The future of Ottawa's Transit

[Richard Eade]

Andy was interviewed on CFRA Thursday morning:

www.cfra.com/chum_audio/Andy_Haydon_Nov19.mp3

[lrt's friend]

I hate to say this since I have been a big supporter of LRT for years but a bus tunnel will eliminate the need for converting express routes into local routes for at least a generation. Then route decisions can be based on what maximizes ridership rather than based on downtown congestion. We just need to keep Albert and Slater as major transit routes as well. None of this would preclude introducing LRT into the tunnel or on the surface, if that kind of service will be beneficial to Ottawa commuters at some point. I would even rough in the LRT infrastructure into the tunnel so that the tunnel could be kept open with little interuption when LRT is introduced. Continue to have rail experts involved in tunnel and station design. We cannot have design mistakes in the tunnel.

When I think about it, I liked LRT in the past because it was designed to make use of large sections of existing rail corridors where it made no sense to try to build busways.

BTW, Andy Haydon will be appearing on CFRA tomorrow morning for a full hour starting after the 9am news.

[Kitchissippi]

His statement on money doubling over 7 years and his understanding of "today's dollars" shows how little Andy knows about the economy. He has it all backwards because it has to do with value. if you spend a billion dollars today, its value will double in future dollars, it does not mean spending double of "today's dollars" in the future. Yes, if you delay the project it will cost more in "tomorrow's dollars" which are of less value than "today's dollars".

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

His statement on money doubling over 7 years and his understanding of "today's dollars" shows how little Andy knows about the economy. He has it all backwards because it has to do with value. if you spend a billion dollars today, its value will double in future dollars, it does not mean spending double of "today's dollars" in the future. Yes, if you delay the project it will cost more in "tomorrow's dollars" which are of less value than "today's dollars".

His point was to partially explain why project costs escalate over time. The longer we delay a project, the higher the price tag is inevitably. Of course, you can consider inflation, but that becomes too complicated for the average person. The other consideration is commodity costs. This has a big effect on projects on this nature. If we build in a period of relative low commodity costs, we will save money. Labour and manufacturing availability will also impact pricing.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

His point was to partially explain why project costs escalate over time. The longer we delay a project, the higher the price tag is inevitably. Of course, you can consider inflation, but that becomes too complicated for the average person. The other consideration is commodity costs. This has a big effect on projects on this nature. If we build in a period of relative low commodity costs, we will save money. Labour and manufacturing availability will also impact pricing.

No he wasn't trying to explain, he's trying to confuse, tagging that condition to the LRT project. Cost escalation happens on any project, including his concept of a bus tunnel.

Don't want to go off topic again, but unless all the buses going into a tunnel are replaced with zero emission vehicles at a high cost, I question the wisdom behind putting people underground to breath air laced with toxic exhaust even at miniscule quantities deemed "acceptable" by experts. There will be a hidden cost of public health attached to it.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

No he wasn't trying to explain, he's trying to confuse, tagging that condition to the LRT project. Cost escalation happens on any project, including his concept of a bus tunnel.

Don't want to go off topic again, but unless all the buses going into a tunnel are replaced with zero emission vehicles at a high cost, I question the wisdom behind putting people underground to breath air laced with toxic exhaust even at miniscule quantities deemed "acceptable" by experts. There will be a hidden cost of public health attached to it.

I don't think there is any question that cost escalation applies to all projects of this nature. It certainly happened with the N-S project as well. The problem is that the longer it takes to get a project off the ground, the higher the cost escalation will be. This project will likely be longer than most. As we have seen the $200M funding from the feds and province dating from 2004 does not have an inflation escalator.

In the case of the LRT tunnel, we are replacing buses with zero emission trains. I don't see how this is any different from purchasing zero emission buses. But there is an advantages for buses. You will still be able to run a lot of buses on Albert and Slater and they will not have to be zero emission. This offers another way to contain costs as does the fact that we don't need to convert the Transitways at this time nor build horrendously expensive transfer stations.

I am coming to the conclusion if $2.1B is considered too rich by the province and feds, that a bus tunnel will offer the best way to solve downtown congestion at a much more affordable cost. Corner cutting on the LRT plan will not contain costs enough and may limit the usefulness of the system in the long-term, maybe even the short-term.

[RTWAP]

I am suspicious that Mr. Haydon is more interested in protecting his 'legacy' than it solving the city's current and future transit issues.

[RTWAP]

Looking at the budget pressures the city is facing, maybe we can't afford this bus system. Bus service is more expensive to operate than light rail. We have perhaps the most comprehensive bus service of any city in North America. So we're paying a lot of money to keep congestion to a manageable level.

Contrast that with other cities. They don't pay for expensive bus systems. The congestion that ensues raises complaints and alarms at the provincial and federal level. Billions of dollars of funding flows from those levels of government to address the congestion. As a result, the cities in question get massive light rail or metro systems built for them at little or no cost to the cities.

Meanwhile Ottawa is struggling to pay for the buses, and projecting an overall failure of the bus system to handle higher loads, and the higher levels of government just point to the current expensive bus system and say "Looks OK to me". Of course it looks OK to them. They're not paying for it.

Maybe we need to take a step back before we can take two steps forward. Cut back on bus service to affordable levels. Convert to a hub and spoke system with transfers (which we'll need for light rail anyway). This will both save money and make the congestion issue much more obvious to the higher levels of government.

[Deez]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

Looking at the budget pressures the city is facing, maybe we can't afford this bus system. Bus service is more expensive to operate than light rail. We have perhaps the most comprehensive bus service of any city in North America. So we're paying a lot of money to keep congestion to a manageable level.

Contrast that with other cities. They don't pay for expensive bus systems. The congestion that ensues raises complaints and alarms at the provincial and federal level. Billions of dollars of funding flows from those levels of government to address the congestion. As a result, the cities in question get massive light rail or metro systems built for them at little or no cost to the cities.

Meanwhile Ottawa is struggling to pay for the buses, and projecting an overall failure of the bus system to handle higher loads, and the higher levels of government just point to the current expensive bus system and say "Looks OK to me". Of course it looks OK to them. They're not paying for it.

Maybe we need to take a step back before we can take two steps forward. Cut back on bus service to affordable levels. Convert to a hub and spoke system with transfers (which we'll need for light rail anyway). This will both save money and make the congestion issue much more obvious to the higher levels of government.

Give this a read:

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...2021%20OCT.pdf

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

Looking at the budget pressures the city is facing, maybe we can't afford this bus system. Bus service is more expensive to operate than light rail. We have perhaps the most comprehensive bus service of any city in North America. So we're paying a lot of money to keep congestion to a manageable level.

Contrast that with other cities. They don't pay for expensive bus systems. The congestion that ensues raises complaints and alarms at the provincial and federal level. Billions of dollars of funding flows from those levels of government to address the congestion. As a result, the cities in question get massive light rail or metro systems built for them at little or no cost to the cities.

Meanwhile Ottawa is struggling to pay for the buses, and projecting an overall failure of the bus system to handle higher loads, and the higher levels of government just point to the current expensive bus system and say "Looks OK to me". Of course it looks OK to them. They're not paying for it.

Maybe we need to take a step back before we can take two steps forward. Cut back on bus service to affordable levels. Convert to a hub and spoke system with transfers (which we'll need for light rail anyway). This will both save money and make the congestion issue much more obvious to the higher levels of government.

Almost every other city has lower ridership than Ottawa. If you look at cities with higher per capita ridership, like
Toronto or Montreal, their bus networks are more extensive than Ottawa's. I believe I read that Toronto doesn't even use articulated buses, which in theory should drive up costs. What it does do is require more frequent service, which in turn makes transit more attractive to more people, which in turn increases revenue.

I do not believe that the issue here is what you describe. The problem we are seeing is a light rail plan that is too expensive for the value that it is delivering. The answer is not to drive away ridership with poorer bus service.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Deez

Give this a read:

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...2021%20OCT.pdf

Yah. I'd already read that. It was rattling around in my brain when I posted the stuff above.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Almost every other city has lower ridership than Ottawa. If you look at cities with higher per capita ridership, like
Toronto or Montreal, their bus networks are more extensive than Ottawa's. I believe I read that Toronto doesn't even use articulated buses, which in theory should drive up costs. What it does do is require more frequent service, which in turn makes transit more attractive to more people, which in turn increases revenue.

I do not believe that the issue here is what you describe. The problem we are seeing is a light rail plan that is too expensive for the value that it is delivering. The answer is not to drive away ridership with poorer bus service.

Toronto has lower per capita bus ridership than Ottawa. What do you mean by 'more extensive'?

The problem is, we don't have any problem that light rail can inexpensively solve if we disregard the pre-existing costs of the bus system, its looming congestion issues and projected growth and costs.

If you ignore those then why are you a fan of LRT? What problem do you see it solving inexpensively?

[waterloowarrior]

Interprovincial Transit Strategy Phase 2 Consultation report
http://www.interprovincial-transit-s...7/Default.aspx

good comment:

“France and other European countries, together with European union
members, have enacted legislation enabling municipalities in different
countries, but comprising one single urban area, to establish a joint
authority managing certain services such as public transit. If that's
possible between two separate countries with different languages, then it
should be possible between Quebec and Ontario. It's really a question of
political will!”

[lrt's friend]

For all of those who would like to read a chat with Wendell Cox in Toronto http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...h-transit.aspx

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

For all of those who would like to read a chat with Wendell Cox in Toronto http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...h-transit.aspx

Maybe it's time for a fresh approach?

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Franky

Maybe it's time for a fresh approach?

There will always be a need for public transit to move people without cars at a minimum in other corridors, but there are some good points made regarding setting realistic modal share goals and looking at cheaper alternatives where densities are lower.

A flexible-ride service (such as the old Tele Transpo) using shared vans or shared taxis should be brought back for areas that cannot support much service (i.e. Rothwell Heights, Country Place), to new communities that have not reached levels able to support full transit and to more established suburbs in service hours that would otherwise have poor or no service (i.e. late evenings).

All areas in the Urban Transit Area should have some form of service - fixed or flexible - within a reasonable walking distance in the following hours at least (longer hours where supported):

Monday to Friday: 5:30 am to 12:30 am
Saturday: 6:30 am to 12:30 am
Sunday: 7:00 am to 12:00 am

For some areas, that would provide service that currently does not exist.

However, to move all the passengers off of buses (based on an estimated ridership about 200,000 on a typical weekday on the Transitway section) and onto the Queensway to downtown without causing massive congestion, it would have to be at least 12 to 14 lanes wide in the core to accomodate the additional 40,000 to 70,000 cars in each direction. The expropriation required for that would be politically and financially impossible. (A bypass of Ottawa for through traffic wouldn't draw nearly enough traffic to even cut one lane in each direction)

[MalcolmTucker]

The analysis is pretty weak as it only accounts for operational cost. No externalities or capital cost analysis, or analysis of alternatives.

The MTA may be more carbon intensive due to coal power use, but how much infrastructure would be needed to move that many cars through New York?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

There will always be a need for public transit to move people without cars at a minimum in other corridors, but there are some good points made regarding setting realistic modal share goals and looking at cheaper alternatives where densities are lower.

A flexible-ride service (such as the old Tele Transpo) using shared vans or shared taxis should be brought back for areas that cannot support much service (i.e. Rothwell Heights, Country Place), to new communities that have not reached levels able to support full transit and to more established suburbs in service hours that would otherwise have poor or no service (i.e. late evenings).

All areas in the Urban Transit Area should have some form of service - fixed or flexible - within a reasonable walking distance in the following hours at least (longer hours where supported):

Monday to Friday: 5:30 am to 12:30 am
Saturday: 6:30 am to 12:30 am
Sunday: 7:00 am to 12:00 am

For some areas, that would provide service that currently does not exist.

However, to move all the passengers off of buses (based on an estimated ridership about 200,000 on a typical weekday on the Transitway section) and onto the Queensway to downtown without causing massive congestion, it would have to be at least 12 to 14 lanes wide in the core to accomodate the additional 40,000 to 70,000 cars in each direction. The expropriation required for that would be politically and financially impossible. (A bypass of Ottawa for through traffic wouldn't draw nearly enough traffic to even cut one lane in each direction)

Now we're starting to see the value of point to point, on demand, automated, electric transit, especially for off-peak use when transit systems waste energy and manpower driving around nearly empty.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Franky

Now we're starting to see the value of point to point, on demand, automated, electric transit, especially for off-peak use when transit systems waste energy and manpower driving around nearly empty.

Automated would be a good pipe dream, but the controls and technology aren't there yet. But point to point and on demand, definitely agreed, and using electric vehicles might work in some areas too.

It could be initiated in new and low-density areas immediately with at least hourly timed connections to LRT or BRT service, as well as in industrial areas in off-peak periods (it would be useful if someone had to work off-hours or had to go home early from an area with only rush hour service). If passenger counts get too high, then fixed route service would be initiated with a 30 minute frequency.

Most established suburbs would only require such a service in the late evenings and on Sundays, since ridership is sufficient for fixed 30 minute service during much of the day.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Automated would be a good pipe dream, but the controls and technology aren't there yet. But point to point and on demand, definitely agreed, and using electric vehicles might work in some areas too.

Podcars are almost there with some caveats.
Certain accommodations might be needed at intersections and maybe dedicated lanes (similar to bicycle lanes) would be needed because the vehicles would only run at low speeds (40 km/h or less). Our weather might be problematic though it's problematic for regular buses and cars too.

Podcars would only be needed to get you to the train station for collective travel, working like a bus. In the future they could board automated guideway pallets (running on Urbanaut guideways) for a seamless, rapid and energy efficient trip direct from origin to destination.

The podcars used in Masdar are guided by magnets in the road with sensors to avoid collisions:

http://www.2getthere.eu/Personal_Transit/

Originally Posted by eternallyme

It could be initiated in new and low-density areas immediately with at least hourly timed connections to LRT or BRT service, as well as in industrial areas in off-peak periods (it would be useful if someone had to work off-hours or had to go home early from an area with only rush hour service). If passenger counts get too high, then fixed route service would be initiated with a 30 minute frequency.

Most established suburbs would only require such a service in the late evenings and on Sundays, since ridership is sufficient for fixed 30 minute service during much of the day.

Shared vans (with professional drivers) - like a shared taxi with multiple pick-up points initiated by a phone/text/web call - would work until automated podcars can take over.