Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Calgary has never ran with 4 car trains.

If Calgary is not doing 4 car trains now, they are certainly preparing to do so. Haven't they been extending platforms for that purpose?

[lrt's friend]

I am a little amused by the decision to move the Rideau station so that there will be no access west of the canal. It seems to me the City Hall is now going to be in a rather significant service gap. Why not make it more difficult for the public to access their municipal politicians who have been screwing up LRT for years?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by MountainView

After reading through this article: "LRT changes a must to spare plans’ budget: mayor"
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ch...937/story.html

I'm wondering if anybody knows the frequency they plan on running the trains at various times of the day. In the article Nancy Schepers, the deputy city manager who oversees the LRT project said “We’re going to have trains running every few minutes through the downtown."

I'm hoping (not assuming) they are smart and are going to have it every 10minutes off-peak (9am-3pm) and every 2-4minutes during peak (7-9am & 3-6pm). Also, will they have the ability to add cars when necessary? When I lived in Calgary the C-train added a 4th car during rush hour for added capacity and usually ran with just 3 for off-peak times during the day.

-MountainView

I have always viewed the service frequency statements with great suspicion. It always has been about peak service. What about off-peak frequency? Why has this been hidden from the public? The whole point of doing this is to make it more possible for people to rely on transit but will we actually end up with less service in the end? I believe so. And it will be a chain reaction. I certainly do not expect trains to run more often than every 10 minutes during off-peak hours and probably less frequently in certain hours. Maybe only every 30 minutes on Sunday night. Is this what we want to end up with? And the chain reaction will be all the connecting bus services. You certainly won't have the Transitway buses running more frequently than the train service. Run 2 buses at the same time if necessary, but I am expecting that we will be waiting significantly longer for buses even on all our rapid transit routes.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by McC

Since we've gone from looking at 6-car 180 metre platforms, to 5-car and now down to 4-car 120-metre platforms, and we're going to use low-floor LRVs, and we can't afford to build an appropriate number of underground stations, and the stations are still going to be deep and far away from new developments... and.... and .... and... (I hate to say this because I was arguing FOR a subway) but why are we going underground again?

(i.e., since we only get one shot at this, and apparently we can't afford to do a subway right, why do a subway at all?)

Aren't all the underground stations being built with 150m platforms orginially? All the others will be extendible to that length no?

Originally Posted by McC

@MountainView: You're talking about a BIG cut in frequency, the 95 currently runs much more frequently than every ten minutes during the day (more like every 4-6mins, in theory at least, not to mention the other routes that "platoon" up with them), I certainly hope we aren't going to wind up with less frequency through the core after all of this!

There is no way the LRT will meet the frequency of the busway core segment.

[lrt's friend]

Doesn't reducing the platform length ultimately reduce the capacity of the subway? Doesn't that in turn reduce the time span in which the tunnel will be able to handle the expected passenger traffic?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Doesn't reducing the platform length ultimately reduce the capacity of the subway? Doesn't that in turn reduce the time span in which the tunnel will be able to handle the expected passenger traffic?

Yeah, but no existing low floor trainsets are longer than 120m, so giving an extra 30 m for a change is good.

Switching to high floor would increase max future capacity too, since you will end up with more space to convert for standees.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Yeah, but no existing low floor trainsets are longer than 120m, so giving an extra 30 m for a change is good.

Switching to high floor would increase max future capacity too, since you will end up with more space to convert for standees.

Don't all these systems result in large numbers of people standing during peak hours? The best way to keep costs down is to have packed trains and I expect Ottawa's system will be designed this way as well.

I wonder when the announcements will be made, pleading for people to change their hours because the trains are too crowded. Sound familiar?

Regarding high floor trains, because of the desire to provide flexibility as far as locating trains as the network is extended into the suburbs, it is considered more desireable to use low floor trains. It was certainly the desire to integrate rail right into the community as part of the Riverside South Community plan. That is, until the city screws up that concept too by deciding to use diesel trains instead, in which case, there will likely be virtually no community integration.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by McC

Since we've gone from looking at 6-car 180 metre platforms, to 5-car and now down to 4-car 120-metre platforms, and we're going to use low-floor LRVs,

Given what we're seeing in other EAs for other segments (West LRT, West Transitway in Kanata, Cumberland Transitway), the logic for low-floor LRVs escapes me: we are contemplating building a completely grade-separated system just about everywhere else (the sole exception of Riverside South seems to prove the rule: the Bayview is looking increasingly like a transfer point rather than one for through traffic). The EAs the City is currently conducting are running counter to the rationale that was presented for preferring LRT over light metro for the system as a whole, to wit: LRT would be cheaper for extensions since they could be built at grade, yet since those EAs are for grade separation we'll never realize those savings.

Once you've got full grade separation and the intent seems to be to keep everything else that way, there is absolutely no point in using low-floor LRVs; we might as well just go to mid-or-high-floor light metro (e.g. Vancouver). The City really does not seem to know what they are doing: they are insisting on high-cost solutions for future extensions all the while insisting that the system will be LRT. In effect, we'll be getting the higher cost of low-floor LRT vehicles (vs continuous floor light metro vehicles) combined with the higher cost of building a light metro line.

and we can't afford to build an appropriate number of underground stations, and the stations are still going to be deep and far away from new developments... and.... and .... and... (I hate to say this because I was arguing FOR a subway) but why are we going underground again?

(i.e., since we only get one shot at this, and apparently we can't afford to do a subway right, why do a subway at all?)

Well that's a good question, since we can at least do a proper surface system for 120 m/4-car trains. Moreover, we can do it all the way to at least Lincoln Fields in the west as well, thus avoiding the throwaway expense of temporarily converting Tunney's Pasture into a terminal station since Lincoln Fields would only require modest upgrading to do the job.

[McC]

I couldn't agree more, Dado. We need to decide once and for all whether we're building a modern Tramway or an ALRT/LightMetro type system (like SkyTrain), and use the route and technology and station designs that best fits that choice. If it's Tramway, then go on the surface, add many more stops and build out further, faster. But if most of the system is going to be grade separated anyway, let's make up for those higher long-term capital costs by reducing our annual operating costs from day one with driverless, continuous floor vehicles. Lastly, we need to make it clear that neither option is commuter rail, and therefore the trains must and will stop!

[lrt's friend]

Once you've got full grade separation and the intent seems to be to keep everything else that way, there is absolutely no point in using low-floor LRVs; we might as well just go to mid-or-high-floor light metro (e.g. Vancouver). The City really does not seem to know what they are doing: they are insisting on high-cost solutions for future extensions all the while insisting that the system will be LRT. In effect, we'll be getting the higher cost of low-floor LRT vehicles (vs continuous floor light metro vehicles) combined with the higher cost of building a light metro line.

The city can't afford these grade separated right of ways all the way to the distant suburbs. We are creating a plan that will never be built. Once future politicians realize this, we will end up with a hodge podge of different transit modes sloppily connected together.

[J.OT13]

Mountain View, I went to the public consultation yesterday (March 19th) and they told me 3:15 in rush hour, 5mins in between and 10-15 the rest of the time.

McC, the cut in frequency on off peak hours is due to the higher capacity train (4 cars x 200 people each= 800 on one train as opposed to 90 on an articulated bus).
Also, the subway platforms are still 150 meters with the rest at 120 with room for expansion as opposed to the original proposal of 180 downtown and 150 for the others.

No matter how you look at it, we need a Subway. Capacity will go from 10000 phpd to 24000 phpd with 120 meter platforms (with 2min frequency) and 32000 once we expand to 150 meters. + fully grade separated automated LRT can apparently run at a 1min30sec intervals increasing the capacity to 40000 phpd.

And of course, if we don't build the subway now, it will never be built. The Feds and province will always shortchange us.

[S-Man]

[QUOTE][And of course, if we don't build the subway now, it will never be built. The Feds and province will always shortchange us.
/QUOTE]

That's pretty much what it boils down to. If anything is going to happen underground, it has to happen with this project. Queen's Park isn't about to pony up the seemingly measly (compared to what Toronto gets annually)$40 million to add another downtown station to the route - though they absolutely should.
Where's Bob Chiarelli and Yasir Naqvi on this issue? You almost think they didn't have ridings in Ottawa.

Considering Toronto got,what $8 billion plus for its expansions, you'd think $40 million for a properly served downtown plus another $76 million for the O-Train line to the Airport and Leitrim wouldn't seem like too much of a hardship. Wouldn't that line go through (and serve) Dalton McGuinty's riding? Does he know what the O-Train is, even?

These guys neglect their own ridings to do what's best for Toronto. Useless.

[reidjr]

[QUOTE=S-Man;5635018]

[And of course, if we don't build the subway now, it will never be built. The Feds and province will always shortchange us.
/QUOTE]

That's pretty much what it boils down to. If anything is going to happen underground, it has to happen with this project. Queen's Park isn't about to pony up the seemingly measly (compared to what Toronto gets annually)$40 million to add another downtown station to the route - though they absolutely should.
Where's Bob Chiarelli and Yasir Naqvi on this issue? You almost think they didn't have ridings in Ottawa.

Considering Toronto got,what $8 billion plus for its expansions, you'd think $40 million for a properly served downtown plus another $76 million for the O-Train line to the Airport and Leitrim wouldn't seem like too much of a hardship. Wouldn't that line go through (and serve) Dalton McGuinty's riding? Does he know what the O-Train is, even?

These guys neglect their own ridings to do what's best for Toronto. Useless.

What gets me is some in Toronto think that Ontario and the Feds neglect them.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

And of course, if we don't build the subway now, it will never be built. The Feds and province will always shortchange us.

I will never understand why people in Ottawa put up with such shitty treatment from Queen's Park.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I will never understand why people in Ottawa put up with such shitty treatment from Queen's Park.

It's more extreme than ever now. If it weren't for the GTA, the Liberals would be the THIRD PARTY in Queen's Park, not the government with nearly a majority.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

It's more extreme than ever now. If it weren't for the GTA, the Liberals would be the THIRD PARTY in Queen's Park, not the government with nearly a majority.

No they wouldn't... Liberals have many more seats than the NDP outside the GTA. Here are the numbers for the GTA

Liberals - 53 seats - 22 outside GTA, 31 inside GTA
PC- 37 seats - 31 outside, 6 inside
NDP 17 seats - 11 outside - 6 inside

Outside the GTA the PC would have a minority government or the Liberals/NDP could have a coalition.

*Rural Dufferin/York/Simcoe/Durham not included in GTA, Oshawa included (sorry if any of my numbers are slightly off)

[S-Man]

I was never able to swallow people's impressions of how stupid Toronto voters are until a friend of a friend hung out with us last Canada Day (she's a flight attendant for AC living in TO). She went on and on about how bilingualism was SOOOO progressive, and that she'd "totally be okay" with all Ontarians' taxes being raised 5% in order to make bilingualism mandatory for the whole province. People in Windsor and other places need that, she argued, it's the right thing to do.

Luckily I was hammered, so I let it slide. My friend, however, having recently lost her job with the feds due to insufficient French abilities....well, you get the idea.

Anyways, given the pittance Ontario gave Otawa for LRT years ago compare to what TO gets now ($8 billion +) is insane. A recent newspaper column stated that if all things are equal, given it's population Ottawa should be getting $1.2 billion for light rail, not $600 million.

Ottawa = 1.25 million people.
Toronto = 5.5 million people

That extra $600 million could extend the O-Train south and pay for an airport loop, add another LRT station downtown, with $ left over for phase 2 LRT.Hell, maybe the Baseline Station could even become operational! In other words, significant impact on the future of transit in Ottawa.

Instead, McGuinty rams speeches about the wonders of green energy and the evils of Alberta oil down our throats, while increasing our gasoline taxes via HST and funding road expansions in Ottawa suburbs. But not a cent more for transit.

Could the ruling party be any more vindictive, money-grabbing and transparent in their motives? McGimpy ain't wooing voters in Ottawa, so they can just stay in the 1970s. And we'll make more money off of them!

Clearly I'm not a died-in-the-wool Liberal, but even if you are, how can you stomach this kind of high-school clique BS?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by S-Man

I was never able to swallow people's impressions of how stupid Toronto voters are until a friend of a friend hung out with us last Canada Day (she's a flight attendant for AC living in TO). She went on and on about how bilingualism was SOOOO progressive, and that she'd "totally be okay" with all Ontarians' taxes being raised 5% in order to make bilingualism mandatory for the whole province. People in Windsor and other places need that, she argued, it's the right thing to do.

Not sure her view is a widely-held one in Toronto or anywhere in southern Ontario...

[McC]

one non-political reason for allocating a disproportionate amount of transit funding to the GTA is that congestion in GTA costs the Ontario economy billions in GDP due to lost productivity. Congestion in Ottawa is (a) not nearly as bad/costly, and (b) the economy in the Ottawa area is not nearly as productive: the majority of Ottawa's economy is public sector and the delivery of services to the public sector (or to those employed in it, after hours), as opposed to real value-creating activities.

UPDATE: all that to say that there's an economic argument to be made that reducing congestion in Toronto would have a significantly greater province-wide benefit than would be the case in Ottawa (the benefits would be much more concentrated locally). And because the benefits will be local, I have said before, and continue to say that we should be funding this ourselves, but not with property taxes.

The feds have vacated 2% of value-added tax room with their GST cuts in the last decade, and Ontario has harmonized its sales tax, which should open the door to a city like Ottawa reclaiming those 2 cents of VAT, permanently, with municipal HST to fund transit infrastructure (a municipal gas tax could be considered as an additional or alternative measure, as Quebec does for Montreal and Translink does for Greater Vancouver). This would allow us to build out the branches of the entire network (from the DOTT trunk), incrementally, ourselves. Any additional funding "gifted" by new federal-provincial infrastructure funds would be BONUS, allowing us to speed up big chunks of the project (e.g.,out to Scotiabank Place in shot) , or to add new trunks as required/desired (e.g., a Bank St subway, perhaps?).

Sure, a few people would drive to Carleton Place, Kemptville or Clarence-Rockland to save the 2cents on their shopping (note that QC isn't an option, since they upped the TVQ by 2cents in the previous two years), but that would be a pretty marginal thing, not much different from the people who drive down to Ogdensburg. Small price to pay for a sustainable and autonomous model for building our transit network ("Maîtres chez nous" and all that)

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Anyways, given the pittance Ontario gave Otawa for LRT years ago compare to what TO gets now ($8 billion +) is insane. A recent newspaper column stated that if all things are equal, given it's population Ottawa should be getting $1.2 billion for light rail, not $600 million.

Ottawa = 1.25 million people.
Toronto = 5.5 million people

That extra $600 million could extend the O-Train south and pay for an airport loop, add another LRT station downtown, with $ left over for phase 2 LRT.Hell, maybe the Baseline Station could even become operational! In other words, significant impact on the future of transit in Ottawa.

The $8 billion is not for the entire GTA, but just for the City of Toronto itself. Provincial grandess to the region as a whole is much greater - the Province contributes additional funds to other regional municipalities' transit services in the GTA, and also for the intercity network through Metrolinx. Also, you included Gatineau's population in Ottawa's numbers, and in fairness to the provincial government, Quebeckers shouldn't factor in their funding decisions too prominently.

The better comparison therefore is City of Toronto vs. City of Ottawa:

Toronto: pop 2,500,000; funding $8,000 million = $3,200.00 / resident
Ottawa: pop 900,000; funding $600 million = $666.67 / resident

That is how much we are getting screwed. If Ottawa received the same amount from the province per resident as Toronto has, it would be approximately $2.9 billion (actually $2,880,000,000). The province's funding alone would cover quite a bit more than the entire tri-government funded plan currently does.