Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Franky]

Found this site with transit related info. (STO link)
http://www.transitottawa.ca/search/label/STO

I just had a crazy idea. What if instead of building a bridge at Kettle Island with Québec putting in $200M and Ottawa putting in $200M, Ottawa builds the King Edward tunnel and Québec builds the LRT line to the Prince of Wales railway bridge. I have no idea what the costs are, but it looks like a win-win.

[citizen j]

Originally Posted by Franky

How much noise does a hybrid make when stopped?

Franky, if they're anything like Toronto's, they're noticeably more quiet -- much less of the "drone" effect -- which is a great advantage over regular buses. Unfortunately, they're also considerably more quiet when they break down mid-route. A frequent problem here. As illustrated:

TTC hybrid bus breakdown (youtube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6ztlqRfoEo

"TTC going diesel again after hybrid bus glitch" (Toronto Star)
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/519770

"TTC puts brakes on $61M bus order" (Toronto Star)
http://santaclausfund.ca/News/GTA/article/523690

"Lemon-flavoured" hybrid buses" (Metro)
http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/comment/article/131819

I hope OC Transpo has better luck.
What's the word on the double-decker order for Ottawa? Did that go ahead?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Deez

The only difference between Doucet/Leadman's Carling LRT and staff's streetcar (aside from the number of stops) is the provision of 3 grade separated intersections.

I'm also unclear on how they propose to run LRT down the O-train trench without impacting the operation of the O-train during construction. All costing that I've seen for N-S includes widening of the trench and relocating tracks...

I'd love to hear what Dado thinks of all this...

May I ask why?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by citizen j

Franky, if they're anything like Toronto's, they're noticeably more quiet -- much less of the "drone" effect -- which is a great advantage over regular buses. Unfortunately, they're also considerably more quiet when they break down mid-route. A frequent problem here. As illustrated:

TTC hybrid bus breakdown (youtube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6ztlqRfoEo

"TTC going diesel again after hybrid bus glitch" (Toronto Star)
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/519770

"TTC puts brakes on $61M bus order" (Toronto Star)
http://santaclausfund.ca/News/GTA/article/523690

"Lemon-flavoured" hybrid buses" (Metro)
http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/comment/article/131819

I hope OC Transpo has better luck.
What's the word on the double-decker order for Ottawa? Did that go ahead?

Buy (north) American! Did Toronto get the extended warranty? Ours are supposed to be Lithium-Ion instead of lead-acid. I don't think the idea needs to be dumped because the particular implementation fails. Hybrid cars seem to work OK, there's hope.

[Deez]

Originally Posted by Dado

May I ask why?

You've always come across as the most knowledgeable person on the topic of transitway conversion, etc...just wanted to know what your opinion was.

Franky, if they're anything like Toronto's, they're noticeably more quiet -- much less of the "drone" effect -- which is a great advantage over regular buses.

IMO, the biggest advantage of hybrids (aside from the fuel savings of course) is the difference in ride quality. On a standard diesel bus, engine retarders cause a lurch every time an operator takes their foot off the gas...these are not present on hybrids because of regenerative braking and the result is a much smoother ride.

I had the chance to ride one of GRT's new Novabus hybrids...quite the cool experience.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

So there are the 3 intersections that would be tunneled.... what about the 10+ other ones with through traffic? and then the 10+ other ones that let people do left turns... ? Are they all going to be closed?

Trains will be coming every 2 minutes in two directions by 2031.. (unless we stop the East Trains after downtown...) is this possible without a fully or almost fully grade-separated system? What is the Calgary experience kyle_olsen? The systems I have gone on with median LRTs still have the train stopping at intersections sometimes, and can't go as fast as a grade separated system, but maybe I've gone on the wrong ones.

Outside of downtown, the LRT has 100% intersection priority. It is a train, if the trains is coming, the gates go down. Just like a freight train. People in Calgary came to accept this since the first line runs parrallel to a rather mainline CPR track. There is currently one intersection on the South line that will not be able to function with maximum theoretical frequency, and it is to be grade separated within the next five years. The thing is the line will be running five car trains for many years until we reach the need to have five car trains and minimum headway.

Again, allowing the a full ROW for rapid operation, with 100% priority is a political problem, not a technical one. For trains to pass at speed they build the ROW to 15 m, which is rather wide, and allows lots of room for cheaper equipment, and in-service maintenance.

The LRT in the NE, where it is in the roadway median, isn't nearly as bad as people think, it is all perception. The NE line isn't being designed to the same capacity, likely will never need trains more often than every 4 minutes with four car trains.

Originally Posted by Franky

Interesting. Calgary is used as a model of the best LRT plan, and you tell me this NE line 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. Won't cut and cover on Byron be expensive with all those utilities to move?

That's probably what makes the Calgary LRT cheap. In a way, if you go with grade separated everywhere, why not just use buses or trolley-buses? You don't need "big bunch" ability, smaller bunches will do.

Because the main thing that makes LRT great is you need far fewer drivers, to move the same amount of people. This is what saves you money in the long run, and helps justify future expansion. While Calgary built its initial lines, it fired bus drivers. Lots of bus drivers.

The NE isn't the best, but it is far from the worst, and is very very well used.

If there is any lesson to be learned from LRT in Calgary is that it is better to build alot more mileage of LRT on the cheap, than to build a small amount in optimum configuration. You can always fix it later, and you end up with better end results with lower costs in the long run.

[waterloowarrior]

Funding fears made leading councillor vote against transit timing
Panel chairwoman adds to uncertainty over receiving federal, provincial money

Patrick Dare and Mohammed Adam
The Ottawa Citizen

Friday, November 21, 2008

The chairwoman of Ottawa city council's transportation committee says she voted against the plan detailing how to start building the city's new public-transit plan because she is concerned about whether the federal and provincial governments will pay their shares of escalating costs.

River Councillor Maria McRae had taken a leading role in putting the plan together, but her surprise vote -- in the 14th hour of a marathon meeting Wednesday -- means the plan heads to full council next week without formal support from the specialist committee responsible for it.

And that won't help the city get the very funding that has Ms. McRae worried.

The $7.2-billion transportation plan is supposed to be a blueprint for the city until 2031. It includes a slew of projects, but the biggest is a massive expansion of rail and bus service across the city. All of it was the subject of a joint meeting of city council's transportation and transit committees Wednesday, with Ms. McRae in the chair.

She voted with most of her colleagues to support the new plan in principle, but when it came to the crucial practical question of what projects happen when, she voted against the proposed schedule. Together with councillors Clive Doucet, Christine Leadman, Georges Bédard and Jacques Legendre, she created a tie vote, which meant the proposed schedule was defeated.

When the result of the late-night vote was tallied, Ms. McRae looked startled. A concerned Bay Councillor Alex Cullen, chairman of the transit committee, and a furious Mayor Larry O'Brien briefly spoke with her. She then left the meeting she had been running, going out a fire door without a coat, leaving reporters -- and her assistant -- wondering where she had gone.

Mr. O'Brien, who sat beside Ms. McRae for much of the meeting, said shortly after the vote that he felt "blindsided." Yesterday, he said her second thoughts on the transportation plan came as a complete surprise.

"She was the chairwoman of the transportation committee. She had been part of the program that had brought this through. Her job last night was to bring this through," said Mr. O'Brien. "I don't know why she did what she did. I think she's got some explaining to do. It certainly took all of us by surprise."

The staging plan says that the city's first priorities are a train tunnel downtown, electric rail between Blair Station and Tunney's Pasture, purchase of rail vehicles and expansion of the bus Transitway. It also calls for construction or expansion of a number of roads. In all, the first set of projects are supposed to cost about $1.7 billion.

Ms. McRae had not been feeling well, but in an interview yesterday, she said she made no mistake in the vote. She says she was surprised by the result because she incorrectly thought Mr. Legendre had voted for the project staging. She said she left via the fire exit to get a breath of fresh air before getting into her vehicle.

She said she voted against the proposed schedule of projects because she is becoming concerned that the costs for the road and transit projects are going up while the deteriorating economy could mean the federal and provincial governments won't pay the one-third shares the city needs for its big projects. She said a story in the Citizen on Wednesday, in which Councillor Peter Hume expressed concern about the city's reaching for too large a transit project, struck a chord with her. Mr. Hume said the city should probably be proposing a $1.2-billion package of transit projects for the next several years rather than $1.7 billion.

Ms. McRae raised that Citizen story during the committee meeting, asking city manager Kent Kirkpatrick whether the city could afford to build the first stage of the plan. Mr. Kirkpatrick responded that the current Build Canada fund -- the joint federal-provincial fund the city is hoping to tap for big transit money -- might only support $1.2 billion worth of projects, but that there may be other sources of money under the control of federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

"There were too many unanswered questions about funding," Ms. McRae said yesterday. "These costs are escalating. I am focused on money. It's an opportunity for sober second thought."

Next Wednesday's council meeting will be "another marathon session" due to motions and delays from councillors who oppose the transportation plan as too heavy on buses and new roads, said Mr. O'Brien. (Mr. Doucet and Ms. Leadman have made that argument forcefully). But in the end, Mr. O'Brien said, the new transportation plan will win a healthy majority of council votes.

Mr. Cullen stressed that the rest of the transportation plan was approved and said the staging part will still pass.

"It was a surprise last night. No doubt about it," said Mr. Cullen. "We hit a bump. I don't think she expected that vote either. It happened. It was a late night, a lot of stress. But we know the other votes are around the council table."

The city needs a strong vote at council to win federal and provincial money for the projects. Yesterday afternoon, Mr. O'Brien met with Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson to talk about the plan.

In an interview with the Citizen earlier in the day, Mr. Watson said Ontario is committed to paying its share of an expanded transit system in Ottawa, but won't hand out any money until the city gets its act together. So much uncertainty surrounds the final plan, its cost and staging that it is impossible to talk about provincial or federal funding, said Mr. Watson, who noted the uncertain result of Wednesday's vote.

He said that once council has settled on a final plan and its staging, there has to be an environmental assessment -- a legally required technical study looking far beyond environmental impacts -- to determine the actual cost. The city's current figures are all estimates and the province just can't work with estimates, he said.

"We need to know what the plan is, what the staging priorities are and then our officials have to spend some time doing their due diligence," Mr. Watson said. "I am going to wait and see."

Mr. Watson said one crucial factor in winning provincial support would be the city's ability to raise its share of the final cost of the plan. "We have to have some understanding and assurance that the municipal government has its share because we don't want to get into a situation where one of the partners is so extended we can't fulfil our obligations," he said.

- 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

[lrt's friend]

If there is any lesson to be learned from LRT in Calgary is that it is better to build alot more mileage of LRT on the cheap, than to build a small amount in optimum configuration. You can always fix it later, and you end up with better end results with lower costs in the long run.

And it appears that we are following the Edmonton example instead of the Calgary example.

Could it be there's a light-rail jinx?

By SUSAN SHERRING


"We can't drop this ball a second time."

-- Bay Coun. Alex Cullen talking about getting light rail right this time around

Freudian slip, councillor?

You can only drop the ball a second time if you dropped it the first time.

Surely the supporters of the cancelled north-south light-rail project will be taking note of your slip of the tongue -- presuming it was a slip.

Cullen voted against former mayor Bob Chiarelli's north-south LRT plan, saying it wasn't the right plan for Ottawa.

The Bay councillor made the comment after Wednesday's marathon committee meeting, which began at 9:30 a.m. and didn't finish until close to midnight.

Of course, it did all end with a bang.

River Coun. Maria McRae, chairwoman of the transportation committee, voted against part of the plan -- the phasing-in portion -- the effect of which, at least momentarily, puts the entire plan in jeopardy.

Mayor Larry O'Brien says he's still confident the light-rail plan will be supported at council next Wednesday, but he must be at least a little more concerned after the committee meeting.

McRae's vote didn't just take him by surprise, he was obviously angry following the vote. He said he felt blindsided. Up until the moment of her vote, he had every reason to believe she was onside with the plan -- a plan she helped craft.

'We can fix this'

And while most are still expecting council will pass the plan, it can't help but worry the mayor that, like Wednesday's committee meeting, something could go wrong.

"We can certainly fix this," a much calmer O'Brien said yesterday. "I was shocked, I was blindsided. Certainly, we'd done a lot of work.

"I believe we did everything that was humanly possible, short of someone changing their mind without telling us. But yes, we will certainly work hard."

Could it be there's a light-rail jinx?

Certainly, the mayor ensured he had his ducks in a row. But hey, so did the supporters of the north-south LRT project. Who could have foreseen back then that cabinet minister John Baird would withhold federal funding, effectively killing the project.

McRae said no one should be shocked by her vote.

(She's right, but don't expect relations with the mayor's office to run smoothly for quite some time.)

"I don't know why people were surprised. I have no problem committing to the vision of the plan, but with the money, I don't have a comfort level.

"This is not about north-south. I'm very committed to the vision, but the numbers don't lie," she said.

After reading additional documentation about the plan and its funding, McRae said she began to have questions that she couldn't get solid enough answers for.

"I need to have a comfort level," she said, adding she's been in contact with city manager Kent Kirkpatrick about crafting a motion that will place restrictions on spending until the city knows where its funding is coming from.

She said she doesn't expect to stand in the way of the project.

McRae said if she did anything wrong Wednesday night, it was voting in favor of extending the meeting into the night.

In hindsight, that might not have been the smartest idea.

"If I had to do it again, whatever number of days the debate might have taken, I would have given us that opportunity."

Hindsight is generally perfect of course, but yes, that would have made far more sense.

O'Brien understands that the failure on Wednesday night affects how the public perceives both the plan and city council.

"It puts some shadows on the plan, creates angst in the city. From my perspective, I look at it as a speed bump."

Jinx or not, passing a rapid-transit project isn't -- and never has been -- easy.

But this time, Cullen is right.

Council can't drop this ball a second time.

And none of us can afford them getting it wrong.

Fri, November 21, 2008

Councillor not phased by vote
Says committee's transit debate means little in grand scheme of things
By DEREK PUDDICOMBE, CITY HALL BUREAU


The transit and transportation committees killed a motion to endorse city staff's phasing-in plan at a joint meeting Wednesday night, but councillors who weren't at the meeting say council will decide what to build first.

College Coun. Rick Chiarelli said the 14-hour committee debate meant little because there will be a significant debate next week when the plan comes before council.

"There are more numbers at council," said Chiarelli. "We will make a decision on phasing. I have no doubt about it."

Chiarelli says what could change in the coming months is the construction schedule because the city still needs to secure federal and provincial funding.

The likely first phase of the proposed project would take light-rail transit from Blair Rd. through a downtown tunnel and west to Tunney's Pasture and cost $1.7 billion. Given the economy's troubles and the city's own financial woes, city officials must secure provincial and federal funding for the project as soon as possible.

"This is recession transit," said Chiarelli. "The faster we do it, the more money will be available to us."

Gloucester-Southgate Coun. Diane Deans said Wednesday night's stalemate vote at committee shows that the plan still isn't right.

"There is still not a comfortable level here yet," she said. "We aren't striving for perfection just looking for a long-term sustainable plan."

Transportation committee chairwoman River Coun. Maria McRae surprised committee members when she voted against city staff's recommended phasing-in plan. Members, including Mayor Larry O'Brien, believed McRae was going to vote in favour of the motion.

McRae makes no apologies for the vote. She said she's in favour of the city's vision for light-rail transit, but voted against the plan because she wants to make sure provincial and federal funding is secure before the city spends a nickel.

Over the next week, Deans said all councillors should take a close look at the transit plan and consider elements of any other plans that have been introduced.

"We have to take a practical and realistic approach because there is significant indication that the plan is not correct yet," said Deans.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

Because the main thing that makes LRT great is you need far fewer drivers, to move the same amount of people. This is what saves you money in the long run, and helps justify future expansion. While Calgary built its initial lines, it fired bus drivers. Lots of bus drivers.

The numbers I've seen, don't put LRT O&M cost much lower than buses when you consider that LRT only run the trunk lines. I'd really like to see solid numbers on an apples to apples comparison. I'm not sure increasing the unemployment roles (especially if the savings aren't there) is the best thing right now. It's pretty much academic I guess, council is sold on rail, so let's do it right. The Doucet-Leadman plan brings light-rail to Ottawa and doesn't waste money on busways. Why isn't it even being studied?

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

The NE isn't the best, but it is far from the worst, and is very very well used.

If there is any lesson to be learned from LRT in Calgary is that it is better to build alot more mileage of LRT on the cheap, than to build a small amount in optimum configuration. You can always fix it later, and you end up with better end results with lower costs in the long run.

Hey, looks like we agree here. Our Path forward - send mail to councillors to get them to at least consider this plan.

[lrt's friend]

Why isn't it even being studied?

Simply because it is too late. Mind you, the mayor has been saying that this sort of thing has been too late since the 4 options were released in March and we know that there was no public input before that either.

Let's face it, this is all designed to gather votes from east and west end councillors and to provide a Cadillac transit service for existing transit users, particularly in Orleans. It no longer matters whether we attract new transit riders since we all know that each one costs the city money.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Simply because it is too late. Mind you, the mayor has been saying that this sort of thing has been too late since the 4 options were released in March and we know that there was no public input before that either.

LOL! This is from the Mayor who pulled the plug AFTER CONTRACTS WERE SIGNED!!!

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Let's face it, this is all designed to gather votes from east and west end councillors and to provide a Cadillac transit service for existing transit users, particularly in Orleans. It no longer matters whether we attract new transit riders since we all know that each one costs the city money.

Or it's about a true desire for a rail system, not a bigger bus system. The current plan calls for $2.1B in new transitway and buses (something like that). You of all people should be embracing the new idea which puts our money into rail.

[lrt's friend]

Or it's about a true desire for a rail system, not a bigger bus system. The current plan calls for $2.1B in new transitway and buses (something like that). You of all people should be embracing the new idea which puts our money into rail.

And I do. I have always wanted to see a more creative investment in rail to attract new riders to transit. I also would like to see less investment in new Transitways, and instead, build LRT right away, without the expense of building Transitways and then converting them. After all, Transitways require bus ramps to allow buses to access the Transitways and this is not needed for LRT. This is wasted investment.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Franky

The numbers I've seen, don't put LRT O&M cost much lower than buses when you consider that LRT only run the trunk lines. I'd really like to see solid numbers on an apples to apples comparison. I'm not sure increasing the unemployment roles (especially if the savings aren't there) is the best thing right now. It's pretty much academic I guess, council is sold on rail, so let's do it right. The Doucet-Leadman plan brings light-rail to Ottawa and doesn't waste money on busways. Why isn't it even being studied?



Hey, looks like we agree here. Our Path forward - send mail to councillors to get them to at least consider this plan.

Calgary eliminated upwards of 700 transit operator positions in the 1980s, as the first phases of the LRT lines were being completed. It would be fiscally insane, for Ottawa to not try to bring its yearly subsidy down into the standard Canadidan range overtime, as the LRT comes in.

Since making this operational decision is a political issue, you cannot say definitively that you will save money. It all depends on politicians saying, we invested this money, now we don't need as many transit operators, you are all now fired. Remember, this wouldn't start until at least the first stage of the LRT is done, and you could largely accomplish it through attrition due to your long lead time. In the end, the economy hopefully will be in a better place in 7 years, if not there will be larger problems to deal with than transit union jobs.

A real drag on funding would be an LRT that doesn't use the transit way, as it would still allow very rapid express busses onto the transitway into downtown. You want to avoid this. Express buses only should run to the nearest LRT station, and as the LRT gets closer to neighborhoods, should be folded back into existing feeder routes to increase service quality.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

A real drag on funding would be an LRT that doesn't use the transit way, as it would still allow very rapid express busses onto the transitway into downtown. You want to avoid this. Express buses only should run to the nearest LRT station, and as the LRT gets closer to neighborhoods, should be folded back into existing feeder routes to increase service quality.

Express buses could be priced however we choose (full recovery if we wanted) because alternate routes are available. If people don't like the service, it would have to go. I can see people spending a few bucks to get directly into the city core from Orleans or Kanata with only 4 stops and high speed. Why would you trash this service? You'd have slightly slower rapid at-grade transit along a new corridor - bringing in more transit users and the flexibility of express and feeder buses on the transitway. I'm now thinking the East-end rail route should be further south where the new busway is proposed in the TMP.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

Express buses could be priced however we choose (full recovery if we wanted) because alternate routes are available. If people don't like the service, it would have to go. I can see people spending a few bucks to get directly into the city core from Orleans or Kanata with only 4 stops and high speed. Why would you trash this service? You'd have slightly slower rapid at-grade transit along a new corridor - bringing in more transit users and the flexibility of express and feeder buses on the transitway. I'm now thinking the East-end rail route should be further south where the new busway is proposed in the TMP.

Bingo. There's nothing wrong with express service, except it's cost. If the service makes money, why would you scrap it?

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Bingo. There's nothing wrong with express service, except it's cost. If the service makes money, why would you scrap it?

You're forgetting the bottleneck issue. What's the point a transfer-less ride when you have to wait 20 to 30 minutes for your bus to come along on the downtown queue in the afternoon?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

Calgary eliminated upwards of 700 transit operator positions in the 1980s, as the first phases of the LRT lines were being completed. It would be fiscally insane, for Ottawa to not try to bring its yearly subsidy down into the standard Canadidan range overtime, as the LRT comes in.

Since making this operational decision is a political issue, you cannot say definitively that you will save money. It all depends on politicians saying, we invested this money, now we don't need as many transit operators, you are all now fired. Remember, this wouldn't start until at least the first stage of the LRT is done, and you could largely accomplish it through attrition due to your long lead time. In the end, the economy hopefully will be in a better place in 7 years, if not there will be larger problems to deal with than transit union jobs.

A real drag on funding would be an LRT that doesn't use the transit way, as it would still allow very rapid express busses onto the transitway into downtown. You want to avoid this. Express buses only should run to the nearest LRT station, and as the LRT gets closer to neighborhoods, should be folded back into existing feeder routes to increase service quality.

I have a few questions.

Are local community buses well used, or do most people go to park n rides?

Is it easy (fast) to use transit in Calgary if your destination is not downtown or on the C-Train corridor?

Just an observation that bus service is not particularly frequent in Calgary.

One of the selling points for LRT here in Ottawa is that local service will be improved to make up for the inconvenience of extra transfers. I have long had my doubts that this will actually take place.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

You're forgetting the bottleneck issue. What's the point a transfer-less ride when you have to wait 20 to 30 minutes for your bus to come along on the downtown queue in the afternoon?

What downtown queue? Aren't we getting a tunnel for LRT?

[lrt's friend]

You're forgetting the bottleneck issue. What's the point a transfer-less ride when you have to wait 20 to 30 minutes for your bus to come along on the downtown queue in the afternoon?

Whether you wait downtown or wait in the suburbs, it amounts to the same thing. The difference will be that more people will have to stand than today. Those people who presently have a seat on an express bus should expect to stand on a train. The majority of train capacity is for standees. The current proposal is not about improving service (and attracting new customers), it is about reducing costs.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

You're forgetting the bottleneck issue. What's the point a transfer-less ride when you have to wait 20 to 30 minutes for your bus to come along on the downtown queue in the afternoon?

Having a tunnel will help resolve the solution. Plus have you seen the numbers of empty buses? That's why there's a need to be profitable, if not, we have the same situation as right now, which is not acceptable.