Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments - Page 11

lrt's friend · #**201** Posted **Oct 25, 2008, 3:29 AM**

Quote:

Well, I think I'll have to disagree with you on this point. I think that if there is a case for running buses to the suburbs, then the same case could be forwarded for LRT.

I understand the idea that if the suburbs have good, quick transportation to downtown then more people will think of living out there. However, there is already a sizable population in the suburbs and it isn't going away just because there is not LRT service. The plan is to build more and better bus rapid transit to all parts of the suburbs, and provide a 'one-seat' service to the LRT transfer point within the Greenbelt. How will that act as a disincentive to live in the suburbs?

We need to realize that we are not doing anything that will make people leave the suburbs and move back inside the Greenbelt delimiter. And we need to see that running hundreds of 'express to LRT' buses across the Greenbelt is just plain bad for the environment and the wallet.

The argument that there isn't the density in the suburbs is a false one. There isn't the density at Baseline, Lincoln Fields, or Blair stations either. We will be making the density by using buses to shuttle all of those folks to transfer points. In the current argument, those points are inside the Greenbelt. I suggest that that those points could be within the suburbs. If all of the commuters in Kanata were collected at Eagleson, that point would have enough density of riders to justify rail.

Yes, it would cost more to run rail across the Greenbelt, but what is the environment worth?

I do agree that LRT should be used to improve transit within the Greenbelt. Unfortunately, the proposed plan is to convert the existing commuter system - which is geared to moving people from the suburbs to downtown - to light rail. Only the secondary transit routes will improve transit within the Greenbelt.

I have to agree with everything said here. Regarding density, I think you will find that most post-war suburbs inside the Greenbelt, have a lower density than what has been built in recent years outside the Greenbelt. I also think that locating our rail transfer stations at a central point in the suburbs outside the Greenbelt also makes more than environment sense. Just consider that most of our transit ridership growth is going to come from our growing suburbs outside the Greenbelt. Those people are going to have to be moved somehow, and the current proposal means more and more buses and more and more use of diesel. This means costs per passenger will continue to escalate, if we believe that current decline in oil prices are only temporary. Rail needs to get out to growth areas in order to be effective.

This continued argument about commuter rail for the suburbs is not reasonable. It cannot possibly replace current Transitway service, considering the location of existing rail lines and the lack of a downtown rail station. Commuter Rail is only going to make sense for those travelling longer distances, beyond urban transit area.

We also have to not get too carried away with intensification inside the Greenbelt. This is part of what is driving up property taxes in those areas most affected by intensification. There are real limits as to how much intensification can occur without disrupting real estate markets and forcing too many people out of their homes.

Aylmer · #**202** Posted **Oct 25, 2008, 11:03 AM**

About the downtown rail station, wouldn't it be nice if they ended Col.By drive at Mann (so to connect it with the Nicholas) and then replaced the road by rail that eventually tunnles to Union?

If it was double-tracked and had proper signal coördination, It could accomodate commuter trains from all corners of the Metro aswell as perhaps Via Trains!

But I digress.

Franky · #**203** Posted **Oct 27, 2008, 1:05 PM**

Myth 8: Rail transport promotes economic development. Reality: Rail transport has not been a catalyst to economic development, but it has been a catalyst to subsidies to economic development.
Proponents of rail transport argue that it promotes economic development. The Federal Transit Administration asked Robert Cervero, of the University of California, Berkeley, Planning School, and Samuel Seskin, of rail consulting firm Parsons-Brinckerhoff, to examine this question. They found that any new development around rail transport is a zero-sum game for urban areas. “Urban rail transit investments,” they said, “rarely ‘create’ new growth, but more typically redistribute growth that would have taken place without the investment.” 30
Portland, Oregon, is often cited as an example of a place where rail transit has stimulated new development. When Portland opened its first light-rail line in1986, it rezonedlandalong the line for high-density, mixed-use, transit-oriented developments. Ten years later, not a single new development of this sort had been built along the line.
“It is a myth to think that the market will take care of development along transit corridors,” said city commissioner Charles Hales at the time. 31 He persuaded the rest of the city council to subsidize such development with property tax waivers. Since then, the city has also offered below-market land sales and tax increment financing (TIF) to developers in rail corridors. The TIF subsidies alone total more than $1.7 billion, including $665 million along the city’s streetcar line and nearly a billion more along its light-rail lines. 32 (See Figure 11.) Today, Hales works for a consulting firm that is trying to persuade other cities to build rail transit lines. Portland’s “streetcar line has sparked more than $1.5 billion (and growing) in new development,” Hales tells those cities, conveniently forgetting about the subsidies that he initiated. 33 Since tax-increment financing diverts money that would otherwise go to schools, police, fire, and other services, those services have seen major budget cuts as Portland gives more subsidies to developers.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9703

Other rail myths are also dispelled in this study.

lrt's friend · #**204** Posted **Oct 27, 2008, 3:11 PM**

Quote:

Other rail myths are also dispelled in this study.

I would not consider anything coming from the Cato Institute as being balanced. I would say the same about certain rail lobby groups.

Franky · #**205** Posted **Oct 27, 2008, 4:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I would not consider anything coming from the Cato Institute as being balanced. I would say the same about certain rail lobby groups.

I've seen a lot of "balanced" reports that are completely misleading. There are opinion pieces on the site which may be unbalanced, but this one is supposed to be a study. Do you have evidence that proves that [urban] rail transport promotes economic development?

Aylmer · #**206** Posted **Oct 27, 2008, 4:38 PM**

You know, there are some people that believe that the world is flat.

Can't always trust what you see...

Kitchissippi · #**207** Posted **Oct 27, 2008, 5:16 PM**

Off topic. Please discuss elsewhere.

Acajack · #**208** Posted **Oct 27, 2008, 6:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist

About the downtown rail station, wouldn't it be nice if they ended Col.By drive at Mann (so to connect it with the Nicholas) and then replaced the road by rail that eventually tunnles to Union?

Sounds like déjà vu all over again:

http://www.heritageottawa.org/images1/union_stn/Union%20StationTrain.jpg

Aylmer · #**209** Posted **Oct 28, 2008, 9:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

Sounds like déjàvu all over again:

http://www.heritageottawa.org/images1/union_stn/Union%20StationTrain.jpg

I like that picture!

But no, I don't think that trains will be able to run to Gatinea for a very long time...

waterloowarrior · #**210** Posted **Oct 29, 2008, 3:11 AM**

Studies on transit tunnel on schedule city transit official

Ottawa Citizen

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Ottawa . The necessary feasibility and costing studies for a possible downtown transit tunnel will be done on schedule, says the city's top transit official.

In an update on the studies Tuesday, infrastructure and sustainability deputy city manager Nancy Schepers said the expedited approach the city is following is working, and she expects them to be done by December 2009.

The tunnel, which would cross downtown and have electric light-rail cars running through it, is the anchoring piece of the city's new transit plan, which was approved by council earlier this year.

If built, the overall $4.7-billion plan will see light rail running east and west across the core of the city and south to Riverside South. Improved bus transitways would run to the east, west and southwest suburbs and connect to the light-rail lines.

Ms. Schepers said by early next year, where the tunnel will go, station locations, and type of tunnel should be set.

City council is to decide soon in what order the overall plan will be built. The tunnel is already the first priority, and city staff are recommending the north-south and east portions of the light-rail spine be built in conjunction with it.

© Ottawa Citizen 2008

Mille Sabords · #**211** Posted **Oct 29, 2008, 1:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We also have to not get too carried away with intensification inside the Greenbelt. This is part of what is driving up property taxes in those areas most affected by intensification. There are real limits as to how much intensification can occur without disrupting real estate markets and forcing too many people out of their homes.

I think the basic problem with intensification inside the Greenbelt the way it's being done, and the reason it's so expensive, is that we are trying to accommodate people in walkable neighbourhoods with walk-up buildings, AND let them have their car too. Sooner or later we have to face the music. You can't suck and blow at the same time. You pay more taxes to be close to things, but nobody told you to have a car on top of that. You're on your own with that.

Another thing the municipality can do to let people keep their cars, is to maximize on-street parking. In my neighbourhood there are several streets that could have on-street parking on both sides. And to the homeowners that "don't want" otehr people's cars in front of their house... who the hell are they? Those are city streets, they are not private and they are not an extension of their house.

Richard Eade · #**212** Posted **Oct 30, 2008, 2:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Studies on transit tunnel on schedule city transit official

Ottawa Citizen

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Ottawa . The necessary feasibility and costing studies for a possible downtown transit tunnel will be done on schedule, says the city's top transit official....

City council is to decide soon in what order the overall plan will be built. The tunnel is already the first priority, and city staff are recommending the north-south and east portions of the light-rail spine be built in conjunction with it.

© Ottawa Citizen 2008

Interesting... I wonder where they got this idea? If you ask City Staff directly (exclusive of Nancy) they will swear up and down that there is no preference yet. They claim to be waiting for the public to decide the order; that they simply are presenting scenarios. (In fact, I have been told that the public feedback they have so far seems to favour the west leg over the south.)

Could the fix be in for N-S instead of W?

Richard Eade · #**213** Posted **Oct 31, 2008, 6:03 PM**

From what I’m hearing about Bayview:

There is a choice of curving the N-S line so that it heads into downtown directly.

Or, the N-S can be a totally separate line from the W-E line. The idea here is similar to that in other cities; change direction - change line.

Both choices have the option to make use of the Prince of Wales Bridge. However, right now, the first choice (curves) does not seem to allow a north-bound train to continue north of Bayview. Riverside South riders would need to transfer at Bayview Station. This could be fixed by completing the circle, but then the train would bypass the station so I don’t think it will be done.

Any preference on these choices?

A little further along, there is Lebreton Station. Again, there are two choices:

where Booth is raised over the train, but the temporary bus loop is built up to cross Booth at grade; and

which has both the temporary bus loop and the train running under a raised Booth.

This second choice is interesting because the idea is that once the buses are removed, we will be left with a very wide platform and extra space between the rails. This extra space is being eyed as space for storing LRVs between commute peaks. Thus, a rail yard will return to Lebreton Flats! (The NCC might not like this idea.)

The bus/rail crossing could be done at grade since the public isn’t involved (except as passengers

).

Any preference on these ideas?

eemy · #**214** Posted **Oct 31, 2008, 6:39 PM**

Where are you hearing this from? In any case, you could always just have separate platforms for N-S traffic for that Bayview opetion. I don't think it's that big of a deal.

Richard Eade · #**215** Posted **Oct 31, 2008, 7:10 PM**

Just for your information, here is one of the ideas that staff is toying with.

Notice that they are suggesting tunnelling under some buildings, including the Government Conference Centre (the old Union Station). This is attractive because it allows for station access from both sides of the canal. This path also widely skirts the NAC.

Apparently, the University of Ottawa would like the city to tunnel all the way south of Mann. This would ultimately allow the removal of two of the lanes of asphalt between the university and the canal. Of course, it would also offer space to widen Nicholas, but we won’t mention that.

For you technical types, the current thought is that a 6-7 metre mixed-face TBM will be used to bore the entire 3.7 Km of the tunnel. The mixed-face will bore through the bedrock west of the canal, and also the sand east of the canal so there should be no cut and cover needed. Twin bores will be made and material mined out for the station space between the bores. The stations will allow 10x180m center platforms. Currently, it looks as if the tunnels will be mostly flat, at a height (above sea level) of 48m at the rail top.

Richard Eade · #**216** Posted **Oct 31, 2008, 7:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

...In any case, you could always just have separate platforms for N-S traffic for that Bayview opetion. I don't think it's that big of a deal.

Are you are suggesting that both stations be built? That would add tens of millions of dollars. Station construction is not cheap.

MalcolmTucker · #**217** Posted **Nov 1, 2008, 3:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franky

I've seen a lot of "balanced" reports that are completely misleading. There are opinion pieces on the site which may be unbalanced, but this one is supposed to be a study. Do you have evidence that proves that [urban] rail transport promotes economic development?

I could pull a half dozens studies on portland alone, and here some are. The CATO institute believes that somehow public transit hurts freedom, and is opposed on an ideological basis to it.

Quote:

[BOOK] BEYOND THE FIELD OF DREAMS: LIGHT RAIL AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN PORTLAND
… Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of … - 1995 - pubsindex.trb.org
Title: BEYOND THE FIELD OF DREAMS: LIGHT RAIL AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN PORTLAND.
Accession Number: 00716762. Record Type: Component. Language 1: English. ...
Cited by 16 - Related articles - Cached - Web Search - BL Direct
Light-Rail-Transit Impacts in Portland: The First Ten Years
KJ Dueker, MJ Bianco - Transportation Research Record, 1999 - Trans Res Board
Page 1. Light-Rail-Transit Impacts in Portland ... Effects of Light-Rail Transit in Portland:
Implications for Transit-Oriented Development Design Concepts. ...
Cited by 17 - Related articles - Web Search - BL Direct - All 3 versions
Light-rail transit stations and property values: a hedonic price approach
MA AL-MOSAIND, KJ DUEKER, JG STRATHMAN - Transportation research record, 1993 - cat.inist.fr
Light-rail transit stations and property values: a hedonic price approach.
MA AL-MOSAIND, KJ DUEKER, JG STRATHMAN Transportation ...
Cited by 44 - Related articles - Web Search - BL Direct - All 2 versions
Journal Report: Light Rail Transit and Urban Development
R Cervero - Journal of the American Planning Association, 1984 - informaworld.com
... wave of light rail systems. Calgary and San Diego began their services just three
years later. New systems are now under construction in Buffalo, Portland, and ...
Cited by 47 - Related articles - Web Search
A Desire Named Streetcar Fantasy and Fact in Rail Transit Planning
DH Pickrell - Journal of the American Planning Association, 1992 - informaworld.com
... Ta- APA JOURNAL 163 SPRING 1992 Typical stop on the Banfield light-rail
transit line in Portland, Oregon. Page 7. DON H. PICKRELL ...
Cited by 100 - Related articles - Web Search - All 2 versions
Do Plans Matter?: The Effects of Light Rail Plans on Land Values in Station Areas
GJ Knaap, C Ding, LD Hopkins - Journal of Planning Education and Research, 2001 - jpe.sagepub.com
... corridor a new light rail system began operation in 1998, connecting down- town
Hillsboro and Beaverton with downtown Portland and the light rail system east ...
Cited by 23 - Related articles - Web Search - BL Direct - All 4 versions
[BOOK] LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AND EFFECTIVE LAND USE PLANNING: PORTLAND, SACRAMENTO, AND SAN DIEGO
F Glick - 1992 - pubsindex.trb.org
Title: LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AND EFFECTIVE LAND USE PLANNING: PORTLAND, SACRAMENTO,
AND SAN DIEGO. Accession Number: 00625580. Record Type: Component. ...
Cited by 6 - Related articles - Cached - Web Search - BL Direct
[BOOK] At Work in the the Field of Dreams: Light Rail and Smart Growth in Portland
… Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of … - 1998 - Tri-Met
Cited by 8 - Related articles - Web Search
Operational and safety considerations in designing a light rail DC traction electrification system
… Pham, RS Thomas, WE Stinger, EA Inc, OR Portland - Rail Conference, 2003. Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE/ASME …, 2003 - ieeexplore.ieee.org
... Portland, Oregon ... approach to operational and safety issues when designing a DC traction
electrification system (TES) for modern light rail and streetcar systems ...
Cited by 5 - Related articles - Web Search
[CITATION] Light rail and land use: a Portland success story
GB Arrington Jr - Transportation Research Board meeting, Washington, DC, …, 1989
Cited by 6 - Related articles - Web Search

and some more general studies

Quote:

An Assessment of the DART LRT on Taxable Property Valuation and Transit Oriented Development
BL Weinstein, TL Clower - Change - unt.edu
Page 1. 1 An Assessment of the DART LRT on Taxable Property Valuations
and Transit Oriented Development Presented at Australia & ...

Journal Report: Light Rail Transit and Urban Development
R Cervero - Journal of the American Planning Association, 1984 - informaworld.com
... In the cases of Toronto, Boston, and Philadelphia, heavy rail rapid transit probably
has ... of the older systems is already built up, the development potential of ...
Cited by 47 - Related articles - Web Search
Rail Transit and Joint Development: Land Market Impacts in Washington, DC and Atlanta
R Cervero - Journal of the American Planning Association, 1994 - informaworld.com
... By this definition, around 115 transit joint-development projects had been ... 1980s:
the completion of ten new US urban rail systems; rapid suburban office ...
Cited by 52 - Related articles - Web Search - BL Direct - All 2 versions
The Impact of Rapid Rail Transit on Economic Development: The Case of Atlanta's MARTA
CR Bollinger, KR Ihlanfeldt - Journal of Urban Economics, 1997 - Elsevier
... UE962020 The Impact of Rapid Rail Transit on Economic Development: The Case of
Atlanta’s MARTA U Christopher R. Bollinger and Keith R. Ihlanfeldt ...
Cited by 47 - Related articles - Web Search - BL Direct - All 6 versions

p_xavier · #**218** Posted **Nov 1, 2008, 12:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Just for your information, here is one of the ideas that staff is toying with.

I'm really frustrated by the lack of stations in the core. I find it silly to have so few while the bulk of the traffic is there.

Kitchissippi · #**219** Posted **Nov 1, 2008, 2:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

From what I’m hearing about Bayview:

There is a choice of curving the N-S line so that it heads into downtown directly.

Quote:

A little further along, there is Lebreton Station. Again, there are two choices:

where Booth is raised over the train, but the temporary bus loop is built up to cross Booth at grade;

Quote:

Just for your information, here is one of the ideas that staff is toying with.

I have no idea where you are getting these ideas. You should state your sources if you are reporting these as if they were facts.

Why would buses have to loop into LeBreton station when there are plenty of opportunities to interface all though Downtown and along Scott? Also it has long been in the plans that a new bridge on Booth would span both the Transitway and the Aqueduct, removing the level crossing. There were PDFs of the plan which included an upper level stop for buses travelling on Booth

Aylmer · #**220** Posted **Nov 1, 2008, 4:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I'm really frustrated by the lack of stations in the core. I find it silly to have so few while the bulk of the traffic is there.

I would add one at the current Laurier station, but besides that, I don't really see any others they could add...

If you think about it, a station is 1 block long and all the stations from Bronson to the Canal are 2 blocks away from the other. Thats around 400 meters between stations. So, in the Core, you are always less than a 2 minute walk (at 1km/h) from a station!