Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[waterloowarrior]

Interesting comparison with Edmonton, lrt's friend

Old Plan (Chiarelli)
2.8 bil LRT (102 KM) + $600 mil BRT (61 KM) = 3.4 billion (163 KM)

New Plan (Phase 1)
$2.5 bil LRT (40 KM) + $500 mil BRT (35 KM) = 3 billion (75 KM)

btw, the reason the BRT in the new plan is so much more expensive per KM is because of the Hurdman interchange ($40 mil) and Baseline to Norice ($185 mil for 1.5 KM)

maybe later I will compare "new" KM of rapid transit vs "upgrades"

[ikerrin]

2017, Ugh!

It took five years to win WW II and a year to build a a huge bridge to PEI. How on earth can it take 10 years to build a little tunnel and lay some track. Surely, they can speed this plan up.

[Aylmer]

There are New York minutes and there are Ottawa minutes.

[lrt's friend]

2017, Ugh!

It took five years to win WW II and a year to build a a huge bridge to PEI. How on earth can it take 10 years to build a little tunnel and lay some track. Surely, they can speed this plan up.

According city manager, Kent Kirkpatrick, 2017 is being optimistic.

[lrt's friend]

I guess now that we see that 2017 is the earliest for Increment 1 of Phase 1. How much realistically will be built by 2031? It seems to me that 2031 transit network is nothing more than a pipe dream the way this is progressing.

It appears that there was a lot of talk about risks today. I wonder if they talked about the risk of not generating significant new ridership in Increment 1. If say, we only see a 5% ridership increase in the year following opening, will this whole thing be considered a white elephant causing the rest of the project to be deferred? Is there any possibility that this may happen?

My question to everybody here. After seeing Increment 1, will you realistically use transit more often or not and explain why? I asked this question at a group discussion with our city councillor a while back and the response was quite predictable and honest. The response was not encouraging and at that time, we were still looking at a more rapid build out of LRT. This question gets past all the emotions of who should get LRT service first, and gets to the real point, will we get new ridership? It is too bad that this simple question was not posed in the public consultations.

[waterloowarrior]

Transit plan draws cautious praise
While ministers at all levels await firm numbers, Baird gives 'exciting' proposal thumbs up

Patrick Dare
Ottawa Citizen

Monday, November 10, 2008

OTTAWA - Federal Transport Minister John Baird says he is impressed with the City of Ottawa's new transportation plan, which calls for a multibillion-dollar investment in public transit.

Mr. Baird, the MP for Ottawa West-Nepean and the minister who will decide whether the federal government contributes money to carry out the plan, said officials have kept him well-informed about the city's changing transportation master plan, which was released Monday at City Hall. Mr. Baird stressed that the final plan must be scrutinized, approved and presented to the federal government by city council, but he's impressed with what he's seen so far.

"It's exciting. We certainly want to be part of it," said Mr. Baird. "They're tackling what needs to be tackled."

He noted that the city's transportation planners say in the documentation released Monday that the existing surface Transitway will be able to handle no additional buses downtown after 2017. He described that as "a wake-up call" that needs to be answered.

The top priority of the new plan is to build a tunnel under downtown to clear up the mess of buses that clog Albert and Slater streets each rush hour. The tunnel would carry riders on commuter rail from Blair Station in the east to Tunney's Pasture and, ultimately, along the Ottawa River Parkway to Baseline Station in Nepean.

The National Capital Commission has expressed doubts about running a commuter train along the scenic parkway, but Mr. Baird said he is pleased that the city is working with the NCC to resolve the issue. City planners say they will be able to convince the NCC that the train service can be an attractive addition to the landscape, when compared with the existing hundreds of diesel buses rolling down the parkway.

Ontario Transportation Minister Jim Bradley said he, too, is pleased with what Ottawa is doing, although he stressed that the provincial government needs to work with the city to see that the plan is financially viable and effective. Mr. Bradley said the main test for the plan is to "get people out of their cars and into transit."

The provincial minister said the thing that has impressed him about Ottawa's work in this area is that it is doing long-term, rather than ad-hoc, planning.

Still, the planning process has proved troublesome.

Ottawa's transit planning has been a saga, with a north-south commuter service almost under construction when it was cancelled in December 2006 after a new mayor, Larry O'Brien, and several new councillors were elected.

In the spring, the city proposed several possibilities for a new transit plan, including running rail north-south and east-west. But the latest recommended plan drops the train going south until the third stage of the plan, perhaps 20 years away.

Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Jim Watson, who is the MPP for Ottawa West-Nepean and the senior Ottawa cabinet minister in the provincial government, said he was last briefed about the city's plans several months ago and that all MPPs will need detailed explanations of the city's plans.

"This plan has had many different incarnations over the last couple of years. We need to land on some degree of finality," said Mr. Watson. "We've had a couple of false starts on light rail."

Mr. Watson said the city has had years to explore its transportation plan, so it shouldn't expect a quick response from the provincial government, which needs to see a detailed plan, solid cost estimates and timetables for construction and operation of the system.

The provincial and federal governments have $200 million each on the table for Ottawa's transit system and the federal government also has $35 million ready for an Armstrong-Strandherd Bridge that would link Barrhaven to Riverside South. The original rail plan intended that bridge to carry trains; the latest transportation plan has that bridge with transit lanes for buses.

Getting access to a lot more federal and provincial money will be essential to a new transportation plan in Ottawa, which calls for spending $5 billion on transit and $2 billion on new roads over the next 22 years.

One key for the Ontario government is that there be a clear expression of support for the new transit plan from council.

Provincial officials will have an easier time supporting a plan that costs the Ontario government $600 million - just in the first stage - if there is solid support from council.

Politically, the most immediate weak spot is city councillors from the south end of the city, who were to get electric light rail under the cancelled old project but now see little to move residents from their growing neighbourhoods.

River Councillor Maria McRae said she is concerned that the latest version of the plan is heavy on buses and roads for the next few years and won't help people in the fast-growing subdivisions of the south. Gloucester-Southgate Councillor Diane Deans said something will have to be done to provide better transit service to the south if this plan is to get strong council support.

© Ottawa Citizen 2008

[lrt's friend]

I'm switching to a car if there's no hope for rail

The Ottawa Citizen


Tuesday, November 11, 2008


Re: City staff finally going the right way with east-west rail plan, Nov. 7.

As a resident of Riverside South, I am officially finished with OC Transpo. Count me as one resident who is switching from taking the bus to driving his car into work.

Since moving to the suburbs, I have regularly driven to a park-and-ride lot and taken the bus downtown. What was once a borderline-tolerable commute has become progressively worse over the past few months as transit ridership has increased -- seemingly without any increase in system capacity. Perversely, city council is actually planning to cut service levels to balance the city budget.

The light at the end of the tunnel for myself and countless other south Ottawa residents was a modern, comfortable rail system that would enable us to leave our cars at home. This was promised once by city council, cancelled, and then promised again.

If columnist Randall Denley is correct, we won't be seeing this system for more than 20 years, supposedly because not enough people currently use transit to justify a north-south rail route. It's not hard to see why service to the south is brutal.

To add insult to injury, the proposed plan appears to merely replace the existing bus-based transitway with rail. In other words, it won't expand service beyond areas that are already well-served. If that's the plan, why even bother?

The bottom line is that without a better system to look forward to, I am no longer willing to invest years of my life taking chronically late, overcrowded and unpleasant buses to justify to city transit planners that significant appetite exists for better transit in the south.

If you build it, I will come. But in the meantime, I'm taking my car.

Al Rosher,

Ottawa

I don't think the residents of Ottawa understand what lousy transit service is now being provided to the southern growth areas. The chances of attracting new ridership are minimal because what little transit is offered operates extremely slowly. The pittance being now offered is a slap in the face and what little money that will be spent is totally dependent on getting separate funding for the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge. Even then, the service to be offered will be an indirect route to downtown via the west end of the city.

More transit, fewer roads in city's new master plan

Road projects worth hundreds of millions could be shelved, cancelled to help pay for light rail, buses

By Jake Rupert
Ottawa Citizen


Tuesday, November 11, 2008


OTTAWA - Hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of Ottawa road projects will be postponed until at least the middle of the next decade or even cancelled to pay for the city's new mass-transit plan, if city council follows its own staff's advice.

On the block are proposals to widen the Airport Parkway, Highway 174, Campeau Drive, Prince of Wales Drive and Eagleson Road - these alone represent a saving of $84 million. The suggestions were included in the city's new master transportation plan, which was presented Monday.

If council passes and follows the plan, it will bring the city into the 21st century with a focus on mass public transit over roads, city planners say.

Staff are still proposing to build $666 million worth of roads over the next seven years, but these are almost all in growing suburbs and would largely be paid for out of fees collected from developers for that purpose.

Typically, the city spends about $150 million a year on roads; the plan calls for that to be chopped to $95 million with the savings spent on transit.

Together with a new official land-use plan to be released later this month, the transportation plan will help shape what the city will look like and how people will get around.

The goal is a "compact, transit city," planners say.
The deputy city manager for planning and transit, Nancy Schepers, said both plans are focused on bringing real "smart growth" to the city. The goal is to limit sprawl and the costly new roads, sewers and other services that go with it, emphasizing development along transit lines.

The plan also includes recommendations for the order in which the city's new light-rail plan should be built, and better cycling and pedestrian routes.

Schepers said she believes if the city follows the recommendations presented by planning staff, it "will benefit all citizens for the next 100 years."

Under the plan, the spine of the light-rail system, including a downtown tunnel, will be built over the next 20 years, in three phases as the money becomes available.

The first phase, costing $1.7 billion would see a downtown tunnel built and a light-rail line running through it and along the current bus Transitway from Blair Road to Tunney's Pasture. This phase would also see the completion and expansion of the dedicated busway.

The second phase, costing $900 million, would see light rail running south to the South Keys plaza and completion of the west light-rail line from Tunney's Pasture to Baseline Road.

The third phase, costing $400 million, would see light rail extended further south and more extensions of the bus Transitway to serve the suburbs.

The plan doesn't foresee light rail extending into the east and west suburbs before 2031, but this could be accelerated if the money becomes available and the suburbs reach urban-like density targets to be unveiled in the new official land-use plan.

Several things could torpedo the plan, and the big risk is money. All cost estimates are rough and based on 2007 dollars. City finance officials say the municipality can afford one-third of the plan, and they need the provincial and federal governments to kick in a third each.

The new phasing plan postpones a north-south light-rail line for several years. That could put at risk support from several councillors representing southern wards.

The plan will be debated by city council's transportation and transit committees next week and at city council later this month.

Mayor Larry O'Brien said he supports the recommendations. He said he expects the support of about 17 councillors out of 23 when the matter comes to a vote, and that public consultation shows citizens like the approach.

He said he understands funding will be an issue, and that he's willing to look at "alternatives" to straight governmental funding. He suggested the city might consider a form of a public-private partnership, or "P3" to get the project moving. He said a private firm might be interested in investing in the project in return for part of the revenues the system generates.

"There are all kinds of variations on P3s. Perhaps it's time to get out of the box on funding."
Rideau-Vanier Councillor Georges Bédard, who wants a mass-transit system in place quickly, said he doesn't think what staff recommend is affordable. He said he doubts the plan will get off the ground any time soon.

He said the $1.7-billion price tag for the first phase, in 2007 dollars, shows the folly of cancelling the city's old light-rail plan, which would have started with a rail line that ran west across downtown at street level before turning south and extending to Riverside South for about $1 billion.

"Poor decision-making has left us in one hell of a mess. I don't think we will get that kind of money, and future councils will be stuck with trying to fund this unaffordable project. We are in a quagmire, and I think we will be in it for quite some time."

He said he didn't think the mayor's P3 suggestion was very helpful. He said if the city comes up short on funding, it would be better off taking a loan to cover the capital costs.

I find this so contradictory. This is designed to make for a more compact city, yet where growth is taking place, we are continuing to just build more and more roads. This is all talk and little action.

What was being mentioned on the radio this morning is that there is no more talk of 'ridership uplift'. This leaves us with a project that only reduces downtown congestion and even then, the majority of buses will continue to operate on Albert and Slater for well beyond the next 10 years. It is quite disturbing that it appears that Phase 1 is being extended to the full 20+ year planning time frame as reported above.

In other words, we have made so many compromises in order to get widespread support, we are not really doing anything well. Furthermore, we are now so far behind in improving transit, that we are not likely to even make improvements before a congestion crises arises downtown predicted for 2017.

We had an affordable opportunity to improve transit in 2006 and we failed to take advantage of it. The federal and provincial money from the last project is still on the table but you have to think that in the long run Ottawa will get less than if we spent that money right away.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I find this so contradictory. This is designed to make for a more compact city, yet where growth is taking place, we are continuing to just build more and more roads. This is all talk and little action.

Nancy said that the new transit plan comes with growth planning changes in the city, and that the new development plan will be available shortly. I guess growth will have to change.

[lrt's friend]

Yes, more hollow actions. Sure, you can make a few adjustments around transit stations, but remember that the eastern route follows the Queensway and there are limits to what can be done around each station. Most growth will continue to be in the suburbs, and outside the Greenbelt, and this transit plan will not encourage significant changes in growth patterns. Growth areas will continue to revolve around roads and because of that, density cannot be increased a great deal. The old plan calling for transit to a growth area, allowed for increased density because the population was not going to be totally dependent on roads. We have now totally abandoned that approach and therefore smart growth, for the most part, is also going out the window.

As it stands, there is absolutely no incentive to increase density in the suburbs. We have been told that there is no hope of LRT for 25 years and more. If we tried to increase density especially around proposed transit routes, the roads will not be able to handle the increased traffic for the next 25+ years without enormous spending to increase road capacity. It is plain stupid to expect anything more than the status quo.

[eemy]

I don't think I could be impressed with anything presented anymore. Every single option has been mulled over, I just wish the city would move ahead and do something. I'm not too pleased with the western routing, but that can be figured out at a later date I suppose. More importantly, it will include an LRT tunnel through downtown. Once that has been completed, it sets the stage for further expansion of LRT and will hopefully simplify future discussion.

It's not perfect, but it's something I can get behind and support.

[lrt's friend]

I return to the 'Tale of two Cities', Calgary and Edmonton. This is well documented. The city of Calgary decided to invest its transit dollars to deliver LRT to the people as quickly as possible. Edmonton on the other hand decided to invest in a downtown tunnel, and ran out of money and momentum because the system did not meet the needs of most of the population. The outcome has been dramatic. Ridership in Calgary is now 4 times what it is in Edmonton, and after 30 years of service, only now is Edmonton struggling to expand its LRT network. Have we learned from this experience as we continue to shrink the amount of rail that we will initially build?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I return to the 'Tale of two Cities', Calgary and Edmonton. This is well documented. The city of Calgary decided to invest its transit dollars to deliver LRT to the people as quickly as possible. Edmonton on the other hand decided to invest in a downtown tunnel, and ran out of money and momentum because the system did not meet the needs of most of the population. The outcome has been dramatic. Ridership in Calgary is now 4 times what it is in Edmonton, and after 30 years of service, only now is Edmonton struggling to expand its LRT network. Have we learned from this experience as we continue to shrink the amount of rail that we will initially build?

Either way, they're both at the same situation, one needs a tunnel, and the other needs more rail links so. Edmonton didn't have such an influx of foreigners either. Only recently that Calgary has achieved such high ridership.

[lrt's friend]

Green light for revised LRT planCity staff urges council to get behind east-west line through heart of city
By DEREK PUDDICOMBE, CITY HALL BUREAU


Two years ago Mayor Larry O'Brien promised to press the transit reset button.

Two years later, the city is looking at a significantly different transit project than the 30-km, north-south plan it cancelled.

Yesterday, during a joint meeting of the city's transit and transportation committee, staff tabled a recommendation for city council to move ahead with a modified version of a transit plan approved last summer.

As reported in the Sun last week, staff is recommending council approve light rail stretching east to west from the Blair Rd. transit station to Tunney's Pasture. From north to south, the LRT line would follow the current O-Train route with an additional stop at South Keys.

The initial plan called for light rail to run to Riverside South and only to the Blair Rd. station. But after public pressure, staff changed the plan.




Nancy Schepers, the city's deputy city manager of community sustainability and operations, said it's critical council adopt the proposal.

"This will affect everyone for the next 100 years," she said.

3 PHASES

The total cost of the first phase will be $3 billion, with staff recommending an immediate investment of $1.7 billion to include:

- A tunnel under the downtown core;

- An improved bus rapid transit (BRT) network;

- Light rail east to west;

- A bridge linking South Nepean and Riverside South.

The $900-million second phase would double 18 km of light-rail line to South Keys and extend the track to the Baseline station from Tunney's Pasture.

The third phase -- $400 million -- would take light rail into Riverside South.

A proposal to use VIA tracks to shuttle Barrhaven residents to the east has been ruled out because of possible conflicts with VIA trains.

O'Brien, who led the charge to cancel the first plan, likes the changes. He predicts it will receive overwhelming approval from council, residents and the provincial and federal governments.

O'Brien said the cost could be reduced if the city partners with the provincial and federal governments or brings in a private-sector partner.

A coalition of business people has also expressed interest in investing in the downtown portion of the plan.

Staff didn't provide any hard timelines for the completion of the project because a lot depends on how much money the city gets from the other two levels of government. But O'Brien suggested commuters could be travelling the first light-rail line in nine years.

"If we don't have something firm by 2017, we have probably failed the system," he said.

But not everyone is pleased with the new transit plan.

ALTERNATIVE PITCH

Capital Coun. Clive Doucet said the current plan is worse than the one they cancelled because it doesn't immediately fix downtown congestion.

"This is embarrassing," he said. "We are going to be spending more money changing the plan than it did to cancel the last one."

Doucet has hired a consultant to pitch an alternative light-rail transit plan, which he will unveil on Nov. 17.

Frankly, I don't share Mr. O'Brien's optimism that anybody will be riding a train in 9 years.

Finally, somebody has said the obvious. It is not practical to share track with Via Rail. Years of lies about sharing track are finally going out the window.

And yet another transit plan will be presented on November 17th.

Where is this all going as each successive plan gets worse than the last?

6 city councillors have so far expressed dissatisfaction with the current plan. They include Steve Desrochers, Diane Deans, Maria Macrae, Clive Doucet, Christine Leadman, and Georges Bedard. I wouldn't doubt that others will come out of the woodwork soon. Of course, the mayor agrees with every plan that is presented. I believe the last plan had about 7 votes against during the July 2006 vote. So much for overwhelming support for the new plan, if these initial reactions are any indication.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I guess now that we see that 2017 is the earliest for Increment 1 of Phase 1. How much realistically will be built by 2031? It seems to me that 2031 transit network is nothing more than a pipe dream the way this is progressing.

It appears that there was a lot of talk about risks today. I wonder if they talked about the risk of not generating significant new ridership in Increment 1. If say, we only see a 5% ridership increase in the year following opening, will this whole thing be considered a white elephant causing the rest of the project to be deferred? Is there any possibility that this may happen?

My question to everybody here. After seeing Increment 1, will you realistically use transit more often or not and explain why? I asked this question at a group discussion with our city councillor a while back and the response was quite predictable and honest. The response was not encouraging and at that time, we were still looking at a more rapid build out of LRT. This question gets past all the emotions of who should get LRT service first, and gets to the real point, will we get new ridership? It is too bad that this simple question was not posed in the public consultations.

I asked myself that same excellent question a few months ago when the plan was first made public.

I currently use OC Transpo seven-days-a-week. I deliberately chose to live near a Transitway station (Westboro) and I work/shop downtown. I also make the effort to use transit whenever it is a reasonable alternative (for me, “reasonable” means the transit trip is no more than 30 minutes slower than by car). I nonetheless have a car because there are some trips (e.g., to Merivale, to the Glebe and to Gatineau) where taking transit would be too circuitous, take at least one hour and require at least one transfer (versus a direct car trip of 15 minutes or less). I asked myself whether, under the plan (full build-out), I would switch to transit for these trips. The answer was unfortunately no. The plan would do little to make these trips more attractive.

For the people who live west of Tunney’s Pasture like myself, I figure that 2020 will be the earliest year we will see LRT service. Because of the construction and the operation of the initial Blair to Tunney’s LRT segment, we are going to be relegated to Scott Street for a period at least five years, and more likely seven. I’ve taken the #18 bus many times so I know what it’s like to go down Scott Street. Believe me it’s not pretty. One hopes that, at a minimum, they’ll reserve the inside lanes for transit vehicles. Even if they do that, right-turning cars and trucks are going to make the trek an ordeal for tens of thousands of riders. The Mackenzie King Bridge to Hurdman segment will face similar issues. Delays and operating costs will increase. Ridership will suffer.

And when LRT service does come, what kind of service will it be? For my trips to/from downtown (most of my trips):

• The LRT will be more reliable than current service and station-to-station travel time will definitely be faster (because of a more direct route, the tunnel and fewer stations).

• However, it will be less frequent so peoples’ waits will be higher. How less frequent is not clear since the peak and off-peak headways of the LRT service are not known at this time. If the headways are like the Expo Line or the Canada Line in Vancouver, then waits will not be a problem. If the headways are like Calgary’s LRT (5 minutes during the peak and 10 minutes off-peak), waits will be a problem. The latter scenario may be likely if the tunnel also has to accommodate trains from the South and from Gatineau.

• They still are planning to have only two downtown stations, instead of three (there are currently four downtown stations). Just as bad, they may put the easternmost station on Queen St., instead of Albert or Slater. Overall, this will mean longer walks for most riders.

• The rail cars will have fewer seats than currently is the case.

People view waiting and walking time as much more onerous than riding time (i.e., time spent inside a vehicle). Thus, overall, there is a good chance that the service will not be viewed as better than today's.

Finally, I have co-workers who are still seething at the fact that their bus route was truncated at Hurdman a few years ago. Whenever they see me, they complain about it. I think the advocates of the current plan are underestimating the impact that the forced transfers will have. Yes, most will continue to take transit, but they’ll be worse-off. Some will give up, or insist that bigger park & ride lots be constructed. These park & ride lots will diminish TOD opportunities near stations.

[lrt's friend]

Finally, I have co-workers who are still seething at the fact that their bus route was truncated at Hurdman a few years ago. Whenever they see me, they complain about it. I think the advocates of the current plan are underestimating the impact that the forced transfers will have. Yes, most will continue to take transit, but they’ll be worse-off. Some will give up, or insist that bigger park & ride lots be constructed. These park & ride lots will diminish TOD opportunities near stations.

This is the whole problem. There will be no clear improvement in service resulting from this expenditure. Service may be more efficient downtown but walks will be longer. More people will be forced to stand on the trains particularly during peak hours. Almost everybody will face a transfer. Not so bad incoming, but on the way home, that local bus will not run that frequently especially during off-peak hours, and you will have to transfer at some unpleasant suburban transfer station.

Fortunately, downtown workers are pretty much a captive market, and they will be forced to accept the changes and grumble. It is the people who are not heading downtown, who have access to free parking that could easily get turned off of transit if we are adding transfers and inconvenience. That 118 bus recently extended to Orleans, will now have to travel along the Queensway and face traffic congestion, or the extension simply abandoned. Similarly the 101 and 102.

There is no reason to be particularly encouraged about ridership with this plan.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Finally, somebody has said the obvious. It is not practical to share track with Via Rail. Years of lies about sharing track are finally going out the window.

You mean you actually think that city staff studied that? Many cities in Canada share tracks and DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES. There are 10 trains daily, in Montreal, it shares tracks with the CN, which has hundreds of trains. Again, it's pure laziness as to push for more expensive projects.

It's done in other cities easily.


It's typical Ottawa thinking, oh, we could have a problem, we'll find a 100x times more expensive solution instead of finding a solution for the problem. No TUNNEL IS REQUIRED, 3 years after, A TUNNEL IS REQUIRED.

[lrt's friend]

(Some people don't even have a plan B they can resort to)

Re: "Another roadblock's nothing new" (Nov. 9). OK, you asked for it, I have a better plan. Chuck all this nonsense about a light-rail system and a downtown tunnel. Consider this: Electric trolley buses running on rubber tires, just like many cities used to have and many cities still have and many cities are going back to. Once upon a time, Ottawa even had some electric rubber-tired trolley buses.

Has this solution to the city's commuting woes been given short shrift by our so-called experts and consultants? Has it been given any consideration?

Ottawa's existing Transitway is ideally suited for electric trolley buses, most of the infrastructure is already there, add some wires and away we go. In addition, trolley buses and diesel (or hybrid) buses can co-exist on the same routes. But limit the main route through downtown to trolley buses only; do away with all those current express and peak-time buses competing for space (as per the LRT scenario), and then forget about burrowing underground. Ottawa is just not big enough to warrant such frivolity.

And wouldn't trolley bus transit be a perfect solution to Carling Ave., Montreal Rd., Wellington St., etc?

This proposal likely presents a small fraction of the expenditure estimated for the LRT/tunnel system being masticated (but not swallowed) by city council. It is not too late to step back, take a sober second breath and have a proper evaluation of trolley buses.

AREND SMID

NEPEAN

And yet another alternative idea.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Suzie

• They still are planning to have only two downtown stations, instead of three (there are currently four downtown stations). Just as bad, they may put the easternmost station on Queen St., instead of Albert or Slater. Overall, this will mean longer walks for most riders.

That, I still have a big issue. Like I mentioned earlier, it's mostly about system balancing. Anyways, what is ridiculous is that they took exactly the study from 1985, without recalculating the numbers, and they put the same diagrams in the consultant's study. It's wrong to actually question there thinking it seems.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

And yet another alternative idea.

And yet Edmonton just abandonned that idea, and will actually destroyed all their Trolley Bus infrastructure. Sure it may cost less for Diesel, but it's drivers that's the bulk of the cost.

I find it funny when they say that Ottawa is not big enough, when European cities with half the population have ten times the infrastructures we have. Maybe because Ottawa is such a city of losers?

[lrt's friend]

You mean you actually think that city staff studied that? Many cities in Canada share tracks and DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES. There are 10 trains daily, in Montreal, it shares tracks with the CN, which has hundreds of trains. Again, it's pure laziness as to push for more expensive projects.

It's done in other cities easily.

You will find that these are generally more than single track rail lines. Also, these commuter rail lines serve areas beyond the rapid transit network, such as the West Island part of Montreal. Commuter rail is pointless within areas already served by rapid transit, which in Ottawa, are areas served by the Transitways.