HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2007, 5:01 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,820
Another reason to not lay track on the Transitway in the short-term: Once we open a downtown tunnel, we will have at least doubled our transit capacity downtown. If we then lay track on the Transitway and consequently remove most of the buses, we have then again reduced our transit capacity. In a perfect world, it would be nice to remove all the buses from downtown but I think it will be a mistake to do that in the short-term or even the medium term.

d_jeffrey made a valid point about the impact of sharing the track with too many LRT routes. If we start funnelling trains from every direction into the same downtown tunnel, service frequency will start to degrade. Calgary's 7th Avenue corridor is near capacity right now and the only way they can deal with more passengers is by adding to the length of each train. They only have two LRT routes. This is why a while back I talked about tunnel capacity and in the discussion a double decker tunnel was mentioned as a way to deal with it.

So, if we chose Transitway conversion as a high priority, what do we do about Montreal Road, Carling Avenue, Orleans South etc.? All these trains cannot go through the same tunnel unless we cutback service or go to a double decker tunnel. Or do we start planning for a second tunnel when we don't even know if we can afford the first tunnel?

What will Calgary do when they finally build their downtown tunnel? They won't be closing the 7th Avenue surface route. Why? Because they know that using a tunnel alone doesn't increase capacity that much. So they will continue to use the surface route as well as the tunnel to effectively double their capacity.

We have to do the same thing. Build our tunnel, and still use the Albert/Slater bus corridor. This requires the east-west Transitway to remain open.

Regarding a new LRT route via the General Hospital to Orleans South and the south-east, I agree with the route to the east because of the enormous population potential in Orleans. Do expect Peter Hume not to very enthusiastic because the route would run next to some homes in his ward between the General Hospital and Russell Road.

I have thought about a south-east extension from the General Hospital towards Hunt Club through the Alta Vista Parkway corridor and I think we would be better off with a Transitway. I know this area very well and development is almost entirely oriented away from the corridor. Intensification is not likely or will be greatly resisted. Buses that could circulate the various neighbourhoods and use a Transitway for a more direct route into the city would almost certainly attract more passengers than a difficult to access LRT line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2007, 5:22 PM
eemy's Avatar
eemy eemy is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post


Right, but let's think this through a bit more. First you need to get downtown, so that means converting the section of transitway from Laurier/Campus to Hurdman. So that means that buses from the east end can no longer go downtown via the Transitway, and buses from the west end will have no place to get out once they get downtown. So that means FotO-type transfer facilities at Bayview and Hurdman, just the sort of thing that few seem to want. To avoid that, you have to convert the transitways right back to Blair, Greenboro/South Keys, Baseline and Bayshore so that any transfers are early enough in the journey not to matter too much.

Don't get me wrong: I'm in favour of building the Cumberland Transitway as light rail, not busway, but the implications are quite wide-ranging.
For what it's worth, I think it's the... MTF plan? that proposes the downtown tunnel terminate somewhere around Lees. At that point, it wouldn't be that much more difficult to keep the Transitway and the LRT on separate ROWs. Personally I think it's rather silly to tunnel that far out of downtown, but that's what has been put out there.

I happen to think that extending the line along Rideau and Montreal Rd would make more sense. It could terminate either at Blair or St. Laurent Stns, both of which are well designed for transfers to a trunk line, and would then allow a bit more freedom for conversion of the Transitway in the SE.

Also keep in mind that local bus routes would likely be adjusted around a new line. If an LRT line did go down the Altavista Corridor and east into Orleans, it is likely that most people in the SE part of Ottawa and S part of Orleans would transfer onto the line at some point other than Hurdman. I'd estimate that 1/3 or so of the routes that stop at Hurdman would also be served by a line along the AVTC and S Orleans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2007, 5:54 PM
YOWetal YOWetal is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey View Post
As an opinion I can make, I think that high transit usage in Ottawa is due to the fact the region is the highest educated in Canada. University people are more prone to use transit, and try to help the environment.
I would have to strongly disagree, People use transit if it saves time or they have no other choice such as poor people and people who can't park at their places of work or leisure. In Ottawa's case the large amount of Government offices that have no parking (or very expensive parking options) leads to heavy transit. As does the difficulty getting to and parking at Scotiabank place by car (The only time I use transit other than the occaisonal airport trip)
The transitway also makes it time efficient for many people.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2007, 6:48 PM
BlackRedGold BlackRedGold is offline
Progressive Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa / Elsewhere
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Calgary's 7th Avenue corridor is near capacity right now and the only way they can deal with more passengers is by adding to the length of each train. They only have two LRT routes. This is why a while back I talked about tunnel capacity and in the discussion a double decker tunnel was mentioned as a way to deal with it.
The problem with 7th Avenue in Calgary is that the trains can't be extended any further since they would block intersections. And it is those intersections that are the main problem. They slow the trains to a crawl coming through downtown. Remove the intersections through the use of a tunnel and the problems will be solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2007, 7:39 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,820
I agree that the intersections will cause problems in Calgary, but if your trains are getting that long, you are getting close to capacity, intersections or not. Looking at their schedules, they are running trains on 7th Avenue now every couple of minutes during peak periods. You can't do much better than that on double track. From what I understand, the route that is planned to use the longer trains will go into the tunnel, and the route using shorter trains will continue to use 7th Avenue.

If we run N-S and E-W through our downtown tunnel with trains every 5 minutes on each route, we will be close to capacity. Forget about other new routes running through the same downtown tunnel, unless we make it double-decker.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2007, 8:42 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy_haak View Post
For what it's worth, I think it's the... MTF plan? that proposes the downtown tunnel terminate somewhere around Lees. At that point, it wouldn't be that much more difficult to keep the Transitway and the LRT on separate ROWs. Personally I think it's rather silly to tunnel that far out of downtown, but that's what has been put out there.

I happen to think that extending the line along Rideau and Montreal Rd would make more sense. It could terminate either at Blair or St. Laurent Stns, both of which are well designed for transfers to a trunk line, and would then allow a bit more freedom for conversion of the Transitway in the SE.

Also keep in mind that local bus routes would likely be adjusted around a new line. If an LRT line did go down the Altavista Corridor and east into Orleans, it is likely that most people in the SE part of Ottawa and S part of Orleans would transfer onto the line at some point other than Hurdman. I'd estimate that 1/3 or so of the routes that stop at Hurdman would also be served by a line along the AVTC and S Orleans.
It's the urbandale proposal. Also, the Transitway could use the 417 using a dedicated line. People from Orleans want to go DT most of the time. I don't see the point of duplicating a line, with the same stations. If you want to go to Lees, transfer at St-Laurent on the LRT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2007, 8:45 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
I would have to strongly disagree, People use transit if it saves time or they have no other choice such as poor people and people who can't park at their places of work or leisure. In Ottawa's case the large amount of Government offices that have no parking (or very expensive parking options) leads to heavy transit. As does the difficulty getting to and parking at Scotiabank place by car (The only time I use transit other than the occaisonal airport trip)
The transitway also makes it time efficient for many people.
But it doesn't save time in Ottawa compared to Montréal, using the subway will increase the speed dramatically compared to cars; here it's slower, much slower, base on the average road trips. Ottawa is the richest region in Canada.

The no parking can be validated though, as we have less parkings than Toronto for the core, but it's still cheaper here than there. So it's still doesn't explain much.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 12:40 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Let's back up here a moment.

Never mind what you thought of their specific proposal, but why did the FotO critique of the NSLRT have such resonance?

One of the reasons was that the NSLRT did nothing for the downtown congestion problem and would have only made it worse. Getting the buses out of downtown has a lot of appeal because everybody who uses the transit system (and many who do not) can see for themselves that it is a problem and has to be addressed. FotO wants on-street LRT, others want a tunnel, but either way would be an improvement on what we have now if the buses are out of the picture.

So if we build a tunnel but then continue to run the majority of the current bus routes downtown as right now then we again run into that problem. People will ask why we are building a tunnel only to keep running the buses. It won't be acceptable, to council nor the public. The buses have to go. And if they go, we then have to figure out how to get people onto the train. The options are convert or build transfer stations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 12:49 AM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Let's back up here a moment.

Never mind what you thought of their specific proposal, but why did the FotO critique of the NSLRT have such resonance?

One of the reasons was that the NSLRT did nothing for the downtown congestion problem and would have only made it worse. Getting the buses out of downtown has a lot of appeal because everybody who uses the transit system (and many who do not) can see for themselves that it is a problem and has to be addressed. FotO wants on-street LRT, others want a tunnel, but either way would be an improvement on what we have now if the buses are out of the picture.

So if we build a tunnel but then continue to run the majority of the current bus routes downtown as right now then we again run into that problem. People will ask why we are building a tunnel only to keep running the buses. It won't be acceptable, to council nor the public. The buses have to go. And if they go, we then have to figure out how to get people onto the train. The options are convert or build transfer stations.
In some way, having buses running DT will get people to complain, and they will want LRT. You can always change opinions to your advantage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 4:20 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521

Seems like a pretty ass-backwards way to... oh, never mind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 4:40 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,820
Quote:
FotO wants on-street LRT, others want a tunnel, but either way would be an improvement on what we have now if the buses are out of the picture.
It may be an improvement but either way we are left with a single downtown transit corridor and a capacity limit. I think many here would also like to eliminate Gatineau buses some day and how does this fit in with either possibility?

One of my complaints about the FOTO plan was that it was going to require at least half the passengers to stand in order to reach downtown. Is this really what we want to achieve in order to ease congestion? We could accomplish the same thing by restricting the number buses and making far more people stand. This would be a much cheaper solution. Either way, making most people stand will not be popular.



Quote:
So if we build a tunnel but then continue to run the majority of the current bus routes downtown as right now then we again run into that problem.
If we have two transit corridors (the tunnel and Albert/Slater), we have a lot of flexibility on how we design our system. With sensible planning, we can make sure that the number of buses on Albert and Slater does not reach the capacity for the streets, at least not for many years.

Quote:
People will ask why we are building a tunnel only to keep running the buses. It won't be acceptable, to council nor the public. The buses have to go. And if they go, we then have to figure out how to get people onto the train. The options are convert or build transfer stations.
The public already knows that Albert and Slater is at capacity. If we start running trains into the tunnel and reduce congestion on Albert and Slater and improve transit service at the same time, why would the public not be satisfied? Only a small minority is expecting all buses to be removed from Albert and Slater and that is not realistic for many years and will likely require us to build a second tunnel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 1:41 PM
BlackRedGold BlackRedGold is offline
Progressive Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa / Elsewhere
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
If we run N-S and E-W through our downtown tunnel with trains every 5 minutes on each route, we will be close to capacity. Forget about other new routes running through the same downtown tunnel, unless we make it double-decker.
If you're basing this on Calgary's situation, you'd be forgetting that Calgary's downtown is MUCH bigger then Ottawa's.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 1:44 PM
the capital urbanite the capital urbanite is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 662
on the agenda for the 07NOV transit committee...

" PRESENTATION ON RAPID TRANSIT ISSUES - JOHN BONSALL
Verbal Presentation / Présentation Orale"

...John is the pres. of mcCormick Rankin ..i.e. the guy who built the Transitway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2007, 1:53 PM
the capital urbanite the capital urbanite is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 662
....and here is a Sun article about Bonsall's ideas.

November 5, 2007
Have buses, will travel
Ex-Transpo boss backs expanded Transitway


By DEREK PUDDICOMBE, CITY HALL BUREAU

The argument for building light rail in Ottawa will take another hit this week.

At Wednesday's transit committee meeting, the man largely credited with being the chief architect of Ottawa's Transitway network will speak about the benefits of expanding the bus rapid transit (BRT) system rather than focusing on light rail transit (LRT).

In his presentation to the committee, John Bonsall -- OC Transpo general manager from 1981 to 1993 and the city's director of transportation planning in the 1970s -- says completing the city's Transitway should take precedence over LRT because it's faster and more cost-effective.

Bonsall's presentation suggests that a BRT system "provides a faster effective travel time than a combined bus/LRT" network and that because a BRT system eliminates the need to transfer from bus to bus, ridership will increase up to 30%.

Bonsall told the Sun yesterday that the city has to decide if it really needs an LRT system, which he says largely benefits only the tourist market.
[because tourists routinely travel from Riverside South to downtown and back?! ...what an asinine statement....sorry buddy but the city already explored BRT in the N/S corridor and conluded that it would be more expensive than BRT]

MORE CONVENIENT

He said it's more convenient to take the bus than LRT because a BRT route is usually located closer to someone's home than an LRT station would be and having to transfer from a bus to LRT only discourages commuters.

"The problem with light rail is that you have to get to it," he said.

"It's forcing people to make a transfer."

The cost of a rail system can also be prohibitive. The city cancelled its $1-billion LRT project last year.

Bonsall suggests that the average per-kilometre cost for BRT is $3.5 million, compared with $16.5 million for an LRT system.
[I don't believe these numbers...I think he is comparing at-grade BRT vs. dedicated ROW LRT...I hope the committee can argue this point]

Bonsall said Ottawa's BRT network -- which has the highest per-capita ridership in North America -- is the envy of the world and Brisbane, Australia is modelling its system after Ottawa's, complete with a tunnel under the downtown area.

Bonsall is a big fan of boring twin tunnels under Ottawa's downtown core because that's where the city's biggest traffic congestion problems are. He said the city should have built the tunnel years ago.

'OVERDUE'

"They are probably 10 years overdue," he said.

"That will solve a lot of problems."

If the city moves forward with a tunnel, he said, it has to make provisions for the tunnel to accept LRT.

Bonsall isn't entirely against LRT -- but he said the city shouldn't spend a dime on the plan until a Transitway connecting each corner of the city is complete. He says both transit concepts can co-exist.

When the city is prepared to move forward with LRT, he said, the system has to connect with BRT and must serve the airport, downtown and the universities.

"Rail makes a lot of sense when you are moving a lot of people around like Montreal or Toronto," he said.

[ok, he just argued against rail...yet he still believes that the BRT system should be convertible to LRT in the future...but that apparently doesn't figure into his $3.5M/km cost assessment. ...and building a bus tunnel that can be converted to LRT...what a complete waste of money in duplication and unnecessary engineering and construction costs...I'm sorry Mr. Bonsall but the future is now.]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2007, 2:08 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by the capital urbanite View Post
ok, he just argued against rail...yet he still believes that the BRT system should be convertible to LRT in the future...but that apparently doesn't figure into his $3.5M/km cost assessment. ...and building a bus tunnel that can be converted to LRT...what a complete waste of money in duplication and unnecessary engineering and construction costs...I'm sorry Mr. Bonsall but the future is now.
Then the city councillors will see the price tag on a bus tunnel, and all the transitway will be converted to LRT, with a tunnel, and will be cheaper than a bus tunnel alone. I can see why he thinks that the bus tunnel would make the plan "complete", but in the end, it's cheaper to do full conversion to LRT. It's that silly. And add the bonus that you have lower operation costs.

What I'm more surprised, it's the Sun is supposed to be a right wing newspaper, and for their poll, people are split evenly for BRT and LRT.

Last edited by p_xavier; Nov 5, 2007 at 2:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2007, 5:10 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521


Why is the fact that it's a right-wing newpaper makes the poll results surprising? If people are fiscally conservative, then they'll conclude that BRT doesn't make much sense because of its high operating costs (and the high cost of a bus tunnel vs rail tunnel) and its lower attractiveness. Calgary, after all, is a conservative city and its people support and ride LRT. Compared to left-wing Vancouver and left-wing Portland, Calgary puts them to shame.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2007, 6:07 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post


Why is the fact that it's a right-wing newpaper makes the poll results surprising? If people are fiscally conservative, then they'll conclude that BRT doesn't make much sense because of its high operating costs (and the high cost of a bus tunnel vs rail tunnel) and its lower attractiveness. Calgary, after all, is a conservative city and its people support and ride LRT. Compared to left-wing Vancouver and left-wing Portland, Calgary puts them to shame.
Because these people are less likely to support government funded infrastructures, transit included. Many people are still pro-car development. People could say we want more highways, but it doesn't seem to be the case, which is a good thing IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2007, 8:37 PM
Cre47's Avatar
Cre47 Cre47 is offline
Awesome!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Orleans, ON
Posts: 1,971
News from CBC Ottawa about funding (conditionnal/promised) for the province of Ontario worth nearly $8 billion dollars - we don't know what share Ottawa will have though.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/stor...t-funding.html
__________________
"However, the Leafs have not won the Cup since 1967, giving them the longest-active Cup drought in the NHL, and thus are the only Original Six team that has not won the Cup since the 1967 NHL expansion." Favorite phrase on the Toronto Maple Leafs Wikipedia page.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2007, 9:14 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Hopefully by the time it's realized, we will have a federal government which supports mass transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2007, 10:40 PM
Jamaican-Phoenix's Avatar
Jamaican-Phoenix Jamaican-Phoenix is offline
R2-D2's army of death
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Downtown Ottawa
Posts: 3,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cre47 View Post
News from CBC Ottawa about funding (conditionnal/promised) for the province of Ontario worth nearly $8 billion dollars - we don't know what share Ottawa will have though.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/stor...t-funding.html
If we don't come up with a plan/proposal soon, then we won't get anything...
__________________
Franky: Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias.
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 2:33 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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