Bank Street Subway | Fantasy

[lrt's friend]

With double tracking, there is absolutely no reason why trains to Riverside South could not use a Bank Street subway. There is no need for a train every 5 minutes to the airport and no need for some complicated crossing between the Trillium Line and Bank Street subway somewhere around South Keys.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by JHikka

This would be a reasonable substitute if we, for some reason, can't fathom a subway underneath Bank. I don't mind this idea at all, although it's still not entirely useful for Centretown residents unless they live near the canal.

The same is true of the Confederation Line: not much use for Centretown residents unless you live north of about Nepean.

At some point, ideally this century, the city of Ottawa will start solving URBAN transit problems, not just suburban and "regional" ones, but the political structure of the city not only works against that, the political structure of the city even makes it hard to change the political structure of the city.

Residents of the old city of Ottawa are increasingly becoming second-class citizens in their own town.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

It's hardly complete (a lot of things are still missing) but I've been working on this system map of a "realistic" ideal rail network in Ottawa.

Not enough stations on the Rideau-Montreal line.

[OCCheetos]

One idea could be to just replace the South Keys to Billings section of the Transitway with rail and then have it continue underground past Billings.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Not enough stations on the Rideau-Montreal line.

Thanks for the feedback! I'll keep working on it.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The local bus problem is much more serious on the Rideau-Montreal axis than the Bank Street one. I'd put more emphasis on that for a Phase I.

On the eastern end, I think it would also have to serve the Montfort hospital campus before turning south (or continuing further east).

Fair enough, but I can just see people in the future screaming "but the cost!" I do feel that the Montreal line should be handled first, which is why it was posted as the second picture as phase 2a. 2b involves the south end.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

With double tracking, there is absolutely no reason why trains to Riverside South could not use a Bank Street subway. There is no need for a train every 5 minutes to the airport and no need for some complicated crossing between the Trillium Line and Bank Street subway somewhere around South Keys.

True,

[c_speed3108]

I would turn the Rideau-Montreal line up Blair. There are a lot of easy riders to grab from the various office buildings (gov and otherwise) along Blair.

Montreal Rd East of Blair doesn't have a ton of ridership potential and Montreal Rd at the 174 as a terminus is frankly a waste land.


I would do about 7 stations on that line as follows (this could be tweaked a bit):

North River-Vanier Parkway area
One are Wabano/Lacasse
St Laurent (good density)
Montfort/CMHC (ridership and buses link to La Cite)
Bathgate (good density)
Blair/Montreal-NRC
Something Near CSIS


Or it might even be cheaper to do form Montfort to La Cite to Blair with maybe one more stop hitting CSIS/NRC South. (a bit more cross-country)

[silvergate]

Has anyone thought about surface rail from Hurdman, up the Vanier Pkwy, and then making a quick jog onto Montreal Road and on to the Rideau Centre? There's a ton of space on the Vanier Pkwy to build dedicated tram lanes, it would serve a nice chunk of Overbrook and Vanier, and it could help spur further growth along Vanier, all for the fraction of the cost of an underground line.

[OCCheetos]

An updated map from some of the feeback.



Added more stops between Rideau and Montreal.
- Lowertown
- Bradley (around the Bradley Avenue intersection)
- Montfort Hospital
- Moved Carsons further east to what Google Maps calls Quarries
- NRC (Basically Blair Rd)

I also added a "Line 4" aka the Carling LRT. I don't really know where to put stops along there other than a Dow's Lake terminus.

I also added the SE Transitway for good measure. (It's missing the Riverside Hospital, but I'll fix that later)

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

I would turn the Rideau-Montreal line up Blair. There are a lot of easy riders to grab from the various office buildings (gov and otherwise) along Blair.

Montreal Rd East of Blair doesn't have a ton of ridership potential and Montreal Rd at the 174 as a terminus is frankly a waste land.

Turning it north just for government buildings doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my opinion. A bus route would be more suited for that. (Similar to the Route 54 that goes around Tunney's). The Montreal/Ogilvie intersection is quite dense and I think a stop there would work well. Ending it at Montreal just gives it a good place to terminate with a connection to the Confederation Line.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The same is true of the Confederation Line: not much use for Centretown residents unless you live north of about Nepean.

That's too harsh. You don't have to be as far north as Nepean to benefit from the Confederation Line. The standard walk up distance for rapid transit is 800m (a 10 minute walk for the able-bodied) and from Parliament or Lyon stations that will get you well past Nepean.. if following O'Connor you can get all the way to Maclaren. Pretty much anyone north of Maclaren (for O'Connor and Lyon) or Cooper (for Metcalfe, Bank, Kent, or Bay) is within that 10 minute walk; plus much of the eastern part of Centretown falls within a 10 minute walk zone of uOttawa.

[Truenorth00]

There's nothing even close to modest about this proposal. Over 7 km of tunnelling. And 12 stops.

Some very rough back of the envelope math:

$200M/km x 7 km = $1.4B

$100M/stn x 12 stations = $1.2B

That's about $2.6 billion. For a little over 7km. That's 20% more dollars for over 40% less track, compared to Stage One of the Confederation Line. And that's a conservative estimate.

At best all of those corridors warrant surface, non-segregated, non-exclusive ROWs for trams. Tunnelled LRT? No way.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's nothing even close to modest about this proposal. Over 7 km of tunnelling. And 12 stops.

Some very rough back of the envelope math:

$200M/km x 7 km = $1.4B

$100M/stn x 12 stations = $1.2B

That's about $2.6 billion. For a little over 7km. That's 20% more dollars for over 40% less track, compared to Stage One of the Confederation Line. And that's a conservative estimate.

At best all of those corridors warrant surface, non-segregated, non-exclusive ROWs for trams. Tunnelled LRT? No way.

Due to the city wanting a grade separated LRT system, tunneling under Bank and Rideau-Montreal is the only option. So are you saying that it shouldn't be built?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Due to the city wanting a grade separated LRT system, tunneling under Bank and Rideau-Montreal is the only option. So are you saying that it shouldn't be built?

Why is 100% grade separation an absolute need in all cases? I can understand it for the Confederation Line considering that it will eventually exceed 50 km in length and it being the east-west trunk line. But for secondary lines, is this absolutely necessary?

There has to be consideration for something between buses in mixed traffic and trains in a 100% exclusive right of way.

Of course, now that we are narrowing Montreal Road to three lanes, there will be no choice but to go underground. A streetcar in mixed traffic is probably worse than a bus in mixed traffic.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why is 100% grade separation an absolute need in all cases? I can understand it for the Confederation Line considering that it will eventually exceed 50 km in length and it being the east-west trunk line. But for secondary lines, is this absolutely necessary?

There has to be consideration for something between buses in mixed traffic and trains in a 100% exclusive right of way.

Of course, now that we are narrowing Montreal Road to three lanes, there will be no choice but to go underground. A streetcar in mixed traffic is probably worse than a bus in mixed traffic.

Since the city is unwilling to inconvenience car drivers or even cyclists, it makes it necessary to have all LRT lines fully grade separated. Im also thinking about the fatal bus crash at the via rail crossing years back. Also the Thales system works best in a fully grade separated system and the worst in an at-grade system. With all things considered, it makes no sense doing any lines at-grade even though it is cheaper to do so.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Stage three will likely ignore the core and extend into Riverside (good) and Kanata (meh).

This comment in the original post has always bothered me. I don't understand the basis of thinking that an extension from Bowesville into Riverside south (population 14,382) is better than an extension into Kanata (population 118,161 (including Stittsville)).

As I have said before, only about 100 buses a day serve parts south of the Airport (including Riverside South). That means we are looking at about a 1 to 1 bus to train replacement unless they slash service frequency for much of the day (quite likely IMHO, as the population won't support that many trains). Without slashing service, LRT would do nothing to reduce cost or environmental footprint and slashing service (to every 30 minutes?) certainly won't be good for residents.

On the other hand, Kanata/Stittsville has close to 1000 buses a day (weekdays) driving along the Queensway, through the green belt. That would be replaced by under 100 trains (running every 9 to 15 minutes). That is a big cost and environmental savings, even if you ignore the benefits of using an electric LRV. I admit that extending beyond Terry Fox is of dubious benefit, even though Stittsville has double the population of Riverside South.

A similar argument can be applied to Barrhaven. South Nepean (as it is called by Stats Can) has a population close to 84,000. In that case we might want to re-evaluate the option of using the existing ROW used by VIA Rail as it is shorter than the route used by the SW Transitway. Keeping it single tracked might be too limiting and double tracking it might be too expensive though.

I do agree that something needs to be done to improve transportation options to Riverside South, but I just don't think LRT is the right option.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Since the city is unwilling to inconvenience car drivers or even cyclists, it makes it necessary to have all LRT lines fully grade separated. Im also thinking about the fatal bus crash at the via rail crossing years back. Also the Thales system works best in a fully grade separated system and the worst in an at-grade system. With all things considered, it makes no sense doing any lines at-grade even though it is cheaper to do so.

Why do trains need these signalling systems if they are running on streets? It seems to me that streetcars have been operating in countless cities presumably without them. I can understand their value in exclusive right of ways. It is like trying to force a round peg into a square hole. On streets, the signal system is called traffic lights.

Isn't the problem in Edmonton relate to trying to apply a sophisticated rail signalling system over the top of a standard traffic signal system? They are trying to give trains absolute priority at signaled intersections in urban situations. That is difficult to accomplish. It does work in Calgary in suburban situations, but I believe the C-Train stops at traffic lights downtown. This is not ideal, but has worked very well for Calgary for the most part.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why is 100% grade separation an absolute need in all cases? I can understand it for the Confederation Line considering that it will eventually exceed 50 km in length and it being the east-west trunk line. But for secondary lines, is this absolutely necessary?

I think if a train were built up along Bank Street it would definitely end up being a trunk line and not a secondary line. It would become the way to get downtown for anyone living in the south end of the city.

The Trillium Line and SE Transitway will just feed people onto the Confederation Line where they'll have to board potentially already-full trains with passengers coming in from both the east and the west sides of the city. A Bank street train would give a more direct route into the core and help alleviate capacity issues at Hurdman and Bayview.

I think that's pretty good justification for making it fully grade-separated.

[TransitZilla]

This isn't very realistic but it is fun! I'll chime in...

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

An updated map from some of the feeback.



Added more stops between Rideau and Montreal.
- Lowertown
- Bradley (around the Bradley Avenue intersection)
- Montfort Hospital
- Moved Carsons further east to what Google Maps calls Quarries
- NRC (Basically Blair Rd)

I would consolidate the Montfort and Quarries stops into one station located between Den Haag and Carsons. This would serve both Montfort and La Cité.

I also added a "Line 4" aka the Carling LRT. I don't really know where to put stops along there other than a Dow's Lake terminus.

Lincoln Fields - Carlingwood - Maitland - Churchill - Merivale - Holland - Maple - Dows Lake?

I also added the SE Transitway for good measure. (It's missing the Riverside Hospital, but I'll fix that later)

With this network, you could delete the SE Transitway south of Billings Bridge and redirect the yellow line to follow that route south of Billings.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

At best all of those corridors warrant surface, non-segregated, non-exclusive ROWs for trams. Tunnelled LRT? No way.

But again, to recap:

- The City of Ottawa has already scrapped plans for surface LRT on Montreal Road. The anticipated 2006 study was one of the first things cut by the O'Brien council, along with the Chiarelli LRT plan. Watson has signalled already that if a rail project isn't in his 2013 plan, it ain't happening.

- The City of Ottawa selected the Transitway-LRT conversion along the existing line, which has mediocre LRT access in the urban and inner urban area, favouring the cheapest east-west route, the incumbent route, large portions of which have poor prospects for TOD.

- The City of Ottawa, having promised bus transit improvements along the Montreal-Rideau corridor in 2013, has already quietly scrubbed those as well.


So the east end can't have higher-order LRT, can't have surface-running tram/streetcar LRT, and can't even have improved bus service. The City of Ottawa has already decided these things.

What's left? Per my count, we are officially out of options because the City of Ottawa really hates its own inner city, and is politically beholden to the suburbs.

Ever possible investment in quality transit, versus bad and deterioriating bus service, has already been taken off the table if you're not a suburban community.

What's left for the rest of us, besides the joy of paying for the Kanata, Nepean, and Orleans extensions?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

This comment in the original post has always bothered me. I don't understand the basis of thinking that an extension from Bowesville into Riverside south (population 14,382) is better than an extension into Kanata (population 118,161 (including Stittsville)).

As I have said before, only about 100 buses a day serve parts south of the Airport (including Riverside South). That means we are looking at about a 1 to 1 bus to train replacement unless they slash service frequency for much of the day (quite likely IMHO, as the population won't support that many trains). Without slashing service, LRT would do nothing to reduce cost or environmental footprint and slashing service (to every 30 minutes?) certainly won't be good for residents.

On the other hand, Kanata/Stittsville has close to 1000 buses a day (weekdays) driving along the Queensway, through the green belt. That would be replaced by under 100 trains (running every 9 to 15 minutes). That is a big cost and environmental savings, even if you ignore the benefits of using an electric LRV. I admit that extending beyond Terry Fox is of dubious benefit, even though Stittsville has double the population of Riverside South.

A similar argument can be applied to Barrhaven. South Nepean (as it is called by Stats Can) has a population close to 84,000. In that case we might want to re-evaluate the option of using the existing ROW used by VIA Rail as it is shorter than the route used by the SW Transitway. Keeping it single tracked might be too limiting and double tracking it might be too expensive though.

I do agree that something needs to be done to improve transportation options to Riverside South, but I just don't think LRT is the right option.

You are commenting about Riverside South in isolation. You are also commenting about current conditions instead of planning for tomorrow's growth. With the opening of the Vimy Bridge, the entire 84,000 residents of Barrhaven will have access to LRT in Riverside South as well as Findlay Creek and the rural south of the city including Greely, Manotick and Metcalfe.

The cost of this route is relatively cheap in comparison to the Confederation Line route to Kanata, which will require pedestrian overpasses and interchange alterations.

Furthermore, the city has made a decision to move away from busways and focus on rail. We are not going to build a busway from South Keys to Riverside South. That idea sailed 15 years ago.

Also, the VIA rail corridor has never been seriously considered and introduces all kinds of complications in dealing with VIA, which has expansion plans of its own. I cannot imagine VIA being willing to share their track with OC Transpo and even if they were willing to consider it, we would be forced to use expensive heavy rail commuter trains, and likely we would be limited on the frequency of service. Furthermore, we should not underestimate the cost of double tracking the VIA rail corridor with the number of bridges that would need to be replaced or twinned. We certainly cannot go forward with this idea without eliminating existing at-grade crossings, which will cost $100Ms. That is one of the reasons why the Barrhaven extension from Baseline is not even being planned. The Barrhaven extension will be expensive. Double tracking VIA will be even more expensive and will deliver much less frequent service.

I don't understand why the VIA idea keeps coming up. It is too complicated to negotiate and too expensive to make it work.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's nothing even close to modest about this proposal. Over 7 km of tunnelling. And 12 stops.

Some very rough back of the envelope math:

$200M/km x 7 km = $1.4B

$100M/stn x 12 stations = $1.2B

That's about $2.6 billion. For a little over 7km. That's 20% more dollars for over 40% less track, compared to Stage One of the Confederation Line. And that's a conservative estimate.

At best all of those corridors warrant surface, non-segregated, non-exclusive ROWs for trams. Tunnelled LRT? No way.

For the portion east of Parliament Station, I tend to agree that the ship has sailed on that and until we start to see a huge increase in density along the route. Had we used that routing for the Confederation line, that would have been a different story, as it would have done double duty as a route for those coming from Orleans and provided local service. It would have been a much more expensive route though, and a decent connection to Orleans would have likely been a decade away.

However, for the portion between Parliament and Billings Bridge, it is a different story. This would not only provide local service for those along it, but it would become the primary route downtown for anyone in the south (including Gloucester-Southgate (pop. 47,233) and a large portion of Altavista (pop. 44,713)) as it would be a much more direct a route.

Using Jamaican-Phoenix's Bank Street routing, and your numbers (assuming the whole route it tunnelled):

$200M/km x 4.5 km = $0.9B

$100M/stn x 6 stations = $0.6B

That becomes about $1.5 billion.

Now while a Bank St. route is nice and all, a route along Elgin (or alternately O'Conner) would be much more affordable, as much of the route could be either on the surface or with a shallow cut and cover (it would run along the canal side of Lansdowne), making both tunnelling and stations much cheaper. Heck, if they could have combined it with the Elgin St. makeover, they could have saved a lot by just digging a bit deeper. The track should be designed so that extensions could be made on either end in the future. Here is an idea of what it could look like: