Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Dado]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

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.

It also resolves a load imbalance in the tunnel and provides more capacity to take passengers from Gatineau.

O-Train capacity can be quadrupled by coupling a second vehicle and doubling its frequency, both of which are easily done. That would provide more than enough capacity for ages to come. Well, that and telling OC Transpo to get rid of the fencing at Carleton University and the bottleneck exit at Bayview. We love our black fencing in Ottawa, we really do.*

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.

Probably designed by engineers (and if an architect designed them, they should be ashamed of themselves). The overhangs are great at depositing rain, snow and ice down one's back as one steps on or off a bus, which is why they added these helpful yellow diamonds hanging there warning one not to stand right where one needs to be to board a bus. A suitable form of punishment for the Transitway's principal promoters would be to force them to stand along the front edge of these shelters on a rainy spring day when the snow is melting.

That said, I think Lion's Park Station in Calgary has to take the cake for miserable transit shelters. It won't drip on you, but on a cold blustery winter's day it is absolute misery since there is no real shelter.

*Anyone gone past the new West Transitway work at Bayshore recently? Check out the stretch of black fencing at the westbound Queensway offramp to Richmond Rd where the transitway goes under the off ramp. Not a sidewalk or pedestrian facility in sight (we're on the Queensway, after all) but we have some black fencing to keep pedestrians from jumping over the edge. Way to go, Ottawa! Not even the MTO could top that.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Suzie

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. [... lots more time added for various other things ... ].

[snip]
...

With a bus tunnel and the continued use of Albert/Slater, you’d probably have enough bus capacity to last at least fifty years.

I very much doubt that, but whatever: a bus tunnel is going to have the exact same concern as above because it's not like they'd be giving us an extra station with BRT in a tunnel.


Anyway, if there's one thing that the public should be focussing on in this study it's the drastic reduction in the number of downtown stations. They can't be allowed to hobble our downtown transit system this way. We need three in the core, one at Rideau/Union and the UoO station should be moved closer to Laurier.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by Dado

Way to go, Ottawa! Not even the MTO could top that.

I think Ohio is the worst I've ever seen. When I passed through the state on my way to Kentucky last year, I noticed that ever single overpass above I-75 had high chain link fencing.

With regard to public consultation, I agree that it can often be a complete joke. As you know, a lot of municipalities and regions are undertaking 5-year reviews of their Official Plans. One county that the firm I work for submitted comments to collated all the comments (of which there were many) and provided staff responses to those comments. That is all well and good, except that the staff comments consisted of 'Agree' or 'Disagree'. It makes a joke out of the entire process and is ultimately a waste of time and money because instead of trying to deal with many of those concerns immediately, they end up getting appealed to the board. That's obviously a better and more productive solution.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

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?

Thanks, that explains some of the fine mess we're in.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

I very much doubt that, but whatever: a bus tunnel is going to have the exact same concern as above because it's not like they'd be giving us an extra station with BRT in a tunnel.

If the tunnel were cut&cover (closer to the surface) there could be more, smaller stations.

[Suzie]

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.

Yes, you are correct that it is inelastic (at least in the short run / in the long run, elasticity values tend to be greater since people have more opportunities to find alternatives or change their behaviour). However, the elasticity is not zero so there would be an impact on ridership. As lrt's friend highlighted, the impact will tend to vary based on the market served. Also, many of the people who would continue to use transit would suffer a welfare loss due to the increased out-of-vehicle time and the greater likelihood of being forced to stand. Governments should seek to increase social welfare, not reduce it.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Dado

I very much doubt that, but whatever: a bus tunnel is going to have the exact same concern as above because it's not like they'd be giving us an extra station with BRT in a tunnel.

People like myself (i.e., my office building would be located quite far from the underground stations, unless the locations and the route are changed) would opt to use the Albert/Slater buses whenever possible. This would be made much easier with the installation of display screens at each station showing bus arrival times, their route number and whether or not they would use the tunnel (e.g., a 95 versus a T95). With such a system, riders would be able to see which bus routes are the next to arrive and whether they will use the tunnel or Albert/Slater, and make boarding decisions accordingly. At peak, there would be a healthy mix of both types of routes.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

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.

Yes, I was refering to the relatively inelastic demand for commuter transit, as this is basically what we are planning for at this time.

Another thing which tends to keep people on the buses is a 'public servant' mentality. I think that you will find that public servants tend to use public transit more than their private industry counterparts. It just seems to be the nature of the beast.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Dado

Probably designed by engineers (and if an architect designed them, they should be ashamed of themselves). The overhangs are great at depositing rain, snow and ice down one's back as one steps on or off a bus, which is why they added these helpful yellow diamonds hanging there warning one not to stand right where one needs to be to board a bus. A suitable form of punishment for the Transitway's principal promoters would be to force them to stand along the front edge of these shelters on a rainy spring day when the snow is melting.

That's a pet peeve of mine also. I don't know if they could install some eavestroughs to rectify this.

But I still prefer them to our downtown stations, which only have small glass shelters and are inadequate for the amount of people that use them.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Yes, I was refering to the relatively inelastic demand for commuter transit, as this is basically what we are planning for at this time.

Another thing which tends to keep people on the buses is a 'public servant' mentality. I think that you will find that public servants tend to use public transit more than their private industry counterparts. It just seems to be the nature of the beast.

You know, I find this a little troubling. We have an aging population, yet the emphasis is commuter transit. This is a long-term project and our senior population is going to expand tremendously by the time it is completed. I have also noted the emphasis on commuter transit as well, but I suspect that transit demand beyond commuter service is going to increase, perhaps dramatically, in future years. Are we preparing for this?

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Dado

...
Probably designed by engineers (and if an architect designed them, they should be ashamed of themselves)...

Funny, I would have said the opposite.

I'm looking forward to seing what the 'Temporary' Baseline Station will look like. I am kind of expecting something like Terry Fox, but I don't know.

Does anyone have any idea why none of the shelters have a roof that extends to the road's edge?, Or why the curbs along the Transitway are not 16" high?

[p_xavier]

To compare, here are the stations' design for the planned Montréal LRT:

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You know, I find this a little troubling. We have an aging population, yet the emphasis is commuter transit. This is a long-term project and our senior population is going to expand tremendously by the time it is completed. I have also noted the emphasis on commuter transit as well, but I suspect that transit demand beyond commuter service is going to increase, perhaps dramatically, in future years. Are we preparing for this?

Short answer "No."

The current plan is a reactive plan. There is a problem with the downtown capacity using the present bus setup, so it needs to be 'fixed'. The problem affects the west (including Barrhaven) and east traffic the most so that is where people want to see the changes. Putting new lines in to direct growth is not going to make things better for the majority of current riders, thus that is not what we are planning to do.

In one way, I can see this point. We did take the same approach that Calgary took and used our available funds to build commuter transit lines out to the suburbs. Calgary chose to do it in rail, we chose buses, but the goal was the same; to provide as many, far reaching transit Rights of Way as we could. The bottle-neck in the centre could be handled later. Now is that later. Calgary is building a downtown tunnel and Ottawa is building a downtown tunnel. In Ottawa's case, we are also converting our bus back-bone to rail. I don't think there is a clear case for the conversion, but that is not the point here: Council has made that decision.

So we are reacting to the success of the system, as Calgary is doing, and building a tunnel through the core to improve the ride for commuters. This is the priority chosen by Council.

And, back to your point, even with an aging population, there will continue to be a large volume of commuters heading for the downtown core every week-day. We need to handle those riders in an efficient manner. Currently we are just managing, but this will not last. We need to make improvements in the through put downtown.

I think once the pressure is off, and the success of a rail system can be justified, we will see new rail lines added to shape the development of the City. We will add more LRT routes along main streets and down to the south. I am not convinced that we will see rail extended to the suburbs. (Although I think we should. Penalizing the suburbs for being suburbs won't make them go away, and running full buses across the Greenbelt is crazy.)

This assumes, though, that we don't take so long to build the tunnel that we force businesses to create their own high density office centres out side of the core. If that happens, we might need to play 'catch-up' again and react to the need for rail lines to those centres.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

...

...

German designer? The cars in the rendering are a Porshe and a VW.

[Richard Eade]

I am reading that there is a lot of distrust for the public consultations that have been happening for the transit plan. I hope that this will not stop people from actively trying to change the plan for the better. There are a lot of good ideas floating around and they need to be submitted.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

German designer? The cars in the rendering are a Porshe and a VW.

Well that station is in old MTL, so I guess they were realistic in their choice of cars.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I am reading that there is a lot of distrust for the public consultations that have been happening for the transit plan. I hope that this will not stop people from actively trying to change the plan for the better. There are a lot of good ideas floating around and they need to be submitted.

It's good that you still have hope. I don't. I had been at every meeting for 2 years, they just don't care, even when they can't prove their numbers. Good for you if you still have the time and energy for that. I sure didn't.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Funny, I would have said the opposite.

Well you haven't seen the Transitway Design Manual... I'm afraid that the people wearing black and one offsetting colour with oversized black framed glasses wouldn't have the patience to come up with such sterility.

I'm looking forward to seing what the 'Temporary' Baseline Station will look like. I am kind of expecting something like Terry Fox, but I don't know.

I thought it was going to be more like Fallowfield or Strandherd - 4-lane inline, nothing substantial.

Does anyone have any idea why none of the shelters have a roof that extends to the road's edge?

It's definitely defined in the Transitway Design Manual - min. of 1300 mm back from the road edge. I find no direct rationale for this, but there is some talk of no physical features that will impair the ability of passengers to see approaching buses from the platform area and that bus passengers must also be visible to drivers. I suppose it's conceivable that if the overhang went to the road edge or beyond that this visibility requirement might be impaired. Otherwise, I have no idea.

Eavestroughs would be out of the question since it would violate the "easily maintained" requirement as they'd be getting full of debris all the time.

, Or why the curbs along the Transitway are not 16" high?

That I do know. It's so that buses can drive up and over them to park on the paved shoulders. The Transitway's curbs are much lower than on most roads for just that purpose. I used to think that buses just break down a lot (which they do) but apparently buses also don't have fuel gauges - they just go on the modern day equivalent of dead reckoning, so every now and then a bus runs out of fuel. Yes, really. Therefore, we have to be able to park buses on the transitway and for that we need to give them a place to park. Another BRT innovation brought to you by Ottawa.

At the stations the curbs are metalled so that buses can't drive onto the platforms.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I am reading that there is a lot of distrust for the public consultations that have been happening for the transit plan. I hope that this will not stop people from actively trying to change the plan for the better. There are a lot of good ideas floating around and they need to be submitted.

I am one of them. I have worked with someone else and a submission was made to the mayor's taskforce, I have served on a consultative committee for my city councillor, I have attended public consultation meetings, and voiced my opinion both verbally and in writing, I have had letters published in the newspaper on the subject. It all seems to have been a waste of my time, so no more. I will follow with interest, but I cannot continue to expend this much energy when it appears that nobody is listening and the agenda has been predetermined.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

To compare, here are the stations' design for the planned Montréal LRT:

Elevated LRT station? How much of the route is elevated? Can you give me a link?