The future of Ottawa's Transit

[harls]

A two-car run three times a day -- morning, noon and late afternoon -- could service commuters heading towards Ottawa,

It would have to run a lot more frequently than that if I was going to use it for work. I'll stick with my 35 minute non-transferring bus ride, thanks.

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by harls

It would have to run a lot more frequently than that if I was going to use it for work. I'll stick with my 35 minute non-transferring bus ride, thanks.

Well maybe not...

OC has had a 24% increase in ridership on it's terribly infrequent rural express routes.

Plus I doubt there is many other alternatives out that way...aside from the car.


The way this is developing is reminding me alot of the way the express bus system developed. It started with the Beacon-hill bullet. A highly successful express bus route started by local residents and a community association. There were no city officials, planners or anything else. The route was only taken over by government when it's growth had become too much for the community association to handle. The express route still exists today...more or less. Many other express routes have been added all over the city. Basically the people designed something simple that met their needs and wants...that is why it worked.

[lrt's friend]

There is a big difference between the 'Beacon Hill Bullet' which was the model for Ottawa's extremely successful express bus system and a rail plan. The capital required to obtain even a single train and to build even the most basic train stations at multiple locations is almost certainly beyond the means of a citizen's group.

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is a big difference between the 'Beacon Hill Bullet' which was the model for Ottawa's extremely successful express bus system and a rail plan. The capital required to obtain even a single train and to build even the most basic train stations at multiple locations is almost certainly beyond the means of a citizen's group.

There is indeed a big difference, but it appears there is a few companies involved in this including this so called "Pontiac Community Futures Development Corporation" and Ottawa-Central to some degree.

Trains can be leased...that's easy enough...even the City of Ottawa did that. For that matter it might even only entail some train cars and just pay Ottawa-Central too pull them for you. They are not proposing a big operation here....and are also looking for some basic grants from upper levels of government.

Train stations. Depends on what you are planning to build. If they are the step-up style train cars you need a little pavement and perhaps a bus shelter. There are areas in northern ontario where there are no stations. People stand beside the track and wave a flashlight. (They have to travel to Winnipeg for groceries)

[lrt's friend]

It is too bad that the CP track is no longer connected into Ottawa. The CP track goes through both Renfrew and Arnprior, whereas the Ottawa-Central track crosses over to a rather sparsely populated portion of Pontiac County before returning to Ontario and arriving in Pembroke. Furthermore, the CP track also goes right through the middle of Pembroke, a block or so from downtown, while the Ottawa-Central skirts town. Downtown Pembroke could really use a boost. A lovely location but it has suffered from shopping centres being built on the outskirts. On my last visit, we had an absolutely wonderful meal at a classy restaurant next to the City Hall. I hope it is still there.

[Dado]

Renfrew and Arnprior could possibly get together to put in a service by connecting the end of the track of the Renfrew Subdivision in Arnprior to the CP mainline (they're like 200 m apart across an open field), though that would require the co-operation of the City of Ottawa who I believe now own the Renfrew Subdivision between the junction in the Greenbelt and Arnprior.

The main advantage of these rural commuter rail proposals as far as the citizens of Ottawa are concerned, besides removing a few cars from the road, is that they might embarrass the City into doing something itself.

Or they might not. But they would be cool to get out into the country for cycling trips...

[lrt's friend]

Deputy City Manager confirms no tunnel for a least 7 to 11 years – and special tax levy required. City’s matching funds are no longer on table for any rail project.

July 24 2008, Ottawa City Hall, Councillor Clive Doucet shares responses he received confirming timing and cost implications of Transit Option 4.

The attached document includes all the question posed and answers provided thus far.

Highlighting the implications on timing and costs:

The answers to questions 6 and 8 make it clear, there will be no tunnel and no light rail for at least 7 to 11 years but buses and busway projects can begin immediately.
Operating costs for diesel buses are higher than light rail and rising fuel costs will only make this worse. We are going to invest first in the technology which will raise our future costs the most.
Most troubling is the answer to question 12, what happened to the money the city had set aside for the previous light rail plan? Gas tax contributions are being used elsewhere. All that money for busways will be taken from had been earmarked for rail which makes the real priorities of this plan clear: buses first and rail second if ever.
The answers to questions 13, 14 and 19 show that we are starting from square one on the business case and funding plans for light rail. We don’t know how or where funding for light rail will happen.
Of the approximate 4 billion dollars that Option 4 will cost, the bus portion of the plan will consume 1.5 billion and that funding will be seeded with the remains of the old light rail plan. Meanwhile the remaining 2.5 billion for the new light rail will come from sources yet to be found. Even with matching funds from the federal and provincial governments, the city will forced to impose something on the scale of a 75% tax levy to make up our third.
We could avoid the delays and cost by making Option 4 a light rail first as opposed to a bus first plan.


Questions asked at May 28th Council Meeting:
by Councillor Doucet

Q1. How much will this new plan invest in buses and asphalt?

A. The new plan will invest approximately $900 M for about 65 km of exclusive busways and $600 M for buses to operate on this network, including their required maintenance/storage yards.

Q2. How much is that per kilometre of busway?

Generally, about $15 M/km.

Q3. Has there been any business case evaluation to justify this expenditure which documents how much faster and efficient the transit service will be with this $900 million investment?

A. A business case evaluation was not undertaken for the development of the network. However, a detailed business case study will be undertaken for each specific project to support applications to the Provincial and Federal governments for funding. Each business case study will assess all costs and all benefits related to that specific project.

Q4. How much money does it cost to fill a diesel bus today? A $1, 000?

The average diesel fuel capacity of a bus in the current fleet is 488L.

At the current average price/L of $1.24, it would cost $605 to fill the average unit. Alternatively, if the city locked into a forward contract for diesel, the current average price/L in such an arrangement is $1.32, which would cost $644 to fill the average unit.

Q5. Has anyone done any calculation regarding the increasing operating costs of diesel buses for the short term and the long term? Say 4 years and 10 years out? (Oil prices are presently rising at 2 to 3 times the consumer price index.)

A. Fuel projections have been prepared to the end of 2011 based upon a 2009 price of $1.32/L (current 12-month lock-in price) plus an increase of 5% for each of the following years, 2010 and 2011.

Since the 2008 budget was based upon a price of $0.92/L, the forecast increase for 2009 is substantial. Following are the current Transit Services diesel fuel pressures caused by these price assumptions:

2009 - $16.8M

2010 - $2.8M

2011 - $3.1M

At the moment, there is no forecast beyond 2011 for diesel fuel costs.

Q6. When will we start investing in more asphalt for buses?

A. The transit network implementation plan (which includes both LRT and BRT) will be presented to Council in the fall. Projects outlined in the plan will be rolled out in the order that Council approves, subject to funding. Some projects are more advanced in that EA work and preliminary design are completed, whereas other projects have not yet been approved or designed. The proposed implementation plan will consider a number of criteria, including the ability to implement quickly in order to bring improvements to the transit system as soon as possible.

Q7. Has the rail technology been chosen for the Option that we are approving today?

A. Yes, electric light rail.

Q8. How long will it be before we see the tunnel constructed and the western parkway converted for light rail if the NCC permits this use? Does ten years sound reasonable?

A. Detailed Planning and EA studies for complex and high profile projects typically take about 2 years to complete. Following this, and assuming that funding is in place, detailed design and vehicle procurement processes would be initiated – which could take roughly 2-4 years. Construction could take another 3-4 (or even 5) years, depending on the approach and available cash flow. These timelines are approximate and could be reduced if design and construction activities were overlapped – such as with P3 procurement processes.

Q9. It is possible for any number of reasons that we won’t be able to convert the western parkway to light rail such as financing, NCC owns the right of way, community objections. Has any consideration been made to immediately environmentally assess Carling Avenue which is a more direct route to Kanata; where we own the entire right of way and it serves some 300,000 people as well as hospitals and shopping centres.

A. How Carling Avenue fits into the transit network, and when it should be implemented in relation to other projects in the network, is currently being evaluated. The findings will be presented to Council in the fall as part of the implementation plan.

Q10. When you were evaluating Carling Avenue as a possible primary route, did anyone look into the possibility of configuring the light rail service along Carling for both commuters and local service? By that I mean having a two hour morning and two hour afternoon service for commuters with minimal stops, rail gates at some intersections and signal prioritization? Then returning to local service for the rest of the day and on weekends?

A. Development of Carling Avenue as a transit corridor, and opportunities to provide early staging of any project within the transit network, is part of the current work on the TMP update. Detailed service planning options for Carling will be carried out at a later date, once the corridor is refined.

Q11. Instead of investing $900 million in 62 kilometers of asphalt did anyone calculate how much of an east-west, light rail service this would buy along Carling? Or out to the east end?

A. Cost estimates for Carling Avenue (as an LRT corridor) and other LRT extensions easterly are being developed as part of the current work on the TMP update. These estimates will be included in the implementation plan presented to Council this fall.

Additional questions:

Q12. What has happened to the financing package that was put in place for the previous project? Where has the city’s share gone? What was the total amount? What remains in escrow? What is being spent on what and under what authority?

The Province and Federal governments still have the $400 Million ear-marked for the City. The Federal government announced that $35 Million of its $200 Million contribution could be applied to the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge project. No application for funding has been submitted.

In terms of the city’s share, some money has been returned to source (reserve funds), or debenture authority eliminated. The total amount of money spent on the former North-South Light Rail Transit project to the present date is the subject of another recent memo that was sent to Mayor and Members of Council on July 3, 3008 (CSE 05-08).

With the adoption by Council of the implementation plan for the Rapid Transit Network in the fall, new funding will be sought from government partners. Preliminary indications are that funding partners could be receptive to providing funds beyond the $400 Million originally set aside for city.

Financial details will be included as part of the 2009 capital budget, and/or subject to a separate report by the Department.

Q13. Are any of the funds which had been earmarked to make up the city’s contribution towards for the previous North-South LRT plan still available to be spent on light rail?

A. Funding is in place to complete all existing commitments associated with the former North-South LRT Project. Project Authority not required has been reduced, some projects have been closed, and all associated funding has been returned to source and/or debt authority has been eliminated.

Q14. What has happened to the provinces and the federal government’s $400 million share? We keep hearing it’s still on the table, but what needs to be done to get it off their table and on ours? What are the conditions which would allow the city to access these funds?

A. The City must first identify its priority project(s). A completed (and approved) Planning and EA study is then required, and a cost-benefit analysis (business case) must be undertaken. Once these activities are complete, the Federal and Provincial governments will assess the funding application(s) to determine the viability of the project(s) based on the submitted EA and business case. A contribution agreement would need to be approved and signed by all levels of government before the funds can be accessed.

Q15. Has anyone evaluated the financial advantages to the city of simply converting the shoulder lanes of four-lane urban highways to bus lanes during the commuter peaks instead of building new, exclusive bus only lanes? And if not, would someone do this?

A. Since the 1980’s, the City has been successfully operating transit on highway and arterial shoulder lanes where it is operationally feasible to do so. Examples of this are the shoulder lanes on the 174 in the east, along the 417 (west of Moodie), and along Woodroffe. It is a cost-effective practice, and one that will continue until transit operations become unreliable due to the effects of congestion at interchanges/intersections. At that time, and because reliability of service is one of the key factors in attracting and retaining ridership, exclusive transit corridors would be introduced.

Q16. How can we characterize Option 4 as an electric light rail plan when the city will be investing only in asphalt and new bus service for the next seven years?

A. Option 4 is a network that includes both LRT and BRT corridors, with LRT being the technology of choice in the downtown tunnel and sections inside the Greenbelt. BRT is defined to provide service from the LRT network to suburban areas. Implementation sequencing/timing of each project will be presented to Council for consideration in the fall.

Q17. Is it reasonable to have a twenty year planning horizon for electric light rail when climate science is telling us the increasing levels of carbon dioxide emissions are expected to create a climate tipping point within seven years?

A. The TMP lays out a recommended network that should be in place for 2031 based on projected growth in population, employment and travel trends. Should there be a large shift towards rapid transit, the projects can be advanced subject to Council approval and funding availability. The recommended implementation plan will be brought forward for Council’s consideration in the fall.

Q18. Given the strong possibility that the climate change crisis will force senior levels of governments to act to reduce CO2 emissions by downloading emission reductions onto municipalities, shouldn’t Option Four be electric transit first, not diesel?

A. Implementation of any transit measure will help reduce overall emissions. The TMP is recommending a balanced approach to mobility, with LRT in the more central areas where population and employment density and concentrated trip making occur, and BRT in the more dispersed and less dense suburban areas. The two modes - and indeed the complete system – will offer more accessible, comfortable and rapid transit throughout the city..

Q19. How many new riders will the tunnel and the converted transitway attract? What will the cost of new riders be for the electric portion of the system? How does this cost equation compare to the pilot light rail and the former, double track electric project?

A. Additional time is required to provide a response to this question. Staff will work towards providing this response at the same time as the discussions take place on the implementation plan in the fall.

Q20. How does a single trip, light rail Kanata to downtown via Carling and Preston (with and without the tunnel) compare to the introduction of bus to rail/transfers using the parkway?

A. Once LRT is introduced as the backbone rapid transit network, transfers will occur for the majority of users, and it is just a question of where on the system the transfers will occur. More work on the support feeder system will need to be completed.

Q21. What is the cost per new rider of investing in the busways in the next 7 years?

A. In order to respond to this question, staff requires Council’s decision on the implementation strategy (project sequencing and timing) for the transit network.

In preparing priorities for Council’s consideration, implementation criteria such as affordability, ridership, status of planning work, ease of implementation, logical sequencing, and opportunities to implement interim solutions, will be considered and presented. A decision by Council is scheduled for the fall.

Q22. How does the cost of operating and maintaining an electric light rail line compare to the costs of operating and maintaining a bus transitway system?

A. A comparison of the two technologies was carried out as part of the North-South LRT EA. Considering both capital and operating costs, it was found that the break-even point occurred at about year 20. After that point, the LRT line becomes less expensive to operate provided ridership numbers are achieved.

From the recent work on the TMP, the network that was primarily BRT (Option 1) had a forecasted operating cost of $485M by year 2031. Option 4 network’s operating cost would be $434M in year 2031. The operating cost for the amended Option 4 (extensions of LRT to the suburbs) is being developed and will be presented with other information to Council in the fall.

Q23. What were the last four communications exchanged with Siemens? A written reply is requested here, not a verbal one.

This response was addressed at the in-camera legal briefing to Council on June 25, 2008.

From Clive Doucet's website

[p_xavier]

So basically nothing new at all.

[Richard Eade]

Does anyone have an idea of how the MRC/Delcan costs were arrived at?

I am thinking specifically of the cost of laying rail and providing the electricity (towers, wire, substations, etc.). For the Transitway conversion, they seem to work out to about $11M-$12.5M per Km. That includes removal of the old asphalt. These numbers seem to be reasonable to me.

For their tunnel estimate, which is not broken down into the detail of the conversion sections, there is a single number of $55M per Km that is labelled as "Tracks/ electrical".

Given that they also give a tunnel cost for "Asphalt/ ventilation" as $35M per Km, I expect that the base cost for building the invert and ventilation must be somewhere around $30M per Km.

This would put the cost of adding rail and electrical at about $25M/Km inside the tunnel. And there isn't a need for poles in the tunnel.

Where I am going with this is to try to estimate the cost of running a rail line along Carling. From Lincoln Fields (LF) to the O-Train bridge is about 7Km. A shallow cut and cover tunnel would cost about $30M/Km. If we added $15M for a station every Km since they are underground stations. Do we then need to add $55M/Km for adding the rail, electrical, and ventilation to the tunnel?

If so, the cost for a tunnel along the 7 Km of Carling would be ($30M+15M+55M=) $100M/Km, or $700M!

If an open trench were used, with a bridge built for each cross street, then we could estimate $4M/Km for trenching, plus $16M/Km for adding rail and electrical and a cheap station every Km, plus a $15M bridge for each of the 51 intersections along the route. This would give a total of about (($4M+16M=20M)x7Km+($10Mx51)=) $650M! Of course, this could be reduced by minimizing the number of bridges needed.

To go on the surface, there would be $15M/Km for rail and electrical and, say, $0.5M for each crossing (which is a guess), for a rounded up estimate of $150M.

So, we would be looking at (back of envelope estimate) about half a billion dollars more to grade separate a rail line along Carling.

I would prefer a compromise: Minimize the number of intersections, and put the least busy ones at grade. For busy cross streets, trench and bridge the road over the train. Work the numbers to produce a plan for around $400M and I think it would be accepted by the masses.

Any comment?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

So, we would be looking at (back of envelope estimate) about half a billion dollars more to grade separate a rail line along Carling.

I would prefer a compromise: Minimize the number of intersections, and put the least busy ones at grade. For busy cross streets, trench and bridge the road over the train. Work the numbers to produce a plan for around $400M and I think it would be accepted by the masses.

Any comment?

A rail line at grade is not cheap, you need to add about 40M$ per km for rellocation of utilities and preparation. And why Carling would be underground, a SkyTrain would be more than enough, and would probably cost less than a at-grade line.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Any comment?

Why not keep the Carling line at grade with (perhaps) railway crossing type barriers? A useful feature of surface light rail or streetcars is that the train can be lengthened so that a train runs every 5 minutes (or whatever) no matter how many passengers are aboard.

Seems like this would cause very little inconvenience and as you mention, busier roads can be grade separated.

If you have to build a grade separated system, might as well stick with buses until a metro is needed. Passenger capacity for LRT and BRT are about the same and we already have all the buses and maintenance facilities.

[Deez]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Any comment?

You're omitting the cost of underground stations, which pack a mightier punch to the wallet than surface stations. However, djeffrey is right, there are many more costs to an at-grade rail line than you've indicated. Also, having recently visited San Diego, I can attest that having a train running at grade any more frequently than they do (roughly a 7-minute headway downtown) is a total pain in the —. Signal priority and at-grade crossings simply don't work at that high frequency.

I'll also re-point out that my paper for school examined the cost of grade separating the Carling route...I concluded that the benefit/cost wasn't there to justify its construction.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Deez

You're omitting the cost of underground stations, which pack a mightier punch to the wallet than surface stations...

Actually, I added in $15M each for 7 stations; about one per Km. A total of $105M. I know you estimated $20M per station, but I was hopefull to build them a bit cheaper. Also I didn't know how many stations you added.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

...Where I am going with this is to try to estimate the cost of running a rail line along Carling. From Lincoln Fields (LF) to the O-Train bridge is about 7Km. A shallow cut and cover tunnel would cost about $30M/Km. If we added $15M for a station every Km since they are underground stations. Do we then need to add $55M/Km for adding the rail, electrical, and ventilation to the tunnel?...

Originally Posted by Deez

...However, djeffrey is right, there are many more costs to an at-grade rail line than you've indicated...

Hmmm. The MRC/Delcan number for conversion of the Transitway, including removal of asphalt, was about $12M. I added $3M/Km for utility relocations to bring the estimate up to $15M/Km. You might be right, however, and that might still not be enough. It might need to be $20M/Km. I don’t have a good ‘feel’ for what would need to be moved. I am kind of assuming that the rail could run along the median and where central turn lanes were needed, the road would be widened. I don’t know how much remaining capacity there is in the ROW for widening Carling, so it might even require some land acquisition.

Originally Posted by Deez

...I'll also re-point out that my paper for school examined the cost of grade separating the Carling route...I concluded that the benefit/cost wasn't there to justify its construction.

I had already gone back to your previous post about your paper and read through it. You mentioned that, without any suburban busway extensions, your route pulled in a 28% modal share. That tells me that you jumped up by over 8% from new riders along that one route. I think that is a good return since it is from within the Greenbelt where ridership is a bit lower during rush-hours. And your study only dealt with the AM PEAK. I would suggest that a Carling line would also generate higher ridership during the off-peak times. Is there any way to tell, from your modelling, where the extra riders came from; Carling or Montreal Rd. or split between the two?

My guess is that just converting the existing Bus Transitway to rail would not pick up substantially more riders. (Assuming no suburban extensions.) So the increase you noted would be almost entirely due to the new routing.

If the existing Bus Transitway was extended into the suburbs, as Option 4 suggests but without the western part's conversion to rail, and a rail line was added along Carling, what do you think the ridership share would be?

Based on the MRC/Delcan estimate for the Dows Lake tunnel, they estimate about $26.5M/Km for cut and cover tunnel. I rounded that up to $30M/Km. I also added the $55M/Km that they estimated to get a long tunnel train ready. I assume that this figure would include all the rail, electrical, ventilation, etc.. Then I added $15M for each of 7 stations along the 7 Km length. Since there is already a LF station I wouldn’t think that it will need the entire $15M so it could share with the Carling station. We might also find that large organizations, such as Carlingwood, would help finance their stations. So my estimate for a tunnel along Carling from LF to the O-Train would be about $700M.

Contrast this with the Option 4 cost for the section between Bayview and Baseline to be converted to rail. (Which I would suggest stays as bus.) The MRC/Delcan estimate for the Bayview-Baseline stretch is $158M. So the incremental cost to tunnel Carling is about $540M.

Another benefit of this idea is that nothing changes along the Ottawa Parkway. That is, nothing EXCEPT a possible reduction of buses. It might be possible to only run Express Buses along the Parkway only to supplement the rush-hour service: The Carling route might be able to handle the daily traffic.

But, I can hear you say, “What about the Councilors who want a train running into their subdivision?” Well, the train could be extended from LF, as per Option 4, to Kanata and Barrhaven. There is also the possibility of running a train from Barrhaven to downtown along the existing VIA track, past Merivale, and onto the O-Train track (which would be my preferred route).

All estimated costs in this post are exclusive of PM and contingency.

[MalcolmTucker]

Just to give you current Calgary cost projection numbers, 2008 dollars:

Surface Track and Way @ $25-million per km
Metro Track and Way @ $155-million per km
Surface stations @ $10-million each
Metro stations @ $92-million each

The surface projection is for green field running, with a 15m corridor.
Not sure what instreet running would be, since it all depends on how fast and heavy your rolling stock is.

Street running like St. Claire or Spadina in Toronto isn't considered here, due to speed and capacity concerns. Unlike street cars, LRT outside of the core trains runs as trains, and take 100% precedence over automobile traffic. In the core, in what is called 'in street limits' the trains obey all the rules of the road and are controlled via traffic lights, not conventional signals.

Building underground stations is incredibly expensive. The tunnel isn't the part that breaks expensive project's backs, it is the stations. That is how the Canada Line is so cheap, because the stations are only 40m long. (Canada line has a ppd/h just above 16,000)

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3]Just to give you current Calgary cost projection numbers, 2008 dollars:

These numbers look good, because it's for putting rails where there's absolutely no work to do. Try Transity City or the Montréal Tramway plans, with the road modifications, you arrive at 2/3 the costs of a subway per km. So many people ask themsleves, what's the point?

This is exactly what Metrolinx directors are asking themselves, and don't be surprise if you see subway extensions instead of LRT in this fall's plan. Also I find these metro stations costs absolutely not believable... 50M$ I can see for a whole new station (the ones in MTL cost 35M$ each and are HUGE), and it would be even less than that for using existing buildings.

[Deez]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Actually, I added in $15M each for 7 stations; about one per Km. A total of $105M. I know you estimated $20M per station, but I was hopefull to build them a bit cheaper. Also I didn't know how many stations you added.

My bad...I should know by now not to skim through your posts .

I had already gone back to your previous post about your paper and read through it. You mentioned that, without any suburban busway extensions, your route pulled in a 28% modal share. That tells me that you jumped up by over 8% from new riders along that one route. I think that is a good return since it is from within the Greenbelt where ridership is a bit lower during rush-hours. And your study only dealt with the AM PEAK.

One thing you're neglecting (for sure this time) is changes in population growth and increases in density. The 2031 model assumes increases in density along transit corridors prescribed in the 2003 TMP; as I remember it, if you run the 2005 network with 2031 population assumptions, you still end up getting a mode split of around 26-27%. So basically, you can't attribute the 8% jump to the construction of this line. This should also get people thinking about some of the assumptions that are built into these models and the reliability of their outputs........not that the City's at fault, there really aren't any more reliable ways of coming up with these projections.

I would suggest that a Carling line would also generate higher ridership during the off-peak times. Is there any way to tell, from your modelling, where the extra riders came from; Carling or Montreal Rd. or split between the two?

The peak load (ie. peak hour ridership) was 3000 at Bayview Station heading eastbound and 2700 at Nelson Station heading westbound...so Carling held a slight edge.

My guess is that just converting the existing Bus Transitway to rail would not pick up substantially more riders. (Assuming no suburban extensions.) So the increase you noted would be almost entirely due to the new routing.

This goes back to the increases in density that I mentioned above. I agree that replicating existing infrastructure is a problem, but in my opinion it's the most affordable way of providing grade separated transit service (which really is the only thing we should be looking at) inside the greenbelt. I have yet to see ANY other ideas that can provide the same level of service for a more reasonable cost.

If the existing Bus Transitway was extended into the suburbs, as Option 4 suggests but without the western part's conversion to rail, and a rail line was added along Carling, what do you think the ridership share would be?

From a modeling perspecitive, higher. The reason that grade separated transit in the burbs is a boon for modeled ridership is because as population in the suburbs increases, so does congestion, and so does travel time for auto users; if auto user travel time increases, the more likely people will take transit. Regardless, if you do the Carling line grade separated AND build the busways you're looking at a lot of money.

Based on the MRC/Delcan estimate for the Dows Lake tunnel, they estimate about $26.5M/Km for cut and cover tunnel. I rounded that up to $30M/Km. I also added the $55M/Km that they estimated to get a long tunnel train ready. I assume that this figure would include all the rail, electrical, ventilation, etc.. Then I added $15M for each of 7 stations along the 7 Km length. Since there is already a LF station I wouldn’t think that it will need the entire $15M so it could share with the Carling station. We might also find that large organizations, such as Carlingwood, would help finance their stations. So my estimate for a tunnel along Carling from LF to the O-Train would be about $700M.

Contrast this with the Option 4 cost for the section between Bayview and Baseline to be converted to rail. (Which I would suggest stays as bus.) The MRC/Delcan estimate for the Bayview-Baseline stretch is $158M. So the incremental cost to tunnel Carling is about $540M.

That's fair...but remember there's still the downtown tunnel at 555M$ to worry about, not to mention Campus-Blair and vehicles. 540M$ is roughly the projected cost of KW's entire ~30km LRT.

But, I can hear you say, “What about the Councilors who want a train running into their subdivision?” Well, the train could be extended from LF, as per Option 4, to Kanata and Barrhaven. There is also the possibility of running a train from Barrhaven to downtown along the existing VIA track, past Merivale, and onto the O-Train track (which would be my preferred route).

All estimated costs in this post are exclusive of PM and contingency.

I'd be interested to see how much you would estimate for your entire future buildout and how it compares to Option 4.

[Mille Sabords]

A question I have as I read through the pages of discussion. If the Ottawa River Parkway and the Byron Tramway Park alignments are dropped because of NCC and community rejection, and Carling is selected as the western rail leg - then what happens to the existing BRT? How will Tunney's Pasture and Westboro Stations be served?

[AuxTown]

The Carling LRT idea is such a pipe dream. We are going to have a fight to the death just to get the funding for the currently proposed project. If we move the line to Carling it is going to be at least 50% more expensive and 100% more intrusive. We just have to do a few creative things to make the rail along the parkway look a little more appealing and to ensure people still have access to the paths along the water and hopefully enough people will come around. This would basically take 90% of the noisy diesel vehicles off of the parkway and replace them with a quiet 3-4 car LRT every few minutes; sounds like a good plan to me. People say "but now this is permanent", but the buses aren't going anywhere unless we find something to replace them. This is our most feasible option.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

A question I have as I read through the pages of discussion. If the Ottawa River Parkway and the Byron Tramway Park alignments are dropped because of NCC and community rejection, and Carling is selected as the western rail leg - then what happens to the existing BRT? How will Tunney's Pasture and Westboro Stations be served?

This is where leadership is needed, because when you have a good leader, your project is sold, but it seems that higher end level of governemnets are more interested in the current plan than city officials themselves.

There can always be a rail spur.

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

The Carling LRT idea is such a pipe dream. We are going to have a fight to the death just to get the funding for the currently proposed project. If we move the line to Carling it is going to be at least 50% more expensive and 100% more intrusive. We just have to do a few creative things to make the rail along the parkway look a little more appealing and to ensure people still have access to the paths along the water and hopefully enough people will come around. This would basically take 90% of the noisy diesel vehicles off of the parkway and replace them with a quiet 3-4 car LRT every few minutes; sounds like a good plan to me. People say "but now this is permanent", but the buses aren't going anywhere unless we find something to replace them. This is our most feasible option.

This parkway stuff is starting to remind me of the turtle issue of the NSLRT.

I really fail to see what the big deal is. Carleton University has a railway running right through the middle of it. It does not cause any significant problems. They have two pedestrian underpasses, one road overpass, one road underpass, and even their tunnel system goes underneath at one point.

To install a few of those cement culvert like underpasses like the Carleton O-Train station has can't be a big deal or cost.

We seriously need to worry about bigger issues.