Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

I wrote "transit" not "transportation". I agree with you about roads. I don't know if the evidence is there for transit.

I wrote that the plan should be sold or promoted (to the south at least) as inside the greenbelt until development actually reaches some sort of credible numbers, then extend it to the suburban development.

Look at the other thread for solutions. LRT doesn't seem to help us. I would like to see automated(preferably), electric transit to all four (satellite) corners of Ottawa. I think $5 Billion dollars should be more than enough to do it, but not with LRT and a tunnel (obviously).

So you say we do nothing since the Transitway has already reached the edge of the Greenbelt. What is the solution then? Like today, one accident caused chaos like never before in the south end.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

So you say we do nothing since the Transitway has already reached the edge of the Greenbelt. What is the solution then? Like today, one accident caused chaos like never before in the south end.

We don't have transit running, what is your point? Doesn't transit help the situation normally? Maybe we have a demarcation misunderstanding? When I say inside the greenbelt, I mean the continuous built-up area. Extending rail (then) was based on housing that did not exist.

I say: Look at the other thread for solutions. LRT doesn't seem to help us. I would like to see automated(preferably), electric transit to all four (satellite) corners of Ottawa (Orleans, Kanata, Gatineau, South of Ottawa). I think $5 Billion dollars should be more than enough to do it, but not with LRT and a tunnel (obviously).

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by WZ1

Its gross, I am born and raised in Ottawa.. but sometimes the stupidity of the 4-levels of government amazes me. I guess one thing this transit strike has proven is that Ottawa has such a inefficient transit system that it could almost just go without.

What was proven was the resourcefulness and hardiness of the people of Ottawa who had to make due without transit for fifty days. I can't wait til our "inefficient transit system" is up and running again so that I can get to downtown in 10 minutes (instead of a 1 hour walk in winter conditions) and the Rideau Centre in 15 minutes (instead of a 1:15 hour walk).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Franky

I know there are some who buy a suburban house because of transit, but I bet they are a minority, transit users would choose a house in a more urban setting.

I think a lot of people do choose suburbs based on transit. This is what makes many people choose Kanata over Carleton Place, or Orleans over Rockland. Your average Orleans resident isn’t going to go live in Centretown or Vanier anyway. When they choose a place to live, they’re choosing between houses in places like Orleans, Rockland, Embrun, etc. Good transit access to downtown Ottawa (allowing the family to do without a second car) is what makes way more people opt for Orleans.

I don’t live on the Ontario side but I do have a fairly new (suburban-style) house in the western part of old Gatineau, and easy access to transit (even if it is only bus) was a huge factor in my choice. Areas without transit weren’t even a consideration for us.

And look at successful TODs (most TODs in North America, in fact, are in newer areas) like Le Village de la Gare in Mont-St-Hilaire east of Montreal. Access to suburban trains is actually the main focus of their marketing, so much so that they named the subdivision after the train station.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I also say that Ottawa has been very well served by its Transitways.

This is SO true. Especially when you consider that the Transitway was never cured of its “tragic flaw” (the missing downtown link on Albert and Slater), it has performed very well in all of the areas where it has been given a chance to. I don’t think that there are any segments of the Transitway that anyone could seriously refer to as underused, are there?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think a lot of people do choose suburbs based on transit. This is what makes many people choose Kanata over Carleton Place, or Orleans over Rockland. Your average Orleans resident isn’t going to go live in Centretown or Vanier anyway. When they choose a place to live, they’re choosing between houses in places like Orleans, Rockland, Embrun, etc. Good transit access to downtown Ottawa (allowing the family to do without a second car) is what makes way more people opt for Orleans.

I don’t live on the Ontario side but I do have a fairly new (suburban-style) house in the western part of old Gatineau, and easy access to transit (even if it is only bus) was a huge factor in my choice. Areas without transit weren’t even a consideration for us.

And look at successful TODs (most TODs in North America, in fact, are in newer areas) like Le Village de la Gare in Mont-St-Hilaire east of Montreal. Access to suburban trains is actually the main focus of their marketing, so much so that they named the subdivision after the train station.

Good point about transit vs no transit. We were more talking about fast transit VS slow transit, BRT/LRT vs buses stuck in regular traffic, esp. in the south of Ottawa. I argue that extending an LRT line (or BRT) before an area is built up isn't necessary (but should be planned) - doesn't mean there is no transit, just no rapid transit.

[Richard Eade]

I notice the Lees Station and Hurdman Station are only about 700 metres apart. The distance from the Train Station and Hurdman is about 1400 metres, but most of this is because the route dips south so much. If the train line went directly from Train to Lees, it would only travel about 1500 metres.

Also, looking at the position of the Lees Station, it is near the north of the group of buildings, but is separated from areas farther north by a complex system of roards. The need for the Hurdman Station will be more important when the NCC develops the area north of Hurdman.

So, what about removing both Hurdman and Lees Stations and building a new combined station under the Rideau River?

The Lees area people would reach the station by going south instead of north, but it would not be farther away, on average. Since the station would (obviously) be under ground/water, it could be run under the old Algonquin parking lot and not need to disrupt the existing bus transit bridge. This new positioning would allow the route to travel across the Hurdman area via a more northern route, reducing the route length and smoothing curves.

As for the station, the upper level mezzanine (the gathering area above the central platform) could be domed with glass under the river to allow people to see the bottom of the river and also allow filtered natural light into the station. This area would also provide an additional pedestrian/cyclist river crossing.

One of the south-bound tunnel options from the Rideau Centre is to run the tunnel south of Mann. I would suggest that the tunnel be extended through to a recovery pit across the river. This would add about 850 metres of tunnelling but makes for much less disruption of the current bus service. For example, there would be no need for a $40M 'temporary' bridge to be built to handle the buses while the existing bridge is modified for $5m. The existing bridge would continue to be used for buses as long as needed. (In fact, the S-E Transitway buses could continue to go directly downtown, even after the trains were running. Buses from the east could also head straight downtown if needed. This redundant link possibility might be a good idea.

What do you think? Put a combined station under the river?

[Franky]

Sounds like a $100 million extension. The Urbanaut monorail looks better and better.

[Aylmer]

Please Franky, don't talk about ANY TECHNOLOGY that isn't in the official plan.

Do it in another thread.

____________________

Richard Eade:

I think that is a great idea.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

We don't have transit running, what is your point? Doesn't transit help the situation normally? Maybe we have a demarcation misunderstanding? When I say inside the greenbelt, I mean the continuous built-up area. Extending rail (then) was based on housing that did not exist.

I say: Look at the other thread for solutions. LRT doesn't seem to help us. I would like to see automated(preferably), electric transit to all four (satellite) corners of Ottawa (Orleans, Kanata, Gatineau, South of Ottawa). I think $5 Billion dollars should be more than enough to do it, but not with LRT and a tunnel (obviously).

If what you say is correct, then why are more cities not rushing to implement these other technologies? The fact of the matter is that they are either unproven, or in the case of a monorail, much more expensive. Monorails have been around for decades but they fail to effectively serve as public transit systems. Just look at the Las Vegas implementation and the criticism it has received. They are simply very difficult to integrate into existing urban environments. How do you fit elevated stations into dense development? How do you make existing buildings compatible with an elevated guideway? Would you want a monorail looking into your very expensive downtown condominium from a distance of 5 or 10 meters? I doubt it.

On the matter of the accident, I don't think that an operational bus system would have made much of a difference. As it stands, the source of much of the traffic that clogged the south end that day is not served by OC Transpo at all. I also think that the argument that LRT should only serve areas of continuous development inside the Greenbelt does not take into consideration the uniqueness of Ottawa's geography. This says that we should never extend LRT to Kanata, Orleans or Barrhaven simply because the Greenbelt exists. Of course, this is exactly the plan that was approved and there is absolutely no incentive to extend LRT beyond the extremely expensive super terminals that are proposed. I think that saying that the N-S route would have served nobody is equally ridiculous with over 70,000 people already living along the south end of the corridor and a major employer (RCMP) about to move nearby. LRT is for the next 100 years, not just for today, and this has been the flaw in all the thinking in the current plan, with the exception of the tunnel itself. If we are going east first using the Transitway corridor, it should be built to Place d'Orleans where local bus service is already designed to terminate, where there is a regional shopping centre, and there is already a large Park n Ride facility.

The current plan is simply a bunch of compromises and half measures and does not even attempt to excel at anything beyond the downtown tunnel.

[Franky]

Moved to the "The future of Ottawa's Transit" thread:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=4062544#post4062544

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If what you say is correct, then why are more cities not rushing to implement these other technologies? The fact of the matter is that they are either unproven, or in the case of a monorail, much more expensive. Monorails have been around for decades but they fail to effectively serve as public transit systems. Just look at the Las Vegas implementation and the criticism it has received. They are simply very difficult to integrate into existing urban environments. How do you fit elevated stations into dense development? How do you make existing buildings compatible with an elevated guideway? Would you want a monorail looking into your very expensive downtown condominium from a distance of 5 or 10 meters? I doubt it.

On the matter of the accident, I don't think that an operational bus system would have made much of a difference. As it stands, the source of much of the traffic that clogged the south end that day is not served by OC Transpo at all. I also think that the argument that LRT should only serve areas of continuous development inside the Greenbelt does not take into consideration the uniqueness of Ottawa's geography. This says that we should never extend LRT to Kanata, Orleans or Barrhaven simply because the Greenbelt exists. Of course, this is exactly the plan that was approved and there is absolutely no incentive to extend LRT beyond the extremely expensive super terminals that are proposed. I think that saying that the N-S route would have served nobody is equally ridiculous with over 70,000 people already living along the south end of the corridor and a major employer (RCMP) about to move nearby. LRT is for the next 100 years, not just for today, and this has been the flaw in all the thinking in the current plan, with the exception of the tunnel itself. If we are going east first using the Transitway corridor, it should be built to Place d'Orleans where local bus service is already designed to terminate, where there is a regional shopping centre, and there is already a large Park n Ride facility.

The current plan is simply a bunch of compromises and half measures and does not even attempt to excel at anything beyond the downtown tunnel.

[TransitZilla]

2009 Transit Capital Budget & 9 year forecast

Should be posted here soon: http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/tc/2009/02-04/agendaindex27.htm

It was apparently tabled at Transit committee today.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

2009 Transit Capital Budget & 9 year forecast

Should be posted here soon: http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/tc/2009/02-04/agendaindex27.htm

It was apparently tabled at Transit committee today.

Although some hard copies of the budget proposal were handed out at the Feb. 4 Transit Committee meeting, I think that, technically, the tabling of the budget was deferred to a special meeting to be held Monday, Feb. 9. The meeting of the 4th was basically taken over by the 'Roll-out' plan for the buses.

The length of free service has been extended for holders of December passes.

from Disposition 27

1) all Regular December Passes (includes adult and student available in monthly, annual or semester options) be valid until March 31, 2009;

2) all Express December Passes (includes Express/Rural Express, adult and student, senior and community) be valid until April 30, 2009;

3) all Eco Pass holders (including Regular and Express) will have 70 days of service without deductions after resumption of service

Of course these sound quite generous until you realize that the Express service and Rural Express service will not be returning for quite some time - as late as April 6.

There was vague hand-waving about the STO now accepting the December passes again, but it wasn't clear how long that would last.

To bring this back to the Rapid Transit Network theme: OC Transpo has decided to get the Transitway buses up and running at full capacity as a first priority. This is because, under normal conditions, the vast majority of transit riders make use of the Transitway for part of their trip.

I am afraid that this thinking is based on a flawed premis because without the feeder routes, the Transitway can only attract a subset of passengers. Also the Express Buses contribute to that count of people on the Transitway and with out them running, the count will be much lower.

This 'Transitway-centric' thinking is, I believe, the same reason that the most imaginative plan they can come up with is simply to convert the existing Transitway to rail.

Any way, OC Transpo has hit a lucky break in that they will actually have 570 buses available on Feb. 9 instead of their originally planned 430. This will allow more feeder routes for the Transitway, but this was not part of the initial plan. I suspect that if only 200 buses had been available, they would have, no doubt, all been allocated to the Transitway to handle the 'expected crowds'.

Several Counsillors have said that they will continue to tell their constituents to use their alternate transportation until the Express Buses come back on-line fully.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

There was vague hand-waving about the STO now accepting the December passes again, but it wasn't clear how long that would last.

Vague hand-waving?

http://www.sto.ca/actus_vie/titres_oc_sto_e.html

It was on the website BEFORE OCTranspo announced their plans.

[Richard Eade]

Well, it seems that the contractors are not interested in changing the number of stations through the core, or thier depth. Between LeBreton and Campus, they are moving from 7 bus stops (Good Companions, Bronson, Kent, Bank, Metcalfe, Mackenzie, and Laurier) to three Stations (Downtown West, Downtown East, and Rideau) and those stations will be centre-platform stations between 25 and 30 metres deep (to the platform level).



If we take the London Tube Angel Station as an example, it is 27m deep with a 60m escalator. That escalator is a 135 second ride, approximately. In Ottawa's case, we are planning on having multiple escalators which will also introduce a transfer delay.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Well, it seems that the contractors are not interested in changing the number of stations through the core, or thier depth. Between LeBreton and Campus, they are moving from 7 bus stops (Good Companions, Bronson, Kent, Bank, Metcalfe, Mackenzie, and Laurier) to three Stations (Downtown West, Downtown East, and Rideau) and those stations will be centre-platform stations between 25 and 30 metres deep (to the platform level).



If we take the London Tube Angel Station as an example, it is 27m deep with a 60m escalator. That escalator is a 135 second ride, approximately. In Ottawa's case, we are planning on having multiple escalators which will also introduce a transfer delay.

So we'll be spending 2 minutes going up a set of escalators when they are working instead of walking onto a low floor bus at a convenient location and it's going to cost us $1 billion extra to do it. You all know what I think.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Well, it seems that the contractors are not interested in changing the number of stations through the core, or thier depth. Between LeBreton and Campus, they are moving from 7 bus stops (Good Companions, Bronson, Kent, Bank, Metcalfe, Mackenzie, and Laurier) to three Stations (Downtown West, Downtown East, and Rideau) and those stations will be centre-platform stations between 25 and 30 metres deep (to the platform level).

Why are the contractors deciding again, and not the taxpayers? What is that nonsense.

Just look at the subway extension in Toronto for Richmond Hill, they planned for 3 stations initially, but the public wanted more stations so they put more in the plan.

[Richard Eade]

On the Tunneys Pasture end of the line, there are currently two options being looked at: One which builds a large station on federal land (their co-operation is needed); and one with the bus stops along Scott.




I have high-lighted the bus stops in yellow.

There is a preference for the first option since it provides room for the estimated 20 bus lay-up spaces which will be needed.

Notice that both options suggest lengthening the bus ramp. This would require partially filling in the trench. This fill would then need to be removed when the rail was extended west.

To the east of Tunneys there would be a dedicated bus Transitway. This might be along the old rail RoW, or new transit lanes taken from the general traffic lanes of Scott.

If, for Option 2, there is not enough space for the required stops along Scott to be to the east of the transit bridge, the Busway would be extended to Westboro since buses would be past the Transitway access point at Tunneys. The rail would not be extended to Westboro. The section of existing Transitway between Tunneys and Westboro could still be used for some buses and the rest would be on the new busway along Scott.

Conversely, I would have suggested that the rail and Transitway IS extended to Westboro.



This would allow for a simpler bus ramp which would not be in the way later (OK, I have assumed a Byron route starting from Churchill. If a Parkway route is used, the ramp would need to be removed.), and distribute the transfer load a bit. Also, the #2 bus is diverted from Richmond Road to allow people to transfer to the Transitway at Westboro. This makes sense if the train goes to Westboro, but not if people must transfer to a bus and then transfer to the train one stop later.

The general station layout I am envisioning is



(Actually, the East-bound pick-up area might be moved east of the loop so riders could actually be picked up by a bus leaving the lay-up area.)

This same general idea is easily transferred back to the Tunneys Station.



Notice I have included space for bus lay-up although it could still happen at Bayview instead of Tunneys.

[Richard Eade]

On the eastern end, the St. Laurent Station is pretty straight forward to convert: The train will be in the lower area, while the buses will be on the upper deck.



At Cyrville, there are two options: Following the existing route; and creating a new, straightened route.





It sounds as if the existing route might have curves which are too sharp.

Blair Station is still under consideration.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Why are the contractors deciding again, and not the taxpayers? What is that nonsense.

Just look at the subway extension in Toronto for Richmond Hill, they planned for 3 stations initially, but the public wanted more stations so they put more in the plan.

Well, the first Public Open House was delayed by the transit strike. Once that actually happens, we will see how open they are to making changes. So far, I have really seen no movement, despite public and stake-holder input.