3104 replies to this topic

[UrbanRail]

Hey, this is great work!

Thanks I have more on the way.

[malahatdrive]

RFP is out for the E&N study. (posted on http://bcbid.gov.bc.ca/)

 

Purpose
The Ministry is evaluating the feasibility of using all or part of the E&N Rail Corridor between Langford and Victoria as a regional transit corridor. This study will explore the viability of the corridor as a transit corridor as it fits within the overall network of current, planned, or potential rail and road transit services in the Victoria Regional Transit System. A feasibility study, prepared by the selected consultant, will be produced by the end of July 2017.
 
Scope of Work
The feasibility study will include the following:
 1. Review of all applicable plans, policies and objectives related to transit, transportation, and land use for transit in the Victoria Regional Transit System, and the potential for the Corridor to complement the existing and future transit network in the region, including:
a) Determination of the current, applicable transportation patterns;
b) Determination of the forecasted, applicable transportation patterns;
c) Analysis of regional transit plans (e.g., Transit Future Plans);
d) Summarizing information from all stakeholders;
e) Review the land use and transportation policies and objectives included in regional plans and OCPs for affected municipalities. Comment on the current alignment of the corridor in relation to these OCPs and any other available land use planning available in terms of rail-oriented development opportunities. This is to include the projected versus needed metrics to make the corridor viable in the future - if not immediately viable.
 
2. Assess the feasibility of the Corridor as a transit corridor, including:
a) Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) of commuter train, transit bus, and multi-purpose path along the corridor;
b) Analyzing the potential of specific segments of the corridor;
c) Reviewing the institutional arrangements, current ownership, and operations that exist today and identify any amended arrangements that may be needed for the coordinated planning, management and provision of transit on the Corridor.
 
3. Comparison of the E&N option set MAEs against other viable, transportation options that service these different transit sub-regions.
 
Multiple Account Evaluation
For each project alternative (commuter train, transit bus, multi-purpose path, or a combination of modes) as well as a base case (business as usual), impacts should be estimated and compared for the following 5 accounts.  Using monetized costs and benefits an NPV should be estimated for each project alternative.
Financial - Capital costs (including construction, property, vehicles, stations, park-and-ride facilities, and other non-construction costs), and annual incremental operations and maintenance costs, as well as highway infrastructure capital improvement and maintenance cost savings compared to  other modes of transportation.
Customer Service - Daily ridership (person-trips) forecasts in opening year, and for 10 and 25 years after opening, expected percentage of trips to be diverted from autos, bikes and other transit to the proposed transit project, travel time savings, vehicle operating cost savings, and accident (collision) cost savings.
Economic Development - Residential development benefits, commercial development benefits, employment during construction and post-construction, and increased tourism.
Environment - Energy use and consumption savings, greenhouse gas emission savings, and criteria air contaminant emission savings.
Social - Community safety, benefits, affordability/equity, and influence on health and well-being (air quality, noise, increase in walking and cycling etc).
 Safety - Human and property risks. Safety factors to be segregated by machinery (e.g. passenger vehicle and train types) and routing (e.g. separated rights of way versus shared, interactions between machinery and humans, intersections/level grade crossings).
 
Key Deliverables
The preparation of a Report. The final report is to contain a concise Executive Summary for a non-technical audience, able to stand alone, that clearly details all of the work undertaken. The report must be comprehensive and include planning analysis, option development, the evaluation framework, the evaluation process, cost estimates and a determination of the financial feasibility of the options, recommendations, and staging.  The final report should include a strategic review of the Corridor upon which a long-term investment strategy can be developed. The Report will be fully supported by tables and graphics, the listing and justification of all assumptions, data and background material compiled, and analyses undertaken. Colour copies of the final report will be required along with a pdf version. A digital copy of all supporting data and/or working documents should also be provided, including survey results, transit market evaluations, presentations, and forecasting outputs and worksheets.  
 

[VicHockeyFan]

^ That looks like a LOT of work, quite frankly.  I also think you could have 10 people prepare that report and come up with 10 conclusions, depending on how they weigh things.

[Mike K.]

Hmm, what this means is the report will assess trains, buses and a multi-use path as the preferred option, or a combination of both.

 

My gut says rail along that corridor is third in line.

 

Trains, buses or bicycles: Province issues RFP for transportation mode study along E&N commuter rail line

http://victoria.citi...uter-rail-line/

[Nparker]

A multi-use path will be the preferred option since it is the cheapest and least effective way to combat gridlock.

[Mike K.]

And it's essentially the same scenario that gave us the Galloping Goose and Lochside multi-use trails (bicycle superhighways). Rail was torn up and a multi-use path laid.

[Coreyburger]

A multi-use path will be the preferred option since it is the cheapest and least effective way to combat gridlock.

 

We basically already have this with the parallel trail. We don't need to pull up the tracks in the CRD.

[Nparker]

We basically already have this with the parallel trail. We don't need to pull up the tracks in the CRD.

That doesn't mean that won't be the recommendation.

[Mike K.]

The parallel trail is a thin strip that puts pedestrians at risk. The Goose/Lochside should be at least twice as wide as they are today, and if the province decides to blacktop the tracks for bikes/peds they'll finally build a proper multi-use trail.

[dasmo]

Ripping out the tracks is simply a terrible idea. Tracks are what make it multi use compatible. It's also why busses are out....

[Mike K.]

I'm quite certain the term multi-use equates more to combining uses such as bikes, rollerblades, skateboards and dog walking. A multi-use trail would not include motorized vehicles.

[dasmo]

The document will recommend rail. You will see. Way too much money to be made in West Hills alone if a rail link is made. VHF will not be hired to make this report....

[57WestHills]

The Province cannot rip out the tracks unless they wanted to do something rather extreme... they don't own them.

[UrbanRail]

Why study about cycling along the corridor, when there is already a cycling trail along most of it?

[57WestHills]

Why study about cycling along the corridor, when there is already a cycling trail along most of it?

This confuses me as well!

[splashflash]

If the rail line through the First Nations land were to be developed to maximize maximize development potential, then both the non-motorized vehicular path and non-rail transit options might be realigned along current city right-of-way or the northern perimeter of the First Nations redevelopment land. Whether a rail option could be realigned at a functional grade could probably be answered by people on this forum.

The request for proposals seems to take into account the subdivision proposal under way by the First Nations. The various modes could have very different costs and benefits for the Esquimalt-area First Nation.

See last paragraph.
http://www.goldstrea...tml?mobile=true

[UrbanRail]

There is no other realignment of the rail option possible.

[UrbanRail]

Its possible that a station could be built at Hallowell Rd or within First Nations land. And have an agreement with both the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations to jointly run the station.

[HB]

what would the income source be for them running a station where only a few people a day get on and off of? There would need to be a financial benefit to them such as jobs for their citizens.

[LJ]

They would do the same job they do on all the oil rig sites in Alberta, collect a pay check.