HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3481  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2010, 7:51 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
Why are you talking LRT along Cumberland transitway? People, stop dreaming, LRT is a least 30 years away from there... build the bus-way ASAP! Screw LRT, that's the dumbest idea this city ever had.

Instead of LRT, we should simply build the tunnel through downtown (let's assume $1Billion), and consider using Bi-Articulated buses for transitway only (instead of a silly train) and feed through existing transitway bus stations. No more express buses to downtown, but have the articulated buses come by every 2-3 minutes in rush hour (that would solve the bus gridlock)



What is the fascination with trains anyway???
We already know the problems with articulated buses during snow storms. Bi-articulated buses would never work here. Notice the palm trees in the picture. Great in climates that get no snow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3482  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2010, 8:01 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
What is the fascination with trains anyway???
You see, there's a magical thing called operating costs. Let's say you have something wonderful that costs a third of gasoline, and doesn't pollute. This new invention is called electricity! But wait! Then you find out that you can displace 17 bus drivers for every 18, because only one is needed to ride the new powerful and prestigious vehicle that runs on this electricity.

Of course, I'd prefer keeping my taxes high and pay 80M$ a year in extra operating costs for my buses! I love my buses so much! Especially when they're burning gas for 30 minutes when stuck downtown. Now I know my taxes dollars are well spent! Who cares if LRT can save the city 80M$ a year I <3 buses.


Even if the tunnel is 2G$, it would still be cheaper to build the damn tunnel than to continue running buses. But wait, common sense tells me that a 2 billion tunnel is twice the price of the current estimation, and it's not affordable now at 1G$? Well read my tag.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3483  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2010, 8:08 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
Why are you talking LRT along Cumberland transitway?
Because it was in the 2003 TMP and the long term post-2031 plan calls for LRT along this corridor. Therefore it makes sense to consider the design of the corridor for light rail as well as BRT.

Quote:
People, stop dreaming, LRT is a least 30 years away from there...
And if it's designed poorly, people like you will argue in 30 years to leave it as BRT. We made those mistakes a generation ago, we should not be repeating them again. We have a responsibility to future generations to not make life more difficult for them.

Quote:
build the bus-way ASAP! Screw LRT, that's the dumbest idea this city ever had.
No, the dumbest idea this city ever had would be removing the trains from downtown Ottawa. For its part, BRT was the second dumbest idea this city has ever had.

Quote:
Instead of LRT, we should simply build the tunnel through downtown (let's assume $1Billion),
... which won't solve a thing other than to bury the problem, out of sight, out of mind.

The problem isn't surface running. The problem is using buses.

Quote:
and consider using Bi-Articulated buses for transitway only (instead of a silly train) and feed through existing transitway bus stations.
And how is that significantly cheaper than conversion to light rail? Bi-articulated buses have to be high-floor since the driving wheels have to be in the leading section (no trailer driving as with the current artics). That means that to get reasonable boarding times, all stations have to be heavily retrofitted for much higher floors.

Quote:
No more express buses to downtown, but have the articulated buses come by every 2-3 minutes in rush hour (that would solve the bus gridlock)
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. A bi-articulated bus has, at best, the approximate capacity of a *single* light rail vehicle (it's probably less since standing room is more limited in buses). Currently, we would need a 2-car train every two minutes or a 3-car train every three minutes (i.e. 60 cars per hour, and that's probably low). That's just for today, without regard to the future. So we would need a biartic every minute right now. Moreover, by replacing all express buses you'd get rid of the one claimed advantage of BRT: the transferless ride. So you'd have all the problems of BRT with none of the advantages, without having many, if any, of the advantages of LRT.


Quote:
What is the fascination with trains anyway???
What is the fascination with buses? Pick the right tool for the job. Buses are the wrong tool for high volume line hauling.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3484  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2010, 8:23 PM
DubberDom DubberDom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 201
Counter argument:
http://www.thespec.com/news/local/ar...-say-advocates

and let's not forget that the transitway will be closed during the conversion to light rail... for an estimated 3 years!! And also the LRT will go nowhere... Tunney's Pasture??? Who cares, you'll end up with 250 buses at Tunney's to bring people where they live and no real plan to extend the rail until another 20 years??? Silly!! how is that more efficient??

Either LRT runs from Centrum to PLace D'Orleans from Day 1, or else it is a useless waste of money
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3485  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2010, 8:28 PM
citizen j's Avatar
citizen j citizen j is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,029
^Oh, look! They talked with totally unbiased BRT advocate Andy Haydon. What a surprise.
__________________
The world is so full of a number of things
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3486  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2010, 8:29 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
* Ottawa's Transitway BRT has led to up to $1-billion US in new construction around transit stations.

Which stations?!

TOD is about the lowest in Canada for Ottawa's system.

There are many reports on system costs you can find around. There is the vehicle choice report from Delcan, that explain the costs per user really well.

* Property values near Brisbane's South East Busway grew 20 per cent; properties within 10 kilometres of stations grew two to three times faster than those at greater distance.

Basically, 10 kilometres is about the size of the city of Paris proper! How silly of an argument is that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3487  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2010, 8:32 PM
DubberDom DubberDom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
And how is that significantly cheaper than conversion to light rail? Bi-articulated buses have to be high-floor since the driving wheels have to be in the leading section (no trailer driving as with the current artics). That means that to get reasonable boarding times, all stations have to be heavily retrofitted for much higher floors.
really???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3488  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2010, 8:42 PM
DubberDom DubberDom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 201
Also, quit the silly arguments about passenger capacity

Bi-articulated BRT - between 180 to 270 assengers depending on model

4-car LRT - 220 passengers.


and another silly argument about "Electricity" as the holy grail... let's see... how do we make electricity in Ontario???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3489  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2010, 9:05 PM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
Also, quit the silly arguments about passenger capacity

Bi-articulated BRT - between 180 to 270 assengers depending on model

4-car LRT - 220 passengers.


and another silly argument about "Electricity" as the holy grail... let's see... how do we make electricity in Ontario???
Nuclear 36.6%
Hydroelectric 24.9%
Coal 20.6%
Oil/Gas 16.4%
Wind 1.3%
Biomass/Landfill Gas 0.2%

*IESO 2006. An Assessment of the Reliability of the Ontario Electricity System. http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/marke...ok_2006dec.pdf (accessed 5 April 2007).

Traditional bus:
Nuclear 0%
Hydroelectric 0%
Coal 0%
Oil/Gas 100%
Wind 0%
Biomass/Landfill Gas 0%
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3490  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2010, 10:23 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
really???
Internally, that bus's floor has lots of high-floor sections. Since the engine is not at the back and it's not electric, it has to be under the floor somewhere. Internal circulation and capacity will be compromised, both of which affect boarding and alighting times. That's why the South American cities use high-floor models.

That model also has a ~365 hp engine. The current artics have 330 hp - and they're already considered underpowered for high-speed transitway running.

When you have low-floor buses, something has to give, and that's especially true with bi-articulated designs.

You're basically trying to put in place a bus design wholly unsuited to the task you're trying to accomplish. But take heart, you're not alone. Andy Haydon does that too. He thinks that hybrid buses are the answer to tunnel ventilation and noise issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
If you want to be taken seriously, don't point to articles involving Andy Haydon. Or Randal O'Toole.

Quote:
and let's not forget that the transitway will be closed during the conversion to light rail... for an estimated 3 years!! And also the LRT will go nowhere... Tunney's Pasture??? Who cares, you'll end up with 250 buses at Tunney's to bring people where they live and no real plan to extend the rail until another 20 years??? Silly!! how is that more efficient??
These are failings of the City's plan, not of LRT... a plan, I might add, that was developed by consultants whose experience in Ottawa is building BRT. These are the same consultants who designed "convertible" transitways without figuring out how they would be converted non-disruptively to LRT when the time came. People more conspiratorially-minded might be tempted to argue that the BRT consultants are trying to make LRT look bad.

Anyway, most of us would actually agree with you on the specific points above, none of which are failings of light rail.

Even so, the BRT system over the 12 km from Blair to Tunney's is so damned inefficient that replacing it will save $100M annually.

Quote:
Either LRT runs from Centrum to PLace D'Orleans from Day 1, or else it is a useless waste of money
I wouldn't go that far, but we should definitely be able to open it up from Baseline and Blair on Day 1, and preferably Bayshore as well so as to avoid having useless mega-transfer stations at Tunney's and Lincoln Fields. After that, extensions across the Greenbelt should be carried out ASAP, and down the SE Transitway as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
Also, quit the silly arguments about passenger capacity
Good plan. So why are you starting one?

Quote:
Bi-articulated BRT - between 180 to 270 assengers depending on model

4-car LRT - 220 passengers.
A biartic bus is about 24-25 m in length. To get 270 passengers into this bus would require cramming more than 10 passengers per lineal metre of bus. Given that buses are about 2.5 m wide, you're cramming 4 people per square metre of bus. That's doable - they do it in South America - but it's not what you want to be doing if you want people to take transit.

Even 180 is pushing it. I've been in a 25 m C-Train car in Calgary with about that many people in it, and that wasn't too pleasant, but at least it was on a railcar that doesn't buck like crazy when it's underway and it has large open areas around the doors.

As for your claim that a 4-car LRT would only carry 220, that's just laughable. Where did you get that from? 220 just happens to be the claimed "crush" capacity of the 29 m Siemens S70, the vehicle we were to get with the N-S LRT. A 4-car LRT of those would have a capacity of 880, not 220.

Quote:
and another silly argument about "Electricity" as the holy grail... let's see... how do we make electricity in Ontario???
Isn't this a red herring since no one raised it before you?

Regardless, power-station electricity is probably still cleaner than refined diesel, at the end of the day. Moreover, electricity has better acceleration characteristics and braking can return power to the grid.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3491  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2010, 10:46 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
By the time the LRT is up and running, the most polluting form of electricity supplied to it will be natural gas, which only creates CO2.

BRT might make sense for Hamilton, but they are predicting ridership much lower than the current ridership on the transitway in downtown Ottawa. Transit is a spectrum, and while Ottawa might have made some odd choices with technology, train length, and highfloor vs low floor, the solution they are pushing in the EA is still light years ahead of a bus tunnel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3492  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2010, 3:48 AM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
Counter argument:
[url]Either LRT runs from Centrum to PLace D'Orleans from Day 1, or else it is a useless waste of money
By the same standard, Toronto would never have had a subway; on Day 1, the TTC subway was about the same length as the currently still-only-on-the-drawing-board Ottawa LRT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3493  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2010, 2:11 PM
Suzie Suzie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
Why are you talking LRT along Cumberland transitway? People, stop dreaming, LRT is a least 30 years away from there... build the bus-way ASAP! Screw LRT, that's the dumbest idea this city ever had.

Instead of LRT, we should simply build the tunnel through downtown (let's assume $1Billion), and consider using Bi-Articulated buses for transitway only (instead of a silly train) and feed through existing transitway bus stations. No more express buses to downtown, but have the articulated buses come by every 2-3 minutes in rush hour (that would solve the bus gridlock)
I think that double-decker buses with three wide doors and two staircases would be better suited to meet our needs than bi-articulated buses. Franky had the opportunity to ride such buses and his feedback was positive (see http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ostcount=4186).

In a previous post, I outlined the advantages of a bus tunnel option using such buses (see http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ostcount=4165). As compared to our LRT plan, it would produce substantial savings in capital costs and offer users superior service. It would cost more to operate but not much more – as compared to an LRT system with a Blair to Baseline Line and the N/S Line, I estimated the incremental operating costs at around $30M-$35M per year, which is much less than the mythical $100M per year figure just for the Blair to Tunney’s segment being bandied about.

The bus tunnel option would not be my preferred option though. I still think that, if done right, a surface bus option could achieve almost the same result and save $750M or so in the process. However, implementation would require major changes (i.e., to the road network to divert traffic from Albert/Slater to Laurier and to the way we operate our bus system) and commitment toward traffic enforcement. Above all, it would require a lot of political courage. I wish that the City would have done a fair evaluation of both bus options.

Quote:
What is the fascination with trains anyway???
There are some people who legitimately believe that rail is the best option. However, I also think that there are also other factors at play:

• You’ve already seen in many of the responses a focus on operating costs, as opposed to total costs. Municipalities share this fixation, which is a well-documented, perverse result of the availability of capital subsidies from senior governments (provinces/states, feds).

• There are some people who believe that you can only be a “world-class” city if you have a rail system, preferably a subway. They claim that only rail can offer “real rapid transit”, even though, if done right, a BRT system can provide better service (see above). They are undeterred by the fact that Ottawa does better than similar-sized North American cities with rail in terms transit ridership.

• They believe that rail will “drive” land use.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3494  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2010, 2:19 PM
Suzie Suzie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 245
I keep coming across references that the DOTT will reduce operating costs by $100M per year. At first glance, this is had to believe since operating costs for all OC Transpo is currently about $300M per year.

As far as I can tell (but I may be wrong), the source of the $100M estimate is the 2009 Tactical Plan. Table 7 of the Plan suggests that, in 2019, operating costs would be $522M based on “current practices” versus $416M under an “Alternative Service Delivery Model”. The difference is about $100M.

It is important to note that the “Alternative Service Delivery Model” has three main elements:

1. Reducing coverage of bus service throughout the City so that 91% of households would be within 400m of a bus stop (versus 98.6% today). According to Table 5 of the Tactical Plan, this would reduce operating costs by 7.4%. This translates into savings of $39M in 2019. This has nothing to do with DOTT and lrt's friend, in particular, has already noted that this will negatively impact users.

2. Switch to hub-and-spoke.

3. Truncation of bus service at LRT stations.

The Tactical Plan does not clearly separate out cost savings estimates between elements #2 and #3. However, it does provide hints of the relative importance of the two:

• Table 9 provides estimates for the STO/Rapibus. It shows that the switch to hub-and-spoke generates the bulk of the cost reductions (30% reduction in bus-hours). Truncation at Bayview reduces bus-hours by only 6.5% -- if bus costs are $150 per revenue-hour, then the truncation would save a mere $5.1M per year.

• Table 12 provides estimates for an early opening of the Blair to Campus segment (an unfeasible option in my opinion since Campus could not handle the volume of transfers). The early opening would reduce operating costs in 2018 by $17M. However, these are savings generated by replacing buses that are bogged down in construction (not normal Transitway service).

• Table 11 is the most interesting. It suggests that the “Alternative Service Delivery Model Without Rail” (i.e., all-bus “hub-and-spoke” using Albert/Slater) would have lower operating costs than the “Alternative Service Delivery Model” with rail -- $401M versus $416M. At first, I was surprised by these results. But then the “Alternative Service Delivery Model Without Rail” would be able to capture some of the large savings alluded to in Table 8 (i.e., the savings generated by truncating feeders at Orleans/Kanata/Barrhaven, instead of at Blair and Tunney’s). Realizing these savings under the “Alternative Service Delivery Model” with rail would force many riders to transfer twice to reach downtown, something that is rightly regarded as unacceptable.

I am personally very sceptical of the estimated savings for the switch to “hub-and-spoke” that are found in the document. But hey, they were produced by the City so they must be accurate. If they are indeed correct or in the right ballpark, then yes, despite the ridership losses, I would be in favour of OC Transpo switching to “hub-and-spoke”, but without the DOTT.

Last edited by Suzie; Aug 31, 2010 at 1:35 AM. Reason: Changed 2nd para as amounts in Tactical Plan appear to be in constant $. Cost per revenue hour at STO was increased to $150
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3495  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2010, 2:27 PM
Suzie Suzie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
The problem isn't surface running. The problem is using buses.
Nonsense. As I have noted in the past (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ostcount=4167), our bus system operates under a very challenging and hostile environment. It also has to deal with design deficiencies at many key stations. I would venture to say that a high-capacity rail system could not operate on a sustained basis under such conditions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3496  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2010, 3:34 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
Counter argument:
http://www.thespec.com/news/local/ar...-say-advocates

and let's not forget that the transitway will be closed during the conversion to light rail... for an estimated 3 years!! And also the LRT will go nowhere... Tunney's Pasture??? Who cares, you'll end up with 250 buses at Tunney's to bring people where they live and no real plan to extend the rail until another 20 years??? Silly!! how is that more efficient??

Either LRT runs from Centrum to PLace D'Orleans from Day 1, or else it is a useless waste of money
I agree that the train system should run from (at least) from Centrum to Place D'Orleans from the start. There exists a train system that is fully automated, inexpensively elevated, electric and affordable. It is called Urbanaut (urbanaut.com) and is being deployed in South Korea. Further discussions can continue in the future of Ottawa transit thread if desired.
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3497  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2010, 9:01 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,655
The way I look at it, light rail (surface or underground) is a proven technology and has been used for over a century in cities all over the world, including those with harsh winters. The technology can all be bought off the shelf and there will be numerous bidders. All of these other ideas have very limited implementations (if any at all) in cities that don't get winter the way we would understand it. Ottawa tried an experimental technology once and spent billions on the world's only grade-seperated BRT system that has not been emulated and now needs to be replaced at an enormous cost. Maybe the city is missing out by not being an early adopter of some experimental technoogy, but I think they have made the more prudent decision.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3498  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2010, 2:27 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
I truly worry about a botch up of implementation of LRT which will result in a loss of ridership and slower travel times. The amount of transit disruption is going to be incredible. Just remember all the bellyaching about disruption to 10,000 passengers on the O-Train line for 3 years. Now we are expecting a similar 3 year disruption for what, 200,000 passengers and not a whimper of concern.

I went to the Ottawa light rail website and noted that LRT will be as much as 44 metres underground or 143 feet. This is even more than I was aware of. For our very first tunnel, this is outrageously deep.

Of further interest, Edmonton City Council approved a surface downtown LRT connector on June 21st. Interesting to all those who say that surface LRT would be a waste of money and even ruin downtown Ottawa. What is interesting is how Ottawa's tunnel plan actually eliminates surface downtown transit connections which may preclude a surface downtown LRT connector in the future. I have said this all along that this is a foolish choice and we will regret it.

Concerning what Toronto did in 1954 with its first subway, just remember that this was largely before suburban sprawl and Toronto was a much more compact city than Ottawa is today. I will further point out that this subway followed Yonge Street, where people actually live and do business. Much of our plan follows the Queensway where most developement backs away from.

Last edited by lrt's friend; Aug 30, 2010 at 2:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3499  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2010, 3:04 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzie View Post
I keep coming across references that the DOTT will reduce operating costs by $100M per year. At first glance, this is had to believe since operating costs for all OC Transpo is currently about $300M per year.

As far as I can tell (but I may be wrong), the source of the $100M estimate is the 2009 Tactical Plan. Table 7 of the Plan suggests that, in 2019, operating costs would be $522M based on “current practices” versus $416M under an “Alternative Service Delivery Model”. The difference is about $100M. All of these figures, unlike the capital cost estimate for the DOTT ($2.1B at current 2009 prices), are expressed in nominal terms. Expressing them at current 2009 prices would reduce the amounts by more than 20% (assuming 2% per year inflation).

It is important to note that the “Alternative Service Delivery Model” has three main elements:

1. Reducing coverage of bus service throughout the City so that 91% of households would be within 400m of a bus stop (versus 98.6% today). According to Table 5 of the Tactical Plan, this would reduce operating costs by 7.4%. This translates into savings of $39M in 2019. This has nothing to do with DOTT and lrt friend, in particular, has already noted that this will negatively impact users.

2. Switch to hub-and-spoke.

3. Truncation of bus service at LRT stations.

The Tactical Plan does not clearly separate out cost savings estimates between elements #2 and #3. However, it does provide hints of the relative importance of the two:

• Table 9 provides estimates for the STO/Rapibus. It shows that the switch to hub-and-spoke generates the bulk of the cost reductions (30% reduction in bus-hours). Truncation at Bayview reduces bus-hours by only 6.5% -- if costs are $100 per bus-hour, then the truncation would save a mere $3.4M per year.

• Table 12 provides estimates for an early opening of the Blair to Campus segment (an unfeasible option in my opinion since Campus could not handle the volume of transfers). The early opening would reduce operating costs in 2018 by $17M. However, these are savings generated by replacing buses that are bogged down in construction (not normal Transitway service).

• Table 11 is the most interesting. It suggests that the “Alternative Service Delivery Model Without Rail” (i.e., all-bus “hub-and-spoke” using Albert/Slater) would have lower operating costs than the “Alternative Service Delivery Model” with rail -- $401M versus $416M. At first, I was surprised by these results. But then the “Alternative Service Delivery Model Without Rail” would be able to capture some of the large savings alluded to in Table 8 (i.e., the savings generated by truncating feeders at Orleans/Kanata/Barrhaven, instead of at Blair and Tunney’s). Realizing these savings under the “Alternative Service Delivery Model” with rail would force many riders to transfer twice to reach downtown, something that is rightly regarded as unacceptable.

I am personally very sceptical of the estimated savings for the switch to “hub-and-spoke” that are found in the document. But hey, they were produced by the City so they must be accurate. If they are indeed correct or in the right ballpark, then yes, despite the ridership losses, I would be in favour of OC Transpo switching to “hub-and-spoke”, but without the DOTT.
Let's face it, the alternate service delivery plan is going to dramatically increase the number of transfers particularly for transit riders not destined for downtown. I do not understand why more do not see how detrimental this will ultimately be to our transit system. As our employment increasingly moves to non-downtown locations, our transit modal share will inevitably decline as we provide less and less direct service.

Furthermore, such a dramatic change in service beyond what is needed to implement LRT could easily cause so much confusion and anger that Ottawa's transit system could be set back for years. Look at what is happening today. It appears that ridership is falling again due to over aggressive fare increases, while gas prices have been relatively flat despite the introduction of the HST. I will tell you that transit has become price uncompetitive if your travel distance is relatively short and you have access to a car. It seems that city council feels that they have a captive market and they cannot lose significant numbers of customers. Where do they get their advice?

I would like to know who came up with the idea that this kind of alternate service delivery model should be implemented and timed with the opening of LRT. To those used to express service, the implementation of LRT alone will take some getting used to. The need to increase walking distances and cancel numerous bus routes at the same time seems unwise. Where is the carrot to lessen the pain of losing express service?

Of course, it appears that $100 M savings has become the primary justification for the current plan eventhough as Suzie points out, some of this does not relate directly to DOTT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3500  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2010, 12:08 PM
DubberDom DubberDom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 201
LRT/Suzie.

Thanks for the great points. I'm no civil engineer, so what I say is mainly based upon what I see. The "Express" service is one of the main contributors to Ottawa's relatively high public Transit usage. We are going to ask riders to make 1-2 transfers whereas today they need not make any. How will this impact ridership?

Also, during the 3 years of construction, the transitway as we know if will be closed. How many people will endure this? How many people will find alternate ways of commuting and never come back, especially when the new service will be inferior to the existing Express Service?

This fascination with Trains is all about trying to make Ottawa into a big city (yeah, we got a subway too syndrome!!). Not sure it is going to be relevant in the not too distant future anyway, how and where we work will evolve. I, like a growing minority of people in this city, have the option to work from Home, this will continue to grow (along with flex hours etc..) Governments are laggards when it comes to this policy, but they'll catch up someday.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:08 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.