[sustran] Re: Mass transit modes "competition"

[Chris Bradshaw]

Any debate over bus vs rail should consider the Ottawa experience.

Ottawa chose buses for its "rapid transit" technology in the late 1970s.  It 
uses former rail and greenspace corridors for the two lane roads which 
passed over and under intersecting general-traffic roads.

All was fine, until a new mayor championed a rail demonstration project 
along an abandoned rail line running from the west of downtown to the 
southern extremities, just short of the airport.  This started operation on 
a single pair of tracks about five years ago.  It turned out to be more 
popular than anyone expected.  Perhaps a bit to popular.

Two years ago, it was slated to be closed down for upgrading to twin tracks 
and electric propulsion, and extension further south to connect a satellite 
city straddling our main river, all at a cost of about $900 million.  But, 
an election and some meddling from a federal minister led to a reneging on 
the contract (and a threatened lawsuit from the winning bidder for $250 
million-plus).

Now the new council has proposed a new, much more gradiose plan, that will 
cost four times as much ($3.8 billion).  Basically, it proposes converting 
the inner sections of the existing busway to rail, and putting the downtown 
section into a tunnel (or two, is not clear, as the present system uses two 
parallel streets).

It is quite clearly a "political" solution.  It overcomes the envy of the 
citizens whose far suburbs were passed over by the former council's 
south-axis-only plan.

This shows how a community, once it had 'tasted' riding on rail, decided 
that the bus technology was 'old-fashioned' and wanted to modernize.

As one of the people who thinks that "rapid transit" is an oxymoron, and 
that you can't get both with the same system, I have to agree with one of 
the downtown councillors that the new proposal will not garner the 
senior-government's dollars, since it only is a switch in technology for a 
nicer ride and better image, and won't attract any new riders.  It's route 
still will avoid the concentrations of residences, jobs, and activities that 
lie along main streets where traffic encounters more 'conflicts.'  He and I 
both urge a return to rail on main streets, commonly known as streetcars.

It is the effort to move large volumes of people long distances during rush 
hour that drives 'rapid transit.'  And only to jobs that are in a dense 
enough area to make noon-hour conveniences available and dense enough for 
walkability and high parking charges.  And since it doesn't serve people who 
reasonably live fairly close to this minority of jobs that meet these 
requirements, this avoids 98% of the trips that should be targeted by 
transit.  As most here know, most trips are for purposes that are not for 
commuting, and the destinations are far closer.  There are also many people 
who either don't work, don't work full-time, or don't commute during rush 
hour who are poorly served by this narrowly defined kind of transit.

I have proposed serving commuting trips at rush hour, including those to 
city centres (now about 15% of all jobs in Ottawa), with a combination of 
carsharing and ridesharing, with the cars being available at each end of the 
commute for 'metered' private (personal or business) travel, which itself 
overcomes one of the reasons people insist on driving to their jobs -- it is 
the only way to have access to a car during the workday!

As to an ideal transit technology, I champion one that has never been built, 
and as far as I know, has not been proposed by anyone but me (first 
presented at the Auto-Free Cities Conference in Toronto in 1992).  It would 
link surface stations at the core of distinct neighbourhoods (about 1-2 kms 
apart) with deep tunnels and cars riding on rail.  The cars would not have 
any engines, but rely on gravity up to a few feet from the next station, 
when they would be pulled up the last bit by motors under the tracks, like 
roller coasters (also gravity-dependent), ensuring no high speeds at 
stations.  I have dubbed it a "gravi-tram."  Now that would be both 
sustainable and pedestrian-friendly!

Chris Bradshaw
Ottawa