Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[waterloowarrior]

O-Train is hardly rapid transit ... 15 minute frequencies?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

O-Train is hardly rapid transit ... 15 minute frequencies?

Rapid doesn't mean frequent... Most subway lines are 10 minutes frequency. I think you should look at numbers.

Washington metro: 15 minutes
Oslo metro: 15 minutes

Just to name a few. Of course there's some interlining that pushes the number up. But Doucet's plan called for 7.5 minutes frequency, and that could be easily achieved by doubling another section of tracks.

The oddity is to have service at every 2 minutes, at opening nonetheless.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

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.

Whether locating near a transit station is the most socially optimal will depend on the individual or business in question. In my case, it is. For many others, it is not (they are unwilling to accept higher density living / cannot afford the cost of living near a station / do not work near a station / prefer to live downtown to be within walking distance of work). Also, it may not make sense to locate land-intensive businesses near transit stations.

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.

All things being equal, people and businesses will prefer to locate near good transportation facilities. This will drive up land values. This does not apply just to rail transit stations. I’ve never seen a study for Ottawa, but I suspect land located near Transitway stations fetches a premium. Obviously, land located near an interchange will be worth more than similar land located far away from one.

Over the past one hundred years, the need to locate near rail facilities has diminished tremendously thanks to the advent of the automobile, the truck, the bus and highly-developed road networks. The need to locate downtown has also been diminishing, due in part to advances in communications technology. Only businesses and public sector entities that need to locate downtown (e.g., to take advantage of agglomeration economies) will do so and tolerate the higher rents. Most businesses and public sector entities, including the RCMP, do not fall into that category.

It is becoming clearer by the day that, for most users, conversion to LRT will result in a deterioration of service due to more transfers, longer waits (the trains will run less frequently) and lengthier walks (some key stations will be lost and it will take time to reach those underground stations). The only people that may win out are the few that pass through downtown on their way to a destination on the other side (e.g., someone travelling from Hurdman to Tunney’s Pasture).

Therefore, I doubt land values will go up. The only thing that could change this is the fact that the greatest deterioration in service will be felt by those living far away from the stations (i.e., they will lose their direct, no-transfer bus service). Some of these people may decide to move near the stations in order to minimize the increased inconvenience. This would drive up land values.

[Deez]

Glad to see that progress has been made in this circular argument...

I won't bother to repeat my views on this for the nth time, just read kyle's posts.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

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.

There's an amusing irony to this. The whole concept of LRT is based on the premise of a transition from "lighter", low capacity systems to "heavier" high capacity systems.

In the 1960's, many West German cities decided to upgrade their tramways by constructing centre-city tunnels. The premise was that these lines would eventually be converted to full U-bahn (metro) systems when demand warranted. When this transit philosophy was imported into North America in the 1970's, it was given the name "Light Rail Transit". I would argue that BRT can be a precursor to LRT just as LRT is a precursor to metro construction.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

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.

I’ve looked carefully at my own situation (i.e., live in Westboro and work downtown). Due to the loss of the Bank Station, the poor placement of the Eastern station (i.e., on Queen St.) and the extra time required to reach underground stations, I’m looking at an extra walk of about five minutes. And since walk time is regarding as more onerous than riding time (by a factor of about two) that’s equivalent to an extra 10 minutes of riding time. In addition, particularly off-peak, I’ll have to wait more (one minute of waiting is equivalent to about three minutes of riding time). At least I'll be sheltered from the elements when I wait and I won’t have to face more transfers for most of my trips. This is not going to be fully offset by a faster riding time. At best, I’m looking at a five minutes savings in riding time and this could be cut in half if the City simply changed the way buses are operated downtown and along the Transitway (i.e., fare pre-payment, all-door boarding, high platforms, better-placed stations, bus arrival system, etc.), improved the Lebreton Flats portion and actually enforced traffic laws.

I don't know where you get your 20 minutes in time savings. In fact, my current door-to-door trip time averages about 20 minutes and that includes a six-minute walk to Westboro station from where I live and a two-minute walk from Bank Station to my office building. It's actually less than 20 minutes when you don't have people paying with tickets/cash and when the bus does not get bogged down in Lebreton Flats.

Regarding transfers, the empirical evidence shows that the penalty is significant for bus to rail transfers. Even for rail to rail transfers, it exists and is something that needs to be taken into account.

With a bus tunnel and the continued use of Albert/Slater, you’d probably have enough bus capacity to last at least fifty years. Hopefully, urban transportation technology will have greatly evolved by then.

[MalcolmTucker]

Valuing a minute of time at more than a minute is dishonest at best. Why would any model create bias like that? A minute is a minute.

I can design a model too that counts all time on a bus as 2 minutes to account for rail bias to justify my positions but I don't. It would be wrong to do so.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Suzie

Regarding transfers, the empirical evidence shows that the penalty is significant for bus to rail transfers. Even for rail to rail transfers, it exists and is something that needs to be taken into account.

With a bus tunnel and the continued use of Albert/Slater, you’d probably have enough bus capacity to last at least fifty years. Hopefully, urban transportation technology will have greatly evolved by then.

This is all based on you as an individual, the city doesn't care about YOU, it cares about the total. While I understand that the Bank station was removed because of engineering issues (still shows how by the book folks in Ottawa are), there are still costs involved in buses, being Diesel costs and six times the drivers required. Like I said many times, on 50 years, your conversion has paid itself.

Transfers need to be taken into account, that's for sure, but not all transfers are made equal, which many of you here seem to take for a fact.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

Valuing a minute of time at more than a minute is dishonest at best. Why would any model create bias like that? A minute is a minute.

I can design a model too that counts all time on a bus as 2 minutes to account for rail bias to justify my positions but I don't. It would be wrong to do so.

A 2 minutes in pourring rain would surely FEEL longer than a 2 minutes spent into an underground station. I guess that's what implied here.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

Valuing a minute of time at more than a minute is dishonest at best. Why would any model create bias like that? A minute is a minute.

I can design a model too that counts all time on a bus as 2 minutes to account for rail bias to justify my positions but I don't. It would be wrong to do so.

They correspond (roughly) to the parameters in Ottawa’s model: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=3953455&postcount=919

They also are consistent to what I've read in the literature. In fact, the much greater time spent out-of-the-vehicle (i.e., walking, waiting and transferring) is a key reason (probably the most important reason) why existing transit modes have trouble competing with the automobile.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

This is all based on you as an individual, the city doesn't care about YOU, it cares about the total. While I understand that the Bank station was removed because of engineering issues (still shows how by the book folks in Ottawa are), there are still costs involved in buses, being Diesel costs and six times the drivers required. Like I said many times, on 50 years, your conversion has paid itself.

Transfers need to be taken into account, that's for sure, but not all transfers are made equal, which many of you here seem to take for a fact.

I think we agree more than we disagree in this case. I agree that rail to rail transfers or bus to rail / bus to bus transfers at a major station are much less onerous than a bus to bus transfer at an exposed street corner. The penalty is clearly less but my point is that it is still more than zero and the evidence supports this.

Also, when one assesses conversion, all costs and benefits should be taken into account, including changes in labour and fuel costs, capital costs and the impact on user time (i.e., the time that users spend walking, waiting, transferring and riding inside a transit vehicle). The latter should not be minimized, particularly the first three types of time costs, which users particularly dislike.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Those numbers are 'perception', and there is of course likely different academic flavours that support either type in academic peer reviewed journals. It doesn't mean one is right or wrong, only that one measures perception and one measures an opinion.

All the courses I have taken have presented total trip time as the only objective determinant for modal choice in addition to cost. No models I have seen that are otherwise different have convinced me otherwise.

Of course, to be honest with the perception model you also have to measure different types of on vehicle time, for different modes and whether trains vs buses are perceived differently, whether underground stations are perceived the same. Whether transferring between two trains is seen as the same as transferring between two buses (since people perceive trains as more reliable, a transfer involving trains may be seen as less stressful and therefor as not as long of an amount of subjective time.).

Personally it is my informed opinion that models that involve perception modeling are subject not only to the individual biases of survey participants, but also to the biases of the survey structure, the lead researcher and the surveyors.

Modeling is there to give information to decision makers. The decision makers can choose to use it, ignore it, or modify to their own biases at that time.

That Ottawa's decision makers seem to make decisions without thinking of the implications of a tweak here and a tweak there is the disturbing part of all this (I am not saying there needs to be more and more option studies). But I know in Calgary when a change gets made to a plan, it always comes back the next week for final approval with bureaucratic advice on the implications of the changes (costs, functionality, timelines).

Ottawa's breaucrats seem to have on one hand created a model that seems to justify one seat for everyone to everywhere, while ignoring the practical side of actually getting the decision makers to approve what you want.

That it is almost impossible to improve the system doesn't help them either. Every solution requires one factor to give to allow the others to improve. But something needs to be done, and politicians made the decision.

Now just hopefully the breaucrats will work implementation in a way that will support much faster and more extensive LRT build out rather than adding more and more transit way as a priority.

[Richard Eade]

It will be interesting to see tomorrow evening's presentation about the DOTT. I wonder if the consultant will bring up their future conciderations for surface operations:
- BRT on Albert/Slater to be replaced by LRT (I assume they are talking about in the tunnel and not on the surface.)
- East routes will terminate at Blair
- South-east routes will terminate at Hurdman
- West routes will terminate at Tunneys/Bayview
- Some routes from Kanata/Barrhaven may continue downtown until LRT is extended west
- Local routes and STO routes will continue

I wonder where the Kanata/Barrhaven buses will go once the Transitway is removed east/south of Nicholas? I expect onto Nicholas and across the new ($40M) AVTC Bridge. I'm surprised that there isn't more out-cry about the AVTC being slipped into the Transit deal.

Also, I see the Cross Country route has been modified a bit, staying under Albert until Metcalfe. The station would be centred on O'Connor, streching from between Bank and O'Connor to between O'Connor and Metcalfe. This makes the bump up to Rideau really obvious. I still don't understand the contractor's bent about having a station under rideau. The businesses really don't want it there.

Oh, it looks as if they are planning to push the LeBreton station to east of Booth to better balance the distance between Bayview and Downtown-west.

And the Rideau station might need to be pulled farther east, putting it more under Rideau, in front of the Rideau Centre. This would allow the station to be built across the underground valley that they are worried about trying to bore across. I expect that this will mean a LOT more digging from the surface along Rideau. This, I don't think will be shown on the graphics, but might be in the text. The graphics will continue to show the station under the old Union Station because people are happy about that idea. Of course, pushing the Rideau station east will tighten the curve to the east of it which is not a good thing.

They have finally started looking at a Daly option, and it looked good, except it was not under Rideau so they brought up the fact that it would have a larger catchment overlap with the Campus station than a Rideau station. Apparently the overlap of all the other stations being similar was just ignored. They are really fixed on a Rideau station and will find any argument to get it, regardless of its validity.

Any way, I'm sure many of you will be joining me at the meeting tomorrow evening. Bring all of your tough questiong for the consultants.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Suzie

I think we agree more than we disagree in this case. I agree that rail to rail transfers or bus to rail / bus to bus transfers at a major station are much less onerous than a bus to bus transfer at an exposed street corner. The penalty is clearly less but my point is that it is still more than zero and the evidence supports this.

Also, when one assesses conversion, all costs and benefits should be taken into account, including changes in labour and fuel costs, capital costs and the impact on user time (i.e., the time that users spend walking, waiting, transferring and riding inside a transit vehicle). The latter should not be minimized, particularly the first three types of time costs, which users particularly dislike.

Suzie, you might find that the demand for public transit is somewhat inelastic with respect to bus fares, or the time lost during transit. I think that the riders will grumble a lot at first, but they will still use public transit.

[Franky]

Richard Eade,
Where do you get your information? I look at the Technical Documents page and it's blank:
http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/transit_tunnel/techdocs_en.html

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

^ Those numbers are 'perception', and there is of course likely different academic flavours that support either type in academic peer reviewed journals. It doesn't mean one is right or wrong, only that one measures perception and one measures an opinion.

All the courses I have taken have presented total trip time as the only objective determinant for modal choice in addition to cost. No models I have seen that are otherwise different have convinced me otherwise.

For the simulation courses I was giving, I NEVER used a pure time objective, because it's definitely not the only one. Probably your courses were introduction to the subject, but I can assure you that when you create transit simulation models, time is only one component.

Perception modelisation is a field by itself.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

They have finally started looking at a Daly option, and it looked good, except it was not under Rideau so they brought up the fact that it would have a larger catchment overlap with the Campus station than a Rideau station. Apparently the overlap of all the other stations being similar was just ignored. They are really fixed on a Rideau station and will find any argument to get it, regardless of its validity.

Any way, I'm sure many of you will be joining me at the meeting tomorrow evening. Bring all of your tough questiong for the consultants.

I just want you to ask one question to the consultants. What would it take them to actually change their plans, and why bother doing presentations if they don't bother to change their plans?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

For the simulation courses I was giving, I NEVER used a pure time objective, because it's definitely not the only one. Probably your courses were introduction to the subject, but I can assure you that when you create transit simulation models, time is only one component.

Perception modelisation is a field by itself.

The dangers of applying economics to transportation is you use relatively simple models, and you have to model in a single measurement. You can use time, or dollars, or an arbitrary measure.

While it isn't good to use as a demand measure, or consequently planning a single route, it is great at comparing two different systems that will travel between the same points with different characteristics. You do not even have to gather secondary data since the purpose is comparison only.

Of course, application is limited, but it works in Ottawa's case in this particular instance.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

The dangers of applying economics to transportation is you use relatively simple models, and you have to model in a single measurement. You can use time, or dollars, or an arbitrary measure.

While it isn't good to use as a demand measure, or consequently planning a single route, it is great at comparing two different systems that will travel between the same points with different characteristics. You do not even have to gather secondary data since the purpose is comparison only.

Of course, application is limited, but it works in Ottawa's case in this particular instance.

Yes, that is basically basic (sic) modelling. Most transit planning system don't work that way, as they are heavily multi-variable influence, some of them even have if the street has sidewalk, lighting ect. I wasn't talking about economics, but preferences and human modelisation.

Using only time as a reference of a transit system is not at all adequate. You can take one of my course next fall if you want. We even had one assignment, where students were to predict the pedestrian flow on 4streets, quite simple. Many assume that the users would use the fastest route, but it wasn't the case. When we got the results, the students were amazed that the shortest route wasn't the most popular. When asked, the reason that they didn't use the shortest route was because there was a cemetery on that street. It's that silly.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Suzie, you might find that the demand for public transit is somewhat inelastic with respect to bus fares, or the time lost during transit. I think that the riders will grumble a lot at first, but they will still use public transit.

I think you are right about this but only to a certain extent. This definitely applies to central areas where what is driving transit use is parking costs, parking shortages and congestion. Away from downtown, fares and speed need to be more competitive with car travel because of free and ample parking availability. I guess we can decide that transit away from downtown is really a lost cause.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Franky

Richard Eade,
Where do you get your information?

Richard is on PTAC, the Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee. As such, he gets somewhat more information than the public at large.


It's all sort of trickle down:

Consultants have the most information (as far as I can tell).

They send some of that to the City.

The City and the Consultants furnish some of that information with the technical advisory committees. These committees will provide some valuable information to the City and Consultants, like "there's an easement for an underground telecommunications switching station on Albert so you can't run LRT in the leftmost lane like you want to... weren't you already supposed to know this?" They might also be involved in "weighting" exercises, but chances are they won't know what their own weightings do. In fact, probably only the consultants do.

Then some of that information makes it as far as the public advisory committees before the public gets to see it. This is probably what the Councillors get as well.

Finally, the public gets some information, but not all of it and not in a timely fashion. Graphics will be low-res and difficult to read online. Evaluation charts will be presented with no rationale for the little checks and exes. You might read the end results of the weighting exercise of the technical advisory committees and wonder what they were smoking, but it'll be as much news to them as you.

You can participate by scribbling your contribution on the pieces of paper provided, though these will not give you much room to write anything much. This makes life easier for the administrative assistants who read your contributions as they'll have less to do, since the engineers in charge have better things to do than read anything the public sends their way. Your contribution will be "noted", classified and tallied with all the others and if it fits the general thrust of the project then support is claimed and if not nothing more is heard about it.

Got all that?