Position on LRT/Tunnel Plan?

[waterloowarrior]

Vote record is public... choose one of the above...


What's your current position on the tunnel and the $2.1 billion plan for the core network?

1. LRT Tunnel - Staff plan... let's build it already!
2. LRT Tunnel - Try to get major cost reductions (shorter platforms, shallower stations, no platform doors etc)
3. LRT on surface downtown for now, LRT tunnel in the future
4. Bus tunnel
5. Improved bus operations for now (pay before boarding, next bus signs etc), potential LRT or Bus Tunnel in the future
6. Other





Transit Open House 3
http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/transit_tunnel/op_3/index_en.html

recommended plan (has each station/segment)
http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/transit_tunnel/op_3/recommended_plan/index_en.html

breakdown of project costs
http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/transit_tunnel/op_3/costs_35.pdf

[bikegypsy]

I voted for option 3. But this assumes that the surface LRT would be built immediatlely (start within a year). If not, I would vote for option 1.

[eternallyme]

Option 2. Efficiencies and cost reductions need to be found. The extremely deep bored tunnel is unnecessary, and some of the stations seem overbuilt. I prefer a shallower tunnel, cut-and-cover under Slater Street, with a shallow bored tunnel from Elgin Street to the Rideau River. Also stations should be shortened to 125m each and private landowners should be responsible for building integration.

There should be six underground stations - Downtown West, Downtown Central (not in current plan), Downtown East, Mackenzie King, Campus and Lees. LeBreton could be covered as well to allow sheltered operation from LeBreton to Lees, which would be valuable in extremely bad weather (such as ice storms and blizzards) that paralyze the rest of the network.

[Kitchissippi]

I voted for 1, I like the idea of the downtown core being future ready.

However, if there was a way of deferring the Hurdman to Blair section and accelerating the Tunney's to Lincoln Fields section as per my previous post (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4503370&postcount=2511) I would much prefer it, as it would immediately address all the current shortcomings of the BRT Transitway. This portion should be fully grade separated, as it is where trains will be interlined when the system is expanded to the suburbs.

[YOWetal]

Option 2. Efficiencies and cost reductions need to be found. The extremely deep bored tunnel is unnecessary, and some of the stations seem overbuilt. I prefer a shallower tunnel, cut-and-cover under Slater Street, with a shallow bored tunnel from Elgin Street to the Rideau River. Also stations should be shortened to 125m each and private landowners should be responsible for building integration.

There should be six underground stations - Downtown West, Downtown Central (not in current plan), Downtown East, Mackenzie King, Campus and Lees. LeBreton could be covered as well to allow sheltered operation from LeBreton to Lees, which would be valuable in extremely bad weather (such as ice storms and blizzards) that paralyze the rest of the network.

Agree especially on building integration costs. Given the thousands if not millions of dollars property will appreciate on the subway line, if anything some way should be found to get some of the money from those that will benefit most. (probably unrealistic but why should we pay to link the buildings)

One indirect way could be to replace the "cross country" route with a cut and cover tunnel. This will cause lost business and costs for those on the street but they will benefit from being near the line. It seems to me the downtown lobby must have pushed hard for this "cross country" bored tunnel plan as it doesnt make much sense otherwise.

[Gitfiddler]

I'm for #1 right now. This issue has been talked about for decades and nothing has ever happened. It's clear at this point that something needs to happen. The plan, as it stands now, offers the best option going forward to be able to meet future demand. It also gives the greatest number of options in the future for greener, more sustainable transit technology to be introduced.

The cost is obviously very big. But if we put off certain things, then 20 or 30 years from now, the costs will be many times what they are now.

There are countless examples of major infrastructure projects in different cities that were done on the cheap and resulted in billions of dollars of unnecessary tax dollars being pumped in to fix the mistake in the future.

It moves people more efficiently, it takes congestion of the roads, it is expandable in the future and will encourage smart development inside the greenbelt. These are all positives.

The biggest negatives are the cost, but if we don't do it now we'll likely only be putting those costs off to future generations of tax payers. Additionally, with the huge amount of stimulus money available right now, this is probably the best time to do it and mitigate some of the costs to the city. There is no guarantee that anywhere near the same level of funding will be available going forward.

[waterloowarrior]

My vote was for Option 1... I like a future-ready route. Once we build this thing it's going to be there for a long time and any changes are going to be extremely expensive. In the grand scheme of things a 3.2 KM tunnel is really nothing, especially for such as key part of our transit network (even the TTC which is moving away from subways/tunnels to LRT is building a 10 KM tunnel for its suburban Eglinton LRT, which got funding). We are lucky that a lot of the route has already been grade-separated, but it's time to bite the bullet and make the investment in the downtown/core.

[m0nkyman]

We're only going to get one kick at the can on this one. I'd prefer to see another stop in the core, but life ain't perfect. Git'er'done.

[c_speed3108]

I voted for number 2.

Overall I like the plan alot, but I think we need to look for areas to scale it back. Going on the surface is not going to solve enough of the problems with the current transitway to be worthwhile cost wise.

If I look a the transitway there are a number of areas where things were overbuilt. This is one area we need to pay close attention to. Build for what we need now. Things like platform lengthening could always be done later.

Make the stations less deep. Things like elevators and escalators tend to be very expensive and high on maintenance costs. We should try to minimize the numbers.

Instead of platform doors we could perhaps use a cheaper safety solution such as the chains used at the current Carling station. There is gaps where the train doors go, but it is also about a hundred times cheaper. Fancy things could be added a later date.

Another area to look into is the major re-alignment around the via station stop. This is a costly section. This might be a good area to try and find cheaper ways since we are using LRT trains now (decided) which can turn sharper.

[Kitchissippi]

Anyone who thinks surface rail can work should review the old FOTO assessment of how measly four-car trains could go though downtown:

Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jhIawdxxWo)
Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vln_fxNK798)
Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alKrRIHAZAk)

It's funny how David Jeans says "it's not necessarily a problem" when he talks about putting signals on all the garage/loading dock entrances and having freaking cars and utility vehicles cut right through the middle of platforms. I can't imagine the situation in the mornings when most deliveries are made, or in the afternoons when everyone wants out of the parking garages. We have a high enough ridership that we should not live with mediocre compromises like this.

Also, the thought in the end against underground transit is a fabricated falsehood. It's like saying Houston has better street life than Paris, Montreal or New York.

[RTWAP]

Anyone who thinks surface rail can work should review the old FOTO assessment of how measly four-car trains could go though downtown:

Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jhIawdxxWo)
Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vln_fxNK798)
Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alKrRIHAZAk)

It's funny how David Jeans says "it's not necessarily a problem" when he talks about putting signals on all the garage/loading dock entrances and having freaking cars and utility vehicles cut right through the middle of platforms. I can't imagine the situation in the mornings when most deliveries are made, or in the afternoons when everyone wants out of the parking garages. We have a high enough ridership that we should not live with mediocre compromises like this.

Also, the thought in the end against underground transit is a fabricated falsehood. It's like saying Houston has better street life than Paris, Montreal or New York.

Those videos did more damage to my opinion of David Jeanes than any of the criticisms I've read from people with conflicting opinions. It was so ... amateurish. Like suggesting it would be OK to keep an elephant as a pet because it fits within the dimensions of my garage.

There was no acknowledgment that any congestion on the street would wreck havoc with his plan. If there were a car in the right turn lane that impinged slightly on the train path then the train wouldn't reach proper position at the station, preventing loading and unloading, and it wouldn't be able to clear the previous intersection. And then when the obstructing car got a green light, and waited for pedestrian traffic to clear, the train would finally be able to stop properly at the station. So one car in a slightly incorrect position leads to a ripple where all the trains are one light cycle behind.

And it could be much worse. Take a train eastbound on Slater. Imagine one stopped vehicle mid-block (an accident perhaps) preventing the train from completely entering the block from Kent to Bank. A few seconds later, Kent will become a parking lot. And then Laurier westbound. And then Bank southbound. Meanwhile, cars eastbound on Slater are passing the train and accumulating in front of it that want to turn onto Bank southbound. Have fun trying to untangle that mess.

[lrt's friend]

It is time to reassess everything. The process that has got us here has been faulty, with predetermined conclusions. I really question whether we are getting value for money. We need transit planning experts with minimal rail or bus bias and determine how to address our downtown congestion problem while improving service and increasing ridership without bankrupting the city. We need planners to speak without the interference of key politicians.

[Radster]

Yes, but Ottawa also has to realise that there will never be a perfect solution. This is Ottawa's problem, too much bickering, to many consultations, too many assessments, studies, council votes etc etc, in the end, NOTHING gets done, and Ottawa is stuck at the status quo, while population increases, congestion worsens, and we are way over capacity. All while every other big city around the world, including across Canada, makes progress by just building and expanding their transit systems, then once built, improving on what was built, because they realise that perfection from the getgo is NOT possible, and that if they strived for perfection, they would never get the shovel into the ground, like in Ottawa. :yuck:

[YOWetal]

It is time to reassess everything. The process that has got us here has been faulty, with predetermined conclusions. I really question whether we are getting value for money. We need transit planning experts with minimal rail or bus bias and determine how to address our downtown congestion problem while improving service and increasing ridership without bankrupting the city. We need planners to speak without the interference of key politicians.

While I agree with all most of your points, in this environment we cant have a beaucratic decision that is made by planners. The politicians need to justify the previous cancellation (done at voters request) so unless we have something dramatic (ie a "subway") the politicians won't be able to go forward with it and we will end up with nothing again. (we still might)

[lrt's friend]

I am not saying that the bureaucrats should make any decisions. I am saying experts should offer a real plan based on what exists today, the plans that have been presented so far, and their own ideas and give us something that addresses the congestion problem, 'substantially' increases ridership (as the upper levels of governments have always suggested) and gives us value for money. Once the plan is presented, then the politicians can get involved and put their stamp on the project. The problem we have had since 2006, is that essentially the mayor and council said that we want LRT and a downtown tunnel, so go and justify it.

I am becoming very concerned that costs of the current project is leading us to a funding dead end and we will end up with nothing. Even if Phase 1 somehow got funded, it is highly unlikely anything else will get built in the next generation, simply because the city will be broke from Phase 1. What we get with Phase 1 is bus service rationalization which is a far cry from what was suggested early on. It really amounts to service cuts, something that did occur in Portland and those cuts helped fund LRT. Isn't that what we see on the horizon here too?