The future of Ottawa's Transit

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

P.S.S. Where is Bowesville?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

The whole low-floor train thing is because we will be using the Siemens S70 as a means of possibly escaping the lawsuit.

P.S. Anyone else notice how Siemens went silent after Urbandale came forward with their own proposal for City Council? I suspect they will be watching this closely.

Yeah, that's what I assumed too... couldn't it be dangerous in the DT tunnels? I mean since it's the same height as the station per say, and not a gapping hole like a subway? It's just the whole LRT thing, is it a streetcar, or not, what they want to do with it in the end?!

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

P.S.S. Where is Bowesville?

I found the station on the old plans, it's just South of the airport. Just asking here, between that station and the airport, which you find better? I mean, at least there was something at the airport...

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en...wloc=addr&om=1 .

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Yeah, that's what I assumed too... couldn't it be dangerous in the DT tunnels? I mean since it's the same height as the station per say, and not a gapping hole like a subway? It's just the whole LRT thing, is it a streetcar, or not, what they want to do with it in the end?!

I'm not sure why it would be dangerous in the tunnels.

Not sure about the whole streetcar thing, but if we hook up two S70 trains together and run them underground, then by definition we would have a below-grade LRT system.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

I'm not sure why it would be dangerous in the tunnels.

Just a feeling, the driver can't see as well as on surface, and since it's at the same level as the platform, easy for children and people to wonder on the tracks and get hit. Well, easier than a subway platform, which has a gap.

Hopefully Siemens will suggest other vehicles without a penalty, as the S70 is really a streetcar vehicle.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Just a feeling, the driver can't see as well as on surface,

Well, trains do have lights...

and since it's at the same level as the platform, easy for children and people to wonder on the tracks and get hit. Well, easier than a subway platform, which has a gap.

Perhaps, but I really don't think that it will be an issue or this vehicle would've been deemed unsafe.

Hopefully Siemens will suggest other vehicles without a penalty, as the S70 is really a streetcar vehicle.

Maybe, but the S70 was chosen to replace the O-Train and would run at street-level for most routes planned in the original TMP.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Just a feeling, the driver can't see as well as on surface, and since it's at the same level as the platform, easy for children and people to wonder on the tracks and get hit. Well, easier than a subway platform, which has a gap.

Hopefully Siemens will suggest other vehicles without a penalty, as the S70 is really a streetcar vehicle.

I think a high floor platform is far more dangerous. There likely would still be a bit of a step down, as a low-floor vehicle isn't a no-floor vehicle; however, it wouldn't be so large that it would be difficult to return to the platform if someone ventured onto the tracks.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I know it's not the greatest picture, but you can see that there is indeed a raised platform. The Train is the S70 Avanto, the one that was supposed to replace the O-Train.



Photographer: UNKNOWN

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

I know it's not the greatest picture, but you can see that there is indeed a raised platform. The Train is the S70 Avanto, the one that was supposed to replace the O-Train.


Photographer: UNKNOWN

Thanks UNKNOWN for your pic! It helped. The ones I had from Houston didn't show much.


Also, for those who missed it, here is the start of the new MTP:
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...OL-0063-1a.pdf
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...OL-0063-1b.pdf

I liked the LRT plan the most, and it seems that they do scrap the Transitway. I also find it funny that they don't use the O-Train name anywhere, except to mention the existing one. Hopefully they'll change the name!


All the supporting documention is there, as well as the consultants review of the proposals:

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...E-POL-0063.htm

[the capital urbanite]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Just a feeling, the driver can't see as well as on surface, and since it's at the same level as the platform, easy for children and people to wonder on the tracks and get hit. Well, easier than a subway platform, which has a gap.

Hopefully Siemens will suggest other vehicles without a penalty, as the S70 is really a streetcar vehicle.

low-floor trams with overhead catenary are used underground in many euorpean cities ...we wouldn't be setting any precedent here...it would be as safe as a bus tunnel

Also, the S70 is perfectly suited for both the above- and below-ground application ...it's fast, modular and scaleable (i.e. it can be coupled).

Using heavier vehicles would require larger stations and dedicated ROW in RIverside South and Barrhaven...this is one of the reasons why the low-floor LRT vehicle was chosen.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by the capital urbanite

l

Using heavier vehicles would require larger stations and dedicated ROW in RIverside South and Barrhaven...this is one of the reasons why the low-floor LRT vehicle was chosen.

Yes, and that's why we should scrap the streetcar thing altogether. We complained that the operation costs are higher with one car trains, and it will still go ahead with one car trains, tunnel or not. It is not cost effective in the long term, not at all...

EDIT: It's fun to read the consultants documents, they say the same thing!!!

[eemy]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Yes, and that's why we should scrap the streetcar thing altogether.

I'm not really sure I understand what problems you perceive with a vehicle like the S70 besides that it's not a high-floor vehicle. What benefit does a vehicle like the SD-160 in Calgary and Edmonton have over it? They are actually marginally slower and have lower acceleration. The S70 is perfectly suited to grade-separated LRT operation, but if/when Ottawa gets around building on-street LRT, it would be suited to that as well. I'd prefer the flexibility, all other things being equal.

How would it be higher cost?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

The S70 was chosen for it's flexibility. It was to scale the hills of Carling Ave., go underground, grade-seperated and be able to wind through some rather tricky areas, all the while still being comparable to a car in terms of speed.

[the capital urbanite]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Yes, and that's why we should scrap the streetcar thing altogether. We complained that the operation costs are higher with one car trains, and it will still go ahead with one car trains, tunnel or not. It is not cost effective in the long term, not at all...

what kind of vehicle are you proposing? ...and remember that the idea of bi-mode trains acting as regional rail is not on the table with this resurrected NSLRT proposal.

The ridership is simply not there for >1 car trains along this route...when it does come time to increase capacity you can couple two vehicles.

Note that all of the original 3 proponents suggested similar-sized vehicles (i.e. low-floor single car LRT).

In any case, I'm sure this question will be on the table in more official circles...and the most appropriate vehicle will be chosen.

[Cre47]

It is obvious that city staff haven't learned from 2004 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/stor...et-071114.html

They are proposing massive service reductions on some routes including evenings and weekends where in some areas it is already lousy. Let's hope that the council do care about transit and environment and refuse any cuts to service as well as fare hikes.

Maybe they should cut on the asphalt for suburbans instead.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Cre47

It is obvious that city staff haven't learned from 2004 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/stor...et-071114.html

They are proposing massive service reductions on some routes including evenings and weekends where in some areas it is already lousy. Let's hope that the council do care about transit and environment and refuse any cuts to service as well as fare hikes.

Maybe they should cut on the asphalt for suburbans instead.

The way I read it (and parts of the budget that I scanned through) is that most of the cuts are only for the 0% option... staff was instructed to produce scenarios for 0%, 1.7%, and 3.4% increases, it's not like they want to cut service (as far as I can tell), but they were directed to find cuts by council.

edit: In parts of the budget that I read, staff noted that these transit cuts would go against the city's own policies if councilors approved them.

O'Brien has proposed a two-per-cent infrastructure tax levy and an increase to the city's police budget, but wants no increase in regular property taxes. During his 2006 election campaign, he promised to freeze property taxes for four years.

McGuinty'd

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I'm not really sure I understand what problems you perceive with a vehicle like the S70 besides that it's not a high-floor vehicle. What benefit does a vehicle like the SD-160 in Calgary and Edmonton have over it? They are actually marginally slower and have lower acceleration. The S70 is perfectly suited to grade-separated LRT operation, but if/when Ottawa gets around building on-street LRT, it would be suited to that as well. I'd prefer the flexibility, all other things being equal.

How would it be higher cost?

I just hate its looks with more than one car, that's all. I like the combino, but it's a streetcar too, and slower... but the looks suits more of subway system.




And for those who ask, all the stations and lines were built as a maximum of two car trains for all the route. When we'll have enough demand for the service, this will need to be adaptable for 4 train cars (80m platforms), to have a reasonable offer of ~10k pph. It's not an issue for DT and the phase 1of the urbandale proposal, as the land is available, but it is an issue for the Riverside South and Barrhaven sections. Remember that there may be a possibility that the Transitway will be converted, as per the city's plans themselves (the documents I post). So that leaves us with no other choice than to improve the LRT service to compensate for the BRT, one way is to have higher frequency, or longer trains.

Longer trains in this case would have lower operation costs, as you only need one driver for 4 cars, instead of 4 drivers for 4 trains. This is what the Urbandale proposal and the MTF proposal mentiona, as well as the documents made by the consultants. The stations capacity of being extended for 4 cars will need to be looked in, and that impacts for all the system.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Cre47

It is obvious that city staff haven't learned from 2004 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/stor...et-071114.html

They are proposing massive service reductions on some routes including evenings and weekends where in some areas it is already lousy. Let's hope that the council do care about transit and environment and refuse any cuts to service as well as fare hikes.

Maybe they should cut on the asphalt for suburbans instead.

Hahahaha, how can he still be mayor, I would be so embarrassed after all happened in the last year! It's not like he needs a job!

[the capital urbanite]

I wonder if councillors will even want to wait for the updated TMP before considering the Bayview-Bowesville line as a "near-term" investment ...based on the staff report it seems a forgone conclusion that this route will be a component of any future network. As it stands none of the recommended near-term projects will address transit to Riverside South and if approved, most of the $400M from the feds and prov would go to completion of the BRT Transitway.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by the capital urbanite

I wonder if councillors will even want to wait for the updated TMP before considering the Bayview-Bowesville line as a "near-term" investment ...based on the staff report it seems a forgone conclusion that this route will be a component of any future network.

I have the feeling that the 2% "infrastructure increase" will take care of that...

Also, in the MMM group document, about the airport link:

The LRT link to the airport was not supported by the business case for initial implementation as part of the
former N-S LRT project. Depending on the outcome of the revised ridership study, based on a tunnel option
and new end points for the LRT operation, the business case may support earlier implementation of the LRT
airport link
To date, the decision as to whether or not to proceed with the implementation of the airport link has been
driven by the business case. Consideration could also be given to the global exposure factors such as the
world perception and advertising potential created for Ottawa by having an LRT system connected directly to
the international airport. As a G8 Capital City, there is an argument to be made that such a service is evidence
of a progressive, environmentally friendly, forward thinking City. These intangibles are beyond the scope of a
dollar-oriented business case.