HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #681  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 2:16 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,805
Andrew Haydon right now on CFRA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #682  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 2:21 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,805
Quote:
It is widely recognized that the best way for our government to absorb some of this economic meltdown is to invest money into infrastructure. When Flaherty and Harper talk of a Canadian bailout, a ton of that money is going to go to roads, transit, building projects. That is how the Americans minimized a number of small economic slowdowns during the 1960's and prevented them from turning into full-blown recessions. I think the current market situation is a good thing for this transit plan.
It is only a good thing if the plan is actually a good investment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #683  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 2:45 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,805
What Andrew Haydon is suggesting?

Build a downtown bus tunnel immediately. You can build rail if you want, but expect it to cost much more to build.

Why?

Bus technology has improved substantially. It is not the polluting mess that it once was, and there are even better technologies on the way. Buses with even larger passenger capacities are coming on the market.

The efficiencies gained by a bus tunnel will almost pay for the cost of the tunnel. Buses will move faster, therefore, we will save money. Once a bus tunnel is opened, we will see a more immediate benefit, than a phased rail plan.

Transfer do make a difference. A TTC study indicates that added transfers result in a loss of ridership of 15%-29%

Buses can move faster than trains. Trains have to stop at every station, buses do not, and can bypass each other.

With a downtown bus tunnel, buses can bring passengers from the suburbs within 25 minutes. This cannot be achieved with a train system that requires a transfer.

Rail infrastructure costs are double. Trains are more expensive to operate.

Ottawa's transit system already outperforms Calgary and Vancouver.

Why have we gone with rail?

Trains are sexy. It is what the public has been sold.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #684  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 3:15 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,805
My big question. On day one of rail operations, will a person travelling from Orleans actually save time? If not, we are in big trouble. This should be the measuring stick for building rail and exactly the reason why the O-Train was a success, it actually saved time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #685  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 3:46 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,805
Quote:
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AND TRANSIT COMMITTEE JOINT REPORT 9





1. TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN (TMP) UPDATE, 2008






JOINT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED



That City Council:



1. Approve the 2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP), as detailed in Document 10, as amended, including:



a. The location of the southern terminus of the North-South LRT service at the Riverside South Town Centre;



b. The addition of the Hospital Corridor BRT;



c. The supplementary transit corridors as outlined in Table 4;



d. The road projects as outlined in Annex B of the TMP document;



2. Direct staff to prepare a submission, including any necessary studies and business plans, to Build Canada and any other federal and provincial government grants or programs, to seek partnership funds for Increment 1 transit projects in the Transportation Master Plan following final budget approval.



3. Direct staff to undertake the following actions to initiate the implementation and mitigate risks as outlined in the KPMG Risk Assessment (Document 8):



a. Examine a range of procurement options and explore any other existing and potential fiscal tools that could be used for the top priority projects, and report back to the appropriate Standing Committee(s) and Council in February, 2009;



b. Expand the scope of the Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel Environmental Assessment to include the LRT extension to Tunney’s Pasture and Blair Station;



c. Commence work immediately on the Environmental Assessment for the Western Parkway Corridor, subject to budget approval;



d. Seek delegated regulatory authority from the federal Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.



4. Direct staff to include approved transit projects in the Draft 2009 Transit Capital Budget, to be tabled in January 2009.



5. Refer the following Motion to budget:



That final Council approval for each arterial road project be contingent on having received and reviewed Class A estimates which are less than a year old for each project.



6. Refer the following to staff:



That construction of the West Transitway from Pinecrest to the Southwest Transitway be included in Phase 1 of the Transportation Master Plan Transit Network.



7. Amend Table 7.2 Modified Arterial needs: “Recommended Deletions of 2008 TMP compared to 2003 TMP” to include the widening of Albert Street to 6 lanes.



8. Approve that the Prince of Wales Bridge and other potential corridors be identified on the maps/schedules as a proposed interprovincial transit corridor.



9. Approve that the TMP include a statement that the projects included in Phase 1, Increment 1 be approved.



10. Approve that the projects identified beyond Increment 1 be considered as Council’s current vision and that they be revisited prior to the completion of Increment 1 projects.



11. Direct staff to contact Infrastructure Ontario and ascertain interest in their implementation of the rapid transit portion of the Transportation Master Plan on behalf of the City.



12. Direct staff to contact the provincial and federal governments and ascertain interest in financing including undertaking a shared long term debenture method to finance the Transportation Master Plan.



13. Approve the addition of a Recommendation 3e as follows:



Direct staff to examine the methodology and costs for the implementation of full transit priority measures along the Rideau/Montreal Road corridor.



14. Direct staff to review further the proposal for single tracking electric LRT to Riverside South to seek opportunities to advance the project.



15. Amend Table 4 at King Edward Avenue, Sussex to Rideau to read under “Proposed Transit Service Improvements” Dedicated southbound bus lanes from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.



16. Instruct staff to look into the feasibility and cost of temporarily making two lanes on Riverside Drive “buses only” and using the planned buses only lanes on the Queensway compared to the $40 million cost of the bridge (Nicholas connection).



17. Approve that any former LRT corridors converted to preferred BRT routes include a process of public consultations.







2. centrepointe town centre - baseline station/ transitway functional design and algonquin/city archives projects






COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS


That City Council:



1. Approve the Baseline Station/Transitway Functional Design Plans, as described in this report and as filed with the City Clerk, to guide Rapid Transit Network and Centrepointe Town Centre (CTC) planning and implementation including that for the City’s Archives/Library Technical Services Facility and the Algonquin College Project;



2. Approve the updated CTC Concept Plan, attached as Document 1, as being consistent with the Baseline Station/Transitway Functional Design Plans as set out in Recommendation 1; and the development plans for the City’s Archives/Library Technical Services Facility and the Algonquin College Project;



3. Approve the initiation of the environmental assessment for the long-term rapid transit network from Baseline to Norice, as well as the preliminary/detailed design and construction work required to implement the first phase of the Baseline Station/Transitway Functional Design Plans to support the CTC Concept Plan and implementation, including the provision of City funding in the amount of $23.6 million to cover the estimated cost of immediate infrastructure investments as set out in Document 2 (Table 1);



4. Authorize the transfer of funds in the amount of $0.6M from account 904822 Pedestrian Crossing (Baseline-Algonquin) to account 904683 South West Transitway (Baseline-Norice);



5. Authorize the transfer of funds in the amount of $10M from Investing in Ontario revenues and $6.6M from the Transit Capital Reserve Fund, subject to approval as part of Council’s consideration of the draft Operating and Capital Budgets scheduled for the first week of December 2008;



6. Identify, as a priority within the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Phase 1 Increment 1 Transit Implementation Priority the $44.9M necessary, as set out in Document 2 (Table 2), for the next phase of the Baseline Station/Transitway Functional Design Plans to immediately follow the first phase in 2009;



7. Waive City policy pertaining to the policy for the disposal of real property including internal and external circulation, notice and marketing of surplus properties, and declare the parcel of vacant land, consisting of approximately 1.115 hectares (2.85 acres), being part of Lot 34 Concession 2 Rideau Front and shown as Parcel 1 on the Annex “A” plan set out in Document 3, as surplus to the City's needs;



8. Authorize the transfer of the property outlined in Recommendation 6 to Algonquin College to allow the College to proceed with the implementation of Phase I of the Algonquin Project (the Centre for Construction Trades and Building Sciences) subject to the execution of an agreement between the City and Algonquin College based on the conditions set out in Document 4, and authorize the City Manager to prepare and execute the agreement; and



9. Direct staff to continue to work with Algonquin College on the planning and implementation of Phase II of the Algonquin Project as well as exploring joint development opportunities for the City and the College in implementing the remainder of the updated CTC Concept Plan as set out in Document 1, including securing additional public and private sector funding to the benefit of both parties.







TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT 23A





1. bus time point zones for the société de transport de l’outaouais (sto) – king edward avenue, george street and york street






COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED


That Council:



1. Reaffirm the removal of the bus waiting areas on York Street, George Street and King Edward Avenue, and designate a bus waiting area on the east side of Cumberland Street between Rideau and George Street to be in effect at all times;



2. Approve the designation of a bus-only lane, southbound, on King Edward Avenue, from Monday to Friday, 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., with implementation to occur as phases of the construction are completed;



3. Direct City staff to carry out a study of the area between St-Patrick Street, King Edward, Laurier Avenue East and Sussex in consultation with appropriate stakeholders, to identify and consider all traffic operational measures as well as bus waiting areas for STO and OC Transpo operations in Ottawa, including any necessary changes to transit routings, and to report back to Transportation Committee and Council by April 2009 on measures to improve the overall situation;



4. Approve that funding for this study be considered in the 2009 budget;



5. Direct staff to continue to work to identify any required changes to OC Transpo inter-provincial services resulting from Council’s directions on STO operations in Ottawa, and to report back to Transit Committee as required;



6. Approve that compliance monitoring of laybys be carried out in consideration of the community and report back to committee;



7. Direct staff to continue to work with STO both directly and as part of the Interprovincial Rapid Transit Study to identify and recommend the longer-term arrangements for transit services between Gatineau and Ottawa, to report back to Transporttion Committee, Transit Committee and Council one year from now, or earlier at the conclusion of the Interprovincial study, and to continue the interim use of the Union terminus until that time; and,



8. Direct staff to update Committee on the opportunity to use the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge as a lay-by for STO buses; and that staff be directed to pursue this matter with the appropriate Federal agencies and report back to Committee.

This is what is before City Council today

Last edited by lrt's friend; Nov 26, 2008 at 7:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #686  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 7:09 PM
the capital urbanite the capital urbanite is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
My big question. On day one of rail operations, will a person travelling from Orleans actually save time? If not, we are in big trouble. This should be the measuring stick for building rail and exactly the reason why the O-Train was a success, it actually saved time.
I wish it were that simple....

I'd personally much rather travel 10 more minutes if I could sit down and have a smooth ride than save 10 minutes but have to stand up, and deal with stop/start traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #687  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 7:15 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,805
Quote:
I wish it were that simple....

I'd personally much rather travel 10 more minutes if I could sit down and have a smooth ride than save 10 minutes but have to stand up, and deal with stop/start traffic.
I think you are in the minority. Most people are very busy and their time is important. There will be a lot of squawking if travel times extended by 10 minutes. This is sure recipe for the death of light rail beyond Increment 1. Also, the percentage of passengers on a bus that get a seat is higher than on a train. So, contrary to what you say, it is more likely that you will seated on a bus and standing on a train.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #688  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 7:29 PM
the capital urbanite the capital urbanite is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 662
Increment 1
in operation: 2017
inflated cost: $2.1B

quote of the day from Nancy Schepers:
"What are you going to do if you don't do it [approve Increment 1]?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #689  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 7:54 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Looks like we're already starting to pay for the "Billion Dollar Boondoggle" by putting gas tax money into new transit capital instead of into operations. No wonder we get a 5% tax increase this year.

Debt servicing over 20 years for phase I, but phase II is slated to start before this debt period ends. How is that supposed to work?

We will be crushed under the debt of this project.
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #690  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 7:59 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky View Post
Looks like we're already starting to pay for the "Billion Dollar Boondoggle" by putting gas tax money into new transit capital instead of into operations.

Debt servicing over 20 years for phase 1, but phase II is slated to start before this debt period. How is that supposed to work?

We will be crushed under the debt of this project.

I will correct you slightly on this, it is only Increment 1 within Phase 1. I think the answer is obvious. We will not be able to afford to go beyond Increment 1 for 20 years, unless a pile of money magically appears.

On the decision itself, it has been deferred until Friday, because of the extensive debate now taking place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #691  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 8:18 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,805
Live broadcast of current City Council debate can be found at

http://www.ottawa.ca/online_services/council_live/english/index.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #692  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 8:22 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Live broadcast of current City Council debate can be found at

http://www.ottawa.ca/online_services/council_live/english/index.html
Already "tuned-in" ;-) I'd like to go there and talk to Andrew Haydon sitting behind Nancy Schepers (I think?).
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #693  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 10:15 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Did you know that rapid-transit MUST be grade-separated according to Nancy Scheper? Do they know Calgary doesn't have rapid transit based on that incorrect opinion. Why does she lie?
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #694  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 11:10 PM
Deez's Avatar
Deez Deez is offline
you know my steez
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto/Ottawa
Posts: 1,397
^According to all literature that I have come across, complete grade separation is a prerequisite for rapid transit. See Vukan R. Vuchic's "Urban Transit" series.

You make me laugh Franky.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #695  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 11:19 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deez View Post
^According to all literature that I have come across, complete grade separation is a prerequisite for rapid transit. See Vukan R. Vuchic's "Urban Transit" series.

You make me laugh Franky.
An exclusive ROW is all that is required to make it rapid. They use Calgary as a model then won't even consider doing what they did. Mind boggling.

Council is either stupid or corrupt. They voted not to do an EA on Carling Ave. Jan Harder believed the time difference between Carling and River parkway route was 17 minutes!!! How can she be so ill informed and making decisions?!

Now they're about to vote down study of the S-E transitway conversion to rail which would balance the system and avoid building (another) tunnel under Dow's lake. They voted to study the S-E conversion - small miracle.
__________________
Francois

Last edited by Franky; Nov 27, 2008 at 12:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #696  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 11:37 PM
Deez's Avatar
Deez Deez is offline
you know my steez
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto/Ottawa
Posts: 1,397
Let's say we listen to Franky and Andy Haydon and kill the current plan and continue with our bus based spine. Even if Franky's claims of operational superiority are true (and I am by no means conceding that they are), what would happen?

1) You would spend 670M$ on new transitways, 1B$ on a bus tunnel, and roughly 1B$ on new vehicles if you want to realize the fuel savings being claimed. Factor in new bus garages and you're looking at about 3B$ in capital investment. Also note that the bulk of this investment would have to occur over a shorter time period because you would have to pay for the more expensive tunnel and its vehicles upfront.

2) The public gets pissed off. It is absolutely indisputable that the public does not want a bus tunnel. Even without diesel emissions, a bus tunnel would be cavernous and dirty (rain, mud, tracked in from tires). Look no further than Seattle for an example.

3) You will eventually have to convert to rail. The City's "fudged" numbers had an artic bus every ~15 seconds or something to that effect at 2031 (note this assumes every express bus is filled to design capacity or the system is converted to line haul and a transfer is introduced). Even if you start using double artics, that's only the equivalent of 1 LRT car. Let's say we think outside the box and engineer every possible solution to continue using the bus spine...skip stops, better fare collection, etc. Guess what? You're still going to run into a capacity problem quicker than you would with rail. Your alternatives will be to either build another tunnel or convert to rail then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #697  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 11:42 PM
Deez's Avatar
Deez Deez is offline
you know my steez
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto/Ottawa
Posts: 1,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky View Post
An exclusive ROW is all that is required to make it rapid. They use Calgary as a model then won't even consider doing what they did. Mind boggling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit
"A rapid transit, underground, subway, elevated railway or metro(politan) system is an electric passenger railway in an urban area with high capacity and frequency, and grade separation from other traffic."

According to the APTA:

"Rail or motorbus transit service operating completely separate from all modes of transportation on an exclusive right-of-way."

Any system (including Calgary) with level crossings is not rapid transit. Period.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #698  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 11:44 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,255
Council meetings are so painful to watch. . .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #699  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 11:53 PM
AuxTown's Avatar
AuxTown AuxTown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 4,642
I turned the broadcast on just before lunch today and my highlight of the discussions would definately have to be when the voted 14-10 that Diane Deans shuts up . It was so great!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #700  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 11:53 PM
Deez's Avatar
Deez Deez is offline
you know my steez
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto/Ottawa
Posts: 1,397
I'm going to stick with the more obvious ones for now. I realize Andy's statements don't necessarily jive with your own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Why?

Transfer do make a difference. A TTC study indicates that added transfers result in a loss of ridership of 15%-29%.
First of all, if this is the study I'm thinking of, it was not on bus-rail transfers. Second, the TTC experimented with interlining trains between the Bloor line and the Yonge line in the 60's to avoid a transfer. They abandoned that plan after six months after realizing that it was more effective to continue running line-haul.

Quote:
With a downtown bus tunnel, buses can bring passengers from the suburbs within 25 minutes. This cannot be achieved with a train system that requires a transfer.
The transferless trip to downtown is not operationally sustainable no matter what technology we choose. See my post above.

Quote:
Ottawa's transit system already outperforms Calgary and Vancouver.
Ottawa also has different land use than Calgary and Vancouver. Vancouver has an extremely decentralized work force and still manages to stay pretty close to Ottawa in terms of transit usage. Calgary does have a very centralized workforce, but its residential land use is so sprawly that a similar BRT system out there would be less effective than in Ottawa.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:25 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.