Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[McC]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

....

I think re-implementing the old NSLRT, along with the Carling-Rideau-Montreal "streetcar" line that (I believe) was eventually supposed to come next under the old plan (interlined with NSLRT from Dow's Lake to uOttawa, and running at the surface downtown) would be a valuable and useful next step once the Blair-Baseline(-Bayshore?) line is built. Part of the "money wasted" for nothing cancelling NSLRT KG likes to harp on about bought us all of the plans, EA, etc. so that we could dust them off in the future. We're also laying a lot of the political groundwork for why building light rail on Carling makes sense. (the likewise for Rideau St and Montreal Rd are self evident, and the case for the public should carry over from the current Carling discussion)

The biggest problem with the NSLRT, everyone around here seems to agree, was the mixing with the same growing number of buses on Albert-Slater, but once the vast majority of those buses have been replaced by the trains in the tunnel, running the two secondary (tramway) lines at the surface becomes very attractive.

Standalone they are an excellent tramway service with local and regional uses (to use the City's current weird parlance). Also they inject critical redundancy and resilience into the system: if either the tunnel or surface routes are interrupted for whatever reason, travelers can be switched to the other line at either end of downtown with outward service maintained on all lines.

The NSLRT line would be extended southeast at least to the Hospital complex, I think. (rom there what? TBD: do you keep going out to Innis? or south down the Alta Vista corridor either as an isolated transit corridor, 9my preference) or in the middle of a brand new high street, then spur redevelopment on Conroy down to Hunt Club? or go down the SE Transitway? most cities run a horseshoe-shaped line after all. lots of choices. (another idea for the SE transitway if it's doomed to always carry buses, is to keep it going north with bus lanes and limited stops up the Vanier parkway. Somewhere in Gatineau, via St-Patrick and Alexandra Bridge would be a possible terminus, although I like this option less. Anyway, onward!)

Likewise lots of possibilities for the Carling-Rideau-Montreal line. Eastbound, it could just go to Blair (Rd or Station), or it could keep going as a tramway down St Joseph all the way along the once and future high street for Orleans? possible! Westbound it could stay on Carling passing Bayshore at a distance to Nortel/DND campus. And then keep going from there out to Kanata North (not a lot of density there though)? Or it could go down to Bayshore (with a choice of routes via Richmond, Pinecrest or Bayshore Dr) and follow the Queensway/Corkstown all the way out to Kanata and SBP.

The only thing missing is the $$$. The only solution, I think, is to pay for it ourselves: an increased gas tax within the limits of the City of Ottawa (I would say phase in as much as $0.05/L at $0.01 per year) and bring back the 2% on the HST, again just within the limits of Ottawa. Some people say 1%, but I think Ottawa might be too small for that to bring in enough revenue to do all of the work that needs to be done in the next 20 years, meaning multiple lines under construction simultaneously, adding several new kilometres of service every year. Of course some people would drive out to Kemptville or whatever to fill up, but some people drive to Ogdensburg to do that, too. Most people wouldn't, and we could probably cut property taxes by a good amount offsetting part of the gas tax increase.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/06/05/...tern-lrt-route

So having a landowner giving a consistent and resounding "NO" for the past couple of years isn't a reason to stop spending millions of dollars that could be used for actual trains to study a route that will never happen because the landowner has been giving a consistent and resounding "NO" for the past couple of years . I think the city should be happy that the NCC is ready to consider Rochester Fields as an option and concentrate on it (communicating with the NCC throughout the study) and the alternative, the NCC land free Churchill option in case NCCs demands end up costing about the same or more than the Churchill option.

A couple of points.

1. The NCC is in no position to complain about the City using Rochester Field*. The NCC went about trying to sell it several years ago, but they didn't like the fact that it was already zoned as open space by the City, thus it effectively had no commercial value. Naturally, the NCC availed itself of the OMB to get the City to rezone it, but the OMB responded by ordering the City to buy it instead. The NCC and City argued over whether it should be considered open space or urban land for the determination of the price, and I haven't heard anything further for years... see the article below from 2008.

http://www.canada.com/story_print.ht...f3880&sponsor=

*Indeed, given Ms. Lemay's position on LRT and city building and whatnot and given the NCC's apparent desire to see this bit of land sold for development, one might just think the NCC would take the opportunity to get behind the Rochester Field option and lead the development around a station themselves! They can participate in city building, save the Parkway and make some money all at the same time.

Ok, ok, you guys can all get back off the floor from your laughing fit, now.

2. Since the City is carrying out a federal environmental assessment, which is required any time federal land or money is involved, if the study determines that NCC land is needed as part of the 'best' option and the Ministry of Environment signs off on it, the NCC's position is not too clear cut anymore.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by McC

I think re-implementing the old NSLRT, along with the Carling-Rideau-Montreal "streetcar" line that (I believe) was eventually supposed to come next under the old plan (interlined with NSLRT from Dow's Lake to uOttawa, and running at the surface downtown) would be a valuable and useful next step once the Blair-Baseline(-Bayshore?) line is built. Part of the "money wasted" for nothing cancelling NSLRT KG likes to harp on about bought us all of the plans, EA, etc. so that we could dust them off in the future. We're also laying a lot of the political groundwork for why building light rail on Carling makes sense. (the likewise for Rideau St and Montreal Rd are self evident, and the case for the public should carry over from the current Carling discussion)

The biggest problem with the NSLRT, everyone around here seems to agree, was the mixing with the same growing number of buses on Albert-Slater, but once the vast majority of those buses have been replaced by the trains in the tunnel, running the two secondary (tramway) lines at the surface becomes very attractive.

Standalone they are an excellent tramway service with local and regional uses (to use the City's current weird parlance). Also they inject critical redundancy and resilience into the system: if either the tunnel or surface routes are interrupted for whatever reason, travelers can be switched to the other line at either end of downtown with outward service maintained on all lines.

The NSLRT line would be extended southeast at least to the Hospital complex, I think. (rom there what? TBD: do you keep going out to Innis? or south down the Alta Vista corridor either as an isolated transit corridor, 9my preference) or in the middle of a brand new high street, then spur redevelopment on Conroy down to Hunt Club? or go down the SE Transitway? most cities run a horseshoe-shaped line after all. lots of choices. (another idea for the SE transitway if it's doomed to always carry buses, is to keep it going north with bus lanes and limited stops up the Vanier parkway. Somewhere in Gatineau, via St-Patrick and Alexandra Bridge would be a possible terminus, although I like this option less. Anyway, onward!)

Likewise lots of possibilities for the Carling-Rideau-Montreal line. Eastbound, it could just go to Blair (Rd or Station), or it could keep going as a tramway down St Joseph all the way along the once and future high street for Orleans? possible! Westbound it could stay on Carling passing Bayshore at a distance to Nortel/DND campus. And then keep going from there out to Kanata North (not a lot of density there though)? Or it could go down to Bayshore (with a choice of routes via Richmond, Pinecrest or Bayshore Dr) and follow the Queensway/Corkstown all the way out to Kanata and SBP.

The only thing missing is the $$$. The only solution, I think, is to pay for it ourselves: an increased gas tax within the limits of the City of Ottawa (I would say phase in as much as $0.05/L at $0.01 per year) and bring back the 2% on the HST, again just within the limits of Ottawa. Some people say 1%, but I think Ottawa might be too small for that to bring in enough revenue to do all of the work that needs to be done in the next 20 years, meaning multiple lines under construction simultaneously, adding several new kilometres of service every year. Of course some people would drive out to Kemptville or whatever to fill up, but some people drive to Ogdensburg to do that, too. Most people wouldn't, and we could probably cut property taxes by a good amount offsetting part of the gas tax increase.

A 1% increase on the HST should be put on a citywide ballot - perhaps with the 2014 municipal elections - and sent to the voters. If they support it, it should take effect for 20 years, with EVERY PENNY dedicated to transit. It should require 50%+1 of all votes cast.

If that passes, it should be accompanied by the elimination of rural transit property taxes (since the sales tax would cover it easily) and a 10% decrease within the UTA.

[J.OT13]

This leaves a lot to comment about, so here we go;

1. Richmond/Byron LRT;
If Churchill option is 1 billion dollars and Rochester Field is 750 million, I think we could do a totally underground Rochester Field option for maybe 1.2 billion


2. I can live with a streetcar type thing on Carling but I really do not want to re-implement anything close to our pre 1958 streetcar system (Bank and Rideau/Montreal). We need to upgrade, not rebuild what we had when we were half a million when we are today a million and a half. Why should we be second class to Montreal and Toronto (again, think of their population when they built their systems).

3. I agree that the N/S LRT should have been built; it would probably have been cheaper to build it as it was planned than the cost of building of building it to Bayview today. That being said, I would like to point out the Oslo Metro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_metro) with a ridership of 268000 a day on 108 meter cars. They have 6 metro lines, I repeat SIX METRO LINES using one common tunnel. I would like to point out that the busiest part of the Transitway today is used by 10000-12000 people per hour per direction. The LRT tunnel will have an ultimate capacity (once all platforms fully extended to 150 meters) of 40000 phpd (5 car trains x 200 people per car x 40 trains (minute and a half between each train)). We could easily split it in to 3 lines (Airport/Riverside South-Baseline/Algonquin-Kanata/Palladium). On the East side, 2 lines could go to Orleans and a third could terminate at Train (then drive to the Belfast rail yards) or convert the SE Transitway.



Here is where I got that the NCC would consider Rochester Field

From the Ottawa Citizen on May 31st 2012

The third shortlisted route is Richmond and Byron, connected through the NCC’s Rochester Field, which Lemay said would require further discussion. The fourth is Richmond and Byron, connected via Churchill Avenue

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Parkway...#ixzz1xAWXLycA

[toaster]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, if we build on the Ottawa River Parkway or on Carling Avenue. Neither of those are the likely choices, so yes, Byron Park is under threat.

From the report:



WARNING - Rant begins

This is something that was never indicated when this rapid transit reassessment started taking place in 2007. We have been sold a bill of goods. This means that no direct to downtown service will EVER be possible to the south end including the airport whether via the O-Train corridor or the South east Transitway corridor. Basically, the east-west route will assume the full capacity of the tunnel. Again, we ignore best practices demonstrated by the C-Train network in Calgary that provides direct to downtown service to all major sections of the city whether by train or by bus (in advance of C-Train service expansion).

I know I will get zero sympathy from anybody here but there is a down side to this as well as we will have to provide excess capacity on trains running east and west to capture all the passengers travelling from the south. These trains will have to run at significantly less than capacity except in the downtown leg. It also means that south end residents will face crowded trains every day on their in bound trip in addition to having to deal with a new inconvenient two transfer system.

And we said a surface LRT route downtown had no value? How about a downtown surface extension of an electrified O-Train to eliminate one of these transfers?

I grow more and more ticked off with the entire process that has taken place since 2007. I feel that my tax dollars are being used to treat myself and my neighbours like second class citizens.

Why are all our tax dollars for the next 10 or 20 years being directed into a project that will really only serve east and west end passengers well with NO prospect of ever delivering similar service in the north-south direction? I remind everybody that the south end is now your fastest growing section of the city with pitiful transportation infrastructure.

End of rant.

I assume you are talking about Barrhaven, which is still considered west-end by many. Regardless, I think it is assumed that eventually (50-100 years possibly?) that after the line is extended to Baseline, Barrhaven would come next, much like Kanata would follow after Bayshore. Barrhaven still has some growing to do to reach up to Kanata and Orleans, though, so it would probably be last on the list.

[S-Man]

Well, it would be nice if Ottawa was ensured to receive the full revenue that its resident's gas tax brought in. Didn't McGuinty threaten to withhold it recently if Ottawa didn't go with the PRESTO smart card system? Nice that we're so vulnerable like that.

Haven't Ottawans been paying HST on gasoline in addition to the provincial gas tax since 2010? What have we seen from all that extra revenue going to the province? No new funding for this or future phases of LRT. A still half-finished underground Baseline Station. No new transitways. Nope, just expanded sections of the 417 in the east and west end to get more people to drive cars and live outside of the city.

More convenience for drivers = more revenue for the province. Transit users living in the city sit and suffer. Province says we have no money and everyone needs to do their part to wrestle down the debt.

Lovely. We're so "green"!

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, if we build on the Ottawa River Parkway or on Carling Avenue. Neither of those are the likely choices, so yes, Byron Park is under threat.

Even though two of the three Richmond/Byron options either avoid the linear park or tunnel under it?

[Dado]

Unless it is done by TBM, "tunnelling" under the Byron park would have the short-to-medium term effect of destroying the tree cover across all or a significant amount of its width. The park isn't a grassy field, certainly not the segment from Cleary to Westboro, anyway, so it's not a straightforward matter of tearing the place up, doing the work and restoring it afterwards.

[J.OT13]

I may be way out of line but; could we cut-and-cover Richmond? We could (if needed, if they haven't done it in recent history) fix up/replace the sewers and water mains to serve the new and future condo towers while we're at it.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I may be way out of line but; could we cut-and-cover Richmond? We could (if needed, if they haven't done it in recent history) fix up/replace the sewers and water mains to serve the new and future condo towers while we're at it.

I think the installation of box-tunnel segments under major water and sewer works should be SOP from now on.

Just in case. Can't be that much more expensive than the waterworks alone, and a hell of a lot cheaper than coming along in umpteen years and building a transit tunnel from scratch.

Coulda had that Bank Street subway by now....

[Kitchissippi]

It's confusing how the tunnelled portions presented in each of the options are all slightly different. Is this to just muddle the issue? Also, if one were to add up the tunnelling involved in the Churchill option, it would be more than tunnelling the Richmond portion of the Cleary option, or just slightly less than the Rochester Field option. I really cannot see the advantage of going in and out of several tunnels like a roller coaster unless the surface sections are somewhat trenched, at which point it would be better to just cover it over with a berm for safety and allow the trains to be automated and go faster.

[Dado]

You'd have to get an accurate topo map (like half metre contours) to see to what extent it is roller coastering. My sense is that the land gradually rises westwards from Rochester Field along Richmond to Woodroffe, and gradually falls westwards from Woodroffe to Lincoln Fields. East of Rochester Field, the land definitely rises into Westboro, especially up to Roosevelt.

If the near-surface segments are at stations (e.g. New Orchard, potentially Cleary) then having them higher than the rest of the line can be advantageous. To my mind, the section from Cleary to Lincoln Fields wants to be as much in the open as possible as part of an effort to improve the general streetscaping along there.

As a general philosophy, I would prefer to see rapid transit daylighted as much as possible. Why should transit users be shoved underground while car commuters are in the open? Also, continuous tunnels have their own problems, like requiring ventilation systems.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

It's confusing how the tunnelled portions presented in each of the options are all slightly different. Is this to just muddle the issue?

Note that the plans only say that different portions of the various routes are underground, they don't mention being in tunnels because probably in the case of Richmond Road and Woodroffe these "underground" segments are underpasses with a trench on either side of the bridge.
My vote is for Carling via Churchill because this leads to more city building and does not destroy neighbourhoods or parkland to the same degree. The worst possible option is the parkway. Geese don't take transit!

[Kitchissippi]

My vote is still with the Richmond/Byron corridor, and I agree with Dado on daylighting the stations. However, I don't think the city should be calling these options "limited grade separation". I think it's the image of trains-on-the-grass that are freaking the residents of Highland Park out, thinking that their kids are going to be metres away unprotected from a rushing train. The intersections will be grade separated anyway in these options, so all the surface sections should be bermed and made inaccessible with barriers and plantings for noise control, aesthetics and safety. To mitigate the perceived division, new direct pedestrian and cycling links between the linear park and the river shore (ideally separated from traffic) should be constructed at or near the stations (New Orchard, Cleary and Rochester Field), so although residents would be losing a bit of green space, they'd be gaining better access to a much larger one, creating improved recreational pathway loops.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

My vote is still with the Richmond/Byron corridor, and I agree with Dado on daylighting the stations. However, I don't think the city should be calling these options "limited grade separation". I think it's the image of trains-on-the-grass that are freaking the residents of Highland Park out, thinking that their kids are going to be metres away unprotected from a rushing train. The intersections will be grade separated anyway in these options, so all the surface sections should be bermed and made inaccessible with barriers and plantings for noise control, aesthetics and safety. To mitigate the perceived division, new direct pedestrian and cycling links between the linear park and the river shore (ideally separated from traffic) should be constructed at or near the stations (New Orchard, Cleary and Rochester Field), so although residents would be losing a bit of green space, they'd be gaining better access to a much larger one, creating improved recreational pathway loops.

Would elevating the line through Rochester Field (and across Richmond Road into the linear corridor) help at all? Except for the pillars and entranceways into a potential relocated Dominion Station, all parkland would remain...

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Would elevating the line through Rochester Field (and across Richmond Road into the linear corridor) help at all? Except for the pillars and entranceways into a potential relocated Dominion Station, all parkland would remain...

I personally think that Rochester Field should be developed, but in such a way that it becomes an urban axis to the river. Having the LRT cut across underground here makes sense, and would more than pay for itself in future development. If anything should be elevated, make it the parkway segment that forms a barrier to the shoreline. There is no shortage of greenspace in this area, just the lack of easier access and direct connectivity.

If one of the reasons for station location is being a transfer point between trains and feeder buses, Dominion is a poor location as it is deep inside a small residential loop not suitable for a bus route. A station at Rochester Field (Maplelawn?) would make a great stop for the #2 (instead of its current detour to Westboro station), and a great terminus for a new linear feeder route that continues down the Maitland-Merivale corridor.

[waterloowarrior]

Cost figures for the corridors are out

Citizen Article
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ci...336/story.html

Link to figures (.doc)
http://postmediaottawacitizen.files....june-20122.doc

[Cre47]

Latest rag (s) from the Bull-crap including a message to Jim Watson


http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/...n-gray-column/
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/...el-light-rail/
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/...amage-control/

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Note that the plans only say that different portions of the various routes are underground, they don't mention being in tunnels because probably in the case of Richmond Road and Woodroffe these "underground" segments are underpasses with a trench on either side of the bridge.
My vote is for Carling via Churchill because this leads to more city building and does not destroy neighbourhoods or parkland to the same degree. The worst possible option is the parkway. Geese don't take transit!

Destroy neighbourhoods? Really?

Could you explain that please, because upon right reading is just sounds like the type of spin that comes from any of the local NIMBY Friends of <insertnamehere>.

[RTWAP]

Interesting point from a commenter on KG's extremification blog.


(emphasis is mine)

J_Andrew

3:03 PM on 6/12/2012

Re: interlining:

I don't really see how it would cost that much more. Bayview Station is going to need to be designed as a 2 level station anyway, so why not have the two platforms one on top of eachother? (see: St. George Station in Toronto)

Ideally what I'd like to see is the N-S LRT run from Riverside South to Hurdman via downtown. Hurdman Station would be built as a 3 track, 2 platform station.

The south track would be for eastbound trains, and the north track for westbound trains on the E-W line. The centre track would be for the N-S LRT. They would pull into that centre track, and unload on the south platform, and then load from the north platform.

That way, the N-S LRT trains can be pulled out and put back into service without clogging the flow of the E-W line (slotted in when there's a break).

It would also give South Transitway passengers ending at Hurdman an empty train to board for the trip downtown.