Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

The Trainyards project includes a Wal-mart and many other stores. To the east, there will be office and residential towers and more stores will be built to the west. The New Bus Depot will have direct access to the busway and cost will be cheap and without ruining greenspace and communities.


http://www.ottawatrainyards.com/future.html

What's the argument for Hospitals? If I'm sick, I'm either in an Ambulance or driving, I'm not taking the bus. Visiting hours are off-peak, shifts are 12 hours continuous, so don't fit into regular peak times, makes little sense to me to connect it to a suburb. The current bus doesn't seem very busy.

Big box shopping centres are not big transit draws, because they are pedestrian unfriendly. The developments to the west are close enough to Hurdman and Via Stations.

The hospital district is more than just hospitals, and intensification in the area is ongoing. When I was at the Perley Hospital the last time, there was a shift change, and many people were waiting for transit immediately adjacent to the Browning Avenue corridor. The current transit service clearly does not meet the expectations of most of the public. When gas prices rebound, and that is inevitable and as hospital parking fees continue to escalate, people will look for alternative ways to travel there.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Big box shopping centres are not big transit draws, because they are pedestrian unfriendly. The developments to the west are close enough to Hurdman and Via Stations.

The hospital district is more than just hospitals, and intensification in the area is ongoing. When I was at the Perley Hospital the last time, there was a shift change, and many people were waiting for transit immediately adjacent to the Browning Avenue corridor. The current transit service clearly does not meet the expectations of most of the public. When gas prices rebound, and that is inevitable and as hospital parking fees continue to escalate, people will look for alternative ways to travel there.

There is a whole slew of smaller stores, not just the Big Box. The city OP is supposed to go transit before auto, so putting transit here would be a good idea. Hurdman is not walking distance and current service is inadequate.

At what time of day was the shift change? How many people? Can't the same argument gas prices, parking work for ANY location? At best this is anecdotal evidence.

Have you looked at the Browning corridor route? It needs underpases at Industrial, Russel, under the AVTC, under 2 connecting roads to the AVTC, and under Alta Vista Drive, which means moving drainage pipes, will cut up old riverside Dr.. It's crazy expensive.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

There is a whole slew of smaller stores, not just the Big Box. The city OP is supposed to go transit before auto, so putting transit here would be a good idea. Hurdman is not walking distance and current service is inadequate.

At what time of day was the shift change? How many people? Can't the same argument gas prices, parking work for ANY location? At best this is anecdotal evidence.

Have you looked at the Browning corridor route? It needs underpases at Industrial, Russel, under the AVTC, under 2 connecting roads to the AVTC, and under Alta Vista Drive, which means moving drainage pipes, will cut up old riverside Dr.. It's crazy expensive.

You need decent transit everywhere, but there is far more potential in the hospital district. This is major employment area (not just hospital staff with 12 hour shifts) and there is continuous public access and very high parking rates (free at the Trainyards) and there is residential intensification immediately adjacent. I understand that the Trainyards site is to be connected to the Via Rail station, so that and local bus service should meet needs. The hospital area has been poorly connected by transit especially eastward. I suspect that transit useage at the General campus is much lower than at the Civic and this relates to the current transit setup.

The shift change was at 3:00pm and I don't know how long the shifts are there. I don't remember the numbers, but it was many people, which wasn't bad considering that you could only really travel in one direction, westward. You cannot go eastward from that location, unless you make 2 transfers or make an enormous detour westward first and still transfer.

Yes, I walked along the Browning Avenue corridor. It isn't always necessary to grade separate every intersection. You said it yourself for Carling Avenue. There needs to be a cost-benefit analysis to determine what grade separation is worth the cost. Even with at grade intersections at Alta Vista, Russell and St. Laurent, a direct route across that corridor and to the east will be a vast improvement over existing transit in the area.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You need decent transit everywhere, but there is far more potential in the hospital district. This is major employment area (not just hospital staff with 12 hour shifts) and there is continuous public access and very high parking rates (free at the Trainyards) and there is residential intensification immediately adjacent. I understand that the Trainyards site is to be connected to the Via Rail station, so that and local bus service should meet needs. The hospital area has been poorly connected by transit especially eastward. I suspect that transit useage at the General campus is much lower than at the Civic and this relates to the current transit setup.

The shift change was at 3:00pm and I don't know how long the shifts are there. I don't remember the numbers, but it was many people, which wasn't bad considering that you could only really travel in one direction, westward. You cannot go eastward from that location, unless you make 2 transfers or make an enormous detour westward first and still transfer.

Yes, I walked along the Browning Avenue corridor. It isn't always necessary to grade separate every intersection. You said it yourself for Carling Avenue. There needs to be a cost-benefit analysis to determine what grade separation is worth the cost. Even with at grade intersections at Alta Vista, Russell and St. Laurent, a direct route across that corridor and to the east will be a vast improvement over existing transit in the area.

The connection to VIA station is by tunnel (not inviting) and a fair distance to the transitway. It will not be used.

I bet parking at the Hospital is a revenue stream. Isn't it strange that a Big Box store can offer free parking, but out hospitals cannot?

The 86 (which runs on Russel, right by the Perley) goes east to Hurdman and west to Elmvale. Both are transit hubs. I see the 86 runs every 12 minutes around 3pm, but every 5 minutes after 4pm.

This isn't an LRT in the middle of a 4 lane road, this is a residential/park area. It doesn't work for a Busway, it would have to be rail which isn't what the city is proposing. If you run rail, where does it run along Innes?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

The connection to VIA station is by tunnel (not inviting) and a fair distance to the transitway. It will not be used.

I bet parking at the Hospital is a revenue stream. Isn't it strange that a Big Box store can offer free parking, but out hospitals cannot?

The 86 (which runs on Russel, right by the Perley) goes east to Hurdman and west to Elmvale. Both are transit hubs. I see the 86 runs every 12 minutes around 3pm, but every 5 minutes after 4pm.

This isn't an LRT in the middle of a 4 lane road, this is a residential/park area. It doesn't work for a Busway, it would have to be rail which isn't what the city is proposing. If you run rail, where does it run along Innes?

Run it along the south side of Innes but not using the underpasses. There is some space as far as the Via Rail track. You can then follow the Via Rail corridor and the old CPR corridor under the 417, then continue eastward.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Run it along the south side of Innes but not using the underpasses. There is some space as far as the Via Rail track. You can then follow the Via Rail corridor and the old CPR corridor under the 417, then continue eastward.

There is space on the south side, but it's a steep slope down to Innes. A retaining wall would have to be built all along - probably expensive. The Via corridor causes interference with "rapid" transit. How do you cross St. Laurent, a very busy street - a tunnel? My proposed route uses existing rail infrastructure which is just going to waste right now.

[lrt's friend]

Very lively debate between Alex Cullen and Diane Deans on CFRA about transit plan.

Diane Deans says that we are not getting what she voted in favour of in May.

Diane questions whether we will gain any ridership from Increment 1.

Alex says we have more borrowing power than is necessary for Increment 1

Alex says the tunnel must be done first (not surprising)

Diane says that the government is looking for projects that can be built immediately to improve the economy. The tunnel first policy is jeopardizing our possible access to this special infrastructure funding. Alex disagrees.

Alex says we must build these first parts in order to extend to the suburbs later (presumably after 2031)

Alex says that John Baird is very interested in the plan

Alex says that we have consensus on council except for a few holdouts

Diane suggests caution in what we are spending when the economy is not good

Diane suggests that the city may only be able to fund Increment 1. Alex disagrees.

[lrt's friend]

There is space on the south side, but it's a steep slope down to Innes. A retaining wall would have to be built all along - probably expensive. The Via corridor causes interference with "rapid" transit. How do you cross St. Laurent, a very busy street - a tunnel? My proposed route uses existing rail infrastructure which is just going to waste right now.

Can it be any more expensive than the Baseline Station reconstruction? Really, it doesn't matter, since neither route is going to be built in the next 25 years.

What would make sense at St. Laurent, is a small elevated section. We come down a hill from the west and have to go up a hill to the east. A tunnel or underpass does not make sense.

[lrt's friend]

Rick Chiarelli has now questioned the funding of the transit plan. We will see if he still votes in favour tomorrow.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Can it be any more expensive than the Baseline Station reconstruction? Really, it doesn't matter, since neither route is going to be built in the next 25 years.

Is that also a bad idea? I though Alex Cullen was pro-transit. This plan is pretty bad. The only "reason" they use for running rail on the busway is that it was meant to be that way. Times change.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What would make sense at St. Laurent, is a small elevated section. We come down a hill from the west and have to go up a hill to the east. A tunnel or underpass does not make sense.

If you are coming from Innes, there is no hill, Innes road dips under the rail lines. Browning doesn't make much sense, but it's in the TMP.

[Franky]

Since we're on the topic, did I post this alternate bus route to the Hospital? It's about 25% shorter than the one that uses Smyth Rd.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Rick Chiarelli has now questioned the funding of the transit plan. We will see if he still votes in favour tomorrow.

Thanks for the updates.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

...
Why do you keep bringing this up? ...

Don't you see your own double standard? You have just stated that we might consider spending on transit priority on Riverside running parallel to the Transitway.

We have also seen that we are going to build parallel LRT and Transitway between Baseline and Lincoln Fields stations. Do you object to this too?

I keep bringing this up because I don't think it is particularily efficient to run parallel transit lines of different technologies in adjacent RoWs. Having the O-Train and the S-E Transitway run parallel in two RoWs a few tens of metres apart is an excellent example of inefficiency. You can't even stand at a station and take which ever comes first since the two lines are separate.

The current O-Train figure is up to 400 in the morning peak hour. The 500 will not arrive until 2031, according to Staff's estimate. I do not think it is at all acceptable to run an entirely redundant 3 Km of track just so up to 500 people in the peak hour won't have to transfer once. (And I actually think the number transfering from farther south will be less than that since a good portion of people would arrive from Baseline and would be transfering anyway.)

If the O-Train is the line that is converted and the redundant southern section of the S-E Transitway were cut, then up to 2,400 people would need to transfer by 2031. Almost 5 times as many would transfer to get to Billings and beyond. I think it is obvious that the O-Train is the line which should be shortened. (Again, I expect the number is less than 2,400 since not all of the people will join the line south of Confederation.)

There is a difference in that Riverside already exists as a parallel road and I don't think that adding Transit Priority along a few Km of it will eat up the $100M saving from converting the S-E Transitway instead of the O-Train. The Transit Priority would be added to smooth the conversion. I am simply suggesting that we needn't remove it once the conversion is completed.

The answer is a resounding YES! I definately object to the redundant link between Baseline Station and Lincoln Fields Station. Thank-you for asking.

I would much rather see a rail spur heading west from Lincoln Fields to Bayshore, along the Western Transitway. The folks from Kanata would transfer there and it would put Bayshore on the rail line. Barrhaven riders would transfer at Baseline. The two trains would inter-line at Lincoln Fields.

I know; "But what about the east-west bus route?" and "That means that people from Barrhaven would have to transfer from bus - train at Baseline and then from train-train at Lincoln Fields and then from train-bus at Bayshore, just to get to Kanata!"

That would assume that nothing else changes. There is also a plan for a Baseline BRT line which goes west from Baseline to Bayshore. I suggest that if there is a need, a bus could easily come north from Barrhaven, west on Baseline and up to Bayshore where people could transfer bus-bus to get to Kanata. One, single transfer and a fairly direct, transit priority route.

The Baseline BRT is also the east-west bus route.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Deez

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.



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.



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).

I agree with you that a ridership loss of that magnitude (25%) would not occur. But can we agree that the BRT/tunnel option would obtain a higher ridership than the LRT option because of fewer transfers and higher frequencies?


With regard to East-West streets, I still think that there is quite a bit of potential:

- Prohibiting parking during peaks on Queen Street would free up two lanes of traffic.

- Prohibiting parking during peaks on Albert and Slater would provide much needed breathing room for buses, and cars that are turning into parking lots.

- Opening up Sparks Street during peaks would provide two additional lanes of traffic (again, though, this would not be necessary if you did other things).

- Putting all bus traffic onto the Mackenzie King Bridge and prohibiting all other traffic from using it would mean that buses would no longer be interfered with by cars, trucks and taxis on that busy stretch.

- Buses can use Lyon and Elgin to travel north-south in order to join up with Wellington and the Mackenzie King Bridge. I acknowledge that Elgin would be the weakest link, along with Waller on the other side of the Canal.

- Extending Laurier to Scott would reduce traffic on Albert and Slater noticeably, and allow the City to put in place more stringent restrictions against right turns.

Further, long-term forecasts predict that auto traffic into the downtown core will decline, not increase. From a traffic flow perspective (i.e., ignoring politics), I think it would work when combined with other things (e.g., better fare collection, all-door boarding and more downtown stations) and serving the South with the Southeast Transitway corridor. And perhaps by 2031 tolling will become acceptable and there will be a cordon toll around downtown Ottawa. This would further reduce auto traffic and help buses.


We have seen dense development near Transitway stations and we will no doubt see more of that. Even with good express bus service, there is an incentive to locate near Transitway stations. However, I hope that land prices in Ottawa will never reach Vancouver levels.

Ottawa has significantly higher ridership (measured in modal share of commute trips) than similar-sized Canadian cities. Using Census data, Ottawa-Gatineau is 24% higher than Calgary, 18% higher than Vancouver (25% higher if Abbotsford is included) and 100% higher than Edmonton. Ottawa-Gatineau is closer to Toronto and Montreal than to those three cities. And, as I noted previously, the proportion of commuters who drive to work in Ottawa-Gatineau is lower than any of those five cities.

From my perspective, Ottawa’s biggest mistake was not the decision to go with a BRT system but the failure to optimize it and the lack of integration with the STO.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Suzie

I agree with you that a ridership loss of that magnitude (25%) would not occur. But can we agree that the BRT/tunnel option would obtain a higher ridership than the LRT option because of fewer transfers and higher frequencies?

From my perspective, Ottawa’s biggest mistake was not the decision to go with a BRT system but the failure to optimize it and the lack of integration with the STO.

People are attracted to trains, it's tough to quantitize emotions. There were slower routes than bus that attracted bigger ridership, because it was a train.

Ottawa's mistake to optomize rests with the high operational costs of its system.

[waterloowarrior]

Rogers Cable 22 will have a panel at 9 pm tonight discussing the future of Ottawa's transit. Peter Raaymakers of http://www.transitottawa.ca/ Hume Rogers, and Alex Cullen will be on the program

[waterloowarrior]

here's a report of yesterday's meeting from Transit Ottawa - Carling motions
http://www.transitottawa.ca/2008/11/no-ea-for-carling-avenue-yet.html

In City Council on Wednesday evening, two separate motions were proposed regarding performing an Environmental Assessment (EA) on Carling Avenue during the first stage of EAs performed.

The first motion, numbered 17, was proposed to perform an EA on Carling and Carling alone, without performing one on the other options for the Western Corridor of the transit system, including Byron Avenue and the Ottawa River Parkway. It was rejected by a vote of 16-8, after a number of councillors (including, naturally, Capital Councillor Clive Doucet and Kitchissippi Councillor Christine Leadman, but also College Councillor Rick Chiarelli, Rideau-Vanier Councillor Georges Bedard, and Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes) expressed some amenability to studying Carling.

Doucet and Leadman, who jointly presented an alternative to the staff-recommended transit plan which included re-routing rail onto Carling instead of the Parkway recently, both spoke out in favour of Carling taking priority as the Western corridor's route. They especially noted the fact that the National Capital Commission (NCC) owns the Parkway, and that federal organization has made a few requests in consideration of allowing rail along their land.

Doucet suggested that there were three objectives that the NCC was looking for if they were going to consider the city's request; that it doesn't disrupt existing greenspace; that it is cost-effective; and that it is open to increasing ridership. He went on to state that the Parkway does not satisfy these objectives, while Carling Avenue satisfies each one.

Leadman suggested that an EA of Carling would prove to the NCC that the city had performed due diligence. If the EA proved that Carling was a more productive decision then they city could move forward in that route, but if it proved that it was not feasible, the fact that the EA was performed would at least demonstrate to the NCC that the city was committed to proactively studying the options for the Western Corridor.

The second motion about Carling, numbered 18, debated was on studying Carling in addition to the EAs already being undertaken. After another debate, which included an unsuccesful call of the question by Osgoode Councillor Doug Thompson, the motion was eventually defeated by a vote of 15-9. Cumberland Councillor Rob Jellet, who had voted against Motion 17, voted in favour of Motion 18.

During the discussion of the motion, Bay Councillor Alex Cullen stated that he was not persuaded that the EA of Carling was necessary. He, and many others, brought up the fact that voting against this motion was not a vote against studying Carling; instead, it was a vote to move forward with the current plan, pending results of the EA of the Parkway as well as a response from the NCC regarding light-rail along Carling.

A number of differences of opinion on the commonly-held understandings of the feasibility of Carling Avenue. Cullen based many of his points on the $600M cost estimate that staff provided of rail along Carling, but Doucet countered that the staff-calculated figure included tunnels along the street, which he said is not necessary. Doucet stated that grade-separated light-rail combined with some degree of traffic-light coordination would require only three underpasses.

Further disagreement was with the time difference with regards to using the Parkway or Carling as the Western Corridor. Many of those supporting the motion suggested that the time difference is not significant, while those who didn't support the plan were of the belief that the time difference--estimates pegging the Carling option as slower than the Parkway option--would make transit less appealing to commuters and riders.

City Manager Nancy Schepers estimated the cost of an EA of Carling at somewhere between $2 and 2.5M. She also stated that no official request has been made to the NCC for rail on the Parkway.

[Deez]

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.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html#costs

"Total system development costs to date: $548 M"

http://www.octranspo.com/mapscheds/Transitway/Transitway_25/Tway_Memories_Background.htm

"South Keys Transitway Station opens June 23. On November 3, the 31 km of Transitway, that was first approved in 1978, is completed at a cost of $420 million"

The difference is not so great...

[Deez]

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.

I refer you to the work from a paper that I wrote 6 months ago (well I would refer but I can't find the post now...).

I coded a new transit line running from Baseline in the west to Blair in the east via Carling, the Otrain corridor, Queen, and Montreal Road. The line was coded to be as attractive as the transitway (speed, capacity, etc). I assumed that the suburban busways were not constructed and that express buses continued to run on the transitway as they did today.

The results of the simulation showed that not only was the transitway corridor more successful at attracting greater ridership compared to Carling, total ridership was significantly less than under Option 4.

I assure you that I did not "cook" the numbers in any way. I actually hypothesized that Carling would be a better trip generator than the transitway corridor.

[Deez]

Originally Posted by Franky

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

Don't act like this is fact. You and Dado had a LENGTHY discussion about this and there was no real conclusion.