HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3961  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2009, 1:40 PM
dunkalunk's Avatar
dunkalunk dunkalunk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Victoria Park, Kitchener
Posts: 326
I don't understand why they can't turn sparks street into a transit mall, there was streetcar service on it at one point in its history, and outside of rush hours, the street is pretty much dead anyways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3962  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2009, 2:03 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,788
Quote:
Rush hours - 400m maximum
Midday on weekdays - 800m maximum (400m for most residents and businesses)
Evenings and weekends - 1,200m maximum (800m for most residents, businesses only if service needed)
Sounds like you are advocating a transit system similar to many failed systems in American cities. I don't know how this will encourage increased ridership.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3963  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2009, 2:10 PM
Kitchissippi's Avatar
Kitchissippi Kitchissippi is offline
Busy Beaver
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkalunk View Post
I don't understand why they can't turn sparks street into a transit mall, there was streetcar service on it at one point in its history, and outside of rush hours, the street is pretty much dead anyways.
Explain to me first why cyclists are not even allowed to ride through Sparks Street, and then we'll figure out how a multi-ton train can plow through that mall during lunch hour. It's pointless that the street is dead outside of rush hour when you need a transit ROW during rush hour. Just because you only need your dining room at home during meal time doesn't justify getting rid of it either.

Plus, how will it cut though the war monument?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3964  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2009, 3:09 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitchissippi View Post
Explain to me first why cyclists are not even allowed to ride through Sparks Street, and then we'll figure out how a multi-ton train can plow through that mall during lunch hour. It's pointless that the street is dead outside of rush hour when you need a transit ROW during rush hour. Just because you only need your dining room at home during meal time doesn't justify getting rid of it either.

Plus, how will it cut though the war monument?
Streetcars did run through Confederation Square from 1939 to 1959.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3965  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2009, 3:24 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,428
Having Sparks St as a transit mall would not preclude nice wide sidewalks so you can do both. Just no J-walking! Plus since little to no parkade access is on Sparks it actually works. If you then need more pedestrian space you can also expand on Albert and Slater where they won't need one lane each anymore.

Running LRT on Sparks won't destroy the street, but it will change it to be sure.

As for the turns at each end - if they can design a full length streetcar to do some of the curves on Toronto's network, they can design an LRV just the same. Go up Elgin and then to the Transitway.

Of course, if you want to change the premise of the system, you could end the LRT at Elgin, and only have the LRT replace the transitway in the west for now, only extending much much further,likely Bayshore, perhaps even Eagleson depending on the 'cross-country' cost.

Last edited by MalcolmTucker; Nov 2, 2009 at 3:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3966  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2009, 3:40 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby View Post
Having Sparks St as a transit mall would not preclude nice wide sidewalks so you can do both. Just no J-walking! Plus since little to no parkade access is on Sparks it actually works. If you then need more pedestrian space you can also expand on Albert and Slater where they won't need one lane each anymore.

Running LRT on Sparks won't destroy the street, but it will change it to be sure.
If we are concerned about transit capacity downtown, we could use Sparks, Queen, Albert and Slater for LRT. In later years, I believe that streetcars used both Sparks and Queen. This could address some concerns about space, by having LRT run one way on Sparks and the opposite way on Queen. Of course, Sparks Street was a 4 lane street in the old days, plus there were regular sidewalks. With LRT occupying 2 lanes, there would still be room for very wide sidewalks. LRT will certainly bring life back to Sparks beyond the busy lunch period. It would not surprise me if LRT will help rebuild the retail trade there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3967  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2009, 3:42 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,788
Quote:
Of course, if you want to change the premise of the system, you could end the LRT at Elgin, and only have the LRT replace the transitway in the west for now, only extending much much further,likely Bayshore, perhaps even Eagleson depending on the 'cross-country' cost.
What would make more sense, is to run the North-South route on Sparks and terminate it at Elgin, and run your east-west route along Albert and Slater.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3968  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2009, 4:08 PM
dunkalunk's Avatar
dunkalunk dunkalunk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Victoria Park, Kitchener
Posts: 326
One thing that completely baffles me about this new study is the depth of the tunnels seems excessive and unnecessarily expensive. Sparks street could be the ideal corridor for a shallower LRT tunnel. A tunnel alignment along Sparks Street would also make the system much friendlier for pedestrians, as you would not have to contend with nearly as many road crossings. The additional foot traffic would also do good for business along the street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3969  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2009, 6:15 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
What would make more sense, is to run the North-South route on Sparks and terminate it at Elgin, and run your east-west route along Albert and Slater.
Interesting idea.
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3970  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2009, 9:18 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Sounds like you are advocating a transit system similar to many failed systems in American cities. I don't know how this will encourage increased ridership.
Those are BARE MINIMUMS. Anyone beyond those distances should be outside the Urban Transit Area (there are a few areas that are more than 1,000m to even rush hour service in the UTA, while 400m should be the maximum allowed).

The 400m midday and 800m evening/weekend distances should be the goal for most.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3971  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 7:30 AM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
I'm not sure which thread to put this in, but here goes.

It would be great if riders could bike to an LRT station, ride with their bike to another LRT station and then bike the rest of the way. It would significantly extend the reach of the typical bicycle commute, and would create demand for transit, while getting cars off the road.

Does anyone know how well it works on any other rail transit systems that allow people to bring bicycles?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3972  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 11:19 AM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTWAP View Post
I'm not sure which thread to put this in, but here goes.

It would be great if riders could bike to an LRT station, ride with their bike to another LRT station and then bike the rest of the way. It would significantly extend the reach of the typical bicycle commute, and would create demand for transit, while getting cars off the road.

Does anyone know how well it works on any other rail transit systems that allow people to bring bicycles?
Systems with low demand sometimes have bike racks right in the LRVs. Calgary the hours are restricted for bringing your bike to non peak hours, just because of the space it takes up. On buses every bus has racks on the front so if you really want to you can do that. Most people that want to be bike commuters in Calgary just bike the entire way. Key is providing good bike storage options at stations. In Calgary you can either rent a fully enclosed bike locker (6 month term) at most suburban stations, or use standard bike racks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3973  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 2:31 PM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby View Post
Systems with low demand sometimes have bike racks right in the LRVs. Calgary the hours are restricted for bringing your bike to non peak hours, just because of the space it takes up. On buses every bus has racks on the front so if you really want to you can do that. Most people that want to be bike commuters in Calgary just bike the entire way. Key is providing good bike storage options at stations. In Calgary you can either rent a fully enclosed bike locker (6 month term) at most suburban stations, or use standard bike racks.
I wonder how many people would use bike-transit-bike modes to work. For example, what if you lived in Bells Corners and worked on Montreal Road?

There are probably a lot more people who commute via bike->transit in the morning and transit->bike in the afternoon. I like the bike locker idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3974  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 3:21 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,242
In some places people will buy a folding bike so they can take it on the train during rush hour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_bicycle
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3975  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 3:34 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
In some places people will buy a folding bike so they can take it on the train during rush hour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_bicycle
Yike Bike:
Video Link
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3976  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 3:54 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 1,934
Bring back the 'Penny-Farthing'!

I also saw a lady on the bus last summer with a little fold-up bike in a square bag. It was a very light aluminum bike which folded to about 45cm square and maybe 25 thick.

Any way, a cool bike video. I think we might see more of this type of thing becoming available.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3977  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2009, 1:06 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
I'm looking at their TransPlan 2010 early thoughts, and this is how I would do it:

http://ottawa.ca/city_hall/budget/bu...et_2010_en.pdf

Nepean Centre/Lincoln Fields area

- Route 67 should be renumbered as Route 178 (see lower proposal for current 178) and shortened to Lincoln Fields instead of downtown. (It is too far and difficult to combine into the 172 or 174, and eliminating the route creates unacceptable walking distances - up to 1,200m which is definitely unacceptable for any residential area in the Urban Transit Area during rush hour and beyond the desirable range even for evening and weekend service but necessitated by the limited catchment and poor street network abutting the Greenbelt)

- Route 86 should be shifted onto Viewmount and Chesterton as the 57 does now, at all times of day with increased rush hour service. That would eliminate Route 57 as the rest of the route duplicates each other.

- Route 111 should remain on Meadowlands instead of Viewmount and Merivale, picking up the slack where the 86 was deviated.

- Route 117 should be extended to Bayshore via Iris Street and the Transitway for improved west-end connections to Carleton University. While Carleton is in session from September to April, I would add weekend service on the entire route for Carleton residence students to be able to access west-end shopping easier. During university breaks and in the summer, weekend service should only be from Baseline to Bayshore.

- Route 152 should be combined with Route 178 into a single route, numbered 152 from Lincoln Fields to Bayshore, connecting via Greenbank and Baseline. Evening and Sunday service would be restored to Centrepointe. Route 117 would serve Iris Street.

- Route 156 should be shortened to only operate from Carlingwood to Baseline, instead of the long and somewhat complicated route. The northern part is already well-covered by Routes 2, 16 and 159, plus a new local route would service Lockhart and Ambleside. It should remain on Merivale instead of deviating to Chesterton (covered by Route 86).

- Route 356 (cancelled in 2000) should be resurrected, replacing Route 156 from Carlingwood to Lincoln Fields. Hours would be somewhat shorter than the current 156 but it would run 7 days a week (no late evening service and Sunday hours from 11 am to 6 pm) and alternate service is available close by.

Kanata

- Route 62 should not turn back to Hazeldean Mall, but instead serve the western part of Rothesay and Glamorgan, replacing the 63 in that area.

- Route 63 should operate via Katimavik, Kanata Town Centre and McCurdy like the 64 does now, then go onto its current route through Glen Cairn, except that it should not serve Glamorgan and instead turn onto Castlefrank.

- Route 64 should be eliminated, and additional trips on Routes 62 and 63 with their routing changes should compensate.

Orleans

- Route 38 should be eliminated, and additional trips on Routes 37 and 39 should compensate. No other routing changes are necessary as Route 38 runs closely parallel to the 37 and 39 for its entire length (i.e. never more than 200m away from one of them).

Bells Corners

- Route 69 should be replaced by frequent rush hour service on the revised Route 179.

- Route 166 should be shortened to end at the corner of Robertson and Moodie (i.e. the Zellers plaza), then turn onto Fitzgerald to return to Moodie Drive, removing the two-way loop.

- Route 179 should be revised to become an all-day route in Bells Corners, replacing both the southern part of the 166 and the 69 to Bayshore (and frequent service to Lincoln Fields during rush hours). It would run into Queensway-Carleton then follow the current 166 routing to Robertson/Westcliffe, where most trips would terminate. A few trips would continue to Canmet EMR during rush hours via Robertson and Haanel. The route would always be removed from Baseline, instead using the Transitway from Lincoln Fields.

Ottawa South

- Routes 8 and 88 should be combined into a single route, numbered 8, with the combined 8 and 88 trips during rush hour. South Alta Vista would remain within a close walk to Routes 1, 8 or 112 (i.e. within 400m).

- Route 43 should be eliminated, with its trips replaced by Route 143 trips operating as far as Hurdman during rush hour.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3978  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2009, 1:37 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,788
Creating routes that are less direct, require more transfers, and longer walks, will not build ridership.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3979  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2009, 2:46 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Creating routes that are less direct, require more transfers, and longer walks, will not build ridership.
Neither will a longer travel time due to congestion downtown...

In the case of the 57, the 86 takes over the 57 routing, simplifying the network - in one way, the 57 can be seen as becoming an all-day route (signed as 86).

The 111 and 156 are straightened out to improve travel times on them for through travel. The shortened 156 also improves reliability (the northern part - which meanders down local roads to maximize ridership - is split off to a new route). The 117 extension improves connections from the west end to Carleton, and provides a direct link to more high-density residential areas.

The 152/178 combinaton increases service in the Centrepointe area - evening and Sunday service would be available as well - without significantly increasing travel time (the 117 extension allows for such).

I never did post it, but one possibility in the suburbs is to realign the local routes as well to match the express route changes (to set up for the future when the express routes become LRT feeder routes, more routes will be needed - and to keep things simpler). The problem is that Route 130 - the main Orleans loop - comes close to the 37 and 39.

That being said, here is what I would do:

Route 130 - Realign to serve Hiawatha, St. Louis and Orleans Boulevard, which is currently part of Route 131, replacing the section along Jeanne d'Arc to the east.

Route 131 - Realign to operate via St. Joseph, Grey Nuns and Youville. Northern section covered by routes 130, 137 and 139. Also provides a quicker travel time to Chapel Hill.

Route 137 - Extend along Champlain and into north Orleans along the same streets the 37 does now, terminating at Jeanne d'Arc and Youville to allow for an additional connection to Route 95.

Route 139 - NEW route from Place d'Orleans to Trim, operating along St. Joseph and Jeanne d'Arc to the interchange with RR174, then along the same streets the 39 does now.

Due to the long and multi-community nature of the Kanata routes, I'd wait a couple years to realign them.

Last edited by eternallyme; Nov 19, 2009 at 3:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3980  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2009, 3:09 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
Neither will a longer travel time due to congestion downtown...
That may be true, but some of your suggestions go beyond addressing that issue. What does eliminating bus routes to make people walk further accomplish other than make transit less convenient. Merging bus routes to create a more circuituous route make things more inconvenient for everybody and has nothing to do with downtown congestion. For example, merging the 8 and 88 goes beyond service on a relatively short section of Alta Vista. It has more to do with how fast you get to major transfer stations in the south end. Merging those routes makes for slower trips in the south end and more transfers and doesn't reduce the need for vehicles running downtown from this part of the city.

Furthermore, I have yet to see a study that shows the impact of replacing express routes with local routes. We need to know if there is a negative ridership result so we can try to find ways to make this change more attractive.
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 11:11 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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