Rapid transit plans

8/8/2019 Rapid transit plans

1/19

TRANSIT future

Linking Communities, Businesses & Lifestyles

WelcomeYou are invited to review and comment on the latestplans and options for public transit in the Capital Region,including the development of a rapid transit system

between Victoria and the West Shore


2/19

TRANSIT future

Detailed Alignment for Rapid Transit

West Shore to Core AreaAfter the selection of the general

alignment in late 2009, the project

team began a more detailed

assessment to choose the best

layout within the alignment, and to

determine if the service between

Uptown and Downtown should

operate as a Douglas-Blanshard loop,

Douglas-Government loop, or Douglas

only to achieve the best overall

transportation results.

As a result of consultations with the

public and the municipalities along the

route, progress includes:

Introduction of a new layout optionX

for Segment A and Segment C,

known as side-running in which

the rapid transit way uses one side

of the road.

Development of an alignment intoX

the heart of Langford and beyond.

Formal support for a curbside orX

side-running layout from the

City of Colwood.

Segment AVictoriaGeneralHospital

D.N.D.

D.N.D.

C.F.B.

Jubilee

Hospital

VictoriaGeneralHospital

Trans Canada Hwy.

Isla

nd

Hwy.

E&NRoyalRoads

University

ComosunCollege

ComosunCollege

UVic

Segment C

Segment C

Segment B

Segment BSegment A

Highlands

View Royal

Langford

Colwood

Saanich

Oak Bay

Victoria

Esquimalt

Rapid Transit Alignment

Regional Growth Centres

Educational Institutions

CFB Esquimalt

Key Transit Node


3/19

TRANSIT future

Three Layout Options

Ways to Share the SpaceInitially, the project team considered two

options for the layout of the rapid transit way

within the approved alignment in Segment

A (between Colwood City Centre and the

Colwood Interchange) and Segment C

(between Uptown and Downtown). These were:a curbside arrangement, in which the transitX

way would follow the outside curb, and

a median arrangement, i.e. down the middleX

of the road.

During consultations, a third option emerged:

a side-running transit way would occupyX

one side of the road while the other side

would be retained for general-purpose lanes.

Advantages of a side-running arrangement

include better segregation of the transit way

from other traffi c. Disadvantages include

diffi culty for cars in accessing propertiesadjacent to the transit way.

CurbsideArrangement

MedianArrangement

Side-runningArrangement


4/19

LANGFO

RD

LANGFO

RD VIEWRO

YAL

VIEWRO

YAL

LANGFORD

LANGFORD

COLWO

OD

COLWO

OD

TRANSC

ANADAH

IGHWAY

TRANSC

ANADAH

IGHWAY

VETERANMEM

ORIALPARKWAY

VETERANMEM

ORIALPARKWAY

STATIONA

VENUE

STATIONA

VENUE

JAKLIN

ROAD

JAKLIN

ROAD

SOOK

EROAD

SOOK

EROAD

CRESCENT

CRESCENT

COLW

OOD

COLW

OOD

UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITYDR.

DR.

ALDEANEAVE.

ALDEANEAVE.

GOLDSTREAMAVE.

GOLDSTREAMAVE. ISLA

NDHW

Y.

ISLA

NDHW

Y.

WEST HILLSWEST HILLS

STATIONSTATION

STATION AVENUESTATION AVENUE

TRANSIT EXCHANGETRANSIT EXCHANGE

GRANGER ROADGRANGER ROAD

STATIONSTATION

JUAN DE FUCAJUAN DE FUCA

TRANSIT EXCHANGETRANSIT EXCHANGE

.

TRANSIT future

Curbside

New section developedX

in consultation with

Langford follows

the outside curbs ofGoldstream Avenue to

Station Avenue where it

joins the E&N alignment

to Westhills.

Transit Way Options Still being Considered

Segment A Langford to Colwood City Centre Section

Segment A Transit Way: Langford to Colwood City Centre


5/19

BURNSIDERD

.W.

BURNSIDERD

.W.

ISLANDHWY.ISLANDHWY.

ISLA

NDHW

Y.

ISLA

NDHW

Y.

SOOK

ERD.

SOOK

ERD.

GOLDSTREAMAVE.

GOLDSTREAMAVE.

NOBHILLRD

.NOBH

ILLRD.

OCEANB

LVD.

OCEANB

LVD.

ISLA

NDHW

Y.

ISLA

NDHW

Y.

WILFERTRD.

WILFERTRD.

WILF

ERTR

D.

WILF

ERTR

D.

SIXMILERD.SIXMILERD.

HIGHWAY1HIGHWAY1

COLWOODCRES.

COLWOODCRES.

UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITYDR.

DR.

H

ARTRD.

H

ARTRD.

HIGHWAY1

HIGHWAY1


COLW

OOD

COLW

OOD

VIEWR

OYAL

VIEWR

OYAL

LANGFO

RD

LANGFO

RD

VIEWRO

YAL

VIEWRO

YAL

LANGFO

RD

LANGFO

RD

COLWO

OD

COLWO

OD

JUAN DE FUCA

TRANSIT EXCHANGE

JUAN DE FUCA

TRANSIT EXCHANGE

SIX MILE TRANSIT

PARK-N-RIDE

SIX MILE TRANSIT

PARK-N-RIDE

WILFERT STATIONWILFERT STATION

Transit Way Options Still being ConsideredSegment A Colwood City Centre to Six Mile Section

Curbside Option

Follows the outside curb of theX

Island Highway from Colwood

City Centre (Colwood Corners)

to a proposed Six Mile transit

exchange with park & ride at

the Colwood Interchange.


6/19

BURNSIDERD

.W.

BURNSIDERD

.W.

ISLANDHWY.ISLANDHWY.

ISLA

NDHW

Y.

ISLA

NDHW

Y.

SOOK

ERD.

SOOK

ERD.

GOLDSTREAMAVE.

GOLDSTREAMAVE.

NOBHILLRD

.NOBH

ILLRD.

OCEANB

LVD.

OCEANB

LVD.

ISLA

NDHWY.

ISLA

NDHWY.

WILFERTRD.

WILFERTRD.

WILF

ERTR

D.

WILF

ERTR

D.


HIGHWAY1HIGHWAY1

COLWOODCRES.

COLWOODCRES.

UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITYDR.

DR.

HARTRD.

HARTRD.

HIGHWAY1

HIGHWAY1


COLW

OOD

COLW

OOD

LANGFO

RD

LANGFO

RD

VIEWRO

YAL

VIEWRO

YAL

LANGFO

RD

LANGFO

RD

COLWO

OD

COLWO

OD

VIEWR

OYAL

VIEWR

OYAL

JUAN DE FUCA

TRANSIT EXCHANGE

JUAN DE FUCA

TRANSIT EXCHANGE

SIX MILE TRANSIT

PARK-N-RIDE

SIX MILE TRANSIT

PARK-N-RIDE

WILFERT STATIONWILFERT STATION

Transit Way Options Still being ConsideredSegment A Colwood City Centre to Six Mile Section

Side-running Option (new)

Uses the east side of the IslandX

Highway from Colwood City

Centre (Colwood Corners) to

Hart Rd, then crosses to the

west side to the Six Mile

Park-n-Ride.


7/19

VICTO

RIA

VICTO

RIA

SAANICH

SAANICH

SAANICH

SAANICH

VIEW

ROYA

L

VIEW

ROYA

L

VIEWROYALVIEWROYAL

SAANICH

SAANICHESQUIMALT

ESQUIMALTESQUIMALTESQUIMALT

COLW

OODCOLW

OODVIEW

ROYAL

VIEW

ROYAL

BOLESKINERD

.BOLES

KINERD.

HIGHWAY1

HIGHWAY1

HIGHWAY1

HIGHWAY1

BURN

SIDE

RD.W

.

BURN

SIDE

RD.W

.

ISLANDH

WY.

ISLANDH

WY.

MCKEN

ZIEAVE.

MCKEN

ZIEAVE.

DOUGLASST.

DOUGLASST.

ISLANDHWY.

ISLANDHWY.

HELMCKE

NRD.

HELMCKE

NRD.

INTERURBANRD.

INTERURBANRD.

TILLICUM

RD

.

TILLICUM

RD

.

BURNSIDERD.W.

BURNSIDERD.W.

Y.. SIX MILE

TRANSIT

PARK-N-RIDE

SIX MILE

TRANSIT

PARK-N-RIDE

HELMCKEN

STATION

HELMCKEN

STATION

McKENZIE TRANSIT

PARK-N-RIDE

McKENZIE TRANSIT

PARK-N-RIDE

BURNSIDE

STATION

BURNSIDE

STATION

UPTOWN

TRANSIT

EXCHANGE

UPTOWN

TRANSIT

EXCHANGE

TRANSIT future

Galloping Goose/Trans-Canada Highway

Uses the availableX

right-of-way between the

Galloping Goose Trail andthe Trans-Canada Highway.

Transit Way Details

Segment B Six Mile to Uptown

Segment B Transit Way: Galloping Goose/Trans-Canada Highway(Should bus technology be selected a Trans-Canada Highway shoulder option might also be feasible)


8/19


9/19


10/19


11/19


12/19


13/19

TRANSIT future

Travel Time Comparison Victoria Langford 2010-2040

The Rapid Transit Advantage

In 30 years, it will take nearly twice as long for cars to travel between Victoria and the West Shore during peak periods, dueto growing highway congestion. Conventional buses travelling in general-purpose lanes will be caught in the same delays.

Rapid transit on an exclusive right-of-way, if introduced today, would be 33% faster than a conventional bus and just as

fast as a car. And it would quickly establish a time savings advantage that will build up to half an hour per trip by 2040.

PeakPeriodTravelTim

e(Minutes)

2010

100

60

80

40

20

0

Year

2040

1 hour 35 minutes

60 minutes

40 minutes

1 hour 15 minutes

45 minutes

ConventionalTransit

Auto

Rapid Transit(ExclusiveROW)


14/19

Choosing Our FutureGetting the Most Value for Money

As we attempt to meet our obligations to reduce greenhouse gases and

increase theproportion, not just the number, of people using transit in the

growing Capital Region, we are faced with the following three primary

options:

1. Business as usual: Abandon the concept of rapid transit, just addingconventional bus capacity,

2. Bus Rapid Transit: Implement a rapid transit system with road-based

technology, or

3. Tram/Streetcar: Introduce a rapid transit system using rail-based

technology

There is no no-cost option. Even business as usual comes with a significant price tag for purchase,construction and operations, over and above the current cost of operating the transit system. And theres

much more to consider. During the next several weeks, the project team will undertake a detailed analysis

and prepare a recommendation for implementation. The examination will include the refinement of

realistic estimates and the review of literally dozens of key factors, such as those listed below.

Financial Customer Service EnvironmentalEconomicDevelopment

Socio-Community &Urban Development Deliverability

Capital Cost) Ridership) GHG reduction) Business)

EnvironmentHealth) Constructability)

Operating Cost) Mode Share)

CaptureNoise/vibration) Goods movement) Safety) Municipal support)

Life-cycle cost) Travel Time)

SavingsEnergy use) Employment &)

IncomeCommunity)

CohesionPublic/community)

support

Cost/savings)

related to carinfrastructure

Expansion)

PotentialLand requirements) Tourism support) Accessibility) Funding agency)

support

Vehicle operating)

costs/savingsImpact on Car)

Traffi cAccess to)

employment& commercialcentres

Support land use)

plans includingtransit-orienteddevelopment

Funding)

availability

Financing)

StrategiesSystem Access) Property Values)

Impact on fares) Reliability) Urban design)


15/19

TRANSIT future

Choosing Our Future: Alternative #1

Business as UsualTo meet the growing demand due to population growth, the business

as usual alternative requires significant investment in conventional

public transit services on roads with limited capacity. The bus fleet

will need to grow from 289 vehicles today to 500 or more, requiring

additional operators and more maintenance facilities. By 2030, the

annual operating cost would be 2 times greater than today, rising from

$65 million to $160 million. And while this would help increase transit

ridership from todays 25 million to about 40 million annual trips by

2030, it falls short of the Provincial Transit Plan target of 58 million trips.

2010 20300

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

Diesel Bus Today

*Emissions per passenger seat, for every kilometre travelled

Hybrid ElectricDiesel Bus Today

Diesel Bus 2035(in mixed traffic)

Hybrid ElectricDiesel Bus 2035

(in mixed traffic)

Diesel BRT 2035(exclusive ROW)

Hybrid ElectricDiesel BRT 2035

(exclusive ROW)

Electric Tram (rail)2035 (exclusive ROW)

GHG(g)*

Business As UsualCurrent Rapid Transit

In addition to its financial cost, the business as usual approach would result in higher, not lower, GHG emissions fromtransit service to the WestShore. And without the travel time advantage ofRapid Transit, fewer people would be attractedout of their cars, thus also failing to reduce emissions from automobiles.

System Operating Cost & Ridership Greenhouse Gases Would Increase

Operating Cost

($Millions)

PTP TargetRidership

(Millions of

Annual Trips)


16/19

TRANSIT future


Road-based Rapid Transit (Bus Rapid Transit)A road-based rapid transit system (also known as Bus Rapid Transit or BRT)

would have much in common with a rail-based one, such as higher capacity than

conventional buses, an exclusive right-of-way, and fare payment at the station

which will allow all doors to be used for loading and unloading. One additional

advantage is routing versatility as the BRT vehicle is not confined to rails,

although electric-driven versions would still have similar limitations. There wouldbe considerable investment in creating a smooth dedicated transit way, as well as

equipment, maintenance facilities and operators.

EXAMPLES

Vehicle Type Road BasedStreetcar

Road BasedStreetcar

Road BasedStreetcar

Rapid Bus Rapid Bus Rapid Bus

Manufacturer Wright Bus VDL Group Vanhool Novabus North AmericanBus Inc.

New FlyerIndustries Ltd.

Model Streetcar RTV Phileas AG300 or AGG300 LFX/LFS Artic 60-BRT/65-BRT DE60LFA

Currently

Operated

Las Vegas, USA)

York, UK)

Eindhoven,)

NetherlandsUtrecht, Netherlands)

York, Ontario)

Montreal, Quebec)

Hamburg, Germany)

Montreal, Quebec)

New York City, USA)

Quebec City,)Quebec

Los Angeles, USA)

San Diego, USA)

Santa Monica, USA)

Washington, DC)

Cleveland, USA)

Eugene, USA)

Pheonix, USA)

Miami, USA)

Propulsion

Technologies

Options

Diesel)

Diesel Electric)

Hybrid

Diesel Electric)

Hybrid

Trolley)

Diesel)

Diesel Electric)

Hybrid

Trolley)

Diesel) Diesel)

CNG)

Diesel Electric)

Hybrid

Diesel)

Diesel Electric)

Hybrid

SPECIFICATIONS

Vehicle Platform Rapid Bus, Trolley Bus, Streetcar,Double Decker (single, articulated,double articulated)

System Speeds 15 - 40 km/h

Maximum Gradients 0.12

Typical Vehicle Length 12 - 26 m

Typical Vehicle Width 2.5 - 2.6 m

Passenger

Capacity/Vehicle

75 - 160

Net Weight (tonnes) 18 - 23

Running Way Exclusive right of way with signalpre-emption at crossings

Maximum Speeds 80 - 100 km/h

Stop Station Lengths 0.5 - 2 km

Capital Costs per Vehicle $.45 - $2 M

Service Life 12-15 years

Wright Bus


17/19

TRANSIT future


Rail-based Rapid Transit (Streetcar/Tram)A rail-based rapid transit system (streetcar or tram) would provide higher

capacity than conventional buses, allow high-frequency service on an exclusive

right-of-way, off-board payment and all-door loading and unloading.

A rail-based system generally provides the most comfortable ride, and will

usually attract the highest percentage of riders. The cost of the infrastructure

is significant, and specialized maintenance facilities would be required.

EXAMPLES

Vehicle Type Light Rail Transit Light Rail Transit Light Rail Transit Streetcar Streetcar Streetcar

Manufacturer Alstom Transport SiemensTransportation Inc

Kinki Sharyo Bombardier Skoda Inekon Stadler GTW(Germany andSwitzerland)

Model Citadis Avanto S-70 Low Floor Light Flexity Superior Low floor Variobahn

Currently

Operated

Dublin, Ireland)

Reims, France)

Lyon, France)

Montpellier, France)

Barcelona, Spain)

Houston, USA)

Charlotte, USA)

Portland, USA)

Paris, France)

New Jersey, USA)

Santa Clara, USA)

Brussels, Belgium)

Augsburg, Germany)

Eskisehir, Turkey)

Geneva, Switzerland)

Portland, USA)

Toronto, Ontario)

Seattle, USA)

Munich, Germany)

Graz, Austria)

Bergen, Norway)

New Jersey, USA)

Propulsion

Technologies

Options

Electric)

Diesel)

Electric)

Diesel)

Electric)

Diesel)

Electric) Electric) Electric)Diesel)

Bombardier Olympic StreetcarSPECIFICATIONS

Vehicle Platform Light Rail, Streetcar

System Speeds 15 - 50 km/h

Maximum Gradients 0.08

Typical Vehicle Length 12 - 60 m

Typical Vehicle Width 2.2 - 3.0 m

Passenger

Capacity/Vehicle

130 - 200

Net Weight (tonnes) 40-70

Running Way Exclusive right of way with signalpre-emption at crossingsif necessary

Maximum Speeds 80 - 90 km/h

Stop Station Lengths 1 - 2 km

Capital Costs per Vehicle $1.5 - $7 M

Service Life 30-40 years


18/19

TRANSIT future

Rapid Transit and Local Business

Survey Reveals Issues and OpportunitiesMore than 500 Uptown-Downtown rapid transit corridor

businesses & property owners and more than 400 of their

customers were surveyed in July to better understand the

implications for businesses of establishing a rapid transit way.

The survey was developed in cooperation with the Greater

Victoria Chamber of Commerce, Association of Douglas Street

Businesses, Downtown Victoria Business Association, and the

Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

The survey collected information about business clientele:

who they are, where they are from, the time & purpose of

their visits, and their method of travel (only 13.5% of those

surveyed took transit). It also gauged the importance of

various elements of transportation infrastructure, such

as parking/loading/access, availability of rapid transit,

maintaining existing general-purpose lanes, and widersidewalks and other streetscape improvements.

Among the key results were confirmation of strong support

for rapid transit, and concerns about maintaining suffi cient

access to parking and loading opportunities. In general,

customer responses suggest that, while individual results

may very, overall gains created by rapid transit should exceed

any losses. The project team will continue to work with

business community to identify/address issues and engage itsentrepreneurial spirit to maximize the opportunities associated

with creating complete streets in a vibrant urban area.

These graphs provide a snapshot of some of the survey results.

Find the complete report online at www.bctransit.com/vrrt.

Sample Survey Results

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4.4%

11.7%

8.6%

72.7%

87.0%Supportive

Neutral

Unsupportive15.6%

Customers Business/Property Owners Customers Business/Property Owners

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

7.4%

47.3%

45.4%

31.7%

47.2%Increased

Likelihood/Volume

No Effect

DecreasedLikelihood/Volume 21.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

22.6%

50.8%

64.9%

3.4%

12.5%

45.8%

IncreasedLikelihood/Volume

No Effect

DecreasedLikelihood/Volume

Customers Business/Property Owners

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

23.4%

43.0%

59.7%

10.2%

16.9%

46.8%

IncreasedLikelihood/Volume

No Effect

Decreased

Likelihood/Volume

Customers Business/Property Owners

Overall Support for Development of aRapid Transit System

Overall Perceived Effect ofReduced Traffi c Laneson Customer Volume/Visits

Overall Perceived Effect of a Rapid Transit Corridoron Customer Volume/Visits

Overall Perceived Effect ofReduced On-Street Parkingon Customer Volume/Visits


19/19

TRANSIT future

Next Steps

Activities

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

2010 2011

Milestones

Complete analysis; select preferredarrangement (curb, median, couplet etc)

within alignment

Public Reporting & InputMilestone (Open House)

Public Reporting & InputMilestone (Open House)

Business PlanApproval

Assess vehicle technology options

Detailed evaluation of alignment/technologyoptions (including business as usual)

Develop alignment + technologyrecommendation

Detailed design forimplementation

Documents

Rapid transit plans