Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[McC]

we'll see how far this goes, but it's finally injecting some sense in these Transitway extension planning exercises!

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Now if only could have those studies for all expansions.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by DubberDom

For immediate release:

Wednesday, September 8, 2010



Getting Light Rail to Orléans


Another step forward was taken today in the fight to get light rail to Orléans.

Cumberland ward Councillor Rob Jellett was successful in getting Council today to approve a motion that would see staff investigate the opportunities to put rail on the new Cumberland Transitway instead of buses.

The motion seconded by Innes Ward Councillor Bloess and supported by Orléans Ward Councillor Monette would see light rail extended from the Blair Road station to Trim Road if the business case shows the investment in LRT would be more beneficial than using buses.

This says Jellett "would allow Orléans / Cumberland residents to hop on the train right in their neighbourhoods and not get off until they got to work in the downtown area."

"The Cumberland Transitway which is expected to cost $340 million has been designed to accommodate light rail," says Jellett, "and if we can put rail on it right from the beginning we have better served the residents of Orléans''.

Innes Ward Councillor Rainer Bloess says "We are ensuring that that we can take advantage of any opportunity to bring light rail further east at the earliest moment"

Orléans Ward Councillor Bob Monette agrees, saying he was pleased the motion was passed as this gives another option to expedite light rail to Orléans, the community with the highest ridership in Ottawa.

Where are they going to get all the money to build a tunnel (already short funded) AND an extension to Cumberland?!

[lrt's friend]

I do like Ottawa's scatterbrain approach to transit. We plan a corridor (Cumberland Transitway) as rail then a busway then rail again and because we designed it for buses we plan rail as if it were a busway. Or we plan rapid transit in sections then skip sections like the western Transitway. Skip the section to Pinecrest then build Bayshore then plan to Moodie then skip to Eagleson then plan to Stittsville. You could never do this with a rail based system.

The big question, where is all the money going to come from to build all of this? Once the first section is built with the tunnel, will the city be able to take on any more debt to build anything more for the next 20 years?

I do agree that where it makes sense, it will ultimately be cheaper to build LRT without a busway intermediate step and you also don't face the conversion service interruption that we are currently proposing.

[DubberDom]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I do agree that where it makes sense, it will ultimately be cheaper to build LRT without a busway intermediate step and you also don't face the conversion service interruption that we are currently proposing.

This is likely the first common sense approach to a screwed up plan.

The reality is that the Cumberland Transitway is still years to being viable, the proposed service area is about 75% vacant farmland, but the Montfort may be a catalyst.

Also, if they build it, I'm sure they would also consider building a transit hub around it, so that people from "South of 174" may take a local route to LRT station along 10th Line, Mer Bleue or Navan Rd.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by DubberDom

This is likely the first common sense approach to a screwed up plan.

The reality is that the Cumberland Transitway is still years to being viable, the proposed service area is about 75% vacant farmland, but the Montfort may be a catalyst.

Also, if they build it, I'm sure they would also consider building a transit hub around it, so that people from "South of 174" may take a local route to LRT station along 10th Line, Mer Bleue or Navan Rd.

Just wait for all the claims of conflicts of interests because of certain politicians involvement with developers or land ownership along the corridor. Or claims of supporting certainly developers who happen to own land there. That all came out (whether true or not) with the North-South plan. In any event, why should rapid transit not arrive before all the land is developed? We need to be more proactive with transit. It is time to start moving transit ahead of road building if we want to have any hope of moving away from the suburban car culture.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It is time to start moving transit ahead of road building if we want to have any hope of moving away from the suburban car culture.

It is a good idea but good luck getting that one to become part of the culture of city hall or the electorate. What might be better is to reserve rights of way through new developments so that developers and purchasers know where the future service will be. The right of way would be reserved for any type of transit BRT, LRT, subway, commuter rail etc. The only drawback to this approach is that residents get used to the idea of having a quiet pathway in their back yard even though the purpose of the land can be made very clear at the time of purchase. For example the residents of south Kanata and Stittsville would probably not want the rail tracks put back down through to Carleton Place even if they were restricted only to commuter or passenger trains.

If the rights of way are there then as the area is developed the type of service can be decided upon. Once rail service is provided on one part of the right of way it gets increasingly difficult for governments to build a different kind to service. As you have pointed out, the basic transport system now is road based but there is no reason why it has to be the only system.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Franky

Looks like a sane plan to me. I think a BRT tunnel (using trolley buses) would have a better upgrade path (and still be affordable) because it is grade separated which makes automation possible in the future.

I agree, if by "sane" you mean "batshit crazy".

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I agree, if by "sane" you mean "batshit crazy".

Elaborate.

[DubberDom]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The only drawback to this approach is that residents get used to the idea of having a quiet pathway in their back yard even though the purpose of the land can be made very clear at the time of purchase.

Tell that to NIMBY Alta Vista residents. The Alta Vista Parkway has been in the plan for 50 years, the community was built with the plan to eventually have that roadway go through... but nothing yet due to local NIMBY politics.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I do like Ottawa's scatterbrain approach to transit. We plan a corridor (Cumberland Transitway) as rail then a busway then rail again and because we designed it for buses we plan rail as if it were a busway.

You're so wrong.

The Cumberland corridor went from being a busway, to being a light railway in the 2003 TMP but possibly to be built initially as a busway to being a busway in the 2008 TMP that was ultimately to be converted to light rail post-2031 to now, maybe, being light rail from the outset.



I just wonder where these three councillors were when LRT was deleted from the Cumberland corridor in the new TMP, or when the OP was amended with a poison pill provision to make extending LRT to the suburbs extraordinarily difficult.

Or we plan rapid transit in sections then skip sections like the western Transitway. Skip the section to Pinecrest then build Bayshore then plan to Moodie then skip to Eagleson then plan to Stittsville. You could never do this with a rail based system.

But... but... if you planned things without skipping sections then how would our consultants show the rest of the world how flexible BRT is? And you might start giving people the idea that some kind of actual rapid transit system existed too, leading to all sorts of unreasonable demands to convert it to rail.

The big question, where is all the money going to come from to build all of this? Once the first section is built with the tunnel, will the city be able to take on any more debt to build anything more for the next 20 years?

I do agree that where it makes sense, it will ultimately be cheaper to build LRT without a busway intermediate step and you also don't face the conversion service interruption that we are currently proposing.

The sad thing is that our consultants continue to design the transitways on 20-year old designs without thinking about how they will ultimately be converted. That includes stations which are designed on the four-lane and two side platforms model. It really is preposterous to justify a transitway on the basis of getting reliable service and at the same time to essentially assume that that service will be interrupted at a future date when it is carrying more people and, presumably, the roads it would have to use during conversion are busier too.

[waterloowarrior]

info on the winning bidder for preliminary engineering (not Delcan)

[lrt's friend]

The sad thing is that our consultants continue to design the transitways on 20-year old designs without thinking about how they will ultimately be converted. That includes stations which are designed on the four-lane and two side platforms model. It really is preposterous to justify a transitway on the basis of getting reliable service and at the same time to essentially assume that that service will be interrupted at a future date when it is carrying more people and, presumably, the roads it would have to use during conversion are busier too.

Whoever thought rapid transit conversion was a good idea in the first place really didn't consider the impact of such conversion on transit riders.

I have said it before, you choose the corridor you want to serve and decide what technology is practical and a good fit on that corridor, whether buses, trams, LRT, heavy rail or a subway. Forget about possible conversion. You stick with your technology choice and make the best of it. Once you reach absolute capacity, you need to build on a competing corridor. For example, all the talk of the Downtown Relief Line in Toronto to take pressure off the Yonge Street Subway.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Whoever thought rapid transit conversion was a good idea in the first place really didn't consider the impact of such conversion on transit riders.

I have said it before, you choose the corridor you want to serve and decide what technology is practical and a good fit on that corridor, whether buses, trams, LRT, heavy rail or a subway. Forget about possible conversion. You stick with your technology choice and make the best of it. Once you reach absolute capacity, you need to build on a competing corridor. For example, all the talk of the Downtown Relief Line in Toronto to take pressure off the Yonge Street Subway.

I don't think anyone is for transit conversions. The issue was that BRT was a bad choice in the first place and it needs to be fixed.

Adding secondary LRT routes won't modify much the blunt of the traffic, which is on the main Transitway routes.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I don't think anyone is for transit conversions. The issue was that BRT was a bad choice in the first place and it needs to be fixed.

Adding secondary LRT routes won't modify much the blunt of the traffic, which is on the main Transitway routes.

We cannot undo decisions made 30 years ago and I believe that we are making a big mistake trying to 'fix' it as you say. The amount of disruption is going to be incredible and I think that this has not sunk in yet, whether to our politicians or the public at large and especially to the average transit rider who is going to be directly affected. Ridership losses are a very real possibility during the conversion and transit costs are going to increase significantly during the conversion period. The only carrot being that cost savings are offered afterwards but again, are we really delivering any better service to attract new riders? What is particulary disturbing is that we are going to disrupt the entire rapid transit network at the same time because of the route that we have deliberately chosen. How do we avoid chaos? If a little construction on Slater can cause so many problems, how do we avoid something much worse by blocking the Transitways at Hurdman and Tunney's Pasture, not for 3 months but for 3 years?

Let's get this straight, we shouldn't call alternate routes to the Transitway as secondary. The North-South plan (which is still part of the current plan) clearly make it the primary route from the south. We can do the same with an east-west route by locating it correctly and making it sufficiently grade separated. If we build LRT correctly on a new route, and it has the appeal that so many claim over buses, people will use it and this will take pressure off the Transitways leading into downtown. I think the ideal of taking most of the buses off downtown streets has too big of price tag and we should be looking at getting the best bang for our buck. That means, building something truly new and getting new transit riders from new parts of the city that are not presently served by any sort of rapid transit.

Hospitals are major transit destinations and yet not one of our four major hospitals is going to be on our primary rapid transit routes. This is bad planning. The fact that 3 of hospitals are on secondary routes shows the lack of priority as the secondary routes will be much slower and most likely to be cancelled as a result of budgetary constraints.

[Franky]

Haydon said using the tunnel for bus rapid transit would leave the city with a $65 million surplus—which could be used to increase service to Stittsville and the rural areas.

http://www.yourottawaregion.com/news...pic-for-haydon

Does this mean he expects the tunnel to come in under $1.2 billion, what the fed and prov kicked in? Wow. No $900+ million debt.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

http://www.yourottawaregion.com/news...pic-for-haydon

Does this mean he expects the tunnel to come in under $1.2 billion, what the fed and prov kicked in? Wow. No $900+ million debt.

I don't think we can get away with this. The federal and provincial contributions will be made based on the city contributing their 1/3 (or $600 million). That is not so bad if it is invested in some of the other rapid transit priorities. In other words, moving other projects ahead faster.

The only way a bus tunnel will work is if we maintain the surface route as well. Anything that allows us to move more passengers into downtown over the status quo is an improvement.

[citizen j]

Is "pushing the reset button" now a prerequisite for Ottawa Mayors and Mayoral Candidates?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by citizen j

Is "pushing the reset button" now a prerequisite for Ottawa Mayors and Mayoral Candidates?

"pushing the reset button" led to the currently planned boondoggle. This is more like damage control or repairing the filesystem after some idiot hit the reset button mid write. I wasn't a fan of the original plan, 4 years ago, but Larry ended up costing us all.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by citizen j

Is "pushing the reset button" now a prerequisite for Ottawa Mayors and Mayoral Candidates?

Well, if there were a great plan that people felt was affordable and provided better transit, then there would be no need to "push the reset button". In this case, I think that there were blatant flaws in the old N/S LRT plan which the majority of people could see (excluding City Staff, obviously) so the masses strongly backed a reset. The latest plan still doesn't seem to sit well with the majority of people. Yes, they agree that a tunnel is the way to 'fix' congestion in the core, but they are not convinced that they need to spend $6.2B (latest number I have seen for the entire plan) for the latest grand scheme.

In general, I think the people of Ottawa just want something which will provide better transit for a reasonable price. And I think Andy's idea will appeal to many. It does not totally replace the back-bone of the existing system; it does not force nearly everyone to transfer once, twice, or thrice; it does not cost $2.1B for a short section of rail. What it does is to provide the needed capacity through the core without too much disruption of the rest of the system; it allows the Express buses to remain; it is less expensive because it maintains a lot of the existing infrastructure.

Is it possible to provide the required capacity using buses? ABSOLUTELY! By adding a tunnel, there are effectively twice the number of lanes through the core. It would be like dedicating additional lanes on Albert and Slater to buses - but without displacing any of the other traffic. Plus, the north-south traffic conflicts are removed.

The current LRT tunnel will leave an estimated 34% of buses on Albert and Slater; this is about 60 buses per direction during peak hours. If there were a bus tunnel, its capacity would be over 200 buses per hour per direction. By moving 66% of the current buses from the surface into the bus tunnel, the surface would be improved to the same extent as with the LRT plan. However, there would only be 120 buses in the tunnel, or less than 60% of its capacity; leaving plenty of room to grow.

It is funny how people seem to think that a bus tunnel needs to take ALL the buses off of Albert and Slater, but that it would be OK if the train left 34% of the buses running there.