Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[McC]

Wow, all of those busways look insanely expensive.... So once again, we're going for the lower-capital / higher-operating cost of a driver-operated LRT with overhead wires instead of ALRT, why? so we don't have invest too much in grade separation in the suburbs. And then the designers of the busways in the suburbs come along and whoah! look at these transitway plans: all huge, grade separated, and super-expensive-looking! so I ask myself again, not for the first time, why aren't we just building automated light metro like the SkyTrain?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I would like to know how much it would cost to build that 7.9km Transitway as LRT. It sounds like the cost of that one Transitway is getting up towards the cost of all the Transitways built inside the Greenbelt.

This plan has almost 3 km of elevated structures (they are missing the profile on plate 6-9, so I had to infer it from the the adjacent plates - I get a figure of ~2900 m; as best I can figure, between Palladium and Maple Grove the transitway barely even comes to grade before going back up - it's possible they might put more of it on an embankment). Of that, about 1200 m is the Queensway-Palladium structure.

The four-lane stations are making the bridges wider than they would need to be as light rail.

Built as LRT, half the structures could be stripped out and two of the three elevated stations deleted.

I look at the east end map and how close 2 rapid transit routes are going to be and then we have that orphan spur going to the hospital.

With all the money we are planning to blow on expensive options everywhere else, why are we not building a very shallow cut and cover tunnel next to the Browning problem and do things properly? But hey, why would Ottawa want to do anything properly?

Also, by the time we build the Scotiabank Place Transitway, it will be time to build a new NHL arena and it will be somewhere else. Even if its at the opposite end of the parking lot, what will happen to the Transitway design and cost?

I have a sense that most of these projects will go nowhere in the end. As much as staff and the engineering consultants want expensive overbuilt projects, the political economy facts of the matter are that they're not going to get the funding to build them. I suspect that in a decade or so many of these projects will be restudied with a view to making them more affordable.

This project, for example, first requires that the West Transitway through the rest of Kanata be built. That project will be comparatively cheap, but it will still bear some major costs at March Rd. That's probably all the transitway Kanata will get for over a decade.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Pretty sure the at-grade crossing of the bypass is already there at present. Not justifying, just explaining.

Except... they're going to relocate it... 20 m to the east!

I wonder if they'll allow dogs in the transit station?

Originally Posted by McC

Wow, all of those busways look insanely expensive.... So once again, we're going for the lower-capital / higher-operating cost of a driver-operated LRT with overhead wires instead of ALRT, why? so we don't have invest too much in grade separation in the suburbs. And then the designers of the busways in the suburbs come along and whoah! look at these transitway plans: all huge, grade separated, and super-expensive-looking! so I ask myself again, not for the first time, why aren't we just building automated light metro like the SkyTrain?

A fair question.

The fact that they put higher levels of grade separation for future light rail in the ranking criteria further bolsters your point.

Personally, I support LRT in principle because it does allow for less grade separation in the suburbs (and arguably better integration). However, if, as you note, we keep designing transitways for near-complete grade separation, that rationale begins to look rather hollow. The way things are going, we would in fact be better off with automated light metro because we're not going to be saving a lot on construction while we will be paying more for operation. The fact that the powers-that-be have pretty much decided we won't have any rail extensions for another generation again cuts into the rationale for light rail vs ALRT since the lower capital cost benefits of light rail won't really be enjoyed in the primary network (i.e. LRT vs ALRT with respect to capital cost is not much between them in the core network since the grade-separated transitway already exists) but the lower operating costs of ALRT would be enjoyed over the next generation.

[eternallyme]

I'd cancel the proposed Transitway west of Blair Road and simply hook it into the East Transitway there (preferably as LRT). I am sure more people from south Orleans are headed towards St. Laurent or Blair instead of into the industrial park, and it would save hundreds of millions of dollars which could be spent either on conversion of the Southeast Transitway or extensions into the suburbs. Besides, it doesn't even serve the hospitals - one of the main travel destinations - anyway!

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Pretty sure the at-grade crossing of the bypass is already there at present. Not justifying, just explaining.

It is already there. I am sure traffic using it would increase, and with the presence of the new bridge over the Transitway/LRT corridor, it would make most sense to get the bridge over the bypass. One thing it does do is act as a speed check though since it is the only signal encountered in a 2.7 km section, but it is not a safe thing on a busy expressway with an 80 km/h speed limit (which is lower than the operating speed - a 90 km/h speed limit would make more sense there).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

I'd cancel the proposed Transitway west of Blair Road and simply hook it into the East Transitway there (preferably as LRT). I am sure more people from south Orleans are headed towards St. Laurent or Blair instead of into the industrial park, and it would save hundreds of millions of dollars which could be spent either on conversion of the Southeast Transitway or extensions into the suburbs. Besides, it doesn't even serve the hospitals - one of the main travel destinations - anyway!

Although one has to have vision and support and foster new corridors of transit use, eternallyme is right here. The main axis of transportation demand from Orleans (both Orleans north and Orleans south) is towards Blair, St Laurent, Vanier and downtown Ottawa. Not so much towards Innes/Industrial.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

It is already there. I am sure traffic using it would increase, and with the presence of the new bridge over the Transitway/LRT corridor, it would make most sense to get the bridge over the bypass. ).

I am not sure the number of people using the bypass crossing would increase with the presence of a transit station. The crossing only leads to nature trails on the south side of the bypass, doesn't it? There are no residences there so no potential users of the transit station. So its use is likely to remain essentially the same, unless we think significant numbers of additional people from points east and west will use the presence of the transit station as a pretext to access nature trails south of the bypass that they never used in the past.

I'd say virtually all of the new pedestrian traffic in the area generated by the presence of the transit station will originate from the north side of the bypass where the population is, and all of it will start/end at the transit station itself.

Hence the need for a structure over the transitway, but not over the bypass.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am not sure the number of people using the bypass crossing would increase with the presence of a transit station. The crossing only leads to nature trails on the south side of the bypass, doesn't it? There are no residences there so no potential users of the transit station. So its use is likely to remain essentially the same, unless we think significant numbers of additional people from points east and west will use the presence of the transit station as a pretext to access nature trails south of the bypass that they never used in the past.

I'd say virtually all of the new pedestrian traffic in the area generated by the presence of the transit station will originate from the north side of the bypass where the population is, and all of it will start/end at the transit station itself.

Hence the need for a structure over the transitway, but not over the bypass.

I brought up the issue of the crossing of the bypass to illustrate the absurdity of having a pedestrian overpass of the transitway. Stations are relatively safe places for pedestrian crossings since even non-stopping buses are required to slow down to 50 km/h. Maximum bus frequencies are going to be about one every minute per direction, so it's not like this is some great barrier. A well-designed station with staggered platforms on opposite sides of a pedestrian crossing with a central crossing refuge would pretty much deal with the crossing issue at most low-volume suburban stations. But our transit engineers just cut and paste from a design manual with only one standard design in it that hasn't been reviewed in two decades.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dado

I brought up the issue of the crossing of the bypass to illustrate the absurdity of having a pedestrian overpass of the transitway. Stations are relatively safe places for pedestrian crossings since even non-stopping buses are required to slow down to 50 km/h. Maximum bus frequencies are going to be about one every minute per direction, so it's not like this is some great barrier. A well-designed station with staggered platforms on opposite sides of a pedestrian crossing with a central crossing refuge would pretty much deal with the crossing issue at most low-volume suburban stations. But our transit engineers just cut and paste from a design manual with only one standard design in it that hasn't been reviewed in two decades.

I have to agree. If you can cross a city street then you can cross a busway.

I've been trying to find info and from what I can see it appears that most of the Rapibus stations in Gatineau will have at-grade pedestrian crossings.

[lrt's friend]

As far as I am concerned, there will still be a need for a bus route on Innes Road and for most Blackburn Hamlet residents, this will be a lot more convenient than a station next the Bypass. I expect that this station will not be heavily used.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As far as I am concerned, there will still be a need for a bus route on Innes Road and for most Blackburn Hamlet residents, this will be a lot more convenient than a station next the Bypass. I expect that this station will not be heavily used.

Unless they make the bus route on Innes through the Hamlet a simple feeder for the station(s) and force people to transfer there if they want to get out of the community!

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As far as I am concerned, there will still be a need for a bus route on Innes Road and for most Blackburn Hamlet residents, this will be a lot more convenient than a station next the Bypass. I expect that this station will not be heavily used.

That already exists in Route 125.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

That already exists in Route 125.

No, there will still need to be bus route that runs the length of Innes Road (like current Route 94), just as Route 1 runs parallel to the SE Transitway south of Billings Bridge and Route 2 runs parallel to a good portion of the Western Transitway.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

No, there will still need to be bus route that runs the length of Innes Road (like current Route 94), just as Route 1 runs parallel to the SE Transitway south of Billings Bridge and Route 2 runs parallel to a good portion of the Western Transitway.

One of the "compromises" forced by the NCC was the deletion of a station at the west end of Blackburn Hamlet where the Bypass rejoins the Innes alignment. This station was where transfers to local buses was to take place. Instead, Pepin Court will be reopened as a bus-only link to the transitway from Innes, allowing buses from Blackburn Hamlet to use the transitway without a transfer (naturally the transitway will go under Innes). Given this, and the likelihood that all-day 'transitway' service will be maintained on Innes and that Blair-or-beyond-bound routes will serve the rest of Blackburn Hamlet, the two Bypass stations really don't make a lot of sense. It'll basically just be for people living south of Innes. The west station with its kiss-and-ride isn't even suitable for handling feeder buses in a post conversion-to-light rail environment, though I suppose it could be modified. Its one saving grace is that it is on the extension of Bearbrook Rd.

It seems a lot of these transitway projects are not being considered through the lens of eventual conversion to light rail. For all we know, by the time we get around to building the Cumberland Transitway, Council might have decided to switch it back to being light rail, as it was in the 2003 TMP.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dado

One of the "compromises" forced by the NCC was the deletion of a station at the west end of Blackburn Hamlet where the Bypass rejoins the Innes alignment. This station was where transfers to local buses was to take place. Instead, Pepin Court will be reopened as a bus-only link to the transitway from Innes, allowing buses from Blackburn Hamlet to use the transitway without a transfer (naturally the transitway will go under Innes). Given this, and the likelihood that all-day 'transitway' service will be maintained on Innes and that Blair-or-beyond-bound routes will serve the rest of Blackburn Hamlet, the two Bypass stations really don't make a lot of sense. It'll basically just be for people living south of Innes. The west station with its kiss-and-ride isn't even suitable for handling feeder buses in a post conversion-to-light rail environment, though I suppose it could be modified. Its one saving grace is that it is on the extension of Bearbrook Rd.

It seems a lot of these transitway projects are not being considered through the lens of eventual conversion to light rail. For all we know, by the time we get around to building the Cumberland Transitway, Council might have decided to switch it back to being light rail, as it was in the 2003 TMP.

I get very discouraged as more information is presented. It seemed to me that there were enormous TOD possibilities along the Cumberland "Transitway" because a large tract of land had been designated for employment. With LRT, we could intensify this development and not come up with the typical suburban business park arrangement dominated by parking lots.

I drive through Blackburn Hamlet from time to time and I have noticed that Innes Road has a 4 lane right of way but remains a 2 lane street. What an opportunity missed by not running LRT right through the centre of the community. I guess nobody wanted this, eventhough I am sure it would have enhanced the community. Of course, when we switched the Cumberland "Transitway" to a busway that affected the choice of routes and made a route through the centre of Blackburn Hamlet impossible.

[Uhuniau]

I don't think I've ever been so sick of the sight of busways.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I drive through Blackburn Hamlet from time to time and I have noticed that Innes Road has a 4 lane right of way but remains a 2 lane street. What an opportunity missed by not running LRT right through the centre of the community. I guess nobody wanted this, eventhough I am sure it would have enhanced the community. Of course, when we switched the Cumberland "Transitway" to a busway that affected the choice of routes and made a route through the centre of Blackburn Hamlet impossible.

The route for the Cumberland light rail line in the 2003 TMP also followed the Bypass, but that's probably because it was simply following the pre-existing plan for the Cumberland Transitway (never EAed though - the Cumberland Transitway EA ends around the Navan/Bypass intersection). ORTEP didn't change this, either.

It looks like an alignment following the south side of Innes through Blackburn Hamlet would work (Innes would have to be shifted northwards though - but even if a median arrangement is used, Innes is going to have to be rebuilt one way or another to accommodate LRT). There's nothing on the south side of Innes that either doesn't already have access from elsewhere or couldn't easily be made to have it. The north side, by contrast, has lots of properties whose only viable access is Innes. Besides the rampant NIMBYism that would no doubt accompany such a proposal, the biggest issue would be the need to follow Cléroux Crescent to head southeast to the rest of the Cumberland Transitway alignment. Given that a grade separation would probably be required at the Bypass/Innes/Navan Rd intersection anyway, perhaps a cut-and-cover tunnel (starting along Innes east of Rondel St. so that the ~200m radius curve onto Cléroux would be buried) would be the best way to deal with both issues. Cléroux might also have to be realigned between Innes and Orient Park Drive.

Using Innes through Blackburn Hamlet would bring virtually all of Blackburn Hamlet within 1.25 km of the light rail line. That's roughly a 15 minute walk. Moreover, ALL of the higher density housing would be within just 300 m of the line, whereas 300 m from the designated transitway corridor only grazes the southern parts of the hamlet.

[Deez]

Originally Posted by Cre47

From the Hospital Link/Cumberland document (or looking at the first image more like the Hurdman/Cumberland link)

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa...tal%20link.htm

Recommended corridors and stations

Is it just me or is there absolutely no analysis presented to justify this alignment? Can't find any supporting documentation either.

The redundancy of the corridor from the hospital to Blair absolutely baffles me. If you're not going to go through Browning, don't bother building a new ROW. A frequent, limited stop bus route from Millenium to Hurdman via Innes, St Laurent, Smyth, AVTC, and the Transitway would work just fine to meet the demand that's being projected.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Deez

Is it just me or is there absolutely no analysis presented to justify this alignment? Can't find any supporting documentation either.

The redundancy of the corridor from the hospital to Blair absolutely baffles me. If you're not going to go through Browning, don't bother building a new ROW. A frequent, limited stop service from Millenium to Hurdman via Innes, St Laurent, Smyth, AVTC, and the Transitway would work just fine to meet the demand that's being projected.

Given the congestion on Innes and St. Laurent, I wonder if there is any advantage over the status quo via the East Transitway and backtracking to the hospital. Of course, the congestion is only going to get worse. I agree, why build rapid transit along the Innes corridor (west of Blair) if we are going to bypass the hospitals? I have been at the hospital a lot lately and clearly it is the most important transit destination along the corridor.

[DubberDom]

Why are you talking LRT along Cumberland transitway? People, stop dreaming, LRT is a least 30 years away from there... build the bus-way ASAP! Screw LRT, that's the dumbest idea this city ever had.

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



What is the fascination with trains anyway???

[MalcolmTucker]

Trains will lower operating costs, much more than any other way.

With the transitway already handling more than 10,000 ppdph downtown, I don't think a single expert would suggest a bus system.