Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[McC]

Shorter KHOOLE: "where are the numbers? no, not *those* numbers."

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by KHOOLE

I do not consider anything posted by Nancy Schepers more than four years ago, before the subprime crisis in the US as being relevant!
What are the numbers for now, 2012? and the projected numbers for the next 10 years?
If we do not know where we are, how can we know where we are going?

Don't think we have a 2012 update, waterloowarrior has the most recent ones (2010).

But anyway, our point is that the numbers are still relevant today, ridership has gone up. Forget the "projected", just take what the ridership was at the time (08-10) and add a few hundred and you'll get a pretty damn good estimate of the current numbers.

[McC]

and if you believe that prevailing economic conditions will put a drag on growth, then discount the projections by the same amount. I highly doubt that the planners/engineers would be deploying brand new modeling tools just because of the US housing crisis. what they might do is adjust the inputs and tweak the assumptions, which you can simulate at home by applying a discount rate to the previous projections, back of the envelope stuff.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by lrt's foe

Keep on spreading Randall O'Toole's word and the gospel according to the CATO institute. Good man, you're dong a great job sowing the seeds of doubt!

I am not trying to cast doubt but to promote discussion and to find ways to prevent that scenario from happening in Ottawa. As far as I know, the original comment was based on real statistics and was accompanied by a series of graphs that also included a number of cities (with non-LRT based transit systems) that had experienced transit modal share growth over the same period. It was not an anti-transit rant coming from the CATO Institute. It was a disturbing observation about certain cities that had invested heavily in LRT.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dado

A BRT tunnel will solve absolutely nothing.

The notion that a BRT tunnel would solve anything is based on a gross misinterpretation of what the actual causes of the problems downtown currently are.

The common belief is that it is cross streets with their traffic lights that are causing problems.

This is false. It's a case of seeing a correlation - lots of cross streets and bus jams - and coming to a conclusion on causation without analysis.

The cause of the queues is the fact that average bus dwell times downtown exceed average bus headways. Indeed, the traffic lights actually help rather than hinder matters by forcing a certain level of "discipline" in that they clump buses together in short platoons of 2-4 buses. These buses then arrive at a station together, allowing their combined average headways to be pooled, thus permitting dwell times to exceed the average headway. The fact the system doesn't break down even more than it does can be attributed to platooning and indirectly the role of traffic lights in forcing that platooning.

As it happens, bus queues also form up at Tunney's Pasture westbound in the afternoon. There are no traffic lights to blame there. It is grade separated. There is even a passing lane. And yet it fails. According to people who routinely advocate a bus tunnel like Andy Haydon and John Bonsall, this shouldn't be happening.

Tunney's Pasture fails because lots of passengers board here and they are trying to board buses that are already full, both of which increase dwell times. Every express bus also has to stop to check for passengers, and since the dwell times exceed the headways, arriving buses have no choice but to join the end of the queue. They can't make use of the passing lane since they can't be sure their part of the platform is clear and the drivers also don't want to get into a potentially risky game of leap-frogging and queue-jumping each other; they can only make use of the passing lane when they leave the platform. What is particularly pertinent is that Tunney's Pasture, despite being a relatively high-volume station, still fails at passenger volumes that are a lot lower than what we would get with a reduced number of downtown stations in a tunnel.

Instead of highly visible queues on the surface, we would get much more hidden bus queues underground.

From a passenger perspective, being in a bus tunnel would be like a worse version of St. Laurent Station. Besides the fumes and noise of the ventilation system and buses, it would also get pretty hot. Rail tunnels are not immune to getting hot, either, but buses are far worse since internal combustion engines dump far more heat than electric motors.


If we can't build a rail tunnel, we would be far better off building an exclusive surface light rail line (e.g. down Albert) than building a bus tunnel, since a surface light rail system would not suffer from the queuing problems of a bus tunnel. A surface light rail line would have more capacity than a bus tunnel.

The various studies have falsely claimed that a bus tunnel would not help us. That all depends on how we implement it. The general assumption is that all the buses now on the surface would be moved to tunnel. With this scenario, naturally, we would have capacity issues is a fairly short period of time. But, if congestion is the only problem we are trying to address, a bus tunnel will work by keeping any overflow of buses on the surface. We have effectively created at least double the capacity if we are willing to continue to use Albert and Slater. Surface overflow for rail is not easily possible without expensive additional infrastructure. The flexiblity of buses and a bus tunnel would allow us to continue to route some buses onto Albert and Slater Street. Whether that is desireable or not is a completely different issue.

I think there is no reason why it is not technically possible to properly vent a bus tunnel, and from what I have been reading, venting requirements for a bus or train tunnel are the same. The reason being, that you have to deal with a fire scenario regardless of whether you dealing with trains or buses.

The cost of a bus tunnel may be higher than a rail tunnel because the tunnel has to be bigger but this will be more than offset by the cost of building LRT well beyond the tunnel, ie Transitway conversion that would not be necessary with a bus tunnel.

Regarding issues at Tunney's Pasture, I think the comments address the problem as it stands. This is partly resolved by eliminating express buses particulary in the PM peak period. If buses are running overcrowded and therefore increasing dwell time, the solution for that is also obvious.

I am playing a devil's advocate on this but there is no sense for justifying a position based on information that not entirely true.

[KHOOLE]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Don't think we have a 2012 update, waterloowarrior has the most recent ones (2010).

But anyway, our point is that the numbers are still relevant today, ridership has gone up. Forget the "projected", just take what the ridership was at the time (08-10) and add a few hundred and you'll get a pretty damn good estimate of the current numbers.

Thank you very much. Greatly appreciated.

[KHOOLE]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The various studies have falsely claimed that a bus tunnel would not help us. That all depends on how we implement it. The general assumption is that all the buses now on the surface would be moved to tunnel. With this scenario, naturally, we would have capacity issues is a fairly short period of time. But, if congestion is the only problem we are trying to address, a bus tunnel will work by keeping any overflow of buses on the surface. We have effectively created at least double the capacity if we are willing to continue to use Albert and Slater. Surface overflow for rail is not easily possible without expensive additional infrastructure. The flexiblity of buses and a bus tunnel would allow us to continue to route some buses onto Albert and Slater Street. Whether that is desireable or not is a completely different issue.

I think there is no reason why it is not technically possible to properly vent a bus tunnel, and from what I have been reading, venting requirements for a bus or train tunnel are the same. The reason being, that you have to deal with a fire scenario regardless of whether you dealing with trains or buses.

The cost of a bus tunnel may be higher than a rail tunnel because the tunnel has to be bigger but this will be more than offset by the cost of building LRT well beyond the tunnel, ie Transitway conversion that would not be necessary with a bus tunnel.

Regarding issues at Tunney's Pasture, I think the comments address the problem as it stands. This is partly resolved by eliminating express buses particulary in the PM peak period. If buses are running overcrowded and therefore increasing dwell time, the solution for that is also obvious.

I am playing a devil's advocate on this but there is no sense for justifying a position based on information that not entirely true.

I appreciate your devil's advocacy. It leads us to think things out a bit more. There are two sides to a coin and one side is not necessarily shinier than the other side.
Which brought this thought about a BRT tunnel: in case of an accident or repairs/maintenance, buses can always be re-routed to the street level while trains are unable to do so.
Montreal students held up the Metro subway for hours with smoke bombs. Buses would have simply avoided the underground route.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The various studies have falsely claimed that a bus tunnel would not help us. That all depends on how we implement it. The general assumption is that all the buses now on the surface would be moved to tunnel. With this scenario, naturally, we would have capacity issues is a fairly short period of time. But, if congestion is the only problem we are trying to address, a bus tunnel will work by keeping any overflow of buses on the surface. We have effectively created at least double the capacity if we are willing to continue to use Albert and Slater. Surface overflow for rail is not easily possible without expensive additional infrastructure. The flexiblity of buses and a bus tunnel would allow us to continue to route some buses onto Albert and Slater Street. Whether that is desireable or not is a completely different issue.

I think there is no reason why it is not technically possible to properly vent a bus tunnel, and from what I have been reading, venting requirements for a bus or train tunnel are the same. The reason being, that you have to deal with a fire scenario regardless of whether you dealing with trains or buses.

The cost of a bus tunnel may be higher than a rail tunnel because the tunnel has to be bigger but this will be more than offset by the cost of building LRT well beyond the tunnel, ie Transitway conversion that would not be necessary with a bus tunnel.

Regarding issues at Tunney's Pasture, I think the comments address the problem as it stands. This is partly resolved by eliminating express buses particulary in the PM peak period. If buses are running overcrowded and therefore increasing dwell time, the solution for that is also obvious.

I am playing a devil's advocate on this but there is no sense for justifying a position based on information that not entirely true.

I gotta ask; are you advocating a bus tunnel as the best alternative vs. lrt or are you simply trying to show that a brt tunnel is an alternative if the lrt falls thrue for some yet uknown reason?

Originally Posted by KHOOL

Montreal students held up the Metro subway for hours with smoke bombs. Buses would have simply avoided the underground route

Why they used buses to get people back home. Same when TO's subway flooded; used buses to get people back home. In the rare occurrence (how many times has it happened in the 46 years of the Montreal Metro? or the 58 years of TO subway?) where something shuts down the lrt, we can still use buses; we will have a lot of spares once the lrt opens.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Another problem is the express bus system. If we were to build a bus tunnel (again, I am a huge advocate of the lrt tunnel), we would have to change the system to hub and spoke, only running the 90 series in articulated buses on the Transitway, solving the problem of people trying to figure out which bus is theirs and better distributing commuters on all buses.

That should be the pattern anyway.

That should have been the pattern from the start.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by KHOOLE

Montreal students held up the Metro subway for hours with smoke bombs. Buses would have simply avoided the underground route.

Tamil protestors held up the surface Bus Crappid Transit in Ottawa for hours.

[KHOOLE]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Why they used buses to get people back home. Same when TO's subway flooded; used buses to get people back home. In the rare occurrence (how many times has it happened in the 46 years of the Montreal Metro? or the 58 years of TO subway?) where something shuts down the lrt, we can still use buses; we will have a lot of spares once the lrt opens.

That's my point, in fact.
The plan is to replace buses with light rail trains and to facilitate transit through the downtown core by means of a tunnel. Consequently, we would compensate the cost of new trains and a train yard with appropriate train and maintenance sheds and staff by greatly reducing the bus fleet and their garage and hired help to maintain them.

If something unexpected happens (think train accident, criminal activity, suicides, derailment, Gloucester fault line, earthquake etc), buses would need to be rushed downtown to provide transportation services to the passengers.
If the bus fleet has been reduced in numbers, where will the necessary buses come from and how will that affect all the other transportation lines throughout the city?

A delay or repairs due to an unexpected geological problem or even an act of God would assumedly take more than a few hours as in the Montreal Metro smoke bombs scare or the Toronto Subway flooding. It could take days and weeks. Do we have a Plan B?

Check the Golder Associates Report Dec 2011, modified Apr 2012, to Capital Transit Partners available on Ottawa.ca

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by KHOOLE

If something unexpected happens (think train accident, criminal activity, suicides, derailment, Gloucester fault line, earthquake etc), buses would need to be rushed downtown to provide transportation services to the passengers.
If the bus fleet has been reduced in numbers, where will the necessary buses come from and how will that affect all the other transportation lines throughout the city?

A delay or repairs due to an unexpected geological problem or even an act of God would assumedly take more than a few hours as in the Montreal Metro smoke bombs scare or the Toronto Subway flooding. It could take days and weeks. Do we have a Plan B?

Um. We survived through a 7-week bus strike. In the winter. That was an act of the Devil.

[McC]

Concern troll is concerned.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/balloon-juice-lexicon-a-h/

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Um. We survived through a 7-week bus strike. In the winter. That was an act of the Devil.

I didn't. I moved.

[MalcolmTucker]

It would be super expensive to have multiple redundant backups that could operate at regular capacity without great difficulty.

The likelyhood of events causing the system to fail would have to be exceedingly high to be worth it.

[MountainView]

Saw this article on the Citizen's Twitter feed not long ago; thought I would share it with everyone here. It basically says the NCC is saying NO to LRT on any portion of the parkway!

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/touch/n...tml?id=6918948

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by MountainView

Saw this article on the Citizen's Twitter feed not long ago; thought I would share it with everyone here. It basically says the NCC is saying NO to LRT on any portion of the parkway!

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/touch/n...tml?id=6918948

Sorry Westboro NIMBYs, but you need to lay off on this one! Either that or they - and only they - should be taxed an an extreme rate to pay for the extra costs needed.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by MountainView

Saw this article on the Citizen's Twitter feed not long ago; thought I would share it with everyone here. It basically says the NCC is saying NO to LRT on any portion of the parkway!

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/touch/n...tml?id=6918948

NCC obstructing an option for Ottawa transit.

Seen this movie umpteen times. There is not ONE rapid transit development in the history of Ottawa since the 1970s that the NCC hasn't thrown roadblocks in the way of. Not one.

PS: Useless, overdue-for-abolition NCC... where's that friggin' interprovincial transit study already?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by MountainView

Saw this article on the Citizen's Twitter feed not long ago; thought I would share it with everyone here. It basically says the NCC is saying NO to LRT on any portion of the parkway!

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/touch/n...tml?id=6918948

OMG, really!? Well that's news to me! Who would have thought?

Maybe, just maybe, the city should catch the hint and not continue studying the Parkway route and save some money. And while we’re at it, let’s not study Carling cause we know there just yanking our chain. Just study/build a damn tunnel under Richmond.

[Cre47]

Yep, Westboro is only choice left, much to the dismay of Ken Gray and his Westboro Nimbys squad and Christine Leadman