Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[eternallyme]

If the Westboro extension is implemented, here is how I would change the bus network:

Express service from the west and southwest - End all express routes at Westboro if they still exist. By 2011, I would eliminate all direct-to-downtown peak and express routes within the Greenbelt, with service beyond the Greenbelt coming later. In the construction stage, all the routes should operate along Scott Street.

Routes 95, 96 and 97 - End at Westboro (the 95 and 97 would be split, with the 97 between Hurdman and the Airport, 95 between Westboro and Barrhaven and between Blair and Orleans). In the construction stage, they would use Scott Street.

Route 87 - Remove from the west end (truncate to Hurdman in off-peak periods, downtown at rush hour). Route 159 would need to run all day to replace the 87 between Westboro and Carlingwood, and Routes 16 and 85 are also available.

Route 102 - No change.

Alternate Rapid Service - Since a transfer would be needed for a very short distance for those going to Tunney's Pasture from the west, I would create two new Rapid Transit bus routes from Barrhaven and Kanata that would focus on Park and Ride facilities and operate to Tunney's Pasture via the Queensway and Holland, similar to Route 102. They should be numbered 103 and 104 and run only during rush hours. They could be maintained until the LRT is extended to the suburbs if ridership is good.

Local Routes - Routes 6 and 176 should be extended to Westboro in order to improve transfer connections.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Thanks for the feed-back. I appreciate the comments because it makes me go back and re-look at the things I said.

It looks like we can agree on the Westboro and downtown suggestions so I'll concentrate on Bayview. I'm going over it again because I have probably missed something.

From what I get out of the Staff concept is the following:


I like the straighter path for the main west-east line, but I don't like the way it divides the developable land. Also, the Transitway Bridge is too narrow to feed the central-platform upper level of the bi-level station recommended; thus it needs to be removed and re-built.

Not a critique of you (of course), but this is kind of dumb... surely to goodness they could just keep the existing bridge and turn it into a side-loaded station by widening the bridge; all that requires is that two lower-capacity bridges are added to it for the platforms. Two elevators and stairwells would be required (to access a lower-level centre-loading station) but that would be the end of it - no expensive or disruptive demolition and rebuilding.

So what have I missed? Is it just the straighter alignment that appeals for the Staff recommendation? What about the idea of following the current Transitway alignment, NOT rebuilding the bridge, but instead just continue the Scott Trench to meet the O-Train? The two tracks would merge and then share the same station. The plan view would look very much like the Staff plan except the interlining would occur west of the station instead of east and the station would be a single level.

I prefer this to the reconstruction option - just blow away the existing bridge, extend the trench eastwards and be done with it. Bayview Rd could either be an at-grade crossing or the trench goes under it (Bayview could also be raised somewhat too since the Scott-Bayview intersection is in dip). Or indeed Bayview Rd could be closed off entirely and a new access provided through an extension of Merton (which, btw, is currently where the Transitway crosses through grade from below grade to above grade).

[Franky]

Cancelled LRT Route Could be Built in New Plan

Josh Pringle with Stephanie Kinsella
Tuesday, September 15, 2009

An Ottawa City Councillor points out the cancelled north-south Light Rail Transit Project is part of the current Ottawa Transportation Master Plan.

A proposal for funding to the Ontario Government for the new Rapid Transit Network includes an option to construct the line from Bayview to South Keys as part of the first part of the east-west route.

Staff say the route is in an "advanced state of readiness."
http://www.cfra.com/?cat=1&nid=67933

What the... Isn't there supposed to be a study WRT using the S-E transitway instead of wasting money on twining tracks and a new tunnel under Dow's lake?

[bikegypsy]

North-South rail line not dead yet

Cancelled plan that cost taxpayers millions pitched to province as option

By Patrick Dare, The Ottawa CitizenSeptember 16, 2009 12:02 AM


Ottawa may have ditched its first north-south light-rail plan, but it could soon be building the project regardless, if the Ontario government decides to fund it.

Briefing notes on the city’s pitch to two key provincial ministers show that Ottawa is offering two options for the funding of its new transit plan in the first phase.

One option is a package that includes building the light-rail tunnel downtown and building the rail line from Blair Station in the east to Tunney’s Pasture west of downtown, as well as expanded bus transit corridors. This would cost $1.7 billion.

Option two is to do the tunnel and rail line from Blair to Tunney’s and convert the current north-south diesel

O-Train into a two-track electric line.

This plan would cost $1.8 billion, including $400 million for the north-south project between Bayview Station and South Keys.

The two options were laid out to Ontario Transportation Minister Jim Bradley and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman at the recent meeting of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

Council voted last week to spend $36.7 million on a lawsuit settlement over the first proposed north-south commuter-rail project.

The former city council approved the project, but it was cancelled by the current council, which prompted the lawsuit.

The possibility of a north-south rail service was included in the city’s new transportation master plan, but as recently as this spring the city was saying it would only happen in a later stage of the plan, many years away.

Councillor Maria McRae, chairwoman of the transportation committee, said council agreed to put north-south rail into the transportation master plan even after deciding to kill the former project against the wishes of McRae and several other councillors.

The Ontario government has always said it liked the north-south project partly because it would help shape new southern communities into more transit-oriented places.

McRae said the downtown tunnel would be the first thing to be built, but the north-south line could easily be built shortly after because all of the design work, land acquisition and environmental assessment are done.

She said the lawsuit hanging over the city was a hindrance to moving ahead with the transit projects because the Ontario government didn’t want any of its money tied up in the dispute. Last Friday’s settling of the legal matter clears that obstacle.

If the provincial government selects the north-south rail option, one good piece of news is that the city would be able to get much of the design and engineering work at no cost. As part of the lawsuit settlement, the building consortium, led by Siemens, agreed to give the city the materials in exchange for the $36.7 million.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen



Sounds good to me.

[Franky]

Doesn't using the O-Train line make the city core ridership by direction unbalanced? Isn't it also more expensive than using the SE transitway? Isn't there supposed to be a study to chose between the two routes?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I love how the article says that the old council proposed it, but the new council cancelled it. They were both practically the same damn councils!!!: rolleyes:

[lrt's friend]

The Ontario government has always said it liked the north-south project partly because it would help shape new southern communities into more transit-oriented places.

So, why not ask for funding for a project that doesn't accomplish this either?

I don't know how either option will draw significant new ridership.

This city council is determined to build half an LRT line, either half way to Orleans or half way to Riverside South/Barrhaven.

The problem is that we are trying to treat every part of the city the same way. Instead of building LRT correctly in one direction first (which is all we can afford), we are choosing a bunch of half measures.

We need to dump this entire City Council.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

Doesn't using the O-Train line make the city core ridership by direction unbalanced? Isn't it also more expensive than using the SE transitway? Isn't there supposed to be a study to chose between the two routes?

It will be unbalanced regardless. There is presently more traffic coming from Hurdman with the SE Transitway providing service to downtown.

This City Council has shown it has no coherent idea of what it really wants to do with LRT.

Unlike Toronto, where each project is designed to speed up service and/or improve service frequency, these considerations seem not to be a priority for projects here. Why can't we have a plan that clearly demonstrates the improvements that transit riders will receive? Riding an escalator to a station is not one of them!! That is just window dressing. We have heard a lot of BS about service improvements, which has not been backed up with objective information.

[Dado]

Here we go again... selecting the most expensive length of track to do first, and one that happens to already have rail running on it.

If this city had any sense, it would put light rail on the surface downtown and convert the existing transitways from Blair and South Keys in the east and Bayshore and Baseline in the west, along with filling in any missing bits in the west. That would be the biggest bang for our bucks since it would remove the high-cost buses from the backbone and core of the system in as short a time as possible and for as little capital expenditure as possible. That is what should have been proposed in the 2003 TMP but wasn't and that's what should be in the 2008 TMP and isn't.

After that we could argue about where to go next. If a tunnel is truly needed for future capacity, that could still be built in due course.

[lrt's friend]

it would put light rail on the surface downtown

The Albert/Slater Coalition believes that it has already won this battle. The tunnel was a key component of the mayor's platform. Without it and the zero means zero promise being a total sham, the mayor has accomplished nothing from his election platform.

It will be really hard to get rail back on the surface downtown even though it may be the only affordable thing to do at present.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

Here we go again... selecting the most expensive length of track to do first, and one that happens to already have rail running on it.

If this city had any sense, it would put light rail on the surface downtown and convert the existing transitways from Blair and South Keys in the east and Bayshore and Baseline in the west, along with filling in any missing bits in the west. That would be the biggest bang for our bucks since it would remove the high-cost buses from the backbone and core of the system in as short a time as possible and for as little capital expenditure as possible. That is what should have been proposed in the 2003 TMP but wasn't and that's what should be in the 2008 TMP and isn't.

After that we could argue about where to go next. If a tunnel is truly needed for future capacity, that could still be built in due course.

Why not go Trim to Terry Fox/Arena without a tunnel for now?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It will be unbalanced regardless. There is presently more traffic coming from Hurdman with the SE Transitway providing service to downtown.

This City Council has shown it has no coherent idea of what it really wants to do with LRT.

Unlike Toronto, where each project is designed to speed up service and/or improve service frequency, these considerations seem not to be a priority for projects here. Why can't we have a plan that clearly demonstrates the improvements that transit riders will receive? Riding an escalator to a station is not one of them!! That is just window dressing. We have heard a lot of BS about service improvements, which has not been backed up with objective information.

By the time this thing is built, will that still be the case? Seems really silly not to run LRT where all the people are - along Riverside. It's basically a wall of high-rises buildings.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

By the time this thing is built, will that still be the case? Seems really silly not to run LRT where all the people are - along Riverside. It's basically a wall of high-rises buildings.

Carleton University is a bigger transit draw and a growing institution. I have my doubts that you will see much more development along the Riverside corridor. Of course, this could have been addressed by running LRT through the hospital corridor as well. But they have chosen not to do that either. As I said, the plan is incoherent.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

Why not go Trim to Terry Fox/Arena without a tunnel for now?

That will still cost a ton of money, billions. Much more than what is saved not building the tunnel. A good portion of the right of way has to be built from scratch.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Carleton University is a bigger transit draw and a growing institution. I have my doubts that you will see much more development along the Riverside corridor. Of course, this could have been addressed by running LRT through the hospital corridor as well. But they have chosen not to do that either. As I said, the plan is incoherent.

Keeping the existing O-Train corridor as it is (as a smaller independent route from Bayview to Greenboro) while converting the South/Southeast Transitway to become the mainline route to the Airport, Riverside South and Southeast area would also accomplish the trick.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Carleton University is a bigger transit draw and a growing institution. I have my doubts that you will see much more development along the Riverside corridor. Of course, this could have been addressed by running LRT through the hospital corridor as well. But they have chosen not to do that either. As I said, the plan is incoherent.

The plan includes a (1.5 km) spur to the hospital - always has. p. 151 http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa...14%20April.pdf

It's BRT, but could be LRT just as easily I suppose. Where do you get the ridership numbers from?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Franky

Why not go Trim to Terry Fox/Arena without a tunnel for now?

See: After that we could argue about where to go next.

Once the current Transitway is converted, what to do next is pretty open. That would be when the difficult choices begin. Amongst others we have:

• Hospital link
• Carling
• Rideau
• Riverside South (and/or Airport)
• Baseline to Hunt Club/Sportsplex
• Sportsplex to Barrhaven
• Bayshore to Kanata
• Blair to Orleans
• Cumberland corridor
• Gatineau/Hull
• Downtown Tunnel

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

That will still cost a ton of money, billions. Much more than what is saved not building the tunnel. A good portion of the right of way has to be built from scratch.

I'll post something in another thread about Urbanaut's lower cost, allowing it to serve the suburbs. I've been crunching numbers.

[lrt's friend]

The problem is that while we spend billions to convert the Transitways to LRT, we are not generating new ridership and little or none of our funding is being used to deliver better service to our growth areas. On the contrary, service in the suburbs will get worse as buses will increasingly have to compete with more congestion.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The problem is that while we spend billions to convert the Transitways to LRT, we are not generating new ridership and little or none of our funding is being used to deliver better service to our growth areas. On the contrary, service in the suburbs will get worse as buses will increasingly have to compete with more congestion.

That's not true, for several reasons:

1) There is a stigma among people that trains are different than "just a bus". That makes Park and Ride facilities much more attractive. Every North American city that put an LRT line in found that as opposed to the parallel bus service.

2) With bus service already at or over capacity downtown, having much larger trains would ease congestion greatly. Those on routes that would remain (such as the 1, 2, 16 and 85) would have much less congestion to deal with downtown. If it were to remain status quo, the system would break down in the downtown area at rush hour and ridership would drop significantly.

3) The bus fleet would go to a large surplus, and those resources could be re-allocated to suburban areas and other rapid transit corridors.