This is the second post in our two part series related to the feedback we have provided about the new Ottawa Hospital plan. The following two documents are about the planned Infrastructure and Bike Parking.
In general, we feel that the infrastructure proposed in these designs is inadequate for non-r transportation, it prioritizes access to the mpus by r, while more sustainable modes must continually work around r traffic when accessing the site. The plan does not incentivize active transportation and sustainable transportation. For some people, driving (or being driven) to the mpus will make the most sense, but we see no real efforts to encourage those who could choose to use transit, walk/roll, or bike to the mpus- staff particularly- to do so. This is reinforced by the design plan that favours easy access to mpus via r, which, when prioritized, means sacrificing access, and even safety in some instances, of other people who choose not to arrive by r.?
Parking is ample for those who drive, but those who walk, roll, take transit, or bike are asked to move the longest distances to the main buildings. In fact, their trajectory is interrupted and rendered much less safe by the on-mpus r infrastructure.
Our feedback about bike parking on the new mpus is centred around the suggestion that the new plan be re-thought to provide both secure long-term parking for employees, and short-term parking for those who have appointments or shorter visits. The former should be integrated into buildings and the latter at entrances, both must accommodate bikes of all types.?
For a more detailed look at our concerns read on…
(Text based versions of the letter for web accessibility are found below the pictures).
Bike Ottawa Feedback: New Civic Hospital mpus Transportation Study
This document concerns infrastructure at the new mpus of the Ottawa Civic Hospital
(TOH) as they arise in the Transportation Impact Assessment and Mobility Study (TIA).
Overall site configuration
In our letter of June 18, 2021, Bike Ottawa outlined several ways in which the current
plans for the new Civic Hospital (TOH) mpus prioritizes travel by automobile at the
detriment of more efficient, sustainable modes of travel. In the portions of the present
letter that address TOH’s modal-share projections and its Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan, we observe how the TIA itself acknowledges that supporting
these efficient, sustainable modes is vital to the hospital’s very function.
One of the most important ways to support more sustainable modes is to situate the
hospital as close to the LRT station as possible—ideally, with the station integrated into
the hospital, as with the transit connection at the Ottawa Hospital’s Riverside mpus.
In the proposed plan for the new Civic mpus, however, the LRT station is the
maximum distance from the hospital’s main entrance that the TDM contemplates: 600
metres (pp. 47, 66, and 68; Appendix S). This distance will function as a disincentive to
accessing the hospital by transit.
An alternative scenario is where the main hospital building is loted close to the
street. The TIA’s TDM advises this very configuration: “Lote building close to the
street, and do not lote parking areas between the street and building entrances,”
“Lote building entrances in order to minimize walking distances to sidewalks and
transit stops/stations”; and “reducing distances between public sidewalks and major
building entrances” (Appendix S). The current site plan, however, ignores this advice.
Likewise, the hospital’s main entrance is loted at a considerable distance from
rling Ave, which is expected to be upgraded to include bus rapid transit (BRT) and
dedited biking facilities in the coming years (Appendix C).
There are several signifint problems with the parking garage as proposed in the TIA.
To begin with, in its proposed lotion, it obstructs pedestrian traffic between the
Dow’s Lake LRT Station and the hospital’s main entrance. The connection between the
hospital and the LRT station is the most important one for employees and visitors.
Indeed, the TIA itself acknowledges that “the integration of [Dow’s Lake] LRT Station to
the future Civic mpus would highly improve pedestrian and cyclist safety by
eliminating an at-grade crossing at rling Avenue, a major arterial roadway” (p. 20).
Despite this, it also admits that “there are currently no plans to integrate the [Dow’s
Lake] LRT Station with the future hospital.”
Another signifint problem is that the parking garage in its proposed lotion entails a
removal of the portion of the Trillium MUP south of rling Ave. We discuss this at
greater length below.
The parking garage is also far too large. As other community groups have pointed out,
its size is equivalent to the parking garage at the Ottawa airport, which, while itself
obscenely large, is loted in a lotion much more remote than that proposed for the
new Civic mpus. With its proximity to Dow’s Lake, among other features, the
proposed garage’s lotion is prime real estate. At the very least, the garage should be
installed underground, as was originally planned for the site, so that the valuable land
on which it is situated may be preserved for more valuable uses than temporary
Finally, provisions should be made to make better use of r-parking spaces in this
parking garage than temporary storage of private vehicles. For example, parking spaces
should be convertible for more sustainable uses, such as bike parking, or even
r-share services. While the TIA’s TDM mentions this possibility (Appendix S), it does
so only cursorily; this should be an integral part of any plans for the parking garage.
Surface r-parking lots
Bike Ottawa is particularly concerned to see surface lots for private-vehicle storage in
the TIA. The TIA shows 55 surface r-parking spaces at the main entrance (Parking
Zone 2), as well as another lot with 238 spaces (Parking Zone 4) (pp. 63–64). r storage
is widely acknowledged as one of the most inefficient, wasteful uses of urban space,
and surface r parking is the most inefficient means of r storage. The only surface
r infrastructure facilities justifiable on such prime land are roadways, drop-off zones,
and facilities for emergency vehicles. Rather than wasting existing surface space on
parking, the hospital should consider partnering with developers for projects coming
onboard, such as the redevelopment of the Dow Honda site, to secure underground
parking at these sites.
Overall quantity of r-parking
We are also concerned about the overall quantity of r parking in the TIA. Providing
r infrastructure induces r dependency—the well-known phenomenon of “induced demand” (Jevon’s paradox). The TIA itself acknowledges that r dependency will need
to be minimized for the hospital to function (p. 70). We understand that the TIA is to
some extent constrained by the City of Ottawa’s r-parking bylaws, since its projected
parking plan only exceeds minimums mandated by these by-laws by two spaces. To
begin with, we urge that r parking at the new Civic mpus be adapted to minimums
established in the new Official Plan, when it becomes available. But we also reiterate
our recommendation above—i.e., that these spaces be adapted to more sustainable
uses. Finally, if it is r-parking minimums that prevent TOH from promoting more
sustainable transportation options, we recommend that TOH apply for a variance with
the City of Ottawa, as mentioned in the TDM (Appendix S, p. 8).
Trillium MUP south of rling
Bike Ottawa objects to the elimination of the portion of the Trillium MUP south of
rling. The Trillium MUP is some of Ottawa’s best bike infrastructure, providing
segregation from r traffic in a low-stress environment that nnot be matched by
facilities adjacent to automotive traffic. The portion south of rling connects the
Trillium MUP to two popular destinations: Dow’s Lake and Prince of Wales Drive. As
mentioned above, the lotion of the r-parking structure as proposed would entail
the removal of this portion of the MUP.
While the TIA proposes rerouting this facility around the mpus via Preston St. (pp.
55–56), this route takes people on bikes in close proximity to r traffic, introduces
three new points of conflict with pedestrians (rling and the Trillium MUP, Preston
and rling, and Preston and Prince of Wales), and is a longer and slower slower route
to Prince of Wales. To be sure, there is already considerable volume from people on
bikes and pedestrians on Preston, in particular, and for this reason the facility
proposed here should stand—and it should be amply wide (a minimum of 5 m to
accommodate the variety of non-standard bikes: tricycles, recumbents, rgo bikes,
etc.) and with signifint buffering from r traffic on the adjacent roadway to match
the low-stress setting of the existing Trillium MUP south of rling. Nevertheless, this
n be no replacement for the portion of the Trillium MUP proposed for removal.
Indeed, the TIA even acknowledges the value of the portion it proposes eliminating and
the danger posed to people on bikes by rling and Preston (pp. 17–18).
Prince of Wales
The TIA proposes maintaining bike facilities on Prince of Wales Dr, with an upgraded
cycle track on part of the north side (and a bike lane the rest of the way) and a bike lane
on the south side (pp. 56–57). While it is certainly welcome to have a portion of
improved cycle track along this roadway, these facilities should be cycle tracks all along
Prince of Wales from the intersection with Preston to the roundabout where it meets
the Experimental Farm Driveway. This corridor is heavily used by people on bikes,
particularly those commuting from the south end of the city, and so a safe, amply wide
facility is necessary, particularly as the new Civic mpus n be expected to generate
increased traffic along this corridor.
We urge the implementation of protected intersections in two lotions: the
intersection of rling Ave and Preston St and the intersection of Prince of Wales and
Preston. As the TIA itself acknowledges, “Preston Street at rling Avenue
demonstrated higher risks for active transportation related collisions” (p. 17). Moreover,
the City of Ottawa’s 2020 High-Volume Intersection Safety Review identified the
intersection of Prince of Wales and Preston as a high-volume intersection that should
be redesigned for improved safety (no. 24). We note that the Review specifilly
mentions “Potential coordination with future hospital development” (Document 3, p. 4).
Now is clearly the time to implement this plan.
Sherwood bike facilities
In order to accommodate higher numbers of hospital staff, visitors and patients
accessing the new Civic mpus via sustainable modes of transportation, TOH should
work with the City of Ottawa to prioritize the development of a bikeway along
Sherwood Drive—a key bike route in the area, with connections to bike facilities across
the west end and also a direct route to the hospital. Prioritizing active transportation
along Sherwood will also help mitigate the potential for increased automobile traffic on
this neighbourhood street.
The TIA also proposes paths through the mpus in the current lotion of Queen
Juliana Park. In the first draft of the TIA, the status of these facilities is unclear,
however: they are marked “on-site pathway” and “secondary on-site path” (p. 56), with
no indition of the mode for which they were intended—an additional indition of
inadequate consideration of active transportation in the TIA. We were pleased,
however, to see that in the revised TIA, the “on-site pathway” was changed to two
facilities, a “bi-directional bikeway” and a sidewalk, which will segregate pedestrian
traffic from bike traffic and continue the connection from rling to Prince of Wales
(revised TIA, p. 57).
We recommend that the facility currently labelled “secondary on-site pathway” be
afforded the same segregated treatment. Many of the people on bikes coming from
Sherwood and heading to Prince of Wales will no doubt prefer using the “secondary
on-site pathway,” since it provides the most direct connection and is completely free
from the dangers of automobile traffic. This is even more true for those who will access
the main hospital entrance by bike from Sherwood, since this is a very direct
connection. If left unsegregated, this “secondary on-site pathway” will undoubtedly see
conflicts between pedestrians and people on bikes. (We are pleased to have received
oral clarifition from Graham Bird that all of the pathways mentioned in this section
will include separate facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. Nevertheless, we believe this
should be mentioned in official documents, with cross-sections provided for clarity.) In
addition, the intersection of Roads A and B will need a cross-ride for those continuing
through to Prince of Wales. This cross-ride should be both raised and stop-controlled,
as this will afford those crossing extra protection from automobile traffic. We are concerned, however, that language about the intersection of Roads A and B being
stop-controlled (p. 57) was removed in the revised TIA (revised TIA, p. 57), and we urge
Bike Ottawa is also concerned about the roadways proposed in the TIA. The TIA
proposes four r lanes for roads A1, A2, and B (Appendix N). By contrast, the TIA
proposes mere 3 m facilities along these roadways for any other road users, whether
people on bikes, pedestrians, or anyone else. This heavily r-oriented distribution is
unfortunately characteristic of the TIA in general. Given the relatively small footprint of
the new mpus and the overwhelmingly lol nature of traffic that will use the
surrounding road system, we believe that the road network is overbuilt. Specifilly, we
believe that the roads should be no more than three lanes wide, with narrow lane
widths and other features that limit traffic to 30km/h. At 30km/h, collisions between
automobiles and people walking or people on bikes will not likely result in death or
serious injury. Narrowing the roadway will be especially important at high-volume
pedestrian crossings, such as at the intersection of Roads A and B: crossing a four-lane
roadway is much more dangerous for pedestrians. Moreover, in light of the importance
of these corridors and their proximity to the main entrance, facilities for people on
bikes, pedestrians, and other users should be widened and segregated, and eliminating
r lanes in these roadways would free up space for this.
Finally, we are concerned that TOH seeks to “limit direct access to the front entrance
of the main Hospital building for cyclists” (revised TIA, p. 59). We find the provided
rationale suggestive: “to reduce potential vehicle/cycling conflicts on Road A2.” This is
another example of TOH prioritizing vehicle convenience over other modes. While we
are pleased that TOH understands the threat that r traffic poses to people on bikes,
among other road users, we believe that the solution to this is safer design, not seeking
to remove access to non-vehicle modes. We also note that this solution fails to
accommodate those for whom bikes are accessibility devices, and instead forces such
people to find some alternative.
Bike Ottawa is concerned about Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) in the TIA. In
brief, the TIA’s analysis clearly shows that in many places, the current plans do not
meet standards for pedestrians, cyclists, or transit users:
○ “No pedestrian PLoS targets were met” (p. 68)
○ “No pedestrian PLoS targets were met” (p. 76)
○ “rling Avenue and Preston Street did not meet the BLoS desired target”
○ “the overall increase in traffic and delays uses most of the future
intersections with transit routes to fall short of the TLoS desired target”
Despite falling short of targets for pedestrians and transit, the TIA in no place falls
short of standards for personal vehicles or trucks. In fact, the TIA clearly states that one of the reasons standards of service for non-motorized vehicles are not met is the
prioritization of vehicles.
● “The major factors preventing a PLoS of A include high vehicular volumes on all
the segments and fast operating speeds” (p. 68)
● “The main factor using poor PLoS includes how many lanes are required to be
crossed….Reducing the number of lanes of most of these intersections would
result in extremely poor vehicular performance” (p. 76)
● “rling Avenue and Preston Street did not meet the BLoS desired target due to
lack of cycling facilities and high quantity of travel lanes on both roadways” (p.
● “rling Avenue did not meet the TLoS targets mainly due to congestion” (p. 67)
The TIA summarizes the situation as follows: “future MMLOS for road segments and
intersections did not meet minimum targets for pedestrian and cyclist performance” (p.
87). In light of the TIA’s prioritization of automobile traffic over other modes of
transportation, we are not surprised at this conclusion.
Bike Ottawa is concerned about the pedestrian walkway from the Dow’s Lake LRT
station to the main hospital building (pp. 55–56). To begin with, the walkway’s value
seems limited. Beuse it is elevated and thus disconnected from its surroundings, it
n only serve as a corridor between two points: the LRT station and the hospital. The
walkway entirely bypasses parts of the mpus along the way, such as retail amenities
along rling or the proposed park atop the r-parking structure. As always,
pedestrian infrastructure is in fact automobile infrastructure: it takes pedestrians “out
of the way”—in this se, of an enormous r-parking structure. As mentioned above, a
better solution would be a mpus layout oriented toward sustainable transportation,
where connections to transit, for example, are close and flexible. Instead, the proposed
plan prioritizes rs and forces sustainable modes of transportation around r
infrastructure. At the very least, a connection from the proposed walkway at the
sidewalk along Road B should be provided for those who wish to access the walkway or
garage-top park from Prince of Wales, or vice versa.
We are also concerned that the TIA makes no provisions for people who will use the
LRT with a bike. Many people will bike from their home to a LRT station, take their bike
on the LRT, and complete the trip to the hospital by bike—and vice versa for the return
trip. Since this pathway is the main connection between Dow’s Lake Station and the
main hospital entrance, and since the parking structure blocks the most direct route
between these sites, people will undoubtedly bike along the pathway as well. We
therefore urge that provisions be made on this pathway for people on bikes. Given the
high traffic along this walkway, we suggest that the facility be wide and segregated.
We find other pedestrian facilities in the TIA inadequate. For example, we note that for
most of the roadways, sidewalks are only provided on one side. The modesty of this
provision is especially remarkable in comparison with TOH’s proposal of multiple lanes
for r traffic on the same roadways (Appendix N). We also note that the TIA makes no
mention of pedestrian crossings being raised. Raising these crossings is particularly
critil along high-volume pedestrian routes, such as at the intersection of Roads A and B, or of Prince of Wales Drive and Road B. As mentioned above, we are also concerned
that language about the intersection of Roads A and B being stop-controlled (p. 57) was
removed in the revised TIA, and we urge its reinstatement. It is essential that
pedestrians and people on bikes be afforded maximum protection at these
crossings—particularly in light of the current plan for four r lanes on these roadways.
We note that there seems to be no direct pedestrian connection from the area of
Prince of Wales and Road B to the hospital’s east arm or main entrance. Absent any
such connection, we predict that pedestrians will forge their own path, some of which
may come in conflict with r traffic. We recommend that these routes instead be
anticipated and direct connections be provided. A proper connection along the south
side of Road A2 to the main hospital entrance will be particularly important for those
using the main r-parking structure, as this would eliminate a substantial number of
crossings of Road A—and therefore also the potential for vehicle–pedestrian conflicts.
Finally, we note that despite substantial planning for the r-parking structure itself,
the TIA provides almost no detail concerning how those using this structure will access
the main hospital entrance; it merely states that “All proposed parking areas will be
accessible by either sidewalk or pathway” (p. 55). We recommend that TOH give reful
consideration to pedestrian traffic from all r-parking facilities on the mpus.
Bike Ottawa thanks TOH in advance for its consideration of our feedback concerning
infrastructure on the new Civic hospital mpus. We invite TOH to contact us if it has
any questions about our feedback. We would also be glad to work with TOH on these
and any other measures and policies.
Bike Ottawa Feedback: New Civic Hospital mpus Transportation Study
This document concerns bike parking at the new mpus of the Ottawa Civic Hospital
(TOH) as they arise in the Transportation Impact Assessment and Mobility Study (TIA).
We devote a separate document to bike parking beuse bike parking is critil to
making the mpus bike-friendly: as the TIA’s own Transportation Demand
Management plan (TDM) acknowledges, people will not bike to the mpus if there is
no place for them to store their bike securely (Appendix S).
Our main concern with bike parking in the TIA is the overall lack of information
provided on the subject. This lack of information is particularly striking in comparison
with the many pages the TIA devotes to r parking. We are concerned that this lack of
detail constitutes further evidence that TOH has inadequately considered active
transportation in its plans for the new Civic Hospital mpus. In what follows, we
outline a number of aspects that will need to be considered.
Total number of bike-parking spots
The TIA acknowledges that current City of Ottawa by-laws require a minimum of 630
bike-parking spots (p. 63). These minimums will soon be updated to reflect the City’s
new Official Plan, however. Beuse this update will take place well in advance of the
opening of the new Civic mpus in 2028, and in order to conform to the City’s larger
vision for transportation, Bike Ottawa believes that TOH should commit to adapting to
the standards for bike parking set out in the new Official plan, once it becomes
available. More than this, we believe that the TIA should include plans for increasing
bike parking beyond those set out in its initial plans. As Ottawa’s transportation
network gradually adapts to more sustainable forms of transportation, additional
bike-parking pacity will be necessary.
Connectivity and lotions
Bike parking should be distributed liberally around the new Civic mpus to serve
those working in or visiting every building. For bike parking that is underground or in
other difficult-to-find lotions, wayfinding should be provided from all main bike
facilities. Beuse bikes are accessibility devices for some people, bike parking facilities for disabled people should be made available at the entrances of every building on the
mpus. At no point should those riding a bike be required to dismount prior to
arriving at bike parking facilities. Sharp or narrow corners and steep grades should be
avoided, as these limit facilities’ accessibility. Any doors that people must pass through
with their bikes should be wide enough to accommodate non-standard bicycles, such
as tricycles, and doors should be sensor-activated to alleviate the difficulty of opening
doors and handling a loaded bike simultaneously. Bike parking facilities should never
impact the Pedestrian Level of Service; these facilities should have their own dedited
space away from walkways and sidewalks.
We are pleased that the revised TIA provides evidence of having considered lotions of
bike parking (revised TIA, p. 68). We are concerned, however, about this plan. Above all,
the majority of these lotions are distant from the main hospital building. Apart from
disincentivizing bike travel to the mpus, we believe that people will attempt to bike
to the main building anyhow and improvise bike parking, where necessary. It would be
better to anticipate bike travel and provide proper facilities.
We also are concerned that the map fails to distinguish between short-term and
longer-term bike-parking facilities. The revised TIA seems to consider this distinction
(p. 67), and this is an important distinction (see below); it should therefore be reflected
in the map.
We are concerned that the revised TIA considers bike parking in the parking structure.
We believe this is misguided. This lotion is distant from the various destinations on
the mpus, and thus people will seek out bike parking in those lotions—and
improvise, where necessary. Moreover, adding bike parking to the r-parking
structure will only increase the size of an already oversized structure; nothing should
be added to it that would contribute to this.
We also find the goal of situating bike parking in “proximity to Dow’s Lake Station”
(revised TIA, p. 67) misguided. We expect that bike parking will already be provided at
LRT station as part of the station design. We also believe that people who take their
bike on the LRT will, when they arrive at Dow’s Lake Station, continue biking to their
destination on mpus. Priority should be placed on situating bike-parking facilities in
proximity to destinations on the mpus.
With regard to the specific lotions of bike parking proposed in the revised TIA, we
have several recommendations. For clarity, we have reproduced a copy of the map in
the TIA (see below) with two modifitions: 1) we have numbered lotions, and 2) we
have provided the lotions proposed in the TIA in blue and our proposed lotions in
<Map of proposed site plan >
P1: Keep and provide wayfinding at Maple Dr and Road D.
P2: Keep and provide wayfinding signage at Roads A and B.
P3: Eliminate: too distant from destinations.
P4: Eliminate: too distant from destinations.
P5: Relote in lotion connected to Towers B and C, and underground.
P6: Relote in lotion connected proximity to Tower A.
P7: Provide facility at entrance to Research Building.
P8U: Provide facility underground in Research Building.
P9: Provide facility at back entrance of main building.
P10U: Provide large facility underground in main building.
P11: Provide facility on side of east arm of main building.
P12: Provide facility on side of west arm of main building.
Ample bike parking equipment should be provided that is accessible for all users,
regardless of size or ability: for example, at least a portion of this equipment at every
parking facility should be at ground level and should be roll-in, roll-out. Facilities
should accommodate all types of bikes, including the various styles of rgo bikes,
tricycles, and recumbents. Such facilities might include a combination of hydraulic
wall-mounted racks, stacked parking, and floor parking for non-standard or heavy
bikes. (By way of example, one popular model of rgo bike, the Babboe rve, is 2.15 m
long, 0.85 m wide, and 1.1 m high.) Several bike maintenance stands along with air
pumps should be made available on the mpus, as the TDM observes (Appendix S).
In what follows, we provide recommendations for facilities in two sections
distinguished by duration of use: short-term bike parking and day use (or longer).
Bike Ottawa suggests the provision of some bike-parking facilities oriented toward
short-term visits to the mpus, such as for people with appointments or making
deliveries. The main priority for these facilities is speed of accessibility and proximity
to building entrances. As such, most of these facilities should be loted at ground
level. Where these facilities are loted outdoors, they should be sheltered from
weather. These facilities may be a combination of ring-and-post design, which is most
convenient but least secure, and pay-per-use lockers, which are less convenient but
Short-term facilities should be clearly visible, particularly to pedestrian traffic, as this
improves their security. These facilities should also be protected from r traffic—at
the very least, by a curb and by being distant from r facilities, especially roadways.
Finally, provisions should be made for bike-share stations, as the TDM mentions
(Appendix S). Most major nadian cities have successful bike-share programs; while
Ottawa does not currently, in March of 2021, City Council asked City staff to research
the possibility of a future program.
Day-use (or longer) facilities
Bike Ottawa suggests the provision of bike parking facilities oriented toward day-use
(or longer) visits to the new Civic mpus, such as those for employees. In order to
make biking more attractive for those spending longer periods of time on the mpus,
we recommend integrating secure bike parking facilities in all major buildings on the
mpus. With such facilities, security is a key consideration, since bikes will be left
unattended for protracted durations, and bike theft quickly erodes confidence and thus
disincentivizes biking. As such, onsite security staff will need to monitor such facilities
24 hours a day. Moreover, a substantial proportion of these facilities should be accessible only by fob, punch code, or some other security system. Finally, at no stage
of using these facilities should anyone feel isolated or unsafe; facilities should be
loted in highly trafficked parts of buildings and well-lit.
Bike parking facilities should be connected to the remainder of the building in which
they are loted by easy-to-find stairs with large, adequate runnels, eslators, and
elevators. Showers, change rooms, and locker rooms should be provided for employees,
as the TDM acknowledges (Appendix S). These should be easily accessible from bike
parking facilities and made available to all staff.
As the TOH’s lotion is situated on Ottawa’s winter cycling network, bike parking
facilities should be designed to meet the standard of this network. Above-ground
connections and ramps to any underground bike parking facility should be designed for
year-round use and have excellent winter maintenance. Ideally, these facilities will be
heated so as to remove all snow and ice immediately, since bikes are more prerious
than other modes of transportation. If facilities are not heated, they will need to be
designed in conjunction with the selection of winter-maintenance equipment, since
this equipment poses special challenges to facilities (e.g., facilities need to
accommodate the width of plows and brushes). A detailed plan for snow storage,
drainage, and ice build-up should also be developed.
Bike Ottawa thanks TOH in advance for its consideration of our feedback concerning
bike-parking facilities on the new Civic hospital mpus. We invite TOH to contact us if
it has any questions about our feedback. We would also be glad to work with TOH on
these and any other measures and policies.