The future of Ottawa's Transit

[Dado]

My group was led by Colin Simpson.

Shortly before the discussion David Jeanes and he were discussing the West Transitway and the Byron corridor. Mr. Jeanes wants it in the corridor but that would have to be "over Alex Cullen's dead body" since Cllr Cullen is opposed.

At any rate, our discussion group got sidetracked when one guy was first complaining about cost (which I kind of agree with - I can't make the figures make sense so I'd like to see them broken down a bit more) but then he went on to expound his personal vision of PRT (including using sleds on guideways upon which one would park one's own car). The irony of complaining about cost but then advocating PRT didn't occur to him, much to the amusement of all others. He didn't seem to realize that most of his PRTVs would be empty once they got downtown, or that the sled-like ones still required a parking space for the cars. Unfortunately that wasted a lot of time as he was arguing that people won't take transit, be it trains or buses, and then we got into the old Europe-North America argument.

Besides that, the funniest thing was that Colin was basically incapable of presenting the first two options as being worthy of consideration. He just did not believe them himself even though he had been assured by the consultants (you know who!) that it could work, but he was on the verge of laughing when he said it would require "diesel-electric hybrid double-articulated buses running every 15 seconds or so". Several people questionned why the bus tunnel options were even being presented since they were impractical.

Colin had a few other interesting things to say. STO currently sends about 120 buses per peak hour through Ottawa, rising to 220 by 2031 (i.e. that's what OC Transpo already sends through and we see how well that works). I think there's going to have to be a second set of tracks somewhere downtown (or very long trains) to handle those volumes unless there is no increase in our own (which is not what they were predicting last night). He doesn't share the transfer-phobia of the BRT people and said that transfers aren't that much of an issue if they are to a higher order form of transit at decent facilities. He also said that LRT has something like a 17% land value uplift in the vicinity of stations.

[Rathgrith]

Check this out:

http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread.a...threadid=27673

There is one nice picture of the Dow's lake tunnel there. you can still how much height there is for freight trains.

[Rathgrith]

Double Post

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

1. Québec hates rail. You've heard it here. Both cities and the NCC will meet throughout the year to find a solution for that. Basically, Gatineau prohibits any rail entering it's turf.

Quote from the RapiBus presentation:

"Implementing the RapiBus system will help redress all the irritants caused by a railway line in an urban area...."

Funny enough their details stop at Montcalm station (right down to the inclusion of public art), and the specifics of how the buses get into downtown Hull and on to Ottawa are glossed over. I think their plan is going to look really bad against Ottawa's.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Dado

Because you apparently don't understand what is written. Read it again. Then again just to make sure you get it.

"All told, $5M/km on a prepared roadbed is quite a reasonable estimate for double track elrt infrastructure."

See that? "double track elrt infrastructure". That's everything. Not "double tracks". Not "two sets of rails". That's everything required to turn a prepared roadbed into a double track elrt line. INCLUDING ELECTRIFICATION. For the love of God, read things properly next time!

So, to you.

LOL, I really don't understand then. 5M - 1.2M > 1.2M!!! When I talk about tracks, it includes everything you need to run trains on them! Why would I care about the individual cost of a rail!

I was saying that electrification is much cheaper than to put tracks. You said no.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

2006 census - mode of travel to work

2001 City of Ottawa - 20.8%
2006 City of Ottawa - 21.9%

transit use is increasing, which is good news. 30% is the goal though... (not sure exactly what measure they are using)

2001 Ottawa-Hull CMA - 18.5%
2006 Ottawa-Gatineau CMA - 19.4%

2001 Ontario side - 20.1%
2006 Ontario side - 21.2%

2001 Quebec Side - 13.9%
2006 Quebec Side - 14.4%

I always wonder why modal share is calculated by averaging it out over the entire city. I think we run into problems in setting goals by doing this, because the suburban parts will always drag the figures down.

For example for intra-suburb trips (ie people who live and work in Kanata) the transit share will be always pathetically low and goals should be set accordingly for that area, ie 15% or less.

For suburb to downtown, we should be setting modal share goals higher, over 50%. For intra-core trips we should even shoot for 75% or more. By doing this it becomes much clearer how to prioritize spending and measure success.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

LOL, I really don't understand then. 5M - 1.2M > 1.2M!!! When I talk about tracks, it includes everything you need to run trains on them! Why would I care about the individual cost of a rail!

I was saying that electrification is much cheaper than to put tracks. You said no.

Correct. It isn't "much cheaper". Examples of "much cheaper" are the costs of either electrification or track laying compared to that of building a bridge. Where I was wrong earlier was in thinking that electrification was more expensive. The problem we're having here now is that you are incapable of admitting that you were wrong in stating that track laying is a lot more expensive. The two are about the same in the grand scheme of building things. "Building rails is what's costly" is what you said. That's just plain not true, but you refuse to admit it. RoW/roadbed preparation is what's costly. I've given you several opportunities to basically agree that we were both wrong on one count and agree that the major costs are elsewhere and leave it at that. Every time you've persisted.

Single track costs $1M/km, which works out to a little under $2M/km for double track. Add in electrification at $1.2M/km for double track and we get about $3M/km or so. The other ~$2M/km is simply to allow for other expenditures like signals and switches as well as contingency, and finally just to bring it to a nice round number (i.e. "quite a reasonable estimate for elrt infrastructure"). I could have said $4M/km but I didn't want to risk lowballing things.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Dado

Single track costs $1M/km, which works out to a little under $2M/km for double track. Add in electrification at $1.2M/km for double track and we get about $3M/km or so. The other ~$2M/km is simply to allow for other expenditures like signals and switches as well as contingency, and finally just to bring it to a nice round number (i.e. "quite a reasonable estimate for elrt infrastructure"). I could have said $4M/km but I didn't want to risk lowballing things.

For me, electrification is "cheap". When you build new tracks, unless you have a flat land in a prairie, which isn't the case for most propositions. Again for me, tracks is what is needed for trains to run. It's the same thing as saying a highway is cheap to build, because it's only putting the asphalt on. This is false, you need to build bridges, on ramps and such things. So yes, tracks ARE expensive. Even with your lowball number, in a perfect situation, electrification is still cheaper.

If it really would be 5M/km to lay tracks, even on the Transitway, no all the Transitway would be modified now. ELRT is usually built at a cost of 60M$ a km (that is really relative to each city, some build cheap, some really expensive), to be able to run trains. Electrification at 1M$ is what's really cheap. To not put electrification is yes, idiotic in this scheme, as it's a miniscule percentage of your cost. In this case, about 50M$ of the entire project.

I really don't know what your beef is, or what I don't understand. Yes my definition of rail wasn't maybe the technical one, but for me tracks or rail is the equivalent of roads. And for roads, I don't separate the asphalt from the roadbed when calculating costs, I just want the cost for cars to run on.

[waterloowarrior]

Downtown business coalition backs tunnel plan
Patrick Dare The Ottawa Citizen
Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Ottawa's transit tunnel could be the beginning of a new era for downtown, with commercial development underground and a more relaxed atmosphere at the street level, says the spokesman for Ottawa's downtown business coalition.


After years of fighting the city's plans to bring a light-rail transit service downtown at street level, the city's downtown business leaders are finally on-side, cheering the city in its bid to build a transit system underground.

Hume Rogers, of the Downtown Coalition, says that with a tunnel taking light-rail commuter trains under the city's busiest streets, there will be thousands of riders who will be a ready market for underground shops and services. In Montreal and Toronto, subways led to new business districts underground and pedestrian pathways that allow people to stay out of the weather as they go from building to building.

Of the four options city staff have put forward for a long-term transit plan, the coalition favours Nos. 3 and 4, which include the greatest expansion of rail.

Option 1 is an expansion of the bus system and Option 2 is a mix of buses and light-rail service. Mr. Rogers says going with buses doesn't make sense because the system will reach capacity very quickly. A big expansion of the bus system is also the most costly system to operate.

A downtown tunnel would include at least three stations and development companies could create an underground shopping district connected to the subway stations.

While some local bus traffic would remain even with a tunnel, there wouldn't be droves of buses barrelling down Albert and Slater streets. Mr. Rogers says the downtown could become a lot friendlier at street level, with wider sidewalks, landscaping and people taking lunch and coffee breaks at street-level restaurants. Mr. Rogers says a couple of hotels tried outdoor patios years ago but gave up with all the bus traffic.

On Tuesday, Downtown Coalition members met with city deputy manager Nancy Schepers, who briefed them on the city's plans for the core.

"Some of the larger property owners are very interested" in getting involved in the project, Mr. Rogers says.


On Wednesday, Ms. Schepers said these private companies could help pay for the transit project but also might work out a long-term arrangement with the city where they clean and maintain the station space and walkways.

The Downtown Coalition represents 33 downtown property owners who own 65 office buildings and 10 hotels. Its members contribute about 10 per cent of the city's tax base. They fought former mayor Bob Chiarelli over his plan to run light-rail cars on the streets downtown, mixing with bus and car traffic, and they pushed for the city to consider a tunnel.

A major irritant for these downtown businesses is the clogging of Albert and Slater streets with noisy, polluting buses. Mr. Rogers says this winter has been the perfect demonstration of how buses get stopped in bad weather downtown on streets, and barely move.

Mr. Rogers says he has "the greatest satisfaction" that the city has agreed that the downtown must be fixed for transit before the city can move out to properly serve the suburbs.

Both Mr. Hume and public transit expert Harry Gow said Wednesday that a critical issue for the city will be to build the tunnel big enough not just to handle light-rail cars but also full-sized rail cars, so that a full-fledged subway could be built in generations to come.

Mr. Rogers said the stations should be constructed big enough to handle six rail cars. Mr. Gow said that in cities such as Dallas, where light rail replaced bus service, "people flocked to the LRT." He said even if building a bigger system costs more money, it's far-sighted.

"You usually do need the capacity, and faster than you think," said Mr. Gow.


Ms. Schepers agreed Wednesday, though she stressed that many of the technical details in the project have not been worked out.

Alignment of the tunnel will be a critical question. It could be bored, two storeys below the surface, under Queen Street, or under Slater or Albert streets, the current bus routes through downtown. A big question is the disruption of utilities, most significantly the big Bell Canada switching station between Slater and Albert streets, which serves eastern Canada.


Another factor will be soil conditions, which must be studied.

Mr. Gow notes this week's announcement of a new transit plan has been received well by the public but he says "If they lose momentum, they'll be dead."

It took years for the city to get all the approvals for the last transit project that was to run rail cars from the University of Ottawa to Barrhaven, only to have the project collapse after questions were raised about increasing prices.

Ontario's approval process traditionally has been very slow for such projects, with environmental assessment studies that cost millions of dollars and study every last possibility. Ms. Schepers says the city's plan is for "a very focused EA" that won't involve studying things the city doesn't want to do, such as running the new transit service along the street.

A new provincial law, keeping transit studies to six months, is to come into effect in June and the city hopes its new transit plan will be governed by the new law.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...211fdf&k=62590

[Deez]

So I just got back from the Kanata open house. Let's just say their reception to the plan was not quite as positive as what was observed at the downtown and Orleans sessions.

1) Councillor Wilkinson is a crazy old woman. She treated staff like they were made of dog poop, spent the whole time making sensationalistic statements about how none of the plans were right, and basically gave off the vibe that she thought she knew what she was talking about despite not having the slightest clue. In stark contrast, the other councillors that were there were quite calm and rational. Qadri showed up before the event started and left after it finished; I was impressed.

2) Almost everyone that I talked to wanted LRT to Kanata (and removing it to the south). Their major argument was that the 417 leading to Kanata has very high 2-way traffic at both periods, making it more efficient to run a rail system. While this is true, the traffic heading "against" peak direction is heading to low density business parks...what are the chances of somebody taking the train to Kanata Centre only to wait for an infrequent, circuitous bus route? Plus, Orleans has higher transit volumes (and a much higher mode split) than Kanata.

3) If this is what happened in Kanata, I shudder to think what's going to happen in Barrhaven with Jan Harder at the reigns...

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Deez

So I just got back from the Kanata open house. Let's just say their reception to the plan was not quite as positive as what was observed at the downtown and Orleans sessions.

Well it's positive in the sense that people want LRT. I wonder what other councillors feel, it's still a majority that's needed. I think with #4 it can be reached. If not, spurs will need to be made to suburbs.

[eemy]

Ottawa really needs some councillors-at-large.

Jan Harder has surprised me before. Sometime's she sees the big picture, and hopefully that will be the case here.

[waterloowarrior]

'Think bigger' for transit, residents say
Time frame to build system draws fire at public consultation
Jake RupertThe Ottawa Citizen
Thursday, March 06, 2008

Citizens at a public consultation meeting last night on the city's new transit vision said the municipality isn't thinking big enough or planning to move fast enough.

Most liked the direction the city is taking with its leading option of a light-rail transit spine fed by buses, but many felt the 23-year period over which the city is planning to build it is too long, and light rail should be extended into the suburbs.

"This is not visionary enough," said Eileen Winterwerb, one of about 50 people who showed up at one of four public consultation meetings organized this week. "We need light rail that goes from Kanata all the way
to Orléans.

"I wish we could shed our inferiority complex and start thinking bigger. This is not a small town anymore."

On Monday, the city released four options for the future of transit. The leading contender -- Option 4 -- includes a downtown tunnel and light-rail system running east and west to the edges of the Greenbelt and south past the airport. Under the option, which would cost about $4 billion and take 23 years to complete, suburban bus transitways would feed into the rail lines.

By this time next year, council is scheduled to select a new plan to replace the old one, which was cancelled in late 2006.

Jiri Hlavacek said the new ideas are better than the old ones, which he finds encouraging, but with increasing road congestion, fuel prices and the scourge of pollution threatening the environment, the city is moving much too slowly.

He said 23 years to build a system is "ridiculous."

"Fifteen years is too long," he said. "People need to realize we can't continue to live the way we are. We've made a huge mistake with so many roads and cars, and we will pay for this mistake if we don't make serious and quick investments in public transit."

Kanata South Councillor Peggy Feltmate said she understands people's impatience, but thinks the city is on the right track. She said she received hundreds of negative comments on the last transit plan, but only two so far on the new one.

Today's consultation will be held at John McCrae High School in Barrhaven, starting at 6 p.m.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...d-77cdf5529132

[Aylmer]

*Le releived sigh*

[clynnog]

Originally Posted by Deez

1) Councillor Wilkinson is a crazy old woman. She treated staff like they were made of dog poop, spent the whole time making sensationalistic statements about how none of the plans were right, and basically gave off the vibe that she thought she knew what she was talking about despite not having the slightest clue. In stark contrast, the other councillors that were there were quite calm and rational. Qadri showed up before the event started and left after it finished; I was impressed.

Wilkinson was the reeve of March Twshp before Kanata (IIRC) and she still gives off that small town/township vibe. She can be very abrasive and grating to a person who hasn't met her before. Peggy Feltmate is a beacon of reason and calm in comparison. Remember that Shad is representing a ward who fought tooth and nail to avoid getting a public transit levy added to their property taxes. I remember being at a meeting with Councillor Stavinga who was reassuring people south of the old Goulbourn Township offices (living in McMansion land) that they wouldn't have to pay for public transit on their property taxes.

[TransitZilla]

As much as I like Option 4 (and I think most people here prefer that one as well), I think there is going to be lots of pressure to go with a cheaper version of option 3 and use the money saved to push LRT further east and west.

By a cheaper version of option 3, I mean the idea David Jeanes brought up on Tuesday, about extending the current O-Train to Bowesvile (which would be simpler than building a Transitway from Greenboro to Bowesville).

The questions I have about this option are:
1)Jeanes & Co are suggesting additional passing tracks be added to bump the service frequency up to every 7.5 minutes between Bayview and Greenboro... how feasible is this? Will service reliability be affected? With trains every 7.5 minutes, does the level crossing of the VIA line start to become a problem?

2)The OC website says the O-Train has a capacity of 285. If service from Bowesville was every 15 minutes, this means hourly capacity is 1,140 per direction. If it was every 7.5 minutes from Bowesville, capacity is 2,280 per direction. Is this sufficient for the 2031 demand? If we went with an option like this, are we going to screw ourselves at some point in the future when it reaches capacity and can't scale upward?

(Based on this diagram: https://ottawa.ca/residents/public_c...tions_en-3.jpg, the answer appears to be "no", but maybe trains can be coupled?)

3)With the O-Train stopping at Bowesville and Bayview, someone coming in from Riverside South needs to transfer twice before they reach downtown (once at Bowesville, once at Bayview). Someone from my table suggested bringing the Talents down Sparks to the corner of Sparks & Bank- to me, the Talent trains seem to big to do this; does anyone have an opinion on the feasibility of this? This would be in addition to the tunnel.

I'm just trying to think of some other options- some in the east and west would send nothing to the south, but there is a lot of traffic coming from the south that needs to be accomodated, and we need to grow south instead of pushing ever farther east and west.

[eemy]

I really think that David Jeanes would be happy as long as the transit system includes:
a) DLRT
b) single tracking
It's like his panacea for every transit woe, but it's a ridiculous solution except for very specialized situations at low levels of ridership.

I wonder if there could be a cheap way to shut people up. Maybe using the Talents to run a limited stop service: Kanata North - Bell's Corners - VIA Fallowfield - Confederation - VIA Tremblay. It would hopefully shut up those me-first councillors, just might shut up David Jeanes, and might shut up those councillors who want to see some sort of commuter rail system developed (which this could be interpreted as the forerunner of.)

[the capital urbanite]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

As much as I like Option 4 (and I think most people here prefer that one as well), I think there is going to be lots of pressure to go with a cheaper version of option 3 and use the money saved to push LRT further east and west.

The extension to Bowesville has been studied in detail before. It's not a simple endeavour even with the diesel-electric vehicles. The total cost was about $80M (I think) and requires new vehicles. Don't forget that the existing station infrastructure was built to last 5 years...that will need to be replaced with more permanent structures.

I am for option 4, however I don't believe that the N-S O-Train should be built in parallel with the central E-W trunk...it should be the last piece of the puzzle. The decision to replace the O-Train or extend LRT further East-West should be made at a later date.

[lrt's friend]

As much as I like Option 4 (and I think most people here prefer that one as well), I think there is going to be lots of pressure to go with a cheaper version of option 3 and use the money saved to push LRT further east and west.

By a cheaper version of option 3, I mean the idea David Jeanes brought up on Tuesday, about extending the current O-Train to Bowesvile (which would be simpler than building a Transitway from Greenboro to Bowesville).

The questions I have about this option are:
1)Jeanes & Co are suggesting additional passing tracks be added to bump the service frequency up to every 7.5 minutes between Bayview and Greenboro... how feasible is this? Will service reliability be affected? With trains every 7.5 minutes, does the level crossing of the VIA line start to become a problem?

2)The OC website says the O-Train has a capacity of 285. If service from Bowesville was every 15 minutes, this means hourly capacity is 1,140 per direction. If it was every 7.5 minutes from Bowesville, capacity is 2,280 per direction. Is this sufficient for the 2031 demand? If we went with an option like this, are we going to screw ourselves at some point in the future when it reaches capacity and can't scale upward?

(Based on this diagram: https://ottawa.ca/residents/public_c...tions_en-3.jpg, the answer appears to be "no", but maybe trains can be coupled?)

3)With the O-Train stopping at Bowesville and Bayview, someone coming in from Riverside South needs to transfer twice before they reach downtown (once at Bowesville, once at Bayview). Someone from my table suggested bringing the Talents down Sparks to the corner of Sparks & Bank- to me, the Talent trains seem to big to do this; does anyone have an opinion on the feasibility of this? This would be in addition to the tunnel.

I'm just trying to think of some other options- some in the east and west would send nothing to the south, but there is a lot of traffic coming from the south that needs to be accomodated, and we need to grow south instead of pushing ever farther east and west.

Option 3 is really shortsighted. If people were looking at some of the charts concerning population and employment growth until 2031, the fastest growth for both will be in the southern community. Option 3 does not prepare for this nor does it address the peculiar transportation issues created by the airport (the lack of north-south roads).

The consultant in our group the other night also indicated that efficiency declines as you increase the number of passing tracks on a single track system. Each passing track requires a train to wait for the train coming the other way. The chances of delays increases with the number of passing tracks. If we are increasing frequency and lengthening the route, the number of passing tracks will increase from one today, to 4 or 5. With the number of trains increasing on such a system, there are increasing possibilities of a breakdown (maybe not a regular occurrance but the chances do increase) which would shutdown the entire line. This is the explanation of the consultant concerning this.

Once we upgrade the diesel O-Train, we are essentially making it permanent. We see the complaints concerning the shutdown of the O-Train mainly from Jeanes & Co. Can you imagine what would happen if we tried to convert an upgraded system? And if we did, there is no viable alternative route for moving those passengers during construction. Remember, this will not be a simple matter of paving shoulders as with a Transitway conversion. I am not so sure about shoulders in the case of the bridge at Hurdman.

Then there is the practical matter of what to do with 285 passengers arriving at Bayview all at once. Jeanes & Co. had also suggested that Talent trains could be piggybacked to increase capacity. Well, then you have 500+ passengers having to transfer all at once. Will this not create practical issues with trains travelling east and west?

I can't imagine Talent trains running on Sparks Street and then there is the grade requirement to bring the Talent trains up the escarpment at Bronson Avenue. If we don't want diesel buses running on downtown streets, why would we want even bigger diesel trains.

Lastly, if we are using a diesel O-Train not going downtown, it is really pointless in having service to the airport. Transit service for visitors at the airport really needs to be direct to downtown hotels otherwise it will not be attractive.

[lrt's friend]

-

I am for option 4, however I don't believe that the N-S OTrain should be built in parallel with the central E-W trunk...it should be the last piece of the puzzle. The decision to replace the O-Train or extend LRT further East-West should be made at a later date.

This is exactly when you will get voters and councilors from various parts of the city objecting to the plan. As I said before, setting priorities will be one big mine field.

In my opinion, there is going to have to be justification in the way of a ridership gain payback for each major phase of the project. The reason being that there is no guarantee that funding will be available to complete the whole plan.