Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Richard Eade]

Park & Ride lots are concentrators of transit users and the cost to provide them is likely much less than providing a reliable, frequent Local route. Therefore, P&Rs are probably preferred over providing local service.

Look what is now happening in Stittsville, for example, as of June 25. The peak-period, regular fare Local route, # 163, is being cancelled and the service to the new Scotiabank P&R is being increased. People from the West Ridge area of Stittsville will have the option of giving up the 7/9 regular priced peak period trips on the # 163 to Terry Fox in favour of the 3 additional Express fare trips of the # 262; OR, they could walk over to Stittsville Main and wait for the half-frequency # 96; OR, they can drive to the Scotiabank P&R and catch the half-frequency # 96A there. (The # 96A will run all day, roughly from 7 to 5:30.) So, a more expensive, more crowded ride, or a long walk, or a drive to a P&R.
(For reference, Google Earth says it is 972 metres along Beverley, from West Ridge to Stittsville Main.)

Of course, come September, the Stittsville transit map could look like this:



With the # 96A continuing south from the Scotiabank P&R to the Goulbourn Recreation Centre (GRC), via Huntmar, and the ‘regular’ # 96 using Hazeldean, Stittsville Main, and Shea to get to its terminus at the GRC. (I expect the # 96 and the # 96A to be interlined (i.e., one becomes the other at the GRC).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by McC

Wow, I am amazed that they built a Transitway-style BRT, with those big heavy stations, dedicated expressway, and everything, that will be nowhere near capacity, and yet they're not going to run express buses on it? I don't know whether I'm impressed or aghast. It seems to me that until Ottawa hit capacity downtown, Express buses and routes like the 86 and 87 were the only advantage of the Transwitway system. Sure they cost more to operate, but the benefits of transferless trips to many more parts of the city are huge and obvious, and I think it's accepted wisdom that they are the reason for our high ridership rates. wow.

"Express" buses are the mis-named bane of the BRT cult in Ottawa.

[rakerman]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

What happened to the Interprovincial transit report the NCC was supose to come out with a few months ago? All I heard was something about creating one transit commission for both cities, but no actual report ever surfaced (as far as I know).

Nothing on the site yet

http://www.interprovincial-transit-strategy.ca/

"A final draft of the Strategy report is currently being reviewed by the Study Partners, and is anticipated to be released in late spring or early summer 2012."

[citizen j]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

What happened to the Interprovincial transit report the NCC was supose to come out with a few months ago? All I heard was something about creating one transit commission for both cities, but no actual report ever surfaced (as far as I know).

The real question is when is the next NCC study on the very same topic scheduled to begin? (That is, after the current one is finished, shelved, and ignored.)

[eternallyme]

Park and Rides are best for catching potential users from areas of very low density (i.e. rural and exurban areas) where transit is not feasible. They should not be used to replace local (express until LRT) service in areas where such is feasible.

I would decommission the Baseline P&R immediately (i.e. turn it over for development, ideally for Algonquin College) and after suitable capacity exists elsewhere in the south end (i.e. Riverview, Leitrim) decommission the Greenboro P&R. Others that probably should not exist are Terry Fox (very difficult to access, and that station should also be relocated IMO to the opposite side of Kanata Avenue), Place d'Orleans (the land should be reset for a major redevelopment plan of the whole central Orleans area - including the mall itself) and Strandherd (also difficult to access and in an ideal development area). They should not be located in the urban area inside the Greenbelt or in community cores.

At the same time, some of the suburban Park and Rides, especially Trim, Scotiabank Place, Leitrim, Riverview and potential ones near 416/Bankfield and 417/Anderson should be expanded considerably.

[lrt's friend]

Despite my mixed feelings about Park n Ride lots, we should be careful about closing them. Although their main function is to serve weekday commuters, they also allow access to transit for special events such as Canada Day, hockey games at SBP and in the future hopefully football games at Lansdowne. Without them, and with local service often only running half hourly or less or not at all, people will drive instead.

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah, p&r play an important role - is there a charge for them?

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Yeah, p&r play an important role - is there a charge for them?

Some of them, the "Gold" spaces, which are basically just reserved parking within the P&R. details here: http://www.octranspo1.com/routes/gold_permit_parking

Also, spaces at Baseline are $22/month for those entering before 11 AM.

I concur that P&R's need to be only at the very edge of the City, to serve rural customers where local services are impractical. At the Planning Summit Jeffrey Tumlin spoke about how they are the worst, and should be avoided, as it is very hard to get people already in their cars to get out of them. - Not to mention the land used for them - ayee!

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by gjhall

Some of them, the "Gold" spaces, which are basically just reserved parking within the P&R. details here: http://www.octranspo1.com/routes/gold_permit_parking

Also, spaces at Baseline are $22/month for those entering before 11 AM.

I concur that P&R's need to be only at the very edge of the City, to serve rural customers where local services are impractical. At the Planning Summit Jeffrey Tumlin spoke about how they are the worst, and should be avoided, as it is very hard to get people already in their cars to get out of them. - Not to mention the land used for them - ayee!

If they have to be built in community core areas, they should be multi-level parking garages.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

If they have to be built in community core areas, they should be multi-level parking garages.

At $30k+ a spot for structured parking, you can invest it a lot of transit for the cost of parking garages.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Wow! We hate busways so much that we would actually turn them into an expressway for private vehicles.

Umm, no, that's not what I was suggesting that should happen.

I was saying that in the event the BRT and LRT services are combined south of Confederation Heights that it is more likely that the powers-that-be would turn a portion of the Southeast Transitway into a second Airport Parkway carriageway than it is that they would sell the land for development.

I'd say the same thing about the West Transitway trench between Dominion and Westboro Stations in the event of the Richmond-Byron via Churchill alternative (the top-rated alternative) being chosen. That bit of a trench would be awfully tempting for the road engineers to commandeer to connect the ORP with Scott.


This is one of the dangers of busways: they can be converted to roads very easily.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

I would decommission the Baseline P&R immediately (i.e. turn it over for development, ideally for Algonquin College)

No point. It will be wiped out anyway for the next phase of the Baseline mega-station construction when the Southwest Transitway is extended to Norice.

[matty14]

http://www.smartwesternrail.org

Good grief.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by matty14

http://www.smartwesternrail.org

Good grief.

^^^^ I agree with Charlie Brown here.

[eternallyme]

1.How much of Byron Linear Park will disappear if the train goes down Richmond-Byron, percentage wise? How does this fit with the City Strategic Plan’s service priority of a “Sustainable, Healthy and Active City”? How does this fit with the Urban Greenspace Network within the Recreation Master Plan? How does this fit with the Richmond Road/Westboro Community Design Plan which talks about enhancing (not minimizing) the Byron Linear Park?

The Ottawa River Parkway corridor is directly nearby, and includes EXCELLENT pedestrian and bicycle pathways - some of the best in Canada, forget Ottawa! Also the ROW in the linear park is wide enough (about 20 metres - less than 10 is needed except at stations) that a pathway will still exist.

2.Where will the vehicular and bus traffic go that currently travels along Richmond Road if two lanes out of 3 or 4 are taken up by a commuter train track? What would the impact be on the surrounding residential streets? Is the idea to make Byron more of a thoroughfare?

FEAR MONGERING!!! Even with the train, no lanes are removed from Richmond Road. In fact, room would still exist for a continuous corridor 4 lanes wide (of which 2 lanes should be for parking in off-peak periods). Byron would remain a local road and Richmond an urban/neighbourhood mainstreet. Only one bus route - Route 2 - would exist in the area, and it would be virtually unchanged from today.

3.Is 10-13 metres considered an acceptable distance away from a train, given considerations of safety, vibration, noise and light? How many homes would be designated for expropriation?

There are many houses that distance from LRT trains in Calgary (or closer, as in the Sunnyside, Haysboro and Southwood communities). Also in Toronto, parts of Rosedale are immediately adjacent to surface-level heavy rail. How many houses would need to be expropriated? Most likely none.

4.Is the intention to transform this area into a highly densified and commercial zone where single-family homes don’t really fit? Or is the idea to turn it into an intensified transportation corridor to get commuters from Point A to Point B, similar to Bronson or King Edward?

On Richmond Road, most likely a transformation would exist. However, McKellar Park would likely remain as is - it is not zoned for higher densities. Commuters via car would not move to Richmond at all.

5.Are councillors satisfied that a scenario involving Carling Avenue – AT GRADE – has been fairly evaluated?

Carling Avenue at grade is the WORST scenario. It would mean so many busy crossings of the train and would be an accident waiting to happen. Either that or a lot of accesses and streets would become right-in, right-out, and while it is a developing urban mainstreet, it will take many years to reach full potential. A comparable setup in Canada would be 36th Street NE in Calgary.

6.Will the train be travelling virtually empty on evenings and weekends? Is it worth fundamentally altering beautiful neighbourhoods to address peak-hour traffic?

Ridership would be lower, yes. But, the 95s, 96s and 97s are generally far from empty in the area on evenings and weekends - it is not uncommon to have to stand. Only in the very late evenings might they be close to empty.

7.If the city is proposing densification around stations (at Golden and Cleary for example), what will the impact be on residents living on adjacent streets which currently are primarily residential?

Not much impact, no more than other streets intersection Richmond Road and Wellington Street farther east. Most of the intensification would be on Richmond Road itself.

8.What has the city been doing to find a compromise position with the National Capital Commission on western light rail?

A Parkway routing would have lower ridership, as the catchment area would be smaller. It would be unable to service Carlingwood as well without an expensive extra tunnel. Hence, that option should be carried forward as the #3 choice.

[KHOOLE]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

1.How much of Byron Linear Park will disappear if the train goes down Richmond-Byron, percentage wise? How does this fit with the City Strategic Plan’s service priority of a “Sustainable, Healthy and Active City”? How does this fit with the Urban Greenspace Network within the Recreation Master Plan? How does this fit with the Richmond Road/Westboro Community Design Plan which talks about enhancing (not minimizing) the Byron Linear Park?

The Ottawa River Parkway corridor is directly nearby, and includes EXCELLENT pedestrian and bicycle pathways - some of the best in Canada, forget Ottawa! Also the ROW in the linear park is wide enough (about 20 metres - less than 10 is needed except at stations) that a pathway will still exist.

2.Where will the vehicular and bus traffic go that currently travels along Richmond Road if two lanes out of 3 or 4 are taken up by a commuter train track? What would the impact be on the surrounding residential streets? Is the idea to make Byron more of a thoroughfare?

FEAR MONGERING!!! Even with the train, no lanes are removed from Richmond Road. In fact, room would still exist for a continuous corridor 4 lanes wide (of which 2 lanes should be for parking in off-peak periods). Byron would remain a local road and Richmond an urban/neighbourhood mainstreet. Only one bus route - Route 2 - would exist in the area, and it would be virtually unchanged from today.

3.Is 10-13 metres considered an acceptable distance away from a train, given considerations of safety, vibration, noise and light? How many homes would be designated for expropriation?

There are many houses that distance from LRT trains in Calgary (or closer, as in the Sunnyside, Haysboro and Southwood communities). Also in Toronto, parts of Rosedale are immediately adjacent to surface-level heavy rail. How many houses would need to be expropriated? Most likely none.

4.Is the intention to transform this area into a highly densified and commercial zone where single-family homes don’t really fit? Or is the idea to turn it into an intensified transportation corridor to get commuters from Point A to Point B, similar to Bronson or King Edward?

On Richmond Road, most likely a transformation would exist. However, McKellar Park would likely remain as is - it is not zoned for higher densities. Commuters via car would not move to Richmond at all.

5.Are councillors satisfied that a scenario involving Carling Avenue – AT GRADE – has been fairly evaluated?

Carling Avenue at grade is the WORST scenario. It would mean so many busy crossings of the train and would be an accident waiting to happen. Either that or a lot of accesses and streets would become right-in, right-out, and while it is a developing urban mainstreet, it will take many years to reach full potential. A comparable setup in Canada would be 36th Street NE in Calgary.

6.Will the train be travelling virtually empty on evenings and weekends? Is it worth fundamentally altering beautiful neighbourhoods to address peak-hour traffic?

Ridership would be lower, yes. But, the 95s, 96s and 97s are generally far from empty in the area on evenings and weekends - it is not uncommon to have to stand. Only in the very late evenings might they be close to empty.

7.If the city is proposing densification around stations (at Golden and Cleary for example), what will the impact be on residents living on adjacent streets which currently are primarily residential?

Not much impact, no more than other streets intersection Richmond Road and Wellington Street farther east. Most of the intensification would be on Richmond Road itself.

8.What has the city been doing to find a compromise position with the National Capital Commission on western light rail?

A Parkway routing would have lower ridership, as the catchment area would be smaller. It would be unable to service Carlingwood as well without an expensive extra tunnel. Hence, that option should be carried forward as the #3 choice.

There are not that many important cross-road intersections along Carling Ave and when there are, such as at Woodroffe or Holland, why not "cut and cover" for the LRT to go through.

Also, a lot of people shop and work at Carlingwood and Westgate areas as well as having to work or being patients and visitors at the Royal Hosp and the Ottawa Civic Hosp. There would be a greater opportunity to revitalize Carling with more stores and residential high rises, such as SOHO Italia and others.

Morever, why does it have to be a fast LRT train along Carling or any other built-up areas? Speed should be for transporting passengers across the Green Belt but built up areas should have stops every 500 meters to be serviceable to passengers and increase ridership. This is Canada and we have foul weather, rain and snow probably half of the time throughout the year. Nobody wants to walk a Km in freezing rain to get to work so they will keep on using their cars.

No need for a tunnel downtown. A Carling line connecting with the Transitway at Lincoln Fields and the O-Train at Preston will be more functional and will increase ridership while there is no guarantee that a Blair Rd to Tunney's Pasture LRT using established bus lines and building a downtown tunnel will increase ridership by even one person! You don't build a bigger store if you have no idea if your sales will even increase!

Why so much emphasis with Tunney's Pasture? There may be no one working there in a few years. It was built in 1968 and many buildings are decrepit and are up for major repairs or demolition.

Better to have a Carling line that will go to the old Nortel campus where 10,000+ National Defense employees will find themselves in the near future.

A LRT tunnel through the downtown core will be useful for a few hours in the morning and afternoon Monday to Friday and be absolutely useless in the evenings and on weekends, just like the Sparks Street Mall.

Does the City have a business plan for the LRT tunnel? How long will it take to break even or make a profit? Probably never! Just like the baseball stadium or the municipal golf course or riding school. Lansdowne Park was profitable until the City took the management away from CCEA.

The City is a municipality created to provide sevices to its residents. The City is not a business and it has never proven itself to have business acumen.

Forget the tunnel and put taxpayers money into projects like a Carling line that taxpayers will use and appreciate 24/7 all year round. Hell, it might even turn a profit for OC Transpo!

[m0nkyman]

Carling makes sense for a secondary line, but not the primary commuter line. Our commuter system is beyond capacity currently, and there is no way to sustain it as a surface BRT system. Going forward, burying the line underground and switching to rail is the only sane option.

A Carling route for commuter rail doesn't make sense. It should be a system that has lots of stops and is useful for residents and shoppers, helping build up Carling. Think streetcar.

[KHOOLE]

Originally Posted by m0nkyman

Carling makes sense for a secondary line, but not the primary commuter line. Our commuter system is beyond capacity currently, and there is no way to sustain it as a surface BRT system. Going forward, burying the line underground and switching to rail is the only sane option.

A Carling route for commuter rail doesn't make sense. It should be a system that has lots of stops and is useful for residents and shoppers, helping build up Carling. Think streetcar.

I do not consider replacing a functioning surface BRT with an costly and unproven underground LRT with no projected increase in ridership as a sane option.
A sane option would be to increase ridership by providing additional transit options. A very rapid LRT from Stittsville to Rockland using the Baseline-Heron Rds axis would be such an option. To provide a secondary "streetcar" transit line on Carling would be another option. Providing transit to the airport and also extending the O-Train to Gatineau are also more options.
The concept is to get cars off the roads, save on road building and maintenance and increase OC Transpo ridership to make it a profitable business operation. This is where a public-private partnership P3 should come in.
To rationalize a 2.1 billion taxpayers expenditure on the basis of increased municipal income from an expanded tax base is wishy-washy thinking. What happens during economic downturns?
A sane option is one that increases ridership to help pay for the cost. This is even more true during economic downturns because people would leave their cars at home to save on gas and repairs and have only one car per household instead or two and even three. During hard times, people use public transit, ride their bikes or walk.
Sanity is to be able to rationalize your thoughts and behaviour based on a sound mind. To spend 2.1 billions of taxpayers money to replace a functioning BRT with trains underground that will be used only for a few hours morning and afternoon on working days IS NOT A SANE OPTION.

[McC]

Originally Posted by KHOOLE

I do not consider replacing a functioning surface BRT with an costly and unproven underground LRT with no projected increase in ridership as a sane option. ...To spend 2.1 billions of taxpayers money to replace a functioning BRT with trains underground that will be used only only for a few hours morning and afternoon on working days IS NOT A SANE OPTION.

yup, it's working just ticketyboo!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawabusgallery/6173445157/

[lrt's friend]

In retrospect, the only sane approach to leverage our existing investment in rapid transit is to build a bus tunnel through downtown. We have a capacity issue only downtown and this would have addressed this without spending billions recreating the Transitways as rail lines. This may eventually amount to several billion dollars and for what? To maintain the status quo? In the end, a bus tunnel would have cost far less than a full rail conversion. It will take many decades to recoup the enormous capital costs of Transitway conversion from savings in the bus system. Yet, some of those bus savings can be obtained by allowing rail to serve another purpose, which is to create an urban rail network. This seems to be the path that we are on anyways to a great degree. We are confused about what we are trying to accomplish. Our plans clearly restrict rail to the urban area and some are adament that LRT not be extended to the suburbs for fear of encouraging further sprawl. I don't particularly buy that, but in a way, this is built into the TMP when we set density requirements in the suburbs, which are not attainable based on existing road and transit capacities. Our end result of a compromise between urban and commuter service is going to leave countless transit riders unhappy because of the disjointed system that we are creating.


So, if we are planning on mainly having an urban rail network, why not design it that way? The rail network could run on Albert and Slater Street while most of the buses would be diverted into the tunnel. We could create fast streetcars that would serve Carling and the O-Train route and the General Hospital (and beyond) and Montreal Road and the future revelopment at the old Rockcliffe Airport. We would have a balanced network. Two route running east from downtown, two running west. It would connect to the Transitways at Blair, Hurdman, Lincoln Fields. It would create urban renewal and intensification where we really want and need it the most and we don't have to excessively compromise on station spacing. This network can gradually expanded outward as populations dictates. This would be on cheap corridors already put aside in Riverside South and Orleans South. A Carling route could eventually be extended to the DND Campus and the Kanata North Business Park. As this all expands in a rationale manner, many buses are gradually replaced with trains in downtown, keeping pressure off the capacity of a bus tunnel. The bus tunnel would offer service on the existing Transitway corridors and can retain the existing model or be redesigned as hub and spoke. This would be a transit policy decision. This will save us from rail conversion costs that are balooning far beyond what everybody predicted. The cost of converting the Western Transitway is now predicted at $1 billion +++, multiple times more than the original cost of the entire Transitway network.

This approach allows us to expand rapid transit in general faster than the very expensive approach we are following today. It is more rationale since the current approach has no hope of funding LRT to Orleans or Barrhaven or Kanata within reasonable budgets.

I know that there is no hope of this approach ever being implemented but I feel there are many lost opportunities to build an urban rail network faster because Transitway conversion is going to be far more expensive than anybody believes.