[Jamaican-Phoenix]

P.S.S. Where is Bowesville? :sly:

[d_jeffrey]

The whole low-floor train thing is because we will be using the Siemens S70 as a means of possibly escaping the lawsuit.

P.S. Anyone else notice how Siemens went silent after Urbandale came forward with their own proposal for City Council? I suspect they will be watching this closely.

Yeah, that's what I assumed too... couldn't it be dangerous in the DT tunnels? I mean since it's the same height as the station per say, and not a gapping hole like a subway? It's just the whole LRT thing, is it a streetcar, or not, what they want to do with it in the end?!

[d_jeffrey]

P.S.S. Where is Bowesville? :sly:


I found the station on the old plans, it's just South of the airport. Just asking here, between that station and the airport, which you find better? I mean, at least there was something at the airport...

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Chemin+Bowesville,+Gloucester,+Ottawa,+Ontario,+Canada&sll=45.286844,-75.648422&sspn=0.057851,0.1157&ie=UTF8&cd=3&geocode=0,45.284330,-75.630850&ll=45.294634,-75.620785&spn=0.028921,0.05785&z=14&iwloc=addr&om=1 .

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Yeah, that's what I assumed too... couldn't it be dangerous in the DT tunnels? I mean since it's the same height as the station per say, and not a gapping hole like a subway? It's just the whole LRT thing, is it a streetcar, or not, what they want to do with it in the end?!

I'm not sure why it would be dangerous in the tunnels. :shrug:

Not sure about the whole streetcar thing, but if we hook up two S70 trains together and run them underground, then by definition we would have a below-grade LRT system. :notacrook:

[d_jeffrey]

I'm not sure why it would be dangerous in the tunnels. :shrug:

Just a feeling, the driver can't see as well as on surface, and since it's at the same level as the platform, easy for children and people to wonder on the tracks and get hit. Well, easier than a subway platform, which has a gap.

Hopefully Siemens will suggest other vehicles without a penalty, as the S70 is really a streetcar vehicle.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Just a feeling, the driver can't see as well as on surface,

Well, trains do have lights... :rolleyes: :haha:

and since it's at the same level as the platform, easy for children and people to wonder on the tracks and get hit. Well, easier than a subway platform, which has a gap.

Perhaps, but I really don't think that it will be an issue or this vehicle would've been deemed unsafe.

Hopefully Siemens will suggest other vehicles without a penalty, as the S70 is really a streetcar vehicle.

Maybe, but the S70 was chosen to replace the O-Train and would run at street-level for most routes planned in the original TMP.

[jeremy_haak]

Just a feeling, the driver can't see as well as on surface, and since it's at the same level as the platform, easy for children and people to wonder on the tracks and get hit. Well, easier than a subway platform, which has a gap.

Hopefully Siemens will suggest other vehicles without a penalty, as the S70 is really a streetcar vehicle.

I think a high floor platform is far more dangerous. There likely would still be a bit of a step down, as a low-floor vehicle isn't a no-floor vehicle; however, it wouldn't be so large that it would be difficult to return to the platform if someone ventured onto the tracks.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I know it's not the greatest picture, but you can see that there is indeed a raised platform. The Train is the S70 Avanto, the one that was supposed to replace the O-Train.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/houston-city-guide-ga-2.jpg

Photographer: UNKNOWN

[d_jeffrey]

I know it's not the greatest picture, but you can see that there is indeed a raised platform. The Train is the S70 Avanto, the one that was supposed to replace the O-Train.


Photographer: UNKNOWN

Thanks UNKNOWN for your pic! It helped. The ones I had from Houston didn't show much.


Also, for those who missed it, here is the start of the new MTP:
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/trc/2007/11-21/ACS2007-PTE-POL-0063-1a.pdf
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/trc/2007/11-21/ACS2007-PTE-POL-0063-1b.pdf

I liked the LRT plan the most, and it seems that they do scrap the Transitway. I also find it funny that they don't use the O-Train name anywhere, except to mention the existing one. Hopefully they'll change the name!


All the supporting documention is there, as well as the consultants review of the proposals:

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/trc/2007/11-21/ACS2007-PTE-POL-0063.htm

[the capital urbanite]

Just a feeling, the driver can't see as well as on surface, and since it's at the same level as the platform, easy for children and people to wonder on the tracks and get hit. Well, easier than a subway platform, which has a gap.

Hopefully Siemens will suggest other vehicles without a penalty, as the S70 is really a streetcar vehicle.

low-floor trams with overhead catenary are used underground in many euorpean cities ...we wouldn't be setting any precedent here...it would be as safe as a bus tunnel

Also, the S70 is perfectly suited for both the above- and below-ground application ...it's fast, modular and scaleable (i.e. it can be coupled).

Using heavier vehicles would require larger stations and dedicated ROW in RIverside South and Barrhaven...this is one of the reasons why the low-floor LRT vehicle was chosen.

[d_jeffrey]

l

Using heavier vehicles would require larger stations and dedicated ROW in RIverside South and Barrhaven...this is one of the reasons why the low-floor LRT vehicle was chosen.

Yes, and that's why we should scrap the streetcar thing altogether. We complained that the operation costs are higher with one car trains, and it will still go ahead with one car trains, tunnel or not. It is not cost effective in the long term, not at all...

EDIT: It's fun to read the consultants documents, they say the same thing!!!

[jeremy_haak]

Yes, and that's why we should scrap the streetcar thing altogether.

I'm not really sure I understand what problems you perceive with a vehicle like the S70 besides that it's not a high-floor vehicle. What benefit does a vehicle like the SD-160 in Calgary and Edmonton have over it? They are actually marginally slower and have lower acceleration. The S70 is perfectly suited to grade-separated LRT operation, but if/when Ottawa gets around building on-street LRT, it would be suited to that as well. I'd prefer the flexibility, all other things being equal.

How would it be higher cost?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

:previous: The S70 was chosen for it's flexibility. It was to scale the hills of Carling Ave., go underground, grade-seperated and be able to wind through some rather tricky areas, all the while still being comparable to a car in terms of speed.

[the capital urbanite]

Yes, and that's why we should scrap the streetcar thing altogether. We complained that the operation costs are higher with one car trains, and it will still go ahead with one car trains, tunnel or not. It is not cost effective in the long term, not at all...

what kind of vehicle are you proposing? ...and remember that the idea of bi-mode trains acting as regional rail is not on the table with this resurrected NSLRT proposal.

The ridership is simply not there for >1 car trains along this route...when it does come time to increase capacity you can couple two vehicles.

Note that all of the original 3 proponents suggested similar-sized vehicles (i.e. low-floor single car LRT).

In any case, I'm sure this question will be on the table in more official circles...and the most appropriate vehicle will be chosen.

[Cre47]

It is obvious that city staff haven't learned from 2004 :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/11/14/ot-budget-071114.html

They are proposing massive service reductions on some routes including evenings and weekends where in some areas it is already lousy. Let's hope that the council do care about transit and environment and refuse any cuts to service as well as fare hikes.

Maybe they should cut on the asphalt for suburbans instead.

[waterloowarrior]

It is obvious that city staff haven't learned from 2004 :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/11/14/ot-budget-071114.html

They are proposing massive service reductions on some routes including evenings and weekends where in some areas it is already lousy. Let's hope that the council do care about transit and environment and refuse any cuts to service as well as fare hikes.

Maybe they should cut on the asphalt for suburbans instead.

The way I read it (and parts of the budget that I scanned through) is that most of the cuts are only for the 0% option... staff was instructed to produce scenarios for 0%, 1.7%, and 3.4% increases, it's not like they want to cut service (as far as I can tell), but they were directed to find cuts by council.

edit: In parts of the budget that I read, staff noted that these transit cuts would go against the city's own policies if councilors approved them.


O'Brien has proposed a two-per-cent infrastructure tax levy and an increase to the city's police budget, but wants no increase in regular property taxes. During his 2006 election campaign, he promised to freeze property taxes for four years. McGuinty'd :haha:

[d_jeffrey]

I'm not really sure I understand what problems you perceive with a vehicle like the S70 besides that it's not a high-floor vehicle. What benefit does a vehicle like the SD-160 in Calgary and Edmonton have over it? They are actually marginally slower and have lower acceleration. The S70 is perfectly suited to grade-separated LRT operation, but if/when Ottawa gets around building on-street LRT, it would be suited to that as well. I'd prefer the flexibility, all other things being equal.

How would it be higher cost?


I just hate its looks with more than one car, that's all. I like the combino, but it's a streetcar too, and slower... but the looks suits more of subway system.
http://www.komunikacja.krakow.pl/fotka/img/200608.jpg



And for those who ask, all the stations and lines were built as a maximum of two car trains for all the route. When we'll have enough demand for the service, this will need to be adaptable for 4 train cars (80m platforms), to have a reasonable offer of ~10k pph. It's not an issue for DT and the phase 1of the urbandale proposal, as the land is available, but it is an issue for the Riverside South and Barrhaven sections. Remember that there may be a possibility that the Transitway will be converted, as per the city's plans themselves (the documents I post). So that leaves us with no other choice than to improve the LRT service to compensate for the BRT, one way is to have higher frequency, or longer trains.

Longer trains in this case would have lower operation costs, as you only need one driver for 4 cars, instead of 4 drivers for 4 trains. This is what the Urbandale proposal and the MTF proposal mentiona, as well as the documents made by the consultants. The stations capacity of being extended for 4 cars will need to be looked in, and that impacts for all the system.

[d_jeffrey]

It is obvious that city staff haven't learned from 2004 :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/11/14/ot-budget-071114.html

They are proposing massive service reductions on some routes including evenings and weekends where in some areas it is already lousy. Let's hope that the council do care about transit and environment and refuse any cuts to service as well as fare hikes.

Maybe they should cut on the asphalt for suburbans instead.

Hahahaha, how can he still be mayor, I would be so embarrassed after all happened in the last year! It's not like he needs a job!

[the capital urbanite]

I wonder if councillors will even want to wait for the updated TMP before considering the Bayview-Bowesville line as a "near-term" investment ...based on the staff report it seems a forgone conclusion that this route will be a component of any future network. As it stands none of the recommended near-term projects will address transit to Riverside South and if approved, most of the $400M from the feds and prov would go to completion of the BRT Transitway.

[d_jeffrey]

I wonder if councillors will even want to wait for the updated TMP before considering the Bayview-Bowesville line as a "near-term" investment ...based on the staff report it seems a forgone conclusion that this route will be a component of any future network.

I have the feeling that the 2% "infrastructure increase" will take care of that...

Also, in the MMM group document, about the airport link:

The LRT link to the airport was not supported by the business case for initial implementation as part of the
former N-S LRT project. Depending on the outcome of the revised ridership study, based on a tunnel option
and new end points for the LRT operation, the business case may support earlier implementation of the LRT
airport link
To date, the decision as to whether or not to proceed with the implementation of the airport link has been
driven by the business case. Consideration could also be given to the global exposure factors such as the
world perception and advertising potential created for Ottawa by having an LRT system connected directly to
the international airport. As a G8 Capital City, there is an argument to be made that such a service is evidence
of a progressive, environmentally friendly, forward thinking City. These intangibles are beyond the scope of a
dollar-oriented business case.

[waterloowarrior]

some maps from the MMM report

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/LRT_Page_3.jpg

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/LRT_Page_4.jpg

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/LRT_Page_5.jpg

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/LRT_Page_6.jpg


http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/LRT_Page_7.jpg

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/LRT_Page_8.jpg

[Cre47]

The good thing though, thank god, it's that it will be unlikely that the freeze will be implemented and that most of the proposed cuts will be rejected, although you to consider the risk. Maybe the more likelyhood scenario is probably reductions to routes with poor ridership like they did last year. But still, no cuts should be made period. I hope that rural councillors (like Glen Brooks or Doug Thompson - I thinking especially these two) will not push for transit cuts. I think Brooks was the councillor who proposed the motion to go ahead with most of the proposed cuts in 2004 - but I may be wrong. While Thompson, well he just officially won his dear battle for the re-opening of Albion Road and we know that Greely are anti-transit.

Here's a CFRA article (even though CFRA is the worst in Ottawa) about the city having no short term plans for LRT not even the tunnel.

http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=1&nid=53457

[d_jeffrey]

Here's a CFRA article (even though CFRA is the worst in Ottawa) about the city having no short term plans for LRT not even the tunnel.

http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=1&nid=53457

I thought that was known from last Summer? After the MTF plan, because it was the only part that was finished, they could start working on these sections.

After reading all the documentation, the city's LRT-only plan is the best (maybe because it looks so much like the OT plan ;) )

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Sheesh, this Urbandale plan is beginning to look just like a slimmed down version of my proposal! :haha:

[d_jeffrey]

Sheesh, this Urbandale plan is beginning to look just like a slimmed down version of my proposal! :haha:

Well just look at the review of the Urbandale proposal, and then you'll see why it wasn't effective :D .

Haha, they even stopped the LRT at St-Laurent, for transfers.

[the capital urbanite]

I just hate its looks with more than one car, that's all. I like the combino, but it's a streetcar too, and slower... but the looks suits more of subway system.


looks like the S70 (but uglier imo) ...the S70 is modular and can be customized...for example the one used in Houston is articulated and longer than the one that was proposed for Ottawa. If a longer/quieter/roomier/prettier vehicle is required I'm sure Siemens can tweak their design....for a price of course.

[lrt's friend]

Good Luck in getting the $400M from the feds and Province for a Bayview-Bowesville plan that will likely cut ridership potential by at least half. We need Larry O'Brien to show us how good a salesman he really is by getting us funding for the full Barrhaven to Hurdman (or Via) route. Just remember Dalton Maguinty's disappointment in our timid plans.

The S70 is exactly what we need. When we build LRT on Montreal Road or Carling Avenue, there is the potential to share track through downtown. The S70 is by far the most versatile train, being able to operate on streets and exclusive ROWs and still having a good speed for suburban service. It seems to me the bi-modes were also low floor so they could also share the same track.

Low floor trains are much better designed for disabled people and platforms are less obtrusive in the streetscape. Calgary and Edmonton don't use low floor trains simply because they didn't exist when they started their LRT systems.

Now, who was saying that it was going to take so much longer by LRT than by Transitway from Barrhaven? The Urbandale report says it right there. 40 minutes from Barrhaven, about the same as by Transitway. The myth has finally been broken.

[lrt's friend]

In answer to the Bowesville question. Bowesville was expropriated in 1951 to expand the airport. The village was near the present day airport terminal. Today's references will be the Bowesville Road that runs south from the airport and will be (more or less) the eastern boundary of the planned Riverside South community.

[d_jeffrey]

Now, who was saying that it was going to take so much longer by LRT than by Transitway from Barrhaven? The Urbandale report says it right there. 40 minutes from Barrhaven, about the same as by Transitway. The myth has finally been broken.

That was from the Via station in Barrhaven, and that still stands. The Barrhaven town centre is still about the same by Transitway... so why are we putting a train to there again? We had this discussion again, just read the old thread, LRT faster than BRT in ROW, LRT in Woodroffe corridor is faster than BRT in Woodroffe corridor, equals faster service to Barrhaven than putting double tracks in a field.

Nothing has changed, it's the same damn numbers! And I'm excited to see that the focus will come back to the core, as per the LRT plan of the city. We need to encourage growth in the city before a suburb.

And if you want to quote the Urbandale plan, do it correctly:

c) Trip time from Woodroffe (40 mins.) and River Road (38 mins.) to
the CBD was excessive for the purpose of attracting car users.

[lrt's friend]

so why are we putting a train to there again?

So that 2 rapid transit lines connect allowing easier transfers and reflecting that the proportion of employment is increasingly moving away from downtown. There is only so much space downtown. Suburb to Suburb transit is going to become more and more important. We should not only be measuring travel times to and from downtown, if you are serious about getting more people out of their cars.

[d_jeffrey]

So that 2 rapid transit lines connect allowing easier transfers and reflecting that the proportion of employment is increasingly moving away from downtown. There is only so much space downtown. Suburb to Suburb transit is going to become more and more important. We should not only be measuring travel times to and from downtown, if you are serious about getting more people out of their cars.

Like I mentionned again and again before, suburbs to suburbs should be through a SUBURBAN train, which is faster than LRT. Sigh... Is that difficult to understand the different means of transit? If I work in Kanata, I don't want to pass through 30 stations, I want something fast.

[the capital urbanite]

Good Luck in getting the $400M from the feds and Province for a Bayview-Bowesville plan that will likely cut ridership potential by at least half. We need Larry O'Brien to show us how good a salesman he really is by getting us funding for the full Barrhaven to Hurdman (or Via) route. Just remember Dalton Maguinty's disappointment in our timid plans.


I agree that the Bayview-Bowesville line will be a hard sell, however the "business case" for building this part of the line before dealing with the central business district is solid (Mr. O'Brien can't ask for money for the CBD tunnel since it is just under study at the moment).

Construction of the Bayview-Bowesville line would essentially force the building of the central business district LRT tunnel (or some sort of BRT/LRT hybrid) so ridership will be there.

It's a bit of a circular argument...if we don't build the Bowesville-Bayview line there wouldn't be much point in a CBD LRT tunnel...and if we don't build a CBD LRT tunnel there wouldn't be much point in the Bowesville-Bayview LRT line. (maybe a bus tunnel would be viable but then we've been through that twice in the past..)

again, it comes down to the simple question ....does the city want LRT in this corridor or not?

If yes, then the Bowesville-Bayview LRT (or perhaps River-Bayview) is the only answer. If the answer is no then the city should shelve LRT indefinitely and extend the existing Transitway South to River road.

Councillors should vote on the proposed route assuming 2/3 funding from upper levels of government. At least then when we go ask for money the mayor can say that council supports building option "x".

[the capital urbanite]

Send review of Urbandale LRT plan to council, staff tells committee
Warns that cost of downtown tunnel likely to be higher than projected

William Lin
Ottawa Citizen

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

City staff has recommended that a review of a developer's light-rail proposal that includes a downtown tunnel be sent to city council, but added that the tunnel's costs could be higher than the company's estimate.

In mid-August, Urbandale Corp., an Ottawa development company, piqued the interest of the joint transportation and transit committee, which includes Mayor Larry O'Brien, with its light-rail plan.

At the time, the joint committee directed city staff to report back by October.

The staff report - which was dated Nov. 6, but not available until last night - said Urbandale's proposal seeks to reduce the scope of the original north-south light-rail project. The the savings could then be used to partially offset the cost of constructing other light-rail sections, including the downtown tunnel and an extension to the VIA station.

However, the report said Urbandale's cost-saving estimates were difficult to confirm because the company provided few details as to how the numbers were calculated.

It appears that the proposal is missing some important elements, such as cost escalation and the twinning of the track from the maintenance facility to River Road, the report said. Also, other project costs, such as those dealing with property and utilities, were not considered.

For example, the proposal assumes that there will be no major utility relocation costs if a downtown transit tunnel is built.

"It is premature to assume this, as there is likely to be utility costs," such as for the downtown portal tunnel accesses, the downtown station accesses and changes in LeBreton Flats and at the maintenance facility, among others."

The concept of a downtown tunnel, which the report said will be the "most fundamental component of the network," goes hand-in-hand with council's recent decision to start an environmental assessment study.

The report also said a more detailed analysis is needed of the projects, including a revised ridership study and run-time simulations.

"The federal and provincial agencies will not agree to fund this newly scoped project until due diligence takes place through the completion of the detailed analysis," the report said.
© Ottawa Citizen 2007

[the capital urbanite]

...and a slightly different take on the matter from the Sun...

LRT proposal back on track
CITY BUDGET: Staff report also recommends spending $8 million on bus-only lanes along Baseline Rd.
By DEREK PUDDICOMBE

CITY HALL BUREAU -- Light rail transit is back on the city agenda.

Next week, a joint meeting of the city's transit and transportation committees will discuss the latest LRT proposal by a local developer that would take commuters to River Rd. from the current O-Train station at Bayview.

It's a reduced route compared to the original proposal that would have seen a 30-km track to downtown from Barrhaven. That project was cancelled earlier this year.

But in a report to be tabled at next week's joint meeting, staff suggest the Urbandale proposal does have some merit.

The report also recommends city council spend about $450 million on several transit-related projects identified earlier this year, including about $8 million on bus-only lanes along Baseline Rd.

Attractive to city staff is that the LRT project wouldn't interfere with any work if council proceeded with a plan to build a tunnel under the city's downtown core.

The now-cancelled plan also called for building a second tunnel under Dow's Lake, but Urbandale's proposal says a second hole isn't necessary.

The company says if twin tunnels are built under Slater and Albert streets it would relieve much of the transit congestion and alleviate the need for a second tunnel under the lake. But staff suggest there could be a problem running a single track.

"The single-track Dow's Lake tunnel could become a bottleneck in a network of twin tracks everywhere else," the report says. "A single tunnel could also have negative impacts in the case of maintenance requirements (longer term) and possible emergency conditions."

To accommodate the transit trains operating on a single track under the lake, Urbandale suggests trains would run on five-minute headways.

Urbandale's cost estimate to build the Bayview to River Rd. line, including trains and twin tunnels under the downtown, is almost $1.1 billion. That's almost the same cost of the previous Barrhaven to downtown project that didn't include a tunnel.

City staff question how Urbandale arrived at the cost.

"The Urbandale proposal assumes that there will be no major utility relocation costs if a downtown transit tunnel were to be built. It is premature to assume this," the report states.

With a downtown tunnel expected to become the foundation for the entire transit network, the report includes a comprehensive work statement involved in building twin tunnels.

The study area runs from Bayview Station through the downtown core, between Wellington St. and Laurier Ave. West, to King Edward Ave., and will also take in Lowertown West and the Byward Market. The area will also run south to the Hurdman station and the Via Rail station as possible future LRT extensions.

Staff expect to award a contract to study the tunnel route next March and take two years to complete.

[lrt's friend]

Ottawa is not New York. We cannot have suburb to suburb express trains that don't stop at various points along the way. Maybe we can keep the number of stops below 30, but I can't see the demand to support a non-stop or almost non-stop train between Orleans and Kanata any time soon.

We should not adopt the Toronto model where they have been using a tremendous variety of trains; streetcars, RT trains in Scarborough, subways, Go Trains and soon LRT, all of which is incompatible with each other. There is a lot of history on why Toronto's system has developed the way it has. Part of it was politics. Part of it is simply the size of the city. Part of it was availability of rail corridors. Part of it was track sharing with freight trains. Part of it was the longstanding history of the rail network, some of it 100-150 years old.

Ottawa is totally different. Most of our rail network was dismantled, so we have the opportunity to create a new rail network almost from scratch. This in a way gives us an advantage in that we can build a more flexible rail network with a single rail standard and technology. The S70 or something similar is the best choice. We do not need trains that can operate over 100kph if they are going stop every 2 kms even in the suburbs. Outside the urban/suburban area, that is a different story but our priority is within the urban/suburban area.

I am not a fan of heavy Go Trains. They can only operate on existing rail lines. They cannot run downtown since we no longer have any heavy rail lines to downtown. They don't encourage intensification along the rail lines. They cannot run frequently. If they don't run downtown, who will use them?

[lrt's friend]

If yes, then the Bowesville-Bayview LRT (or perhaps River-Bayview) is the only answer. If the answer is no then the city should shelve LRT indefinitely and extend the existing Transitway South to River road.

Councillors should vote on the proposed route assuming 2/3 funding from upper levels of government. At least then when we go ask for money the mayor can say that council supports building option "x".

I have said it before. We need to get started. Bayview to Riverside South or Barrhaven or whereever in preparation for extending downtown once a tunnel study is completed. If we wait for the tunnel study, we won't BEGIN construction until 2011 at the earliest. Even if we don't wait, with all the new studies needed, we won't start construction of even a line ending at Bayview until at least 2009.

If we extend the Transitway to Riverside South, we have eliminated the most obvious rail transit route in the city. There will not be LRT for at least another generation and we will still face a unsustainable Albert/Slater transit corridor. We will then be on the hook for building a downtown bus tunnel at even higher cost than a rail tunnel.

[d_jeffrey]

I am not a fan of heavy Go Trains. They can only operate on existing rail lines. They cannot run downtown since we no longer have any heavy rail lines to downtown. They don't encourage intensification along the rail lines. They cannot run frequently. If they don't run downtown, who will use them?

Are you joking? You just mentionned that people need suburbs to suburbs sevice, now, if they don't run downtown, they won't use it?

The GO Train in Toronto is to offer faster service than the subway, and it works, it has been overcrowded for years. Our existing tracks are so underutilised that it's a joke.

Each type of vehicle has it's purpose, if you want to all use the same train just for the sake of it fine, but try to show more rational thoughts. There won't be any densification for existing lines because their heavy rail, it doesn'T mean we can't offer transfers that provides faster service, sheesh...

I'm happy to see that's what the city did in their new LRT plan.

[lrt's friend]

Go Trains provide outer suburb to downtown service only. There are no suburb to suburb Go Trains in Toronto. Anyways, we don't have downtown track anymore for this type of train. It simply won't work in Ottawa. Toronto is 5x the size of Ottawa, with 5x the traffic congestion. This makes Go Trains attractive in Toronto. In Ottawa, Go Trains running half hourly and requiring a transfer to reach downtown cannot compete with the Transitway with buses running every few minutes to and from our outer suburbs (Kanata, Orleans and Barrhaven).

We have a smaller population than Toronto therefore we need smaller trains. For suburb to suburb (cross-town) service where lower density means lower demand, also supports the concept of smaller trains not larger trains. Why put in trains that can move 1,000 people at a time when the demand in a city the size of Ottawa will not support it? That's why most Go Trains only run in peak periods in Toronto. The demand doesn't warrant the cost of running these big trains during off-peak hours. As a result, buses are used in off-peak hours that delivers poor service because it has to compete with regular traffic the whole way. We can deliver better overall service by using smaller trains and we will encourage more than just commuters to use it by running it more frequently and 7 days a week.

We cannot even justify Go Trains to Casselman (population 5,000), Smiths Falls (population 9,000) or Arnprior (population 7,000). The Toronto equivalent is Mississauga (population 750,000), Oshawa/Whitby/Pickering (population 300,000 or 400,000), Brampton (population 250,000) and so on. Barrie will only be getting Go Service in January with a population of 150,000 or 200,000. There are simply no comparisons between Toronto and Ottawa and therefore our rail needs are completely different.

I am being perfectly consistent.

[d_jeffrey]

Go Trains provide outer suburb to downtown service only. There are no suburb to suburb Go Trains in Toronto. Anyways, we don't have downtown track anymore for this type of train. It simply won't work in Ottawa. Toronto is 5x the size of Ottawa, with 5x the traffic congestion. This makes Go Trains attractive in Toronto. In Ottawa, Go Trains running half hourly and requiring a transfer to reach downtown cannot compete with the Transitway with buses running every few minutes to and from our outer suburbs (Kanata, Orleans and Barrhaven).

We have a smaller population than Toronto therefore we need smaller trains. For suburb to suburb (cross-town) service where lower density means lower demand, also supports the concept of smaller trains not larger trains. Why put in trains that can move 1,000 people at a time when the demand in a city the size of Ottawa will not support it? That's why most Go Trains only run in peak periods in Toronto. The demand doesn't warrant the cost of running these big trains during off-peak hours. As a result, buses are used in off-peak hours that delivers poor service because it has to compete with regular traffic the whole way. We can deliver better overall service by using smaller trains and we will encourage more than just commuters to use it by running it more frequently and 7 days a week.

We cannot even justify Go Trains to Casselman (population 5,000), Smiths Falls (population 9,000) or Arnprior (population 7,000). The Toronto equivalent is Mississauga (population 750,000), Oshawa/Whitby/Pickering (population 300,000 or 400,000), Brampton (population 250,000) and so on. Barrie will only be getting Go Service in January with a population of 150,000 or 200,000. There are simply no comparisons between Toronto and Ottawa and therefore our rail needs are completely different.

I am being perfectly consistent.


You don't need 1000 people trains to move people, heck, the proposed O-Train extension don't even have a quarter of that per train. I'm taking about suburbs, not exurbs, suburbs are Orleans, Kanata and Barrhaven. I don't know you were mentionning Smith Falls at all.

There is peek service only because people go to suburb to suburb mostly for work. If I live in Orleans and work in Kanata, why would I take the LRT to there, if for a low infrasctructure cost, you can offer better, and faster service? I can change my habits to get up 10 minutes earlier to catch my train if it means I save 20 minutes on my trip.

You are wrong about Toronto, because you can stop at any stops on the GO-Train line and transfer to go to another destination. People that stop at the Union Station still take the Subway, as it's one of the busiest station, it wouldn't be any different for the O-Train station, it's not like it's 30 minutes from DT, it's not far at all.

Here is the schedule, some service is 15 minutes apart. That's the current O-Train. Plus you complain about train every 30 minutes, some routes are less frequent than that. My bus is every 20-25 minutes.

http://www.gotransit.com/publicroot/schedule/pubsched.aspx?table=01&direction=1&day=1&page=1&new=


A LRT between Kanata and Orleans means at least 30 stations, this will result in a low average speed, and discourage users from transit. I'm not saying it's not needed, I'm saying we need something faster to complement.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

We don't need to run large, exuberant GO Trains to suburbs and exurbs. If exurban communities such as Smith's Falls, Arnprior, Casselman, etc. are willing to be a part and fund their fair share, then I say take it.

If we get the S70's for Central Ottawa and the Suburbs, a fairly decent commuter network could terminate at Hurdman/Via where it then becomes a five minute ride into downtown.

Also, what we could do on top of that would be to acquire more Talent Trains and paint the new fleet in the GO colour scheme. Voila, GO Trains, Commuter Rail and LRT all in one package.

[lrt's friend]

We don't need to run large, exuberant GO Trains to suburbs and exurbs. If exurban communities such as Smith's Falls, Arnprior, Casselman, etc. are willing to be a part and fund their fair share, then I say take it.

If we get the S70's for Central Ottawa and the Suburbs, a fairly decent commuter network could terminate at Hurdman/Via where it then becomes a five minute ride into downtown.

Also, what we could do on top of that would be to acquire more Talent Trains and paint the new fleet in the GO colour scheme. Voila, GO Trains, Commuter Rail and LRT all in one package.

That's all I was saying. We don't need Toronto style Go Trains in Ottawa. We need something smaller and you have agreed.


I can change my habits to get up 10 minutes earlier to catch my train if it means I save 20 minutes on my trip.

That kind of thinking will not get car drivers to leave their cars at home. Most people have to at their place of work at a specific hour. If you enjoy being early every day, that is fine. Many people will consider that part of their commute time.




You are wrong about Toronto, because you can stop at any stops on the GO-Train line and transfer to go to another destination.

Of course, but no Go Train is designed for suburb to surburb service without going downtown. All the Go Train routes radiate out from Union Station so there is no cross-town rapid transit or commuter service in Toronto without going through the centre of the city.

There is peek service only because people go to suburb to suburb mostly for work.

That is not true. Look at the roads. On Saturdays, suburban roads are like rush hour all day long but there is no decent transit alternative. 3 of the 4 colleges and universities are in suburban locations. Our major shopping centres are in suburban areas. Scotiabank Place is in a suburban location. There are many reasons to travel from suburb to suburb and not just for work.

People that stop at the Union Station still take the Subway, as it's one of the busiest station, it wouldn't be any different for the O-Train station, it's not like it's 30 minutes from DT, it's not far at all.

That is true, but Union Station is within walking distance of Toronto's financial district, the ACC and Roger's Centre. Ottawa's Via Rail station is within walking distance of virtually nothing. Via station isn't too bad if you are coming from the east, but it is out of the way, coming from the west or south.

Here is the schedule, some service is 15 minutes apart. That's the current O-Train. Plus you complain about train every 30 minutes, some routes are less frequent than that. My bus is every 20-25 minutes.

Well, the Lakeshore line is by far the busiest and there are only a few trains that close together and then some of them don't stop at the same locations. You can't really compare the schedule to the O-Train and we already want to increase service to every 5 minutes on the O-Train. Outside of peak hours, the Go Train runs hourly. On other lines, there is only bus service outside of peak hours. Why would we want to design our transit system around something like that?

If you expect people to make more transfers because of trains, 15, 20 or 30 minute headways are not good enough.

As I said, if we use smaller trains we can offer better service and a cross-town route bypassing downtown is more feasible.

[Dado]

That's an interesting point. While it may not be a problem presently, it could end up being as much a problem in the future as the failure to build a tunnel in the CBD was for the Transitway.
Interesting point? It's a red herring. The tunnel is 600 m long. A train going through at only 40 km/h (that's the *average* speed of the O-Train, stops and waiting at Carleton included, and not its running speed, which I believe is about twice that in the tunnel area) clears it in just under a minute. This won't bottleneck anything for a long time unless bottlenecking is deliberately scheduled to occur (and with the downtown problem gone since it is being cut off/dealt with by a tunnel, even that excuse no longer exists). When and if a second tunnel is required, it can be built but not "immediately adjacent" to the existing one so as not to interfere with it. I don't know why it is that single tracks seem to scare the living daylights out of people. It's just FUD.

And if anyone needs any indication that there is no seriousness to the City's alternate proposal, they still want to leave in place the Transitway south of Heron/Confederation. It makes no sense whatsoever to have two parallel transit services offering roughly equivalent service. And by leaving the Transitway as is they're pushing the costs through the roof by requiring extra overpass structures as well as rebuilding the existing freight line south of Walkley to serve the NRC lab on Lester. Compare that to transitway conversion: one new underpass of the VIA line, pop out onto the Transitway and save buckets of money on structures. The current rail line would be left in place unaccosted to at least as far south as the NRC lab.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Ottawa's Via Rail station is within walking distance of virtually nothing.

It is now.

Train Yards big-box and office space... :rolleyes: :haha:

[waterloowarrior]

And if anyone needs any indication that there is no seriousness to the City's alternate proposal, they still want to leave in place the Transitway south of Heron/Confederation. It makes no sense whatsoever to have two parallel transit services offering roughly equivalent service. And by leaving the Transitway as is they're pushing the costs through the roof by requiring extra overpass structures as well as rebuilding the existing freight line south of Walkley to serve the NRC lab on Lester. Compare that to transitway conversion: one new underpass of the VIA line, pop out onto the Transitway and save buckets of money on structures. The current rail line would be left in place unaccosted to at least as far south as the NRC lab.

Lots of people go to Hurdman to transfer, Billings, Hospitals, east side of downtown etc on the 97 from Greenboro, plus the bus to the airport and several local links use parts of that stretch of transitway... why take away that link?

[d_jeffrey]

Interesting point?

And if anyone needs any indication that there is no seriousness to the City's alternate proposal, they still want to leave in place the Transitway south of Heron/Confederation. It makes no sense whatsoever to have two parallel transit services offering roughly equivalent service. And by leaving the Transitway as is they're pushing the costs through the roof by requiring extra overpass structures as well as rebuilding the existing freight line south of Walkley to serve the NRC lab on Lester. Compare that to transitway conversion: one new underpass of the VIA line, pop out onto the Transitway and save buckets of money on structures. The current rail line would be left in place unaccosted to at least as far south as the NRC lab.

You have seen the light my friend. I was saying that all along, they built the O-Train line parallel to the Transitway on purpose, that was not really bright... Just look at the South Keys station, you will need something similar just besides it, what a waste of money! Build a line spur at confedration, one to the existing o-train, one to Hurdman, and you have your suburban line still free for the South.

[lrt's friend]

And if anyone needs any indication that there is no seriousness to the City's alternate proposal, they still want to leave in place the Transitway south of Heron/Confederation. It makes no sense whatsoever to have two parallel transit services offering roughly equivalent service. And by leaving the Transitway as is they're pushing the costs through the roof by requiring extra overpass structures as well as rebuilding the existing freight line south of Walkley to serve the NRC lab on Lester. Compare that to transitway conversion: one new underpass of the VIA line, pop out onto the Transitway and save buckets of money on structures. The current rail line would be left in place unaccosted to at least as far south as the NRC lab.

This keeps coming up but nobody addresses the need of a southend bus transfer station at South Keys. Where will it be relocated and at what cost? What about the Greenboro Park n Ride that would then be isolated away from the bus network that presently radiates from there in all directions?

Plus as Waterloowarrior correctly points out, you are cutting off key south end transit destinations for south end transit users.

Funny, the same people who expressed outrage at shutting down the temporary O-Train for 3 years and replacing it with bus service in order to build a better O-Train are prepared to shutdown the Transitway and inconvenience far more people during rail construction and inconvenience many permanently. Ah, the rail lobby!

Train Yards big-box and office space.

Is that really within walking distance? Seems to me, that it is on the opposite side of the tracks from the station. They will need pedestrian access to the south side of the tracks from the station which presently does not exist.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Is that really within walking distance? Seems to me, that it is on the opposite side of the tracks from the station. They will need pedestrian access to the south side of the tracks from the station which presently does not exist.

So they can build pedestrian access. :) :P

[Dado]

Lots of people go to Hurdman to transfer, Billings, Hospitals, east side of downtown etc on the 97 from Greenboro, plus the bus to the airport and several local links use parts of that stretch of transitway... why take away that link?

If it is felt that 97 service needs to be maintained all the way from South Keys until such time as the rest of the Southeast Transitway is converted, there are other options. One would be to run the 97 down Bank Street from Billings using transit priority measures for it and the 1. Another would be to run the 97 on the Airport Parkway and return to the Transitway at Heron. The link to the airport should be handled separately right now to co-ordinate with the O-Train and the ELRT in the future, but especially once the latter extends to downtown (the current 97 setup is a joke: the one that comes by a couple of minutes after the arrival of the O-Train is the 97X South Keys; one has to wait about 12 minutes for the Airport 97. The same is true on the reverse leg). The shuttle bus to the airport should be a dedicated vehicle or two, specially designed to facility handling of luggage (basically like the Park & Fly shuttles). Another 90 series bus could start from Heron/Confederation and head east along the Transitway to Orleans.

Things are going to be a little inconvenient for awhile until more of a rail network is built up. That's unavoidable. That's the price of having BRT in the first place.

[d_jeffrey]

This keeps coming up but nobody addresses the need of a southend bus transfer station at South Keys. Where will it be relocated and at what cost? What about the Greenboro Park n Ride that would then be isolated away from the bus network that presently radiates from there in all directions?


You don't need a major transfer station if you equalize your system correctly, that means 2-3 bus lines per LRT station. There are already stops that are not utilised.



Funny, the same people who expressed outrage at shutting down the temporary O-Train for 3 years and replacing it with bus service in order to build a better O-Train are prepared to shutdown the Transitway and inconvenience far more people during rail construction and inconvenience many permanently. Ah, the rail lobby!


It liberates the rail line there, which could be used to go to the Via Station, it's faster than the bus proposal, but will need more studying. I'm taking about a temporary O-Train solution from Mitch Owens to the Via Station, with some stops. It will give better service, and would have a stop at Greenboro using the existing platform.


Is that really within walking distance? Seems to me, that it is on the opposite side of the tracks from the station. They will need pedestrian access to the south side of the tracks from the station which presently does not exist.

They built an enormous bridge over the 17 for Orleans, the distance is similar to the one for Blair. Saying that, it could be easily done.

http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.416603,-75.649903&spn=0.007215,0.014462&t=k&z=16&om=1

[Dado]

This keeps coming up but nobody addresses the need of a southend bus transfer station at South Keys. Where will it be relocated and at what cost?
There are at least 4 options here, and since you're saving beaucoup bucks on needless structures, you've got plenty of cash to spend and still have lots left over for more useful things like downtown tunnels.

1. At South Keys itself, a U-shaped transfer station could be established in the parking lot to the east of the station. The arms of the 'U' would be made long enough for whatever demand there is.

2. The Kiss&Ride/Taxi platform at Greenboro could become a bus platform instead.

3. The southbound Transitway platform at Greenboro would become an island LRT platform. The northbound platform would become the local bus platform. Buses would access it from the current access ramp at the north, cross the tracks, drive past the island LRT platform, cross back over the tracks and pull into the platform and then back up the access ramp to leave.

4. The current end-of-the-line turn around at Hunt Club could be modified and a new transfer station established there. I'm not too keen on this one, but it is an option.


What about the Greenboro Park n Ride that would then be isolated away from the bus network that presently radiates from there in all directions?
How much of the P&R traffic is going anywhere but on the Transitway/O-Train? And two of the options above leave Greenboro as the local hub.


Funny, the same people who expressed outrage at shutting down the temporary O-Train for 3 years and replacing it with bus service in order to build a better O-Train are prepared to shutdown the Transitway and inconvenience far more people during rail construction and inconvenience many permanently.
Who said anything about permanently? Once the SE TW is converted 97-type service would resume. There'd then be two different LRT routes to choose from in the South Keys-Confederation area (which would presumably split south of South Keys to the Airport and Riverside South). In the interim, besides a modified 97 route there's also the option of building a diamond at Confederation to allow O-Trains to travel to the VIA station with stops at key locations like Billings (remember that there are wads of cash saved from not building structures, so such stops can easily be justified).

[lrt's friend]

You don't need a major transfer station if you equalize your system correctly, that means 2-3 bus lines per LRT station. There are already stops that are not utilised.

Really? South Keys/Greenboro is the southeast transit hub for #1, 97, 40, 116, 140, 142, 143, 147, 145, 144, 87, 146. The shopping centre is the natural destination for these bus routes. Just like Place d'Orleans is the natural terminus for all local Orleans buses. You can't spread them out without destroying all sorts of transfer possibilities.

It will give better service, and would have a stop at Greenboro using the existing platform.

Better service than the 97? How?

They built an enormous bridge over the 17 for Orleans, the distance is similar to the one for Blair. Saying that, it could be easily done.

How much will that cost?

One would be to run the 97 down Bank Street from Billings using transit priority measures for it and the 1. Another would be to run the 97 on the Airport Parkway and return to the Transitway at Heron.

Both Bank and the Airport Parkway are clogged with traffic during peak periods. What kind of transit priorities are really possible. Certainly, bus lanes are out of the question on Bank Street. If the buses are caught in traffic, they are caught in traffic. It won't make that much difference if they can change the traffic signals a little faster if there are 30 or 40 cars in front of the bus.

the current 97 setup is a joke: the one that comes by a couple of minutes after the arrival of the O-Train is the 97X South Keys; one has to wait about 12 minutes for the Airport 97. The same is true on the reverse leg

That is the problem with 15 minute headways. This is inevitable. Just proves my point made earlier. 15, 20 or 30 minute headways are just not good enough if we are forcing people to transfer.

The shuttle bus to the airport should be a dedicated vehicle or two, specially designed to facility handling of luggage (basically like the Park & Fly shuttles).

Why bother, if the bus only goes a short distance and you have to transfer to another vehicle that doesn't have space for luggage.

Another 90 series bus could start from Heron/Confederation and head east along the Transitway to Orleans.

It already exists. The 118. But this is only a temporary measure until tracks are put on the Transitway.

[the capital urbanite]

The argument for the removal of the portion of the BRT Transitway South of Confederation is utter nonsense. It would cost much more money to do this than to have a (God forbid) parallel transit service running for about 1.5km.

Not to mention the fact that you'd add another transfer for anybody who wants to travel East from South Keys.

...Also, think way off in the not so distant future when the city will look at running bus-only lanes along Hunt Club Road...right now with the Transitway ending a South Keys buses could easily flow onto Hunt Club or any future Hunt Club BRT ROW....if you chop off the Transitway back to Confederation that can't happen.

[lrt's friend]

Ok, so to build track on the SE Transitway to save money, we will need to spend extra to do the following:

1. Build a new South Keys transfer station, likely in the South Keys parking lot next to Walmart on property not presently owned by the city.
2. Build a pedestrian overpass at the Via Rail Station to connect to the emerging Trainyards development. Without this being a major transit terminus would not otherwise be needed.
3. Connect the O-Train rail line to Via Rail line at Confederation (which presently does not exist) while at the same time allowing the O-Train track from the north to connect to the Transitway to the south in the same general location.
4. Build new O-Train stations at Billings Bridge and likely near Smyth Road to allow transfer to the Hospital complex.
5. Probably build passing track somewhere between the Via Rail station and Confederation.
6. Build parallel track between Hunt Club and Lester Road so as not to interfere with track serving the Lester Road lab.
7. Upgrade the Via Rail station to handle new O-Train service basically replacing the former 97 bus route between South Keys and Hurdman.
8. Implement transit priority measures on Bank Street in order to allow rail construction on the Transitway to take place.

9. Redesign the intersection and overpass between the Transitway and Heron Road to provide a proper terminus and connection for the Transitway and build a new transfer station between the 2 rail lines, the Transitway, Heron Road and Confederation Heights complex.

Have I missed anything?

[lrt's friend]

...Also, think way off in the not so distant future when the city will look at running bus-only lanes along Hunt Club Road...right now with the Transitway ending a South Keys buses could easily flow onto Hunt Club or any future Hunt Club BRT ROW....if you chop off the Transitway back to Confederation that can't happen.

I know it is heresy, but I had suggested building a Transitway via the hydro corridor between Greenboro and Woodroffe which would cut straight through the middle of the Colonade Business Park. The travel time between Greenboro Station and Baseline Station would be incredibly fast even if there was not grade separation at major intersections and there aren't that many.

[d_jeffrey]

Ok, so to build track on the SE Transitway to save money, we will need to spend extra to do the following:

1. Build a new South Keys transfer station, likely in the South Keys parking lot next to Walmart on property not presently owned by the city.
2. Build a pedestrian overpass at the Via Rail Station to connect to the emerging Trainyards development. Without this being a major transit terminus would not otherwise be needed.
3. Connect the O-Train rail line to Via Rail line at Confederation (which presently does not exist) while at the same time allowing the O-Train track from the north to connect to the Transitway to the south in the same general location.
4. Build new O-Train stations at Billings Bridge and likely near Smyth Road to allow transfer to the Hospital complex.
5. Probably build passing track somewhere between the Via Rail station and Confederation.
6. Build parallel track between Hunt Club and Lester Road so as not to interfere with track serving the Lester Road lab.
7. Upgrade the Via Rail station to handle new O-Train service basically replacing the former 97 bus route between South Keys and Hurdman.
8. Implement transit priority measures on Bank Street in order to allow rail construction on the Transitway to take place.

9. Redesign the intersection and overpass between the Transitway and Heron Road to provide a proper terminus and connection for the Transitway and build a new transfer station between the 2 rail lines, the Transitway, Heron Road and Confederation Heights complex.

Have I missed anything?

1. We will have to build a bigger station for the LRT that connects to the BRT one, that will be even more expensive. And LRT uses as a hub and spoke system, you don't transfer to two local routes, that defeats the whole purpose.

2. There will be a need for that market, it will need to be built, I mean they built a pedestrian overpass to a freaking PARKING in Orleans. It will also serve the industries in that neighborhood. There are also plans to connect to the Lynx stadium, which is again needed IMO.

3. Yes we will, but will offer the capacity of a commuter train for the South, if we remove that link, we won't be able in the future, they will have a slower service through LRT.

4. It's already being built as BRT anyways, LRT and BRT it's the same stations! Check the city plans.

5. Depends on what king of suburban train service you want to offer.

6. If it's a commuter train, you can use the same line.

7. The city plan has the LRT replacing the 95 at the train station, up to St-Laurent, or Blair, which is what I'm all for. It will be too costly to have the trains finished at the inner station, while you can use the Transitway. The St-Laurent station is the perfect subway LRT station (but it's dirty because of the Diesel buses)

8. Yes, which are supposed to be set up in place anyways, with the red light automatic changers. And this is also temporary.

9. Yes, as suggested by the MTF, this section can be used for major densification, and allows for many LRT lines to be there, along with the centre point of commuter rail.


For the commuter offering faster service than the 97, if you only have a few stations, Greenboro, Confederation, and Via, it's faster for the people who want to go DT. We had this discussion again before...

[d_jeffrey]

The argument for the removal of the portion of the BRT Transitway South of Confederation is utter nonsense. It would cost much more money to do this than to have a (God forbid) parallel transit service running for about 1.5km.

Not to mention the fact that you'd add another transfer for anybody who wants to travel East from South Keys.

...Also, think way off in the not so distant future when the city will look at running bus-only lanes along Hunt Club Road...right now with the Transitway ending a South Keys buses could easily flow onto Hunt Club or any future Hunt Club BRT ROW....if you chop off the Transitway back to Confederation that can't happen.

It's just doing this removes all possibilities of a future commuter train down South. This is why I'm mostly against using the tracks there. And the costs of doubling each stations will be much higher than converting the Transitway.

What's wrong with a terminal at South Keys for LRT transfers for the Hunt Club possible LRT?

[lrt's friend]

You can easily serve the new Trainyards development by redesigning the bus network in the area, without building an expensive pedestrian overpass.

[lrt's friend]

What's wrong with a terminal at South Keys for LRT transfers for the Hunt Club possible LRT?

I won't see LRT on Hunt Club in my lifetime.

[d_jeffrey]

You can easily serve the new Trainyards development by redesigning the bus network in the area, without building an expensive pedestrian overpass.

Have you been there? Have you seen the plans? It's about 50'! I really don't understand you at all... so now you want people to transfer to a bus, then to LRT, because it's expensive to build an overpass?! Are you fucking kidding me?

[lrt's friend]

I am sure its millions to build an overpass. Will the developers pay? If we keep the Transitway open, a bus route could connect downtown, Hurdman, Trainyards and St. Laurent or Elmvale. Do we really need more in the shortterm?

I just heard on CFRA from city councillors that a downtown tunnel will not open until 2016 at the absolute earliest. We have made a terrible mistake. We should have gone ahead with the original plan as is, and considered a tunnel as a completely separate project or as part of Phase 2 going to the east end.

LRT is becoming more and more a distant possibility with each coming day. I hope that the LRT supporters who so vigorously opposed the original project are satisfied. It has now been proposed that the $400M be spent on mainly Transitway improvements over the next 5 years.

[lrt's friend]

Bob Chiarelli must either be laughing or crying at the stupidity of this city.

[the capital urbanite]

I just heard on CFRA from city councillors that a downtown tunnel will not open until 2016 at the absolute earliest. We have made a terrible mistake. We should have gone ahead with the original plan as is, and considered a tunnel as a completely separate project or as part of Phase 2 going to the east end.


If we had gone ahead with the original proposal a tunnel wouldn't even be on the agenda right now...so I don't think it was a mistake at all. We would have been stuck with a mess downtown for the next 30 or 40 years.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

:previous: Agreed, but you have to admit that the city has pretty much shot itself in the foot on the subject of LRT.

[the capital urbanite]

I have a feeling that the whole NSLRT concept will just be deferred again and again until the tunnel EA is completed in 2 years time...and then we can argue about it all over again.

[Aylmer]

I don't understand why everyone puts so much emphasis on converting the transitway!
We should serve more areas then convert!
Boston has LRT, subway and BTR and all live in harmony!
we could just put some trolleybuses to work like in Vancouver!

[Aylmer]

Oh and the tunnel is a must.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I don't understand why everyone puts so much emphasis on converting the transitway!

-Because it provides a dedicated ROW and the Transitway was originally built and designed to be converted to LRT in the future.

-It will provide densification along those corridors.

-Converting the Transitway is the best option for allowing LRT to coexist with BRT while the buses are slowly phased out.

-It means less road closures during construction.

We should serve more areas then convert!

That is the overall plan and intention.

Boston has LRT, subway and BTR and all live in harmony!

Hmm, interesting. I'll check that out.

we could just put some trolleybuses to work like in Vancouver!

Uhh, no.

Oh and the tunnel is a must.

No argument here! :)

[Aylmer]

you should convert the spots that are over capacity! like in orleans but if it is just an extremity (like kanata) you can just convert that part and attach it to an other corridor.

and trolleybuses can be converted mor easaly because they already have the whires!

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

and trolleybuses can be converted mor easaly because they already have the whires!

I'm not really following here... :sly:

So what if the trolley buses already have the wires? The city doesn't and many people hate unsightly overhead wires; hence, the battle to bury wires everywhere in this city.

[Aylmer]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/PaduaTranslohr.jpg

it's an image of a rubber tire tram from Wikipedia!
fancy!!
I can see these zooming down carling!!!!:haha:

also from wikiland;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/TranslohrGuideRail.png

check it out! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bus#Rubber-tyred_.22trams.22):banana:

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

And that has what to do with wires? :koko:

[Aylmer]

oh! yeah. drop that idea! this thing is dead cool!

[the capital urbanite]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/TranslohrGuideRail.png


...hmmm to a Canadian that looks like a perfect ice trough

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

...hmmm to a Canadian that looks like a perfect ice trough

:haha:

[the capital urbanite]

Transit plan neglects south end

Jake Rupert
The Ottawa Citizen

Thursday, November 15, 2007

South-end councillors are angry that a list of $450 million in short-term transit priorities being recommended by city staff doesn't include anything for their growing communities - and they are gearing up to force the issue next week.

The report recommends completing and extending the city's bus transit way in the eastern and western parts of the city as well as Barrhaven. It also includes reconfiguring Rideau Street between Sussex Street and King Edward Avenue, creating a transit route along Baseline Road between Woodroffe Avenue and Bank Street, and improving stations across the city.

However, there is nothing to improve transit links to south Gloucester and Riverside South, where the city is directing growth. These areas would have been served by the now-defunct north-south light-rail plan.

It's a situation that angers Gloucester-South Nepean Councillor Steve Desroches, Gloucester-Southgate Councillor Diane Deans and others.

"It's like we've decided to abandoned these areas as far as transit goes," Mr. Desroches said. "Residents were promised that there would be rapid transit service, and we're letting them down."

Mr. Desroches, Ms. Deans and Kanata Councillor Marianne Wilkinson were doubly angered yesterday because an extension of the current O-Train into the area was recommended in August.

But city staff say they don't want to go ahead with the extension right now because the question of what vehicles to run in a downtown tunnel needs to be sorted out first.
[I didn't see this reasoning anywhere in the report?!]

The councillors say when the report is tabled next week, they will bring forward a motion directing the O-Train be extended immediately.
_________________

...let the games begin.

...this is ridiculous...councillors don't need to know which vehicles will be in the downtown tunnel before they decide whether or not to build LRT to Riverside South. It's simple logic ...if council wants to build LRT to Riverside South, then the downtown tunnel will HAVE to be LRT (or LRT+BRT).

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Also, the whole point of the Urbandale plan was to be a modification fo the original NSLRT. In other words, we KNOW that Siemens S70 Avanto trains will be running on the line! :rolleyes:

[lrt's friend]

One councillor said that we building Ottawa like an elastic band, which keeps getting stretched and stretched in one direction and will eventually break. By building most of our transportation infrastructure east-west, we are deliberately distorting the growth pattern of the city on an east-west axis. This has been going on for over 100 years when the old Britannia streetcar line was first built encouraging development in the westend.

What are we doing now? We have completed the Queensway to Arnprior. We are going to also extend it to Carleton Place and Rockland. We are extending the Transitway to the westend. It all sounds good to meet existing demand, but in the process we are also encouraging development further and further away from the city. How far out do we want people to live? The further they live away from the city, the more road space will be used and the more expensive transit service will cost.

We need to balance city growth by providing some decent transportation infrastructure North-South. What we have been doing is not sustainable in the longterm and will lead to higher taxes. The Queensway cannot be expanded in the central parts of the city so our quality of life will deteriorate as the city chokes more and more on traffic coming in from distant suburbs encouraged by our transportation plan.

[the capital urbanite]

Plan fails to address south-end transit woes

Jake Rupert
The Ottawa Citizen

Friday, November 16, 2007

South-end councillors are angry that a list of $450 million in short-term transit priorities being recommended by city staff doesn't include anything for their growing communities, and they are gearing up to force the issue next week.

The report recommends completing and extending the city's bus transitway in the eastern and western parts of the city, as well as Barrhaven. It also includes reconfiguring Rideau Street between Sussex Street and King Edward Avenue, creating a transit route along Baseline Road between Woodroffe Avenue and Bank Street, and improving stations across the city.

However, there is nothing to improve transit links to south Gloucester and Riverside South, where the city is directing growth. The area would have been served by the now-defunct north-south light-rail plan.

It's a situation that angers Gloucester-South Nepean Councillor Steve Desroches, Gloucester-Southgate Councillor Diane Deans and others.

"It's like we've decided to abandon these areas as far as transit goes," Mr. Desroches said. "Residents were promised that there would be rapid transit service, and we're letting them down."

In August, an extension of the current O-Train into the area was recommended by city transit planners at a cost of $40 million.

But now, city staff say they don't want to go ahead with the recommendation because the question of what vehicles will run in a downtown tunnel needs to be sorted out first. They say extending the O-Train might be a waste of money if the city decides to run buses in the tunnel instead.

Nancy Schepers, the city's deputy manager of transit, planning and the environment, said the choice of transit technology for the tunnel, and, therefore the entire future system, could be made as early as next spring. At that time it would be appropriate to look at extending the O-Train, she said.

The councillors believe light rail will be running in the tunnel, and they aren't prepared to wait. When the report is tabled next week, they plan to bring forward a motion directing an immediate O-Train extension.

Mr. Desroches said it is becoming clear that cancelling the former light-rail project was a mistake.

"We seem to be going in reverse now," he said.

Indeed, if the $1-billion project had gone ahead, a dual-track, electric light-rail line running from the University of Ottawa to Barrhaven would have been operational by 2010.

The project was cancelled late last year, sparking two lawsuits against the city. Now, the city is revamping its rapid transit plans based on a tunnel across downtown. The short-term projects are designed to improve the current system until the new plan is in place.

When the old plan was cancelled, many felt a new system could be running within this term of council, which ends in 2010.

However, yesterday Ms. Schepers said it will be 2016 before anything is moving across downtown in a tunnel.

"This is getting more disappointing all the time," Ms. Deans said. "I can't believe we are going to have to wait that long after all the time and money we've put into this."

Ms. Deans said council should consider reviving the old plan, minus the downtown part, and building it while the background work on the tunnel is done. This could settle the lawsuits and give the city the start of a rapid transit system much sooner, she said.

This was essentially the plan put forward earlier this year by officials from the Urbandale development company.

The company owns large tracts of land in Riverside South, but without the rapid transit link to downtown, there is less demand for houses in the area. The company has also sold houses in the area over the last few years to people with the understanding that the link would be built.

City staff reviewed Urbandale's plan and found it interesting, but said much more work and study would need to be done before the city could move on the idea.

Yesterday, Urbandale's president, Lyon Sachs, said he was disappointed in staff's analysis. Mr. Sachs said he also felt "terribly embarrassed" that people had bought homes from Urbandale on the premise there would be a rapid transit link to downtown.

______

if Councillor Deans can successfully bring such a motion to council it looks like they'll be voting on the NSLRT.

...I think the votes are there now...heck even Mr. O'Brien would be committing suicide if he were to vote no.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Plan fails to address south-end transit woes

Jake Rupert
The Ottawa Citizen

Friday, November 16, 2007

South-end councillors are angry that a list of $450 million in short-term transit priorities being recommended by city staff doesn't include anything for their growing communities, and they are gearing up to force the issue next week.

The report recommends completing and extending the city's bus transitway in the eastern and western parts of the city, as well as Barrhaven. It also includes reconfiguring Rideau Street between Sussex Street and King Edward Avenue, creating a transit route along Baseline Road between Woodroffe Avenue and Bank Street, and improving stations across the city.

However, there is nothing to improve transit links to south Gloucester and Riverside South, where the city is directing growth. The area would have been served by the now-defunct north-south light-rail plan.

It's a situation that angers Gloucester-South Nepean Councillor Steve Desroches, Gloucester-Southgate Councillor Diane Deans and others.

"It's like we've decided to abandon these areas as far as transit goes," Mr. Desroches said. "Residents were promised that there would be rapid transit service, and we're letting them down."

In August, an extension of the current O-Train into the area was recommended by city transit planners at a cost of $40 million.

But now, city staff say they don't want to go ahead with the recommendation because the question of what vehicles will run in a downtown tunnel needs to be sorted out first. They say extending the O-Train might be a waste of money if the city decides to run buses in the tunnel instead.

Nancy Schepers, the city's deputy manager of transit, planning and the environment, said the choice of transit technology for the tunnel, and, therefore the entire future system, could be made as early as next spring. At that time it would be appropriate to look at extending the O-Train, she said.

The councillors believe light rail will be running in the tunnel, and they aren't prepared to wait. When the report is tabled next week, they plan to bring forward a motion directing an immediate O-Train extension.

Mr. Desroches said it is becoming clear that cancelling the former light-rail project was a mistake.

"We seem to be going in reverse now," he said.

Indeed, if the $1-billion project had gone ahead, a dual-track, electric light-rail line running from the University of Ottawa to Barrhaven would have been operational by 2010.

The project was cancelled late last year, sparking two lawsuits against the city. Now, the city is revamping its rapid transit plans based on a tunnel across downtown. The short-term projects are designed to improve the current system until the new plan is in place.

When the old plan was cancelled, many felt a new system could be running within this term of council, which ends in 2010.

However, yesterday Ms. Schepers said it will be 2016 before anything is moving across downtown in a tunnel.

"This is getting more disappointing all the time," Ms. Deans said. "I can't believe we are going to have to wait that long after all the time and money we've put into this."

Ms. Deans said council should consider reviving the old plan, minus the downtown part, and building it while the background work on the tunnel is done. This could settle the lawsuits and give the city the start of a rapid transit system much sooner, she said.

This was essentially the plan put forward earlier this year by officials from the Urbandale development company.

The company owns large tracts of land in Riverside South, but without the rapid transit link to downtown, there is less demand for houses in the area. The company has also sold houses in the area over the last few years to people with the understanding that the link would be built.

City staff reviewed Urbandale's plan and found it interesting, but said much more work and study would need to be done before the city could move on the idea.

Yesterday, Urbandale's president, Lyon Sachs, said he was disappointed in staff's analysis. Mr. Sachs said he also felt "terribly embarrassed" that people had bought homes from Urbandale on the premise there would be a rapid transit link to downtown.

______

if Councillor Deans can successfully bring such a motion to council it looks like they'll be voting on the NSLRT.

...I think the votes are there now...heck even Mr. O'Brien would be committing suicide if he were to vote no.

OMFG, this city is so unbelievably retarded!!! :hell: :rolleyes:


This little tidbit caught my eye...

When the old plan was cancelled, many felt a new system could be running within this term of council, which ends in 2010.

:previous: This just proves how stupid and unrealistic City Council is... :rolleyes:

[jeremy_haak]

God, I'm a little sick of the city staff having to go back and study options. Why are they even considering a BRT option when the RTES already selected LRT? Have all the conclusions suddenly become irrelevant? That was the nice thing about Bob Chiarelli. He was the closest thing to a visionary this city has, which is kind of scary. Actually, Larry O'Brian is too, his vision just seems to be to freeze his property taxes. Wow, how inspiring.

[lrt's friend]

It seems like every week another transit proposal is being presented from all sorts of sources. I can't keep track of them all. Where is this all leading us? Procrastination? Small fixes that use up all available money but don't accomplish that much?

Most people were so critical of Bob Chiarelli for what he was doing but at least he was focusing on a project and he was determined to get it done, and it would have been done if it hadn't been for John Baird. Now we just seem to be spinning our wheels studying option after option, each one seemingly accomplishing less than the previous one. Meanwhile, as we move further and further away from LRT, what will be the status of the various lawsuits? Will Urbandale sue the city as well after approving a plan for Riverside South and then reneging on providing proper transportation connections? It is certainly affecting the sales potential in Riverside South.

I chuckle thinking back when Marianne Wilkinson gave me her personal assurance that a new rapid transit plan would be implemented within a year. We are now past 11 months and the days before her promised deadline are dwindling fast. It should be no surprise that we have in fact turned the clock back by several years on rapid transit and we now see that the earliest completion date will be 2016, a full 6 years later than the original plan.

We have also come almost full circle as the tunnel is now being seriously considered for buses only, instead of LRT. If that happens, we might as well pave over the O-Train route. Without a downtown extension, the O-Train has only very limited potential for ridership growth and certainly won't stimulate the dramatic increase in ridership in the south end that was originally intended.

[the capital urbanite]

We have also come almost full circle as the tunnel is now being seriously considered for buses only, instead of LRT. If that happens, we might as well pave over the O-Train route.

I agree. This council has to decide whether LRT will be a component of transit in Ottawa, period. It's really a simple yes or no answer, yet there has been no tangible motion in this regard. If LRT will not be part of the system then let's get on with designing a BRT corridor to Riverside South and build a bus tunnel through the CBD!

[Kitchissippi]

Actually, we should do what Seattle did. They built a 2.1 km tunnel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Bus_Tunnel_(Seattle)) through their downtown in the late 80's and used it for dual powered buses -- electric through the tunnel and diesel outside. They have now retrofitted the tunnel with tracks for their new LRT. New hybrid buses will share the tunnel with the LRT. The new buses do not need wires as they operate on battery power while in the tunnel.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/UniversityStreetStation.jpg/794px-UniversityStreetStation.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/37/PioneerSquareMezzanine.jpg/794px-PioneerSquareMezzanine.jpg
from Wikipedia

If we built a tunnel and invested in similar hybrid buses, we don't even have to get into the expense of electrification for now.

[lrt's friend]

How many of these hybrid buses would we need? It will likely take quite a few to really make the tunnel worthwhile and take significant pressure off the Albert/Slater corridor.

[the capital urbanite]

Seattle is a perfect example of what not to do.

They spent $800M in today's dollars to build that 2.1km bus tunnel in service since 1990.

In their wisdom the city decided to install rail at the time so that it could be easily converted to LRT in the distant future. Less then 20 years later the city decided to experiment with LRT through the downtown tunnel...only to find out that the rail that was built into the bus tunnel wasn't appropriate. Also the overhead caternary that the buses were using while in the tunnel wasn't compatible with LRT vehicles....so they had to replace the fleet with diesel hybrids.

The result was a 2 year shutdown of the bus tunnel to retrofit (at great cost of course) for LRT operations.

[the capital urbanite]

How many of these hybrid buses would we need? It will likely take quite a few to really make the tunnel worthwhile and take significant pressure off the Albert/Slater corridor.

Exactly. Would the capacity issue downtown be resolved with a bus tunnel....would station dwell times be significantly reduced. What would happen if future BRT from Riverside South via the current O-Train corridor were to be funneled into the tunnel?

I think we would have to use longer double-articulated buses.

[Kitchissippi]

Yeah, sure there were mistakes in Seattle, but we can learn from them. One big one was trying to accomodate light rail in the tunnel before it was properly planned, resulting in them having to redo things. Another is taking advantage of new technology such as hybrid power which require no overhead wires. Their old buses worked with overhead wires thinking that the LRT would use them but the new trains use a different standard and those also had to be redone. A downtown tunnel through Ottawa is relatively short and trains and buses can easily manage it with stored power.

While I am not a fan of BRT, I like the idea of a flexible shared bus/train tunnel. I think it will actually accelerate the expansion of rail as capacity is reached. Routing strategy will definitely have to change and we can't have express buses using the tunnel, maybe just 90-series buses. By doing this we can achieve the semblance of a complete system much faster, and the public will demand more rail along the transitway lines as they can compare the comfort between routes that are served with rail and those served by buses.

[d_jeffrey]

Yeah, sure there were mistakes in Seattle, but we can learn from them. One big one was trying to accomodate light rail in the tunnel before it was properly planned, resulting in them having to redo things. Another is taking advantage of new technology such as hybrid power which require no overhead wires. Their old buses worked with overhead wires thinking that the LRT would use them but the new trains use a different standard and those also had to be redone. A downtown tunnel through Ottawa is relatively short and trains and buses can easily manage it with stored power.

While I am not a fan of BRT, I like the idea of a flexible shared bus/train tunnel. I think it will actually accelerate the expansion of rail as capacity is reached. Routing strategy will definitely have to change and we can't have express buses using the tunnel, maybe just 90-series buses. By doing this we can achieve the semblance of a complete system much faster, and the public will demand more rail along the transitway lines as they can compare the comfort between routes that are served with rail and those served by buses.


These things have a cost, the flexibility you mention is priced the same as the conversion of BRT to rail.

As for those who complain about the time frame it takes for the city, you only have the councillors and the mayor to blame. They don't want to take any responsability. The Transit group follows the council orders, that's it.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

OC Transpo should be a stand-alone section of the city, and not part of Council but should closely with other Transit groups.

No shared tunnel. Period. Look how long it's taken to even try to get an extension to Leitrim Road! :rolleyes:

People cherish the buses too much, and whether educated or not, will complain about sharing a tunnel with trains. In other words, like what Albert/Slater would've been in the original plan, only now it's underground.

If there is a LRT ONLY tunnel under Sparks or Queen, then it becomes rather easy and efficient to transfer to the Transitway, much the same as how the O-Train runs parallel to the SE Transitway. Transfering from train to bus is remarkably easy and efficient and yet both are on seperate ROW, which in turn means that you won't be cramming capacity the way you would with a shared tunnel.

If we are to get LRT in Ottawa for good, then it needs to be on its own ROW that is interconnected with the transit network in Ottawa, not intertwined with it.

[the capital urbanite]

People cherish the buses too much, and whether educated or not, will complain about sharing a tunnel with trains. In other words, like what Albert/Slater would've been in the original plan, only now it's underground.


...this is the kicker...moving everything underground still doesn't solve the capacity issue. Let's forget about mixing LRT and BRT for a moment.

The CBD transitway is reaching capacity today as a bus-only corridor. Why?

The transit delays through the CBD aren't primarily due to automobile traffic or the weather...they are due to the inherent inability of BRT (in its current form) to efficiently move large volumes of people from any given CBD transit station.

To illustrate this point, look at the efficiency of the system in the AM commute vs. the PM commute. In the morning most people are travelling to the CBD...buses pick-up few people but many people get off at a CBD station. Even in horrible weather this process is fast and efficient...you hardly ever see a "train" of buses in the CBD during morning rush hour.

In the evening when most people are travelling from the CBD, a multitude of buses each with different destinations and schedules make it a nightmare for passengers to find the correct bus to get on and leads to increased station dwell times and the now common "train" of buses throughout the CBD.

The only way to solve this problem is to increase the capacity of each bus and decrease the complexity of the routes downtown. Larger buses will need to be used and most if not all buses should have the same destination. In other words, 90-series buses (perhaps double-articulated) would need to be used to shuttle people to larger transfer stations outside of the CBD (i.e. Hurdman or Bayview).

Such a conversion to a hub and spoke model is an inevitable conclusion of any BRT tunnel scenario.

The question then becomes, what vehicle technology is better at providing such a service?

[jeremy_haak]

...this is the kicker...moving everything underground still doesn't solve the capacity issue. Let's forget about mixing LRT and BRT for a moment.

The CBD transitway is reaching capacity today as a bus-only corridor. Why?

The transit delays through the CBD aren't primarily due to automobile traffic or the weather...they are due to the inherent inability of BRT (in its current form) to efficiently move large volumes of people from any given CBD transit station.

To illustrate this point, look at the efficiency of the system in the AM commute vs. the PM commute. In the morning most people are travelling to the CBD...buses pick-up few people but many people get off at a CBD station. Even in horrible weather this process is fast and efficient...you hardly ever see a "train" of buses in the CBD during morning rush hour.

In the evening when most people are travelling from the CBD, a multitude of buses each with different destinations and schedules make it a nightmare for passengers to find the correct bus to get on and leads to increased station dwell times and the now common "train" of buses throughout the CBD.

The only way to solve this problem is to increase the capacity of each bus and decrease the complexity of the routes downtown. Larger buses will need to be used and most if not all buses should have the same destination. In other words, 90-series buses (perhaps double-articulated) would need to be used to shuttle people to larger transfer stations outside of the CBD (i.e. Hurdman or Bayview).

Such a conversion to a hub and spoke model is an inevitable conclusion of any BRT tunnel scenario.

The question then becomes, what vehicle technology is better at providing such a service?

Part of the problem is the fact that there is no sorting of buses at specific stops. If the stations were configured something like at the St. Laurent Centre, I don't forsee any problems. That said, I far favour a simple LRT tunnel. Buses can continue to run on the street if necessary.

[waterloowarrior]

There are plans in the budget for a "Pilot for Next Bus Arrival system and video displays in downtown core"

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

That said, I far favour a simple LRT tunnel. Buses can continue to run on the street if necessary.

:previous: :tup:

Exactly. And as LRT is expanded further out from the CBD and terminates further east and west, more and more buses can be taken off of Albert and Slater, alleviating the congestion problem.

[Kitchissippi]

My point was that if the 90-series buses were replaced with high capacity hybrid buses and allowed to use the tunnel, the sooner people will realize the advantages to converting these routes to LRT, and eventually the tunnel could be purely LRT.

The problem with capacity on Albert/Slater is caused by the express buses and these type of routes should never be allowed in the tunnel. Putting 3 bus routes along with a train in the tunnel wouldn't cause too much trouble. For the cost of a tunnel and new hybrid buses and trains you can instantly get a system not drastically different from what we have, only more efficient through downtown.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/2040905083_22cab91fe4_o.jpg

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

My point was that if the 90-series buses were replaced with high capacity hybrid buses and allowed to use the tunnel, the sooner people will realize the advantages to converting these routes to LRT, and eventually the tunnel could be purely LRT.

Perhaps, but not necessarily. What will more than likely happen(in the name of "cost savings" and not disrupting arrival times) is that council will decide to keep BRT instead of expanding(due to limited LRT ridership) and just "greenerize" the bus fleet to be electric or hybrid.

By their logic, that would mean that the current system can be expanded, is less costly, environmentally friendly, and won't affect travel times.

The problem with capacity on Albert/Slater is caused by the express buses and these type of routes should never be allowed in the tunnel. Putting 3 bus routes along with a train in the tunnel wouldn't cause too much trouble.

True, but it would still cause trouble to a certain degree. If that happens(and it will), we can see LRT suffering yet another blow.

For the cost of a tunnel and new hybrid buses and trains you can instantly get a system not drastically different from what we have, only more efficient through downtown.

Let me say right now that I'm not opposed but not exactly in favour of this. Efficiency is great and all, but LRT's mission in Ottawa is to expand ridership. That is why the NSLRT line was supposed to head south to Riverside South and Barrhaven; to expand overall transit ridership. Efficiency doesn't enter into it, I'm afraid.

[d_jeffrey]

Most here are taking the BRT tunnel out of context. The request was for the transit team of the city to study for a tunnel, with no particular technology involved. That was voted at the council, and was ammended to remove the reference to LRT. The transit team came up with a plan for BRT, BRT/LRT, and LRT intial master plan. LRT includes diesel, hybrid and electric. This is what council is asking and that's what being brought forward. Some councillors wanted to see the costs involved in a bus tunnel, and if there were any advantages. It doesn't mean the council is pro-BRT, or that Nancy is pro-BRT; it just means they want a comparison of costs and advantages, which is perfectly acceptable in the present situation.

If we had some leadership and cohesion at city hall, councillors could see, we want ELRT plan is simple, and the transit team would work on that. The councillors have full power on everything.

[lrt's friend]

Anything other than an exclusive LRT tunnel will likely lead us to a continuing emphasis on BRT. I am not opposed to improving the existing Transitways, but the city is now big enough to justify LRT and I think riders will appreciate the ride quality and service reliability, plus we can gain efficiencies as ridership increases and we can operate multiple trainsets. A bus/LRT tunnel will just give cost cutters the opportunity to change future LRT routes into BRT and permanent delays of converting any Transitway to LRT.

Before we get all gung-ho about abandoning express buses, we better look at ridership figures on express buses that have now been terminated at Hurdman station. I would really be concerned if we find that ridership has dropped on those routes.

LRT between the Airport and Hurdman will be a dismal failure. Ridership picked up between the Airport and the existing terminus at Greenboro will be very modest. I don't oppose an airport link, but the priority must be the growing suburbs south of the airport. Running a parallel Transitway to Riverside South will face very stiff resistance from environmental groups wishing to protect the sensitive Leitrim wetland.

[the capital urbanite]

There are plans in the budget for a "Pilot for Next Bus Arrival system and video displays in downtown core"

This system isn't going to help much with dwell times in the CBD. It's great to know when and in what order your bus is arriving but it doesn't help decrease boarding time when there are literally 15 buses queued near the station.

[the capital urbanite]

The Ottawa Sun
November 18, 2007
City needs a transit plan
By KERRY THOMPSON

City hall has just made another left turn on transit, and soon, if we keep travelling down this circuitous road to nowhere, we're just going to hit a dead end on the transit map. As it stands now, city staff and council are lost.

City staff last week revealed their displeasure for the latest Urbandale proposal that would see light rail stretching to River Rd. from the Bayview station, at a cost of $1.1 billion. Instead, staff would like to see $450 million spent on a solution to fix east-west congestion, including bus-only lanes along Baseline Rd.

The province, meanwhile, is anxious to see how the city is going to use the $200 million in transit funding that's sitting on the table, waiting for a use, says Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson. It is not often that the province offers money and we can't take it because we don't have a plan. There's obviously something wrong here.

Why are we taking so long? Why are we going back and forth from one transit proposal to another with no real end goal in mind?

When we're speaking about such large amounts of money, there is the opportunity to do something great, something that will fix our traffic woes. But council and city staff need to make a decision on what our transit vision is going to be and stick to it. Until we decide where we're heading on this file, it's useless to continue to examine and dismiss various proposals for everything from a train line to new bus routes.

Long-range visions always change with an election. But council has been in place for a year now and should at least know what road it wants to go down. Council members must decide what form of transit they want to focus on and what area or areas of the city will benefit most from new or improved service.

In June, the report from Mayor Larry O'Brien's transportation task force made recommendations that touch on every possible transit option: Extending the O-Train to Riverside South and to Gatineau; boring two tunnels through the downtown core; and extending the western section of the Transitway. The task force, led by David Collenette, say many of the recommendations should be addressed in six to 12 months.

Collenette made a valid point upon the release of the report: "You can't expect people to give up their cars if there isn't a decent transit option."

He's right. But the only way to give people decent transit options is to have a decent plan for what you want those options to be.

And right now, any plan is better than no plan

[bradnixon]

The only way to solve this problem is to increase the capacity of each bus and decrease the complexity of the routes downtown. Larger buses will need to be used and most if not all buses should have the same destination. In other words, 90-series buses (perhaps double-articulated) would need to be used to shuttle people to larger transfer stations outside of the CBD (i.e. Hurdman or Bayview).

Such a conversion to a hub and spoke model is an inevitable conclusion of any BRT tunnel scenario.

The question then becomes, what vehicle technology is better at providing such a service?

Exactly.

What concerns me here is that there is a strong resistance to making any changes to the current express-bus model, when it is so clearly the source of most of the current problems.

If we want to still have express buses, the tunnel will need to accomodate buses, and the tunnel will need to be 4 lanes in stations to allow there to be a separate "express" stop at each station. This would be the only way to solve the long line-up of buses that exists today. If we build an LRT tunnel, and keep express buses running on the surface, Albert and Slater will still be clogged with buses. We won't have solved anything.

I don't think express routes are sustainable and I think we need to re-think the express model now. The city is hesitant to change anything for fear of impacting ridership, which is understandable. Maybe we can start with a "pilot" area of the city- consolidating the express routes, and see what happens.

If the end result of a tunnel is going to be that express routes stop at Bayview and Hurdman, a la Friends of the O-Train, wouldn't it just be easier to keep LRT on the surface (like they were proposing) and forget the tunnel?

I think removing the express routes removes the need for the tunnel, and keeping them means you need a BRT tunnel. That's the debate we need first.