Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

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.

But Larry's trial is approaching, so maybe the next Mayor will take a serious look at your work. Larry only wants a "world class transit system that starts with an escalator ride" (or something) - talk about predetermined.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

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

It uses the existing elevated rail structure in Montréal towards the Gare Centrale.

http://www.amt.qc.ca/docs/pdf/slr/SLR_Studies_report.pdf

There is a lot of political influence to use the same route, but opt for another line of underground metro though.

Unfortunately, this is what I had for a vision of LRT in Ottawa, the city is far from that.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Franky

But Larry's trial is approaching, so maybe the next Mayor will take a serious look at your work. Larry only wants a "world class transit system that starts with an escalator ride" (or something) - talk about predetermined.

didn't he want a system more like Sydney, AU?
http://moving-ottawa.ca/

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

didn't he want a system more like Sydney, AU?
http://moving-ottawa.ca/

At least they had 4 stations in the CBD, not 2!

[Franky]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

didn't he want a system more like Sydney, AU?
http://moving-ottawa.ca/

"I have always said that every world-class transit system begins with a ride down an escalator. " - Larry "zero"
http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/fea...?id=d126e83a-8a2d-40d3-8a38-cd23a4f6b9fc

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Franky

But Larry's trial is approaching, so maybe the next Mayor will take a serious look at your work. Larry only wants a "world class transit system that starts with an escalator ride" (or something) - talk about predetermined.

Maybe the escalator could be going UP.
Sorry, couldn't resist.

Seriously, I think there has been a lot that has been predetermined. This is one of the reasons that some of the ideas that you bring to the forum are not as appreciated as they should be. I happen to agree with your premis that we should be looking at what is coming and plan with that knowledge.

However, because so much has been locked in, I realize that I also need to deal with reality. A bus tunnel, elevated rail (mono or not), maglev, etc., are not going to happen.

Where we might be able to make a difference is in smaller things like the number and position of stations. Although, there seems to be great resistance to change these also.

It will take obviously superior ideas, which are based on the original plan. Things which are not radically different, but make a difference.

For example, the modification to the Cross Country route came about because the density numbers showed a potential higher ridership for an Albert station than a Queen one. Admittedly, this is due to the Queen station's catchment area including more of the low work density of Parliment Hill.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

For example, the modification to the Cross Country route came about because the density numbers showed a potential higher ridership for an Albert station than a Queen one. Admittedly, this is due to the Queen station's catchment area including more of the low work density of Parliment Hill.

At least it's nice to finally see a "maybe" on the Daly alignment. I still find it such a waste of opportunity to not have a major bus transfer besides the Rideau parkade. That could only come with the Daly alignment though.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

But Larry's trial is approaching, so maybe the next Mayor will take a serious look at your work. Larry only wants a "world class transit system that starts with an escalator ride" (or something) - talk about predetermined.

This has been a runaway train since before the first public consultation a year ago. Only a lack of funding or a lack of political will, will stop it.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by Franky

But Larry's trial is approaching, so maybe the next Mayor will take a serious look at your work. Larry only wants a "world class transit system that starts with an escalator ride" (or something) - talk about predetermined.

Every time I read a sneer like that one it just causes me to step back from all this and just ask, "what's wrong with wanting a subway?"

This is about more than just "proving numbers". People who think these things are on trial before a judge, and only the Truth Shall Prevail, and then Justice Shall Be Done, even though their version of Justice could well turn out to be a bus tunnel or some weird fantasy like personal monorails on elevated guideways, would be well to remember that this is EXACTLY how we got the Transitway, with the excellent shelter designs so well described by posters on this forum a page or two ago.

Come on, people. There is more than "logic" and "numbers" at play here. It's the intangible but very real quality of an underground system that has the Mayor doing probably the only thing I salute him for. We, who post on this forum, may well be passionate about our topics, but Mr. & Mrs. Everyone Else Out There just want to get from Point A to Point B quickly and without hassles. And people will understand, instinctively, the advantage of a subway, with the added advantage that the stations and rail line won't be an overhead eyesore. There aren't enough brochures in the world that can convince me that an elevated LRT line through downtown would improve Ottawa. It may "satisfy" someone's "numbers" but it would look butt-ugly. I don't want butt-ugly. We have too much already.

At the end of the day, we know all too well how to be seen as a loser city, with mickey-mouse transit masquerading as rapid, by analyzing ourselves to death and bickering with one another over details. That's no way to build a city.

I, for one, agree with Richard Eade: we should focus on having the right amount of underground stations at the right locations. Three won't cut it. Costs are irrelevant. Let's do the right thing by our city and have the stations we need for the system to really shape downtown. That's my bottom line, anyway.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

Every time I read a sneer like that one it just causes me to step back from all this and just ask, "what's wrong with wanting a subway?"

This is about more than just "proving numbers". People who think these things are on trial before a judge, and only the Truth Shall Prevail, and then Justice Shall Be Done, even though their version of Justice could well turn out to be a bus tunnel or some weird fantasy like personal monorails on elevated guideways, would be well to remember that this is EXACTLY how we got the Transitway, with the excellent shelter designs so well described by posters on this forum a page or two ago.

Come on, people. There is more than "logic" and "numbers" at play here. It's the intangible but very real quality of an underground system that has the Mayor doing probably the only thing I salute him for. We, who post on this forum, may well be passionate about our topics, but Mr. & Mrs. Everyone Else Out There just want to get from Point A to Point B quickly and without hassles. And people will understand, instinctively, the advantage of a subway, with the added advantage that the stations and rail line won't be an overhead eyesore. There aren't enough brochures in the world that can convince me that an elevated LRT line through downtown would improve Ottawa. It may "satisfy" someone's "numbers" but it would look butt-ugly. I don't want butt-ugly. We have too much already.

At the end of the day, we know all too well how to be seen as a loser city, with mickey-mouse transit masquerading as rapid, by analyzing ourselves to death and bickering with one another over details. That's no way to build a city.

I, for one, agree with Richard Eade: we should focus on having the right amount of underground stations at the right locations. Three won't cut it. Costs are irrelevant. Let's do the right thing by our city and have the stations we need for the system to really shape downtown. That's my bottom line, anyway.

Lots of rhetoric. A subway (may or may not) be much too expensive for the population it serves - it should have been studied instead of being decreed. Maybe Larry should have asked for a globe size statue of his head to make a statement - it has just about as much value as "wanting a subway". I just don't want us to pay billions of dollars in taxes for "legacy funding" and "ego fluffing" - no thank-you.

I would have preferred, 25 years ago or whatever, to have an LRT put in place. Less pollution, better ride - yada, yada but the BRT system has some advantages too. I can take a single bus to get to the core whereas I will have to transfer to a (likely full) train in the future. The bus stops where I want to go, not every km or so. I don't have to do stairs or escalator or elevator rides to get to transit, I just walk on.

The shelters suck - no argument. We will still be waiting for buses in shelters, then transferring from this to a train and the bus shelters will not be any better if the real issue is diesel fumes and the overhang/eavesdrop problem really can't be fixed.

And I'll repeat that Ottawa is a beautiful city and if you want your city to look like Toronto, I suggest you just move there. There is nothing wrong with clean, green and quiet.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

And I'll repeat that Ottawa is a beautiful city and if you want your city to look like Toronto, I suggest you just move there. There is nothing wrong with clean, green and quiet.

Just like buses, amirite?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Just like buses, amirite?

I'm not crazy about diesel propulsion either even our O-train is diesel... Trolley-buses would be a relatively cheap upgrade suitable for the transitway (overhead wires were deemed unsightly), maybe batteries for the local loops?

[ikerrin]

Originally Posted by Franky

Lots of rhetoric. A subway (may or may not) be much too expensive for the population it serves - it should have been studied instead of being decreed. Maybe Larry should have asked for a globe size statue of his head to make a statement - it has just about as much value as "wanting a subway". I just don't want us to pay billions of dollars in taxes for "legacy funding" and "ego fluffing" - no thank-you.

....

And I'll repeat that Ottawa is a beautiful city and if you want your city to look like Toronto, I suggest you just move there. There is nothing wrong with clean, green and quiet.

The only above ground LRT that I want to see in downtown Ottawa is the one that they would be putting the finishing touches on if the citizens of this good city had not rejected it in the last election. In the last round of consultations, the vote was strongly for a tunnel so I don't know where you say that this is a Larry O'Brien ego project. I wish they had re-elected the old mayor, so that we would be finishing that system this year, but that didn't happen.

As for Ottawa being a beautiful city, it has a beautiful natural environment, and the Federal buildings are gorgeous, but otherwise, its just the city that Scarborough wishes it could be.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

Every time I read a sneer like that one it just causes me to step back from all this and just ask, "what's wrong with wanting a subway?"

This is about more than just "proving numbers". People who think these things are on trial before a judge, and only the Truth Shall Prevail, and then Justice Shall Be Done, even though their version of Justice could well turn out to be a bus tunnel or some weird fantasy like personal monorails on elevated guideways, would be well to remember that this is EXACTLY how we got the Transitway, with the excellent shelter designs so well described by posters on this forum a page or two ago.

I’ll be the first to admit that our BRT system has a number of flaws, but most, if not all of these, could be fixed. You don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. For example, where does it say that with a BRT you necessarily have to have bad shelter design? If dripping water is a big problem for people (for me, it’s only a pet peeve), put in the new types of eavestroughs that capture the water but keep the debris out. This is not rocket science.

Come on, people. There is more than "logic" and "numbers" at play here. It's the intangible but very real quality of an underground system that has the Mayor doing probably the only thing I salute him for. We, who post on this forum, may well be passionate about our topics, but Mr. & Mrs. Everyone Else Out There just want to get from Point A to Point B quickly and without hassles.

I agree with your last sentence. That’s why I don’t like this plan at all. I looked at my own situation and the outcomes were not good. I then looked at other people and most of them will also be worse-off.

And people will understand, instinctively, the advantage of a subway

I’m not sure people have a full understanding of the consequences. Do they understand that:
• They will have to walk more to reach the downtown stations or because the Laurier Station will be gone?
• They will have to wait longer because the frequencies will be lower?
• They will have to transfer more?
• There will be fewer seats so the probability that they will be forced to stand will be higher?
• The conversion will result in significant disruption in service?
The evidence available suggests that such things will negatively impact people.
Also, do they really understand how much this is going to cost?

At the end of the day, we know all too well how to be seen as a loser city, with mickey-mouse transit masquerading as rapid, by analyzing ourselves to death and bickering with one another over details. That's no way to build a city.

I just don’t buy the notion that, if a city does not have a downtown subway, it is a “loser city”. I guess cities like Buffalo and Edmonton are ahead of us and we should feel inferior to them. Replacing “mickey-mouse transit” with something worse that costs more is, to borrow your phrase, “no way to build a city”. I personally don’t feel any inferiority complex because Ottawa has a BRT. In fact, I’m pretty proud of it because it was and remains quite innovative (notwithstanding its flaws).

I, for one, agree with Richard Eade: we should focus on having the right amount of underground stations at the right locations. Three won't cut it. Costs are irrelevant. Let's do the right thing by our city and have the stations we need for the system to really shape downtown. That's my bottom line, anyway.

I’m under no illusions. The odds are almost a 100% that the tunnel and the conversion will happen, damn the consequences. The business community is behind it and the money will be found, even if that means sacrificing other things.

In this context, the decision to move the eastern downtown station to Albert/O’Connor is a positive development. Hopefully, it is a sign of things to come.

[ikerrin]

Originally Posted by Suzie

I’m not sure people have a full understanding of the consequences. Do they understand that:
• They will have to walk more to reach the downtown stations or because the Laurier Station will be gone?
• They will have to wait longer because the frequencies will be lower?
• They will have to transfer more?
• There will be fewer seats so the probability that they will be forced to stand will be higher?
• The conversion will result in significant disruption in service?
The evidence available suggests that such things will negatively impact people.
Also, do they really understand how much this is going to cost?


I guess cities like Buffalo and Edmonton are ahead of us and we should feel inferior to them. Replacing “mickey-mouse transit” with something worse that costs more is,

In term of longer walks to stations, I don't think its an immediate concern because the new system will not be up and running for 10 years. We will be riding the bus for a while yet.

Also, I am not the greatest Ottawa fan, but even I don't think that anyone thinks Buffalo and Edmonton are better cities. Both are pretty much donuts. At least Ottawa has a thriving downtown. Remember, LRT is mostly for suburbans. My ideal rapid transit system only needs plowed bike lanes in winter.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by Franky

Lots of rhetoric. A subway (may or may not) be much too expensive for the population it serves - it should have been studied instead of being decreed. Maybe Larry should have asked for a globe size statue of his head to make a statement - it has just about as much value as "wanting a subway". I just don't want us to pay billions of dollars in taxes for "legacy funding" and "ego fluffing" - no thank-you.

I would have preferred, 25 years ago or whatever, to have an LRT put in place. Less pollution, better ride - yada, yada but the BRT system has some advantages too. I can take a single bus to get to the core whereas I will have to transfer to a (likely full) train in the future. The bus stops where I want to go, not every km or so. I don't have to do stairs or escalator or elevator rides to get to transit, I just walk on.

The shelters suck - no argument. We will still be waiting for buses in shelters, then transferring from this to a train and the bus shelters will not be any better if the real issue is diesel fumes and the overhang/eavesdrop problem really can't be fixed.

And I'll repeat that Ottawa is a beautiful city and if you want your city to look like Toronto, I suggest you just move there. There is nothing wrong with clean, green and quiet.

But the thing is, we didn't put in an LRT 25 years ago. And there is nothing wrong with clean and green (as long as the green is in the right places and doesn't become a blind religion unto itself, trumping urbanity and all else.) As for quiet, it's too late for that. We're a big and growing city. If you want quiet, maybe Cornwall is for you.

As for costs, I'm sorry, but in an age when GM and Chrysler beg our government for $4 billion just to survilve UNTIL MARCH, and we deny ourselves a 4th downtown subway station because it costs what, $70 million? $100 million? whatever, well - that subway station will be there in 100 years. Chrysler and GM? Noboby knows if they'll be around next year, even with your and my tax money thrown at them to pro'em up another months or two. I don't follow the logic.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by ikerrin

The only above ground LRT that I want to see in downtown Ottawa is the one that they would be putting the finishing touches on if the citizens of this good city had not rejected it in the last election. In the last round of consultations, the vote was strongly for a tunnel so I don't know where you say that this is a Larry O'Brien ego project. I wish they had re-elected the old mayor, so that we would be finishing that system this year, but that didn't happen.

As for Ottawa being a beautiful city, it has a beautiful natural environment, and the Federal buildings are gorgeous, but otherwise, its just the city that Scarborough wishes it could be.

Now hold on. The last plan was not that good, it had some issues but that doesn't mean surface rail downtown was rejected. People objected to North-South service before East-West. The Carling avenue plan is East-West AND uses surface rail. We will soon find out if we can prove the mayor was unjustly elected.

It was not a contest between the old mayor and this one, wasn't Alex something in the running?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by ikerrin

IRemember, LRT is mostly for suburbans. My ideal rapid transit system only needs plowed bike lanes in winter.

Huh! by 2017, if the tunnel portion is finished, there will be ZERO suburban LRT. Amen to ploughed bike lanes.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

As for costs, I'm sorry, but in an age when GM and Chrysler beg our government for $4 billion just to survilve UNTIL MARCH, and we deny ourselves a 4th downtown subway station because it costs what, $70 million? $100 million? whatever, well - that subway station will be there in 100 years. Chrysler and GM? Noboby knows if they'll be around next year, even with your and my tax money thrown at them to pro'em up another months or two. I don't follow the logic.

Oh stop, my ribs! It's a $4B loan (unless or until they tank). We (the city) don't have enough money to keep libraries open, but we have millions to spend on extra stations on an even bigger boondoggle! I suppose if you're planning a boondoggle, what an extra billion or two between friends?

[lrt's friend]

It is getting hot in here. Such passionate discussion.

Is there only one consulting company who plan these transit systems? It seems to be the same company is involved in every study. Now the same company again doing the Interprovincial transit study. It is quite clear that they love designing systems that require more and more transfers to get anywhere. By the time they are done, I will be able to walk to my office faster than using transit. Of course, that will be after I am retired, so it won't matter any more.

Wasn't there a public consultation this evening? Where is the discussion on that? Surely somebody went!