Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am listening to the latest reports about the interprovincial transit study and I just get this sinking feeling. There are those now advocating an interprovincial rail loop that will force all Gatineau transit riders to transfer on the last leg of their journey. I really don't know how this is supposed to work in conjunction with Ottawa's current LRT plans. We have already been told that the tunnel cannot handle traffic from both sides of the river. Will this be compatible with Gatineau's present rapid transit plans? Will it really encourage transit ridership?

I get really concerned that affordable transit plans will get delayed or shelved entirely in the name of developing a 'better' plan with a much higher price tag, which may never get funded.

There is nothing as an affordable transit plan, because the old plans were expensive to run. In prior studies, the tunnel was full because it was using a West entry for STO commuters. A loop is a far different story, because people can enter the core from both sides, and actually can go to Québec without entering the core. This is what my old plan proposed, and removed about 6k travellers from the West. A tunnel will be able to handle that kind of peak usage.

There will be a need for a second tunnel in 20 years. This is why the old OT plan proposed connecting Carling to Hurdman directly, which will, again, equalize the system. In all cases, it needs to be at least separated from traffic to achieve such high numbers.

I don't know why you are against this, if we want to remove buses from the core, it will be necessary.

[Richard Eade]

I appreciate your point, but the system will always be a trade-off. There will be a continuous stream of ideas which might improve the system, but at a cost. We hired the consultants to filter through the ideas and put together a system which will be affordable and practical.

For example, if we had just decided to build a bus tunnel, it could have been built for about the same cost as the train tunnel. (The initial estimates were, in my opinion, inflated to make sure that that option was not chosen.) There would not have been any conversion costs and the capacity would have been only slightly less than an LRT system. If you concided continuing to run some buses on the surface, then the capacity would have been considerably greater. This would have been the least expensive option, by far, and it still would have left the door open for future conversion. (Although I don't think conversion would have happened. A different train tunnel/route would have been built.)

However, it was decided that a train tunnel would offer benefits that the bus could not. These added benefits were considered to be worth the added cost of having to convert the transit back-bone and give up the Express Bus routes. Then came the choices based on that decision; how far the train goes, which direction, etc..

Personally, I think the tunnel should extend from the VIA Station to Bayview. It would run under Riverside and Hurdman to a station under the Rideau River. From there, it should continue north to a new Station just north of Mann under King Edward and then follow a large curve north-west to a station under the green space near the intersection of Thomas More and Louis Pasteur. Then on further to a station under the Conference Centre at the Mackenzie King Bridge, a station under the Confederation Square, stations under Bank at Queen, Bay at Slater, east of Booth, and finally at Bayview. Since the N-S train and the W-E train could cross each other's tracks, the tunnel could continue right through LeBreton Flats to the Scott Trench.

I think one could make a good case for redistributing the stations and adding an extra one, but that to is something that will need to be balanced with the cost. I think that lengthening the tunnel could also be justified, but I don't know if it would be worth the added cost. (Since the NCC wants to develop Hurdman, would they be willing to pay to have the train buried in a shallow Cut & Cover tunnel when the utilities were added? I don't know and I don't think the question will get asked by the City or contractors.)

The idea of a Gatineau/Ottawa Downtown Loop is not new and will probably not pass the test of affordability or practicallity. I don't think the contractors will take it any more seriously than any of the ideas which I have sent in. I think that they have pretty much made up their minds on what they want in the DOTT and unless there is a mass uprising against it, their ideas are what we will get. It won't be the best, it won't be the worst, it won't be cheap, and it won't be completely unaffordable. It will be a compromise. (Welcome to Ottawa, Canada.)

[Acajack]

Good points. One of the main reasons the Ottawa-Gatineau loop has no chance is because the Ottawa River screenline isn’t close to being a priority for anyone involved municipally on the Ontario side. It’s more of a pie-in-the-sky, NCC-style “unite-the-two-solitudes by linking Ottawa, Ontario and Gatineau, Quebec” plan akin to Confederation Boulevard (remember the red pavement) than anything else.

True, the STO buses do have to go somewhere, either down Rideau-Wellington as they do at the moment, or perhaps in a future *bus* tunnel if that’s what it ends up being. But Ottawa still needs a tunnel for its main east-west transit movements through the downtown core, no matter what you do with the STO issue.

If it is for trains, this would resolve the Gatineau issue at least as regards the tunnel at least, as there won’t be trains coming out of Gatineau into Ottawa anytime in the foreseeable future. And if it’s for buses, well then a debate will have to be had over which buses (OC Transpo, STO?) are allowed to use it.

As has been said before, a transit tunnel (whether for buses or trains) won’t remove buses from downtown Ottawa streets. I’d venture to say it won’t even remove most of them. And any large city with a subway nonetheless has buses running on the surface along the same streets the subways run under. The point of a tunnel is not to have a bus-free downtown Ottawa, but to have a more efficient transit system.

[Richard Eade]

An interesting article in the Citizen
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/fp...summer+driving+Report/1324060/story.html

Unfazed by a peak in gasoline prices and a looming global financial meltdown, Canadians drove their vehicles more through the summer of 2008 than they did the year before, Statistic Canada reported Tuesday.

Canadians drove 0.7 per cent more kilometres between July and September than they did in 2007 over the same three months, according to the federal agency's quarterly vehicle survey. The spike ended a trend developed over the previous four consecutive quarters that saw a drop in driving on Canadian roads that was attributed to volatile prices at the pump, the survey said.
...
Douglas Porter, deputy chief economist with BMO Capital Markets, said the third-quarter driving data showed there is no direct link between gas prices and driving habits.

"While gas prices make great headlines and good political sport, the reality is that people can deal with quite sizable changes in gas prices," said Porter.

So how much of the past increase in bus ridership can we actually attribute to the high gas prices? Is the article's conclusion correct?

Of course, I believe that there is always a jump in driven Kilometres during the summer. A jump of 0.7%, year over year, is not huge and could have been made larger by the previous three quarters of decline. We aren't told the total decline of the previous quarters. Remember that 10 is a larger percentage of 80 than it is of 150.

Also, the article doesn't say whether 0.7% is a normal year over year increase. If the increase had previously averaged 10% (a number pulled out of a hat), then there actually is a noticable difference.

I don't think the article gives us enough information to trust the conclusion it states.

Comments?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

There is nothing as an affordable transit plan, because the old plans were expensive to run. In prior studies, the tunnel was full because it was using a West entry for STO commuters. A loop is a far different story, because people can enter the core from both sides, and actually can go to Québec without entering the core. This is what my old plan proposed, and removed about 6k travellers from the West. A tunnel will be able to handle that kind of peak usage.

There will be a need for a second tunnel in 20 years. This is why the old OT plan proposed connecting Carling to Hurdman directly, which will, again, equalize the system. In all cases, it needs to be at least separated from traffic to achieve such high numbers.

I don't know why you are against this, if we want to remove buses from the core, it will be necessary.

I am against endless studies that will delay realistic transit solutions endlessly and produce overly expensive plans with little liklihood of ever being implemented. Studies can be used to delay progress.

You say it yourself, we will need a second tunnel in 20 years. This is about the time when the current plan is completed. This is exactly my concern and exactly what the reports have stated. A plan that is at capacity as soon as it is completed is shortsighted.

A downtown rail loop is of limited value and not convenient to most commuters unless it is extended beyond that and we know Gatineau has been resisting these ideas. Such a loop is great for tourists and office workers shuttling back and forth to the Market and Rideau Centre for lunch but otherwise, transit riders will be cursing us for generations if that is the approach we implement.

I don't see how a Carling-Hurdman tunnel could ever be justified. It is too far from downtown to deliver passengers to the centretown area and it will be far too expensive to build as a downtown bypass route, when a route a little further south could be built on the surface. A surface route through the Glebe and Ottawa East is beyond realistic.

I fully agree with Acajack that many buses will continue to run through downtown even when a tunnel is built. The idea that most buses could be removed was always an utopian idea that cannot be accomplished without damaging the effectiveness of the transit system.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am against endless studies that will delay realistic transit solutions endlessly and produce overly expensive plans with little liklihood of ever being implemented. Studies can be used to delay progress.

The loop wouldn't change the existing plan at all. The study is to finally integrate both transit systems into a comprehensive one. It's due IMO.

You say it yourself, we will need a second tunnel in 20 years. This is about the time when the current plan is completed. This is exactly my concern and exactly what the reports have stated. A plan that is at capacity as soon as it is completed is shortsighted.

Yes it is shortsighted, I have said it many times. ATC is one possible answer that would at least, give an additional 10 years to that. 30 years for reaching capacity for a transit line is at least more understandable.

A downtown rail loop is of limited value and not convenient to most commuters unless it is extended beyond that and we know Gatineau has been resisting these ideas. Such a loop is great for tourists and office workers shuttling back and forth to the Market and Rideau Centre for lunch but otherwise, transit riders will be cursing us for generations if that is the approach we implement.

The transit loop is for Gatineau users mostly. It would only serve Ottawans working in Gatineau, which is a far lower number. The planned number is still 8000pph for Gatineau to Ottawa DT ONLY; this is more than the Sheppard Subway. The rapibus will eventually be converted to a rail based system in about 25 years.

I don't see how a Carling-Hurdman tunnel could ever be justified. It is too far from downtown to deliver passengers to the centretown area and it will be far too expensive to build as a downtown bypass route, when a route a little further south could be built on the surface. A surface route through the Glebe and Ottawa East is beyond realistic.

Diane Holmes will probably be burried at that stage. The core will continue to grow. With new condos like Central, which is actually much closer to that projected tunnel line than the DT one, and would serve an eventual stadium. So yes, it will be needed in the future. It would still be the shortest bypass route.

I fully agree with Acajack that many buses will continue to run through downtown even when a tunnel is built. The idea that most buses could be removed was always an utopian idea that cannot be accomplished without damaging the effectiveness of the transit system.

It is not utopian to have them replaced by streetcars WHEN THEY ARE REBUILDING THE STREETS. I always find it idiotic to redo work that was previously done one or two years ago. * See Carling Ave.

[Acajack]

I don’t know of many of the downtown loop “people-mover” schemes that have ever been successful. The best-known ones in Detroit and Miami* are underwhelming to say the least. As has been said here, these things are usually for tourists, and it hasn’t ever been demonstrated that our visitors have a problem getting around the interesting parts of downtown Ottawa-Gatineau, most of which are relatively concentrated and easily walkable (even across the Alexandra/Interprovincial Bridge to the Museum of Civilization).

Regarding the talk of STO buses (and to a lesser degree, OC Transpo) feeding into the loop, thereby allowing both transit operators to stay on their respective “sides”, that’s a non-starter for Gatineau, and with good reason as an extra transfer at the river for such a short distance would likely lead to a drop in transit’s modal share for Quebec-to-Ottawa commutes.

*Miami has made its system more competitive and relevant by linking its downtown system to a broader network to other areas of the county. But in isolation, like Detroit’s and others, these things are recipe for disaster. Where these things can have success is when they are linked to a broader, city- or metro-wide system (as they are with many of the modern tramway systems in many French cities).

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don’t know of many of the downtown loop “people-mover” schemes that have ever been successful. The best-known ones in Detroit and Miami* are underwhelming to say the least. As has been said here, these things are usually for tourists, and it hasn’t ever been demonstrated that our visitors have a problem getting around the interesting parts of downtown Ottawa-Gatineau, most of which are relatively concentrated and easily walkable (even across the Alexandra/Interprovincial Bridge to the Museum of Civilization).

I don't think they are taking about a people-mover, like a Monorail in Sydney, or other types of systems like you mentioned. Just that it would be a U connecting to the downtown tunnel. I doubt the routes would only be circular, that would add transfers for nothing... With that system, a Blair to Hull line would be possible, thus removing a transfer for these people.

It was in the NCC's plan for a while, there was even a map of it posted here maybe 2 years ago.

[harls]

I may be very lazy, but I would not want to transfer from my nice cozy bus to a people mover in Hull to get to DT Ottawa.

[lrt's friend]

I think what is important here is that the loop is intended to serve Gatineau residents and in this respect, it will be a failure unless the entire rapidbus plan is also converted to light rail. The fact that rail might run from Blair to Hull does not address the main problem. Even then, if the routing is via the Prince of Wales Bridge, it will less convenient than a bus transfer via the Portage Bridge.

This brings me back to my original point. Gatineau has its RapidBus plan ready to go ahead, and will provide rapid transit for the first time in Gatineau. What will all this discussion about rail loops do to rapid transit in Gatineau? If it delays rapid transit for several years, have we accomplished anything positive that will get people onto transit except in the distant future? When do we start thinking of shorter term solutions or do we continue to paralyse ourselves with endless discussion trying to find the 'perfect' plan?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don’t know of many of the downtown loop “people-mover” schemes that have ever been successful. The best-known ones in Detroit and Miami* are underwhelming to say the least. As has been said here, these things are usually for tourists, and it hasn’t ever been demonstrated that our visitors have a problem getting around the interesting parts of downtown Ottawa-Gatineau, most of which are relatively concentrated and easily walkable (even across the Alexandra/Interprovincial Bridge to the Museum of Civilization).

Regarding the talk of STO buses (and to a lesser degree, OC Transpo) feeding into the loop, thereby allowing both transit operators to stay on their respective “sides”, that’s a non-starter for Gatineau, and with good reason as an extra transfer at the river for such a short distance would likely lead to a drop in transit’s modal share for Quebec-to-Ottawa commutes.

*Miami has made its system more competitive and relevant by linking its downtown system to a broader network to other areas of the county. But in isolation, like Detroit’s and others, these things are recipe for disaster. Where these things can have success is when they are linked to a broader, city- or metro-wide system (as they are with many of the modern tramway systems in many French cities).

An Urbanaut system could integrate small "shuttles" into the mainline train service branches so that transfers could be eliminated. The Prince of Wales bridge could accommodate bi-directional travel so that a simple spur serving either (or both) the museum of civilization and/or the casino direction would work.

I would not advocate that all buses from Gatineau should transfer to the "shuttle", I would simply use it to serve the adjacent area.

A tunnel from Nicholas to the Ontario side of the Macdonald-Cartier bridge would remove most of the truck and bus traffic on King-Edward. If the Nicholas end of the tunnel were to exit near the Mackenzie King Bridge, access would be improved.

[MalcolmTucker]

You could also run 6 different LRT lines that consolidate into one train before traveling into the the tunnel. It would be very cool and awesome, but not practical, feasible, or affordable. Also, should be in the 'future' thread, this thread is only for actual proposals.

It is not wrong to force transfers. As long as you account for transfer time in your demand models there shouldn't really be any concern. Ottawa's entire issue with transit is that to maintain current service levels/quality to individual users while also accommodating growth is incredibly expensive.

The politicians decided that accommodating growth was the main concern, not service quality. People will no longer have 1 seat rides for commutes and 2 seat rides will become 3 seat rides. Or in theory a current 3 seat ride (feeder, transit way, feeder) will become a 5 seat ride. Sure it sucks until the LRT network is built out replacing the main busways, but the problem isn't that they are doing this now, but that politicians 30 years ago didn't start with the same plan and choose a plan that had limited viability.

[lrt's friend]

Ottawa's entire issue with transit is that to maintain current service levels/quality to individual users while also accommodating growth is incredibly expensive.

I would argue that this is not entirely true. Sure, it will be expensive to accomodate growth in the bus system and would require the construction of a bus tunnel, but the alternative that we have chosen is even more expensive.

The politicians decided that accommodating growth was the main concern, not service quality.

I do not believe that our politicians have consciously made that choice although that will be the outcome. This is where I have a problem with the current plan. We have lost sight of our objectives in designing the current plan. Was it really our ONLY intension to resolve the downtown congestion problem? I don't think so, but because of numerous compromises, this appears to be all that we will accomplish. What has muddied the waters here is the mayor's continued insistance that there will be a substantial speed improvement that comes about from LRT, which is clearly not true. This has become an urban legend, and it has become impossible to relay the proper facts about the very limited speed enhancement of LRT when including the transfer penalty that most people will face.

As a Calgarian, I must ask you if the plan for a downtown tunnel will not also be incorporated with a plan for a completely new LRT route to the southeast? If so, your tunnel will be accompanied by clear service improvements.

People will no longer have 1 seat rides for commutes and 2 seat rides will become 3 seat rides. Or in theory a current 3 seat ride (feeder, transit way, feeder) will become a 5 seat ride. Sure it sucks until the LRT network is built out replacing the main busways, but the problem isn't that they are doing this now, but that politicians 30 years ago didn't start with the same plan and choose a plan that had limited viability.

Again, I question that the original plan had limited viability. There have been ongoing examinations of a bus tunnel and that would have given us about the same amount of capacity as LRT. Furthermore, a bus tunnel would have been able to incorporate the continued use of the Albert-Slater corridor providing further capacity. Once the Transitway is converted, most buses will not be able to efficiently reach the Albert-Slater corridor so we are effectively limiting ourselves to only the tunnel except for local bus service.

We also have to be careful about drawing too many parallels between Ottawa and Calgary. Calgary's transit system has been tremendously successful in delivering transit riders into downtown and Calgary has reinforced this by intensifying its downtown and emphasizing employment growth there. I question how effective transit is in delivering passengers away from downtown and the LRT corridors. Ottawa is designed differently and downtown expansion is limited because of geographic constraints, nearby heritage neighbourhoods and building height regulations. Because of this employment areas have been spread out and the bus Transitway system has been able to effectively serve those employment areas away from downtown. This has been accomplished by reducing the number of transfers needed to reach those locations. With the introduction of LRT, we start adding back transfers, which makes transit less competitive away from downtown. We all know that employment growth will be more rapid away from downtown therefore LRT (as presently planned) may actually become an impediment to transit ridership growth. The scenario of 3 seat or 5 seat trips is not going to attract transit riders, when in most cases, free parking is available. Transit becomes not a viable option for those suburban employment nodes such as the new RCMP site.

Waiting perhaps a lifetime for full conversion of the Transitways will leave transit stagnant in Ottawa for that period as most resources are placed into Transitway conversion instead of transit expansion. This 'switching gears' for our rapid transit system is really redoing 30 years of work, with limited benefits. Then, on top of that, we continue to build more and more bus Transitway, at a pace faster than we build LRT. Again, this is all part of the compromise process, which I think leaves us on a continued path of building and rebuilding rapid transit and wasted money in the longer-term.

When I look at other cities, they make choices for transit improvement on various corridors. They choose whether each corridor will be BRT, LRT, a streetcar, subway or heavy rail. This is determined by costs and benefits, the population base on the corridor, how easy it is to provide an exclusive ROW and the availability of existing rail lines. What we don't normally see, is a switch in rapid transit type after the choice is made.

Although it may appear from my arguments here that I oppose LRT, that cannot be further from the truth. I have always favoured leaving what has been built as is, and building out new corridors as LRT and that can include a downtown LRT tunnel. This would have led to transit expansion being LRT, while the city could continue to enjoy the ongoing benefits of the flexibility of the Transitways already built.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

When I look at other cities, they make choices for transit improvement on various corridors. They choose whether each corridor will be BRT, LRT, a streetcar, subway or heavy rail. This is determined by costs and benefits, the population base on the corridor, how easy it is to provide an exclusive ROW and the availability of existing rail lines. What we don't normally see, is a switch in rapid transit type after the choice is made.

This is all base on a time frame. If it's a 25-year time frame, the SAME planning that is being done for the LRT project, then BRT was the appropriate choice at that time. This is what I've been complaining about for years now. A transit project is not for 25 years. It takes 10 just to build it.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I would argue that this is not entirely true. Sure, it will be expensive to accomodate growth in the bus system and would require the construction of a bus tunnel, but the alternative that we have chosen is even more expensive.



I do not believe that our politicians have consciously made that choice although that will be the outcome. This is where I have a problem with the current plan. We have lost sight of our objectives in designing the current plan. Was it really our ONLY intension to resolve the downtown congestion problem? I don't think so, but because of numerous compromises, this appears to be all that we will accomplish. What has muddied the waters here is the mayor's continued insistance that there will be a substantial speed improvement that comes about from LRT, which is clearly not true. This has become an urban legend, and it has become impossible to relay the proper facts about the very limited speed enhancement of LRT when including the transfer penalty that most people will face.

As a Calgarian, I must ask you if the plan for a downtown tunnel will not also be incorporated with a plan for a completely new LRT route to the southeast? If so, your tunnel will be accompanied by clear service improvements.



Again, I question that the original plan had limited viability. There have been ongoing examinations of a bus tunnel and that would have given us about the same amount of capacity as LRT. Furthermore, a bus tunnel would have been able to incorporate the continued use of the Albert-Slater corridor providing further capacity. Once the Transitway is converted, most buses will not be able to efficiently reach the Albert-Slater corridor so we are effectively limiting ourselves to only the tunnel except for local bus service.

We also have to be careful about drawing too many parallels between Ottawa and Calgary. Calgary's transit system has been tremendously successful in delivering transit riders into downtown and Calgary has reinforced this by intensifying its downtown and emphasizing employment growth there. I question how effective transit is in delivering passengers away from downtown and the LRT corridors. Ottawa is designed differently and downtown expansion is limited because of geographic constraints, nearby heritage neighbourhoods and building height regulations. Because of this employment areas have been spread out and the bus Transitway system has been able to effectively serve those employment areas away from downtown. This has been accomplished by reducing the number of transfers needed to reach those locations. With the introduction of LRT, we start adding back transfers, which makes transit less competitive away from downtown. We all know that employment growth will be more rapid away from downtown therefore LRT (as presently planned) may actually become an impediment to transit ridership growth. The scenario of 3 seat or 5 seat trips is not going to attract transit riders, when in most cases, free parking is available. Transit becomes not a viable option for those suburban employment nodes such as the new RCMP site.

Waiting perhaps a lifetime for full conversion of the Transitways will leave transit stagnant in Ottawa for that period as most resources are placed into Transitway conversion instead of transit expansion. This 'switching gears' for our rapid transit system is really redoing 30 years of work, with limited benefits. Then, on top of that, we continue to build more and more bus Transitway, at a pace faster than we build LRT. Again, this is all part of the compromise process, which I think leaves us on a continued path of building and rebuilding rapid transit and wasted money in the longer-term.

When I look at other cities, they make choices for transit improvement on various corridors. They choose whether each corridor will be BRT, LRT, a streetcar, subway or heavy rail. This is determined by costs and benefits, the population base on the corridor, how easy it is to provide an exclusive ROW and the availability of existing rail lines. What we don't normally see, is a switch in rapid transit type after the choice is made.

Although it may appear from my arguments here that I oppose LRT, that cannot be further from the truth. I have always favoured leaving what has been built as is, and building out new corridors as LRT and that can include a downtown LRT tunnel. This would have led to transit expansion being LRT, while the city could continue to enjoy the ongoing benefits of the flexibility of the Transitways already built.

To keep my response brief, transit planning is city planning. Neither can work efficiently without the other.
The reason Ottawa has height restrictions in downtown is caused by a lack of parking, highways, and transitways that can only transport a certain amount of passengers. I submit that a light rail based system, when built fully out, will allow more taller buildings in downtown that can't exist today. There is a reason why RCMP campus is moving away from downtown.
When building mass transit systems, you build where you want the masses at first. Then you connect neighborhoods to that one line at a time.
So many get so transfix upon numbers, and often can't see the forest through the trees. A bus based transit system is very flexible, but it has its limitations. But if Ottawa dreams of a larger downtown area, they have to switch the technology they based their mass transit system on.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by electricron

To keep my response brief, transit planning is city planning. Neither can work efficiently without the other.
The reason Ottawa has height restrictions in downtown is caused by a lack of parking, highways, and transitways that can only transport a certain amount of passengers. I submit that a light rail based system, when built fully out, will allow more taller buildings in downtown that can't exist today. There is a reason why RCMP campus is moving away from downtown.
When building mass transit systems, you build where you want the masses at first. Then you connect neighborhoods to that one line at a time.
So many get so transfix upon numbers, and often can't see the forest through the trees. A bus based transit system is very flexible, but it has its limitations. But if Ottawa dreams of a larger downtown area, they have to switch the technology they based their mass transit system on.

I know road and building development go hand in hand, but there is evidence to suggest that transit doesn't shape development without incentives which basically makes it null. I'd like to see some study showing there is a real relationship.

Ottawa's downtown height restriction has to do with the parliament buildings and Ottawa being the nation's capital. It's very nice the way it is and we don't want it to be like other large cities, thanks.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As a Calgarian, I must ask you if the plan for a downtown tunnel will not also be incorporated with a plan for a completely new LRT route to the southeast? If so, your tunnel will be accompanied by clear service improvements.

I will address your Calgary specific question first, and I think we both can agree that Ottawa's city councillors do not seem to have a coherent plan. The question I guess is what would a coherent plan look like?

For the downtown subway, there will be service improvements on two existing lines. one (NW-South) will have improvements from being underground, having 5 car stations, and being able to increase frequency to maximum. The other line (West-NE) will be improved as it will no longer share the current above ground infrastructure with the NW-South train, and will be able to move with less constraints, no interlocking, and a less congested track.

The SE LRT that you have alluded to is getting its own dedicated transit tunnel, as it is oriented north-south in downtown, versus the traditional east-west orientation of our current setup. In 30-40 years Calgary's downtown will have at least 3 dedicated one line subways, after the line that was originally left above ground is moved below.

The plans for the SE LRT are independent all but for the fact that the lines do cross, and transfer stations will need to be planned, and the SE route will likely have to be deeper than otherwise would need to be the case.

I would argue that this is not entirely true. Sure, it will be expensive to accomodate growth in the bus system and would require the construction of a bus tunnel, but the alternative that we have chosen is even more expensive.

I would hope that and do remember an analysis of operating costs of different modes came into account here. The fault for slanting towards LRT when the economic case was pretty even was that the city receives a much larger capital subsidy than an operating subsidy. It distorts the market, and creates an incentive to build the highest cost system you can afford that has the lowest operating costs.

Again, the city does not even benefit greatly from this, because councilors were allowed to use markers and draw in new transit lines where they thought it was wanted. Plus they were even allowed to designate the modes. It isn't the most stellar example of professional planning I have seen.

I do not believe that our politicians have consciously made that choice although that will be the outcome. This is where I have a problem with the current plan. We have lost sight of our objectives in designing the current plan. Was it really our ONLY intension to resolve the downtown congestion problem? I don't think so, but because of numerous compromises, this appears to be all that we will accomplish. What has muddied the waters here is the mayor's continued insistance that there will be a substantial speed improvement that comes about from LRT, which is clearly not true. This has become an urban legend, and it has become impossible to relay the proper facts about the very limited speed enhancement of LRT when including the transfer penalty that most people will face.

People will still perceive a speed improvement even if it isn't the case. There will be a speed improvement for people that don't need to transfer. This is actually a good thing because it should increase political pressure to stop building transit way on the main line and expand LRT as quick as possible. Seeing a transitway station in operation, I am also guessing that most of the stations could not have handled 30,000 p/d/h wihtout major upgrades.

Again, I question that the original plan had limited viability. There have been ongoing examinations of a bus tunnel and that would have given us about the same amount of capacity as LRT. Furthermore, a bus tunnel would have been able to incorporate the continued use of the Albert-Slater corridor providing further capacity. Once the Transitway is converted, most buses will not be able to efficiently reach the Albert-Slater corridor so we are effectively limiting ourselves to only the tunnel except for local bus service.

Sometimes limits on the system are good, since they induce path dependency. They force your successors to finish your original plan. From a public policy perspective the problem with the busway was that there is almost no path dependency besides sunk costs. It can be continually tinkered with to the detriment of the original system, and it has never been finished as you point out.

We also have to be careful about drawing too many parallels between Ottawa and Calgary. Calgary's transit system has been tremendously successful in delivering transit riders into downtown and Calgary has reinforced this by intensifying its downtown and emphasizing employment growth there. I question how effective transit is in delivering passengers away from downtown and the LRT corridors. Ottawa is designed differently and downtown expansion is limited because of geographic constraints, nearby heritage neighbourhoods and building height regulations. Because of this employment areas have been spread out and the bus Transitway system has been able to effectively serve those employment areas away from downtown. This has been accomplished by reducing the number of transfers needed to reach those locations. With the introduction of LRT, we start adding back transfers, which makes transit less competitive away from downtown. We all know that employment growth will be more rapid away from downtown therefore LRT (as presently planned) may actually become an impediment to transit ridership growth. The scenario of 3 seat or 5 seat trips is not going to attract transit riders, when in most cases, free parking is available. Transit becomes not a viable option for those suburban employment nodes such as the new RCMP site.

Perhaps this is the greatest failure of all of the transitway, it allows for urban planning decisions to be made that are not optimal. It allowed normal situation or transfer from one express bus to another to have virtual door to door service of two disparate points that are not proximate to the transitway. If a campus is to be placed, it should be near a transitway stop. It should not be allowed away from a transitway stop. With the frequencies of all the different modes along the transit ways being in the 2 minute range, the transfer penalty outside the commute home trip transfer onto the feeder bus is virtually 0.

I know plenty of people at work that do a bus, train, train, bus commute (work has free parking). Or to university a bus, train, train commute. ($4 parking, but transit is included as part of tuition).

Moving employment from downtown isn't really a problem, as long as it is still pedestrian proximate to a transit way station.

Calgary has the same issues, with height restrictions (shadows on the river, parks) geographic constraints (residential neighborhoods on four sides, CPR tracks, rivers). Ottawa has alot of office space in the core, and I would bet the core or rather developable area works out to a larger area than Calgary's. That is just an educated guess from foot exploring downtown Ottawa.

Waiting perhaps a lifetime for full conversion of the Transitways will leave transit stagnant in Ottawa for that period as most resources are placed into Transitway conversion instead of transit expansion. This 'switching gears' for our rapid transit system is really redoing 30 years of work, with limited benefits. Then, on top of that, we continue to build more and more bus Transitway, at a pace faster than we build LRT. Again, this is all part of the compromise process, which I think leaves us on a continued path of building and rebuilding rapid transit and wasted money in the longer-term.

Well, to be fair all should be built as soon as possible, with a huge bond issue that is locked in at today's historically low rates. You would likely save enough in operating costs to pay the interest charges, or even more so you end up ahead.

As for the mode switching issue, I guess the argument against all your points is: if you continue to do the same things, and expect different results that is the definition of insanity.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Franky

I know road and building development go hand in hand, but there is evidence to suggest that transit doesn't shape development without incentives which basically makes it null. I'd like to see some study showing there is a real relationship.

Ottawa's downtown height restriction has to do with the parliament buildings and Ottawa being the nation's capital. It's very nice the way it is and we don't want it to be like other large cities, thanks.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=rail+transit+development+portland&btnG=Search

Transit directs development to be around it. It does not create development, it displaces it to the most socially optimal location (around transit). It goes around transit because of the economic price of transportation for future residents and workers is lowest.

What you are saying is that: development is not affected by infrastructure unless there are other subsidies. That is not true at all. That is like saying the availability of roads does not increase auto dependent development around them. Would anyone build an office building in a field without roads or transit? In effect, that is what you are saying, that infrastructure without additional inducements do not shape development patterns. That transportation is not a factor in people's choices at all.

Are you saying that Toronto's downtown would have the same pattern of development without the Go Train and subway? Are you saying that New York would be a business mega cluster without 1000s of miles of commuter rail and 100s of miles of subway feeding its massive towers?

People will pay a premium for property with good rail transit access. They aren't receiving any extra inducements besides transit access. Most of the time they are even punished by disproportionally higher taxes due to being in a core city and having high property values.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

You could also run 6 different LRT lines that consolidate into one train before traveling into the the tunnel. It would be very cool and awesome, but not practical, feasible, or affordable. Also, should be in the 'future' thread, this thread is only for actual proposals.

It is not wrong to force transfers. As long as you account for transfer time in your demand models there shouldn't really be any concern. Ottawa's entire issue with transit is that to maintain current service levels/quality to individual users while also accommodating growth is incredibly expensive.

The politicians decided that accommodating growth was the main concern, not service quality. People will no longer have 1 seat rides for commutes and 2 seat rides will become 3 seat rides. Or in theory a current 3 seat ride (feeder, transit way, feeder) will become a 5 seat ride. Sure it sucks until the LRT network is built out replacing the main busways, but the problem isn't that they are doing this now, but that politicians 30 years ago didn't start with the same plan and choose a plan that had limited viability.

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

I will address your Calgary specific question first, and I think we both can agree that Ottawa's city councillors do not seem to have a coherent plan. The question I guess is what would a coherent plan look like?

For the downtown subway, there will be service improvements on two existing lines. one (NW-South) will have improvements from being underground, having 5 car stations, and being able to increase frequency to maximum. The other line (West-NE) will be improved as it will no longer share the current above ground infrastructure with the NW-South train, and will be able to move with less constraints, no interlocking, and a less congested track.

The SE LRT that you have alluded to is getting its own dedicated transit tunnel, as it is oriented north-south in downtown, versus the traditional east-west orientation of our current setup. In 30-40 years Calgary's downtown will have at least 3 dedicated one line subways, after the line that was originally left above ground is moved below.

The plans for the SE LRT are independent all but for the fact that the lines do cross, and transfer stations will need to be planned, and the SE route will likely have to be deeper than otherwise would need to be the case.


I would hope that and do remember an analysis of operating costs of different modes came into account here. The fault for slanting towards LRT when the economic case was pretty even was that the city receives a much larger capital subsidy than an operating subsidy. It distorts the market, and creates an incentive to build the highest cost system you can afford that has the lowest operating costs.

Again, the city does not even benefit greatly from this, because councilors were allowed to use markers and draw in new transit lines where they thought it was wanted. Plus they were even allowed to designate the modes. It isn't the most stellar example of professional planning I have seen.



People will still perceive a speed improvement even if it isn't the case. There will be a speed improvement for people that don't need to transfer. This is actually a good thing because it should increase political pressure to stop building transit way on the main line and expand LRT as quick as possible. Seeing a transitway station in operation, I am also guessing that most of the stations could not have handled 30,000 p/d/h wihtout major upgrades.



Sometimes limits on the system are good, since they induce path dependency. They force your successors to finish your original plan. From a public policy perspective the problem with the busway was that there is almost no path dependency besides sunk costs. It can be continually tinkered with to the detriment of the original system, and it has never been finished as you point out.



Perhaps this is the greatest failure of all of the transitway, it allows for urban planning decisions to be made that are not optimal. It allowed normal situation or transfer from one express bus to another to have virtual door to door service of two disparate points that are not proximate to the transitway. If a campus is to be placed, it should be near a transitway stop. It should not be allowed away from a transitway stop. With the frequencies of all the different modes along the transit ways being in the 2 minute range, the transfer penalty outside the commute home trip transfer onto the feeder bus is virtually 0.

I know plenty of people at work that do a bus, train, train, bus commute (work has free parking). Or to university a bus, train, train commute. ($4 parking, but transit is included as part of tuition).

Moving employment from downtown isn't really a problem, as long as it is still pedestrian proximate to a transit way station.

Calgary has the same issues, with height restrictions (shadows on the river, parks) geographic constraints (residential neighborhoods on four sides, CPR tracks, rivers). Ottawa has alot of office space in the core, and I would bet the core or rather developable area works out to a larger area than Calgary's. That is just an educated guess from foot exploring downtown Ottawa.



Well, to be fair all should be built as soon as possible, with a huge bond issue that is locked in at today's historically low rates. You would likely save enough in operating costs to pay the interest charges, or even more so you end up ahead.

As for the mode switching issue, I guess the argument against all your points is: if you continue to do the same things, and expect different results that is the definition of insanity.

As I pointed out, we are continuing the same old policy of building more and more bus transitways, and as we have seen since the 2006 cancellation, we have only built a bus transitway and the latest proposal for the infrastructure program is only for improvements to the bus system and the bus transitways.

As Clive Doucet has pointed out, we really have a bus plan and the LRT component is very vulnerable to whether the most expensive part ever gets funded. If the tunnel cannot be funded, LRT is dead yet again. This is the opposite to the way Calgary has done things, and rail demand from the suburbs will eventually force the construction of the downtown tunnel.

We also continue to make the same planning mistakes over and over again. When the plan was approved in November, also approved was a study on the feasibility of converting the SE Transitway to LRT instead of converting the O-Train. If the former replaces the latter, then one of the universities is taken off the main rapid transit system in the name of reducing costs. Similarly when the 2006 plan was cancelled, also to go with it was the notion of a rail spur running to the new RCMP complex. Likewise, the Kanata Business Park and Scotiabank Place will not be connected to LRT until long after I am dead. More likely Scotiabank Place will have to be replaced by the time LRT (or any other type of rapid transit) finally gets out there. There is also pressure to build government complexes in the east end, far beyond our 25 year plan for LRT. There appears to be no coherance in what the objectives are, beyond satisfying the most simplistic demands of the public that we want LRT and it needs to run east-west to serve existing demand. There is no real vision on how to attract new transit riders and this is demonstrated by the fact that no proper ridership studies have been conducted for the approved plan.

Thank you for clarifying the issue of the Calgary tunnel. It still supports my point that the Calgary tunnel will deliver a service improvement, while the Ottawa tunnel will not.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We also continue to make the same planning mistakes over and over again. When the plan was approved in November, also approved was a study on the feasibility of converting the SE Transitway to LRT instead of converting the O-Train. If the former replaces the latter, then one of the universities is taken off the main rapid transit system in the name of reducing costs.

Thank you for clarifying the issue of the Calgary tunnel. It still supports my point that the Calgary tunnel will deliver a service improvement, while the Ottawa tunnel will not.

Yawn... O-Train is rapid transit, and it's success shows that transferring from a bus to a train is quite successful in the city. I disapprove replacing the O-Train with other rail-based transit. The Transitway conversion will serve more people and cost less to build, so it has all my support.

The Ottawa tunnel will save the 20 minutes to people who are stuck in DT traffic right now. Even if they have to wait 5 minutes for transfer, they are still saving time. This is something you seem to forget.

Other cities have shown that transfering to rail is not a big deal, because it's a comfortable transfer. I absolutely despise to transfer from a bus to another, just because there's either rain, a snowstorm or whatever climate issue there is. The Transitway stations are the worst designed transit shelters I had the displeasure to wait at. Seeing the consultant's work, I don't think that will change anytime soon... The fact is you can't have a comfortable diesel-based system, because of the fumes. I'm always amazed how great the Toronto Subway -> Streetcar transfers are made at Spadina and St-Clair West. In those case, the transfer factor is minimal.

The idiocy is to keep building more Transitway, to have them converted in 20-25 years. And just for that the city planners should be fired.