Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think we have been over and over this already. The South Keys to Hurdman corridor has built very significant ridership over many years. To sever this would be foolish way to frustrate customers...

Where are the people going after they get to Hurdman? Are they heading downtown?

The way I see it:
If trains are so much more popular than buses, and if the N/S LRT will extend from Riverside South, north, through downtown, to the University of Ottawa, and the bus will extend no further than Hurdman (unless the Nicholas bridge is built so that buses will still be running through downtown) forcing a transfer to a train, then I don't see any need to run a bus south of the new Confederation transfer station.

Obviously I see it differently from you. You seem to be keen to keep a redundant BRT line.

[Dado]

Richard, Kitchissippi:

Wrong thread, guys... road discussions belong in the roads thread... we're trying to keep this one "clean".

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

The way I see it:
If trains are so much more popular than buses, and if the N/S LRT will extend from Riverside South, north, through downtown, to the University of Ottawa, and the bus will extend no further than Hurdman (unless the Nicholas bridge is built so that buses will still be running through downtown) forcing a transfer to a train, then I don't see any need to run a bus south of the new Confederation transfer station.

Given the preference to go south first (again) but now in the context of an actual long term plan to convert the entire Transitway to light rail, this business south of Confederation has to be resolved. What are they going to do with the SE Transitway in that corridor in the long term? Convert it to light rail as well as the adjacent O-Train tracks (complete with those roller coaster overpasses once again) once they convert the Billings Bridge/Riverside portion?

[lrt's friend]

So according to that, it could take 3 years to sort out the route for west end. I think that's more exaggeration, but let's assume that's correct. So there are still 7 years left in which to do the design and to build it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend
Obviously, now we need an EA on the Innes corridor Transitway, which must also be built before we begin work on the East Transitway conversion.

You mean like this one, approved in early July...
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...E-PLA-0122.htm

And still no EA in the offing for the West Transitway/ORP corridor. Sometimes, it's only a couple of months after some curious event has taken place that I realize that the fix had been in all along.

This won't be the first time that something has been 'fixed'. Our group discussion last night started how so much had been predetermined before there was any public debate and how 'experts' were justifying political decisions eventhough 'experts' had made contradictory recommendations previously. It really makes you think whether we are actually being provided with the best information in order to make proper decisions.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

That is not my idea. I am merely pointing out what is in the city's plan.

There is also an intention to build another bridge at Fallowfield, which I find questionable. This would just add more traffic to Riverside, which is already too busy. If that bridge was built, maybe the LRT could be tunneled under the runway to go from the Airport and on to Fallowfield instead?

I don't think that the City is against adding people to Riverside. They are now talking about building the Nicholas bridge. That makes Riverside THE route to downtown. The south wanted a 'Queensway-like' road to downtown; maybe it is in the works.

[lrt's friend]

Given the preference to go south first (again) but now in the context of an actual long term plan to convert the entire Transitway to light rail, this business south of Confederation has to be resolved. What are they going to do with the SE Transitway in that corridor in the long term? Convert it to light rail as well as the adjacent O-Train tracks (complete with those roller coaster overpasses once again) once they convert the Billings Bridge/Riverside portion?

The point I am making is that ridership has been built up over a long time period particularly to Billings Bridge and for eastward transfer at Hurdman. There is no need to unnecessarily create another transfer to go one stop to Billings Bridge, nor to provide an awkward choice to reach Hurdman, either by another transfer or a trip through downtown.

Given the preference to go south first (again) but now in the context of an actual long term plan to convert the entire Transitway to light rail, this business south of Confederation has to be resolved. What are they going to do with the SE Transitway in that corridor in the long term? Convert it to light rail as well as the adjacent O-Train tracks (complete with those roller coaster overpasses once again) once they convert the Billings Bridge/Riverside portion?

This is not part of any of the proposals, so unless there is a change, how can it be considered? I have expressed a concern about LRT branching and balance between the east and west entrances into the downtown tunnel. Even Phase 1 with Scenario 3 has 3 branches to the west and only 1 to the east. The long-term build out has 4 branches to the west and 2 branches to the east. We can only fit so many trains into the tunnel so the interlining issue starts to become an issue. The consultants glossed over this issue just saying that train frequency will be adjusted based on demand. The whole selling point of LRT is frequent service but if demand forces most of the trains onto one line (east-west), service degrades significantly on the others. One way to balance the number of branches from the east and west is by having either the airport branch or the south branch use the SE Transitway, while the other uses the O-Train ROW. This addresses my concerns about direct service, based on ridership that has already been established, and eliminates the need to have parallel rapid transit south of Confederation. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be on the radar.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This won't be the first time that something has been 'fixed'. Our group discussion last night started how so much had been predetermined before there was any public debate and how 'experts' were justifying political decisions eventhough 'experts' had made contradictory recommendations previously. It really makes you think whether we are actually being provided with the best information in order to make proper decisions.

There lies the problem with this city. Most of the time the "best" solution is never presented, only the most "convenient" ways, sometimes with hidden motives or reasons. I find there is often an animosity and distrust in these sessions, and the idealists are always pitted against the pragmatists because of a lack of information presented. Even the staff seem to make up some details on the fly when you engage them. One of the things I heard from them was "the MTO is planning to widen the Queensway and they might let us use the extra lanes for buses while the LRT is being constructed". Huh? It made me realize some of those thick blue lines were BS put in to appease councillors. For example, it is impossible for a full Transitway to go on Innes Road though Blackburn Hamlet (WTF was the bypass for if not to retain the relative calmness of the Hamlet?), but hey Ranier Bloess lives there.

A bit off-topic, but walking and cycling were supposed to be integrated components of this plan but no real vision was really presented, only motherhood statements. This is kind of sad because it shows that were are really only concerned about getting to work and back, not about how public transit can really enhance urban life, or about the spaces that we get to after we get off the trains or buses.

[lrt's friend]

A bit off-topic, but walking and cycling were supposed to be integrated components of this plan but no real vision was really presented, only motherhood statements. This is kind of sad because it shows that were are really only concerned about getting to work and back, not about how public transit can really enhance urban life, or about the spaces that we get to after we get off the trains or buses.

A lady in our group made some excellent points on how to better integrate biking with rapid transit. I further suggested that a bike trail should run parallel to our rapid transit lines. One other comment was made that bike trails should be kept ploughed during winter, but with so few many winter riders in this climate, I thought it would be better to spend money on improving our biking system for the other 3 seasons. Interestingly, on a visit to Montreal this past weekend, I noticed segregated bike routes on a couple of downtown streets, similar to what I saw in Amsterdam. Now that is a major step forward. Why are we not considering such things? All that was required was the elimination of parking from one side of the street to build a route with a small curb separating it from regular traffic and then some special signalling at intersections.

[eemy]

I personally prefer the Byron ROW, but with respect to the Carling Route, people have to be a little bit more realistic. I'm sure that a lot of the 30 intersections along Carling would be eliminated and restricted to RIRO access if LRT were to operate along that corridor. It would still have to negotiate some intersections, but it seems more than a little ridiculous to argue it would have to negotiate thirty of them.

[eemy]

.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Dado

...
So according to that, it could take 3 years to sort out the route for west end. I think that's more exaggeration, but let's assume that's correct. So there are still 7 years left in which to do the design and to build it.


You mean like this one, approved in early July...
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/tc/2008/07-02/ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0122.htm...

It is interesting that this EA is leaving the technology question alone. The corridor was originally slated as a Phase I Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. However, the SoW is now saying that the "technological choices for this transit facility will be confirmed in co-ordination with the on-going work on the TMP update related to the development of the supplementary transit corridors"

My big question would be What factors is the EA studying? A string of diesel buses surely is assessed differently than a less frequent, eLRT system.

Is there any way that eLRT could be run along Innes? Even as a "street-car" line?

What about using a different alignment? For example the red line here


(Yes, I know - I complain about the Western Parkway not having people on both sides of it and then I suggest something like this. But this should be fairly economical because it makes use of existing rail infrastructure.)

[Ciemny]

Here's something to consider. IF The city chose Scenario 3 and went N-S-E first, could they negotiate something with Siemens considering this would be rehashing a large chunk of the old plan? BUT:

- Would Siemens also get a contract to build the tunnel and supply the rolling stock? Since if they build the N-S part it would be idiotic to switch companies to get the other part completed. Usually one company deals with the whole line instead of having everything broken up and having issues with different systems using the same line.

- Do we really have to wait untill the lawsuit is settled before starting the new system? What if we loose for the full amount, wonder how that would affect any transit plans.

[lrt's friend]

Send rail south, east

The Ottawa Citizen


Monday, September 15, 2008


One of the longest-running soap operas in Ottawa history continues to unfold with the unveiling of the list of options for starting the light-rail project.

Since 1998, Ottawans have been hearing promises of light-rail and, so far, all we have for a decade of talking is the north-south heavy-rail O-Train from Bayview to Greenboro. That was planned to be a demonstration project to show that an extensive system was workable. So far, despite the fact that light-rail is vitally important to the future of our community, the so-called demonstration project is looking more and more permanent.

Councillors are now deciding in which direction the first segment of rail will be built. Mayor Larry O'Brien is supporting the laying of track east and south. He is right.

Why? The southern route already has much of the preparation work completed due to the now-scrapped north-south route. Also, the southern route is doable -- a very good argument for the original project. Using an old railway right-of-way and travelling through empty fields in the south end of town requires a lot less expensive expropriation than going west. And after construction, the economic uplift along the route will be extensive. With good planning, Ottawa could see intensive development along this valuable line.

The eastern route is also very important. Eastenders use public transit more than any other Ottawans. Maybe that's because they face the most difficult traffic problems in the city at the Split where highways 417 and 174 meet. Perhaps it's because a high percentage of public-service employees live in the east end and commute downtown. Maybe it's even because there isn't the business there that we see located in Kanata where residents can both work and live in a compact commuting range.

One way or the other, there is a market for transit in the east end. And there is one more very important reason for going east: residents there feel they are treated as second-class citizens in the new Ottawa. That's not the case, development just tends to go west for good economic reasons. But if rail is built in the east before the west, it is a profound reiteration by the community to the east end that it is a valued part of the national capital.

What the rail plan needs is an example of it actually running. Rail is a good product so riding it will convince Ottawans that we need more of it fast. That makes building in the west difficult. The National Capital Commission has grave reservations about building a line along the Ottawa River Parkway. That effectively eliminates the west as the first segment of the plan to be constructed. The city can't wait to build rail in an environment of high-priced gas and a clogged downtown.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

Its time to get moving on this. 10 years is already too long for the first operating train. We can't extend this further waiting for the west route to be identified. We cannot afford to develop a plan for the west end quickly and risk the possibility that there will not be broad community support and another spectacular project termination at the last minute. We need to learn from past experiences and make sure we have community consensus. This requires community involvement and study of all options. Maybe, it will end up being the Ottawa River Parkway, maybe not, or maybe some creative variation. Time is needed to do this properly and make sure that the public is on side. I believe that development of a project in the east and south will increase momentum in finding solutions in the west at the very least. It is my hope that this will lead to more than just laying track on the Western Transitway. Just like in the east end, I hope that a proper study for the west end gives us at least 2 routes. If we accomplish this, we will end up with far more ridership growth. Given the fact that the west end has a larger employment base than the east end, it is critical that transit accessibility to those employment areas be improved. This requires the development of at least one new rapid transit corridor.

[Ryersonian]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Its time to get moving on this. 10 years is already too long for the first operating train. We can't extend this further waiting for the west route to be identified. We cannot afford to develop a plan for the west end quickly and risk the possibility that there will not be broad community support and another spectacular project termination at the last minute. We need to learn from past experiences and make sure we have community consensus. This requires community involvement and study of all options. Maybe, it will end up being the Ottawa River Parkway, maybe not, or maybe some creative variation. Time is needed to do this properly and make sure that the public is on side. I believe that development of a project in the east and south will increase momentum in finding solutions in the west at the very least. It is my hope that this will lead to more than just laying track on the Western Transitway. Just like in the east end, I hope that a proper study for the west end gives us at least 2 routes. If we accomplish this, we will end up with far more ridership growth. Given the fact that the west end has a larger employment base than the east end, it is critical that transit accessibility to those employment areas be improved. This requires the development of at least one new rapid transit corridor.

AMEN!

[lrt's friend]

Not enough rail in transit plan, candidates say
Orléans MP Galipeau, rival Godbout agree more buses aren't the answer

Patrick Dare
The Ottawa Citizen


Monday, September 15, 2008


The Conservative MP for Ottawa-Orléans and his Liberal challenger in the federal election say Ottawa's latest public transit plan doesn't go far enough with commuter rail.

MP Royal Galipeau says the new $4.7-billion plan relies too much on more buses and doesn't extend light-rail to Kanata and Orléans, as it should. In a recent interview, Mr. Galipeau said for many years the city has been too caught up in expanding its bus network and the new transit plan reflects that.

While there is commuter rail in the plan, it only runs to Blair Station in the east and leaves many areas primarily served by transitway or bus lanes. City council has voted to build rail to suburbs such as Orléans when the population is large enough to justify it, but has no immediate intention of doing so.

The plan includes a new $112-million bus transitway to run from Blair Station south and west to Hurdman Station, and then downtown.

In the most likely of the construction scenarios for the next 10 years, the city plans to build 34 kilometres of commuter rail going east to Blair Station and south to Riverside South, and 30 kilometres of bus transitway.

Mr. Galipeau said the city has been fixated on short-term bus solutions for years, when the long-term answer is to build rail to major population centres.

"Buses are a Band-Aid solution. I think they're dead-set on buses. I don't think they really believe in light rail," Mr. Galipeau said.

He believes the federal government will contribute one-third of the cost of the new public transit system, but the needs of the east must be met and pushing rail to Blair Road "isn't east enough."

Liberal candidate and former MP Marc Godbout, who is running against Mr. Galipeau, said Orléans has the highest transit ridership of any community and it's not acceptable that the plans don't take rail service that far east. He said the city is planning its transit system in a fragmented fashion when it should be building it in one project, even if it is built over 15 years.

Mr. Godbout said adding lanes to highways for cars or buses won't fix the problems. "We need long-term planning. ... Light rail, or a subway, should have been there, or at least planned, years ago," he said.

Tomorrow, the city will hold an open house on the public transit plan at the Bob McQuarrie Recreation Complex, 1490 Youville Dr.

ELECTION: For more coverage, go to ottawacitizen.com and decision canada 08.

- - -

Read the latest news on transit in the city, archival stories, maps and links in Getting There: Ottawa's Transit Future, online at: ottawacitizen.com

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

I am all for more light rail if there is a way to fund it. Ideally, light rail should reach some central collecting point in each of our major suburbs. The question is, where will the money come from? Extending light rail from Blair to Place d'Orleans will require the development of a new ROW and will cost a fortune. If the Conservative government were willing to fund it, by all means , but what is the liklihood of that?

[Franky]

They want to build the Alta-Vista Transportation Corridor bridge to handle traffic from Hurdman and Orleans before the Hurdman-U. of Ottawa LRT link. The time and expense (and subsequently revisiting the need for LRT, given all the new road capacity) of this project will likely push LRT plans even further into the future.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Extending light rail from Blair to Place d'Orleans will require the development of a new ROW and will cost a fortune.

I dunno. There is already a Transitway overpass east of the Blair exit that trains could use, and there is lots of open land almost all the way to Place d'Orléans along the 174. It would cost money for sure, but nowhere near the cost in the more urbanized parts of Ottawa where the system is scheduled to be put in.

[lrt's friend]

I dunno. There is already a Transitway overpass east of the Blair exit that trains could use, and there is lots of open land almost all the way to Place d'Orléans along the 174. It would cost money for sure, but nowhere near the cost in the more urbanized parts of Ottawa where the system is scheduled to be put in.

The main issues I see will be significant modification of each Queensway interchange on the way to Place d'Orleans. No doubt not as costly as what we see now being built out at Bayshore, but it will still be expensive.

If we could find a way to fund a Blair-Place d'Orleans extension, I would be ecstatic, but we need to make sure that there is still money in the kitty for building the western route when the route is finally approved.

[lrt's friend]

They want to build the Alta-Vista Transportation Corridor bridge to handle traffic from Hurdman and Orleans before the Hurdman-U. of Ottawa LRT link. The time and expense (and subsequently revisiting the need for LRT, given all the new road capacity) of this project will likely push LRT plans even further into the future.

The only way to build LRT on the eastern Transitway is to provide a bus bypass as suggested, and that must be built first. The other option is to build LRT along the Alta Vista Parkway - Innes Corridor, but I think their rationale is that ridership will not nearly be as high on that corridor to make LRT cost effective. I am very pleased that we will end up with 2 rapid transit routes going eastward and that there will continue to be bus access over the Rideau river and into downtown. This will provide a great deal of additional flexibility to our transit network that was not apparent in the original presentation of the Option 4 plan.

[Kitchissippi]

I've always understood that the south side of the 174 was meant for rapid transit ever since Orleans was planned. I count about 6 to 8 bridges/viaducts that would have to be built to push LRT from Blair to Place d'Orleans, a stretch of 8 kilometres. There is an ancient ROW that curves away from the Montreal Rd interchange towards Bearbrook/St Joseph (you can see it clearly in Google).

There are also about half a dozen provisions for pedestrian bridges or culverts across the highway so that residents from the north side (Convent Glen - Orleans Wood) can access the ROW.

Putting tracks on existing eastern sections of the Transitway shouldn't take more than half a year, over the course of a summer when transit demand is relatively low. Building an expensive new busway to remedy a few months of pain seems rather excessive.