[Kitchissippi]

As per demand, this thread is reserved for discussions regarding the developments of the APPROVED Rapid Transit Network only, to make real progress easier to follow:

http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/tmp/transit/index_en-2.jpg

Not allowed in this thread:
- theoretical technologies (PRT, PAT, MagLev etc)
- alternate transit plans that contradict what's already approved (issues regarding options to the Western Parkway or future extensions are OK)
- General BRT vs. LRT debates

Those discussions should remain in the "The future of Ottawa's Transit" thread or their own threads.

Post away!

[Kitchissippi]

FROM OTTAWA.CA:

Notice of Public Open Houses

Moving Forward with Ottawa’s Transportation Future

Ottawa - We want to hear from you!  

The City of Ottawa is currently updating its Transportation Master Plan (TMP), a document that explains the need for future transit, roads, pathways and other transportation infrastructure, and provides guidance on where and when they will be built.

As the TMP update enters its final stages, the City is seeking input on different implementation scenarios for the transit network, as well as costs, benefits and associated risks. Residents can view the different scenarios and provide comments at the open houses or join the conversation on the OttawaTALKS online discussion forum from September 11 to 30 at ottawa.ca/tmp. Other ways of providing feedback include via e-mail to plan@ottawa.ca or by calling 3-1-1.

Open houses will be held from 6 to 8:30 p.m., with table discussions at 7 p.m.  To register for a discussion group, visit ottawa.ca/tmp.

Thursday, September 11
Ottawa City Hall – Main Floor Rotunda Area
110 Laurier Avenue West (at Elgin Street)
Transit Routes: 5, 6 and 14

Monday, September 15
Jim Durrell Recreation Centre – Elwood Hall
1265 Walkley Road (near Bank Street)
Transit Routes: 1, 8, 82, 88, and 97

Tuesday, September 16
Bob MacQuarrie Recreation Complex – Orléans
1490 Youville Drive (near Highway 174)
Transit Routes: 31, 95, 101, 102, 127, and 131

Thursday, September 18
Glen Cairn Community Centre (Upper Hall)
186 Morrena Drive (near Castlefrank and Hazeldean)
Transit Routes: 63, 64, 96,118 and 161

Monday, September 22
Nepean Sportsplex – Salon A
1701 Woodroffe Avenue (near West Hunt Club)
Transit Routes: 70, 71, 73, 76, 77, 95, 157 and 188

[Cre47]

Ottawa Sun article - seems the east end is more preffered and Jan is fuming. Well Jan blame on the residents of Westboro for that, although if the Strandherd Bridge is built at the same time much of the construction is done, I could see an extension to Barrhaven without worrying about the Westboro NIMBYS.

Meanwhile, the streetcar option and the hopstial complex by-pass is also on the maps



Street cars new wrinkle in transit plans

Councillors to hear 4 options today

By DEREK PUDDICOMBE, Sun Media

City commuters might be presented with a choice of light rail or street cars for their downtown transit system.

As part of four scenarios which city staff will present to councillors this morning, a street car line along Carling Ave. has been drawn into the long-range plans.

The Carling Ave. street car would would be built into the current roadway and stop at each traffic light. The option is being presented is in case the National Capital Commission does not give the city permission to run light rail along the Ottawa River Parkway.

The city operates OC Transpo buses along the parkway with permission from the NCC, but the federal body has been non-committal on whether it would allow LRT along the corridor. The parkway route is a vital link in the city's plan for light rail to the west end.

Councillors Clive Doucet and Christine Leadman contend the NCC won't green-light a rail system along the parkway, and suggest street cars as an alternative.


The pair have argued all along that taking light rail down the parkway will destroy its environmental integrity. They also admit the Carling Ave. route isn't a new idea.

But, as straight arterial route which links to Hwy. 417, the existing western Transitway, the downtown and Quebec via the existing O-Train line, they say it's the best way for the city to connect the downtown with the west end.

As reported in the Sun today, scenario three is shaping up to be the preferred option among councillors to begin construction of the city's $4 billion, 23-year transit plan. This option includes 30 km of light rail, including from Riverside South to the University of Ottawa, and the Blair Rd. transit station.

It also includes a bus bypass that must be built to maintain commuter service while a portion of the east-end transitway is converted to light rail.

The route also takes light rail to Tunney Pasture.

Barrhaven Coun. Jan Harder is fuming that nowhere in the grand plan is any light rail for Barrhaven.

She said it would only take an extra few million dollars added to the $4 billion plan to service commuters with light rail. Barrhaven's population has almost tripled from 25,000 in 2000, and it could be home to 175,000 people by 2031 when the transit plan is to be completed.

[Cre47]

Here's also from the Citizen

Staff want to begin in east, south
Patrick Dare, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, September 11, 2008

The preferred construction plan for the new rapid transit system is to begin by building commuter rail from downtown to the east and south ends.

The city this morning is unveiling four options for the sequence of construction for the $4-billion transit plan.

The best option, according to staff, is to build commuter rail in the transitway corridor from Blair Station to Tunney's Pasture, including the tunnel under downtown, then south to the Riverside South Town Centre.

This project would include a major new element: building an additional bus transitway that would run from Blair Station along Innes Road and then into downtown. That corridor would carry the large volume of riders from the east while the current transitway is converted to commuter rail. It would continue to operate after the rail system is built, especially to accommodate riders going to and from the health sciences campus in Alta Vista.

The east-south project would include rail links to both the Via Rail station and The Ottawa Airport.

The plan is bound to be controversial because it follows the path of much of the former council's commuter-rail plan, which was killed by the new council earlier in this term.

Critics of the old north-south plan said it failed to address the most pressing demands for transit service, which are in the east and the west.

The east-south option is preferred because there are fewer obstacles to the construction. For instance, as part of the plan to go west, city staff have run into a wall with the National Capital Commission's reluctance to allow the commuter-rail line to run along the Ottawa River parkway. If city officials have to explore every possible alternative, that could take years and the federal government's Build Canada funding requires that projects be completed by 2015.

The city is counting on the federal government to pay for one-third of the cost of the project.

[waterloowarrior]

http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/tmp/transit/phase3/index_en.html

Rapid Transit Network 2031 - click pic to enlarge (pdf)

http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/tmp/transit/phase3/network_en-1.jpg (http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/tmp/transit/phase3/network.pdf)

Developments since Primary Transit Network established in May 2008.

LRT extended to Riverside South
Browning Avenue Corridor included
Supplementary Transit corridor identified
Transit priority corridors included
Park and Ride Facilities for Ottawa, iTRANS Consulting Inc


fyi $2 billion in new roads spending, about $4.7 billion on rapid transit network

from the Citizen

For Kanata North Councillor Marianne Wilkinson, the new plan is a revival of the old plan, championed by former mayor Bob Chiarelli, bringing commuter rail to thinly populated neighbourhoods in the south when all the riders are in the east and the west.

"They've brought back the train that we turned down," said Ms. Wilkinson.

"But we're growing like crazy in Kanata and Stittsville."


lol

[lrt's friend]

Transit Plan
City wants to begin transit line in east and south

Patrick Dare
The Ottawa Citizen


Thursday, September 11, 2008


OTTAWA - The City of Ottawa says it could take three years to sort out objections to commuter rail along the Ottawa River Parkway, so the city should consider going ahead with rail service east to Blair Station and south to Riverside South.

The city unveiled four construction scenarios for the ambitious new rapid transit plan, which is now expected to cost $4.7 billion over the next 25 years. Two of the plans run rail east and west, but they are problematic because of concerns from the National Capital Commission about a train corridor running along the Ottawa River. The city's managers say they want to work through the issue with the NCC and can't hurry that consultation process.

But the effect of the delay will be that the east-west service can't be built within the next decade, leaving the city to build its downtown tunnel and then east and south.

For Kanata North Councillor Marianne Wilkinson, the new plan is a revival of the old plan, championed by former mayor Bob Chiarelli, bringing commuter rail to thinly populated neighbourhoods in the south when all the riders are in the east and the west.

"They've brought back the train that we turned down," said Ms. Wilkinson. "But we're growing like crazy in Kanata and Stittsville."

The transit plan is $700 million more expensive than previously reported because the plan is fully costed and includes additional elements such as a streetcar along Carling Avenue, a new bus transitway in the east and creating a bus transitway on Baseline Road.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

.

[Dado]

Ottawa Sun article - seems the east end is more preffered and Jan is fuming. Well Jan blame on the residents of Westboro for that, although if the Strandherd Bridge is built at the same time much of the construction is done, I could see an extension to Barrhaven without worrying about the Westboro NIMBYS.
You mean people who think they live in Westboro now that it has become the cool place to be. Westboro used to end at Rochester Field (and Island Park in the east). People who actually live in Westboro already have a hole in the ground and I would suspect want to see the Transitway converted. It was because of the people of Westboro wanting a transit station closer to them that Westboro Station is where it is and not at Island Park as originally planned. Ditto for the later addition at Dominion. The current objectors/NIMBYs are living in what used to be called McKellar Park and, further west, Woodroffe.

[Kitchissippi]

:previous: Actually, there really hasn't been any real vocal objections (at least not yet) against using part of the Byron corridor from residents of Westboro or communities west of it. The NIMBYism is a largely assumed thing, especially because no serious proposal has been studied. I think the NCC is right to say that options should be explored because the best solution might actually be to use Richmond/Byron even if it would cost more in the long run. Let them pitch in or lobby the feds for the increased cost if they really don't want the Parkway to be touched.

[Rathgrith]

Kitchissippi, I like how you cock-blocked Franky on this thread. :tup:
Someone needed to do it. However, I still want to know what the each termunis of the tunnel will be near the University of Ottawa. Its needs to be just after the 417 as it heads toward Campus station.

[Dado]

:previous: Actually, there really hasn't been any real vocal objections (at least not yet) against using part of the Byron corridor from residents of Westboro or communities west of it. The NIMBYism is a largely assumed thing, especially because no serious proposal has been studied.
That's perfectly true; the objections so far - which is what I was referring to - have been against the Parkway route. The loudest voice against the Byron routing so far has been Alex Cullen, and, for some strange reason, city staff with their outrageous $750M claim.


I think the NCC is right to say that options should be explored because the best solution might actually be to use Richmond/Byron even if it would cost more in the long run. Let them pitch in or lobby the feds for the increased cost if they really don't want the Parkway to be touched.

Perfectly in agreement. The NCC are responsible for the otherwise 'best' option - the former CPR corridor - being filled with housing so they ought to pay for their own lack of foresight by anteing up the funds to run it in the Byron corridor. As I've written before, it's not like the NCC didn't know that rapid transit would be running this way because they signed the agreement to allow the Parkway to be used "temporarily".

And since the Byron corridor is shorter and straighter and goes closer to more housing and businesses, its long run cost ought to be lower and its long-run revenues/benefits higher.

[m0nkyman]

The Byron ROW makes the most sense in terms of available space and routing, as well as station placement. I'm not especially enamored of putting the LRT along the river myself.

Part of me suspects that the parkway option was put forward to make the Byron route the preferred alternative.

[Aylmer]

http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/tmp/transit/phase3/index_en.html

Rapid Transit Network 2031 - click pic to enlarge (pdf)

http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/tmp/transit/phase3/network_en-1.jpg (http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/tmp/transit/phase3/network.pdf)

Developments since Primary Transit Network established in May 2008.

LRT extended to Riverside South
Browning Avenue Corridor included
Supplementary Transit corridor identified
Transit priority corridors included
Park and Ride Facilities for Ottawa, iTRANS Consulting Inc


fyi $2 billion in new roads spending, about $4.7 billion on rapid transit network

from the Citizen


lol

Meh.

Seems less ambitious than the original plan4...

:)

[Suzie]

:previous: Actually, there really hasn't been any real vocal objections (at least not yet) against using part of the Byron corridor from residents of Westboro or communities west of it. The NIMBYism is a largely assumed thing, especially because no serious proposal has been studied. I think the NCC is right to say that options should be explored because the best solution might actually be to use Richmond/Byron even if it would cost more in the long run. Let them pitch in or lobby the feds for the increased cost if they really don't want the Parkway to be touched.

I agree that the Richmond/Byron alignment deserves serious consideration, and its costs and benefits should be fully assessed. But is there or will there be grassroots and political support for this option? I have not seen Carlingwood and Ambleside residents pushing for it even though they would be the main beneficiaries. Do you expect Cullen to eventually reverse himself and support it?

[Kitchissippi]

The Ambleside residents have been begging for a Transitway stop at Old Orchard for the longest time. I think they would be elated if the stop was along Richmond instead.

[Kitchissippi]

http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/tmp/transit/phase3/index_en.html

Rapid Transit Network 2031 - click pic to enlarge (pdf)

http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/tmp/transit/phase3/network_en-1.jpg (http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/tmp/transit/phase3/network.pdf)

Developments since Primary Transit Network established in May 2008.

LRT extended to Riverside South
Browning Avenue Corridor included
Supplementary Transit corridor identified
Transit priority corridors included
Park and Ride Facilities for Ottawa, iTRANS Consulting Inc



I still don't understand how the Innes corridor between Industrial and Blair could become a full blown Transitway type BRT as shown in the diagram. At best, the only thing that could be implemented there is transit priority lanes because of the room availalble.

Also, what is the difference between "Supplementary Transit - Bus" and "Transit Priority"? Aren't they essentially the same?

There are weird errors in that diagram -- Conroy Rd is labeled as Alta Vista, and the Blackburn ByPass is labeled Cumberland, and Industrial is in the wrong place.

[d_jeffrey]

There are weird errors in that diagram -- Conroy Rd is labeled as Alta Vista, and the Blackburn ByPass is labeled Cumberland, and Industrial is in the wrong place.

It's the plan of city staff, instead of changing the rail links, they are renaming the suburbs, less work! So if they said, bring rail to Kanata, it will be done at a cheaper cost.

[O-Town Hockey]

Looks like we need to update the maps for Phase 1:

Staff Set to Roll Out Transit Options
Josh Pringle
Thursday, September 11, 2008

City Staff will roll out four options today for the implementation of Ottawa's new Rapid Transit Network.

City Council approved the $4 billion, 25 year transit plan back in the spring.

Public consultations will kick off this evening to discuss the light rail network, that will include a downtown transit tunnel.

CTV News reports Staff want Ottawa to build the downtown transit tunnel first, with rail links heading east and south.

The plan would see a Light Rail link built from Blair Road to downtown, and north-south from Bayview to Riverside South, with a link to the Ottawa International Airport.

The Ottawa Sun reports one of the four options will include running light rail to the University of Ottawa from Riverside South, then east to the Blair Road transit station.

[MalcolmTucker]

I still don't understand how the Innes corridor between Industrial and Blair could become a full blown Transitway type BRT as shown in the diagram. At best, the only thing that could be implemented there is transit priority lanes because of the room availalble.

Also, what is the difference between "Supplementary Transit - Bus" and "Transit Priority"? Aren't they essentially the same?

There are weird errors in that diagram -- Conroy Rd is labeled as Alta Vista, and the Blackburn ByPass is labeled Cumberland, and Industrial is in the wrong place.
Not really. Supplementary Bus is assumably just a normal bus route. It stops, goes, follows the normal traffic rules.

Transit priority can mean a number of things. The most minimal would be giving transit 'soft control' over traffic lights, which means they could extend a green light to get through the intersection, or shorten a red light. You could go further with traffic signal control and have the buses be able to override the light cycle, much like emergency vehciles can do at some intersections. The next level would be to provide skip lanes, making an intersection an extra lane wide for transit only. Before regular traffic gets to flow, the transit buses would be permitted to pass through the intersection.

[c_speed3108]

I am thinking the stars are beginning to align for the Byron corridor...and I could not be happier.

The reason I think so are:

1) The NCC seems awfully cool to the parkway idea. This is going to be worse then pulling teeth to build anything there.

2) It seems a number of parties (councilors, newspapers perhaps even city staff) are doing what they can to sink:Titanic: the Carling idea.

At least in the paper it was called "a street car" *gasp* the forbidden word! :eek:

They also went to the trouble to mention that it will stop at 30 traffic lights.:gtfo2:

I frankly can't think of many ways to create a worse impression of that route. This think makes it sound like you will be luck to get from Kanata to Downtown by noon if you leave at 6AM. Transfers, stop lights, and just general slowness.

Streetcars new wrinkle in transit plans

By DEREK PUDDICOMBE, Sun Media


City commuters could end up with a choice of light rail transit or streetcars.

City staff unveiled four transit scenarios today and a possible streetcar line along Carling Ave. has been drawn into the long-range plans by city staff.

The Carling Ave. streetcar would be built into the current roadway and would face about 30 traffic lights along with 30-km stretch of road.

A Carling streetcar is proposed in case the National Capital Commission does not give the city permission to run light rail along the Ottawa River Parkway.

The city operates OC Transpo buses along the parkway with permission from the NCC but it’s been non-committal so far about allowing LRT to operate along the corridor, which is a vital part of the city’s plan to bring light rail to the west end.

Councillors Clive Doucet and Christine Leadman have said all along that the NCC won’t approve use of the parkway and that the city should be considering running street cars along Carling Ave.

They have argued that taking light rail down the parkway will destroy its environmental integrity. They admit the Carling Ave. route isn’t a new idea, but because it’s a major roadway and a clean, straight route with links to the highway, the existing western Transitway, downtown and Quebec via the existing O-Train line, it’s the best way for the city to connect the downtown with the west end.

However, Bay Coun. Alex Cullen, who is also the chairman of the city’s transit committee, said council has already rejected the notion of a streetcar line down Carling.

Cullen said the NCC is asking for an environmental assessment to be completed to investigate all options for light rail to link the west. That would have to include a 5-km stretch of road in Westboro known as the “Byron Strip,” the former route of the old tramcar system.

The Byron Strip, which stretches from about Holland Ave to Richardson Ave, would have to be considered if the NCC doesn’t give its approval to use the parkway.

“We don’t want the Byron Strip,” said Cullen. “But if the (parkway) plan crashes?”

However, Cullen is convinced the NCC will allow light rail to run along the parkway.

The Carling Ave. piece of the $4.7-billion, 23-year transit plan, is among four scenarios unveiled yesterday.

The original $4-billion plan grew by $700 million in three months as the city added pieces like the Carling Ave line and other bus routes that hadn’t yet been costed.

Scenario 3 is shaping up to be the preferred option among councillors which includes taking light rail transit 30 km from Riverside South to the University of Ottawa then another 4 km to the Blair Rd. transit station and west to Tunney’s Pasture.

It also includes a $112-million bus bypass that must be built to maintain commuter service while a portion of the east-end Transitway is converted to light rail.

Staff also seem to like Scenario 3.

“This scenario is clearly easier to get off the ground,” said Nancy Schepers, deputy city manager of planning, transit and the environment.

Council will decide the preferred route in November.

derek.puddicombe@sunmedia.ca

So on that note...Byron it is.


And I have to agree with m0nkyman, that some of the other options were put forward to eat the opposition so that Byron can be left standing. This same approach was taken in certain parts of the transitway. The designer called it "winning room" You need to give people space to feel they have won. Ie in the case of NIMBYs...don't put it in their back yard....put it in their living room instead. Then they turn into NIMLRs (not in my living room). You accept that and move it to their back yard and they walk away satisfied..since they were too busy protesting the living room route. :yes:

[c_speed3108]

The other item I wanted to comment on was the nice little implementation design in the east end. By running buses from Blair to Innes and then along Innes into Industrial to Hurdman, they have basically cleared the deck for construction between Blair and Hurdman (presumably the train part of the station will be built north of the existing bus part).

While that is going on the tunnel work can be going on.

Buses on the west transitway can easily exit just before Tunney's and use Scott and Wellington to get to Lebreton and ultimately downtown. This again clears the deck in the small west end portion.

The only really tricky part left is the U of O to Hurdman stretch.

[waterloowarrior]

The only really tricky part left is the U of O to Hurdman stretch.

maybe they'll use it as an excuse to build the Alta Vista Parkway early to clear the way for construction.... only half-joking since the entire thing is still in the draft TMP (built in stages)... why are we building $2 billion of new roads anyways...

[Dado]

I am thinking the stars are beginning to align for the Byron corridor...and I could not be happier.

The reason I think so are:

1) The NCC seems awfully cool to the parkway idea. This is going to be worse then pulling teeth to build anything there.

2) It seems a number of parties (councilors, newspapers perhaps even city staff) are doing what they can to sink:Titanic: the Carling idea.

At least in the paper it was called "a street car" *gasp* the forbidden word! :eek:

They also went to the trouble to mention that it will stop at 30 traffic lights.:gtfo2:

I frankly can't think of many ways to create a worse impression of that route. This think makes it sound like you will be luck to get from Kanata to Downtown by noon if you leave at 6AM. Transfers, stop lights, and just general slowness.

So on that note...Byron it is.

And I have to agree with m0nkyman, that some of the other options were put forward to eat the opposition so that Byron can be left standing.
How do you explain the fact that it was staff who put out the $750M price tag for using Byron?

[Dado]

The Ambleside residents have been begging for a Transitway stop at Old Orchard for the longest time. I think they would be elated if the stop was along Richmond instead.
Cute... "Old Orchard". I hope that's not some tongue-in-cheek reference to the New Orchard nursing home. At any rate, last I heard it was the residents on Ambleside who were opposed to a Transitway stop there and it was the workers at New Orchard who wanted it.

A stop on Richmond would be much better from a CPTED perspective as well, especially if it was at grade.

[Kitchissippi]

One of the things I found that was not integrated very well in the presentation tonight was how the Roadway Infrastructure Plan (http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/tmp/transit/phase3/road_needs_2031.pdf) related to the Public Transit Plan. If in fact these roads were built, should they not be transit focused and figure in the Rapid Transit Network? For example, if Terry Fox-Hope Side-Hunt Club-Innes were linked, it would make an excellent East-West transit priority route that crosses many of the city's high tech and industrial parks.

[Kitchissippi]

Cute... "Old Orchard". I hope that's not some tongue-in-cheek reference to the New Orchard nursing home. At any rate, last I heard it was the residents on Ambleside who were opposed to a Transitway stop there and it was the workers at New Orchard who wanted it.

My bad, the road is New Orchard not Old Orchard. It has not been feasible to put a stop there because the area is often flooded in the spring. They usually close the pedestrian underpass when that happens, and that's where the stop was proposed.

[Richard Eade]

Here's also from the Citizen
...
This project would include a major new element: building an additional bus transitway that would run from Blair Station along Innes Road and then into downtown. That corridor would carry the large volume of riders from the east while the current transitway is converted to commuter rail. It would continue to operate after the rail system is built, especially to accommodate riders going to and from the health sciences campus in Alta Vista.
...
So, the staging for this east link must be to build the busway from Hurdman to Innes (along the Browning corridor) first. The only way this would continue to move eastern riders to downtown is if the bridge over the Rideau and the Transitway was still intact from Hurdman to downtown.

UNLESS the bus could find another route from Hurdman into downtown; OR the bus would take Industrial/Riverside/417/Nicholas from Innes. Notice that the anouncement states the route as "from Blair Station along Innes Road and then into downtown". I know that the map shows a "Supplementary Transit - Bus" route through the Browning corridor, but it does not show any bus link into the downtown core. This alternative route would allow conversion of the Transitway from Blair through to UofO where the tunnel portal is. Of course, the bus could go from Hurdman up Riverside/417/Nicholas to downtown as well.

I'm curious how the major new element will keep providing an east end to downtown link "after the rail system is built". (I guess it is not to be included in the "rail system".)

If there really is to be no bus link from Hurdman to downtown, west end people will need to take the bus to downtown (assuming the train only goes to Tunney's Pasture, there will still be a western bus which goes downtown I hope), then the train to Hurdman, then a bus to the hospital site. Fun:rolleyes:

The west tunnel portal to Tunney's Pasture conversion is easy since the buses can run along Scott/Wellington/Albert/Slater east of Tweedsmere.

[Richard Eade]

...
Developments since Primary Transit Network established in May 2008.

LRT extended to Riverside South
Browning Avenue Corridor included
Supplementary Transit corridor identified
Transit priority corridors included
Park and Ride Facilities for Ottawa, iTRANS Consulting Inc

...
Notice also that there is now a transfer station at Confederation that links the LRT, the BRT and the supplemental transit - bus along Heron. With a full transfer station there, why are they still running a BRT south from there?

Expect to hear a lot of complaints that the south line extends across the Greenbelt to the RS City Centre. The east passengers will have to take a bus to transfer at Blair. (However, if the new Browning link is maintained, they might be able to take the south line and bus directly downtown.) Oddly, Barrhaven and Kanata passengers should still be able to take their bus directly downtown until the rail is extended to Lincoln Fields and Baseline. (It is possible that they will be forced to transfer at TP or Bayview, but I doubt it.) Once the train is extended, they too will need to take a bus across the Greenbelt to transfer to the train. Barrhaven will have the advantage since they will also be able to bus to the RS TC to take the train.

So did anyone else notice that Staff have pulled the 'plan' back to what they originally wanted from the one City Council approved? The one Council approved is shown in the first post of this thread. The extensions across the Greenbelt are not included in this latest 'plan'.

[lrt's friend]

I asked two different consultants tonight about the bridge at Hurdman station. Both gave me the same answer. It will likely be necessary to build the Alta Vista parkway bridge, at least for transit in order to provide an alternative route into downtown by buses. One consultant added that there will still be a need to allow some buses into downtown from the southeast. One of the people at my table almost freaked at the possibility that any portion of the Alta Vista parkway would be built, even for transit. He hopes that the entire project goes down in flames. My table was also full of Westboro residents opposed to the Ottawa River Parkway route, gladly accepting a delay to permit further study of alternatives. Our table either supported Scenario 3 or were undecided.

One consultant suggested that we will not need to settle the lawsuit before requesting a proposal on the new project, nor would the lawsuit have any impact on who would bid. I wish I felt so confident.

I gasped when Alex Cullen announced on CFRA this afternoon that we should not expect any functioning rail system until 2018. When I asked the mayor this evening about the 10 year implementation period, he tried to tell me that we will see progress on parts before that, but he seemed to be rather flustered by the question and another asked by somebody else.

[Richard Eade]

That's perfectly true; the objections so far - which is what I was referring to - have been against the Parkway route. The loudest voice against the Byron routing so far has been Alex Cullen, and, for some strange reason, city staff with their outrageous $750M claim.
...
The way I see it:
Cullen and staff keep pushing the Parkway option and making very high estimates for the Byron route.

Once the studies are in, the Parkway will be the cheapest option since it will be the most impossible for the NCC to accept. (Surface rail with overhead wires and fences.) The NCC will say "NO!" but will then be responsible (in the City's eyes) to cover the cost of the next cheapest route - Byron. This appears to be a pretty typical game that the City is playing. It wants to have the Byron corridor without looking like a bad guy for putting a train through a residential neighbourhood, and it wants to look as if it was forced into a higher priced option by the NCC. (The NCC may or may not pay the cost difference. I think that that will depend on public opinion at the time.)

[Richard Eade]

...There are weird errors in that diagram -- Conroy Rd is labeled as Alta Vista, and the Blackburn ByPass is labeled Cumberland, and Industrial is in the wrong place.
I think those are the names of the corridors, not the roads.

[lrt's friend]

Notice also that there is now a transfer station at Confederation that links the LRT, the BRT and the supplemental transit - bus along Heron. With a full transfer station there, why are they still running a BRT south from there?

Expect to hear a lot of complaints that the south line extends across the Greenbelt to the RS City Centre. The east passengers will have to take a bus to transfer at Blair. (However, if the new Browning link is maintained, they might be able to take the south line and bus directly downtown.) Oddly, Barrhaven and Kanata passengers should still be able to take their bus directly downtown until the rail is extended to Lincoln Fields and Baseline. (It is possible that they will be forced to transfer at TP or Bayview, but I doubt it.) Once the train is extended, they too will need to take a bus across the Greenbelt to transfer to the train. Barrhaven will have the advantage since they will also be able to bus to the RS TC to take the train.

So did anyone else notice that Staff have pulled the 'plan' back to what they originally wanted from the one City Council approved? The one Council approved is shown in the first post of this thread. The extensions across the Greenbelt are not included in this latest 'plan'.

I think we have been over and over this already. The South Keys to Hurdman corridor has built very significant ridership over many years. To sever this would be foolish way to frustrate customers.

As far as the Riverside South LRT extension beyond the Greenbelt, there is more to this than treating everybody exactly equally. LRT was being run south first all along because some sort of rapid transit will be needed to prevent massive road construction, a bus Transitway would face much resistance from environmentalists and because a rail line was already there.

There was really no changes regarding the LRT extensions beyond the Greenbelt. There was a map posted tonight that showed all the eventual LRT lines to Barrhaven, Kanata and Orleans.

[Dado]

I asked two different consultants tonight about the bridge at Hurdman station. Both gave me the same answer. It will likely be necessary to build the Alta Vista parkway bridge, at least for transit in order to provide an alternative route into downtown by buses. One consultant added that there will still be a need to allow some buses into downtown from the southeast.
Interesting... these guys just can't make the break with BRT. They're just incapable of doing it. Of course were they to convert the SE Twy that "need" would go away.


I gasped when Alex Cullen announced on CFRA this afternoon that we should not expect any functioning rail system until 2018.
Why did you gasp? I wrote the same thing this morning.

[lrt's friend]

Why did you gasp? I wrote the same thing this morning.

It is hard to get over that this is all going to take so long before we have anything workable. Obviously, now we need an EA on the Innes corridor Transitway, which must also be built before we begin work on the East Transitway conversion.

One young guy was very animated tonight, and after numerous questions to various consultants, he made the statement that even he would likely be dead before there is a functioning rail system.

[O-Town Hockey]

The only really tricky part left is the U of O to Hurdman stretch.

U of O is planning some pretty major construction in the centre of campus over the next couple of years. I wonder how feasible it would be to continue the tunnel underneath the university with a major station right in the centre of campus? I bet the U of O would cover the cost of a station if it linked into one of the new buildings proposed around Uni Centre.

[lrt's friend]

Councillors urged to build rail to east, south first
Construction scenario skirts controversy over parkway route

Patrick Dare
The Ottawa Citizen


Friday, September 12, 2008



City transit planners say it could take three years to sort out the objections to commuter rail along the Ottawa River Parkway, so council should first consider going ahead with rail service east to Blair Station and south to Riverside South.

The city unveiled four construction scenarios yesterday for the ambitious new rapid-transit plan, which is now expected to cost $4.7 billion over the next 25 years. Each lays out a different sequence of projects to achieve the same final result.

For the first phase of the project, over the next 10 years, two of the scenarios run rail east and west. They are problematic because of concerns from the National Capital Commission and many residents about a train corridor running along the Ottawa River.

Deputy city manager Nancy Schepers stressed that the NCC is working with the city and the commission simply wants all of the options explored. She is hopeful that the city can convince the commission and the public that a sleek, quiet new commuter train running along the river will be much more attractive than the current sight of 250 diesel buses an hour barrelling down the parkway during rush hour. But she says that consultation process cannot be rushed without risking the project.

The effect of the delay, however, will be that the east-west service will be difficult to build within the next decade, leaving the city to build its downtown tunnel and then go east and likely south.

That revives a big debate at Ottawa City Hall: Should commuter rail be built north and south when most of the commuters in the city are going east and west?

The east-and-south scenario, known as "scenario three," got the quick endorsement of some influential city council members yesterday, including Mayor Larry O'Brien, transit committee chairman Alex Cullen, planning and environment committee chairman Peter Hume and River Councillor Maria McRae.

Mr. Hume said building from the east at Blair Station to Bayview Station, then south to Greenboro and Riverside South is the surest way to get commuter rail started in Ottawa in the next 10 years. The city estimates it will have 147 million transit trips taken a year in 2018 if the east-south system is built. This year there are expected to be 100 million transit trips.

Mr. Cullen said commuter rail to the south will stimulate urban development and bring transit riders onto the trains.

Mr. O'Brien said the southern part of the city, where new communities are growing, doesn't have the road system that the west has and people living in the south need public transit to get downtown and beyond.

He said a commuter rail service to the east will be a "building tool" for the east's economic development, which has lagged behind the west side of the city.

Ms. McRae, who represents a ward that would be served by the southern rail service, said it makes sense to use all of the preparatory work that was completed for the aborted north-south commuter rail plan championed by former mayor Bob Chiarelli.

That project was cancelled, but the studies and engineering work remain valid for the city's much more comprehensive long-term plan, which includes a tunnel downtown and commuter rail in all directions.

Ms. McRae said she is confident the federal and provincial governments will help pay for the east-south project over the next 10 years. She noted that two Ontario cabinet ministers, Jim Bradley and George Smitherman, recently seemed impressed with the city's new transit plan.

The city is keen to get access to the joint federal-provincial Building Canada Fund -- which closes in 2014 -- and will be able to get its application in more quickly with the east-south project.

West-side councillors, however, questioned the sense of the proposed construction phasing immediately after Ms. Schepers made the scenarios public and had pointed out the problems with trying to build to the west in the first 10 years.

Kanata South Councillor Peggy Feltmate said it doesn't make sense to move away from the construction scenarios that have the highest possible transit ridership. She said building rail to the Riverside South town centre assures very low ridership for the train. Riverside South is planned to have 40,000 residents and several developments are under way, but the area has a population of about 7,000 now.

"They've brought back the train that we turned down," said Kanata North Councillor Marianne Wilkinson. "But we're growing like crazy in Kanata and Stittsville."

And "there's nothing for Barrhaven," said its councillor, Jan Harder. The rapidly growing southwestern suburb desperately needs better transit service, she said, but the plan only offers buses for her ward.

The 25-year transit plan detailed yesterday is $700 million more expensive than previously reported because of some new elements.

There will be a new stretch of bus Transitway from Blair Station to Hurdman Station. This would be built early, would handle east-side commuters while the existing eastern Transitway is turned into a rail line, and would eventually get people in and out of the health sciences campus in the Alta Vista neighbourhood, where the General campus of The Ottawa Hospital is located.

Part of the 25-year plan is a rail service along Carling Avenue, perhaps a streetcar service, to take advantage of the wide corridor the city has there in an area with a dense population and a lot of commuters. There would also be bus transit lanes along Baseline, Heron and Walkley roads.

The extra $700 million also covers a link into the town centre at Riverside South and technology and new roadway that gives transit vehicles the priority in traffic.

Over the next 10 years, "scenario three" would see 34 kilometres of commuter rail line and 30 kilometres of bus Transitway built. The cost of all that work is estimated at $2.5 billion.

City treasurer Marian Simulik sent councillors a memo yesterday saying that the plan is affordable if the federal and provincial governments agree to long-term financing of one-third each. The city's annual spending on the plan would be about $110 million.

The city is consulting the public on the four 10-year construction scenarios until the end of the month with several open houses listed on the city's website, www.ottawa.ca, which also has information on all the possible construction plans. The issue will then go to city committees and finally city council on Nov. 26.

That council vote will be critically important to the future of the transit plan. The city needs a solid majority of councillors to support the project to get the financial help it needs from the federal and provincial governments.

If west-side councillors Eli El-Chantiry, Shad Qadri, Peggy Feltmate and Marianne Wilkinson vote against it, joining four councillors who voted against the overall plan in May, there could still be a good majority supporting the project: 16 councillors out of 24 (counting the mayor).

"You can expect jockeying. That's the nature of the beast. But I expect the bulk of council will be behind it," said Mr. Cullen. "We have to choose something."

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

I have said it before. Allex Cullen's only concern is getting the tunnel built. Allex opposed the south route before without the tunnel but he is now willing to support a similar route with a tunnel.

[Dado]

:previous:

So according to that, it could take 3 years to sort out the route for west end. I think that's more exaggeration, but let's assume that's correct. So there are still 7 years left in which to do the design and to build it.

Obviously, now we need an EA on the Innes corridor Transitway, which must also be built before we begin work on the East Transitway conversion.

You mean like this one, approved in early July...
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/tc/2008/07-02/ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0122.htm

And still no EA in the offing for the West Transitway/ORP corridor. Sometimes, it's only a couple of months after some curious event has taken place that I realize that the fix had been in all along.

[Richard Eade]

One of the things I found that was not integrated very well in the presentation tonight was how the Roadway Infrastructure Plan (http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/tmp/transit/phase3/road_needs_2031.pdf) related to the Public Transit Plan. If in fact these roads were built, should they not be transit focused and figure in the Rapid Transit Network? For example, if Terry Fox-Hope Side-Hunt Club-Innes were linked, it would make an excellent East-West transit priority route that crosses many of the city's high tech and industrial parks.
I'm afraid that I would disagree with you on the Hope Side to Hunt Club link. I think that a link from Hope Side to Fallowfield/Strandherd would be a better connection.

Connecting Hope Side to Strandherd could be done beside a quarry and it would lead to an existing 416 interchange. It would make a direct path from Barrhaven to Kanata without having to cross the Greenbelt twice. Strandherd is a wide road which is being extended across the Rideau River to also join Riverside South. And, for the environmentalists, it avoids taking a road through the Lime Kiln Park or environs.

[Kitchissippi]

Is it possible that this parkway issue is being perpetuated so that a south to east line is built first? There are way too many assumptions flying around, with no concrete options really coming from the city even though they've known about this issue for decades.

Also there is now $700 million more for other additions, and they are balking at spending $700 million (which is likely overblown) to solve the west end issue?

[Rathgrith]

U of O is planning some pretty major construction in the centre of campus over the next couple of years. I wonder how feasible it would be to continue the tunnel underneath the university with a major station right in the centre of campus? I bet the U of O would cover the cost of a station if it linked into one of the new buildings proposed around Uni Centre.

I don't see why the U of O would not support it. The University needs a good connection to the canal. In the future, if I am maybe Mille Sabords has our way, we might see the removal or reduction of Nicholas st and more pedestrian frienly way to get to the canal from the U of O.

[Kitchissippi]

I'm afraid that I would disagree with you on the Hope Side to Hunt Club link. I think that a link from Hope Side to Fallowfield/Strandherd would be a better connection.

Connecting Hope Side to Strandherd could be done beside a quarry and it would lead to an existing 416 interchange. It would make a direct path from Barrhaven to Kanata without having to cross the Greenbelt twice. Strandherd is a wide road which is being extended across the Rideau River to also join Riverside South. And, for the environmentalists, it avoids taking a road through the Lime Kiln Park or environs.

That is not my idea. I am merely pointing out what is in the city's plan.

There is also an intention to build another bridge at Fallowfield, which I find questionable. This would just add more traffic to Riverside, which is already too busy. If that bridge was built, maybe the LRT could be tunneled under the runway to go from the Airport and on to Fallowfield instead? :D

[Richard Eade]

I think we have been over and over this already. The South Keys to Hurdman corridor has built very significant ridership over many years. To sever this would be foolish way to frustrate customers...
Where are the people going after they get to Hurdman? Are they heading downtown?

The way I see it:
If trains are so much more popular than buses, and if the N/S LRT will extend from Riverside South, north, through downtown, to the University of Ottawa, and the bus will extend no further than Hurdman (unless the Nicholas bridge is built so that buses will still be running through downtown) forcing a transfer to a train, then I don't see any need to run a bus south of the new Confederation transfer station.

Obviously I see it differently from you. You seem to be keen to keep a redundant BRT line.

[Dado]

Richard, Kitchissippi:

Wrong thread, guys... road discussions belong in the roads thread... we're trying to keep this one "clean".

[Dado]

The way I see it:
If trains are so much more popular than buses, and if the N/S LRT will extend from Riverside South, north, through downtown, to the University of Ottawa, and the bus will extend no further than Hurdman (unless the Nicholas bridge is built so that buses will still be running through downtown) forcing a transfer to a train, then I don't see any need to run a bus south of the new Confederation transfer station.

Given the preference to go south first (again) but now in the context of an actual long term plan to convert the entire Transitway to light rail, this business south of Confederation has to be resolved. What are they going to do with the SE Transitway in that corridor in the long term? Convert it to light rail as well as the adjacent O-Train tracks (complete with those roller coaster overpasses once again) once they convert the Billings Bridge/Riverside portion?

[lrt's friend]

So according to that, it could take 3 years to sort out the route for west end. I think that's more exaggeration, but let's assume that's correct. So there are still 7 years left in which to do the design and to build it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend
Obviously, now we need an EA on the Innes corridor Transitway, which must also be built before we begin work on the East Transitway conversion.

You mean like this one, approved in early July...
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...E-PLA-0122.htm

And still no EA in the offing for the West Transitway/ORP corridor. Sometimes, it's only a couple of months after some curious event has taken place that I realize that the fix had been in all along.

This won't be the first time that something has been 'fixed'. Our group discussion last night started how so much had been predetermined before there was any public debate and how 'experts' were justifying political decisions eventhough 'experts' had made contradictory recommendations previously. It really makes you think whether we are actually being provided with the best information in order to make proper decisions.

[Richard Eade]

That is not my idea. I am merely pointing out what is in the city's plan.

There is also an intention to build another bridge at Fallowfield, which I find questionable. This would just add more traffic to Riverside, which is already too busy. If that bridge was built, maybe the LRT could be tunneled under the runway to go from the Airport and on to Fallowfield instead? :D
I don't think that the City is against adding people to Riverside. They are now talking about building the Nicholas bridge. That makes Riverside THE route to downtown. The south wanted a 'Queensway-like' road to downtown; maybe it is in the works.

[lrt's friend]

Given the preference to go south first (again) but now in the context of an actual long term plan to convert the entire Transitway to light rail, this business south of Confederation has to be resolved. What are they going to do with the SE Transitway in that corridor in the long term? Convert it to light rail as well as the adjacent O-Train tracks (complete with those roller coaster overpasses once again) once they convert the Billings Bridge/Riverside portion?



The point I am making is that ridership has been built up over a long time period particularly to Billings Bridge and for eastward transfer at Hurdman. There is no need to unnecessarily create another transfer to go one stop to Billings Bridge, nor to provide an awkward choice to reach Hurdman, either by another transfer or a trip through downtown.

Given the preference to go south first (again) but now in the context of an actual long term plan to convert the entire Transitway to light rail, this business south of Confederation has to be resolved. What are they going to do with the SE Transitway in that corridor in the long term? Convert it to light rail as well as the adjacent O-Train tracks (complete with those roller coaster overpasses once again) once they convert the Billings Bridge/Riverside portion?

This is not part of any of the proposals, so unless there is a change, how can it be considered? I have expressed a concern about LRT branching and balance between the east and west entrances into the downtown tunnel. Even Phase 1 with Scenario 3 has 3 branches to the west and only 1 to the east. The long-term build out has 4 branches to the west and 2 branches to the east. We can only fit so many trains into the tunnel so the interlining issue starts to become an issue. The consultants glossed over this issue just saying that train frequency will be adjusted based on demand. The whole selling point of LRT is frequent service but if demand forces most of the trains onto one line (east-west), service degrades significantly on the others. One way to balance the number of branches from the east and west is by having either the airport branch or the south branch use the SE Transitway, while the other uses the O-Train ROW. This addresses my concerns about direct service, based on ridership that has already been established, and eliminates the need to have parallel rapid transit south of Confederation. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be on the radar.

[Kitchissippi]

This won't be the first time that something has been 'fixed'. Our group discussion last night started how so much had been predetermined before there was any public debate and how 'experts' were justifying political decisions eventhough 'experts' had made contradictory recommendations previously. It really makes you think whether we are actually being provided with the best information in order to make proper decisions.

There lies the problem with this city. Most of the time the "best" solution is never presented, only the most "convenient" ways, sometimes with hidden motives or reasons. I find there is often an animosity and distrust in these sessions, and the idealists are always pitted against the pragmatists because of a lack of information presented. Even the staff seem to make up some details on the fly when you engage them. One of the things I heard from them was "the MTO is planning to widen the Queensway and they might let us use the extra lanes for buses while the LRT is being constructed". Huh? It made me realize some of those thick blue lines were BS put in to appease councillors. For example, it is impossible for a full Transitway to go on Innes Road though Blackburn Hamlet (WTF was the bypass for if not to retain the relative calmness of the Hamlet?), but hey Ranier Bloess lives there.

A bit off-topic, but walking and cycling were supposed to be integrated components of this plan but no real vision was really presented, only motherhood statements. This is kind of sad because it shows that were are really only concerned about getting to work and back, not about how public transit can really enhance urban life, or about the spaces that we get to after we get off the trains or buses.

[lrt's friend]

A bit off-topic, but walking and cycling were supposed to be integrated components of this plan but no real vision was really presented, only motherhood statements. This is kind of sad because it shows that were are really only concerned about getting to work and back, not about how public transit can really enhance urban life, or about the spaces that we get to after we get off the trains or buses.

A lady in our group made some excellent points on how to better integrate biking with rapid transit. I further suggested that a bike trail should run parallel to our rapid transit lines. One other comment was made that bike trails should be kept ploughed during winter, but with so few many winter riders in this climate, I thought it would be better to spend money on improving our biking system for the other 3 seasons. Interestingly, on a visit to Montreal this past weekend, I noticed segregated bike routes on a couple of downtown streets, similar to what I saw in Amsterdam. Now that is a major step forward. Why are we not considering such things? All that was required was the elimination of parking from one side of the street to build a route with a small curb separating it from regular traffic and then some special signalling at intersections.

[jeremy_haak]

I personally prefer the Byron ROW, but with respect to the Carling Route, people have to be a little bit more realistic. I'm sure that a lot of the 30 intersections along Carling would be eliminated and restricted to RIRO access if LRT were to operate along that corridor. It would still have to negotiate some intersections, but it seems more than a little ridiculous to argue it would have to negotiate thirty of them.

[jeremy_haak]

.

[Richard Eade]

...
So according to that, it could take 3 years to sort out the route for west end. I think that's more exaggeration, but let's assume that's correct. So there are still 7 years left in which to do the design and to build it.


You mean like this one, approved in early July...
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/tc/2008/07-02/ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0122.htm...
It is interesting that this EA is leaving the technology question alone. The corridor was originally slated as a Phase I Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. However, the SoW is now saying that the "technological choices for this transit facility will be confirmed in co-ordination with the on-going work on the TMP update related to the development of the supplementary transit corridors"

My big question would be What factors is the EA studying? A string of diesel buses surely is assessed differently than a less frequent, eLRT system.

Is there any way that eLRT could be run along Innes? Even as a "street-car" line?

What about using a different alignment? For example the red line here
http://REade.fileave.com/Transportation/Hospital-to-Museum.jpg

(Yes, I know - I complain about the Western Parkway not having people on both sides of it and then I suggest something like this. But this should be fairly economical because it makes use of existing rail infrastructure.)

[Ciemny]

Here's something to consider. IF The city chose Scenario 3 and went N-S-E first, could they negotiate something with Siemens considering this would be rehashing a large chunk of the old plan? BUT:

- Would Siemens also get a contract to build the tunnel and supply the rolling stock? Since if they build the N-S part it would be idiotic to switch companies to get the other part completed. Usually one company deals with the whole line instead of having everything broken up and having issues with different systems using the same line.

- Do we really have to wait untill the lawsuit is settled before starting the new system? What if we loose for the full amount, wonder how that would affect any transit plans.

[lrt's friend]

Send rail south, east

The Ottawa Citizen


Monday, September 15, 2008


One of the longest-running soap operas in Ottawa history continues to unfold with the unveiling of the list of options for starting the light-rail project.

Since 1998, Ottawans have been hearing promises of light-rail and, so far, all we have for a decade of talking is the north-south heavy-rail O-Train from Bayview to Greenboro. That was planned to be a demonstration project to show that an extensive system was workable. So far, despite the fact that light-rail is vitally important to the future of our community, the so-called demonstration project is looking more and more permanent.

Councillors are now deciding in which direction the first segment of rail will be built. Mayor Larry O'Brien is supporting the laying of track east and south. He is right.

Why? The southern route already has much of the preparation work completed due to the now-scrapped north-south route. Also, the southern route is doable -- a very good argument for the original project. Using an old railway right-of-way and travelling through empty fields in the south end of town requires a lot less expensive expropriation than going west. And after construction, the economic uplift along the route will be extensive. With good planning, Ottawa could see intensive development along this valuable line.

The eastern route is also very important. Eastenders use public transit more than any other Ottawans. Maybe that's because they face the most difficult traffic problems in the city at the Split where highways 417 and 174 meet. Perhaps it's because a high percentage of public-service employees live in the east end and commute downtown. Maybe it's even because there isn't the business there that we see located in Kanata where residents can both work and live in a compact commuting range.

One way or the other, there is a market for transit in the east end. And there is one more very important reason for going east: residents there feel they are treated as second-class citizens in the new Ottawa. That's not the case, development just tends to go west for good economic reasons. But if rail is built in the east before the west, it is a profound reiteration by the community to the east end that it is a valued part of the national capital.

What the rail plan needs is an example of it actually running. Rail is a good product so riding it will convince Ottawans that we need more of it fast. That makes building in the west difficult. The National Capital Commission has grave reservations about building a line along the Ottawa River Parkway. That effectively eliminates the west as the first segment of the plan to be constructed. The city can't wait to build rail in an environment of high-priced gas and a clogged downtown.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

Its time to get moving on this. 10 years is already too long for the first operating train. We can't extend this further waiting for the west route to be identified. We cannot afford to develop a plan for the west end quickly and risk the possibility that there will not be broad community support and another spectacular project termination at the last minute. We need to learn from past experiences and make sure we have community consensus. This requires community involvement and study of all options. Maybe, it will end up being the Ottawa River Parkway, maybe not, or maybe some creative variation. Time is needed to do this properly and make sure that the public is on side. I believe that development of a project in the east and south will increase momentum in finding solutions in the west at the very least. It is my hope that this will lead to more than just laying track on the Western Transitway. Just like in the east end, I hope that a proper study for the west end gives us at least 2 routes. If we accomplish this, we will end up with far more ridership growth. Given the fact that the west end has a larger employment base than the east end, it is critical that transit accessibility to those employment areas be improved. This requires the development of at least one new rapid transit corridor.

[Ryersonian]

Its time to get moving on this. 10 years is already too long for the first operating train. We can't extend this further waiting for the west route to be identified. We cannot afford to develop a plan for the west end quickly and risk the possibility that there will not be broad community support and another spectacular project termination at the last minute. We need to learn from past experiences and make sure we have community consensus. This requires community involvement and study of all options. Maybe, it will end up being the Ottawa River Parkway, maybe not, or maybe some creative variation. Time is needed to do this properly and make sure that the public is on side. I believe that development of a project in the east and south will increase momentum in finding solutions in the west at the very least. It is my hope that this will lead to more than just laying track on the Western Transitway. Just like in the east end, I hope that a proper study for the west end gives us at least 2 routes. If we accomplish this, we will end up with far more ridership growth. Given the fact that the west end has a larger employment base than the east end, it is critical that transit accessibility to those employment areas be improved. This requires the development of at least one new rapid transit corridor.

AMEN!

[lrt's friend]

Not enough rail in transit plan, candidates say
Orléans MP Galipeau, rival Godbout agree more buses aren't the answer

Patrick Dare
The Ottawa Citizen


Monday, September 15, 2008


The Conservative MP for Ottawa-Orléans and his Liberal challenger in the federal election say Ottawa's latest public transit plan doesn't go far enough with commuter rail.

MP Royal Galipeau says the new $4.7-billion plan relies too much on more buses and doesn't extend light-rail to Kanata and Orléans, as it should. In a recent interview, Mr. Galipeau said for many years the city has been too caught up in expanding its bus network and the new transit plan reflects that.

While there is commuter rail in the plan, it only runs to Blair Station in the east and leaves many areas primarily served by transitway or bus lanes. City council has voted to build rail to suburbs such as Orléans when the population is large enough to justify it, but has no immediate intention of doing so.

The plan includes a new $112-million bus transitway to run from Blair Station south and west to Hurdman Station, and then downtown.

In the most likely of the construction scenarios for the next 10 years, the city plans to build 34 kilometres of commuter rail going east to Blair Station and south to Riverside South, and 30 kilometres of bus transitway.

Mr. Galipeau said the city has been fixated on short-term bus solutions for years, when the long-term answer is to build rail to major population centres.

"Buses are a Band-Aid solution. I think they're dead-set on buses. I don't think they really believe in light rail," Mr. Galipeau said.

He believes the federal government will contribute one-third of the cost of the new public transit system, but the needs of the east must be met and pushing rail to Blair Road "isn't east enough."

Liberal candidate and former MP Marc Godbout, who is running against Mr. Galipeau, said Orléans has the highest transit ridership of any community and it's not acceptable that the plans don't take rail service that far east. He said the city is planning its transit system in a fragmented fashion when it should be building it in one project, even if it is built over 15 years.

Mr. Godbout said adding lanes to highways for cars or buses won't fix the problems. "We need long-term planning. ... Light rail, or a subway, should have been there, or at least planned, years ago," he said.

Tomorrow, the city will hold an open house on the public transit plan at the Bob McQuarrie Recreation Complex, 1490 Youville Dr.

ELECTION: For more coverage, go to ottawacitizen.com and decision canada 08.

- - -

Read the latest news on transit in the city, archival stories, maps and links in Getting There: Ottawa's Transit Future, online at: ottawacitizen.com

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

I am all for more light rail if there is a way to fund it. Ideally, light rail should reach some central collecting point in each of our major suburbs. The question is, where will the money come from? Extending light rail from Blair to Place d'Orleans will require the development of a new ROW and will cost a fortune. If the Conservative government were willing to fund it, by all means , but what is the liklihood of that?

[Franky]

They want to build the Alta-Vista Transportation Corridor bridge to handle traffic from Hurdman and Orleans before the Hurdman-U. of Ottawa LRT link. The time and expense (and subsequently revisiting the need for LRT, given all the new road capacity) of this project will likely push LRT plans even further into the future.

[Acajack]

Extending light rail from Blair to Place d'Orleans will require the development of a new ROW and will cost a fortune.

I dunno. There is already a Transitway overpass east of the Blair exit that trains could use, and there is lots of open land almost all the way to Place d'Orléans along the 174. It would cost money for sure, but nowhere near the cost in the more urbanized parts of Ottawa where the system is scheduled to be put in.

[lrt's friend]

I dunno. There is already a Transitway overpass east of the Blair exit that trains could use, and there is lots of open land almost all the way to Place d'Orléans along the 174. It would cost money for sure, but nowhere near the cost in the more urbanized parts of Ottawa where the system is scheduled to be put in.

The main issues I see will be significant modification of each Queensway interchange on the way to Place d'Orleans. No doubt not as costly as what we see now being built out at Bayshore, but it will still be expensive.

If we could find a way to fund a Blair-Place d'Orleans extension, I would be ecstatic, but we need to make sure that there is still money in the kitty for building the western route when the route is finally approved.

[lrt's friend]

They want to build the Alta-Vista Transportation Corridor bridge to handle traffic from Hurdman and Orleans before the Hurdman-U. of Ottawa LRT link. The time and expense (and subsequently revisiting the need for LRT, given all the new road capacity) of this project will likely push LRT plans even further into the future.

The only way to build LRT on the eastern Transitway is to provide a bus bypass as suggested, and that must be built first. The other option is to build LRT along the Alta Vista Parkway - Innes Corridor, but I think their rationale is that ridership will not nearly be as high on that corridor to make LRT cost effective. I am very pleased that we will end up with 2 rapid transit routes going eastward and that there will continue to be bus access over the Rideau river and into downtown. This will provide a great deal of additional flexibility to our transit network that was not apparent in the original presentation of the Option 4 plan.

[Kitchissippi]

I've always understood that the south side of the 174 was meant for rapid transit ever since Orleans was planned. I count about 6 to 8 bridges/viaducts that would have to be built to push LRT from Blair to Place d'Orleans, a stretch of 8 kilometres. There is an ancient ROW that curves away from the Montreal Rd interchange towards Bearbrook/St Joseph (you can see it clearly in Google).

There are also about half a dozen provisions for pedestrian bridges or culverts across the highway so that residents from the north side (Convent Glen - Orleans Wood) can access the ROW.

Putting tracks on existing eastern sections of the Transitway shouldn't take more than half a year, over the course of a summer when transit demand is relatively low. Building an expensive new busway to remedy a few months of pain seems rather excessive.

[lrt's friend]

Somehow, I don't see this happening over just 6 months. Not only does the track and power system have to be installed and likely the roadbed replaced to some degree, but all the stations will have to be redesigned, and that will be a major redesign at Blair and Hurdman with new bus transfer facilities. Furthermore, the consultants recognize the problems with the Rideau River bridge, and there is no possibility without causing total traffic chaos of rerouting hundreds of buses onto the Queensway in order to enter downtown. I cannot emphasize enough the benefit of building new rapid transit in order to attract new ridership and this so called bus bypass will do exactly that. We should be doing something similar for the west end.

[Franky]

The only way to build LRT on the eastern Transitway is to provide a bus bypass as suggested, and that must be built first. The other option is to build LRT along the Alta Vista Parkway - Innes Corridor, but I think their rationale is that ridership will not nearly be as high on that corridor to make LRT cost effective. I am very pleased that we will end up with 2 rapid transit routes going eastward and that there will continue to be bus access over the Rideau river and into downtown. This will provide a great deal of additional flexibility to our transit network that was not apparent in the original presentation of the Option 4 plan.

We don't need a new road into the core. The core is at capacity. We need public transit into the core. Simply running buses on the Queensway to Nicholas (with it's own temporary lane if needed) should work just fine until the LRT line is built.

[lrt's friend]

We don't need a new road into the core. The core is at capacity. We need public transit into the core. Simply running buses on the Queensway to Nicholas (with it's own temporary lane if needed) should work just fine until the LRT line is built.

We need a viable way to get hundreds of buses into downtown while LRT is being built. Running them on the Queensway will just add to an already congested traffic situation. We cannot afford to slow down transit to that degree, even if construction only takes 6 months. That will just drive transit ridership away, especially those not destined for downtown.

[Franky]

We need a viable way to get hundreds of buses into downtown while LRT is being built. Running them on the Queensway will just add to an already congested traffic situation. We cannot afford to slow down transit to that degree, even if construction only takes 6 months. That will just drive transit ridership away, especially those not destined for downtown.

I don't think building an unnecessary bridge makes much sense either. Taxes will skyrocket. There will be a transition when LRT opens no matter what, and ridership will recover as time passes. If the 6 months are in the summer months, ridership is lower anyhow and volume will be easier to handle.

[Deez]

Did anyone catch the fact that before any rail line is operational, the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge will be constructed, the Alta Vista corridor will be constructed (in part) and the 174 will be widened to 6 lanes?

Lame.

[lrt's friend]

A lot of roads can be built in 10 years. I don't believe the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge will be built until I can actually drive across it. Obviously, I won't be using transit. Why do we have to wait 10 years for a rail system? That was my question to the mayor last week. He still seems to be under the impression that it will be sooner while everybody else says differently.

Wasn't it just a few short months ago that the mayor was saying that the shovel will be in the ground before the next municipal election? Dream on!

[nerox3]

Option 4, the E-W route was the prefered option at my table at last week's consultation. There was also a clear majority that wanted it put on record that we liked the Byron option.

I talked to one of the staffers afterwards who stated that the Byron option would cost about as much as putting it along Carling. That to me means they haven't seriously looked at the Byron option. Byron is shorter than Carling has fewer intersections and is much more space. How could it be anywhere near as expensive.

I think the Nimbyism against the Byron option is overrated. There was even a guy who lived on Byron there who thought Byron was the better choice.

[Richard Eade]

At the Durrel Rec. Centre last night, there seemed to be a fair number of locals who are VERY opposed to running buses along the Browning Corridor. I think that we have heard about the uproar for the Ottawa Parkway, but we have yet to hear about the Browning Ave. opposition (including Councillor Hume).

[c_speed3108]

At the Durrel Rec. Centre last night, there seemed to be a fair number of locals who are VERY opposed to running buses along the Browning Corridor. I think that we have heard about the uproar for the Ottawa Parkway, but we have yet to hear about the Browning Ave. opposition (including Councillor Hume).

To me the easy and cheaper solution is to simply run the buses on Industrial with perhaps some transit priority measures...

[Richard Eade]

I found it inteserting that Scenario 3 needs a bus by-pass to be built so that the Eastern Transitway could be converted to rail, but such a by-pass is not required for Scenario 4, which also converts the Eastern Transitway. When I asked about this, the (MRC) consultant said that there were other routes which could be used for Scenario 4. He wasn't sure why such routes could not be used for Scenario 3. Maybe it has something to do with the section between St. Laurent and Blair since that section is not to be converted in Scenario 4, phase 1. (The consultant did seem to have reservations about the ability of the St. Laurent Station to act as a major LRT/BRT transfer station. This might indicate that Scenario 4 is not a real option, but was added to pad out the choices to four. They seem to like four things in the choice list.)

Another interesting tid-bit is that the City has approached the MTO, asking if they would be interested in accelerating the 417 widening in the Nicholas to Blair section so that the City could use the new lanes for exclusive BRT while the conversion occurs. Apparently, the MTO said that it was something that was possible. Of course, this is information from a consultant who does not work directly for the City so it might have some flexability in facts. Take this with as much salt as you feel it is worth.

[Richard Eade]

To me the easy and cheaper solution is to simply run the buses on Industrial with perhaps some transit priority measures...
That also seemed to be the suggestion of the Browning area residents.

Would Industrial have the available capacity to add all of the Transitway buses? It is only a four lane road with many driveways. There are also signal controlled intersections which can slow down the buses. Then buses would still need to cross the river somehow.

The City seems to be trying to do the by-pass on the cheap. It is doing it as BRT and running the buses along Innes. If it were to build the bypass as LRT, there would be a lot more trouble getting the rail past St. Laurent Blvd. to Blair. The quickest/easiest/fastest by-pass route (assuming Industrial isn't used) is the bus route shown.

[Richard Eade]

...I think the Nimbyism against the Byron option is overrated. There was even a guy who lived on Byron there who thought Byron was the better choice.
A good observation.

I must admit that I have heard a LOT more complaints about the Parkway route from NIMPs (Not In My Park). I think that most of the anti-Byron comments have come from people guessing that the Byron residents will be against a train there.

The Browning Corridor, on the other hand, has residents up in arms. They honestly feel that the corridor is their parkland, with the 7 or so I talked to un-aware that it is actually a transportation corridor. They think that the roads are going through parkland.

[Dado]

I found it inteserting that Scenario 3 needs a bus by-pass to be built so that the Eastern Transitway could be converted to rail, but such a by-pass is not required for Scenario 4, which also converts the Eastern Transitway. When I asked about this, the (MRC) consultant said that there were other routes which could be used for Scenario 4. He wasn't sure why such routes could not be used for Scenario 3. Maybe it has something to do with the section between St. Laurent and Blair since that section is not to be converted in Scenario 4, phase 1. (The consultant did seem to have reservations about the ability of the St. Laurent Station to act as a major LRT/BRT transfer station. This might indicate that Scenario 4 is not a real option, but was added to pad out the choices to four. They seem to like four things in the choice list.)

Scenario 4, Phase 1 (I just love this stuff... Option 4, Scenario 3, Phase 1) is from Baseline to Blair. It's Scenario 2, Phase 1 that does Baseline to St. Laurent. So your original question - why does Sc.3 need a by-pass built but Sc.4 doesn't - still holds.

Frankly, I don't know why one would have reservations about St. Laurent Station acting as a transfer station. The upper deck is enormous - it's 200 m from end to end with platform space on both sides - and it has escalators to move people between levels (assuming they're working, that is). It does lack a bit for lay-by space, but the St. Laurent bus garage is not too far away and borrowing some parking space from the mall shouldn't be out of the question. I'm not arguing in favour of using it, but realistically it's probably the most suitable station we currently have for the job.

[sumo]

Frankly, I don't know why one would have reservations about St. Laurent Station acting as a transfer station. The upper deck is enormous - it's 200 m from end to end with platforms space on both sides - and it has escalators to move people between levels (assuming they're working, that is). It does lack a bit for lay-by space, but the St. Laurent bus garage is not too far away and borrowing some parking space from the mall shouldn't be out of the question. I'm not arguing in favour of using it, but realistically it's probably the most suitable station we currently have for the job.

I don't think the problem is the station layout itself from a pedestrian perspective. The non-transitway approaches to the station are awkward and the upper deck is a pretty tight loop. There isn't a lot of room to improve the in and out flow of buses to the upper deck. It's a good transfer station for local routes but not for BRT<->LRT.

[Dado]

I don't think the problem is the station layout itself from a pedestrian perspective. The non-transitway approaches to the station are awkward and the upper deck is a pretty tight loop. There isn't a lot of room to improve the in and out flow of buses to the upper deck. It's a good transfer station for local routes but not for BRT<->LRT.

I can see what you mean. But I note that there is also an access ramp to the upper deck off the Queensway on-ramp at the east end of the platform, which, if it could be made use of, would improve things vastly. So what's required is a tiny bit of outside-the-box thinking to make use of that ramp...

Here's the Google Maps link:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Ottawa&ie=UTF8&om=1&ll=45.421392,-75.634802&spn=0.002673,0.003884&t=k&z=18

Not that it matters, since St. Laurent isn't ideal for other reasons, namely not really being close enough to the edge of the Greenbelt.

[ikerrin]

We don't need a new road into the core. The core is at capacity. We need public transit into the core.

Exactly! I don't understand why commuter rail is not factored into this plan though. We can serve Barhaven with the existing Via line and we could serve southern Kanata with a line out to Arnprior. Make sure that there is one stop to transfer to the O-Train, and then a terminus at the Via Station and then Kanata and Barhaven are part of the system. The great thing about commuter rail over LRT is that it runs fast and it has enormous capacity.

I don't see why we are fixated on just LRT for our Rapid Transit system. Go trains are a lot more rapid than subways in Toronto.

[Franky]

Exactly! I don't understand why commuter rail is not factored into this plan though. We can serve Barhaven with the existing Via line and we could serve southern Kanata with a line out to Arnprior. Make sure that there is one stop to transfer to the O-Train, and then a terminus at the Via Station and then Kanata and Barhaven are part of the system. The great thing about commuter rail over LRT is that it runs fast and it has enormous capacity.

I don't see why we are fixated on just LRT for our Rapid Transit system. Go trains are a lot more rapid than subways in Toronto.

I think commuter trains need to serve very large populations to be cost-effective and to get frequency of service, but I agree that an electrified, fast way to get from our growing "suburbs" - Kanata, Barhaven, Orleans and even Gatineau, would be a step in the right direction. Finding the right technology to accomplish this goal isn't so easy. BRT isn't quite green, trolley buses are limited to 80 km/h and LRT is much too expensive.

[c_speed3108]

Did anyone catch the fact that before any rail line is operational, the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge will be constructed, the Alta Vista corridor will be constructed (in part) and the 174 will be widened to 6 lanes?

Lame.


I was thinking a bit about this riding the bus down the old 174 this morning....

This is where the city planners are a bit blind. Why pay to widen the 174? It would make more sense to either build the LRT/rail/O-train right to Orleans or build a BRT to Orleans for latter conversion and then they would get the extra lane on the 174 basically for free except for a bit of work around some (although not all) of the interchanges. They would be working in those areas to make the LRT or BRT work anyway.

[d_jeffrey]

I think commuter trains need to serve very large populations to be cost-effective and to get frequency of service, but I agree that an electrified, fast way to get from our growing "suburbs" - Kanata, Barhaven, Orleans and even Gatineau, would be a step in the right direction. Finding the right technology to accomplish this goal isn't so easy. BRT isn't quite green, trolley buses are limited to 80 km/h and LRT is much too expensive.

The new commuter train in Montréal will be one train in the morning daily. To save 30 minutes on my trip, I would plan my day around that train too. It's not different than an express bus.

[Franky]

The new commuter train in Montréal will be one train in the morning daily. To save 30 minutes on my trip, I would plan my day around that train too. It's not different than an express bus.

Are you suggesting we lay track to Kanata, Barhaven, Orleans and Gatineau to run a single train in the morning?

[d_jeffrey]

Are you suggesting we lay track to Kanata, Barhaven, Orleans and Gatineau to run a single train in the morning?

Why lay track when it's already there?

[Franky]

Why lay track when it's already there?

? So what's the catch? Why aren't our politicians all over it? Smells like rail hype...

[d_jeffrey]

? So what's the catch? Why aren't our politicians all over it? Smells like rail hype...

It was the recommendation of the Mayor's Task Force... except, I would seperate the means of transit. In all proposals we have seen, they only propose one method of rail transit. Which I find ridiculous, because LRT is not one size fits all.

The way I always say it, it would be a mish-mash of metro technology with transfer stations to the suburbuban commuter train, evolved to RER-type service when needed.

[Franky]

It was the recommendation of the Mayor's Task Force... except, I would seperate the means of transit. In all proposals we have seen, they only propose one method of rail transit. Which I find ridiculous, because LRT is not one size fits all.

The way I always say it, it would be a mish-mash of metro technology with transfer stations to the suburbuban commuter train, evolved to RER-type service when needed.

What is "RER-type service"? Did the "Mayor's Task Force" put a price tag on it? I'll try to look it up, but if you have a link...

[d_jeffrey]

What is "RER-type service"? Did the "Mayor's Task Force" put a price tag on it? I'll try to look it up, but if you have a link...

It started as a basic commuter train service in Paris, one train every 30 minutes. Over the years, they double tracked the rails, and expended the stations to 315m platforms. The stations are about 2km apart compared to 500 for the metro.

The success is so big, that one line is achieving 55000pphpd, with train frequency higher than the metro itself. The new trains are double-deckers metro cars, again 315m in length. It's an impressive system.

This is the same model Sydney followed to develop their transit system, now they are adding a subway core, plus other LRT lines.


It's cheap to start (like the O-Train), but it complements a metro-type system, it is not meant to replace it. It is doubled the speed of a metro and nearly triple the speed of an LRT system, because it was meant as a system for the suburbs first.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RER

It now links all train stations except one, intersects with the metro at many stations, plus connects to all airports in the vicinity of the city.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Q6QQmmJsE

[ikerrin]

Are you suggesting we lay track to Kanata, Barhaven, Orleans and Gatineau to run a single train in the morning?

No, there already is track. There are rail lines that VIA uses running through the heart of Barhaven, and there is a line of track that runs to the employment hub in Kanata on march road. We just need to use those tracks. I would see hourly service to kanata and Farhaven.

[lrt's friend]

I really think that comparing Ottawa with Paris is not particularly helpful. The situations are not the same. The scale of the cities are much different, and I expect that population density outside the city proper in Paris is much higher. The evolution of public transit is different. Commuter rail was brought in no doubt to address a need that was not being addressed by traditional transit. Thanks to the federal government, Ottawa has closed its downtown rail station. Also, Ottawa's Transitway provides direct and fast service to almost all our major suburbs from downtown. To suggest that an hourly train to a station away from downtown in competition with a more direct, more frequent bus service would draw significant numbers downtown commuters is pure craziness.

I am not against using existing track, but commuter trains will be mostly beneficial for beyond the urban transit area, but that will be limited by the low population base. Furthermore, I support use of the cross-town track to provide a cross-town downtown bypass. It won't be used unless it is reasonably frequent like the O-Train allowing transfers without lengthy waits.

Based on the logic presented above, we should moving forward faster on LRT to Orleans since we have no available existing rail line to offer a commuter train.

[d_jeffrey]

I really think that comparing Ottawa with Paris is not particularly helpful. The situations are not the same. The scale of the cities are much different, and I expect that population density outside the city proper in Paris is much higher. The evolution of public transit is different. Commuter rail was brought in no doubt to address a need that was not being addressed by traditional transit. Thanks to the federal government, Ottawa has closed its downtown rail station. Also, Ottawa's Transitway provides direct and fast service to almost all our major suburbs from downtown. To suggest that an hourly train to a station away from downtown in competition with a more direct, more frequent bus service would draw significant numbers downtown commuters is pure craziness.

I am not against using existing track, but commuter trains will be mostly beneficial for beyond the urban transit area, but that will be limited by the low population base. Furthermore, I support use of the cross-town track to provide a cross-town downtown bypass. It won't be used unless it is reasonably frequent like the O-Train allowing transfers without lengthy waits.

Based on the logic presented above, we should moving forward faster on LRT to Orleans since we have no available existing rail line to offer a commuter train.

Of course, nothing is similar, but the system that they have right now was not built overnight. You need to start somewhere, Ottawa right now is a dump, so they better start doing something with scale.

Are express buses used? Yes, even with low frequency, are commuter trains used? They're overflowing.

I doubt Ottawa will ever need a quarter-mile platforms with double decker. I'm just saying that you need to start somewhere, and it can be cheap to do so and offer the alternatives you've been ranting for the last 2 years, while offering faster speed.

[lrt's friend]

I doubt Ottawa will ever need a quarter-mile platforms with double decker. I'm just saying that you need to start somewhere, and it can be cheap to do so and offer the alternatives you've been ranting for the last 2 years, while offering faster speed.

Sure, let's get a start. I just see the market as being different, because of the lack of a downtown rail station.

[Franky]

Of course, nothing is similar, but the system that they have right now was not built overnight. You need to start somewhere, Ottawa right now is a dump, so they better start doing something with scale.

Are express buses used? Yes, even with low frequency, are commuter trains used? They're overflowing.

I doubt Ottawa will ever need a quarter-mile platforms with double decker. I'm just saying that you need to start somewhere, and it can be cheap to do so and offer the alternatives you've been ranting for the last 2 years, while offering faster speed.

What exactly would be the point of running diesel trains to the "suburbs"? That's what the Mayor's Task Force recommended. Electrifying those existing tracks and buying the LRV to run on them would not be cost effective and not much better than our current diesel buses.

[d_jeffrey]

What exactly would be the point of running diesel trains to the "suburbs"? That's what the Mayor's Task Force recommended. Electrifying those existing tracks and buying the LRV to run on them would not be cost effective and not much better than our current diesel buses.

It would be much more cost effective, because trains would be full. That's when you adjust frequency. We're not talking about LRVs here, but something similar to heavy rail subway cars like they use in Europse. Electrifying is not that expensive, we could do that for the entire system for 75M$. If anything, electrification is one of the most cost effective thing to do when diesel costs are high. Compared to the entire cost of the project, it's a drop in the bucket.

The point is to provide a fast service that replaces express buses, while offering a similar capacity. Let's say there's a Regional EXpress (REX like the Ontario government calls it) that goes to Bayview. That makes a Downtown station, available, and connecting to a metro system. This would allow conversion of the S-E Transitway instead, and also save money to connect to Riverside South, you would only need one track instead of two, and only for a short section.

Suburbs are still mostly unidirectional traffic, I don't see why there's the need to bring LRT with high frequencies, it will be one car-train most of the day.

When ridership gets high enough on the REX system, you start double tracking. I would double track and electrify from Bayview to Confederation from the start, as it would be on of the main line connectin to DT, as well as Confederation and the existing Via station, for transfers to the metro system.

You need to have an integrated system to have high ridership, but there's no vision or that in any of the city plans.

[lrt's friend]

It would be much more cost effective, because trains would be full. That's when you adjust frequency. We're not talking about LRVs here, but something similar to heavy rail subway cars like they use in Europse. Electrifying is not that expensive, we could do that for the entire system for 75M$. If anything, electrification is one of the most cost effective thing to do when diesel costs are high. Compared to the entire cost of the project, it's a drop in the bucket.

The point is to provide a fast service that replaces express buses, while offering a similar capacity. Let's say there's a Regional EXpress (REX like the Ontario government calls it) that goes to Bayview. That makes a Downtown station, available, and connecting to a metro system. This would allow conversion of the S-E Transitway instead, and also save money to connect to Riverside South, you would only need one track instead of two, and only for a short section.

Suburbs are still mostly unidirectional traffic, I don't see why there's the need to bring LRT with high frequencies, it will be one car-train most of the day.

When ridership gets high enough on the REX system, you start double tracking. I would double track and electrify from Bayview to Confederation from the start, as it would be on of the main line connectin to DT, as well as Confederation and the existing Via station, for transfers to the metro system.

You need to have an integrated system to have high ridership, but there's no vision or that in any of the city plans.

And this is where I completely disagree with you. People who are accustomed to door to door service to downtown, are not going to want to take a bus to a rail station not centrally located within their community and with infrequent rail service, then take that train across town via a circuitous route and then have to transfer to another train to get to downtown. Sorry, that will not sell in this market. It works in Oakville and Brampton and Richmond Hill and Oshawa, because the distances are greater to downtown Toronto and the most direct transit routes into downtown are in fact rail lines. That is not the case here.

Let's put it this way. How popular would a Go Train be between Oakville and Toronto, if it travelled via Brampton and terminated in Scarborough instead of downtown? A similar arrangement to what you are suggesting here.

[d_jeffrey]

And this is where I completely disagree with you. People who are accustomed to door to door service to downtown, are not going to want to take a bus to a rail station not centrally located within their community and with infrequent rail service, then take that train across town via a circuitous route and then have to transfer to another train to get to downtown. Sorry, that will not sell in this market. It works in Oakville and Brampton and Richmond Hill and Oshawa, because the distances are greater to downtown Toronto and the most direct transit routes into downtown are in fact rail lines. That is not the case here.

Let's put it this way. How popular would a Go Train be between Oakville and Toronto, if it travelled via Brampton and terminated in Scarborough instead of downtown? A similar arrangement to what you are suggesting here.

LOL, are you crazy? We are talking about a station at BAYVIEW here, 500m from DT, which will eventually be DT. This is the same distance as Union station in Toronto! If there's anything, the Kanata through Confederation to Bayview is even more direct that the Toronto lines! The train stations in Toronto are not even remotely close to major centres.

Stop always putting excuses that it wouldn't work, numbers in other cities show that it did. If people want door to door bus service, they should stick to their cars.

The rail distance from Kanata to DT Ottawa is the same as Pickering to DT Toronto. Why do you think they're building a REX network in Toronto, because they have extra money to spare?

[Franky]

LOL, are you crazy? We are talking about a station at BAYVIEW here, 500m from DT, which will eventually be DT. This is the same distance as Union station in Toronto! If there's anything, the Kanata through Confederation to Bayview is even more direct that the Toronto lines! The train stations in Toronto are not even remotely close to major centres.

Stop always putting excuses that it wouldn't work, numbers in other cities show that it did. If people want door to door bus service, they should stick to their cars.

The rail distance from Kanata to DT Ottawa is the same as Pickering to DT Toronto. Why do you think they're building a REX network in Toronto, because they have extra money to spare?

Pickering: 34.6 km, pop. 87,000 (though there is no greenbelt?)
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=pickering%2Contario%20to%20cn%20tower%2C%20toronto&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wl

Kanata: 25.3 km, pop. 85,000
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=pickering%2Contario%20to%20cn%20tower%2C%20toronto&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wl

Why hasn't anyone stopped you form posting something outside of option 4? Is it because you propose a rail system?

[d_jeffrey]

Pickering: 34.6 km, pop. 87,000 (though there is no greenbelt?)
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=pickering%2Contario%20to%20cn%20tower%2C%20toronto&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wl

Kanata: 25.3 km, pop. 85,000
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=pickering%2Contario%20to%20cn%20tower%2C%20toronto&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wl


I said rail distance, through confederation (Old LRT plan), it's about 35km.

It's because it was part of the old plan I guess, and was in the interim propositions by the city, well last time.

[Dado]

Interesting as this discussion is, doesn't it belong in the other thread? Isn't this one supposed to be generally about developments in the Rapid Transit Network before Council and the public? I'm probably guilty of having violated that myself a bit, but this discussion has clearly done so...

[Richard Eade]

Three of the four scenarios offered use an extension of the O-Train for the N-S rail line. Is this a reasonable option?

Based on measurements using Google Earth, the O-Train travels about 3.6Km from Bayview to CU, arriving before the north-bound train. Once the other train has arrived, the south-bound train travels about 4.2Km to Greenboro. Total trip time 12 minutes, for an average speed of 39Km/h.

The distance from Greenboro to the airport is about 4.5Km and from there to the Lietrim P&R would be about 4.3Km. These two legs have longer, straighter sections across Greenbelt (without stops) which should allow a slightly faster speed. The turn into the airport will slow the trains a bit. I am aware that none of the O-Train extensions shown include an airport spur, but it might as well be added since siding tracks are being added anyway. (OK this is a bit of a stretch, but why not add the spur if all the equipment is in the area. It adds about 1.3Km in each direction.)

With 3 trainsets (+ spare) and a siding at the airport, the 15 minute frequency could be maintained on an extended O-Train service.

For those interested in the possibilities, it is about 4.5Km from the Lietrim P&R to Riverside South. An extra trainset could extend the line into Riverside South.

Also, it is about 0.6Km from Bayview to Lebreton (so Carleton to Lebreton is about 4.2Km) and about 4.4Km from Lebreton to Lees. Adding another trainset could push the service to Lees Station. Unfortunately, I think it would be pushing it to expect the train to get through downtown to Hurdman (4.9Km) in time. In fact, assuming a slower time through the core, the train might stop at UofO.

Thus, an overall system from RS to UofO should be able to be run at the current 15 minute frequency using the current single line track with four sidings, and of course the tunnel, and 5 trainsets (+ spares). I think one of the biggest problems with the old N/S was the predictability problem due to running the train in mixed traffic. Since this entire line is in a separate RoW, the timing is more stable. Also, the frequency is left at 15 minute service so large amounts of parallel tracking is not needed. A service frequency of 15 minutes should be sufficient for quite a while, especially since the service is supplemented by the SE Transitway. Remember, this train is not going to have many people transfer onto it to get to downtown. It will basically carry what the current O-Train does, with the addition of a few people from Riverside South, once that gets built up.

Since there would be a total of 5 trainsets, plus (2) spares, we would need to find 4 trainsets. We currently have 3. Yes, you can run diesel through a tunnel, but the ventilation will cost more. However, the tracks could be electrified (overhead) and electric LRVs bought. My preference, would be to buy 7 eLRVs and sell our current 3 Talents. These eLRVs would need power, but otherwise could run on the existing and extended tracks.

I would suggest that gradually over the quiet summers, sections of track can be moved over and twinned. It should be possible to do this mostly without disturbing the service. Where structures need to be replaced, there will be breaks in the service.

[upinottawa]

From today's Citizen:

Stop this runaway train going south

Randall Denley, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, September 18, 2008

Federal election candidates have been quick to criticize Ottawa's new transit plan. The opportunity to echo what ill-informed people are telling them must be irresistible, but the politicians couldn't be more off base.

The real problem is not that light rail might run along the Ottawa River Parkway or that it won't go to the far reaches of the suburbs, as candidates have said. The big deficiency in this transit plan is that staff are pushing councillors to extend rail south, just the kind of approach that voters rejected in the last municipal election. Look closely at the city's own numbers and you will see that the east-west rail line that voters favour is strongly supported by the facts.

Buried deep on the city's website are all the numbers that one needs to make a rational choice, but the city has done nothing to draw attention to them. Federal candidates should check these numbers before they commit themselves to positions they will regret if elected.

City staff favour a plan that would extend rail to Blair Station in the east and lightly-populated Riverside South. It would include a downtown tunnel. The prime competitor is an east-west line that would go from Blair to Baseline station by way of the downtown tunnel. This plan would also serve the south, with an O-Train extension.

The numbers strongly favour the east-west plan. It would attract the most riders, five million a year more than east-south. The extra ridership means a 10-percentage-point increase in the amount of total transit cost borne by riders. The east-south line gives just five per cent. That's important because it reduces the operating subsidy for the transit system each and every year. The east-west line would carry 25 per cent of all passengers, while the other line would carry only 13 per cent.

East-west has a 50-per-cent lower capital cost per passenger kilometre. It also generates $90 million a year in operating cost savings because it takes more buses off the street. The east-west plan would remove 90 per cent of buses from Albert and Slater streets, twice as much as east-south.

Environmentally, east-west wins hands down. Because it relies more on electric rail, it produces nearly 50 per cent more greenhouse gas reductions. The east-west line also fits within the city's goal of delivering the high-cost rail service inside the Greenbelt, where most of the riders live. That plan would put 86 per cent of new transit infrastructure inside the belt, versus only 48 per cent for east-south.

Given all of that, one would have to ask why staff want to start with the southern route and delay the western leg for another decade. The answer is simply because they can build it now. Most of the studies required are done and the city could gratify those who want instant action.

Deputy city manager Nancy Schepers admits that the southern extension is the "lowest volume line," and calls going against the inside-the-Greenbelt philosophy "an anomaly." What Schepers is really doing is thinking like a politician and trying to please the crowd instead of making a rational recommendation.

The city is also concerned because there is not yet an agreement with the National Capital Commission to permit rail to use 3.5 kilometres of the Ottawa River Parkway. The parkway plan was roundly condemned by all three major Ottawa Centre candidates, who can enjoy the luxury of opposing the western extension and still getting rail in their riding.

To listen to politicians talk, one would think the parkway was a virgin forest. Have they noticed that it's a four-lane road loaded with buses? Switching to trains would eliminate the buses and improve the parkway. The proper way to do it would be to take two of the car lanes and devote them to transit. That would reduce the existing traffic volume on the parkway even more.

The NCC, quite rightly, wants to be persuaded that its property is the best route for a rail line west. That doesn't mean the argument can't be made, and won. The idea that this wrinkle means that people in the west shouldn't get rail until the second decade of the plan is absurd. That's what federal candidates in the west should be talking about.

The east-west line is the top choice in ridership, cost effectiveness, benefit to customers, benefit to the environment, reducing downtown congestion and supporting a compact city. The only areas where it runs second are ease of implementation and conformity to council's confusing transit guidance.

The fact that Ottawa's new transit plan is out for public consultation in the middle of a federal election is rather unfortunate. It invites even more politicians to sound off about a project that has always suffered from an excess of political thinking and a shortage of rational examination. See the facts for yourself at www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/tmp/transit/phase 3 and click on evaluation summary.

Contact Randall Denley at 613-596-3756 or by e-mail, rdenley@thecitizen.canwest.com



© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

[Cre47]

Those who will likely support

Bellemare
Jellett
Monette
Bloess
McRae
Hume
Holmes
Bedard
Legendre
O'Brien
Cullen

Those who leans on support

Desroches
Thompson

Harder (while not happy she will support the recommendation - source Barrhaven This week)

Those who will likely support because it will not run on the Parkway for now

Leadman
Deans

Not sure

Feltmate
Qadri
Brooks

Leaning Against

Doucet
El-Chantiry
Chiarelli

Against

Wilkinson
Hunter

Any mistakes? This is mostly based on newspapers, comments and some on past votes. We know that most if not all the East end councillors will be on board. Leadman and Deans had issues because of the Parkway right? Meanwhile I have not placed any west end councillors on the list for now. However, I sense since the project includes some south end wards, it will likely pass probably in the 14-10 to 16-8 range.

[c_speed3108]

Those who will likely support
...

Any mistakes? This is mostly based on newspapers, comments and some on past votes. We know that most if not all the East end councillors will be on board. Leadman and Deans had issues because of the Parkway right? Meanwhile I have not placed any west end councillors on the list for now. However, I sense since the project includes some south end wards, it will likely pass probably in the 14-10 to 16-8 range.


The list sounds reasonable to me...at least off the top of my head.

What I fond so sad about this process and the NSLRT before it, is the council almost voted exclusively based on whether it went through a particular ward or close to..

Monette was one of the very few who have voted differently.