Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

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.

1) That stigma is more of an American thing. More importantly, in other cities, LRT is replacing buses running in mixed traffic. There is a clear improvement in service. That will not be the case in Ottawa. Another important consideration is that there will be no Park n Ride lots on the East-West Route currently proposed. Park n Ride lots will require you to take a bus and then transfer to a train. This is worse than the present service.

2) My comment was based on a previous comment that would leave LRT on the surface for the time being. You would still have congestion issues downtown in that scenario.

3) I do not believe for one minute that there will be a substantial reallocation of buses in the suburbs. Some will be reallocated where demand requires but generally service will be about the same as today or perhaps slightly enhanced. Where express buses were eliminated, the degree of service improvement has been minor. In off-peak hours, there will be absolutely no improvement in service in suburbs. We cannot afford to keep all those buses running in addition to running LRT. Correct me if I am wrong, but when LRT opened in Calgary, many bus drivers were laid off, so obviously only partial reallocation of buses, at best, took place there. I was also just reading comments from Portland, Oregon, about new LRT service. Many were complaining that bus service was suffering, because the city had decided to concentrate pouring most of its money into running LRT. They were complaining about the age of buses, and the frequency of bus service that had actually declined after LRT was introduced. That may or may not happen in Ottawa but it is a risk and it depends on how much money we can afford to maintain bus service after LRT is brought into service. Let's not dream in Technicolor. There is only so much money in the tax pot to cover transit.

[Dado]

Anyone else notice something, ohhh, just a little odd about this City of Ottawa Media Advisory on a transit project?


--
http://ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/pressco.pl?...=15544&lang=en

Date: Tuesday 15 September 2009
Contact: Public Affairs (613-580-2450), medias@ottawa.ca

MA: $52.6 million Infrastructure Stimulus Fund project breaks ground at Southwest Transitway Extension

Ottawa – Join the Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario and the City of Ottawa as it officially breaks ground at the site of the new Southwest Transitway Extension, a $52.6 million Infrastructure Stimulus Fund project, funded jointly by all three levels of government.

Date: Friday, September 18, 2009
Time: 2:30 p.m. to 3:15 p.m.

Speeches
Ground breaking
Photo opportunity

Invited guests include: Pierre Poilievre, MP Nepean Carleton, Hon. Jim Watson, MPP Ottawa West Nepean and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, His Worship Larry O’Brien, Mayor of Ottawa, Councillor Alex Cullen, Councillor Steve Desroches and Councillor Jan Harder.

Location: Construction site of the new Longfields Transit Station and Southwest Transitway Extension corridor.

Allow 30 minutes from downtown.

Note: Note proper footwear is suggested, as it is a construction site.

Directions:
• From Highway 417 take Woodroffe South exit
• Woodroffe to Fallowfield (approximately 9 km)
• Cross Fallowfield to Earl Mulligan (first right)
• Right on Earl Mulligan to Mountshannon (fourth right)
• Right on Mountshannon to Oriska Way (second right)
• Right on Oriska Way to the end which is the SW Transitway construction corridor
• Left onto SW Transitway construction corridor and follow down to main construction site (less than .5 km)

Parking:

• Parking available on- site

[lrt's friend]

Ha, no transit directions!

[Rathgrith]

Politicians and media don't take transit unless its for a quick photo-op during a campagin.

[Franky]

Deputy City Manager Defends Second LRT Option

Josh Pringle with Stephanie Kinsella
Thursday, September 17, 2009

Ottawa's Deputy City Manager says two alternative options for the Rapid Transit Network were presented to the Ontario Government "in recognition" of the very likely possibility of limited funding availability.

In a memo to Councillors, Nancy Schepers says staff regrouped projects from the first and second increments of Phase 1 into funding options that can be completed within the next ten years and will grow ridership consistent with the city's Transportation Master Plan.

It was learned this week that one of the options presented to the Ontario Government for funding includes building a north-south Light Rail Transit route from Bayview to Tunney's Pasture.

Schepers is quick to point out both options presented to the Ontario Government identify the Downtown Transit Tunnel and the Tunney's Pasture to Blair Road rail line as the "cornerstone" for the network.

A west-end City Councillor is calling for an inquiry to explain why the Ontario Government was presented a second option for funding.

Marianne Wilkinson tells CFRA News City Staff overstepped their duties by presenting the second option, noting it would not serve commuters in Kanata for the next 20 years.

Wilkinson is accusing Staff of picking and choosing from Council's priorities.

Transit Chair and Councillor Alex Cullen says the option that includes the north-south route is open to interpretation, and doesn't believe staff was in the wrong.

http://www.cfra.com/?cat=1&nid=67964

MOTION NO. 48/13

Moved by Councillor G. Hunter
Seconded by Councillor R. Jellett

Whereas a more balanced LRT service can be obtained when the same number of trains comes through the downtown from the east as from the west; and,

Whereas that balance is better achieved if LRT service to the southeast is in the existing transitway alignment rather than through the O-train line; and,

Whereas all the bridges and grade separations are already in place to put LRT in the southeast transitway thereby saving millions of dollars;

Therefore be it resolved that Council direct that the technology use on the SE Transitway alignment be evaluated as part of LRT service to South Keys and beyond.

CARRIED on a division of 13 YEAS to 10 NAYS as follows:

YEAS (13): Councillors R. Bloess, A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, M. Wilkinson, B. Monette, J. Harder, G. Brooks, E. El-Chantiry, G. Hunter, R. Jellett, M. Bellemare, S. Qadri and Mayor O’Brien.

NAYS (10): Councillors R. Chiarelli, J. Legendre, M. McRae, P. Hume, G. Bédard, D. Holmes, C. Doucet, S. Desroches, D. Thompson and D. Deans.

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa.../minutes48.htm

Anyone know where this evaluation is?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Franky

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa.../minutes48.htm

Anyone know where this evaluation is?

Quietly forgotten, probably.

Even if they want to preserve the bit between Hurdman and Heron (to link into a future Baseline BRT), they can still use the portion of it south of there to South Keys, thereby avoiding the construction of additional overpasses and also avoiding any need to shut down the O-Train for extended periods of time.



In other news, I've finally figured out what they're up to in this latest bruhaha, based on Ken Gray's post Private City Briefing Notes: Light Rail and the City page with the implementation scenario (for the so-called "Phase 1" anyway):
http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/publi...trecom_en.html

Here are the "increments" from that page:

Increment 1:


Increment 2:


Increment 3:



The two options that the City presented to the Province are basically Increment 1 as one option and Increment 1 minus all BRT but the Southwest Transitway in Barrhaven (see my previous post) plus the N-S LRT portion to South Keys of Increment 2 as the second option. Noticeably missing from the latter, of course, is the one thing that would make sense: LRT to Baseline. That's because it's not in "an advanced state of readiness" (as opposed to the tunnel, I suppose, which apparently is) - say they in brackets: The western corridor expansion project was not included in this grouping, given the current early stages of the related environmental assessment (EA) and the extensive work required to complete it. It's absolutely nonsensical when we consider the timeframe for getting the tunnel built. Even if the EA for the western corridor was only completed on the day that tunnelling started, there'd still be more than enough time to build the western corridor as LRT before the tunnel came to be finished.

What we and the Province are not being told is that much of the monster works at Baseline are proceeding regardless because Algonquin's own expansion plans require that *something* permanent to be built as the current temporary station is on the site of one of their future buildings.

You can also see why Cllr Wilkinson would be peeved at the second option: LRT won't go to Baseline/Lincoln Fields nor will her much-desired Bayshore-Moodie transitway get built either.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

http://www.cfra.com/?cat=1&nid=67964


http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa.../minutes48.htm

Anyone know where this evaluation is?

I doubt that it has been completed yet.

My concern here is that this will delay all LRT further. Even Hurdman station may have to be redesigned if we make this choice, possibly delaying the Eastern route.

We can study and study looking for the perfect and/or cheapest plan, but at some point, you actually have to build something. Also, the best plan is not necessarily the cheapest plan.

If we choose the SE Transitway corridor now, we have effectively decided to throw out everything from the last plan. We need to start over. New EA, new engineering studies and plans, all which cost money. We may be able to make use of existing structures but you can bet that the existing Transitway will require significant modifications to handle trains. We are seeing this already with the E-W route including the possible replacement of bridges. Furthermore, unlike the E-W route that may be able to use the Ottawa River Parkway and Queensway during construction, the south route does not have a fast alternative link for buses. Sure, you could use the Airport Parkway and Riverside Drive, but these routes are far from fast. The worst thing we can do is widen the Airport Parkway for construction of LRT. This is something we have specifically been trying to avoid.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I doubt that it has been completed yet.

My concern here is that this will delay all LRT further. Even Hurdman station may have to be redesigned if we make this choice, possibly delaying the Eastern route.

We can study and study looking for the perfect and/or cheapest plan, but at some point, you actually have to build something. Also, the best plan is not necessarily the cheapest plan.

If we choose the SE Transitway corridor now, we have effectively decided to throw out everything from the last plan. We need to start over. New EA, new engineering studies and plans, all which cost money. We may be able to make use of existing structures but you can bet that the existing Transitway will require significant modifications to handle trains. We are seeing this already with the E-W route including the possible replacement of bridges. Furthermore, unlike the E-W route that may be able to use the Ottawa River Parkway and Queensway during construction, the south route does not have a fast alternative link for buses. Sure, you could use the Airport Parkway and Riverside Drive, but these routes are far from fast. The worst thing we can do is widen the Airport Parkway for construction of LRT. This is something we have specifically been trying to avoid.

I cringe at the thought of wasting piles of money because work was botched. The Bayview-Greenboro line is pegged at $227M, at least $20M of that for the Tunnel. Money saved could fix the POW bridge.

I'm wondering why there are 2 lines into Barrhaven/Riverside South when there is only one (zero LRT) to Kanata and Orleans. South Keys isn;t even built up yet and may be delayed for some time due to the economy. Can anybody explain this to me please?

Urbanaut is lighter, can take tighter curves and steeper grades than LRT can. No bridges would need replacing, nor would any transitway sections need to be "fixed". The guideway can be laid at grade. Check out the Future of Ottawa transit thread. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...51#post4458951

[Franky]

How about extending the O-train, single track to the airport (only) and maybe completing the baseline route with the S-E transitway (LRT) in the future? The Baseline to Barrhaven TC could be LRT right away (well sooner).

It's a bit hard to justify 2 rapid transit routes to Barrhaven/Riverside South area.

BRT to the Alert rd. station (near the airport) could serve Riverside South for a long time probably by extending train lengths to 4 cars (like the rest of the city).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

How about extending the O-train, single track to the airport (only) and maybe completing the baseline route with the S-E transitway (LRT) in the future? The Baseline to Barrhaven TC could be LRT right away (well sooner).

It's a bit hard to justify 2 rapid transit routes to Barrhaven/South-Keys area.

BRT to the Alert rd. station (near the airport) could serve South Keys for a long time probably by extending train lengths to 4 cars (like the rest of the city).

You better get your geography correct. South Keys is as far from Barrhaven Town Centre as Place d'Orleans is from Hurdman and there is no Queensway or Transitway connecting the two directly. South Keys is on Bank Street and is now fully developed while Barrhaven is centred on Woodroffe and Greenbank, half way across the city. The distance between the two and the Rideau River in between certainly justify separate rapid transit routes. I do believe that you were meaning Riverside South, however. In any event the south end communities are so spread out east-west and this is why there are two rapid transit corridors. You don't have to worry, the second Barrhaven corridor will remain an empty monument to this city's stupidity, as it will likely never be built, certainly not in my lifetime. By the time we consider building it, the NIMBYs will be out in full force. Of course, it could have been opened this year, while LRT from Baseline will also likely not be built in my lifetime. There is a significant obstacle to connect Baseline to Barrhaven by LRT and that will raise the price tag considerably.

The O-Train to the airport is a waste of money as it does not deliver direct to downtown service for tourists or business travellers. A station at Alert Road (which is really Lester Road), is of little value as well as that would be in the middle of the Greenbelt and in an environmentally sensitive location. The roads in the area also could not handle a major rapid transit terminus.

[waterloowarrior]

How are barrhaven and south keys the same area? Edit: looks like lrts friend beat me to it

[lrt's friend]

Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why is N-S now on the radar again? Because upper levels of government are suggesting that there will be limited funds available and because they want a project that can be completed quickly. This came from Nancy Scheppers reported on CFRA.

These projects are photo-ops and vote getters for senior government politicians, so very long-term projects (ie 10 year tunnel projects) without tangible interim results are not attractive. When they pour piles of money into a project, they want their voters to see action. When was the original $400M announced, 2004? And 5 years later, absolutely nothing has been done with it.

Just like I always thought, if we don't spend funding money when offered, we will not necessarily get more the next time round. This certainly is starting to look the case. We are fools!

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You better get your geography correct. South Keys is as far from Barrhaven Town Centre as Place d'Orleans is from Hurdman and there is no Queensway or Transitway connecting the two directly. South Keys is on Bank Street and is now fully developed while Barrhaven is centred on Woodroffe and Greenbank, half way across the city. The distance between the two and the Rideau River in between certainly justify separate rapid transit routes. I do believe that you were meaning Riverside South, however. In any event the south end communities are so spread out east-west and this is why there are two rapid transit corridors. You don't have to worry, the second Barrhaven corridor will remain an empty monument to this city's stupidity, as it will likely never be built, certainly not in my lifetime. By the time we consider building it, the NIMBYs will be out in full force. Of course, it could have been opened this year, while LRT from Baseline will also likely not be built in my lifetime. There is a significant obstacle to connect Baseline to Barrhaven by LRT and that will raise the price tag considerably.

The O-Train to the airport is a waste of money as it does not deliver direct to downtown service for tourists or business travellers. A station at Alert Road (which is really Lester Road), is of little value as well as that would be in the middle of the Greenbelt and in an environmentally sensitive location. The roads in the area also could not handle a major rapid transit terminus.

Sorry, not my end of town. Riverside South, right (I'll edit).

Kanata is also spread out, but instead of having 2 lines there, it does a Tee. Why not do the same in Barrhaven?

"There is a significant obstacle to connect Baseline to Barrhaven by LRT and that will raise the price tag considerably. " - do tell.

Urbanaut could offer station to station service using the same guideways as the trains. I know, nobody wants to hear it...

There is a station planned at Alert Rd. already - $3M.

[blackjagger]

I believe that the significant obstacle to connect baseline to Barrhaven is that the BRT from the baseline station to just past Hunt Club runs on bus lanes along woodroffe, with limited to no space to put a grade separeted ROW with out either elevating the track or a tunnel.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Franky

Sorry, not my end of town. Riverside South, right (I'll edit).

Kanata is also spread out, but instead of having 2 lines there, it does a Tee. Why not do the same in Barrhaven?

"There is a significant obstacle to connect Baseline to Barrhaven by LRT and that will raise the price tag considerably. " - do tell.

Urbanaut could offer station to station service using the same guideways as the trains. I know, nobody wants to hear it...

[Franky]

Originally Posted by blackjagger

I believe that the significant obstacle to connect baseline to Barrhaven is that the BRT from the baseline station to just past Hunt Club runs on bus lanes along woodroffe, with limited to no space to put a grade separeted ROW with out either elevating the track or a tunnel.

Cheers.

Thanks.

I wonder what the solution would be if it cost about $8.6M per km (about the same as BRT for that stretch) to elevate a train system and the structures were not monstrous...

[lrt's friend]

Kanata is also spread out, but instead of having 2 lines there, it does a Tee. Why not do the same in Barrhaven?

Really, that was the plan. The difference here is that the other line feeds into Riverside South from South Keys, so why not connect the two with the brand new bridge (which will be built anyways) that can facilitate it. The benefits are obvious. More ridership.

The situation is different in Kanata. It is so far from downtown that we will be lucky to get one rapid transit line built there eventually.

This is why we should be encouraging more development in areas closer to the city. Riverside South is closer to the city than Kanata North or Stittsville and rapid transit will be much cheaper to build to Riverside South because of the available corridor.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by blackjagger

I believe that the significant obstacle to connect baseline to Barrhaven is that the BRT from the baseline station to just past Hunt Club runs on bus lanes along woodroffe, with limited to no space to put a grade separeted ROW with out either elevating the track or a tunnel.

If they'd give up their predilection for grade-separated transitways, it would be doable (just like they're not needed at Baseline itself). Since there are two bus lanes on Woodroffe already between Hunt Club and Knoxdale in addition to the four regular lanes plus a median that's more than one lane wide along with two wide bicycle lanes and considerable space on the east side, it's quite possible to shuffle the lanes around to get two LRT tracks running down the west side of the RoW against the soundwall and then to have a regular 4-lane divided arterial with moderate-sized bicycle lanes in the rest of the space. The current west sidewalk would be moved from being against the wall to being between the tracks and the road, and would be widened somewhat by taking some space from the bicycle lanes, the median and the bus lanes/LRT tracks (LRT doesn't require as much width as do buses).

It would look more-or-less like this section of Edmonton's South LRT between Health Sciences and Belgravia:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/11774070@N04/2956601979/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/11774070@N04/2957447966/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/11774070@N04/2956588321/


The tracks would go under Hunt Club in a short 100-150 m tunnel but the rest would be at-grade - remember that train frequencies will only be half what they are at Lincoln Fields and further east due to the need to retain capacity there for Kanata.

The grade-crossings would look sort of like this, again from Edmonton's South LRT:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/11774070@N04/2956596539/


The 'obstacle' exists only in the minds of the grade-separate-it obsessives who have designed our BRT system.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Really, that was the plan. The difference here is that the other line feeds into Riverside South from South Keys, so why not connect the two with the brand new bridge (which will be built anyways) that can facilitate it. The benefits are obvious. More ridership.

The situation is different in Kanata. It is so far from downtown that we will be lucky to get one rapid transit line built there eventually.

This is why we should be encouraging more development in areas closer to the city. Riverside South is closer to the city than Kanata North or Stittsville and rapid transit will be much cheaper to build to Riverside South because of the available corridor.

So you think a line from Barrhaven through Riverside South, up to South Keys, through the tunnel makes most sense? Going from Barrhaven to Kanata or anywhere west of Bayview is a little weird, but it's probably not a large percentage that travel that way.

The S-E transitway would just be a short little line ending at Confederation?

Baseline station would also be a short little line? Non-existent?

What do you think about using the south end of Merivale Rd. and hook it up to confederation via the rail corridor? That would hit the middle of the development mass.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

The 'obstacle' exists only in the minds of the grade-separate-it obsessives who have designed our BRT system.

If they build LRT out of the box (as they should if they decide LRT is the right technology) that would make more sense.

Those picture look a lot wider than Woodroff - it's about 43 m wide, hard to estimate, is that enough? 2 parallel sets of LRT track - 12 m.

That's the problem. LRT is not an upgrade to BRT. Upgrading BRT with tracks gets you Light-Metro - way too expensive and a waste of capacity. A smaller, lighter vehicle and automated system that can take advantage of the grade separated nature of a BRT RoW makes most sense in the upgrade situation.

[eternallyme]

Building the SW Transitway/LRT would require the expropriation of some multi-family residential properties between Knoxdale and West Hunt Club. It would displace at least 200 people, but IMO would be much cheaper than a long tunnel from the OCRR tracks to past West Hunt Club. Knoxdale could be crossed at-grade being a residential collector road with modest traffic volumes, but the train tracks and West Hunt Club (being a principal arterial/expressway with high volumes and a high speed limit) absolutely have to be grade-separated.

Given the gradients of the road there, I would keep the Transitway/LRT corridor at the same grade as Woodroffe (which would require a bridge replacement or major modification at the train tracks), with a new station at Knoxdale Road (Knoxdale Station or Craig Henry Station presumably), then dip below grade beneath West Hunt Club before returning to grade to a new station across from Nepean Sportsplex (West Hunt Club Station?) and onto the existing corridor.