Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[lrt's friend]

I'm going to stick with the more obvious ones for now. I realize Andy's statements don't necessarily jive with your own.

Don't let my nickname fool you. It has historical significance dating from the last project. I actually support BRT as much as LRT, so long as we are actually investing in better service. I admire Andrew Haydon for what he accomplished and I agree with many of his points, but I also can see how rail can play a key role in Ottawa's transit system as well, but only if properly deployed.

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.

Well, I suggest that bus-rail rail-bus double transfers are worse than a simple bus-bus transfer, and there is going to be a lot more of this if the destination is not downtown.

Are you suggesting the North-South LRT route should not be interlined with the east-west LRT route through downtown? Are you suggesting that Calgary made a mistake in interlining its two LRT routes through downtown? Are you suggesting that Vancouver should not be interlining its skytrains? There is a difference between subways that run every few minutes during all service hours and LRT, which will likely run significantly less frequently during off-peak hours.

The transferless trip to downtown is not operationally sustainable no matter what technology we choose. See my post above.

Are you suggesting that a transferless trip from Place d'Orleans should not be possible in the long-term? If so, why would Metrolinx be proposing frequent all day rail service between Hamilton and Toronto?

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.

That's fine, but as Ottawa continues to decentralize employment, our plans effectively call for further focusing our transit system on downtown.

All I can say is how disappointing it is that while other cities, like Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and many in the USA, prepare to build new rapid transit routes into downtown and also away from downtown, our city is going to blow its wad on converting existing rapid transit with its main goal to reduce congestion in a 3km stretch downtown. It really irks me when I find out that we are going to spend $185M to just replace one rapid transit station, when this could have been better spent building more track or bus Transitway. Furthermore, we now seem to be preparing to dump the O-Train corridor as the main North-South link, making our smart growth ideals ring hollow as all planned TOD on that route will have to be modified if not abandoned entirely.

[waterloowarrior]

'Let's focus and let's move,' council told
Councillors continue to debate details of transit plan

Jake Rupert
Ottawa Citizen

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

OTTAWA-City council spent most of Wednesday discussing a massive expansion of Ottawa's transit system, but adjourned until tomorrow without making a final decision.

"Let's get rid of the fog," Rideau-Rockcliffe Councillor Jacques Legendre said during the debate. "It's east-west with a tunnel. Let's focus, and let's move."

But much of the the day's discussion was spent considering and rejecting efforts to change the details of the plan.

A $7.2-billion transportation master plan that includes the transit expansion is to shape how people and goods move about Ottawa until 2031. It, and a new land-use plan to be debated in coming months, are intended to create a more compact, environmentally and financially sustainable city that limits sprawl and sees people move from private vehicles to public transit.

Any version of the transportation plan will rely heavily on funding from the federal and provincial governments. Before the meeting ended, council approved a motion from Alta Vista Councillor Peter Hume, calling on the upper-tier governments to let the city know which transit projects they will fund by the end of March 2009, so the city can start making practical plans to pay for the transit system.

Mr. Hume said there's no use continuing the development of the transit system if upper-tier governments simply aren't going to fund it.

He said once the commitments are made, the city will know what can and can't be done and can get serious about how it is going to build its transit system.

The overall plan includes $2.1 billion of spending on roads and $5.1 billion for the rapid transit system, and much of the debate Wednesday focused on the ability to pay for it.

The proposed first phase of the transit portion of the plan includes a $1.7-billion east-west light-rail line from Blair Road to Tunney's Pasture on the current bus transitway, crossing downtown through a tunnel, and promises improvements to bus transitways to the suburbs.

Eventually, the plan would see light rail running south to Riverside South and east and west to the suburbs when the funding to build it is found and when these areas reach population density targets.

Several councillors are concerned that the municipality can't afford it and that if council votes for the plan, nothing will get done while the bus system, which is currently running at capacity, flounders.

But top city planning and finance officials say the municipality can pay for its share of the plan.

The deputy city manager of planning, Nancy Schepers, started off the debate Wednesday by saying the system recommendations are environmentally and financially sound. She was backed up by treasurer Marian Simulik, who said the city can finance $700 million immediately and pay it back from different sources of revenue, adding only $167 million to debt that will have to be paid by property taxes. The rest, she said, can be covered by revenue sources such as portions of the federal and provincial gas taxes that those governments turn over to the city.

The city has been trying to get a mass transit system approved and built for seven years. An old plan was developed and approved and contracts were awarded, but it was scrapped by council in late 2006. The new mass-transit system, which council approved in principle earlier this year, is to replace the one that failed.

One of several motions by Capital Councillor Clive Doucet would have seen the future of road construction in the capital debated separately from the future of transit; it was defeated by a vote of 21-3. Another of his motions, calling on the city to seriously look at Carling Avenue rather than the Ottawa River Parkway as a light-rail corridor for the western part of the urban core, was defeated 16-8

© Ottawa Citizen 2008

[Deez]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Well, I suggest that bus-rail rail-bus transfers is worse than a simple bus-bus transfer, and there is going to be a lot more of this if the destination is not downtown.

Agreed, but this can be mitigated by a redesign of the bus network so that people not heading downtown needn't travel on the train if they don't have to.

Are you suggesting the North-South LRT route should not be interlined with the east-west LRT route through downtown? Are you suggesting that Calgary made a mistake in interlining its two LRT routes through downtown? Are you suggesting that Vancouver should not be interlining its skytrains? There is a difference between subways that run every few minutes during all service hours and LRT, which will likely run significantly less frequently during off-peak hours.

Not at all. I was merely trying to show that transfers are not always a bad thing under certain situations. I admit it wasn't entirely analogous to Ottawa's situation...but I certainly don't advocate any of the things you mention above.

Are you suggesting that a transferless trip from Place d'Orleans should not be possible in the long-term? If so, why would Metrolinx be proposing frequent all day rail service between Hamilton and Toronto?

?

What I'm saying is that it's not possible for you to travel from your standard backlotted home in deepest, darkest Orleans to downtown on a single ride. Regardless of mode, you won't be able to keep it up forever. Traveling between major nodes is another matter entirely.

That's fine, but as Ottawa continues to decentralize employment, our plans effectively call for further focusing our transit system on downtown.

I'm pretty the official plan calls for employment to be concentrated at town centres, which are not-so-coincidentally transit hubs. This dispersal of employment is factored into the model that was used to produce future downtown transit loads.

All I can say is how disappointing it is that while other cities, like Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and many in the USA, prepare to build new rapid transit routes into downtown and also away from downtown, our city is going to blow its wad on converting existing rapid transit with its main goal to reduce congestion in a 3km stretch downtown. It really irks me when I find out that we are going to spend $185M to just replace one rapid transit station, when this could have been better spent building more track or bus Transitway. Furthermore, we now seem to be preparing to dump the O-Train corridor as the main North-South link, making our smart growth ideals ring hollow as all planned TOD on that route will have to be modified if not abandoned entirely.

It's my position that we f'd up in the first place by building BRT instead of rail, and that we're going to be paying for that mistake for the next 30 years while we build a redundant, but necessary, rail system. The transitway has attracted impressive ridership, but it's only reinforced the development of bedroom communities and is costing the City an increasing amount of operating expenses. Had we started with rail, we would be in the same boat as Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver right now: slightly lower ridership, but with a solid rail spine to expand on.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Deez

It's my position that we f'd up in the first place by building BRT instead of rail, and that we're going to be paying for that mistake for the next 30 years while we build a redundant, but necessary, rail system. The transitway has attracted impressive ridership, but it's only reinforced the development of bedroom communities and is costing the City an increasing amount of operating expenses. Had we started with rail, we would be in the same boat as Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver right now: slightly lower ridership, but with a solid rail spine to expand on.

Aren't all these places with "great systems to build on" about to also spend Billions to upgrade?

[Deez]

Originally Posted by Suzie

I think that the literature is clear that a transfer penalty does exist and, in the case of bus-rail transfers, it is significant. A substantial increase in forced transfers will lead to a ridership loss.

Absolutely...I'm not denying the existence of a transfer penalty. But to suggest that the city would lose a quarter of its riders due to a transfer between two high-frequency services is absurd.

With an optimal use of the downtown road system, I think you could have sufficient capacity to meet long-term demand. If not, you can always build a bus tunnel for most routes and also use the downtown street network for a few routes.

I have my doubts on this. I assume by "optimal use" you imply (in part) that other E-W streets should be used? If so, I would argue that the added turns would not only be a detractor to service, but would also cause additional operational problems...not to mention traffic problems.

On your last point, one of the justification for switching to an LRT is that it will drive land use to a denser form. Yet, this does not seem to be happening in Calgary (at least, as compared to Ottawa).

LRT on it's own will not spur denser development. However, LRT in combination with higher costs of travel, higher costs of living, and congestion--all as inevitable as death and taxes--will. BRT will not spur denser development even with those factors considered. Until recently, there was not much reason for dense development in Calgary because land was plentiful and cheap...I would argue that's why Vancouver has been more successful at TOD than Calgary (obviously there's more to it than that...but that's a contributing factor).

[Deez]

Originally Posted by Franky

Missed this earlier, sorry.

That $3B includes a $500+M tunnel solution to the Kettle Island bridge which may include a need for a ring road. Buying Hydrid buses sooner means less pollution sooner, a smoother and quieter ride and (possibly) quieter idling (engine should shut off and still maintain hotel services).

You will never be able to build a tunnel that long for 500M$. The cost estimates you guys came up with are horrendously simplified.

It came out in the meeting today that "the public" amounts to 350 people showing up for 5 meetings. On a metro city of 1 million, that seems like a small number. If there was as big a sales job on our busway as there is on LRT, people would see it in a more positive light. Less transfers, more frequent service, more stops, express buses...

It would eventually be converted to a proper metro system when numbers warrant the expense.

You can't force people to take an interest in an infrastructure project...

Public comments were not limited to open house attendees, there were hundreds more submitted by phone, email, and letter. I should know because I read them all.

When are the numbers going to warrant a metro system in your opinion? Everybody has a different opinion...Suzie has shown that she thinks it's feasible to continue operating surface routes, while djeffrey thinks the City is ready for a metro now.

[lrt's friend]

It's my position that we f'd up in the first place by building BRT instead of rail, and that we're going to be paying for that mistake for the next 30 years while we build a redundant, but necessary, rail system. The transitway has attracted impressive ridership, but it's only reinforced the development of bedroom communities and is costing the City an increasing amount of operating expenses. Had we started with rail, we would be in the same boat as Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver right now: slightly lower ridership, but with a solid rail spine to expand on.

Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver don't have bedroom communities? Toronto doesn't have bedroom communities?

Edmonton did a great job by expending most of its initial money on a downtown tunnel and then had everything stall for 30 years?

BRT cannot operate using a more sustainable hub and spoke model?


Ottawa's bedroom communities are the result of the creation of the Greenbelt, bad post war planning, greedy suburban township councils and the opening of the Queensway. The Transitways came long after this had all started.

[Deez]

Originally Posted by Franky

The "big numbers" I heard tonight were 15,000 from the west and 10,000 from the east. This can be handled by double-deck buses.

I still think waiting to move to a subway/metro when our population merits would be a better plan.

Double deckers have a design capacity (100% sitting plus 50% standing) of roughly 100 people: http://www.transitworkers.novatone.net/PUBLIC/doubledeckers(n).htm. So you're looking at about 150 buses per hour per direction. This is workable in a bus tunnel, but to accomplish this, you'd have to spend the 3B$ in capital, only to THEN convert to a metro system and spend a assload more capital. What's the point?

[Deez]

Originally Posted by Franky

Aren't all these places with "great systems to build on" about to also spend Billions to upgrade?

No. They're spending billions to expand. We're spending billions to upgrade.

[Deez]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver don't have bedroom communities? Toronto doesn't have bedroom communities?

Ottawa's bedroom communities are the result of the creation of the Greenbelt, bad post war planning, greedy suburban township councils and the opening of the Queensway. The Transitways came long after this had all started.

Did I say that? The difference is those systems didn't reinforce and facilitate the construction of bedroom communities. Obviously BRT was not the only factor, but it helped.

Edmonton did a great job by expending most of its initial money on a downtown tunnel and then had everything stall for 30 years?

BRT cannot operate using a more sustainable hub and spoke model?

I don't know enough about the Edmonton situation to comment, but I suspect that the political agenda had an equally important hand in limiting expansion.

Has your main point all along not been that BRT is super because you don't have to run it as a hub and spoke model and thus provide better service?

My point is that it is pointless to run BRT as exclusively hub and spoke because being able to run line-haul is the only (short term) advantage it has over rail.

Anyway. Enough of this.

[lrt's friend]

I believe that BRT was not a mistake. It was all we could afford 30 years ago. Ottawa was not in the same boat as Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. Calgary and Edmonton first developed their systems during the first oil boom while Vancouver built their first Skytrain for Expo and is now expanding because of the Olympics. Likewise, Montreal's Metro developed because of Expo 67. Even Toronto opened its first subway because of TTC war surpluses. Ottawa never experienced any of these extraordinary events that facilitated the financing of rail transit.

[Aylmer]

Yet...

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Deez

No. They're spending billions to expand. We're spending billions to upgrade.

So why would we trash a working system? This TMP "plan" needs help. We could be expanding our system with at-grade LRT along non-transitway corridors instead of replacing what we have. The Carling route is one example of what could be accomplished.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Deez

Double deckers have a design capacity (100% sitting plus 50% standing) of roughly 100 people: http://www.transitworkers.novatone.net/PUBLIC/doubledeckers(n).htm. So you're looking at about 150 buses per hour per direction. This is workable in a bus tunnel, but to accomplish this, you'd have to spend the 3B$ in capital, only to THEN convert to a metro system and spend a assload more capital. What's the point?

Operating & maintenance expense would be about the same but a bus system employs more drivers.

You get $600M of transitway expansion, a DT tunnel, a tunnel to Gatineau which eliminates the need for a bridge, Hybrid feeder buses (maybe battery electric by 2031) and seated travel. Who knows, by 2031 we may have buses that drive themselves and we won't even need a metro.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Deez

When are the numbers going to warrant a metro system in your opinion? Everybody has a different opinion...Suzie has shown that she thinks it's feasible to continue operating surface routes, while djeffrey thinks the City is ready for a metro now.

I'm saying that, because of the government of Ontario projections of when a Subway is needed. Basically, what is being constructed right now IS a metro. Deez, you said it yourself that it's rapid transit.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

So why would we trash a working system? This TMP "plan" needs help. We could be expanding our system with at-grade LRT along non-transitway corridors instead of replacing what we have. The Carling route is one example of what could be accomplished.

That was the previous TMP plan . The result was that ridership for the new lines was so low, that it would have cost more per pessenger than a bus. Plus, the point of rail is to have long trains to lower operating costs, the previous LRT had rapid transit buses, and streetcars. I'll never get why and how they got to that.

Remember the E-W route? Well it was to parallel the existing tracks from Kanata to Orleans. Now, the exact same route would have too low ridership, for even a commuter train.

Fact is, there are only two cheaps way to achieve rapid trainsit with rail for cheap. Either convert the existing tracks, or the existing Transitway. If you guys find a miracle rail solution, please let us know.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I believe that BRT was not a mistake. It was all we could afford 30 years ago. Ottawa was not in the same boat as Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. Calgary and Edmonton first developed their systems during the first oil boom while Vancouver built their first Skytrain for Expo and is now expanding because of the Olympics. Likewise, Montreal's Metro developed because of Expo 67. Even Toronto opened its first subway because of TTC war surpluses. Ottawa never experienced any of these extraordinary events that facilitated the financing of rail transit.

Which is why I can't stand the three levels of governments paying for their shares. There needs to be a constant cash flow, modify the constitution if we have too. It's a problem for every canadian cities. The best economic decade passed, and what we have to show for it? North American cities are in ruin.

Transit shouldn't be made to impress internation crowds.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

That was the previous TMP plan . The result was that ridership for the new lines was so low, that it would have cost more per pessenger than a bus. Plus, the point of rail is to have long trains to lower operating costs, the previous LRT had rapid transit buses, and streetcars. I'll never get why and how they got to that.

Remember the E-W route? Well it was to parallel the existing tracks from Kanata to Orleans. Now, the exact same route would have too low ridership, for even a commuter train.

Fact is, there are only two cheaps way to achieve rapid trainsit with rail for cheap. Either convert the existing tracks, or the existing Transitway. If you guys find a miracle rail solution, please let us know.

The Doucet-Leadman plan doesn't call for streetcars (20 km/h average) it calls for LRT (35 km/h average). You may still be right about ridership, though somehow I think the Carling line and even the S-E transitway to Southkeys would be well used. No numbers to back this up of course, though that's another problem with the TMP "boondoggle".

If you are right, then the only option left is Double-Deck Hybrid buses and a tunnel. (Or Personal Automated Transit )

[lrt's friend]

Did I say that? The difference is those systems didn't reinforce and facilitate the construction of bedroom communities. Obviously BRT was not the only factor, but it helped.

I don't understand this kind of argument. What is the alternative? How does not building rapid transit to the suburbs not facilitate construction of bedroom communities? All this does is put pressure to build more and more highways, which in turn destroys central communities. This is the experience of cities in the USA. Besides, this current plan spends a lot of money building new bus Transitways and specifically to the suburbs, which just continues the same process of the past, and we will build rapid transit and then rebuild it again later at enormous expense. Besides, while we spend a ton of money rebuilding the Transitways, we are also not building new transit within the Greenbelt. It seems to me that this too facilitates the expansion of bedroom communities because we are very much limiting our intensification options within the Greenbelt. So, we don't even look at Carling Avenue beyond as a slow streetcar route in 20+ years. We are really serious about intensification, are we? I don't think so.

I am sorry, but I guess I am just some idiot average schmo taxpayer, who thinks that if we are spending billions of dollars on transit, we should see real improvements in transit service and not some academic arguments on planning theories.

I don't know enough about the Edmonton situation to comment, but I suspect that the political agenda had an equally important hand in limiting expansion.

Has your main point all along not been that BRT is super because you don't have to run it as a hub and spoke model and thus provide better service?

My point is that it is pointless to run BRT as exclusively hub and spoke because being able to run line-haul is the only (short term) advantage it has over rail.

Anyway. Enough of this.

Yes, there were political reasons out in Edmonton, but this was certainly aided by the cost of the downtown tunnel, which caused the whole project to lose momentum, in comparison to Calgary. The people saw the enormous cost, but didn't see the results because so little track was built and so little ridership was captured. There are direct parallels between the Edmonton case and what is now being decided in Ottawa. If we are not careful, history could repeat itself.

On the comparison between BRT and LRT, you say that BRT hub and spoke provides no advantage over LRT. Does this really matter? The point I make is what advantage does LRT hub and spoke have over BRT hub and spoke considering the price tag of switching? From the transit rider's perspective, what does he or she gain from this switch? I contend that there is little gained and that this money would be better spent building new rapid transit, which will clearly provide benefits and attract new customers and if this new rapid transit was coordinated with a downtown tunnel, there will still be a gradual improvement in downtown congestion as one transit route will syphon some traffic off of another. Before you say how bad this is. I say, nonsense. This argument is trotted out everytime new rapid transit is suggested. It was brought up before the O-Train was built. It was brought up when the N-S project was being discussed. Everytime, it is stated that almost everybody using that new rapid transit route used to take another transit route. Well, that might be true in the short-term, but eventually the convenience of the new route will be found by new customers and transit ridership will grow. Build it and they will come. Rebuild it only if it clearly will deliver better service, such as the plans for the Lakeshore Go Train route.

[Cre47]

I find it really disappointing that they don't debate the road part separately. $2.1 billion is an eye-popping number for just road expansions. Even though they say we will concentrate more on transit then roads, that's still way too much for road expansion projects. In fact, there were more road expansion projects added to the TMP then the previous one in 2003 even though a less faster growth in the update. I'm sure some of that could be trimmed (my preference by at-least half) as unnecessary and useless and move it to the transit part.

Groundbreaking for rail will be after 2013 from what i've heard yesterday so the economic crisis will be long gone by then and the feds will likely be back in huge surplus modes (unless they are doing tons of unnecessary spending like the war and the icebreaker in the north) so they would afford to contribute more to the plan as does the province. Also, there will be certainly be at least one more recession before 2031 after this one (when official).

That would be ridiculous to zap the plan just because of this year's global economic problem especially if they only plan to start the rail part and tunnel in 2013-2015. I'm going to bet there will be a strong growth in 2013-2015 and big surpluses again federally.