Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Transit use is directly related to transit availability and lack of highways. Adding more roads while adding more transit is counterproductive, and won't change modal split much. This could be seen with modal split being achieved whatever transit solutions was taken (buses or LRT).

The 30% is not transit, but the "not a car" alternative. So yes, many Europe cities achieve more than that. Unless I'm mistaken, that's what is used to compare Ottawa too, alternatives to car modal use.

You can look into social engineering by checking out the Cheonggyecheon River highway transformation.

The 30% split is for transit's share of motorized trips (see Deez's posts). To figure out what is achievable, you need to compare Ottawa with similar (i.e., North American) cities. For example, do you think Ottawa can achieve a higher modal split than the NYC metro area?

A city's modal split is reflective of a large number of factors, not just the transportation system. This includes land use (i.e., North American cities were largely built after the advent of the automobile and thus have a much different urban form than European cities -- even if people all magically agreed on the need to change this urban form, change would be incremental and take many, many decades to have a large impact), levels of car ownership, the cost of car travel (congestion, availability and cost of parking, gasoline prices (including taxes)) and personal preferences.

To our current transit plan, you could add expensive projects such as the LRT extensions to the suburbs, LRT along Carling, subway lines under Rideau/Montreal and Bank, etc. and streetcars along Merivale, etc. and I doubt you’d get much of an increased in the modal split (certainly not enough to reach 40%). You'd bankrupt the City in the process. The only possible way to get a large modal split shift is to dramatically increase auto costs (either by closing down major roads such as the Queensway or by imposing punitive parking charges and tolls in all parts of the City, none of which are realistic at all) and even with that the main beneficiary would likely be carpooling, not transit, especially for trips not destined for downtown.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

Decline to Calgary levels has to be taken in context however, since yearly trips on OC Transpo was : 91.8 million and Calgary was 90.3 million. (also remember, OC measures trips, Calgary measures revenue trips, which are not directly comparable (due to free fare zone) and Calgary assumed a fare evasion of 2.2% in the measured year).



Yeah Calgary doesn't clear much snow, beisdes main roads and bike paths. We wait for chinooks to melt it, and we don't get enough that any side road ever becomes impassable. (I think we spend something like 1/5th of what Ottawa spends on snow clearing).

As for the easy fixes, if they were really that easy, they would be done already. I remember when Calgary bought new ticket machines for our LRT stations, and we bought ones that could only accept coincs, and don't give change, we still spent millions on them. If they were so easy either poltiically, or practically they would be done already.

Sometimes the only way to move a system forward is creative deconstruction.

For ridership comparisons between cities, I like to use the Census numbers. True, it only looks at commuting, but the data is collected by an impartial agency (StatsCan) and is directly comparable between cities (i.e., one, consistent methodology is used). Ottawa still does quite a bit better than Calgary, despite having substantially lower parking costs and a smaller downtown (both key determinants of transit use). I'm hesitant to use the total ridership numbers, but if they are to be used then the STO ridership needs to be included in the Ottawa numbers.

Regarding the fixes, I'm just asking that they install the same fare machines that we have at O-Train stations at Transitway stations. Maybe there is a reasons why this can't be done, but I'd like to know.

Back to Ottawa/Calgary comparisons, I was wondering whether there have been any studies done that compares urban development of both cities over the past three decades. A rationale given for the LRT plan is that it will drive development into a more compact, dense form as compared to a BRT system. An Ottawa-Calgary comparison could shed light on whether this is a correct assumption. Of course, such studies would need to take into differing economic circumstances in both cities (one is a slowly-growing government town and the other is a booming, oil & gas town).

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I think that you are right to have reservations about these items (amoung others, of course).

The Algonquin/Baseline Station item of $185M actually has a thread of its own: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=159739

I don't think the Pinecrest item does, but maybe it should have had one. At the big (3 day) Value Engineering (VE) review of the project, the updated cost was $138M. I don't know where the $171M comes from.

There actually are all kinds of problems with that report though. Notice in particular that the cost of the tunnel is being erroneously compared to only phase three of the alternative. Phase three can not stand alone - it needs phase one also.
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/tc/2008/05-07/ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0058.htm

(If they were really serious about saving a pile of money on the Pinecrest item, they could simply build it one metre less deep. This would put it above all of the existing utilities and allow gravity to handle any water as a sewer would runn directly under the tunnel.

There are no houses beside where it would pass under the road so a hump could be tolerated easily. The slightly higher hump through the park is just a better sliding hill for kids. On the OC Transpo Garage side, it would run under a noise control berm anyway.

Alas, this is a moot point since the entire thing has been thrown back for another EA.)

Thanks for your post, Richard. I learned a thing or two about the Pinecrest section. Hopefully, a more affordable and workable option will come out of the EA.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Suzie

To our current transit plan, you could add expensive projects such as the LRT extensions to the suburbs, LRT along Carling, subway lines under Rideau/Montreal and Bank, etc. and streetcars along Merivale, etc. and I doubt you’d get much of an increased in the modal split (certainly not enough to reach 40%). You'd bankrupt the City in the process. The only possible way to get a large modal split shift is to dramatically increase auto costs (either by closing down major roads such as the Queensway or by imposing punitive parking charges and tolls in all parts of the City, none of which are realistic at all) and even with that the main beneficiary would likely be carpooling, not transit, especially for trips not destined for downtown.

Tolls, not realistic at all? I'm a libertarian at heart, you pay for what you get and use. It's not some kind of super happy fun land where everything is free. I'm even against property taxes subsidising transit, but at the same time, roads shouldn't be subsidised either. It's all based on costs. The reason sprawl happen was because good land was given cheap, and infrastructures were subsidised. That's socialism, what most suburbites are against.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Tolls, not realistic at all? I'm a libertarian at heart, you pay for what you get and use. It's not some kind of super happy fun land where everything is free. I'm even against property taxes subsidising transit, but at the same time, roads shouldn't be subsidised either. It's all based on costs. The reason sprawl happen was because good land was given cheap, and infrastructures were subsidised. That's socialism, what most suburbites are against.

Owning property is about access. It is pointless owning land without a road leading up to it (which is why the city owns the strip of land between your property and the road and can technically deny or allow you access). Transit, well, if it avoids building wider roads then it is a tax/money-saver. So in my mind both these are directly tied to property values (that's the capitalist in me). What isn't is social services, and should be completely covered in the income tax side (that's the socialist in me). Sports, arts and culture should be more user-pay. You want to do it, watch it or make it, You pay for it (that's the libertarian in me).

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Owning property is about access. It is pointless owning land without a road leading up to it (which is why the city owns the strip of land between your property and the road and can technically deny or allow you access). Transit, well, if it avoids building wider roads then it is a tax/money-saver. So in my mind both these are directly tied to property values (that's the capitalist in me). What isn't is social services, and should be completely covered in the income tax side (that's the socialist in me). Sports, arts and culture should be more user-pay. You want to do it, watch it or make it, You pay for it (that's the libertarian in me).

Well who pays for that access? The further you go, the more you should pay, it's not related to your land at all, but the link between them! It's like math, it's not the nodes that are important, but the link. You charge for the link, which is the basis of the coloring concept in discreet mathematics, on which you have your basis of networking.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Owning property is about access. It is pointless owning land without a road leading up to it (which is why the city owns the strip of land between your property and the road and can technically deny or allow you access). Transit, well, if it avoids building wider roads then it is a tax/money-saver. So in my mind both these are directly tied to property values (that's the capitalist in me). What isn't is social services, and should be completely covered in the income tax side (that's the socialist in me). Sports, arts and culture should be more user-pay. You want to do it, watch it or make it, You pay for it (that's the libertarian in me).

Roads are NOT subsidized in Ontario, but municipalities don't get their share of the take. Licencing fees, tire taxes, gas tax, speed fines, parking fees/fines, etc. cover costs.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

Roads are NOT subsidized in Ontario, but municipalities don't get their share of the take. Licencing fees, tire taxes, gas tax, speed fines, parking fees/fines, etc. cover costs.

We had this discussion the other day...

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Suzie

For ridership comparisons between cities, I like to use the Census numbers. True, it only looks at commuting, but the data is collected by an impartial agency (StatsCan) and is directly comparable between cities (i.e., one, consistent methodology is used). Ottawa still does quite a bit better than Calgary, despite having substantially lower parking costs and a smaller downtown (both key determinants of transit use). I'm hesitant to use the total ridership numbers, but if they are to be used then the STO ridership needs to be included in the Ottawa numbers.

Regarding the fixes, I'm just asking that they install the same fare machines that we have at O-Train stations at Transitway stations. Maybe there is a reasons why this can't be done, but I'd like to know.

Back to Ottawa/Calgary comparisons, I was wondering whether there have been any studies done that compares urban development of both cities over the past three decades. A rationale given for the LRT plan is that it will drive development into a more compact, dense form as compared to a BRT system. An Ottawa-Calgary comparison could shed light on whether this is a correct assumption. Of course, such studies would need to take into differing economic circumstances in both cities (one is a slowly-growing government town and the other is a booming, oil & gas town).

Statscan studies show Ottawa in a very postive light since Calgary's autodependent suburbs are included, warts and all, while Ottawa's are in Quebec.


The Statscan studies also have problems due to their self reporting nature, and are divergent compared to real world results in some cases. For Example:

Statcan measured the total number of transit commuters in Calgary to be higher than Ottawa (Ontario side only of the CMA) in 2006. We both know these numbers do not reflect reality, as Ottawa did have more transit users in 2006. The Ottawa CMA numbers would also not reflect transfers onto OC from STO.

Even if we count every sustainable commuter four times (one transfer on each trip) we still don't hit ridership numbers for either systems. This means that like the transit number does not take into account park and riders, and station drop offs. It ia a given that non-employment based trips are not counted either, which skew the numbers aswell with Ottawa having Carleton and UOttawa right on major trainst, and Calgary having the same for UCalgary, Mount Royal, SAIT and ACAD.

Adding in the Quebec side of the CMA, it is obvious where Ottawa's suburb type development went, look at that auto number jump!:


If I was a transit planner for a unified Ottawa - Gatineau, these numbers tell me the first priority should be transit to the Quebec side, and that it would be rather hard to intice a marginal user onto most improvements on the Ottawa side. Ottawa side should look for operational improvements on what they have already (speed, frequency, cost, node creation) while expanding the network in a way that will not overburden it. From an Ottawa only prespective the push for rail is only to reduce operational costs to make expansion more palletable, while hopefully spuring further node creation. The cost element in Ottawa is so high, that it is likely worth it to rationalize core servicem to pull it in.

Has any councillor ever proposed creating a transit only street in downtown, or giving transit a second lane on both Albert or Slater?

As for ticket machines, they are bloody expensive, especially to winterize, and you need to bring in electricity to them which raising the costs insanely. Instead of this, I would suggest innovation, text this number, we send you back a transit pass, and charge a credit card or your telephone.

Edit: Looking at the numbers more closely, the different transit results could be from solely the sexes of the sample that is working. Calgary's workforce is alot more male, females tend to take transit more, carpool more, and walk less.

Interesting.

[lrt's friend]

Has any councillor ever proposed creating a transit only street in downtown, or giving transit a second lane on both Albert or Slater?

Doesn't this question take us full circle?

The studies say that we are near full capacity for surface transit operations and such measures don't buy us much time and have proven politically unacceptable because of a very vocal Albert-Slater business coalition.

[Kitchissippi]

Every transit-only or transit-priority street experiment in Ottawa has failed. It has turned Rideau street from a bustling commercial main street to a crime infested cesspool. Albert and Slater are inhospitable to walk along.

Come to think of it, I have never seen an example of a bus mall that actually works. The only transit-priority streets I've seen that were acceptable were the ones with streetcars/trams and extra-extra-wide sidewalks as a buffer/comfort zone.

[Franky]

A 'pathetic' and 'destructive' transit plan
Former regional chair Andy Haydon rips city's focus on light rail

By DEREK PUDDICOMBE, CITY HALL BUREAU


A respected former city politician is calling the latest plan to build light rail a waste of taxpayers' money.

Andy Haydon, who was chair of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton for 12 years before he stepped down in the early 1990s, said this morning that "there is something rotten with the staff proposal" to build a city-wide rail network.

"The so called plan is a pathetic document," he said. "It's a destructive proposal. It flies in the face of reality and is flushing taxpayers' money down the toilet."

Haydon, who lead the charge to create a bus rapid transit network in the late 1970s and early 1980s, agrees with building a tunnel under the downtown but only to accommodate bus traffic -- not light rail.

He said Ottawa isn't big enough to handle light rail public transit travelling to all corners of the city and it would be better off sticking with buses.

Haydon, a professional engineer, released a document that supports his argument that light rail isn't needed at the moment and that the city's bus network provides phenomenal service and is modelled around the world.

Haydon also said the city will have a difficult time securing access to use the Ottawa River Parkway from the National Capital Commission. The city is counting on the parkway to use as its western corridor to connect to a proposed downtown light rail tunnel.

"You think the NCC will let you put light rail down the parkway? Don't hold your breath," he said.

Haydon spent about a year working out of Mayor Larry O'Brien's office, gathering information on public transit and creating a document he thought the mayor could use.

However, Haydon said he became frustrated when O'Brien all but ignored his efforts.

"He wasn't interested in reading it," Haydon said.
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/OttawaAndRegion/2008/11/24/7518226.html



Haydon slams transit plan

Patrick Dare
The Ottawa Citizen

Monday, November 24, 2008

Former regional chairman Andy Haydon, who worked as an adviser to Mayor Larry O'Brien, says the city would be making a huge and costly mistake this week if it chose a $4.7-billion commuter rail plan.

Mr. Haydon said Monday that the city is headed towards light rail - a potential "billion dollar boondoggle" - when it should simply be expanded its highly successful bus rapid transit system, including construction of two small tunnels to take buses through downtown.

Mr. Haydon's analysis of the transit situation and press conference comes just two days before Ottawa Council, led by Mr. O'Brien, is expected to approve an ambitious plan to turn the existing bus Transitway into a commuter rail system from Blair Station in the east to Tunney's Pasture, then to Baseline Station in the west. The plan also calls for rail service to the south but that could take many years.

Mr. Haydon said that while he worked as adviser to the mayor on issues such as transit, the two men did not agree on such major issues and Mr. Haydon was not a part of many meetings, so knew that his contract was not likely to be renewed and resigned. He offered his services to city manager Kent Kirkpatrick, whom Mr. Haydon admires, but that didn't result in a contract.

Mr. Haydon was a longtime Nepean politician and was chairman of regional government for 12 years and was a driving force behind the construction of the bus Transitway which separates bus traffic from regular car and truck congestion. He ran for city council in the 2006 municipal election and was defeated by Steve Desroches in Gloucester-South Nepean.

Mr. Haydon says that building a rail system onto the bus Transitway system will prove much more costly than city officials have predicted and will involve huge disruptions to the transit system.

"Sexy trains are nice but they're not cheap," said Mr. Haydon.

City council begins its debate on the transportation master plan on Wednesday.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2008


Close

Copyright © 2008 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=91323ba6-c9e8-467f-94d6-6aa9c271c914

[waterloowarrior]

Haydon slams transit plan

Patrick Dare
The Ottawa Citizen

Monday, November 24, 2008

Former regional chairman Andy Haydon, who worked as an adviser to Mayor Larry O'Brien, says the city would be making a huge and costly mistake this week if it chose a $4.7-billion commuter rail plan.

Mr. Haydon said Monday that the city is headed towards light rail - a potential "billion dollar boondoggle" - when it should simply be expanded its highly successful bus rapid transit system, including construction of two small tunnels to take buses through downtown.

Mr. Haydon's analysis of the transit situation and press conference comes just two days before Ottawa Council, led by Mr. O'Brien, is expected to approve an ambitious plan to turn the existing bus Transitway into a commuter rail system from Blair Station in the east to Tunney's Pasture, then to Baseline Station in the west. The plan also calls for rail service to the south but that could take many years.

Mr. Haydon said that while he worked as adviser to the mayor on issues such as transit, the two men did not agree on such major issues and Mr. Haydon was not a part of many meetings, so knew that his contract was not likely to be renewed and resigned. He offered his services to city manager Kent Kirkpatrick, whom Mr. Haydon admires, but that didn't result in a contract.

Mr. Haydon was a longtime Nepean politician and was chairman of regional government for 12 years and was a driving force behind the construction of the bus Transitway which separates bus traffic from regular car and truck congestion. He ran for city council in the 2006 municipal election and was defeated by Steve Desroches in Gloucester-South Nepean.

Mr. Haydon says that building a rail system onto the bus Transitway system will prove much more costly than city officials have predicted and will involve huge disruptions to the transit system.

"Sexy trains are nice but they're not cheap," said Mr. Haydon.

City council begins its debate on the transportation master plan on Wednesday.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

[c_speed3108]

I love this comment on CTV's site

Gabriel in Ottawa
This coming from the guy who did a horrendous job on Ottawa's Transit System himself.
All the proposed trains should already be here !



THAT'S IT!!!!

I say we build the new bridge to Quebec though the park with his name on it....

[Franky]

Right.
Replace all our buses with diesel-electric Hybrids, and double-deck hybrid buses. ~$1 Billion

Build a bus tunnel downtown and a tunnel from Nicholas to the MacDonald-Cartier bridge fixing the King-Edward problem and saving the cost of a bridge at Kettle Island. Less disruptive because each end of the tunnels are near the Ottawa river and dug out materil can be removed by barge meaning no huge dump-trucks running through our town! <$1 Billion



This tunnel probably also solves the STO access problem.

[Aylmer]

We should discuss this in the other transit thread...

[Franky]

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist

We should discuss this in the other transit thread...

Re-posted here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=3932598#post3932598

[waterloowarrior]

More funds on double
Federal government to boost light-rail investment to $400M with province expected to follow
By DEREK PUDDICOMBE, CITY HALL BUREAU


The city may not have as rough a ride as expected to find the $1.8 billion it's looking for to pay for the first stage of its light-rail project.

The Sun has learned that the federal government will double its $200-million investment in the city's transit plan by 2014, money that will come from the $33-billion Building Canada Fund, with the provincial government expected to match the $400 million.

While the Building Canada Fund money will be exhausted by 2014, a source told the Sun Ottawa West-Nepean MP John Baird suggested a new funding envelope will be available to the city for the remaining $200 million.

The city's $600-million contribution will come through debt financing, taxes, development charges, gas tax money coming from the province and alternative financing agreements, including possible partnerships with the private sector.

The city has projected it will receive $50 million in gas tax money in 2009 -- double last year's amount -- which has been earmarked for the Transportation Master Plan.

FIRST PHASE

The source said Baird, who is also the federal minister of transport, infrastructure and communities, has agreed in principle that the federal government will hand over $400 million for the first phase of the $4.7-billion project, expected to be completed by 2018.

The federal funding announcement should come after the city decides to move ahead with the first phase of the plan. Council will begin what's expected to be a lengthy debate on the future of transit in the city on Wednesday.

The chairman of the city's transit committee, Bay Coun. Alex Cullen, is confident the federal government will come through with its share, but the city might have to bridge finance some of the project cost until it receives the entire amount from the other two levels of government.

"The cheques may not be big at the beginning, but we will get (the money)," said Cullen.

Baird could not be reached for comment.

Ottawa-West Nepean MPP and minister of municipal affairs Jim Watson said the province's $200-million package is still available but his government has not committed to any further funding.

"The Ontario government looks forward to seeing the final proposed plan by the city and once received we will have our officials review the plans and look at everything from ridership numbers to cost estimates," he said.

SHOCKING VOTE

After a marathon joint transit and transportation committee debate last week, the committee members voted against recommending the city proceed with the first phase.

River Coun. Maria McRae, chairwoman of the transportation committee, who cast the deciding vote, was expected to support the plan but voted against it. She said she was uncomfortable with the answers she was getting from city staff regarding how the $1.8 billion was being funded.

Another source said because of the current state of the economy and the suggestion by both the federal and provincial governments that they may have to run deficits to dig out of a looming recession, there is a good chance the city won't get close to what it needs to pay for the project.

"Council may have to revisit its transit priorities as soon as the spring because the money won't be there," the Sun was told.

Cullen said that is nonsense.

"Whoever is saying this isn't looking at the bigger picture and is intimidated by the current economic climate," he said.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

More funds on double
Federal government to boost light-rail investment to $400M with province expected to follow
By DEREK PUDDICOMBE, CITY HALL BUREAU


The city may not have as rough a ride as expected to find the $1.8 billion it's looking for to pay for the first stage of its light-rail project.
...

How does "gettin the money" make this a good plan?! Somehow, if the federal and provincial gov't can be talked out of our money, we should go ahead and waste it?

[Richard Eade]

Well, you know Haydon has a point. If a bus tunnel were bored through the core, then most of the buses could move underground. A tunnel would have greater capacity than the surface, plus, the surface is still available for more buses.

If a bus tunnel were used, it would cost more than a rail tunnel, but then there would be no conversion cost for the rest of the system. I think that you would see the budget drop from $7.3B to only $2.1B for roads + $900M for the tunnel + $550M for hybrid buses (which would give us 750/1000 buses being hybrid) + $1.445B for all of the BRT and bus priority lines in the plan: So almost $5B if we went with buses, and that includes all the new roads and lanes that the Staff want. A saving of over $2.3B!

However, that being said, we wouldn't have any rail which is a political priority - damn the expense. Using Staff's estimated $50M/year savings with the trains, we could make up that amount in only 46 years.