The future of Ottawa's Transit

[eemy]

I personally think a nice alternative to the Richmond/Byron median would be to run up Carling to Parkdale and then connect from Parkdale to the Transitway. I don't think the benefits outweigh the additional cost compared to joining the O-Train corridor; however, it does hit many of the major destinations.

With respect to using Carling, I expect that service levels could be kept quite high with certain modifications to the corridor. The city could eliminate most of the intersections with small local collectors and only allow RIRO access to them, especially for those neighbourhoods with ready access off of adjacent major arterials like Merivale etc. For slightly more important collectors, allowing left hand turns off of Carling, but preventing through traffic or left hand turns onto Carling, could be safely implemented without requiring a lit intersection. Finally a few intersections would have to be fully signaled; however, by positioning the stop after the intersection, and integrating the signal with train operations (such that the signal only changes once the train passes through and stops, for example), affects on the operations can be significantly mitigated. In a few situations, a short tunnel under the intersection may be required, but overall, I think it would be possible to operate at-grade with fairly high service levels. Constructing most of it as an open trench would also allow a gradual improvement to the grade-separation as service-levels improve and traffic levels warrant.

[Kitchissippi]

As I posted it a long time ago, I still think using most of the old CPR ROW would be the most cost effective and practical route for an LRT. A trench could easily be dug (much shallower and narrower than the transitway trench) through most of this route to conceal it from the parkway and reduce the noise from the trains. A short jog into the old Byron tramway route between Redwood Ave and Woodroffe with a station would serve the community well. Note that this section of Byron/Richmond has no single family homes--it is mostly rental apartments and churches.



I took some pictures along this route and there is a lot of room. With the overgrown bushes, you can't even see it from the parkway:



In one section it gets close to the bike path but it is not any worse than along the transitway:


There aren't any houses that front on to Skead Street. From here you can get a good view straight down the old ROW:


The slope towards Cleary Ave has been turned into a pathway, but this would be the area where it would turn towards Richmond:


This strip mall would have to go, but no big loss:


West of Redwood Ave, the path through the Byron Tramway Park ends, so this portion is actually unused/underutilized. The chainlink fencing on the right is where the Continental condo is going up.


An old culvert from the the days of the tramway still exists west of Woodroffe:

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Nice shots.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

As I posted it a long time ago, I still think using most of the old CPR ROW would be the most cost effective and practical route for an LRT. A trench could easily be dug (much shallower and narrower than the transitway trench) through most of this route to conceal it from the parkway and reduce the noise from the trains. A short jog into the old Byron tramway route between Redwood Ave and Woodroffe with a station would serve the community well. Note that this section of Byron/Richmond has no single family homes--it is mostly rental apartments and churches...

This is still an interesting route. Making use of the CPR RoW past the Rochester Field was not the common route suggested. However, I still have issues with it.

You mention placing the rail into a shallow trench. I think that you are right and that this will be required if it were to be run along the Parkway. It does beg the question though: If the route needs to be grade separated, why not put it else where? The premis seems to be that it would be the cheapest option to run along the Parkway because the rail could run at grade. If this premis is false, then why limit the routing options?

I agree with removing Dominion Station, but it is the closest one to the densest area of Westboro - Westboro Station. According to the CDP, the area bordered by Richmond and Danforth will be where the highest towers are located. This area would be a 1/2 kilometre or more from your proposed Maplelawn Station.

I realize that I'm harping on the suggestion I presented earlier, but moving the rail down to Byron/Richmond would place it much closer to the masses and perhaps capture more riders.

For example:

The yellow oval is where the Westboro Station is. The fushia oval is where I'm sure future tall-tower redevelopment will occur.

You are probably wondering why I moved the Maplelawn Station farther from Westboro Station. Well, I am still envisioning a station under Richmond/Churchill. This would be close to the new development along Richmond. I moved the Maplelawn Station so that there is reasonable spacing between these two stations.

I am also thinking that the rail line along Richmond/Byron does not need to be in a trench for most of its route. A reduced number of cross streets can be controlled with gates. Woodroff would be an overpass, of course.

In the west, why do you take the rail up and around the Ambleside area instead of straight along Richmond/Byron?

I think it will be interesting to see who wins the battle of the Rocherster Field: The NCC thinks it should be developed with high density zoning, and the City thinks it should be left as open space. (Currently, I'm thinking the City will pay mostly the cost of high-density zoned land for it, but then leave it as open space.)

[Kitchissippi]

The thing about your route is that you have just added a very expensive tunnel (not to mention a slightly longer route) only to bring the Maplelawn station less than a hundred metres closer to Richmond road. In the end, what matters to people is where the stations are, not the actual route the train takes.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

...I'm not sure that's the case. We shouldn't assume that people are morons who will lustily throw themselves across the tracks without looking. At night time, trains have headlights just like cars, and the inside of the rail vehicles themselves are illuminated, so if anything they are more visible than cars with just two headlights. And you can hear trains too.

Haven't you noticed how many things the various levels of governments do to keep us safe from ourselves?

Just as a simple example,

Thank-you Kitchissippi

Why are the (mostly) white fences needed to prevent people from falling down these slopes?

I'm afraid we will need some sort of barrier along the rail line. People may not be morons, but they do seem to have frequent lapses of good judgement. And the trains will be different from the vehicles they are used to dodging. Trains travel at a different speed and have different acceleration/deceleration characteristics. People will eventually get used to the peculiarities of trains, but it might take a while.

(Of course, natural selection favours clearing out the slower learners so that the quicker can flourish. However, it seems that governments are loathe to encourage this on moral grounds. )

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The thing about your route is that you have just added a very expensive tunnel (not to mention a slightly longer route) only to bring the Maplelawn station less than a hundred metres closer to Richmond road. In the end, what matters to people is where the stations are, not the actual route the train takes.

Yes, the route is a couple of hundred metres longer and the train will be travelling slower because of the added curves. (The curves are not less than 100m radius, and will be near a station, where the train would be travelling more slowly anyway.)

The tunnelling would be about a kilometre of cut and cover tunnel which would total, probably, $50M more. That is $30M for the tunneling and $20M for the station. If the section along Churchill was done while the road was being rebuilt, then it could be cheaper. (Alas, the City is in the process of rebuilding Churchill between Richmond and Scott now, so that won't happen.)

However, besides these draw-backs, the route adds a station at Richmond and Churchill - in the heart of Westboro, and right beside the area being redeveloped with the highest density.

Also, by moving the Maplelawn Station south, it is within walking distance of not only the Maplelawn redevelopment area, but also the people south of Byron.

If "In the end, what matters to people is where the stations are, not the actual route the train takes.", I would prefer to have a station right in Westboro, close to the high density. Lets put stations in the heart of developed areas, and in areas which have development potential.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Yes, the route is a couple of hundred metres longer and the train will be travelling slower because of the added curves. (The curves are not less than 100m radius, and will be near a station, where the train would be travelling more slowly anyway.)

The tunnelling would be about a kilometre of cut and cover tunnel which would total, probably, $50M more. That is $30M for the tunneling and $20M for the station. If the section along Churchill was done while the road was being rebuilt, then it could be cheaper. (Alas, the City is in the process of rebuilding Churchill between Richmond and Scott now, so that won't happen.)

However, besides these draw-backs, the route adds a station at Richmond and Churchill - in the heart of Westboro, and right beside the area being redeveloped with the highest density.

Also, by moving the Maplelawn Station south, it is within walking distance of not only the Maplelawn redevelopment area, but also the people south of Byron.

If "In the end, what matters to people is where the stations are, not the actual route the train takes.", I would prefer to have a station right in Westboro, close to the high density. Lets put stations in the heart of developed areas, and in areas which have development potential.

$50m for 1km of cut and cover tunnel + a station? That seems a bit off to me.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

$50m for 1km of cut and cover tunnel + a station? That seems a bit off to me.

Low or high? Is it the cut and cover at $30M/Km or the station under Richmond and Churchill at $20M that is the problem?

Note that I said $50m more than the east end of Kitchissippi's route. There is still the cost of the tracks, electricity, and signalling - most of which would be common to both routes.

[Kitchissippi]

Put it this way: the city could not even afford to bury the unsightly hydro wires along Richmond Road when they dug up and entirely rebuilt the road for sewers and water mains, despite the strong wishes of the community. I doubt an extra couple of hundred million dollars could be found for a tunnel and underground station even is they were redoing Churchill Avenue.

It would be far wiser to redevelop the Maplelawn/Rochester Field area so that rapid transit is *perceived* to serve Westboro Village more directly and visibly. All you really need to do this is strong pedestrian links and distinctive signage, something that is lacking at the moment. Many light rail and metro systems have entrances and entrance signs that are placed a good distance from the actual stations, giving riders a sense of arrival so that they discount the walk up to the platforms.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The thing about your route is that you have just added a very expensive tunnel (not to mention a slightly longer route) only to bring the Maplelawn station less than a hundred metres closer to Richmond road. In the end, what matters to people is where the stations are, not the actual route the train takes.

Just to emphasize things; if we assume a walk-in radius of 400 metres from the stations, then the catchments for the two routes are as follows:

The red area is for the Parkway route, around the Maplelawn Station. The blue is for the Churchill/Byron route with stations at Westboro and Maplelawn.

There is definitely a greater possibility of more people walking up to the blue stations than the red station.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

You mention placing the rail into a shallow trench. I think that you are right and that this will be required if it were to be run along the Parkway. It does beg the question though: If the route needs to be grade separated, why not put it else where? The premis seems to be that it would be the cheapest option to run along the Parkway because the rail could run at grade. If this premis is false, then why limit the routing options?

Somehow, I don't think "shallow trench" quite equates with grade separated.

I agree with removing Dominion Station, but it is the closest one to the densest area of Westboro - Westboro Station. According to the CDP, the area bordered by Richmond and Danforth will be where the highest towers are located. This area would be a 1/2 kilometre or more from your proposed Maplelawn Station.

Well what the CDP says is of no consequence. It means nothing anymore. It gets ignored in its first test, so while that area might become the densest, it might not as well. Somewhere else might. Someone might decide to do in that ugly old motel and car repair garage beside the LCBO/Loblaws and put in a 20-storey building there, and then it would be the densest. Or everywhere might become uniformly tall. Who knows, it's all very open and flexible.

At any rate, the catchment area of a rapid transit station is at least 600 m and frankly it's probably as much as 1 km.

I realize that I'm harping on the suggestion I presented earlier, but moving the rail down to Byron/Richmond would place it much closer to the masses and perhaps capture more riders.

Yes, it would move it closer to one of the largest concentrations of NIMBYs in the city, at least along the Byron corridor anywhere east of Cleary. Once that Amica building was approved, the Byron corridor east of Cleary ceased to make any sense because it's too difficult to get a station any closer to the western part of Westboro than is possible with the old CPR alignment alongside the Parkway.

For example:

The yellow oval is where the Westboro Station is. The fushia oval is where I'm sure future tall-tower redevelopment will occur.

You are probably wondering why I moved the Maplelawn Station farther from Westboro Station. Well, I am still envisioning a station under Richmond/Churchill. This would be close to the new development along Richmond. I moved the Maplelawn Station so that there is reasonable spacing between these two stations.

Wouldn't the Richmond/Churchill station *be* Westboro Station? That is the centre of Westboro, after all. At any rate, this alignment would cost a fortune, require half a decade of study and we'd be left with a useless hole in the ground west of Churchill that some enterprising soul in the roads department might figure is a good way to connect Scott Street to the Parkway. That would end up increasing car traffic along the entire western Parkway - which is currently held in check by the traffic jam at Island Park and the bottleneck in Westboro - as well as along Scott Street because Scott Street would then have an outlet. The logic would be too compelling to resist for long. So no way - the rapid transit route MUST use the entirety of the trench to prevent its use for any other purpose.

I am also thinking that the rail line along Richmond/Byron does not need to be in a trench for most of its route. A reduced number of cross streets can be controlled with gates. Woodroff would be an overpass, of course.

Entering the Richmond/Byron corridor at Cleary largely avoids that problem, but I agree - I see no great problem with crossing gates for minor roads, especially if they're located next to a station (where trains are not travelling too fast anyway).

In the west, why do you take the rail up and around the Ambleside area instead of straight along Richmond/Byron?

I'd like to know that too. Richmond would need to be realigned slightly (take out that gas station at Ambleside and Richmond) and Alex Cullen's social housing project would need to have its access addressed but other than that it would be a nice straight alignment.

I think it will be interesting to see who wins the battle of the Rocherster Field: The NCC thinks it should be developed with high density zoning, and the City thinks it should be left as open space. (Currently, I'm thinking the City will pay mostly the cost of high-density zoned land for it, but then leave it as open space.)

The NCC are being silly. They acquired that land as parkland for use as parkland, probably to surround the Maple Lawn estate, with, well, lawn. It's a bit rich of them to now decide that it might be good to develop. I personally would see the bit behind the old RMOC building and Rogers developed as a mixed use development in concert with the station, but the rest of it west of the estate should probably remain more-or-less as it is.

[c_speed3108]

Ottawa's transit plan 'impresses' minister
Patrick Dare, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, August 27, 2008

OTTAWA - The City of Ottawa made a private presentation of its ambitious new public transit plan to Ontario Transportation Minister Jim Bradley yesterday and the minister liked what he heard.

The scene was the Ottawa Congress Centre and the Westin Hotel, where 1,800 delegates from municipalities across Ontario gathered for the annual meeting of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

The private 15-minute "delegations" or lobbying sessions by municipalities of various ministers are the main reason a lot of people come to the convention, and Ottawa's most important session was with Mr. Bradley, to get him thinking positively about the city's new transit plan after the collapse of the former one.

Mayor Larry O'Brien, city manager Kent Kirkpatrick, several city councillors and a representative of Premier Dalton McGuinty met with Mr. Bradley and with Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman.

The delegation said Ottawa will build the $4-billion system -- running commuter rail east and west, a tunnel under downtown and bus transit to the suburbs -- "as we can afford it."

Mr. O'Brien said the transit plan is the city's "major ask" of the Ontario government, so it is crucial for the city's future and he was pleased the pitch went well.

Mr. Bradley said he was impressed by Ottawa's big-picture view of transportation.

"They are looking well into the future. They're not just looking five years ahead," said Mr. Bradley. "I was impressed."

Mr. Bradley said too many municipal proposals are for projects that look two or three years ahead when there needs to be planning that looks 10 to 15 years ahead. Ottawa's plan runs to 2031.

Mr. Bradley also said municipalities need to focus on public transit, which is "the way of the future."

"The days when we just saw suburban sprawl everywhere are over," said Mr. Bradley. He said cities need to develop public transit systems with neighbourhoods as the congestion on the province's roads and highways worsens for commuters.

"Ottawa seems to be looking well into the future and they deserve credit for that," said Mr. Bradley.

Mr. Bradley said he will leave it to his experts to assess the particular projects of the transit plan, such as the tunnel under downtown.

Mr. Smitherman told Ottawa officials he wants a detailed briefing on the transit plan and a tour of the city in the months to come.

Councillor Clive Doucet, who was in the Ottawa delegation, noted to the ministers that some councillors voted against the new transit plan. Mr. O'Brien said that's just part of the democratic right to dissent. Mr. Bradley said the 19-4 vote in support of the plan is "a pretty good consensus on council."

The next crucial step for the transit plan comes this fall, when council votes on what gets built first.

- - -

Read the latest news on transit in the city, archival stories, maps and links in Getting There: Ottawa's Transit Future, online at: ottawacitizen.com


© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

.

[c_speed3108]

We must consider the parkway and a tunnel
The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Re: Make tracks for Carling Avenue, Aug. 22.

Ken Gray's column leaves the mistaken impression that the Ottawa River Parkway is not a viable option for rapid transit and that a downtown tunnel is "unnecessary."

This is clearly not the case. Council overwhelmingly approved a city-wide light rail transit plan that includes east-west rapid transit from Baseline to Blair, with service through the downtown in a tunnel.

Currently, buses provide this rapid-transit service from Baseline to Blair -- including buses on the parkway.

A future environmental assessment study will look at the details of how the parkway could be converted to rail, as well as assess alternative corridors for this section of the network.

This study will examine all issues and concerns, including esthetics, accessibility to pathways, ridership and benefits to transit users.

Further, rather than opposing the plan as Mr. Gray suggests, the National Capital Commission has prudently reserved judgment on the use of the Ottawa River Parkway until the results of the study are known. The city will continue to work closely with the NCC on this issue.

The parkway and the Carling corridors provide opportunities for very different transit services and complement, rather than compete with each other.

The parkway is more analogous to commuter (rapid) transit for those coming in from the south and the west, while transit on Carling would provide a more local (streetcar-type) service for those along the corridor.

Finally, Mr. Gray questioned the need for a downtown rail tunnel. As we have indicated throughout this process, the downtown is at virtual capacity for transit operations, and the city is developing a solution for the long term that will successfully address this main point of congestion.

For these reasons, council made a firm decision to move the city forward with a downtown tunnel as part of the overall network. The tunnel study is already underway -- and this is the first stage towards the realization of electric rail service throughout the City of Ottawa.

Nancy Schepers

Deputy City Manager

Planning, Transit and the Environment


© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

.

[Cre47]

Add also letter from a Kanata councillor

Rail on Carling
The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Unless hundreds of millions of dollars are spent building a tunnel or a trench, light rail along Carling Avenue will be a souped-up streetcar. Trains would have to stop at traffic lights as well as at 24 stations between Preston Street and Bayshore.

Travel times would be considerably longer than existing Transitway service.

Our first priority for light rail needs to be a fast route that will solve congestion problems in the downtown by providing a replacement for buses currently using the Transitway.

To keep existing riders and attract new riders, travel times need to be as fast or faster than what it currently takes people by bus. A train along Carling Avenue that stops at least 24 times between Preston and Bayshore will not be fast enough. In the west end, the cheapest way to get a light-rail route fast enough to keep and attract riders is to convert the Transitway.

There is a role for light rail along Carling Avenue. As a feeder route for a cross-town light-rail line, it would provide an improved connection to the many destinations along Carling.

However, when what is needed most is a fast light-rail route across the city, light rail on Carling Avenue should not be our priority.

Peggy Feltmate,

Councillor

Kanata South Ward

[p_xavier]

If that can finally shut up Ken Gray, I'm all for it. I guess I'm not the only one irritated by his opinion.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Dado

Somehow, I don't think "shallow trench" quite equates with grade separated.

When I mentioned shallow trench I was thinking the way the TTC runs through some parts of Toronto. They don't have ridiculously wide and deep trenches like we have

Tracks near St Clair
from wikipedia

original concept sketches:
from Toronto.ca

I'm sure there is enough room in the old CPR ROW to make the LRT inconspicuous from the parkway.

[c_speed3108]

http://ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/pressco.pl?...=14791&lang=en

Date: Tuesday 26 August 2008
Contact: Public Affairs (613-580-2450), medias@ottawa.ca
MA: City and Province to announce Smartcard funding

Ottawa – The City of Ottawa and Province of Ontario will announce funding details to provide Smartcards for Ottawa’s transit system.

Mayor Larry O’Brien will welcome Jim Watson, Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Councillor Alex Cullen, Transit Committee Chair, Alain Mercier, Transit Services Director, Patrice Martin, Chairman of the Société de transport de l’Outaouais (STO), and Michel Brissette, General Manager of the Société de transport de l’Outaouais (STO), to describe the Smartcard system and how it will function for customers on both sides of the Ottawa River.

Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Time: 2 p.m.
Location: Ottawa City Hall
Festival Plaza
110 Laurier Avenue West

A demonstration of the Smartcard system will follow the official remarks.

[harls]

Dang. Starts in 5 minutes.

[c_speed3108]

Transit Smartcard System Here by 2011
Jake Rupert, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Ottawa transit riders should be able to chuck their plastic passes and paper tickets by 2011 after the provincial government handed the city $7 million towards a $21-million smartcard system Wednesday.

The announcement was made by Ottawa West-Nepean MPP Jim Watson, who is also Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The cards would store either transit passes or a cash value, with card readers on buses and O-Train platforms. They would be replenished online, by telephone, by pre-arranged direct debit, or at current OC Transpo sales offices and vendors. Enforcement officers would have portable smartcard readers to ensure proof of payment.

In 2007, city council set aside $14 million for the system, which will be fully integrated with Gatineau's transit system.

In the future, city officials hope to turn the smartcard system into a city-wide payment vehicle that can be used to book recreation spaces, pay library fees and purchase other city services.


© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

.