in Hintonburg and I spoke to a lot of the community specifically about the detour. And we were, again, trying to understand what the issues are so we could inform RTG and their design. They were talking about trying to get in and out of driveways, in and out of side streets, a buffer from the sidewalk. And you’ll see — and we talked about this at the community meeting in December — all the mitigation measures.
We’ve delayed the closure of Scott Street from Tunneys to Merton (by six months). We’ve looked at noise and vibration; the catch basins — the buses on the catch basins can cause a lot of vibration and noise; and then we’ve created a buffer zone between the curb and the actual transit buses. It’s just over two metres. And we’ve shown it to the public because they were raising concerns about being on the sidewalk and feeling safe that close to buses. So we’ve created this buffer.
In terms of the pedestrian and cycling connectivity, some of the people out at the showcases were talking about kids going to school and how are they going to do that. We’ve already committed to — and we’ll make sure we have — crossing guards. There are additional signals being put on the corridor to facilitate the design of the detour. That will provide protected crossings, but in addition we’re going to put in crossing guards.
There is currently a gap in the MUP (multi-use pathway) on the north side on Scott Street. It disappears on you (near Bayview) so there’s going to be an actual bike path that’s going to be connected through. We identified that and facilitated it. That’s going to be built so that it’s in place before the construction and before the detour is up and running.
We’re having to move the platforms of the O-Train, so we’re basically replicating it at Albert Street and making sure there’s a pathway at each side.
The (digital) speed limits signs you’ve seen around the city, they’ll be put up along the corridor. We’ll make sure there are some traffic cameras to monitor it.
Q: It sounds like RTG made the decision where to detour the buses. But wouldn’t the folks at OC Transpo be in the best position to make that call?
A: Remember, RTG is designing the infrastructure to accommodate the buses. That’s their job. So whether it’s 2,500 buses (a day) or 2,000 buses, you’re going to need a (dedicated bus) lane, you’re going to need certain infrastructure to do that. Their job is to identify the best place to put that infrastructure, recognizing what services or what connections they needed to provide. OC Transpo’s responsible for giving the final numbers, so we have the numbers for what’s existing on the transitway. That’s what RTG has to design to, they have to make sure it will work. And if you think about what we did at Laurier and Nicholas, that was a real challenge in terms of having to close the transitway, bypass the buses over onto Nicholas. That design was quite a challenge — we opened it and we fine-tuned it, but it worked exceptionally well. That was RTG doing the design with our numbers and, of course, working with OC Transpo and everybody at the table. Basically, RTG is responsible for coming up with the design, and we refined it with them.
We’re going to do the same on Scott. They’re going to design it and we’re going to make sure, with public works, signal timing and all of the — there’s a lot of details to the design.
Q: What can you tell residents who are worried drivers will use residential streets as alternate commuter routes?
A: I’m hoping to get more from the community on (this subject). Some people have asked, “How can you create some traffic calming, or deter people from turning in and taking this side street?” On Queen Elizabeth Drive, people can come out but you can’t turn in. Is that a solution? Those are the kinds of things we’ll be looking at between now and when the design gets finalized.
Q: Are you surprised by the recent outcry?
A: It’s natural that folks really react when it starts to become real. You know, there are a lot of places along the transitway today where people are living with it every day. It’s part of what’s driving this change to zero-emission, very quiet, high-quality service on that corridor. So everybody’s going to benefit, but in the short term, there is going to be some pain.
[email protected]
twitter.com/jchianello
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/transitway+detour/9432661/story.html
Prev
Linear Mode
